text:
# A ballistic bow shock model for jet-driven protostellar outflow shells

## 1 Introduction

Bipolar molecular outflows appear to be an inevitable byproduct of low-mass star formation: essentially every pre-main sequence star that is still surrounded by substantial molecular material shows signs of outflow in the molecular line channel maps. Although there is considerable variety in the structure and kinematics of these outflow lobes (including a great deal of irregular morphology) many of these lobes take the shape of hollow shells (e.g. Moriarty-Schieven et al (1987)). In cases where optical or infrared Herbig-Haro jets are also seen, the molecular shells are approximately centered on the axes defined by these jets. Recent reviews of the molecular outflow phenomenon are found, e.g., in Bachiller & Tafalla (1999) and Richer et al (2000).

Two basic models have been advanced to explain how molecular shells are driven from young stellar objects (YSOs). In the first model, the outflow is produced by a wide-angle wind directly sweeping up surrounding ambient material (see discussion and original references in Shu et al. (2000)). In the second model, the outflow represents an expanding bow shock in the ambient medium produced by the impact of a narrow, dense jet (see e.g. the semianalytic models of Masson & Chernin (1993); Raga & Cabrit (1993), and the simulations by Chernin et al (1994); Smith, Suttner, & Yorke (1997); Suttner et al (1997); Downes & Ray (1999)). In the wide-angle wind scenario, outflows are a purely momentum-driven phenomenon; the thermal pressure of the gas is taken to be negligible. In the jet-driven scenario, on the other hand, the transverse (i.e. perpendicular to the jet axis) expansion of a bow shock to create an outflow shell depends crucially on the action of pressure in the head of the jet. The two models thus differ both in their assumptions of the nature of the primary wind, and in the physical processes involved in the ambient medium interaction that produces the outflow.

In following a fully deductive theoretical approach, one would first determine the nature of the primary wind that is expected to form, and then analyze how it acts on its surroundings to produce outflows. However, a more inductive approach – in which clues to the nature of the primary wind may be gleaned from analyzing the “secondary” outflow kinematics – can often aid progress in circumstances, such as the present one, where the first-principles approach involves major theoretical challenges. In particular, although there is significant theoretical consensus that the primary winds from low mass YSOs are magnetocentrifugally driven, there remain unresolved questions about the relative importance of winds driven from the interaction region between a stellar magnetosphere and the disk (x-winds; Shu et al. (2000) and references therein), and winds arising from a larger range of radii in the disk (disk winds; Königl & Pudritz (2000) and references therein).

In fact, neither the x-wind nor the disk-wind model would produce the sort of spatially-isolated “pure jet” generally taken as the input to a jet-driven outflow calculations, because such a jet would be highly magnetically overpressured relative to the ambient ISM at large distance from the source (Ostriker, 1997; Kim & Ostriker, 2000). Thus, at least the surface layers, and possibly the entirety, of either sort of wind would expand to produce a gradient of $`B_\varphi ^2`$ matching the low pressure of the ISM on the outside and the high pressure of the wind core on the inside. Shu et al. (1995) show that a radially-expanding, magnetically force-free ($`B_\varphi R^1`$) wind with density stratified as $`R^2`$ is a self-consistent solution to the asymptotic state of x-winds; similar “fully-expanded” magnetically force-free solutions may be found for the asymptotic state of disk winds (Ostriker, 1997, 1998; Matzner & McKee, 1999). Another outcome potentially could involve only partial expansion of the wind, leaving a highly overdense core and strongly stratified surroundings. Whether a wind attains full or only partial expansion may depend on its boundary conditions and stability properties (e.g. Kim & Ostriker (2000)), with no comprehensive theoretical predictions available at present.

Thus, although there is not yet a complete theoretical catalog for the range of structure possible for primary winds, first-principles theoretical considerations do suggest that completely isolated jets would not occur in general. Instead, the primary wind in the “jet-driven” outflow scenario is more properly thought of as a more extreme (in its degree of central concentration) version of the radially flowing primary wind invoked in the wide-angle wind model. “Jet-driven” outflows, then, would arise if the circumstances were such as to produce a primary wind with a very dense core (the optical “jet”) surrounded by an (optically unseen) envelope in which the density (and magnetic pressure) falls off very steeply (e.g. faster than an $`R^2`$ power law). With this modified view of the nature of primary wind, any model should contain a wide-angle wind at some level. Two classes of outflow-driving scenarios might then contrast “wind-swept shell” models vs. “bow shock shell” models based on the relative importance of transverse bulk flow momentum in the primary wind (i.e. $`\rho v_R^2`$ ram pressure), vs. transverse thermal pressure gradients created in the shock, in producing the expansion of the outflow away from the central axis.

The wind-swept shell formalism was first presented in the x-wind context by Shu et al. (1991), and later updated to reflect the strong polar- and equatorial- stratification subsequently found to arise, respectively, in magnetic wind and protostellar core solutions (Li & Shu, 1996). Matzner & McKee (1999) recently extended the wind-swept shell analysis to more general classes of primary winds. In all of these models, the primary wind is assumed to be radially outflowing, and the interaction with the ambient medium is treated as a local mass- and momentum- conserving process. With these idealizations, together with the assumption that the radial variation of the density profile in the ambient core follows an $`r^2`$ power law, one may obtain analytic solutions for the dynamics of wide-angle-wind driven outflow shells in which the shell velocity is steady but depends on the polar angle. These models have proven very successful at explaining the shapes and kinematics of many – but not all – of the features seen in the outflows from young stars (Li & Shu, 1996; Nagar et al, 1997; Ostriker, 1997; Matzner & McKee, 1999; Lee et al., 2000a). In particular, several outflows show evidence of “convex spurs” in position-velocity space, in which transverse velocities of portions of the outflow increase with distance from the source. In configuration (position-position) space, the corresponding outflow shell closes toward the axis with increasing distance, with the appearance of a bow shock (Lee et al., 2000a).

In this paper, our goal is to develop an analytic model for protostellar outflow shells in the situation complementary to that addressed by Shu et al. (1991): namely, when the transverse radial forces are dominated by pressure gradient forces near the the head of the jet (or, more properly, jet-like wind), rather than by ram pressure throughout the body of an extended wind. To this end, we construct a simple dynamical model of jet-driven bow shocks under interstellar (strongly-cooling) conditions. The model solutions depend only on four basic properties describing the jet and ambient medium (the jet speed and radius, and the jet and ambient densities), and on the cooling function for shocked gas. We provide analytic solutions for the shell shape and velocity fields in this model, and use these results to develop solutions for two kinematic diagnostics often used in analyzing observations of outflows – the position-velocity and mass-velocity relations. We also provide expressions for “bulk” properties of jet-driven outflow shells (lobe aspect ratio, total mass, momentum component ratios) in terms of the system’s physical parameters. In the companion paper (Lee et al., 2000b), we compare the results from the analytic model of this paper with the results of direct numerical simulations of bow shocks driven by model protostellar jets. There, we also compare the results of wind-swept shell “snowplow” models with the results of numerical simulations where the input wind has an extended (wide-angle) density and velocity distribution.

## 2 Analysis: bow shock shape and shell velocities

The interaction of a supersonic jet with its surroundings drives a bow shock into the ambient medium; under uniform conditions with time-independent jet properties, the bow shock preserves its shape and advances along the jet axis $`\widehat{z}`$ at a speed $`v_s`$. Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of our model for shell formation, viewed from the bow shock frame moving at velocity $`v_s\widehat{z}`$ with respect to the observer’s frame. We adopt a cylindrical coordinate system. In this diagram, the working surface (“WS”) is the region where the jet itself collides and interacts with the ambient medium: hot, shocked jet material processed through a jet shock (at the left of the WS) abuts hot, shocked ambient material processed through the bow shock (at the right of the WS) at a contact discontinuity (in the center of the WS). Due to thermal pressure gradient forces perpendicular to the jet axis, material is expelled radially from the WS. This flow expands away from the jet, and drives a bow shock into the ambient medium. The ambient material, moving backward in the frame of the bow shock, collides with the shell of transversely-flowing matter and deflects it rearward (in the $`\widehat{z}`$ direction). The swept-up ambient material augments the flux of matter in the transversely-expanding flow.

The shape of the shell and simple kinematic diagnostics can be derived by solving for the shell dynamics in the ballistic limit, i.e. with pressure forces ignored subsequent to an initial impulse. 111This approximation is valid because the shock (away from the jet head) is sufficiently oblique that the post-shock pressure is is relatively low, and is further reduced by the strong cooling present under interstellar (compared to extragalactic) conditions. In the bow shock frame, the ambient material flows into the shock with velocity $`v_s\widehat{z}`$. The increase in the mass flow $`\dot{M}`$ of shocked gas per unit length transverse to the jet axis $`dR`$ is

$$\frac{d\dot{M}}{dR}=2\pi R\rho v_s,$$
(1)
where $`\rho `$ is the density of the ambient material. Similarly, the increases per unit transverse length in the axial-direction and radial-direction flows of momentum ($`\dot{P}_z`$, $`\dot{P}_R`$) are

$$\frac{d\dot{P}_z}{dR}=2\pi R\rho v_s^2$$
(2)
and

$$\frac{d\dot{P}_R}{dR}=0.$$
(3)
Integrating equations (1), (2) and (3), we have

$$\dot{M}=\dot{M}_o+\pi \rho v_s(R^2R_o^2)$$
(4)
$$\dot{P}_z=\dot{P}_{oz}\pi \rho v_s^2(R^2R_o^2)$$
(5)
$$\dot{P}_R=\dot{P}_{oR}$$
(6)
where $`R_o`$ is the radial width of the WS where the shell emerges. $`\dot{M}_o`$, $`\dot{P}_{oz}`$ and $`\dot{P}_{oR}`$ are the initial mass, longitudinal momentum and transverse momentum flows input from the WS into the shell.

If a negligible portion of the shocked-gas mass and momentum are lost from the inner shell into the cocoon, then the total shell mass flow and momentum flow at a distance $`R`$ are $`\dot{M}`$, $`\dot{P}_z`$ and $`\dot{P}_R`$. In the absence of shell mass losses, the velocity field direction within the shell must be locally parallel to the shell surface (the bow shock), although there may be gradients in the magnitude of the velocity across the shell thickness perpendicular to the shell surface. Under this assumption, the ratio $`v_z/v_R`$ is the same throughout the shell thickness at any $`R`$, and equal to the slope $`dz/dR`$ of the shell’s surface. Since $`v_z/v_R`$ is constant across the shell thickness, the ratio of the total momentum flows $`\dot{P}_z=v_z(R,s)\rho 2\pi R𝑑s`$ and $`\dot{P}_R=v_R(R,s)\rho 2\pi R𝑑s=(v_R/v_z)\dot{P}_z`$ also gives the local slope of the shell surface (here the integral over $`s`$ denotes summation across the shell thickness). The shape of the shell can thus be derived by integrating

$$\frac{dz}{dR}=\frac{\dot{P}_z}{\dot{P}_R}=\frac{\dot{P}_{oz}\pi \rho v_s^2(R^2R_o^2)}{\dot{P}_{oR}}.$$
(7)
The locus of the bow shock/outflow shell is therefore given by

$$z=\frac{\dot{P}_{oz}(RR_o)\pi \rho v_s^2(R^3/3RR_o^2+2R_o^3/3)}{\dot{P}_{oR}}$$
(8)
with $`z=0`$ at $`R=R_o`$.

With expression (8) giving the locus of the outflow shell, we may now turn to the distribution of velocities within the shell. Consider first the limit in which the material added to the shell at any point mixes instantaneously with all the material already flowing along in the shell at that position. If the “new” and “existing” momentum were to mix thoroughly, then there would be no velocity gradients across the thickness of the shell. The velocity of shell material in the shock frame would be equal to the mean value at any point, given by

$$\overline{v}_z=\frac{\dot{P}_z}{\dot{M}}=\frac{\dot{P}_{oz}\pi \rho v_s^2(R^2R_o^2)}{\dot{M}_o+\pi \rho v_s(R^2R_o^2)}$$
(9)
$$\overline{v}_R=\frac{\dot{P}_R}{\dot{M}}=\frac{\dot{P}_{oR}}{\dot{M}_o+\pi \rho v_s(R^2R_o^2)}$$
(10)
In the observer’s frame, $`\overline{v}_z`$ transforms to

$$\overline{v}_z^{}=\overline{v}_z+v_s=\frac{\dot{P}_{oz}+\dot{M}_ov_s}{\dot{M}_o+\pi \rho v_s(R^2R_o^2)}$$
(11)
In particular, the shock-frame shell velocities just outside the WS are $`\overline{v}_R=\dot{P}_{oR}/\dot{M}_o`$ and $`\overline{v}_z=\dot{P}_{oz}/\dot{M}_o`$, where the latter transforms to $`\overline{v}_z^{}=v_s+\dot{P}_{oz}/\dot{M}_o`$ in the observer frame.

In the simulations presented by Lee et al. (2000b) in a companion paper, we find that the newly swept-up ambient material does not  in fact fully mix with the material already in the shell. We are thus led to analyze the opposite limit from the above: no mixing between “new” and “existing” shell material. Consider first the outer surface layer of the shell consisting of the material that has most recently been swept up by the advancing bow shock. If the ambient material shocks strongly upon colliding with the shell, the postshock velocity of the newly swept-up material in the shock frame at any point is just the component of preshock velocity parallel to shell surface. With $`\theta \text{arctan}(\frac{dz}{dR})`$ the angle between the shock normal and $`\widehat{z}`$ (see Fig. 1), the velocity of the newly-shocked material is given by

$$𝐮=v_s\mathrm{sin}\theta (\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{z}+\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{R})$$
(12)
in the shock frame. In the observer’s frame, $`𝐮`$ transforms to

$$𝐮^{}=𝐮+v_s\widehat{z}=v_s(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \widehat{z}+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{R})$$
(13)
The shape of the shell $`z(R)`$ is determined by the total momentum flows only, independent of whether momentum is mixed within the shell or not. Therefore, substituting from equation (7) for $`\mathrm{tan}\theta `$, we find the velocity components of the newly swept-up material in the observer’s frame are

$$u_z^{}=\frac{v_s}{1+\left(\frac{\dot{P}_{oz}\pi \rho v_s^2(R^2R_o^2)}{\dot{P}_{oR}}\right)^2}$$
(14)
and

$$u_R=\frac{v_s\left(\frac{\dot{P}_{oz}\pi \rho v_s^2(R^2R_o^2)}{\dot{P}_{oR}}\right)}{1+\left(\frac{\dot{P}_{oz}\pi \rho v_s^2(R^2R_o^2)}{\dot{P}_{oR}}\right)^2}.$$
(15)
In the limit of negligible mixing, the magnitude of the momentum $`𝐩`$ of any fluid element (and hence its speed) would remain unchanged as it flows outward along the bow-shock shell, because the impact of new material to the shell applies a force transverse to its surface (but not along it) as it shocks. With a force perpendicular to $`𝐩`$ (which is parallel to the shell surface), the magnitude $`|𝐩|`$ would not change, but the direction would rotate always remaining parallel to the shell surface. Thus, at the point $`R`$, the material that entered the shell from the WS with speed $`v_0(\dot{P}_{oz}^2+\dot{P}_{oR}^2)^{1/2}/\dot{M}_o`$ would have shock-frame component velocities $`w_R(R;R_0)=v_0\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`w_z(R;R_0)=v_0\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ at the position $`R`$, with the latter transforming to $`w_z^{}(R;R_0)=v_0\mathrm{sin}\theta +v_s`$ in the observer’s frame. Similarly, the material that entered the shock at $`R^{}`$ with post-shock speed $`v(R^{})=v_s\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}`$ would have components at position $`R`$ given by $`w_R(R;R^{})=v_s\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`w_z(R;R^{})=v_s\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, with the latter transforming to $`w_z^{}(R;R^{})=v_s(1\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$ in the observer’s frame; here $`\theta ^{}\mathrm{arctan}(dz/dR)|_R^{}`$. Since $`\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}`$ is a secularly increasing function of $`R^{}`$, $`w_R(R;R^{})`$ increases from $`0`$ to $`u_R(R)`$ and $`w_z^{}(R;R^{})`$ decreases from $`v_s`$ to $`u_z^{}(R)`$ as $`R^{}`$ increases from just outside $`R_0`$ to $`R`$, for fixed $`R`$. That is, the more recently a fluid element has joined the shell flow from the ambient medium, the larger its transverse and the smaller its longitudinal velocity would be at any point $`R`$, in the absence of mixing.

To obtain explicit solutions, we now relate the shell input flows $`\dot{M}_o`$, $`\dot{P}_{oz}`$ and $`\dot{P}_{oR}`$ to more basic quantities characterizing the jet and ambient medium. First, we note that for a strong shock, the bow shock speed is related to the jet speed $`v_j`$ and ratio $`\eta \rho _j/\rho `$ of jet- to ambient- density by $`v_sv_j(1+\eta ^{1/2})^1`$. The radius of the WS can be approximated as $`R_oR_j`$. As shown in Figure 3 of Lee et al. (2000b), only shocked ambient material flows into the shell from the WS; therefore the mass flow is just equal to the flow of ambient material into the WS, $`\dot{M}_o\pi R_j^2\rho v_s`$ . The input longitudinal momentum flow $`\dot{P}_{oz}0`$, because in the shock frame, the ejected flow from the WS has no preferred forward or backward direction.

Estimating the transverse momentum flow is slightly more subtle. Just inside the bow shock, the shocked ambient gas cools rapidly down to $`10^4`$K, after which point the radiation slows because the cooling curve drops precipitously as the gas recombines. The shocked flow from the ambient medium interfaces (in a contact discontinuity) with the shocked jet gas at the center of the WS; in a steady state and with negligible mixing, all of the streamlines entering the WS from either side must bend away from the axis and exit on their respective sides of the bow shock/jet shock interface. The pressure is highest closest to the axis, with the transverse pressure gradient accelerating gas radially to eject it from the sides of the WS.

The ejection velocity from the WS must be of order the sound speed $`c_s`$ at the temperature $`10^4`$K. To see why this is so, consider adiabatic flow with $`\gamma =5/3`$ starting from low velocity $`v`$ and high pressure $`P`$, and accelerating by pressure gradient forces until the ram pressure far exceeds the thermal pressure. By Bernoulli’s theorem, which demands the constancy of $`(1/2)v^2+[\gamma /(\gamma 1)]P/\rho `$, the ejection speed would thus be $`\sqrt{5}c_s`$, where $`c_s`$ is the isothermal sound speed $`(kT/\mu )^{1/2}`$ at the initial temperature of the flow. Here, $`\mu `$ is the mean molecular mass, which we take as $`1.3m_p`$ for neutral gas. 222Falle & Raga (1993) and Biro & Raga (1994) have made related arguments, confirmed by simulations, for estimating the speed of material ejection from internal shocks in jet beams. To the extent that cooling reduces the enthalpy term, and that the flow does not reach the maximum possible speed, the outflow velocity from the working surface would be somewhat lower. We therefore expect a transverse momentum flow from the WS of order $`\sqrt{5}\dot{M}_oc_s=2.2\pi \rho R_j^2v_sc_s`$, where the value of $`c_s`$ at $`10^4`$K is $`8\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1`$. To test this estimate, we have directly measured the transverse momentum flux in our simulations with varying $`v_j`$ and $`R_j`$, and also fit the shell shapes and kinematics parameterized by the momentum flux (see below and Lee et al. (2000b)). Writing $`\dot{P}_{oR}\beta \pi \rho R_j^2v_sc_s`$, we have found that $`\beta =3.84.4`$ for jet radii and velocities in the ranges $`R_j=2.55\times 10^{15}\mathrm{cm}`$ and $`v_j=120240\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. These values of $`\beta `$ are slightly larger than the above estimate; the difference may be accounted for by the facts that (i) the pressure of the shocked jet gas adjoining the shocked ambient gas within the WS helps in part to accelerate the shell, and (ii) the ambient material just outside the WS also passes through a relatively perpendicular (rather than oblique) shock, maintaining a non-negligible pressure in the shell at radii slightly larger than $`R_j`$ and correspondingly raising the total transverse momentum flux delivered to the bow shock shell.

With the above substitutions for $`\dot{M}_o`$, $`\dot{P_{oR}}`$, and $`\dot{P_{oz}}`$, we find $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =(v_s/\beta c_s)[(R/R_j)^21]`$ so

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{\beta c_sR_j^2}{\left[(\beta c_sR_j^2)^2+v_s^2(R^2R_j^2)^2\right]^{1/2}}$$
(16)
and

$$\mathrm{sin}\theta =\frac{v_s(R^2R_j^2)}{\left[(\beta c_sR_j^2)^2+v_s^2(R^2R_j^2)^2\right]^{1/2}}.$$
(17)
The components of the mean shell velocity $`\overline{𝐯}^{}`$ and newly-shocked velocity $`𝐮^{}`$ in the observer’s frame are given by

$$\overline{v}_z^{}=\frac{R_j^2}{R^2}v_s,$$
(18)
$$\overline{v}_R=\frac{R_j^2}{R^2}\beta c_s,$$
(19)
$$u_z^{}=\frac{(\beta c_sR_j^2)^2}{(\beta c_sR_j^2)^2+v_s^2(R^2R_j^2)^2}v_s,$$
(20)
and

$$u_R=\frac{\beta c_sv_sR_j^2(R^2R_j^2)}{(\beta c_sR_j^2)^2+v_s^2(R^2R_j^2)^2}v_s.$$
(21)
The shape is given by

$$z=\left[\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{R}{R_j}\right)^3\frac{R}{R_j}+\frac{2}{3}\right]\frac{v_s}{\beta c_s}R_j,$$
(22)
which at large distance from the head of the jet approaches a cubic law 333A similar asymptotic $`|z|R^3`$ law was previously obtained by Wilkin (1996) in his solution for the shell shape in the “tail” of a stellar wind bow shock for a star moving with constant velocity through a uniform medium. This is consistent with expectations that the specific geometry of the transverse momentum source is not important for the far-field solution., $`z(R/R_j)^3(v_sR_j)/(3\beta c_s)`$.

In Figure 2, we give an example of the shape of the bow shock shell, together with the observer-frame vector fields for the mean shell velocity $`(\overline{v}_R,\overline{v}_z^{})`$ and the velocity of the newly swept-up shell material $`(u_R,u_z^{})`$. For this figure, we take the value of the ratio $`\beta c_s/v_s=0.5`$; for the range of observed jet velocities, the range of this ratio would be $`0.20.6`$. In Figure 3, we display the values of the various shell velocity components as seen from the observer frame, for the same model.

At large $`R`$, the component velocities of the newly-added material approach $`u_R\beta c_sR_j^2/R^2`$ and $`u_z^{}(\beta c_s/v_s)^2(R_j/R)^4v_s`$. That is, the transverse velocity of newly-added material is the same as the existing mean value of the transverse velocity, while the longitudinal velocity of newly-added material is smaller than the mean longitudinal velocity by the inverse of the large factor $`(v_sR)^2/(\beta c_sR_j)^2`$. The ratio of the mean velocity components has a small, constant value $`\overline{v}_R/\overline{v}_z^{}=\beta c_s/v_s`$. The newly-shocked material, on the other hand, has an increasingly large ratio of transverse- to longitudinal- velocity as the distance from the head of the jet increases, $`u_R/u_z^{}=\mathrm{tan}\theta 1/(\pi /2\theta )(v_s/\beta c_s)(R/R_j)^2`$.

Near the head of the jet ($`R/R_j1`$), the longitudinal speeds $`u_z^{}`$ and $`\overline{v}_z^{}`$ both approach the bow shock speed $`v_s`$. The average transverse speed in the flow $`\overline{v}_R`$ approaches $`\beta c_sv_0`$, while the transverse speed of newly swept-up material $`u_R`$ reaches a local maximum value of $`v_s/2`$ near $`R=R_j[1+(\beta c_s/2v_s)]`$ and then declines to zero at $`R=R_j`$.

The velocity $`w_R(R;R_0)`$, which would describe the transverse motion of the material initially expelled from the WS in the absence of any shear mixing with latterly-added fluid elements, remains close to both $`\overline{v}_R`$ and $`u_R`$ far from the head of the shock (large $`z`$). Its longitudinal counterpart, $`w_z^{}(R;R_0)`$, however, remains much larger than both of the velocities $`\overline{v}_z^{}`$ and $`u_z^{}`$ that describe the mean longitudinal motion and the longitudinal motion of newly-added material.

In the shock frame, all of the transverse momentum in the shell is provided by the initial impulse at the jet head (by assumption). The transfer of portions of this transverse momentum to the newly-shocked material is mediated by pressure, with the egalitarian result that the transverse velocity of newly swept-up material is nearly the same as the existing transverse velocity in the shell. Longitudinal momentum, on the other hand, is carried into the shell by every ambient mass element that is swept up by the advancing shock. Because the bow shock is increasingly oblique at large distance from the jet head, increasingly large portions of this longitudinal momentum can be retained by the ambient material immediately after it enters the bow shock. As a consequence, the longitudinal flow velocity of the newly-added material will be more negative (in the shock frame) than the mean longitudinal flow velocity of the existing material in the shell at the point of impact. In the observer’s frame, this translates to a larger (positive) mean longitudinal velocity $`\overline{v}_z^{}`$ than that of the newly-added material, $`u_z^{}`$. The newly-added material only speeds up in the forward direction to the extent that mixing in the shear flow allows it to. As we show from the simulations in Lee et al. (2000b), this occurs to a certain extent, but in fact a significant level of velocity shear remains across the thickness of the bow shock at any position.

## 3 Kinematic diagnostics and macroscopic outflow properties

¿From the solutions obtained in the previous section, it is clear that the values at any position in the shell of the velocity transverse to the jet are quite insensitive to the degree of radial mixing of newly-added and previously-existing shocked material. That is, the values $`\overline{v}_R`$ and $`u_R`$ describing the mean velocity and that of newly swept-up material are quite close to each other at any $`R>>R_j`$ (see e.g. Fig 3a). On the other hand, the values of the longitudinal velocity in the shell are fairly sensitive to the degree of mixing in the shell. Since it is uncertain how thorough local mixing in fact will be (this may also be affected by magnetic fields), kinematic diagnostic predictions based on this simple model are most robustly applied to observational cases in which the jet lies close to the plane of the sky.

We consider two diagnostics that yield qualitatively different characteristic properties for wide-angle-wind-driven vs. jet-driven shells (Lee et al., 2000a, b). One of these diagnostics is the relation between the offset along the projected outflow axis from the jet head toward the stellar source and the observed molecular shell velocity at that postion. For plane-of-sky jets, the offset position is equal to $`z`$, and the line-of-sight velocity is $`\pm v_R`$. Thus, the position-velocity (“PV”) relation is given (parametrically via the variable $`R`$) by equations (22) and (19) or (21). At large distance $`|z|`$ from the jet head, the position-velocity relation approaches $`v_{obs}=[R_j/(3|z|)]^{2/3}(\beta c_s/v_s)^{1/3}v_s`$; i.e. the velocity decreases as the inverse 2/3 power of the offset distance from the head of the jet. The expected characteristic feature in PV diagrams where a bow shock is present in a plane-of-sky jet is thus a symmetric (red/blue) pair of “spurs” aligned convex-inward along the $`v=0`$ axis.

The second diagnostic relation we consider is the distribution of mass with observed velocity. For plane-of-sky jets, the observed velocity at any point in the shell is equal to $`v_{obs}=v_R\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, where $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle in the shell. We can therefore evaluate the distribution of mass with velocity at fixed $`\varphi `$ as

$$\frac{\delta M}{\delta v_{obs}}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }\frac{dM}{dv_R}\frac{\delta \varphi }{2\pi }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }\frac{dM}{dR}\frac{dR}{dv_R}\frac{\delta \varphi }{2\pi }$$
(23)
where

$$\frac{dM}{dR}=\frac{\dot{M}}{v_R}=\frac{\dot{P}_{oR}}{v_R^2}=\pi \rho R_j^2v_s\beta c_s\left(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{v_{obs}}\right)^2$$
(24)
and

$$\frac{dR}{dv_R}=\frac{\dot{P}_{oR}}{2\pi v_s\rho Rv_R^2}=\frac{1}{2}R_j(\beta c_s)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{v_{obs}}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(25)
For any value of $`v_{obs}>0`$, $`\varphi `$ must fall in the range $`|\varphi |\mathrm{cos}^1[v_{obs}/(\beta c_s)]`$. Substituting equations (24)-(25) in equation (23) and integrating over $`\varphi `$, we find for $`v_{obs}<<\beta c_s`$ (so that $`|\varphi |\pi /2`$)

$$m(v_{obs})\frac{dM}{dv_{obs}}=0.3594\frac{\rho R_j^3v_s(\beta c_s)^{3/2}}{v_{obs}^{7/2}}.$$
(26)
When $`v_{obs}\beta c_s`$, the profile is cut off with $`m(v_{obs})[1(v_{obs}/\beta c_s)]^{1/2}v_{obs}^{7/2}`$. For plane-of-sky sources, the red and blue sides of the profile are symmetric.

We compare these predicted position-velocity and mass-velocity diagnostic relations to the results of simulations and molecular line observations in Lee et al. (2000b).

In addition to these detailed “microscopic” diagnostics, which are valuable for direct comparisons with high-resolution observations, it is useful to summarize the dependence of the macroscopic outflow properties on the basic physical parameters involved. These macroscopic characteristics include the width-to-length ratio of the shell, its total mass, and the ratio of components of total shell momentum perpendicular and parallel to the jet axis.

The width/length of the jet shell at distance $`|z|`$ from the head of the jet is given by $`2R/|z|`$, which from equation (22) at large distance equals $`2(3\beta c_s/v_s)^{1/3}|R_j/z|^{2/3}`$, or, using physical units and setting $`|z|=v_st`$,

$$\frac{width}{length}=0.012\left(\frac{t}{10^4\mathrm{yr}}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{\beta c_s}{32\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{R_j}{100\mathrm{A}\mathrm{U}}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{v_s}{100\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^1.$$
(27)
Thus, except at the very earliest times, the outflow shell associated with a “pure jet” bow shock would show very extreme collimation (more than 100-to-1). The width/length ratio of the shell is greater than the width/length ratio of the jet itself by a factor $`[3\beta c_s|z|/(v_sR_j)]^{1/3}`$, of order 3-10 for typical parameters. In Figure (4), we display the shape of the outflow shell at three different scales, from $`12R_j300R_j`$ in length, correponding to lengths from a few thousand AU to a few tenths of a parsec.

The total mass in the shell, obtained by integrating $`dM/dR=\dot{M}/v_R=\pi \rho v_sR^4/(R_j^2\beta c_s)`$ over $`R`$, can be written in terms of $`t=|z|_{max}/v_s`$ as

$$M_{shell}(t)=\frac{3^{5/3}\pi }{5}\left(\beta c_s\right)^{2/3}v_s\rho R_j^{4/3}t^{5/3}.$$
(28)
This shell mass can be compared to the mass in the jet itself, $`M_j(t)=\rho _jv_j\pi R_j^2t`$; the ratio is given by $`M_{shell}/M_{jet}=3^{5/3}5^1(\beta c_st/R_j)^{2/3}[\eta +\eta ^{1/2}]^1`$, which is $`100`$ after $`10^5`$ years for typical values of the parameters.

The ratio of total transverse to total longitudinal (observer frame) momentum $`P_R/P_z^{}`$ in the shell is the same as the ratio $`\overline{v}_R/\overline{v}_z^{}=\beta c_s/v_s`$ given from equations (18) and (19), which is independent of position. Since this ratio is less than one, the shell will in bulk have more forward-directed than sideways-directed motion, although away from the jet head the transverse motion exceeds longitudinal motion (since mixing is very incomplete in the shell). Because the “bulk” and spatially-resolved kinematics of jet-driven shells are so different, it is crucial to obtain high-resolution observations in order to make discriminating comparisons with theoretical models.

## 4 Summary and discussion

In this paper, we have constructed an analytic dynamical model for the shape and kinematics of the bow shock shell created when a protostellar jet impacts the surrounding (undisturbed) interstellar medium. Morphologically, the shell consists of two parts: the “working surface,” a hockey-puck-shaped region of radius $`R_j`$ where the jet collides directly with the ambient medium, and surrounding “wings” at $`R>R_j`$ which separate the low-density “cocoon” of shocked jet gas from the undisturbed ambient medium (see Fig. 1). The shell is composed of ambient material swept up by the advancing bow shock, with densities and pressures high in working surface and lower in the wings. We analyze the flow in the wings in detail; the working surface region is, in our model, analyzed solely to estimate the mass and momentum flow it ejects into the surrounding medium.

The chief simplifying assumption we invoke in our analysis is that thermal pressure forces play an important role only in the working surface at the head of the jet, but not in the wings of the bow shock. An initial transverse momentum impulse (perpendicular to the jet, and locally tangential to the shell’s surface) and mass input are applied to the shell flow in the wings at $`R=R_j`$. Subsequent to this impulse, the shell flow expands away from the axis and sweeps up ambient material in a ballistic fashion – i.e. conserving the total mass and momenta of the shell + swept-up ambient material. Physically, it is the radial pressure gradients within the working surface that impart the initial transverse impulse to the shell in the wings. The initial mass flux to the wings is provided by ambient gas which has entered the working surface through its outer face, then been radially redirected and expelled from the sides of the working surface. The ballistic shell’s shape and the velocities in the wings depend on the ambient density, the shock speed $`v_s`$, and on the initial values of mass and momentum flows emerging perpendicularly from the working surface (but not on its detailed internal dynamics).

Because the shocked ambient gas in the working surface cools rapidly to $`10^4`$K, with corresponding sound speed $`c_s8\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1`$, the transverse velocity $`v_Rc_s`$ of the gas input to the shell from the working surface will be small compared to its longitudinal (observer reference frame) velocity $`v_z=v_s`$ along the jet axis. Memory of this ratio is preserved as the mean ratio $`\beta c_s/v_s`$ (with $`\beta `$ an order-unity constant) of transverse/longitudinal momenta in the wings of the shell (see Fig. (2a)). This strongly forward-directed mean thrust is responsible for the high degree of elongation that develops in the bow shock shell (see Fig 4). The ultimate cause of the extreme aspect ratio in these bow shocks can thus be attributed to the effectiveness of interstellar cooling: the sound speed in the shocked ambient gas in the jet head does not remain near its immediate post-shock value, $`v_s`$, but instead drops to a much lower level, with the consequence that the transverse pressure-gradient thrust is relatively weak. Only when cooling is minimal, as occurs for radio jets plowing into the intergalactic medium, the transverse thrust (which also includes effects of pressure forces over the body of the shell from hot shocked jet gas in the cocoon) can be comparable to the longitudinal thrust, with the consequence that the lobes created are much less elongated.

Our analysis and basic results on bow shock shell shapes and kinematics are presented in §2. We give the shape of the bow shock shell in equation (22), the crossection-averaged mean shell velocity components $`\overline{v}_z^{}`$ (observer frame) and $`\overline{v}_R`$ in equations (18)-(19), and the velocity components of the outer surface layer of the shell $`u_z^{}`$ and $`u_R`$ in equations (20)-(21). Because of incomplete mixing between “newly-added” and “existing” shell material at any point, there may be shear in the component of velocity parallel to the shell surface. The values of the mean velocity and the velocity of the surface layer thus bracket the range of velocities expected in the shell at any point $`z`$ (see Figs. 2, 3). We further use our analytic results of §2 to present, in §3, the predicted position-velocity and mass-velocity relationships for the bow-shock shells produced by plane-of-sky jets, and to summarize the bulk properties of outflow shells generated via leading jet bow shocks as analyzed in this paper.

In the companion paper to this one (Lee et al., 2000b), we show that the analytic model developed here provides excellent agreement with the shell shapes found in numerical simulations of jet-driven bow shocks. We also find that the transverse velocities derived in the analytic model closely agree with those computed in the simulations. We find that the bow shock material predominantly has observer-frame axial velocity closer to $`u_z^{}`$ (the value associated with “newly swept-up” gas), although the value $`\overline{v}_z^{}`$ (the predicted crossection-averaged axial speed) provides a good fit to the upper envelope of the distribution of longitudinal shell velocities in the simulations. We also find that the predicted behavior of the mass-velocity relation $`m(v_{obs})v_{obs}^{7/2}`$ is in good agreement with the results of simulations, for plane-of-sky jet axes.

The excellent agreement between our analytic results and specific numerical models gives us confidence in drawing on the former for more general predictions about the structure and evolution of jet-driven bow shocks. The overarching goal, of course, is to assess whether observed molecular outflows are likely produced principally by the jet-driven-bow-shock mechanism. Although we do think that many prominent (especially high-velocity) features in molecular flows are chiefly the result of jet bow shocks (see below), we conclude from this work that assembly of “classical” large-scale bipolar lobes must incorporate other ingredients. The basic physical reason for this conclusion is that, under strongly-cooling interstellar conditions, pressure gradient forces in the shocked ambient (and jet) gas are insufficient to create transverse momentum fluxes comparable to the longitudinal fluxes inherited from the jet beam itself, with the consequence that the lobes delimited by the bow shock shells will be highly elongated. Equation (27) embodies this conclusion quantitatively: the shell width/length varies as the $`1/3`$ power of the (small) ratio $`\beta c_s/v_s`$ of transverse/longitudinal momentum imparted to the shell by the jet, and also decreases as the $`2/3`$ power of time.444Our assumption of a cylindrical rather than conical jet beam enhances the time-dependent effects on the width/length ratio, but is in fact consistent with the asymptotic density distribution in both collimated and force-free MHD winds. Within a thousand years, the width/length ratio of the bow shock drops below the 1:10 ratio typically associated with bipolar molecular flows. This progressive elongation is strikingly illustrated in Figure (4), which portrays the outflow shape at multiple scales; these correspond to successive factors of five increase in the age of the jet.

Our conclusion that a single leading bow shock is unable to produce large-scale molecular outflows is consistent with the findings of previous authors from both semianalytic (Masson & Chernin, 1993) and numerical studies (see references in Lee et al. (2000b)). Advocates of “pure jet” models argue that internal bow shocks or jet wandering can help widen the bow-shock shells. Because internal bow shocks produce much less transverse momentum flux than leading bow shocks (by a factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }v/v_j`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ is the velocity variation in the jet beam that leads to the internal shock), however, we do not expect their contribution to provide a major boost to the transverse shell expansion, and this is indeed what our numerical simulations show (Lee et al. (2000b); see also Stone & Norman (1993a, b)). Jet precession, if sufficiently rapid to produce a smooth shell, is indistinguishable from an intrinsically wide-angle wind distribution. Thus, we contend that the relatively weak collimation of “classical” bipolar outflows cannot be reconciled with the idea that an optical jet represents the whole angular extent of the primary wind from a protostar; we infer that at least some wide-angle wind must be present.

Although jet bow shocks cannot explain everything, they can explain molecular shell features associated with “spurs” seen in position-velocity diagrams of high spatial resolution CO maps (Lee et al., 2000a). The analysis of this paper focuses on leading bow shocks, because the initial conditions are very well defined. Internal bow shocks can, however, be analyzed in a similar fashion. In a pure jet model, the cocoon gas enveloping the jet beam (but still interior to the leading bow shock) will be at low density $`\rho _e`$ compared to the ambient ISM (it chiefly consists of shocked jet gas expanded in volume), and will have significant forward motion $`v_e`$ ($`v_{s0}`$, where $`v_{s0}`$ is the velocity of the next shock downstream). In a model where the jet is a dense core within a wide-angle wind, again the surrounding envelope gas would have low density (by assumption) and large forward velocity ($`v_ev_j`$). The internal shock speed $`v_{si}=(v_1+v_2)/2`$ is the mean value of the upstream ($`v_2`$) and downstream ($`v_1`$) jet speeds. Equations (1)-(15) would all carry through, with the replacement of $`v_sv_{si}v_e`$, and $`\rho \rho _e`$. The input mass and transverse momentum fluxes take the same form as before, except with $`\rho \rho _j`$ and $`v_s(v_2v_1)/2=\mathrm{\Delta }v/2`$. The shell shape still has a $`|z|R^3`$ behavior at large distance (with appropriately modified coefficient), and the position-velocity relation still approches the form $`v_R|z|^{2/3}`$ (again with modified coefficient). 555Explicitly, the shell shape takes the form of equation (22), except with $`v_s`$ replaced by $`2(\rho _e/\rho _j)(v_{si}v_e)^2/\mathrm{\Delta }v`$. The crossection-averaged mean shell transverse velocity $`\overline{v}_R`$ becomes
$$\beta c_s\left[\left(\frac{2\rho _e}{\rho _j}\right)\left(\frac{v_{si}v_e}{\mathrm{\Delta }v}\right)\left(\frac{R^2}{R_j^2}1\right)+1\right]^1,$$
(29)  which at large distance approaches the form of equation (19) divided by $`2(\rho _e/\rho _j)(v_{si}v_e)/\mathrm{\Delta }v`$. The position-velocity relation therefore approaches $`v_R=(v_{si}v_e)𝒜^{1/3}(3|z|/R_j)^{2/3}`$, where $`𝒜2(\rho _e/\rho _j)(v_{si}v_e)^2/(\beta c_s\mathrm{\Delta }v)`$. Larger shock jump velocities and smaller envelope densities tend to increase the value of the transverse shell velocity at a given offset position $`z`$. In Lee et al. (2000b), we demonstrate that the latter functional form indeed yields a good fit to the “spur” structures in the observed outflow HH 212.


format: text

text:
# Global Structure of Certain Static Spacetimes (I)

## 1 Introduction

In general relativity, specific spacetimes often tell us much information that is related to the properties of more generic spacetimes. The rather simple spacetimes, if the trivial Minkowski spacetime is excluded, should be the spherically symmetric static spacetimes: the sourceless Schwarzschild spacetime, the Reissner-Nordström spacetime with electromagnetism, and so on. Simple as they are, they have already possessed variety of features which remain to be true for generic static, or, even stationary, spacetimes. For example, if the stationary spacetime possesses more structures such as additional symmetries or else, there is always the Regge-Wheeler tortoise function encountered in these spacetimes and we find it useful in various discussions: For the Kruskal extensions, it is the start point where the ingoing and outgoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and, thereafter, the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, are introduced; In probing the thermodynamical properties of black holes, the tortoise function is also widely used (see, for example, ). In string theories, situations are similar.

Detailed discussion of specific spacetimes benefits us a lot. But restricting our attention to particular spacetimes often sinks us into trouble: Sometimes a conclusion is so directive to be derived that deep sense of the problem will be ignored. It just like that you pave your way directly to your destination, while wonderful scenery around have been missed because you are so quick to reach where you want to go. The worst thing is that, since specific spacetimes often possess additional structures such as the spherical symmetry (namely, the $`SO(3)`$ symmetry), compactness of the cross section of the Killing horizon and so on, we don’t know whether certain conclusion is closely related to these properties. Example of this situation may be the first law of black hole mechanics. In the ordinary cases, the entropy $`S`$ of the black hole is believed to be proportional to the area of the cross section of the horizon. But, what if the cross section of the Killing horizon is not compact, with the area being infinite? The proof of the constancy of the surface gravity is another example of depending on the additional symmetries of the spacetime. To prove it, one has to prove that the surface gravity on the bifurcate sphere is constant. For a sphere, this is certainly true. But, if the cross section of the Killing horizon is not a sphere, or, if the Killing horizon has no spherical symmetry, does the total proof remain valid?

In this paper we do not want to aim at any particular object. We just consider static spacetimes of arbitrary dimension $`d3`$ which, topologically, is the Cartesian product of $`^2`$ and an arbitrary manifold $`𝒩`$ endowed with a Riemannian metric $`𝐡_𝒩`$. We don’t assume any symmetry about the Riemannian manifold $`(𝒩,𝐡_𝒩)`$. This, of course, has included Schwarzschild spacetime and Reissner-Nordström spacetime as special examples. We try to establish a somehow generic formulism for the extendibility of such spacetimes and outline the extendibility of the spacetime as in the following:

The static spacetime admits the Killing vector field $`𝐊`$ as a globally defined smooth vector field, which defines a globally smooth function $`g_{tt}=𝐠(𝐊,𝐊)`$. The event horizon, if there is, consists of the zero points of this function, implying that $`𝐊`$ is lightlike on it. The function $`g_{tt}`$ is intrinsic, independent of the choice of any coordinates. There is also the intrinsic smooth function, the Regge-Wheeler tortoise function $`r_{}`$. But it is, generally speaking, not globally defined. The maximal domain of this smooth function is called a region of the spacetime. If the closure of its maximal domain can’t cover the spacetime, namely, not the whole spacetime itself, there must be another Regge-Wheeler tortoise function whose maximal domain has no common subset with the domain of $`r_{}`$. If the closures of these domains still can not cover the whole spacetime, there must be a third tortoise function, and so on. Then finally we have a set of tortoise functions as well as their corresponding maximal domains (regions, as we call). Any pair of these regions have no common subsets except for the empty set. Between a pair of adjacent regions there is an event horizon. In this situation, each of such a region is called extendible. There is the possibility that the whole spacetime is extendible. If the surface gravity is a nonzero constant on a horizon, and if the tortoise function tends to infinite as it approaches the horizon, we can give the formulism showing how it can be extended, which is quite a similar version of the Kruskal extension.

The paper is organized as the following. In §2, we state the structure of the static spacetime whose extendibility would be considered. In §3 we give the coordinate description to the region in which the Killing vector field $`𝐊`$ is either timelike or spacelike. Two special lightlike vector fields are given for future use. In §4 we investigate the completeness of the integral curves of the above two lightlike vector fields so that we can trace the behavior of the tortoise function as it approaches the zero points of $`g_{tt}`$. In §5 we derive the formulism as how the region can be extend out of the horizon. And §6 is the closure part of this paper, the discussion and conclusions.

## 2 The Structure of Spacetimes Considered Here

In this paper, the spacetime we considered is a connected static spacetime $`(,𝐠)`$ of $`d3`$ dimensional, where $`𝐠`$ is the metric tensor of the spacetime with the signature of $`\mathrm{diag}(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$. The Killing vector field is denoted by $`𝐊`$. Hence $`𝐊`$ satisfies two equations, the Killing equation

$$_𝐊𝐠=0$$
(1)
and the Fröbenius condition

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐊}\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{𝐊}=0.$$
(2)
Note that, in the above equation, $`\stackrel{~}{𝐊}`$ is the 1-form resulted by raising the index of $`𝐊`$ with $`𝐠`$: In the language of abstract indices, $`𝐊`$ is denoted by $`K^a`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐊}`$ is denoted by $`K_a=g_{ab}K^b`$.

To simplify our problem, we shall assume further that the spacetime $``$ is a Cartesian product of $`^2`$ and $`𝒩`$, where $`𝒩`$ is an arbitrary $`d2`$ dimensional manifold endowed with a Riemannian metric $`𝐡_𝒩`$. We assume that the Killing vector field $`𝐊`$ is always “tangent” to the directions of $`^2`$. That is, let $`\pi :𝒩`$ be the projection from $`=^2\times 𝒩`$ to $`𝒩`$, then $`\pi _{}(𝐊|_p)=0`$ at any point $`p`$ in $``$. If we define the symmetric tensor field $`𝐡`$ on $``$ to be

$$𝐡=\pi ^{}𝐡_𝒩,$$
(3)
the Killing vector field $`𝐊`$ will be orthogonal to the symmetric tensor field $`𝐡`$ on $``$. That is, if the 1-forms $`h_{ab}K^b`$ and $`K^bH_{ba}`$ are denoted by $`𝐡𝐊`$ and $`𝐊𝐡`$, respectively, we could claim that

$$𝐡𝐊=𝐊𝐡=0.$$
(4)
In order to make the calculations easier, we may introduce local coordinates $`(t,r,x^i)`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},d2`$) into certain region of $``$, with $`t`$ and $`r`$ along the two directions of $`^2`$ and $`x^i=\pi ^{}x_𝒩^i`$ being the pull back of local coordinate $`x_𝒩^i`$ on $`𝒩`$. Now we can write $`𝐊`$ and $`𝐠`$ as

$$𝐊=K_t\frac{}{t}+K_r\frac{}{r}$$

and

$$𝐠=g_{tt}\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}t+g_{tr}\left(\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}r+\mathrm{d}r\mathrm{d}t\right)+g_{rr}\mathrm{d}r\mathrm{d}r+\beta \mathrm{d}r+\mathrm{d}r\beta +C𝐡,$$
(5)
where $`\beta =B_i\mathrm{d}x^i`$ is a differential 1-form on $``$. According to Eqs.(3) and (4), $`𝐡`$ can be expressed as

$$𝐡=h_{ij}\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j,$$

where the functions $`h_{ij}`$’s are independent of the coordinates $`t`$ and $`r`$. Obviously, the Lie derivative of $`𝐡`$ with respect to $`𝐊`$ is zero.

In the neighborhood of a point at which $`𝐊`$ is nonzero, we can always choose its neighborhood properly so that $`𝐊`$ is nonzero everywhere in it. When the coordinate system $`(t,r,x^i)`$ is defined in this neighborhood, we can set $`t`$ and $`r`$ carefully chosen in order that $`K_t=1`$, $`K_r=0`$ in the above equation: $`𝐊=\frac{}{t}`$. Since the spacetime is static, coordinates can be chosen such that either $`g_{tt}`$ or $`g_{tr}`$ is zero. In this paper, our topic is mainly focused on regions where $`𝐊`$ is nonzero everywhere.

## 3 In the Region Where $`𝐊`$ Is Timelike or Spacelike

First let us consider the coordinate neighborhood in which $`𝐊`$ is either timelike or spacelike. In such a neighborhood, the coordinates $`t`$ and $`r`$ can be organized so that $`g_{tr}=g_{rt}=0`$. Then Eq.(1) implies that the functions $`g_{tt}`$, $`g_{rr}`$, $`g_{tr}=g_{rt}`$, $`B_i`$ and $`C`$ are all independent of $`t`$.

In this case, a coordinate transformation $`(t,r,x^i)(t,r_{},x^i)`$ can be used for simplifying the discussion. Here

$$r_{}=r_{}(r,x)$$
(6)
is a function that will turn the metric $`𝐠`$ into the form of

$$𝐠=g_{tt}\left(\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}r_{}\mathrm{d}r_{}\right)+\beta _{}\mathrm{d}r_{}+\mathrm{d}r_{}\beta _{}+𝐡_{}.$$
(7)
A bit of calculation reveals that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g_{rr}}{g_{tt}}}},`$ (8)
$`\beta _{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g_{tt}}{g_{rr}}}}\beta +g_{tt}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}}{x^i}}\mathrm{d}x^i,`$ (9)
$`𝐡_{}`$ $`=`$ $`C𝐡g_{tt}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}}{x^i}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}}{x^j}}\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}}{x^i}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g_{tt}}{g_{rr}}}}\left(\beta \mathrm{d}x^i+\mathrm{d}x^i\beta \right).`$ (10)
It is easy to see that $`𝐡_{}`$ is the induced metric of $`𝐠`$ on the surface determined by $`t=\mathrm{constant}`$ and $`r_{}=\mathrm{constant}`$. When we turn back to the well known cases such as the Reissner-Nordström spacetime, the function $`r_{}`$ is just the Regge-Wheeler tortoise coordinate function. Since the Lie derivatives of $`\beta `$ and $`𝐡`$ with respect to $`𝐊`$ are zero, we can see that

$$_𝐊\beta _{}=0,_𝐊𝐡_{}=0$$
(11)
with a peer and, still, $`\beta _{}(𝐗)=0`$, $`𝐡_{}(𝐗,𝐘)=0`$ whenever $`𝐗`$ satisfies $`\pi _{}𝐗=0`$.

Now we want to find out that whether there are vector fields $`𝐗_+`$ and $`𝐗_{}`$ on $``$ satisfying:

* They lie in the $`^2`$ plains, namely, $`\pi _{}𝐗_\pm =0`$;
* They are lightlike vector fields, namely, $`𝐠(𝐗_+,𝐗_+)=𝐠(𝐗_{},𝐗_{})=0`$;
* They are geodesic vector fields, namely, $`_{𝐗_+}𝐗_+=0`$ and $`_𝐗_{}𝐗_{}=0`$.

Using the coordinate $`(t,r_{},x^i)`$, we can determine these vector fields, if there exists, to be

$$𝐗_\pm =X\left(\frac{}{t}\pm \frac{}{r_{}}\right),$$

according to the first two conditions. It is not necessary to calculate the Christoffel symbols for $`_{𝐗_\pm }𝐗_\pm `$. In fact, there is the formula111 Due to the well known formula, in the language of abstract indices, $`_𝐗g_{ab}=_aX_b+_bX_a`$.  $`𝐗_+_{𝐗_+}𝐠=_{𝐗_+}\stackrel{~}{𝐗}_++(\stackrel{~}{𝐗}_+)𝐗_+=_{X_+}\stackrel{~}{𝐗}_+`$, and we know that the Lie derivatives are more easier to calculate. It is easy to verify that

$$_{𝐗_\pm }\stackrel{~}{𝐗}_\pm =X\left[\frac{}{t}\left(g_{tt}X\right)\pm \frac{}{r_{}}\left(g_{tt}X\right)\right]\left(\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}r_{}\right)\pm _{𝐗_\pm }\left(X\beta _{}\right)$$

We can set $`X=\frac{1}{|g_{tt}|}`$, yielding

$`𝐗_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|g_{tt}|}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{}{r_{}}}\right),`$ (12)
$`_{𝐗_\pm }\stackrel{~}{𝐗}_\pm =\pm _{𝐗_\pm }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|g_{tt}|}}\beta _{}\right)=\pm i_{𝐗_\pm }\mathrm{d}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|g_{tt}|}}\beta _{}\right).`$ (13)
Notice that the function $`r_{}`$ is not uniquely determined by Eq.(8). For a known function $`r_{}=r_{}(r,x)`$ satisfying this equation, one can always give another function $`r_{}^{}=r_{}\psi (x)`$ where $`\psi (x)`$ is an arbitrary function of $`x^i`$’s only. If we define $`\beta _{}^{}`$ for $`r_{}^{}`$ as that in Eq.(9) for $`r_{}`$, then

$$\mathrm{d}\psi =\frac{1}{|g_{tt}|}\left(\beta _{}\beta _{}^{}\right)$$
(14)
is a locally exact 1-form. If $`\frac{1}{|g_{tt}|}\beta _{}`$ itself is exact, we can choose $`\psi (x)`$ properly so that $`\beta _{}^{}=0`$. This makes the 1-form $`\frac{1}{|g_{tt}|}\beta _{}`$ significant. In fact, it needs not necessarily to be exact to let the vectors $`𝐗_\pm `$ be geodesic, for example, $`\frac{1}{|g_{tt}|}\beta _{}`$ can be just closed, or else, $`\frac{1}{|g_{tt}|}\beta _{}=B_i\mathrm{d}x^i`$ with the coefficients $`B_i`$ independent of $`t`$ and $`r_{}`$.

In the following, we will assume that $`\frac{1}{|g_{tt}|}\beta _{}`$ is an exact 1-form. As discussed in the above paragraph, it is equivalent to assume that $`\beta _{}=0`$. This has covered the well known Schwarzschild spacetime and Reissner-Nordström spacetime as special cases: In the case of Reissner-Nordström spacetimes, the Riemannian manifold $`𝒩`$ is a 2-dimensional sphere. The metric components $`g_{tt}`$ and $`g_{rr}`$ are independent of $`(x^1,x^2)=(\theta ,\phi )`$ with the 1-form $`\beta `$ being zero, making the Regge-Wheeler tortoise coordinate function $`r_{}`$ to depend only on $`r`$ and $`\beta _{}=0`$. In the following discussion, we do not need $`g_{tt}`$ and $`g_{rr}`$ to be independent of $`x^i`$, and we do not need $`\beta `$ to be zero, either. What we need is just that a function $`r_{}=r_{}(r,x)`$ can be picked making the 1-form $`\beta _{}`$ to be zero.

Immediately, the 1-forms

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐗}_+=\eta _{tt}\mathrm{d}u,\stackrel{~}{𝐗}_{}=\eta _{tt}\mathrm{d}v$$
(15)
are (at least locally in the neighborhood where the coordinates $`t`$, $`r`$ and $`x^i`$ are defined) exact, where $`\eta _{tt}`$ is the sign of $`g_{tt}`$, and $`u=tr_{}`$ and $`v=t+r_{}`$ are the outgoing and ingoing lightlike coordinate functions, respectively. In the coordinate neighborhood, the component form of the metric $`𝐠`$ in Eq.(5) is well defined. The question is, what would happen when it tends to the boundary of the coordinate neighborhood.

If the symmetric tensor field $`𝐡_{}`$ tends to be degenerate or undefinable at the boundary of the coordinate neighborhood, we can believe that the spacetime could not extend out of the boundary any more. If, however, only the function $`g_{tt}`$ tends to be zero or infinity at the boundary, the conclusion may be quite different. What it will be depends on the coordinate free expressions. This is why we want to introduce the two lightlike geodesic vector fields $`𝐗_+`$ and $`𝐗_{}`$.

## 4 The Geodesic Curves of $`𝐗_\pm `$

As we have seen, there are the relations

$$𝐗_+u=\mathrm{d}u(𝐗_+)=\eta _{tt}\stackrel{~}{𝐗}_+(𝐗_+)=\eta _{tt}𝐠(𝐗_+,𝐗_+)=0,𝐗_{}v=\eta _{tt}\stackrel{~}{𝐗}_{}(𝐗_{})=0$$
(16)
and

$$𝐗_+v=\mathrm{d}v(𝐗_+)=\eta _{tt}\stackrel{~}{𝐗}_{}(𝐗_+)=\frac{2}{|g_{tt}|},𝐗_{}u=\frac{2}{|g_{tt}|}.$$
(17)
The meaning of these relations can be interpreted as in the following. Suppose $`\gamma _+:I`$, $`\lambda \gamma _+(\lambda )`$ is an integral curve of the lightlike vector $`𝐗_+`$, where $`I`$ is some interval of $``$ containing 0 and $`\gamma _+(0)=p`$ lies in the coordinate neighborhood. Obviously $`\gamma _+`$ is a geodesic lightlike curve which can be described, in the coordinate language, as

$$u(\lambda )=u=\mathrm{constant},v(\lambda )=v(\gamma _+(\lambda )),x^i(\lambda )=x^i=\mathrm{constant}.$$

On the one hand, the tangent vector $`\dot{\gamma }_+(\lambda )`$ can be written in the coordinate system $`(u,v,x^i)`$ as

$$\dot{\gamma }_+(\lambda )=\frac{\mathrm{d}v}{\mathrm{d}\lambda }\frac{}{v}|_{\gamma _+(\lambda )}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}v}{\mathrm{d}\lambda }\left(\frac{}{t}+\frac{}{r_{}}\right)=\frac{|g_{tt}|}{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}v}{\mathrm{d}\lambda }𝐗_+|_{\gamma _+(\lambda )}.$$

On the other hand, $`\dot{\gamma }_+(\lambda )`$ is nothing else but $`𝐗_+|_{\gamma _+(\lambda )}`$. Hence we obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}v}{\mathrm{d}\lambda }=\frac{2}{|g_{tt}(\frac{v(\lambda )u}{2},x)|}.$$
(18)
Combined with $`\frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}\lambda }=0`$, it reveals that

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{d}r_{}}{\mathrm{d}\lambda }=\frac{1}{|g_{tt}(\frac{v(\lambda )u}{2},x)|}.$$
(19)
For a pair of affine parameters $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\lambda _1`$, let $`v_0=v(\lambda _0)`$ and $`v_1=v(\lambda _1)`$, then

$`v_1v_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\lambda _0}^{\lambda _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{|g_{tt}(r_{}(\lambda ),x)|}}d\lambda ,`$ (20)
$`\lambda _1\lambda _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{v_0}^{v_1}}|g_{tt}({\displaystyle \frac{vu}{2}},x)|dv={\displaystyle _{\frac{v_0u}{2}}^{\frac{v_1u}{2}}}|g_{tt}(r_{},x)|dr_{}.`$ (21)
Similarly, for the integral curve $`\gamma _{}:I,\lambda \gamma _{}(\lambda )`$ which is described by

$$u(\lambda )=u(\gamma _{}(\lambda )),v(\lambda )=v=\mathrm{constant},x^i(\lambda )=x^i=\mathrm{constant},$$

we can obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}\lambda }=\frac{2}{|g_{tt}(\frac{vu(\lambda )}{2},x)|}$$
(22)
and, for a pair of affine parameters $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\lambda _1`$ with $`u_0=u(\lambda _0)`$ and $`u_1=u(\lambda _1)`$,

$`u_1u_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\lambda _0}^{\lambda _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{|g_{tt}(\frac{vu(\lambda )}{2},x)|}}d\lambda ,`$ (23)
$`\lambda _1\lambda _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{u_0}^{u_1}}|g_{tt}({\displaystyle \frac{vu}{2}},c)|du={\displaystyle _{\frac{vu_1}{2}}^{\frac{vu_0}{2}}}|g_{tt}(r_{},x)|dr_{}.`$ (24)
These two sets of curves are closely related to each other. Let $`v=S(\lambda ,u,x)`$ be a solution of the differential equation (18), then it is very easy to verify that

$$u(\lambda )=2vS(\lambda ,v,x)$$
(25)
is a solution to the equation (22). Both $`v(\lambda )`$ and $`u(\lambda )`$ are increasing functions of $`\lambda `$.

If the function $`g_{tt}`$ tends to zero along one of the curves when the affine parameter $`\lambda `$ increases (or decreases), we may ask whether the parameter $`\lambda `$ is finite or not before it reaches the zero point of $`g_{tt}`$. If it is, we call that the geodesic is incomplete in that direction. Otherwise we say it is complete in that direction. Take the direction in which $`\lambda `$ increases, for example. If the geodesic is complete in that direction, then $`\lambda `$ tends to $`+\mathrm{}`$ as it approaches the “zero point” of $`g_{tt}`$. Then Eq.(19) indicates that this “point”, if it exists in the spacetime, corresponds to $`r_{}=+\mathrm{}`$. We just call naïvely that the “zero point” of $`g_{tt}`$ “is located at” where $`r_{}=+\mathrm{}`$.

As for incomplete geodesics, cases will be complicated. Suppose that $`g_{tt}`$ tends to zero along the curve of $`𝐗_+`$ as $`\lambda `$ tends to a finite value $`\lambda _\mathrm{m}`$. If the velocity at which $`g_{tt}`$ tends to zero is not slower than that of $`\frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _\mathrm{m}}`$, the “zero point” of $`g_{tt}`$ is still located at where $`r_{}=+\mathrm{}`$, or accurately speaking, at where $`v=+\mathrm{}`$ (cf Eqs.(19) and (20)). And, because the relationship (25) of the integral curves of $`𝐗_+`$ and $`𝐗_{}`$, we can safely assert that one the geodesic of $`𝐗_{}`$ will be incomplete as the parameter increases, and that the “zero point” of $`g_{tt}`$ is located at where $`u=\mathrm{}`$, and vice versa. As we have known, “locations” where $`u=\mathrm{}`$ and where $`v=+\mathrm{}`$ are not the same. Both of these locations give $`r_{}=+\mathrm{}`$. The most miserable thing is that the geodesics are incomplete and leading $`g_{tt}`$ tends to zero slower than or as quickly as $`\frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _\mathrm{m}}`$, which locates the “zero points” of $`g_{tt}`$ at where $`r_{}=\rho (x)`$ for some function $`\rho (x)`$. Topic like this will be left to proceeding paper. In this paper, we discuss cases in which the “zero points” of $`g_{tt}`$ are located at where $`r_{}=\mathrm{}`$ only.

The Schwarzschild spacetime and the Reissner-Nordström spacetime match the above discuss. The latter has regions in which every geodesic is incomplete in both directions, giving the location of $`r_{}=+\mathrm{}`$ as well as $`r_{}=\mathrm{}`$. As in these examples, generally speaking, the spacetime can be extended far away out of the coordinate neighborhood. In the following, we shall concentrate our attention to discuss it.

But before we go ahead, we had better give a summary to the above discussion.

Notice that the metric tensor $`𝐠=g_{tt}(\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}r_{}\mathrm{d}r_{})+𝐡_{}`$ is rather simple, where we have assumed that $`𝐡_{}`$ behaves very well, no matter in or out of the coordinate neighborhood. And $`g_{tt}`$ may encounter some zero points on the boundary of this neighborhood. Experience in studying Schwarzschild spacetime or Reissner-Nordtröm spacetime implies that these zero points are often not the singularities of the whole spacetime. They are often believed to be due to the choice of the coordinates. It is somewhat right but not the case, in fact. Why? Because the function $`g_{tt}`$ has its own significance as the square norm of the Killing vector field $`𝐊`$, $`𝐠(𝐊,𝐊)`$. In this sense it stands there independent of how the coordinates have been chosen. Thus, to treat its zero points as the illness of the coordinates, as that is misunderstood by quite a large amount of people, is unfair for the coordinates. Zero points of $`g_{tt}`$, were they not the singularities, are really special points of the spacetime that must be considered especially.

## 5 The Kruskal Extension

For the metric tensor $`𝐠`$ with the “zero points” of $`g_{tt}`$ located at where $`r_{}=\mathrm{}`$, or equivalently, $`u=+\mathrm{}`$ and $`v=\mathrm{}`$, we imitate what has been done in the Kruskal spacetime, introducing two functions

$$U=e^{\kappa u},V=e^{\kappa v},$$
(26)
where $`\kappa `$ is a positive constant to be determined. They are increasing functions of $`u`$ and $`v`$, respectively. And the “surfaces” $`u=+\mathrm{}`$ and $`v=\mathrm{}`$ are described as $`U=0`$ and $`V=0`$, respectively. Therefore the coordinate neighborhood of system $`(t,r,x^i)`$ is contained in the region $`U<0`$ and $`V>0`$. Using these two variables, the metric $`𝐠`$ looks like

$$𝐠=G(U,V,x)\left(\mathrm{d}U\mathrm{d}V+\mathrm{d}V\mathrm{d}U\right)+𝐡_{},$$
(27)
where

$$G(U,V,x)=\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}g_{tt}e^{2\kappa r_{}}$$
(28)
is a function of $`U`$, $`V`$ and $`x^i`$. It is well known that the function $`r_{}`$ can be treated as a function of $`U`$ and $`V`$, defined by $`r_{}=\frac{1}{2\kappa }\mathrm{ln}(UV)`$.

If there is a positive constant $`\kappa `$ such that

$$0<G_0=\underset{r_{}\mathrm{}}{lim}|g_{tt}(r_{},x)|e^{2\kappa r_{}}<+\mathrm{},$$
(29)
then $`\underset{u+\mathrm{}}{lim}G(u,v,x)=\underset{v\mathrm{}}{lim}G(u,v,x)={\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{tt}}{2\kappa ^2}}G_0`$ is a nonzero function of $`x^i`$’s, and we are able to embed isotropically the coordinate neighborhood of system $`(t,r,x^i)`$ into a region that contains points where $`U=0`$ or $`V=0`$. That is, the (or some of) zero points of $`g_{tt}`$ are not singularities. Instead, they are points of the spacetime, or else, the spacetime can be extended to include them if they were not parts of the spacetime originally. The constant $`\kappa `$ can be calculated, if it exists. In fact, L’Hospital’s rule can be applied to Eq.(29) since $`g_{tt}`$ tends to zero as we have assumed. Thus $`G_0=\underset{r_{}\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{tt}}{2\kappa e^{2\kappa r_{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{tt}}{r_{}}}=G_0\underset{r_{}\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa g_{tt}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{tt}}{r_{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{G_0}{2\kappa }}\underset{r_{}\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r_{}}}\mathrm{ln}g_{tt}0`$, from which we obtain the positive constant

$$\kappa =\frac{1}{2}\underset{r_{}\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{}{r_{}}\mathrm{ln}|g_{tt}|=\underset{rr_\mathrm{m}}{lim}\frac{1}{\sqrt{|g_{rr}|}}\frac{\sqrt{|g_{tt}|}}{r},$$
(30)
where $`rr_\mathrm{m}`$ corresponds to $`r_{}\mathrm{}`$. The above formulas have been derived and widely used in references . One can verify that, when applied to the Schwarzschild spacetime or the Reissner-Nordström spacetime, they give the resulted $`\kappa `$ as the surface gravity. Intuitively, they reveal the demand that $`g_{tt}`$ must behave much like $`e^{\kappa (vu)}=e^{2\kappa r_{}}`$ nearby the zero points of $`g_{tt}`$. Notice that $`g_{tt}`$ and $`g_{rr}`$ often depend on the coordinates $`x^i`$. But, the limit value $`\kappa `$ in the above equation must be independent of any coordinates. This has imposed strong limitation upon the metric $`𝐠`$.

In the regular region, namely, where $`U0`$ and $`V0`$, the partial derivatives of $`G`$ with respect to $`U`$ and $`V`$ are smooth. For example,

$$\frac{G}{U}=\frac{1}{4\kappa ^2U}\frac{g_{tt}}{r_{}}e^{2\kappa r_{}}\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2U}g_{tt}e^{2\kappa r_{}}.$$
(31)
As the variable $`U`$ tends to $`0^{}`$, the limit of the above is of type $`\frac{0}{0}`$ for a nonzero $`V`$. Since the partial derivative of $`G`$ with respect to $`U`$ at $`U=0`$ is

$$\frac{G}{U}|_{U=0^{}}=\underset{U0^{}}{lim}\frac{G(U,V,x)G(0,V,x)}{U}=\underset{U0^{}}{lim}\frac{G}{U}$$

if the last limit exists, and hence it will be continuous at $`U=0`$. If we write down the partial derivative of $`G`$ with respect to $`V`$, the expression indicates that it is also continuous at $`V=0`$, implying that both the partial derivatives are continuous on the whole region of $`U0`$ and $`V0`$. If all the limits of various partial derivatives of $`G`$ exist as $`U0^{}`$ and $`V0^+`$, the metric can be smoothly extended to the region which includes the zero points of $`g_{tt}`$, as what we have known to the Kruskal spacetimes.

Suppose that there is another spacetime (or region, we may call it the region II and call the spacetime region discussed in the above as the region I for convenience) that is similar to the above discussed: the region II is topologically also a Cartesian product of $`^2`$ and $`𝒩`$, endowed with a metric $`𝐠^{}`$ admitting a Killing vector field $`𝐊^{}`$ with similar properties. Suppose that the zero points of $`g_{tt}^{}`$ are located at where $`r_{}^{}=+\mathrm{}`$ this time, and the positive constant $`\kappa `$ is the same as the above, enabling

$$U^{}=e^{\kappa u^{}},V^{}=e^{\kappa v^{}}$$
(32)
such that

$$𝐠^{}=G^{}(U^{},V^{})(\mathrm{d}U^{}\mathrm{d}V^{}+\mathrm{d}V^{}\mathrm{d}U^{})+𝐡_{}^{}$$
(33)
can be smoothly extended to include the points where $`U^{}=0`$ as well as $`V^{}=0`$. If, at $`U^{}=0`$ and $`V^{}=0`$, respectively, all the partial derivatives of $`G^{}`$ of various order with respect to $`U^{}`$ and $`V^{}`$ equal to the corresponding ones of $`G`$ at $`U=0`$ and $`V=0`$, respectively, the region I and the region II can be glued together by identifying $`(U=0,V,x)`$ with $`(U^{}=0,V^{},x)`$ provided that the remainder part $`𝐡_{}`$ and $`𝐡_{}^{}`$ can be fixed together smoothly. And, we know that we can copy the region I to be a new region I with the variables $`U`$ and $`V`$ of opposite values of those in the region I, and the region II can also be copied to be a new region II in the same way. Thus region I and region II can be glued together by identifying $`(U,V=0,x)`$ with $`(U^{},V^{}=0,x)`$. In the same way, regions I and II, regions I and II can also be glued together, respectively. In this way, we have recovered a Kruskal spacetime, just as that has been done for the well known examples.

The expression of metric $`𝐠`$ in Eq.(27) indicates that hypersurfaces $`U=\mathrm{constant}`$ or $`V=\mathrm{constant}`$ are lighlike. The lightlike hypersurface $`U=0`$ with $`V0`$ or $`V=0`$ with $`U0`$, the event horizons, consist of zero points of $`g_{tt}=𝐠(𝐊,𝐊)`$. That is, the Killing vector field $`𝐊`$ becomes lighlike on these hypersurfaces while it is either timelike or spacelike off them. Using the coordinates $`U`$, $`V`$ and $`x^i`$, the Killing vector field reads

$$𝐊=\kappa V\frac{}{V}\kappa U\frac{}{U}.$$
(34)
Obviously, on the horizon $`U=0`$, $`𝐊=\kappa V\frac{}{V}`$ is tangent to it. And it is for the same reason that $`𝐊=\kappa U\frac{}{U}`$ is also tangent to the horizon $`V=0`$. Hence the event horizons are Killing horizons, for, on these horizons, the 1-form $`\stackrel{~}{𝐊}`$ is still well defined. To see it, we begin from the off horizon expression

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐊}=g_{tt}\mathrm{d}t=\frac{g_{tt}}{2\kappa }\left(\frac{1}{V}\mathrm{d}V\frac{1}{U}\mathrm{d}U\right).$$

Using the function $`G`$, which is well defined in the neighborhoods of the horizons, the above expression becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐊}=\kappa G(V\mathrm{d}UU\mathrm{d}V),$$
(35)
coinciding with Eq.(34). In order to calculate $`_𝐊𝐊`$ on the horizons, we first extend $`𝐊|_{U=0}`$ or $`𝐊|_{V=0}`$ to be a vector field defined in the neighborhood of the horizon. The extension varies arbitrarily. We simply choose $`𝐊`$ as that. Eq.(1), or equivalently, $`_aK_b+_bK_a=0`$ in the language of abstract indices, gives the formula $`𝐊_𝐊𝐠=0=_𝐊\stackrel{~}{𝐊}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}g_{tt}`$. Hence

$$_𝐊\stackrel{~}{𝐊}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}g_{tt}=\frac{\kappa G}{2g_{tt}}\frac{g_{tt}}{r_{}}\left(U\mathrm{d}V+V\mathrm{d}U\right)\frac{1}{2}\frac{g_{tt}}{x^i}\mathrm{d}x^i.$$
(36)
Applying Eq.(30) here and noticing that $`g_{tt}|_{U=0}=0`$, we obtain that

$$_𝐊\stackrel{~}{𝐊}|_{U=0}=\kappa ^2GV\mathrm{d}U=\kappa \stackrel{~}{𝐊}|_{U=0},_𝐊\stackrel{~}{𝐊}|_{V=0}=\kappa ^2GU\mathrm{d}V=\kappa \stackrel{~}{𝐊}|_{V=0}.$$
(37)
Thus it is confirmed that $`\kappa `$ *is* the surface gravity.

Note that points where $`U=V=0`$ are also admitted in the spacetime in this case. Such points are contained in a submanifold of $``$, which is homeomorphic to the manifold $`𝒩`$. They are where the Killing vector field $`𝐊`$ vanishes and where the Killing horizons extend out, hence the submanifold is the bifurcate manifold, not necessarily a sphere because we didn’t assume that for $`𝒩`$.

## 6 Discussion and Conclusions

For a stationary spacetime $`(,𝐠)`$ that admitting the Killing vector field $`𝐊`$, the function $`g_{tt}=𝐠(𝐊,𝐊)`$ is a globally defined intrinsic function which may have some zero points as the special points of the spacetime. For the spacetimes as we have discussed in this paper, the Regge-Wheeler tortoise function $`r_{}`$ is also intrinsic except that it is, generally speaking, not globally defined. The maximal domain in which it can be defined smoothly is a region that is often called the exterior region, the black hole region or the white hole region, and so on. If the tortoise function $`r_{}`$ can not be extended smoothly to cover the whole spacetime, there must be another tortoise function whose domain can’t be enlarged to intersect with that of $`r_{}`$. Hence the spacetime possesses regions, each with a Regge-Wheeler tortoise function defined smoothly in it and not able to be extended smoothly anymore. Since the spacetime we considered is connected, these regions must be separated by event horizons, on which the Killing vector field is lighlike, or, equivalently, the globally defined function $`g_{tt}`$ vanishes on them. Now that spacetime is static, these event horizons are Killing horizons, with the surface gravity being constant and nonzero.

I. Rácz and R. M. Wald have studied a globally hyperbolic stationary spacetime containing a black hole but not a white hole, with the event horizon of the black hole being a Killing horizon with compact cross sections. They proved that, if the surface gravity is nonzero and constant throughout the Killing horizon, the spacetime can be globally extended such that the (image of the) horizon is a proper subset of a regular bifurcate Killing horizon in the enlarged spacetime. The spacetime we considered in this paper is, of course, different from what is studied by I. Rácz and R. M. Wald, but we should be aware of the similarity between the results. Both the cases have implied that the constancy and nonzero property of the surface gravity are closely related to the extendibility of the spacetime. For the extremal Reissner-Nordström spacetime, for example, the surface gravity is zero everywhere on the horizon, the spacetime regions could not be extended as what had been done with the non-extremal case.

Of course, we have not fulfilled the tasks which were put forward in the beginning of this paper. However, the narrowered study has covered most of the well known examples of static spacetimes, from which we find that the horizons, homeomorphic to the manifold $`𝒩`$, can be of arbitrary shape, including those with the volume not finite.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Professor Z. Zhao for his urgement. Some of the contents have been discussed with Professor Y. K. Lau and Dr. X. N. Wu long before this paper is prepared, and the author wants to thank them for their criticisms.


text:
# 1 Topology of Gauge Fixing

## 1 Topology of Gauge Fixing

In reference  a ghost free unitary gauge for non abelian gauge theories was presented. The idea consist in using some extra scalar field $`X`$ transforming in the adjoint representation and to fix the non abelian part of the gauge by impossing $`X`$ to be diagonal

$$X=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \\ & & \lambda _N\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
The subgroup of gauge transformations under which (1) is invariant is just the maximal abelian subgroup, $`U(1)^N`$ in the case of $`U(N)`$ gauge group. The spectrum of physical degrees of freedom in this gauge are $`N`$ massless photons, $`\frac{1}{2}N(N1)`$ massive charged vector fields - corresponding to the off diagonal part of the $`A_\mu `$ gauge matrix - and the $`N`$ scalar fields $`\lambda _i(x)`$ defined by (1). In addition to these degrees of freedom we have topological pointlike defects -to be identified with magnetic monopoles- corresponding to the singularities of the gauge fixing (1) when two eigenvalues coincide.

The topological description of these gauge fixing singularities is as follows. The condition for two eigenvalues to coincide fixes a codimension three singularity in space-time i.e a pointlike particle if we work in four dimensions. In the vicinity of the singularity the matrix $`X`$, prior to diagonalization, can be written like

$$X=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}D_1& 0& 0\\ & & \\ 0& \begin{array}{cc}\lambda +ϵ_3& ϵ_1iϵ_2\\ ϵ_1+iϵ_2& \lambda ϵ_3\end{array}& 0\\ & & \\ 0& 0& D_2\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
where $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are diagonal matrices. If we concentrate our attention on the $`2\times 2`$ small matrix in (2) we can write

$$X=\lambda I+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\sigma _ix_i$$
(3)
for $`\sigma _i`$ the Pauli matrices. More simply $`X=_{i=1}^3\sigma _ix_i`$ for $`ϵ_i(x)=x_i`$ in the vicinity of the singular point defined by $`ϵ(x=0)=0`$. Now we can easily associate the field $`X=_{i=1}^3\sigma _ix_i`$ on $`R^3`$ with a magnetic monopole. Let us consider the sphere $`S^2`$ embeded in $`R^3`$. For $`x`$ lying on $`S^2`$ we have

$$X^2(x)=I$$
(4)
Therefore we can define two non trivial line bundles $`L_\pm `$ on $`S^2`$ with the fiber defined by the eigenspaces in $`C^2`$

$$Xv=\pm v$$
(5)
The first Chern class of these line bundles is the magnetic charge of the monopole. The physical meaning of these ghost free unitary gauges is based on the following general argument. Let us consider for simplicity an abelian Higgs model. In perturbation theory the Higgs phase is usually defined by the condition

$$<\varphi >=F$$
(6)
for some non vanishing vacuum expectation value $`F`$. The problem with (6) as a non perturbative way to define the Higgs phase, is of course that $`\varphi `$ is not a gauge invariant quantity. We can always choose a gauge of type $`Re(\varphi )>0`$, $`Im(\varphi )=0`$ in such a way that $`<\varphi >`$ is non vanishing regardless what condensation takes place. This ghost free gauge condition has however a problem, namely the existence of singular points where $`Re(\varphi )=0`$. In fact around this point the gauge fixing $`Im(\varphi )=0`$ determines a singular gauge transformation with non vanishing vorticity. This is the topological ancestor of the well known Nielsen-Olesen vortices in abelian superconductivity. The important point here is that the existence of this topological defect is independent on the concrete Higgs condensation taking place in the system. It only depends on the topology of the gauge fixing. The difference between the Higgs and the Coulomb phase is that in the Higgs phase these vortices would be also the macroscopic degrees of freedom, while in the Coulomb phase they will condense into the vacuum. The same type of argument for the magnetic monopoles described above will differenciate the Higgs phase from the confinement phase in pure non abelian gauge theories. The key aspect of ’t Hooft definition of microscopic variables is that the topological charges associated with the topology of the gauge fixing are stable with respect to the concrete condensation taking place. So for instance in the confinement phase these magnetically charged objects exist like in the Higgs phase, the difference is that in the confinement phase they fill the vacuum creating an electric superconductor. In this note we will offer a K-theory interpretation of this gauge fixing topology. In order to gain some intuition let us before describe very briefly the K-theory interpretation of D-branes in type II string theory from the point of view of gauge fixing topology.

## 2 D-branes and K-theory

The connection of D-brane charges and RR fields with K-theory has been worked out in a series of recent works     . Let us start considering the description of D-$`p`$ branes ( $`p`$ even) in type IIA string theory . We will start with a set of $`N`$ unstable filling 9-branes. The low energy spectrum on the 9-brane world volume is (up to fermionic fields) a $`U(N)`$ gauge field $`A`$ and an open tachyon $`T`$ transforming in the adjoint representation. Based on the approach presented in the previous section it is very natural to use the tachyon field $`T`$ to define a ghost free unitary gauge. If we are working in critical ten dimensional space-time, gauge fixing singularities where two eigenvalues of $`T`$ coincide, are codimension three, i.e the natural candidates for D-6 branes. Notice that we are not saying anything on the particular form of the tachyon potential. We are just considering, as we did in the previous section, a gauge where $`T`$ is diagonal and we look into the singularities when two eigenvalues coincide.

The $`T`$ field in the vicinity of the singularity is just given by the matrix (2), which in particular means that on the $`R^3`$ transversal directions we have

$$T(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}x_i\sigma _i$$
(7)
This is in fact the definition of the tachyon field ,  around the solitonic D-6 brane. In order to define the charge of the D-6 brane we simply repeat what we did in previous section in order to define a non trivial line bundle on $`S^2`$, but this time replacing the field $`X`$ by the tachyon field $`T`$. In this sense we notice that the D-6 brane can be simply interpreted, independently of the particular form of the tachyon potential, as a topological defect of the gauge fixing in ten dimensional gauge theory, in perfect analogy with the topological defects in the four dimensional abelian projection. Singularities of higher codimension $`2k+1`$ will correspond to $`2k`$ equal eigenvalues. The only difference is that in this case we should use -in order to define $`T`$ in the vicinity of the singularity- the Gamma matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,i=1,\mathrm{},2k+1`$. The corresponding non trivial vector bundles on $`S^{2k}`$ are defined in a similar way with the fiber given by the eigenspaces of $`T`$ ( see (5)). The dimension of these bundles is $`2^{k1}`$.

It was argued in  and developped in  that type IIA D-brane charges should be interpreted in terms of the higher K-group $`K^1(X)`$. The definition of $`K^1(X)`$ is

$$K^1(X)=\stackrel{~}{K}(SX)$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{~}{K}(SX)`$ is the reduced K group of $`SX`$ and where $`SX`$ is the reduced suspension of $`X`$ 222The reduced $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ group of $`X`$ is defined as follows. We first notice that the K group of a single point is just equal to $`Z`$. In fact the vector bundles on a point are simply classified by their dimension which is a natural number, the corresponding K group is therefore simply the set of integer numbers $`Z`$. If we now choose a point $`p`$ in $`X`$ we can map $`K(X)`$ into $`K(p)`$, the kernel of this map is the reduced $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ group of $`X`$. The reduced suspension $`SX`$ of a compact space $`X`$ is defined as $`S^1X`$, where $`XY=X\times Y/X\times y_0Y\times x_0`$ for $`x_0`$ and $`y_0`$ base points of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ respectively. The quotient space $`X/Y`$ for $`X`$ a compact space is defined by identification of $`Y`$ to a single point. For instance $`SS^n=S^{n+1}`$. See ,  for mathematical details.. The relation of type IIA string theory and M-theory together with (8) strongly suggest a M-theory interpretation of $`K^1(X)`$. In type IIB the charges of stable D-$`p`$ branes with even codimension $`2k`$ are related to the group $`\stackrel{~}{K}(S^{2k})`$. Elements in $`\stackrel{~}{K}(S^{2k})`$ are one to one related with the homotopy group $`\pi _{2k1}(U(2^{k1}))`$. The M-theory version of type IIA naturally leads to describe stable D-$`p`$ branes of codimension $`2k+1`$ in terms of the higher group $`K^1(S^{2k+1})`$ or equivalently $`\stackrel{~}{K}(S^{2k+2})`$ instead of $`\stackrel{~}{K}(S^{2k+1})`$, which, by Bott periodicity theorem, is zero. This means that the relevant homotopy group should be $`\pi _{2k+1}(U(2^k))`$ which is one to one related with $`\stackrel{~}{K}(S^{2k+2})`$.

The description in terms of homotopy groups is directly connected with Sen’s physical picture  of D-branes as solitons resulting from tachyon condensation. In the case of type IIB $`U(2^{k1})`$ is assumed to be isomorphic with the vacuum manifold for a non vanishing expectation value of the tachyon. In type IIA case the equality $`\pi _{2k+1}(U(2^k))=\pi _{2k}(\frac{U(2^k)}{U(2^{k1})\times U(2^{k1})})`$ again relates $`\stackrel{~}{K}(S^{2k+2})`$ with the assumed vacuum manifold $`\frac{U(2^k)}{U(2^{k1})\times U(2^{k1})}`$ for the corresponding tachyon.

Coming back to $`K^1(S^{2k+1})`$ we can easily relate this group to $`K^1(B^{2k+1},S^{2k})`$. This follows from the representation of $`S^{2k+1}`$ as the quotient space $`B^{2k+1}/S^{2k}`$ 333 Here we have used the relation $`K(B^n,S^{n1})=K(B^n/S^{n1})`$.. In summary, we observe how the type IIA D-brane charges with codimension $`2k+1`$, are in $`K^1(B^{2k+1},S^{2k})`$ .

It is important to stress that from the point of view of gauge fixing the existence of D-$`p`$ branes, with $`p`$ even, in type IIA does not depend on the particular tachyon condensation taking place. They exist as part of the physical degrees of freedom of the $`U(N)`$ gauge theory associated to filling 9 branes.

## 3 K-theory and Gauge Fixing

Next we would like to describe the topology of gauge fixing using K-theory. As observed in  there is a different characterization of $`K^1`$ that does not use any extra dimension . The first ingredient is that the $`K^1`$ group of the semigroup of trivial vector bundles on a compact space $`X`$ is isomorphic to the $`K^1`$ group of the semigroup of locally trivial vector bundles on $`X`$. This allows us to reduce the discussion to trivial vector bundles $`I^n`$ where $`n`$ denotes the dimension. Elements in $`K^1`$ are now related to pairs $`(I^n,\alpha )`$ where $`\alpha `$ is an automorphism of $`I^n`$. More precisely we define elementary pairs $`(I^n,\alpha )`$ if the corresponding automorphism $`\alpha `$ is homotopic to the identity within the automorphisms of $`I^n`$. We say that two pairs $`(I^n,\alpha )`$ and $`(I^m,\beta )`$ are equivalent if there exist two elementary pairs $`(I^p,\gamma _1)`$ and $`(I^q,\gamma _2)`$ such that $`(I^nI^p,\alpha \gamma _1)`$ is isomorphic to $`(I^mI^q,\beta \gamma _2)`$ where $``$ represents the direct sum. In plain terms the elements in $`K^1`$ are going to be one to one related with the homotopy class of the automorphism $`\alpha `$ 444 More precisely the isomorphism between $`[X,U(\mathrm{})]`$ and $`K^1(X)`$ maps the homotopy class in $`[X,U(\mathrm{})]`$ to the automorphism $`\alpha `$ defining the corresponding element in $`K^1(X)`$ . See theorem 3.17 in ..

A unitary ghost free gauge fixing of the type described in section one for a $`U(N)`$ gauge theory defines in a natural way an automorphism of the corresponding vector bundle. In fact this type of gauge fixings associate in a unique way a gauge transformation to each point of space-time. This is specially neat in the simplest abelian Higgs model where the gauge condition $`Im(\varphi )=0`$ fixes in each space-time point a particular $`U(1)`$ rotation, namely that one killing the imaginary part of $`\varphi `$. Thus we can associate with these gauge fixings the same type of elements used in the definition of $`K^1`$. In fact for a $`U(N)`$ gauge theory once we fix the non abelian part by impossing $`X`$ to be diagonal, we define the automorphism

$$\alpha (x)=e^{iX(x)}$$
(9)
The charge in $`K^1`$ is determined by the homotopy class of $`\alpha (x)`$. Therefore what this K-group classifies for gauge theories is, as expected, the topology of the gauge fixing.

In string theory the concept of K-theory as a way to describe RR charges is associated with the physical picture of stability with respect to the processes of creation and anhilation of D branes. In the case of gauge theories we have also a concept of stability underlying the nature of the topology of gauge conditions. Namely if we pass from a $`U(N)`$ to a $`U(M)`$ gauge theory with $`M>N`$ the very meaning of abelian projection makes the charge of a magnetic monopole associated with the subgroup $`U(N)`$ completly independent of $`M`$, i.e stable under the changes of $`N`$ that correspond in the gauge theory context to the type IIA process of creation anhilation of “elementary” D-9 filling branes . Moreover the topology survives in the large $`N`$ limit.

An important aspect of $`K^1(X)`$ is to be a group i.e to have defined the inverse. In formal terms the inverse of the element $`(I^n,\alpha )`$ is $`(I^n,\alpha ^1)`$.The reason for this is that there exist an homotopy  in $`Gl(n,C)`$ transforming continously the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& \\ & B\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
into the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}AB& \\ & 1\end{array}\right)$$
(11)
In terms of type IIA branes what this operation represents is the following process. Take an unstable nine filling brane with gauge bundle $`E`$ carrying some lower dimensional D brane charge. Now add another nine filling brane with gauge bundle $`E`$ but carrying the opposite lower dimensional D-brane charges. The net effect is the annihilation of the lower dimensional D-brane charges. In the case of gauge theories the equivalent process is just monopole antimonopole annihilation.

## 4 Dyons and M-Theory

In type IIA string theory the group $`K^1`$ was first interpreted from the point of view of M-theory. A natural question is of course if the topology of gauge conditions in four dimensional gauge theories which is also related to the $`K^1`$ group is indicating some type of M-theory nature of four dimensional gauge theories. The simplest answer is that the relation of the gauge fixing magnetic monopole singularities with $`K^1`$ is related to the well known fact that these magnetic monopoles can be electrically charged, becoming dyons. In fact, as first observed by Witten in , the electric charge of monopoles in the presence of a non vanishing $`\theta `$ angle is due to the fact that in the background of the monopole the gauge transformation defined by $`e^{2\pi iQ}`$, where $`Q`$ is the electric charge generator, have non trivial winding number in the $`\pi _3`$ of the gauge group. Now we easily identify this homotopy group with the one associated with $`\stackrel{~}{K}(S^4)`$ that, as we have discussed in section two, can be identified with $`K^1(B^3,S^2)`$ which is the relevant group for classifying the magnetic charge of the monopole.

A more direct way to understand the connection between $`K^1(X)`$ and the electric charge of the dyon is in terms of the moduli of a BPS monopole . As it is well known the moduli of one monopole is $`M_1=R^3\times S^1`$ where $`R^3`$ correspond to the position of the monopole and $`S^1`$ arises from the gauge transformation

$$e^{i\omega X}$$
(12)
on any solution. The generator $`X`$ is the field defined by (1) used to fix the gauge. In the moduli space approximation  where we consider the effective lagrangian describing the motion on the moduli, the generator of electric charge is precisely $`_\omega `$ for $`\omega `$ the $`S^1`$ angle. It is of course tempting to associate the necessity to work with $`K^1`$ to the structure of the monopole moduli $`R^3\times S^1`$. The piece $`R^3`$ can be identified with the codimension of the singularity and the electric phase in $`S^1`$ with the “M-theory” $`S^1`$.

In gauge theories this extra $`S^1`$ is not misterious at all, simply reflects the fact that the gauge fixing (1) leaves unbroken the maximal abelian subgroup and that $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations $`e^{2\pi iX(x)}`$ are non trivial, with non vanishing winding number on the monopole background. The previous discussion leads to conjecture that the relevant group to describe magnetic monopole singularities is $`\stackrel{~}{K}(S^3\times S^1)`$, where we compactify $`R^3`$ to $`S^3`$. Namely the K-group of the compactified magnetic monopole moduli. From the M-theory point of view it seems that we promote the non trivial gauge transformations associated with the $`S^1`$ piece of $`M_1`$ to a physical extra dimension.

## 5 Some Remarks and Speculations

The goal in reference  was to define a framework and a set of rules for proving quark confinement. In order to have only abelian degrees of freedom and magnetic monopoles a good starting point is to use Dirac duality for characterizing the confinement phase in terms of condensation of these magnetic monopoles. To prove that such a condensation takes place is a hard open problem that requires to know the dynamics of these monopoles and not just the topology that proves its existence. In type IIA string theory the claim is that for instance a D-6 brane is a bound state of two unstable nine filling branes. In this case it is more or less clear that the vacuum of the theory evolves from the unstable state represented by the filling nine branes into the state with stable six branes. The equivalent process in gauge theories, where we replace the six brane by the magnetic monopoles associated with the topology of the gauge fixing, would strongly indicate permanent quark confinement i.e condensation of these monopoles into the vacuum. What we are missing in gauge theories is the analog of the unstability of the nine filling brane in type IIA, although the minus sign of the beta function is probably an indirect way to point out to this unstability.

One type of D-brane we have not discussed is the 8-brane in type IIA. This brane is difficult to characterize in terms of gauge fixing singularities. Its K-theory description would be given in terms of $`K^1(S^1)`$ and require some $`N=\mathrm{}`$ limit of a discrete $`Z(N)`$ with $`N`$ the rank of the gauge group. In four dimensional gauge theories such a type of brane would correspond to a domain wall with “RR field strenth” $`\text{Tr}FF`$ i.e the topological charge 555 Here we are using the relation between RR field strength and the gauge connection of a $`U(N)`$ bundle in type IIA suggested in reference ,. In this simbolic sense we can talk of RR field forms in a gauge theory.. It would be possible that QCD strings would appear as strings ending on these domain walls, in the same spirit that in MQCD.

If we are bold enough to follow the analogy with M-theory, we should consider the magnetic monopoles associated with the singularities of the gauge fixing as the analog of the D-0 branes in type IIA and the corresponding Matrix model ( dimensional reduction to $`0+1`$ of four dimensional gauge theory ) as the dynamics of these magnetic monopoles. Following this way of thinking you could expect that, similarly to what happens in Matrix theory, an extra dimension ( in the gauge case a five dimension ), should show up dynamically in processes of monopole scattering, very much in the same way as the eleven dimension appears by comparing the scattering of D-0 branes in Matrix theory with the eleven dimensional supergravity result . This gravitational description, if it exist, would be very much at the core of the holographic approach.

## Acknowledgments

I thank E.Alvarez for many fruitful discussions. This work has been partially supported by the the Spanish grant AEN2000-1584.