text:
# Quasi-Local Conservation Equations in General Relativity

## I Introduction and Kinematics

In general relativity there have been many attempts to obtain quasi-local conservation equations. One of the motivations of these efforts is that the quasi-local conservation equations allow us to predict certain aspects of the future of a quasi-local region of a given spacetime without actually solving the Einstein’s equations for that region. Recall that in the Newtonian theory, the conservation of momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}=\mathrm{constant}`$ immediately follows from Newton’s third law, which is no more than the consistency condition implementing Newton’s second law. In general relativity, the consistency conditions for evolution are already incorporated into the Einstein’s equations through the constraint equations, from which global conservation equations were found. The purpose of this letter is to show that, from the Einstein’s equations, one can find conservation equations of a stronger form, namely, quasi-local conservation equations. These equations, interpreted as quasi-local energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation equations, are exact and unique in the sense that they are obtained by integrating the Einstein’s “constraint” equations over a compact two-surface.

Let us start from the following line element

$$ds^2=2dudv2hdu^2+\mathrm{e}^\sigma \rho _{ab}\left(dy^a+A_+^adu+A_{}^adv\right)\left(dy^b+A_+^bdu+A_{}^bdv\right),$$
(1)
where $`+,`$ stands for $`u,v`$, respectively. The geometry (1) can be understood as follows. The hypersurface $`u=\mathrm{constant}`$ is an out-going null hypersurface, and the hypersurface $`v=\mathrm{constant}`$ is either timelike, null, or spacelike, depending on the sign of $`2h`$. The intersection of two hypersurfaces $`u,v=\mathrm{constant}`$ defines a spacelike compact two-surface $`N_2`$, on which we introduce the coordinates $`y^a(a=2,3)`$. The metric on $`N_2`$ is written as

$$\varphi _{ab}=\mathrm{e}^\sigma \rho _{ab},$$
(2)
where $`\rho _{ab}`$ is the conformal two-metric satisfying the condition that

$$\mathrm{det}\rho _{ab}=1,$$
(3)
and $`\mathrm{e}^\sigma `$ is the area element. Notice that $`v`$ is the affine parameter of the null vector field

$$\frac{}{v}A_{}^a\frac{}{y^a},$$
(4)
which rules the out-going null hypersurface $`u=\mathrm{constant}`$. If we further assume that $`A_{}^a=0`$, then the metric (1) becomes identical to the Newman-Unti metric . In this letter, however, we shall retain the $`A_{}^a`$ field, since its presence will make the $`N_2`$-diffeomorphism invariant Yang-Mills type gauge theory aspect of this Kaluza-Klein formalism transparent. Let us mention that the coordinates used in the above construction are not unique, which means that there are residual symmetries that preserve the metric (1). These residual symmetries consist of the diffeomorphisms of $`N_2`$, the reparametrization of $`u`$, and the shift of the origin of the affine parameter $`v`$ at each point of $`N_2`$, and were studied in detail in .

The spacetime integral $`I_0`$ of the scalar curvature of the metric (1) can be written as

$$I_0=𝑑u𝑑vd^2yL_0+\mathrm{surface}\mathrm{integral},$$
(5)
where $`L_0`$ is given by

$`L_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma }\rho _{ab}F_+^aF_+^b+\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_+\sigma )(D_{}\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^\sigma \rho ^{ab}\rho ^{cd}(D_+\rho _{ac})(D_{}\rho _{bd})+\mathrm{e}^\sigma R_2`$ (6)
$`2\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_{}h)(D_{}\sigma )h\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_{}\sigma )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h\mathrm{e}^\sigma \rho ^{ab}\rho ^{cd}(D_{}\rho _{ac})(D_{}\rho _{bd}).`$ (7)
Here $`R_2`$ is the scalar curvature of $`N_2`$, and we defined the diff$`N_2`$-covariant derivatives as follows,

$`F_+^a=_+A_{}^a_{}A_+^a[A_+,A_{}]_\mathrm{L}^a,`$ (8)
$`D_\pm \sigma =_\pm \sigma [A_\pm ,\sigma ]_\mathrm{L},`$ (9)
$`D_\pm h=_\pm h[A_\pm ,h]_\mathrm{L},`$ (10)
$`D_\pm \rho _{ab}=_\pm \rho _{ab}[A_\pm ,\rho ]_{\mathrm{L}ab},`$ (11)
where $`_+=/u`$, $`_{}=/v`$, $`_a=/y^a`$, and $`[A_\pm ,]_\mathrm{L}`$ is the Lie derivative of $``$ along the vector field $`A_\pm :=A_\pm ^a_a`$.

In addition to the eight equations of motion that follow directly from the integral $`I_0`$ by the variational principle, there are two supplementary equations associated with the partial gauge-fixing of the general metric to the metric (1). These equations, from which two quasi-local conservation equations are shown to follow, are obtained by varying the Einstein-Hilbert action before the partial gauge-fixing condition is introduced. Here we present them without derivation, and they are given by

$`(\mathrm{i})\mathrm{e}^\sigma D_+^2\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_+\sigma )^2\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_{}h)(D_+\sigma )+\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_+h)(D_{}\sigma )`$ (12)
$`+2h\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_{}h)(D_{}\sigma )+\mathrm{e}^\sigma F_+^a_ah{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{e}^\sigma \rho ^{ab}\rho ^{cd}(D_+\rho _{ac})(D_+\rho _{bd})+_a\left(\rho ^{ab}_bh\right)`$ (13)
$`+h\mathrm{e}^\sigma \left\{R_2(D_+\sigma )(D_{}\sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho ^{ab}\rho ^{cd}(D_+\rho _{ac})(D_{}\rho _{bd})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^\sigma \rho _{ab}F_+^aF_+^b\right\}`$ (14)
$`+h^2\mathrm{e}^\sigma \left\{(D_{}\sigma )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho ^{ab}\rho ^{cd}(D_{}\rho _{ac})(D_{}\rho _{bd})\right\}=0,`$ (15)
$`(\mathrm{ii})\mathrm{e}^\sigma D_+D_{}\sigma +\mathrm{e}^\sigma D_{}D_+\sigma +2\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_+\sigma )(D_{}\sigma )2\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_{}h)(D_{}\sigma )`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma }\rho _{ab}F_+^aF_+^b\mathrm{e}^\sigma R_2h\mathrm{e}^\sigma \left\{(D_{}\sigma )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho ^{ab}\rho ^{cd}(D_{}\rho _{ac})(D_{}\rho _{bd})\right\}=0.`$ (17)
## II A Set of Quasi-local Conservation Equations

Notice that the equations (15) and (17) are first-order in $`D_{}`$ derivatives, so that they may be regarded as two “constraint” equations. Thus, in this formalism, the natural vector field that defines the evolution is $`_{}`$. Then the momenta $`\pi _I=\{\pi _h,\pi _\sigma ,\pi _a,\pi ^{ab}\}`$ conjugate to the configuration variables $`q^I=\{h,\sigma ,A_+^a,\rho _{ab}\}`$ are defined as

$$\pi _I:=\frac{L_0}{(_{}q^I)},$$
(18)
and are given by

$`\pi _h=2\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_{}\sigma ),`$ (19)
$`\pi _\sigma =2\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_{}h)2h\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_{}\sigma )+\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_+\sigma ),`$ (20)
$`\pi _a=\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma }\rho _{ab}F_+^b,`$ (21)
$`\pi ^{ab}=h\mathrm{e}^\sigma \rho ^{ac}\rho ^{bd}(D_{}\rho _{cd}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^\sigma \rho ^{ac}\rho ^{bd}(D_+\rho _{cd}).`$ (22)
Notice that $`\pi ^{ab}`$ is traceless

$$\rho _{ab}\pi ^{ab}=0$$
(23)
due to the identities

$$\rho ^{ab}D_\pm \rho _{ab}=0.$$
(24)
The “Hamiltonian” function $`H_0`$ defined as

$$H_0:=\pi _I_{}q^IL_0$$
(25)
is found to be

$$H_0=HA_{}^aC_a+\mathrm{surface}\mathrm{terms},$$
(26)
where $`H`$ and $`C_a`$ are given by

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^\sigma \pi _\sigma \pi _h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}h\mathrm{e}^\sigma \pi _h^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma }\rho ^{ab}\pi _a\pi _b+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h}}\mathrm{e}^\sigma \rho _{ac}\rho _{bd}\pi ^{ab}\pi ^{cd}`$ (27)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _h(D_+\sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h}}\pi ^{ab}(D_+\rho _{ab})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8h}}\mathrm{e}^\sigma \rho ^{ab}\rho ^{cd}(D_+\rho _{ac})(D_+\rho _{bd})\mathrm{e}^\sigma R_2,`$ (28)
$`C_a=_+\pi _a_b(A_+^b\pi _a)\pi _b_aA_+^b\pi _\sigma _a\sigma +_a\pi _\sigma \pi _h_ah\pi ^{bc}_a\rho _{bc}`$ (29)
$`+_b(\pi ^{bc}\rho _{ac})+_c(\pi ^{bc}\rho _{ab})_a(\pi ^{bc}\rho _{bc}).`$ (30)
In terms of these canonical variables $`\{\pi _I,q^I\}`$, the supplementary equations (15) and (17) can be written as

$`(\mathrm{i}^{})\pi ^{ab}D_+\rho _{ab}+\pi _\sigma D_+\sigma hD_+\pi _h_+\left(h\pi _h+2\mathrm{e}^\sigma D_+\sigma \right)`$ (31)
$`+_a\left(h\pi _hA_+^a+2A_+^a\mathrm{e}^\sigma D_+\sigma +2h\mathrm{e}^\sigma \rho ^{ab}\pi _b+2\rho ^{ab}_bh\right)=0,`$ (32)
$`(\mathrm{ii}^{})H_+\pi _h+_a\left(A_+^a\pi _h+\mathrm{e}^\sigma \rho ^{ab}\pi _b\right)=0.`$ (33)
Moreover, we have two more first-order equations

$$C_a=0,$$
(34)
which follows trivially by varying $`H_0`$ with respect to $`A_{}^a`$ (or by varying the Einstein-Hilbert action, which requires rather lengthy computations). The equations (32), (33), and (34) are the four Einstein’s “constraint” equations in the gauge (1). Notice that the equations (32) and (33) are divergence-type equations. If we contract the equation (34) by an arbitrary function $`\xi ^a`$ such that

$$_\pm \xi ^a=0,$$
(35)
then the resulting equation is also a divergence-type equation,

$`\pi ^{ab}\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi \rho _{ab}+\pi _\sigma \mathrm{\pounds }_\xi \sigma +\pi _h\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi h+\pi _a\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi A_+^a_+(\xi ^a\pi _a)`$ (36)
$`+_a\left(\xi ^a\pi _\sigma +2\pi ^{ab}\xi ^c\rho _{bc}+A_+^a\xi ^b\pi _b\right)=0,`$ (37)
where $`\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi `$ is the Lie derivative along $`\xi :=\xi ^a_a`$.

The integrals of these equations over a compact two-surface $`N_2`$ become, after a suitable normalization,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{u}}U(u,v)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2y\left(\pi ^{ab}D_+\rho _{ab}+\pi _\sigma D_+\sigma hD_+\pi _h\right)},`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{u}}P(u,v)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2yH},`$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{u}}L(u,v;\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2y\left(\pi ^{ab}\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi \rho _{ab}+\pi _\sigma \mathrm{\pounds }_\xi \sigma h\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi \pi _hA_+^a\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi \pi _a\right)},`$ (40)
where $`U(u,v)`$, $`P(u,v)`$, and $`L(u,v;\xi )`$ are defined as

$`U(u,v):={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2y\left(h\pi _h+2\mathrm{e}^\sigma D_+\sigma \right)}+U^0,`$ (41)
$`P(u,v):={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2y(\pi _h)}+P^0,`$ (42)
$`L(u,v;\xi ):={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2y(\xi ^a\pi _a)}+L^0.`$ (43)
Here $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian function given by (28), and $`U^0`$, $`P^0`$, and $`L^0`$ are undetermined subtraction terms, which however must be $`u`$-independent,

$$\frac{U^0}{u}=\frac{P^0}{u}=\frac{L^0}{u}=0,$$
(44)
in order to satisfy the equations (38), (39), and (40), respectively.

One can write the r.h.s. of the equation (38) in a more symmetric and suggestive form as follows. Let us contract the equation (34) with $`A_+^a`$ and integrate the resulting equation over $`N_2`$ to obtain the following equation,

$$d^2y\left(A_+^a_+\pi _a\right)=d^2y\left(\pi ^{ab}\mathrm{\pounds }_{A_+}\rho _{ab}+\pi _\sigma \mathrm{\pounds }_{A_+}\sigma h\mathrm{\pounds }_{A_+}\pi _h\right).$$
(45)
If we use the definitions of diff$`N_2`$-covariant derivatives $`D_\pm `$ and the equation (45), then the equation (38) can be written as

$$\frac{}{u}U(u,v)=\frac{1}{16\pi }d^2y\left(\pi ^{ab}_+\rho _{ab}+\pi _\sigma _+\sigma h_+\pi _hA_+^a_+\pi _a\right).$$
(46)
Notice that the r.h.s. of the conservation equations (40) and (46) match exactly, if we interchange the derivatives

$$\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi _+$$
(47)
in the two-surface integrals.

In a region of a spacetime where $`/u`$ is timelike, these quasi-local conservation equations relate the instantaneous rates of changes of two-surface integrals at a given $`u`$-time to the associated net flux integrals, and they form a “complete” set of quasi-local conservation equations since they follow directly from the four Einstein’s “constraint” equations. Let us remark that, unlike the Tamburino-Winicour’s quasi-local conservation equations which are “weak” conservation equations since they assumed in the derivation the Ricci flat conditions (i.e. the full Einstein’s equations), our quasi-local conservation equations are “strong” conservation equations since we used the four Einstein’s “constraint” equations only.

## III Quasi-Local Energy and Energy-Flux Integral

The equations (38), (39), and (40) are in fact quasi-local energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation equations, respectively. In this section we shall focus on the quasi-local energy conservation equation (38), and defer discussions of other conservation equations to the section IV. In order to define a quasi-local energy associated with a given two-surface $`N_2`$, we have to introduce a subtraction term $`U^0`$ referring to that region only. In general the subtraction terms for a quasi-local energy are not unique, and the “right” subtraction term may not even exist at all in a generic situation. One natural criterion is that the subtraction term must be chosen such that the quasi-local energy reproduces “standard” values in limiting cases. One possible candidate is

$$U^0=\sqrt{\frac{𝒜}{16\pi }},$$
(48)
where $`𝒜`$ is the area of $`N_2`$. However, this subtraction term introduces a restriction on the admissible two-surfaces $`N_2`$ or, equivalently, on the vector field $`/u,`$ due to the condition

$$\frac{𝒜}{u}=0$$
(49)
that follows from (44). But this is just the condition that the Bondi time function satisfies at the null infinity. Therefore the time function $`u`$ satisfying the condition (49) may be regarded as a quasi-local, finite distance analog of the standard Bondi time function. The condition (49) can be interpreted as follows: In order to evaluate and compare quasi-local energies of a given two-surface $`N_2`$ at two different times in a physically meaningful way, there must exist certain requirements on $`N_2`$, and the minimum requirement is that the area of the two-surface $`N_2`$ is independent of $`u`$.

The quasi-local energy integral for a two surface with the area $`𝒜`$ is then given by

$$U(u,v)=\frac{1}{16\pi }d^2y\left(h\pi _h+2\mathrm{e}^\sigma D_+\sigma \right)+\sqrt{\frac{𝒜}{16\pi }},$$
(50)
which in general is not positive-definite, and does not possess monotonicity either. The lack of these properties seems to be related to the fact that gravitational binding energy is always negative. However, as we shall see shortly, the quasi-local energy function at the null infinity reduces to the Bondi mass, which is positive-definite and decreases monotonically as the time $`u`$ increases.

III-1. The Bondi mass-loss formula
In asymptotically flat spacetimes, the metric becomes

$$ds^22dudv\left(1\frac{2m}{v}\right)du^2+v^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(51)
as $`v\mathrm{}`$. Thus $`/u`$ is asymptotic to the timelike Killing vector field. In general, the energy-flux across a two-surface is given by the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{0i}`$, which is of the form

$$T_{0i}\pi _\varphi _i\varphi .$$
(52)
The integrand of the r.h.s. of (46) is of this form, and we therefore expect that it represents the energy-flux carried by gravitational radiation crossing $`N_2`$. Then the l.h.s. of (46) should be the instantaneous rate of change in the gravitational energy of the region enclosed by $`N_2`$. The energy-flux integral in general does not have a definite sign, since it includes the energy-flux carried by the in-coming as well as the out-going gravitational radiation. But in the asymptotically flat region, the energy-flux integral turns out to be negative-definite, representing the physical situation that there is no in-coming flux coming from the infinity.

Let us now show that the equation (38) reduces to the Bondi mass-loss formula in the asymptotic region of asymptotically flat spacetimes. The asymptotic fall-off rates of the metric coefficients in the asymptotic Bondi coordinates are given by

$`\mathrm{e}^\sigma =v^2(\mathrm{sin}\vartheta )\left\{1+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}})\right\},`$ (53)
$`\rho _{\vartheta \vartheta }=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }}\right)\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{v}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}})\right\},`$ (54)
$`\rho _{\phi \phi }=(\mathrm{sin}\vartheta )\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{v}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}})\right\},`$ (55)
$`\rho _{\vartheta \phi }={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{v}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}}),`$ (56)
$`2h=1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{v}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}}),`$ (57)
$`A_+^a=O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}),`$ (58)
$`A_{}^a=O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}}),`$ (59)
where the expansion coefficients $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$, and $`m`$ are functions of $`(u,\vartheta ,\phi )`$. Then the total energy at the null infinity coincides with the Bondi energy $`U_\mathrm{B}(u)`$,

$$\underset{v\mathrm{}}{lim}U(u,v)=\frac{1}{4\pi }_{S_2}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }m(u,\vartheta ,\phi )=U_\mathrm{B}(u),$$
(60)
where $`m(u,\vartheta ,\phi )`$ is the mass aspect of the asymptotically flat radiating spacetime. One can easily show that the equation (38) becomes

$$\frac{d}{du}U_\mathrm{B}(u)=\frac{1}{32\pi }𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }v^2\rho ^{ab}\rho ^{cd}(_+\rho _{ac})(_+\rho _{bd})0,$$
(61)
which is just the Bondi mass-loss formula. Notice that the negative-definite energy-flux is a bilinear of the traceless current $`j_b^a`$ defined as

$$j_b^a:=\rho ^{ac}_+\rho _{bc}(j_a^a=0),$$
(62)
representing the shear degrees of freedom of gravitational radiation.

III-2. The Misner-Sharp energy
Let us now consider a spherical ball of radius $`v`$ filled with a perfect fluid with energy density $`\rho (v)`$. The Einstein’s equations are modified by the presence of the fluid, and the solution is given by

$$ds^2=2dudv2h(v)du^2+v^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(63)
where

$`2h(v)=1{\displaystyle \frac{2m(v)}{v}},`$ (64)
$`m(v)=4\pi {\displaystyle _0^v}𝑑v^{}v^2\rho (v^{}).`$ (65)
If we choose the subtraction term such that

$$U^0(v)=\sqrt{\frac{𝒜}{16\pi }}=\frac{v}{2},$$
(66)
then $`U(v)`$ becomes the Misner-Sharp energy $`m(v)`$

$$U(v)=m(v).$$
(67)
III-3. Black holes
One might be also interested in applying this formalism to black holes, and try to obtain quasi-local energy of the event horizon and quasi-local energy-flux incident on the horizon. For this problem, it is appropriate to choose a coordinate system adapted to the in-going null geodesics. In a spacetime where the metric is given by

$$ds^2=+2dudv2hdu^2+\mathrm{e}^\sigma \rho _{ab}\left(dy^a+A_+^adu+A_{}^adv\right)\left(dy^b+A_+^bdu+A_{}^bdv\right),$$
(68)
the vector field

$$\frac{}{v}A_{}^a\frac{}{y^a}$$
(69)
is an in-going null vector field generating the null hypersurface $`u=\mathrm{constant}`$, and the vector field

$$\frac{}{u}A_+^a\frac{}{y^a}$$
(70)
whose norm is $`2h`$ is either timelike, null, or spacelike, depending on the sign of $`2h`$. Thus, in a region of a spacetime where $`2h=0`$, it becomes an out-going null vector field. Therefore, on the event horizon H generated by the out-going null vector fields, we must have $`2h=0`$. If we repeat the previous analysis in the in-going null coordinate system (68), we obtain another set of quasi-local conservation equations. On the event horizon H, the quasi-local energy conservation equation becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{U_\mathrm{H}}{u}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{H}}d^2y\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^\sigma \rho ^{ab}\rho ^{cd}(D_+\rho _{ac})(D_+\rho _{bd})\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_+\sigma )^22\mathrm{e}^\sigma \kappa D_+\sigma \right\},`$ (71)
$`U_\mathrm{H}:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{H}}d^2y(\mathrm{e}^\sigma D_+\sigma )+U_\mathrm{H}^0,`$ (72)
where $`\kappa :=D_{}h|_\mathrm{H}`$ is the surface gravity on H. This equation is identical to the quasi-local energy conservation equation on the stretched horizon, which was studied in detail in . Notice that when the subtraction term $`U_\mathrm{H}^0`$ is chosen zero, the quasi-local energy $`U_\mathrm{H}`$ is non-positive since the area of the event horizon always increases,

$$D_+\sigma |_\mathrm{H}0.$$
(73)
However, when the black hole no longer expands so that $`D_+\sigma |_\mathrm{H}=0`$, then $`U_\mathrm{H}`$ becomes zero. For instance, for a Schwarzschild or Kerr black hole, we have $`U_\mathrm{H}=0`$. This counter-intuitive aspect is a manifestation of the well-known teleological nature of the event horizon. That is, when the event horizon H evolves, its quasi-local energy must be negative so as to cancel out the positive in-flux of energy carried by subsequently in-falling matter or gravitational radiation, leaving $`U_\mathrm{H}=0`$ when the black hole reaches the final stationary state. Details of this derivation and discussions of the remaining quasi-local conservation equations on the event horizon will be presented elsewhere.

## IV Discussions

In summary we derived a set of four quasi-local conservation equations from the Einstein’s “constraint” equations. In particular, we showed that one of the quasi-local conservation equations reproduces the Bondi mass-loss relation in the asymptotic region of asymptotically flat spacetimes, and that the quasi-local energy coincides with the Misner-Sharp energy for spherically symmetric fluids in a finite region. We also applied the quasi-local energy conservation equation to the horizon of a general dynamic black hole, and found that it reduces to the quasi-local conservation equation of Thorne et al. It must be stressed that our quasi-local conservation equations are exact and unique, in that they were obtained directly from the Einstein’s “constraint” equations through the first-order canonical formalism.

It seems appropriate to mention that the equation (39) has a similar structure to the integrated Navier-Stokes equation for a viscous fluid,

$$\frac{P_i}{u}=𝑑S^k\left(p\delta _{ik}+\rho v_iv_k\sigma _{ik}^{}\right),$$
(74)
where $`P_i`$ and $`\sigma _{ik}^{}`$ are the total momentum and the viscous term,

$`P_i={\displaystyle 𝑑V(\rho v_i)},`$ (75)
$`\sigma _{ik}^{}=\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{v_i}{x^k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v_k}{x^i}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\delta _{ik}{\displaystyle \frac{v_l}{x^l}}\right)+\zeta \delta _{ik}{\displaystyle \frac{v_l}{x^l}},`$ (76)
and $`\eta `$ and $`\zeta `$ are the coefficients of shear and bulk viscosity, respectively. This equation tells us that the rate of the net momentum change of a fluid within a given volume is determined by the net momentum-flux across the two-surface enclosing the volume. Notice that the Hamiltonian function $`H`$ in (28) is at most quadratic in the conjugate momenta $`\pi _I`$, and assumes a form of momentum-flux of a viscous fluid. From this point of view, terms quadratic in $`\pi _I`$ are responsible for direct momentum transfer, terms linear in $`\pi _I`$ may be regarded as viscosity terms, and terms independent of $`\pi _I`$ as pressure terms. This observation allows us to interpret the Hamiltonian function $`H`$ as the gravitational momentum-flux and the two-surface integral

$$\frac{1}{16\pi }d^2y(\pi _h)$$
(77)
as the quasi-local gravitational momentum associated with $`N_2`$.

The equation (40) is a quasi-local angular momentum conservation equation, since the r.h.s. assumes the canonical form

$$\pi _I\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi q^I,$$
(78)
representing the angular momentum-flux associated with the vector field $`\xi =\xi ^a_a`$. The proposed quasi-local momentum and angular momentum conservation equations will be analyzed in detail in a separate paper.

A final remark concerns with quantum gravity. By replacing the conjugate momenta $`\pi _I`$ as

$$\pi _Ii\frac{\delta }{\delta q^I}$$
(79)
in (41), (42), and (43), one can obtain a set of functional Schrödinger equations. For instance, from the equation (41), one obtains the following equation,

$$\frac{1}{16\pi }d^2y\left\{ih\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }}{\delta h}+2\mathrm{e}^\sigma (D_+\sigma )\mathrm{\Psi }\right\}=i\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{u},$$
(80)
where the subtraction term $`U^0`$ was chosen zero. These functional Schrödinger equations seem worth exploring in situations where quantum gravity effects are expected to be dominant, for example, near black holes.

Acknowledgments

It is a great pleasure to thank Dr. Gungwon Kang and Prof. Joohan Lee for several enlightening discussions, and Prof. Y. Choquet-Bruhat for suggesting the author to examine black holes using this (2,2)-formalism. This work was supported by Konkuk University research grant in 1999.


format: text

text:
# Disks and Planets in Binary Systems

## 1. Observational Properties

This contribution is dealing primarily with theoretical aspects, however for completeness, we summarize first some basic observational features of disks and planets in binary stars. An excellent recent review on this topic has been given at PPIV by Mathieu et al. (2000).

### 1.1. Binary Stars

The majority of stars is found in binary or multiple systems. To quantify the occurrence of multiplicity one usually defines the Binary Frequency (BF) as

$$BF=\frac{Numberofmultiples}{TotalNumberofSystems}$$

The seminal study of Duquennoy & Mayor (1991) found for field stars (not members of a stellar cluster) having an age larger than 1Gyr a binary frequency of $`BF=60\%`$. The distributions of the orbital elements of binary stars such as a mass ratio $`q`$, periods $`P`$, or eccentricities $`e`$ are typically very broad and they have mean values of

$$<q>=0.3$$

$$<\mathrm{log}(P[days])>=5.0$$

$$<e>=0.5$$

For pre main-sequence stars one finds a bimodal binary frequency. Dense clusters in giant molecular clouds, such as the Trapezium cluster in Orion (with a stellar density of over 2000 stars per $`pc^3`$), tend to have a binary frequency similar to the field value, ($`60\%`$). In low stellar density clusters (such as the Taurus or Ophiuchus T Tauri associations) the binary frequency is much higher than the field value, about $`80100\%`$ (Ghez et al. 1993, Leinert et al. 1993). This difference in the $`BF`$ may be the result of several mechanisms the most important of which are (see Mathieu et al. 2000): a) observational effects due to incompleteness may lead to a wrong determination of the BF, b) evolutionary effects may change the BF with time, c) in higher density clusters more frequent stellar encounters may lead to the disruption of systems and a lowering of the BF, and d) the BF may just depend on the environment, such as the temperature or density of the cloud core.

From these results one may infer that most of the field stars originated in dense clusters.

### 1.2. Disks in Binaries

The classical signatures for the presence of disks around stars are an excess in IR to mm radiation, Balmer and forbidden lines, polarization, and optical veiling, see contribution by L. Hartmann (this volume).

Disks in binary star systems may be divided into two main configurations 1) In the case of a Circumbinary Disk the complete binary system is surrounded by a disk which may have in inner clearing. 2) If the two disks surround each component of the binary individually the situation is similar to single stars and one refers to this configuration as Circumstellar Disks

The mm-flux from systems gives an indication for the mass of the disk. For binaries with larger separations ($`d>100AU`$) and for spectroscopic binaries ($`d<1AU`$) the mm-flux is similar to the field value. This indicates that in the first case (large separations) the two stars are surrounded individually by circumstellar disks behaving just as disks around unperturbed single stars. In the second case (very close stars) the system is surrounded by one circumbinary disk which, when observed form far away, resembles a disk around one single star.

In binaries with intermediate orbital separations $`d`$ between 1 and 100 $`AU`$ the mm-flux is mostly undetected, which may indicate that in this case the binary system has neither extended circumstellar disks, as a consequence of the gravitational disturbance of the companion, nor luminous circumbinary disks. However, there are classical TTau signatures for disks with $`d=10100AU`$.

Additionally, speckle and mid-IR observations give evidence for circumstellar disks around the stars HK Tau, HR 4796A, or GG Tau3.

The most prominent observational example of a circumbinary disk is presented by GG Tau, where the disk has been directly imaged in the CO 1.3mm line (Guilloteau 1999), in the J-Band at $`1.2\mu m`$ (Roddier et al. 1996) and in the optical. The central binary system consists of two stars with a total mass of $`1.3M_{}`$ at a separation of $`d=45AU`$, which are surrounded by a disk with an inner radius of $`r_{disk}=180AU`$. The inferred mass of the disk (ring) is about $`0.12M_{}`$. Additional systems with imaged circumbinary disks are UY Aur and BD+31o643.

In several spectroscopic binaries (eg. UZ Tau, DQ Tau or GW Ori) mm-observations have indicated disk masses of about $`0.03`$ to $`0.05M_{}`$ At the same time there is evidence for inner disk clearing (lack of near IR-emission), but there are signs for hot gas near the stars which may indicate the flow of material through the cleared inner disk (leaking gaps).

An interesting example of the simultaneous occurrence of circumstellar and circumbinary disks in a quadruple system is given by UZ Tau (Jensen et al. 1996).

### 1.3. Planets in Binaries

Among the known 32 extrasolar planets around main sequence stars three (16 Cyg B, 55 Cnc, $`\tau `$ Boo) are definitely known to be in binary systems with relatively wide orbital separations (see table 1). Additionally, in one system (Gl 86) there is some evidence for a stellar companion with a distance which may be as close as $`10AU`$.

It has been argued that the high eccentricity of 16 Cyg B may be caused be the presence of a companion star. However, as the ratio of distance $`d`$ of the secondary over the semi-major axis $`a`$ of the planets falls into the range

$$\frac{d}{a}=40010000$$

the companion has basically no influence on the eccentricity of the planet.

## 2. Star Formation

The observational evidence strongly suggests that binary formation is closely related to the star formation process. Stars form in dense molecular cloud cores (Myers, 1985, 1987) with scales of order 0.1 pc, masses in the range of a few solar masses, number densities of order 104 \- 105 cm-3 and temperatures of 10 K. In general, pre-stellar cores appear to be elongated and irregular. They are centrally condensed with Gaussian or power-law density distributions (Ward-Thompson et al. 1994; Henriksen et al. 1997). Rotation has been detected in about 50% of all cases with values for the angular velocity ranging between $`\mathrm{\Omega }10^{13}10^{15}`$ s-1 (Goodman et al. 1993).

The initial conditions for protostellar collapse could be strongly affected by magnetic fields, which can support the cores against collapse. In magnetically subcritical cores, ambipolar diffusion (Shu et al. 1993) leads to central contraction and the formation of an $`r^2`$-density distribution at which point the core experiences an inside-out collapse. If the initial conditions are produced in this manner, numerical simulations have shown that the core would not fragment, leading to the formation of single stars (Myhill & Kaula 1992)

Binary formation results from the fragmentation of magnetically supercritical cores. A wide variety of (often idealized) initial conditions has been explored numerically, adopting 3-dimensional hydrodynamical codes, for example, a sphere (constant density or centrally condensed) in uniform rotation with a density perturbation in the form of an m=2 mode (Burkert & Bodenheimer 1993, 1996; Truelove et al. 1997), or elongated cylindrical, rotating clouds (Boss 1996, Bonnell et al. 1992). Most of these calculations treated the isothermal collapse phase. Radiation has been included in some simulations adopting simplified approximations (Boss 1993, Myhill & Kaula 1992).

In general, the resulting fragmentation process occurs in various modes. The most simple cases are non-linear initial density perturbations which lead to fragmentation into wide binaries with separations of order 100 - 1000 AU during the early collapse phase (Bonnell et al. 1992, Monaghan 1994). In this case, the result depends strongly on the adopted initial conditions.

Fig. 1 shows the collapse of a centrally condensed gas cloud with a linear m=2 density perturbation (Burkert et al. 1997). In this case, the perturbation has not enough time to grow and become non-linear during the early gravitational collapse phase. The gas instead settles into a rotationally supported, partly self-gravitating protostellar disk. The subsequent evolution of the disk depends critically on its temperature (Bate & Burkert 1997, Boss et al. 2000). If the transition from the optically thin to the optically thick regime occurs before disk formation, fragmentation will be inhibited. Otherwise strong spiral arms form around a central condensation which continually wrap-up, interact and reform because of differential rotation. Ultimately, density maxima appear at the ends of the arms, leading to a binary around the central object. As higher angular momentum material falls in, spiral arms extend beyond the triple system which rapidly breaks up into a hierarchical triple. Further fragmentation occurs in the outer parts of the disk. The multiple system will ultimately break-up into single stars and eccentric binaries with wide period distributions.

## 3. Influence of Companions on Disks

Let us first consider the case of a disk surrounding one star (circumprimary disk) which is orbited by another secondary star. The presence of a companion excites tidal waves in the disk which carry angular momentum and energy (see eg. Lin & Papaloizou 1995, and contribution by C. Terquem, this volume). If the disk lies inside the orbit of the companion the wave will carry negative angular momentum because the companion has a smaller orbital velocity than the disk material. Dissipation of the wave, for example through shock waves, will slow down the matter in the disk and lead to an inward drift of the material. This truncates the outer edge of the disk.

In case of a binary star within a circumbinary disk, the torques created by the binary lead to angular momentum transfer from the binary’s orbit to the disk, and eventually to an inward truncation or clearing of the inner disk (gap formation).

The location of this (inner and outer) truncation radius is determined by the balance of viscous (gap-closing) and gravitational (gap-opening) torques. In linear theory the gravitational potential is expanded into a Fourier series and for each component the effect on the disk is determined. For the general case of a companion on an eccentric orbit this analysis has been performed for circumprimary and circumbinary disks by Artymowicz & Lubow (1994).

Their main results are displayed in Fig. 2. The label $`\mu =0.3`$ refers to the reduced mass $`\mu =M_2/(M_1+M_2)`$. In case of the circumprimary disk a larger viscosity (lower Reynolds number) leads to a larger truncation radius $`r_t`$ while for a circumbinary disk it reduces the truncation radius. For typical values of protostellar disks $`Re10^5`$, and for typical binary parameter (see above, $`q=0.5`$, $`e=0.5`$) we obtain for the circumprimary disk $`r_t/a=0.17`$ and for the circumbinary disk $`r_t/a=3.0`$.

## 4. On the Formation of Planets in Binaries

In this final section we consider the restrictions the presence of a secondary companion has on the efficiency of planet formation. The secondary acts as a perturber for the disk and alters directly the environment in which planets form.

### 4.1. Planetesimal disk

The influence a secondary has on the growth process from planetesimals to planetary embryos was studied by Heppenheimer (1978) and Whitmire (1999). They considered a planetesimal disk at runaway phase where collisions and subsequent merging between different particles lead to a rapid growth. The collisions are only non-destructive if the relative velocities $`U_{rel}`$ are smaller than a critical value $`U_{crit}=100m/s`$.

They integrated a 4-body system consisting of 2 stars and 2 planetesimals using a symplectic mapping procedure and an integration time over a few $`10^4yrs`$. For different physical parameter, varying the semi-major axis of the binary stars, their eccentricities, mass ratios, and the initial separation in semi-major axis $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_0=0.0010.01AU`$ of the planetesimals, they analyzed if $`U_{rel}`$ was exceeding $`U_{crit}`$. They deduced a critical semi-major axis below which the disturbing companion does not allow for sticking (growing) collisions. Their main results are summarized in Fig. 3 where the critical semi-major axis is plotted for an equal mass binary versus eccentricity. If the separation of the binary falls below the curve the induced relative velocities are too large and planetesimals cannot grow. The results are normalized to the initial mean separation $`\overline{a}=1AU`$ of the planetesimals. The results of the numerical computations are given by the black dots, and the solid curve gives the location where, for the given eccentricity, the minimum separation (peri-astron) of the stars is exactly 16 AU.

The result implies that for a one-solar mass star the minimum distance to an orbiting companion, such that planetesimals at 1AU can grow to larger bodies, must always be larger than 16 AU. The critical semi-major axis scales only weakly, $`a_{crit}(\overline{a}/AU)^{0.8}`$, with distance from the star.

### 4.2. The case of L 1551

Another path of studying the formation of planets in binary stars was taken by A. Nelson (2000), who studied the interaction of two binary stars each of which is surrounded by its own circumstellar disk. The physical motivation is based on the radio (VLA) observations of the system L1551 (Rodriguez et al. 1998), which consists of a binary system of two half solar mass stars separated by $`50AU`$.

This system is modelled numerically by solving the full hydrodynamic equations for the two disks using the method of Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH), where the continuum equations are modelled by an ensemble of interaction particles.

Each disk is modelled by 60,000 particles. The model includes the self-gravity of the disks, an ideal equation of state, dissipative heating and radiative cooling.

During the evolution the initially axisymmetric disks (with respect to their central stars) are strongly perturbed at the time of periapse. Spiral waves are induced in them and they are tidally truncated. At times of apoapse the spiral features tend to disappear and the disks become more axisymmetric again. These periodic changes of the distortions alter the internal structure of the disk as well. The question arises what influence do these changes have on the planet formation process. Planet formation is believed to proceed along two different lines: a) Through gravitational collapse of a spiral structure. Instability is given when the so called Toomre parameter $`Q`$, which measures the importance of pressure versus gravity, becomes (locally) smaller than unity. Then pressure forces are not sufficient to prevent gravitational collapse. b) Through coagulation of solid material and subsequent gas accretion. As can be inferred from Fig. 4 the $`Q`$-parameter is always much larger than 1, indicating a gravitationally stable disk. On the other hand, the temperatures in the disk during periapse are so high that even the most abundant species (water ice) cannot condense to form the seeds for further growth of the planetesimals.

Hence, from the computations one may conclude that, at least for these chosen parameters of the disks, planet formation is inhibited in binary stars. One has to keep in mind however, that the heating and cooling of the disk is treated still approximative and the calculations are only two-dimensional. For larger orbital separations of a few hundred $`AU`$ say, the effects of the secondary become smaller and planet formation will not be affected.

### 4.3. Stability of Orbits

An important pre-requisite for the formation of planetesimals is the long term stability of their orbits. Dvorak (1986) and Holman & Wiegert (1999) have studied the restricted 3-body problem, in which the planet is treated as a test particle in the potential of two orbiting stars. As for this problem no analytic description of the orbital evolution of the planet exists they perform numerical integrations using a symplectic mapping or Bulirsch-Stoer integrator. The total integration time covers more than $`10^4`$ orbits of the planet. The mass ratio of the stars, their eccentricity and semi-major axis are varied. The critical distance $`a_{crit}`$ a planet must have to be on a stable orbit is determined as a function of these orbital parameter of the binary star.

Two different configurations of orbits have been studied. Following the designation of Dvorak (1986), the first are planetary or P-type orbits which are well outside the binary. The second type studied are S-type orbits, where the planet orbits near one of the stars, with the second star to be considered as a perturber. For P-type orbits there exist a minimum $`a_{crit}`$ a planet must have to be on a stable orbit around the binary. For S-type orbits there is a maximum $`a_{crit}`$ such that the perturbations of the perturber remain finite. The S-type orbits are certainly more relevant to the properties of the observed extrasolar planets (see table 1).

The main results are displayed in Fig. 5 where, for an equal mass binary, the critical distance (in units of the semi-major axis of the binary star system) is given as function of eccentricity. For an average eccentricity of $`e=0.5`$ one finds for S-type orbits $`a_{crit}0.14`$. All observed extrasolar planets have semi-major axis well below this limit. For P-type orbits the minimum distance a planet must have from the binary is $`a_{crit}3.6`$. This value lies beyond the inner truncation radius of a circumbinary disk ($`r_{gap}=3.0`$).

### 4.4. The evolution of an embedded planet in a binary star

Another approach to analyze the influence of a companion on the formation of a massive planet has been taken by Kley (2000) who studied the evolution of a massive planet still embedded in a protoplanetary disk.

A planet with the mass $`1M_{Jup}`$ is placed initially on a circular orbit around a $`1M_{}`$ star at a distance of $`a_J=5.2AU`$. The surrounding protostellar disk has a mass of $`M_d=0.01M_{}`$ within $`120AU`$, a surface density profile $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)r^{1/2}`$, and a Reynolds number of $`10^5`$. The secondary has a given fixed mass of $`M_2=0.5M_{}`$ and an eccentricity of $`e_2=0.5`$. The semi-major axis $`a_2`$ of the secondary is varied from about 50 to 100 $`AU`$ for different models. To minimize initial disturbances, the secondary is placed at apastron in the beginning.

During the evolution, the planet may accrete material from the disk and increase its mass. At each timestep the gas density in the inner half of the Roche lobe is reduced by a given fraction. Initially, the disk is axisymmetric with respect to the primary star and has a gap imposed to speed up the computations (Kley 1999; Lubow, Seibert & Artymowicz 1999).

In the presence of the secondary the disk becomes truncated at the outer radius. At the same time the planet will truncate the disk from the inner side such that the disk material will be confined to a narrow ring (see Fig. 6). The obtained values for the outer truncation radius agree favourably with the value $`r_r/a=0.17`$ as obtained above. The very steep density and pressure gradient near the planet lead to an increased mass accretion rate onto the planet, and to a faster inward migration, cf. Fig. 6.

The reduced migration time may then also reduce the growth of a protoplanet and planet formation will again be inhibited by the presence of a companion.

## References

Artymowicz P. & Lubow S.H., 1994, ApJ, 421, 651

Bate, M.R. & Burkert A., 1997, MNRAS, 288, 1060

Bonnell I., Arcoragi J.-P., Martel H. & Bastien P., 1992, ApJ, 400, 579

Boss A.P., 1993, ApJ, 410, 157

Boss A.P., 1996, ApJ, 468, 231

Boss A.P., Fisher R.T., Klein R.I. & McKee C.F., 2000, ApJ, 528, 325

Bryden G., Chen X., Lin D.N.C, Nelson R.P., & Papaloizou J.C.B., 1999, ApJ, 514, 344

Burkert A. & Bodenheimer P., 1993, MNRAS, 264, 798

Burkert A. & Bodenheimer P., 1996, MNRAS, 280, 1190

Burkert A., Bate M.R. & Bodenheimer P., 1997, MNRAS, 289, 497

Duquennoy A. & Mayor M., 1991, A&A, 248, 485

Dvorak R., 1986, A&A, 167, 379

Ghez A.M., Neugebauer G. & Matthews K., 1993, AJ, 106, 2005

Goodman, A., Benson, P., Fuller, G. & Myers, P., 1993, ApJ, 406, 528

Guilloteau S., Dutrey A. & Simon M., 1999, A&A, 348, 570

Henriksen, R., Andr’e, P. & Bontemps, S., 1997, A&A, 323, 549

Heppenheimer T.A., 1978, A&A, 65, 421

Holman M.J. & Wiegert P.A., 1999, AJ, 117, 621

Jensen E.L.N., Koerner D.W., Mathieu R.D., 1996, AJ, 111, 243

Kley W., 1999, MNRAS, 303, 696

Kley W., 2000, in preparation

Leinert Ch., Zinnecker H., Weitzel N., Christou J., Ridgway S.T., Jameson R., Haas M., & Lenzen R., 1993, A&A, 278, 129

Lin D.N.C. & Papaloizou, 1993, in Protostars and Planets III, ed. E.H. Levy & J.I.Lunine, (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), p749

Lubow S.H., Seibert M. & Artymowicz P., 1999, ApJ, 526, 1001

Mathieu R.D., Ghez A.M., Jensen E.L.N. & Simon M., 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A.P. Boss & S.S. Russell, (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press) in press

Monaghan J.J., 1994, ApJ, 420, 692

Myers P.C., 1985, in Protostars and Planets II, ed. D.C. Black & M.S. Matthews, (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), p81

Myers P.C., 1987, in Star Forming Regions, ed. Peimbert M. & Jugaku J. (Dordrecht: Reidel), p33

Myhill E. & Kaula W.M., 1992, ApJ, 386, 578

Nelson A., 2000, submitted to ApJ

Nelson R.P., Papaloizou J.C.B., Masset F., & Kley W., 2000, MNRAS, in press, astro-ph/9909486

Roddier C., Roddier F., Northcott M.J., Graves J.E. & Jim K., 1996, ApJ, 463, 326

Rodriguez L.F., D’Alessio P., Wilner D.J., Ho P.T.P., Torrelles J.M., Curiel S., Gomez Y., Lizano S., Pedlar A., Canto J. & Raga A.C, 1998, Nature, 395, 355

Shu F.H., Najita J., Galli D., Ostriker E. & Lizano S., 1993, in Protostars and Planets III, ed. E.H. Levy & J.I. Lunine (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), p3

Truelove J.K., Klein R.I., McKee C.F., Holliman J.H., Howell L.H. & Greenough J.A., 1997, ApJ, 489, L179

Ward-Thompson D., Scott P.F., Hills R.E. & Andr’e P., 1994, MNRAS, 268, 276

Whitmire D.P., Matese J.J., Criswell L. & Mikkola S., 1998, Icarus, 132, 196


text:
# Further Contents of Einstein’s E = mc2

## I Introduction

If the momentum of a particle is much smaller than its mass, the energy-momentum relation is $`E=p^2/2m+mc^2`$. If the momentum is much larger than the mass, the relation is $`E=cp`$. These two different relations can be combined into one covariant formula $`E=\sqrt{m^2+p^2}`$. This aspect of Einstein’s $`E=mc^2`$ is also well known.

In addition, particles have internal space-time variables. Massive particles have spins while massless particles have their helicities and gauge variables. Our first question is whether this aspect of space-time variables can be unified into one covariant concept. The answer to this question is Yes. Wigner’s little group does the job. In addition, particles can have space-time extensions. For instance, in the quark model, particles are bound states of quarks. These bound states are called hadrons. However, the hadrons appear as a collection of partons when they move with speed close to the velocity of light. Quarks and partons seem to have quite distinct properties. In this report, we resolve this quark/parton puzzle. We shall see that the quark model and parton model are two different manifestations of the same covariant quantity.

By “further contents” of Einstein’s $`E=mc^2`$, we mean that the internal space-time structures of massive and massless particles can be unified into one covariant package, as $`E=\sqrt{m^2+p^2}`$ does for the energy-momentum relation. The mathematical framework of this program was developed by Eugene Wigner in 1939 . He constructed maximal subgroups of the Lorentz group whose transformations will leave the four-momentum of a given particle invariant. These groups are known as Wigner’s little groups. Thus, the transformations of the little groups change the internal space-time variables the particle. The little group is a covariant entity and takes different forms for the particles moving with different speeds.

As for the relativistic extended particles, the most efficient approach is to construct the representations of the little groups using the wave functions which can be Lorentz-boosted. This means that we have to construct wave functions which are consistent with all known rules of quantum mechanics. It is possible to construct harmonic oscillator wave functions which satisfy these conditions. We can then take the low-speed and high-speed limits of the covariant harmonic oscillator wave functions for the quark model and the parton model respectively.

The scope of this report is summarized in Table I. We first use the little groups to unify the spin variables for massive and massless particles. We then study the Lorentz-group contents of relativistic extended hadrons to establish the quark-parton covariance.

In Sec. II, we construct the little groups from their definition that their transformations leave the four-momentum of a given particle invariant. In Sec. III, we discuss in detail how the little group for a massless particle can be obtained as the zero-mass/infinite-momentum limit of the little group for the massive particle. The covariant oscillator formalism is spelled out in detail in Sec. IV. In Sec. V, we use the oscillator wave function to show that quarks and partons are the same particles.

## II Formulation of the Problem

The space-time symmetry of relativistic particles is dictated by the Poincaré group . The Poincaré group is the group of inhomogeneous Lorentz transformations, namely Lorentz transformations preceded or followed by space-time translations. Thus, the Poincaré group is a semi-direct product of the Lorentz and translation groups. The two Casimir operators of this group correspond to the (mass)2 and (spin)2 of a given particle. Indeed, the particle mass and its spin magnitude are Lorentz-invariant quantities.

The question then is how to construct the representations of the Lorentz group which are relevant to physics. For this purpose, Wigner in 1939 studied the maximal subgroups of the Lorentz group whose transformations leave the four-momentum of a given free particle . These subgroups are called the little groups. Since the little group leaves the four-momentum invariant, it governs the internal space-time symmetries of relativistic particles. Wigner shows in his paper that the internal space-time symmetries of massive and massless particles are dictated by the little groups which are locally isomorphic to the three-dimensional rotation group and the two-dimensional Euclidean groups respectively.

The group of Lorentz transformations consists of three boosts and three rotations. The rotations therefore constitute a subgroup of the Lorentz group. If a massive particle is at rest, its four-momentum is invariant under rotations. Thus the little group for a massive particle at rest is the three-dimensional rotation group. Then what is affected by the rotation? The answer to this question is very simple. The particle in general has its spin. The spin orientation is going to be affected by the rotation! If we use the four-vector coordinate $`(x,y,z,t)`$, the four-momentum vector for the particle at rest is $`(0,0,0,m)`$, and the three-dimensional rotation group leaves this four-momentum invariant. This little group is generated by

$$J_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i& 0\\ 0& i& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),J_2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& i& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),J_3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& i& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
These are essentially the generators of the three-dimensional rotation group. They satisfy the commutation relations:

$$[J_i,J_j]=iϵ_{ijk}J_k.$$
(2)
If the rest-particle is boosted along the $`z`$ direction, it will pick up a non-zero momentum component along the same direction. The above generators will also be boosted. The boost will take the form of conjugation by the boost matrix

$$B=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{cosh}\eta & \mathrm{sinh}\eta \\ 0& 0& \mathrm{sinh}\eta & \mathrm{cosh}\eta \end{array}\right).$$
(3)
This boost will not change the commutation relations of Eq.(2) for $`O(3)`$, and the boosted little group will still leave the boosted four-momentum invariant. Thus, the little group of a moving massive particle is still $`O(3)`$-like.

It is not possible to bring a massless particle to its rest frame. In his 1939 paper , Wigner observed that the little group for a massless particle moving along the $`z`$ axis is generated by the rotation generator around the $`z`$ axis, namely $`J_3`$ of Eq.(1), and two other generators which take the form

$$N_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& i& i\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),N_2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i& i\\ 0& i& 0& 0\\ 0& i& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
If we use $`K_i`$ for the boost generator along the i-th axis, these matrices can be written as

$$N_1=K_1J_2,N_2=K_2+J_1,$$
(5)
with

$$K_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& i\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),K_2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& i\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& i& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
The generators $`J_3,N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ satisfy the following set of commutation relations.

$$[N_1,N_2]=0,[J_3,N_1]=iN_2,[J_3,N_2]=iN_1.$$
(7)
In order to understand the mathematical basis of the above commutation relations, let us consider transformations on a two-dimensional plane with the $`xy`$ coordinate system. We can then make rotations around the origin and translations along the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions. If we write these generators as $`L,P_x`$ and $`P_y`$ respectively, they satisfy the commutation relations

$$[P_x,P_y]=0,[L,P_x]=iP_y,[L,P_y]=iP_x.$$
(8)
This is a closed set of commutation relations for the generators of the $`E(2)`$ group. If we replace $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ of Eq.(7) by $`P_x`$ and $`P_y`$, and $`J_3`$ by $`L`$, the commutations relations for the generators of the $`E(2)`$-like little group becomes those for the $`E(2)`$-like little group. This is precisely why we say that the little group for massless particles are like $`E(2)`$.

It is not difficult to associate the rotation generator $`J_3`$ with the helicity degree of freedom of the massless particle. Then what physical variable is associated with the $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ generators? Indeed, Wigner was the one who discovered the existence of these generators, but did not give any physical interpretation to these translation-like generators. For this reason, for many years, only those representations with the zero-eigenvalues of the $`N`$ operators were thought to be physically meaningful representations . It was not until 1971 when Janner and Janssen reported that the transformations generated by these operators are gauge transformations . The role of this translation-like transformation has also been studied for spin-1/2 particles, and it was concluded that the polarization of neutrinos is due to gauge invariance .

## III Contraction of O(3)-like to E(2)-like Little Groups

The $`O(3)`$-like little group remains $`O(3)`$-like when the particle is Lorentz-boosted. Then, what happens when the particle speed becomes the speed of light? The energy-momentum relation $`E=\sqrt{m^2+p^2}`$ become $`E=p`$. Is there then a limiting case of the $`O(3)`$-like little group? Since those little groups are like the three-dimensional rotation group and the two-dimensional Euclidean group respectively, we are first interested in whether $`E(2)`$ can be obtained from $`O(3)`$. This will then give a clue to obtaining the $`E(2)`$-like little group as a limiting case of $`O(3)`$-like little group. With this point in mind, let us look into this geometrical problem.

In 1953, Inonu and Wigner formulated this problem as the contraction of $`O(3)`$ to $`E(2)`$ . Let us see what they did. We always associate the three-dimensional rotation group with a spherical surface. Let us consider a circular area of radius 1 kilometer centered on the north pole of the earth. Since the radius of the earth is more than 6,450 times longer, the circular region appears flat. Thus, within this region, we use the $`E(2)`$ symmetry group for this region. The validity of this approximation depends on the ratio of the two radii.

How about then the little groups which are isomorphic to $`O(3)`$ and $`E(2)`$? It is reasonable to expect that the $`E(2)`$-like little group be obtained as a limiting case for of the $`O(3)`$-like little group for massless particles. In 1981, it was observed by Ferrara and Savoy that this limiting process is the Lorentz boost . In 1983, using the same limiting process as that of Ferrara and Savoy, Han et al showed that transverse rotation generators become the generators of gauge transformations in the limit of infinite momentum and/or zero mass .

Let us see how this happens. The $`J_3`$ operator of Eq.(1), which generates rotations around the $`z`$ axis, is not affected by the boost conjugation by the $`B`$ matrix of Eq.(3). On the other hand, the $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ matrices become

$$N_1=e^\eta B^1J_2B,N_2=e^\eta B^1J_1B,$$
(9)
and they become $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ given in Eq.(4). The generators $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ are the contracted $`J_2`$ and $`J_1`$ respectively in the infinite-momentum/zero-mass limit. In 1987, Kim and Wigner studied this problem in more detail and showed that the little group for massless particles is the cylindrical group which is isomorphic to the $`E(2)`$ group . Their work is summarized in Fig. 1.

This completes the second row in Table I, where Wigner’s little group unifies the internal space-time symmetries of massive and massless particles. The transverse components of the rotation generators become generators of gauge transformations in the infinite-momentum/zero-mass limit.

## IV Covariant Harmonic Oscillators

We are now interested in constructing the third row in Table I. As we promised in Sec. I, we will be dealing with hadrons which are bound states of quarks with space-time extensions. For this purpose, we need a set of covariant wave functions consistent with the existing laws of quantum mechanics, including of course the uncertainty principle and probability interpretation. The first wave function which comes to our mind is the harmonic oscillator wave function. If we are interested in Lorentz-transforming them, the most straight-forward method is to construct representations of the Poincaré group using harmonic oscillators wave functions .

In this report, we start with the Lorentz-invariant differential equation of Feynman, Kislinger, and Ravndal . It is a linear partial differential equation which has many different solutions depending on boundary conditions. Unlike in the case of Feynman et al., we use normalizable wave functions which constitute a representation of the $`O(3)`$-like little group .

Let us consider a bound state of two particles. For convenience, we shall call the bound state the hadron, and call its constituents quarks. Then there is a Bohr-like radius measuring the space-like separation between the quarks. There is also a time-like separation between the quarks, and this variable becomes mixed with the longitudinal spatial separation as the hadron moves with a relativistic speed. There are no quantum excitations along the time-like direction. On the other hand, there is the time-energy uncertainty relation which allows quantum transitions. It is possible to accommodate these aspect within the framework of the present form of quantum mechanics. The uncertainty relation between the time and energy variables is the c-number relation , which does not allow excitations along the time-like coordinate. We shall see that the covariant harmonic oscillator formalism accommodates this narrow window in the present form of quantum mechanics.

For a hadron consisting of two quarks, we can consider their space-time positions $`x_a`$ and $`x_b`$, and use the variables

$$X=(x_a+x_b)/2,x=(x_ax_b)/2\sqrt{2}.$$
(10)
The four-vector $`X`$ specifies where the hadron is located in space and time, while the variable $`x`$ measures the space-time separation between the quarks. In the convention of Feynman et al. , the internal motion of the quarks bound by a harmonic oscillator potential of unit strength can be described by the Lorentz-invariant equation

$$\frac{1}{2}\left\{x_\mu ^2\frac{^2}{x_\mu ^2}\right\}\psi (x)=\lambda \psi (x).$$
(11)
It is now possible to construct a representation of the Poincaré group from the solutions of the above differential equation .

The coordinate $`X`$ is associated with the overall hadronic four-momentum, and the space-time separation variable $`x`$ dictates the internal space-time symmetry or the $`O(3)`$-like little group. Thus, we should construct the representation of the little group from the solutions of the differential equation in Eq.(11). If the hadron is at rest, we can separate the $`t`$ variable from the equation. For this variable we can assign the ground-state wave function to accommodate the c-number time-energy uncertainty relation . For the three space-like variables, we can solve the oscillator equation in the spherical coordinate system with usual orbital and radial excitations. This will indeed constitute a representation of the $`O(3)`$-like little group for each value of the mass. The solution should take the form

$$\psi (x,y,z,t)=\psi (x,y,z)\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left(t^2/2\right),$$
(12)
where $`\psi (x,y,z)`$ is the wave function for the three-dimensional oscillator with appropriate angular momentum quantum numbers. Indeed, the above wave function constitutes a representation of Wigner’s $`O(3)`$-like little group for a massive particle .

Since the three-dimensional oscillator differential equation is separable in both spherical and Cartesian coordinate systems, $`\psi (x,y,z)`$ consists of Hermite polynomials of $`x,y`$, and $`z`$. If the Lorentz boost is made along the $`z`$ direction, the $`x`$ and $`y`$ coordinates are not affected, and can be temporarily dropped from the wave function. The wave function of interest can be written as

$$\psi ^n(z,t)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left(\begin{array}{c}t^2/2\end{array}\right)\psi _n(z),$$
(13)
with

$$\psi ^n(z)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi n!2^n}\right)^{1/2}H_n(z)\mathrm{exp}(z^2/2),$$
(14)
where $`\psi ^n(z)`$ is for the $`n`$-th excited oscillator state. The full wave function $`\psi ^n(z,t)`$ is

$$\psi _0^n(z,t)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi n!2^n}\right)^{1/2}H_n(z)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(z^2+t^2\right)\right\}.$$
(15)
The subscript $`0`$ means that the wave function is for the hadron at rest. The above expression is not Lorentz-invariant, and its localization undergoes a Lorentz squeeze as the hadron moves along the $`z`$ direction .

It is convenient to use the light-cone variables to describe Lorentz boosts. The light-cone coordinate variables are

$$u=(z+t)/\sqrt{2},v=(zt)/\sqrt{2}.$$
(16)
In terms of these variables, the Lorentz boost along the $`z`$ direction,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}z^{}\\ t^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\eta & \mathrm{sinh}\eta \\ \mathrm{sinh}\eta & \mathrm{cosh}\eta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}z\\ t\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
takes the simple form

$$u^{}=e^\eta u,v^{}=e^\eta v,$$
(18)
where $`\eta `$ is the boost parameter and is $`\mathrm{tanh}^1(v/c)`$. Indeed, the $`u`$ variable becomes expanded while the $`v`$ variable becomes contracted. This is the squeeze mechanism illustrated discussed extensively in the literature .

The wave function of Eq.(15) can be written as

$$\psi _o^n(z,t)=\psi _0^n(z,t)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi n!2^n}\right)^{1/2}H_n\left((u+v)/\sqrt{2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}(u^2+v^2)\right\}.$$
(19)
If the system is boosted, the wave function becomes

$$\psi _\eta ^n(z,t)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi n!2^n}\right)^{1/2}H_n\left((e^\eta u+e^\eta v)/\sqrt{2}\right)\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2\eta }u^2+e^{2\eta }v^2\right)\right\}.$$
(20)
In both Eqs. (19) and (20), the localization property of the wave function in the $`uv`$ plane is determined by the Gaussian factor, and it is sufficient to study the ground state only for the essential feature of the boundary condition. The wave functions in Eq.(19) and Eq.(20) then respectively become

$$\psi _0(z,t)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}(u^2+v^2)\right\}.$$
(21)
If the system is boosted, the wave function becomes

$$\psi _\eta (z,t)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2\eta }u^2+e^{2\eta }v^2\right)\right\}.$$
(22)
We note here that the transition from Eq.(21) to Eq.(22) is a squeeze transformation. The wave function of Eq.(21) is distributed within a circular region in the $`uv`$ plane, and thus in the $`zt`$ plane. On the other hand, the wave function of Eq.(22) is distributed in an elliptic region. This is how the wave function is Lorentz-boosted.

## V Feynman’s Parton Picture

It is safe to believe that hadrons are quantum bound states of quarks having localized probability distribution. As in all bound-state cases, this localization condition is responsible for the existence of discrete mass spectra. The most convincing evidence for this bound-state picture is the hadronic mass spectra which are observed in high-energy laboratories . However, this picture of bound states is applicable only to observers in the Lorentz frame in which the hadron is at rest. How would the hadrons appear to observers in other Lorentz frames?

In 1969, Feynman observed that a fast-moving hadron can be regarded as a collection of many “partons” whose properties do not appear to be identical to those of quarks . For example, the number of quarks inside a static proton is three, while the number of partons in a rapidly moving proton appears to be infinite. The question then is how the proton looking like a bound state of quarks to one observer can appear different to an observer in a different Lorentz frame? Feynman made the following systematic observations.

* The picture is valid only for hadrons moving with velocity close to that of light.
* The interaction time between the quarks becomes dilated, and partons behave as free independent particles.
* The momentum distribution of partons becomes widespread as the hadron moves very fast.
* The number of partons seems to be infinite or much larger than that of quarks.

Because the hadron is believed to be a bound state of two or three quarks, each of the above phenomena appears as a paradox, particularly b) and c) together. We would like to resolve this paradox using the covariant harmonic oscillator formalism.

For this purpose, we need a momentum-energy wave function. If the quarks have the four-momenta $`p_a`$ and $`p_b`$, we can construct two independent four-momentum variables

$$P=p_a+p_b,q=\sqrt{2}(p_ap_b).$$
(23)
The four-momentum $`P`$ is the total four-momentum and is thus the hadronic four-momentum. $`q`$ measures the four-momentum separation between the quarks.

We expect to get the momentum-energy wave function by taking the Fourier transformation of Eq.(22):

$$\varphi _\eta (q_z,q_0)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\right)\psi _\eta (z,t)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i(q_zzq_0t)\right\}𝑑x𝑑t.$$
(24)
Let us now define the momentum-energy variables in the light-cone coordinate system as

$$q_u=(q_0q_z)/\sqrt{2},q_v=(q_0+q_z)/\sqrt{2}.$$
(25)
In terms of these variables, the Fourier transformation of Eq.(24) can be written as

$$\varphi _\eta (q_z,q_0)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\right)\psi _\eta (z,t)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i(q_uu+q_vv)\right\}𝑑u𝑑v.$$
(26)
The resulting momentum-energy wave function is

$$\varphi _\eta (q_z,q_0)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2\eta }q_u^2+e^{2\eta }q_v^2\right)\right\}.$$
(27)
Since we are using the harmonic oscillator, the mathematical form of the above momentum-energy wave function is identical to that of the space-time wave function. The Lorentz squeeze properties of these wave functions are also the same, as are indicated in Fig. 2. These squeeze transformations perfectly consistent with the algorithms of the Poincaré group .

When the hadron is at rest with $`\eta =0`$, both wave functions behave like those for the static bound state of quarks. As $`\eta `$ increases, the wave functions become continuously squeezed until they become concentrated along their respective positive light-cone axes. Let us look at the z-axis projection of the space-time wave function. Indeed, the width of the quark distribution increases as the hadronic speed approaches that of the speed of light. The position of each quark appears widespread to the observer in the laboratory frame, and the quarks appear like free particles.

Furthermore, interaction time of the quarks among themselves become dilated. Because the wave function becomes wide-spread, the distance between one end of the harmonic oscillator well and the other end increases as is indicated in Fig. 2. This effect, first noted by Feynman , is universally observed in high-energy hadronic experiments. The period is oscillation is increases like $`e^\eta `$. On the other hand, the interaction time with the external signal, since it is moving in the direction opposite to the direction of the hadron, it travels along the negative light-cone axis. If the hadron contracts along the negative light-cone axis, the interaction time decreases by $`e^\eta `$. The ratio of the interaction time to the oscillator period becomes $`e^{2\eta }`$. The energy of each proton coming out of the Fermilab accelerator is $`900GeV`$. This leads the ratio to $`10^6`$. This is indeed a small number. The external signal is not able to sense the interaction of the quarks among themselves inside the hadron.

The momentum-energy wave function is just like the space-time wave function. The longitudinal momentum distribution becomes wide-spread as the hadronic speed approaches the velocity of light. This is in contradiction with our expectation from nonrelativistic quantum mechanics that the width of the momentum distribution is inversely proportional to that of the position wave function. Our expectation is that if the quarks are free, they must have their sharply defined momenta, not a wide-spread distribution. This apparent contradiction presents to us the following two fundamental questions:

* . If both the spatial and momentum distributions become widespread as the hadron moves, and if we insist on Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation, is Planck’s constant dependent on the hadronic velocity?
* . Is this apparent contradiction related to another apparent contradiction that the number of partons is infinite while there are only two or three quarks inside the hadron?

The answer to the first question is “No”, and that for the second question is “Yes”. Let us answer the first question which is related to the Lorentz invariance of Planck’s constant. If we take the product of the width of the longitudinal momentum distribution and that of the spatial distribution, we end up with the relation

$$<z^2><q_z^2>=(1/4)[\mathrm{cosh}(2\eta )]^2.$$
(28)
The right-hand side increases as the velocity parameter increases. This could lead us to an erroneous conclusion that Planck’s constant becomes dependent on velocity. This is not correct, because the longitudinal momentum variable $`q_z`$ is no longer conjugate to the longitudinal position variable when the hadron moves.

In order to maintain the Lorentz-invariance of the uncertainty product, we have to work with a conjugate pair of variables whose product does not depend on the velocity parameter. Let us go back to Eq.(25) and Eq.(26). It is quite clear that the light-cone variable $`u`$ and $`v`$ are conjugate to $`q_u`$ and $`q_v`$ respectively. It is also clear that the distribution along the $`q_u`$ axis shrinks as the $`u`$-axis distribution expands. The exact calculation leads to

$$<q_u^2>=1/4,<v^2><q_v^2>=1/4.$$
(29)
Planck’s constant is indeed Lorentz-invariant.

Let us next resolve the puzzle of why the number of partons appears to be infinite while there are only a finite number of quarks inside the hadron. As the hadronic speed approaches the speed of light, both the x and q distributions become concentrated along the positive light-cone axis. This means that the quarks also move with velocity very close to that of light. Quarks in this case behave like massless particles.

We then know from statistical mechanics that the number of massless particles is not a conserved quantity. For instance, in black-body radiation, free light-like particles have a widespread momentum distribution. However, this does not contradict the known principles of quantum mechanics, because the massless photons can be divided into infinitely many massless particles with a continuous momentum distribution.

Likewise, in the parton picture, massless free quarks have a wide-spread momentum distribution. They can appear as a distribution of an infinite number of free particles. These free massless particles are the partons. It is possible to measure this distribution in high-energy laboratories, and it is also possible to calculate it using the covariant harmonic oscillator formalism. We are thus forced to compare these two results. Indeed, according to Hussar’s calculation , the Lorentz-boosted oscillator wave function produces a reasonably accurate parton distribution.

## Concluding Remarks

According to $`E=mc^2`$, the energy can be measured in kilograms. For instance, Americans in the United States consume approximately $`300Kg`$ of electrical energy per year. For a fixed value of mass, the formula becomes $`E=\sqrt{m^2+p^2}`$, which unifies the energy-momentum relation for massless particle and that for massive particle with low speed.

We note that particles these days carry additional dynamical variables and concept. They carry internal space-time variables such as spin, helicity, and gauge degree of freedom. Wigner’s little group unifies all these variables into a single covariant regime. In addition, some particles, called hadrons, have their internal space-time distributions. These composite particles appear as two different entities in quantum mechanics. We noted in this report that they also can be unified.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Professor Victor Bashkov and the members of the organizing committee for inviting him and for the hospitality extended to him while in Kazan. The citizens of Kazan were extremely kind to him.


text:
# Addendum on rotational properties of confined bosons: time-inversion referencing

## Abstract

In this addendum we introduce the concept of time-inversion referencing. This is an extension of hypertext allowing authors to cite papers that where not yet published (or even not yet written) when they publish a manuscript. We are convinced that this concept will prove very useful especially when adjustments to the so-called intellectual property rights have to be made. We apply the concept to our paper on rotational properties of trapped bosons.

If the paper  would have been published prior to Refs. , we would have added the reference  in our papers. Indeed, both  and  deal with the same problem (i.e. the moment of inertia of a confined Bose gas), the calculations are done for the same model (bosons in a harmonic trap), with the same method (projection on the symmetric representation of the permutation group in combination with a Feynman-Kac functional), and lead to the same final result (the expression for the moment of inertia in terms of the system parameters). More methodological details can be found in Ref. . Fortunately, we  also treated a generalization to the case of interacting bosons using the Jensen-Feynman theorem, which is not mentioned in . Therefore we would not have had to abandon publication if we had foreseen the paper .

We invite the casual reader to verify that a time-inversion reference is appropriate here. It provides at least a warning against a substantially incomplete bibliography. In extreme cases it might warrant intellectual property rights.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The conceptual development of very intense muon sources  has led to a proposal  to use this new accelerator technology to build a Neutrino Factory in which an intense low energy muon beam is rapidly accelerated and injected into a storage ring with long straight sections. The muons decaying in these straight sections produce intense beams of highly collimated neutrinos. The technical and physics possibilities for building and using neutrino factories have been explored by many groups . The interest in neutrino factories is primarily driven by recent measurements from the SuperKamiokande (SuperK) collaboration , which indicate that muon neutrinos produced in atmospheric interactions of cosmic rays oscillate into other neutrino flavors, a result that is consistent with measurements made in other experiments . The presence of a well-defined electron neutrino flux in the muon storage ring neutrino beams permits one to explore the effect of matter on the propagation of electron neutrinos. The analysis of the oscillation data leads to several scenarios of neutrino masses and mixing. In this paper, we investigate the effect of passage through matter on neutrino oscillations. We specifically consider the Large Angle MSW scenario (LMA) , which, as defined in the recent Fermilab six month physics study , has

$`|\delta m_{32}^2|=3.5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,|\delta m_{21}^2|=5\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=1.0,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=0.8,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0.04`$ (1)
and the CP violating phase $`\delta =0`$. However, to the extent that the contributions from the subleading solar $`\delta m_{21}^2`$ scale are small, our results apply approximately to other solar scenarios. The transition probabilities in the leading oscillation approximation for propagation through matter of constant density are

$`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`s_{23}^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}^m\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{32}^m,`$
$`P(\nu _e\nu _\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`c_{23}^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}^m\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{32}^m,`$ (2)
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\left[(\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}^m)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{21}^m+(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{13}^m)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}^m(\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}^m\mathrm{cos}\theta _{13}^m)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{32}^m\right].`$
The oscillation arguments are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{32}^m=\mathrm{\Delta }_0S,\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}^m=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\frac{A}{\delta m_{32}^2}+S\right],\mathrm{\Delta }_{21}^m=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\frac{A}{\delta m_{32}^2}S\right],$$
(3)
where $`S`$ is given by

$$S\sqrt{\left(\frac{A}{\delta m_{32}^2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}\right)^2+\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}},$$
(4)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\frac{\delta m_{32}^2L}{4E}=1.267\frac{\delta m_{32}^2(\mathrm{eV}^2)L(\mathrm{km})}{E_\nu (\mathrm{GeV})}.$$
(5)
$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}^m=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}}{\left(\frac{A}{\delta m_{32}^2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}\right)^2+\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}}.$$
(6)
The amplitude $`A`$ for $`\nu _ee`$ forward scattering in matter is given by

$$A=2\sqrt{2}G_FN_eE_\nu =1.52\times 10^4\mathrm{eV}^2Y_e\rho (\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3)E(\mathrm{GeV}).$$
(7)
Here $`Y_e`$ is the electron fraction and $`\rho (x)`$ is the matter density. For neutrino trajectories that pass through the earth’s crust, the average density is typically of order 3 gm/cm3 and $`Y_e0.5`$. The oscillation probability $`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )`$ is directly proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}^m`$, which is approximately proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$. There is a resonant enhancement for

$$\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}=\frac{A}{\delta m_{32}^2}.$$
(8)
For electron neutrinos, $`A`$ is positive and the resonance enhancement occurs for positive values of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ for $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}>0`$. The reverse is true for electron anti-neutrinos and the enhancement occurs for negative values of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$. Thus for a neutrino factory operating with positive stored muons (producing a $`\nu _e`$ beam) one expects an enhanced production of opposite sign ($`\mu ^{}`$) charged-current events as a result of the oscillation $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ if $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ is positive and vice versa for stored negative beams .

This enhancement is evident in Fig. 1, which shows the ratio of $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ events from $`\mu ^{}`$ decays to $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ events from $`\mu ^+`$ decays for 20 GeV muons and a 50 kt detector, assuming the oscillation parameters of Eq. (1). The results for two other values of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ are also presented in Fig. 1. This figure shows that for larger $`L`$ the ratio of wrong-sign muon events is sensitive to the sign of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$.

The magnitude of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ is determined from the disappearance of muon neutrinos due to the oscillation $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$, since it can be shown that for the baselines under consideration here, the matter effects are small in this channel (see Fig. 2, curves 2 and 3 of Ref. ). The oscillation probability$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )`$ can thus be approximated by $`\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$ as though it were in vacuum for baselines as far as 4000 km. (See the section “Method” for a correction to this approximation for matter effects for longer baselines.)

## 2 Method

In order to extract both the sign and magnitude of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$, we simultaneously fit four channels (i) $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$ (ii) $`\overline{\nu _e}\overline{\nu _\mu }`$ (iii) $`\overline{\nu _\mu }\overline{\nu _\mu }`$ (iv) $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$. The first two channels are measured when N $`\mu ^{}`$ decays occur in the storage ring and the second two channels are observed when N $`\mu ^+`$ decays occur .

We study the extraction of oscillation parameters in two scenarios:

* A muon storage ring with $`N=10^{20}`$ muon decays and a 50 kiloton detector.
* A muon storage ring with $`N=10^{19}`$ muon decays and a 50 kiloton detector. A 20 GeV version of this is known as an “entry level” neutrino factory.

Our study is performed for baselines ranging from 732 km up to 7332 km and stored muon energies ranging from 20 GeV to 50 GeV. We calculate the neutrino event rates by propagating the neutrinos through matter, taking into account the variations in the density profile using the Preliminary Reference Earth Model  by solving the evolution equations numerically. Realistic detector resolutions are used that are appropriate for a magnetized iron scintillator detector . We assume a muon energy resolution $`\frac{\sigma }{E_\mu }=0.05`$ and a hadronic shower resolution of $`\frac{\sigma }{E_h}=0.53/\sqrt{E_h}`$ for showers of energy $`E_h>3`$ GeV and 0.8/$`\sqrt{E_h}`$ for showers of energy $`E_h<3`$ GeV. We accept only events that possess muons of true energy greater than 4 GeV. Figure 2 shows the wrong-sign muon appearance spectra with these cuts as function of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ for both $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ beams for both signs of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ at a baseline of 2800 km. The resonance enhancement in wrong sign muon production is clearly seen in Fig. 2 (b) and (c). Using these histograms and similar ones for the disappearance channels, it is possible to predict the spectrum in any channel for any value of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ in the range of interest by polynomial interpolation of the histograms bin by bin with the method of divided differences. For the interpolation, the disappearance probabilities can be treated to first order as though they are due to vacuum oscillations (i.e. matter effects can be neglected) and are proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$. For the longer baselines, the matter effects affect these disappearance rates slightly, as can be seen from Fig. 3 of Ref. . The difference in the disappearance rates for positive and negative $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$, vanishing as $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}0`$. For the channel $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$, the positive $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ solution approaches the negative $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ solution as $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}0`$, the reverse being the case for anti-neutrinos. We use this behavior to interpolate the disappearance spectra as a function of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$. The event rates in both the appearance and disappearance channels depend only on the three vacuum parameters $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$, and $`\delta m_{32}^2`$. Using this interpolation scheme, we can generate events for any combination of these parameters for various muon momenta and baselines. Most of the information on the sign of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ comes from the appearance channels and the precision on the magnitude of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ comes from the disappearance channels .

### 2.1 Backgrounds

The background for the wrong-sign muon appearance channels arise from three sources: (i) charm production, (ii) $`\pi ,K`$ decay events producing wrong sign muons in neutral current interactions, and (iii) $`\pi ,K`$ decay events producing wrong sign muons in charged-current (CC) events where the primary muon was considered lost . A more detailed study of the backgrounds  has shown that significant reductions are obtained by demanding that $`P_t^2>2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, where $`P_t^2`$ is defined as the transverse-momentum-squared of the muon with respect to the hadronic shower direction. Imposing this cut results in a further signal efficiency factor of $`0.9`$  for the CC disappearance channels, $`0.62`$ for the $`\mu ^+`$ beam appearance signal and $`0.45`$ for the $`\mu ^{}`$ beam appearance signal. This results in an average background/$`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$ CC signal rate of $`0.45\times 10^4`$ for $`\mu ^+`$ beam appearance channel and $`0.25\times 10^5`$ for the $`\mu ^{}`$ beam appearance channel. The difference in these rates between the $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ beams is due to the different kinematical distributions of the neutrino and anti-neutrino CC interactions. We fold these rates into the theoretical prediction for each channel. We also assume a normalization systematic uncertainty of 1$`\%`$ between the $`\mu ^+`$ beam and $`\mu ^{}`$ beam events.

Table 1 lists the wrong sign muon appearance– and background–rates for an “entry level” machine. Event rates for the appearance channels are appreciable, whereas background rates are negligible for baselines longer than about 2800 km.

### 2.2 Fitting

Events are generated for the 4 channels $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$, $`\overline{\nu _e}\overline{\nu _\mu }`$, $`\overline{\nu _\mu }\overline{\nu _\mu }`$, and $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$, and for both signs of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$. The four simulated measured event rates are fitted simultaneously for the three parameters $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$, and $`\delta m_{32}^2`$. In each fit the sign of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ is constrained . The difference in negative log-likelihood, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$, between the fits in which sign of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ has been constrained to the correct and incorrect sign is evaluated for a given value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$. This is then repeated for a range of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$. It is empirically found that the average $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ varies linearly with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ and this is used to estimate that value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ at which $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$=4.5, i.e a Gaussian 3$`\sigma `$ ability to differentiate the sign of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$. This value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ we define as the 3$`\sigma `$ reach in $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ space. We only fit for the number of events and not the shape of the spectra, since at the $`3\sigma `$ point statistics are such that shape information contributes little.

## 3 Results

Figure 3 shows the difference in negative log-likelihood between a correct and wrong-sign mass hypothesis expressed as a number of equivalent Gaussian standard deviations versus baseline length for muon storage ring energies of 20, 30, 40 and 50 GeV. The values of the oscillation parameters are for the LMA scenario in Eq. 1. Figure 3(a) is for 1020 decays for each sign of stored energy and a 50 kiloton detector and positive $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ (b) for negative $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ for various values of stored muon energy. Figures 3 (c) and (d) show the corresponding curves for 1019 decays and a 50 kiloton detector. An entry-level machine would permit one to perform a 5$`\sigma `$ differentiation of the sign of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ at a baseline length of $``$2800 km.

Figure 4 shows the 3$`\sigma `$ reach of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ versus baseline length for a 20 GeV muon storage ring (a) with $`10^{20}`$ decays, a 50 kiloton detector and positive $`\delta m_{32}^2`$, (b) for negative $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ for various values of $`|\delta m_{32}^2|`$. Figures 4 (c) and (d) show the corresponding curves for 1019 decays and a 50 kiloton detector. The error bars show the uncertainties due to statistical fluctuations in our determination of the 3$`\sigma `$ reach. Our results agree with similar calculations in Ref. . It can be seen that an entry-level machine is capable of determining the sign of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ provided that $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ is greater than 0.01 for $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ in the range 0.0025–0.0045 eV2.

To conclude, we have shown that the neutrino factory provides a powerful tool to explore the structure of neutrino masses. Even an “entry level” machine with $`10^{19}`$ decays of 20 GeV stored muons and a 50 kiloton detector at a baseline exceeding $``$2800 km is capable of differentiating the sign of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ for the LMA scenario. The $`3\sigma `$ reach in $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ in the sign determination of $`\delta m_{32}^2`$ for such a machine exceeds the present bound on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ by about an order of magnitude.

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896 and in part by the University of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.