1: %\documentclass[aps,amsmath,amssymb,superscriptaddress,letterpaper,preprint]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[aps,amsmath,amssymb,superscriptaddress,letterpaper]{revtex4}

3: \documentclass[prd,amsmath,amssymb,groupedaddress,letterpaper,twocolumn]{revtex4}

4: %\documentclass[10pt,letter]{article}

5: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,graphicx,bm} 

6: %\usepackage{pxfonts}

7: %\usepackage{times}

8: %\usepackage[active]{srcltx}

9:  

10:  

11: 

12: %\setlength{\voffset}{0.25in}

13:  

14:  

15: \renewcommand{\a}{\alpha}

16: \renewcommand{\b}{\beta}

17: \newcommand{\cA}{{\cal A}}

18: \newcommand{\cB}{{\cal B}}

19: \newcommand{\cC}{{\cal C}}

20: \newcommand{\cH}{{\cal H}}

21: 

22: \newcommand{\cK}{{\cal K}}

23: \newcommand{\cL}{{\cal L}}

24: \newcommand{\cM}{{\cal M}}

25: \newcommand{\cN}{{\cal N}}

26: \newcommand{\cV}{{\cal V}}

27: \renewcommand{\d}{\delta}

28: \newcommand{\f}{\phi}

29: \newcommand{\fr}{\tfrac}

30: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

31: \newcommand{\p}{\partial}

32: 

33: \newcommand{\sign}{{\textrm{sign}}}

34: \newcommand{\T}{{\textsf{T}}}

35:  

36: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

37:  

38:  

39:  

40: \begin{document}

41:  

42:  

43: \title{Instabilities and the null energy condition}

44:  

45: \author{Roman~V.~Buniy}

46: \email{roman@uoregon.edu}

47: \author{Stephen~D.H.~Hsu}

48: \email{hsu@duende.uoregon.edu}

49: 

50: 

51: \affiliation{Institute of Theoretical Science, University of Oregon,

52:   Eugene OR 94703-5203}

53: 

54: 

55: 

56: 

57: 

58: 

59: 

60: 

61:  

62: \begin{abstract}

63: We show that violation of the null energy condition implies

64: instability in a broad class of models, including classical gauge

65: theories with scalar and fermionic matter as well as any perfect

66: fluid. When applied to the dark energy, our results imply that $w = p

67: / \rho$ is unlikely to be less than $-1$.

68: \end{abstract}

69: %\pacs{}

70:  

71: \maketitle

72:   

73: 

74: 

75: \section{Introduction}\label{I}

76: 

77: 

78: Energy conditions, or restrictions on the matter energy-momentum

79: tensor $T_{\mu \nu}$, play an important role in general relativity. No

80: classification of the solutions to Einstein's equation is possible

81: without restrictions on $T_{\mu \nu}$, since every spacetime is a

82: solution for some particular choice of energy-momentum tensor.  In

83: this letter we demonstrate a direct connection between stability and

84: the null energy condition (NEC) \cite{null}, $T_{\mu \nu} n^\mu n^\nu

85: \ge 0$ for any null vector $n$ (satisfying $g_{\mu\nu}n^\mu n^\nu =

86: 0$). Our main results are: (1) classical solutions of scalar-gauge

87: models which violate the NEC are unstable, (2) a quantum state

88: (including fermions) in which the expectation of the energy-momentum

89: tensor violates the NEC cannot be the ground state, (3) perfect fluids

90: which violate the NEC are unstable. These results suggest that violations of

91: the NEC in physically interesting cases are likely to be only ephemeral.

92: 

93: Our results have immediate applications to the dark energy equation of

94: state, often given in terms of $w=p/\rho$. Dark energy has positive

95: energy density $\rho$ and energy-momentum tensor $T_{\mu \nu} = \text

96: {diag\,}(\rho, p, p, p)$ in the comoving cosmological

97: frame. Therefore, $w < -1$ implies violation of the NEC. Instability

98: as a consequence of $w < -1$ was studied previously in scalar

99: models~\cite{instability}.

100: 

101: Some results in relativity in which the NEC plays an important role

102: include the classical singularity theorems \cite{Hawking-Ellis},

103: proposed covariant entropy bounds \cite{bousso} and non-existence of

104: Lorentzian wormholes~\cite{wormholes}.

105:  

106:  

107:  

108:  

109:  

110: \section{Field theories}\label{FT}

111:  

112: 

113: Consider a theory of scalar, $\phi_a$, and gauge, $A_{a\alpha}$,

114: fields in a fixed $d$-dimensional space-time with the metric

115: $g_{\mu\nu}$. We limit ourselves to theories whose equations of motion

116: are second order differential equations, so the Lagrangian for the

117: system is assumed to depend only on the fields and their first

118: derivatives. We take the Lagrangian density $\cL$ to depend only on

119: the covariant derivative of the field $D_\mu\phi_a$ and the gauge

120: field strength $F_{a\mu\nu}$. The scalars may transform in any

121: representation of the gauge group. We impose Lorentz invariance on

122: $\cL$, but do not require overall gauge invariance. That is, we allow

123: for fixed tensors with gauge indices (but no Lorentz indices) which

124: can be contracted with the fields. For the corresponding action

125: \begin{eqnarray}

126:   S=\int

127:   d^dx\,|g|^\frac{1}{2}\cL(\phi_a,D_\mu\phi_a,F_{a\mu\nu})\label{FT:S}

128: \end{eqnarray}

129: to be stationary, its first variation has to vanish, $\delta

130: S=0$. This leads to the equations of motion for the fields $\phi_a$ and

131: $A_{a\alpha}$; in the classical analysis we assume that we have found

132: solutions to these equations, about which we expand.

133: 

134: 

135: 

136: \subsection{Null energy condition}\label{S:NEC}

137: 

138: 

139: The quantities $D_\mu\phi_a$ and $g^{\mu\nu}$ are independent

140: variables. Nevertheless we now prove that there is a relation between the

141: derivatives of $\cL$ with respect to them:

142: %\begin{subequations}

143: \begin{eqnarray}

144:   2\cL_{g^{\mu\nu}} &=& M^{AB}\psi_{A\mu}\psi_{B\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} K,

145:   \label{FT:M.g}\\ \cL_{\psi_{A\mu}} &=& M^{AB}{\psi_B}^\mu +

146:   \epsilon^{\mu \nu_2 \ldots \nu_{d}} {L^A}_{\nu_2 \ldots \nu_{d}}.

147:   \label{FT:M.psi}

148: \end{eqnarray}

149: %\label{FT:M}

150: %\end{subequations}

151: In our notation $\psi_{A\mu}=(D_\mu\phi_a,F_{a\alpha\mu})$, where the

152: abstract index $A$ may run over both Lorentz and color indices, as

153: well as the type of field. So, $\psi_{A\mu}$ is a list of objects,

154: each of which has a Lorentz index $\mu$. The value of $A$ specifies an

155: element of this list.

156: 

157: The relations are obtained

158: by noting that for each and every $g^{\mu\nu}$ in $\cL$ there are two

159: $\psi$s attached to it, except for the curved space totally

160: antisymmetric tensor $\vert g \vert^{-\frac{1}{2}} \epsilon^{\nu_1

161:  \ldots \nu_d}$, which gives rise to the $K$ term in

162: Eq.~(\ref{FT:M.g}).  Similarly, differentiation with respect to

163: $\psi_{A\mu}$ yields the $M$ and $L$ terms in

164: Eq.~(\ref{FT:M.psi}). 

165: 

166: Figure~\ref{figure} represents the most general Lagrangian of type

167: considered in this paper. Each dot represents a Lorentz index and a

168: line connecting them denotes contraction using the metric. Rectangles

169: (with two indices) are field strengths, small circles covariant

170: derivatives of scalar fields, and a large circle an epsilon

171: tensor. Finally, the block $X$ represents the remainder of the

172: diagram. Because the product of two epsilon tensors can be rewritten

173: as a sum of products of metric tensors $g$, we need to consider only

174: figures with at most one epsilon tensor, and therefore can assume that

175: $X$ contains none. (For generality, we include an epsilon tensor in

176: the figure, although of course $\cL$ need not contain a

177: parity-violating component.) All Lorentz indices are ultimately

178: contracted, and we suppress color indices for simplicity.

179: 

180: \begin{figure}[h!]

181: \includegraphics[width=6cm]{figure-1}

182: \caption{Representation of the most general Lagrangian of the type

183: considered in this paper. Each dot represents a Lorentz index, and a

184: line connecting them denotes contraction using the metric. Rectangles

185: (with two indices) are field strengths, small circles covariant

186: derivatives of scalar fields, and large circles epsilon

187: tensors. Finally, the block $X$ represents the remainder of the

188: diagram. All Lorentz indices are ultimately contracted, and we

189: suppress color indices for simplicity.  In graphical terms, $M$ is

190: obtained by simply removing the shaded elements.}

191: \label{figure}

192: \end{figure}

193: 

194: 

195: Consider the labelled portion of the figure, which equals

196: \begin{equation}

197: \cL = \vert g \vert^{-\frac{1}{2}} \epsilon^{\alpha \ldots}

198: F_{\alpha \mu} \, g^{\mu \nu} F_{\nu \beta} \, g^{\beta \gamma}

199: X_{\gamma \ldots}.

200: \label{FT:M.L}

201: \end{equation}

202: Again, we suppress color indices for simplicity, as they do not affect

203: the proof. We include an epsilon tensor in the analysis, although

204: $\cL$ may or may not contain one (in the parity-preserving case the

205: epsilon tensor in Eq.~(\ref{FT:M.L}) is replaced by the metric). By

206: differentiation of the indicated portion, we obtain

207: Eqs.~(\ref{FT:M.g}) and (\ref{FT:M.psi}) with

208: \begin{eqnarray}

209: M^{\alpha \beta} &=& - \vert g \vert^{-\frac{1}{2}} \left(

210: \epsilon^{\alpha \ldots} g^{\beta \gamma} + \epsilon^{\beta \ldots}

211: g^{\alpha \gamma} \right) X_{\gamma \ldots}, \\ K &=& \vert g

212: \vert^{-\frac{1}{2}} \epsilon^{\alpha \ldots} F_{\alpha \rho} \,

213: g^{\rho \sigma} F_{\sigma \beta} \, g^{\beta \gamma} X_{\gamma \ldots}, \\

214: {L^\alpha}_{\ldots} &=& - \vert g \vert^{-\frac{1}{2}} g^{\alpha \rho}

215: F_{\rho \beta} \,g^{\beta \gamma} X_{\gamma \ldots}. \label{FT:L}

216: \end{eqnarray}

217: Note the derivative $\cL_{F_{\nu \beta}}$ generates a contribution to

218: $M$ which is matched by a corresponding contribution from

219: $2 \cL_{g^{\beta \gamma}}$. Other contractions of fields with $g_{\mu

220: \nu}$ (i.e., as indicated in the figure) can be analyzed similarly.

221: In graphical terms, $M$ can be obtained from the figure for $\cL$ by simply

222: removing two $\psi$s, in this case the shaded elements of the figure.

223: 

224: 

225: 

226: 

227: 

228: 

229: 

230: For the energy-momentum tensor which couples to gravity,

231: \begin{eqnarray}

232:   T_{\mu\nu} =-\cL g_{\mu\nu} +2\cL_{g^{\mu\nu}}, \label{FT:T}

233: \end{eqnarray}

234: the NEC then requires

235: \begin{eqnarray}

236:   \Psi_A M^{AB}\Psi_B\ge 0, \label{FT:NEC.M}

237: \end{eqnarray}

238: where $\Psi_A=\psi_{A\mu}n^\mu$. Thus, to satisfy the NEC, $M^{AB}$ has to

239: be positive semidefinite. This property is crucial for stability of

240: solutions, to which we now turn.

241: 

242: 

243: 

244: 

245: \subsection{Stability}\label{S:Stability}

246: 

247: 

248: To study the stability of the solution $\psi_A(x)$, we consider the

249: second variation of the Lagrangian,

250: \begin{eqnarray}

251:   \d^2 \cL &=& \cL_{\psi_A\psi_B}

252:   \delta\psi_A\delta\psi_B  + 

253:   2\cL_{\psi_{A}\psi_{B;\lambda}}\delta\psi_{A}\delta\psi_{B;\lambda}

254:   \nn \\ &+& \cL_{\psi_{A;\mu}\psi_{B;\nu}}

255:   \delta\psi_{A;\mu}\delta\psi_{B;\nu}.\label{FT:d2L}

256: \end{eqnarray}

257: Here quantities $\cL_{\psi_A}=\p\cL/\p\psi_A$, etc. are evaluated at

258: $\psi_A(x)$. Also notice that

259: $\psi_{A;\mu}=(D_\mu\phi_a,A_{a\alpha;\mu})$, the covariant

260: derivatives of $\psi_A$, are different from

261: $\psi_{A\mu}=(D_\mu\phi_a,F_{a\alpha\mu})$.

262: 

263: Let us use a locally inertial frame in which the metric is reduced to

264: $\bar{g}_{\mu\nu} =\text{diag\,}(1,-1,\ldots,-1)$; all quantities in

265: this frame are designated by a bar. For the

266: Lagrangian~(\ref{FT:d2L}), the canonical momentum is

267: \begin{eqnarray}

268: \delta\bar{\pi}^A =

269: 2\cL_{\bar\psi_{B}\bar\psi_{A;0}}\delta\bar\psi_{B} + 

270: 2 \cL_{\bar\psi_{A;0}\bar\psi_{B;\nu}} \delta\bar\psi_{B;\nu}

271: \label{FT:dpi}

272: \end{eqnarray}

273: which leads to the following effective Hamiltonian for fluctuations

274: about the classical solution:

275: \begin{eqnarray}

276: \delta^2\cH &=& -\cL_{\bar\psi_{A}\bar\psi_{B}} \delta\bar\psi_{A}

277: \delta\bar\psi_{B} -2\cL_{\bar\psi_{A}\bar\psi_{B;j}}

278: \delta\bar\psi_{A} \delta\bar\psi_{B;j} \label{FT:d2H} \\ &+&

279: \cL_{\bar\psi_{A;0}\bar\psi_{B;0}} \delta\bar\psi_{A;0}

280: \delta\bar\psi_{B;0} - \cL_{\bar\psi_{A;i}\bar\psi_{B;j}}

281: \delta\bar\psi_{A;i} \delta\bar\psi_{B;j}.\nn

282: \end{eqnarray}

283: Here $\delta\bar{\psi}_{A;0}$ are functions of $\delta\bar{\pi}^B$,

284: $\delta\bar{\psi}_{B}$ and $\delta\bar{\psi}_{B;i}$ as found from

285: Eq.~(\ref{FT:dpi}). The first term on the right hand side of

286: Eq.~(\ref{FT:d2H}) is a potential term, which we denote by

287: $\delta^2\cV$, and the last two terms are kinetic terms, denoted

288: $\delta^2\cK$.

289: 

290: If the kinetic energy $\delta^2\cK$ is

291: negative, then the system described by the Hamiltonian $\delta^2\cH

292: =\delta^2\cK +\delta^2\cV$ is (locally) unstable. 

293: If $\delta^2\cV$ is positive then small

294: perturbations will cause the classical solutions to grow

295: exponentially away from the original stationary point. However, it is

296: possible to have classical stability if one chooses $\delta^2\cV$ to

297: be negative; in this case we have an upside-down potential with

298: negative kinetic term, or a ``phantom''. Such models necessarily

299: exhibit quantum instabilities \cite{phantom}.

300: Notice, the second term in Eq.~(\ref{FT:d2H}) is linear in the

301: fluctuations and their derivatives, and therefore can never

302: stabilize the system.

303: 

304: To investigate the kinetic terms, we calculate second derivatives of

305: $\cL$ needed in Eq.~(\ref{FT:d2H}). Using Eq.~(\ref{FT:M.psi}) we

306: obtain

307: \begin{equation}

308: \cL_{\psi_{A\mu}\psi_{B\nu}} = M^{AB}g^{\mu\nu} +N^{A\mu

309: B\nu}.\label{FT:MN}

310: \end{equation}

311: The separation of the second derivative into the first and second

312: terms in Eq.~(\ref{FT:MN}) is natural: $g^{\mu\nu}$ appears only in

313: the first term, and $N$ represents all remaining terms. $N$ contains

314: terms obtained by differentiating $M$ and $L$ with respect to

315: $\psi_{B\nu}$, plus additional terms if $\psi$ is a field

316: strength. The $\nu$ index obtained from these $\psi_{B\nu}$

317: derivatives is attached to a field and not the metric $g^{\mu

318: \nu}$. (Also, $L$ does not contain an epsilon tensor since $X$ does not.)

319: Finally, notice that even though $\psi_{A\mu}$ and $\psi_{A;\mu}$ differ,

320: the derivatives of $\cL$ with respect to them coincide due to the form

321: of the action~(\ref{FT:S}). Thus the kinetic term becomes

322: \begin{eqnarray}

323: \delta^2\cK &=& \left(\bar{M}^{AB}+\bar{N}^{A0B0}\right)

324:     \delta\bar\psi_{A;0}\delta\bar\psi_{B;0}\nn\\ &+&

325:     \left(\bar{M}^{AB}\delta^{ij} -\bar{N}^{AiBj}\right)

326:     \delta\bar\psi_{A;i}\delta\bar\psi_{B;j}.\label{FT:d2K}

327: \end{eqnarray}

328: 

329: 

330: We now prove that nonnegativeness of the kinetic term $\delta^2\cK$

331: implies positive semidefiniteness of the matrix $M$. Indeed,

332: suppose that $M$ is not positive semidefinite. In such case, the

333: matrix $M$ has at least one negative eigenvalue, which means that

334: there is a basis in which the matrix is diagonal with at least one

335: negative entry,

336: $\tilde{M}=\text{diag\,}(\tilde{m}_1,\ldots,\tilde{m}_n)$

337: ($\tilde{m}_1<0$). (Quantities in this basis are designated with a

338: tilde.) Let us choose such field variations that are nonzero

339: only in the direction of the negative eigenvalue:

340: $\delta\tilde{\psi}_{1;\mu}\not =0$ and $\delta\tilde{\psi}_{A;\mu}=0$

341: $(A>1)$. We further restrict $d-1$ quantities

342: $\delta\tilde{\psi}_{1;i}$ to satisfy the following equation:

343: \begin{eqnarray}

344:   \tilde{N}^{1010}\delta\tilde{\psi}_{1;0} \delta\tilde{\psi}_{1;0}

345:   =\tilde{N}^{1i1j}\delta\tilde{\psi}_{1;i}\delta\tilde{\psi}_{1;j}.

346:   \label{FT:Ncondition}

347: \end{eqnarray}

348: These conditions make the kinetic term of Eq.~(\ref{FT:d2K}) negative,

349: \begin{eqnarray}

350:   \delta^2\cK =\tilde{m}_1\left[(\delta\tilde{\psi}_{1;0})^2

351:     +\sum_i(\delta\tilde{\psi}_{1;i})^2\right] <0,

352:   \label{FT:d2K1}

353: \end{eqnarray}

354: thus proving that in order for $\delta^2\cK$ to be nonnegative, the

355: matrix $M$ has to be positive semidefinite.

356:  

357: Using the result established in the previous paragraph, we conclude

358: that solutions to the theory given by the action~(\ref{FT:S}) are

359: stable only if the matrix $M$ is positive semidefinite.

360:  

361: Combining the relations between nonnegativeness of $\delta^2\cK$ and

362: positive semidefiniteness of $M$ on one hand, and the NEC and

363: positive semidefiniteness of $M$ on the the other hand, we

364: conclude that for the theory given by the action~(\ref{FT:S}), only

365: solutions satisfying the NEC can be stable.

366: 

367: We can deduce similar results for quantum systems. Suppose there

368: exists a quantum state $\vert \alpha \rangle$ and a null vector $n^\mu$

369: such that

370: \begin{equation}

371: \langle \alpha \vert T_{\mu\nu} \vert \alpha \rangle n^{\mu} n^{\nu} =

372: \langle \alpha \vert M^{AB} \Psi_{A} \Psi_{B} \vert \alpha \rangle <

373: 0,

374: \end{equation}

375: so that the NEC is violated in a quantum averaged sense.  Define a

376: basis $\vert \phi \rangle$ in which the operator ${\cal M} = M^{AB}

377: \Psi_A \Psi_B$ is diagonal:

378: \begin{equation}

379: {\cal M} \vert \phi \rangle = m(\phi) \vert \phi \rangle.

380: \end{equation}

381: Then violation of the quantum averaged NEC implies

382: \begin{equation}

383: \sum_{\phi \phi'} \, \langle \alpha \vert \phi \rangle \langle \phi

384: \vert {\cal M} \vert \phi' \rangle \langle \phi' \vert \alpha \rangle

385: \\ = \sum_{\phi} \, \vert \langle \alpha \vert \phi \rangle \vert^2

386: \,m(\phi) < 0.

387: \end{equation}

388: This means that there exist eigenstates $\vert \phi \rangle$, whose

389: overlap with $| \alpha \rangle$ is non-zero and on which the operator

390: ${\cal M}$ has negative eigenvalues. This requires that $M$ and

391: hence $\delta^2\cK$ is not positive semidefinite; by continuity, this

392: must also be the case in a ball $B$ in the Hilbert space of $\vert \phi

393: \rangle$.

394: 

395: As a further consequence, we can conclude that a state $\vert \alpha

396: \rangle$ in which the NEC is violated cannot be the ground

397: state~\footnote{In some curved spacetimes there may not be a well-defined

398: ground state. In de Sitter space, quantum corrections can cause

399: violation of the NEC: V.~K.~Onemli and R.~P.~Woodard, Class.\ Quant.\

400: Grav. {\bf 19}, 4607 (2002); Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 107301

401: (2004).}. Suppose that $\vert \alpha \rangle$ is an energy eigenstate:

402: $H \vert \alpha \rangle = E_\alpha \vert \alpha \rangle$. An

403: elementary result from quantum mechanics is that $\vert \alpha

404: \rangle$ can be the ground state only if

405: \begin{equation}

406: E_\alpha = \langle \alpha \vert H \vert \alpha \rangle \leq \langle

407: \alpha' \vert H \vert \alpha' \rangle

408: \end{equation} 

409: for all normalized states $\vert \alpha' \rangle$ which need not be

410: energy eigenstates. However, it is possible to reduce the expectation

411: value of $H$ by perturbing $\vert \alpha \rangle$. Specifically, we

412: adjust $\vert \alpha \rangle$ only in the ball $B$, where we know from

413: Eqs.~(\ref{FT:d2K})--(\ref{FT:d2K1}) that there are perturbations

414: which reduce the expectation of the kinetic energy without changing

415: the expectation of the potential. 

416: 

417: Note that the discussion above is in terms of unrenormalized (bare)

418: quantities. The renormalized expectation $\langle \alpha \vert {\cal

419: M}_{\rm ren} \vert \alpha \rangle = \langle \alpha \vert {\cal M}

420: \vert \alpha \rangle - \langle 0 \vert {\cal M} \vert 0 \rangle$

421: (where $\vert 0 \rangle$ is the flat-space QFT ground state) could be

422: negative (e.g., as in the Casimir effect \cite{null}), but this is

423: possible only if $\vert \alpha \rangle$ is not $\vert 0 \rangle$.

424: 

425: In known cases of NEC violation, such as the Casimir vacuum or black

426: hole spacetime, it is only the {\it renormalized} energy-momentum

427: tensor which violates the NEC. As a simple example, consider a real

428: scalar field $\phi$. The energy-momentum tensor is simply $T_{\mu \nu}

429: = \partial_\mu \phi \, \partial_\nu \phi$ plus terms proportional to

430: $g_{\mu\nu}$ which do not play a role in the NEC. Then, ${\cal M} = (

431: n^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \phi )^2$ is a Hermitian operator with positive

432: eigenvalues. Therefore, its expectation value in {\it any} state is

433: positive: $\langle \alpha \vert {\cal M} \vert \alpha \rangle > 0,$

434: for any $\vert \alpha \rangle$, including the Hartle-Hawking, Casimir

435: or flat-space vacuum. We can verify this by direct calculation,

436: computing the energy-momentum tensor using point-splitting

437: regularization:

438: \begin{eqnarray}

439: \langle 0 \vert T_{\mu\nu} (x,x') \vert 0 \rangle n^\mu n^\nu = \frac{2

440: [n^\mu (x-x')_\mu]^2 }{\pi^2 \vert x-x'\vert^6},

441: \end{eqnarray}

442: which is manifestly positive. Note that $\langle \alpha \vert {\cal M}

443: \vert \alpha \rangle > 0$ for all $\vert \alpha \rangle$, since the

444: bare expectation is always dominated by the UV contribution. Now, had

445: we taken a {\it negative} kinetic energy term for the scalar, the

446: overall sign of ${\cal M}$ would change, allowing violation of the

447: NEC. But, this model is clearly unstable, in accordance with our

448: results.

449: 

450: 

451: 

452: 

453: \subsection{Fermions}\label{FF}

454: 

455: 

456: To this point we have only considered bosonic fields. We now extend

457: our analysis to systems with fermions, adding to our Lagrangian the

458: term

459: \begin{equation}

460: \cL^{(\text{f})} = \bar{\psi} ( i D\!\!\!\!/ - m ) \psi.

461: \end{equation}

462: (A scalar-fermion coupling can be treated similarly, as can a Weyl

463: fermion, whose determinant is the square root of the Dirac

464: determinant.) Then, for any fixed gauge field background the fermions

465: can be integrated out directly in favor of a non-local correction to

466: the action for bosonic fields

467: \begin{equation}

468: - \sum_{\lambda_l > 0} \ln ( \lambda_l^2 + m^2 ),

469: \end{equation}

470: where $D\!\!\!\!/ \, \psi_l = \lambda_l \psi_l$ is the eigenvalue

471: equation for the Dirac operator, with $\lambda_l$ real. This shifts

472: the energy-momentum tensor by

473: 

474: \begin{equation}

475:   T_{\mu \nu}^{(\text{f})} = -2\vert g \vert ^{-\frac{1}{2}}

476:     \sum_{\lambda_l > 0} \frac{1}{\lambda_l^2 + m^2} \frac{\d

477:     \lambda_l^2}{\d g^{\mu \nu}}.

478: \end{equation}

479: Now write $\lambda_l^2 \psi_l = {D\!\!\!\!/ }^{\,2} \psi_l = (g^{\mu

480: \nu} D_\mu D_\nu -\tfrac{1}{2}i \sigma^{\mu\nu} F_{\mu\nu} )\psi_l $

481: and use the orthonormality of the eigenfunctions to obtain

482: \begin{equation}

483: \lambda_l^2 = \int d^dx \, |g|^\frac{1}{2} \, g^{\mu \nu}

484: \,\psi^\dagger_l D_\mu D_\nu \psi_l ~+~ \ldots,

485: \end{equation}

486: where the ellipsis denote terms which do not contain $g^{\mu\nu}$.

487: After integration by parts, the contribution to the NEC from fermions

488: is then

489: \begin{equation}

490: T^{(\text{f})}_{\mu\nu} n^\mu n^\nu =  \sum_{\lambda_l >

491: 0} \frac{2} {\lambda_l^2 + m^2} \, 

492: ( n \cdot D \psi_l)^\dagger ( n \cdot D \psi_l ).

493: \end{equation}

494: This additional contribution is always positive. So, the conclusions

495: of the previous section are unmodified by the presence of fermions:

496: violation of the NEC implies the bosonic kinetic energy is not

497: positive semidefinite.

498: 

499: 

500: 

501: \section{Perfect fluid}\label{F}

502: 

503:  

504: A macroscopic system may be approximately described as a perfect fluid

505: if the mean free path of its components is small compared to the

506: length scale of interest. For the dark energy, this length scale is of

507: cosmological size.  A perfect fluid is described by the

508: energy-momentum tensor

509: \begin{eqnarray}

510: T_{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)u_\mu u_\nu-pg_{\mu\nu},\label{F:T}

511: \end{eqnarray}

512: where $\rho$ and $p$ are the energy density and pressure of the fluid

513: in its rest frame, and $u_\mu$ is its velocity. Let $j^\mu=J u^\mu$ be

514: the conserved current vector (${j^\mu}_{;\mu}=0$), and $J=(j_\mu

515: j^\mu)^\frac{1}{2}$ the particle density.

516: 

517: The energy-momentum can be written \cite{Hawking-Ellis,Jackiw:2004nm}

518: as

519: \begin{eqnarray}

520: T_{\mu\nu}=(f-J f')g_{\mu\nu}+(f'/J) j_\mu j_\nu,\label{F:T1}

521: \end{eqnarray}

522: where, comparing with Eq.~(\ref{F:T}), we have $\rho = f(J)$ and $p =

523: Jf' - f$. The function $f(J)$ implicitly determines the equation of state.  

524:  

525: The NEC for the tensor~(\ref{F:T1}) becomes

526: \begin{eqnarray}

527: T_{\mu\nu}n^\mu n^\nu=(f'/J)(j_\mu n^\mu)^2\ge 0.\label{F:NEC}

528: \end{eqnarray}

529: Thus, perfect fluids with negative $f'(J)$ violate the NEC. Below, we

530: demonstrate that $f'(J) < 0$ implies an instability.

531: 

532: Recall that the speed of sound in a fluid is given by $s = (dp /

533: d\rho)^{\frac{1}{2}} = (J f'' / f')^{\frac{1}{2}}$, and that complex

534: $s$ implies an instability. Note $f'(J)$ cannot change its sign

535: without producing an instability. Indeed, if it were to change its

536: sign at some $J_*$, then $s$ would be complex for either $J$ larger or

537: smaller than $J_*$, depending on the sign of $f''(J_*)$.  ($f''$

538: cannot also change sign at $J_*$.)  Therefore, if $f'$ is negative

539: anywhere, then it is negative everywhere, and to avoid complex $s$,

540: $f''$ must be negative everywhere.

541: 

542: However, if $f'$ and $f''$ are everywhere negative, then the fluid is

543: unstable with respect to clumping. To see this, we first deduce the

544: dependence of the fluid free energy $F$ on particle number $N =

545: JV$. Note that $( \partial F / \partial V )\vert_{T,N} = - p = N

546: \partial (f/J) / \partial V$. By integration we find $F = N [ f/J -

547: h(T)]$, where the first term is just the energy $E$ and $N h(T) = T

548: S$, where $S$ is the entropy. It is easy to see that $(\partial^2 F

549: /\partial J^2 )\vert_{T,V} = V f''$.

550: 

551: Now consider two adjacent regions of the fluid

552: with identical volumes. Suppose we transfer a small amount of matter

553: $\delta J$ from one volume to another; the resulting change in total

554: free energy is given by $\tfrac{1}{2} V f''(J) (\delta J)^2 <

555: 0$. We see that the system can decrease its free energy by clumping into

556: over- and under-dense regions. This itself is an instability, which

557: results in a runaway to infinitely negative free energy unless the

558: assumption of negative $f'$ (violation of NEC) or negative $f''$ (real

559: $s$) ceases to hold.

560: 

561: \bigskip

562: 

563: \begin{center}

564: \textbf{Acknowledgments}

565: \end{center}

566: 

567: The authors thank R.~Bousso, A.~Jenkins, B.~Murray, M.~Schwartz,

568: D.~Soper and M.~Wise for useful comments. This work was supported by

569: the Department of Energy under DE-FG06-85ER40224.

570: 

571:  

572: 

573: 

574: 

575: 

576: 

577: 

578: 

579: 

580: 

581: 

582: 

583: 

584: 

585: 

586: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

587: 

588: 

589: \bibitem{null}

590: For discussion of the NEC and possible violations, see, e.g.,

591: M.~Visser,

592: \emph{Lorentzian wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking}, AIP, Woodbury USA, 

593: 1995; E.~E.~Flanagan and R.~M.~Wald,

594: %``Does backreaction enforce the averaged null energy condition in

595: %semiclassical gravity?,''

596: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 6233 (1996);

597: %[arXiv:gr-qc/9602052];

598: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9602052;%%

599: J.~Fewster and T.~A.~Roman,

600: %``Null energy conditions in quantum field theory,''

601: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 044003 (2003);

602: %[arXiv:gr-qc/0209036];

603: L.~H.~Ford,

604: %``The classical singularity theorems and their quantum loopholes,''

605: Int.\ J.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 42}, 1219 (2003).

606: %[arXiv:gr-qc/0301045].

607: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0301045;%%

608: 

609: \bibitem{instability}

610: S.~D.~H.~Hsu, A.~Jenkins and M.~B.~Wise,

611: %``Gradient instability for w<-1,''

612: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 597}, 270 (2004).

613: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0406043].

614: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0406043;%%

615: A.~Vikman, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 023515 (2005).

616: 

617:  

618: \bibitem{Hawking-Ellis} S.~W.~Hawking and G.~F.~R.~Ellis, \emph{The

619:   Large Scale Structure of Space-time}, Cambridge University Press,

620:   Cambridge, 1973.

621: 

622: \bibitem{bousso}

623: R.~Bousso,

624: %``The holographic principle,''

625: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  {\bf 74}, 825 (2002).

626: %[arXiv:hep-th/0203101].

627: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203101;%%

628: 

629: \bibitem{wormholes} M.~S.~Morris and K.~S.~Thorne,

630: %``Wormholes In Space-Time And Their Use For Interstellar Travel: A Tool For

631: %Teaching General Relativity,''

632: Am.\ J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 56}, 395 (1988); J.~L.~Friedman, K.~Schleich and

633: D.~M.~Witt,

634: %``Topological censorship,''

635: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 71}, 1486 (1993) [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 75},

636: 1872 (1995)]; 

637: %[arXiv:gr-qc/9305017]; 

638: D.~Hochberg and M.~Visser,

639: %``Geometric structure of the generic static traversable wormhole throat,''

640: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 4745 (1997); 

641: %[arXiv:gr-qc/9704082]; 

642: M.~Visser and D.~Hochberg,

643: %``Generic wormhole throats,''

644: arXiv:gr-qc/9710001.

645: 

646: \bibitem{phantom}

647: R.~R.~Caldwell,

648: %``A Phantom Menace?,''

649: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 545}, 23 (2002); 

650: %[arXiv:astro-ph/9908168];

651: S.~M.~Carroll, M.~Hoffman and M.~Trodden,

652: %``Can the dark energy equation-of-state parameter w be less than -1?,''

653: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 023509 (2003).

654: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0301273].

655:  

656: %\cite{Jackiw:2004nm}

657: \bibitem{Jackiw:2004nm} R.~Jackiw, V.~P.~Nair, S.~Y.~Pi and

658: A.~P.~Polychronakos,

659: %``Perfect fluid theory and its extensions,''

660: J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 37}, R327 (2004).

661: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0407101].

662: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407101;%%

663:  

664:  

665: 

666: \end{thebibliography}

667:  

668: 

669: 

670: 

671: 

672: 

673: 

674: 

675: 

676: 

677: \end{document}