text:
# Effects of Foreground Contamination on the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Measured by MAP

## 1 Introduction

Following the COBE-DMR experiment detection of anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) on large angular scales (Bennett et al. 1996; Górski et al. 1996, 1998), there have been many measurements of CMB anisotropy on angular scales down to $`10^{}`$ (see, e.g., Lee et al. 2001; Netterfield et al. 2001; Halverson et al. 2001 for recent measurements of CMB anisotropy). These observations have begun to test cosmological models and provide interesting constraints on cosmological parameters (see, e.g., Kamionkowski & Kosowsky 1999; Rocha 1999; Gawiser & Silk 2000 for reviews, and, e.g., Ratra et al. 1999a, 1999b; Rocha et al. 1999; Knox & Page 2000; Wang & Mathews 2000; Douspis et al. 2001; Podariu et al. 2001; Xu, Tegmark, & de Oliveira-Costa 2001; Netterfield et al. 2001; Pryke et al. 2001; Stompor et al. 2001 for CMB anisotropy tests and constraints).

A satellite mission, the Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP)111http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/, will probe the CMB anisotropy at frequencies of 22, 30, 40, 60, and 90 GHz with expected angular resolutions of $`0.^{}93`$, $`0.^{}68`$, $`0.^{}47`$, $`0.^{}35`$, and $`0.^{}21`$ FWHM, respectively. At 90 GHz the sensitivity of MAP is expected to be $`35`$ $`\mu \mathrm{K}`$ per $`0.^{}3\times 0.^{}3`$ pixel. The high quality CMB anisotropy data anticipated from MAP will significantly improve constraints on many cosmological parameters.

Non-CMB foreground contamination must be understood and accounted for to fully utilize the cosmological discriminative power of MAP CMB anisotropy data. Recent rapid progress in the CMB anisotropy field has stimulated much work on modeling foregrounds and on developing methods for removing them from acquired data (see, e.g., Bennett et al. 1992, 1994; Brandt et al. 1994; Dodelson & Stebbins 1994; Tegmark & Efstathiou 1996; Bouchet & Gispert 1999; Tegmark et al. 2000). There are two major potential sources for foreground contamination: diffuse Galactic emission and unresolved point sources.

Kogut et al. (1996a, 1996b, hereafter K96) detect cross-correlations between the COBE-DMR and DIRBE maps, which they ascribe to Galactic dust and free-free emission. Using the Saskatoon data ($``$ 30 to 40 GHz, $`1^{}`$ resolution, Netterfield et al. 1997) and the 19 GHz survey data ($`3^{}`$ resolution, Boughn et al. 1992), de Oliveira-Costa et al. (1997, 1998)222 Also see Simonetti, Dennison, & Topasna (1996) and Gaustad, McCullough, & Van Buren (1996). obtain a result similar to that of Kogut et al. Hamilton & Ganga (2001) find similar correlations using the UCSB South Pole 1994 data ($``$ 30 to 40 GHz, $`1^{}`$ resolution, Gundersen et al. 1995; Ganga et al. 1997). At higher frequencies near 100 GHz and on similar angular scales, MAX data (Lim et al. 1996; Ganga et al. 1998) shows a similar correlation. On smaller angular scales Leitch et al. (2000) reach a similar conclusion using the OVRO data ($``$ 30 GHz). However, no such correlation is found in the Python V data ($``$ 40 GHz, $`1^{}`$ resolution, Coble et al. 1999). Mukherjee et al. (2001) and de Oliveira-Costa et al. (2000) discuss foreground contamination of the lower frequency, larger scale Tenerife data. At frequencies higher than 60 GHz there is no significant correlation between CMB maps and various synchrotron template maps such as the 408 MHz (Haslam et al. 1981) and the 1420 MHz (Reich & Reich 1988) radio survey maps (Kogut et al. 1996a; K96; de Oliveira-Costa et al. 1997, 1998).

CMB anisotropy experiments with subdegree resolution may be sensitive to radio point sources. Gawiser & Smoot (1997) study the effect of far-infrared (FIR) point source contamination of CMB anisotropy data by using the IRAS 1.2 Jy flux-limited galaxy catalog at various angular resolutions and observation frequencies. Gawiser, Jaffe, & Silk (1998a) derive upper and lower limits on microwave anisotropy from point sources over the range of frequencies 10 to 1000 GHz from recent sub-arcminute resolution point source observations. Their upper limit is $`(\mathrm{\Delta }T/T)^2^{1/2}10^5`$ for a $`10^{}`$ beam at 100 GHz. Toffolatti et al. (1998) use a luminosity evolution model to make predictions for the number density distribution of extragalactic sources and their contribution to temperature fluctuations in each channel of the Planck Surveyor mission. Sokasian, Gawiser, & Smoot (1998) estimate the effect of bright radio point source contamination on MAP and Planck observations. They find that removing bright sources above the source detection limit (5 $`\sigma 1`$ Jy, where $`\sigma `$ is the rms level of CMB anisotropy measured) reduces the contamination from $`(\mathrm{\Delta }T/T)^2^{1/2}10^5`$ to $`10^6`$, consistent with the conclusion of Toffolatti et al. (1998). Recently, the Wavelength-Oriented Microwave Background Analysis Team (WOMBAT, Gawiser et al. 1998b; Jaffe et al. 1999) have presented many different all-sky high resolution CMB anisotropy contaminant foreground template maps, including those for Galactic dust, synchrotron, FIR point source, radio point source, and Sunyaev-Zel’dovich cluster emission.

In this paper we generate mock all-sky foreground-contaminated CMB anisotropy maps for the 90 GHz channel of MAP in a spatially-flat cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) dominated cold dark matter (CDM) cosmogony. We use these maps to investigate how foreground contamination affects the CMB anisotropy angular correlation function $`C(\theta )`$ and the topology of CMB anisotropy. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$2 we summarize various foreground contamination sources. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$3 we summarize how mock foreground-contaminated CMB anisotropy maps are generated. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$4 we study the effects of foreground contamination on the amplitude and shape of the correlation function, focussing particularly on the location of the acoustic valley in the function $`\theta ^{1/2}C(\theta )`$. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$5 we use the genus statistic to study the effect of foreground contamination on detecting non-Gaussianity of cosmological origin in the $`MAP`$ data. We conclude in $`\mathrm{\S }`$6.

## 2 Sources of Foreground Contamination

### 2.1 Galactic Dust and Free-Free Emissions

In the microwave sky three Galactic emission components, those due to synchrotron, free-free, and dust, are important. Although these Galactic foregrounds can be modeled theoretically pixel by pixel by multifrequency observations (Brandt et al. 1994), this requires very low instrument noise and accurate emission models. According to Bennett et al. (1992), synchrotron and free-free emissions have well-determined spectral behaviors with $`I_\nu \nu ^{0.71.1}`$ and $`I_\nu \nu ^{0.15}`$, respectively. It is very difficult to produce an accurate all-sky dust emission model because its spectral behavior depends on the shape, composition, size distribution, and dynamics of the dust grains, and because the dust emission is a sum over the emission from all dust grains along each line of sight.

Kogut et al. (1996a) and K96 apply a constant temperature warm dust and free-free emission model with spectral intensity

$$I_\nu =\tau (\nu /\nu _0)^\beta B_\nu (T)+A_{ff}(\nu /\nu _0)^{0.15}$$
$`(1)`$
to the DIRBE maps and the DMR two- and four-year data. Here $`B_\nu (T)`$ is the Planck black body function, $`\tau `$ opacity, $`\beta `$ emissivity power-law index, $`\nu _0=900`$ GHz, and $`A_{ff}`$ the normalized amplitude of free-free emission. For the four-year DMR data they obtain $`\tau =(1.2_{0.4}^{+0.7})\times 10^5`$, $`T=20.0_{4.0}^{+2.5}`$ K, and $`\beta =1.5_{0.3}^{+1.1}`$ (68% confidence limits) at $`|b|>20^{}`$. In eq. (1) the second term represents free-free emission, where the constant $`A_{ff}`$ is determined from the rms level of DMR-DIRBE correlated free-free emission, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{ff}=7.1\pm 1.7`$ $`\mu `$K at 53 GHz (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$3 of K96). Since synchrotron emission is dominant only at frequencies lower than about 60 GHz, we neglect synchrotron emission in our analyses here. Figure 1 shows the spectra of the dust plus free-free emission model of K96. The thick solid curve represents the best-fit model. The upper and lower thin solid curves are the upper ($`T=22.5`$ K, $`\beta =1.2`$) and lower ($`T=16.0`$ K, $`\beta =2.6`$) limits of the K96 model. $`\tau =1.2\times 10^5`$ in all three cases. The dust temperature is almost inversely proportional to the emissivity (Kogut et al. 1996a).

However, dust emission models with a constant dust temperature everywhere on the sky are a poor description of reality (e.g., Finkbeiner, Davis, & Schlegel 1999, hereafter FDS99). It is known from FIRAS observations that there seem to exist both warm ($`16`$ K $`<T<21`$ K) and cold ($`4`$ K $`<T<7`$ K) dust components that contribute to Galactic dust emission (Wright et al. 1991; Reach et al. 1995). FDS99 provide a two-component temperature-varying dust model determined by fitting 100 $`\mu `$m dust emission data (Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis 1998, described below) to FIRAS dust spectra. Their model parameter values are $`\alpha _1=1.67`$, $`\alpha _2=2.70`$, $`f_1=0.0363`$, and $`q_1/q_2=13.0`$, where $`\alpha _i`$ is the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ dust component emissivity index, $`f_i`$ is the fraction of power absorbed and re-emitted by dust component $`i`$ (with $`_kf_k=1`$), and $`q_i`$ is the ratio of the FIR emission cross-section to the UV/optical absorption cross-section for the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ component (see FDS99 $`\mathrm{\S }`$4 for details). We use both the K96 one-component and the FDS99 two-component dust models in our analyses here.

We need a high resolution Galactic emission map to model foreground contamination in the 90 GHz MAP CMB anisotropy data. Schlegel et al. (1998) present a well-calibrated and Fourier-destriped full-sky 100 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ Galactic emission map constructed from the COBE-DIRBE and IRAS-ISSA data sets, with zodiacal light and point source contamination removed. This map has an angular resolution of $`6.^{}1`$ FWHM. We smooth this map using a Gaussian filter to get a map with total smoothing scale of $`0.^{}21`$ FWHM, and estimate the brightness temperature333 Brightness temperature $`T_A`$ is related to intensity $`I_\nu `$ through $`I_\nu =2kT_A(\nu ^2/c^2)`$ where $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant. at 90 GHz by using the Galactic emission spectrum template shown in Figure 1. For the FDS99 two-component dust model we estimate the 90 GHz dust emission by extrapolating the 100 $`\mu `$m flux using the dust temperature and DIRBE color-correction factor for each line of sight in the maps (see eq.  in $`\mathrm{\S }`$4 of FDS99). The averaged FDS99 dust emission spectrum (the thick long-dashed curve in Fig. 1) is a factor of 1.4 lower than that of the K96 dust model. Since the FDS99 model does not include free-free emission, we generate a Galactic emission contamination map by adding free-free emission, assumed to be proportional to dust emission and to have an amplitude equal to 18% of the dust emission amplitude at 90 GHz, which is the percentage of the excess dust-correlated DMR emission estimated by FDS99 (see Table 4 of FDS99). Thermodynamic temperature fluctuations with respect to the mean CMB temperature $`T_0=2.728`$ K (Fixsen et al. 1996) can be obtained from brightness temperature fluctuations multipied by the Planck factor $`(e^x1)^2/x^2e^x`$, where $`x=h\nu /kT_0`$. This results in a high resolution all-sky temperature fluctuation map for Galactic emission that contributes to the MAP 90 GHz band data.

While this is the best available map, it is not ideal. First, the K96 model parameters are determined from large (DMR) angular scale data while we study small-scale microwave temperature fluctuations. Second, the ratio of free-free to dust emission may be position dependent, resulting in a position-dependent $`A_{ff}`$ (while we assume that $`A_{ff}`$ is a constant). Third, if the free-free emission power spectrum is flatter than the dust emission power spectrum $`P(\mathrm{})\mathrm{}^3`$ in multipole space, the ratio of free-free to dust emission will increase with decreasing angular scale (we assume that the large scale dust emission correlation with free-free emission persists to smaller scales).

In this paper we use the K96 model free-free emission term to account for about 20% of the dust-correlated emission (see FDS99 for a related discussion). Similar correlations have been detected for many CMB observations (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$1, and Kogut 1999 for a review). This excess microwave emission is clearly correlated with the dust but is not due to thermal (vibrational) dust emission. Draine & Lazarian (1998) propose that K96’s dust-correlated emission is not free-free emission but emission from rapidly spinning dust grains. Nevertheless, even if the dust-correlated emission is not free-free emission, our phenomenological approach is fairly reasonable, especially at 90 GHz.

### 2.2 Far Infrared Extragalactic Sources

The IRAS 1.2 Jy flux-limited galaxy catalog (Strauss et al. 1990; Fisher et al. 1995) contains 5,319 galaxies, almost all of which are inactive spiral galaxies though some are active star-forming galaxies and active galactic nuclei. The IR emission from inactive spiral galaxies is from reradiation of interstellar dust heated by the general interstellar radiation field (Helou 1986). Assuming that these IRAS galaxies are all inactive spirals with emission spectrum similar to that of our Galaxy, we transform their 100 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ fluxes to 90 GHz by using the K96 Galactic emission spectrum. We also use the method of Gawiser & Smoot (1997) and Gawiser et al. (1998a) to determine the rms thermodynamic temperature fluctuation caused by IRAS extragalactic sources, and obtain $`(\mathrm{\Delta }T/T)^2^{1/2}5\times 10^7`$ at 90 GHz and $`0.^{}21`$ FWHM angular resolution. This is consistent with the result of Gawiser & Smoot (1997).

A second set of contaminating FIR extragalactic sources are the few hundred sources we have tentatively detected in the DIRBE maps. DIRBE observed the whole sky with a $`0.^{}7\times 0.^{}7`$ square beam and produced infrared maps at 10 near-to-far infrared wavelengths, with pixel size of $`0.^{}32\times 0.^{}32`$. We use the ZSMA (Zodiacal light-Subtracted Mission Average) maps at 12, 25, 60, 100, 140, and 240 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ to search for dim signals in the maps. We generate a difference map at each band by subtracting the intensity map smoothed over $`2.^{}36`$ FWHM from the original unsmoothed map. Thus only signals on scales smaller than $`2.^{}36`$ remain in the difference maps. The $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ pixel noise $`\sigma _i`$ in the difference map is $`\sigma _i=\sigma _N/\sqrt{N_i}`$, where $`\sigma _N`$ is the global noise level of the difference map and $`N_i`$ is the number of observations at the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ pixel. $`\sigma _N`$ can be determined iteratively from the less-contaminated background region ($`|b|>60^{}`$ and ecliptic latitude $`|\beta |>20^{}`$) by requiring $`z=I_i/\sigma _i`$ (where $`I_i`$ is the intensity at $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ pixel) to have a normal distribution with zero mean and unit variance at $`z<0`$. The resulting global noise levels are 0.209, 0.295, 0.549, 1.14, and 34.8, and 19.9 MJy/sr at 12, 25, 60, 100, 140, and 240 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, respectively. The noise levels in the 140 and 240 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ difference maps are very large so we exclude these maps from our analysis.

In the region $`|b|>20^{}`$ of the 100 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ map we select pixels with $`I_{i,100\mu \mathrm{m}}>3\sigma _i`$. A faint extragalactic source may appear in at most 4 pixels ($`0.^{}64\times 0.^{}64`$) in the DIRBE map, when it is located where the 4 pixels touch. By grouping contiguous pixels, we search for signals in groups of 4 or fewer pixels in the Quadrilateralized Spherical Cube projection (see COBE DIRBE Exp. Supp. 1998). This excludes most of the bright galaxies detected by Odenwald, Newmark, & Smoot (1998), since they are typically detected in more than 4 pixels. We find 421 and 401 such groups (with 4 or fewer pixels) in the Galactic north and south hemispheres, respectively. 436 of these groups have positive fluxes at all wavelengths considered. We finally catalogue 289 extragalactic source candidates satisfying the IRAS bright galaxy color criteria (Smith et al. 1987; Soifer et al. 1989; Strauss et al. 1990). These color criteria are $`0.9<\mathrm{log}(f_{60\mu \mathrm{m}}/f_{100\mu \mathrm{m}})<0.3`$, $`1.5<\mathrm{log}(f_{25\mu \mathrm{m}}/f_{60\mu \mathrm{m}})<0.0`$, $`1.2<\mathrm{log}(f_{12\mu \mathrm{m}}/f_{25\mu \mathrm{m}})<0.4`$, $`2.1<\mathrm{log}(f_{12\mu \mathrm{m}}/f_{60\mu \mathrm{m}})<0.0`$, and $`f_{60\mu \mathrm{m}}^2>f_{12\mu \mathrm{m}}f_{25\mu \mathrm{m}}`$. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the final 289 DIRBE FIR sources. 33 IRAS galaxies and only one source in the 5 GHz 1 Jy flux-limited extragalactic radio source catalog (518 objects, Kühr et al. 1981) are within a radius of $`0.^{}32`$ of these DIRBE sources. Most of these sources are matched with extragalactic objects in the IRAS Faint Source Catalog within the same radius. However, the large DIRBE pixel size prevents us from uniquely identifying these sources as extragalactic because each DIRBE pixel contains many IRAS sources, some of which are not extragalactic. Some of the DIRBE sources could conceivably be objects in our Galaxy that coincidentally satisfy the IRAS galaxy color criteria. The emission from these DIRBE FIR sources (after exclusion of the 33 sources identified with IRAS galaxies) are transformed to 90 GHz thermodynamic temperature fluctuations using the method applied above to the IRAS galaxies.

### 2.3 Radio Point Sources

The 4.85 GHz Green Bank survey catalog (Becker, White, & Edwards 1991) contains 53,522 radio point sources with fluxes larger than about 40 mJy and covers $`0^{}<\delta <75^{}`$. The 4.85 GHz Parkes-MIT-NRAO survey catalog (Griffith & Wright 1993) has 50,814 point sources with a flux limit of about 35 mJy in the $`87.^{}5<\delta <10^{}`$ region. Besides these, there is a 1.4 GHz survey catalog that has 30,239 sources flux-limited at 100 mJy in the $`5^{}<\delta <82^{}`$ region (White & Becker 1992). These catalogs contain extragalactic sources as well as Galactic radio sources. For example, the Green Bank survey catalog has about 350 galaxies, $`800`$ quasars, more than 500 BL Lacertae objects, and $`400`$ X-ray sources (Becker et al. 1991).

To make a combined radio source catalog that almost covers the sky, we adopt the Green Bank catalog for $`0^{}<\delta <75^{}`$, the Parkes-MIT-NRAO catalog for $`87.^{}5\delta 0^{}`$, and the 1.4 GHz radio source catalog for $`75^{}<\delta <82^{}`$. In the few GHz frequency band, the main emission mechanism for radio sources is synchrotron radiation with power-law spectral behavior $`I_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$ with $`1.0\alpha 0.5`$ (Platania et al. 1998). Since spectral indices of most sources in the Green Bank and Parkes-MIT-NRAO catalogs are close to $`0.85`$, radio sources with unknown $`\alpha `$ are assumed to have $`\alpha =0.85`$. Some radio sources with compact active nuclei generate flat-spectrum radio emission ($`\alpha 0`$) due to self-absorption of low energy photons. The average spectral index of flat-spectrum compact sources is $`\alpha 0`$ at $`\nu 200`$ GHz, steepening to $`\alpha =0.7`$ at higher frequencies (Danese et al. 1987; Toffolatti et al. 1998). In our analyses here we set $`\alpha =0`$ for all radio sources with spectral index $`\alpha >0`$. Emission from radio sources in the region $`75^{}<\delta <82^{}`$ are transformed to 4.85 GHz fluxes using the spectral index determined above. The fluxes of the final 72,132 4.85 GHz sources, covering $`87.^{}5<\delta <82^{}`$, with flux limit of 43 mJy, are converted to temperature fluctuations when “observed” with the $`0.^{}21`$ FWHM MAP beam at 90 GHz.

## 3 Generating Mock MAP Maps

Park et al. (1998, hereafter P98) generate mock CMB anisotropy maps for the 90 GHz ($`0.^{}21`$ FWHM beamwidth) channel of the MAP experiment in a spatially-flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominated CDM model. This $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmogony has non-relativistic matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.4`$, $`h=0.6`$ (where the Hubble constant $`H_0=100h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1), baryonic-matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.0125h^2`$, and is normalized to the four-year DMR data (Ratra et al. 1997). The rms level of the CMB anisotropy in this map is 104 $`\mu \mathrm{K}`$ (at $`0.^{}21`$ FWHM), larger than that of the flat CDM case (92 $`\mu \mathrm{K}`$; Refregier, Spergel, & Herbig 2000). The maps include MAP instrumental noise, simulated to give 35 $`\mu \mathrm{K}`$ per $`0.^{}3\times 0.^{}3`$ pixel.

It is expected that MAP will produce CMB temperature fluctuation maps with zero mean even if foreground contamination is not completely removed. Thus in the map the observed temperature at each position on the sky, $`T(\theta ,\varphi )`$, is the sum of the CMB contribution $`T_0+\delta T_{CMB}`$, a contribution from foreground contamination $`\delta T_C`$, and an instrumental noise contribution $`\delta T_N`$, where $`T_0`$ is CMB black body temperature (2.728 K) and $`\delta T_{CMB}`$ is the CMB anisotropy temperature. Therefore the observed temperature anisotropy is

$$\frac{\delta T}{T}(\theta ,\varphi )\frac{T(\theta ,\varphi )T}{T}\frac{\delta T_{CMB}(\theta ,\varphi )+\delta T_C(\theta ,\varphi )+\delta T_N(\theta ,\varphi )\delta T_C}{T_0}$$
$`(2)`$
where $`\mathrm{}`$ represents an average over the whole sky excluding the Galactic plane region (typically the $`|b|>20^{}`$ part of the sky in our analyses here), and $`\delta T_{CMB}=\delta T_N=0`$ are assumed. The term $`\delta T_C`$ that will appear in the denominator of the last expression is omitted, since it is negligible compared with $`T_0`$.

We use eq. (2) to generate foreground-contaminated CMB temperature fluctuation maps at 90 GHz with $`0.^{}21`$ FWHM resolution. These maps are further smoothed over $`0.^{}214`$ (i.e., a total smoothing scale of $`0.^{}3`$ FWHM) to reduce noise, and consist of $`3600\times 1801`$ points in $`(\mathrm{},b)`$ space with $`0.^{}1`$ spacing. Figure 3 shows one of the foreground-contaminated CMB temperature fluctuation maps (using the K96 Galactic emission model). The Galactic emission model has an uncertainty. Its uncertainty (hereafter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$G) is taken to be the difference between the maps generated from the K96 (constant dust temperature) and FDS99 (spatially-varying dust temperature) Galactic emission models. Table 1 lists the map rms values of the CMB temperature fluctuations, MAP instrumental noise, and various foreground emissions. Note that rejecting radio sources above 5 $`\sigma `$ reduces the rms level of temperature fluctuations. When analyzing the maps we mask the LMC, SMC, M31 and Orion-Taurus regions for Galactic emission-contaminated maps. For radio source emission-contaminated maps we mask regions that are not surveyed ($`\delta >82^{}`$, $`\delta <87.5^{}`$) or only partially surveyed.

## 4 Correlation Function

### 4.1 Amplitude of Correlation Function

The two-point angular correlation function (hereafter CF) for temperature anisotropy is $`C(\theta )\delta T/T(\theta _i,\varphi _i)\delta T/T(\theta _j,\varphi _j)`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes an ensemble average and $`\theta `$ is the angular separation between $`(\theta _i,\varphi _i)`$ and $`(\theta _j,\varphi _j)`$. It is related to the angular power spectrum $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ through

$$C(\theta )=\underset{\mathrm{}=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{2\mathrm{}+1}{4\pi }C_{\mathrm{}}P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )B_{\mathrm{}}^2F_{\mathrm{}}^2,$$
$`(3)`$
where $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a Legendre polynomial and $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ are the coefficients of the beam function and smoothing filter expanded in a Legendre polynomial basis.

We measure $`C(\theta )`$ directly from the CMB maps by picking up a million pairs of points for each angular bin considered. Figure 4$`a`$ shows the angular CFs of noise-free and noise-added $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM CMB anisotropy maps. The theoretical CMB anisotropy CF of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmological model (dot-dashed line) is also shown for comparison. Note that the amplitude of the CF can exhibit large cosmic variance while the position of the acoustic valley does not (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$3 of P98 for the effect of cosmic variance on the position of the acoustic valley of the CF). The amplitude of the CF of the noise-added CMB map is slightly higher than that of the noise-free case on scales less than $`0.^{}3`$. The effect of noise on the CF amplitude exceeds that of cosmic variance on these scales. On scales larger than $`0.^{}3`$, however, instrumental noise hardly affects the CF and cosmic variance dominates the statistical uncertainty. The effect on the CF of Galactic plane cuts at $`|b|=20^{}`$ and $`40^{}`$ is illustrated in Figure 4$`b`$.

The effects of foreground emission on the CF are shown in Figure 5, where the CFs are computed for the Galactic plane cut region with $`|b|>20^{}`$. Although foreground Galactic emission, modeled either by K96 or FDS99, slightly increases the correlation amplitude on all angular scales (Fig. 5$`a`$), these effects are smaller than the cosmic and sample variance uncertainties. Figure 5$`b`$ demonstrates that the Galactic emission model uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$G (i.e., Galactic emission residuals which remain after removing model Galactic emission from a foreground-contaminated map) hardly affects the CF. IRAS and DIRBE FIR extragalactic sources appear not to have any effect (Fig. 5$`c`$). Radio point source emission raises the CF amplitude on scales smaller than $`0.^{}5`$. When bright radio sources above 5 $`\sigma `$ are removed this small-scale effect becomes much weaker (Fig. 5$`d`$).

### 4.2 Position of the Acoustic Valley

The Doppler peaks in the angular power spectrum, particularly the first Doppler peak, appear as an acoustic valley in $`\theta ^{1/2}C(\theta )`$. The position, depth, and width of the acoustic valley depend on the cosmological model parameters (P98). In addition to the effect of foreground contamination on the amplitude of the CF, it is necessary to study their effect on the position of the acoustic valley.

To predict acoustic valley positions we compute $`C(\theta )`$ (using eq. ) from 200 sets of $`a_{\mathrm{}}^mB_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`(a_{\mathrm{}}^mB_{\mathrm{}}+n)F_{\mathrm{}}`$ up to $`\mathrm{}=2500`$. We assume the noise $`n`$ is a Gaussian random variable with zero mean and variance appropriate for MAP, and here $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ represent the $`0.^{}21`$ FWHM beam and $`0.^{}214`$ FWHM smoothing filter, respectively. The uncertainty in the position of the acoustic valley was estimated from these 200 Monte Carlo realizations (P98). The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model predicts the location of the acoustic valley to be at $`\theta _\mathrm{v}=1.^{}12\pm 0.^{}02`$ for a $`0.^{}21`$ beam. When we account for the MAP noise and use an additional $`0.^{}214`$ FWHM smoothing filter (total smoothing of $`0.^{}3`$ FWHM), the position becomes $`\theta _\mathrm{v}=1.^{}14\pm 0.^{}02`$ while it is $`0.^{}65\pm 0.^{}04`$ for an open CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.4`$, $`h=0.65`$.

We have also computed $`C(\theta )`$ near the acoustic valley directly from the foreground-contaminated CMB anisotropy maps, and have measured the position of the acoustic valley. The results are shown in Figure 6 and Table 2. The location of the acoustic valley is quite robust. When foreground Galactic emission is reasonably modeled, the Galactic cut mainly affects its location ($`0.^{}01`$). The cosmic variance is about $`0.^{}02`$.

## 5 Topology

### 5.1 The Genus

Gaussianity and phase correlation information are important probes of the origin of structure formation. Topology measures for two-dimensional fields, first introduced by Coles & Barrow (1987), Melott et al. (1989) and Gott et al. (1990), have been applied to observational data such as the angular distribution of galaxies on the sky (Coles & Plionis 1991; Gott et al. 1992), the distribution of galaxies in slices of the universe (Park et al. 1992; Colley 1997; Park, Gott, & Choi 2001a), and the CMB temperature fluctuation field (Coles 1988; Gott et al. 1990; Smoot et al. 1994; Kogut et al. 1996c; Colley, Gott, & Park 1996; Park et al. 2001b).

We use the two-dimensional genus statistic introduced by Gott et al. (1990) as a quantitative measure of the topology of the CMB anisotropy. For the CMB the genus is the number of hot spots minus the number of cold spots. Equivalently, the genus at a temperature threshold level $`\nu `$ is

$$g(\nu )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_C\kappa 𝑑s,$$
$`(4)`$
where $`\kappa `$ is the signed curvature of the iso-temperature contours $`C`$, and the threshold level $`\nu `$ is the number of standard deviations from the mean. At a given threshold level, we measure the genus by integrating the curvature along iso-temperature contours. The curvature is positive (negative) if the interior of a contour has higher (lower) temperature than the specified threshold level.

The genus of a two-dimensional random-phase Gaussian field is $`g(\nu )\nu e^{\nu ^2/2}`$ (Gott et al. 1990). Non-Gaussian features in the CMB anisotropy will appear as deviations of the genus curve from this relation (P98; Park et al. 2001a, 2001b). Non-Gaussianity can shift the observed genus curve to the left (toward negative thresholds) or right near the mean threshold level. The shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ of the genus curve with respect to the Gaussian relation is measured by minimizing the $`\chi ^2`$ between the data and the fitting function

$$G=A_s\nu ^{}e^{\nu _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/2},$$
$`(5)`$
where $`\nu ^{}=\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$, and the fitting is performed over the range $`1.0\nu 1.0`$. Non-Gaussianity can also alter the amplitudes of the genus curve at positive and negative levels differently causing $`|g(\nu 1)||g(\nu +1)|`$. The asymmetry parameter is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }g=A_HA_C,$$
$`(6)`$
where

$$A_H=_{\nu _1}^{\nu _2}g_{\mathrm{obs}}𝑑\nu /_{\nu _1}^{\nu _2}g_{\mathrm{fit}}𝑑\nu ,$$
$`(7)`$
and likewise for $`A_C`$. The integration is limited to $`2.4\nu 0.4`$ for $`A_C`$ and to $`0.4\nu 2.4`$ for $`A_H`$. The overall amplitude $`A`$ of the best-fit Gaussian genus curve $`g_{\mathrm{fit}}`$ is found from $`\chi ^2`$-fitting over the range $`2.4\nu 2.4`$. Positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$ means that more hot spots are present than cold spots. This kind of topological information can not be drawn simply from the one-point distribution. In summary, for a given genus curve we measure the best-fit amplitude $`A`$, the shift parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$, and the asymmetry parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$.

### 5.2 Effects of Foregrounds on CMB Anisotropy Topology

We use our mock foreground-contaminated CMB anisotropy maps for the MAP experiment to study the sensitivity of the genus statistic to non-Gaussianity of cosmological origin. To compute the genus we stereographically project the maps on to a plane. This conformal mapping locally preserves shapes of structures. Additional Gaussian smoothings are applied during the projection so that the projected maps have total smoothing scales of $`0.^{}3`$, $`0.^{}5`$ and $`1.^{}0`$ FWHM. We then exclude regions with $`|b|<20^{}`$ to reduce the effect of Galactic emission. We present the genus curves as a function of the area fraction threshold level $`\nu _A`$, which is defined to be the temperature threshold level at which the corresponding iso-temperature contour encloses a fraction of the survey area equal to that at the temperature threshold level $`\nu _A`$ for a Gaussian field (Gott et al. 1990). The $`\nu _A=0`$ level corresponds to the median temperature because this threshold level divides the map into high and low regions of equal area. All our analyses are based on genus curves measured as a function of $`\nu _A`$.

Figure 7 shows genus curves measured from the mock MAP CMB maps in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with various foreground contaminations at $`0.^{}3`$ FWHM resolution (open symbols). The genus curve of the foreground-free map (noise-added; filled circles) is shown for comparison. The effect of instrumental noise on the genus is significant on both $`0.^{}3`$ and $`0.^{}5`$ scales (filled circles in Fig. 7$`a`$; also see the genus amplitude parameter $`A`$ values in Table 3 described below). It should also be noted that the $`0.^{}3`$ scale genus is reduced by the finite pixel size of the MAP simulation (Melott et al. 1989).

Table 3 lists the genus-related statistics $`A`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$ measured from CMB maps with $`0.^{}3`$, $`0.^{}5`$, and $`1.^{}0`$ FWHM resolutions using eqs. (5) to (7). The uncertainties are $`1\sigma `$ errors derived from the variances over the eight octants and account for cosmic variance. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_0`$ are the values from the noise- and foreground-free pure CMB anisotropy maps. Hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }g\mathrm{\Delta }g_0`$ are the net effects due to instrumental noise or foreground emission. Table 3 shows that Galactic emission significantly affects the shift parameter on all angular scales, at a level exceeding 2 $`\sigma `$. However, their effect become much less serious when only the Galactic emission model uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$G needs to be accounted for. FIR extragalactic source emission has minimal effect on the genus, on all angular scales. Radio point source emission results in positive genus asymmetry, particularly on intermediate angular scales ($`0.^{}5`$ FWHM) at a statistical significance level of about 2 $`\sigma `$. We have also measured the genus from the radio source-contaminated CMB anisotropy map with $`0.^{}5`$ FWHM resolution after broadly excising pixels above 4.7 times the rms level of the noise-added CMB anisotropy map, and find the asymmetry still exceeds cosmic variance ($`\mathrm{\Delta }g\mathrm{\Delta }g_0=0.035\pm 0.020`$).

When Galactic diffuse emission and bright radio point source emission are removed from the observed temperature fluctuation map using accurate foreground models, one may conclude that non-Gaussianity of cosmological origin is present if the measured genus-related parameters $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\nu |0.02`$ ($`0.04`$) or $`|\mathrm{\Delta }g|0.03`$ ($`0.08`$) at $`0.^{}3`$ ($`1.^{}0`$) FWHM scale at 2 $`\sigma `$.

## 6 Conclusions

We study the effects of foreground contamination and instrumental noise on the simulated MAP data through the correlation function and genus statistics. The foregrounds we consider are diffuse Galactic dust and free-free emissions, far infrared extragalactic sources, and radio point sources. The mock observations are made in a spatially-flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model.

Our study shows that FIR extragalactic sources in the IRAS 1.2 Jy galaxy catalog and the COBE-DIRBE map have negligible effect on the correlation function and the genus. Radio point sources also have little effect on the correlation function when sources with amplitudes larger than 5 times the rms of the noise-added $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM CMB anisotropy map are removed. However, on $`0.^{}5`$ scales radio sources cause positive genus curve asymmetry, a non-Gaussian feature, at a statistical significance level of about 2 $`\sigma `$ compared to cosmic variance (Table 3). This is the scale where the smoothing scale is small enough that strong radio sources are resolved, and where it is large enough that instrumental noise is not a dominant anisotropy source. This non-Gaussian feature in the genus curve is not significantly reduced by removing sources above 5 $`\sigma `$. We conclude that good radio point source data at 90 GHz is essential for an unambiguous detection of non-Gaussian behavior of the CMB anisotropy on this scale.

Diffuse Galactic emission affects the correlation function much less than cosmic variance. But it can produce negative shifts of the genus curve, another non-Gaussian feature, which are 2 or 3 times larger than cosmic variance. These effects are significantly reduced if model Galactic emissions (e.g., K96 or FDS99) are subtracted from the observed MAP data, unless the amplitude of Galactic foreground emission in these models are in great error. The typical shift of the genus curve due to the uncertainty in the Galactic emission models is estimated from the difference map between the K96 and FDS99 models. On scales below $`1.^{}0`$ it is of order of the shift due to cosmic variance. Therefore, an accurate Galactic emission model is still necessary to make reliable tests of Gaussianity of the CMB anisotropy. With the present understanding of Galactic emission and radio sources, one will be able to detect non-Gaussianity of cosmological origin at the 2 $`\sigma `$ level if the shift parameter of the genus curve $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\nu |0.02`$ ($`0.04`$), or the asymmetry parameter $`|\mathrm{\Delta }g|0.03`$ ($`0.08`$) on $`0.^{}3`$ ($`1.^{}0`$) FWHM scales.

There are other kinds of foreground contamination emission mechanisms, in addition to those discussed above, such as the thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect, the Ostriker-Vishniac effect, gravitational lensing, and so on (see Refregier et al. 2000 for a review). Some of these will need to be dealt with if we are to fully utilize the cosmological information in the anticipated MAP and Planck data.

We acknowledge valuable discussions with D. Finkbeiner, K. Ganga, Juhan Kim, Sungho Lee, and P. Mukherjee, and helpful comments from the anonymous referee. CGP and CP acknowledge support from the BK21 program of the Korean Government and the Basic Research Program of the Korea Science & Engineering Foundation (grant no. 1999-2-113-001-5). BR acknowledges support from NSF CAREER grant AST-9875031. We also acknowledge support from NSF grant AST-9900772 to J.R. Gott.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

As is well-known, in the early 1980s it appeared that superstrings could not describe parity-violating theories, because of quantum mechanical inconsistencies due to anomalies. The discovery that in certain cases the anomalies could cancel was important for convincing many theorists that string theory is a promising approach to unification. In the 17 years that have passed since then, string theory has been studied intensively, and many issues are understood much better now. This progress enables me to describe the original anomaly cancellation mechanism in a more elegant way than was originally possible. The improvements that are incorporated in the following discussion include an improved understanding of the association of specific terms with specific string world-sheets as well as improved tricks for manipulating the relevant characteristic classes.

When a symmetry of a classical theory is broken by radiative corrections, the symmetry is called “anomalous.” In this case there is no choice of local counterterms that can be added to the low energy effective action to restore the symmetry. Anomalies arise from divergent Feynman diagrams, with a classically conserved current attached, that do not admit a regulator compatible with conservation of the current. Anomalies only arise at one-loop order (Adler-Bardeen theorem) in diagrams with a chiral fermion or boson going around the loop. Their origin can be traced (Fujikawa) to the behavior of Jacobian factors in the path-integral measure.

There are two categories of anomalies. The first category consists of anomalies that break a global symmetry. An example is the axial part of the flavor $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ symmetry of QCD. These anomalies are “good” in that they do not imply any inconsistency. Rather, they make it possible to carry out certain calculations to high precision. The classic example is the rate for the decay $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$. The second category of anomalies consists of ones that break a local gauge symmetry. These are “bad”, in that they imply that the quantum theory is inconsistent. They destroy unitarity, causality, and other related sacred principles. In the remainder of this talk, I will only be concerned with this second category of anomalies. Either they cancel, or the theory in question is inconsistent.

Chiral fields only exist in spacetimes with an even dimension. If the dimension is $`D=2n`$, then anomalies can occur in diagrams with one current and $`n`$ gauge fields attached to a chiral field circulating around the loop. In four dimensions these are triangle diagrams and in ten dimensions these are hexagon diagrams. The resulting nonconservation of the current $`J^\mu `$ takes the form

$$_\mu J^\mu ϵ^{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2n}}F_{\mu _1\mu _2}\mathrm{}F_{\mu _{2n1}\mu _{2n}}$$
(1)
In string theory there are various world-sheet topologies that correspond to one-loop diagrams. In the case of type II or heterotic theories it is a torus. For the type I superstring theory it can be a torus, a Klein bottle, a cylinder or a Möbius strip. However, the anomaly analysis can be carried out entirely in terms of a low-energy effective field theory, which is what I will do. Still it is interesting to interpret the Type I result in terms of string world sheets. The torus turns out not to contribute to the anomaly. For the other world sheet topologies, it is convenient to imagine them as made by piecing together boundary states $`|B`$ and cross-cap states $`|C`$. (Cross-caps can be regarded as boundaries that have opposite points identified.) In this way $`B|B`$ represents a cylinder, $`B|C`$ and $`C|B`$ represent a Möbius strip, and $`C|C`$ represents a Klein bottle. The correct relative weights are encoded in the combinations

$$(B|+C|)\times (|B+|C).$$
(2)
We will interpret the consistency of the $`SO(32)`$ type I theory as arising from a cancellation between the boundary and cross-cap contributions. It should also be pointed out that the modern interpretation of the boundary state is in terms of a world-sheet that ends on a D-brane, whereas the cross-cap state corresponds to a world-sheet that ends on an orientifold plane.

## 2 Anomaly Analysis

### 2.1 Chiral Fields

The kinds of chiral fields that can exist depend on the number of space and time dimensions with a pattern that repeats every 8 dimensions. For example, it is true in both four and ten dimensions that a fermion field can be Majorana (real in a suitable representation of the Dirac algebra) or Weyl (definite handedness). However, a significant difference between the two cases is that, unlike the case of four dimensions, in ten dimensions the two conditions are compatible, so that it is possible for a fermion field to be simultaneously Majorana and Weyl. Indeed, the basic (irreducible) spinors in ten dimensions are Majorana–Weyl. These statements depend on the signature as well as the dimension. I am assuming Lorentzian signature throughout.

Another difference between four and ten dimensions is that in ten dimensions it is also possible to have chiral bosons! To be specific, consider a fourth rank antisymmetric tensor field $`A_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }`$ , which is conveniently represented as a four-form A. Then the five-form field strength $`F=dA`$ has a gauge invariance analogous to that of the Maxwell field. Moreover, one can covariantly eliminate half of the degrees of freedom associated with this field by requiring that it is self-dual (or anti-self dual). The resulting degrees of freedom are not reflection invariant, and they therefore describe a chiral boson. The self-duality condition of the free theory is deformed by interaction terms. This construction in ten dimensions is consistent with Lorentzian signature, whereas in four dimensions a two-form field strength can be self-dual for Euclidean signature (instantons).

### 2.2 Differential Forms and Characteristic Classes

To analyze anomalies it is extremely useful to use differential forms and characteristic classes. In modern times this kind of mathematics has become part of the standard arsenal of theoretical physicists. For example, Yang–Mills fields are Lie-algebra-valued one-forms:

$$A=\underset{\mu ,a}{}A_\mu ^a(x)\lambda ^adx^\mu .$$
(3)
Here the $`\lambda ^a`$ are matrices in a convenient representation (call it $`\rho `$) of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. The field strengths are Lie-algebra-valued two-forms:

$$F=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu \nu }{}F_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =dA+AA.$$
(4)
Under an infinitesimal gauge transformation

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }A=d\mathrm{\Lambda }+[A,\mathrm{\Lambda }],$$
(5)
$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }F=[F,\mathrm{\Lambda }].$$
(6)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an infinitesimal Lie-algebra-valued zero-form.

Gravity (in the vielbein formalism) is described in an almost identical manner. The spin connection one-form

$$\omega =\underset{\mu ,a}{}\omega _\mu ^a(x)\lambda ^adx^\mu .$$
(7)
is a gauge field for local Lorentz symmetry. The $`\lambda ^a`$ are chosen to be in the fundamental representation of the Lorentz algebra ($`D\times D`$ matrices). The curvature two-form is

$$R=d\omega +\omega \omega .$$
(8)
Under an infinitesimal local Lorentz transformation (with infinitesimal parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$)

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega =d\mathrm{\Theta }+[\omega ,\mathrm{\Theta }],$$
(9)
$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }R=[R,\mathrm{\Theta }].$$
(10)
Characteristic classes are differential forms, constructed out of $`F`$ and $`R`$, that are closed and gauge invariant. Thus $`X(F,R)`$ is a characteristic class provided that $`dX=0`$ and $`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }X=\delta _\mathrm{\Theta }X=0`$. Some examples are

$$\mathrm{tr}(F\mathrm{}F)\mathrm{tr}(F^k),$$
(11)
$$\mathrm{tr}(R\mathrm{}R)\mathrm{tr}(R^k),$$
(12)
as well as polynomials built out of these building blocks using wedge products.

### 2.3 Characterization of Anomalies

Yang–Mills and local Lorentz anomalies in $`D=2n`$ dimensions are encoded in a characteristic class that is a $`2n+2`$ form, denoted $`I_{2n+2}`$. You can’t really antisymmetrize $`2n+2`$ indices in $`2n`$ dimensions, so these expressions are a bit formal, though they can be given a precise mathematical justification. In any case, the physical anomaly is characterized by a $`2n`$ form $`G_{2n}`$, which certainly does exist. The precise formula is

$$\delta S_{\mathrm{eff}}=G_{2n}.$$
(13)
The formulas for $`G_{2n}`$ are rather ugly and subject to the ambiguity of local counterterms and total derivatives, whereas by pretending that there are two extra dimensions one uniquely encodes the anomalies in beautiful formulas $`I_{2n+2}`$. Moreover, any $`G_{2n}`$ that is deduced from an $`I_{2n+2}`$ by the formulas that follow, is guaranteed to satisfy the Wess–Zumino consistency conditions.

The anomaly $`G_{2n}`$ is obtained from $`I_{2n+2}`$ (in a coordinate patch) by the descent equations $`I_{2n+2}=d\omega _{2n+1}`$ and $`\delta \omega _{2n+1}=dG_{2n}`$. Here $`\delta `$ represents a combined gauge transformation (i.e., $`\delta =\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }+\delta _\mathrm{\Theta }`$). The ambiguities in the determination of the Chern–Simons form $`\omega _{2n+1}`$ and the anomaly form $`G_{2n}`$ from these equations are just as they should be and do not pose a problem. The total anomaly is a sum of contributions from each of the chiral fields in the theory, and it can be encoded in a characteristic class

$$I_{2n+2}=\underset{\alpha }{}I_{2n+2}^{(\alpha )}$$
(14)
The formulas for every possible anomaly contribution $`I_{2n+2}^{(\alpha )}`$ were worked out by Alvarez-Gaumé and Witten. Dropping an overall normalization factor (which we can do, because we are interested in achieving cancellation) their results are as follows:

$``$ A left-handed Weyl fermion belonging to the $`\rho `$ representation of the Yang-Mills gauge group contributes

$$I_{1/2}(R,F)=\left(\widehat{A}(R)\mathrm{tr}_\rho e^{iF}\right)_{2n+2}.$$
(15)
The notation $`(\mathrm{})_{2n+2}`$ means that one should extract the $`(2n+2)`$-form part of the enclosed expression. The Dirac roof genus $`\widehat{A}(R)`$ is given by

$$\widehat{A}(R)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{\lambda _i/2}{\mathrm{sinh}\lambda _i/2}\right),$$
(16)
where the $`\lambda _i`$ are the “eigenvalue two-forms” of the curvature:

$$R\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}0& \lambda _1& & & & & & \\ \lambda _1& 0& & & & & & \\ & & 0& \lambda _2& & & & \\ & & \lambda _2& 0& & & & \\ & & & & .& & & \\ & & & & & .& & \\ & & & & & & 0& \lambda _n\\ & & & & & & \lambda _n& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(17)
$``$ A left-handed Weyl gravitino, which is always a singlet of any Yang-Mills groups, gives a contribution denoted $`I_{3/2}(R)`$. In the following, we will circumvent the need for the explicit formula.

$``$ A self-dual tensor gives a contribution denoted $`I_A(R)`$. It is related to the Hirzebruch $`L`$-function

$$L(R)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\lambda _i}{\mathrm{tanh}\lambda _i}$$
(18)
by $`I_A(R)=\frac{1}{8}L(R)`$.

In each case a chiral field of the opposite chirality (right-handed instead of left-handed) gives an anomaly contribution of the opposite sign. Later we will utilize the identity

$$\widehat{A}(R/2)=\sqrt{L(R/4)\widehat{A}(R)},$$
(19)
which is an immediate consequence of eqs. (16) and (18).

### 2.4 The Type IIB Theory

Type IIB superstring theory is a ten-dimensional parity-violating theory, whose massless chiral fields consist of two left-handed Majorana–Weyl gravitinos (or, equivalently, one Weyl gravitino), two right-handed Majorana–Weyl spinors (or “dilatinos”) and a self-dual boson. Thus the total anomaly is given by the 12-form part of

$$I=I_{3/2}(R)I_{1/2}(R)+I_A(R).$$
(20)
An important result of the Alvarez-Gaumé and Witten paper  is that this 12-form vanishes, so that this theory is anomaly-free. The proof requires showing that the expression

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}\frac{\lambda _i/2}{\mathrm{sinh}\lambda _i/2}\right)\left(2\mathrm{cosh}\lambda _i2\right)\frac{1}{8}\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}\frac{\lambda _i}{\mathrm{tanh}\lambda _i}$$
(21)
contains no terms of sixth order in the $`\lambda _i`$. This involves three nontrivial cancellations. The relevance of this fact to the type I theory, to which we turn next, is that we can represent $`I_{3/2}(R)`$ by $`I_{1/2}(R)I_A(R)`$. This is only correct for the 12-form part, but that is all that we need.

## 3 Type I Superstring Theory

Type I superstring theory has 16 conserved supercharges, which form a Majorana–Weyl spinor in ten dimensions. The massless fields of type I superstring theory consist of a supergravity multiplet in the closed string sector and a super Yang–Mills multiplet in the open string sector. The supergravity multiplet contains three bosonic fields: the metric (35), a two-form (28), and a scalar dilaton (1). The parenthetical numbers are the number of physical polarization states represented by these fields. None of these is chiral. It also contains two fermionic fields: a left-handed Majorana–Weyl gravitino (56) and a right-handed Majorana–Weyl dilatino (8). These are chiral and contribute an anomaly given by

$$I_{\mathrm{sugra}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(I_{3/2}(R)I_{1/2}(R)\right)_{12}=\frac{1}{2}\left(I_A(R)\right)_{12}=\frac{1}{16}\left(L(R)\right)_{12}.$$
(22)
The super Yang–Mills multiplet contains the gauge fields and left-handed Majorana–Weyl fermions (gauginos), each of which belongs to the adjoint representation of the gauge group. Classically, the gauge group can be any orthogonal or symplectic group. In the following we only consider the case of $`SO(N)`$, since it is the one of most interest. In this case the adjoint representation corresponds to antisymmetric $`N\times N`$ matrices, and has dimension $`N(N1)/2`$. Adding the anomaly contribution of the gauginos to the supergravity contribution given above yields

$$I_{12}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\widehat{A}(R)\mathrm{Tr}e^{iF}+\frac{1}{16}L(R)\right)_{12}$$
(23)
The symbol Tr is used to refer to the adjoint representation, whereas the symbol tr is used (later) to refer to the $`N`$-dimensional fundamental representation.

Next we use the Chern character property

$$\mathrm{tr}_{\rho _1\times \rho _2}e^{iF}=\left(\mathrm{tr}_{\rho _1}e^{iF}\right)\left(\mathrm{tr}_{\rho _2}e^{iF}\right)$$
(24)
to deduce that for $`SO(N)`$

$$\mathrm{Tr}e^{iF}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{tr}e^{iF}\right)^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}e^{2iF}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{cos}F\right)^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{cos2}F.$$
(25)
In the last step we have used the fact that the trace of an odd power of $`F`$ vanishes.

Substituting eq. (25) into eq. (23) gives the anomaly as the 12-form part of

$$\frac{1}{4}\widehat{A}(R)\left(\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{cos}F\right)^2\frac{1}{4}\widehat{A}(R)\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{cos2}F+\frac{1}{16}L(R).$$
(26)
Since this is of 6th order in $`R`$’s and $`F`$’s, the following expression has the same 12-form part:

$$I^{}=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{A}(R)\left(\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{cos}F\right)^216\widehat{A}(R/2)\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{cos}F+256L(R/4).$$
(27)
Moreover, using eq. (19), this can be recast as a perfect square

$$I^{}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\widehat{A}(R)}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{cos}F16\sqrt{L(R/4)}\right)^2.$$
(28)
There is no choice of $`N`$ for which $`I_{12}^{}=I_{12}`$ vanishes. However, as will be explained later, it is possible to introduce a local counterterm that cancels the anomaly if $`I_{12}`$ factorizes into a product of a 4-form and an 8-form. We have shown that $`I^{}=Y^2`$, where

$$Y=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\widehat{A}(R)}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{cos}F16\sqrt{L(R/4)}.$$
(29)
A priori, this is a sum of forms $`Y_0+Y_4+Y_8+\mathrm{}`$. However, if the constant term vanishes ($`Y_0=0`$), then

$$I_{12}=\left(Y_4+Y_8+\mathrm{}\right)_{12}^2=2Y_4Y_8$$
(30)
as required. To examine the constant term in $`Y`$, we use the fact that $`L`$ and $`\widehat{A}`$ are equal to 1 plus higher order forms and that $`\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{cos}F=N+\mathrm{}`$ to deduce that $`Y_0=(N32)/2`$. Thus, the desired factorization only works for the choice $`N=32`$ in which case the gauge algebra is $`SO(32)`$.

Let us express $`Y`$ as a sum of two terms $`Y_B+Y_C`$, where

$$Y_B=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\widehat{A}(R)}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{cos}F$$
(31)
and

$$Y_C=16\sqrt{L(R/4)}.$$
(32)
This decomposition has a simple interpretation in terms of string world-sheets. $`Y_B`$ is the boundary – or D-brane – contribution. It carries all the dependence on the gauge fields. $`Y_C`$ is the cross-cap – or orientifold plane – contribution. Note that

$$I^{}=Y^2=Y_B^2+2Y_BY_C+Y_C^2$$
(33)
displays the anomaly contributions arising from distinct world-sheet topologies: the cylinder, the Möbius strip, and the Klein bottle.

In order to cancel the anomaly, what we need is a local counterterm, $`S_C`$, with the property that

$$\delta S_C=G_{10},$$
(34)
where $`G_{10}`$ is the anomaly 10-form that follows, via the descent equations, from $`I_{12}=2Y_4Y_8`$. As we mentioned earlier, there are ambiguities in the determination of $`G_{10}`$ from $`I_{12}`$. A convenient choice in the present case is

$$G_{10}=2G_2Y_8,$$
(35)
where $`G_2`$ is a two-form that is related to $`Y_4`$ by the descent equations $`Y_4=d\omega _3`$ and $`\delta \omega _3=dG_2`$. This works because $`Y_8`$ is closed and gauge invariant.

Recall that the type I supergravity multiplet contains a two form field, which we denote $`C_2`$. (Parenthetically, we note that in the lingo of the RNS superstring description it belongs to the Ramond-Ramond sector of the spectrum.) In terms of its index structure, it would seem that the field $`C`$ should be invariant under Yang–Mills gauge transformations and local Lorentz transformations. However, it does transform nontrivially under each of them in just such a way as to cancel the anomaly. Specifically, writing the counterterm as

$$S_C=\mu C_2Y_8,$$
(36)
eq. (34) is satisfied provided that

$$\mu \delta C_2=2G_2.$$
(37)
The coefficient $`\mu `$ is a parameter whose value depends on normalization conventions that we are not specifying here.

One consequence of the nontrivial gauge transformation properties of the field $`C_2`$ is that the naive kinetic term $`|dC_2|^2`$ must be modified to give gauge invariance. The correct choice is $`|H_3|^2`$, where

$$H_3=dC_2+2\mu ^1\omega _3.$$
(38)
Note that $`\omega _3`$ contains both Yang–Mills and Lorentz Chern–Simons terms. Only the former is present in the classical supergravity theory.

## 4 Concluding Remarks

The techniques that I have described for analyzing and cancelling anomalies in the type I $`SO(32)`$ theory can be used to analyze more complicated examples. Recently, in work carried out with Witten, a number of other examples were analyzed. These included the following

$``$ The type IIB theory with $`n`$ spacetime-filling D-brane anti-D-brane pairs and gauge symmetry $`U(n)\times U(n)`$. This model has tachyon fields associated to open strings connecting D-branes to anti-D-branes.

$``$ The type I theory with $`n`$ additional spacetime-filling D-brane anti-D-brane pairs and gauge symmetry $`SO(32+n)\times SO(n)`$.

$``$ A tachyon-free ten-dimensional string model (originally due to Sugimoto) with spontaneously broken supersymmetry and gauge group $`Sp(16)`$.

$``$ A nonsupersymmetric and tachyon-free ten-dimensional string model (originally due to Sagnotti) with gauge group $`U(32)`$.

$``$ Various six-dimensional string models.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Dept. of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-92-ER40701.


text:
# Integrable cases of gravitating static isothermal fluid spheres

## I Introduction

The Einstein equations for static and spherically symmetric perfect fluids have been investigated by many authors ,,. An abundance of solutions has been found when no equation of state is prescribed, since then the unknown functions are more than the equations. The problem becomes very difficult when the fluid’s pressure $`p\left(r\right)`$ is defined as a known function of the fluid’s density $`\rho \left(r\right)`$, both depending only on the radial coordinate $`r`$. A realistic equation of state is provided by the Newtonian polytropes $`p=\frac{1}{n}\rho ^{1+1/k}`$ which have been studied for many years ,. In the limit when $`k\mathrm{}`$ a softer isothermal equation of state emerges

$$\rho =np,$$
(1)
usually called the $`\gamma `$-law, because it is traditionally written as $`p=\left(\gamma 1\right)\rho `$. Physically realistic perfect fluid solutions have $`1n\mathrm{}`$. Important special cases include dust ($`n=\mathrm{}`$), incoherent radiation ($`n=3`$) and stiff fluid ($`n=1`$) where the speed of sound equals the speed of light.

Even for such a simple linear relation, few analytic solutions have been found. When $`n=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\rho 0`$ the pressure vanishes, giving the case of dust. In fact, the density also vanishes and what remains is trivial flat spacetime. When $`n=1`$ the pressure and the density are constant and the solution is equivalent to a vacuum solution with a cosmological constant found by de Sitter. We show in this paper that the case $`n=5`$ is connected to it by a Buchdahl transformation ,, and is also soluble. The case $`n=3`$ leads to the Einstein static universe . It is clear that the unphysical cases ($`n<1`$) should be studied too since they produce cosmological solutions or are connected to the physical ones by a general transformation, valid also when no equation of state is prescribed.

A simple solution for a general $`n`$ was hidden among the solutions found by Tolman . In fact, he studied the field equations under simplifying assumptions for the metric components, without imposing an equation of state. The pressure and the density in some of his solutions happen to satisfy Eq. (1) when certain constants are sent to zero or to infinity . The first who systematically investigated relation (1) was O. Klein. He rediscovered the Tolman solution first for $`n=3`$ and later for arbitrary $`n`$ ,. His approach and results, published in a not-readily available journal, remained unnoticed for a long time. Even in Ref.  his second work is mentioned as referring to the polytropic equation of state, which is true only for its beginning. For a third time this Klein-Tolman (KT) solution was found by Misner and Zapolsky . The radial dependence of the density, however, was omitted due to a misprint, causing additional confusion. Nevertheless, this paper became a standard reference towards which further rediscoveries , were directed . Klein also found numerically a regular solution, starting in phase space from Minkowski spacetime and spiralling towards the KT solution. His work was based on a certain first order differential equation. This solution was also rediscovered later by numeric studies of two and three-dimensional autonomous dynamical systems ,,, and further analysed.

The question whether the regular solution, parameterized by $`n`$, has an explicit expression has never been answered in a satisfactory way. The persistent closure of analytic methods on the irregular KT solution suggests that there are no more integrable cases except it and the few solutions mentioned above. On the other hand, similar problems have been completely solved explicitly. For example, static dust solutions are not possible. The dust must be non-static or charged. In both cases the general solution has been found ,,. The cylindrically symmetric static case has been solved in simple functions, using two different gauges ,. The relation between them was clarified in Ref. . The planar case follows easily from the cylindrical one  or from the spherical one ,.

The purpose of this paper is to derive the integrable cases in a unified manner and to elucidate the mathematical difficulty of the problem. We show that in its heart stands the Abel equation of the second kind, whose normal form is

$$ww_zw=f\left(z\right).$$
(2)
Its integrable cases depend on the shape of $`f\left(z\right)`$ and are tabulated in Ref. . The functions that emerge are in general transcendental, but simplify for special values of $`n`$. The integrable cases that we find are given by $`n=5,3,1,\mathrm{}`$ and the KT solution with $`n`$ outside the interval $`(5.83,0.17)`$.

In the following three sections three different approaches are discussed which invariably lead to Eq. (2) with functions $`f\left(z\right)`$ possessing the same general structure but with different coefficients. In Sec. II we start from the well-known Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) equation , written in a general spherical metric. In Sec. III the starting point is a differential equation derived by Klein in curvature coordinates. In Sec. IV we utilize the approach of Haggag and Hajj-Boutros (HH) described in Ref.  for a stiff perfect fluid in isotropic coordinates. Sec. V is dedicated to the Buchdahl transformation which supplies the integrable case $`n=5`$. Finally, Sec. VI contains some discussion and conclusions.

## II Analysis of the TOV equation

The metric of a static spherically symmetric spacetime reads ,

$$ds^2=e^{2\nu }dt^2e^\lambda dr^2R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(3)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is the metric on the two-sphere and $`\nu ,\lambda ,R`$ depend on $`r`$. The Einstein equations are written as

$$\rho =\frac{1}{R^2}e^\lambda \left(\frac{2R^{\prime \prime }}{R}+\frac{R^2}{R^2}\right)\left(e^\lambda \right)^{}\frac{R^{}}{R},$$
(4)
$$p=\frac{1}{R^2}+e^\lambda \frac{R^{}}{R}\left(\frac{R^{}}{R}+2\nu ^{}\right),$$
(5)
$$p=e^\lambda \left[\frac{R^{\prime \prime }}{R}+\nu ^{\prime \prime }+\left(\nu ^{}\frac{\lambda ^{}}{2}\right)\left(\nu ^{}+\frac{R^{}}{R}\right)\right],$$
(6)
where the prime means a derivative with respect to $`r`$ and units are used with $`8\pi G=c=1`$. The contracted Bianchi identity

$$p^{}=\left(\rho +p\right)\nu ^{},$$
(7)
follows from Eqs. (4)-(6) and usually replaces Eq. (6). Thus Eqs. (4), (5) and (7) determine $`\nu ,\lambda ,R,\rho `$ and $`p`$. One of the metric functions is redundant and can be used to fix the gauge. Different coordinate systems have been introduced in the literature. Curvature coordinates (called also Schwarzschild coordinates) are obtained when $`R=r`$. Isotropic coordinates have $`R=re^{\lambda /2}`$ while polar gaussian coordinates set $`e^\lambda =1`$. Other coordinates are known as well. Fixing the gauge and the equation of state equals the number of unknowns and equations. For the time being, we proceed in full generality to derive the TOV equation. Let us define the so-called mass function $`m\left(r\right)`$:

$$m\left(r\right)\frac{1}{2}R\left(1e^\lambda R^2\right).$$
(8)
Then Eq. (4) may be written as

$$\rho =\frac{2m^{}}{R^2R^{}},$$
(9)
which integrates to

$$m\left(R\right)=\frac{1}{2}_0^R\rho R^2𝑑R.$$
(10)
Passing from $`r`$ to $`R`$ dependence, inserting $`e^\lambda `$ from Eq. (8) and $`\nu _R`$ from Eq. (7) into Eq. (5) results in the general TOV equation

$$p_R=\frac{\left(\rho +p\right)\left(2m+pR^3\right)}{2R\left(R2m\right)}.$$
(11)
In the case of dust $`p=0`$. Then Eq. (11) yields $`\rho m=0`$, which combined with Eqs. (9)-(10) gives $`\rho =0`$. There is no matter and the solution is trivial flat spacetime. In the general case when $`p=p\left(\rho \right)`$, Eq. (9) shows that Eq. (11) is a differential equation for $`m\left(R\right)`$. Let us now introduce the variables $`M=m/R,`$ $`D=\frac{1}{2}\rho R^2`$ and $`P=\frac{1}{2}pR^2`$. Then Eq. (11) becomes

$$RD_R=2D\frac{\left(D+P\right)\left(M+P\right)}{\left(12M\right)p_\rho }.$$
(12)
Specializing to the $`\gamma `$-law equation of state and introducing $`\tau =\mathrm{ln}R`$ we obtain from Eqs. (12) and (9) the autonomous system

$$\left(2M1\right)D_\tau =D\left[\left(n+5\right)M2+\frac{n+1}{n}D\right],$$
(13)
$$D=M_\tau +M.$$
(14)
The case $`n=0`$ is excluded because it gives vanishing density. This system was derived in polar gaussian coordinates by Collins  and further analysed by him in Refs. , .

Now, let us insert Eq. (14) into Eq. (13) and define $`x=M1/2`$. The result is

$$xx_{\tau \tau }=\frac{n+1}{2n}x_\tau ^2+\left[\frac{\left(n+1\right)\left(n+2\right)+2n}{2n}x+\frac{\left(n+1\right)\left(n+2\right)}{4n}\right]x_\tau +A\left(x\right),$$
(15)
$$A\left(x\right)\left(x+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left[\frac{\left(n+1\right)^2+4n}{2n}\left(x+\frac{1}{2}\right)1\right].$$
(16)
Eq. (8) indicates that $`x<0`$. The solution of Eq. (15) determines $`M`$ and consequently $`m`$ as functions of $`R`$. Then $`D`$ is given by Eq. (14) which determines respectively $`\rho \left(R\right)`$. The pressure is given by Eq. (1), while $`\nu `$ follows from Eq. (7) written as

$$\left(\rho +p\right)\nu _R=p_R.$$
(17)
Finally, $`e^\lambda R^2`$ is found from Eq. (5), written as

$$e^\lambda R^2=\frac{1+pR^2}{1+2R\nu _R}.$$
(18)
In order to determine $`\lambda \left(r\right)`$ one should specify $`R\left(r\right)`$, the most simple choice being $`R=r`$. In polar gaussian coordinates Eq. (18) yields an equation for $`R\left(r\right)`$ with separated variables. The same is true in isotropic coordinates.

Eq. (15) simplifies enormously when $`x`$ is constant, becoming

$$M\left[\frac{\left(n+1\right)^2+4n}{2n}M1\right]=0.$$
(19)
The choice $`M_1=0`$ leads to $`m=p=\rho =0`$, i.e. to flat spacetime. The choice

$$M_2=\frac{2n}{\left(n+1\right)^2+4n},$$
(20)
gives via Eq. (14) $`D=M=const`$ and $`\lambda =const`$, $`\rho =2D/R^2`$ which is exactly the KT solution. At the centre the density and the pressure have poles and diverge. This solution does not exist when $`5.83=32\sqrt{2}<n<3+2\sqrt{2}=0.17`$ because then $`x_2=M_21/2`$ is positive or vanishes (when $`n=1`$). In the intervals $`0.17<n<0`$ and $`n<5.83`$ the solution exists but $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ have different signs.

When $`x_\tau 0`$ we can decrease the order of Eq. (15) by the standard change of variables $`x_\tau y\left(x\right)`$:

$$xyy_x=\frac{n+1}{2n}y^2\left[\frac{\left(n+1\right)\left(n+2\right)+2n}{2n}x+\frac{\left(n+1\right)\left(n+2\right)}{4n}\right]y+A\left(x\right).$$
(21)
Eq. (21) falls in the class

$$\left[g_1\left(x\right)y+g_0\left(x\right)\right]y_x=f_2\left(x\right)y^2+f_1\left(x\right)y+f_0\left(x\right).$$
(22)
There is a standard procedure for the solution of such equations . It consists of two changes of variables which bring them to the Abel equations of the second kind given by Eq. (2) or by

$$ww_\zeta =g\left(\zeta \right)w+1.$$
(23)
This procedure is much easier when $`g_0=0`$ and $`f_2=const`$ as in Eq. (21). Namely, we have $`w=yE`$, $`f\left(z\right)=f_0E/f_1`$, $`g\left(\zeta \right)=f_1/f_0E`$ and

$$E=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{f_2}{g_1}𝑑x\right),$$
(24)
$$z\left(x\right)=\frac{f_1}{g_1}E𝑑x,$$
(25)
$$\zeta \left(x\right)=\frac{f_0}{g_1}E^2𝑑x.$$
(26)
Since $`f_1`$ is a simpler polynomial than $`f_0`$ we shall use Eqs. (2) and (25). The use of Eqs. (23) and (26) is more complicated, but does not bring additional integrable cases.

Applied to Eq. (21) the chosen alternative of the general method yields

$$w=yx^{\frac{n+1}{n}},$$
(27)
$$z=\frac{1}{4n}\left[\left(n^2+5n+2\right)2x+\left(n+1\right)\left(n+2\right)\right]x^{\frac{n+1}{2n}1}𝑑x.$$
(28)
The case $`n=1`$ (stiff fluid) is special because a logarithmic term appears in $`z`$

$$z=4\mathrm{ln}|x|+\frac{3}{2x},$$
(29)
$$f\left(z\right)=\frac{\left(2x+1\right)\left(4x+1\right)}{x\left(8x+3\right)}.$$
(30)
The relation $`z\left(x\right)`$ is transcendental and throws $`f\left(z\right)`$ out of the tables with integrable cases present in Ref. . The case $`n=1`$ also leads to a logarithmic term but its coefficient vanishes. This case is integrable. In fact, we may go back directly to Eq. (13) which becomes $`D_\tau =2D`$ if $`M1/2`$ and yields $`\rho =p=const`$. This is the well-known de Sitter solution. When $`M=1/2`$ Eq. (13) is satisfied identically and we obtain formally the KT solution (20) with $`n=1`$, but it has $`e^\lambda R^2=0`$ which is unacceptable.

In the generic case $`n\pm 1`$ and Eq. (28) integrates to

$$z=\frac{x^{\frac{n+1}{2n}}}{2\left(n1\right)}\left[\left(n^2+5n+2\right)2x\left(n1\right)\left(n+2\right)\right],$$
(31)
$$f\left(z\right)=\frac{\left(n1\right)\left(2x+1\right)\left[\left(n^2+6n+1\right)2x+\left(n+1\right)^2\right]z}{\left[\left(n^2+5n+2\right)2x\left(n1\right)\left(n+2\right)\right]\left[\left(n^2+5n+2\right)2x+\left(n+1\right)\left(n+2\right)\right]}.$$
(32)
The $`z`$-$`x`$ connection in Eq. (31) is transcendental, except for special values of $`n`$, and Eq. (2) is non-integrable in general. Let us investigate the special cases.

When $`n=3`$, $`f_1`$ divides $`f_0`$ and $`f\left(z\right)=8z`$, $`z=\frac{1}{2}\left(2x+1\right)x^{1/3}`$. This is an integrable case, corresponding to the Einstein static universe. It is discussed in more details in the next section. There is also the formal $`n=3`$ case of the KT solution (20). It does not exist since $`x=1/4>0`$.

One may try to simplify Eq. (31) by nullifying the coefficients on the right. The condition $`n^2+5n+2=0`$ gives $`n=\frac{1}{2}\left(5\pm \sqrt{17}\right)`$. This is of no good since the radical enters the power of $`x`$. The other possibility $`n=2`$ looks more promising. Then Eq. (31) becomes $`x^{3/4}=3z/4`$ and Eq. (32) reduces to

$$f\left(z\right)=\frac{21}{16}z\frac{9}{16}\left(\frac{4}{3}\right)^{4/3}z^{1/3}+\frac{3}{64}\left(\frac{4}{3}\right)^{8/3}z^{5/3}.$$
(33)
This function leads to an integrable equation when the coefficient in front of $`z`$ is $`3/16`$ which is not true here.

There are several $`n`$ which convert Eq. (31) into an algebraic equation for $`x`$ of fourth order or lower. It can be solved explicitly for $`x\left(z\right)`$ and the answer replaced in Eq. (32). Third and fourth order equations appear when $`n=\pm 1/5,\pm 1/7,1/2,3/5`$. The radical structure of $`f\left(z\right)`$, however, is incompatible with the tables with integrable $`f\left(z\right)`$. Second order equations appear when $`n=1/3`$ respectively:

$$4x=5\pm \sqrt{25+48z},$$
(34)
$$6zx=17\pm \sqrt{17+42z}.$$
(35)
Unfortunately, the only integrable functions with square roots include the term $`\sqrt{z^2+z_0}`$ which is not present in the above relations.

Comparison between Eqs. (31)-(32) and Eq. (20) shows how complex must be the numerical regular solution, which starts in $`x,y`$ coordinates from flat spacetime and focuses on the KT solution, following a spiral around it. The innocent parameter $`n`$, introduced in Eq. (1), proliferates like cancer in the process of solution, ending with the intricate coefficients in $`z\left(x\right)`$ and $`f\left(z\right)`$. It even determines the transcendental or algebraic nature of $`z\left(x\right)`$. In conclusion, the only integrable cases found within this approach are $`n=\mathrm{}`$ (trivial dust solution), $`n=1`$ (de Sitter solution), $`n=3`$ (Einstein static universe) and $`M=const`$ (the KT solution).

Finally, let us discuss for comparison the case of planar symmetry, which is solvable. Going to polar gaussian coordinates, the metric element reads

$$ds^2=e^{2\nu }dt^2dr^2R^2\left(dx_2^2+F\left(x_2\right)^2dx_3^2\right),$$
(36)
where $`F\left(x_2\right)=\mathrm{sin}x_2`$ for spherical symmetry and $`F\left(x_2\right)=1`$ for planar symmetry ,. It is possible to generalize the TOV equation to encompass both cases. Instead of Eq. (13) one should write

$$\left(2MK\right)D_\tau =D\left[2K+\left(n+5\right)M+\frac{n+1}{n}D\right],$$
(37)
where $`K=1`$ or $`0`$, corresponding to spherical or planar symmetry respectively. In the second case Eq. (37) simplifies

$$2MM_{\tau \tau }=\frac{n+1}{n}M_\tau ^2+bMM_\tau +aM^2,$$
(38)
where $`a=n+1/n+6`$, $`b=n+2/n+5`$. This is the analog of Eq. (15). Proceeding in the same way we obtain again the Abel equation (2) with $`y=M_\tau `$ and

$$w=yM^{\frac{n+1}{2n}},$$
(39)
$$z=\frac{bn}{1n}M^{\frac{n1}{2n}},$$
(40)
$$f\left(z\right)=\frac{\left(n1\right)a}{nb^2}z.$$
(41)
As mentioned before, Eq. (2) with $`f\left(z\right)=\alpha z+\beta ,`$ where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are constants, is integrable. The solution, in parametric form, reads

$$z=Ce^T\frac{\beta }{\alpha },$$
(42)
$$w=C\sigma e^T,$$
(43)
$$T=\frac{\sigma d\sigma }{\sigma ^2\sigma \alpha },$$
(44)
with $`C`$ being an arbitrary constant. In Ref.  the problem was solved in a different way, by introducing the variable $`\stackrel{~}{D}=D/M`$. Then Eqs. (14) and (37) are equivalent to

$$2\stackrel{~}{D}_\tau =\stackrel{~}{D}\left(n+7+\frac{1n}{n}\stackrel{~}{D}\right).$$
(45)
This is a Bernoulli equation and is easily solved. Further details may be found in Ref.  where also a connection with earlier work , on the particular cases $`n=1`$ and $`n=3`$ is established.

## III The approach of Klein

This approach was developed in curvature coordinates where Eqs. (4), (5) and (7) simplify to

$$p=\frac{2}{r}\nu ^{}e^\lambda \frac{1}{r^2}\left(1e^\lambda \right),$$
(46)
$$\rho =\frac{1}{r}\lambda ^{}e^\lambda +\frac{1}{r^2}\left(1e^\lambda \right),$$
(47)
$$p^{}=\left(\rho +p\right)\nu ^{}.$$
(48)
Imposing the $`\gamma `$-law, we can integrate Eq. (48):

$$p=p_0e^{\left(n+1\right)\nu }.$$
(49)
Like before, the case of dust $`n=\mathrm{}`$, $`p=0`$ gives a trivial solution with constant $`\nu `$ and $`\lambda `$. Supposing that $`p0`$, let us introduce the variables $`s=p_0r^2`$, $`\xi =e^{\left(n+1\right)\nu }/s`$ and

$$x=\xi e^\lambda =\frac{e^\lambda }{pr^2}.$$
(50)
Obviously $`x`$ and $`\xi `$ always have the same sign and are positive when the pressure is positive.

We shall derive an equation for $`x`$, similar to Eq. (15). In Sec. II, III and IV the main functions will be denoted by $`x`$ although they are different, in order to simplify notation and to stress the role of Eq. (22) in the whole problem. Let us multiply Eq. (46) by $`\left(n+1\right)/4`$, Eq. (47) by $`1/2`$ and sum. The result is

$$4\left(sx\right)_s\left(n+3\right)\left(1e^\lambda \right)\xi =1n.$$
(51)
Let us introduce $`2\tau =\mathrm{ln}s`$. It differs by a constant from the variable in the previous section, but this is not important since the final equation will be autonomous. Laying temporarily aside the special case $`n=3`$, we can express $`\xi `$ from Eq. (51) as

$$\xi =\frac{1}{n+3}\left[2x_\tau +\left(n+7\right)x+n1\right].$$
(52)
Eq. (46) may be written in the following way:

$$4\left(s\xi \right)_s\left(n+1\right)\left(e^\lambda 1\right)\xi =\left(n+1\right)e^\lambda .$$
(53)
The usage of Eqs. (50) and (52) transforms this relation into an autonomous second-order equation for $`x`$. The change of variables $`x_\tau =y\left(x\right)`$ applies again, leading to

$`2\left(n+3\right)xyy_x`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(n+1\right)y^2+2\left(n+11\right)xy\left(n+1\right)\left(3n+1\right)y4\left(n+7\right)x^2`$ (55)
$`+\left(n^3+9n^2+11n+11\right)x+\left(n+1\right)^2\left(n1\right).`$
This is exactly the equation of Klein derived in Refs. ,, where the notation $`n=2n_{Kl}+1`$ and $`x=\left(n_{Kl}+1\right)^2x_{Kl}`$ was used. He studied it by series expansion and numerically, and was the first to find its regular solution (see Fig. (1) from Ref.). When $`x\left(\tau \right)`$ is known Eq. (52) gives $`\xi `$, and Eq. (50) determines both $`\lambda `$ and $`p`$. Then Eq. (49) becomes an expression for $`\nu `$ and finally $`\rho `$ is given by Eq. (1). Modulo coefficients, Eq. (54) is the same as Eq. (21) and also falls in the class (22). Therefore, the procedure described in Sec. II can be applied to bring it to the form of Eq. (2) with

$$w=yx^{\frac{n+1}{n+3}},$$
(56)
$$z=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(n+11\right)x+3n+1\right]x^{\frac{n+1}{n+3}},$$
(57)
$$f\left(z\right)=\frac{2\left[4x\left(n+1\right)^2\right]\left[\left(n+7\right)x+n1\right]z}{\left[2\left(n+11\right)x\left(n+1\right)\left(3n+1\right)\right]\left[\left(n+11\right)x+3n+1\right]}.$$
(58)
There are no logarithmic terms in $`z`$ within this approach. As with Eq. (31), $`x\left(z\right)`$ is transcendental except in special cases.

Eq. (54) shows that the KT solution is given here by

$$x_0=\frac{\left(n+1\right)^2}{4}.$$
(59)
The other root $`x=\frac{n1}{n+7}`$ leads to $`\xi =0`$ and $`e^{2\nu }=e^\lambda =0`$, $`\rho =np=\mathrm{}`$ which is unacceptable. Now, since $`x_00`$ for any $`n`$, we must ensure that $`\xi _0>0`$ in order to have positive $`e^\lambda `$. Eq. (52) gives $`\xi _0=n^2+6n+1`$ and we obtain the same conditions for the existence of the KT solution as in the previous section.

In the case $`n=1`$ Eq. (48) yields $`p=p_0`$, $`\rho =p_0`$, while the sum of Eqs. (46) and (47) provides the relation $`2\nu =\lambda `$. Eq. (47) is a linear equation for $`e^\lambda `$, its solution being

$$e^\lambda =1\frac{2m_0}{r}+\frac{p_0}{3}r^2,$$
(60)
where $`m_0`$ is a constant of integration, identified as the gravitating mass. This is precisely the Kottler solution . It can be used as a regular interior solution when $`m_0=0`$. Then it becomes the de Sitter solution. The KT solution for $`n=1`$ has $`x_0=0`$ and does not exist.

When $`n=3`$ Eq. (51) determines directly $`x`$: $`x=1+x_1/s`$, while Eq. (49) gives $`p=p_0e^{2\nu }`$. Then we have from Eq. (50) $`e^{2\nu \lambda }=x_1+s`$. Eq. (46) becomes a linear equation for $`e^{2\nu }`$ when these results are taken into account. There are two possibilities. When the constant $`x_1=0`$, $`x=1`$, which is the formal KT solution (58) for $`n=3`$. In fact, it does not exist. When $`x_10`$ the solution is

$$x_1e^{2\nu }=1+C_1\left(1+\frac{x_1}{s}\right)^{1/2},$$
(61)
where $`C_1`$ is another integration constant. A regular solution is obtained when $`x_1=1`$ and $`C_1=0`$. Then $`\nu =0`$ and

$$e^\lambda =\frac{1}{1+p_0r^2}.$$
(62)
The last two equations represent the metric of the Einstein static universe. The pressure and the density are constant, $`p=p_0`$, $`\rho =3p_0`$.

There are two cases when the coefficients of $`z\left(x\right)`$ are simplified, namely $`n=11`$ and $`n=1/3`$. In the first case Eq. (57) reads

$$320f\left(z\right)=75z+16^{8/5}z^{3/5}+22\times 16^{4/5}z^{1/5}.$$
(63)
The function

$$f\left(z\right)=c_1z+c_2z^{q_1}+c_3z^{q_2},$$
(64)
is integrable for a set of $`(q_1,q_2)`$ but $`(3/5,1/5)`$ is not among them. When $`n=1/3`$ we have

$$f\left(z\right)=\frac{15}{64}z+\frac{7}{96}\left(\frac{16}{3}\right)^{4/3}z^{1/3}\frac{1}{192}\left(\frac{16}{3}\right)^{8/3}z^{5/3}.$$
(65)
The set $`(1/3,5/3)`$ is integrable, but only when $`c_1=3/16`$ which is not the case here.

Finally, there are few $`n`$ when Eq. (56) is an algebraic equation up to the fourth order. Only the cases $`n=5,2,1`$ are candidates for integrability because they lead to quadratic equations. Of these, $`n=5,2`$ yield radicals resembling those in Eqs. (34) and (35) and should be rejected. More interesting is the case of stiff fluid when

$$x=\frac{1}{72}\left(z^224\pm z\sqrt{z^248}\right),$$
(66)
$$f\left(z\right)=\frac{2z\left[\left(z^260\right)x4\right]}{9\left[\left(z^224\right)x8\right]}.$$
(67)
The radicals in $`f\left(z\right)`$ are of the necessary type, but its structure is too complex to figure in the tables with integrable cases.

Like in Sec. II, the only integrable cases found are $`n=3,1,\mathrm{}`$ and $`x=x_0`$. The unsuccessful candidates for explicit solutions have in general different values of $`n`$ in the two approaches. When they coincide, as is the case $`n=1`$, the reasons for rejection are different - a logarithmic term in the TOV-Collins approach and a complicated $`f\left(z\right)`$ in the Klein approach.

It is interesting to compare the main variable in this section $`xx_K`$ to the variables in the TOV approach, specialized to curvature coordinates. Eq. (8) becomes

$$M=\frac{m}{r}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1e^\lambda \right),$$
(68)
and transforms Eq. (50) into

$$x_K=\frac{12M}{2nD}.$$
(69)
Thus, not only $`x=M1/2`$, but also the above combination satisfy Abel equations of the second kind. The function $`x_K`$ resembles $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$, used in the planar case. It is well-known that when $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ satisfies the Bernoulli Eq. (45), $`\stackrel{~}{D}^1=M/D`$ satisfies a linear equation. This fact stresses once more the conclusion that the spherical case is much more complicated than the planar one.

## IV Approach in isotropic coordinates

One can pass from arbitrary to isotropic coordinates in Eqs.(4)-(6) by putting $`R=re^{\lambda /2}`$. Let us make also the change $`s=\mathrm{ln}r`$. Then

$$\rho r^2e^\lambda =\lambda _{ss}\frac{1}{4}\lambda _s^2\lambda _s,$$
(70)
$$pr^2e^\lambda =\frac{1}{4}\lambda _s^2+\lambda _s\nu _s+\lambda _s+2\nu _s,$$
(71)
$$pr^2e^\lambda =\frac{1}{2}\lambda _{ss}+\nu _{ss}+\nu _s^2.$$
(72)
Let us introduce next the variable

$$\frac{1}{t}=\lambda _s+2,$$
(73)
and impose the $`\gamma `$-law equation of state. An expression for $`\nu _s`$ is obtained from Eqs. (69) and (70):

$$\nu _s=\frac{t_s}{nt}\frac{n+1}{4n}\left(\frac{1}{t}4t\right).$$
(74)
Next, let us combine Eqs. (70) and (71) and replace in them $`\lambda _s`$ and $`\nu _s`$ from the above equations. A long, but straightforward computation produces an autonomous equation for $`t`$

$`2ntt_{ss}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(1n\right)t_s^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(n^2+5n+2\right)t_s2\left(n+1\right)\left(n+2\right)t^2t_s2\left(n+1\right)^2t^4`$ (76)
$`+\left[\left(n+1\right)^2+2n\right]t^2{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(n+1\right)^2}{8}}`$
A solution of this master equation determines all characteristics of the metric and the fluid.

When $`n=1`$ Eq. (74) is exactly Eq. (9) from Ref. . In this section we generalize the HH approach to arbitrary $`n`$ and bring it to its logical end - the Abel equation (2). We first lower the order of the polynomial in Eq. (74) by setting $`t^2=x/4`$ and then perform the change of variables

$$\left(\sqrt{x}\right)_s=\frac{1}{2}y.$$
(77)
The condition $`x0`$ should be maintained throughout the calculations. Eq. (74) acquires its final form

$`2nxyy_x`$ $`=`$ $`\left(n1\right)y^2+\left[\left(n+1\right)\left(n+2\right)x\left(n^2+5n+2\right)\right]y`$ (79)
$`+\left(x1\right)\left[4n+\left(n+1\right)^2\left(n+1\right)^2x\right].`$
It falls in the class (22) and resembles Eqs. (21) and (54), but its coefficients are different functions of $`n`$. Proceeding like before, we get

$$w=yx^{\frac{n1}{2n}},$$
(80)
$$\left(n1\right)z=\left[\left(n1\right)\left(n+2\right)x+n^2+5n+2\right]x^{\frac{n1}{2n}},$$
(81)
$$f\left(z\right)=\frac{\left(n1\right)\left(x1\right)\left[4n+\left(n+1\right)^2\left(n+1\right)^2x\right]z}{\left[\left(n+1\right)\left(n+2\right)x\left(n^2+5n+2\right)\right]\left[\left(n1\right)\left(n+2\right)x+n^2+5n+2\right]},$$
(82)
in the generic case $`n\pm 1`$.

The stiff fluid case leads to a logarithmic term in $`z\left(x\right)`$ which makes

$$f\left(z\right)=\frac{2\left(x1\right)\left(x2\right)}{3x4},$$
(83)
non-integrable.

The case $`n=1`$ is pseudo-logarithmic since the coefficient in front of $`\mathrm{ln}x`$ vanishes. We have $`x=1/z`$ and $`f\left(z\right)=2z2`$. This case is integrable and the solution is given by Eqs. (42)-(44) with $`\alpha =\beta =2`$.

The case $`n=3`$ leads to a gross simplification of $`f\left(z\right)`$ and is also soluble. One obtains $`f\left(z\right)=2z`$ i.e. $`\alpha =2`$, $`\beta =0`$.

The other candidate cases may be investigated in the same manner as in Secs. II and III. The values $`n=\pm 1/3`$ lead to quadratic equations with radicals of the wrong type. The case $`n=2`$ yields

$$f\left(z\right)=\frac{21}{16}z\frac{18}{16}\left(\frac{4}{3}\right)^{4/3}z^{1/3}\frac{3}{16}\left(\frac{4}{3}\right)^{8/3}z^{5/3}.$$
(84)
This equation belongs to the class (63) but again $`c_13/16`$ and integrability is not gained.

Finally, let us discuss the KT solution in the HH approach. When $`x=const`$ Eq. (76) becomes purely algebraic and has two roots: $`x_1=1`$ and

$$x_2=1+\frac{4n}{\left(n+1\right)^2}.$$
(85)
When $`n=1`$, $`x_2`$ does not exist. In fact, the requirement $`x_2>0`$ shows that $`n`$ must satisfy the conditions derived in Sec. II. The first root leads to $`t_1=\pm 1/2`$. In the first subcase Eqs. (72) and (73) give flat spacetime. In the second subcase the following line element is obtained

$$ds^2=dt^2r^4\left(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right).$$
(86)
The transformation $`\stackrel{~}{r}=1/r`$ converts this element into the usual element for flat spacetime.

The second root $`x_2`$ represents the KT solution in isotropic coordinates, namely $`e^\lambda =r^{\alpha _1}`$, $`e^{2\nu }=r^{\alpha _2}`$ where

$$\alpha _1=\pm \frac{2\left(n+1\right)}{\sqrt{4n+\left(n+1\right)^2}}2,$$
(87)
$$\alpha _2=\pm \frac{4}{\sqrt{4n+\left(n+1\right)^2}}.$$
(88)
When $`n=1`$, $`\alpha _1=\pm \sqrt{2}2`$ and $`\alpha _2=\pm \sqrt{2}`$. These values were found in Ref. , where the KT solution was discovered for a fifth time.

The integrable cases found in the HH approach coincide with those found in the Klein or the TOV-Collins approaches. In order to make connection with the last one, we must pass in Sec. II to isotropic coordinates. We have

$$R^{}=e^{\lambda /2}\left(1+\frac{\lambda _s}{2}\right),$$
(89)
$$2x=2M1=R^2e^\lambda =\frac{1}{4t^2}.$$
(90)
We cannot obtain Eq. (74) from Eq. (15) by replacing there just $`x`$ from Eq. (87) because $`s=\mathrm{ln}r`$, while $`\tau =\mathrm{ln}R=s+\lambda /2`$. The necessary additional relations are

$$x_\tau =\frac{t_s}{2t^2},$$
(91)
$$x_{\tau \tau }=\frac{t_{ss}}{t}\frac{2t_s^2}{t^2}.$$
(92)
Therefore, the HH approach combines the TOV equation in isotropic coordinates together with the linear equation (18) for $`\lambda `$.

## V Buchdahl transformation and the case $`n=5`$

This transformation was found by Buchdahl  and rediscovered by Glass and Goldman . Its general formulation refers to static perfect fluid solutions, not necessarily satisfying an equation of state. In the case of spherical symmetry it states that if

$$ds^2=e^{2\nu }dt^2e^\lambda \left(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right),$$
(93)
is the metric of a perfect fluid solution with pressure $`p`$ and density $`\rho `$ then there is a reciprocal solution which has $`\nu _b=\nu `$, $`\lambda _b=4\nu +\lambda `$ and

$$p_b=e^{4\nu }p,$$
(94)
$$\rho _b=e^{4\nu }\left(\rho +6p\right).$$
(95)
The transformation is simplest in isotropic coordinates and may be applied to the results obtained in the previous section. When $`p`$ and $`\rho `$ satisfy the $`\gamma `$-law, the same is true for $`p_b`$ and $`\rho _b`$ but with a different parameter:

$$\rho _b=\left(n+6\right)p_b.$$
(96)
Thus, the transformation of the parameter is $`n\left(n+6\right)`$. It is clear that when the starting solution is physically realistic ($`n1`$), the transformed one is unphysical, $`\left(n+6\right)7`$. However, when the starting solution is unphysical and $`n7`$, then the reciprocal one is physical. When $`n`$ is in the interval $`7<n<1`$ both solutions are unphysical. The existence of this transformation teaches that unphysical solutions should not be neglected a priori and the whole spectrum of $`n`$ must be investigated.

Let us apply the transformation to the integrable cases found in Sec. IV. The KT solution is self-reciprocal, i.e. transforms into itself. The reason is that $`4n+\left(n+1\right)^2`$ is invariant under the transformation. Taking $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ as the powers of $`r`$ in the starting solution, it is easy to show that $`\alpha _{2+}=\alpha _{2\text{ }}`$ and $`\alpha _{1+}=\alpha _1+2\alpha _2`$ when the plus solution is Buchdahl transformed. Solutions with $`n`$ outside the interval $`(5.83,0.17)`$ transform between themselves.

The case $`n=3`$ is also self-reciprocal, as was noticed already by Buchdahl. This explains why $`\nu =0`$ when the element of the Einstein static universe is written in isotropic coordinates . This is necessary to ensure the equality between the starting and the transformed solution.

The interesting case is the de Sitter solution ($`n=1`$) which transforms into an explicit solution with $`n=5`$. In isotropic coordinates the de Sitter solution reads

$$e^{2\nu }=\left(\frac{1+cr^2}{1cr^2}\right)^2,$$
(97)
$$e^\lambda =\left(1cr^2\right)^2,$$
(98)
and $`p=12/c`$, $`\rho =12/c`$ where $`c`$ is some constant. The transformed solution has

$$e^{2\nu _b}=\left(\frac{1cr^2}{1+cr^2}\right)^2,$$
(99)
$$e^{\lambda _b}=\frac{\left(1+cr^2\right)^4}{\left(1cr^2\right)^6},$$
(100)
$$p_b=\left(\frac{1cr^2}{1+cr^2}\right)^4\frac{12}{c},$$
(101)
and, of course, $`\rho _b=5p_b`$. Eq. (72) supplies the corresponding $`t`$:

$$t=\frac{1cr^2}{2\left(1+cr^2\right)},$$
(102)
$$t_b=\frac{1c^2r^4}{2\left(1+10cr^2+c^2r^4\right)}.$$
(103)
From Eq. (75) we get $`x=4t^2`$ and $`y=4rt_r`$. When $`t_b`$ is plugged in these relations we obtain the parametric solution $`x\left(r\right)`$, $`y\left(r\right)`$ of Eq. (76) for $`n=5`$:

$$xyy_x=\frac{3}{5}y^2\frac{6}{5}xy+\frac{1}{5}y+\frac{2}{5}\left(4x^23x1\right).$$
(104)
Eqs. (78) and (79) yield in this case

$$3z=\left(9x+1\right)x^{3/5},$$
(105)
$$f\left(z\right)=\frac{6\left(x1\right)\left(4x+1\right)}{\left(6x1\right)\left(9x+1\right)}z.$$
(106)
Eq. (102) is a fifth order equation for $`x`$ and seems to be transcendental. Obviously $`f\left(z\right)`$ is not among the tabulated integrable functions. Eq. (101) does not coincide also with any of the equations in Sec.1.3.4. from Ref.  which belong to the class (22). If we use Eq. (23) instead, $`g\left(\zeta \right)=1/f\left(z\right)`$ and

$$3\zeta x^{6/5}=6x^2+18x+1.$$
(107)
This equation is even more complicated than Eq. (102) and $`g\left(\zeta \right)`$ is not among the few integrable cases listed in Sec.1.3.2 from the same handbook. Unless some mistake has been made, Eq. (101) is integrable, but is not covered by Ref. . This situation is not unique. Recently, non-static charged perfect fluid distributions were discovered which too are missing in the handbooks with solutions of differential equations .

## VI Discussion and conclusions

In this paper we have discussed explicit solutions of the Einstein equations for a static spherically symmetric perfect fluid with the $`\gamma `$-law equation of state. Three approaches may be found in the literature which, at first sight, have nothing in common. The approach of Collins transforms the TOV equation in polar gaussian coordinates into a two-dimensional autonomous system of differential equations. He studies it numerically ,,. This is a representative example of other similar dynamical systems ,. In his approach Klein finds a second-order autonomous master equation, whose solution determines all characteristics of the metric and the fluid. He lowers its order and studies it by series expansion and numerically. Klein also discovers a simple exact but singular solution. This work is done in curvature coordinates ,. Haggag and Hajj-Boutros perform a similar study but in isotropic coordinates and only for a stiff fluid . They also obtain an autonomous second-order equation and transform it into another second-order equation (see Eqs. (9) and (14) in their paper). Then they look for polynomial solutions and find either flat spacetime or the KT solution.

We have generalized these three approaches and pursued them further, till their logical end - an equation, whose integrable cases are tabulated in the handbooks, like Ref. . Surprisingly, we invariably reach the Abel equation of the second kind (2). It behaves like a ’strange attractor’ and underlines the common features in the different approaches. The question of integrability is answered by the form of $`f\left(z\right)`$, the known integrable cases being tabulated. For this purpose we have generalized to an arbitrary coordinate system the dynamical system of Collins and to arbitrary $`n`$ the HH approach . The functions $`z\left(x\right)`$ and $`f\left(x\right)`$ have the same general structure in all approaches but with different coefficients. The relations between the master variables $`x`$, $`x_K`$ and $`x_{HH}`$ have been elucidated, the TOV-Collins approach serving as a basis.

The integrable cases found are one and the same and include $`n=\mathrm{}`$ (trivial dust solution), $`n=1`$ (de Sitter solution), $`n=3`$ (Einstein static universe) and $`x=const`$, $`n<5.83`$ or $`n>0.17`$ (Klein-Tolman solution). They appear either as exceptional cases, when equations simpler than Eq. (2) are to be solved, or as Eq. (2) with $`f\left(z\right)=\alpha z+\beta `$, the simplest integrable case. Some candidate $`n`$ lead to Eq. (63), but at least one of the constants there has the wrong value.

It has been shown that Eq. (2) stands in the centre of the problem, independent from the approach or the coordinate system and the integrable cases may be derived in a unified manner. The problem is a very strange mixture of simple integrable cases and extremely difficult non-integrable ones. Perhaps this gives some explanation why the de Sitter and the Einstein solutions were found in 1917, two years after the appearance of general relativity, and why the next years have brought only a five-fold discovery of the KT solution.

An important point is that the problem has been pushed to the mathematical realm of Abel differential equations and further progress depends on developments in this field. Using the Buchdahl transformation we have shown that the case $`n=5`$ is integrable and have given its metric and fluid characteristics. However, its master equation in isotropic coordinates (101) does not seem to be present in the handbooks. This leaves this paper with an open end and one may hope that other integrable cases will be found in the future.

Finally, it is interesting to note that all discrete integrable cases $`n=1,3,5`$ are regular and fall in the interval where the singular KT solution does not exist. One is tempted to speculate that in this interval there is a regular one-parameter solution, encompassing the discrete cases.