text:
# The failure of cosmological perturbation theory in the new ekpyrotic and cyclic ekpyrotic scenarios

## Introduction

It is now clear that the dominant cause of large-scale structure in the Universe is a perturbation in the spatial curvature . The perturbation exists already when cosmological scales are approaching horizon entry, at which stage it has an almost flat spectrum. It presumably originates during an early era of superluminal evolution, defined as one in which comoving scales are leaving the horizon, at the beginning of which the entire observable Universe is inside the horizon. During superluminal evolution the curvature of the Universe in Hubble units is decreasing, explaining naturally the near-flatness of the observable Universe.

The usual hypothesis concerning the superluminal era is that it is one of expansion, or in other words an era of inflation, with slowly varying Hubble parameter $`H`$. During inflation, each canonically-normalized light scalar field acquires a perturbation with a flat spectrum, and this provides a natural origin for the observed curvature perturbation. The curvature perturbation might be generated directly during inflation from the perturbation in the slowly-rolling inflaton field , or indirectly  by a different field (curvaton) whose isocurvature density perturbation is converted into a curvature perturbation during some radiation-dominated era after inflation.

The alternative to inflation is an era of superluminal collapse (negative Hubble parameter) giving way at some stage to expansion (positive Hubble parameter). Unless spatial curvature becomes significant near the bounce, the theory describing the bounce cannot be standard field theory with Einstein gravity, corresponding to an action of the form

$$S=\text{d}^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}M_\mathrm{P}^2R\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }G_{IJ}(\varphi ^K)_\mu \varphi ^I_\nu \varphi ^JV(\varphi ^K)\right].$$
(1)
The reason is that the energy density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`P`$ in such a theory satisfies the null energy condition $`\rho +P>0`$, which implies that the energy density decreases monotonically. Through the Friedmann equation, this implies that the Hubble parameter decreases monotonically in the absence of spatial curvature, forbidding any bounce. The bounce might be described by a non-standard four-dimensional field theory, but more plausibly would involve extra dimensions and/or string theory.

## The pre-big-bang scenario

Until recently, only one type of superluminal collapse has been considered, and the scenario involving it is termed simply the pre-big-bang scenario . In this scenario the action is supposed to have the standard form Eq. (1) during both collapse and expansion, up to some maximum energy density $`\rho _\mathrm{b}`$. This is the bounce energy density, which is supposed to correspond to the string scale and is at or below the Planck scale $`\rho _\mathrm{P}=M_\mathrm{P}^4=(2\times 10^{18}\text{GeV})^4`$. During pre-big-bang collapse, the energy density of the Universe comes from a scalar field $`\varphi `$ with no potential. Taking time $`t`$ as negative this leads to scale factor $`a|t|^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ corresponding to $`H\dot{a}/a=1/3t`$. The same result is obtained if there are several such fields, each giving a fixed fraction of the energy density.

## The ekpyrotic scenario

Recently a different mechanism for superluminal collapse has been proposed, termed the ekpyrotic mechanism . It invokes an extra dimension in which two branes are attracted towards each other. After integrating out the extra dimension one obtains superluminal four-dimensional collapse, in which the the energy density and pressure are dominated by a canonically-normalized field $`\varphi `$ which corresponds to the distance between the branes. The action is of the standard form Eq. (1),

$$S=\text{d}^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}M_\mathrm{P}^2R\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi V(\varphi )+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(2)
the remaining terms having negligible effect on the evolution of $`\varphi `$.

From some very early time, until after cosmological scales have left the horizon, the potential during collapse is taken to be

$$VV_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{p}}\frac{\varphi }{M_\mathrm{P}}\right)$$
(3)
with $`p1`$. It is supposed that $`\dot{\varphi }`$ starts out from a sufficiently small value, leading to power-law collapse $`a|t|^p`$ in which the Hubble parameter and energy density are related by the Friedmann equation

$`3M_\mathrm{P}^2H^2`$ $`=`$ $`\rho `$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi ).`$ (5)
The energy density increases during collapse, but it is always small compared with $`|V|`$ by virtue of the condition $`p1`$.

Three versions of the ekpyrotic scenario have been proposed, in references ,  and , which we refer to as respectively the old, new and cyclic ekpyrotic scenarios. In each of them it is claimed that the observed curvature perturbation can be generated by the quantum fluctuation of the field $`\varphi `$. In an earlier note  we demonstrated that this claim is invalid in the case of the old ekpyrotic scenario, as described in . The purpose of the present note is to show that the claim is also invalid in the case of the new ekpyrotic scenario as described in reference , because in that reference linear cosmological perturbation theory is being invoked in a regime where it is not valid. Since the cyclic ekpyrotic Universe  invokes the same mechanism for producing the density perturbation, the same statement applies to that scenario also.

## The comoving curvature perturbation

To define the cosmological perturbations one has to choose a gauge (coordinate system) which defines a threading and slicing of spacetime. Let us denote a generic perturbation by the symbol $`g`$. At each moment of time, it is Fourier-expanded in comoving coordinates

$$g(𝐱)=(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}g(𝐤)e^{i𝐤𝐱}\text{d}^3𝐤,$$
(6)
with $`k/a`$ the wavenumber. Its spectrum is defined by

$$g(𝐤)g^{}(𝐤^{})=2\pi ^2k^3\delta ^3(𝐤𝐤^{})𝒫_g(k),$$
(7)
where the brackets denote an ensemble average. (On the usual supposition that perturbations originate as quantum fluctuations, the brackets denote the quantum expectation value.) The formal expectation value of $`g^2(𝐱)`$ at any point in space is

$$g^2(𝐱)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝒫_g(k)\text{d}(\mathrm{ln}k),$$
(8)
and $`𝒫_g^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is the the typical magnitude of a fluctuation in $`g(𝐱)`$ with size of order $`1/k`$. The perturbation has a time-dependence, which is inherited by the spectrum,

$$𝒫_g^{\frac{1}{2}}(𝐤,t)=\mathrm{const}|g(𝐤,t)|.$$
(9)
To define the spatial curvature perturbation we need a slicing of spacetime, which is best taken as the one orthogonal to comoving worldlines, the comoving slicing. Its line element may be written

$$\text{d}\mathrm{}^2=a^2(t)(1+2)\delta _{ij}\text{d}x^i\text{d}x^j,$$
(10)
and $``$ defines the curvature perturbation.111This is the $`\varphi _\mathrm{m}`$ of . On the super-horizon scales of interest the comoving slicing is practically coincident with the slicing of uniform energy density which can equally well be used. The corresponding perturbation is the $`\zeta `$ of . This is the best choice because under very general circumstances $``$ is time-independent on super-horizon scales. As a result, the curvature perturbation that is generated in the very early Universe should be the one that is observed as cosmological scales start to enter the horizon.

There is also a slicing with no curvature perturbation, the flat slicing. If the displacement from the flat slicing to the comoving one is $`\delta t(𝐱,t)`$ the curvature perturbation on the latter is $`=|H|\delta t`$. (A similar formula actually gives the curvature perturbation on any slicing.) Whenever the energy density and pressure are dominated by single field $`\varphi `$, this field is uniform on comoving slices . It follows  that $`=|H|\delta \varphi /\dot{\varphi }`$, where $`\delta \varphi `$ is defined on the spatially flat slicing. (It is the ‘gauge-invariant’ field perturbation of .)

## The curvature perturbation in the pre-big-bang scenario

The spectrum of the curvature perturbation during superluminal evolution is found by a standard method . In the pre-big-bang case one finds , well after the epoch $`aH=k`$ of horizon exit,

$$𝒫_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{6}\pi ^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left(\frac{|H|}{M_\mathrm{P}}\right)\left(\frac{k}{a|H|}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a|H|}{k}\right).$$
(11)
This spectrum is time-independent except for the logarithm, and corresponds to spectral index $`n=4`$.

Assuming that the curvature perturbation is continuous across the bounce it has to be generated in the pre-big-bang scenario after the bounce by some curvaton field. To possess a flat spectrum in the face of the rapidly-varying $`H`$, this field must have  a suitable initial condition, and a suitable coupling to $`\varphi `$. An alternative proposal might be to generate the curvature perturbation (or conceivably a curvaton field perturbation) during the bounce, but such a thing has never been suggested let alone a mechanism for achieving it.

## The curvature perturbation in the old ekpyrotic scenario

In the old ekpyrotic scenario , it is supposed that the brane collision corresponds to some finite field value $`\varphi `$, corresponding to energy density $`\rho `$. After the collision the Universe is expanding with the same initial energy density and there is no $`\varphi `$ field. In this scenario the spectrum of the curvature perturbation during collapse can be calculated in exactly the same way as for the pre-big-bang, but taking into account the exponential potential.222In  it is stated that just before collision the potential climbs abruptly back to zero, but this has a negligible effect on the result. Well after horizon exit, to leading order in $`k/aH`$, the spectrum  is time-independent with spectral index $`n3`$. This result is specific to the exponential potential Eq. (3) but there is no reason to think that a different potential would give the necessary flat spectrum and in any case something like Eq. (3) is motivated by string theory. The conclusion therefore is that in the old ekpyrotic scenario, the observed curvature perturbation has to be generated either at the bounce or subsequently by a curvaton field.

This conclusion is different from the one reached in the original ekpyrotic paper  (see also ). That paper ignored the effect of the metric perturbation on the field evolution (gravitational back-reaction), and arrived at the incorrect conclusion that the comoving curvature perturbation generated during collapse has a flat spectrum, so that it could be the observed curvature perturbation.333The words ‘curvature perturbation’ do not appear in , which uses the formalism of Guth and Pi  and Olson . However, as pointed out in , that formalism is equivalent to the usual one, because of the formula $`=|H|\delta t`$ where $`\delta t`$ is the time delay introduced by Guth and Pi. We emphasize that the equivalence is complete provided that $``$ is correctly evaluated. The approximation that $`\delta t`$ is constant, made by Guth and Pi, is inessential though it is valid during inflation in the slow-roll approximation. Usually, $``$ is constant on super-horizon scales, which requires $`\delta t1/H`$.

## The new and cyclic ekpyrotic scenarios

In the new  ekpyrotic scenario it is supposed, on the basis of string theory, that the brane collision corresponds to $`\varphi =\mathrm{}`$. There are two stages of collapse. In the first stage, which ends only after cosmological scales have left the horizon, the potential is given by Eq. (3) as in the old ekpyrotic scenario. In the second stage, the potential climbs towards zero and becomes negligible compared with the kinetic term so that the evolution of perturbations is the same as in the pre-big-bang scenario. This stage ends when $`\varphi =\mathrm{}`$, corresponding to infinite energy density, infinite Hubble parameter and zero scale factor $`a`$. The branes then collide and the expansion of the Universe begins, but in contrast with the old ekpyrotic scenario the branes move apart after the collision so that the field $`\varphi `$ continues to exist, though with a possibly different potential. The potential is at least initially negligible so that the contribution of $`\varphi `$ to the energy density falls like $`a^6`$. In addition there is the energy density of radiation produced by the brane collision, which falls like $`a^4`$ and eventually dominates leading to the usual Hot Big Bang.

The cyclic ekpyrotic scenario  is the same, except that the potential of $`\varphi `$ is the same during expansion as during collapse, and this potential asymptotes at late times to a nonzero positive constant. The latter feature gives rise to a slowly-increasing cosmological constant and eventually to the re-collapse of the Universe and therefore to a continuous cycle of expansion and collapse. None of this matters for the present purpose, because the mechanism for generating the observed curvature perturbation proposed in  is the same as the one proposed in . Accordingly we refer from now on to the ‘new’ ekpyrotic scenario, taking it as read that the statements apply also to the cyclic ekpyrotic scenario.

The general idea of the new ekpyrotic scenario, developed in an earlier related paper , is that the underlying five-dimensional theory is non-singular as one goes through the bounce, so that it may in some sense be permissible to allow the four-dimensional scale factor to go through zero. The standard field theory action Eq. (1) is supposed in some sense to remain valid all the way down to $`a=0`$. It is of course well-known that Eq. (1) cannot be literally valid on time- and distance scales below the Planck scale, because the quantum fluctuation on such scales is out of control. For instance, on the distance scale $`M_\mathrm{P}^1`$ the vacuum fluctuation in the energy density corresponding to the field gradients is of order $`M_\mathrm{P}^4`$, which is big enough in relation to the distance scale to form black holes (the spacetime foam). In particular, the theory cannot be taken literally when the Hubble time falls below the Planck scale, corresponding to $`H\text{ }>M_\mathrm{P}`$ and $`\rho \text{ }>M_\mathrm{P}^4`$. This problem is clearly recognized in  (“there is concern that the quantum fluctuations become uncontrolled at $`t=0`$”).

Nevertheless, the action of Eq. (2) is used in  to calculate a curvature perturbation which, after the bounce, has the flat spectrum required by observation. The purpose of this note is to point out that the calculation is invalid, because it invokes linear cosmological perturbation theory outside its regime of validity.

## The calculation of reference

The calculation in  starts with the Bardeen potential , which is usually defined as the spatial curvature perturbation in the conformal Newtonian gauge;

$$\text{d}s^2=a^2(t)\left((1+2\mathrm{\Psi })\text{d}\tau ^2+(12\mathrm{\Phi })\delta _{ij}\text{d}x^i\text{d}x^j\right).$$
(12)
Alternatively, it may be defined in terms of the density contrast $`\delta \delta \rho /\rho `$ defined on comoving slices (the Bardeen  variable $`ϵ_\mathrm{m}`$),

$$\delta =\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{k}{aH}\right)^2\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(13)
The definitions are equivalent within linear perturbation theory, but the first one requires $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|1`$ which is quite restrictive  and the second one is preferable.

The spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ during the first stage of collapse may in principle be calculated in exactly the same way as the spectrum of $``$, using the evolution equation for the field perturbation $`\delta \varphi _\mathrm{N}`$ and imposing the same condition of an initial vacuum state. (A simpler technique  is to consider the evolution of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, using its relation with $`\delta \varphi _\mathrm{N}`$ only to impose the initial vacuum condition. A third method would be to deduce $`𝒫_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from the (slowly-varying) $`𝒫_{}`$, using Eq. (9) with Eq. (17) below.) It turns out that during this stage the evolution of $`\delta \varphi _\mathrm{N}`$ is not much affected by gravitational back-reaction and one finds

$$𝒫_\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{1}{2p}}\frac{H}{M_\mathrm{P}}\left(\frac{aH}{k}\right)^p.$$
(14)
The last factor gives the effect of gravitational back-reaction.

The idea behind the proposal of  is that the flat spectrum Eq. (14) of the Bardeen potential may be converted at the bounce into a flat spectrum for $``$, through the coupled evolution equations of Einstein gravity. In these equations, anisotropic stress may presumably be ignored on the super-horizon scales of interest. The coupled equations are then

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{|H|^1\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\mathrm{\Phi }}{1+w}}+\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (15)
$`|H|^1\dot{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta P}{\rho +P}},`$ (16)
where $`\delta P`$ is defined on the comoving slicing. The non-adiabatic pressure perturbation $`\delta P_{\mathrm{nad}}\delta P(\dot{P}/\dot{\rho })\delta \rho `$ is also ignored on on super-horizon scales, which is appropriate in a scenario where one is trying to generate the curvature perturbation without a curvaton  field. Then Eq. (16) becomes

$$|H|^1\dot{}=\frac{c_s^2}{1+w}\delta \frac{3}{2}\frac{c_s^2}{1+w}\left(\frac{k}{aH}\right)^2\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(17)
where $`c_s^2\dot{P}/\dot{\rho }`$.

Eqs. (15) and (17) form a closed system with two independent solutions. From Eq. (17) it follows that $``$ is practically constant provided that $`c_s^2|\delta |(1+w)||`$. This condition is very well satisfied in the expanding Universe for any reasonable initial condition and any reasonable behavior of $`a`$ and $`w`$ . It is satisfied during the first stage of ekpyrotic collapse and marginally violated during pre-big-bang collapse.

During both stages of ekpyrotic collapse the left hand side of Eq. (15) is negligible leading to $`\mathrm{\Phi }H/a`$. Using this result and Eqs. (9) and (14), the spectrum of $`\delta `$ in the limit $`t0`$ when the potential has become negligible is given by $`𝒫_\delta ^{\frac{1}{2}}Ak^{1+p}`$ with $`A`$ a constant. Using Eqs. (9) and (15) this implies that the spectrum of $``$ is logarithmically divergent, $`6𝒫_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{1}{2}}𝒫_\delta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}|t|`$.

Now we come to the crucial point. Because $``$ is divergent, the authors of  focus on $`\delta `$. Combining Eqs. (17) and (15) gives an equation of the form

$$\ddot{\delta }+A(t)\dot{\delta }+B(t)\delta =0.$$
(18)
Assuming that this equation remains valid when $``$ goes infinite, the authors of  impose a scale-independent continuity condition on $`\delta (t)`$ across $`t=0`$. This leads at $`t>0`$ to a Bardeen potential with the mild scale dependence given by Eq. (14), and to a curvature perturbation which by the time of radiation domination has the same scale-dependence, which can agree with observation.

## The failure of linear cosmological perturbation theory

We will now show that the analysis just described is invalid, by establishing the following contradiction: an assumption of the analysis is that the Universe has practically uniform energy density and practically uniform (actually zero) spatial curvature, so that the equations of linear cosmological perturbation theory and in particular Eq. (18) can be derived, yet a conclusion of the analysis is that the above assumption is violated as the singularity is approached. To be more precise, we shall demonstrate that for every choice of slicing used to define the purportedly linear theory, either the density contrast or the curvature perturbation blows up as the singularity is approached (or both do), thus invalidating the linear theory with that choice.

The demonstration is very simple. We have seen already that on comoving slices, the curvature perturbation $``$ blows up. Now consider a generic slicing, separated from the comoving one by time displacement $`\delta t(𝐱,t)`$. On such a slicing, the density contrast $`\delta _\mathrm{s}`$ and the curvature perturbation $`_\mathrm{s}`$ (defined as in Eq. (10)) are given by

$`\delta _\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta 3(1+w)|H|\delta t`$
$`_\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`+|H|\delta t.`$ (19)
As the singularity is approached, $`1+w`$ approaches the nonzero value $`2`$, $`\delta `$ approaches a constant and $``$ diverges. Therefore, no choice of $`\delta t`$ can keep both $`\delta _\mathrm{s}`$ and $`_\mathrm{s}`$ finite as the singularity is approached.

One might think that the divergence of the curvature perturbation on comoving slices is by itself enough to invalidate the use of Eq. (18) since the relevant quantity $`\delta `$ has been defined as the density contrast on comoving slices. This definition obviously fails when the curvature of the slices diverges, and moreover the derivation of Eq. (18) uses Eqs. (15) and (17) which apparently require $``$ to be small. However, within linear theory quantities defined in a given gauge can always be redefined in terms of quantities in any other gauge. (Recall that we gave an explicit example of this in the case of the Bardeen potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.) Therefore, if linear theory were valid in just one gauge, it would be possible to redefine $`\delta `$ in terms of quantities in that gauge, and then Eq. (18) would be valid.

## Conclusion

It is difficult to generate the observed curvature perturbation in the pre-big-bang and ekpyrotic scenarios. It cannot be generated during collapse and there is no known mechanism for generating it at the bounce either. Subsequent generation by a suitable curvaton field is possible, but the curvaton must have a suitable non-canonical kinetic term and a suitable initial value. All this is likely to hold in any scenario where inflation is replaced by superluminal collapse, because it stems from the fact that the Hubble parameter is rapidly varying. By contrast the curvature perturbation is easily generated in the inflation scenario, either directly by the inflaton field or indirectly by a curvaton field.

## Acknowledgement

I thank David Wands for many helpful remarks about the evolution of the curvature perturbation. I have benefited also from correspondence with Jai-chan Hwang, Robert Brandenberger, Ruth Durrer and Gabrielle Veneziano.


format: text

text:
# Nonorthogonal Polyhedra Built from RectanglesRevision of the October 2001 version. http://arXiv.org/abs/cs/0110059/.

## 1 Introduction

A paper by Biedl, Lubiw, and Sun \[BLS99\] raised the following intriguing question: “Can an orthogonal net ever fold to a nonorthogonal polyhedron?” We answer this question here: yes for sufficiently high genus, and no for sufficiently small genus. First we clarify the meaning of the terms in the question.

An *orthogonal net* is an orthogonal polygon: a simple, planar polygon all of whose sides meet at right angles. See, e.g., Fig. 1.

To *fold* an orthogonal net means to crease it along segments parallel to the polygon’s sides and close up its perimeter. Let us call this an *orthogonal folding*, to contrast it with an arbitrary folding (when the creases can be at arbitrary angles). A *polyhedron* is a surface formed of planar faces, each a simple polygon, such that any pair is either disjoint, share one vertex, or share an edge; such that each polyhedron edge is shared by exactly two faces; and such that the “link” of each vertex is a cycle. An *orthogonal polyhedron* is a polyhedron all of whose faces meet at edges with dihedral angles that are a multiple of $`\pi /2`$. It is known that arbitrary foldings of orthogonal polygons can lead to nonorthogonal polyhedra \[LO96\]\[DDL+99\], but the question obtained by restricting to orthogonal foldings seems to be new.

We display their question, phrased in a positive sense, for later reference:

Question 1. If a polyhedron is created by an orthogonal folding of an orthogonal polygon, must it be an orthogonal polyhedron?

We first study a related question, which is divorced from the concept of folding:

Question 2. If a polyhedron’s faces are all rectangles, must it be an orthogonal polyhedron?

We should note that the definition of a polyhedron permits coplanar rectangles, so this second question could be phrased as: “if a polyhedron’s faces can be partitioned into rectangles,” or, “if a polyhedron can be constructed by gluing together rectangles.” Both Questions 1 and 2 can be viewed as seeking to learn whether, loosely speaking, orthogonality in $`^2`$ forces orthogonality in $`^3`$.

An orthogonal folding of an orthogonal polygon produces faces that can be partitioned into rectangles. Thus if rectangle faces force orthogonal dihedral angles, then orthogonal foldings force orthogonal dihedral angles. So we have the following implications:

* Q2: yes $``$ Q1: yes.
* Q1: no $``$ Q2: no.

(The second is merely the contrapositive of the first.) However, it is possible that the answer to Q2 is no but the answer to Q1 is yes, for it could be that the nonorthogonal polyhedra made from rectangles cannot be unfolded without overlap to an orthogonal net. We first explore Q2 to remove ourselves from the little-understood area of nonoverlapping unfoldings. We will see that, nevertheless, we can ultimately prove the answer to both questions is no for polyhedra of genus seven or above, but yes for genus zero and one.

## 2 A Nonorthogonal Polyhedron
made with Rectangles

Although this reverses the order of our actual development, and might appear unmotivated, we first present the example that shows that the answer to Question 2 is no. The polyhedron is shown in two views in Fig. 2.

It has the structure (and symmetry) of a regular octahedron, with each octahedron vertex replaced by a cluster of five vertices, and each octahedron edge replaced by a triangular prism. Let us fix the squares at each octahedron vertex to be unit squares. The length $`L`$ of the prisms is not significant; in the figure, $`L=3`$, and any length large enough to keep the interior open would suffice as well. The other side lengths of the prism are, however, crucially important. The open triangle hole at the end of each prism has side lengths $`1`$ (to mesh with the unit square), $`\sqrt{3}/2`$ and $`\sqrt{3}/2`$; see Fig. 4.

This places the fifth vertex in the cluster displaced by $`1/2`$ perpendicularly from the center of each square, forming a pyramid, as shown in Fig. 4.

The central isosceles right triangle (shaded in Fig. 4) guarantees that two oppositely oriented incident triangular prisms meet at right angles, just as do the corresponding edges of an octahedron. The result is a closed polyhedron of $`V=65=30`$ vertices, $`E=84`$ edges, and $`F=42`$ faces. The $`42`$ faces include $`6`$ unit squares, $`12`$ $`L\times 1`$ rectangles, and $`24`$ rectangles of size $`L\times \sqrt{3}/2`$. Clearly the polyhedron is nonorthogonal: the three long edges of each prism have dihedral angles of approximately $`54.7^{}`$ ($`=\mathrm{tan}^1\sqrt{2}`$), $`54.7^{}`$, and $`70.5^{}`$ ($`=\pi 2\mathrm{tan}^1\sqrt{2}`$), two adjacent prisms meet at the same $`70.5^{}`$ angle, and the prisms meet the squares at $`45^{}`$. So not a single dihedral angle is a multiple of $`\pi /2`$.

By Euler’s formula,

$$VE+F=2(1g)$$
(1)
where $`g`$ is the genus. From this we can compute the genus of the surface:

$`3084+42=12`$ $`=`$ $`2(1g)`$
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`7`$
As it is easy to augment the polyhedron with attached (orthogonal) structures that increase the genus, this example establishes that the answer to Question 2 is no:

###### Theorem 1

There exist nonorthogonal polyhedra of genus $`g7`$ whose faces are all rectangles.

Theorem 1 does not settle Question 1 immediately, for it could be that the polyhedron cannot be unfolded to an “orthogonal net.” In fact, we were not successful in finding a nonoverlapping unfolding of its surface. However, it can be unfolded without overlap if boundary sections are permitted to touch but not cross. Such an unfolding could be cut out of a single sheet of paper, but the cuts would have to be infinitely thin for perfect fidelity. The unfolding is shown in Fig. 5. The solid edges are cuts; dashed edges are folds. The folding is somewhat intricate, hinting at by the partial labeling shown.

However, the goal usually is to obtain a simple orthogonal polygon, and such touchings violate the usual definition of a polygon. A simple modification of the example illustrated in Fig. 7 does lead to nonoverlap. Each square is replaced by the five faces of a unit cube. The polyhedron remains nonorthogonal (although now it has some $`\pi /2`$ dihedral angles), and it may be unfolded to the net shown in Fig. 7. The role of the cubes is to spread out the unfoldings of each prism so that they avoid overlap.

This establishes that the answer to Question 1 is also no:

###### Theorem 2

There is a simple orthogonal polygon that folds orthogonally to a nonorthogonal polyhedron.

## 3 Overview of Proof

The proof that the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is yes for sufficiently small genus is long enough that a summary might be useful.

1. Sec. 4 establishes constraints on low-degree vertices, showing how orthogonal and nonorthogonal dihedral angles may mix locally at one vertex.
2. Sec. 5 derives a corollary to Euler’s formula (Eq. (1)) relating a lower bound on the number of edges around a face to the average vertex degree.
3. Sec. 6 derives a lower bound of $`4`$ on the number of face edges with nonorthogonal dihedral angle in a subgraph of the $`1`$-skeleton of the polyhedron, and uses this to establish the claim by contradiction.

## 4 Local Vertex Constraints

We now embark on a study of the possible configurations of rectangles glued to one vertex of degree $`\delta `$. Each rectangle incident to a vertex glues a face angle of $`\pi /2`$ there. It is possible for an arbitrary number $`\delta `$ of such angles to be glued to one vertex: they can squeeze together like an accordian. What is not possible is for there to be, in addition, an arbitrary number of dihedral angles that are multiples of $`\pi /2`$ incident to one vertex. It is this tradeoff we explore here.

### 4.1 Conventions and Notation

We need a term to indicate a dihedral angle that is a multiple of $`\pi /2`$: such angles we call *rectilinear*,111 The use of this term for this precise meaning is not standard. an angle $`\alpha =k\pi /2`$ for $`k`$ an integer. For our purposes, the only rectilinear angles that will occur are $`\{0,\pi /2,\pi ,3\pi /2\}`$; the $`\pm `$ sign of an angle will not be relevant. An orthogonal polyhedron has only rectilinear dihedral angles. The issue before us is: Can there be a polyhedron, all of whose faces are rectangles, which has at least one nonrectilinear dihedral angle? It will help to think of all edges with rectilinear dihedrals as colored *green* (good), and nonrectilinear dihedrals as *red* (bad). We seek conditions under which a polyhedron may have one or more red edges.

Our proofs will analyze the geometry around a vertex $`v`$ by intersecting the polyhedron $`P`$ with a small sphere $`S_v`$ centered on $`v`$, and examining the intersections of the faces incident to $`v`$ with $`S_v`$. We normalize the radius of $`S_v`$ after intersection to $`1`$ so that an arc from pole to pole has length $`\pi `$. The intersection $`PS_v`$ is a spherical polygon $`P_v`$ of $`\delta `$ great circle arcs, each $`\pi /2`$ in length (because each face angle is $`\pi /2`$). Edges incident to $`v`$ map to vertices of $`P_v`$, and the dihedral angle $`\alpha `$ at an edge maps to the polygon angle $`\alpha `$ on $`S_v`$ at the corresponding vertex. $`P_v`$ is simple (non-self-intersecting) because the polyhedron is simple.

With a Cartesian coordinate system centered on $`v`$, the intersection of the $`xy`$-plane with $`S_v`$ is its *equator*, the points of intersection of the $`z`$-axis the *poles*, the six points at which the three axis pierce $`S_v`$ *coordinate points*, and a great circle arc between coordinate points a *coordinate arc*. Two points on $`S_v`$ are *antipodal* if the shortest arc between them has length $`\pi `$ (for example, the poles are antipodal). We call two points a *quarter pair* if the shortest arc between them has length $`\pi /2`$. Note that neither antipodal points nor quarter pairs are necessarily coordinate points. Define the *separation* $`d(p_1,p_2)`$ between two points on $`S_v`$ to be the length of a shortest arc between them; e.g., antipodal points have separation $`\pi `$.

Finally, define an *orthogonal path* to be a simple path $`(p_0,p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n1})`$ on $`S_v`$, $`n11`$, such that adjacent points have separation $`\pi /2`$, and such that the angle at all interior points, $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n2}`$, is rectilinear. Note that a $`\pi /2`$-arc connecting two points is considered an orthogonal path, with no interior points. A consecutive series of rectlinear dihedral angles incident to $`v`$ produce an orthogonal path on $`S_v`$.

### 4.2 Preliminary Lemmas

###### Lemma 3

An orthogonal path $`\rho =(p_0,\mathrm{},p_{n1})`$ with one endpoint $`p_0`$ a coordinate point, and whose first arc is a coordinate arc, must have the other endpoint $`p_{n1}`$ a coordinate point.

Proof: The proof is by induction on $`n`$. If $`n1=1`$, the claim is trivial. Otherwise, let $`\rho ^{}=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n1})`$ be the path without the first arc. $`\rho ^{}`$ starts at a coordinate point (because $`p_0p_1`$ is a coordinate arc), and its first arc is a coordinate arc (because the angle at $`p_1`$ is rectilinear). Thus the induction hypothesis applies to $`\rho ^{}`$ establishing the claim. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4

If two points $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are connected by an orthogonal path, they are separated by a multiple of $`\pi /2`$, and are therefore either antipodal or form a quarter pair.

Proof: Rotate so that $`p_1`$ is a coordinate point, and the arc of the path incident to $`p_1`$ is a coordinate arc. Then Lem. 3 applies and shows that $`p_2`$ is a coordinate point. Two coordinate points have a separation of either $`\pi `$ or $`\pi /2`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Of course this lemma implies (its contrapositive) that two points $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ whose separation is not a multiple of $`\pi /2`$ cannot be connected by an orthogonal path.

###### Lemma 5

Let $`(p_0,p_{n1})`$ be a quarter pair and let $`a=p_0p_{n1}`$ be the $`\pi /2`$-arc connecting them. Every orthogonal path $`\rho `$ between $`p_0`$ and $`p_{n1}`$ forms angles with $`a`$ which are both rectilinear, (perhaps different) multiples of $`\pi /2`$.

Proof: If $`\rho =a`$ then the claim follows trivially with both angles $`0`$. Suppose that $`\rho =(p_0,p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n1})a`$. Rotate the coordinate system for $`S_v`$ so that $`p_0`$ is the north pole, which places $`p_{n1}`$ on the equator; see Fig. 8.

It must be that $`p_1`$ lies on the equator as well (because each arc of an orthogonal path is of length $`\pi /2`$), at a point different from $`p_{n1}`$ (because $`\rho a`$ and the path is simple). Suppose that $`d(p_1,p_{n1})`$ is not a multiple of $`\pi /2`$. Then the contrapositive of Lem. 4 says there can be no orthogonal path between them, contradicting the assumption that $`\rho `$ is an orthogonal path. Thus $`d(p_1,p_{n1})`$ must be a multiple of $`\pi /2`$. This means that the $`p_0p_1`$ arc makes an angle with $`a`$ that is also a multiple of $`\pi /2`$. Repeating the argument with the roles of $`p_0`$ and $`p_{n1}`$ reversed leads to the same conclusion at the $`p_{n1}`$ end. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.3 Vertices with $`k`$ Red Edges

We now employ the preceding lemmas to derive constraints on vertices with few incident red edges (edges at which the dihedral angle is not a multiple of $`\pi /2`$). We will show that it is not possible to have just one, or three incident red edges, that two and four red edges force collinearities, and that zero or five (or more) red edges are possible. A summary is listed below.

| $`k`$ | Constraint | Lemma |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`0`$ | possible |  |
| $`1`$ | not possible | Lem. 6 |
| $`2`$ | collinear | Lem. 7 |
| $`3`$ | not possible | Lem. 8 |
| $`4`$ | +’ shape | Lem. 9 |
| $`5`$ | possible |  |

Throughout the lemmas below, $`e_i`$ will represent the red edges, and $`p_i`$ the corresponding points on $`S_v`$.

###### Lemma 6

No vertex has exactly one incident red edge.

Proof: Suppose otherwise, and let $`p_i`$ be the corresponding point of $`P_v`$ for red edge $`e_i`$. Rotate the coordinate system so that $`p_i`$ is the north pole. Then $`p_{i1}`$ and $`p_{i+1}`$ both lie on the equator. Now, $`p_{i1}`$ is connected to $`p_{i+1}`$ by an orthogonal path. By Lem. 4, their separation must be a multiple of $`\pi /2`$. This in turn implies the angle at $`p_i`$ is rectilinear, contradicting the assumption that $`e_i`$ is red. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 7

If exactly two red edges are incident to a vertex, they are collinear in $`^3`$.

Proof: Let $`p_i`$ and $`p_j`$ be the points on $`S_v`$ corresponding to the two red edges $`e_i`$ and $`e_j`$. Because $`p_i`$ and $`p_j`$ are connected by an orthogonal path, Lem. 4 implies they are antipodal or quarter pairs. If they are antipodal, the claim of the lemma is satisfied. And indeed it is easy to realize this; see Fig. 9.

So suppose they form a quarter pair. Let $`a=p_ip_j`$. Then Lem. 5 implies the orthogonal path $`(p_i,\mathrm{},p_j)`$ makes a rectilinear angle at both $`p_i`$ and $`p_j`$. The same holds true for the orthogonal path $`(p_j,\mathrm{},p_i)`$. Therefore, $`e_i`$ and $`e_j`$ are green edges, a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

Although we will not need this fact, it is not difficult to prove that the dihedral angles at the red edges in the previous lemma are equal $`\mathrm{mod}\pi /2`$, as is evident in Fig. 9.

###### Lemma 8

No vertex has exactly three incident red edges.

Proof: Let the red edges be $`e_i`$, and $`p_i`$ their corresponding points on $`S_v`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, and let $`\rho `$ be the path on $`S_v`$. Each of the consecutive pairs $`(p_i,p_{i+1})`$ either represents adjacent points of the path $`\rho `$, or points connected by an orthogonal path corresponding to intervening green edges; see Fig. 10.

In the first case, we have a quarter pair; in the second, Lem. 5 implies that the pair is either antipodal or a quarter pair. We now consider cases corresponding to the number of antipodal pairs.

1. Two or more pairs are antipodal. This necessarily places two points $`p_i`$, $`p_j`$, $`ij`$, at the same location on $`S_v`$, violating the simplicity of $`\rho `$.
2. $`(p_1,p_2)`$ are antipodal, and $`(p_2,p_3)`$ and $`(p_3,p_1)`$ are quarter pairs. Rotate so that $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are poles; then $`p_3`$ lies on the equator (because it forms a quarter pair with both $`p_1`$ and $`p_3`$); see Fig. 12. By Lem. 5 the path $`(p_2,\mathrm{},p_3)`$ forms a rectilinear angle with $`a=p_2p_3`$, as does $`(p_3,\mathrm{},p_1)`$ with $`a^{}=p_1p_3`$. Thus the angle of the path at $`p_3`$ must be rectilinear, and $`e_3`$ is a green edge, a contradiction.
3. All three are quarter pairs. This forces the three points $`p_1,p_2,p_3`$ to lie at the corners of a triangle with three $`\pi /2`$ angles; see Fig. 12. Applying Lem. 5 to each of the connecting orthogonal paths between these corners leads to a rectilinear angle at all three points. So all three edges $`e_1,e_2,e_3`$ are green, a contradiction.

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 9

If a vertex has exactly four incident red edges, then they must fall into two collinear pairs meeting orthogonally, forming a ‘+’ in $`3`$-space.

Proof: Let the red edges be $`e_i`$, and $`p_i`$ their corresponding points on $`S_v`$, $`i=1,2,3,4`$, and let $`\rho `$ be the path on $`S_v`$. As in the proof of Lem. 8, each of the consecutive pairs $`(p_i,p_{i+1})`$ is either antipodal or a quarter pair. We consider cases corresponding to the number of antipodal pairs.

1. Three or four pair are antipodal. This necessarily places two points $`p_i`$, $`p_j`$, $`ij`$, at the same location on $`S_v`$, violating the simplicity of $`\rho `$.
2. Two pair are antipodal. Then all four points lie on one great circle, say the equator. Because each $`p_i`$ is connected to $`p_{i+1}`$ by an orthogonal path, Lem. 5 implies that their separation must be a multiple of $`\pi /2`$. To maintain simplicity, the four points must be distributed at quarter-circle intervals. This configuration is realizable, as is shown in Figs. 14 and 14. In both figures, $`v`$ is of degree $`8`$, but the red/green pattern of incident edges is different. The claim of the lemma is satisfied in that the red edges form a ‘+’.
3. One pair $`(p_1,p_2)`$ is antipodal, say at the poles, and all others form quarter pairs. Then $`p_3`$ and $`p_4`$ must lie on the equator, separated by $`\pi /2`$; see Fig. 16. The angle between the arcs $`a=p_1p_4`$ and $`a^{}=p_4p_3`$ (which are not necessarily part of the path $`P_v`$) is $`\pi /2`$. Applying Lem. 5 to the orthogonal paths connecting $`p_1`$ to $`p_4`$ and $`p_4`$ to $`p_3`$ leads to a rectilinear angle in the path at $`p_4`$, a contradiction.
4. No pair is antipodal, so all are quarter pairs. Rotate so that $`p_1`$ is the north pole; then both $`p_2`$ and $`p_4`$ must be on the equator.

1. $`d(p_2,p_4)`$ is a multiple of $`\pi /2`$. Then the arcs $`a=p_2p_1`$ and $`a^{}=p_4p_1`$ meet at this same rectilinear angle at $`p_1`$. Applying Lem. 5 to the paths $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_2)`$ and $`(p_4,\mathrm{},p_1)`$ leads to a rectilinear path angle at $`p_1`$. Thus $`e_1`$ is green, a contradiction.
    2. $`d(p_2,p_4)`$ is not a multiple of $`\pi /2`$. Then $`p_3`$ must lie on both the circle orthogonal to $`p_2v`$ and the circle orthogonal to $`p_4v`$. These circles intersect at the poles, which forces $`p_3`$ to the south pole. The arcs $`a=p_1p_2`$ and $`a^{}=p_2p_3`$ are necessarily collinear at $`p_2`$; see Fig. 16. Applying Lem. 5 to the paths $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_2)`$ and $`(p_2,\mathrm{},p_3)`$ leads to a rectilinear angle at $`p_2`$, a contradiction.

$`\mathrm{}`$

It is possible to have five red edges incident to a vertex. Fig. 17 shows one such example, where a quarter pair $`(p_1,p_5)`$ is connected by four arcs, connecting five edges none of whose dihedral angles are rectilinear.

It is also possible to have more than five red edges: any larger number can accordian-fold into a small space, say connecting a quarter pair of points.

The lemmas just derived will be employed in Sec. 6.

## 5 Euler Formula Computation

Euler’s formula says that a (closed, bounded) polyhedron $`P`$ of $`V`$ vertices, $`E`$ edges, and $`F`$ faces, and of genus $`g`$, satisfies this linear relationship:

$$VE+F=22g.$$
(2)
The quantity $`\chi =22g`$ is known as the *Euler characteristic* of the surface. Euler’s formula applies to more general connected graphs: those that are *2-cell* embeddings, in that each of its faces (the regions remaining when the vertices and edges are subtracted from the surface) is a *$`2`$-cell*, a region in which any simple closed curve may be contracted to a point \[CO93, p. 274\].

We need a somewhat more general form of Euler’s formula, which applies to any connected graph embedded222 To be *embedded* means to be drawn without crossings.  in a sphere with $`h`$ handles: \[MT01, p. 84\] show that then

$$VE+F22h.$$
(3)
A sphere with $`h`$ handles is a surface of genus $`g=h`$. This is more general for two reasons. First, not every such graph is the 1-skeleton of a polyhedron; for example, a plane tree is in a surface of genus $`0`$, with one exterior 2-cell face. Second, the faces might not be $`2`$-cells; for example, a face could include a handle.

Our goal is to establish a corollary to Euler’s formula in the form of Eq. (3) expressed in terms of two quantities: $`d`$, the average degree of a vertex, and $`k`$, a lower bound on the number of edges in a boundary walk of a face. The first quantity needs no explanation; the second is straightforward for polyhedral graphs but needs a definition for arbitrary graph embeddings. A *facial walk* \[MT01, p. 100\] visits all the edges bounding a face in a complete traversal. The same edge might be visited twice in one facial walk, as illustrated in Fig. 18.

If so, that edge is counted twice in its face-walk count. The quantity $`k`$ reflects this possible double counting. Each edge of $`G`$ either gets visited twice by one facial walk, or it appears in exactly two facial walks. Each face of $`G`$ either contains one or more repeated vertices or edges in its facial walk, or it is a cycle of $`G`$.

###### Lemma 10

Any embedding of a connected graph of $`F`$ faces on a surface of genus $`g`$, whose average vertex degree is $`d`$ and whose facial walks each include $`k`$ or more edges, satisfies

$$F[kd(k2)/2]d\chi .$$
(4)
Proof: The proof is an elementary counting argument, which, due to its unfamiliar form, we present in perhaps more detail than it deserves. We start from the form of Euler’s formula in Eq. (3):

$`VE+F`$ $``$ $`\chi `$
$`V+F\chi `$ $``$ $`E`$ (5)
Because every edge is incident to two vertices, $`dV=2E`$, and so:

$$V=\frac{2}{d}E.$$
(6)
Because every edge is counted exactly twice in facial walks, and because $`k`$ is a lower bound on the number of edges in any walk, we have $`kF2E`$, or

$$\frac{k}{2}FE.$$
(7)
Now we substitute Eq. (6) into Eq. (5) to eliminate $`V`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{d}}E+F\chi `$ $``$ $`E`$
$`F\chi `$ $``$ $`E(12/d)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F\chi }{12/d}}`$ $``$ $`E.`$ (8)
Putting this together with Eq. (7) eliminates $`E`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F\chi }{12/d}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}F`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(F\chi )}{d2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}F`$
$`dFd\chi `$ $``$ $`(dk/2k)F`$
$`F[d(1k/2)+k]`$ $``$ $`d\chi `$
$`F[kd(k2)/2]`$ $``$ $`d\chi .`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{}`$

To illustrate the import of this result, consider a polyhedron of genus zero: $`k=3`$, because every face must have at least three edges, and $`\chi =22g=2`$. Then Eq. (9) becomes

$$F[3d/2]2d.$$

This requires the factor multiplying $`F`$ to be strictly positive: $`3d/2>0`$, which implies that $`d<6`$. This follows from the familiar fact that the average vertex degree of a simple planar graph is less than six.333 E.g., \[Har72, p. 104\], Cor. 11.1(e), or \[AH88, p. 446\], Exer. 21.

In the next section we will apply Lem. 4 in two circumstances: genus zero and one, both with the lower bound $`k=4`$.

###### Corollary 11

For connected graphs embedded on a surface of genus zero, if $`k=4`$, then $`d<4`$.

Proof: Substituting $`\chi =2`$ and $`k=4`$ into Eq. (4) gives

$$F[4d]2d$$

which, in order for the factor of $`F`$ to be positive, implies that $`d<4`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For example, a cube has $`k=4`$ and all vertices have degree $`3`$, so $`d=3<4`$. A more complex example is the “trapezoidal hexacontahedron,”444 See, e.g., www.georgehart.com .  an Archimedian compound all of whose faces are quadrilaterals, and so $`k=4`$. It has $`12`$ degree-$`5`$ vertices, $`30`$ degree-$`4`$ vertices, and $`20`$ degree-$`3`$ vertices. Thus its average vertex degree $`d`$ is

$$\frac{512+430+320}{12+30+20}=\frac{240}{62}3.87.$$

###### Corollary 12

For connected graphs embedded on a surface of genus one, if $`k=4`$, then $`d4`$.

Proof: Substituting $`\chi =0`$ and $`k=4`$ into Eq. (4) gives

$$F[4d]0$$

Now it could be that the factor of $`F`$ is zero; so we must have $`4d0`$, i.e., $`d4`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For example, a cube with a rectangular hole connecting top and bottom faces leads to $`k=4`$ when the punctured top and bottom faces are partitioned into four quadrilaterals each. All vertices then have degree $`4`$, so $`d=4`$.

## 6 Orthogonality Forced for Genus Zero and One

We establish in this section that the answer to Question 2 is yes for polyhedra of genus zero and one. We first define a red subgraph, then prove that $`k=4`$ for it, and, finally, exploit the two corollaries above.

### 6.1 Red Subgraph $`G_r`$

Starting with the 1-skeleton $`G`$ of the polyhedron, with its edges colored green or red depending on whether the dihedral angle is rectilinear or not, we perform the following operations to reach $`G_r`$:

1. Remove all green edges from $`G`$, retaining only red edges.
2. Merge edges meeting at a degree-$`2`$ vertex: if a node $`y`$ is of degree $`2`$, with incident edges $`(x,y)`$ and $`(y,z)`$, delete $`y`$ and those edges and replace with $`(x,z)`$.
3. Select one component of the resulting graph and call it $`G_r`$, the *red subgraph*.

If $`G`$ contains any red edge, then there is a nonempty $`G_r`$. Note that $`G_r`$ is realized in $`^3`$ with straight segments for each edge, because Lem. 7 guarantees that the “erasing” of degree-$`2`$ vertices merges collinear polyhedron edges.

### 6.2 Facial Walks in $`G_r`$

$`G_r`$ is naturally embedded on the surface of the polyhedron. Call this its *canonical embedding*.

###### Lemma 13

Every facial walk in the canonical embedding of $`G_r`$ contains at least four edges.

Proof: Let $`F`$ be a face in the canonical embedding of $`G_r`$, and $`W=(e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_m)`$ its face walk. We will show that each $`m3`$ leads to a contradiction.

1. $`W`$ contains just one edge. Then the edge is a loop; but $`G_r`$ is loopless.
2. $`W`$ contains just two edges. Then it must walk around a “dangling” red edge. Then the vertex $`v`$ at the end of this edge must be degree 1 in $`G_r`$, in contradiction to Lem. 6.
3. $`W`$ contains just three edges. In $`G`$, $`e_i`$ and $`e_{i+1}`$ are separated by green edges (or no edges). Let $`v`$ be the vertex shared by $`e_i`$ and $`e_{i+1}`$. Then $`p_i`$ and $`p_{i+1}`$ are connected by an orthogonal path on $`S_v`$. Lem. 4 then says their separation on $`S_v`$ is a multiple of $`\pi /2`$. Thus, in $`^3`$, the geometric angle between $`e_i`$ and $`e_{i+1}`$ is $`\pm \pi /2`$, or it is $`\pi `$–i.e., they are collinear. Suppose at least one vertex has angle $`\pi `$, so that, say, $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ are collinear. Then $`e_3`$ must be collinear as well, and we necessarily have edges overlapping collinearly in $`^3`$. But all three edges are distinct nonoverlapping segments on the polyhedron surface, so this is a contradiction. Suppose, then, that all three vertices have angle $`\pm \pi /2`$. Fixing attention on $`e_2`$, $`e_1`$ and $`e_3`$ lie in parallel planes perpendicular to $`e_2`$ and through its endpoints. Thus, $`e_1`$ and $`e_3`$ cannot close to a triangle in $`^3`$, again a contradiction.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Four edges are needed to close a cycle in $`^3`$; four right angles force the cycle edges to lie in a plane, and therefore form a rectangle.

### 6.3 Concluding Theorem

###### Theorem 14

Any polyhedron of genus zero or one, all of whose faces are rectangles, must be an orthogonal polyhedron: all of its dihedral angles are multiples of $`\pi /2`$.

Proof: By Lem. 13 we know that every face walk of $`G_r`$ contains at least four edges. Thus $`k=4`$ in the notation of Lem. 4.

Applying Cor. 11 leads to the conclusion that $`d`$ must be strictly less than $`4`$, which implies that $`G_r`$ must include at least one vertex of degree $`3`$. We defined $`G_r`$ to merge all degree-2 nodes, so it has none of those. Lem. 6 and 8 show that it can have no nodes of degree 1 or 3 respectively. Thus the minimum degree of a node of $`G_r`$ is $`4`$, and an average degree $`d<4`$ is impossible.

Applying Cor. 12 leads to the conclusion that $`d4`$. As above, the minimum degree of a node of $`G_r`$ is $`4`$. So then we must have every node of $`G_r`$ exactly degree $`4`$. (This is precisely what is achieved in the cube-with-a-hole example, incidentally.) Now Lem. 9 says that the edges incident to a degree-4 vertex of $`G_r`$ come in two collinear pairs. We now argue that this implies that the surface contains an infinite line, a contradiction to the fact that a polyhedron is bounded.

Let $`e_1`$ be an edge incident to a vertex $`v_1`$ of $`G_r`$. $`v_1`$ must be of degree 4 as above, and therefore Lem. 9 provides an $`e_2`$ collinear with $`e_1`$. Call the other endpoint of $`e_2`$ vertex $`v_2`$. Repeating the argument leads to an edge $`e_3`$ collinear with $`e_2`$. In this way we produce a sequence of collinear edges, $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{}`$. There is no end to this sequence, providing a contradiction.

$`\mathrm{}`$

One way to view the above proof is that a red cycle cannot turn in $`^3`$ with only vertices of red-degree no more than 4. It requires degree-5 vertices, or higher degree vertices, to permit a cycle to form. This is exactly how the polyhedron described in Sec. 2 is constructed.555 This is, in fact, how it was discovered. The four corners of each square in Fig. 2 are red-degree $`5`$ vertices, and the fifth vertex $`\frac{1}{2}`$ offset from the center of each square is red-degree $`8`$, as illustrated in Fig. 19.

### 6.4 Genus Two and Higher

It seems the computations used in the previous theorem provide no useful constraint when $`g2`$. Then $`\chi 2`$, and Eq. (4) only yields (for $`k=4`$)

$`F(4d)`$ $``$ $`2`$
$`F`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{d4}}`$
which can be satisfied for all $`d`$. So there is effectively no constraint on $`d`$ for $`g2`$. This seems to reveal the limit of this proof technique.

## 7 Discussion

The obvious open problem is to close the gap—between Theorem 14, $`g1`$, when orthogonality in $`^3`$ is forced, and Theorem 1, $`g7`$, when it is not forced. Is there a nonorthogonal polyhedron of genus $`g`$, $`2g6`$, constructed entirely from rectangles?

Perhaps a more interesting problem is to extend these results to other planar constraints, and ask if they imply a restriction in $`^3`$. For example, if a polyhedron is constructed out of convex polygons whose angles are all multiples of $`\pi /k`$, $`k>2`$, does this imply any restriction on the realizable dihedral angles?

Finally, because so little is known about nonoverlapping (simple) edge-unfoldings, perhaps just-barely nonsimple unfoldings, of the type exemplified by Fig. 5, should be considered.

#### Acknowledgments

We thank Michael Albertson for advice on graph embeddings, Erik Demaine for useful comments, Paul Nijjar for finding an error in an earlier version of Lemma 13, and Timothy Chan for finding an error in a (now removed) figure.


text:
# Dispersion relations in differential form

## 1 Introduction

There have been attempts since the mid 1970’s to adapt the existing dispersion relation technique to the energy range which is far enough from resonance peaks and in which changes are slow and cross sections smooth. Present experimental projects proposing to measure small-angle high-energy hadron-hadron scattering at LHC energy make this subject, after a certain time of silence, again topical. Time therefore seems to be ripe to discuss the high-energy status of dispersion relations, to point out a number of remarkable merits of the differential approach, and also to remind the reader of its limits and dangerous points which may emerge at a careless application.

We cannot give here a comprehensive review of the subject. We will just select several typical theorems to illustrate the variety of results obtained in the past, referring for mathematical and technical details to original papers. To discuss the issue, we choose the example of $`F(s,t)`$, the crossing-even amplitude of a generic hadron-hadron scattering process.

Let us consider a fixed-$`t`$ dispersion relation for $`F(s,t)`$,

$$R(s)=\frac{2s^2}{\pi }\mathrm{P}_{s_0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}s^{}}{s^{}(s^2s^2)}I(s^{})$$
(1)
(with poles and subtraction constants removed for simplicity), where $`R(s)`$ and $`I(s)`$ is a shorthand for $`\mathrm{Re}F(s,t)`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}F(s,t)`$ respectively the $`t`$-dependence being suppressed in the notation. It was proposed  to replace (1) by the “quasilocal” relation

$$\frac{R(s)}{s^\alpha }=\mathrm{tan}\left[\frac{\pi }{2}\left(\alpha 1+\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}s}\right)\right]\frac{I(s)}{s^\alpha }$$
(2)
with $`\alpha `$ real and $`s`$ the c.m. scattering energy squared. As $`s`$ is linear in $`E`$, the laboratory scattering energy, $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ in (1) and (2) can be replaced by $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$ respectively, with inessential changes in the form of these equations.

Choosing $`\alpha =1`$ for simplicity, we obtain from (2)

$$g(x)=T(x),$$
(3)
where we use the notation $`x=\mathrm{ln}s`$, $`g(x)=R(s)/s`$, and $`f(x)=I(s)/s`$. The “tangent series” $`T(x)`$ is defined by the relation

$`T(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}}\right)f(x)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_nf^{(2n1)}(x)`$ (4)
$`\text{with}a_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^{2n1}(2^{2n}1)}{(2n)!}}|B_{2n}|,`$
where $`B_{2n}`$ are the Bernoulli numbers.

The method of the derivative dispersion relations (called also derivative analyticity relations) is again becoming topical. It is therefore worth emphasizing their interesting merits as well as categorical caveats, in particular

* the rather restrictive conditions of their validity
* the problem of how to give (4) precise mathematical meaning, and
* problems of their practical applicability.

After a short historical survey, we shall discuss these subjects. In discussing the relations (2) to (4), we have carefully to distinguish two very different formulations of the problem: (i) either we keep the energy fixed and push the approximation order (i.e. the number of terms in (4)) to infinity or (ii) the order is kept fixed and the energy tends to infinity. Needless to say, the latter does not require so many restrictive assumptions.

## 2 History

Applications of the “derivative dispersion relation” are very wide. Already in 1968, Gribov and Migdal  made use of this relation in the context of Regge theory. Later Bronzan, Kane and Sukhatme  introduced the method into the phenomenology of high-energy small-angle hadron-hadron scattering. In 1975 Kang and Nicolescu  proposed a model based on the derivative relation to analyze the rising total cross sections for hadron-proton scattering.

Soon after  was published it was shown that the relation (2) is restricted to certain mathematical models; it was proved by Eichmann and Dronkers  that relation (2) is exactly valid only on some class of entire functions of $`\mathrm{ln}s`$. Bronzan, Kane and Sukhatme made the crucial step towards applications, approximating (4), the infinite series for $`T(x)`$, with a finite number of terms at a fixed energy $`s=\mathrm{e}^x`$. As Eichmann and Dronkers  showed, however, the mathematical condition for the convergence of the series excludes many cases of practical interest.

In 1976 G. Höhler  and A. Bujak and O. Dumbrajs  published critical comments on the use of the derivative dispersion relations, showing that the difference between a dispersion relation and its “differential form” (2) may grow in an uncontrollable way, e.g. due to low-energy contributions. In a series of papers P. Kolář, J. Fischer and I. Vrkoč  gave the derivative dispersion relations precise meaning and found conditions of their validity and practical applicability.

In 1986 J.C. Pumplin, W.W. Repko, G.L. Kane and M.J. Duncan  used the method to study the gluonic production of vector bosons and boson pairs in the Standard Model.

In 1990 and 1999 M.N. Mnatsakanova and Yu.S. Vernov  applied the method to weakly oscillating amplitudes and established validity conditions of the derivative relations. M.J. Menon and co-authors  used the method for the case of an arbitrary number of subtractions, and made a systematic comparison of derivative relations with experimental data.

## 3 Convergence of the tangent series $`T(x)`$ at a fixed, finite energy

Theorem 1 : Let $`f`$: $`\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{}^1`$. The series $`T(x)`$, (4), is convergent at a point $`x\mathrm{}^1`$ if and only if the series

$$D(x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f^{(2n+1)}(x)$$
(5)
is convergent.

This relatively simple theorem is of fundamental importance for many subsequent results. As for practical applications, we have to parameterize a scattering amplitude in an energy interval. So we need the following

Theorem 2 : Let $`f`$: $`I\mathrm{}^1`$ have all derivatives at every $`xI`$, $`I\mathrm{}^1`$ (i.e., let $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(I)`$). If $`T(x)`$ converges for every $`xI\mathrm{}^1`$, then an entire function of complex $`x`$ exists which assumes the values of $`f(x)`$ on $`I`$.

These results show an extraordinarily restricted validity of the “derivative dispersion relations” at finite energy: it follows that $`T(x)`$ is convergent on an energy interval $`I\mathrm{}^1`$ only if $`f(x)`$ is an entire function of complex $`x`$ and if two series, (5) for $`D(x)`$ and $`E(x)=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}f^{(2n)}(x)`$, also converge.

## 4 Link to dispersion relations

If $`T(x)`$ is convergent, we can derive the corresponding dispersion relation:

$$T(x)=\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\right)f(x)=_0^{\mathrm{}}a(t)\mathrm{}^t\left[f(x+t)f(xt)\right]dt$$
(6)
with

$$a(t)=\frac{2}{\pi }\left(1\mathrm{}^{2t}\right)^1$$
(7)
and

$$D(x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f^{(2n+1)}(x)=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^t\left[f(x+t)f(xt)\right]dt.$$
(8)
Setting $`x=\mathrm{ln}s`$ in (6), we obtain

$$\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}s}\right)f(\mathrm{ln}s)=\frac{2s}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{f(\mathrm{ln}s^{})}{s^2s^2}ds^{}.$$
(9)
This is to be confronted with the ordinary dispersion relation, which is obtained by putting $`f(x)=\mathrm{Im}F(s)/s`$.

## 5 Practical applicability of the derivative dispersion relations

The results discussed in the previous sections indicate that the class of “amplitudes” to which the derivative relations may be applied is very narrow. Problems of their practical applicability were studied in detail in , and we shall briefly discuss some of the results obtained.

Let us consider two fits of the imaginary part, $`\mathrm{Im}F^D`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}F^B`$, which are used in the dispersion relation approach and in the derivative approach respectively. Can one impose an upper bound on the modulus of their difference? (Note that $`\mathrm{Im}F^D`$ belongs to a much wider class of functions than $`\mathrm{Im}F^B`$.)

It is pointed out in  that $`\mathrm{Im}F^D\mathrm{Im}F^B`$ may, in certain situations, grow in an uncontrollable way due to low-energy contributions. Bounds can be obtained only if bounds on low-energy contributions are known; see the cited papers for details. A simple example to illustrate the situation is as follows . Let us add the term $`cs^\alpha `$ to a parametrization of the imaginary part of the scattering amplitude, with $`0<\alpha 1`$ and $`|c|`$ very small, so as not to change the fit. Then the real part acquires the term $`cs^\alpha \mathrm{cot}(\alpha \pi /2)`$, which becomes arbitrarily large for $`\alpha `$ near zero. This is an argument against the derivative relations, but not only against them, because similar problems can arise also in an ordinary dispersion relation .

We emphasize once again that the class of functions for which the derivative dispersion relations are applicable is very narrow; moreover, predictions based on them may be unstable.

A dramatic change takes place when we pass from a finite energy relation to the high-energy limit. A wide spectrum of derivative relations are valid in the high-energy limit for a large class of functions. More than that, the infinite series (4) for $`T(x)`$ can be safely replaced by its first term!

## 6 Derivative dispersion relations in the high-energy limit

The validity of such relations has been proved  for a class of functions which is almost as large as the class of scattering amplitudes described by “first principles”, i.e., functions satisfying analyticity, crossing symmetry, polynomial boundedness, etc. Then it is sufficient to retain the first term for $`T(x)`$, $`3\pi |B_2|f^{}(x)`$, and take the limit $`s\mathrm{}`$. In this way, a number of high-energy ($`s\mathrm{}`$) derivative relations are obtained. Some of them correlate the real with the imaginary part of $`F(s)`$,

$$\frac{\mathrm{Re}F(s)}{s}\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}s}\frac{\mathrm{Im}F(s)}{s},$$
(10)
others the phase with the modulus of the amplitude,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}s}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{F(s)}{s}\right|\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Re}F(s)}{\mathrm{Im}F(s)}\right).$$
(11)
The arrow $``$ means either that the ratio of the left to the right-hand side tends to unity, or that their difference tends to zero with $`s\mathrm{}`$.

Let us give one example to illustrate the results.

Theorem 3 : Let $`f(s)`$ satisfy, apart from the properties of analyticity, crossing symmetry, polynomial boundedness, positivity of the imaginary part and the Froissart-Martin bound, the following conditions:

$$_{s_1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Im}F(s)\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{s}=\mathrm{}$$
(12)
for some $`s_1>0`$ and

$$\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}\left|\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{F(s)}{s^{1a}}\right|\right|=\mathrm{}$$
(13)
for some real $`a`$. If the limit $`lim_s\mathrm{}A(s)`$ exists, where

$$A(s)=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}s}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{F(s)}{s^{1a}}\right|/\left[a+\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Re}F(s)}{\mathrm{Im}F(s)}\right)\right],$$
(14)
then it is equal to 1.

Taking $`a=0`$, we obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}s}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{F(s)}{s}\right|/\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Re}F(s)}{\mathrm{Im}F(s)}\right)\underset{s\mathrm{}}{}\frac{\pi }{2}.$$
(15)
As was mentioned above, there are a number of analogous asymptotic relations connecting the real with the imaginary part, phase with modulus, both for the crossing-even and the crossing-odd scattering amplitude. Details can be found in  and .

## 7 Conclusions

1. The derivative dispersion relations again become topical, even more than ever before, because of the extraordinarily high energy on the LHC.

2. In using derivative dispersion relations, there are essentially two different approaches. One is to keep the energy fixed and to approximate the tangent series $`T(x)`$ with a finite, possibly increasing, number of terms. The other is to keep fixed the number of terms approximating the series $`T(x)`$ and let the scattering energy tend to infinity. The class of applicability in the latter approach is considerably wider than that in the former.

3. If the tangent series $`T(x)`$ converges on an interval $`I`$, $`f(x)`$ must be extensible to an entire function of $`x=\mathrm{ln}s`$. Then the sum of $`T(x)`$ is equal to the corresponding dispersion integral. *Conclusion*: This class of functions is too narrow to contain the true amplitude.

4. If $`fC^{\mathrm{}}`$ and the dispersion integral converges, the latter is equal to the generalized sum (6) (modified Borel summation). This class is wider, but the true scattering amplitude is not necessarily included.

5. In the high energy limit, $`s\mathrm{}`$, derivative dispersion relations are valid in which the “tangent” operator $`T(x)`$ is replaced by its first expansion term. The class of applicability includes the majority of physically interesting functions.

We thank Vojtěch Kundrát for organizing this nice and successful Blois conference 2001.


text:
# References

On differential spectra in the reaction $`pp\mathbf{}K^\mathbf{+}\overline{K}^\mathrm{𝟎}d`$

in the nearthreshold region

V.P.Chernyshev, P.V.Fedorets, A.E.Kudryavtsev, V.E.Tarasov

Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics

117259 Moscow, Russia

1. The reactions with production of the lightest scalar mesons are presently the subject of experimental study by the ANKE collaboration at COSY machine at Jülich . Recently the preliminary results on the reaction

$$ppK^+\overline{K}^0d$$
(1)
at the proton-beam energy $`T_p=2.645`$ GeV, obtained in the current experiment at ANKE spectrometer , have been reported. The experiment is going on and has the aim to observe the scalar $`a_0^+`$(980) meson ($`I^GJ^{PC}=1^{}0^{++}`$) in the decay channel $`K\overline{K}`$ and to study its properties. Note that the allowed $`K\overline{K}`$-mass interval in the reaction (1) at a given incident energy is rather narrow (991.4 $`<M_{K\overline{K}}<`$ 1037.3 MeV), i.e. approximately two times smaller than the expected width of $`a_0`$ meson ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ 80 MeV). Thus, the phase-volume limitations should already reproduce a resonance-like bump in the $`K\overline{K}`$-mass spectrum. In this situation, the observation of $`a_0`$ meson in the reaction (1) appears to be not an easy problem.

The subject of this article is to discuss the possible distributions for different observables one may expect from the reaction (1) at the incident energy $`T_p=2.645`$ GeV. The modern effective meson-nucleon theories of strong interactions are not able to predict cross sections for production of heavy mesons ($`m_a1`$ GeV) with high accuracy. There exist theoretical predictions for production rate of $`a_0`$ meson in the reaction $`NNa_0d`$, based on a meson exchange model . There are also estimations, according to which nonresonance background in the reaction (1) is expected to be strongly suppressed in comparison with $`a_0`$ contribution (see, Ref. ). However, in the present article we consider the problem in the model-independent way, making use of the conservation laws for quantum numbers in the reaction (1).

Below we shall discuss the $`K^+\overline{K}^0`$\- and $`\overline{K}^0d`$-mass spectra for this reaction with unpolarized particles at different hypotheses for the production amplitude. From the experimental point of view the $`K^+\overline{K}^0`$-mass spectrum should be the most sensitive to the possible contribution of $`a_0^+`$ resonance in this channel. On the other hand the $`\overline{K}^0d`$-mass spectrum may be essentially influenced by strong final-state $`\overline{K}^0d`$ interaction (this question in details was discussed in Ref. ). Some comments on the angular distributions will be given.

2. Note that at the incident kinetic energy $`T_p=2.645`$ GeV the the reaction (1) is rather close to threshold regime ($`Q=\sqrt{s}m_dm_{K^+}m_{\overline{K}^0}45.9`$ MeV, where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is total energy in CMS). Thus, one may expect that contributions of lower partial waves should dominate. Let us introduce the following notations:

$`𝒑`$, $`L_p`$ – relative 3-momentum and orbital angular momentum, respectively, of the initial protons;

$`𝒌`$, $`L_k`$ – relative 3-momentum and orbital angular momentum, respectively, of the final $`K\overline{K}`$ system with respect to the deutron in CMS;

$`𝒒`$, $`L_q`$ – relative 3-momentum of kaons and orbital angular momentum, respectively, in the final $`K\overline{K}`$ system;

$`𝐤_1`$ – relative momenta in the final $`\overline{K}d`$ system;

$`𝐤_2`$ – relative momenta of $`K`$ meson with respect to the final $`\overline{K}d`$ system in CMS.

In what follows, the final particles in the CMS of the reaction (1) are considered to be nonrelativistic and the corresponding momenta are given by the expressions:

$$q=\sqrt{\frac{2m_Km_{\overline{K}}}{m_K+m_{\overline{K}}}(m_{K\overline{K}}m_Km_{\overline{K}})},k=\sqrt{\frac{2(m_K+m_{\overline{K}})m_d}{m_K+m_{\overline{K}}+m_d}(\sqrt{s}m_dm_{K\overline{K}})},$$

$$k_1=\sqrt{\frac{2m_dm_{\overline{K}}}{m_d+m_{\overline{K}}}(m_{\overline{K}d}m_dm_{\overline{K}})},k_2=\sqrt{\frac{2(m_d+m_{\overline{K}})m_K}{m_K+m_{\overline{K}}+m_d}(\sqrt{s}m_Km_{\overline{K}d})}.$$
(2)
Differential cross section may be written as

$$d\sigma =N|M|^2kqdm_{K\overline{K}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_kd\mathrm{\Omega }_q(N=(4\pi )^5p^1s^1).$$
(3)
Here: $`M`$ is matrix element; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_q`$ are solid angles for the directions of the momenta $`𝒌`$ and $`𝒒`$, respectively.

In the simplest approximation, in which the production amplitude $`M`$ is constant, the mass spectra are given only by phase-space limitations for the three final particles, i.e.

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dm_{K\overline{K}}}=N_0kq,\frac{d\sigma }{dm_{\overline{K}d}}=N_0k_1k_2,$$
(4)
where $`N_0=(4\pi )^2N|M|^2=const`$. The distributions (4) are shown in Fig.1a and Fig.1b (dotted curves) and are symmetric.

However, the approximation $`M=const`$ corresponds to the forbidden case $`L_k=L_q=0`$. Note that since the final $`K^+\overline{K}^0d`$ system in the reaction (1) has isospin 1 the case $`L_k=L_q=0`$ is forbidden due to parity, angular momentum and isospin conservation laws and Pauli principle. Thus, the possible lowest-partial-wave contributions correspond to the cases: $`L_k=1`$, $`L_q=0`$ and/or $`L_k=0`$, $`L_q=1`$. In both these cases the initial $`NN`$ system has the total spin $`S=1`$ and the orbital angular momentum $`L_p=1`$ or $`L_p=3`$ (see also Refs. ).

3. The case $`L_k\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`L_q\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Nonresonance production of $`K\overline{K}`$-system. In this case the reaction amplitude should be linear in $`𝒌`$ and contain odd powers ($`3`$) of the initial relative momentum $`𝒑`$. This amplitude may be written in the general form

$$M=a(𝒑𝑺)(𝒌\mathit{ϵ}^{})+b(𝒑𝒌)(𝑺\mathit{ϵ}^{})+c(𝒌𝑺)(𝒑\mathit{ϵ}^{})+d(𝒑𝑺)(𝒑\mathit{ϵ}^{})(𝒌𝒑).$$
(5)
Hereafter: $`\mathit{ϵ}`$ is the polarization vector of the deuteron and $`𝑺=\varphi _1^T\sigma _2𝝈\varphi _2`$, where $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are the spinors of the initial nucleons. The coefficients $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$ are independent complex scalar amplitudes.111 The maximal value $`L_p=3`$ for orbital momentum of the initial nucleons is taken into account in Eq. (4). All the amplitudes $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$ may be expressed through vertex constants of some effective Lagrangian for the reaction (1). This amplitudes may also depend on the total energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. One may consider them to be a constants if $`\sqrt{s}`$ is fixed. In terms of amplitudes $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, i.e. omitting amplitude $`d`$, the expression (4) was also discussed in Ref. . The matrix element (5), when squared and averaged (summed) over the polarizations of the initial nucleons (final deuteron), gives

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dm_{K\overline{K}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_k}=4\pi N(A+B\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )k^3q,$$
(6)
where $`\theta `$ is the CM polar angle of outgoing $`K\overline{K}`$ system with respect to the proton beam in the reaction (1) and

$$A=\frac{1}{2}\left(|a|^2+|c|^2\right)p^2,B=\left[|b|^2+\frac{1}{2}|b+p^2d|^2+\mathrm{Re}\left(a^{}c+(a+c)^{}(b+p^2d)\right)\right]p^2.$$
(7)
The values $`A`$ and $`B`$ in Eq. (5) are known if any concrete model is used. If $`a=c=0`$ in Eq. (5) then $`A=0`$ and $`d^2\sigma /dm_{K\overline{K}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_k\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$. On the other hand, $`d^2\sigma /dm_{K\overline{K}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ should be flat with respect to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ if $`B=0`$. The latter is valid if $`a=b=d=0`$ or $`c=b=d=0`$ in Eq. (5). The amplitude (5) is always necessarily leads to flat distribution on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_q`$ (angular distribution of outgoing kaon in the rest frame of the $`K^+\overline{K}^0`$-system. For the $`K^+\overline{K}^0`$\- and $`\overline{K}^0d`$-mass distributions one gets

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dm_{K\overline{K}}}=N_1k^3q,\frac{d\sigma }{dm_{\overline{K}d}}=N_1\left[k_1^2+\left(\frac{m_d}{m_{\overline{K}^0}+m_d}\right)^2k_2^2\right]k_1k_2,$$
(8)
where $`N_1=(4\pi )^2N(A+B/3)=const`$. The distributions (8) are shown in Fig.1a and Fig.1b by solid curves 1.

4. The case $`L_k\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`L_q\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Resonance production of $`K\overline{K}`$-system. Consider now the case of a pure resonance production of $`K\overline{K}`$ system through the chain

$$ppa_0^+dK^+\overline{K}^0d.$$
(9)
In this case the expression (5) should be considered as the amplitude of $`a_0^+`$-meson production in the reaction $`ppa_0^+d`$. To obtain the amplitude of the reaction (9) we should multiply the expression (4) by the $`a_0`$-meson propagator and by the constant $`g_{aKK}`$ of the decay $`a_0^+K^+\overline{K}^0`$. Note that angular distributions for resonance production mechanism are identical to those for nonresonance case, discussed above in Section 3. For the mass spectra we have

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dm_{K\overline{K}}}=N_2|\mathrm{\Pi }_a(m_{K\overline{K}})|^2k^3q,\frac{d\sigma }{dm_{\overline{K}d}}=\frac{1}{2}N_2k_1k_2k^2|\mathrm{\Pi }_a(m_{K\overline{K}})|^2𝑑z^{}.$$
(10)
Here: $`N_2=(4\pi )^2N(A+B/3)(g_{aKK}/2m_a)^2=const`$; $`\mathrm{\Pi }_a(m)=(mm_a+i\mathrm{\Gamma }(m)/2)^1`$ is the nonrelativistic $`a_0`$ propagator; $`m_a`$ is the nominal mass of $`a_0^+`$ meson; $`z^{}=\theta ^{}`$ and $`\theta ^{}`$ is the angle between the directions of outgoing $`\overline{K}^0`$ and $`K^+`$ mesons in the rest frame of $`\overline{K}^0d`$ system. For the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(m)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_a(m_{K\overline{K}})`$ we use the analytic expression (Flatte ):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(m)=g_1q_1+gq,$$
(11)
where $`q_1`$ is relative momentum in the $`a_0\pi +\eta `$ decay channel, taken at $`m=m_a`$, and $`q`$ is the relative momentum in the $`K\overline{K}`$ system (see Eqs. (2)). We use the parameters $`m_a=998`$ MeV, $`g_1=0.243`$ and $`g=0.221`$ for $`a_0^+`$ meson from Ref .

To calculate the integral in the expression for $`d\sigma /dm_{\overline{K}d}`$ (10) one should express the values $`k^2`$ and $`m_{K\overline{K}}`$ in terms of variable $`z^{}`$. The effective mass $`m_{K\overline{K}}`$ can be expressed through the value $`q^2`$ according to Eqs. (2). The expressions for $`k^2`$ and $`q^2`$ in terms of the variable $`z^{}`$ are the following:

$$k^2=k_1^2+\beta ^2k_2^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\beta k_1k_2z^{},q^2=\alpha _1^2k_1^2+\beta _1^2k_2^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\alpha _1\beta _1k_1k_2z^{},$$
(12)
$$\beta =\frac{m_d}{m_{\overline{K}}+m_d},\alpha _1=\frac{m_K}{m_{\overline{K}}+m_K},\beta _1=\frac{m_{\overline{K}}(m_K+m_{\overline{K}}+m_d)}{(m_K+m_{\overline{K}})(m_{\overline{K}}+m_d)}.$$

The distributions (10) are shown in Fig.1a and Fig.1b by dashed curves.

5. The case $`L_k\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`L_q\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Nonresonance production of $`𝐩`$-wave $`K\overline{K}`$-system in $`𝐬`$ wave with respect to deuteron. The amplitude of the reaction (1) in this case may be written in the form (5), where $`𝒌`$ is substituted by $`𝒒`$, i.e.

$$M=a(𝒑𝑺)(𝒒\mathit{ϵ}^{})+b(𝒑𝒒)(𝑺\mathit{ϵ}^{})+c(𝒒𝑺)(𝒑\mathit{ϵ}^{})+d(𝒑𝑺)(𝒑\mathit{ϵ}^{})(𝒒𝒑).$$
(13)
The values $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$ are also taken to be constants. Using this amplitude, one gets

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dm_{K\overline{K}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_q}=4\pi N(A+B\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1)kq^3,$$
(14)
Here: $`A`$ and $`B`$ are the constants, given in Eqs. (7); $`\theta _1`$ is the angle of outgoing $`\overline{K}^0`$ meson with respect to the proton beam in the rest frame of $`\overline{K}^0d`$ system. If $`a=c=0`$ in Eq. (13) then $`A=0`$ and $`d^2\sigma /dm_{K\overline{K}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_q\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1`$. On the other hand, if $`a=b=d=0`$ or $`c=b=d=0`$ then $`B=0`$ and the distribution (14) should be flat with respect to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _1`$. In any case the amplitude (13) leads to flat angular distribution on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$.

The $`K^+\overline{K}^0`$\- and $`\overline{K}^0d`$-mass distributions are the following:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dm_{K\overline{K}}}=N_1kq^3,\frac{d\sigma }{dm_{\overline{K}d}}=N_1(\alpha _1^2k_1^2+\beta _1^2k_2^2)k_1k_2,$$
(15)
where $`N_1=(4\pi )^2N(A+B/3)=const`$. The values $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\beta _1`$ are given in Eqs. (12). These distributions are shown in Fig.1a and Fig.1b by solid curves 2.

6. Let us here discuss the results. Looking at $`K^+\overline{K}^0`$-mass distributions in Fig. 1a, one can see that this mass spectrum is very sensitive to the choice of the partial-wave amplitude of the reaction. The cases $`L_k=1`$, $`L_q=0`$ (solid curve 1 and dashed curve) and $`L_k=0`$, $`L_q=1`$ (solid curve 2) correspond to strongly different $`K^+\overline{K}^0`$-mass distributions. Generally the experimental data may correspond to some intermediate case as well as to confirm one of these two limiting cases. The preliminary results  seem to confirm the variant with $`L_k=1`$, $`L_q=0`$. This variant looks like more as the argument in favour of $`a_0^+`$-resonance hypothesis than against it. However, since the data  are preliminary and the experiment is going on, the situation may also change.

Comparing $`K^+\overline{K}^0`$-mass spectra for resonance (solid curve 1) and nonresonance (dashed curve) hypotheses, one can see that these distributions are not drastically different. That is why to separate $`a_0^+`$-resonance and nonresonance mechanisms of the reaction (1) at low incident energy $`T_p=2645`$ MeV seems to be not an easy problem.

The $`\overline{K}^0d`$-mass spectra in Fig. 1b are less sensitive to the choice of the production amplitude. The spectra shown by solid curves 1 and 2 are rather different, but in the case of $`L_k=1`$, $`L_q=0`$ the $`a_0^+`$-resonance and nonresonance hypotheses correspond to approximately the same distributions (dashed curve and solid curve 1). The $`\overline{K}^0d`$-mass spectrum is more interesting in connection with effects of final state interaction (FSI) of $`\overline{K}^0`$ mesons with deutron. This question was thoroughly studied in Ref. , and it was found that the calculated mass spectra were essentially influenced by strong $`\overline{K}^0d`$ FSI, when the latter was taken into account. Here the following remark is also possible. Suppose the pure $`a_0^+`$-production mechanism in the reaction (1). The FSI process $`a_0dK\overline{K}d`$ leads to the contribution, which looks like a background for $`a_0`$. This subprocess may also essentially contribute to the partial waves with $`L_k=0`$ and $`L_q=1`$ in the total amplitude of the reaction (1) and modify $`K\overline{K}`$-mass spectrum. The observation of the FSI-induced desintegration of $`a_0^+`$ meson should be a serious argument in favour of the molecular hypothesis  of $`a_0`$ meson.

Two of us (A.E.K. and V.E.T.) are thankful to the DFG-RFFI grant for the financial support.