Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Ghostly interactions in (1+1)-dimensional classical field theory

Cédric Deffayet1,*, Aaron Held2,†, Shinji Mukohyama3,4,‡, and Alexander Vikman5,§

  • *Contact author: cedric.deffayetATens.fr
  • †Contact author: aaron.held@phys.ens.fr
  • ‡Contact author: shinji.mukohyama@yukawa.kyoto-u.ac.jp
  • §Contact author: vikman@fzu.cz

Phys. Rev. D 112, 065011 – Published 18 September, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/bv46-rd85

Abstract

We investigate the classical stability of two coupled scalar fields with opposite-sign kinetic terms evolving in 1+1 dimensional Minkowski spacetime. In the first part, we characterize unquenched ghostly interactions and present numerical solutions that support the following statements. First, the classical instability is not instantaneous and can even be benign, i.e., free of finite-time singularities. Second, while the classical instability can cascade toward higher frequency excitations, it is not driven by high frequency modes: At fixed amplitude, high-frequency modes are more stable than low-frequency modes. In the second part, we demonstrate that the classical instability can be quenched by mass terms. In particular, we exemplify that heavy high-frequency ghost fields seem to not violate the decoupling theorem and can be integrated out classically. In the third part, we demonstrate how self-interactions can quench the instability, for instance, by postponing its onset to parametrically large times. Extrapolating numerical results at large but finite evolution time to infinite evolution time, we demonstrate that classical fluctuations around trivial and nontrivial field-theory vacua are increasingly long-lived with (i) smaller initial amplitude of fluctuations, (ii) higher initial frequency of fluctuations, (iii) larger masses of the fields, or (iv) weaker interaction coupling. Moreover, our numerical simulations for field-theoretical generalizations of some globally stable ghostly mechanical models do not feature any instability.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (74)

  1. M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI Collaboration), arXiv:2503.14738.
  2. K. Lodha et al., arXiv:2503.14743.
  3. R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Lett. B 545, 23 (2002).
  4. A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D 71, 023515 (2005).
  5. W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 71, 047301 (2005).
  6. R. R. Caldwell and M. Doran, Phys. Rev. D 72, 043527 (2005).
  7. M. Kunz and D. Sapone, Phys. Rev. D 74, 123503 (2006).
  8. S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01, (2007) 018.
  9. Z.-K. Guo, Y.-S. Piao, X.-M. Zhang, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 608, 177 (2005).
  10. Y.-F. Cai, E. N. Saridakis, M. R. Setare, and J.-Q. Xia, Phys. Rep. 493, 1 (2010).
  11. C. Deffayet, O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki, and A. Vikman, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2010) 026.
  12. M. Ostrogradsky, Mem. Acad. St. Petersbourg 6, 385 (1850).
  13. R. P. Woodard, Scholarpedia 10, 32243 (2015).
  14. A. Pais and G. E. Uhlenbeck, Phys. Rev. 79, 145 (1950).
  15. F. J. de Urries and J. Julve, J. Phys. A 31, 6949 (1998).
  16. T. D. Lee and G. C. Wick, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1033 (1970).
  17. J. Garriga and A. Vilenkin, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2013) 036.
  18. D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 12, 498 (1971).
  19. K. S. Stelle, Phys. Rev. D 16, 953 (1977).
  20. S. W. Hawking and T. Hertog, Phys. Rev. D 65, 103515 (2002).
  21. A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 200, 272 (1988).
  22. D. E. Kaplan and R. Sundrum, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2006) 042.
  23. J. M. Cline, S. Jeon, and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043543 (2004).
  24. J. M. Cline, M. Puel, T. Toma, and Q. S. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 095033 (2023).
  25. J. M. Cline, M. Puel, and T. Toma, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138377 (2024).
  26. R. Brandenberger and P. Peter, Found. Phys. 47, 797 (2017).
  27. R. P. Woodard, Lect. Notes Phys. 720, 403 (2007).
  28. E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006).
  29. T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451 (2010).
  30. T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rep. 513, 1 (2012).
  31. A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rep. 568, 1 (2015).
  32. C. de Rham, Living Rev. Relativity 17, 7 (2014).
  33. E. Berti et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 243001 (2015).
  34. V. Errasti Díez, J. Gaset Rifà, and G. Staudt, Fortschr. Phys. 73, 2400268 (2025).
  35. C. Deffayet, S. Mukohyama, and A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 041301 (2022).
  36. C. Deffayet, A. Held, S. Mukohyama, and A. Vikman, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2023) 031.
  37. D. S. Kaparulin, S. L. Lyakhovich, and A. A. Sharapov, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3072 (2014).
  38. E. Pagani, G. Tecchiolli, and S. Zerbini, Lett. Math. Phys. 14, 311 (1987).
  39. A. V. Smilga, Nucl. Phys. B706, 598 (2005).
  40. S. M. Carroll, M. Hoffman, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D 68, 023509 (2003).
  41. I. B. Ilhan and A. Kovner, Phys. Rev. D 88, 044045 (2013).
  42. M. Pavšič, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 13, 1630015 (2016).
  43. A. Smilga, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 1730025 (2017).
  44. M. Pavšič, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 28, 1350165 (2013).
  45. M. Pavšič, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2030020 (2020).
  46. N. Boulanger, F. Buisseret, F. Dierick, and O. White, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 60 (2019).
  47. T. Damour and A. Smilga, Phys. Rev. D 105, 045018 (2022).
  48. P. Figueras, A. Held, and A. D. Kovács, arXiv:2407.08775.
  49. D. R. Noakes, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 24, 1846 (1983).
  50. A. Held and H. Lim, Phys. Rev. D 104, 084075 (2021).
  51. A. Held and H. Lim, Phys. Rev. D 108, 104025 (2023).
  52. A. Held and H. Lim, arXiv:2503.13428.
  53. C. Gross, A. Strumia, D. Teresi, and M. Zirilli, Phys. Rev. D 103, 115025 (2021).
  54. A. Fring, T. Taira, and B. Turner, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2024) 199.
  55. A. Fring and B. Turner, J. Phys. A 56, 295203 (2023).
  56. A. Fring, T. Taira, and B. Turner, Universe 10, 198 (2024).
  57. A. Fring and B. Turner, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 1136 (2023).
  58. O. Sarbach and M. Tiglio, Living Rev. Relativity 15, 9 (2012).
  59. C. Rackauckas and Q. Nie, J. Open Res. Software 5, 15 (2017).
  60. C. Runge, Math. Ann. 46, 167 (1895).
  61. W. Kutta, Beitrag zur näherungsweisen Integration totaler Differentialgleichungen (Teubner, Leipzig, 1901).
  62. W. H. Press, W. T. Vetterling, S. A. Teukolsky, and B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988).
  63. C. Tsitouras, Comput. Math. Appl. 62, 770 (2011).
  64. D. Robert and A. V. Smilga, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 49, 042104 (2008).
  65. R. Micha and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 121301 (2003).
  66. R. Micha and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043538 (2004).
  67. K. D. Lozanov and M. A. Amin, Phys. Rev. D 97, 023533 (2018).
  68. T. Appelquist and J. Carazzone, Phys. Rev. D 11, 2856 (1975).
  69. E. Babichev, C. Charmousis, G. Esposito-Farèse, and A. Lehébel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 241101 (2018).
  70. E. Babichev, arXiv:2412.20093.
  71. I. Sawicki, G. Trenkler, and A. Vikman, arXiv:2412.21169.
  72. A. Held, Solving (1+1)d ghostly pdes with differentialequations.jl, https://github.com/aaron-hd/ghostlyPDE_1D (2025).
  73. https://zenodo.org/records/15209689.
  74. R. Courant, K. Friedrichs, and H. Lewy, IBM J. Res. Dev. 11, 215 (1967).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation