1: \documentclass[aps,manuscript]{revtex4} \usepackage{graphics}

2: \input epsf

3: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}

4: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}

5: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

6: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

7: 

8: \def\VEV#1{\left\langle #1\right\rangle}

9: \def\mxth{\mathsurround=0pt }

10: \def\xversim#1#2{\lower2.pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt \lineskip-.2pt

11:     \ialign{$\mxth#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}

12:     \def\ltsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\xversim <}}

13:     \def\gtsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\xversim >}}

14:     \def\lsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\xversim <}}

15:     \def\gsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\xversim >}}

16:     \def\lta{\mathrel{\mathpalette\xversim <}}

17:     \def\gta{\mathrel{\mathpalette\xversim >}}

18: 

19: \newcommand{\labeq}[1] {\label{eq:#1}}

20: \newcommand{\eqn}[1] {(\ref{eq:#1})}

21: \newcommand{\labfig}[1] {\label{fig:#1}}  

22: \newcommand{\fig}[1] {\ref{fig:#1}}

23: %\tighten

24: \begin{document}

25: 

26: \title{M Theory Model of a Big Crunch/Big Bang Transition}

27: 

28: \author{

29: Neil Turok$^1$, Malcolm Perry$^1$, and Paul J. Steinhardt$^2$}

30: 

31: \affiliation{~}

32: 

33: \affiliation{$^1$DAMTP, Centre for Mathematical Sciences,

34: Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, UK }

35: \affiliation{$^2$Joseph Henry Laboratories,

36: Princeton University,

37: Princeton, NJ 08544, USA,\\ 

38: Institute for Advanced Studies, Olden Lane, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.}

39: 

40: 

41: \begin{abstract}

42: We consider a picture in which the transition from a big crunch to a big bang

43: corresponds to the collision of two empty orbifold planes approaching each

44: other at a constant non-relativistic speed in a locally flat

45: background space-time, a situation relevant to 

46: recently proposed cosmological

47: models. We show that $p$-brane states which wind around the extra dimension

48: propagate smoothly and unambiguously across the orbifold plane collision.

49: In particular we calculate the quantum mechanical production of winding 

50: M2-branes extending from one orbifold to the other.  We find

51: that the resulting density is finite and that the resulting

52: gravitational back-reaction is

53: small.  These winding states, which include the string theory

54: graviton, can be propagated

55: smoothly across the transition using a perturbative expansion 

56: in the membrane 

57: tension, an expansion which from the point of view of string theory

58: is an expansion in 

59: {\it inverse} powers of $\alpha'$.  The conventional 

60: description of a crunch based on Einstein general relativity,

61: involving Kasner or mixmaster behavior is misleading, we

62: argue, because general relativity is only the leading order

63: approximation to string theory in an expansion in positive

64: powers of $\alpha'$. In contrast, in the M theory setup we

65: argue that interactions should be well-behaved because of

66: the smooth evolution of the fields combined with the fact

67: that the string coupling tends to zero at the crunch.

68: The production of massive Kaluza-Klein states should also be

69: exponentially

70: suppressed for small collision speeds.  

71: We contrast this good behavior with that found in

72: previous studies of strings in Lorentzian orbifolds.

73: \hfill\break

74: PACS number(s):

75: 11.25.-w,04.50.+h, 98.80.Cq,98.80.-k

76: \end{abstract}

77: 

78: \maketitle

79: 

80: %98.80.Cq inflation

81: %04.50.+h  Gravity in more than four-dimensions

82: %98.80.-k  cosmology in general 

83: %11.25.-w  Theory of fundamental strings

84: %

85: %

86: 

87: \renewcommand\baselinestretch{1.0}

88: \tableofcontents

89: 

90: \renewcommand\baselinestretch{1.0}

91: 

92: \section{Introduction}

93: 

94: One of the greatest challenges faced by string and M theory is

95: that of describing time-dependent singularities, such as 

96: occur in cosmology and in black holes. These singularities 

97: signal the catastrophic failure of general relativity at short

98: distances, precisely the pathology that string theory 

99: is supposed to cure. Indeed string theory does succeed in

100: removing the divergences present in perturbative quantum gravity

101: about flat spacetime. String theory is also known to tolerate

102: singularities in certain static backgrounds 

103: such as orbifolds

104: and conifolds.

105: However, studies within string theory thus far 

106: have  been unable to

107: shed much light on the far more interesting question of 

108: the physical resolution of time-dependent singularities.

109: 

110: In this paper we discuss M theory in one of the

111: simplest possible time-dependent backgrounds~\cite{kosst,steif}, 

112: a direct product of $d-1$-dimensional 

113: flat Euclidean space $R^{d-1}$ with two dimensional 

114: compactified Milne space-time, ${\cal M}_C$,

115: with

116: line element

117: \be

118: -dt^2+t^2 d\theta^2.

119: \labeq{line}

120: \ee

121: The compactified coordinate $\theta$ 

122: runs from $0$ to $\theta_0$. 

123: As $t$ runs from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$, the 

124: compact dimension shrinks away and reappears once

125: more, with 

126: rapidity $\theta_0$. 

127: Analyticity in $t$ suggests that this continuation

128: is unique~\cite{tolley1}.

129: 

130: Away from $t=0$, 

131: ${\cal M}_C$ is locally flat, as can be 

132: seen by changing to coordinates $T=t\cosh \theta$, $Y=t\sinh \theta$

133: in which (\ref{eq:line}) is just $-dT^2+dY^2$. Hence

134: ${\cal M}_C\times R^{d-1}$ is naturally a 

135: solution of any geometrical theory

136: whose field equations are 

137: built from 

138: the curvature tensor.

139: However, ${\cal M}_C\times R^{d-1}$ is nonetheless

140: mathematically singular at $t=0$ 

141: because the metric 

142: degenerates when the compact dimension disappears.

143: General relativity cannot

144: make sense of this situation since

145: there ceases to be enough Cauchy data to

146: determine the future evolution

147: of fields. In fact, the situation is worse than this:

148: within general relativity,

149: generic perturbations diverge as log$|t|$ as

150: one approaches the singularity~\cite{ekperts},

151: signaling the breakdown

152: of perturbation theory and the approach to

153: Kasner or mixmaster behavior, according to which the

154: space-time

155: curvature diverges as $t^{-2}$. 

156: Of course, this breakdown of general

157: relativity presents a challenge: 

158: can M theory make sense of the singularity at $t=0$?

159: 

160: We are interested in 

161: what happens in the immediate

162: vicinity of $t=0$, when the compact dimension 

163: approaches, and becomes smaller than,

164: the fundamental membrane tension scale.

165: The key

166: difference between M theory (or string theory) and local field theories

167: such as general relativity is the existence of extended

168: objects including those stretching across

169: compactified  dimensions.

170: Such states become very light as the compact

171: dimensions shrink below the fundamental scale. 

172: They are known to play a central

173: role in resolving

174: singularities for example in orbifolds and in 

175: topology-changing transitions~\cite{greene}. Therefore, it

176: is very natural to ask what role such states

177: play in big crunch/big bang space-times.

178: 

179: In this paper we shall show 

180: that 

181: $p$-branes winding uniformly around the compact 

182: dimension 

183: obey equations, obtained by canonical methods,

184: which are completely

185: regular at $t=0$. These methods are naturally

186: invariant under choices of worldvolume coordinates.

187: Therefore we claim that it is possible to 

188: unambiguously describe evolution of such states

189: from $t<0$ to $t>0$, through a cosmological

190: singularity from the point of view of the low energy

191: effective theory.

192: Indeed the space-time

193: we consider corresponds locally to one where

194: two empty, flat, parallel orbifold planes collide, precisely

195: the situation envisaged in recently proposed cosmological

196: models.

197: 

198: Hence, the calculations we report are directly relevant to the 

199: ekpyrotic~\cite{kost} and

200: cyclic universe~\cite{STu} scenarios, in which passage

201: through a singularity of this type is taken 

202: to represent the standard  hot big bang.

203: In particular, the equation of state during the dark energy and

204: contracting phases causes the orbifold planes to be empty,

205: flat, and parallel as they approach to within a string 

206: length~\cite{chaos,review}.  

207: This setup makes it natural to split the study

208: of the collision of orbifold planes into a separate  analysis of the

209: winding modes, which become light near $t=0$, and 

210: other modes that become heavy there.  This strategy feeds directly into

211: the considerations in this paper.

212: 

213: The physical reason why winding states are well-behaved is easy to

214: understand. The obvious problem with a space-time such as

215: compactified Milne is the blue shifting effect felt by 

216: particles which can 

217: run around the compact dimension as it shrinks away.

218: As we shall discuss in detail, winding

219: states wrapping around the compact dimension 

220: do not feel any blue shifting effect because there

221: is no physical motion 

222: along their length. Instead, as their length disappears,

223: from the point of view of the noncompact dimensions, 

224: their effective mass or tension 

225: tends to zero but their energy and momentum remain finite. When 

226: such states are quantized the corresponding fields are well-behaved

227: and the field equations are analytic at $t=0$.

228: In contrast, for bulk, non-winding states, the 

229: motion in the $\theta$ direction is physical and it becomes

230: singular as $t$ tends

231: to zero. In the quantum field theory of such states,

232: this behavior results in 

233: logarithmic divergences of the

234: fields near $t=0$, even for the lowest 

235: modes of the field which

236: are uniform in $\theta$ {\it i.e.,}  the lowest Kaluza-Klein 

237: modes (see Section X and Appendix 4).

238: 

239: We are specially interested in the case of M theory,

240: considered as the theory of branes. As

241: the compact dimension becomes small, the

242: winding M2-branes we focus on 

243: are the lowest energy states of the theory, and describe

244: a string theory in a certain time-dependent background. 

245: The most remarkable feature of this setup is that the

246: string theory includes a graviton and, hence, 

247: describes perturbative gravity near $t=0$.

248: In this paper, we show these strings,

249: when considered as winding M2-branes,

250: follow smooth evolution (see Section VII) across the singularity,

251: even though the string frame metric degenerates there. 

252: Furthermore we show that this good behavior is only

253: seen in a perturbation expansion in the membrane tension,

254: corresponding from the string theory point of view to an expansion

255: in {\it inverse powers of $\alpha'$}. We argue that

256: the two-dimensional 

257: nonlinear sigma model describing this situation

258: is renormalizable in such an expansion.

259: The good behavior of the relevant string theory

260: contrasts sharply with the bad behavior of general

261: relativity. There is no contradiction, however,

262: because general relativity is only the first approximation

263: to string theory in an expansion in positive

264: powers of $\alpha'$. Such an expansion is valid 

265: when $t$ is much larger than the fundamental membrane scale,

266: but it fails near the singularity where,  as mentioned,

267: the theory is regular in the opposite $(\alpha')^{-1}$ expansion.

268: The logarithmic divergences of perturbations found 

269: using the Einstein equations

270: are, thereby,  seen  to be due to the failure

271: of the $\alpha'$ expansion, and not of M or string theory {\it per se}.

272: 

273: When the M theory dimension is small, 

274: the modes of the theory are neatly partitioned

275: into light $\theta$-independent modes and heavy

276: $\theta$-dependent modes. 

277: The former set consists of winding membranes, which

278: describe a string theory including perturbative gravity.

279: This is the sector

280: within which cosmological perturbations

281: lie, and which will be our prime focus in this paper. 

282: 

283: The $\theta$-dependent modes are likely to be harder to 

284: describe. 

285: The naive argument that these modes are problematic

286: because they are  blue shifted and, hence, infinitely 

287: amplified as $t\rightarrow 0$ 

288: is suspect because it

289: relies on conventional

290: Einstein gravity,

291: Here we argue that,

292: close to the brane collision, Einstein gravity 

293: is a poor approximation and,  instead, perturbative

294: gravity is described by

295: the non-singular winding sector.  The latter

296: does not 

297: exhibit blue shifting behavior near $t=0$, 

298: so the naive argument does not apply.

299: 

300: Witten

301: has argued \cite{witten}  that 

302: the massive Kaluza-Klein modes of the

303: eleven-dimensional

304: theory

305: map onto non-perturbative black hole states in the effective

306: string theory.

307: Even though these black hole states are likely to be

308: hard to describe in detail, we will explain in Section II

309: why their overall effect is likely to be small.

310: First, in the cosmological scenarios of interest,

311: the universe enters the regime where perturbative gravity is

312: described by the winding modes ({\it i.e.,} the branes are close)

313: with a negligible density 

314: of Kaluza-Klein massive modes.  This suppression is a result of 

315: the special

316: equation of state in the contracting phase that precedes this

317: regime~\cite{review}.  Second, the density of black holes quantum produced

318: due to the time-dependent background in the

319: vicinity of the collision is likely to be 

320: negligible because they are so massive

321: and so large.

322: 

323: 

324: For these reasons, we focus at present on the propagation

325: of the perturbative gravity sector near $t=0$

326: corresponding to the winding M2-brane states.

327: In Section II, we introduce the compactified Milne background

328: metric that describes the collision between orbifold planes in the 

329: big crunch/big bang transition.  We also discuss the motivation for

330: the initial conditions that will be assumed in this paper.

331: The canonical Hamiltonian description of $p$-branes in

332: curved space is given in Section III and applied to winding modes

333: in the compactified Milne background in Section IV.  

334: Section V discusses the key difference in the Hamiltonian 

335: description between winding and bulk states that accounts for

336: their different behavior near the big crunch/big bang 

337: transition.  

338: 

339: Section VI is the consideration of a toy model in which 

340: winding strings are produced as the

341: branes collide.  The winding modes

342: are described semi-classically, and their quantum 

343: production at the bounce is computed.  Section VII presents the

344: analogous semi-classical description of winding M2-branes.  

345: Although we cannot solve the  theory 

346: exactly, we show the eleven-dimensional theory

347: is well behaved near $t=0$

348: and explain how the apparent singularity in the dimensionally-reduced

349: string theory is resolved in the membrane picture.  Then, Section VIII 

350: makes clear the difference between our calculation, an expansion in inverse

351: powers of $\alpha'$, versus Einstein gravity, the leading term in 

352: an expansion 

353: in positive powers of 

354: $\alpha'$.  This argument is key to explaining why we think the

355: transition is calculable even though it appears to be poorly 

356: behaved when described by Einstein gravity.  

357:  Section IX, then, 

358: uses 

359: Euclidean instanton methods to study 

360: the quantum production of

361: winding M2-branes (in analogy to the case of  winding strings in Section VI) 

362: induced by

363: passage through the singularity, obtaining

364: finite and physically sensible results. In particular,

365: the resultant density

366: tends to zero as the speed

367: of contraction of the compact dimension is reduced.

368: We  estimate the gravitational back-reaction

369: and show it is small provided $\theta_0$,

370: the rapidity of contraction of the compact dimension,

371: is small.

372: 

373: In Section X, we comment on why our M theory setup  

374: is better behaved than the Lorentzian orbifold case~\cite{seibergetal}

375: considered in some previous investigations of the big crunch/big

376: bang transition. The fundamental problem with the latter case,

377: we argue, is that perturbative gravity lies within the

378: bulk sector and not the winding sector as far as

379: the compactified Milne singularity is concerned.

380: Therefore, it is susceptible to the blueshifting

381: problem mentioned above, rendering the string equations singular.

382: 

383: 

384: \section{The Background Big Crunch/Big Bang Space-time}

385: 

386: The $d+1$-dimensional 

387: space-time we consider is a direct product of 

388: $d-1$-dimensional Euclidean space, $R^{d-1}$, and a 

389: two-dimensional time-dependent space-time

390: known as compactified

391: Milne space-time, or ${\cal M}_C$. 

392: The line element for ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$ is thus

393: \be

394: ds^2=  -dt^2 +t^2 d\theta^2 + d\vec{x}\,^2, \qquad 0\leq \theta \leq \theta_0,

395: \qquad -\infty <t <\infty,

396: \labeq{backg}

397: \ee

398: where $\vec{x}$ are Euclidean 

399: coordinates on $R^{d-1}$, $\theta$ 

400: parameterizes the compact dimension and $t$ is the time.

401: The compact dimension may 

402: either be a circle, in which case we identify $\theta$

403: with $\theta+\theta_0$, or a $Z_2$ orbifold in which case we

404: identify $\theta$ with  $\theta+2 \theta_0$ and 

405: further identify $\theta$ with $2\theta_0-\theta$.

406: The fixed points $\theta=0$ and $\theta=\theta_0$ are

407: then interpreted as tensionless $Z_2$-branes approaching

408: at rapidity $\theta_0$, colliding at $t=0$ to re-emerge

409:  with the same relative rapidity.

410: 

411: The orbifold reduction is the case of prime interest in the

412: ekpyrotic/cyclic models, originally motivated by the

413: construction of heterotic M theory

414: from eleven dimensional supergravity~\cite{hw,ovrut}. 

415: In these models, the boundary branes possess nonzero tension.

416: However, the tension is a subdominant effect near $t=0$ and 

417: the brane collision is locally well-modeled by ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$

418: (See Ref.~\cite{tolleyperts}).

419: 

420: The line element (\ref{eq:backg}) is of particular interest

421: because it is locally flat and, hence, an exact solution not only of

422:  $d+1$-dimensional Einstein gravity but of 

423: any higher dimensional gravity theory whose field equations

424: are constructed from curvature invariants with no cosmological 

425: constant.

426: And even if a small cosmological constant

427: were present, it would not have a large effect locally 

428: so that

429: solutions with a similar local structure

430: in the vicinity of the singularity

431: would be expected to exist.

432: 

433: Consider the description of (\ref{eq:backg}) within

434: $d+1$-dimensional general relativity.

435: When the compact dimension is small, $\theta$-dependent 

436: states become massive and it makes sense to describe the

437: system using a low energy effective field theory. This may be 

438: obtained by the well known procedure of 

439: dimensional reduction.

440: The $d+1$-dimensional line element (\ref{eq:backg}) may be rewritten

441: in terms of a $d$-dimensional Einstein frame metric, $g^{(d)}_{\mu \nu}$,

442: and a scalar field $\phi$:

443: \be

444: ds^2 = e^{2\phi \sqrt{(d-2)/(d-1)}} d\theta^2 +

445: e^{-2\phi /\sqrt{(d-2)(d-1)}}g^{(d)}_{\mu \nu} d x^{\mu} d x^{\nu}.

446: \labeq{metr}

447: \end{equation}

448: The numerical coefficients are chosen so that

449: if one substitutes 

450: this metric into the $d+1$-dimensional Einstein 

451: action and assumes that $\phi$ and $g^{(d)}_{\mu \nu}$ are both

452: $\theta$-independent, one obtains 

453: $d$-dimensional Einstein gravity with 

454: a canonically normalized 

455: massless, minimally coupled scalar field $\phi$.

456: (Here we choose units in which the

457: coefficient of the Ricci scalar in the $d$-dimensional

458: Einstein action is ${1\over 2}$. We have also ignored Kaluza-Klein

459: vectors, which play no role in this argument and

460: are in any case projected out in the orbifold reduction.)

461: 

462: From the viewpoint of the low energy effective theory, the 

463: $d+1$-dimensional space-time ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$

464:  is reinterpreted as a

465: $d$-dimensional cosmological solution  where $t$ plays the 

466: role of the conformal time.

467: Comparing (\ref{eq:backg}) and (\ref{eq:metr}),

468: the $d$-dimensional  Einstein-frame metric

469: $g^{(d)}_{\mu \nu}=a^2\, \eta_{\mu \nu}$ with $a

470: \propto |t|^{1/(d-2)}$ and the scalar field  $\phi =

471: \sqrt{ (d-1)/(d-2)} {\rm ln}|t|$. From this point of view

472: $t=0$ is a space-like curvature

473: singularity of the standard big bang type where

474: the scalar

475: field diverges, and 

476: passing through 

477: $t=0$ would seem to be impossible.

478: However, by lifting to the higher dimensional viewpoint 

479: one sees that the

480: situation is not really so bad. The line element (\ref{eq:backg})

481: is in fact static at all times in the noncompact

482: directions $\vec{x}$. So for example, matter 

483: localized on the branes would see no blue shifting effect 

484: as the singularity approaches\cite{STu}. As we discuss

485: in detail in Section IV,

486: winding states do not see a blue shifting effect either.

487: 

488: In this paper, we consider  an M theory picture

489: with  two empty, flat, parallel colliding orbifold planes 

490: and we are interested in the dynamics of the collision region

491: from the point where the planes are roughly a string length apart.

492: The  assumed initial conditions are important 

493: for two reasons. First, they correspond to the simple compactified 

494: Milne background discussed above.

495: Second, as mentioned in the introduction,

496: this initial condition means that the

497: excitations neatly divide into 

498: light winding modes that are becoming massless

499: and heavy Kaluza-Klein modes that are becoming massive and decoupling

500: from the low-energy effective theory.  

501: 

502: What we want to show now is that initial conditions with negligible

503: heavy Kaluza-Klein modes present are naturally produced in cosmological

504: scenarios such a the cyclic model~\cite{STu,review}.

505: This justifies our focus 

506: on the winding modes throughout the remainder of the paper.  

507: However, the argument is inessential to the rest of the paper

508: and readers willing to 

509: accept the initial conditions without justification  may wish 

510: to 

511: proceed straight away to the next Section.

512: 

513: The cyclic model assumes a non-perturbative 

514: potential hat produces an attractive force between the orbifold 

515: planes.  When the branes are far apart, perhaps $10^4$ Planck lengths, 

516: the potential energy is positive and small, acting as the  dark energy

517: that causes the currently observed accelerated expansion.  

518: In the dark energy dominated

519: phase, the branes  stretch by a factor of two in linear dimensions 

520: every 14 billion years or so, causing the branes to become flat, parallel

521: and empty.  In the low-energy effective theory,

522: the total energy 

523: is dominated by the scalar field $\phi$ whose value determines the

524: distance between branes. 

525: As the planes draw together, the 

526: potential energy $V(\phi)$ of this field 

527: decreases and becomes increasingly negative until 

528: the expansion stops and a contracting phase begins.

529: 

530: A key point is that this contracting phase is described by

531: an attractor solution, which has an equation of state parameter

532: $w\equiv P/\rho \gg 1$. The energy density of the scalar field

533: $\phi$ scales as

534: \be

535: \rho_\phi \propto a^{-(d-1)(1+w)}

536: \labeq{rhophi}

537: \ee

538: in this phase. This is a very rapid increase, causing the density

539: in $\phi$

540: to come to dominate over curvature,

541: anisotropy, matter, or radiation\cite{chaos}. 

542: We now show that $\phi$ comes to dominate over 

543: the massive Kaluza-Klein modes. The latter

544: scale as

545: \be

546: \rho_{KK} \propto a^{-(d-1)} L^{-(d-1)/(d-2)}

547: \labeq{rhoKK}

548: \ee

549: where $L$ is the size of the extra dimension. The first factor

550: is the familiar inverse volume scaling which all particles suffer.

551: The second factor indicates the effective mass of the

552: Kaluza-Klein modes. The $d+1$-dimensional mass is 

553: $L^{-1}$, but this must be converted to a $d-$dimensional 

554: mass using the ratios of square roots of 

555: the $00$ components of the $d+1$-dimensional

556: metric and the $d$-dimensional metric. This correction 

557: produces the second factor in (\ref{eq:rhoKK}).

558: 

559: From (\ref{eq:metr}),

560: we have $L\propto e^{\phi\sqrt{(d-2)/(d-1)}}$. Now the key

561: point is that this scales much more slowly with $a$ than

562: the potential $V(\phi)$ which scales as $\rho_\phi$ in

563: (\ref{eq:rhophi}). Neglecting the scaling with $L$, 

564: the density of massive Kaluza-Klein modes scales as

565: as $\rho_\phi^{1/(1+w)}$. The final suppression of the

566: density of massive modes relative to the density in $\phi$ is

567: therefore $\sim (V_{i}/V_{f})^{w/(1+w)}$ where $V_{i}$ and $V_{f}$ are the

568: magnitudes of the scalar potential when the $w\gg 1$ phase

569: begins and ends. For large $w$, which we need in order to

570: obtain scale-invariant perturbations, this is 

571: an exponentially

572: large factor~\cite{STu,review}.

573: 

574: The massive Kaluza-Klein modes are, hence, exponentially

575: diluted when the $w\gg 1$ phase ends and the Milne

576: phase begins. During the Milne phase, 

577: the scalar field is massless and has an equation of state

578: $w=1$, so $\rho_\phi$ scales as $a^{-2(d-1)}$ as

579: the distance between the orbifold planes

580: shrinks to zero.

581: In this regime, the Kaluza-Klein massive mode density

582: scales in precisely the same way. Therefore, their

583: density remains an exponentially small fraction of

584: the total density right up to collision: meaning from the

585: string theory point of view that the black

586: hole states remain exponentially rare.

587:   

588: So we need only worry about

589: black holes  produced in the vicinity of the 

590: brane collision itself. From the point of view

591: of the higher dimensional theory, the oscillation

592: frequency of the masssive Kaluza-Klein modes 

593: $\omega \sim |\theta_0t|^{-1}$ 

594: changes adiabatically, 

595: $\dot{\omega}/\omega^2 \sim \theta_0 \ll 1$ for

596: small $\theta_0$, all the way to $t=0$. Therefore,

597: one expects little particle production before or

598: after $t=0$.

599: From the dimensionally reduced point of view, the

600: mass of the string theory black holes 

601: is larger than the Hubble constant $\sim t^{-1}$,

602: by the same factor $\theta_0^{-1}$.

603: From either analysis, production 

604: of such states should

605: be suppressed by 

606: a factor $e^{-1/\theta_0}$, making it negligible

607: for small $\theta_0$.

608: 

609: %PAUL

610: In sum, for the cosmological models of interest,

611: the Kaluza-Klein modes are 

612:  exponentially rare

613: when the Milne phase begins, and, since their mass increases

614: as the collision approaches, they should not be generated by the

615: orbifold plane motion.

616: (They effectively decouple from the low energy effective

617: theory.)

618: Hence, all the properties we want at the outset of our calculation here

619: are naturally achieved by the contracting phase with $w\gg1$, as occurs

620: in some current cosmological models\cite{review}.

621: %PAULend

622: 

623: 

624: 

625: 

626: \section{General Hamiltonian for $p$-Branes in Curved Space}

627: 

628: The classical and quantum dynamics of $p$-branes may be

629: treated using canonical methods, indeed $p$-branes 

630: provide an application {\it par

631: excellence} of Dirac's general method. As 

632: Dirac himself 

633: emphasized~\cite{dirac}, one of the advantages

634:  of the canonical approach is that

635: it 

636: allows a completely general choice of gauge.

637: In contrast, gauge

638: fixed methods tie one to a choice of gauge before it is

639: apparent whether that gauge is or isn't a good choice. In the

640: situation of interest here, where the background space-time

641: is singular, 

642: the question of 

643: gauge

644: choice is especially delicate.  Hence, the canonical

645: approach is preferable.  

646: 

647: In this Section we provide an overview of the main results.

648: The technical details are relegated to Appendix 1.  Our starting point is 

649: the Polyakov action for a $p$-brane described by embedding 

650: coordinates $x^\mu$ in a 

651: a background space-time with metric 

652: $g_{\mu \nu}$:

653: \be

654: {\cal S}_p = -{1\over 2} \mu_p \int d^{p+1} \sigma

655: \sqrt{-\gamma}\left(\gamma^{\alpha \beta}

656: \partial_\alpha x^\mu \partial_\beta x^\nu g_{\mu \nu} -(p-1) \right),

657: \labeq{pact}

658: \ee

659: where $\mu_p$ is a mass per unit $p$-volume. The $p$-brane worldvolume

660: has coordinates $\sigma^\alpha$, where $\sigma^0 =\tau$ is the

661: time and $\sigma^i$, $i=1..p$ are the spatial 

662: coordinates. 

663: 

664: Variation of the action with respect to $\gamma_{\alpha \beta}$

665: yields the constraint that for $p\neq 1$,

666: $\gamma_{\alpha \beta}$ equals

667: the induced metric $\partial_\alpha x^\mu \partial_\beta x^\nu g_{\mu \nu}$

668: whereas for $p= 1$ $\gamma_{\alpha \beta}$ is conformal

669: to the induced metric. Substituting these results

670: back into the action one obtains the Nambu action for the

671: embedding coordinates $x^\mu(\sigma^\alpha)$ {\it i.e.,}  $-\mu_p$ times the

672: induced $p$-brane world volume. We shall go back and forth between

673: the Polyakov and Nambu forms in this paper.

674: The former is preferable for quantization but the latter is still

675: useful for

676: discussing 

677: classical solutions.

678: 

679: The simplest case of (\ref{eq:pact}) is $p=0$, 

680: a $0$-brane or massive particle. Writing

681: $\gamma_{00}=-e^2$ with $e$ the `einbein', one obtains

682: \be

683: {\cal S}_0 = {1\over 2} m\int d \tau

684: \left(e^{-1}

685: \dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu g_{\mu \nu} -e\right),

686: \labeq{parta}

687: \ee

688: where we have set $\mu_0=m$ 

689: and the dot above a variable indicates a derivative with respect to $\tau$.

690: Variation with respect to $e$ yields the constraint $e^2= -

691: \dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu g_{\mu \nu}$.

692: The canonical momentum is $p_\mu = m g_{\mu \nu}\dot{x}^\nu e^{-1}$ and

693: the constraint implies the familiar mass shell

694: condition $g^{\mu \nu} p_\mu p_\nu = -m^2$. 

695: 

696: %The next case, the $1$-brane or string, has the special 

697: %feature that there is

698: %no cosmological constant term, and that 

699: %the classical action is invariant 

700: %under conformal transformations

701: %$\gamma_{\alpha \beta} \rightarrow \Omega^2 \gamma_{\alpha \beta}$.

702: %The next case, $2$-branes, are specially interesting because they

703: %and their duals, $5$-branes, are 

704: %the fundamental entities in 11-dimensional M theory.

705: %Winding $2$-branes are of special interest

706: %because, for small compactification radius,

707: %they describe a string theory that includes

708: %perturbative gravity. 

709: %Nevertheless

710: %much of our analysis will hold for general $p$

711: %so we shall 

712: %frame it in those terms.

713: 

714: 

715: The canonical treatment for general $p$

716: is explained in

717: Appendix 1. 

718: The main result is that a $p$-brane obeys $p+1$

719: constraints, reading

720: \be

721: C\equiv \pi_\mu  \pi_\nu g^{\mu \nu}

722:  +\mu_p^2 {\rm Det}( {x}^\mu_{,i} x^\nu_{,j} g_{\mu \nu})\approx 0, \qquad

723: C_i\equiv  x^\mu_{,i} \pi_\mu\approx 0,

724: \labeq{consta}

725: \ee

726: where `$\approx 0$' means `weakly zero' in sense of the Dirac canonical

727: procedure (see Appendix I). Here the brane embedding coordinates

728: are $x^\mu$ and their conjugate momentum densities are

729: $\pi_\mu$.

730: The spatial worldvolume coordinates are 

731: $\sigma^i$, $i=1,\dots,p$, and the  

732: corresponding partial derivatives are

733: denoted $x^\mu_{,i}$.

734: The quantity

735: ${x}^\mu_{,i} x^\nu_{,j} g_{\mu \nu}$ is 

736: the induced spatial metric on the $p$-brane. In Appendix 2

737: we calculate the Poisson bracket algebra of

738: the constraints (\ref{eq:consta}), showing that

739: the algebra closes and hence the constraints are all first class.

740: The constraints (\ref{eq:consta}) are invariant under worldvolume

741: coordinate transformations.

742: 

743: The Hamiltonian giving the most general 

744: evolution in worldvolume time $\tau$ is then given by

745: \be

746: H=\int d^p \sigma \left({1\over 2} A C  + A^i C_i\right),

747: \labeq{totalh1}

748: \ee

749: with $C$ and $C_i$ given in (\ref{eq:consta}).

750:  The functions $A$ and $A^{i}$ are

751: completely arbitrary, reflecting the 

752: arbitrariness in the choice of worldvolume time and space

753: coordinates. All coordinate choices related by nonsingular

754: coordinate transformations give equivalent physical

755: results. 

756: 

757: For $p=0$, anything 

758: with a spatial index $i$ can be ignored, except 

759: the determinant in (\ref{eq:consta}) which is replaced by

760: unity. The first constraint is then the usual mass shell

761: condition, and the Hamiltonian is an 

762: arbitrary function

763: of $\tau$ times the constraint.

764: The case of $p=1$, {\it i.e.,}  a string, in Minkowski space-time,

765: $g_{\mu \nu} = \eta_{\mu \nu}$ is also simple and familiar.

766: In this case, the 

767: constraints and the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:totalh1}) are quadratic. 

768: The resulting equations of motion are linear and hence

769:  exactly

770: solvable. The 

771: constraints (\ref{eq:consta}) amount

772: to the usual Virasoro conditions.

773: In general, the $p+1$ constraints (\ref{eq:consta}) together 

774: with the $p+1$ free choices

775: of gauge functions $A$ and $A_i$ reduce

776: the number of physical coordinates and momenta

777: to $2(d+1) - 2(p+1)= 2(d-p)$, the correct number of transverse 

778: degrees of freedom for a $p$-brane in $d$ spatial dimensions.

779: 

780: 

781: 

782: \section{Winding $p$-Branes in ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$}

783: 

784: In this paper, we shall study the dynamics of branes which wind

785: around the compact dimension in ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$,

786: the line element for which is given in (\ref{eq:backg}).

787: This space-time possesses an isometry

788: $\theta \rightarrow \theta +$constant, so one

789: can consistently truncate the theory to consider 

790: $p$-branes which 

791: wind uniformly around the $\theta$ direction.

792: Such configurations may be described by 

793: identifying one of the $p$-brane spatial 

794: coordinates (the $p$'th spatial coordinate,

795:  $\sigma^p$ say) with $\theta$ and to simultaneously 

796: insist that

797: that $\partial_p x^\mu =\partial_p \pi_\mu=0$. 

798: 

799: Through Hamilton's equations, the constraint

800: $\theta=\sigma^p$ implies 

801: that $\pi_\theta=0$. This suggests that we can set 

802: $\theta=\sigma^p$

803: and $\pi_\theta=0$ and, hence, dimensionally reduce the $p$-brane

804: to a $(p-1)$-brane. Detailed confirmation that this

805: is indeed consistent proceeds as follows.

806: We compute the Poisson brackets between all the

807: constraints $C$, $C_i$, $\theta-\sigma^p$ and $\pi_\theta$.

808: Following the Dirac procedure, we then

809: attempt 

810: to build a maximal set of first class constraints.

811: The constraints $C$ and $C_i$ commute with each other, 

812: for all $\sigma^i$, but not with 

813: $\theta-\sigma^p$ and $\pi_\theta$. 

814: The solution is to remove all

815: the $\pi_\theta$ and $\theta_{,p}$ terms from $C$ and $C_\theta$

816: by adding terms involving 

817: $\pi_\theta$ and $\theta_{,p} -1 = (\theta-\sigma^p)_{,p}$.

818: The new $C$ and $C_i$ are now

819: first class since they have weakly vanishing Poisson brackets with all

820: the constraints, and the remaining second class constraints are

821: $\theta-\sigma^p$ and $\pi_\theta$. For these,

822: construction of the Dirac bracket is trivial 

823: and it amounts simply to canceling the $\theta$ and

824: $\pi_\theta$ derivatives from the Poisson bracket. 

825: The conclusion is that we can indeed consistently 

826: set $\theta=\sigma^p$

827: and $\pi_\theta=0$.

828: We shall see in the following section that eliminating

829: $\theta$ and $\pi_{\theta}$ in this way results directly

830: in the 

831: good behavior of the winding modes as $t \rightarrow 0$, 

832: in contrast with the bad behavior of bulk modes.

833: 

834: The surviving first class constraints for winding $p$-branes are

835: those obtained by substituting $\theta=\sigma^p$ and 

836: $\pi_\theta=0$ into the $p$-brane constraints (\ref{eq:consta}),

837: namely

838: \be

839: C\equiv \pi_\mu  \pi_\nu \eta^{\mu \nu}

840:  +\mu_{p}^2 \theta_0^2 t^2 {\rm Det}( {x}^\mu_{,i} x^\nu_{,j} 

841: \eta_{\mu \nu})\approx 0;\qquad

842: C_i\equiv  x^\mu_{,i} \pi_\mu\approx 0,

843: \labeq{redcon}

844: \ee

845: where $i$ and $j$ now run from $1$ to $p-1$ and $\mu$ and

846: $\nu$ from $0$ to $d$. The $t^2$ term comes from the

847: $\theta \theta$ component of the ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$ 

848: background metric (\ref{eq:backg}).

849: We have also re-defined the 

850: momentum density $\pi_\mu$ for the $p-1$-brane to be $\theta_0$

851: times the momentum density for the $p$-brane 

852: so that the new Poisson brackets are correctly

853: normalized to give a $p-1$-dimensional delta function.

854: The Hamiltonian is again given by the form (\ref{eq:totalh1}) 

855: with the integral taken over the remaining $p-1$ spatial

856: coordinates. 

857: 

858: For $p=1$, the 

859: reduced string is a $d$-dimensional particle.

860: $\pi_\mu$ is now the momentum $p_\mu$ 

861: and the determinant appearing 

862: in (\ref{eq:redcon}) should be interpreted as 

863: unity. The second constraint is

864: trivial since there are no remaining spatial

865: directions. The general Hamiltonian reads:

866: \be

867: H_0= A(\tau) \left( p_\mu  p_\nu \eta^{\mu \nu}

868:  +\mu_{1}^2 \theta_0^2 t^2 \right),

869: \labeq{hemp}

870: \ee

871: where $\mu, \nu$ run from $0$ to $d-1$ and 

872: $A(\tau)$ is an arbitrary function of $\tau$. We shall

873: study the quantum field theory for this Hamiltonian in

874: Section VI.

875: 

876: %For $p=2$ the determinant reduces to 

877: %${x^\mu}' {x^\nu}' g_{\mu \nu}$, where prime is the derivative

878: %with respect to the worldsheet coordinate $\sigma$,

879: %and the

880: %second constraint implies the momentum density must

881: %be normal to the length of the 1-brane {\it i.e.,}  string.

882: %In general, the reduced $p-1$-brane possesses 

883: % $p$-dimensional coordinate invariance 

884: %and the corresponding general Hamiltonian

885: %is the $p-1$ dimensional 

886: %integral of an arbitrary linear combination

887: %of the two constraints in (\ref{eq:redcon}).

888: 

889: Comparing 

890: (\ref{eq:redcon}) with (\ref{eq:consta}), we see that

891: a $p$-brane which winds around the compact

892: dimension in ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$ behaves like

893: a $p-1$-brane in Minkowski spacetime with a time-dependent

894: effective

895: tension $\mu_p \theta_0 |t|$, {\it i.e.,}  the $p$-brane

896: tension times the size of the compact dimension, $\theta_0 |t|$. 

897: 

898: 

899: \section{Winding states versus bulk states}

900: \label{bulk}

901: 

902: We have discussed in detail how in the canonical treatment

903: the coordinate $\theta$ and conjugate momentum density

904: $\pi_\theta$

905: may be eliminated

906: for $p$-branes winding

907: uniformly around the compact dimension.

908: This is physically reasonable, since 

909:  motion of 

910: a winding $p$-brane along its own length (i.e. along $\theta$)

911: is meaningless. This is a crucial 

912: difference from bulk states. Whereas the metric

913: on the space of coordinates for bulk states includes 

914: the $t^2 d\theta^2$ term, the metric on the

915: space of coordinates for winding states does not. 

916: As we discuss in detail in Appendix 4, when we quantize

917: the system the square root of the 

918: determinant of the metric on the space

919: of coordinates appears in the quantum field

920: Hamiltonian. For bulk modes the 

921: metric on the space of coordinates

922: inherits the singular behavior of the background

923: metric 

924: (\ref{eq:backg}), degenerating at $t=0$ so that 

925: causing the field equations to 

926: become singular at $t=0$ even for $\theta$-independent 

927: field modes (see Section X). Conversely, for winding modes the Hamiltonian

928: operator is regular at $t=0$. 

929: 

930: The metric on the space of coordinates is defined

931: by the kinetic energy term in the action: if the action reads

932: ${\cal S} ={1\over 2} \int d\tau g_{IJ}\dot{x}^I \dot{x}^J + \dots$,

933: where $x^I$ are the coordinates, then $g_{IJ}$ is the metric on

934: the space of coordinates. The sum over $I$ 

935: includes integration

936: over $\sigma$ in our case. 

937: This superspace metric is needed for quantizing

938: the theory, for example in the coordinate representation one

939: needs an inner product on Hilbert space and this 

940: involves integration over coordinates.

941: The determinant of $g_{IJ}$ is needed in

942: order to define this integral (see Appendix 4).

943: 

944: The simplest way to identify the physical degrees of freedom 

945: is to choose a gauge, for example $A$=constant, $A_i=0$.

946: For bulk particles, we can then read off the metric 

947: on coordinate space from the action (\ref{eq:parta}) -

948: in this case it is simply the background

949: metric itself. 

950:  

951: We have already derived the Hamiltonian for winding states, and

952: showed how through the use of Dirac brackets 

953: the $\theta$ coordinate may be discarded. If we choose

954: the gauge 

955: $A=1$, $A_i=0$

956: in the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:totalh1}) with constraints

957: given in (\ref{eq:redcon}), we can 

958: construct the 

959: corresponding gauge-fixed action:

960: \be

961: {\cal S}_{gf}= \int d\tau d^{p-1}\sigma \, \,

962: {1\over 2} \left(\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\mu \eta_{\mu \nu}

963: -\mu_{p-1}^2 \theta_0^2 t^2 {\rm Det}( {x}^\mu_{,i} x^\nu_{,j} 

964: \eta_{\mu \nu})\right)

965: \labeq{actw}

966: \ee

967: where $\mu,\nu $ run over $0$ to $d-1$ and $i,j$ run from

968: $1$ to $p-1$. One may check that the classical equations 

969: following from the action (\ref{eq:actw}) are the 

970: correct Lagrangian equations for the $p$-brane in a certain

971: worldvolume coordinate system and that these equations preserve the

972: constraints (\ref{eq:redcon}) (see Appendix 3).

973: 

974: The metric on the space of coordinates may be inferred from

975: the kinetic term in (\ref{eq:actw}), and it is just

976: the Minkowski metric. 

977: In contrast, as discussed, the metric

978: on the space of coordinates for bulk states involves

979: the full background metric (\ref{eq:backg}) which

980: degenerates at $t=0$.

981: The difference means that whereas the

982: quantum fields describing winding states are regular in

983: the neighborhood of $t=0$, those describing bulk

984: states exhibit

985: logarithmic

986: divergences. In the penultimate section of this paper

987: we argue that these divergences are plausibly the origin of the

988: bad perturbative behavior displayed by strings

989: and particles propagating on Lorentzian orbifolds, behavior 

990: we do not expect to be exhibited in M2-brane winding states

991: in M theory.

992: 

993: 

994: \section{Toy Model: Winding Strings in ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$}

995: 

996: Before approaching the problem of quantizing winding membranes,

997: we start with a toy model

998: consisting of winding string states propagating in

999: ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$. This problem has also been

1000: considered by others~\cite{bachas,pioline} and

1001: in more detail than we shall

1002: do here. They point out and exploit interesting analogies with

1003: open strings in an electric field. Our focus will

1004: be somewhat different and will serve mainly as a 

1005: warmup for case of winding M2-branes

1006: which we are

1007: more interested in.

1008: 

1009: Strings winding uniformly

1010: around the compact $\theta$ dimension in (\ref{eq:backg}) appear as

1011: particles from the 

1012: $d-$dimensional point of view. To study the classical

1013: behavior of these particles, it is convenient to 

1014: start from the Nambu action for the string,

1015: \be

1016: {\cal S} = - \mu \int d^2\sigma \sqrt{-{\rm Det}( 

1017: \partial_\alpha x^\mu \partial_\beta x^\nu g_{\mu \nu})},

1018: \labeq{string}

1019: \ee

1020: where $\mu$ is the string tension (to avoid clutter 

1021: we set $\mu_1=\mu$ for

1022: the remainder of this section). The string worldsheet coordinates

1023: are $\sigma^\alpha=(\tau,\sigma)$.

1024: 

1025: For the winding states we consider, we can set $\theta =\sigma$,

1026: so $0\leq \sigma\leq \theta_0$. We insist that the other space-time

1027: coordinates of the string $x^\mu=(t,\vec{x})$ do not depend on

1028: $\sigma$. It is convenient also to choose the gauge 

1029: $t=\tau$, in which the action (\ref{eq:string}) reduces to

1030: \be

1031: {\cal S} = - \mu \theta_0 \int dt  |t| \sqrt{1-\dot{\vec{x}}\,^2},

1032: \labeq{partnam}

1033: \ee

1034: in which $t$ is now the time, not a coordinate. This is 

1035: the usual square root action for 

1036: a relativistic particle, but with a time-dependent

1037: mass $\mu \theta_0 |t|$. The

1038: canonical momentum is $\vec{p}= \mu \theta_0

1039: |t| \dot{\vec{x}}/\sqrt{1-\dot{\vec{x}}\,^2}$ and the 

1040: classical Hamiltonian generating evolution in the time $t$ is

1041: $H= \sqrt{\vec{p}\,^2+(\mu \theta_0 t)^2}$. This is

1042: regular at $t=0$, indicating that the classical equations

1043: should be regular there.

1044: 

1045: Due to translation invariance, the canonical momentum

1046: $\vec{p}$

1047: is a constant of the motion. Using this, one obtains the

1048: general solution

1049: \be

1050: \vec{x}= \vec{x_0} + {\vec{p}\over \mu \theta_0} 

1051: {\rm sinh}^{-1}\left(\mu \theta_0 t/|\vec{p}|\right), 

1052: \qquad -\infty <t <\infty,

1053: \labeq{particle}

1054: \ee

1055: according to which the particle moves smoothly through

1056: the singularity. At early and late times the large mass

1057: slows the motion to a crawl.

1058: However, at $t=0$ the particle's mass disappears and 

1059: it instantaneously

1060: reaches the speed of light.

1061: The key point for us is that these winding states

1062: have completely unambiguous evolution across $t=0$, even though

1063: the background metric  (\ref{eq:backg}) is singular there.

1064: 

1065: Now we turn to quantizing the theory, as a warmup for

1066: the membranes we shall consider in the next section.

1067: The relevant classical Hamiltonian was given 

1068: in (\ref{eq:hemp}): it describes a point particle

1069: with a mass $\mu \theta_0 |t|$. In a general background

1070: space-time, ordering ambiguities appear, which are

1071: reviewed in Appendix 4. However, in the case at hand,

1072: there are no such ambiguities.

1073: The metric on the space of

1074: coordinates is the Minkowski metric $\eta_{\mu \nu}$. 

1075: The standard expression for the momentum operator 

1076: $p_\nu = -i \hbar (\partial /\partial x^\nu)$, and 

1077: the 

1078: Hamiltonian $H$ given in (\ref{eq:hemp}) 

1079: are clearly hermitian under 

1080: integration over coordinate

1081: space, $\int d^d x$. Finally, the background 

1082: curvature $R$ vanishes 

1083: for our background so there

1084: is no curvature term ambiguity either. 

1085: 

1086: Quantization now proceeds by setting

1087: $p_\mu= - i \partial_\mu$ (we use units in which $\hbar$ is unity)

1088: in the Hamiltonian constraint (\ref{eq:hemp}) which

1089: is now an operator acting on the quantum field $\phi$.

1090: Fourier transforming with respect to 

1091: $\vec{x}$, we obtain

1092: \be

1093: \ddot{\phi} = -\left(\vec{p}\,^2+ (\mu \theta_0 t)^2\right) \phi,

1094: \labeq{KG}

1095: \ee

1096: {\it i.e.,}  the Klein Gordon equation for a particle with a mass

1097: $\mu \theta_0 |t|$. 

1098: 

1099: Equation (\ref{eq:KG}) is the parabolic cylinder equation. Its

1100: detailed properties are discussed in Ref.~\cite{AS},

1101: whose notation we follow.

1102: We write the time-dependent frequency as $\omega\equiv

1103: \sqrt{\vec{p}\,^2 +(\mu \theta_0 t)^2}$. 

1104: At large times $\mu \theta_0 |t|\gg |\vec{p}\,|$, 

1105: $\omega $ is slowly varying:

1106: $\dot{\omega}/\omega^2 \ll 1$ so all modes follow WKB

1107: evolution. The general solution behaves as a

1108: linear combination of 

1109: $\omega^{-{1\over 2}}$exp$(\pm i \int \omega dt)

1110: \approx 

1111: t^{-{1\over 2}} $exp$\left

1112: (\pm i {1\over 2}\left(\mu \theta_0 t^2

1113: +(\vec{p}\,^2{\rm ln}t)/(\mu \theta_0))\right)\right)$.

1114: 

1115: For large momentum, $\vec{p}\,^2\gg \mu \theta_0$, 

1116: the WKB approximation

1117: remains valid for all time since $\dot{\omega}/\omega^2$ 

1118: is never large. In the WKB approximation there is no

1119: mode mixing and no particle production.

1120: Therefore for large momentum one expects little 

1121: particle production. Departures from 

1122: WKB are nonperturbative in 

1123:  $\dot{\omega}/\omega^2$, as explicit calculation verifies,

1124: the result scaling as $\sim$

1125: exp$(-|\omega^2/\dot{\omega}|_{max}) 

1126: \sim $ exp$(-\vec{p}\,^2/\mu \theta_0)$, at large $\vec{p}^2$.

1127: 

1128: The parabolic cylinder functions which behave as positive and

1129: negative frequency modes at large times 

1130: are denoted

1131: $E(a,x)$ and $E^*(a,x)$, 

1132: where $x=\sqrt{2\mu \theta_0} t$ and

1133: $a=-\vec{p}\,^2/(2 \mu \theta_0)$. For

1134: positive $x$ they behave respectively

1135: as $x^{-{1\over 2}}$ exp$(+ i({1\over 4}x^2-a {\rm ln} x)$ and 

1136: $x^{-{1\over 2}}$ exp$(- i({1\over 4}x^2-a {\rm ln} x)$.

1137: Both $E(a,x)$ and $E^*(a,x)$ are analytic at $x=0$. 

1138: They are

1139: uniquely continued to 

1140: negative values through the relation

1141: \be

1142: E(a,-x)= -i e^{\pi a} E(a,x) +i \sqrt{1+e^{2\pi a}} E^*(a,x).

1143: \labeq{cont}

1144: \ee

1145: For $t<0$, $E(a,-\sqrt{2\mu \theta_0}t)$ is the positive frequency

1146: incoming mode. As we extend $t$ to positive values, (\ref{eq:cont})

1147: yields the outgoing solution consisting of a linear combination

1148: of the positive frequency solution $E^*$ and the negative 

1149: frequency solution $E$. The Bogoliubov coefficient~\cite{birrell} $\beta$

1150: for modes of momentum $\vec{p}$ is read off from (\ref{eq:cont}):

1151: \be

1152: \beta=-i e^{\pi a} = -i e^{-{1\over 2} \pi \vec{p}\,^2/(\mu \theta_0)}.

1153: \labeq{beta}

1154: \ee

1155: The result is exponentially suppressed at large

1156: $\vec{p}$, hence, the 

1157: total number of particles per unit volume 

1158: created by passage through the singularity is 

1159: \be

1160: \int {d^{d-1} \vec{p} \over (2\pi)^{d-1}} |\beta|^2 

1161: = \left({\mu \theta_0 \over 2\pi}\right)^{d-1\over 2},

1162: \labeq{ppres}

1163: \ee

1164: which is finite and tends to zero as the rapidity of the 

1165: brane collision is diminished.  

1166: 

1167: It is interesting to ask 

1168: what happens if we attempt to attach the $t<0$ half of

1169: ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$, (\ref{eq:backg}) 

1170: with rapidity parameter $\theta_0^{in}$, to the upper half of

1171: ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$ with a different rapidity parameter

1172: ${\theta}_0^{out}$. After all,

1173: the field equations for general

1174: relativity break down at $t=0$ and, hence, there

1175: is insufficient Cauchy data to uniquely determine the solution

1176: to the future. Hence, it might seem that we have the freedom to

1177: attach a future compactified 

1178: Milne with any parameter ${\theta}_0^{out}$, since this would

1179: still be locally flat away from $t=0$ and,

1180: hence, a legitimate string theory background. However

1181: it is quickly seen that this is not allowed. 

1182: By matching the

1183: field $\phi$ and  its first time derivative $\partial_t \phi$ 

1184: across $t=0$, we can determine the particle production 

1185: in this case.

1186: We find that due to the jump in $\theta_0$, 

1187: the Bogoliubov coefficient $\beta$ behaves like

1188: $((\theta_0^{in})^{1\over 2}-({\theta}_0^{out})^{1\over 2})/

1189: \sqrt{\theta_0^{in} \theta_0^{out}}$, 

1190: at large momentum, independent of $\vec{p}$. 

1191: This implies 

1192: divergent particle production, and indicates that to lowest

1193: order one only obtains sensible results in the analytically-

1194: continued background, which has ${\theta}_0^{out}=\theta_0^{in}$. 

1195: We conclude that to retain 

1196: a physically sensible theory we must have ${\theta}_0^{out}=\theta_0^{in}$, 

1197: at least at lowest order in the interactions. 

1198: 

1199: \section{Dynamics of Winding M2-branes}

1200: 

1201: We now turn to the more complicated but far more interesting

1202: case of winding membranes in ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$.

1203: We have in mind eleven-dimensional M theory,

1204: where the eleventh, M theory dimension shrinks away to 

1205: a point. When this dimension is small but static, 

1206: well known arguments~\cite{witten}

1207: indicate that M theory should tend to a string theory:

1208: type IIA for circle compactification, heterotic

1209: string theory for orbifold compactification.

1210: It is precisely the winding membrane states we are

1211: considering which map onto the string theory states as

1212: the M theory dimension becomes small. What makes this

1213: case specially interesting is that the 

1214: string theory states include the graviton and the dilaton.

1215: Hence, by describing string propagation

1216: across $t=0$ we are describing the propagation

1217: of perturbative gravity across a

1218: singularity, which as explained in Section II is 

1219: an FRW cosmological singularity from the $d$ dimensional

1220: point of view.

1221: 

1222: A winding 2-brane

1223: is  a string from the $d$-dimensional point of view.

1224: As explained in section III, the Hamiltonian 

1225: for such strings may be expressed in a general gauge

1226: as

1227: \be

1228: H=\int d\sigma \left({A\over 2} \left(\pi_\mu  \pi_\nu \eta^{\mu \nu}

1229:  +\mu_2^2 \theta_0^2 t^2 \eta_{\mu \nu} {x^\mu}' {x^\nu}'\right)

1230: + A^1 {x^\mu}' \pi_\mu \right),

1231: \labeq{totalh2}

1232: \ee

1233: where $A$ and $A^1$ are arbitrary functions of the

1234: worldsheet coordinates $\sigma$ and $\tau$, and prime 

1235: represents the derivative with respect to $\sigma$.

1236: Here $\mu,\nu$ run over $0,1,..,d-1$, and primes denote derivatives

1237: with respect to $\sigma$.

1238: The Hamiltonian is supplemented by the following first class

1239: constraints

1240: \be

1241: \pi_\mu  \pi_\nu \eta^{\mu \nu}

1242:  +\mu_{2}^2 \theta_0^2 t^2 \eta_{\mu \nu} {x^\mu}' {x^\nu}'

1243: \approx 0;\qquad

1244:  {x^\mu}' \pi_\mu\approx 0,

1245: \labeq{redconr}

1246: \ee

1247: which ensure the Hamiltonian is weakly zero. The latter

1248: constraint is the familiar requirement that the momentum density is normal to

1249: the string.

1250: 

1251: The key point for us is that the Hamiltonian and the constraints 

1252: are regular in the

1253: neighborhood of

1254: $t=0$, implying that for a generic class of worldsheet coordinates

1255: the solutions of the equations of motion are regular there.

1256: 

1257: As we did with particles, it is instructive to examine the

1258: classical theory from the point of view of the Nambu

1259: action. We may directly infer the classical action for

1260: winding membranes on ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$ by 

1261: setting 

1262: $\theta=\sigma^2$ and $\partial_2 t=\partial_2 

1263: \vec{x} =0$. The Nambu action for the 2-brane then

1264: becomes

1265: \be

1266: {\cal S} = - \mu_2\theta_0  

1267: \int d^2\sigma |t| \sqrt{-{\rm Det}(

1268: \partial_\alpha x^\mu \partial_\beta x^\nu \eta_{\mu \nu})},

1269: \labeq{stringmem}

1270: \ee

1271: where $\sigma^\alpha=(\tau,\sigma)$ and $\mu$ runs over $0,..d-1$.

1272: This is precisely the action for a string 

1273: (\ref{eq:string}) in a time-dependent

1274: background $g_{\mu \nu}= \theta_0 |t|\eta_{\mu \nu}$, the appropriate

1275: string-frame background corresponding to ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$

1276: in M theory~\cite{kosst}.

1277: 

1278: As a prelude to quantization, let us discuss the classical

1279: evolution of winding membranes across $t=0$.

1280: We can pick

1281: worldsheet coordinates so that $x^0\equiv t=\tau$, and 

1282: $\dot{\vec{x}}\cdot \vec{x}\,'=0$.

1283: In this gauge the Nambu action is:

1284: \be

1285: {\cal S} = - \mu_2 \theta_0 \int dt d\sigma |t| |\vec{x}\,'|

1286: \sqrt{1-\dot{\vec{x}}\,^2},

1287: \labeq{nambu}

1288: \ee 

1289: and the classical equations are

1290: \be

1291: \partial_t \left(\epsilon \dot{\vec{x}}\right)

1292: = \partial_\sigma \left( {t^2\over \epsilon} \partial_\sigma \vec{x}\right),

1293: \qquad \partial_t \epsilon = t {(\vec{x}\,')^2\over \epsilon},

1294: \labeq{stringe}

1295: \ee

1296: where 

1297: \be

1298: \epsilon = |t| \sqrt{\vec{x'}\,^2/(1-\dot{\vec{x}\,^2})}

1299: \labeq{stringf}

1300: \ee

1301: the energy density along the string is $\mu_2 \epsilon$.

1302: It may be checked that the solutions of these

1303: equations are regular at $t=0$, with the 

1304: energy and momentum density being finite there.

1305: The local speed of

1306: the string hits unity at $t=0$, but

1307: there is no ambiguity in the resulting solutions.

1308: The data at $t=0$ consists

1309: of the string coordinates $\vec{x}(\sigma)$ and the 

1310: momentum density $\vec{\pi}(\sigma) = \mu_2 \epsilon \dot{\vec{x}}$,

1311: which must be

1312: normal to $\vec{x}\,'(\sigma)$ but is

1313: otherwise arbitrary. 

1314: This is the same amount of initial data as that

1315: pertaining at any other

1316: time.

1317: 

1318: Equations (\ref{eq:stringf}) describe

1319: strings in

1320: a $d$ dimensional flat FRW cosmological

1321: background with $ds^2= a(t)^2 \eta_{\mu \nu}$ and

1322: scale factor $a(t) \propto t^{1\over 2}$.

1323: The usual cosmological

1324: intuition is helpful in understanding

1325: the string evolution. The comparison

1326: one must make is between the curvature scale on the

1327: string and the comoving Hubble radius $|t|$.

1328: When $|t|$ is larger than the comoving

1329: curvature scale on the string, the string oscillates as in flat

1330: space-time,  with fixed proper amplitude and frequency.

1331: However,  when $|t|$ falls below the string curvature scale,

1332: the string is `frozen' in comoving coordinates.

1333: This point of view is useful in understanding the

1334: qualitative behavior we shall discuss in the next section.

1335: 

1336: There is one final point we wish to emphasize. In Section II we

1337: discussed the general Hamiltonian for a $p$-brane

1338: in curved space. As we have just seen, a winding M2-brane

1339: on ${\cal M}_C \times R^{d-1}$ has the same action as a string in 

1340: the background $g_{\mu \nu}= |t|\eta_{\mu \nu}$. We could

1341: have considered this case directly using the methods

1342: of Section II. The constraints (\ref{eq:consta}) for this case

1343: read:

1344: \be

1345: (\theta_0 |t|)^{-1}\eta^{\mu \nu} \pi_\mu \pi_\nu + \mu_2^2 \theta_0 |t| \eta_{\mu 

1346: \nu} 

1347: {x^\mu}' {x^\nu}'\approx 0 ; \qquad {x^\mu}'\pi_\mu\approx 0,

1348: \labeq{strcon}

1349: \ee

1350: and the Hamiltonian would involve an arbitrary linear combination

1351: of the two. These constraints may be compared with those

1352: coming directly from our analysis of 

1353: winding 2-branes, given by (\ref{eq:redcon})

1354: with $p=2$. 

1355: Only the first constraint differs, 

1356: and {\it only by multiplication by

1357: $\theta_0 |t|$}. 

1358: For all nonzero $\theta_0 |t|$, the difference is insignificant:

1359: the constraints are equivalent. 

1360: Multiplication of the Hamiltonian by any

1361: function of the canonical variables merely amounts to 

1362: a re-definition

1363: of worldsheet time. 

1364: This is just as it should be: dimensionally reduced

1365: membranes are strings. However, the membrane viewpoint is

1366: superior in one respect, namely that the background metric

1367: (\ref{eq:backg}) is non-singular in the physical

1368: coordinates (which do not include $\theta$).

1369: That is why 

1370: the membrane Hamiltonian constraint is nonsingular for these states.

1371: The membrane viewpoint tells us we should 

1372: multiply the string Hamiltonian

1373: by $\theta_0|t|$ in order to obtain a string theory which is 

1374: regular at $t=0$. 

1375: Without knowing  about membranes, the naive reaction

1376: might have been to discard the string theory on the basis

1377: that the string frame metric is singular there.

1378: 

1379: 

1380: \section{Einstein Gravity versus an  Expansion in  $1/\alpha'$}

1381: 

1382: 

1383: We are interested in the behavior of M theory,

1384: considered as a theory of M2-branes, in the

1385: vicinity of $t=0$. The first question is, for what

1386: range of $|t|$ is the string description valid?

1387: The effective string tension $\mu_1$

1388: is given

1389: in terms of the M2-brane tension $\mu_2$ by

1390: \be

1391: \mu_1= \mu_2 \theta_0 |t|.

1392: \labeq{stringt}

1393: \ee

1394: The mass scale of stringy excitations is the string scale $\mu_1^{1\over 2}$.

1395: For the stringy description to be valid, this scale must

1396: be smaller than the mass of Kaluza-Klein excitations,

1397: $(\theta_0 |t|)^{-1}$. This condition reads

1398: \be

1399: |t|<\mu_2^{-{1\over 3}} \theta_0^{-1}.

1400: \labeq{stringtime}

1401: \ee

1402: The second question is: for what range of $|t|$ may

1403: the string theory be approximated by $d$-dimensional

1404: Einstein-dilaton gravity? 

1405: %PAUL added sentence

1406: Recall that the string  frame metric is $g_{\mu \nu} = a^2 \eta_{\mu \nu} = |t| 

1407: \eta_{\mu \nu}$,

1408: so the curvature scale is $ \dot{a}/a \sim 1/|t|$.

1409: The approximation holds 

1410: when the curvature scale is smaller than the string scale  $\mu_1^{1\over 2}$, 

1411: which implies

1412: \be

1413: |t|> \mu_2^{-{1\over 3}} \theta_0^{-{1\over 3}}.

1414: \labeq{stringtime2}

1415: \ee

1416: We conclude that for small $\theta_0$ 

1417: there are three relevant regimes.

1418: In units

1419: where the membrane tension $\mu_2$ is unity, they

1420: are as follows. For $|t| > \theta_0^{-1}$ 

1421: the description of $M$ theory in terms of 

1422: eleven dimensional Einstein gravity should hold. 

1423: As $|t|$ falls below $\theta_0^{-1}$, 

1424: the size of the extra dimension falls below

1425: the membrane scale and we go over to the 

1426: ten dimensional string theory description.

1427: In the cosmological scenarios of interest, 

1428: the incoming state is very smooth~\cite{chaos,review},

1429: hence this state should be well-described by 

1430: ten dimensional Einstein-dilaton gravity, which

1431: of course agrees with the eleven dimensional Einstein theory

1432: reduced in the Kaluza-Klein fashion.

1433: However, when $|t|$ falls below $ \theta_0^{-{1\over 3}}$,

1434: the Einstein-dilaton description fails and we must

1435: employ the fundamental description of strings in

1436: order to obtain regular behavior at $t=0$.

1437: 

1438: Let us consider, then,  the relevant string action. 

1439: As we explained in Section IV, for winding M2-branes

1440: a good gauge choice 

1441: is  $A=1$, $A^1=0$.

1442: The corresponding gauge-fixed

1443: worldsheet action was given in (\ref{eq:actw}): for $p=2$ this reads

1444: \be

1445: {\cal S}_{gf}= \int d\tau d\sigma

1446: {1\over 2}  \eta_{\mu \nu} \left(\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu

1447: -\mu_2^2 \theta_0^2 t^2 {x^\mu}' {x^\nu}')\right).

1448: \labeq{newact}

1449: \ee

1450: where

1451: the fields $x^\mu = (t,\vec{x})$ depend on $\sigma$ and $\tau$. 

1452: This action describes a two dimensional field theory

1453: with a quartic interaction. 

1454: 

1455: We confine ourselves to some preliminary remarks about

1456: the perturbative behavior of (\ref{eq:newact}) 

1457: before proceeding to

1458: non-perturbative calculations in the next section.

1459: In units where $\hbar$ is unity, the

1460: action must be dimensionless. From the $d$-dimensional point of view,

1461: the coordinates 

1462: $x^\mu$ have dimensions of inverse mass and $\mu$ has dimensions

1463: of mass cubed, so $ \sigma/\tau$ must have dimensions of 

1464: mass squared. However, the dimensional analysis relevant to

1465: the quantization of (\ref{eq:newact}) considered as a two dimensional field

1466: theory is quite different: 

1467: the fields $x^\mu$ are dimensionless. From

1468: the quartic term we see that $\mu_2 \theta_0$ is a dimensionless coupling.

1469: suggesting that perturbation theory in

1470: $\mu_2 \theta_0$ should be

1471: renormalizable. The string tension at a time $t_1$ is

1472: $\mu_1 = \mu_2 \theta_0 |t_1|$; the usual $\alpha'$

1473: expansion is then an expansion in the Regge slope parameter $\alpha'

1474: = 1/(2 \pi \mu_1)$, i.e. in negative powers of $\mu_2 \theta_0$. 

1475: Conversely, the perturbation expansion

1476: we are discussing

1477: is an {\it expansion in inverse powers of $\alpha'$}.

1478: 

1479: These considerations point the way to the resolution of

1480: an apparent conflict between two facts. Winding M2-brane evolution

1481: is as we have seen smooth through $t=0$. We

1482: expect M2-branes to be described by strings near $t=0$.

1483: The low energy approximation to string theory 

1484: is Einstein-dilaton gravity. Yet, 

1485: as noted above, in Einstein-dilaton gravity,

1486: generic perturbations

1487: diverge logarithmically with $|t|$ as $t$ tends to zero. 

1488: The resolution of the paradox

1489: is that general relativity is the leading term in

1490: an expansion in $\alpha'$ for the string theory. 

1491: As we have shown, however, the

1492:  good behavior of string theory is only apparent

1493: in the opposite expansion, in {\it inverse} powers

1494: of $\alpha'$.

1495: 

1496: In order to evolve 

1497: the incoming

1498: state defined at large $|t|$ where 

1499: general relativity 

1500: is a good 

1501: description, through small $|t|$ where string theory is still

1502: valid but general relativity fails,

1503: we must match the standard $\alpha'$ 

1504: expansion onto the new $1/\alpha'$ expansion we have been

1505: discussing. We defer a detailed discussion of 

1506: this fascinating issue to a future publication.

1507: 

1508: The action (\ref{eq:newact}) describes a string with a time-dependent

1509: tension, which goes to zero at $t=0$. There is an extensive literature

1510: on the zero-tension limit of string theory (see for example \cite{devega}),

1511: in Minkowski space-time. At zero tension the action 

1512: is (\ref{eq:newact}) but without the second term. This is the action

1513: for an infinite number of massless particles with no interactions.

1514: Quantum mechanically, there is no central charge and no critical

1515: dimension. However, as the tension is introduced, the usual

1516: central charge and critical dimension appear\cite{nicolaidis}.

1517: 

1518: 

1519: \section {Worldsheet Instanton Calculation of Loop Production}

1520: 

1521: The string theory we are discussing, with action (\ref{eq:newact}),

1522: is nonlinear and therefore difficult to solve. We can still

1523: make substantial progress on questions of physical interest by

1524: employing nonperturbative instanton methods. 

1525: One of the most interesting questions 

1526: is whether one can calculate the quantum production of

1527: M2-branes as the universe passes through the big crunch/big bang 

1528: transition. As we shall now show, this is indeed possible 

1529: through Euclidean instanton techniques.

1530: 

1531: %In order to make progress, we now restrict attention to

1532: %the set of winding membrane/string states with axial symmetry {\it i.e.,} 

1533: %circular loops, with a general centre of mass momentum

1534: %$\vec{p}_{cm}$. In the $t=\tau$, $\dot{\vec{x}}.\vec{x}'=0$ gauge, 

1535: %the gauge conditions require that the plane of

1536: %the loop be perpendicular to $\vec{p}_{cm}$.

1537: %Note that even this limited class of string states is

1538: %of substantial interest, since in flat space-time 

1539: %it includes the string

1540: %theory dilaton. 

1541: %For a string loop of radius $R$ 

1542: %the Hamiltonian constraint is calculated from (\ref{eq:memcon})

1543: %to be

1544: %\be

1545: %\vec{p}_{cm}^2 + P_R^2 + (\mu \theta_0 t R)^2 =0.

1546: %\labeq{loopham}

1547: %\ee

1548: %Covariantly quantizing as before, we 

1549: %obtain the field equation,

1550: %\be

1551: %\ddot{\phi} = -\left(-\vec{p}^2 -\partial_R^2 + (\mu \theta_0 R t)^2 \right)\phi

1552: %\labeq{circeq}

1553: %\ee

1554: %where $\nabla$ is the gradient with respect to the loop's

1555: %centre of mass

1556: %coordinate.

1557: %The second two

1558: %terms on the right hand side comprise the 

1559: %Hamiltonian for the internal oscillation of the loop: 

1560: %they describe 

1561: %a harmonic oscillator with a time-dependent

1562: %frequency $\omega \propto  |t|$. As before, we shall

1563: %temporarily adopt units in which $\mu \theta_0=1$ and then restore

1564: %$\mu \theta_0$ by dimensions in the final results. 

1565: %

1566: %The solutions of (\ref{eq:circeq}) have simple behavior at

1567: %at large times.

1568: %The harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian

1569: %has eigenmodes which are functions of 

1570: %$R |t|^{1\over 2} $ ({\it i.e.,}  proper radius in string frame), 

1571: %and eigenvalues $(2n+1) |t|$ for $n=0,1,\dots$. 

1572: %These eigenvalues are large and

1573: %slowly varying at large $|t|$, so the adiabatic approximation holds.

1574: %The solutions

1575: %of (\ref{eq:circeq}) tend to the separable form 

1576: %\be

1577: %\phi(\vec{x},R,t) \approx \sum_{\vec{p} n=0,1,\dots} 

1578: %a_{n,\vec{p}} \,e^{i \vec{p}.\vec{x}}\, \psi_n(r)\, \chi_{n,p}(t)\quad +\quad{\rm h.c}

1579: %\labeq{gensol}

1580: %\ee

1581: %where $\vec{x}$ is the centre of mass coordinate of

1582: %the loop, with corresponding momentum $\vec{p}$,

1583: %$\psi_n(r)$ are harmonic oscillator eigenfunctions,

1584: %$\chi_{n,p}(t)$ is a properly 

1585: %normalized positive frequency solution of

1586: %the ordinary differential equation,

1587: %\be

1588: %\ddot{\chi} = -\left(\vec{p}^2 + (2n+1) |t| \right) \chi

1589: %\labeq{chieq}

1590: %\ee

1591: %and  the $a_n$ are the annihilation operators for the corresponding

1592: %excited loop states. 

1593: %By 

1594: %changing variables to $r=R |t|^{1\over 2}$ and 

1595: %$T= |t|^{3\over 2}$, one may verify that

1596: %the approximation involved in (\ref{eq:gensol}) requires

1597: %only that $t >>1$.

1598:  

1599: %Calculating the production of loop states 

1600: %induced by the passage through $t=0$ requires

1601: %solving equation (\ref{eq:circeq}) with initial conditions

1602: %consisting at large negative times of a sum of 

1603: %normalized harmonic oscillator states multiplied by the

1604: %appropriate positive frequency mode, for each value

1605: %of the incoming momentum $\vec{p}$. We then solve 

1606: %equation (\ref{eq:circeq}) across $t=0$ to large positive

1607: %times and re-express the solution in terms of the 

1608: %positive and negative frequency modes pertaining for

1609: %large positive times. The number of excitations 

1610: %found in each harmonic oscillator state, and at each 

1611: %momentum $\vec{p}$ is given by the square of the

1612: %Bogoliubov coefficient $\beta$ being the coefficient

1613: %of the outgoing negative frequency mode. 

1614: %It is in principle straightforward to calculate $\beta$

1615: %numerically, but we shall not do so here.

1616: 

1617: %Instead, we shall develop an approximate 

1618: %analytic method yielding the 

1619: %Bogoliubov coefficient from an imaginary time

1620: %classical solution {\it i.e.,}  an

1621: %instanton. 

1622: 

1623: 

1624: First, let us reproduce the result obtained in our toy model

1625: of winding string production, equation 

1626: (\ref{eq:beta}). 

1627: Equation (\ref{eq:KG}) may be 

1628: re-interpreted

1629: as a time-independent Schrodinger equation, with $t$ being 

1630: the coordinate, describing an

1631: over-the-barrier wave in a upside-down harmonic potential. The 

1632: Bogoliubov 

1633: coefficient is then just the ratio of the 

1634: reflection coefficient $R$ to the transmission coefficient $T$.

1635: For large momentum 

1636: $|\vec{p}\,|$, $R$ is exponentially small and $T$ is close

1637: to unity

1638: since the WKB

1639: approximation holds.

1640: To compute $R$ we employ the following 

1641: approach, described in the

1642: book by Heading~\cite{heading}. (For related

1643: approximation schemes, applied to string production,

1644: see Refs.~\cite{martinec, gubser}.)

1645: 

1646: \begin{figure}

1647: {\par\centering

1648: \resizebox*{3.in}{3.in}{\includegraphics{contour.eps}} \vskip .1in \par}

1649: \caption{The contour for computation of Bogoliubov coefficients

1650: in string/membrane production.

1651: }

1652: \labfig{contour}

1653: \end{figure}

1654: \noindent

1655: 

1656: 

1657: 

1658: The method is to analytically

1659: continue the WKB approximate solutions in the complex 

1660: $t$-plane. Defining the WKB frequency, 

1661: %NNN introduce mu theta0

1662: $\omega=\sqrt{p^2+(\mu \theta_0 t)^2}$, one

1663: observes there are zeros at $t=\pm i p/(\mu \theta_0)$, where the 

1664: WKB approximation must fail and where the WKB approximate 

1665: solutions possess branch cuts. Heading shows that 

1666: one can compute the reflection coefficient by 

1667: running the branch cut from $t=-ip/(\mu \theta_0)$ 

1668: up the imaginary $t$ axis and out along the negative real $t$ axis. 

1669: Then if one continues an incoming

1670: WKB solution, defined below the cut, in from $t=-\infty$, 

1671: below the 

1672: branch point at $t=-ip/(\mu \theta_0)$ and back out towards 

1673: $t=-\infty$ just above the cut, it becomes the outgoing reflected 

1674: wave. In the leading WKB approximation, the wave is 

1675: given by $w^{-{1\over 2}} e^{-i \int w dt}$. Continuing this

1676: expression along the stated contour, shown in Figure 1,

1677: the exponent acquires a real

1678: contribution on the parts close to the 

1679: imaginary axis, where  $t=-i\tau$. Hence, the magnitude

1680: of the reflection amplitude $R$ is given in the first approximation 

1681: by $e^{(-2 \int_0^p w d \tau)}$ where the factor

1682: of two arises from the two contributions on either side of the

1683: axis.

1684: With $w=\sqrt{p^2-(\mu \theta_0 \tau)^2}$, one easily sees that

1685: the exponent agrees precisely with that in (\ref{eq:beta}).

1686: 

1687: A more direct method for getting the exponent in the 

1688: Bogoliubov coefficient is to start

1689: not from the field equation (\ref{eq:KG}) but from the 

1690: original action for the fundamental string, (\ref{eq:string}). 

1691: We look for an imaginary-time solution ({\it i.e.,}  an

1692: instanton) corresponding to the WKB continuation described in the

1693: previous section. The 

1694: gauge-fixed particle Hamiltonian was given in (\ref{eq:hemp}), as

1695: $H= {1\over 2} \left(\vec{p}\,^2-p_0^2 +(\mu \theta_0 t)^2\right)$.

1696: The corresponding gauge-fixed action is, in first order form, 

1697: \be

1698: {\cal S} =  \int d \tau (- p_0 \dot{t} + \vec{p} \cdot \dot{\vec{x}} -H),

1699: \labeq{stract}

1700: \ee

1701: where as usual dots over a variable denote $\tau$ derivatives.

1702: Before continuing to imaginary time, it is important

1703: to realize that the spatial momentum $\vec{p}= \dot{\vec{x}}$ 

1704: is conserved (by translation invariance). Hence, all states,

1705: and in particular the asymptotic states we want, are

1706: labeled by $\vec{p}$. We are 

1707: are interested in the transition 

1708: amplitude for fixed initial and final $\vec{p}$,

1709: not $\vec{x}$, and we must use  the appropriate action

1710: which is not (\ref{eq:stract}), but rather

1711: \be

1712: {\cal S} =  \int d \tau (- p_0 \dot{t} - \dot{\vec{p}} \cdot \vec{x} -H),

1713: \labeq{stractm}

1714: \ee

1715: related by an integration by parts. The

1716: $\dot{\vec{p}}\cdot \vec{x}$ term contributes only a phase in the 

1717: Euclidean path integral (because $\vec{p}$ remains 

1718: real) and the $\vec{x}$ integration produces a delta 

1719: function for 

1720: overall momentum conservation. Notice that if we

1721: instead 

1722: had used the naive action $\int d\tau {1\over 2}

1723: \dot{\vec{x}}\,^2$, we would have obtained a $\vec{p}\,^2$ term in

1724: the Euclidean action of

1725: the opposite sign. Similar considerations have been

1726: noted elsewhere~\cite{coleman}.

1727: 

1728: Now we continue the action (\ref{eq:stractm})

1729: to imaginary time, setting $t=-it_E$

1730: and $\tau=-i\tau_E$. Eliminating $p_0$, the Euclidean action 

1731: ${\cal S}_E \equiv -i{\cal S}$) is found to be 

1732: \be

1733: {\cal S}_E= \int d \tau_E \left({1\over 2} 

1734: \left( \dot{t}^2_E -(\mu \theta_0 t_E)^2 +\vec{p}\,^2\right)

1735: + i \dot{\vec{p}}\cdot\vec{x}\right).

1736: \labeq{eucac}

1737: \ee

1738: where dots now denote derivatives with respect to $\tau_E$. 

1739: The amplitude we want involves $t_E$ running from $0$

1740: to $|\vec{p}\,|$ and back again:  (\ref{eq:eucac}) is just the

1741: action for a simple harmonic oscillator and the required 

1742: instanton 

1743: is $t_E= p \,{\rm cos} (\mu \theta_0 \tau_E)$,

1744:  $-\pi/2 <\mu \theta_0 \tau_E < \pi/2$.

1745: The corresponding Euclidean action is 

1746: \be

1747: {\cal S}_E= {\pi\over 2} {\vec{p}\,^2\over \mu \theta_0},

1748: \labeq{eucacr}

1749: \ee

1750: giving precisely the exponent in (\ref{eq:beta}).

1751: 

1752: Now we wish to apply this method to calculating the production

1753: of winding membrane states,

1754: described by the action

1755: (\ref{eq:newact}). As in the case of 

1756: analogous calculations of vacuum bubble nucleation 

1757: within field theory \cite{bubbles}, 

1758: it is plausible that objects with the greatest

1759: symmetry are produced since non-symmetrical deformations

1760: will generally yield a larger Euclidean action. Therefore

1761: one might guess that the 

1762: dominant production mechanism is the production of

1763: circular loops. Let us start by considering this case.

1764: The constraint $\pi_\mu {x^\mu}'=0$ implies

1765: that the plane of such loops must be perpendicular to their 

1766: center of mass momentum $p_\mu$. As in the particle production

1767: process previously considered, loops must be produced in

1768: pairs carrying equal and opposite momentum. The Hamiltonian

1769: for such circular loops is straightforwardly found to be 

1770: $H= {1\over 2} \left(\vec{p}\,^2 + 

1771: p_R^2 -p_0^2 +(2 \pi R \mu \theta_0 t)^2\right)$,

1772: Following 

1773: the same steps that led to (\ref{eq:eucac}),

1774: we infer that the appropriate Euclidean action is

1775: \be

1776: {\cal S}_E= \int d \tau_E \left({1\over 2}

1777: \left( \dot{t}^2_E + \dot{R}^2 -(2 \pi \mu_2 \theta_0 R t_E)^2 +\vec{p}\,^2\right)

1778: + i \dot{\vec{p}}\cdot\vec{x}\right).

1779: \labeq{eucacmem}

1780: \ee

1781: This action describes two degrees of freedom $t_E$ and $R$  interacting

1782: via a positive potential $t_E^2 R^2$. Up to the trivial symmetries

1783: $t_E\rightarrow -t_E$, $R\rightarrow -R$, there is only one

1784: classical solution which satisfying the boundary conditions we

1785: want, namely starting and ending at $t_E=0$, and running up to

1786: the zero of the WKB frequency function at $2 \pi 

1787: \mu \theta_0 R t_E = |\vec{p}\,|$. This solution has $T_E=R$ and 

1788: the Euclidean action is found to be

1789: \be

1790: {\cal S}_E=  {(2 |\vec{p}\,|)^{3\over 2}\over (2 \pi \mu_2 \theta_0)^{1\over 2} }  

1791: \int_0^1 dx \sqrt{1-x^4}.

1792: \labeq{eucacev}

1793: \ee

1794: where the last integral is $

1795: \Gamma[{1\over 4}]^2/(6\sqrt{2 \pi})$, a constant of order unity

1796: which we shall denote $I$.

1797: 

1798: The Euclidean action 

1799: grows like $|\vec{p}\,|^{3\over 2}$ at large momentum:

1800: this means that the total production of loops is finite. 

1801: Neglecting a possible numerical pre-factor

1802: in the  Bogoliubov coefficient,

1803: we can estimate the number density 

1804: of loops produced per unit volume, 

1805: \be

1806: n  \sim 

1807: \int {d^{d-1} \vec{p} \over (2\pi)^{d-1}} 

1808: e^{-2 S_E} 

1809: = (\mu_2 \theta_0)^{(d-1)/3}  {2^{13-7d\over 3} \Gamma\left(2(d-1)/3\right)

1810: \over 3 \pi^{d-1\over 6}

1811: I^{2(d-1)/3} \Gamma\left((d-1)/2\right)}

1812: \labeq{loops}

1813: \ee

1814: where $I$ is given above.

1815: 

1816: From the 

1817: instanton solution, the

1818: characteristic size of the loops and the time when they are produced

1819: are both of the same order, 

1820: $R \sim |t| \sim (|\vec{p}\,|/\mu_2 \theta_0)^{1\over 2}\sim

1821: (\mu_2 \theta_0)^{-1/3}$. 

1822: The effective string tension

1823: when they are produced is $\sim \mu_2 \theta_0 |t| 

1824: \sim (\mu_2 \theta_0)^{2\over 3}$. 

1825: 

1826: We have restricted attention so far to the production of 

1827: circular loops. It is also

1828: important to ask whether long, irregular strings are also 

1829: copiously produced. Even though such strings would be

1830: disfavoured energetically, there is 

1831: an exponentially large density of available states which 

1832: could in principle compensate.

1833: An estimate may be made along the lines of 

1834: Ref.~\cite{gubser}, by simply replacing 

1835: $\vec{p}\,^2$ with $

1836: \vec{p}\,^2 +\mu_1 N$, where $\mu_1$ is the effective

1837: string tension and $N$ is the level number

1838: of the string excitations. 

1839: This picture only makes sense for times greater than 

1840: the string time, so we use the tension at 

1841: the string time, $\mu_1\sim 

1842: (\mu_2 \theta_0)^{2/3}$.

1843: The density of string states

1844: scales as $e^{\sqrt{N}}$ 

1845: hence one should replace (\ref{eq:loops})

1846: with a sum over $N$:

1847: \be

1848: \sim \sum_N e^{\sqrt{N}}

1849: \int d^{d-1} \vec{p} \, 

1850: e^{-\left((\vec{p}\,^2+\mu_1 N)^{3\over 4}/\mu_1^{3\over 4}\right)}.

1851: \labeq{long}

1852: \ee

1853: The $N^{3\over 4}$ beats the $\sqrt{N}$ so the sum is 

1854: dominated by modest $N$, indicating that the production

1855: of long strings is suppressed. According to this result,

1856: the universe emerges at the string time 

1857: with of order one string-scale loop per string-scale

1858: volume, i.e. at a density comparable to but below 

1859: the Hagedorn density.

1860: 

1861: 

1862: Another key question is whether

1863: gravitational back-reaction 

1864: effects are likely to be significant 

1865: at the transition. As the universe fills

1866: with string loops, what is their effect on the background geometry?

1867: We estimate this as follows. Consider a string loop

1868: of radius $R$ in M theory frame. Its mass $M$ is $2 \pi R$ times the

1869: effective string tension $\mu_2 L$, where $L$ is the

1870: size of the extra dimension. The effective Einstein-frame 

1871: gravitational coupling (the inverse of the coefficient of 

1872: $R/2$ in the Lagrangian density)

1873: is given 

1874: by $\kappa_{d}^2 = \kappa_{d+1}^2/L$. 

1875: The gravitational potential produced by such a loop 

1876: in $d$ spacetime dimensions is\cite{maeda} 

1877: \be

1878: \Phi = - \kappa_{d}^2{ M\over  ((d-2)A_{d-2} R^{d-3}}

1879: \labeq{gravloop}

1880: \ee

1881: where $A_D$ is the area of the unit $D$-sphere,

1882: $A_D= 2 \pi{D+1\over 2}/\Gamma\left((D+1)/2\right)$.

1883: Specializing to the case of interest, namely 

1884: 2-branes in eleven-dimensional M theory, 

1885: the tension $\mu_2$ is related to the eleven dimensional

1886: gravitational coupling by a quantization condition relating

1887: to the four-form flux, reading\cite{duff}

1888: \be

1889: \mu_2^3= 2 \pi^2 /(n \kappa_{11}^2)

1890: \labeq{membten}

1891: \ee

1892: with $n$ an integer. 

1893: Equations (\ref{eq:gravloop}) and (\ref{eq:membten}) 

1894: then imply that the typical gravitational potential around a 

1895: string loop is

1896: \be

1897: \Phi = - {105\over 64 \pi \mu_2^2 R^6 n} 

1898: \sim -(\mu_2^2 R^6 n )^{-1} \sim - \theta_0^2/n

1899: \labeq{deduce}

1900: \ee

1901: up to numerical factors.

1902: 

1903: We conclude that the gravitational potential on the scale

1904: of the loops 

1905: is of order $\theta_0^2$ and therefore is consistently small

1906: for small collision rapidity.

1907: Since the mean separation of the loops when they are 

1908: produced is of order their size

1909: $R$, this potential $\Phi$ is

1910: the typical gravitational potential throughout space. Multiplying 

1911: the $tt$ component of the background metric (\ref{eq:backg}) by

1912: $1+ 2\Phi$ and redefining $t$, we conclude that the outgoing metric

1913: has an expansion rapidity of 

1914: order $\sim \theta_0(

1915: 1+ C \theta_0^2)$ with $C$ a constant of order unity. We conclude that 

1916: for small

1917: $\theta_0$ the gravitational back-reaction due to string loop

1918: production is small. Note that loop production is 

1919: a quantum mechanical effect taking place smoothly over

1920: a time scale of

1921: order $(\mu_2 \theta_0)^{-{1\over 3}}$. Therefore if the

1922: rapidity of the outgoing branes alters as we have estimated,

1923: it happens smoothly and not 

1924: like the jump in $\theta_0$ 

1925: discussed at the end of section VI. Therefore the picture

1926: of loop production is consistent with the comments made there.

1927: 

1928: \section{Strings on Lorentzian Orbifolds are not regular}

1929: 

1930: We have shown that strings 

1931: constructed as winding M2-branes

1932: on ${\cal M}_C\times R^{9}$

1933: are analytic in the neighborhood of 

1934: $t=0$. This was the setup originally

1935: envisaged in the ekpyrotic model, where collapse of the

1936: M theory dimension was considered. Subsequently, 

1937: a number of authors investigated the simpler

1938: case of string theory on  ${\cal M}_C\times R^{8}$,

1939: considered as a Lorentzian orbifold solution 

1940: of ten dimensional string theory.

1941: This is a simpler, but 

1942: different setting, hence we expressed 

1943: misgivings\cite{misgive,tolleyperts}

1944: about 

1945: drawing conclusions

1946: from these reduced models.

1947: We shall now explain why the behavior in the

1948: Lorentzian orbifold models

1949: is significantly worse than in M theory

1950: and, hence, why no negative

1951: conclusion should be drawn on the basis of the 

1952: failed perturbative calculations. 

1953: 

1954: Consider string theory on the background (\ref{eq:backg}). 

1955: Let us choose the gauge $x^0=t=\tau$, and $g_{\mu \nu}

1956: \dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}'^\mu=0$. In this gauge we

1957: express the string solution as $\theta(t,\sigma)$ and $\vec{x}(t,\sigma)$.

1958: If a classical solution in this gauge possesses 

1959: a singularity at $t=0$ in the complex $t$-plane, for all $\sigma$,

1960: then there

1961: can be no choice of worldsheet coordinates $\tau$ and

1962: $\sigma$ which can render the solution analytic in the neighborhood

1963: of $t=0$. For if such 

1964: a choice existed, 

1965: one could re-express $\tau$ in terms of $t$ and, hence, 

1966: $\vec{x}(t,\sigma)$ would be analytic. We shall show that generically,

1967: for strings on Lorentzian orbifolds, the solutions possess

1968: logarithmic singularities {\it i.e.,} 

1969: branch points, rendering them ambiguous as

1970: one circumvents the singularity in the complex $t$-plane.

1971: 

1972: The demonstration is straightforward, and our argument 

1973: is similar to that in earlier papers\cite{steif}. We are only

1974: interested in the classical equations of motion and

1975: we may compute the relevant Hamiltonian from 

1976: the Nambu action, 

1977: \be

1978: H\equiv \int d\sigma {\cal H} 

1979: = \int d\sigma \sqrt{{\pi_\theta^2\over \mu t^2} + 

1980: {\vec{\pi}^2 \over \mu} + \mu\left( (t {\theta'})^2+{\vec{x}'}\,^2\right)}.

1981: \labeq{loham}

1982: \ee

1983: The Hamiltonian equations allow generic solutions in which 

1984: $\pi_{\theta}(\sigma)$ tends to any 

1985: function of $\sigma$ as $t$ tends to zero. From its

1986: definition, the Hamiltonian density 

1987: ${\cal H}$ then diverges as $t^{-1}$. The equation of motion for $\theta$

1988: is

1989: $\dot{\theta} = \pi_\theta/(t^2 {\cal H})$, implying 

1990: that $\dot{\theta} \rightarrow \pm t^{-1}$ independent

1991: of $\sigma$. This implies a leading term

1992: $\theta \sim \pm {\rm log} t$,

1993: independent of $\sigma$. 

1994: Recalling that ${\cal M}_C$ may be rewritten in 

1995: flat coordinates by setting $T=t \cosh \theta$ and $Y=t \sinh \theta$,

1996: one readily understands this behavior. A geodesic in the

1997: $(T,Y)$ coordinates is just $Y= V T$, with $V$ a constant.

1998: At small $t$ this requires $e^\theta$ or $e^{-\theta}$ to

1999: diverge as $t^{-1}$, which is just the result we found.

2000: 

2001: We conclude that generic solutions to the Hamiltonian

2002: equations possess branch points at $t=0$

2003: meaning that the solutions to the classical

2004: equations are ambiguous as one continues around $t=0$

2005: in the complex $t$-plane. This is a much

2006: worse situation  that encountered for winding

2007: branes in M theory. 

2008: 

2009: The second problem occurs when we quantize and construct

2010: the associated field theory. Then the bad behavior at $t=0$ 

2011: corresponds to a diverging energy density which renders

2012: perturbation theory invalid.

2013: Since the previous problem 

2014: can be seen even in pointlike states, 

2015: let us focus attention

2016: on those. As we discuss in detail in Appendix 4, one needs

2017: to use the metric on the space of coordinates in order to construct the 

2018: quantum Hamiltonian. In this case, the metric on the space of coordinates

2019: is the background metric, (\ref{eq:backg}). The field equation

2020: for point particles is then given from (\ref{eq:orderh}): Fourier

2021: transforming with respect to $\vec{x}$ and $\theta$, it reads

2022: \be

2023: \ddot{\phi} + {1\over t} \dot{\phi} = -\vec{k}\,^2 \phi - {k_\theta^2\over 

2024: t^{2}} \phi,

2025: \labeq{eoff}

2026: \ee

2027: where $k_\theta$ is quantized in the usual way. This is

2028: the equation studied in earlier work\cite{tolley1} on

2029: quantum field theory on ${\cal M}_C\times R^{d-1}$. The generic

2030: solutions of (\ref{eq:eoff}) behave for small $t$ 

2031: as log~$t$ for $k_\theta=0$,

2032: or $t^{ik_\theta}$ for $k_\theta \neq 0$. In both cases, the

2033: kinetic energy density $\dot{\phi}^2$ 

2034: diverges as $t^{-2}$. Similar behavior is found

2035: for linearized vector and tensor fields on  ${\cal M}_C\times R^{d-1}$.

2036: These divergences lead to the breakdown of perturbation theory

2037: in classical perturbative gravity, 

2038: an effect which is plausibly the

2039: root cause of the 

2040: bad behavior of the associated string theory scattering

2041: amplitudes~\cite{seibergetal}. 

2042: As we have stressed, in the sector of M theory considered as

2043: a theory of membranes, describing perturbative gravity,

2044: this effect does not occur. The field

2045: equations are regular in the neighbourhood of $t=0$ and

2046: there is no associated divergence in the energy density.

2047: 

2048: With hindsight, one can now see 

2049: that directly constructing string theory on Lorentzian

2050: orbifolds sheds little

2051: light on the M theory case of interest in 

2052: the ekpyrotic and cyclic models. Whilst the orbifolding

2053: construction provides a global map between incoming

2054: and outgoing free fields, it does not

2055: avoid the blueshifting effect which such fields

2056: generically suffer as they approach $t=0$, which

2057: seems to lead to singular behavior in the interactions

2058: (although Ref. \cite{ccosta} argues that a resummation may 

2059: cure this problem).

2060: 

2061: An alternate approach involving analytic continuation

2062: around $t=0$ has been simultaneously developed, but

2063: so far only implemented successfully in linearized 

2064: cosmological perturbation theory\cite{tolley1,tolleyperts}.

2065: This method may in fact turn out to work even in the M theory

2066: context. The point

2067: is that by circumnavigating

2068: $t=0$ in the complex $t$-plane, maintaining a sufficient

2069: distance from the singularity, one may still retain 

2070: the validity of linear perturbation theory and the

2071: use of the Einstein equations all the way along the

2072: complex time contour. The principles behind this would be

2073: similar

2074: to those familiar in the context of 

2075: WKB matching via analytic continuation.

2076: 

2077: In any case, the main point we wish to make is that now

2078: that we have what seems like a consistent 

2079: microscopic theory for 

2080: perturbative gravity, valid all the

2081: way through $t=0$, we have a reliable foundation

2082: for such investigations.

2083: 

2084: 

2085: \section{Conclusions and Comments}

2086: 

2087: 

2088: We have herein proposed an M theoretic model for  the passage through a 

2089: cosmological singularity in terms of a collision of orbifold planes 

2090: in a compactified Milne  ${\cal M}_C\times R^{9}$ background.  The model

2091: begins with two empty, flat, parallel branes a string length apart approaching one 

2092: another at constant rapidity $\theta_0$.  With this initial condition, we have 

2093: argued that the excitations naturally bifurcate into light winding M2-brane modes,  

2094: and a set of massive modes including the Kaluza-Klein massive states.  

2095: It is plausible that the

2096: massive modes decouple as their mass diverges.

2097: The light modes incorporate 

2098: perturbative gravity and, hence, describe the space-time throughout the 

2099: transition.  Our finding that they are produced with finite density following 

2100: dynamical equations that propagate smoothly through the 

2101: transition supports the 

2102: idea that this M-theory picture is 

2103: well-behaved and predictive.  Our model also 

2104: suggests a string theory explanation 

2105: of what goes wrong with

2106: Einstein gravity near the singularity: Einstein gravity is the leading 

2107: approximation in an expansion in $\alpha'$, but the winding 

2108: mode picture is a perturbative expansion in $1/\alpha'$.  

2109: 

2110:  

2111: Our considerations have been almost entirely classical

2112: or semi-classical, although we believe the

2113: canonical approach we have adopted is a good starting point

2114: for a full quantum theory. 

2115: Much remains to be done to fully

2116: establish the consistency of the picture we are advocating.

2117: In particular, we need to understand the sigma model

2118: in (\ref{eq:actnew}), and make sure that it is 

2119: consistent quantum mechanically in the critical dimension.

2120: Second, we need to

2121: learn how to match the standard $\alpha'$ expansion to the

2122: $1/\alpha'$ expansion which we have argued 

2123: should be smooth around $t=0$. Third, we need to incorporate 

2124: string interactions.   Although the vanishing of

2125: the string theory coupling around $t=0$ suggests that scattering

2126: plays a minor role,

2127: the task of fully constructing string perturbation

2128: theory in this background remains. 

2129: 

2130: Assuming these nontrivial tasks can be completed, can we 

2131: say something about the significance of this example?

2132: The most obvious application is to the cyclic and  ekpyrotic

2133: universe

2134: models which motivated these investigations,

2135: and which produce precisely the initial conditions required.

2136: As has been argued elsewhere~\cite{kosst,review}, the vicinity

2137: of the collision is well-modeled 

2138: by compactified Milne times flat space. 

2139: Within this model, the calculations reported here 

2140: yield estimates of the reheat temperature immediately

2141: after the brane collision i.e. at the beginning 

2142: of the hot big bang. Furthermore, if

2143: our arguments of Section VIII are correct, they 

2144: should in principle provide 

2145: complete matching rules for evolving cosmological 

2146: perturbations

2147: through singularities of the type

2148: occurring in cyclic/ekpyrotic models. As we discussed

2149: briefly in Section X, it is plausible that this

2150: matching rule will recover the results obtained

2151: earlier for long-wavelength modes 

2152: by the analytic continuation method~\cite{tolley1,tolleyperts},

2153: although that remains to be demonstrated in detail.

2154: 

2155: 

2156: Many other questions are raised by our work.

2157: Can we extend the treatment to other time-dependent

2158: singularities?

2159: The background considered here,

2160: ${\cal M}_C\times R^{9}$ is certainly very special

2161: being locally flat. Although the string frame metric

2162: is singular, it is conformally flat. 

2163: One would like to

2164: study more generic string backgrounds corresponding to

2165: black holes, or 

2166: Kasner/mixmaster

2167: spacetimes in general relativity. 

2168: As we have argued, there is no reason to

2169: take the latter solutions seriously within M theory since they

2170: are only solutions of the low energy effective theory,

2171: which fails in the relevant regime. Nevertheless, they

2172: presumably have counterparts in M theory, and it remains a 

2173: challenge to find them. We would like to believe that

2174: by constructing one consistent example, namely M theory on

2175: ${\cal M}_C\times R^{9}$ we would be opening the door

2176: to an attack on the generic case.

2177: 

2178: Such a program is admittedly ambitious.  However, should it 

2179: succeed, we believe it

2180: would (and should) completely change our view of cosmology. 

2181: If the best theories of gravity allow for

2182: a smooth passage through time-dependent 

2183: singularities, this must profoundly 

2184: alter our interpretation of the

2185: big bang, and of the major conceptual

2186: problems of the standard hot big bang cosmology.

2187: 

2188: 

2189: {\bf Acknowledgments}

2190: We would like to thank L. Boyle,

2191: S. Gratton, S. Gubser, G. Horowitz, S. Kachru, I. Klebanov, 

2192: F. Quevedo, A. Tolley and P. Townsend for helpful remarks.

2193: This work was supported in part by PPARC, UK (NT and MP)

2194: and the US Department of Energy grants DE-FG02-91ER40671 (PJS).

2195: PJS is the Keck Distinguished Visiting

2196: Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study with support from

2197: the Wm.~Keck Foundation and the Monell Foundation and

2198: NT is the Darley Professorial Fellow at Cambridge.

2199: 

2200: \bigskip

2201: 

2202: \section*{Appendix 1: Canonical Treatment of $p$-Branes in Curved Space}

2203: 

2204: 

2205: In this Appendix we review the canonical treatment of 

2206: $p$-Brane dynamics in curved space. A similar approach is

2207: taken in the recent work of Capovilla {\it et al.}~\cite{capovilla}.

2208: Earlier treatments include Refs.~\cite{townsend} and \cite{gutowski}.

2209: 

2210: We start from the action in Polyakov form. No square roots appear and the 

2211: ensuing general Hamiltonian involves only polynomial interactions.

2212: The action for a $p$-brane embedded in

2213: a background space-time with coordinates $x^\mu$ and metric

2214: $g_{\mu \nu}$ is:

2215: \be

2216: {\cal S} = -{1\over 2} \mu_p \int d^{p+1} \sigma

2217: \sqrt{-\gamma}\left(\gamma^{\alpha \beta}

2218: \partial_\alpha x^\mu \partial_\beta x^\nu g_{\mu \nu} -(p-1) \right),

2219: \labeq{pacta}

2220: \ee

2221: where $\mu_p$ is a mass per unit $p$-volume. The $p$-brane worldvolume

2222: has coordinates $\sigma^\alpha$, $\alpha=0,1,\dots,p$ in which the

2223: metric is $\gamma_{\alpha \beta}$. 

2224: %The simplest case

2225: %is the action for a massive particle, $p=0$, with

2226: %$e^2\equiv -\gamma_{00}$ and

2227: %\be

2228: %{\cal S} = {1\over 2} m\int d \tau

2229: %\left(e^{-1}

2230: %\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu g_{\mu \nu} -e\right),

2231: %\labeq{part}

2232: %\ee

2233: %Variation with respect to $e$ yields the constraint $e^2= -

2234: %\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu g_{\mu \nu}$.

2235: %The canonical momentum is $p_\mu = m g_{\mu \nu}\dot{x}^\nu e^{-1}$ and

2236: %the constraint implies $g^{\mu \nu} p_\mu p_\nu = -m^2$.

2237: 

2238: 

2239: One way to proceed is to vary (\ref{eq:pacta})

2240: with respect to $\gamma_{\alpha \beta}$, hence, obtaining

2241: the constraint expressing the worldvolume metric 

2242: $\gamma_{\alpha \beta}$ in terms of the 

2243: the induced metric $\partial_\alpha x^\mu \partial_\beta x^\nu g_{\mu \nu}$.

2244: Substituting

2245: back into (\ref{eq:pacta}) one obtains the Nambu action for the

2246: embedding coordinates $x^\mu(\sigma)$ {\it i.e.,}  $-\mu_p$ times the

2247: induced $p$-brane world volume. 

2248: 

2249: One can do better, however, by not eliminating the worldvolume

2250: metric so soon. Instead it is better to retain

2251: the $\gamma_{\alpha \beta}$ as independent variables and

2252: derive the corresponding 

2253: Hamiltonian and constraints corresponding to evolution

2254: in worldvolume time $\tau$. It is convenient to

2255: express $\gamma_{\alpha \beta}$ in the form frequently

2256: used in canonical general

2257: relativity: the worldsheet line element is 

2258: written

2259: \be

2260: \gamma_{\alpha \beta} d \sigma^\alpha d\sigma^\beta =

2261: (-\alpha^2 +\beta_k \beta^k) d\tau^2 + 2 \beta_i d\tau d\sigma^i 

2262: +\overline{\gamma}_{ij} d\sigma^i d \sigma^j,

2263: \labeq{metric}

2264: \ee

2265: where 

2266: $\sigma^i$,  $i=1,\dots, p$ are the spatial worldvolume coordinates,

2267: $\beta^k$ is the shift vector and

2268: $\alpha$ is the lapse function. The good property of this

2269: representation is that the metric

2270: determinant simplifies: $\gamma=-\alpha^2 \overline{\gamma}$. 

2271: 

2272: In the following discussion we shall for the most part assume $p>1$ and

2273: then comment on the amendments needed for $p=0,1$.

2274: Using (\ref{eq:metric}) the action (\ref{eq:pacta}) becomes

2275: \be

2276: {\cal S} = -{1\over 2} \mu_p \int d\tau d^{p} \sigma \alpha 

2277: \overline{\gamma}^{1\over 2}

2278:  \left[ - {1\over \alpha^{2}} \dot{x}^\mu  \dot{x}^\nu g_{\mu \nu}

2279: + 2 {\beta^i \over \alpha^2} \dot{x}^\mu x^\nu_{,i} g_{\mu \nu}

2280: + (\overline{\gamma}^{ij}-{\beta^i \beta^j \over \alpha^2} )

2281: {x}^\mu_{,i} x^\nu_{,j} g_{\mu \nu} -(p-1)\right].

2282: \labeq{actnew}

2283: \ee

2284: The canonical momenta conjugate to $x^\mu$ are found to be

2285: \be

2286: \pi_\mu = \mu_p {\overline{\gamma}^{1\over 2} \over \alpha} 

2287: (\dot{x}^\nu - \beta^i x^\nu_{,i}) g_{\mu \nu}.

2288: \labeq{momeq}

2289: \ee

2290: No time derivatives of $\alpha$, $\beta^i$ and

2291: $\overline{\gamma}^{ij}$ appear in the Lagrangian, hence, the

2292: corresponding conjugate momenta vanish. In Dirac's language~\cite{dirac},

2293: these are the primary constraints. 

2294: \be

2295: \pi_\alpha\approx 0, \qquad \pi_i\approx 0, \qquad\pi_{ij} \approx 0.

2296: \labeq{firstc}

2297: \ee

2298: Since Poisson brackets between momenta vanish, these constraints 

2299: are first class.

2300: The total Hamiltonian $H$ then consists of the 

2301: usual expression $H\equiv \int d^p \sigma \,[ \pi_A \dot{x}^A -L]$,

2302: \be

2303: H=\int d^p \sigma  \left[{\alpha \over 2 \mu_p \overline{\gamma}^{1\over 2}}

2304: \pi_\mu  \pi_\nu g^{\mu \nu} + \beta^i x^\mu_{,i} \pi_\mu +

2305: {\mu_p \alpha  \overline{\gamma}^{1\over 2} \over 2} 

2306: \left(\overline{\gamma}^{ij}{x}^\mu_{,i} x^\nu_{,j} g_{\mu \nu} -(p-1)\right)

2307: \right],

2308: \labeq{hama}

2309: \ee

2310: plus an arbitrary linear combination of the primary first class

2311: constraints (\ref{eq:firstc}). 

2312: 

2313: Additional secondary constraints are obtained from the Hamiltonian

2314: equations for $\dot{\pi}_\alpha$, $\dot{\pi}_i$ and $\dot{\pi}_{ij}$.

2315: Insisting these 

2316: vanish as they must for consistency 

2317: with (\ref{eq:firstc}), one finds

2318: \ba

2319: C&\equiv& \pi_\mu  \pi_\nu g^{\mu \nu}

2320:  +\mu_p^2 

2321: \overline{\gamma}

2322: \left(\overline{\gamma}^{ij}{x}^\mu_{,i} x^\nu_{,j} g_{\mu \nu} 

2323: -(p-1)\right)\approx 0,\cr

2324: C_i&\equiv&x^\mu_{,i} \pi_\mu\approx 0,\cr

2325: C_{ij}&\equiv& \gamma_{ij}-{x}^\mu_{,i} x^\nu_{,j} g_{\mu \nu} \approx 0.

2326: \labeq{secondc}

2327: \ea

2328: Following Dirac's procedure, we can now try to eliminate

2329: variables using second class constraints (constraints

2330: whose Poisson brackets with the other constraints

2331: does not vanish). In particular, it

2332: makes sense to eliminate $\gamma_{ij}$

2333: since the corresponding momenta $\pi_{ij}$ vanish weakly.

2334: It is easy to see that $C_{ij}$ are

2335: second class since their Poisson brackets with $\pi_{ij}$ 

2336: are nonzero.

2337: Hence, we eliminate

2338: $\gamma_{ij}$ using the $C_{ij}$ constraint, obtaining

2339: \be

2340: C\equiv \pi_\mu  \pi_\nu g^{\mu \nu}

2341:  +\mu_p^2 {\rm Det}( {x}^\mu_{,i} x^\nu_{,j} g_{\mu \nu})

2342: \approx 0, \qquad 

2343: C_i\equiv x^\mu_{,i} \pi_\mu\approx 0,

2344: \labeq{secondcc}

2345: \ee

2346: as our new constraints, on the remaining variables

2347: $x^\mu$ and $\pi_\mu$. The matrix 

2348: ${x}^\mu_{,i} x^\nu_{,j} g_{\mu \nu}$ is the

2349: induced spatial metric on the brane. When written this way, the

2350: $C$ and $C_i$ constraints

2351: have zero Poisson brackets with the remaining 

2352: primary constraints $\pi_\alpha$ and $\pi_i$.

2353: A lengthy but straightforward calculation establishes

2354: that all Poisson brackets between 

2355: $C$ and $C_i$ are weakly vanishing 

2356: (see Appendix 2) and, hence, that  we have a 

2357: complete set of 

2358: first class constraints consisting of $\pi_\alpha$,

2359: $\pi_i$, $C_i$ and $C$.

2360: 

2361: The canonical Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:hama}) is now seen to be 

2362: a linear combination of $C$ and $C_i$, with coefficients

2363: depending on $\alpha$ and $\beta^i$ respectively. 

2364: The general Hamiltonian consists of a sum of this

2365: term plus an 

2366: arbitrary linear combination of the first class

2367: constraints, 

2368: $\int d \sigma (v_\alpha \pi_\alpha 

2369: +v^i \pi_i)$ where $v_\alpha$ and $v_i$ are arbitrary

2370: functions of the worldvolume coordinates. 

2371: From Hamilton's

2372: equations, one infers that $\dot{\alpha}=v_\alpha$,

2373: and $\dot{\beta}^i=v^i$. Therefore, 

2374: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are

2375: completely arbitrary functions of time. As Dirac

2376: emphasizes, one can then forget about $\alpha$,

2377: $\pi_\alpha$, $\beta^i$ and $\pi_i$ and just write the

2378: total Hamiltonian for the surviving coordinates as $x^\mu$ and 

2379: $\pi_\mu$ as

2380: \be

2381: H=\int d^p\sigma \left({A\over 2}\left(\pi_\mu  \pi_\nu g^{\mu \nu}

2382:  +\mu_p^2 

2383: {\rm Det}({x}^\mu_{,i} x^\nu_{,j} g_{\mu \nu})\right)+ A^i x^\mu_{,i} \pi_\mu 

2384: \right),

2385: \labeq{totalh}

2386: \ee

2387: i.e. a linear combination of the constraints (\ref{eq:secondcc})

2388: with arbitrary coefficients $A$ and $A^i$.

2389: Different choices of $A$ and  $A^i$ then correspond to different 

2390: choices of worldvolume coordinates.

2391: 

2392: We count the surviving physical

2393: degrees of

2394: freedom as follows. We start

2395: with the $2(d+1)$ coordinates $x^\mu$ and

2396: momenta $\pi^\mu$, each functions

2397: of the $p+1$ worldvolume coordinates. Then we impose

2398: the $p+1$ constraints

2399: $C=C_i=0$. Finally, in order to specify time evolution 

2400: we must pick $p+1$ 

2401: arbitrary functions 

2402: $A$ and $A_i$.

2403: The remaining physical degrees of

2404: freedom are $2(d+1)-2(p+1)=2(d-p)$ in number, 

2405: the right number of transverse 

2406: coordinates and momenta for the $p$-brane.

2407: 

2408: We have tacitly assumed $p>1$ in the above analysis. The following

2409: minor amendments are needed for $p=0$ and $1$. For $p=0$,

2410: the worldvolume metric involves $\alpha$ only and one can 

2411: ignore anything with an $i$ index except the determinant,

2412: which is replaced by unity. In particular there

2413: is no integration over $\sigma$ in the Hamiltonian, and

2414: the canonical momentum density $\pi_\mu$ is replaced by the

2415: momentum $p_\mu$.

2416: The only constraint is 

2417: \be

2418: C\equiv  p_\mu  p_\nu g^{\mu \nu}+\mu_0^2\approx 0, 

2419: \labeq{parti}

2420: \ee

2421: which is just the usual mass shell condition. The general

2422: Hamiltonian consists of an arbitrary function of $\tau$ times

2423: $C$.

2424: 

2425: For $p=1$ the action (\ref{eq:pacta}) is invariant under conformal

2426: transformations of the worldvolume metric, and hence

2427: only two independent

2428: combinations of the three

2429: worldvolume metric variables appear in the decomposition

2430: (\ref{eq:metric}). The corresponding 

2431: two momenta vanish and these are the primary constraints.

2432: Through Hamilton's equations one

2433: finds the 

2434: following secondary constraints: 

2435: \ba

2436: C&\equiv&\pi_\mu  \pi_\nu g^{\mu \nu} +\mu_1^2 {{x}^\mu}' {x^\nu}' g_{\mu 

2437: \nu}\approx 0,\cr

2438: C_1&\equiv&\pi_\mu {{x}^\mu}' \approx 0,

2439: \labeq{strincon}

2440: \ea

2441: where primes denote derivatives with respect to $\sigma^1\equiv \sigma$.

2442: The general Hamiltonian again

2443: takes the form (\ref{eq:totalh}), with $p=1$.

2444: 

2445: 

2446: \section*{Appendix 2: Poisson bracket algebra of the constraints}

2447: 

2448: In the canonical theory \cite{dirac}, one considers arbitrary 

2449: functions of the canonical

2450: variables, and of the time $\tau$.

2451: In our case, the canonical variables are fields

2452: $x^\mu(\sigma)$ and $\pi_\mu(\sigma)$

2453: depending upon $\sigma$, which is regarded

2454: as a continuous index labeling an infinite number

2455: of canonical variables. In particular, the constraints

2456: in (\ref{eq:secondcc}) are infinite in number. In 

2457: this Appendix we shall show that the Poisson bracket

2458: algebra of the constraints closes, and, hence, that, in

2459: Dirac's terminology, they are first class.

2460: 

2461: The Poisson bracket between any two quantities $M$ and $N$,

2462: which may be arbitrary functions of 

2463: the canonical variables (local or nonlocal in $\sigma$) 

2464: and of the time $\tau$, is

2465: given by

2466: \be

2467: \left\{M,N\right\}\equiv \int d^p\sigma \left(

2468: {\partial M \over \partial x^\mu(\sigma)}

2469: {\partial N\over \partial \pi_\mu(\sigma)}

2470: -{\partial N\over \partial x^\mu(\sigma)}

2471: {\partial M \over \partial \pi_\mu(\sigma)}\right),

2472: \labeq{pb}

2473: \ee

2474: where $\left(\partial x^\mu(\sigma') / \partial x^\nu(\sigma)\right)

2475: = \left(\partial \pi_\nu (\sigma') / \partial \pi_\mu (\sigma)\right)

2476: = \delta^\mu_\nu \delta^p(\sigma-\sigma')$, with other partial

2477: derivatives being zero.

2478: 

2479: One way to calculate the  Poisson brackets between 

2480: a set of constraints $C$ and $C_i$, 

2481: is to start from a putative Hamiltonian

2482: \be

2483: H=\int d^p \sigma ({A\over 2} C+ A^iC_i),

2484: \labeq{hame}

2485: \ee

2486: where $A$ and $A^i$ are arbitrary functions of $\sigma$, and 

2487: then compute 

2488: Hamilton's equations for the $\tau$ derivatives of

2489: $x^\mu$ and $\pi_\mu$. We then

2490: use these to 

2491: determine the corresponding $\tau$ derivatives of

2492: $C$ and $C_i$. Setting these equal to 

2493: $\{C,H\}$ and 

2494: $\{C_i,H\}$ with $H$ given by (\ref{eq:hame}),

2495: we are able to infer the Poisson brackets between the constraints.

2496: For the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:hame}) with $C$ and 

2497: $C_i$ given in (\ref{eq:secondcc}), Hamilton's equations read

2498: \ba

2499: \dot{x}^\mu &=& A g^{\mu \nu} \pi_\nu + A^i x^\mu_{\,,i}\cr

2500: \dot{\pi}_\mu &=& (A^i \pi_\mu )_{,i} - {1\over 2} A g^{\lambda \nu}_{\quad,\mu} 

2501: \pi_\lambda

2502: \pi_\nu + \mu_p^2 (A \overline{\gamma}\, \overline{\gamma}

2503: ^{ij} x^\nu_{,j})_{,i} g_{\mu \nu}

2504: + \mu_p^2 A g_{\mu \nu} \Gamma^{\nu}_{\lambda \epsilon} 

2505:  \overline{\gamma}\, \overline{\gamma}^{ij} x^\lambda_{,i}x^\epsilon_{,j},

2506: \labeq{hameqsa}

2507: \ea

2508: where dots denote $\tau$ derivatives and 

2509: $\overline{\gamma}_{ij} ={x}^\mu_{,i} x^\nu_{,j} g_{\mu \nu}$ is the

2510: induced spatial metric on the brane and $ \overline{\gamma}$ its 

2511: determinant. We have made use of the formula

2512: $d  \overline{\gamma}=  \overline{\gamma} \,\overline{\gamma}^{ij} 

2513: d\overline{\gamma}_{ij}$.

2514: 

2515: Using (\ref{eq:hameqsa}), it is a matter of

2516: straightforward algebra to compute $\dot{C}$ and

2517: $\dot{C_i}$ and hence infer all of 

2518: the Poisson brackets. We find

2519: \ba

2520: \{C(\sigma),C(\sigma')\}&=& 

2521: \left[ (8 \mu_p^2  \overline{\gamma}\, \overline{\gamma}^{ij} 

2522: C_j)(\sigma){\partial

2523: \over \partial \sigma^i} + 4 \mu_p^2 (

2524:  \overline{\gamma}\, \overline{\gamma}^{ij} C_j)_{,i}(\sigma) \right]\delta^p 

2525: (\sigma-\sigma') \cr

2526: \{C(\sigma),C_i(\sigma')\}&=& 

2527: \left[ 2 C(\sigma) {\partial

2528: \over \partial \sigma^i} +C_{,i}(\sigma)\right]

2529:  \delta^p (\sigma-\sigma') \cr

2530: \{C_i(\sigma),C_j(\sigma')\}&=&  

2531: \left[  

2532: C_i(\sigma) {\partial

2533: \over \partial \sigma^j} 

2534: +C_j(\sigma) {\partial

2535: \over \partial \sigma^i} 

2536: +{\partial C_{i}

2537: \over \partial \sigma^j}(\sigma)\right]

2538: \delta^p (\sigma-\sigma'). 

2539: \labeq{results}

2540: \ea

2541: The right hand side consists of linear combinations

2542: of the constraints and, hence, it vanishes weakly.

2543: We conclude that the constraint algebra closes and,

2544: hence that the constraints are first class. Notice that

2545: the case of strings, $p=1$, is specially simple since 

2546: $\overline{\gamma}\, \overline{\gamma}^{11}= 1$ and the

2547: Poisson bracket algebra is linear, with field-independent

2548: structure constants. 

2549: 

2550: The calculation also provides

2551: a consistency check on our Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:totalh1}),

2552: which is precisely of the form (\ref{eq:hame}), since it implies 

2553: the constraints are preserved under 

2554: time evolution in $\tau$.

2555: 

2556: \section*{Appendix 3: Equivalence of gauge-fixed Hamiltonian and Lagrangian

2557: equations}

2558: 

2559: In this Appendix we establish that 

2560: the Lagrangian

2561: equations following from the gauge-fixed action (\ref{eq:newact}) 

2562: for winding $M2$-branes 

2563: are equivalent to the Lagrangian equations for 

2564: a string in the time-dependent background 

2565: $g_{\mu \nu} = |t| \eta_{\mu \nu}$, in a certain string

2566: worldsheet coordinate system.  This is in accord

2567: with our general arguments.

2568: 

2569: The equations of motion 

2570: following from the gauge-fixed action (\ref{eq:newact})

2571: are:

2572: \ba

2573: \ddot{\vec{x}} &=& t^2 \vec{x}\,''+ 2 t t' \vec{x}\,'\cr

2574: \ddot{t} &=& t \vec{x}\,'\,^2+  t {t'}^2 + t''t^2.

2575: \labeq{new}

2576: \ea

2577: and the constraints take the form

2578: \be

2579: \dot{t} t'=\dot{\vec{x}}\cdot\vec{x}\,'; \qquad \dot{t}^2= \dot{\vec{x}}\,^2 

2580: + t^2 (\vec{x}'\,^2 -{t'}^2).

2581: \labeq{constrs}

2582: \ee

2583: 

2584: 

2585: We want to compare these equations with the Lagrangian

2586: equations of motion  following

2587: from the Polyakov action (\ref{eq:pact}), with $p=1$. These are

2588: \ba

2589: &&\partial_\tau((-\gamma)^{1\over 2}\gamma^{\tau \tau} \partial_\tau x^\mu)

2590: +\partial_\sigma((-\gamma)^{1\over 2} \gamma^{\sigma \sigma} 

2591: \partial_\sigma x^\mu)\cr

2592: &&+(-\gamma)^{1\over 2}

2593: \Gamma_{\nu \lambda}^\mu (\gamma^{\tau \tau}\partial_\tau x^\nu\partial_\tau 

2594: x^\lambda+\gamma^{\sigma \sigma} 

2595: \partial_\sigma x^\nu

2596: \partial_\sigma x^\lambda)=0,

2597: \labeq{strbg}

2598: \ea

2599: where $\Gamma_{\nu \lambda}^\mu$ is the Christoffel symbol for

2600: the background metric. 

2601: 

2602: We also have the

2603: constraints that the worldsheet metric $\gamma_{\alpha \beta}$

2604: is conformal to the induced metric on the string.

2605: We have the freedom to choose worldsheet coordinates

2606: on the string, but since the equations are conformally

2607: invariant, only the conformal class matters.

2608: The choice $\gamma_{\alpha \beta}

2609: = \Omega^2 {\rm diag}(-t^2, 1)$ is found 

2610: to yield the two constraints (\ref{eq:constrs}).

2611: 

2612: For our background, $g_{\mu \nu} = |t| \eta_{\mu \nu}$,

2613: we have nonzero Christoffel symbols 

2614: $\Gamma^{0}_{00} = 1/(2t)$, $\Gamma^{i}_{j0} =

2615: \Gamma^{i}_{0j}= \delta_{ij} /(2t)$,

2616: $\Gamma^{0}_{ij} = \delta_{ij}/(2t)$, where $i$ runs over

2617: the background spatial indices $1$ to $d-1$.

2618: The string

2619: equations of motion (\ref{eq:strbg}) are then found

2620: to be equivalent to (\ref{eq:new}), for

2621: all nonzero $t$.

2622: 

2623: From the string point of view, this choice of gauge 

2624: would seem arbitrary, and indeed it would appear 

2625: to be degenerate at $t=0$. Yet, as we have seen, 

2626: this gauge choice is just $A=1$ and $A^i=0$, which is 

2627: entirely natural from the canonical point of view.

2628: It has the desirable property that

2629: the equations of motion and the constraints are

2630: regular at $t=0$, and from the general properties of

2631: the canonical formalism we are guaranteed the

2632: existence of an infinite class of coordinate

2633: systems, related by nonsingular 

2634: coordinate transformations, 

2635: in which the equations of motion will remain  regular.

2636: 

2637: 

2638: \section*{Appendix 4: Ordering ambiguities and their resolution

2639: for relativistic

2640: particles}

2641: 

2642: In the main text we have discussed the canonical Hamiltonian

2643: treatment of relativistic particles and $p$-branes. When 

2644: one comes to quantize these theories in a general

2645: background, certain ordering ambiguities appear

2646: which must be resolved. Here we provide a brief overview,

2647: following the 

2648: more comprehensive discussion in Ref. \cite{dewitt}.

2649: 

2650: The field equation for a relativistic particle is simply the

2651: expression of the quantum Hamiltonian constraint $H= 0$, in

2652: a coordinate space representation. The first

2653: task is to determine the representation of the momentum operator

2654: $p_\mu$ in this representation, and then that of the Hamiltonian

2655: operator $H$. As we shall now discuss, this  requires 

2656: knowledge of 

2657: the metric on the space of coordinates. We shall only 

2658: deal with the point particle case. 

2659: 

2660: The classical Hamiltonian constraint 

2661: for a massive particle

2662: in a background metric $g_{\mu \nu}$ reads

2663: \be

2664: g^{\mu \nu} p_\mu p_\nu + m^2 \approx 0.

2665: \labeq{classpart}

2666: \ee

2667: First we attempt to determine the coordinate space 

2668: representation of  $p_\mu$, consistent

2669: with the quantum bracket:

2670: \be

2671: \left[ x^\mu, p_\nu\right]  =i \hbar \delta_\nu^\mu.

2672: \labeq{braq}

2673: \ee

2674: One choice is $p_\mu = -i\hbar \partial_\mu$

2675: but this is not unique: 

2676: the representation $p_\mu = -i\hbar(\partial_\mu +f_\mu)$,

2677: with $f_\mu$ any function of the coordinates $x^\mu$ and $\tau$,

2678: is equally good as far as (\ref{eq:braq}) is concerned.

2679: 

2680: We now show how $f_\mu$ may be determined from

2681: the additional requirement that $p_\mu$ be hermitian {\it i.e.,} 

2682: that the momentum be real.

2683: In the coordinate space representation, this requirement reads

2684: \be

2685: \langle \chi| p_\mu |\phi\rangle 

2686: \equiv  \int d^d x (-g(x))^{1\over 2} \left( \chi^* p_\mu \phi\right) 

2687: = \langle \phi| p_\mu |\chi \rangle^* \

2688: \equiv  \int d^d x (-g(x))^{1\over 2} \left( \phi^* p_\mu \chi\right)^*

2689: \labeq{ip}

2690: \ee

2691: where the integration runs over the space of coordinates

2692: and $g_{\mu \nu}$ is the metric on that space.

2693: It is straightforward to check that 

2694: the naive operator  $-i\hbar \partial_\mu$ is in fact {\it not}

2695: hermitian for general $g_{\mu \nu}$, but that 

2696: \be 

2697: p_\mu = -i\hbar \left (\partial_\mu + {1\over 4} \left(\partial_\mu \ln (-

2698: g)\right)\right) = 

2699: -i\hbar (-g)^{-{1\over 4}} \partial_\mu (-g)^{1\over 4}

2700: \labeq{moment}

2701: \ee

2702: is. This discussion uniquely determines the real part of $f_\mu$:

2703: an imaginary part may be absorbed in

2704: an unobservable phase of the wavefunction\cite{dewitt}.

2705: 

2706: Similarly, when we consider the Hamiltonian constraint (\ref{eq:classpart}),

2707: the questions arise of where to place the $g^{\mu \nu}$ relative

2708: to the $p_\mu$'s, and whether to include

2709: any factors of the metric determinant $g$. The resolution

2710: is familiar: if we write the Hamiltonian in covariant

2711: derivatives on the space of coordinates, it will be hermitian

2712: since we can integrate by parts ignoring the $\sqrt{-g}$ 

2713: factor in the measure. This suggests setting the first term in

2714: (\ref{eq:classpart}) equal to the scalar Laplacian:

2715: \be

2716: g^{\mu \nu} p_\mu p_\nu \rightarrow -\hbar^2 (-g)^{-{1\over 2}}\partial_\mu (-

2717: g)^{1\over 2} g^{\mu \nu} 

2718: \partial_\mu = (-g)^{-{1\over 4}} p_\mu 

2719: (-g)^{1\over 2} g^{\mu \nu} p_\nu  (-g)^{-{1\over 4}}.

2720: \labeq{orderh}

2721: \ee

2722: It is straightforward to check that this is the only

2723: choice of ordering and powers of $(-g)$ which is hermitian and

2724: has the correct classical limit. 

2725: Nevertheless, this 

2726: ordering is not immediately apparent!

2727: More generally, 

2728: one can also include

2729: terms involving commutators of $p_\mu$ which

2730: are zero in the classical limit, but which 

2731: produce the Ricci scalar $R$ in the quantum

2732: Hamiltonian\cite{dewitt}. In the space-time we consider

2733: $R$ is zero. Hence, such

2734: terms do not arise. 

2735: 

2736: 

2737: 

2738: \begin{thebibliography}{9999}

2739: \bibitem{kosst}

2740: J.~Khoury, B.A.~Ovrut, N.~Seiberg, P.J.~Steinhardt

2741: and N.~Turok, Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 086007 (2002).

2742: \bibitem{steif}

2743: G.T.~Horowitz and A.R.~Steif, Phys. Rev. {\bf D42} (1990) 1950; Phys. Lett. {\bf 

2744: B258} (1991) 91.

2745: \bibitem{tolley1} A.J.~Tolley and N.~Turok, Phys. Rev. {\bf D66} (2002) 106005.

2746: 

2747: \bibitem{ekperts}

2748: J.~Khoury, B.~A. Ovrut, P.~J. Steinhardt, and N.~Turok,

2749: Phys. Rev. {\bf D66}, 046005 (2002).

2750: \bibitem{greene}

2751: P.~S.~Aspinwall, B.~R.~Greene and D.~R.~Morrison,

2752: hep-th/9309097,

2753: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 416}, 414 (1994); E.~Witten, hep-th/9301042,

2754: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 403}, 159 (1993).

2755: \bibitem{kost}

2756: J.~Khoury, B.A.~Ovrut, P.J.~Steinhardt, and N.~Turok,

2757: Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, 123522 (2001).

2758: \bibitem{STu}

2759:  P.J.~Steinhardt and N.~Turok, Science {\bf 296}, 1436 (2002); Phys. 

2760: Rev. {\bf D65}, 126003 (2002).

2761: \bibitem{review}

2762: P.J.~Steinhardt and N.~Turok, astro-ph/0404480.

2763: \bibitem{chaos}

2764: J.K.~Erickson, D.H.~Wesley, P.J.~Steinhardt, and N.~Turok,

2765: Phys. Rev. {\bf D69}, 063514 (2004).

2766: \bibitem{hw}

2767: P.~Ho\v rava and E.~Witten,

2768: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B460} (1996) 506; {\bf B475} (1996) 94.

2769: \bibitem{ovrut} A.~Lukas, B.A.~Ovrut and D.~Waldram,

2770: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B495} (1997) 365.

2771: \bibitem{tolleyperts}

2772: A.J. Tolley, N. Turok and P.~J. Steinhardt, 

2773: Phys. Rev. {\bf D69}, 106005 (2004).

2774: \bibitem{seibergetal} H.~Liu, G.~Moore and N.~Seiberg, JHEP {\bf 0206} (2002) 045;

2775: JHEP {\bf 0210} (2002) 031; O.~Aharony, M.~Fabinger, G.~Horowitz and E.~ 

2776: Silverstein,

2777: hep-th/0204158; M.~Fabinger and J.~McGreevy, hep-th/0206196;

2778: M.~Fabinger and S.~Hellerman, hep-th/0212223; G.T.~Horowitz and J.~Polchinski, 

2779: Phys. Rev. {\bf D66} (2002) 103512; L.~Cornalba and M.S.~Costa, Phys. Rev. {\bf 

2780: D66} (2002) 066001;

2781: L.~Cornalba, M.S.~Costa and C.~Kounnas, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B637} (2002) 378;

2782: L.~Cornalba and M.S.~Costa, hep-th/0302137.

2783: \bibitem{ccosta} 

2784: L.~Cornalba and M.S.~Costa, hep-th/0310099.

2785: \bibitem{dewitt} B.~S. DeWitt, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 29}, 377 (1957);

2786: in {\it Relativity, Groups and Topology},

2787: Les Houches lectures (1963), Gordon and Breach, New York, 1964.

2788: \bibitem{bachas} C.~Bachas, Phys. Lett. {\bf B374} 37 (1996), hep-th/9511043.

2789: \bibitem{pioline}

2790: M.~Berkooz and B.~Pioline, JCAP 0311 (2003) 007, hep-th/0307280; M.~Berkooz,

2791: B.~Pioline and M.~Rozali,

2792: hep-th/0405126.

2793: \bibitem{misgive} N.~Turok, in 

2794: {\it The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology : Celebrating Stephen 

2795: Hawking's 60th Birthday}, eds. G.W.~Gibbons, E.P.S.~Shellard and S.J.~Rankin,

2796: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

2797: \bibitem{dirac} P.A.M. Dirac, {\it Lectures on Quantum Mechanics}, Belfer

2798: Graduate School of Science Monographs Series, New York, 1964.

2799: \bibitem{AS}

2800: M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun, {\it Handbook of Mathematical

2801: Functions}, Dover, New York, 1970, page 686.

2802: \bibitem{birrell} See e.g. N.~D. Birrell and P.~C.~W. Davies, {Quantum Fields

2803: in Curved Space-time}, CUP, 1982.

2804: \bibitem{witten} E.~Witten, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B471} (1996) 135;

2805: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B443} (1995) 85.

2806: \bibitem{devega} H.J. de Vega,

2807: I. Giannakis, A.

2808: Nicolaidis, Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf A10} 2479 (1995); I. Antoniadis and

2809: G. Savvidy, hep-th/0402077 and references therein.

2810: \bibitem{nicolaidis} A. Nicolaidis, J.E. Paschalis, 

2811: P.I. Porfyriadis, 

2812: Phys. Rev. {\bf D58} 047901 (1998);

2813: hep-th/9702185

2814: \bibitem{maeda}

2815: G.W. Gibbons and K. Maeda, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B298} 741 (1988).

2816: \bibitem{duff}

2817: M.J. Duff, TASI Lectures, hep-th/9912164.

2818: \bibitem{heading}

2819: J. Heading, {\it Phase Integral Methods}, Methuen Physical Monographs,

2820: London, 1962, page 85.

2821: \bibitem{martinec}

2822: A.~E. Lawrence and E. Martinec, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 13} (1996)

2823: 63; hep-th/9509149.

2824: \bibitem{gubser} S.~S. Gubser, hep-th/0305099.

2825: \bibitem{coleman}

2826: K. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 61} (1988) 263; S. Coleman and

2827: K. Lee, Nuc. Phys. {\bf B329} (1990) 387.

2828: \bibitem{bubbles}

2829: S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. {\bf D15}, 2929 (1977); C. G. Callan Jr.

2830: and S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. {\bf D16}, 1762 (1977).

2831: \bibitem{capovilla} R. Capovilla, J. Guven and E. Rojas, hep-th/0404178;

2832: Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 88} 337 (2000).

2833: \bibitem{townsend} J.A.~Azcarraga, J.M.~Izquierdo and P.K.~Townsend,

2834: Phys. Lett. {\bf B267} 366 (1991); Phys. Rev. {\bf D45} 3321 (1992).

2835: \bibitem{gutowski} J.~Gutowski, G.~Papadopoulos and P.K.~Townsend,

2836: Phys.Rev. {\bf D60}  106006 (1999), hep-th/9905156.

2837: \end{thebibliography}

2838: \end{document}

2839: 

2840: 

2841: 

2842: 

2843: 

2844: 

2845: