Skip to main content

Full text of "Fully Covariant Van Dam-Veltman-Zakharov Discontinuity, and Absence Thereof"

See other formats

NYU-TH/02/02/01 Eiep-th/U2030T4 


M. Porrati 

Department of Physics, NYU, 4 Washington PI, New York NY 10003 


In both old and recent literature, it has been argued that the celebrated 
van Dam-Veltman-Zakharov (vDVZ) discontinuity of massive gravity is an 
artifact due to linearization of the true equations of motion. In this letter, 
we investigate that claim. First, we exhibit an explicit -albeit somewhat 
arbitrary- fully covariant set of equations of motion that, upon linearization, 
reduce to the standard Pauli-Fierz equations. We show that the vDVZ dis- 
continuity still persists in that non-linear, covariant theory. Then, we restrict 
our attention to a particular system that consistently incorporates massive 
gravity: the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati (DGP) model. DGP is fully covariant 
and does not share the arbitrariness and imperfections of our previous covari- 
antization, and its linearization exhibits a vDVZ discontinuity. Nevertheless, 
we explicitly show that the discontinuity does disappear in the fully covariant 
theory, and we explain the reason for this phenomenon. 

1 Introduction 

In a famous paper, van Dam and Veltman |I[ (see also Zakharov 0) studied a massive 
spin-2 field that couples to matter as the graviton, namely as h^T^ (T^, is the conserved 
stress-energy tensor). They showed that, at distances much smaller than the Compton 
wavelength of the massive graviton, one recovers Newton's law by an appropriate choice 
of the spin-2 coupling constant. On the other hand, in the small-mass limit, the bending 
angle of light by a massive body approaches 3/4 of the Einstein result. This is the vDVZ 
discontinuity. A physical explanation of this phenomenon is that a massive spin-2 field 
carries 5 polarizations, whereas a massless one carries only two. In the limit m —>■ 0, 
therefore, a massive spin-2 field decomposes into massless fields of spin 2, 1, and 0. The 
spin-0 field couples to the trace of the stress-energy tensor, so that in the limit m — > 
one does not recover Einstein's gravity but rather a scalar-tensor theory. 

This result seems to rule out any modification of Einstein's gravity in which the 
principle of equivalence still holds, but the graviton acquires a mass, no matter how tiny. 

In the presence of a negative cosmological constant A, on an Anti de Sitter back- 
ground, the one-graviton amplitude between conserved sources is continuous in the limit 
m 2 /A — > [0, ||, so that one cannot rule a massive graviton with a Compton wavelength 
of the order of the Hubble scale. In refs. ||, |6[], it was shown from various viewpoints 
that the AdS graviton may indeed become massive, when standard gravity is coupled to 
conformal matter. 

On a de Sitter background, a massive spin-2 field is unitary only if m 2 > 2A/3 [[?[]. 

All of this makes perfect sense, yet, the very fact that experiments at a scale of roughly 
an astronomical unit can tell that the mass of the graviton is smaller than the inverse 
Hubble radius is baffling to some. After all, the latter scale is 10 16 times smaller than 
the former! 

In fact, several old || and recent || [TO], |TT] papers have claimed or argued that the 
vDVZ discontinuity is an artifact of the Pauli-Fierz Lagrangian, i.e. of the linearization 
of the true, covariant, non-linear equations of massive gravity. 

Most of the renewed attempts to go beyond the linear approximation to massive 
gravity have exploited the DGP model which has both a massive-graviton spectrum 
and four- dimensional general covariance. 

In this letter, we would like to study the existence of a general covariant vDVZ 
discontinuity from two points of view. 

First of all, in Section 2, we exhibit explicitly covariant, fully nonlinear equations of 
motion for a massive spin-2 field coupled to matter that, after linearization, reduce to the 
Pauli-Fierz system studied in . We show that the discontinuity found in the linearized 
equations persists at the non-linear, fully covariant level by finding a covariant constraint 
not present in standard, massless gravity. This definitely settles in the affirmative the 


question of whether a general- covariant extension of the vDVZ result exists. 

In Section 3, we study the DGP model, for two reasons. The first is that it is a 
promising candidate for a brane- world realization of gravity, which may even shed light on 
the cosmological constant problem. The second is that the covariantization studied in the 
first part of the paper is far from being unquestionable. Besides being somewhat arbitrary, 
so that it does not rule out the possibility of other discontinuity-free covariantizations, 
it is also non-local. Non- locality signals the presence of other light, possibly unphysical 
degrees of freedom coupled to ordinary matter (negative- norm ghosts, for instance). The 
DGP model, instead, is a consistent model that exhibits a vDVZ discontinuity at linear 
order. We show that there, as argued in || [K], IT], the discontinuity does indeed disappear 
when the DGP is studied beyond its linear approximation. To prove that, we relate the 
breakdown of the linear approximation to the fact that the brane can bend in the fifth 
dimension, so that its induced curvature may be large even when the source on the brane 
is weak. 

2 Covariantization of the Pauli-Fierz Action 

A long time ago, Pauli and Fierz [jr3[] found a local, covariant action describing a free, 
massive spin-2 field. The action is unique up to field redefinitions and it reads 

S = S L [h^] + J d*x 

M 2 

h 2 


Here, T^ v is an external source, that we assume to be conserved and identify with the 
stress-energy tensor of matter. S^h^v] is the Einstein action expanded to quadratic order 
in the metric fluctuations around flat space: 

— ^- / d A x^-det( V + h)R( V + h) = S L [h^} + 0(h 3 ). (2) 

At M — 0, the action in Eq. (|T|) is obviously invariant under linearized diffeomorphisms 



but the mass term explicitly breaks this invar iance. A gauge-invariant form of the Pauli- 
Fierz action is achieved by using the Stiickelberg mechanism, i.e. by adding a vector field 
that transforms linearly under local diffeomorphisms: 




Substituting — > + 2d^A u ) in Eq. ([]]) we find the manifestly gauge-invariant 
"Stiickelberg-Pauli-Fierz" (SPF) action 

r { M 2 1 1 

S S p F [h] = S L [h] + j d A x | g^[(V + ^A v) f -(h + 2d- A) 2 ] - -h^ \ . (5) 

The gauge-invariant equations of motion are 

L^ pa hP° + M 2 [h llv + 2d^A v) -r lllv {h + 2d-A)} = WttGT^, (6) 

d»F^ + J„ = 0, J M = d v h^-d^h. (7) 

Of course, F^ u = d p A u — d u A p . Notice that the Pauli-Fierz mass term is precisely the 
combination that gives a gauge- invariant equation of motion for A p . Equation (|7|) is 
easily solved by 

A^-a-Kj^ + d^. (8) 

<p is an arbitrary function since Eq. (|7]) is invariant under the gauge transformation A p — > 
A^ + d^x- We can then select a particular solution to Eq. (|7|) by choosing <p = — CT 1 /;,: 

A li = -n~%, / = ( 9 ) 

Substituting this A^ into Eq. (Q) we arrive at a particularly interesting form of the 
equations of motion: 

L^h*** + M 2 [V + V + -2<9 (At n-%) - T]^{h - 2U- l d ■ I)} = 16nGT^. (10) 

Recalling the definition of 7 M , and noticing that L^ pa h pcr is by construction proportional 
to the linearized Einstein tensor, L^^hP" = 2G^ U = 2R^ U — rj^ u R L , we can be recast 
Eq. fllCf ) into the suggestive form 

G%, - M 2 n-\R^ - V , U R L ) = 8nGT, u . (11) 

It is now obvious how to promote the Pauli-Fierz equations into a fully covariant form. 
First, we notice that any symmetric tensor S pu can be decomposed as S^ v = S pu + D^S u ), 
D /J, S^ 1/ = 0. Then, we replace all linearized tensors in Eq. (|TT|) with their exact form 

G, v - M 2 (a^G^f + ^M 2 gixv U- l R = SttGT^, (12) 

where obeys the covariant conservation equation D^T pv = 0. We can also find the 
covariant form of the vDVZ discontinuity. By taking the double divergence of Eq. (|12|) . 
we get a new constraint on the metric, not present in Einstein's gravity: 

G, v - M 2 (p^G^f + l -M 2 giiV U-^R 



-R = 0. (13) 

Clearly this constraint, implying that the scalar curvature is zero everywhere, cannot 
be satisfied by a metric obeying Einstein's equations up to a small deformation o(M). 
Notice also that we would have missed the existence of the discontinuity if we only 
studied the Einstein vacuum equations, R^ v = 0. In the covariantization studied here, 
the discontinuity appears only when comparing Eq. (|l3l) with the Einstein equations in 
matter, where R = —SnGT ^ 0. 

Eq. (|l"2D is fully covariant and it reduces to the PFS equations to linear order, but it is 
far from satisfactory. The first problem is that it is by no means the only covariantization 
of Eq. (|ITD, so that we cannot exclude a priori that other covariantizations exist, in which 
the vDVZ discontinuity disappears. Secondly, Eq. (|T2|) cannot be derived from a covariant 
action, since if that were the case its covariant divergence would automatically vanish, 
instead of giving the constraint Eq. flTB|). One could hope that a "good" covariantization, 
where the divergence of the equations of motions vanishes identically, may also cure the 

A third, more serious problem, is that Eq. (|T^) is nonlocal and it may, therefore, 
describe the propagation of other light, possibly unphysical degrees of freedom. 

We address the first and third problems in the next Section, when discussing a con- 
sistent embedding of massive gravity into a ghost-free theory: the DGP model. 

The second problem is addressed here, by showing that another covariantization of 
Eq. ( ]TT| ) exists, with the desired property that the covariant divergence vanishes identi- 
cally, but in which the vDVZ discontinuity is still present. 

First of all, recall that Eq. (|8|) depends on an arbitrary scalar function. We can then 
write, generically, 

Ap = -n-% + d li <p. (14) 
We can also introduce another scalar, if), and redefine the linearized metric as 

hfj, v -»• + 77^. (15) 

This redefinition changes the (linearized) Einstein tensor and the scalar curvature as 

G> - G> + - d^ip, R L — > R L — 3Dip. (16) 

Thanks to Eqs. (|T^,|TB|) we can re-write the PFS equations as 


GL -m 2 u- 1 


(l-M^^ni^-d^d^-M^^nip-d^ip) = 8ttGT^. (17) 
This equation can be simplified by setting SOif) = R L , and (1 — M 2 0~ 1 )ip = M 2 (p: 

(1 - M 2 n- l )G L ^ = 8nGT^ u . (18) 


By taking the trace of Eq. (0), we find (M 2 D 1 — 1)R L = 8nGT, so that we can re-write 
the equation that defines ip in a more instructive form 

(□ - M 2 )</> = ——GT. (19) 

The covariantization of Eqs. ( |IT|[I9"| ) is now obvious 

- M 2 (a^G^f = SttGT^, (□ - M 2 )ip = -y GT. ( 2 °) 

Notice that the divergence of the tensor equation is automatically zero thanks to the 
covariant conservation of the stress-energy tensor and a standard Bianchi identity of 

general relativity. Notice also that the vDVZ discontinuity is still present, as Eqs. (20) 
describe a scalar-tensor theory, in which the massive scalar ip couples with gravitational 
strength to the trace of the stress-energy tensor. 

3 Absence of vDVZ Discontinuity in the DGP Model 

The results of the previous Section seem to indicate that even a consistent theory of mas- 
sive gravity may suffer from a vDVZ discontinuity besides the linear order. Nevertheless, 
we will show that this is not the case in the DGP model, as already argued in |5], ID, [TT[ 
(see also [|TJ]). 

The DGP model describes a 4-d brane moving in a 5-d space with vanishing cosmo- 
logical constant. In five dimensions, the Einstein action is 

55 = / d * x ^h ^R(g) + s GH . (21) 

J S 107TCx 

Here, hatted quantities are five-dimensional, while un-hatted ones are four-dimensional. 
The integral is performed over a space £ that is, topologically, the direct product of 
the real half-line R + and the 4-d Minkowski space M 4 . We parametrize this space with 
four- dimensional coordinates x M , \i — 0, 1, 2, 3 and a fifth coordinate y = x A . Sgh is the 
Gibbons-Hawking boundary term |D|, whose explicit form we will not need. 

The model is specified by the Einstein equations inside £ and by boundary conditions 
at the brane's position, i.e. at the £ boundary <9£ = M 4 : 

1 _ 1 5S 5 [g] 1 / 1 \ 1 

-K^ = — — — — - - — — - -g^R - -T^. (22) 

16nG ' V=g Sg^ 16nG V ^ 2^ J 2 

As evident from this equation, the brane has a 4-d nonzero Newton's constant G. T^ u is 
the stress-energy tensor of the matter living on the brane. The 4-d cosmological constant 
is assumed to be negligible. This corresponds to a limit in which the brane is almost 


tensionless, and possesses only a bending energy, proportional to the extrinsic curvature 
K^ u . It is convei 
y — 0, and where 

It is convenient to work in Gaussian coordinates where the brane is located at 

g»4{x,y)\y=o = 0. (23) 

In these coordinates, 

k„ u = -yfoukg^ - g^g af3 gap)- (24) 

The dot denotes the derivative w.r.t. y. The linearization of Eq. fl2"2] ) has been given 
in |9|, 11], |16| . It is most conveniently performed in the 5-d harmonic gauge: 

d aK ~ \ d bh = 0, g ab = r] ab + h ab , a,b = 0, ..,4. (25) 

This gauge choice is compatible with Eqs. (|23|) ; indeed, it is compatible with setting 
gfiA = everywhere in E. After this last gauge choice, the linearized equations assume 
the simple form 

Dh ab (z) + h ab (z) = 0, M*) = °> ( 26 ) 
-[h^{x) -?7^%)] = nVW-^M^ + ievrGT^^), x G <9E. (27) 

The ratio L = G/G plays a fundamental role in the DGP model, since it is the transition 
length beyond which 4-d gravity turns into 5-d gravity. 

Eqs. (|26|j27|) are easily solved by Fourier transforming the 4-d coordinates x^ §| 

- 16ttGL 

= + fVPf^n — T77 T (p) ex p( - ^)' ( 28 ) 

p i +p z /L 

exp(-py). (29) 

These equations contain a term proportional to L, that diverges in the decoupling limit 
L — > oo. To linear order, this divergence is an artifact of our gauge choice, in which the 
brane lies at y — 0. It can be canceled by transforming into new coordinates, y, x M , in 
which the brane lies at y = e^x, 0). 

& = af + effay), y = y + e 4 (x,y), (30) 

h(p,y) = -w- — TTT(p)exp(-py), e M (p, y) = -i^e 4 (p, y). (31) 
p z + p/L p 

The new coordinate system still obeys = everywhere in E, since e M obeys 

d„e 4 + e M = 0. (32) 


The metric fluctuation in the new coordinate system is given by Eq. (|29|); it is finite in 
the limit L — > oo. Moreover, h^ u is linear in the source T^ u , and small everywhere in E, 
if the energy density of the source is well below the black- hole limit. This is in prefect 
analogy with standard Einstein's gravity. 

The story does not end here, though, as it can be seen by closer inspection of 
Eqs. ©0). 

Consider for simplicity a static, spherically-symmetric distribution of matter on the 
brane, with total mass M. Outside matter, in the region GM <C r = \x\ <C L, the 
position of the brane in the new coordinate system is [] 

, s 2GML , , 

e 4 (r,0) = —— . (33) 

This function can be large even in the region r ^> GM, so that the limit of validity of the 
linear approximation must be re-examined. Recall that the metric transforms as follows 
under the reparametrization x^ = x M + e M (x, y), y = y + e 4 (x, y): 

dz a dz 

g„v{x, y) = dx ^ dx u 9ab{z), z a = y. (34) 

If we expand to linear order in h^, and to quadratic order in e a , we find, at y — 0, 

h^x, 0) = h^(x) + d^x, 0) + d^x, 0) + <9 M e a (x, 0)d l/ e a (x, 0) + <9 M e 4 (x, 0)d u e 4 (x, 0). 


Notice that the last term in this expansion is not a 4-d reparametization and that when 
e 4 is given by Eq. fl33|) it is 0(G 2 M 2 L 2 /r 4 ). 

Clearly, when we assume that matter is so diluted that \h^\ <C 1 everywhere on 
the brane, the linear approximation for is justified by assumption, but the lin- 
ear approximation for e a breaks down when d^d^e^ ^> h^ v - This happens when 
G 2 M 2 L 2 /r 4 > GM/r, i.e. when 

r 3 < GML 2 . (36) 

This is exactly the condition found in ref. [11 

The breakdown of the linear approximation for e a means that, in the region r < 
(GML 2 ) 1 / 3 , the position of the brane is still y = e 4 (x, 0), but e 4 (x, 0) is no longer given 
by Eq. flHBp. To study the brane inside that region, we choose e 4 and e M by demanding 
only that g^ 5 = and that e 4 is still given by Eq. ( |3"3"D at large distances: 

e4 ( r> o) « 2 ^£L j for r > (GML 2 ) 1 / 3 . (37) 

1 To linear order r 


We can always set e M (x, 0) = with a 4-d coordinate transformation. The metric fluctu- 
ation is then 

h^(x, 0) = hftu^x) + d^ix, 0)d v e 4 (x, 0). (38) 

To find the metric on the brane, we begin by making the following ansatz: 

- . . 2F(r)M - , . F(r)M , , 

hoo(r) = K r J , h u (r) = ~ A ^~. (39) 

The asymptotic behavior ot the function F(r) is: 

F(r) = G for r < (GML 2 ) 1/3 , F(r) = -G for r > (GML 2 ) 1/3 ; (40) 


otherwise, F(r) is arbitrary. 

The linearized scalar curvature of the ansatz vanishes identically everywhere. At 
large distances, r ^> (GML 2 ) 1 / 3 , it approximates the metric of the linearized DGP 
equations []9], [11], [16] [see also Eq. (f29|)]. 

Suppose now that a 5-d diffeomorphism e 4 exists, such that a) it obeys Eq. (0), b) 
the metric h^, given by Eq. (|3"8"D, solves the linearized 4-d Einstein equations in the 
region r <C (GAIL 2 ) 1 / 3 . With these assumptions, we can write the solution to Eq. fl22|) 

gtiu(x, 0) = r)fj, u + h pu (x, 0) + A pu (x, 0), (41) 

with \Afj, u (x, 0)| <C \h^(x,0)\ everywhere on the brane Q. The last statement can be 
proven by approximating Eq. (p2|) as 

•V = + 16ttGT^ - L^bT. (43) 

The source is conserved, and everywhere smaller than L^ vpa h pa ', because h^ u solves 
by assumption the Einstein equations, for r 3 <C GML 2 , and, for r 3 3> GML 2 , it solves 
by construction the linearized DGP equations. 

Conservation of the source ensures that Eq. ( J4"2j ) can be solved, while \ J I1V \ <C |-^^iy,pcr ^ pcr | 
guarantees that jA^rc, 0)| <C \h pu (x,0)\. Extending h pu and A pu to the interior of £ is 
straightforward because h^ v + A pu obeys Eq. (j26[). 

At this point, we are left only with the task of finding a shift e 4 which satisfies our 
assumption. In the spherically symmetric case, we notice that the Schwarzshild metric 
at r ^> GM is hoo(r) = 2GM/r, ha = 2GM/r, i — 1, 2, 3, so that the diffeomorphism we 
need is 

e 4 (r,0) = 2VGMr. (44) 
Let us conclude with a few remarks. 

2 We have assumed again that matter is diluted, i.e. that \h^\ <C 1 everywhere on the brane. This 

assumption has been made for clarity's sake and can be relaxed. 


The limit of validity of Eq. ( [4*4] ) can be found by demanding that the contribution 
to the extrinsic curvature due to the brane bending in Eq. ( "4*4"D is smaller than 
that given by Eq. ([£J). Since the curvature due to bending is ~ |cf 2 e 4 / cZr 2 1 we find 
r <C (GML 2 ) 1 / 3 . Therefore, the domain of validity of Eq. (fill) is complementary 
to that of Eq. (||). 

The fact that quadratic corrections to the linear approximation cure the vDVZ 
discontinuity is at the hart of Refs. [§, [It], PH . In this paper, we spelled out 
that it is the linear approximation for the fluctuations of the brane that fails at 
r <C (GML 2 ) 1//3 , not the linearization of the 5-d metric (see also [1C]). 

• The previous observation makes the breakdown of linearity at such large distances 
more palatable, since the brane is almost tensionless, and can, therefore, bend 
significantly even over macroscopic (astronomical) distances. 

• When the position of the brane is given by Eq. (0), the sub-leading correction to 
the induced metric, A^ u , is proportional to yGM [see Eqs. (0,0)]- ^ * s tantaliz- 
ing to conjecture that this correction may give rise to interesting modifications of 
Newtonian dynamics at some macroscopic length scale. 

• Absence of a vDVZ discontinuity is only a qualified good news for the DGP theory. 
Indeed, the very breakdown of the linear approximation at the macroscopic lenght 
scale r = (GML 2 ) 1 ^ 3 may signal that the 4-d scalar e^(x, 0) interacts strongly with 
the stress-energy tensor at the quadratic level -for instance through an interaction 
term ~ LVG(e 4 ) 2 T. 


We should like to thank G. Dvali, A. Lue, and C. Deffayet for interesting comments. 
This work is supported in part by NSF grant PHY-0070787. 


[1] H. van Dam and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B22 (1970) 397. 

[2] V.I. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 12 (1970) 312. 

[3] M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B498 (2001) 92, |hep-th/001lT52 . 

[4] I.I. Kogan, S. Mouslopoulos and A. Papazoglou, Phys. Lett. B503 (2001) 173, 
|hep-th/0011138| . 






A. Karch and L. Randall, JHEP 0105 (2001) 008, |hep-th/001lT5B; ; JHEP 0106 
(2001) 063, |hep-th/0 105132 . 

M. Porrati, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 044015, |hep-th/0l090T7| ; |hep-th/0ll2TB6] M. 
Porrati and A. Starinets, |hep-th/0201261 . 

A. Higuchi, Nucl. Phys. B282 (1987) 397; ibid. B325 (1989) 745. 
A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. 39B (1972) 393. 
C. Deffayet, G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and A.I. Vainshtein, [hep-th/ 01 06001 
A.Lue, hep-th/011168. 
A. Gruzinov, |astro-ph/01 12246 . 

G.R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati Phys. Lett. B485 (2000) 208, |Ee]> 
th/0005016 . 



M. Fierz, Helv. Phys. Acta 12 (1939) 3; M. Fierz and W. Pauli, Proc. Roy. Soc. 
173 (1939) 211. 

C. Deffayet, Phys. Lett. B502 (2001) 199, |hep-th/0010186 

G.W. Gibbons and S.W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D15 (1977) 2752. 
I. Giannakis and H. Ren, |hep-th/0111127.