# References

Holography and the generalized second law of thermodynamics in (2+1)-dimensional cosmology

Bin Wang<sup>a,b,</sup><sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1e-mail:binwang@fma.if.usp.br, Elcio Abdalla<sup>a,</sup><sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2e-mail:eabdalla@fma.if.usp.br

<sup>a</sup> Instituto De Fisica, Universidade De Sao Paulo, C.P.66.318, CEP 05315-970, Sao Paulo, Brazil

<sup>b</sup> Department of Physics, Shanghai Teachers’ University, P. R. China

## Abstract

The Fischler-Susskind entropy bound has been studied in (2+1)-dimensional universes with negative cosmological constant. As in all contracting universes, that bound is not satisfied. Furthermore, we found that the Fischler-Susskind bound is not compatible with a generalized second law of thermodynamics in (2+1)-dimensional cosmology, neither the classical nor the quantum version. On the other hand, the Hubble entropy bound has been constructed in (2+1)-dimensional cosmology and it is shown compatible with the generalized second law of thermodynamics. 

PACS number(s): 04.70.Dy, 98.80.Cq

Motivated by the well-known result in black hole theory that the total entropy of matter inside a black hole cannot exceed the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, a conceptual change in our thinking about gravity has recently been put forward by the so called “holographic principle” . According to this principle, all the degrees of freedom inside a volume is expressed on its boundary, implying that the entropy of a system cannot be larger than its boundary area. A specific generalization of the holographic principle to cosmology was realized by Fischler and Susskind (FS) . A remarkable point of their proposal is that the holographic principle is valid for flat or open universes with the equation of state satisfying the condition $`0P\rho `$. However, for closed universes the principle is violated. The problem becomes even more serious if one investigates the universe with a negative cosmological constant . In that case the holographic principle fails, independently of whether the universe is closed, open or flat. Various different modifications of the FS version of the holographic principle have been raised recently, such as replacing the holographic principle by the generalized second law of thermodynamics , using the cosmological apparent horizon instead of the particle horizon in the formulation of holographic principle , changing the definition of “degrees of freedom”  etc. A very recent result claimed that the holographic principle in a closed universe can be obeyed if the universe contains strange negative pressure matter . The study of the cosmic holography has also been extended to Pre-big-bang string cosmological models . All these studies have concentrated on (3+1)-dimensional (4D) cosmology.

In our previous work, we have considered the investigations on cosmic holography in (2+1)-dimensional (3D) cosmological models . Analogously to the 4D counterpart, the holographic principle is satisfied in all 3D flat and open universes, but breaks down for 3D closed universes. Attempts to uphold the holographic principle by introducing negative pressure matter as well as matter with very unconventional high pressure failed, because they cannot accomodate any classical description after the big bang. It is of interest to generalize our discussions to 3D universes with a negative cosmological constant. There has been many successful applications of the holographic principle for 3D pure Anti-de Sitter (AdS) space from string theory \[11-14\]. Thus we have the motivation to investigate whether the holographic principle holds in 3D AdS cosmology.

Recently a generalized second law (GSL) of thermodynamics in 4D cosmologies has been put forward , and its relation to the Hubble entropy bound (HE) suggested by Veneziano  has also been discussed. Further study of the GSL in 4D string cosmology has been addressed as well . The second purpose of the present paper is to consider their discussions in 3D cosmological models. By establishing the GSL in 3D universes, and studying its relation to FS entropy bound, we find that the FS bound is not compatible with neither the classical nor the quantum mechanical version of GSL. Since the second law of thermodynamics is more fundamental, the incompatible result between FS bound and GSL gives us additional reason to look for a reformulation of the cosmological holographic principle.

The conflict result between the FS bound and the GSL can be attributed to the fact that the FS bound is too strong and a weaker entropy bound in cosmology is called for. In 4D universes it was claimed that the HE bound, which is looser than the FS bound, is sufficient to avoid any problem with entropy produced at reheating after inflation . A generalization of these studies to 3D universes is appealing and will be carried out in this paper. We are going to define the HE bound and discuss its relation with the FS bound and the Bekenstein entropy (BE) bound in 3D cosmological models. The relation between HE bound and GSL will also be addressed and the compatible result will be reached. These results support the argument that the HE bound may be a candidate to replace the FS bound and describe the cosmic holography.

Cosmological solutions in (2+1)-dimensional Einstein gravity have been proposed in . In terms of the (2+1)-dimensional Robertson-Walker line element

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\mathrm{d}t^2a^2(t)(\frac{\mathrm{d}r^2}{1kr^2}+r^2\mathrm{d}\theta ^2),$$
(1)   
the Einstein field equations become

$`({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi G\rho ,`$ (2)   
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi GP,`$ (3)   
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(\rho a^2)+P{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}a^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (4)   
When the material content is a perfect fluid with equation of state

$$P=(\gamma 1)\rho ,$$
(5)   
where $`\gamma `$ is a constant, we derive the relation

$$\rho a^{2\gamma }=const=\rho _0a_0^{2\gamma }.$$
(6)   
The scale factor is determined by a Friedmann-like equation

$$(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2=\frac{2GM_0}{a^{2\gamma }}\frac{k}{a^2},$$
(7)   
where $`M_0=\pi \rho _0a_0^{2\gamma }`$. For $`\gamma =1`$, the universe is dust-filled and always expands regardless of the value of $`k`$. However, for $`1<\gamma 2`$, the solutions of (7) are closed, open or flat cosmological models according to whether $`k`$ is $`1,1,`$ or $`0`$, respectively. The case $`\gamma =3/2`$ corresponds to the radiation-dominated universe.

It is of interest to investigate the holographic principle in a universe with negative vacuum energy. A universe with negative cosmological constant is contracting, independently of the value of $`k`$. For simplicity, we just consider the flat universe ($`k=0`$) with general equation of state ($`1<\gamma 2`$). The vacuum energy density is negative, $`\lambda <0`$, so that in the expanding universe $`\rho ^{}=\rho \lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0a_0^{2\gamma }}{a^{2\gamma }}}\lambda `$, and the Friedmann equation can be expressed as

$$\dot{a}^2=\frac{2GM_0}{a^{2\gamma 2}}\lambda a^2.$$
(8)   
The scale factor can be calculated and has the form

$$a(t)=(2GM_0/\lambda )^{1/(2\gamma )}\{\mathrm{sin}[\gamma \sqrt{\lambda }t]\}^{1/\gamma }.$$
(9)   
As in the case discussed in , we find that $`\dot{a}`$ vanishes at $`a=(2GM_0/\lambda )^{1/(2\gamma )}`$, and after that point $`\dot{a}`$ becomes negative and the universe collapses. This happens within a finite time after the beginning of the expansion. One can find the value of $`L_H`$ at the turning point:

$$L_H(turning)=\frac{1}{2\gamma \lambda ^{1/2}}B((\gamma 1)/2\gamma ,1/2)$$
(10)   
where $`B(p,q)`$ is the Euler Beta function. It is worth noting that the particle horizon here has the same dependence on $`\lambda `$ as that in 4D case . Putting these formulas together, we get at the turning point

$$\frac{S}{A}\lambda ^{1/\gamma 1/2}.$$
(11)   
Considering $`\gamma 2`$, for small value of $`\lambda `$ (usually believed to be smaller than $`10^{122}`$), the entropy over area bound is satisfied at the turning point. Now we can consider what happens near the final stage of collapse, where the universe shrinks to the Planck scale. By symmetry, $`L_H{\displaystyle \frac{2a_0}{a(turning)}}L_H(turning)\lambda ^{1/2\gamma 1/2}`$  at this time. The scale factor at the Planck time $`t=1`$ is $`a(t=1)=(2GM_0/\lambda )^{1/2\gamma }\{\mathrm{sin}[\gamma \sqrt{\lambda }]\}^{1/\gamma }`$. The ratio is $`S/A\lambda ^{1/2\gamma 1/2}`$. Hence for small $`\lambda `$, the ratio is much bigger than unity for the universe with general equation of state $`1<\gamma 2`$. We find that prior to the point of maximal expansion, the holographic constraints hold. However once after the point where the ratio exceeds unity the holographic bound cannot be further maintained. This result is in agreement with that in (3+1)-dimensions.

For comparison, we can easily see that in the general d-dimensional case, eq.(4) gets modified to $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(\rho a^{d1})+P{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(a^{d1})=0`$, which in view of the equation of state (5) has a solution $`\rho a^{\gamma (d1)}`$. Going through calculations, we learn that Eq(11) has the same form, leading above to similar conclusions. From this point however, we rather stay in 2+1-dimensions where we are able to draw further conclusions.

As pointed out in , the problem can not be expected to be cured by replacing particle horizon by the apparent horizon proposed in , because at the turning point $`\dot{a}=0`$, and Eq.(16) from ref. diverges, that is,

$$\frac{4\sigma }{3a^2(t)\dot{a}(t)}\mathrm{}.$$
(12)   
Therefore the new holographic principle is violated even earlier.

We cannot naively expect the bound to be saved by considering the universe with the unusual negative pressure matter analoguous to the 4D closed universe case , because as we see from (8), after the big bang the universe cannot have sufficient expansion for $`\gamma <1`$, therefore the classical description is not valid.

It is appealing to establish the GSL in 3D universes and study the relation between the GSL and the FS bound. Using the idea proposed in , the definition of the total entropy of a domain in 3D universes containing more than one cosmological horizons is given by $`S=n_HS^H`$, where $`n_H`$ is a number of cosmological horizons within a given comoving “volume” divided by a “volume” of a single horizon $`n_H=a(t)^2/|H(t)|^2`$; $`S^H`$ is the entropy within a given horizon. The classical GSL requires that the cosmological evolution must obey $`dS0`$, which corresponds to

$$n_H_tS^H+_tn_HS^H0$$
(13)   
Adopting the idea used in the GSL for black hole, we consider that there could be many sources and types of entropy, and the total entropy is the sum of their contributions. Supposing a single type of entropy is dominant, $`S^H=|H|^\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ indicates the type of the entropy source, therefore $`S=(a|H|)^2|H|^\alpha `$, and Eq(13) can be rewritten as

$$2H+(2+\alpha )\frac{\dot{H}}{H}0.$$
(14)   
Let us reexpress Eqs.(2-4) in the forms,

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi G\rho {\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}`$   
$`\dot{H}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi G(P+\rho )+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}`$ (15)   
$`\dot{\rho }`$ $`+`$ $`2H(P+\rho )=0`$   
and substitute them into (14). We find that the relations for equations of state determined by the GSL are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\rho }}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2+\alpha }}1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha k}{2\pi G(2+\alpha )a^2\rho }},forH>0,`$ (16)   
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\rho }}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2+\alpha }}1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha k}{2\pi G(2+\alpha )a^2\rho }},forH<0.`$ (17)   
In the last terms of Eqs(16,17), $`a^2\rho `$ corresponds to the energy of the whole universe, so $`E=a^2\rho k`$, thus the last terms in Eqs. (16,17) can be neglected.

Employing the first law of thermodynamics, $`TdS=dE+PdV=(\rho +P)dV+Vd\rho `$, the temperature can be obtained by $`T^1=({\displaystyle \frac{S}{E}})_V={\displaystyle \frac{s}{\rho }}`$, where $`E=\rho V,S=sV`$, therefore

$$T=\frac{1}{\pi G(2+\alpha )|H|^\alpha }$$
(18)   
To ensure that singularities are avoided for the expressions of the total entropy $`S`$, $`_tS`$ and the temperature $`T`$ when a flat space limit of vanishing $`H`$ is taken into account, the reasonable physical range of $`\alpha `$ should lie within the region $`1\alpha 0`$.

Let us now consider that the dominant contribution to the entropy of the universe is given by the geometric entropy $`S_g`$ whose source is the existence of a cosmological horizon . This is a speculative notion introduced in . Let us herewith suppose that a component of entropy arises from geometry. We are thus in a position to discuss the relation between the GSL and the FS entropy bound. For a system with a cosmological horizon, $`S_g^H`$ is given by

$$S_g^H=|H|^1G_N^1,$$
(19)   
which corresponds to $`\alpha =1`$. Substituting this value of $`\alpha `$ into Eqs.(16,17), equations of state corresponding to adiabatic evolution with dominant $`S_g`$ are obtained. For the expanding universe $`H>0`$, and GSL requires $`P\rho `$, which is in agreement with the results obtained in  for the FS bound. However for negative $`H`$, which corresponding to the contracting universe, GSL requires $`P/\rho (1,\mathrm{})`$. This range corresponds to $`\gamma >2`$ in Eq.(5), which is ruled out in any 3D contracting universes in FS bound discussions. Therefore, for the 3D contracting universes the FS bound is not compatible with the GSL.

Whether adding a missing quantum entropy term and developing the quantum mechanical version of the GSL can help us arriving at the compatibility between the FS bound and the GSL for contracting 3D universes is still not clear. Using the definition for the quantum entropy in 4D cases , $`dS_{Quan.}=\mu dn_H`$, where $`\mu `$ is a “chemical potential”, always taken to be positive, $`n_H=(aH)^2`$, we obtain

$`dS`$ $`=`$ $`dS_{Class.}+dS_{Quan.}`$ (20)   
$`=`$ $`dn_HS^H+n_HdS^H\mu dn_H`$   
where $`S^H`$ is the classical entropy within a cosmological horizon and $`S^H=|H|^\alpha `$ if the classical entropy is dominated by a single source. The quantum modified GSL can be expressed as

$$(2H+2\frac{\dot{H}}{H})n_H(S^H\mu )+\alpha \frac{\dot{H}}{H}n_HS^H0.$$
(21)   
Considering that geometric entropy still dominates the classical entropy, $`\alpha =1`$, we learn from (21) that

$$\frac{P}{\rho }\frac{S^H}{S^H2\mu }$$
(22)   
for the contracting universe, $`H<0`$.

If $`\mu S^H`$, it returns to the classical case and leads to $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\rho }}(1,\mathrm{})`$; if quantum effects are comparable to classical effects, $`\mu S^H`$, $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\rho }}(1,\mathrm{})`$; and if quantum effect dominates, say $`\mu S^H`$, $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\rho }}(0,\mathrm{})`$. These results are never compatible with the requirement of the FS bound, because $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\rho }}>1`$ or $`1<{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\rho }}<0`$ corresponds to $`\gamma >2`$ or $`0<\gamma <1`$, respectively, which are all unacceptable by the FS bound in all contracting universes. Therefore the quantum consideration still cannot lead to the compatibility between the FS bound and the GSL.

Since we believed that the second law of thermodynamics is a fundamental principle in physics, such an incompatible result gives us additional motivation to seek for the reformulation of the cosmic holographic principle. One may attribute the incompatibility to the argument that FS bound is too strong, a looser cosmic entropy bound is called for to solve this conflict with GSL. A possible way was suggested by Veneziano for 4D cosmology  by replacing the FS bound by the HE bound. Based upon the argument that a black hole larger than $`H^1`$ cannot form, generalizing to 3D cases we find the largest entropy in a region corresponding to have just one black hole per Hubble “volume” $`H^2`$ is that $`sM_p^2|H|`$, where $`M_p=G_N^{1/2}`$, and the HE bound in 3D universes can be defined as

$$S^HM_p^2|H|^1S_{HE}$$
(23)   
Recalling the definitions for the BE bound and the FS bound, in 3D they can be expressed as

$`S_{BE}`$ $``$ $`EL/\mathrm{}Md_p/\mathrm{}\rho d_p^2d_p/\mathrm{}H^2d_p^2d_p/l_p^2`$ (24)   
$`S_{FS}`$ $``$ $`d_p/\mathrm{}d_p/l_p^2`$ (25)   
where $`d_p`$ is the particle horizon, $`l_p\sqrt{\mathrm{}}M_p`$. We substitute the particle horizon $`d_p`$ by $`H^1`$, and consider that when applied to non-inflationary cosmology, they are about the same . Thus in 3D cases we can reproduce the relation among different entropy bounds first obtained in 4D cases ,

$$S_{HE}=S_{FS}^{1/2}S_{BE}^{1/2}$$
(26)   
It is easy to see that the HE bound is much looser than the FS bound.

The most attractive point now is to study whether the HE bound is compatible with GSL in 3D cosmological models. Assuming a single dominant entropy form, $`S^H=({\displaystyle \frac{|H|}{M_p}})^\alpha `$, bound (23) can be written as

$$(\frac{|H|}{M_p})^\alpha M_p^2|H|^1$$
(27)   
Considering the reasonable physical region of $`\alpha `$, we need

$$|H|M_pM_p^{1/\alpha +1}.$$
(28)   
From the HE bound, we learn that $`|H|`$ has a maximum value, therefore in order not to violate this bound we need for expanding universe $`H>0`$, the evolution of the 3D universe undergoes decelerated expansion, say $`H>0,\dot{H}<0`$. GSL allows such an evolution. Since in the physical region $`1\alpha 0`$, Eq(14) reads

$$2H+(2+\alpha )\frac{\dot{H}}{H}>2H+\frac{\dot{H}}{H}0$$
(29)   
For $`\dot{H}<0`$, it leads directly to a requirement for the equation of state, that is, $`\rho P`$. This is quite natural and thus the entropy bound is valid without violation of GSL.

For a contracting universe with $`H<0`$, to satisfy the entropy bound, we need the universe to experience decelerated contraction, namely $`\dot{H}>0`$. This requirement is obviously not compatible with GSL, because Eqs(14)and (29) tell us that

$$2|H|^2\dot{H}$$
(30)   
which is false for $`\dot{H}>0`$.

Luckily this conflict between HE bound and GSL can be resolved by considering the quantum modified GSL (21). For contracting 3D universes, $`H<0`$, and Eq(21) can be rewritten as

$$2|H|^2n_H(S^H\mu )\dot{H}[2n_HS^H2n_H\mu +\alpha n_HS^H].$$
(31)   
Neglecting the quantum effect, $`\mu S^H`$, Eq(31) boils down to (30) for $`\alpha =1`$. However if we consider that the quantum effect is strong, namely $`S^H\mu <0`$, we can rewrite Eq(31) as

$$2|H|^2\dot{H}2+\frac{\alpha S^H}{S^H\mu }.$$
(32)   
For decelerated contraction $`\dot{H}>0`$, Eq(32) certainly holds. Thus considering the quantum effect, the conflict between HE bound and GSL can be overcome.

In summary we have found that analogously to 3D closed universes, FS bound in 3D cosmological models with negative cosmological constant breaks down regardless of the value of $`k`$. Unlike the 4D closed universe , here the negative pressure matter cannot be used to save the FS bound. Establishing the GSL in 3D cosmologies, we have shown that the state equations required are not consistent with those needed by FS bound, which shows that FS bound and GSL are not compatible. Furthermore we have shown that the conflict cannot be resolved by taking account of the quantum modified version of GSL, which has not been addressed in 4D cases. Considering that the GSL is a fundamental principle in physics, we have further motivations to rethink the expression of cosmic holography. Extending different cosmic entropy bounds to 3D cosmology, we have reproduced the relation between HE bound, BE bound and FS bound first obtained in 4D cases . Compared to FS bound, HE bound is looser, and compatible with GSL. This result agrees with that claimed in 4D cosmology  and supports the argument that HE bound is a candidate for describing cosmic holography. It is of interest to consider generalization of our discussions on the relation between GSL and cosmic entropy bound to higher dimensional spacetimes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: This work was partically supported by Fundac$`\stackrel{~}{a}`$o de Amparo $`\stackrel{`}{a}`$ Pesquisa do Estado de S$`\stackrel{~}{a}`$o Paulo (FAPESP) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient$`\stackrel{´}{i}`$fico e Tecnol$`\stackrel{´}{o}`$gico (CNPQ). B. Wang would also like to acknowledge the support given by Shanghai Science and Technology Commission.