1: \documentclass[12pt,dvips]{article}
2: \def\baselinestretch{1.2}
3: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,exscale}
4: \usepackage{array,multicol}
5: \usepackage{afterpage,float,flafter}
6: \usepackage{epsfig}%,rotating,pifont}
7: %\usepackage{cite}
8: %
9: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
10: \def\beqn{\begin{eqnarray}}
11: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
12: \def\eeqn{\end{eqnarray}}
13: \def\lp{\left}
14: \def\rp{\right}
15: %
16: \setlength{\hoffset}{-1.0in} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{2cm}
17: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{2cm} \setlength{\voffset}{-.5in}
18: \setlength{\headheight}{0cm} \setlength{\headsep}{0cm}
19: \setlength{\topmargin}{2cm} \setlength{\columnseprule}{0pt}
20: \textheight=220mm \textwidth=170mm \makeatletter
21: \@addtoreset{equation}{section} \makeatother
22: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24: \title{
25: \vspace{1cm}
26: %
27: \Large\textbf{Consistent Lorentz Violation in Flat and Curved
28: Space}
29: %
30: \vspace*{.5cm}
31: \author{
32: \large \textbf{Gia Dvali,\footnote{email: gd23@nyu.edu}~~ Oriol Pujol{\` a}s\footnote{email: pujolas@ccpp.nyu.edu}~~and Michele Redi\footnote{email: redi@physics.nyu.edu}}\\
33: \emph{Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics,}\\\emph{Department of Physics, New York University}\\
34: \emph{4 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003}}}
35:
36: \date{}
37: \begin{document}
38: \maketitle \thispagestyle{empty} \vspace*{.5cm}
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41:
42: Motivated by the severity of the bounds on Lorentz violation in
43: the presence of ordinary gravity, we study frameworks in which
44: Lorentz violation does not affect the spacetime geometry. We show
45: that there are at least two inequivalent classes of spontaneous
46: Lorentz breaking that even in the presence of gravity result in
47: Minkowski space. The first one generically corresponds to the
48: condensation of tensor fields with tachyonic mass which in turn is
49: related to ghost-condensation. In the second class, realized by
50: the DGP model or theories of massive gravitons, spontaneous
51: Lorentz breaking is induced by the expectation value of sources.
52: The generalization to de-Sitter space is also discussed.
53:
54: \end{abstract}
55:
56: \newpage
57: \renewcommand{\thepage}{\arabic{page}}
58: \setcounter{page}{1}
59:
60: \section{Introduction}
61:
62: The possibility of breaking Lorentz invariance is a deep question.
63: In General Relativity, the continuous spacetime symmetries, such
64: as the Lorentz symmetry, are part of gauge invariance, and as
65: such, their breaking can only be understood as the low energy
66: limit of some underlying spontaneous breaking.
67:
68: Most phenomenological studies in the literature consider explicit
69: breakings, in the limit where gravity is decoupled. The latter
70: however is expected to have very profound consequences, because
71: any order parameter that spontaneously breaks Lorentz invariance
72: will couple to gravity, at least minimally, distorting the
73: geometry of spacetime. Enforcing the cosmological bounds could
74: place such severe constraints on the order parameters, that the
75: corresponding Lorentz violation would have limited observational
76: interest.
77:
78: This issue can be illustrated considering the simplest possible
79: model of spontaneous Lorentz symmetry breaking, obtained through a
80: time dependent scalar field, $\phi$. Due to the vacuum
81: expectation value (VEV), $\partial_0 \phi\neq0$, the Lorentz
82: symmetry is broken to the rotation subgroup and this breaking will
83: be communicated to ordinary particles (e.g., electrons or photons)
84: by higher dimensional operators of the form,
85: $$
86: {1 \over \Lambda_1^4}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi
87: \,\bar{\psi}_e\gamma^{\mu}\partial^{\nu}\psi_e +{1 \over
88: \Lambda_2^4}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi\, F^{\mu}_\alpha
89: F^{\nu\alpha}~,
90: $$
91: where $\Lambda_{1,2}$ are the scales of new physics. Substituting
92: the non-zero VEV of the scalar time derivative, the above
93: operators generate an effective Lorentz violating dispersion
94: relation for the electron and the photon, which could potentially
95: be observed if the corrections are at least of order $10^{-15}$
96: and $10^{-23}$ respectively \cite{coleman}.
97:
98: However, taking into the account gravity, immediately makes the
99: prospect of such observations pretty dim. Indeed, the time
100: dependence of $\phi$ will also contribute to the energy density of
101: the Universe, which should not exceed the critical one because it
102: cannot be cancelled by a readjustment of the cosmological constant
103: or any other conventional source. This implies that at best
104: $\partial_0\phi \sim (10^{-3}eV)^2$. Demanding that the Lorentz
105: violating contributions to the dispersion relation are potentially
106: observable without conflicting with the cosmological bound
107: requires that $\Lambda_1 \lesssim 10\, eV$ and $\Lambda_2 \lesssim
108: KeV$~! Such small values are ruled out by particle physics
109: observations. The situation is a little better when the Lorentz
110: violation affects the mass parameters. For example for the photon,
111: the operator
112: $$
113: {1\over\Lambda_3^2}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi\,
114: A^{\mu}A^{\nu}~,
115: $$
116: with $\Lambda_3$ as high as $TeV$ \cite{papucci}, would still
117: produce Lorentz violating effects not far from the observable
118: bounds.
119:
120: Thus, it is very important to understand the consistent ways of
121: spontaneous breaking of the Lorentz invariance, which even in the
122: presence of gravity do not affect the background geometry. For
123: instance, having Lorentz violation in exact Minkowski or de Sitter
124: spaces. Such theories would provide a consistent underlying
125: framework for the phenomenological studies of Lorentz violations
126: such as \cite{coleman}.
127:
128: In this note we investigate different scenarios of such Lorentz
129: violation. A large class of Lorentz violating theories which do
130: not change the background corresponds to the condensation of
131: tachyons of arbitrary integer spin fields. We show that these
132: theories in a certain limit of parameter space effectively become
133: equivalent to some type of ghost condensation \cite{arkani}. The
134: basic feature of these theories is that nowhere in parameter space
135: one can recover a consistent Lorentz invariant vacuum. This is
136: different from the usual breaking of internal symmetries where
137: instead there is a consistent effective field theory description
138: of the unbroken phase. The reason for this is that the instability
139: that breaks Lorentz invariance can only be stabilized by cutoff
140: sensitive physics. While this may cast some shadows on the
141: possibility to find ultraviolet completions of these theories,
142: fluctuations around the Lorentz breaking vacuum can give rise to
143: consistent low energy effective theories.
144:
145: We point out that there exists a second inequivalent class of
146: theories in which spontaneous Lorentz breaking is accomplished due
147: to the VEV of the energy momentum tensor. This breaking is analogous
148: to the one induced by a cosmological fluid however the space remains
149: Minkowskian and time independent. We show that this possibility is
150: in fact realized in the DGP model \cite{dgp} and massive gravity
151: theories. Contrary to the previous case there is no strong
152: sensitivity to the cut-off and there is a smooth limit in parameter
153: space where a Lorentz invariant ground state is recovered. Similarly
154: we show that in de-Sitter space it is possible to break the
155: isometries of the space while keeping the space maximally symmetric.
156: In this case however the breaking necessarily dilutes with the
157: expansion of the Universe.
158:
159: \section{High Spin Tachyons}
160: \label{hs}
161:
162: A natural way to try to spontaneously break Lorentz invariance in
163: flat space is by following the analogy with the breaking of internal
164: continuous symmetries. For this purpose one needs to introduce a
165: bosonic integer spin order parameter $A_{\mu_1,..\mu_n}$ and make it
166: condense. Since $A$ transforms non-trivially under Lorentz, its VEV
167: spontaneously breaks Lorentz invariance. In the presence of gravity
168: the cosmological constant in the action can be chosen so that the
169: ground state remains exactly Minkowski space. In order to achieve
170: this, one needs two ingredients. Schematically, a tachyonic mass
171: term,
172: \begin{equation}
173: -m^2 A^2
174: \end{equation}
175: and a stabilizing (non-derivative) self-interaction, e.g.,
176: \begin{equation}
177: \lambda\, A^4
178: \end{equation}
179: The seeming exception is a spin-0 field for which what needs to
180: condense is actually the derivative of a ghost-field
181: \cite{arkani}. However this difference is only naive. The reason
182: for this is that for higher spin fields the tachyonic and ghost
183: instabilities are inseparable. To illustrate the point let us
184: consider first a massive spin-1 field (see also \cite{luty} and
185: references therein),
186: \begin{equation}
187: S=\int d^4 x\, \left(-\frac 1 4 F^2- \frac {m^2} 2 A^2\right)
188: \end{equation}
189: The gauge invariance of the action can be restored introducing a
190: St\"uckelberg field that compensates the variation of the gauge
191: field under a gauge transformation. The action becomes,
192: \begin{equation}
193: S=\int d^4 x\, \left( -\frac 1 4 F^2 - \frac {m^2} 2 (\partial \phi+A)^2
194: \right)
195: \end{equation}
196: which is manifestly invariant under,
197: \begin{eqnarray}
198: \delta A_\mu&=& \partial_{\mu} \epsilon \nonumber \\
199: \delta \phi&=& -\epsilon.
200: \end{eqnarray}
201: It is clear (we use mostly plus signature) that a tachyonic mass for
202: the gauge field ($m^2<0$) is associated with a ghost-like kinetic
203: term for the St\"uckelberg field. This is the tachyonic counterpart
204: of the standard Higgs effect where a massless spin-1 field acquires
205: mass by eating a Goldstone boson with positive kinetic term.
206:
207: The mechanism outlined above is actually completely general. Take
208: for simplicity a massive spin-2 field (up to some technical
209: modification the same holds for higher spin, see appendix A). The only
210: consistent mass term for the graviton around Minkowski vacuum is
211: described by the Pauli-Fierz (PF) combination,
212: \begin{equation}
213: V=\frac {m^2\,M_4^2} 8 (h_{\mu\nu}^2- h^2), \label{pf}
214: \end{equation}
215: where $h_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}-\eta_{\mu\nu}$. The gauge invariance
216: of the mass term can be restored introducing St\"uckelberg fields,
217: \begin{equation}
218: h_{\mu\nu}=\hat{h}_{\mu\nu}+\partial_{\mu}
219: A_{\nu}+\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}. \label{decomposition}
220: \end{equation}
221: The mass term is then invariant with respect to,
222: \begin{eqnarray}
223: \delta \hat{h}_{\mu\nu}&=&
224: \partial_{\mu}\xi_{\nu}+\partial_{\nu}\xi_{\mu}\nonumber \nonumber \\
225: \delta A_\mu&=&-\xi_{\mu}\nonumber \label{2variation}
226: \end{eqnarray}
227: By plugging (\ref{decomposition}) into the PF mass term one can
228: see that $A_\mu$ has the kinetic term of a gauge field. The sign
229: is such that a tachyonic instability for the spin-2 is translated
230: into a ghost instability for the St\"uckelberg field. Actually
231: $A_\mu$ has three degrees of freedom, which can be split into
232: spin-1 and spin-0 polarizations. Since the spin-0 component mixes
233: with $\hat{h}_{\mu\nu}$ it is useful to diagonalize the kinetic
234: terms. This can be achieved through the decomposition,
235: \begin{equation}
236: h_{\mu\nu}=\tilde{h}_{\mu\nu}+\partial_{\mu} \tilde
237: A_{\nu}+\partial_{\nu}\tilde A_{\mu}+\frac 1 {3 m^2}
238: \partial_\mu\partial_\nu \phi +\frac 1 6 \eta_{\mu\nu} \phi.
239: \label{decomposition2}
240: \end{equation}
241: With this, the scalar St\"uckelberg acquires a positive kinetic
242: term even for $m^2<0$. This can be understood from the fact that a
243: higher spin field becomes massive by eating a "massive" ghost
244: which in turn can be decomposed into massless ghost and a tachyon
245: St\"uckelberg with positive kinetic term.
246:
247: We should here mention that although the mass term for ghost-free
248: theories is uniquely defined, it becomes unclear what form should
249: be used if one wants to create instabilities. The guideline in
250: this case is that if one does not want to increase the number of
251: propagating degrees of freedom, then one has to use the form
252: (\ref{pf}) even for the tachyonic case. Of course, such theories
253: can only make sense if the tachyonic instability is stabilized by
254: some non-linear self-interaction\footnote{In fact, such self
255: interactions could be used to stabilize extra time dimensions
256: \cite{extratime}, since these theories reduce to a tower of spin-2
257: tachyons (see Appendix A).}. While it is not the purpose of this
258: work to discover the form of such self-interaction, one natural
259: choice would be to take the stabilizing potential to be a function
260: of the PF combination. Our main point however is that any viable
261: model of spontaneous Lorentz breaking through the condensation of
262: integer spin tachyons, will be accompanied by ghost type
263: instabilities, which have to be stabilized in the true vacuum of
264: the theory, if such exists. As a result these types of theories
265: cannot have a consistent Lorentz invariant vacuum because, in
266: order to recover such a vacuum by continuum change of parameters
267: one has to reverse the sign of the kinetic term of the condensing
268: ghost which requires going through infinite strong coupling. In
269: other words the ghost instabilities are entirely dominated by
270: cut-off sensitive physics.
271:
272: \section{Lorentz Violation in DGP}
273: \label{dgp}
274:
275: We now turn to the DGP model \cite{dgp}. This scenario is
276: specified by the action,
277: \begin{equation}
278: S= -\frac {M_4^2} 2 \int d^4x \,\sqrt{-g} R_4- \frac {M_5^3} 2 \int d^4x
279: dy\, \sqrt{-G} R_5
280: \end{equation}
281: which describes a tensionless brane with induced kinetic term for
282: the graviton embedded in a five dimensional empty bulk. (Later, we
283: shall consider the generalization with brane and bulk cosmological
284: constants.)
285:
286: In DGP there are known static solutions that break Lorentz
287: invariance in Minkowski space \cite{lue}. By taking an energy-momentum
288: tensor localized on the brane of the form,
289: \begin{equation}
290: T_{MN}=\rho_0 \,\delta(y)\, {\rm diag} (0,-1,-1,-1,0) \label{emt}
291: \end{equation}
292: it is easy to check that the exact solution for the metric is
293: given by,
294: \begin{equation}
295: ds^2=-(1+ c |y|)^2 dt^2+ dx_1^2+dx_2^2+ dx_3^2 +dy^2
296: \label{metric}
297: \end{equation}
298: where $c=-\rho_0/M_5^3$. Moreover, in \cite{lue} it was shown that
299: the evolution of pressureless dust on a brane with negative
300: tension ($\rho_0<0$) automatically relaxes to such a ground state.
301:
302: An important feature of the solution above is that it does not
303: depend on $M_4$ so that the DGP kinetic term is only needed to
304: reproduce $4D$ gravity at distances shorter than the crossover scale
305: $r_c=M_4^2/(2 M_5^3)$. Each slice at fixed $y$ is just Minkowski
306: space, however, due to the $y$ dependence, the solution globally
307: breaks Lorentz invariance to the rotation subgroup (in the preferred
308: frame) since the speed of light varies along the fifth dimension.
309: An observer living at fixed $y$ will
310: only detect the Lorentz violation through the non-relativistic
311: dispersion of bulk gravity modes\footnote{Lorentz violation will
312: also be transmitted at tree level to the Standard Model fields if
313: the brane has some thickness in the bulk or by couplings of the the
314: extrinsic curvature to Standard Model bilinears induced at loop
315: level.}.
316:
317: The metric above is actually closely related to the domain-wall
318: solutions studied recently in \cite{oriol}. In that case it was
319: found that for a domain wall the metric is just the metric of a
320: codimension two object in $5D$, i.e. it is independent of the DGP
321: kinetic term. This similarity is no accident: the energy momentum
322: tensor (\ref{emt}) can be thought as a homogeneous distribution of
323: parallel (euclidean) domain walls. Since for codimension two
324: objects one can find exact solutions for an arbitrary number of
325: defects, the metric (\ref{metric}) can directly be obtained from
326: the domain wall one.
327:
328: In the light of the above one can also construct space-times with
329: different Lorentz breaking patterns in Minkowski space. Consider a
330: distribution of Lorentzian domain walls,
331: \begin{equation}
332: T_{MN}=\rho_0 \,\delta(y)\, {\rm diag} (1,-1,-1,~0,~0)
333: \label{emt2}
334: \end{equation}
335: The metric is then given by,
336: \begin{equation}
337: ds^2=-dt^2+ dx_1^2 +dx_2^2+ (1+c |y|)^2 dx_3^2 +dy^2
338: \label{metric2}
339: \end{equation}
340: which breaks Lorentz invariance to the subgroup generated by
341: $(J_3, K_1, K_2)$. Note that for domain walls with positive
342: tension $c<0$, so the requirement that the space is regular at
343: $y=-1/c$ implies that $x_3$ is a periodic coordinate.
344:
345:
346: \section{Massive Gravity and Other Solutions}
347:
348: Given the existence of Lorentz violating solutions in DGP it is
349: natural to wonder if they are equivalent to some kind of tachyon
350: condensation. That this is not the case can be already understood
351: from the fact that we can smoothly recover a Lorentz invariant
352: ground state by taking the source to zero. To clarify how this mechanism
353: works from the $4D$ point of view it is useful to deconstruct the DGP
354: solution of the previous section in terms of massive gravitons. This
355: will also show that this mechanism of Lorentz violation is general
356: to theories of massive gravitons.
357:
358: To linear order consistent theories of massive gravitons are
359: governed by the PF equation,
360: \begin{equation}
361: {\cal E}^{\alpha\beta}_{\mu\nu} h_{\alpha\beta}+\frac {m^2} 2
362: (h_{\mu\nu}-\eta_{\mu\nu} h)=\frac {T_{\mu\nu}} {M_4^2},
363: \label{pfequation}
364: \end{equation}
365: where ${\cal E}^{\alpha\beta}_{\mu\nu}$ is the linearized Einstein
366: tensor,
367: \begin{equation}
368: {\cal E}^{\alpha\beta}_{\mu\nu} h_{\alpha\beta}=\frac 1 2 (\partial_\alpha \partial_\nu h^\alpha_\mu+\partial_\alpha \partial_\mu h^\alpha_\nu
369: -\partial_\mu\partial_\nu h-\square h_{\mu\nu}-\eta_{\mu\nu} \partial_\alpha\partial_\beta h^{\alpha\beta}+\eta_{\mu\nu} \square h)
370: \end{equation}
371: In absence of sources the PF mass term guarantees that there are
372: no ghosts or tachyons and the vacuum is Lorentz invariant. Let us
373: now consider a constant energy momentum tensor. The system admits
374: a static solution,
375: \begin{equation}
376: h_{\mu\nu}=-\frac {2} {m^2 M_4^2}\left(T_{\mu\nu}-\frac 1 3
377: \eta_{\mu\nu} T\right). \label{puregauge}
378: \end{equation}
379: This solution is pure gauge
380: ($h_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu\xi_\nu+\partial_\nu\xi_\mu$) so the
381: space remains flat. However due to this VEV, probe particles will
382: detect a Lorentz breaking background which is static and
383: Minkowskian. Of course whether the space remains flat to non
384: linear order will depend on the interaction terms.
385:
386: We can now deconstruct the DGP solution. Consider fluctuations of
387: the metric around the vacuum,
388: $g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}(x,y)$. At the linear level, DGP
389: reduces to a continuum of massive gravitons,
390: \begin{equation}
391: h_{\mu\nu}(x,y)=\int_0^{\infty} dm\,
392: h_{\mu\nu}^{(m)}(x)\,\psi^{(m)}(y)
393: \label{superposition}
394: \end{equation}
395: where the wave-functions $\psi^{(m)}(y)$ are determined by,
396: \begin{equation}
397: \left(\partial_y^2 + m^2+ m^2 r_c \delta(y)\right)
398: \psi^{(m)}(y)=0~, \label{waveequation}
399: \end{equation}
400: and each massive graviton satisfies the PF equation,
401: \begin{equation}
402: ({\cal E} h^{(m)})_{\mu\nu}+ \frac {m^2} 2
403: (h_{\mu\nu}^{(m)}-\eta_{\mu\nu} h^{(m)})=\frac 1 {M_5^3} \int dy\,
404: \psi^{(m)}(y) T_{\mu\nu}(y). \label{kkgraviton}
405: \end{equation}
406: For the energy-momentum tensor (\ref{emt}) one gets,
407: \begin{equation}
408: h_{\mu\nu}^{(m)}=-\frac {2 \,\rho_0} {m^2 M_5^3}\,\psi^{(m)}(0)\,
409: {\rm diag}\,(1,~0,~0,~0)
410: \end{equation}
411: from which plugging in eq. (\ref{superposition}) one can reconstruct the
412: bulk solution ({\ref{metric}) to linear order.
413:
414: The linear analysis also suggests that it might be possible to find
415: other Lorentz violating solutions in Minkowski space when $T_{00}$
416: is not zero. This simply follows from the fact that for any
417: $T_{\mu\nu}$ which is constant the massive graviton has a solution
418: (\ref{puregauge}) which is pure gauge.
419: %
420: These solutions can be easily completed to non linear level when
421: the source is a perfect fluid. In general this requires both bulk
422: and brane cosmological constants (the same type of solutions were
423: also discussed in \cite{csaki} in a different context).
424: %
425: To see how this works recall that in the DGP model the induced
426: metric on the brane satisfies
427: \begin{equation}
428: M_4^2 G_{\mu\nu}-2 M_5^3 (K_{\mu\nu}-g_{\mu\nu} K)=T_{\mu\nu}~,
429: \label{braneequation}
430: \end{equation}
431: where $K_{\mu\nu}$ is the extrinsic curvature on the brane and
432: $T_{\mu\nu}$ the localized energy momentum tensor. Consistency of
433: the bulk equation requires that the Gauss equation is satisfied
434: \cite{sms},
435: \begin{equation}
436: G_{\mu\nu}=-\frac {\Lambda_5} {2 M_5^3} g_{\mu\nu}+K
437: K_{\mu\nu}-K_\mu^\rho K_{\rho\nu} -\frac 1 2
438: g_{\mu\nu}(K^2-K_{\rho\sigma}K^{\rho\sigma})+E_{\mu\nu}~,
439: \label{gauss}
440: \end{equation}
441: where $E_{\mu\nu}$, the ``dark radiation term'', is traceless and
442: we have also included a bulk cosmological constant $\Lambda_5$.
443: The solution in the bulk generically is Schwarzchild-AdS,
444: $E_{\mu\nu}$ is related to the mass of the bulk black hole (see
445: Appendix B for details).
446: %
447: Since we look for a solution where the induced metric is flat we
448: demand,
449: \begin{equation}
450: 2 M_5^3 (K_{\mu\nu}-\eta_{\mu\nu} K)=-T_{\mu\nu}
451: \end{equation}
452: which implies,
453: \begin{equation}
454: K_{\mu\nu}=-\frac 1 {2 M_5^3} (T_{\mu\nu}-\frac 1 3 \eta_{\mu\nu}
455: T).
456: \end{equation}
457: The integrability condition (\ref{gauss}) then determines the
458: cosmological constant and the dark radiation term. For
459: $T^\mu_\nu=\rho_0 \, {\rm diag} (-1,~w,~w,~w)$ one obtains
460: \begin{eqnarray}\label{flat}
461: E^\mu_\nu&=&-(w+1){\rho_0^2\over 8 M^6_5} \; {\rm diag}
462: \lp(-1,~\frac 1
463: 3,~\frac 1 3,~\frac 1 3\rp) \nonumber \\
464: \Lambda_5 &=&(1+3w){\rho_0^2\over 12M^3_5}~.
465: \end{eqnarray}
466: Note that $\Lambda_5$ and the black hole mass are quadratic in
467: perturbation on the brane. As a consequence the energy momentum
468: tensor appearing in (\ref{kkgraviton}) is only given by the fluid
469: on the brane to linear level. We postpone the construction of the
470: full solution to Appendix B. Here we shall advance that for
471: $w<-1$, the metric takes the form
472: \beq\label{TaubAds} %
473: ds_5^2= dy^2-{\sqrt C\over
474: \ell_{AdS}}{\sinh^2\lp(2(|y|+y_0)/\ell_{AdS}\rp)\over
475: \cosh\lp(2(|y|+y_0)/\ell_{AdS}\rp)} dT^2 + \sqrt{C}\ell_{AdS}
476: \cosh\lp(2(|y|+y_0)/\ell_{AdS}\rp) dx_3^2
477: \eeq %
478: where
479: $$
480: \cosh^2(2y_0/\ell_{AdS})=-{24\over1+w}\lp(\ell_{AdS}\rho_0\over6M_5^3\rp)^2~.
481: $$
482: The asymptotic AdS radius is given by
483: $\ell_{AdS}^2=-{6M^3_5/\Lambda_5}$ and $C$ is an irrelevant scale
484: with units of length${}^2$.
485:
486: \subsection{Stability}
487:
488: An important issue is the stability of the Lorentz violating
489: backgrounds. Let us first address the ghost instabilities. The
490: fact that we have a continuous controllable parameter $\rho_0$,
491: guarantees that there is a finite range for which the solutions
492: are ghost free. Indeed, since for $\rho_0 = 0$ there are no
493: ghosts, by continuity this remains true for certain finite range.
494: The minimal size of this range can be estimated from the following
495: argument. For very small $\rho_0$, the linearized theory is a good
496: approximation, and is stable. Ghost instabilities, if they ever
497: arise, can only set in when the non-linearities become important.
498: On the other hand, the leading non-linearities come from trilinear
499: interactions of longitudinal gravitons and their relative strength
500: is suppressed by the strong coupling scale $\Lambda_{strong}^3 \,
501: = \,2 M_4/ r_c^2$ \cite{gia}. This gives the most conservative
502: upper bound on the tension,
503: \begin{equation}
504: \rho_0 < \frac {M_4^2} {r_c^2}. \label{lambdamax}
505: \end{equation}
506: By taking $r_c$ of the order of the horizon scale this gives
507: $\rho_0 < (meV)^4$.
508:
509: The argument above does not rule out the presence of tachyonic
510: instabilities\footnote{We would like to thank Shinji Mukohyama for
511: discussions about this point}. These instabilities arise depending
512: on the fluid and are analogous to the ones of Einstein's static
513: Universe. Note however that the time scale of these instabilities,
514: which is under control in the effective description, is set by the
515: source so it can be made arbitrarily large by appropriate choice
516: of parameters (see below).
517:
518: The tachyon instability can be seen from the Friedman equation,
519: which in DGP with bulk cosmological constant and dark radiation
520: becomes (see Appendix B),
521: \begin{equation}
522: 6\epsilon \, M_5^3\, {\sqrt{f(R)+\dot R^2}\over R} =
523: \;-3M_4^2\,{\dot R^2+\kappa\over R^2}+{\rho(t)}~, \label{frw}
524: \end{equation}
525: where $R(t)$ is the scale factor,
526: \begin{equation}
527: f(R)=\kappa - \frac {R^2}{\ell^2} - \frac C {R^2}~,
528: \end{equation}
529: $\ell^2={6M^3_5/\Lambda_5}$ is the de-Sitter radius and $C$ is the
530: mass of the black hole in the bulk. Consider first the case
531: without DGP term. Eq. (\ref{frw}) implies,
532: \begin{equation}
533: \dot{R}^2 - \left( \frac {R^2}{\ell^2} +{C\over R^2}+ \frac
534: {R^2\,\rho^2} {36 M_5^6}\right)=-\kappa
535: \end{equation}
536: This is the equation for a particle with energy $-k/2$ moving in a
537: potential $V(R)$. From this equation it follows that a negative
538: bulk cosmological constant (corresponding imaginary $\ell$) can
539: make the potential positive in some region, and a local minimum
540: with zero potential is in general possible. This is the case for
541: some of the solutions that we found. The inclusion of the DGP term
542: modifies this conclusion in the following way. Any flat space
543: solution found before is obviously a solution with the DGP term.
544: If we consider fluctuations around this background, expanding
545: (\ref{frw}) to quadratic order, $R(t)=R_0+\delta(t)$, we see that
546: the kinetic term is given by,
547: \begin{equation}
548: \left(\frac {3 \epsilon M_5^3}{R_0 \sqrt{f(R_0)}}+ \frac {3 M_4^2}
549: {R_0^2}\right) \delta'^2
550: \end{equation}
551: Using the equation of motion (\ref{frw}) for the solution, one
552: sees that the kinetic term is
553: \begin{equation}
554: 3 \frac{6M_5^6+ \rho_0\, M_4^2}{R_0^2\,\rho_0 }\;\delta'^2
555: \end{equation}
556: Therefore, if $\rho_0<0$, the DGP term can change the stability of
557: the solutions making certain unstable configurations stable and
558: viceversa. In the general with a cosmological constant $\Lambda_4$
559: and a fluid with energy density $\rho_0'$ and equation of state
560: $w'$ on the brane, then the second derivative of the potential is
561: $$
562: -\frac{(w'+1)\rho_0' \left[(3w'-1)\Lambda_4
563: +2(3w'+1)\rho_0'\right]}{6M_5^6+[\Lambda_4+\rho_0'] M_4^2}~.
564: $$
565: For a generic fluid there is always a range of parameters for
566: which the solution corresponds to the minimum of the potential and
567: so it is stable. In the case of instabilities, for realistic
568: values of the parameters, the time scale of the instability is of
569: order of Hubble.
570:
571: \section{De Sitter Breaking}
572: \label{sec:dS}
573:
574: In this section we discuss the spontaneous breaking of the
575: isometries of de-Sitter space. Similar arguments could also be
576: applied to Anti-de-Sitter.
577:
578: At the linear level a massive graviton on de-Sitter space must be
579: described by the PF equation (\ref{pfequation}) where ${\cal E
580: }^{\alpha\beta}_{\mu\nu}$ is now the linearized Einstein tensor
581: for de-Sitter space and $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is replaced by de Sitter
582: metric,
583: \begin{equation}
584: ds^2=-dt^2+e^{2 H t}dx_i dx_i.
585: \end{equation}
586: Similarly to the Minkowski case we would like to find solutions
587: which remain de Sitter space but break its isometries due to the
588: VEV of the energy-momentum tensor. Following the flat space
589: example in order to achieve this at linear order one would need to
590: find solutions of the equation,
591: \begin{equation}
592: h_{\mu\nu}-\hat{g}_{\mu\nu} h=-\frac {2\,T_{\mu\nu}} {m^2\,M_4^2}
593: \label{puregaugeDS}
594: \end{equation}
595: which are pure gauge on de Sitter, i.e. $h_{\mu\nu}=D_\mu
596: \xi_{\nu}+D_\nu \xi_{\mu}$. One can easily prove that this is not
597: possible at least for any perfect fluid which is homogenous and
598: isotropic. The crucial point is that due to the cosmological
599: expansion a conserved $T_{\mu\nu}$ is time dependent,
600: \begin{equation}
601: T^\mu_\nu=\frac {\rho_0} {a^{3(1+w)}}\, {\rm diag} (-1,~w,~w,~w),
602: \end{equation}
603: where $w$ is the equation of state of the fluid and $a=e^{H t}$.
604: Solving eq. (\ref{puregaugeDS}) one finds,
605: \begin{equation}
606: h^\mu_\nu= \frac 2 {m^2 M_4^2} \frac{\rho_0}{a^{3(1+w)}} \,{\rm
607: diag} (w+\frac 2 3,-\frac {1} 3 ,-\frac {1} 3,-\frac {1} 3)~.
608: \end{equation}
609: Plugging this into the linearized Einstein (or Riemann) tensor one
610: can easily check that this is not pure gauge for any choice of
611: $w$. Therefore it is impossible to break Lorentz invariance in
612: de-Sitter space in a theory with a single massive graviton.
613:
614: The conclusion above can be circumvented in a theory with several
615: massive gravitons. The reason for this is that for a general fluid
616: the solution of the Pauli-Fierz equation on de Sitter is given by,
617: \begin{equation}
618: h^\mu_\nu= \frac {2} {(m^2-2 H^2) M_4^2} \frac{\rho_0}{a^{3(1+w)}}
619: \,{\rm diag} (w+\frac 2 3,-\frac {1} 3 ,-\frac {1} 3,-\frac {1}
620: 3).
621: \end{equation}
622: A curios feature of massive gravity on de-Sitter space is that the
623: only consistent theories must have mass greater than $2H^2$
624: \cite{higuchi}. It follows that massless and massive gravitons
625: respond with opposite sign to a fluid. Since the metric measured
626: is in general a superpositions of modes as in
627: (\ref{superposition}), it should be possible to arrange a system
628: so that the total curvature does not change. For example in a
629: theory with extra-dimensions a fluid localized on a de-Sitter
630: brane gives rise to a fluid with the same equation of state for
631: each massive graviton, i.e.
632: $T_{\mu\nu}^{(m)}=T_{\mu\nu}(0)\psi^{(m)}(0)$ where
633: $\psi^{(m)}(y)$ is the wave function of the mode $m$. The
634: five-dimensional metric is then to linear order,
635: \begin{equation}
636: h^\mu_\nu(x,y)= \left(\int \frac
637: {\psi^{(m)}(y)\psi^{(m)}(0)}{2H^2-m^2}\, dm\right) \frac{2\,
638: \rho_0}{M_4^2\,a^{3(1+w)}} \,{\rm diag} (w+\frac 2 3,-\frac {1} 3
639: ,-\frac {1} 3,-\frac {1} 3). \label{integral}
640: \end{equation}
641: It follows that the curvature at the brane is different from zero
642: unless the integral vanishes due to the cancellation of the zero
643: mode and the contribution of the entire Kaluza-Klein tower.
644:
645: Remarkably this possibility can be realized in DGP. To set-up a
646: de-Sitter background we take $T_{\mu\nu}=-\Lambda_4 g_{\mu\nu}$
647: and a bulk cosmological constant $\Lambda_5$. As in Minkowski
648: space to break the isometries we wish to add a non-invariant
649: energy momentum tensor while keeping the induced metric on the
650: brane exactly de-Sitter. From eq. (\ref{braneequation}) we see
651: that this can be achieved by compensating the de-Sitter breaking
652: energy momentum tensor with the extrinsic curvature,
653: \begin{equation}
654: 2 M_5^3(K_{\mu\nu}-g_{\mu\nu}K)=-T_{\mu\nu}
655: \end{equation}
656: For a general equation of state we have then,
657: \begin{eqnarray}\label{tensors}
658: T^\mu_\nu&=&\frac {\rho_0} {a^{3(1+w)}}\; {\rm diag} \lp(-1,~w,~w,~w\rp),\nonumber \\
659: K_{\nu}^{\mu}&=&\frac 1 {2 M_5^3}\frac {\rho_0} {a^{3(1+w)}}\; {\rm diag} \lp(w+\frac 2 3,-\frac 1 3 ,-\frac 1 3,-\frac 1 3\rp)\nonumber \\
660: E^\mu_\nu&=&\frac {E_0} {a^4} \; {\rm diag} \lp(-1,~\frac 1
661: 3,~\frac 1 3,~\frac 1 3\rp)~,
662: \end{eqnarray}
663: where, since $E^\mu_\nu$ is traceless and conserved, it decays
664: like radiation.
665: %
666: In order to fulfill the Gauss constraints (\ref{gauss}) the terms
667: quadratic in $K^\mu_\nu$ should compensate the dark radiation
668: $E^\mu_\nu$. Given that this scales as $1/a^4$, this requires
669: $w=-1/3$ . One can then check that Eqs. (\ref{gauss}) are
670: satisfied by choosing
671: \beq\label{lambdas} %
672: \Lambda_4=r_c \Lambda_5~,
673: \eeq %
674: and
675: \beq %
676: \label{rhorad}%
677: {E_0} = - {1\over 12} \lp({\rho_0\over M^3}\rp)^2~.
678: \eeq%
679: The full bulk solution will be presented in Appendix B. The 5D
680: geometry is Schwarzchild-de Sitter. In the absence of the fluid,
681: $\rho_0=E_0=0$,
682: %
683: the bulk is 5D de Sitter and the brane sits at the maximal slice.
684: This implies that the Hubble rates on the brane and in the bulk
685: coincide, and that the brane becomes ``stealth''. Indeed, when one
686: chooses the condition (\ref{lambdas}), the induced gravity term
687: completely compensates for $\Lambda_4$, and as a result the
688: effective tension vanishes. Once we turn on the Lorentz violating
689: fluid on the brane, then the bulk black hole mass is nonzero and
690: inevitably negative. In order to avoid naked singularities in the
691: bulk, it turns out that the sign of $\rho_0$ must also be
692: negative.
693: %Let us also note that in the limit of vanishing DGP term
694: %($r_c-0$), we still have the same construction, with
695:
696: Going back to the linearized solution, despite the presence of
697: sources in the bulk, the problem still reduces to the one of
698: massive gravitons coupled to a perfect fluid. This is because, as
699: can be seen from Eq. (\ref{rhorad}), the sources are second order
700: in the perturbation, and so they can be neglected in the linear
701: analysis. What remains to be shown to establish the consistence of
702: the two solutions is then that the integral (\ref{integral})
703: indeed vanishes. We prove this in Appendix C.
704:
705: It is interesting to compare the breaking of the de-Sitter
706: isometries discussed above with the symmetry breaking due to the
707: condensation of higher spin fields. Consider for example the
708: spin-1 tachyon. Since the stabilizing potential is a function of
709: $A_\mu A^\mu$ it is clear that a solution with a constant VEV of
710: $A_0$ is not affected by the cosmological expansion. This is
711: possible because the tachyon condensate does not reduce to an
712: ordinary fluid. In the DGP case since the symmetry breaking is
713: induced by a conserved energy momentum tensor on the brane the
714: violations of isometries dilutes with the expansion of the
715: universe.
716:
717: \section{Conclusions}
718: \label{conclusions}
719:
720: In this note we investigated different mechanisms for breaking
721: spontaneously Lorentz invariance or more in general isometries of
722: maximally symmetric spaces. One possibility is the condensation of
723: integer spin tensor fields. This scenario in general implies the
724: presence of ghost instabilities which cannot be controlled in an
725: effective field theory framework around a maximally symmetric
726: background. The second possibility is breaking Lorentz invariance
727: through the VEV of the energy momentum tensor. In ordinary four
728: dimensional theories this would necessarily affect the geometry of
729: space-time leading to practically unobservable Lorentz violating
730: effects once cosmological bounds are enforced. This conclusion
731: does not hold in a theory with extra-dimensions such as DGP or
732: even in a theory with massive gravitons because the space can
733: remain maximally symmetric despite the Lorentz violation.
734:
735: \section*{Acknowledgments}
736:
737: We would like to thank Nima Arkani-Hamed, Jose Juan Blanco-Pillado
738: and especially Gregory Gabadadze and Shinji Mukohyama for
739: interesting discussions. The work of G. D. and M. R. is supported
740: in part by David and Lucile Packard Foundation Fellowship for
741: Science and Engineering, and by the NSF grant PHY-0245068. O. P.
742: acknowledges support from Departament d'Universitats, Recerca i
743: Societat de la Informaci{\'o} of the Generalitat de Catalunya,
744: under the Beatriu de Pin{\' o}s Fellowship 2005 BP-A 10131.
745:
746: \section*{Appendix A: Arbitrary Spins}
747:
748: In this appendix we extend the results of section \ref{hs} to higher
749: spin fields. A massive spin$-n$ field can be decomposed into a
750: massless spin-$n$ and St\"uckelberg fields of lower spin. For a
751: spin-$n$ an entire tower of massless spin-$(n-1),...,0$ St\"uckelberg
752: fields will be required. The most convenient way to construct
753: consistent theories of high spin massive particles is by starting
754: with the massless theory in one extra-dimension \cite{riccioni}. A
755: massless spin$-n$ field is described by a symmetric tensor
756: $H_{\mu_1\dots\mu_n}$ subject to a ``double trace'' constraint,
757: \begin{equation}
758: H^{\alpha\beta}_{~~\alpha\beta\,\mu_5\dots\mu_n}=0.
759: \label{doubletrace}
760: \end{equation}
761: As for the spin-2, at the quadratic level, there is a unique
762: ghost-free consistent lagrangian,
763: \begin{eqnarray}
764: {\cal L}&=&-\frac 1 2 (\partial_M H_{\dots})^2+\frac n 2 (\partial_M
765: H^M_{~\dots})^2+\frac {n(n-1)} 2 (\partial_M H^L_{~L\dots})^2
766: \nonumber \\
767: && + \frac {n(n-1)(n-2)} 8 (\partial_M H^{ML}_{~~L\dots})^2+\frac
768: {n(n-1)} 2 H^L_{~L\dots}(\partial_M\partial_N H^{MN}_{~~\dots})^2
769: \label{highspin}
770: \end{eqnarray}
771: which is gauge invariant with respect to,
772: \begin{equation}
773: \delta H_{M_1\dots M_n}=n\,\partial_{(M_1} \epsilon_{M_2\dots M_n)}
774: \label{agauge}
775: \end{equation}
776: where $\epsilon_{M_2\dots M_n}$ is a traceless symmetric tensor and
777: the parenthesis denotes symmetrization of the indexes. The massive
778: theory in one dimension less can be derived by compactifying on a
779: circle of radius $1/m$ and truncating to the first KK level. One of
780: the advantages of this formulation is that it keeps the gauge
781: invariance of the massive theory manifest. In fact the components of
782: the field with indexes in the internal dimension and harmonic
783: dependence on the extra coordinate are automatically the
784: St\"uckelberg fields of the theory,
785: \begin{equation}
786: H_{\mu_1\dots\mu_s\,y\dots y}(x,y)=\phi^{(s)}_{\mu_1\dots \mu_s}(x)
787: \cos (m\,y), \label{astuckelberg}
788: \end{equation}
789: From (\ref{agauge}) it follows that the massive theory is
790: invariant under,
791: \begin{equation}
792: \delta \phi^{(s)}_{\mu_1\dots \mu_s}= s\, \partial_{(\mu_1}
793: \epsilon_{\mu_2\dots \mu_s\,y\dots y)}-(n-s) m\,
794: \epsilon_{\mu_1\dots\,\mu_s\,y\dots y}, \label{shift}
795: \end{equation}
796: Roughly speaking the meaning of this transformation is that each
797: $\phi^{(s)}$ is a gauge field with an additional shift symmetry
798: required to to be Goldstone boson for $\phi^{(s+1)}$. Differently
799: from the spin-2 case however not all the St\"uckelberg fields can be
800: gauged away and some of them act as auxiliary fields (this follows
801: from the constraint that $\epsilon$ must be traceless).
802:
803: Let us now focus on the highest spin St\"uckelberg field
804: $\phi^{(n-1)}_{\mu_1\dots\mu_{n-1}}$. By plugging
805: (\ref{astuckelberg}) into the action (\ref{highspin}) one can see
806: that this field acquires a positive kinetic term of the form
807: (\ref{highspin}). Note also that no mass term is generated because
808: of the global shift transformation in (\ref{shift}). For the lower
809: St\"uckelberg fields the situation is more complicated in general
810: because the ones that are dynamical acquire kinetic terms from the
811: mixing with higher ones.
812:
813: The previous derivation applies to the positive $m^2$ spin$-n$
814: theories. The tachyonic case can be derived by starting with two
815: time directions and compactifying one of them. This reverses the
816: sign of all the mass terms. The kinetic term for the first
817: St\"uckelberg is now ghost-like proving that any higher spin tachyon
818: contains ghost instabilities. The lower St\"uckelbergs
819: which are dynamical will have alternating positive and ghost kinetic
820: terms.
821:
822: \section*{Appendix B: Exact Solutions}
823:
824: In this Appendix we present the full solutions including the bulk
825: where the brane is maximally symmetric even though it supports
826: Lorentz violating sources. We shall focus on two cases: in the
827: first one, the brane is flat and the source is a perfect fluid
828: with arbitrary equation of state $w=p/\rho$. The Weyl tensor is
829: non-zero, and the bulk is asymptotically $AdS$.
830: %
831: In the second example, the brane geometry is de Sitter and the
832: source is a fluid with equation of state $w=-1/3$. As we shall
833: see, this solution requires a positive bulk cosmological constant
834: $\Lambda_5$ and a non-zero Weyl tensor as well.
835: %
836:
837: In order to construct the solution, we note that a maximally
838: symmetric brane is compatible with a bulk whose symmetries are
839: only the isotropy and homogeneity of the 3-dimensional spatial
840: slices, {\em i.e.}, 5D spherical symmetry (see also the discussion
841: in \cite{csaki}). Given that in the bulk we have Einstein gravity,
842: the Birkhoff theorem ensures that the bulk takes the form of the
843: Schwarzchild-de Sitter metric \cite{bcg},
844: \beq\label{static} %
845: ds_5^2= -f(R) dT^2 +{dR^2\over f(R)} +R^2 d\Omega_\kappa^2
846: \eeq %
847: where $f(R)=\kappa - (R/\ell)^2 - C/R^2$, and $d\Omega_\kappa^2$
848: denotes the line element of a unit 3 dimensional sphere, flat
849: space or hyperbolic space for $\kappa=1,~0$ and $-1$ respectively.
850: %
851: The de Sitter curvature radius is given by
852: $$
853: \ell^2={6M_5^3\over \Lambda_5}~,
854: $$
855: and the projected Weyl tensor \cite{sms} (see Eq (\ref{tensors}))
856: is related to the 5D Black hole mass parameter $C$ through
857: \beq\label{CrhoE} %
858: E_0 = {3 C\over R^4}~.
859: \eeq %
860:
861: The brane location can always be parameterized by two functions
862: $R=R(t)$ and $T=T(t)$. This introduces a reparameterization
863: freedom, that can be fixed by choosing
864: \beq\label{gchoice} %
865: f(R)\, \dot T^2 -{\dot R^2 \over f(R)} =1~.
866: \eeq %
867: In this gauge, the induced metric on the brane is simply
868: \beq\label{induced} %
869: ds_4^2=-dt^2+R^2(t) d\Omega_\kappa^2.
870: \eeq %
871: %
872: The brane trajectory, that is the form of $R(t)$, is obtained from
873: the Israel junction condition (\ref{braneequation}). This reduces
874: to the modified Friedman equation
875: \beq %
876: \label{angular}%
877: 6\epsilon \, M_5^3\, {\sqrt{f(R)+\dot R^2}\over R} =
878: \;-3M_4^2\,{\dot R^2+\kappa\over R^2}+{\rho(t)+\Lambda_4}~.
879: \eeq%
880: Here, $\rho(t)$ is the energy density of the fluid on the brane,
881: and $\epsilon=\pm1$ is the sign of the extrinsic curvature. In
882: our conventions, $\epsilon=1$ means that the bulk is the
883: ``interior'' of the brane.
884:
885: \subsection*{B.1 Flat Brane with General Fluid}
886:
887: In this case, the full solution can be read off from
888: (\ref{static}). In the flat slicing ($\kappa=0$), the metric has a
889: horizon at $R=(C\ell^{2})^{1/4}$, where now $\ell$ denotes the AdS
890: radius, $\ell^2=-{6M^3_5/\Lambda_5}$. The brane sits at a constant
891: ``radial'' coordinate, $R_0$. Its actual value (together with $C$)
892: is not determined by the Friedman equation (\ref{angular}) or by
893: (\ref{gauss}), which only determine the ratio $E_0={3 C/ R_0^4}$.
894: What this means is that we can trade a larger black hole with a
895: brane location closer to it. However, once we specify the distance
896: between the brane and the horizon, everything else is fixed.
897: %
898: In terms of the proper coordinate along the bulk the metric takes
899: the form presented in (\ref{TaubAds}). In those coordinates, it is
900: apparent that the parameter $C$ is irrelevant, as it can be
901: rescaled away. The constant $y_0$ is the distance between the
902: brane and the horizon, which is entirely fixed by $\rho_0$ and
903: $w$. Note also that (\ref{TaubAds}) explicitly goes to flat space
904: in the $\rho_0\to0$ limit.
905:
906: >From Eq. (\ref{flat}), we see that for $w<-1$, the bulk black hole
907: has positive mass, and it also follows that $\Lambda_5<0$. Given
908: that the brane is flat, a fluid with this equation of state can be
909: composed of the brane cosmological constant $\Lambda_4$ plus some
910: fluid with energy density $\rho_0'$ and equation of state $w'$.
911: For $w'>-1$ and $\Lambda_4<-\rho_0'$, one obtains that the
912: equation of state of the superposition is $w<-1$. This also
913: implies that the total energy density on the brane is negative. In
914: Figure \ref{fig:diagrams}, we show the conformal diagram
915: corresponding to this case. The brane lies outside the black hole
916: horizon, and the bulk corresponds to the region that includes the
917: asymptotic AdS boundary.
918:
919:
920: For $w=-1/3$ the metric reduces to the one found by Taub long ago
921: \cite{taub},
922: \begin{equation}
923: ds^2= \lp(1+c|y|\rp)^{-{2\over 3}} \lp( -dt^2 + dy^2 \rp)+
924: \lp(1+c|y|\rp)^{2\over 3} dx_{3}^2 %
925: \label{taub}
926: \end{equation}
927: with $c=-\rho_0/M^{3}_5$. As in the solutions of the next
928: subsection, the energy density of the brane $\rho_0$ must be
929: negative in order not to have a naked singularity in the bulk.
930:
931:
932: \subsection*{B.2 De Sitter Brane}
933:
934: Let us now turn to the solutions with a de Sitter brane. Since the
935: induced metric is given by (\ref{induced}), we will have a de
936: Sitter brane by demanding that $R(t)$ is
937: \beq %
938: R(t)= H^{-1} \left\{
939: \begin{array}{ll}
940: \cosh(H t) & \hbox{for~$\kappa=1$} \\
941: e^{Ht} & \hbox{for~$\kappa=0$} \\
942: \sinh(H t) & \hbox{for~$\kappa=-1$}~. \\
943: \end{array}%
944: \right. %
945: \eeq%
946: Let us now find out what kind of fluid gives rise to this
947: trajectory. The scale factor solves the equation
948: $$
949: \dot R^2+\kappa=(HR)^2~.
950: $$
951: If the brane and bulk expansion rates coincide, $H=1/\ell$, the
952: extrinsic curvature
953: $$
954: {1\over R}\sqrt{f(R)+\dot R^2}={\sqrt{-C}\over R^2}
955: $$
956: contributes to (\ref{angular}) like a curvature term. In light of
957: this, the Friedmann equation (\ref{angular}) reduces to
958: \beq %
959: \label{angular2}%
960: 6\epsilon \, M_5^3\,{\sqrt{-C}\over R^2} = -3M_4^2\,H^2+\Lambda_4
961: +\rho~.
962: \eeq%
963: Hence, it is possible to preserve the de Sitter expansion if
964: $H^2=\Lambda_4/3M_4^2$ and the fluid redshifts like $1/R^2$, which
965: corresponds to an equation of state $w=-1/3$.
966: %
967: If the brane and the bulk inflate at different rates, then a de
968: Sitter brane is still in principle possible, but this requires a
969: fluid with a very specific time dependent equation of state.
970: Hence, we shall disregard this possibility. Let us emphasize that
971: the condition $H=1/\ell$ is equivalent to
972: $$
973: \Lambda_4=r_c \Lambda_5,~
974: $$
975: and that in the absence of the fluid (and the bulk black hole) it
976: implies that the brane is effectively \emph{stealth}: for this
977: choice of $\Lambda_4$, the brane can only 'fit' in the equator of
978: the 5D de Sitter, so the extrinsic curvature must vanish. This is
979: compatible with the fact that the brane has nonzero tension thanks
980: to the DGP term, which completely screens it, so that the
981: effective tension is zero.
982:
983: It is clear from (\ref{angular2}) that the bulk black hole mass
984: parameter $C$ can only be negative. This means that there is a
985: naked singularity at $R=0$. Thus, the only regular solution must
986: include the 'exterior' of the brane. This corresponds to negative
987: extrinsic curvature, $\epsilon=-1$. Hence, the fluid must also
988: have $\rho<0$.
989:
990: It is not apparent in the static coordinates (\ref{static}), but
991: the extension of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric beyond the
992: cosmological horizon has another naked singularity placed at the
993: opposite pole, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:diagrams}. To avoid it,
994: one can place another brane with the same $\Lambda_4$ and with
995: the same kind of fluid with $w=-1/3$.
996:
997: Once $R(t)$ is fixed, $T(t)$ is obtained by Eq. (\ref{gchoice}).
998: After some algebra, one arrives to the following equation for
999: $T(R)$,
1000: \beq\label{T(R)} %
1001: \partial_R T = {\sqrt{-C}\over R f(R) \sqrt{(HR)^2-\kappa}}~.
1002: \eeq %
1003: This also tells us that the only possible dS embedding is with a
1004: negative mass particle in the bulk, $C<0$.
1005:
1006: Let us briefly comment on the continuation beyond the cosmological
1007: horizon. For any $\kappa$, $R(t)$ eventually grows without bound.
1008: The static coordinates displayed in (\ref{static}) in general
1009: cover a finite range of $R$ bounded by the two roots of $f(R)=0$.
1010: %
1011: In our case ($C<0$ and $\Lambda_5>0$) there is no inner horizon
1012: and the outer horizon is at $R=R_+>\ell$. Hence, the brane
1013: initially fits inside the horizon but in a finite proper time it
1014: crosses it.
1015: %
1016: The continuation of (\ref{static}) is done by replacing $T\to
1017: X+i\pi/2$ and simply allowing for $R>R_+$, so that the metric
1018: looks like $ds_5^2= g(R) dX^2 -dR^2/ g(R) +R^2 d\Omega_\kappa^2 $
1019: with $g(R)=-f(R)>0$.
1020: %
1021: Thus, $R$ becomes the time coordinate and it continues to be the
1022: scale factor on the brane. Given that this continuation does not
1023: affect the junction condition (\ref{angular}), the form of $R(t)$
1024: of course does not change when $R_+$ is crossed.
1025: %
1026: We can also see that $T$ picks up a constant imaginary part from
1027: Eq. (\ref{T(R)}), since the r.h.s. has a simple pole at $R=R_+$.
1028:
1029: \begin{figure}[!tb]
1030: \begin{center}
1031: \includegraphics[width=.7 \textwidth]{diagrams3.eps}
1032: \caption{Left: conformal diagrams of the solution with de Sitter
1033: branes. The bulk consists of Schwarzschild-de Sitter with negative
1034: mass, which has two naked singularities, one at each pole. The
1035: static chart displayed in (\ref{static}) covers the interior of
1036: the left diamond. In order to avoid the singularity, we have to
1037: take $\rho<0$. Still, we have to avoid the other one, which can be
1038: accomplished by placing another brane with the same kind of fluid
1039: after the equator, represented with the dashed line. Right:
1040: conformal diagram for the solution with a flat brane supporting a
1041: fluid with generic equation of state. The bulk is
1042: Schwarzschild-AdS with positive mass. The effective brane tension
1043: is negative, so the solution corresponds to the exterior,
1044: including the AdS boundary. The background solution does not
1045: depend on $M_4$, but gravity is not effectively four dimensional
1046: unless the DGP term is included.}
1047: \label{fig:diagrams} %
1048: \end{center}
1049: \end{figure}
1050:
1051:
1052: \section*{Appendix C: Linearized Analysis in de Sitter}
1053:
1054: In this appendix, we complete the linearized analysis of the de
1055: Sitter violating solution discussed in Section \ref{sec:dS}.
1056: Recall that for the de Sitter brane solution, the background bulk
1057: spacetime is five dimensional de Sitter space,
1058: $$
1059: ds^2=a^2(y)ds_4^2+dy^2~,
1060: $$
1061: with $a(y)=H^{-1}\cos(H y)$.
1062: %
1063: Introducing a Kaluza-Klein decomposition $h_{\mu\nu}=a^2(y)\sum_m
1064: \psi_m(y)h^{(m)}_{\mu\nu}(x)$ where the 4D modes obey
1065: (\ref{pfequation}), then one find the following equation for the
1066: wave functions,
1067: $$
1068: \lp[ a^{-4}\partial_y a^4 \partial_y + {m^2\over a^2}+ r_c m^2
1069: \delta(y)\rp] \psi_{m}(y)=0~.
1070: $$
1071: %
1072: This equation determines that the spectrum is composed of a
1073: massless mode and a continuum of massive gravitons starting at
1074: $m^2=9/4\,H^2$. Instead of $m$, it is convenient to label each KK
1075: level by $p$, defined as
1076: $$
1077: m^2=H^2\lp(p^2+9/4\rp)~.
1078: $$
1079: Thus, the continuum of KK modes starts at $p=0$, while the zero
1080: mode is at $p=3i/2$. Plugging the KK decomposition in the equation
1081: of motion, we obtain an equation for the wave functions
1082: $\psi_m(y)$ whose general solution is a linear combination of
1083: $$
1084: U_{ip}(y)= {\Gamma(1-ip)\over \sqrt{2\pi}\,2^{ip}H^{-3/2}} \,{P_{i
1085: p}^{3/2}\lp(\sin(Hy)\rp)\over \cos^{3/2}(Hy)}~,
1086: $$
1087: and its conjugate $U_{-ip}$, which are the analogues of the plane
1088: waves in de Sitter. Here, $P_\nu^\mu(z)$ denotes the Legendre
1089: function of the first kind and the constants are chosen so that
1090: they are normalized to a delta function.
1091: $$
1092: \int_{-\pi/2H}^{\pi/2H} dy\, a^2(y)\,(1+r_c\delta(y))\,
1093: U_{ip}(y)U_{-ip'}(y)=\delta(p-p')~.
1094: $$
1095: The $r_c\delta(y)$ term in this normalization is required because
1096: of the kinetic term localized on the brane (see \cite{dgpfluct}
1097: for a detailed discussion).
1098:
1099: The precise combination is dictated by the boundary conditions,
1100: which take the form
1101: $$
1102: \partial_y \psi - {1\over2} r_c H^2 (p^2+9/4) \psi=0~,
1103: $$
1104: where everything is evaluated at $y=0^{+}$. Hence, KK wave
1105: functions are
1106: \beq\label{KK} %
1107: \psi^{KK}_p(y)={A(-p) U_{ip}-A(p) U_{-ip}\over i \sqrt{2
1108: A(p)A(-p)}}~,
1109: \eeq %
1110: where
1111: $$
1112: A(p)= U'_{ip}(0) - {1\over2} r_c H^2 (p^2+9/4) U_{ip}(0)~.
1113: $$
1114: The zero mode is normalized as
1115: $$
1116: \int_{-\pi/2H}^{\pi/2H} dy\, a^2(y)\,(1+r_c\delta(y))\,
1117: |\psi_{z.m.}(y)|^2=1~.
1118: $$
1119: Given that $\psi_{z.m.}(y)$ is constant, we obtain
1120: $$
1121: \psi_{z.m.}^2=\lp({\pi\over2}+Hr_c\rp)H^3~.
1122: $$
1123:
1124: In order to show that to linear order the induced metric remains
1125: de Sitter, we need to compute the sum over the spectrum appearing
1126: in Eq. (\ref{integral}). This can be written as
1127: $$
1128: I=-{1\over 2 H^2 }\psi_{z.m.}(0)^2+{1\over H^2 }\int_0^\infty dp\,
1129: {{\psi^{KK}_p(0)}^2\over p^2+1/4}~.
1130: $$
1131: The contribution from the KK modes can be expressed as
1132: \beq\label{int} %
1133: {1\over2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dp \,{1\over p^2+1/4}\lp(U_{ip}
1134: U_{-ip}-{A(-p) U_{ip}^2\over A(p)}\rp)
1135: \eeq %
1136: This can be converted into contour integral where the contour
1137: closes the upper half plane. The integral, then, is evaluated by
1138: summing over the residues. Given that the Legendre functions have
1139: no poles in the $p$ plane, the only poles contributing to
1140: (\ref{int}) come from the zeros of $A(p)$ and possibly from
1141: $p=i/2$. It is easy to show that in the upper $p$ plane $A(p)$
1142: vanishes at $p=3i/2$. A straightforward computation of the residue
1143: shows that this contribution completely cancels that of the zero
1144: mode. On the other hand, when the wave functions are evaluated on
1145: the brane, at $y=0$, the residue at $p=i/2$ turns out to be zero.
1146: Hence, $I=0$.
1147:
1148: \vspace{0.5cm}
1149:
1150: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Bibliography %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1151:
1152: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1153:
1154: \bibitem{coleman}
1155: S.~R.~Coleman and S.~L.~Glashow,
1156: ``High-energy tests of Lorentz invariance,''
1157: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 116008 (1999)
1158: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812418].
1159:
1160: \bibitem{papucci}
1161: G.~Dvali, M.~Papucci and M.~D.~Schwartz,
1162: ``Infrared Lorentz violation and slowly instantaneous electricity,''
1163: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94}, 191602 (2005)
1164: [arXiv:hep-th/0501157].
1165:
1166: \bibitem{arkani}
1167: N.~Arkani-Hamed, H.~C.~Cheng, M.~A.~Luty and S.~Mukohyama,
1168: ``Ghost condensation and a consistent infrared modification of gravity,''
1169: JHEP {\bf 0405}, 074 (2004)
1170: [arXiv:hep-th/0312099].
1171:
1172: \bibitem{dgp}
1173: G.~R.~Dvali, G.~Gabadadze and M.~Porrati,
1174: ``4D gravity on a brane in 5D Minkowski space,''
1175: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 485}, 208 (2000)
1176: [arXiv:hep-th/0005016].
1177:
1178: \bibitem{luty}
1179: H.~C.~Cheng, M.~A.~Luty, S.~Mukohyama and J.~Thaler,
1180: ``Spontaneous Lorentz breaking at high energies,''
1181: JHEP {\bf 0605}, 076 (2006)
1182: [arXiv:hep-th/0603010].
1183:
1184: \bibitem{extratime}
1185: G.~Dvali, G.~Gabadadze and G.~Senjanovic, 1999 unpublished. See also
1186: G.~Gabadadze, Proceedings of ``Cosmo 99'', Trieste, Italy, 1999.
1187:
1188: \bibitem{lue}
1189: C.~Deffayet, G.~R.~Dvali, G.~Gabadadze and A.~Lue,
1190: ``Braneworld flattening by a cosmological constant,''
1191: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 104002 (2001)
1192: [arXiv:hep-th/0104201].
1193:
1194: \bibitem{oriol}
1195: G.~Dvali, G.~Gabadadze, O.~Pujolas and R.~Rahman,
1196: ``Domain walls as probes of gravity,''
1197: [arXiv:hep-th/0612016].
1198:
1199: \bibitem{gia}
1200: C.~Deffayet, G.~R.~Dvali, G.~Gabadadze and A.~I.~Vainshtein,
1201: ``Nonperturbative continuity in graviton mass versus perturbative
1202: discontinuity,''
1203: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 044026 (2002)
1204: [arXiv:hep-th/0106001];
1205: M.~A.~Luty, M.~Porrati and R.~Rattazzi,
1206: ``Strong interactions and stability in the DGP model,''
1207: JHEP {\bf 0309}, 029 (2003)
1208: [arXiv:hep-th/0303116].
1209:
1210: \bibitem{csaki}
1211: C.~Csaki, J.~Erlich and C.~Grojean,
1212: ``Gravitational Lorentz violations and adjustment of the cosmological
1213: constant in asymmetrically warped spacetimes,''
1214: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 604}, 312 (2001)
1215: [arXiv:hep-th/0012143].
1216:
1217: \bibitem{sms}
1218: T.~Shiromizu, K.~i.~Maeda and M.~Sasaki,
1219: %``The Einstein equations on the 3-brane world,''
1220: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 024012 (2000)
1221: [arXiv:gr-qc/9910076].
1222:
1223: \bibitem{higuchi}
1224: A.~Higuchi,
1225: ``Forbidden mass range for spin-2 field theory in de Sitter space-time,''
1226: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 282}, 397 (1987).
1227:
1228: \bibitem{riccioni}
1229: M.~Bianchi, P.~J.~Heslop and F.~Riccioni,
1230: ``More on la grande bouffe,''
1231: JHEP {\bf 0508}, 088 (2005)
1232: [arXiv:hep-th/0504156].
1233:
1234: \bibitem{bcg}
1235: P.~Bowcock, C.~Charmousis and R.~Gregory,
1236: ``General brane cosmologies and their global spacetime structure,''
1237: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 17} (2000) 4745
1238: [arXiv:hep-th/0007177].
1239:
1240: \bibitem{taub}
1241: A.~H.~Taub,
1242: ``Plane symmetric spacetimes,''
1243: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 103}, 454 (1956).
1244:
1245: \bibitem{dgpfluct}
1246: O.~Pujolas,
1247: ``Quantum fluctuations in the DGP model and the size of the cross-over
1248: scale,''
1249: JCAP {\bf 0610}, 004 (2006)
1250: [arXiv:hep-th/0605257].
1251:
1252:
1253: \end{thebibliography}
1254:
1255: \end{document}
1256: