format: text

text:
# Colliding Plane Impulsive Gravitational Waves

## 1 Introduction

This paper is a study of the space–time describing the vacuum gravitational field left behind after the head–on collision of two plane impulsive gravitational waves. The known exact solutions are the classical solution of Khan and Penrose  and its generalisation by Nutku and Halil . No details of the derivation were given by Khan and Penrose. The Nutku and Halil solution was obtained using a harmonic mapping technique. The latter solution was subsequently rederived by Chandrasekhar and Ferrari  (to quote from : ”This paper is addressed, principally, to a more standard derivation of the Nutku-Halil solution than the one sketched by the authors.”) who developed an Ernst–type formulation for vacuum space–times admitting two space–like Killing vectors. They demonstrated that “in some sense, the Nutku–Halil solution occupies the same place in space–times with two space–like Killing vectors as the Kerr solution does in space–times with one time–like and one space–like Killing vector”. Thus the origin of the solution is still quite mysterious. Of course the task of solving Einstein’s vacuum field equations with appropriate boundary conditions for the space–time after the waves collide is mathematically very complex. On the other hand the physical picture, at least up to the appearance of a curvature singularity, is quite simple: two non–interacting plane impulsive waves undergo a head–on collision and the interaction region afterwards contains backscattered radiation from both waves, neither of which remain plane. Our aim in this paper is to introduce a simple assumption based on this picture which provides a key to the origin of the exact solution describing the collision of two completely arbitrary plane impulsive gravitational waves.

The backscattered radiation in the interaction region of space–time between the histories of the waves after the collision determines two intersecting congruences of null geodesics. These are the ‘rays’ associated with the two systems of backscattered radiation. Both congruences have expansion and shear. The ratio of the expansions of each congruence is immediately determined from Einstein’s vacuum field equations and the boundary conditions. The shear of each congruence (the modulus of a complex variable in each case) depends in general in a simple way on the choice of parameter along the null geodesics (in the sense that a change of parameter induces a rescaling of the shear). We assume that a parameter exists along each of the two families of null geodesics such that the shear (i.e. the modulus of the ‘complex shear’) of each congruence is equal. This is the only assumption made apart from the usual assumption of analyticity of the solution of Einstein’s field equations . We show that it implies, together with the field equations, an equation that could be interpreted physically as saying that the energy density of the backscattered radiation from each wave after collision is the same. In addition we demonstrate how this assumption leads to the complete integration of the vacuum field equations.

The outline of the paper is as follows: In section 2 the collision problem is formulated as a boundary–value problem. At this stage, to make the paper as self–contained as possible, reference is made to an Appendix A giving a brief summary of the construction of a plane impulsive gravitational wave in the manner of Penrose . The backscattered radiation fields, existing after the collision, are introduced in section 3. The assumption central to this study is also introduced in this section and a physical implication is explored. Although the key assumption is simple the full integration of Einstein’s vacuum field equations emerging from it is still quite complicated and this is described in section 4. The complications arise because the incoming waves are not in general linearly polarised. For readers who do not want to work through section 4 the considerably simpler case of linearly polarised incoming waves is treated in Appendix B. It is shown there that our basic assumption leads to the Khan and Penrose  solution. Finally in section 5 the results of section 4 are summarised and contact is made with the known exact solutions , .

With the use of different boundary conditions to those employed here the approach of this paper can lead to new collision solutions of the field equations. The present authors have published a new collision solution of the Einstein–Maxwell field equations in  derived using the ideas described in the present paper.

## 2 The Boundary–Value Problem

The line–element of the space–time describing the vacuum gravitational field of a single plane impulsive gravitational wave having the maximum two degrees of freedom of polarisation may be written in the form (see Appendix A)

$$ds^2=2\left|d\zeta +v_+(aib)d\overline{\zeta }\right|^2+2dudv,$$
(2.1)
where $`a,b`$ are real constants. Here and throughout this paper a bar will denote complex conjugation. The history of the wave is the null hyperplane $`v=0`$ and $`v_+=v\theta (v)`$ where $`\theta (v)`$ is the Heaviside step function. $`u`$ is a second null coordinate. The space–time to the future ($`v>0`$) of the history of the wave is Minkowskian and so is the space–time to the past ($`v<0`$) of $`v=0`$. Writing $`\sqrt{2}\zeta =x+iy`$ we see that (2.1) is in the Rosen–Szekeres form

$$ds^2=\mathrm{e}^U\left(\mathrm{e}^V\mathrm{cosh}Wdx^22\mathrm{sinh}Wdxdy+\mathrm{e}^V\mathrm{cosh}Wdy^2\right)+2\mathrm{e}^Mdudv,$$
(2.2)
with

$`\mathrm{e}^U`$ $`=`$ $`1(a^2+b^2)v_+^2,`$ (2.3)
$`\mathrm{e}^V`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+(a^2+b^2)v_+^22av_+}{1+(a^2+b^2)v_+^2+2av_+}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (2.4)
$`\mathrm{sinh}W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2bv_+}{1(a^2+b^2)v_+^2}},`$ (2.5)
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (2.6)
We consider the head–on collision of this wave with a wave of similar type. This latter wave is described by a space–time with line–element (2.2) but with

$`\mathrm{e}^U`$ $`=`$ $`1(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)u_+^2,`$ (2.7)
$`\mathrm{e}^V`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)u_+^22\alpha u_+}{1+(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)u_+^2+2\alpha u_+}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (2.8)
$`\mathrm{sinh}W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta u_+}{1(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)u_+^2}},`$ (2.9)
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.10)
with $`\alpha ,\beta `$ real constants and $`u_+=u\theta (u)`$. The history of the wave front is the null hyperplane $`u=0`$ in this case. For the collision we consider the space–time to have line–element (2.2) with $`U,V,W,M`$ given by (2.3)– (2.6) in the region $`u<0,v>0`$ and given by (2.7)– (2.10) in the region $`v<0,u>0`$. The region $`u<0,v<0`$ has line–element (2.2) with $`U=V=W=M=0`$ (which agrees with (2.3)–(2.10) when both $`v<0`$ and $`u<0`$). The line–element in the region $`u>0,v>0`$ (after the collision) has the form (2.2) with $`U,V,W,M`$ functions of $`(u,v)`$ satisfying the O’Brien–Synge  junction conditions: If $`u=0,v>0`$ then $`U,V,W,M`$ are given by (2.3)–(2.6) with $`v_+=v`$ and if $`v=0,u>0`$ then $`U,V,W,M`$ are given by (2.7)–(2.10) with $`u_+=u`$. Einstein’s vacuum field equations have to be solved for $`U,V,W,M`$ in the interaction region ($`u>0,v>0`$) after the collision subject to these boundary (junction) conditions. These equations are  (with subscripts denoting partial derivatives):

$`U_{uv}`$ $`=`$ $`U_uU_v,`$ (2.11)
$`2V_{uv}`$ $`=`$ $`U_uV_v+U_vV_u2\left(V_uW_v+V_vW_u\right)\mathrm{tanh}W,`$ (2.12)
$`2W_{uv}`$ $`=`$ $`U_uW_v+U_vW_u+2V_uV_v\mathrm{sinh}W\mathrm{cosh}W,`$ (2.13)
$`2U_uM_u`$ $`=`$ $`2U_{uu}+U_u^2+W_u^2+V_u^2\mathrm{cosh}^2W,`$ (2.14)
$`2U_vM_v`$ $`=`$ $`2U_{vv}+U_v^2+W_v^2+V_v^2\mathrm{cosh}^2W,`$ (2.15)
$`2M_{uv}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{uv}+W_uW_v+V_uV_v\mathrm{cosh}^2W.`$ (2.16)
The first of these equations can immediately be solved  in conjuction with the boundary conditions to be satisfied by $`U`$ on $`u=0`$ and on $`v=0`$ to yield, in $`u>0,v>0`$,

$$\mathrm{e}^U=1(a^2+b^2)v^2(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)u^2.$$
(2.17)
The problem is to solve (2.12)–(2.13) for $`V,W`$ subject to the boundary conditions and then to solve (2.14) and (2.15) for $`M`$. Equation (2.16) is the integrability condition for (2.14) and (2.15).

## 3 The Backscattered Radiation Fields

We shall for the moment focus attention on the two field equations (2.12) and (2.13). All of our considerations from now on will apply to the interaction region of space–time $`u>0,v>0`$ after the collision. Introducing the complex variables

$$A=V_u\mathrm{cosh}W+iW_u,B=V_v\mathrm{cosh}W+iW_v,$$
(3.1)
we can rewrite the two real equations (2.12) and (2.13) as the single complex equation

$$2A_v=U_uB+U_vA2iAV_v\mathrm{sinh}W,$$
(3.2)
or equivalently as the single complex equation

$$2B_u=U_uB+U_vA2iBV_u\mathrm{sinh}W.$$
(3.3)
Given the form of the line–element (2.2) it is convenient to introduce a null tetrad $`\{m,\overline{m},l,n\}`$ in the region $`u>0,v>0`$ defined by

$$m=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{U/2}}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{V/2}\left(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{W}{2}i\mathrm{sinh}\frac{W}{2}\right)\frac{}{x}+\mathrm{e}^{V/2}\left(\mathrm{sinh}\frac{W}{2}i\mathrm{cosh}\frac{W}{2}\right)\frac{}{y}\right],$$
(3.4)
$$l=\mathrm{e}^{M/2}\frac{}{v},$$
(3.5)
$$n=\mathrm{e}^{M/2}\frac{}{u},$$
(3.6)
with $`\overline{m}`$ the complex conjugate of $`m`$. The integral curves of the vector fields $`l`$ and $`n`$ are twist–free, null geodesics. The coordinate $`v`$ is not an affine parameter along the integral curves of $`l`$ and these curves have complex shear $`\sigma _l`$ and real expansion $`\rho _l`$ (we use the standard definitions for these quantities given in $`\mathrm{\S }`$4.5 of  for example) given by

$$\sigma _l=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{M/2}B,\rho _l=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{M/2}U_v,$$
(3.7)
with $`B`$ as in (3.1). Likewise the coordinate $`u`$ is not an affine parameter along the integral curves of $`n`$ and these curves have complex shear $`\sigma _n`$ and real expansion $`\rho _n`$ given by

$$\sigma _n=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{M/2}A,\rho _n=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{M/2}U_u,$$
(3.8)
with $`A`$ as in (3.1). We thus see from (2.17), (3.7) and (3.8) that the ratio $`\rho _l/\rho _n`$ is now known in the region $`u>0,v>0`$. In terms of the variables introduced above the non–identically vanishing scale–invariant components  of the Riemann tensor in Newman–Penrose notation are $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0,\mathrm{\Psi }_2,\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$ given by

$`2\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`B_v+\left(M_vU_v\right)B+iBV_v\mathrm{sinh}W,`$ (3.9)
$`2\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{uv}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(A\overline{B}\overline{A}B\right),`$ (3.10)
$`2\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_4`$ $`=`$ $`A_u+\left(M_uU_u\right)A+iAV_u\mathrm{sinh}W.`$ (3.11)
When these are non–zero we interpret $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ as describing radiation, having propagation direction $`n`$ in space–time, backscattered from the wave with history $`u=0,v>0`$ and we interpret $`\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$ as describing radiation, having propagation direction $`l`$ in space–time, backscattered from the wave with history $`v=0,u>0`$. Thus the integral curves of the null vector fields $`n`$ and $`l`$ are the ‘rays’ associated with the backscattered radiation from the two separating waves after collision.

We now look for an interesting assumption to make regarding the rays associated with the backscattered radiation fields. Since $`\rho _l/\rho _n`$ is known from (3.7), (3.8) and (2.17) we focus attention on the complex shears $`\sigma _l`$ and $`\sigma _n`$ in (3.7) and (3.8). Let us write

$$A=\left|A\right|\mathrm{e}^{i\theta },B=\left|B\right|\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi },f=\theta \varphi ,$$
(3.12)
with $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ real. From (3.2) and (3.3) we can obtain the equations

$`\theta _v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left|B\right|}{2\left|A\right|}}U_u\mathrm{sin}fV_v\mathrm{sinh}W,`$ (3.13)
$`\varphi _u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left|A\right|}{2\left|B\right|}}U_v\mathrm{sin}fV_u\mathrm{sinh}W,`$ (3.14)
and

$$2f_{uv}+i\left(A\overline{B}\overline{A}B\right)=\left(U_u\frac{\left|B\right|}{\left|A\right|}\mathrm{sin}f\right)_u\left(U_v\frac{\left|A\right|}{\left|B\right|}\mathrm{sin}f\right)_v.$$
(3.15)
The arguments $`\theta ,\varphi `$ of $`A,B`$ respectively are tetrad dependent. If we transform the tetrad $`\{m,\overline{m},l,n\}`$ by the rotation

$$m\widehat{m}=\mathrm{e}^{i\psi }m,$$
(3.16)
with $`\psi `$ a real–valued function, then

$$\theta \widehat{\theta }=\theta 2\psi ,\varphi \widehat{\varphi }=\varphi 2\psi ,ff.$$
(3.17)
On account of the field equation (3.15) we can, without loss of generality, arrange to have $`\theta +\varphi =\mathrm{constant}`$. To see this we deduce from (3.13) and (3.14) that

$`\left(\widehat{\theta }+\widehat{\varphi }\right)_u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left|A\right|}{\left|B\right|}}U_v\mathrm{sin}f+f_u2V_u\mathrm{sinh}W4\psi _u,`$ (3.18)
$`\left(\widehat{\theta }+\widehat{\varphi }\right)_v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left|B\right|}{\left|A\right|}}U_u\mathrm{sin}ff_v2V_v\mathrm{sinh}W4\psi _v.`$ (3.19)
We are free to choose $`\psi `$ to make the right hand sides of (3.18) and (3.19) vanish because the integrability condition for the resulting pair of first order partial differential equations for $`\psi `$ is the field equation (3.15). Hence it is always possible to choose a tetrad so that $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ in (3.12) have the property that $`\theta +\varphi =\mathrm{constant}`$. This result suggests that to discover an interesting assumption to make about the rays associated with the backscattered radiation fields we should consider the ratio (because it depends upon $`\theta \varphi `$ and not $`\theta +\varphi `$)

$$\frac{A}{B}=\frac{\left|A\right|}{\left|B\right|}\mathrm{e}^{if}=\frac{\sigma _n}{\sigma _l},$$
(3.20)
with the last equality following from (3.7) and (3.8). We note that $`f`$ satisfies the second order equation (3.15) to which we shall return later. It is clear from (3.1) that a change of parameters $`u\overline{u}=\overline{u}(u)`$ and $`v\overline{v}=\overline{v}(v)`$ along the integral curves of $`n`$ and $`l`$ rescales $`A`$ and $`B`$ by a function of $`u`$ and a function of $`v`$ respectively. This change of parameter obviously leaves the form of the line–element (2.2) invariant. Also from the field equation (3.2) we deduce that

$$\left(\left|A\right|^2\right)_vU_v\left|A\right|^2=\frac{1}{2}U_u\left(A\overline{B}+\overline{A}B\right),$$
(3.21)
and from the equivalent equation (3.3) we find

$$\left(\left|B\right|^2\right)_uU_u\left|B\right|^2=\frac{1}{2}U_v\left(A\overline{B}+\overline{A}B\right),$$
(3.22)
¿From these two equations we obtain

$$2\left[\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\left|A\right|^2}{\left|B\right|^2}\right)\right]_{uv}=\left(U_u\frac{\left(A\overline{B}+\overline{A}B\right)}{\left|A\right|^2}\right)_u\left(U_v\frac{\left(A\overline{B}+\overline{A}B\right)}{\left|B\right|^2}\right)_v,$$
(3.23)
which is a partner for the equation (3.15) for $`f`$. This suggests that it might be interesting to explore the following assumption concerning the rays associated with the backscattered radiation: there exist parameters $`\overline{u},\overline{v}`$ along the integral curves of $`n`$ and $`l`$ respectively such that $`\left|A\right|^2=\left|B\right|^2`$ (or equivalently $`\left|\sigma _n\right|^2=\left|\sigma _l\right|^2`$). This is equivalent to the assumption that there exist functions $`C(u),D(v)`$ such that

$$\frac{\left|A\right|^2}{\left|B\right|^2}=C(u)D(v).$$
(3.24)
When $`u=0`$ it follows from (2.4) and (2.5) that

$$\left|B\right|^2=\frac{4(a^2+b^2)}{\left(1(a^2+b^2)v^2\right)^2},$$
(3.25)
and when $`v=0`$ it follows from (2.8) and (2.9) that

$$\left|A\right|^2=\frac{4(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)}{\left(1(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)u^2\right)^2}.$$
(3.26)
Also when $`u=0`$ we see from (2.17) that the right hand side of (3.21) vanishes and thus solving (3.21) for $`\left|A\right|^2`$ when $`u=0`$ we obtain

$$\left|A\right|^2=\frac{4(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)}{1(a^2+b^2)v^2},$$
(3.27)
with the constant numerator here (the constant of integration) chosen so that the two expressions (3.26) and (3.27) for $`\left|A\right|^2`$ agree when $`u=0`$ and $`v=0`$. Similarly when $`v=0`$ the right hand side of (3.22) vanishes and we readily obtain, when $`v=0`$,

$$\left|B\right|^2=\frac{4(a^2+b^2)}{1(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)u^2}.$$
(3.28)
Thus (3.24) together with the boundary conditions at $`u=0`$ and at $`v=0`$ results in

$$\frac{\left|A\right|^2}{\left|B\right|^2}=\left(\frac{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}{a^2+b^2}\right)\left[\frac{1(a^2+b^2)v^2}{1(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)u^2}\right].$$
(3.29)
Hence there exist parameters $`(\overline{u},\overline{v})`$ given by

$$\overline{u}=\mathrm{sin}^1\left(u\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}\right),\overline{v}=\mathrm{sin}^1\left(v\sqrt{a^2+b^2}\right),$$
(3.30)
such that

$$\frac{V_{\overline{u}}^2\mathrm{cosh}^2W+W_{\overline{u}}^2}{V_{\overline{v}}^2\mathrm{cosh}^2W+W_{\overline{v}}^2}=1.$$
(3.31)
We note that when $`\overline{u}=0`$ we have $`u=0`$ and when $`\overline{v}=0`$ we have $`v=0`$. We shall express (3.31) by saying that, in the coordinates $`(\overline{u},\overline{v})`$, (3.29) reads $`\left|A\right|^2=\left|B\right|^2`$. In the coordinates $`(\overline{u},\overline{v})`$ the form of the field equations and the expressions for the Riemann tensor remain invariant, with the derivatives with respect to $`(u,v)`$ being replaced by derivatives with respect to $`(\overline{u},\overline{v})`$ and with $`M`$ replaced by $`\overline{M}`$ according to

$$\mathrm{e}^{\overline{M}}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\overline{u}\mathrm{cos}\overline{v}}{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}\sqrt{a^2+b^2}}\mathrm{e}^M.$$
(3.32)
We note from (2.17) and (3.30) that in the barred coordinates

$$\mathrm{e}^U=\mathrm{cos}(\overline{u}\overline{v})\mathrm{cos}(\overline{u}+\overline{v}).$$
(3.33)
Also in these coordinates (3.23) becomes

$$\left(U_{\overline{u}}\mathrm{cos}f\right)_{\overline{u}}=\left(U_{\overline{v}}\mathrm{cos}f\right)_{\overline{v}}U_{\overline{u}}f_{\overline{u}}=U_{\overline{v}}f_{\overline{v}},$$
(3.34)
(the equivalence here following from (3.33) since now $`U_{\overline{u}\overline{u}}=U_{\overline{v}\overline{v}}`$) from which we conclude that

$$f=f(\lambda )\mathrm{with}\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\overline{u}\overline{v})}{\mathrm{cos}(\overline{u}+\overline{v})}.$$
(3.35)
We see that $`\lambda =1`$ when $`\overline{u}=0`$ and/or when $`\overline{v}=0`$. Also (3.21) and (3.22) become

$`\left(\left|A\right|^2\right)_{\overline{v}}U_{\overline{v}}\left|A\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`U_{\overline{u}}\left|A\right|^2\mathrm{cos}f,`$ (3.36)
$`\left(\left|A\right|^2\right)_{\overline{u}}U_{\overline{u}}\left|A\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`U_{\overline{v}}\left|A\right|^2\mathrm{cos}f.`$ (3.37)
It thus follows that, again in the barred coordinates,

$$\left|A\right|^2=\left|B\right|^2=\mathrm{e}^Ug(\lambda ),$$
(3.38)
for some function $`g(\lambda )`$ satisfying

$$\lambda g^{}=g\mathrm{cos}f,$$
(3.39)
with the prime here and henceforth denoting differentiation with respect to $`\lambda `$.

In order to intepret physically the implications of our assumption that there exists $`(\overline{u},\overline{v})`$ such that $`\left|A\right|^2=\left|B\right|^2`$ we proceed as follows: using (3.20) and the field equations (2.14) and (2.15) in the expressions (3.9) and (3.11) for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$ we find that we can write

$$U_v\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{B}=\frac{1}{2}\left\{iU_vf_vU_{vv}+\frac{1}{2}\left|B\right|^2+\frac{B}{2A}U_uU_v+U_v\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\left|B\right|}{\left|A\right|}\right)_v\right\},$$
(3.40)
and

$$U_u\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_4}{A}=\frac{1}{2}\left\{iU_uf_uU_{uu}+\frac{1}{2}\left|A\right|^2+\frac{A}{2B}U_uU_v+U_u\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\left|A\right|}{\left|B\right|}\right)_u\right\}.$$
(3.41)
When these are expressed in the coordinates $`(\overline{u},\overline{v})`$ we can put $`\left|A\right|^2=\left|B\right|^2`$ and as above $`U_{\overline{u}\overline{u}}=U_{\overline{v}\overline{v}}`$ and $`U_{\overline{u}}f_{\overline{u}}=U_{\overline{v}}f_{\overline{v}}`$ and thus

$$U_{\overline{u}}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_4}{\overline{A}}=U_{\overline{v}}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{B}.$$
(3.42)
¿From (3.42) it follows, using the second of (3.7) and of (3.8) that

$$\rho _l^2\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_4\right|^2=\rho _n^2\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\right|^2.$$
(3.43)
This equation, which is a consequence of our basic assumption, deserves some physical interpretation. $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\right|^2`$ and $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_4\right|^2`$ are analogous to the energy densities of electromagnetic waves propagating in the $`n`$ and $`l`$ directions respectively in space–time, in the same sense that the Bel– Robinson tensor  is analogous to the electromagnetic energy–momentum tensor. However with the coordinates carrying the dimensions of length these quantities have the dimensions of $`(\mathrm{length})^4`$. The quantities $`\rho _l^2\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_4\right|^2`$ and $`\rho _n^2\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\right|^2`$ both have dimensions $`(\mathrm{length})^2`$ of energy density and are positive definite expressions in terms of the backscattered radiation fields \[we note that the backscattered radiation has non–vanishing shear and expansion and thus does not consist of systems of plane waves\]. Hence it seems reasonable to suggest the following interpretation for the equation (3.43): in the coordinate system (the barred system) in which $`\left|A\right|^2=\left|B\right|^2`$ the energy density of the backscattered radiation from each of the separating waves after the collision is the same. We note that (3.43) also holds for our solution  which describes the collision of an impulsive gravitational wave with an impulsive gravitational wave sharing its wave front with an electromagnetic shock wave. This latter solution contains the Khan and Penrose  solution and a solution of Griffiths  as special cases. Also (3.43) holds (trivially) for the Bell and Szekeres  solution describing the collision of two electromagnetic shock waves. These examples demonstrate that (3.43) holds for a class of collision problems involving gravitational impulse waves and/or electromagnetic shock waves.

## 4 Integration of the Field Equations

We begin by writing (3.15) in the barred system $`(\overline{u},\overline{v})`$. Using (3.20) with $`\left|A\right|=\left|B\right|`$, (3.35) and (3.38) we find that

$$(1\lambda ^2)f^{\prime \prime }2\lambda f^{}+\frac{g}{\lambda }\mathrm{sin}f=\frac{(1+\lambda ^2)}{\lambda ^2}\mathrm{sin}f\frac{(1\lambda ^2)}{\lambda }f^{}\mathrm{cos}f,$$
(4.1)
with $`g`$ given in terms of $`f`$ by (3.39). We can simplify (4.1) to read

$$g=\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{sin}f}\frac{d}{d\lambda }\left[(1\lambda ^2)\left(f^{}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}f}{\lambda }\right)\right].$$
(4.2)
We get a single third order equation for $`f`$ by eliminating $`g`$ (taken to be non–zero) between (3.39) and (4.2). Since we are working in the barred coordinate system (3.20) gives

$$\frac{A}{B}=\frac{V_{\overline{u}}\mathrm{cosh}W+iW_{\overline{u}}}{V_{\overline{v}}\mathrm{cosh}W+iW_{\overline{v}}}=\mathrm{e}^{if}=\frac{1ih}{1+ih},$$
(4.3)
where, for convenience, we have introduced $`h(\lambda )`$ by the final equality. After eliminating $`g`$ from (3.39) and (4.2) it is useful to write the resulting equation as a differential equation for $`h(\lambda )`$. Then defining

$$G=\frac{2}{1+h^2}(1\lambda ^2)\left(h^{}\frac{h}{\lambda }\right),$$
(4.4)
the equation for $`h(\lambda )`$ can be put in the form

$$\lambda G^{\prime \prime }+G^{}\frac{4}{\lambda }G=\frac{GQ}{1\lambda ^2},$$
(4.5)
where

$$Q=\frac{\lambda }{2h}(1h^2)G^{}+\frac{1}{h}(1+h^2)G.$$
(4.6)
We remark that if we define

$$P=\frac{\lambda }{2h}(1+h^2)G^{}+\frac{1}{h}(1h^2)G,$$
(4.7)
then

$$\lambda P^{}=Q\mathrm{and}P^2Q^2=\lambda ^2\left(G^{}\right)^24G^2.$$
(4.8)
In studying the differential equation (4.5) for $`h`$ we found it helpful to write (4.5) and the second of (4.8) in the form

$`\lambda G^{\prime \prime }+G^{}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\lambda }}G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda GP^{}}{1\lambda ^2}},`$ (4.9)
$`P^2\lambda ^2\left(P^{}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2\left(G^{}\right)^24G^2,`$ (4.10)
and to work with these equations. Before proceeding further however we need to know $`h`$ and $`h^{}`$ when $`\overline{u}=0`$ and/or when $`\overline{v}=0`$, i.e. we require $`h(1)`$ and $`h^{}(1)`$. To find $`h(1)`$ start by writing (4.3), using (3.30), as

$$\frac{1ih(\lambda )}{1+ih(\lambda )}=\frac{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}\sqrt{1(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)u^2}}{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}\sqrt{1(a^2+b^2)v^2}}\left(\frac{V_u\mathrm{cosh}W+iW_u}{V_v\mathrm{cosh}W+iW_v}\right),$$
(4.11)
and evaluate this equation when $`u=0`$ and $`v=0`$. From the boundary conditions on $`V`$ and $`W`$ given by (2.4), (2.5), (2.8) and (2.9) we have that when $`u=0`$ and $`v=0`$:

$$V_u=2\alpha ,V_v=2a,W_u=2\beta ,W_v=2b,$$
(4.12)
and thus from (4.11),

$$\frac{1ih(1)}{1+ih(1)}=\frac{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}}{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}}\left(\frac{\alpha i\beta }{aib}\right)=\mathrm{e}^{i(\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta })},$$
(4.13)
where

$$\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\alpha }}=\frac{\alpha i\beta }{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}},\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\beta }}=\frac{aib}{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}}.$$
(4.14)
It thus follows from (4.13) that

$$h(1)=\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}{2}\right)=k(\mathrm{say}).$$
(4.15)
Next to find $`h^{}(1)`$ we begin with (4.11) and by two differentiations obtain from it

$$\frac{4i(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)h^{}(1)}{\left(1+ih(1)\right)^2}=\left[\frac{^2}{uv}\left(\frac{V_u\mathrm{cosh}W+iW_u}{V_v\mathrm{cosh}W+iW_v}\right)\right]_{(u=0,v=0)}.$$
(4.16)
To evaluate the right hand side here we first note from (2.17) that when $`u=0`$ and $`v=0`$, $`U_u=0`$ and $`U_v=0`$. Also from the boundary conditions on $`W`$ we have $`W=0`$ when $`u=0`$ and $`v=0`$. Now evaluating the field equations (2.12) and (2.13) when $`u=0`$ and $`v=0`$ we easily see that in this case

$$V_{uv}=0,W_{uv}=0.$$
(4.17)
¿From the boundary conditions satisfied by $`V`$ and $`W`$ we have, when $`u=0`$ and $`v=0`$:

$$V_{vv}=V_{uu}=W_{vv}=W_{uu}=0.$$
(4.18)
Next differentiating (2.12) and (2.13) with respect to $`u`$ we find that when $`u=0`$ and $`v=0`$:

$$V_{uvu}=2\alpha ^2a6\beta ^2a8b\alpha \beta ,W_{uvu}=2b(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)+8a\alpha \beta .$$
(4.19)
Finally differentiating (2.12) and (2.13) with respect to $`v`$ we find that when $`u=0`$ and $`v=0`$:

$$V_{uvv}=2\alpha a^26\alpha b^28ab\beta ,W_{uvv}=2\beta (a^2+b^2)+8\alpha ab.$$
(4.20)
Now substituting all of these results into the right hand side of (4.16) we obtain

$$h^{}(1)=k,$$
(4.21)
with $`k`$ given by (4.15). Using (4.15) and (4.21) in (4.4) we see that

$$G(1)=0=G^{}(1).$$
(4.22)
We can now set about solving (4.9) and (4.10) for $`G`$ and then obtain $`h(\lambda )`$ from (4.4).

Differentiating (4.10) with respect to $`\lambda `$ and using (4.9) we find that either (a) $`P^{}=0`$ or (b) if $`P^{}0`$ then

$$\lambda P^{\prime \prime }+P^{}\frac{1}{\lambda }P=\frac{\lambda GG^{}}{1\lambda ^2}.$$
(4.23)
We can quickly dispose of case (a). If $`P=\mathrm{constant}0`$ then (4.10) can be integrated to yield

$$G=\frac{P}{4}\left(c_0^2\lambda ^{\pm 2}\frac{1}{c_0^2\lambda ^{\pm 2}}\right),$$
(4.24)
where $`c_0`$ is a constant of integration. It is easy to see that this constant cannot be chosen to satisfy both boundary conditions (4.22). Also if $`P=0`$ then (4.10) integrates to

$$G=c_1\lambda ^{\pm 2},$$
(4.25)
with $`c_1`$ a constant of integration. Clearly we must have $`c_1=0`$ to satisfy (4.22). Thus the only acceptable solution in case (a) is $`G=0`$. Turning now to case (b) with (4.23) holding we find that we can integrate this equation once (using (4.22)) to read

$$\lambda P^{}+\left(\frac{1+\lambda ^2}{1\lambda ^2}\right)P=\frac{\lambda G^2}{2(1\lambda ^2)}.$$
(4.26)
¿From the first of (4.8) this can be written

$$\left(P+Q\right)+\lambda ^2\left(PQ\right)=\frac{\lambda }{2}G^2,$$
(4.27)
and from (4.7) and (4.8) this reads

$$\lambda G^{}=\frac{\lambda h}{2(1+\lambda ^2h^2)}G^22\frac{(1\lambda ^2h^2)}{(1+\lambda ^2h^2)}G.$$
(4.28)
A glance at (4.3) and (4.4) shows how $`h`$ and thence $`G`$ are constructed from the functions $`V`$ and $`W`$ appearing in the line–element (2.2) for $`u>0,v>0`$. On the boundaries of this region $`\lambda =1`$ and within this region $`\lambda >1`$ with $`\lambda `$ becoming infinite when the right hand side of (2.17) vanishes. The $`\lambda =\mathrm{constant}>1`$ curves densely fill the interior of the region $`𝒮`$(say) with boundaries ($`b_1`$) $`u=0,v>0`$, ($`b_2`$) $`v=0,u>0`$ and ($`b_3`$) the right hand side of (2.17) vanishing with $`u>0,v>0`$. Within $`𝒮`$ there is one curve $`\lambda =\mathrm{constant}>1`$ passing through each point. When the field equations are completely integrated for $`(u,v)ϵ𝒮`$ the boundary ($`b_3`$) turns out to be a curvature singularity. For $`G`$ analytic in $`𝒮`$ we conclude from (4.22) and (4.28) that $`G0`$ in $`𝒮`$. It thus follows from (4.4) with the boundary condition (4.15) that

$$h(\lambda )=k\lambda ,$$
(4.29)
for $`(u,v)ϵ𝒮`$.

We are now at the following stage in the integration of the field equations: the function $`U`$ in the line–element (2.2) is given by (2.17) in coordinates $`(u,v)`$ or by (3.33) in coordinates $`(\overline{u},\overline{v})`$. Also on account of (4.3) and (4.29) the functions $`V`$ and $`W`$ in (2.2) satisfy the differential equation

$$\frac{A}{B}=\frac{V_{\overline{u}}\mathrm{cosh}W+iW_{\overline{u}}}{V_{\overline{v}}\mathrm{cosh}W+iW_{\overline{v}}}=\frac{1ik\lambda }{1+ik\lambda },$$
(4.30)
with $`\lambda `$ given by (3.35) and $`k`$ by (4.15). We shall now solve this complex equation for $`V`$ and $`W`$ in terms of the barred coordinates. First we need to note the boundary values of $`V`$ and $`W`$ in terms of the barred coordinates. By (2.4) and (3.30) we have when $`\overline{u}=0`$,

$$\mathrm{e}^V=\left[\frac{\left(\sqrt{a^2+b^2}a\mathrm{sin}\overline{v}\right)^2+b^2\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{v}}{\left(\sqrt{a^2+b^2}+a\mathrm{sin}\overline{v}\right)^2+b^2\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{v}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{\left|1\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\beta }}\mathrm{sin}\overline{v}\right|}{\left|1+\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\beta }}\mathrm{sin}\overline{v}\right|},$$
(4.31)
with the second equality following from (4.14). By (2.5) and (3.30) we have when $`\overline{u}=0`$

$$\mathrm{sinh}W=\frac{2b\mathrm{sin}\overline{v}}{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}\mathrm{cos}^2\overline{v}}=i\frac{\left(\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\beta }}\mathrm{sin}\overline{v}\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\beta }}\mathrm{sin}\overline{v}\right)}{1\left|\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\beta }}\mathrm{sin}\overline{v}\right|^2}.$$
(4.32)
The corresponding boundary values on $`\overline{v}=0`$ are obtained by replacing $`\overline{v}`$ by $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\widehat{\beta }`$ by $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ in the final expressions in (4.31) and (4.32). It is convenient to use a complex function $`E`$ (the Ernst function) in place of the two real functions $`V`$ and $`W`$ defined (in a way that is suggested by the final expressions in (4.31) and (4.32)) by

$$\mathrm{e}^V=\left[\frac{\left(1E\right)\left(1\overline{E}\right)}{\left(1+E\right)\left(1+\overline{E}\right)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},\mathrm{sinh}W=i\frac{\left(E\overline{E}\right)}{1\left|E\right|^2},$$
(4.33)
or equivalently by

$$E=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}V\mathrm{cosh}W+i\mathrm{sinh}W}{1+\mathrm{cosh}V\mathrm{cosh}W}.$$
(4.34)
Now (4.31) and (4.32) can be written neatly as:

$$\mathrm{when}\overline{u}=0,E=\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\beta }}\mathrm{sin}\overline{v},$$
(4.35)
and correspondingly

$$\mathrm{when}\overline{v}=0,E=\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\alpha }}\mathrm{sin}\overline{u}.$$
(4.36)
In terms of $`E`$, the complex functions $`A,B`$ can be written

$$A=\frac{2\mathrm{cosh}W}{1\overline{E}^2}\overline{E}_{\overline{u}},B=\frac{2\mathrm{cosh}W}{1\overline{E}^2}\overline{E}_{\overline{v}}.$$
(4.37)
Substitution into (4.30) simplifies this equation to

$$E_{\overline{u}}E_{\overline{v}}=ik\lambda \left(E_{\overline{u}}+E_{\overline{v}}\right).$$
(4.38)
With $`\lambda `$ given by (3.35) this equation establishes that

$$E=E(w)\mathrm{with}w=\mathrm{sin}(\overline{u}+\overline{v})+ik\mathrm{sin}(\overline{u}\overline{v}).$$
(4.39)
We can now determine $`E`$ using the boundary conditions (4.35) and (4.36). To see this easily we first write $`k`$ in (4.15) in the form

$$k=i\frac{\left(\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\alpha }}\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\beta }}\right)}{\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\alpha }}+\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\beta }}}.$$
(4.40)
Using this in (4.39) we see that we can consider $`E`$ to have the functional dependence:

$$E=E\left(\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\alpha }}\mathrm{sin}\overline{u}\mathrm{cos}\overline{v}+\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\beta }}\mathrm{cos}\overline{u}\mathrm{sin}\overline{v}\right).$$
(4.41)
Now the boundary conditions (4.35) and (4.36) establish that

$$E=\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\alpha }}\mathrm{sin}\overline{u}\mathrm{cos}\overline{v}+\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\beta }}\mathrm{cos}\overline{u}\mathrm{sin}\overline{v},$$
(4.42)
and thus the functions $`V,W`$ appearing in the line–element (2.2) are determined by (4.33) in the coordinates $`(\overline{u},\overline{v})`$. They are then converted into the coordinates $`(u,v)`$ using the transformations (3.30) (see section 5 below).

Finally in the barred system the field equations (2.14) and (2.15) for $`\overline{M}`$ read (using (4.33) and (4.37))

$`\overline{M}_{\overline{u}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U_{\overline{u}\overline{u}}}{U_{\overline{u}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_{\overline{u}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2E_{\overline{u}}\overline{E}_{\overline{u}}}{U_{\overline{u}}\left(1\left|E\right|^2\right)^2}},`$ (4.43)
$`\overline{M}_{\overline{v}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U_{\overline{v}\overline{v}}}{U_{\overline{v}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_{\overline{v}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2E_{\overline{v}}\overline{E}_{\overline{v}}}{U_{\overline{v}}\left(1\left|E\right|^2\right)^2}},`$ (4.44)
with $`\overline{M}`$ related to $`M`$ by (3.32). Since we must have $`M=0`$ when $`u=0`$ and when $`v=0`$ we see from (3.32) that

$$\mathrm{when}\overline{u}=0,\mathrm{e}^{\overline{M}}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\overline{v}}{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}\sqrt{a^2+b^2}},$$
(4.45)
and

$$\mathrm{when}\overline{v}=0,\mathrm{e}^{\overline{M}}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\overline{u}}{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}\sqrt{a^2+b^2}}.$$
(4.46)
In (4.43) and (4.44), $`U`$ is given by (3.33) and $`E`$ by (4.42). Using (4.42) we find

$$E_{\overline{u}}\overline{E}_{\overline{u}}=1\left|E\right|^2=E_{\overline{v}}\overline{E}_{\overline{v}},$$
(4.47)
with

$$1\left|E\right|^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}{2}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2(\overline{u}+\overline{v})+\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}{2}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2(\overline{u}\overline{v}).$$
(4.48)
The only complication in solving (4.43) and (4.44) is in dealing with the final term in each. In the case of (4.43) this now involves evaluating the integral

$$\frac{2d\overline{u}}{U_{\overline{u}}\left(1\left|E\right|^2\right)}=\frac{2\lambda d\lambda }{(\lambda ^21)\left\{\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}{2}\right)+\lambda ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}{2}\right)\right\}},$$
(4.49)
where we have changed the variable of integration from $`\overline{u}`$ to $`\lambda `$, given in (3.35), with $`\overline{v}`$ held fixed. This integral is easy to evaluate and using (4.48) again we obtain from (4.43)

$$\mathrm{e}^{\overline{M}}=\frac{1\left|E\right|^2}{F(\overline{v})\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}(\overline{u}\overline{v})\mathrm{cos}(\overline{u}+\overline{v})}},$$
(4.50)
with $`F(\overline{v})`$ a function of integration. By (4.45) we find that in fact $`F`$ is a constant given by

$$F=\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}\sqrt{a^2+b^2}.$$
(4.51)
It is straightforward to see that (4.50) with (4.51) also satisfies (4.44). The integration of Einstein’s vacuum field equations is now complete.

## 5 Discussion

The purpose of this paper has been to propose a simple key to open up the boundary–value problem which is involved in deriving a model in General Relativity of the vacuum gravitational field left behind after the head–on collision of two plane impulsive gravitational waves. This ‘key’ has been provided, with some motivation, in section 3 (following equation(3.23)) and a physical interpretation has been suggested there for the interesting equation (3.43), which is a consequence of the key assumption and some of the vacuum field equations. Our approach has been to focus attention on properties of the backscattered gravitational radiation present after the collision. This appears to be a non–linear phenomenon whose presence therefore ought to be expected to play a central role in the development of a scattering theory for gravitational radiation.

Notwithstanding the simplicity of our key assumption, the derivation of the line–element of the vacuum space–time in the region $`𝒮`$ in section 4 \[the region $`𝒮`$ is defined following equation (4.28)\] is complicated. It is therefore useful to summarise the result: the vacuum space–time in the region $`𝒮`$ has line– element of the form (2.2) with $`U`$ given by (2.17), $`V`$ and $`W`$ given by (4.33) with the complex function $`E`$ in (4.42) expressed in coordinates $`(u,v)`$ as

$$E=(\alpha +i\beta )u\sqrt{1(a^2+b^2)v^2}+(a+ib)v\sqrt{1(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)u^2},$$
(5.1)
while $`M`$ is reconstructed in coordinates $`(u,v)`$ using (3.30), (3.32), (4.50) and (4.51). The result is

$$\mathrm{e}^M=\frac{\left(1\left|E\right|^2\right)\mathrm{e}^{U/2}}{\sqrt{1(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)u^2}\sqrt{1(a^2+b^2)v^2}},$$
(5.2)
with $`\mathrm{e}^U`$ given in (2.17). If in (2.17), (5.1) and (5.2) we put $`a^2+b^2=1=\alpha ^2+\beta ^2`$ we recover the original form of the Nutku and Halil  solution. If in addition $`b=\beta =0`$ (and thus $`E=\overline{E}`$ and so $`W=0`$) we recover the original form of the Khan and Penrose  solution. We note that in the region $`𝒮`$ a curvature singularity ,  is encountered on the boundary where $`(a^2+b^2)v^2+(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)u^2=1`$ and the solution above is valid only up to this space–like subspace.

Finally we wish to emphasise that the approach to solving collision problems in General Relativity developed in this paper is not confined to the examples worked through above. With different boundary conditions to those described by equations (2.3)–(2.10) and the paragraph following (2.10), the technique is capable of solving new collision problems (see, for example ).

This collaboration was funded by the Department of Education and Science and by the Ministère des Affaires Etrangères.

## Appendix A Plane Impulsive Wave

The line–element of the vacuum space–time describing the gravitational field of an impulsive pp–wave  is given by

$$ds^2=2dZd\overline{Z}+2dV\left(dU+\delta \left(V\right)f(Z,\overline{Z})dV\right).$$
(A.1)
Here $`f`$ is a real–valued function which is harmonic in $`Z,\overline{Z}`$:

$$\frac{^2f}{Z\overline{Z}}=0.$$
(A.2)
The only non–vanishing component of the Riemann tensor in Newman–Penrose notation is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\frac{^2f}{Z^2}\delta \left(V\right),$$
(A.3)
which is therefore Petrov type N with $`/U`$ as degenerate principal null direction. Integral curves of $`/U`$, which have vanishing expansion and shear, generate the history of the wave–front $`V=0`$. Hence $`V=0`$ is a null hyperplane. Following the example of Penrose  a discontinuous coordinate transformation removes the $`\delta `$– function from the line–element (A.1) and introduces a coordinate system $`(v,u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ in which the metric tensor is continuous $`\left(C^0\right)`$ across $`V=0`$. This transformation is given by

$$V=v,U=u\theta (v)f(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })+|g|^2v_+,Z=\zeta +v_+\overline{g}(\overline{\zeta }),$$
(A.4)
where $`\theta (v)`$ is the Heaviside step function, $`v_+=v\theta (v)`$ and $`g(\zeta )=f/\zeta `$ is an analytic function of $`\zeta `$. The line–element (A.1) is transformed under (A.4) into the Rosen form

$$ds^2=2\left|d\zeta +v_+\overline{K}(\overline{\zeta })d\overline{\zeta }\right|^2+2dudv,$$
(A.5)
with $`K(\zeta )=dg/d\zeta =^2f/\zeta ^2`$ and (A.3) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\frac{^2f}{\zeta ^2}\delta (v).$$
(A.6)
For a plane impulsive wave with two degrees of freedom of polarisation $`^2f/\zeta ^2`$ is a complex constant. We take $`f=\mathrm{Re}\left\{(a+ib)\zeta ^2\right\}`$ with $`a,b`$ real constants for this case. For a linearly polarised plane impulsive gravitational wave either $`a=0`$ or $`b=0`$. We note that (A.4) incorporates Penrose’s geometrical construction of the impulsive pp–wave whereby the history of the wave is formed in Minkowskian space–time by first subdividing the space–time into two halves $`v>0`$ and $`v<0`$ each with boundary $`v=0`$ and then reattaching the halves on $`v=0`$ identifying the points $`(v=0,u,\zeta )`$ and $`(v=0,uf(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }),\zeta )`$. This is a mapping of the two copies of $`v=0`$ where points on the same generators $`\zeta =\mathrm{constant}`$ of $`v=0`$ are mapped one to the other by the translation $`uuf(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ and the mapping preserves the intrinsic degenerate metric on $`v=0`$.

## Appendix B Incoming Waves Linearly Polarised

If the incoming waves are linearly polarised $`b=0`$ in (2.3)–(2.5) and $`\beta =0`$ in (2.7)–(2.9). In the interaction region ($`u>0,v>0`$) after the collision the function $`W=0`$. This is the problem solved by Khan and Penrose . Our basic assumption following (3.23) in this case reads: there exist parameters ($`\overline{u},\overline{v}`$) along the integral curves of $`n`$ and $`l`$ respectively such that $`V_{\overline{u}}=V_{\overline{v}}`$. These parameters are given by (3.30) with $`b=\beta =0`$. Now $`V=V(\overline{u}+\overline{v})`$ in $`u>0,v>0`$. In the barred coordinates the boundary value of $`V`$ when $`\overline{u}=0`$ is obtained from (2.4) with $`b=0`$ to be:

$$\mathrm{e}^V=\frac{1+\mathrm{sin}\overline{v}}{1\mathrm{sin}\overline{v}}.$$
(B.1)
Thus for $`u>0,v>0`$ we have

$$\mathrm{e}^V=\frac{1+\mathrm{sin}(\overline{u}+\overline{v})}{1\mathrm{sin}(\overline{u}+\overline{v})}=\frac{(\mathrm{cos}\overline{u}+\mathrm{sin}\overline{v})(\mathrm{cos}\overline{v}+\mathrm{sin}\overline{u})}{(\mathrm{cos}\overline{u}\mathrm{sin}\overline{v})(\mathrm{cos}\overline{v}\mathrm{sin}\overline{u})}.$$
(B.2)
Using (3.30) with $`b=\beta =0`$ we can write (B.2) as

$$\mathrm{e}^V=\frac{(\sqrt{1\alpha ^2u^2}+av)(\sqrt{1a^2v^2}+\alpha u)}{(\sqrt{1\alpha ^2u^2}av)(\sqrt{1a^2v^2}\alpha u)},$$
(B.3)
which is the Khan and Penrose  expression for $`V`$ in the interaction region. From (3.30) and (3.33) we have $`U`$ in the coordinates $`(u,v)`$ given by

$$\mathrm{e}^U=1\alpha ^2u^2a^2v^2.$$
(B.4)
The only remaining function to be determined is $`M`$. In the coordinates $`(\overline{u},\overline{v})`$ this is replaced by $`\overline{M}`$ with the latter related to $`M`$ via (3.32) with $`b=\beta =0`$. If we let $`\overline{Q}=\overline{M}+\frac{1}{2}U`$ then in the barred coordinates the field equations (2.14) and (2.15) reduce to the following equations for $`\overline{Q}`$:

$$\overline{Q}_{\overline{u}}=\overline{Q}_{\overline{v}}=2\mathrm{tan}(\overline{u}+\overline{v}).$$
(B.5)
Since $`M=0`$ when $`u=0`$ or $`v=0`$ it is easy to see that when $`\overline{u}=0`$, $`\overline{Q}=\mathrm{log}\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\overline{v}/\alpha a\right)`$ and when $`\overline{v}=0`$, $`\overline{Q}=\mathrm{log}\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\overline{u}/\alpha a\right)`$. It thus follows from (B.5) that

$$\overline{Q}=\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(\overline{u}+\overline{v})}{\alpha a}\right).$$
(B.6)
Hence by (3.32) with $`b=\beta =0`$:

$$\mathrm{e}^M=\frac{\alpha a}{\mathrm{cos}\overline{u}\mathrm{cos}\overline{v}}\mathrm{e}^{\overline{Q}+\frac{1}{2}U}=\frac{[\mathrm{cos}(\overline{u}+\overline{v})\mathrm{cos}(\overline{u}\overline{v})]^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\mathrm{cos}\overline{u}\mathrm{cos}\overline{v}cos^2(\overline{u}\overline{v})}.$$
(B.7)
In the $`(u,v)`$ coordinates this reads

$$\mathrm{e}^M=\frac{(1\alpha ^2u^2a^2v^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\sqrt{1\alpha ^2u^2}\sqrt{1a^2v^2}[\sqrt{1\alpha ^2u^2}\sqrt{1a^2v^2}+\alpha auv]^2},$$
(B.8)
which is the Khan and Penrose  expression.


text:
# Disturbance spreading in incommensurate and quasiperiodic systems

## I Introduction

The fast development of nanotechnology makes one-dimensional (1D) systems like quantum wire and nanotubes available in laboratories nowadays. The study of physical properties such as localization, thermal conductivity, and electron conductance, etc., in these systems become more and more important. In the past years, many works have been done on the waves (classical and quantum) propagation and localization in 1D disordered media. Particular interests are paid to propagation of the classical waves in random media (see e.g. ), and electron transport in 1D disordered solids . In comparison with the disordered systems, much less is studied about the transport and diffusion properties of incommensurate and quasiperiodic systems, even though the incommensurate structures appear in many physical systems such as quasicrystals, two-dimensional electron systems, magnetic superlattices, charge-density waves, organic conductors, and various atomic monolayers absorbed on crystalline substrates.

In this paper, we would like to study the classical transport of an initially localized excitation in 1D incommensurate, quasiperiodic and random systems so as to better understand transport processes and relaxations properties in these systems. Recently, quantum diffusion in two families of 1D models have attracted much attention. Typical examples are the kicked rotator and kicked Harper models from the field of quantum chaos, and the Harper model and the tight-binding model associated with quasiperiodic sequences. Many interesting dynamical behaviors, such as quantum localization and anomalous diffusion, and their relationships with energy spectra have been investigated in these systems. However, the classical transport in incommensurate and quasiperiodic sytems and its relation with phonon frequency distribution, as well as the diffusive behavior dependence on initial condition, etc. have not yet fully investigated up to now.

The information of disturbance spreading in such system reflects the interior structures of the underlying system. As we shall see later, the spreading properties are determined largely by the density of states, in particular by the phonon model near the zero frequency.

## II Models and numerical results

### A Incommensurate chain

The Frenkel-Kontorova (FK) model is invoked as a prototype of an incommensurate chain in this paper. This model is a 1D atom chain with an elastic nearest neighbor interaction and subjected to an external periodic potential. Most works on this model in the past two decades have been concentrated on ground state properties and phonon spectra, etc. The 1D FK model is described by a dimensionless Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{n}{}\left[\frac{p_n^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}(x_{n+1}x_na)^2V\mathrm{cos}(x_n)\right],$$
(1)
were $`p_n`$ and $`x_n`$ are momentum and position of the $`n`$th atom, respectively. $`V`$ is the coupling constant, and $`a`$ is the distance between consecutive atoms without external potential. Aubry and Le Daëron showed that the ground state configuration is commensurate when $`a/2\pi `$ is rational and incommensurate when $`a/2\pi `$ is irrational. For an incommensurate ground state, there are two different configurations separated by the so-called transition by breaking of analyticity predicted by Aubry. This transition survives the quantum fluctuation. Moreover, in contrast to other 1D nonintegrable systems such as the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam chain, the FK chain shows a normal thermal conductivity . For each irrational number $`a/2\pi `$ there exists a critical value $`V_c`$ separating the sliding state ($`V<V_c`$) from pinned state ($`V>V_c`$). The $`V_c=0.9716354\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to the most irrational number, golden mean value $`a/2\pi =(\sqrt{5}1)/2`$. Without loss of generality, we restrict ourselves to this particular value of $`a`$ in the numerical calculations throughout the paper, and it is approximated by a converging series of truncated fraction: $`F_n/F_{n+1}`$, where $`\{F_n\}`$ is the Fibonacci sequence.

The equation of motion for the $`n`$th atom in the FK model around its equilibrium position is

$$\frac{d^2\psi _n}{dt^2}=\psi _{n+1}+\psi _{n1}[2+V\mathrm{cos}(x_n^0)]\psi _n,$$
(2)
where $`x_n^0`$ is the equilibrium position of the $`n`$th atom at ground state, and $`\psi _n`$ is the normalized displacement from the equilibrium position. In fact, to obtain Eq.(2), we have written the whole displacement of particle as $`x_n=x_n^0+ϵ\psi _n`$, where $`ϵ(1)`$ is a small parameter. To quantify the disturbance spreading, the variance of displacements

$$\sigma ^2(t)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}|\psi _n(t)\psi _n(0)|^2$$
(3)
is calculated by two numerical methods. The first one is the Runge-Kutta method of the fourth order to integrate Eq. (2) for a given initial condition with free boundary. The second one is to find eigenfrequencies $`\omega _j`$ and eigenvectors $`\alpha _n(j)`$ of equation

$$\omega ^2\psi _n=\psi _{n+1}+\psi _{n1}[2+V\mathrm{cos}(x_n^0)]\psi _n.$$
(4)
The solution of Eq. (4) can be expressed in the following form:

$$\psi _n(t)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[A_j\mathrm{cos}(\omega _jt)+B_j\mathrm{sin}(\omega _jt)\right]\alpha _n(j)$$
(5)
where the coefficients $`A_j`$ and $`B_j`$ are determined by initial conditions. Contrasting to the quantum diffusion, the classical evolution Eq. (2) is of the second order of derivative. Thus initial conditions for $`\psi _n`$ and $`d\psi _n/dt`$ are needed. One of our main findings is that the spreading behavior depends on the initial condition. For the initial condition

$$\psi _n=0\text{and}d\psi _n/dt=\delta _{n,n_0}$$

which is called type I, we have $`\sigma ^2t^\alpha `$, and $`\alpha `$ is equal to $`1`$ and $`0`$ for $`V<V_c`$ and $`V>V_c`$, respectively. For the initial condition

$$\psi _n=\delta _{n,n_0}\text{and}d\psi _n/dt=0$$

which is called type II, $`\sigma ^2t^0`$ for any $`V`$. (Of course, there is another type of initial condition, i.e., $`\psi _n=\delta _{n,n_0}`$ and $`d\psi _n/dt=\delta _{n,n_0}`$. Our numerical calculations show that the spreading behavior in this case is the same as that of type-I initial condition.) Figure 1 shows the typical time evolution $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ for the FK model. In numerical calculations, we first obtain the ground state positions of $`N`$ atoms in the FK chain by the gradient method for free boundary, i.e., $`x_00`$ and $`x_N=Na`$. The results of Fig. 1 are obtained by the integration method for $`N=F_{19}=10946`$. $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ is also calculated by the second numerical method for the FK chains of small size, which gives rise to the same results.

It is worth pointing out that the above-mentioned results valid only for the evolution time less than a critical value $`t^{}`$, where $`t^{}N/2v`$ and $`v`$ is the velocity of sound. For our FK model, $`v1`$. After this critical time, i.e., $`t>t^{}`$, the power relation of $`\sigma ^2(t)t^\alpha `$ is destroyed due to the finite size effect.

To get a clear picture of the spreading of a disturbance in an incommensurate chain with two different initial conditions, we plot $`\psi _n(t)`$ in Fig. 2 for the FK chain of $`V=0.4`$. The intensity of gray scale represents the amplitude of the displacement of the particle. Because of the huge amount of the data, we record $`\psi _n(t)`$ at a time interval of 20 time steps, which leads to some discontinuity. Figure 2(a) demonstrates the evolution with initial condition $`\psi _n=0`$ and $`d\psi _n/dt=\delta _{n,n_0}`$, and Fig. 2(b) shows that with initial condition $`\psi _n=\delta _{n,n_0}`$ and $`d\psi _n/dt=0`$. The difference is clear. In the later case the disturbance spreads out in both direction, and the particle remains almost at rest after the disturbance passes it. However, in the first case, wherever the disturbance spreads, the particle will be excited and keeps moving. In the cantorus regime ($`V>V_c`$), the disturbance spreading in the FK chain is similar to the case in Fig. 2(b) regardless of the initial condition.

### B Quasiperiodic and random chains

We turn now to study of disturbance spreading in uniform, quasiperiodic, and random chains. The equation of motion can be written as

$$\frac{d^2\psi _n(t)}{dt^2}=k_n\psi _{n+1}+k_{n1}\psi _{n1}(k_n+k_{n1})\psi _n.$$
(6)
If $`k_n=k`$ for all $`n`$, it corresponds to a uniform chain. For quasiperiodic chains, $`k_n`$ takes two values $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ which are arranged according to some deterministic quasiperiodic substitute rules. Here we discuss four types of quasiperiodic chains. They are Fibonacci, Thue-Morse, Rudin-Shapiro, and period-doubling chains, respectively. The substitute rules for them are: $`k_1k_1k_2,k_2k_1`$ (Fibonacci); $`k_1k_1k_2,k_2k_2k_1`$ (Thue-Morse); $`k_1k_1k_1k_1k_1k_2,k_1k_2k_1k_1k_2k_1,k_2k_1k_2k_2k_1k_2,k_2k_2k_2k_2k_2k_1`$ (Rudin-Shapiro); $`k_1k_1k_2,k_2k_1k_1`$ (period-doubling). According to the classification based on the eigenvalues of generating matrix defined by Luck, they are bounded (Fibonacci, Thue-Morse), unbounded (Rudin-Shapiro), and marginal (period-doubling). For comparison, $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ for random chain is also studied. In this case, the values of $`k_n`$ are taken $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ with the same probability. Figure 3 shows typical time evolutions of variances for four quasiperiodic and random chains. The disturbance spreading behaviors in these chains are the same as that of the incommensurate FK model at $`V<V_c`$, namely, $`\sigma ^2(t)t`$ for all these chains with the initial condition of nonzero momentum $`[d\psi _n(0)/dt0]`$, and $`t^0`$ for all these chains with initial condition of zero momentum $`[d\psi _n(0)/dt=0]`$.

### C Relationship with phonon spectrum

Figures 1-3 are the main results. They demonstrate that the disturbance spreading depends crucially on the initial condition. In the following, we would like to understand this peculiar behavior in terms of the phonon spectra.

The coefficients $`A_j`$ and $`B_j`$ in Eq. (5) are: $`A_j=0`$ and $`B_j=\alpha _{n_0}(j)/\omega _j`$ for type-I boundary condition; $`A_j=\alpha _{n_0}(j)`$ and $`B_j=0`$ for type II. Therefore the solutions of Eq. (2) are

$`\psi _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{sin}(\omega _jt)\alpha _n(j)\alpha _{n_0}(j)/\omega _j,\text{type I},`$ (7)
$`\psi _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{cos}(\omega _jt)\alpha _n(j)\alpha _{n_0}(j),\text{type II},`$ (8)
respectively. As $`N\mathrm{}`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\psi _n^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{\omega _{min}}^{\omega _{max}}}\mathrm{sin}^2(\omega t)\alpha _{n_0}^2\rho (\omega )𝑑\omega /\omega ^2,\text{type I,}`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\psi _n^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{\omega _{min}}^{\omega _{max}}}\mathrm{cos}^2(\omega t)\alpha _{n_0}^2\rho (\omega )𝑑\omega \text{type II},`$ (10)
respectively, where $`\omega _{max}/\omega _{min}`$ is the maximum/minimal frequency of phonon spectra and $`\rho (\omega )`$ is the density of the phonon spectra.

The difference between the integrands in Eq. (10) for type I and type II lies in the factor $`1/\omega ^2`$. As time increases, the dominant contribution of the integral in Eq. (10) for type I comes from the integrand around $`\omega =0`$. The integrand for type II is an oscillated function of time $`t`$, and so is the integral. Therefore the reason for different behaviors of these chains for different initial conditions is due to the coefficients $`B_j`$ in Eq. (5). If $`B_j`$ is equal to zero, i.e., the initial condition with zero momentum, $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ is an oscillated function of time. If $`B_j`$ is nonzero, i.e., the initial condition with nonzero momentum, $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ is proportional to $`t`$.

In fact, the integral in Eq. (10) for type-I boundary condition can be written as

$$_{\omega _{min}t}^{\omega _{max}t}t\mathrm{sin}^2(\stackrel{~}{\omega })\alpha _{n_0}^2\rho (\frac{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}{t})𝑑\stackrel{~}{\omega }/\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2.$$
(11)
If the distribution function of frequency has the scaling behavior $`\rho (\omega )\omega ^\beta `$ at low frequency ($`\omega 0`$), then one has $`\alpha =1\beta `$. For the uniform chain, it is well known that $`\rho (\omega )=2/(\pi \sqrt{\omega _m^2\omega ^2})`$, thus $`\beta =0`$. We also discover that for the Fibonacci chain and random chain, the distribution function of frequency at low frequency are the same as that of uniform chain. To demonstrate this, we calculate the integrated distribution function of frequency (IDFF) for these quasiperiodic chains by directly diagonalizing chains of finite length, and plot them in Fig. 4 as a function of $`\omega `$. The results suggest that for all these quasiperiodic chains the IDFF is proportional to $`\omega `$ at low frequency, thus $`\beta =0`$, which is the same as that of uniform and random chains so that the relationship $`\alpha =1\beta `$ is satisfied for all these systems.

For the incommensurate FK model, it is well known that there is a zero-frequency phonon mode for $`V<V_c`$, whereas there is a phonon gap for $`V>V_c`$. From above discussion, we know that the zero-frequency phonon mode plays a key role in the time behavior of $`\sigma ^2(t)`$. The time behavior of $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ in the incommensurate FK chain at $`V<V_c`$ suggests that the low frequency behavior of distribution function of frequency is the same as that of those chains discussed above. The curves shown in Fig. 4 indeed demonstrate this. But for the incommensurate FK chain at $`V>V_c`$, $`\omega _{min}>0`$, thus the integral in Eq. (10) for type I is an oscillated function and the time behavior of $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ is also an oscillated function of time. The case $`V=V_c`$ is critical. The phonon spectrum of the FK chain at $`V_c`$ is different from that of $`V<V_c`$. It has self-similar structure and is point spectrum \[see Fig. 5(a)\]. Therefore there is no inverse power relation between $`\rho (\omega )`$ and $`\omega `$ at low frequency. It implies that the results would depend on the length of the chain in numerical calculation. This is illustrated in Fig. 5(b), where we plot $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ as a function of $`t`$ for the FK chains of different length at $`V=V_c`$.

## III Conclusion and discussions

We have studied the disturbance spreading in incommensurate, uniform, quasiperiodic and random chains. We have found that the time evolution of variance $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ depends on the initial conditions. Its behavior is determined by the density of phonon frequency around zero frequency. For the initial condition of zero momentum, $`\sigma ^2(t)t^0`$ for all kinds of chains studied in this letter. For the initial condition of nonzero momentum, $`\sigma ^2(t)t^\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1`$ for uniform, quasiperiodic, random chains, and incommensurate FK chain at $`V<V_c`$. Although other physical properties differs from system to system, the time behavior of $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ are the same for all these systems. For the incommensurate FK chain at $`V>V_c`$, $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ is an oscillated function of time. This different behavior of the incommensurate FK chain at different $`V`$ regimes might provide us a different approach to detect the transition by breaking of analyticity experimentally.

This work was supported in part by grants from the Hong Kong Research Grants Council (RGC) and the Hong Kong Baptist University Faculty Research Grant (FRG). Tong’s work was also supported by Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province and Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Education Committee, PR China.