text:
# An Optical Ultra-High-Resolution Cross-dispersed Echelle Spectrograph with Adaptive Optics1footnote 11footnote 1Observations here were made at the Starfire Optical Range 1.5 m telescope, operated by the Directed Energy Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory

## 1 Introduction

Ever since a coudé spectrograph was built for the Mt. Wilson 100-inch telescope (Adams & Dunham, 1932), it has become clear that the main obstacle to achieving high spectral resolution is the loss of light at the entrance slit. In the traditional seeing-limited domain, the best resolution of a spectrograph is coupled to the telescope diameter (Schroeder 1987). Hence, the larger the aperture, the lower the spectral resolution for a given size of grating. This coupling limited the best spectral resolution of traditional spectrographs to $`R30,000`$ for 4-m class telescopes (Suntzeff 1995). In order to obtain higher resolution, all kind of tricks such as image slicers, pupil slicers, and grating mosaics have been employed, which have resulted in very large and expensive spectrographs at the Nasmyth or Coudé foci of telescopes (e.g. Diego et al. 1995; Vogt et al. 1994; Tull et al. 1994).

Recent applications of adaptive optics (AO) in astronomy have provided promising new tools for high resolution spectroscopy. The AO system corrects the wave-front distortion caused by atmospheric turbulence and delivers diffraction-limited images at the telescope focal plane. In this AO diffraction-limited domain, the spectrograph size is decoupled from the size of the telescope aperture, because the image size decreases in proportion to telescope aperture size. Therefore, AO enables ultra-high-resolution spectroscopy with gratings of conventional size.

Ultra-high-resolution spectroscopy with $`R>500,000`$ under seeing-limited conditions has been used in studies of interstellar and circumstellar matter. It has revealed small-scale structures and stratification in the interstellar medium and dynamical evolution of proto-planetary disks (e.g. Lambert et al. 1990; Crawford et al. 1994a,b; 1997; Crawford 1995; Lauroesch, Meyer, & Blades 2000). However, the instruments used in these studies have very low efficiency and small wavelength coverage. For instance, the total efficiencies, including sky transmission, telescope transmission, slit loss, spectrograph efficiency and CCD quantum efficiency, of both the double-pass coudé spectrograph ($`R=(5\mathrm{to}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}6})\times 10^5`$) at the McDonald Observatory 2.7 m telescope and the Ultra-High-Resolution Facility (UHRF) ($`R=9.9\times 10^5`$) at the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) are less than 0.5%, estimated from the published data. The wavelength coverage for these ultra-high resolution spectrographs is only a few Å (Lambert et al. 1990; Hobbs & Welty 1991; Diego et al. 1995). The limitations are mainly caused by the special optics used to achieve great resolving power in these instruments, e.g. a very narrow slit and double-path optics in the McDonald coudé spectrograph and a confocal image slicer in the UHRF at the AAT. Therefore, existing ultra-high-resolution spectroscopy with seeing-limited telescopes is generally restricted to the brightest stars, and to small sections of the spectrum even with large detectors. As we will show in this paper, the diffraction-limited images produced by an AO-corrected telescope can overcome these limitations.

The advantage of using an adaptive-optics telescope for diffraction-limited spectroscopy is that high resolution can be achieved without a large loss of light at the entrance slit of the spectrograph. At visible wavelengths, the diffraction limit of the telescope (diameter $`D=1`$ to 4 m) corresponds to an image size that is typically $`r_0/D1/10`$ the seeing-limited image, where $`r_0`$ is the coherence length of the atmosphere, with a typical value of $`r_010`$ cm in the V band (Beckers 1993). The very small sizes of diffraction-limited images make the design of an ultra-high-resolution spectrograph simple, without image slicers, pupil slicers, double-pass mirrors, or grating mosaics. High-resolution spectrographs can thereby gain substantially in throughput over conventional spectrographs. In addition, the smaller image widths provided by the AO system allow the cross-dispersed orders to be spaced closer together on two-dimensional photon detectors such as CCDs, allowing more orders to be observed simultaneously. The total wavelength coverage can be an order of magnitude larger than that of a conventional spectrograph.

Spectroscopy at very high resolution, $`R=10^5`$ to $`10^6`$, has important applications in many areas. Provided that accurate calibration of wavelengths and stable line spread functions can be maintained over long time periods, high-resolution spectroscopy is a powerful technique for detecting the small, periodic variations in Doppler shift of nearby stars that are induced by planetary companions. High resolution (and high S/N) is extremely critical especially for measuring atomic abundances of rare elements in very metal deficienct, old halo stars, isotopic abundances in stellar atmospheres and also abundances of atoms and molecules in interstellar matter, which help to trace Galactic evolution. High resolution spectroscopy provides a radically improved understanding of the physics of stellar atmospheres, including effects of convection, line-broadening, pulsations, and magnetic fields. High resolution spectroscopy also provides an important tool for investigating the small-scale structure and turbulence of the interstellar medium, and the structures of circumstellar disks and winds. In all of these applications, sensitivity (i.e. minimization of light loss) and large wavelength coverage are crucial: these are exactly the points on which AO-spectroscopy offers important advantages. The application of AO to an efficient, ultra-high-resolution spectrograph with large wavelength coverage will extend the frontier of high-resolution astronomical spectroscopy to fainter, more highly reddened sources than have been studied in the past. This paper presents an overview of the optical design of the first ground-based, diffraction-limited, cross-dispersed echelle spectrograph. It discusses the optical performance of the prototype instrument, shows some first-light observations at the Starfire Optical Range (SOR) 1.5 m telescope, and illustrates some special aspects of using AO for spectroscopy.

## 2 OPTICAL DESIGN DETAILS

### 2.1 General Considerations

Previous observations of interstellar and circumstellar matter show that significant velocity structures exist at levels corresponding to Doppler shifts or line-widths of the order of 1 km s-1 and that many absorption line components remain unresolved down to 0.5 km s-1 (e.g. Black & van Dishoeck 1988; Welty et al. 1994). A velocity resolution of $`1`$ km s-1 or better is required to obtain high-fidelity stellar spectra for studies of photospheric convection and isotopic abundances, which remain to be fully explored (e.g. Dravins 1987; Sneden 1995, private communication). Hence, a resolving power of $`R`$ 500,000, corresponding to a velocity resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=c/R0.5`$ km s-1, is an essential requirement for the ultra-high resolution spectroscopy.

The adaptive optics system at the SOR 1.5 m provides diffraction-limited images at wavelengths from 0.45 to 1.0 $`\mu `$m (Fugate et al. 1991). Therefore, our goals were to design a cross-dispersed echelle spectrograph that takes full advantage of the sharpened images in this wavelength range, by achieving a resolving power of $`R=500,000`$, while squeezing as many echelle orders as possible onto available CCDs.

When a spectrograph is operated with a diffraction-limited telescope, its spectral resolving power depends only on grating blaze angle $`\theta _B`$, collimator beam size $`d`$ and wavelength, and is given by

$$R=\frac{2dtan\theta _B}{\lambda },$$
(1)
for a Littrow arrangement. When matched to the image size $`\varphi \lambda /D`$, the entrance slit contains about 50% of the light from diffraction-limited images. Thus, we chose a commercially available Milton Roy R2 echelle grating with ruled area of $`242\times 116`$ mm2, groove number density of 23.2 grooves mm-1, and a blaze angle of $`63\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$ to provide the main spectral dispersion. This echelle provides a diffraction-limited resolving power of $`R=433,000/\lambda (\mu \mathrm{m})`$, which equals 500,000 at I band, 600,000 at R band and 800,000 at V band. At the same time, it provides a large number of relatively short echelle orders at visible wavelengths. For example, spectra from 1.0 $`\mu `$m to 0.47 $`\mu `$m are covered by 87 high echelle orders numbered $`m`$, from $`m=77`$ to $`m=163`$.

Cross dispersion of these echelle orders can be made by a grating or prism. In order to have uniform order-to-order separations, and high efficiency for the broad AO corrected wavelengths, and also to make the spectrograph system more compact, a BK7 prism with 8$`\mathrm{°}`$ apex angle was used in a double-pass configuration as the cross-disperser.

A Loral $`2048\times 2048`$ back-illuminated anti-reflection (AR) coated CCD with 15 $`\mu `$m square pixels was envisioned for the initial tests at the SOR 1.5 m telescope (cf. Lesser 1994). It was proposed that 3 pixels (physical size of 45 $`\mu `$m) should sample the diffraction-limited resolution element at 0.8 $`\mu `$m so that a camera of effective focal length $`F_C=6`$ m was required. This focal length was derived from the grating dispersive power of $`\lambda d\beta /d\lambda =2\mathrm{tan}\theta _B`$ and the size of the resolution element, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$, on the detector:

$$R=\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }=\lambda \frac{d\beta }{d\lambda }\left(\frac{F_C}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}\right).$$
(2)
The resulting focal ratio of the spectrograph is $`f/55`$.

The predicted spectral format for the spectrograph is shown in Figure 1. The central box is the physical size of the Loral CCD ($`30\times 30`$ mm2), which can cover about 90 echelle orders, corresponding to a wavelength range from $``$ 0.45 to 1 $`\mu `$m, with a spectral coverage of $``$ 8 Å per order. Separations between neighboring orders are expected to be larger than 240 $`\mu `$m (16 pixels) for all the echelle orders. The full width at half maxium (FWHM) of each order cross section is about 2 pixels. The 77th echelle order has the longest free wavelength range of 320 mm at 1 $`\mu `$m, which needs 11 continuous settings of the $`2048\times 2048`$ CCD to cover the whole order. The $`m=170`$ echelle order has the shortest free wavelength range of 140 mm at 0.45 $`\mu `$m. The physical extent of the free wavelength range of the grating order $`m`$ on the image plane was derived from

$$\mathrm{\Delta }l(m)=\frac{F_C\lambda _c}{\sigma \mathrm{cos}\beta _c\mathrm{cos}\gamma }=\frac{2F_C\mathrm{tan}\theta _B}{m},\gamma =0,\alpha =\beta _c=\theta _B,$$
(3)
where $`\lambda _c`$ is the central wavelength of order $`m`$, $`\beta _c`$ is the echelle diffraction angle at the order center, $`\gamma `$ is an out-of-plane tilt and $`\sigma `$ is the grating constant.

### 2.2 Spectrograph Optical Layout

The main part of the spectrograph layout at the coudé room of the SOR 1.5 m telescope is shown in Figure 2. A 254 mm diameter folding flat was used to reduce the overall length of the spectrograph so that it could be enclosed within the covered coudé optics bench. A 254 mm diameter off-axis paraboloid with a focal length of 6 m was used as the collimator and camera mirrors. The paraboloid center is offset 157 mm from the axis to leave enough room for the entrance slit assembly and the grating-prism box. The R2 echelle grating is illuminated in the quasi-Littrow mode in which an out-of-plane tilt of $`\gamma 0.25\mathrm{°}`$ was introduced so that a $`45\mathrm{°}`$ folding mirror of $`102\times 102`$ mm2 could be easily placed in the output beam to put the object spectra onto the CCD. This out-of-plane tilt makes the central wavelength of different echelle orders slightly shift ($``$ 0.1Å), and it also causes spectrum lines to be curved (Schroeder 1987). The slope of the curved spectrum lines, $`d\beta /d\gamma 1\mathrm{°}`$, and the radius of curvature of the spectrum, $`\rho 1.5`$ m. These effects are so tiny that they can be easily handled in the data reduction. No measurable degradation in spectral resolution has been found due to these effects.

The echelle grating is enclosed in a box for protection and cleanliness. The cross-dispersion double-pass prism also serves as the entrance window. The physical size of the prism is $`160\times 160`$ mm2, with 5 mm thickness at the top and 27 mm thickness at the bottom. The echelle grating is supported at three points. The lower two points are supported through a pivot, while the top supporting point is connected to a micrometer which can be precisely dialed to scan along the echelle orders by changing the incidence and diffraction beam angles. A spring connected to the back of the grating provides partial support. The weight of the echelle grating, approximately 1 kg. causes a maximal distortion of about 1 nm in its shape (Roark & Young 1975), corresponding to a 0.02 $`\mu `$m image shift on the CCD: this is tiny compared to the pixel size of 15 $`\mu `$m. The micrometer can move the incident and diffracted beam off the blaze angle by $`\pm `$ 1$`\mathrm{°}`$ to allow complete sampling of the free wavelength range.

Figure 3 shows spot diagrams on the image plane within a field-of-view (FOV) of $`60\times 60`$ mm2 for this spectrograph at different wavelengths. The RMS spot size from the spectrograph optics is much smaller than the expected resolution element of 45 $`\mu `$m on the detector. Therefore the spectrograph resolution is mainly controlled by the diffraction-limited image size at different wavelengths.

At the SOR 1.5 m telescope, two different wavelength bands are available with AO correction: “Blue” leg and “Red” legs. The “Blue” leg covers from 0.45 to 0.7 $`\mu `$m and the “Red” leg covers from 0.7 - 1.0 $`\mu `$m. When photons from one band are used for scientific observations, photons from the other band are used for wavefront sensing and correction. The transmission of the telescope/AO system at the corrected AO focus for both beams is $``$ 20%. The focal ratios for both beams are $`f/107`$. Conversion of the $`f/107`$ input beam to the spectrograph $`f/55`$ beam was accomplished by using two 2.5 cm diameter mirrors and two anti-reflection-coated achromats: both have diameters of 5 cm and focal lengths of 200 mm and 400 mm, respectively. We originally proposed to place the pupil on the grating to avoid vignetting. However, this is difficult to achieve with the SOR spectrograph setup. Nevertheless, due to the slow input beam, there is no significant vignetting whether or not the pupil is put on the grating.

The spectrograph has 11 reflecting and 10 transmissive surfaces, including the relay optics before the slit. This leads to large photon loss. Anti-reflection coating has been applied to all transmissive optics in the spectrograph. The reflection loss is thereby reduced from its original value of more than 8% to less than 2% per surface over the broad wavelength range between $``$ 0.5 to 1.0 $`\mu `$m. All reflecting surfaces are silver-coated to improve the total reflectivity to about 98% per reflecting surface. The slit assembly was a customer-made one. Both slit width and slit height can be adjusted. The slit can be dialed to any width between $``$ 30 $`\mu `$m and $``$ 200 $`\mu `$m with a precision of $``$ 1 $`\mu `$m. The slit height is usually set to $``$ 100 $`\mu `$m to have an optimal throughput and minimal order overlapping of the cross-dispersed orders.

A reimaging optical system was built to view the reflective slit jaws. The guide camera is an Electrim frame-grabbing CCD camera with $`972\times 1134`$ pixels. Since both the diffraction-limited images and entrance slit are relatively small, any small relative motion between them will cause large photon loss, thus object acquisition and guide system become important parts of the AO spectrograph.

Calibration lamp units were developed for calibrating the AO spectrograph. These include a thorium-argon hollow-cathode lamp and a tungsten-halogen incandescent lamp. The thorium-argon lamp provides a large number of narrow emission lines for the wavelength calibration over the entire working wavelength range, 0.5 to 1.0 $`\mu `$m, (Palmer & Engelman 1983). The tungsten lamp provides a uniform source for flat-field correction. A fiber-optics system was carefully built to feed light beams from the calibration lamps to the spectrograph in the same way as the input telescope beam for accurate calibrations.

## 3 OPTICAL PERFORMANCE

The spectrograph was first tested at the SOR 1.5 m telescope in June 1995, and was later used for initial stellar spectroscopy in November 1995 (Ge et al. 1996a,b). During both runs, most data were recorded on a SOR Kodak $`2048\times 2048`$ thermo-electrically cooled CCD with 9 $`\mu `$m square pixels, because the prepared Loral $`2048\times 2048`$ nitrogen-cooled CCD camera did not work. The readout noise of the Kodak CCD is about 12 $`e^{}`$ and peak quantum efficiency (QE) is less than 50%. In addition, it generates many hot pixels in a few minute’s integration. Together, the total intrinsic noise from the CCD itself is typically about 60 $`e^{}`$ for a ten-minute exposure frame, which prevented us from observing faint targets. Nevertheless, these observations demonstrate that an efficient, ultra-high-resolution spectrograph with large wavelength coverage can be built to operate with an AO telescope.

### 3.1 Wavelength coverage

Typical spectra obtained from the Blue and Red legs with the Kodak CCD are shown in Figures 4a,b. The Blue leg covers about 60 orders from 0.47 to 0.7 $`\mu `$m and the Red leg covers about 30 orders from 0.7 to 1.0 $`\mu `$m. Figures 5a,b show different orders in the spatial direction from the two legs. Cross-dispersed echelle orders are clearly separated in the Blue leg spectrum, while echelle orders are slightly overlapped in the Red leg spectrum. These order overlappings are mainly caused by the relatively large diffraction-limited image size at longer wavelengths and partially by the scattered light from the uncorrected seeing halo. The measured separations between neighboring echelle orders are about 300 $`\mu `$m in the R and I bands and about 360 $`\mu `$m in the V band.

Figure 6 shows an example of the reduced Vega spectra from the AO Red leg, obtained in a ten-minute exposure. The two-dimensional CCD images were reduced to one-dimensional spectra using standard IRAF routines. The typical signal-to-noise ratio for the reduced spectra is $``$ 200 per pixel. Many telluric absorption lines are well resolved and shown in the spectra. The reduced Red leg spectra cover about 200 Å in one exposure with the relatively small format Kodak CCD ($`18\times 18`$ mm2). The Blue leg spectra cover about 300 Å in one exposure with the same CCD. The reduced spectra are shown in a previous publication (Ge 1998). The wavelength coverage achieved with this AO spectrograph already constitutes an improvement by a factor of 100 compared to the coverage achieved with the traditional ultra-high resolution spectrographs (Hobbs & Welty 1991; Diego et al. 1995).

### 3.2 Spectral resolution

Spectral resolution was measured by a HeNe laser and telluric absorption lines in stellar spectra. Figure 7 shows a reduced spectrum of a He-Ne laser with longitudinal mode spacing of 1.09 GHz taken in a 1 second exposure during the June run in 1995. Clearly, 4 separate laser modes are well resolved by this spectrograph, indicating a resolving power of about $`R=660,000`$ at the wavelength of 0.6328 $`\mu `$m. This resolving power is very close to the predicted diffraction-limited value of $`R=680,000`$. However, the stellar observations of Vega (V = 0.0), $`\alpha `$ Bootis (V = 0.0) and $`\alpha `$ Cygni (V = 1.3) in longer integrations (e.g. 10 minutes) give a much lower resolution of $`R`$ 250,000 as shown in Figure 8, owing to the use of a $`100`$ $`\mu `$m entrance slit instead of the proposed $`45`$ $`\mu `$m slit. The slit was widened to accept the dispersed stellar images that are broadened by the atmospheric differential dispersion during the stellar observations. The wider slit lowers the spectral resolving power since the photons from the uncorrected seeing halos in the AO corrected images filled the slit, unlike the perfect diffraction-limited HeNe beam (Beckers 1993; Ge et al. 1997; 1998).

The atmospheric differential dispersion provides relatively large separation among images from different wavelengths covered by our spectrograph. For example, compared to the reference wavelength of 1 $`\mu `$m, the atmospheric dispersion at 45$`\mathrm{°}`$ elevation at SOR was $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}1`$ in the I band, $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}3`$ in the R band, and $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}6`$ in the V band during the run, when the atmospheric pressure was about 610 mm Hg and the temperature was about $`20\mathrm{°}`$ C and the water vapor pressure was about 8 mm Hg (cf. Filippenko 1982). The atmospheric dispersion direction at the SOR 1.5 m was perpendicular to the entrance slit height direction. The relative atmospheric differential dispersion was about $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$ to $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}3`$ for both the Blue and Red legs. The SOR 1.5-m telescope had no atmospheric dispersion corrector at the time of these observations. Therefore, it was impossible to apply a slit with a $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}1`$ width for either of the two AO bands without dispersion correction. However, a $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}1`$ slit is necessary to provide a resolving power of $`R>500,000`$. Therefore, we compromised by opening the slit to accommodate the dispersed stellar images to $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}3`$, which corresponds to 100 $`\mu `$m at the detector and which yields $`R250,000`$.

### 3.3 Detection efficiency

The total system detection efficiency was measured during both runs in 1995. The total efficiency of the spectrograph in the November run increased by a factor of $`3`$ compared to that in the June run after all transmissive optics surfaces were anti-reflection coated and all mirror surfaces were coated with protective silver. For example, the peak efficiency for most orders increased to about 0.8% from 0.3% in the June run. Figure 9 shows the total efficiency measured at different echelle orders around the peaks of their blaze functions. The overall contour of the total efficiency versus wavelength is similar to that of the SOR telescope/AO transmission\*QE curve except near the edges of both wavelength bands. The difference was probably caused by the atmospheric differential dispersion of stellar images, which most severely affected the extreme wavelengths of the Blue and Red AO bands. For comparison, the total efficiency of this spectrograph is about a factor of 3 higher than that of the AAT UHRF (Diego et al. 1995). Furthermore, considering the fact that the QE of the Kodak CCD was only about half that of the proposed Loral CCD, another factor of 2 gain in the total efficiency could be achieved.

We have also measured the blaze function of each order, which shows a similar shape for all echelle orders. Figure 10 is an example of a measured grating blaze function at order $`m=121`$. The central peak efficiency, about 62%, is approximately twice the efficiency at either end of the free wavelength range determined by $`\lambda /m`$. The unsymmetrical shape of the blaze function was caused by the slightly different cross-section of the echelle grating dialed to different wavelength along the dispersion order.

### 3.4 Spectrograph stability and scattered light performance

We have also tested the stability of the spectrograph, which is important in studies of the small line shifts in the stellar spectra that are caused by convection, or by gravitational perturbations due to companions, or by stellar activity probed via asteroseismology (e.g. Trimble 1995). This property was tested by performing a cross-correlation analysis between reduced one-dimensional spectra from two sequential observation frames with identical settings and physical conditions. Despite a 6 m focal length of the spectrograph, the shift between neighboring frames is small. For instance, the typical relative shift is about 0.17 pixel over a one-hour period, which corresponds to a characteristic Doppler velocity shift of 37 m s-1. This demonstrates good short-term stability of the spectrograph. We found the heat generated by the thermally cooled CCD and the residual turbulence inside the Coudé bench caused the image drift. Further improvement is possible by keeping the instrument temperature constant and the enclosure isolated from the rest of the Coudé environment.

For an astronomical measurement, scattered light could limit the precision of the results. A direct measure of the scattered light in the echelle spectrograph was obtained from the $`\zeta `$ Per spectrum in the region of the telluric O2 A-band. The interorder background has been subtracted by the IRAF BACKGROUND program. We compare the A-band absorption lines in the $`\zeta `$ Per spectrum to those of the solar-flux atlas of Kurucz et al. (1984). The solar spectrum was smoothed approximately to our resolution via the boxcar technique of IRAF. Figure 11 shows the fit of the smoothed solar telluric A-band spectrum to the $`\zeta `$ Per spectrum. Uncertainties from the continuum fitting are responsible for the difference between the two non-saturated parts of the spectra. The heavily saturated parts from both spectra are indistinguishable, demonstrating that the scattered light was tiny and negligible in our spectrograph.

### 3.5 Observations of interstellar clouds at $`R250,000`$

During the November run, some atomic absorption lines from the diffuse clouds toward nearby bright stars were observed with the AO spectrograph, demonstrating the scientific capability of this instrument. The observed targets include $`\zeta `$ Persei (V = 2.8) and $`\alpha `$ Cygni (V = 1.3). The typical exposure times for $`\zeta `$ Persei and $`\alpha `$ Cygni is 10 min and 5 min, repectively. The typical S/N in the reduced spectra is $``$ 200 per pixel for $`\zeta `$ Persei and $``$ 300 per pixel for $`\alpha `$ Cygni.

Figure 12 shows the observed profiles of interstellar absorption lines of K I at $`\lambda =7698.974`$ Å toward these stars. Five velocity components from the interstellar clouds toward $`\alpha `$ Cyg were identified at heliocentric velocities of $``$22.46 km s-1, $``$13.74 km s-1, $``$8.91 km s-1, $``$3.79 km s-1 and 0.51 km s-1, and most of these are well separated. These identifications are in harmony with the components observed by Welty et al. (1994) in the Na I D1 line profiles. For the interstellar clouds toward $`\zeta `$ Per, the K I absorption lines are blended with each other. We therefore applied a profile-fitting program from the IRAF to discern the different individual interstellar clouds that contribute to the absorption line profiles. Six components at heliocentric velocities 10.29 km s-1, 12.00 km s-1, 13.17 km s-1, 14.57km s-1, 16.17 km s-1 and 17.18 km s-1, were found, which provide the best and unique fit to the line profile. These are also consistent with the Na I D1 line profile measurements of Welty et al. (1994).

The high sensitivity of our new instrument allows us to combine the K I measurements with previous results to extend the relationship between the Na I and K I abundances to lower levels of potassium than have been studied before. Figure 13 shows the relationship between Na I and K I abundance in the Milky Way diffuse clouds. At high abundances, the results are from the previous measurements of Hobbs (1976) with a high-resolution PEPSIOS spectrometer at $``$ 1 km s-1 resolution. At low abundances, the results are derived from the Na I data of Welty et al. (1994) together with our measurements of K I in the November run. The extended relation is consistent with a constant ratio of column densities $`N(\mathrm{Na})/N(\mathrm{K})=60`$; however, the new measurements at low column densities exhibit much larger scatter than the previous data at high column densities. This scatter cannot be simply explained by a normal photonization model, which predicts the correlation between $`N(\mathrm{Na})`$ and $`N(\mathrm{K})`$ (Hobbs 1976 and references therein). The scatter could also be caused by the inhomogeneous distribution of neutral Na and K atoms in the small diffuse clouds, where the neutral fractions of these easily ionized elements are sensitive to the local densities of electrons and of UV starlight. Where small clouds merge together to form stronger absorptions (i.e. larger diffuse clouds), the abundance inhomogeneity is averaged out to show less scatter in the larger diffuse clouds. The new results are based only on the diffuse clouds toward $`\alpha `$ Cygni: future observations toward other directions are needed to confirm this result.

The observations of the narrow and weak interstellar K I lines toward $`\alpha `$ Cygni have also provided another measurement of the spectrograph resolving power. The average FWHM of these absorption lines is 1.31 km s-1, while the average intrinsic Doppler $`b`$-value of the same clouds observed in Na I is $`b(\mathrm{Na}\mathrm{I})=0.47`$ km s-1 (Welty et al. 1994). In the limit that the intrinsic width is due to thermal Doppler broadening, the corresponding intrinsic width expected in potassium is $`b(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{I})=0.36`$ km s-1. The deduced resolution of the instrument is $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=1.16`$ km s-1, or $`R260,000`$, in harmony with the estimate based on the profiles of telluric absorption lines in the Vega spectrum (Figure 8).

The sensitivity of high-resolution spectra to narrow, weak absorption features is also limited by the signal/noise ratio, $`S/N`$, that can be achieved in reasonable integration times and by the shape of the instrumental response function. Despite the large number of transmissive and reflective optical elements in the spectrograph, the profiles of narrow absorption lines appear gaussian down to levels of approximately 3% of the peak absorption. This has been estimated from close examination of the profile shapes of the interstellar K I line and of nearby telluric O2 lines in the spectrum of $`\zeta `$ Per. The demonstrated short-term stability of the spectrograph (§3.4) ensures that the instrumental profile can be measured and the observed spectra de-convolved in cases where the detailed shapes of far-wing profiles might be important.

The interstellar spectra also provide a good test of the sensitivity in terms of minimum measurable equivalent width of absorption features. The spectrum of $`\zeta `$ Per covered the wavelengths of several other potentially interesting interstellar features. In particular, interstellar Rb I ($`\lambda =7800.27`$ Å) has been sought by several previous investigators because it is an important probe of stellar nucleosynthesis and mixing. Although Jura & Smith (1981) reported the discovery of interstellar Rb I with a line of equivalent width $`W_\lambda =2.5\pm 0.8`$ mÅ toward $`\zeta `$ Oph, subsequent observations of $`\zeta `$ Oph, $`\zeta `$ Per, and o Per revealed no line stronger than $`W_\lambda =1.5`$ mÅ (3$`\sigma `$) in any of those directions (Federman et al. 1985). Our spectrum of $`\zeta `$ Per at $`\lambda 7800`$ Å shows no significant absorption feature. We find an upper limit to the equivalent width of a narrow interstellar Rb I line of $`W_\lambda 1.1`$ mÅ(3$`\sigma `$). This corresponds to $`S/N80`$ per resolution element at the wavelength of interest. Our limit is very similar to that published by Federman et al. (1985), who used a larger telescope (2.7 m) at lower resolution. It is clear that the present limit could be easily improved with a more efficient detector and longer integration times.

We also searched for a few lines of the A–X (3,0) band of interstellar C2 in absorption toward $`\zeta `$ Per. Two weak lines of telluric O2 are found at 7720.3 and 7721.5 Å, with equivalent widths of $`W_\lambda =0.7`$ and 1.0 mÅ, respectively. The noise level in this part of the spectrum corresponds to a limiting equivalent width $`W_\lambda 0.5`$ mÅ(3$`\sigma `$). No interstellar C2 lines are apparent above this level. This is not too surprising given the difficulty of detecting the (3,0) band toward any star (van Dishoeck & Black 1986) and the weakness of the lines of the stronger (2,0) band toward $`\zeta `$ Per (Chaffee et al. 1980). Although no new physical information can be derived from these unsuccessful searches for Rb I and C2, the data clearly show that the first test measurements already achieved a level of sensitivity comparable to that of the best previous observations of $`\zeta `$ Per.

It is also worth noting that the weak telluric O2 lines at 7700–7800 Å can provide alternative wavelength calibration. The wavelengths of carefully measured O2 lines are consistent with the calibration based on Th-Ar lamp spectra within $`\pm 0.5`$ km s-1 in Doppler velocity. In fact, the absolute wavelengths of O2 lines in this wavelength region are still uncertain at this level (Brown & Plymate 2000).

## 4 SPECIAL ASPECTS OF USING AO FOR SPECTROSCOPY

The benefit of combining AO with spectroscopy is that the diffraction core of the image is small both in the dispersion and spatial direction. This is what allows the entire spectrum to be recorded on a reasonable area of CCD. This benefit, which may be as much as a factor of 100 or more in recorded spectrum, must be weighed against losses, which though small compared to the benefit are nonetheless significant, and affect how an AO spectrograph is used.

The image provided by an AO telescope is not just a diffraction-limited image. There is a diffraction-limited core sitting on a broad pedestal whose size is the seeing width (Beckers 1993; Ge et al. 1997, 1998). The image is characterized by its Strehl Ratio ($`SR`$), the fractional decrease in the central intensity from a perfect diffraction-limited image. Maréchal approximation gives

$$SR\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }),$$
(4)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{D^{5/6}\mathrm{sec}^2Z}{\lambda ^2},$$
(5)
$`D`$ is the aperture diameter of a telescope, and $`Z`$ is the zenith distance (Beckers, 1993). A $`SR`$ of 50% is typical for the 1.5 m telescope at 0.8 $`\mu `$m when observing near zenith. The Strehl Ratio gets poorer as the telescope moves away from the zenith, so that for example at $`30\mathrm{°}`$ elevation (an airmass of 2), this Strehl Ratio would drop to about 6% at the same wavelength. For this reason the AO system is very rarely used below an elevation angle of 45$`\mathrm{°}`$ where the corresponding Strehl Ratio is 25%.

Because of partial diffraction limit of the AO corrected images, the slit width becomes more critical for the final resolution and throughput. A wide slit width corresponding to 2.44 $`\lambda /D`$, the diameter of the first Airy dark ring, will admit about 84% of the energy from the diffraction-limited core into the spectrograph, but it can only provide resolution of about $`0.8d\mathrm{tan}\theta _B/\lambda `$ because the broad background of the seeing halo smooths out the higher resolution provided only by diffraction. While a narrow slit width of about $`\lambda /D`$ does provide about a factor of two higher resolution, $`2d\mathrm{tan}\theta _B/\lambda `$, approximately half of the energy from the diffraction-limited core is lost due to slit diffraction and slit loss itself. Thus, the final correct balance will depend on the scientific goal: higher throughput but lower resolution versus higher resolution but lower throughput (see Ge et al. 1997 for a detailed study).

AO has so far been largely used for imaging where the Strehl Ratio has not been very critical, and where it has been possible to work with a relatively feeble core of an image, just as in the early days of the Hubble Space Telescope. Now with AO spectroscopy, the Strehl Ratio becomes very important. And the Strehl Ratio available depends both on the seeing and on the AO design. This will set a practical limit to the wavelength range of the spectrograph. Table 1 shows how the Strehl Ratio at different wavelengths is likely to change with the seeing. It is seen that the efficiency is likely to be quite low at wavelengths $`\lambda 0.5`$ $`\mu `$m, and so a practical lower limit to the usable wavelength at the AO-corrected telescope is likely to be about 0.5 $`\mu `$m. The maximum efficiency (including $``$ 20% telescope and AO transmission, $``$ 50% slit transmission, $``$ 50% spectrograph and $``$ 90% QE CCD) of $``$ 4% for the existing SOR 1.5 m AO telescope and the AO spetrograph can be potentially reached in the I band with a $``$ 2$`\lambda /D`$ slit. Future improvement in the telescope and AO transmission can increase the total efficiency further.

Another aspect in which AO spectroscopy differs from traditional spectroscopy is in the effect of atmospheric dispersion. Atmospheric dispersion is independent of image size. For a conventional $`1\mathrm{}`$ image, a dispersion of about $`1\mathrm{}`$ is noticeable, which is not very important. Instead with AO, the dispersion becomes very important. Thus, for example, at 1 $`\mu `$m, the diffraction FWHM at the 1.5 m telescope is $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}13`$. At the altitude of SOR and at $`45\mathrm{°}`$ elevation, the dispersion from the image position is given in Table 2. It can be seen that the observations at SOR 1.5 m telescope were skating on the edge of being impossible without correction for atmospheric dispersion. An optical device, such as a Risley prism pair, can be built to correct atmospheric dispersion for AO spectroscopy.

In conclusion, the AO spectrograph has some features that need to be factored into its performance and operation that are less than obvious. The range of elevation of sources must be reduced. In particular, the observing program needs to be tightly tailored to when stars are nearest to zenith, and objects at lower elevations should be observed when the seeing is best and the atmospheric motions are slow. Correction for atmospheric dispersion will become a crucial part of observing. Guiding needs to be done on the image at the slit, not at the telescope. Inter-order spacing needs to allow for diffraction at the longer wavelengths. Resolution and throughput of the spectrograph have to be carefully balanced by the entrance slit width.

We thank J. Christou, D. Barnaby and other staff of the SOR adaptive optics group for their great help during our observation runs. We are grateful to M. Lesser, C. Corbally, D. Baxter, and L. Ulrickson for preparing and lending us the $`2048\times 2048`$ Loral CCDs; G. Schmidt, J. Hill, and B. Martin for lending us some optics; and D. Ouellette, B. McMillan, R. Kurucz, C. Sneden, D. Meyer, and S. Federman for useful discussions. This work was supported by NSF grant AST-9421311. NSO/Kitt Peak FTS data used here were produced by NSO/NOAO. Research in atomic and molecular astrophysics at Onsala Space Observatory is supported by the Swedish Natural Sciences Research Council and the Swedish National Space Board.

Table 1. Strehl Ratio of the AO Corrected Images vs Wavelength at the SOR 1.5 m Telescope under different atmospheric conditions at SORa

| 1.0 $`\mu `$m | 0.84 $`\mu `$m | 0.707 $`\mu `$m | 0.599 $`\mu `$ | 0.500$`\mu `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 70% | 61% | 49% | 37% | 24% |
| 61% | 49% | 37% | 24% | 14% |
| 49% | 37% | 24% | 14% | 6% |
| 37% | 24% | 14% | 6% | 2% |

a Typical atmospheric turbulence parameters at 0.55 $`\mu `$m are $`r_06`$ cm and the Greenwood frequency $``$ 45 Hz, which corresponds to a coherence time $`t_0`$ = 3 ms (see Ge 1998 for details).

Table 2. Atmospheric Differential Dispersion at 45 elevation at SORa

| 1.0$`\mu `$m | 0.90$`\mu `$m | 0.80$`\mu `$m | 0.75$`\mu `$m | 0.70$`\mu `$m | 0.65$`\mu `$m | 0.60$`\mu `$m | 0.55$`\mu `$ | 0.50$`\mu `$m | 0.45$`\mu `$m |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0.0 | 0.06′′ | 0.15′′ | 0.21′′ | 0.27′′ | 0.36′′ | 0.48′′ | 0.62′′ | 0.82′′ | 1.09′′ |

a The calculation was based on P = 610 mm Hg, T = 10 C and water vapor pressure 8 mm Hg (Filippenko 1982).


format: text

text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

In a large part of the works on chiral fermions the Dirac operator $`D`$ is required to satisfy the Ginsparg-Wilson (GW) relation

$$\{\gamma _5,D\}=\rho ^1D\gamma _5D,$$
(1.1)
with a real constant $`\rho `$, and to be $`\gamma _5`$-hermitian,

$$D^{}=\gamma _5D\gamma _5.$$
(1.2)
Conditions (1.1) and (1.2) imply that the operator $`\text{1l}\rho ^1D`$ is unitary and $`\gamma _5`$-hermitian. Therefore, instead of imposing (1.1) and (1.2) as is done in such works, it is completely equivalent to require $`D`$ to have the form

$$D=\rho (\text{1l}V)\text{ with }V^{}=V^1=\gamma _5V\gamma _5.$$
(1.3)
In this notation the condition for the generalized chiral symmetry of the classical action of Lüscher  in the form used in Ref.  reads

$$\gamma _5D+D\gamma _5V=0\text{ with }V^{}=V^1=\gamma _5V\gamma _5.$$
(1.4)
In the present paper we observe that (1.4) provides a weaker condition than the GW relation (1.1). Accordingly, instead of (1.1) and (1.2) as are usually imposed, we here only require (1.4) and (1.2) and investigate the resulting larger class of Dirac operators.

We note that using (1.2) one gets from (1.4)

$$D+D^{}V=0,D^{}+DV^{}=0,$$
(1.5)
by which it follows that $`V`$ and $`D`$ commute and that $`D`$ is normal,

$$[V,D]=0,DD^{}=D^{}D.$$
(1.6)
To account for this we require $`D`$ to be a function of $`V`$,

$$D=F(V),$$
(1.7)
i.e. to depend on $`V`$ and possibly on constants, however, not on any other operator.

We show that in addition to GW fermions with (1.1) and to the ones proposed by Fujikawa  and their extension  the new class includes many more general ones. We nevertheless find that our weaker conditions still lead properly to Weyl fermions and to chiral gauge theories. Thus it becomes obvious that these conditions constitute the more general principle.

In addition to the general conditions (1.4) and (1.2), we require that $`F`$ allows for a nonvanishing index of the Dirac operator. Our respective analysis is based on spectral representations. The index turns out to depend solely on the basic unitary operator $`V`$. We introduce spectral functions which on the one hand side allow for a construction, which gives insight into possible forms of $`F`$, and on the other side describe the location of the spectrum. We also give a realization of the unitary operator $`V`$ related to our general construction of the Dirac operator $`D`$.

In Section 2 we obtain fundamental properties of the functions $`D=F(V)`$. In Section 3 we discuss the special cases of GW fermions, of the ones proposed by Fujikawa (bringing $`D`$ of them also into the form $`F(V)`$) and of the extension of the Fujikawa type. In Section 4 we develop realizations of subclasses. We first study the one where $`F(V)`$ can be represented by a power series. We then give a more general construction for operators of the class, which is based on spectral functions. In a next step we further extend this construction applying appropriate functions. We then address the question which sets of $`V`$ are related to the subclasses and give a realization of $`V`$ holding for the general construction of $`D`$. Further, by working out a particular example, the considerable freedom in this construction is illustrated. In Section 5 we show that our conditions still lead to Weyl operators and to chiral gauge theories. Section 6 contains our conclusions.

## 2. Properties from spectral representation

On the finite lattice $`V`$ has the spectral representation $`V=_kv_kP_k`$ with eigenvalues satisfying $`|v_k|=1`$ and orthogonal projections $`P_k=P_k^{}`$. Therefore the functions $`F(V)`$ can be represented by $`F(V)=_kf(v_k)P_k`$.

Using $`\gamma _5`$-hermiticity we get the more detailed form

$$V=P_1^{(+)}+P_1^{()}P_2^{(+)}P_2^{()}+\underset{k(0<\phi _k<\pi )}{}(\text{e}^{i\phi _k}P_k^{(\text{I})}+\text{e}^{i\phi _k}P_k^{(\text{II})}),$$
(2.1)
in which the projections satisfy

$$\gamma _5P_j^{(\pm )}=P_j^{(\pm )}\gamma _5=\pm P_j^{(\pm )},\gamma _5P_k^{(\text{I})}=P_k^{(\text{II})}\gamma _5.$$
(2.2)
The spectral representation of $`D=F(V)`$ then becomes

$`D=f(1)(P_1^{(+)}+P_1^{()})+f(1)(P_2^{(+)}+P_2^{()})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k(0<\phi _k<\pi )}{}}\left(f(\text{e}^{i\phi _k})P_k^{(\text{I})}+f(\text{e}^{i\phi _k})P_k^{(\text{II})}\right),`$ (2.3)
in which $`D`$ is characterized by the function $`f(\text{e}^{i\phi })`$. Clearly this function enters only at the values $`\text{e}^{i\phi }=\text{e}^{i\phi _k}`$. However, since we want to define $`D`$ in general (in particular, for any gauge field configuration), we have to specify $`f(v)`$ for all $`v=\text{e}^{i\phi }`$.

Inserting the general form (2.3) into (1.2) and (1.5) we obtain the conditions

$$f(v)^{}=f(v^{}),$$
(2.4)
$$f(v)+f(v)^{}v=0,$$
(2.5)
respectively, on the functions $`f(v)`$. These conditions imply

$$f(1)=0,f(1)\mathrm{real}.$$
(2.6)
The operator form of (2.4) is

$$F(V)^{}=F(V^{}).$$
(2.7)
In addition to giving $`D`$ by (2.3), the functions $`f(v)`$ obviously describe the location of its spectrum. For continuous $`f(\text{e}^{i\phi })`$ the eigenvalues of $`D`$ reside on a closed curve in the complex plane which is symmetric to the real axis and meets this axis at zero and at the value $`f(1)`$ (which is required to be nonzero below).

Denoting the dimensions of the right-handed and of the left-handed eigenspace for eigenvalue $`\pm 1`$ of $`V`$ by $`N_+(\pm )`$ and $`N_{}(\pm )`$, respectively, we have from (2.2)

$$\text{Tr}(\gamma _5P_1^{(\pm )})=\pm N_\pm (1),\text{Tr}(\gamma _5P_2^{(\pm )})=\pm N_\pm (1),\text{Tr}(\gamma _5P_k^{(\text{I})})=\text{Tr}(\gamma _5P_k^{(\text{II})})=0.$$
(2.8)
With this because of $`f(1)=0`$, using the resolvent $`(D\zeta \text{1l})^1`$, we obtain the index of $`D`$,

$$\underset{\zeta 0}{lim}\text{Tr}\left(\gamma _5\frac{\zeta }{D\zeta \text{1l}}\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}N_+(1)N_{}(1)\hfill & \text{for }f(1)0\hfill \\ N_+(1)N_{}(1)+N_+(1)N_{}(1)\hfill & \text{for }f(1)=0\hfill \end{array},$$
(2.9)
and also find

$$\underset{\zeta 0}{lim}\text{Tr}\left(\gamma _5\frac{D}{D\zeta \text{1l}}\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}N_+(1)N_{}(1)\hfill & \text{for }f(1)0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for }f(1)=0\hfill \end{array}.$$
(2.10)
Adding up (2.9) and (2.10) the sum on the l.h.s. gets $`\text{Tr}(\gamma _5\text{1l})=0`$ so that in any case

$$N_+(1)N_{}(1)+N_+(1)N_{}(1)=0.$$
(2.11)
Because of (2.9) and (2.11), to admit a nonvanishing index we have to impose the condition

$$f(1)0.$$
(2.12)
After having (2.12), according to (2.11) to allow for a nonvanishing index one has also to require that in addition to $`1`$ the eigenvalue $`1`$ of $`V`$ occurs. The sum rule (2.11) corresponds to the one found in Ref.  for the special case of Dirac operators which satisfy the GW relation (1.1).

Using (2.1) with (2.8) we find

$$\text{Tr}(\gamma _5V)=N_+(1)N_{}(1)N_+(1)+N_{}(1),$$
(2.13)
so that with (2.11) we generally get for the index of the Dirac operators $`D`$

$$N_+(1)N_{}(1)=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}(\gamma _5V).$$
(2.14)
Thus it turns out that solely the operator $`V`$ enters for the whole class. This generalizes the results obtained in the GW case  and in the overlap formalism  before.

On the infinite lattice the unitary space, in which the operators act, gets of infinite dimension and, including limit elements, a Hilbert space. Then to the spectral representations (2.1) and (2.3) the continuous parts $`_\pi ^\pi \text{e}^{i\phi }\text{d}E_\phi `$ and $`_\pi ^\pi f(\text{e}^{i\phi })\text{d}E_\phi `$, respectively, are to be added in which the projector function $`E_\phi `$ is purely continuous. However, the relations for the index do not change since the continuous spectrum does not contribute to them and because the trace Tr for the expressions of interest can still be defined .

We note that condition (2.11) reflects a fundamental difference to the case of the Atiyah-Singer (AS) Dirac operator , for the nonvanishing eigenvalues $`\lambda _{\text{AS}j}`$ of which one always has

$$\widehat{N}_+(\lambda _{\text{AS}j})\widehat{N}_{}(\lambda _{\text{AS}j})=0\text{ for }\lambda _{\text{AS}j}0,$$
(2.15)
where $`\widehat{N}_+`$ and $`\widehat{N}_{}`$ are the dimensions of its right-handed and its left-handed eigenspaces, respectively. For zero eigenvalue of the AS Dirac operator one gets

$$\widehat{N}_+(0)\widehat{N}_{}(0)=\text{dim ker }D_{\text{AS}}^{(+)}\text{dim ker }D_{\text{AS}}^{(+)}$$
(2.16)
where $`D_{\text{AS}}^{(+)}`$ is the related Weyl operator (the AS Dirac operator being a composition of $`D_{\text{AS}}^{(+)}`$ and $`D_{\text{AS}}^{(+)}=D_{\text{AS}}^{()}`$). Thus to obtain a nonvanishing index there it is inevitable to allow the space structure itself to vary and to get chirally asymmetric, which implies its dependence on the particular gauge field configuration. In contrast to this on the lattice there is no such dependence, which is made possible by having (2.11).

## 3. GW-type special cases

### 3.1 Ginsparg-Wilson relation

The Dirac operators satisfying the GW relation (1.1) and (1.2) are the simplest special case of the class defined by (1.4) and (1.2). For these operators $`F`$ has the form (1.3). As in the more general cases, given the function $`F(V)`$, suitable $`V`$ remain to be determined. Thus looking for solutions of the GW relation (1.1), from the present point of view means to look for the appropriate set of operators $`V`$.

The overlap Dirac operator of Neuberger  is well-known to be of form (1.3) and to provide correct results. The underlying principle of the construction of $`V`$ there is by the normalization $`X(\sqrt{X^{}X})^1`$ of an operator $`X`$, where in that case $`X`$ is the Wilson-Dirac operator. Another type of construction occurs in an example of Chiu , in which $`V`$ can be identified as the Cayley transform $`V=(Yi\text{1l})(Y+i\text{1l})^1`$ of a suitable hermitian operator $`Y`$. This, however, because bounded $`Y`$ do not allow to reach the eigenvalue $`1`$ of $`V`$, can provide proper topological properties only in the limit . Thus for the study of theoretical issues, where an explicit construction is desirable, up to now one has to rely on the normalization method.

We note that operators $`D`$ satisfying the general GW relation

$$\{\gamma _5,D\}=2D\gamma _5RD\text{ with }[R,D]0$$
(3.1)
(where $`R^{}=R`$ and $`[\gamma _\mu ,R]=0`$) do not belong to the class. In fact, with $`\gamma _5`$-hermiticity of $`D`$ and $`[\gamma _5,R]=0`$ from this relation one gets $`[D,D^{}]=2D^{}[R,D]D^{}`$. Thus for $`[R,D]0`$ the Dirac operator $`D`$ is not normal, which is in contrast to what is required in (1.6).

In this context it is to be mentioned that for the general GW relation (3.1) the analysis of the index gets rather subtle. One obtains the relation

$$\text{Tr}\left(\gamma _5(P_j+RQ_j)\right)+\text{Tr}(\gamma _5RD)=0$$
(3.2)
in which the projections $`P_j`$ need not to be orthogonal and where eigennilpotents $`Q_j`$ can occur if the dimensions of the respective algebraic and geometric eigenspaces differ. In a lenghty proof  it has been shown that for the eigenvalue $`\lambda _k=0`$ of $`D`$ these dimensions are equal so that $`Q_k=0`$ and $`P_k=P_k^{}`$. Thus for zero eigenvalue the unwanted term with $`Q_k`$ disappears and $`P_k`$ gets orthogonal as needed.

### 3.2 Proposal of Fujikawa

The Dirac operators proposed by Fujikawa  satisfy

$$\{\gamma _5,\gamma _5D\}=2a_0^{2k+1}(\gamma _5D)^{2k+2},k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(3.3)
They are normal , $`D^{}D=DD^{}`$. One may also consider them as satisfying the general GW relation with $`R=a_0^{2k+1}(DD^{})^k`$, where, however, in contrast to (3.1) one has $`[R,D]=0`$. Using $`\gamma _5`$-hermiticity one gets from (3.3)

$$D+D^{}=2a_0^{2k+1}(D^{}D)^{k+1}.$$
(3.4)
Comparing this with (1.5), $`D+D^{}V=0`$, it follows that

$$V=12a_0^{2k+1}D(D^{}D)^k=12a_0^{2k+1}D(\gamma _5D)^{2k},$$
(3.5)
which obviously is $`\gamma _5`$-hermitian and using (3.4) can be checked to be indeed unitary. With this it follows that (1.4) is fulfilled so that the operators proposed in Ref.  are a special case of our general class.

For $`D`$ one obtains from (3.5)

$$D=a_0^1\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{1/(2k+1)}\gamma _5\left(\gamma _5(1V)\right)^{1/(2k+1)},$$
(3.6)
which is the form of Ref. . The operator $`V`$ here is given by the normalization

$$V=D_\text{W}^{(2k+1)}\left(\sqrt{D_\text{W}^{(2k+1)}D_\text{W}^{(2k+1)}}\right)^1$$
(3.7)
of the generalized Wilson-Dirac operator

$$D_\text{W}^{(2k+1)}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu }{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu _\mu ^{})\right)^{2k+1}+\left(\frac{r}{2}\underset{\mu }{}_\mu ^{}_\mu \right)^{2k+1}+m^{2k+1},$$
(3.8)
where $`(_\mu )_{n^{}n}=\delta _{n^{}n}^4U_{\mu n}\delta _{n^{},n+\widehat{\mu }}^4`$ and $`2r<m0`$. For $`k=0`$ obviously (3.6) becomes the overlap Dirac operator of Neuberger .

The form (3.6), involving in addition operators $`\gamma _5`$, is not yet the one which according to our considerations should occur. To get the latter we note that because of $`D^{}=DV^{}`$ we can also write (3.5) as

$$V=12a_0^{2k+1}(V)^kD^{2k+1}.$$
(3.9)
With this we obtain

$$D=a_0^1\left(\frac{1}{2}(1V)(V)^k\right)^{1/(2k+1)},$$
(3.10)
where of the $`(2k+1)`$-th roots the one which satisfies (2.7) is to be choosen. Thus with (3.10) we have indeed the form $`D=F(V)`$ required by the general concept, which appears more convenient in practice, too.

The functions $`f`$ of the spectral representation (2.3) for $`D`$, in the present case are obtained from (3.10) as

$$f(\text{e}^{i\phi })=a_0^1\text{e}^{i(\phi \pi )/2}\left(\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi }{2}\right)^{1/(2k+1)}$$
(3.11)
where of the $`(2k+1)`$-th roots the real one is to be taken. They give the curves describing the location of the eigenvalues of $`D`$, which for $`k>0`$ arise as deformations of the circle for $`k=0`$. All of them meet the real axis at zero and at the value $`f(1)=a_0^1`$.

### 3.3 Extension of Fujikawa type

Recently an extension of the proposal of Fujikawa has been reported , the Dirac operators of which satisfy

$$\{\gamma _5,\gamma _5D\}=2a_1D^{}D\mathrm{\Phi }(a_1^2D^{}D),$$
(3.12)
where the operator function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is subject to $`\mathrm{\Phi }(X)^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }(X)`$ for $`X^{}=X`$. From the identity $`[\gamma _5,D^{}D]=[\{\gamma _5,\gamma _5D\},\gamma _5D]`$ with (3.12) since $`D^{}D=(\gamma _5D)^2`$ one gets

$$[\gamma _5,D^{}D]=0.$$
(3.13)
With this one has $`D^{}D=\gamma _5D^{}D\gamma _5`$ and finds

$$[D^{},D]=0.$$
(3.14)
Using $`\gamma _5`$-hermiticity of $`D`$ to write (3.12) in the form $`D+D^{}=2a_1D^{}D\mathrm{\Phi }(a_1^2D^{}D)`$ and comparing with the basic relation (1.5), $`D+D^{}V=0`$, it follows that

$$V=12a_1D\mathrm{\Phi }(a_1^2D^{}D).$$
(3.15)
Because of (3.13) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(a_1^2D^{}D)^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }(a_1^2D^{}D)`$ this is seen to be $`\gamma _5`$-hermitian and using (3.14) and (3.12) it can be checked to be unitary. It thus turns out that the operators satisfying (3.12) are also a special case of our general class.

With (3.15) and (1.5) one gets the equation

$$2a_1D\mathrm{\Phi }(a_1^2V^1D^2)+V=1$$
(3.16)
for $`D`$ and $`V`$, the solution of which gives $`D=F(V)`$.

## 4. Realizations of subclasses

### 4.1 Expansion in powers of $`V`$

We first realize functions $`D=F(V)`$ of the class in terms of expansions $`D=_\nu c_\nu V^\nu `$. According to (2.7) the coefficients $`c_\nu `$ must be real and (1.5) requires them to satisfy $`c_{\nu 1}=c_\nu `$. We thus obtain

$$D=\underset{\nu 0}{}c_\nu (V^\nu V^{\nu +1}),$$
(4.1)
for which $`f(1)=0`$ is seen to hold. Condition (2.12) now gets the form

$$f(1)=2\underset{\nu 0}{}(1)^\nu c_\nu 0.$$
(4.2)
Obviously (1.3) is a special case of (4.1) and arises by putting $`c_\nu =\rho \delta _{\nu 0}`$. Other choices of the coefficients are seen not to allow GW-type relations.

For the functions $`f`$ in the spectral representation of the Dirac operators (4.1) we obtain the form

$$f(\text{e}^{i\phi })=2\text{e}^{i(\phi \pi )/2}\underset{\nu 0}{}c_\nu \mathrm{sin}(2\nu +1)\frac{\phi }{2}.$$
(4.3)
The functions $`\text{e}^{i(\phi \pi )/2}\mathrm{sin}(2\nu +1)\phi /2`$ in (4.3) describes rosettes in the complex plane. The eigenvalues of $`D`$ thus reside on a closed curve which is given by a linear combination of rosette functions and which meets the real axis at zero and at the value (4.2).

In case of an infinite number of terms of the expansion (4.1), convergence properties can be studied considering the Fourier series $`_{\nu 0}c_\nu \mathrm{sin}(2\nu +1)\frac{\phi }{2}`$ in (4.3). Uniform convergence then is guaranteed by the condition

$$\underset{\nu 0}{}|c_\nu |<\mathrm{}.$$
(4.4)
Having $`F(V)`$ it remains to specify $`V`$. Below we show that the overlap $`V`$ is appropriate here, for which the explicit form $`V=D_\text{W}^{(1)}\left(\sqrt{D_\text{W}^{(1)}D_\text{W}^{(1)}}\right)^1`$ with $`D_\text{W}^{(1)}`$ given by (3.8) is available. In principle this could also be done for other $`V`$ suitable in the GW case (1.3), since with respect to the tests considered they should be equivalent to the overlap $`V`$.

The continuum limit of the propagator gives us further conditions on the coefficients $`c_\nu `$. To study the propagator we note that in the free case and infinite volume with the Fourier representation $`V_{\kappa ^{}\kappa }=\stackrel{~}{V}(\kappa )\delta _{\kappa ^{}\kappa }^4`$ on gets for the powers of $`V`$ with $`\kappa _\mu =ap_\mu `$

$$\stackrel{~}{V}^\nu (\kappa )\stackrel{~}{V}^{\nu +1}(\kappa )a\frac{2\nu +1}{|m|}i\underset{\mu }{}\gamma _\mu p_\mu \text{ for }a0,$$
(4.5)
while at the corners of the Brillouin zone one has

$$\stackrel{~}{V}^\nu \stackrel{~}{V}^{\nu +1}=2(1)^\nu .$$
(4.6)
According to (4.1) and (4.5) for the usual normalization of the continuum propagator

$$\underset{\nu 0}{}(2\nu +1)c_\nu |m|a^1\text{ for }a0$$
(4.7)
is needed, while with (4.1) and (4.6) suppression of doublers requires

$$2\underset{\nu 0}{}(1)^\nu c_\nu \mathrm{}\text{ for }a0.$$
(4.8)
It is seen that (4.2) is a prerequisite for (4.8). In the special case $`c_\nu =\rho \delta _{\nu 0}`$ (4.7) is satisfied putting $`\rho =|m|a^1`$, by which (4.8) gets $`2|m|a^1`$ and is fulfilled, too. In the general case a simple way to satisfy (4.7) and (4.8) as well as (4.2) and (4.4) is to put

$$c_\nu =|m|a^1\widehat{c}_\nu $$
(4.9)
and to require

$$\underset{\nu 0}{}(2\nu +1)\widehat{c}_\nu =1,\underset{\nu 0}{}(1)^\nu \widehat{c}_\nu 0,\underset{\nu 0}{}|\widehat{c}_\nu |<\mathrm{}.$$
(4.10)
Obviously also weaker conditions than this can be formulated.

With respect to topological charge and chiral anomaly nothing remains to be shown. The reason for this is that only $`V`$ enters the relation for the index (2.14) and that the overlap $`V`$ is safely known to give the correct limit of the topological charge (see Ref.  for a proof and a discussion of literature). Thus the correct results are also guaranteed here.

### 4.2 Construction with spectral functions

We next give a more general construction of Dirac operators of the class using the functions $`f`$ of the spectral representation (2.3) as a tool. We start noting that condition (2.5), $`f(\text{e}^{i\phi })+f(\text{e}^{i\phi })^{}\text{e}^{i\phi }=0`$, can be written as

$$\left(i\text{e}^{i\phi /2}f(\text{e}^{i\phi })\right)^{}=i\text{e}^{i\phi /2}f(\text{e}^{i\phi }).$$
(4.11)
This shows that $`f`$ is of form

$$f(\text{e}^{i\phi })=\text{e}^{i(\phi \pi )/2}g(\phi ),g(\phi )\text{real}.$$
(4.12)
Then from condition (2.4), $`f(\text{e}^{i\phi })^{}=f(\text{e}^{i\phi })`$, the requirement

$$g(\phi )=g(\phi )$$
(4.13)
follows. Further, with $`(2\pi )`$-periodicity in $`\phi `$ of $`f(\text{e}^{i\phi })`$, the function $`g(\phi )`$ has to satisfy

$$g(\phi +2\pi )=g(\phi ).$$
(4.14)
We now see that forms of $`D=F(V)`$ can be obtained by determining functions $`g(\phi )`$ which are real, odd, and satisfy (4.14).

With the indicated requirements the basic building blocks for the construction of $`g`$ are the functions $`\mathrm{sin}\frac{\nu \phi }{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\frac{\mu \phi }{2}`$ with integer $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$. The conditions on $`g`$ are fulfilled by $`\mathrm{sin}\frac{\nu \phi }{2}`$ with odd $`\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\frac{\nu \phi }{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\mu \phi }{2}`$ with even $`\nu `$ and odd $`\mu `$, where the latter form, however, can be expressed by terms of former type. Further, after multiplication with a function of the $`\mathrm{cos}\frac{\mu \phi }{2}`$ with even integers $`\mu `$ one has still the required properties. Thus, with the notation

$$s_\nu =\mathrm{sin}(2\nu +1)\frac{\phi }{2},t_\mu =\mathrm{cos}\mu \phi ,\nu ,\mu \mathrm{integer},$$
(4.15)
we arrive at the form

$$g=\underset{\nu }{}s_\nu w_\nu (t_1,t_2,\mathrm{})$$
(4.16)
where the $`w_\nu `$ are real functions. Because of the identity

$$s_\nu =s_0\left(1+2\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{\nu }{}}t_\mu \right)$$
(4.17)
(4.16) can be simplified to

$$g=s_0w(t_1,t_2,\mathrm{})$$
(4.18)
with a real function $`w`$. Further, since the $`t_\nu `$ are given by polynomials of $`t_1`$,

$$t_{2\mu }=d_{2\mu }t_1^{2\mu }+d_{2\mu 2}t_1^{2\mu 2}+\mathrm{}+d_0,t_{2\mu +1}=d_{2\mu +1}t_1^{2\mu +1}+d_{2\mu 1}t_1^{2\mu 1}+\mathrm{}+d_1t_1,$$
(4.19)
(4.16) can be cast into the still simpler form

$$g=s_0w(t_1).$$
(4.20)
Condition (2.12), $`f(1)=g(\pi )0`$, in case of (4.20) is seen to require

$$w(1)0.$$
(4.21)
Further, $`w(t_1)`$ should, of course, be finite in the region of interest.

The form (4.20) essentially extends the one found in Subsection 4.1 to the case where no series expansion in $`V`$ is available. To see this one has to note that there according to (4.3) we have

$$g=2\underset{\nu 0}{}c_\nu s_\nu =s_0\left(b_0/2+\underset{\mu 1}{}b_\nu t_\nu \right)=s_0w(t_1),$$
(4.22)
where the second form follows inserting (4.17) into the first one and introducing coefficients $`b_\mu =2_{\nu \mu }c_\nu `$. Then using (4.19) from the second one the last one is obtained, which is (4.20) specialized to the case where $`w(t_1)`$ is given by a power series.

The operator $`D`$ for the construction (4.12) with (4.20),

$$f(\text{e}^{i\phi })=\text{e}^{i(\phi \pi )/2}s_0w(t_1)=\frac{1}{2}(1\text{e}^{i\phi })w(\mathrm{cos}\phi ),$$
(4.23)
inserting (4.23) into (2.3) becomes

$$D=\frac{1}{2}(\text{1l}V)W\left(\frac{1}{2}(V+V^{})\right),$$
(4.24)
where the operator function $`W`$ has to satisfy

$$W(X)^{}=W(X^{}),W(P)0\mathrm{for}P=P^2=P^{}>0.$$
(4.25)
To check the continuum limit it remains to consider the operator $`W\left(\frac{1}{2}(V+V^{})\right)`$ which as compared to the GW case (1.3) replaces the constant $`2\rho `$. This can again be done with the overlap $`V`$. For $`\frac{1}{2}(V+V^{})`$ in the free case and infinite volume we get with $`\kappa _\mu =ap_\mu `$

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{~}{V}(\kappa )+\stackrel{~}{V}^{}(\kappa )\right)1\text{ for }a0,$$
(4.26)
while at the corners of the Brillouin zone we have

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{~}{V}+\stackrel{~}{V}^{}\right)=1.$$
(4.27)
Thus the requirements (4.7) and (4.8) generalize to

$$\stackrel{~}{W}(1)2|m|a^1,\stackrel{~}{W}(1)\mathrm{}\text{ for }a0.$$
(4.28)
These conditions can be satisfied by putting

$$\stackrel{~}{W}=2|m|a^1\widehat{W},\widehat{W}(1)=1,\widehat{W}(1)0,$$
(4.29)
though again also weaker conditions can be formulated.

With respect to the meaning of these conditions we note that the eigenvalues of $`V`$ in the free case are those of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$,

$$\text{e}^{i\phi }=(\tau \pm i\sqrt{s^2})/\sqrt{\tau ^2+s^2},$$
(4.30)
where

$$s^2=\underset{\mu }{}\mathrm{sin}\kappa _\mu ^2,\tau =m+r\underset{\mu }{}(1\mathrm{cos}\kappa _\mu ),2r<m<0.$$
(4.31)
The real eigenvalues in (4.30) obviously occur for $`\kappa _\mu =0,\pi `$ and one gets $`+1`$ if all $`\kappa _\mu =0`$ and $`1`$ at each corner of the Brillouin zone. Noting that

$$\mathrm{cos}\phi =\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{~}{V}(\kappa )+\stackrel{~}{V}^{}(\kappa )\right)=\tau /\sqrt{\tau ^2+s^2},$$
(4.32)
the conditions on $`\stackrel{~}{W}(1)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{W}(1)`$ are seen to be related to the behavior of $`V`$ at its eigenvalues $`+1`$ and $`1`$, repectively.

### 4.3 Extension of spectral construction

To extend the construction of the preceeding Section we note that given a function $`g`$ with the required properties, then $`h(g)`$ is again a function with such properties provided that $`h`$ is odd and real,

$$h(x)=h(x),h(x)^{}=h(x)\text{for real}x.$$
(4.33)
With this the form (4.20) generalizes to

$$g=h\left(s_0w(t_1)\right).$$
(4.34)
Now condition (4.21) extends to

$$h\left(w(1)\right)0,$$
(4.35)
which is satisfied anticipating the requirement of strict monotony of $`h`$ implied by (4.52).

Looking for functions $`h`$ an important observation is that because of the identity

$$s_0^{2k+1}=s_0\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}2k+1\\ \nu \end{array}\right)(1)^\nu \left(1+2\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{k\nu }{}}t_\nu \right),k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(4.36)
(4.34) reduces to the form (4.20) if $`h(x)`$ is an integer power, is a polynomial, or allows an expansion in powers of $`x`$. This greatly restricts nontrivial choices of $`h(x)`$, i.e. ones by which (4.34) gives something beyond (4.20).

An example of nontrivial choices in this sense, which can be expressed in an elementary way, is

$$h(x)=x^{1/(2k+1)},k=1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(4.37)
where the real one of the $`(2k+1)`$-th roots is to be taken. One should note that with this one has a different nontrivial choice for each $`k`$.

The nontrivial choices of $`h`$ actually are equivalence classes, i.e. equivalent ones are not to be counted as different. For example, to (4.37) the form $`h(x)=x^{(2k+1)}r(x)`$ with $`r(x)=r(x)`$ is equivalent, because with $`r(x)=r(|x|)`$ and $`|s_0|=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}(1t_1)}`$ it gives the same form in (4.34) as (4.37). Also forming in addition odd powers because of (4.36) gives nothing new.

The number of nontrivial choices of $`h(x)`$ which can be explicitly expressed in terms of elementary functions appears to be limited. We give a further explicit example in Subsection 4.7 and also point out strategies for more general constructions there.

The operator $`D`$ for the construction (4.12) with (4.34),

$$f(\text{e}^{i\phi })=\text{e}^{i(\phi \pi )/2}h\left(s_0w(t_0)\right),$$
(4.38)
inserting (4.38) into (2.3) becomes

$$D=iV^{\frac{1}{2}}H\left(\frac{1}{2i}(V^{\frac{1}{2}}V^{\frac{1}{2}})W\left(\frac{1}{2}(V+V^{})\right)\right),$$
(4.39)
where $`V^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is defined with $`+\text{e}^{i\phi _k/2}`$ in its spectral representation, $`W`$ has to satisfy (4.25) and for the function $`H`$ one needs

$$H(X)=H(X),H(X)^{}=H(X)\text{for}X^{}=X.$$
(4.40)
Eq. (4.39) demonstrates the drastic increase of possible forms of Dirac operators which occurs as compared to the GW case.

### 4.4 Example $`h(x)=x^{1/(2k+1)}`$

To check the continuum limit for a particular choice of a nontrivial $`h`$, we use (4.37) as an example, where $`h`$ is conveniently represented in terms elementary functions. With it (4.12) becomes

$$f(\text{e}^{i\phi })=\text{e}^{i(\phi \pi )/2}\left(s_0w(t_1)\right)^{1/(2k+1)}=\frac{1}{2}(1\text{e}^{i\phi })^{1/(2k+1)}w(\mathrm{cos}\phi )^{1/(2k+1)}.$$
(4.41)
The operator $`D`$ inserting (4.41) into (2.3) and putting $`W^{1/(2k+1)}=W_k`$ becomes

$$D=\left(\frac{1}{2}(1V)(V)^k\right)^{1/(2k+1)}W_k\left(\frac{1}{2}(V+V^{})\right),$$
(4.42)
where of the $`(2k+1)`$-th roots the one which satisfies (2.7) is to be choosen and where $`W`$ is subject to (4.25).

Obviously (4.42) generalizes our form (3.10) of Fujikawa’s proposal replacing the constant $`a_0^1`$ there by a function $`W_k\left(\frac{1}{2}(V+V^{})\right)`$. Using $`V`$ given by (3.7) with (3.8), in the free case and infinite volume one gets with $`\kappa _\mu =ap_\mu `$

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(\kappa )1\left(\frac{a}{|m|}\right)^{2k+1}\left(i\underset{\mu }{}\gamma _\mu p_\mu \right)^{2k+1}\text{ for }a0,$$
(4.43)
while at the corners of the Brillouin zone one has $`\stackrel{~}{V}=1`$. The requirements (4.28) thus generalize to

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_k(1)2^{1/(2k+1)}(1)^k|m|a^1,\stackrel{~}{W_k}(1)\mathrm{}\text{ for }a0.$$
(4.44)
This can be satisfied by putting

$$\stackrel{~}{W_k}=2^{1/(2k+1)}(1)^k|m|a^1\widehat{W_k},\widehat{W_k}(1)=1,\widehat{W_k}(1)0,$$
(4.45)
or by some weaker condition. In the special case where $`W_k`$ is replaced by the constant $`a_0^1`$ according to (4.45) one gets <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 Starting from (3.6) as in literature the factor $`(1)^k`$ also arises by properly calculating $`\gamma _5(_\mu \gamma _\mu s_\mu )^{(2k+1)}=(1)^k(\gamma _5_\mu \gamma _\mu s_\mu )^{(2k+1)}`$ before taking the $`(2k+1)`$-th root.

$$a_0^1=2^{1/(2k+1)}(1)^k|m|a^1.$$
(4.46)
The eigenvalues of $`V`$ in the free case here are

$$\text{e}^{i\phi }=\left(\tau _k\pm i\sqrt{(s^2)^{2k+1}}\right)/\sqrt{\tau _k^2+(s^2)^{2k+1}},$$
(4.47)
with

$$s^2=\underset{\mu }{}\mathrm{sin}\kappa _\mu ^2,\tau _k=m^{2k+1}+\left(r\underset{\mu }{}(1\mathrm{cos}\kappa _\mu )\right)^{2k+1},2r<m<0.$$
(4.48)
In (4.47) the eigenvalues also get $`+1`$ if all $`\kappa _\mu =0`$ and $`1`$ at each corner of the Brillouin zone. Noting that

$$\mathrm{cos}\phi =\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{~}{V}(\kappa )+\stackrel{~}{V}^{}(\kappa )\right)=\tau _k/\sqrt{\tau _k^2+(s^2)^{2k+1}},$$
(4.49)
the conditions on $`\stackrel{~}{W}(1)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{W}(1)`$ are again seen to be related to the behavior of $`V`$ at its eigenvalues $`+1`$ and $`1`$, repectively.

### 4.5 Comparison of conditions on $`H`$ and $`W`$

The example of the Dirac operator (4.42) in Subsection 4.4 contains the operator related to the GW relation (1.1), Fujikawa’s operator (3.6), and our constructions (4.1) and (4.24) (where (4.1) has been seen to be the expansion version of (4.24) ) as special cases. Thus it allows us to compare the features of the continuum limit for $`V`$ from (3.7) with (3.8) (the case with more general $`V`$ being considered in Subsection 4.6 ).

The behavior of $`V`$ is essentially determined by the choice of $`h(x)`$, which for $`h(x)=x^{1/(2k+1)}`$ is given by (4.43),

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(\kappa )1\left(\frac{a}{|m|}\right)^{2k+1}\left(i\underset{\mu }{}\gamma _\mu p_\mu \right)^{2k+1}\text{ for }a0.$$
(4.50)
This makes the form for $`k>0`$ as well as for $`k=0`$ explicit and illustrates the impact of the function $`H`$ (which is more generally seen in (4.56) ).

With respect to the condition on $`W`$, which leads to the usual normalization of the continuum propagator, one has from (4.44),

$$\stackrel{~}{W_k}(1)2^{1/(2k+1)}(1)^k|m|a^1\text{ for }a0,$$
(4.51)
which as well as the suppression of doublers is guaranteed by (4.45). In Fujikawa’s case $`W_k=a_0^1`$ is a constant, (4.51) becomes $`a_0^1=2^{1/(2k+1)}(1)^k|m|a^1`$ and (4.45) is trivially satisfied. In case of the GW relation (1.1), where $`W=a_0^1=2\rho `$, this reduces to $`\rho =|m|a^1`$. Thus the straightforward connection to the special cases becomes obvious and it is seen that the essential requirements are the same ones in all cases.

### 4.6 Related sets of $`V`$

Clearly the determination of the functions $`F(V)`$ and the selection of the operators $`V`$ are distinct issues. Nevertheless they are not completely independent. For the choice $`h(x)=x`$ the set of $`V`$ is appropriate which is known to be suitable already in the GW case. However, for $`h(x)=x^{1/(2k+1)}`$ for different $`k`$ different $`V`$ are needed. This suggests that the nontrivial choices of $`h`$ relate to distinct sets of $`V`$.

Indeed, what occurs in the above examples extends to other functions $`h`$ for which a strictly monotonous inverse function $`\eta `$ exists,

$$h\left(\eta (x)\right)=x,\eta (y)>\eta (x)\mathrm{for}y>x.$$
(4.52)
In terms of operators one then has a corresponding hermitian function $`E`$ with $`H(E(X))=X`$. This allows us to introduce the general normalization-type definition of $`V`$,

$$V=D_\text{W}^{(\eta )}\left(\sqrt{D_\text{W}^{(\eta )}D_\text{W}^{(\eta )}}\right)^1$$
(4.53)
with

$$D_\text{W}^{(\eta )}=iE\left(\frac{1}{2i}\underset{\mu }{}\gamma _\mu (_\mu _\mu ^{})\right)+E\left(\frac{r}{2}\underset{\mu }{}_\mu ^{}_\mu \right)+E(m\text{1l}),$$
(4.54)
where the function $`E`$ of the operators (which are hermitian) is well-defined. This definition of $`V`$ is to be inserted into the general expression for $`D`$,

$$D=iV^{\frac{1}{2}}a^1H\left(\frac{1}{2i}(V^{\frac{1}{2}}V^{\frac{1}{2}})W\left(\frac{1}{2}(V+V^{})\right)\right),$$
(4.55)
which is (4.39) up to a factor $`a^1`$. In the free case for this $`V`$ at the corners of the Brillouin zone one gets $`\stackrel{~}{V}=1`$ and at zero

$$\stackrel{~}{V}1\frac{i}{|\eta (m)|}\stackrel{~}{E}\left(a\underset{\mu }{}\gamma _\mu p_\mu \right)\text{ for }a0.$$
(4.56)
Requiring $`\stackrel{~}{W}(1)0`$, because of the monotony of $`E(X)`$ doublers are suppressed for $`2r<m<0`$ as usual. Since $`H(E(X))=X`$, putting $`\stackrel{~}{W}(1)=2|\eta (m)|`$ the correct limit of the propagator is obtained in this quite general way.

We note that the strict use of hermitian functions of hermitian operators in (4.53) with (4.54) is what makes it applicable in a general way. In contrast to this the formulation of (3.7) with (3.8) appears restricted to the choice $`h(x)=x^{1/(2k+1)}`$. Treating the latter choice with the more satisfactory form (4.53) with (4.54), instead of (4.43) one gets

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(\kappa )1i\left(\frac{a}{|m|}\right)^{2k+1}\left(\underset{\mu }{}\gamma _\mu p_\mu \right)^{2k+1}\text{ for }a0,$$
(4.57)
with different position of the factor $`i`$. On the other hand, instead of the first relation in (4.44) one then has

$$\stackrel{~}{W}(1)=2|m|^{2k+1},\stackrel{~}{W}_k(1)=2^{1/(2k+1)}|m|,$$
(4.58)
in which the factors $`(1)^k`$ and $`a^1`$ of (4.44) do not occur. The latter factor is now incorporated in the definition (4.55) of $`D`$ while the former one is accounted for by the different position of $`i`$ in (4.57). Thus for the choice $`h(x)=x^{1/(2k+1)}`$, for which both formulations of $`V`$ are applicable, one gets only minor differences in the representations.

### 4.7 Chirality of $`D^1`$

If the inverse $`D^1`$ exists one may multiply (1.1) from both sides with it, which gives

$$\{D^1,\gamma _5\}=\rho ^1.$$
(4.59)
This relation indicates that the propagator is chiral up to a local contact term, which is desirable to get the Ward identities of chiral symmetry in the continuum limit. In case of Fujikawa’s operator this relation becomes

$$\{D^1,\gamma _5\}=2a_0^{2k+1}(D\gamma _5)^{2k}=a_0\left(2(1V)^{2k}(V)^k\right)^{1/(2k+1)},$$
(4.60)
so that the locality of interest follows from that of $`D`$. For the example of the Dirac operator (4.42), which contains these operators as well as our constructions (4.1) and (4.24) as special cases, we obtain

$$\{D^1,\gamma _5\}=\left(2(1V)^{2k}(V)^k\right)^{1/(2k+1)}W_k\left(\frac{1}{2}(V+V^{})\right)^1.$$
(4.61)
Since this differs from (4.60) only in that $`a_0`$ is replaced by the function $`W_k\left(\frac{1}{2}(V+V^{})\right)^1`$, the additional requirement is that the properties of $`W`$ should be such that the product on the r.h.s. of (4.61) remains local.

The above strategy to relate the locality of $`\{D^1,\gamma _5\}`$ to that of $`D`$ relies on the introduction of an inverse function to $`D=F(V)`$,

$$V=\text{1l}I(D),$$
(4.62)
with which from the basic relation (1.4) one generally obtains

$$\{D^1,\gamma _5\}=\gamma _5I(D)D^1.$$
(4.63)
In the special case of (4.60) according to (3.5) one has $`I(D)=2a_0^{2k+1}(DD^{})^kD`$ so that $`I(D)D^1=2a_0^{2k+1}(DD^{})^k`$. Analogously in the general case it is seen that $`I(D)`$ must be such that locality of $`D`$ implies that of $`I(D)D^1`$.

To study this in more detail we consider the subclass of Dirac operators for which $`I(D)D^1=(\text{1l}V)D^1`$ is a polynomial of $`DD^{}`$,

$$I(D)D^1=\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{N}{}}𝒞_\nu (DD^{})^\nu ,$$
(4.64)
with real coefficients $`𝒞_\nu `$. In terms of the spectral functions this means that

$$(1\text{e}^{i\phi })f(\text{e}^{i\phi })^1=\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{N}{}}𝒞_\nu \left(f(\text{e}^{i\phi })f(\text{e}^{i\phi })^{}\right)^\nu ,$$
(4.65)
which inserting (4.12), $`f(\text{e}^{i\phi })=\text{e}^{i(\phi \pi )/2}g(\phi )`$, becomes

$$2s_0(\phi )=\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{N}{}}𝒞_\nu g(\phi )^{2\nu +1},s_0=\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi }{2}.$$
(4.66)
To obtain $`D`$ by inserting $`f`$ into (2.3), we have to determine $`g`$, which according to (4.66) requires to solve the algebraic equation

$$\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{N}{}}𝒞_\nu g^{2\nu +1}2s_0=0.$$
(4.67)
The solution of (4.67) is trivial if only one of the coefficients $`𝒞_\nu `$ is different from zero, which gives Fujikawa’s proposal.

In order to derive a more general explicit solution we consider the case where the two coefficients $`𝒞_0`$ and $`𝒞_1`$ are nonzero. We then have the cubic equation

$$g^3+3pg+2q=0,p=\frac{𝒞_0}{3𝒞_1},q=\frac{s_0}{𝒞_1}.$$
(4.68)
Requiring $`𝒞_0>0`$ and $`𝒞_1>0`$ it follows that $`p^3+q^2>0`$, which implies that one gets the real solution

$$g=\sqrt[3]{q+\sqrt{q^2+p^3}}+\sqrt[3]{q\sqrt{q^2+p^3}}.$$
(4.69)
Thus in more detail we arrive at

$$g=h\left(\frac{s_0}{𝒞_1}\right)=\sqrt[3]{\frac{s_0}{𝒞_1}+\sqrt{\left(\frac{s_0}{𝒞_1}\right)^2+\left(\frac{𝒞_0}{3𝒞_1}\right)^3}}+\sqrt[3]{\frac{s_0}{𝒞_1}\sqrt{\left(\frac{s_0}{𝒞_1}\right)^2+(\frac{𝒞_0}{3𝒞_1})^3}},$$
(4.70)
where the new nontrivial function $`h`$ has the required properties of being odd and strictly monotonous. The associated inverse function according to (4.68) is $`\eta (g)=\frac{1}{2}(g^3+\frac{𝒞_0}{𝒞_1}g)`$. In the related operator expression (4.55) for $`D`$ now $`H`$ is of form (4.70) with $`s_0`$ replaced by $`\frac{1}{2i}(V^{\frac{1}{2}}V^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ and $`W`$ is constant, $`W=1/𝒞_1`$. The condition for the usual normalization of the propagator in the continuum limit thus becomes $`1/𝒞_1=2|\eta (m)|`$ or $`𝒞_1|m|^3+𝒞_0|m|=1`$.

It is now seen how one could proceed to still more general cases. Firstly, one could solve (4.67) for more coefficients. Secondly, one could consider more complicated expressions on the r.h.s. of (4.64).

It should, furthermore, be noted that instead of the indicated strategy in many cases it may be more convenient to analyze directly

$$\{D^1,\gamma _5\}=ia(V^{\frac{1}{2}}V^{\frac{1}{2}})H\left(\frac{1}{2i}(V^{\frac{1}{2}}V^{\frac{1}{2}})W\left(\frac{1}{2}(V+V^{})\right)\right)^1,$$
(4.71)
which follows from the general form (4.55) of $`D`$. Generally the desired locality obviously puts some additional conditions on the choices of the functions $`H`$ and $`W`$, however, leaving still much freedom.

## 5. Weyl operators and chiral gauge theories

The chiral projection operators implicit in the overlap formalism of Narayanan and Neuberger  and used in the formulation of Lüscher  in our notation read

$$P_\pm =P_\pm ^{}=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _5)\text{1l},\stackrel{~}{P}_\pm =\stackrel{~}{P}_\pm ^{}=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _5V)\text{1l}.$$
(5.1)
Obviously only $`\gamma _5`$ and $`V`$ are involved in them and we can start with them only requiring generalized chiral symmetry. From condition (1.4) we get the identity $`D=\frac{1}{2}(D\gamma _5D\gamma _5V)`$ and inserting $`\gamma _5=P_+P_{}`$ and $`\gamma _5V=\stackrel{~}{P}_+\stackrel{~}{P}_{}`$ into it we obtain

$$D=P_+D\stackrel{~}{P}_{}+P_{}D\stackrel{~}{P}_+.$$
(5.2)
With this we have the relations

$$P_\pm D\stackrel{~}{P}_{}=D\stackrel{~}{P}_{}=P_\pm D,$$
(5.3)
which generalize the expressions for the Weyl operators in terms of the Dirac operator familiar in continuum theory.

With respect to possible forms of (5.3) one should be aware of the fact that the relations

$$P_\pm \gamma _5=\pm \gamma _5\text{1l},\gamma _5V\stackrel{~}{P}_{}=\stackrel{~}{P}_{},$$
(5.4)
allow to absorb parts of $`D`$. In the special case of the Dirac operator (1.3), with (5.4) one gets $`P_+\rho (1V)\stackrel{~}{P}_{}=2\rho P_+\stackrel{~}{P}_{}`$, which relates the different forms of the chiral determinant in Ref.  and in Ref. , commented on in Refs. . Considering the general class of operators $`D`$ here, we have to observe that (5.3) is the generally valid form and that modifications by (5.4) depend on the particular choice of $`D`$. Furthermore, we also note that for any operator $`C`$ satisfying $`\gamma _5CC\gamma _5V=0`$ one gets $`P_\pm D\stackrel{~}{P}_{}=P_\pm (D+C)\stackrel{~}{P}_{}`$, which provides another possibility to modify (5.3).

For the numbers of the degrees of freedom $`\text{Tr}P_+`$ and $`\text{Tr}\stackrel{~}{P}_{}`$ of the Weyl fermions in $`P_+D\stackrel{~}{P}_{}`$ one gets from (5.1)

$$\text{Tr}P_+\text{Tr}\stackrel{~}{P}_{}=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}(\gamma _5V),$$
(5.5)
which obviously depends only on $`V`$ for the whole class and agrees with the result (2.14) for the index of the Dirac operator $`D`$.

The degrees of freedom are exhibited in more detail representing the projections by

$$P_+=\underset{j}{}u_ju_j^{},\stackrel{~}{P}_{}=\underset{k}{}\stackrel{~}{u}_k\stackrel{~}{u}_k^{},u_i^{}u_j=\delta _{ij},\stackrel{~}{u}_k^{}\stackrel{~}{u}_l=\delta _{kl},$$
(5.6)
with basis vectors relating the degrees of freedom to the representation in full space. Associating Grassmann variables $`\overline{\chi _j}`$ and $`\chi _k`$ to the degrees of freedom, the fermion field variables then get

$$\overline{\psi }=\underset{j}{}\overline{\chi _j}u_j^{},\psi =\underset{k}{}\stackrel{~}{u}_k\chi _k.$$
(5.7)
With this for $`\text{Tr}\stackrel{~}{P}_{}=\text{Tr}P_+`$ correlation functions are given by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}(\text{d}\overline{\chi _l}\text{d}\chi _l)\mathrm{exp}(\overline{\psi }D\psi )\psi _{n(1)}\overline{\psi }_{n(r_1)}\psi _{n(2)}\overline{\psi }_{n(r_2)}\mathrm{}\psi _{n(f)}\overline{\psi }_{n(r_f)}}=`$ (5.8)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,\mathrm{},s_f}{}}ϵ_{s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_f}(\stackrel{~}{P}_{}D^1P_+)_{n(s_1)n(r_1)}\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{P}_{}D^1P_+)_{n(s_f)n(r_f)}detM`$ (5.9)
where the matrix $`M`$ occurring in the chiral determinant is

$$M_{jk}=u_j^{}D\stackrel{~}{u}_k.$$
(5.10)
We thus have arrived at the usual basic relations of chiral gauge theories using only generalized chiral symmetry and not the GW relation.

## 6. Conclusions

We have shown that generalized chiral symmetry provides the general principle for the description of massless fermions on the lattice and for the formulation of chiral gauge theories there, while the GW relation and its generalization by Fujikawa occur only as special cases in this context. It has turned out that this principle gives a much larger class of operators than one has in the GW and Fujikawa cases. We have given a general construction of these operators and an associated realization of the basic unitary operator $`V`$ involved. The index of the Dirac operator has been found to depend only on $`V`$.

## Acknowledgement

I wish to thank Michael Müller-Preussker and his group for their kind hospitality.


text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

There is no characteristic scale both in Newtonian gravity and in general relativity. A set of field equations is invariant under scale transformations if we assume appropriate matter fields. It implies the existence of scale-invariant solutions to the field equations. Such solutions are called self-similar solutions. Among them, a spherically symmetric self-similar system has been widely researched in the context both of Newtonian gravity and of general relativity. Although the self-similar solutions are only special solutions of the field equations, it has often been supposed that they play an important role in situations where gravity is an essential ingredient in a spherically symmetric system. In particular, self-similarity hypothesis has been proposed, which states that solutions may naturally evolve to self-similar form even if they start out more complicated in a variety of astrophysical and cosmological situations .

Self-similar solutions in Newtonian gravity have been researched in an effort to obtain realistic solutions of gravitational collapse leading to star formation . In the isothermal case ($`p=c_s^2\rho `$, where $`p`$ is the pressure, $`c_s`$ is the sound speed and $`\rho `$ is the mass density), Larson and Penston independently found a self-similar solution, which is called the Larson-Penston solution, describing a gravitationally collapsing isothermal gas sphere . Recent numerical simulations and results of mode analyses showed that the Larson-Penston solution is the best description for the central part of a collapsing gas sphere . In the polytropic case ($`p=K\rho ^\gamma `$, where $`K`$ and $`\gamma `$ are constants), Goldreich and Weber found the polytropic counterpart of the Larson-Penston solution describing a gravitationally collapsing polytropic gas sphere for the polytrope index $`\gamma =4/3`$ and showed that this solution is stable for spherical linear perturbations by means of a mode analysis . After that, other authors extended their work for general $`\gamma `$ . We call these solutions the polytropic Larson-Penston solutions hereafter.

In general relativity, self-similarity is defined by the existence of a homothetic Killing vector field . Such self-similarity (or homothety) is called the first kind. Ori and Piran discovered the general relativistic counterpart of the Larson-Penston solution together with Hunter’s family of solutions for a perfect fluid obeying an adiabatic equation of state $`p=(\gamma 1)\mu `$ $`(1<\gamma 1.036)`$, where $`\mu `$ is energy density . They observed that a naked singularity forms in this solution for $`1<\gamma 1.0105`$. Harada and Maeda found that generic non-self-similar spherical collapse converges to the general relativistic Larson-Penston solution in an approach to singularity for $`1<\gamma 1.036`$ . Since a naked singularity forms for $`1<\gamma 1.0105`$, this means the violation of cosmic censorship in spherically symmetric case (See also ). This will be the strongest known counterexample against the cosmic censorship ever. This also provides strong evidence for the self-similarity hypothesis in general relativistic gravitational collapse. Then a natural question arises about whether collapsing self-similar solutions with a polytropic equation of state exist in general relativity. If such solutions do exist, they may play an important role in the final stage of generic collapse as the adiabatic case.

In Newtonian gravity, self-similarity in the polytropic case has the different form of the dimensionless variable from that in the isothermal case since the sound speed is not constant in the polytropic case. The dimensionless variable is $`c_st/r`$ in the isothermal case, while it is $`[\sqrt{K}t^{2\gamma }]/[G^{(\gamma 1)/2}r]`$ in the polytropic case. The scaling functions of physical quantities in the latter case are of different forms from those in the former case . In general relativity, there exists a natural generalization of homothety called kinematic self-similarity, which is defined by the existence of a kinematic self-similar vector field . The natural general relativistic counterpart of the self-similarity in the Newtonian polytropic case is the kinematic self-similarity of the second kind in which the kinematic self-similar vector is ‘tilted’, i.e. neither parallel nor orthogonal to the fluid flow. In the pioneering work by Benoit and Coley, they have investigated the spherically symmetric spacetimes which admit a ‘tilted’ kinematic self-similar vector field of the second kind and contain a perfect fluid without restricting the specific form of the equation of state  (See also ).

In this paper, we study the spacetimes which admit a ‘tilted’ kinematic self-similar vector field of the second kind and contain a perfect fluid obeying the polytropic equation of state. We assume two kinds of relativistic polytropic equations of state and show that there are no non-trivial kinematic self-similar solutions of the second kind obeying either of these polytropic equations of state. In this paper, we adopt the unit in which $`c=1`$.

## II Spherically Symmetric Spacetime and Kinematic Self-Similarity

The line element in a spherically symmetric spacetime is given by

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }(t,r)}dt^2+e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }(t,r)}dr^2+R(t,r)^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,`$ (1)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2`$. We consider a perfect fluid as a matter field

$`T_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`p(t,r)g_{\mu \nu }+[\mu (t,r)+p(t,r)]U_\mu U_\nu ,`$ (2)
$`U_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(e^\mathrm{\Phi },0,0,0),`$ (3)
where $`U^\mu `$ is the four-velocity of the fluid element. We have adopted the comoving coordinates. In this paper, we assume two kinds of polytropic equations of state. One is

$`p=K\mu ^\gamma ,`$ (4)
where $`K`$ and $`\gamma `$ are constants, and the other is

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}p=Kn^\gamma ,\hfill & \\ \mu =m_bn+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\gamma 1}}.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (7)
where the constant $`m_b`$ is the mean baryon mass and $`n(t,r)`$ is the baryon number density. We call the former equation of state (I) (EOS (I)) and the latter equation of state (II) (EOS (II)). Here we assume that $`K0`$ and $`\gamma 0,1`$. We note the property of these equations of state. For $`\gamma <0`$, the fluid suffers from thermodynamical instability. For $`0<\gamma <1`$, both EOS’s (I) and (II) are approximated by dust in high-density region, since $`p/\mu =K\mu ^{\gamma 1}0`$ for $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ for EOS (I) and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Kn^{\gamma 1}}{m_b+\frac{Kn^{\gamma 1}}{\gamma 1}}}0\text{for }n\mathrm{},`$ (8)
for EOS (II). When $`1<\gamma `$, EOS (II) is approximated by $`p=(\gamma 1)\mu `$ in high-density region since

$`\mu =m_bn+{\displaystyle \frac{Kn^\gamma }{\gamma 1}}{\displaystyle \frac{Kn^\gamma }{\gamma 1}}={\displaystyle \frac{p}{\gamma 1}}\text{for }n\mathrm{}.`$ (9)
In the case of $`2<\gamma `$ for EOS (II) and $`1<\gamma `$ for EOS (I), the dominant energy condition can be violated in high-density region, which will be unrealistic.

A kinematic self-similar spacetime is defined as a spacetime which admits a vector $`\xi `$ such that

$`_\xi h_{\mu \nu }=2h_{\mu \nu },_\xi U_\mu =\alpha U_\mu ,`$ (10)
where $`h_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }+U_\mu U_\nu `$ is the projection tensor, $`_\xi `$ denotes the Lie differentiation along $`\xi `$ and $`\alpha `$ is a constant . $`\xi `$ is called a kinematic self-similarity vector field. We assume that the spacetimes admit a kinematic self-similar vector field. The similarity transformation is characterized by $`\alpha `$ which is referred to the similarity index. Here we treat only the case in which $`\alpha 0,1`$, corresponding to self-similarity of the second kind, and a kinematic self-similar vector is ‘tilted’. Other cases are treated in . In the spherically symmetric case, the ‘tilted’ kinematic self-similar vector $`\xi `$ of the second kind can be written as

$`\xi ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi ^\mu }}=\alpha t{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+r{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}},`$ (11)
and self-similarity implies that the metric functions are given by

$`R=rS(\xi ),\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi ),\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(\xi ),`$ (12)
where $`\xi =r/(\alpha t)^{1/\alpha }`$ is the self-similar variable. The Einstein equations imply that the quantities $`m,\mu `$ and $`p`$ must be of the form

$`2Gm`$ $`=`$ $`r\left[M_1(\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{t^2}}M_2(\xi )\right],`$ (13)
$`8\pi G\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left[W_1(\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{t^2}}W_2(\xi )\right],`$ (14)
$`8\pi Gp`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left[P_1(\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{t^2}}P_2(\xi )\right].`$ (15)
These functions are the same as those defined by Benoit and Coley in . A set of ordinary differential equations can be obtained by demanding that the Einstein equations and the equations of motion of the matter field are satisfied for the $`O[(r/t)^0]`$ and the $`O[(r/t)^2]`$ terms separately. Then the Einstein equations and the equations of motion for the perfect fluid are reduced to the equations (A.7)-(A.17) in . For convenience, we also use the $`(tt)`$ and $`(rr)`$ components of the Einstein equations which reduce to the following:

$`S^{}(S^{}+2\mathrm{\Psi }^{}S)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^2W_2S^2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }},`$ (16)
$`2S(S^{\prime \prime }+2S^{})2\mathrm{\Psi }^{}S(S+S^{})`$ $`=`$ $`S^2S^2+e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}(1W_1S^2),`$ (17)
$`2S(S^{\prime \prime }+\alpha S^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}S^{})+S^2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^2P_2S^2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }},`$ (18)
$`(S+S^{})(S+S^{}+2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}S)`$ $`=`$ $`(1+P_1S^2)e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }},`$ (19)
where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`\mathrm{ln}\xi `$. These equations are dependent on equations (A.7)-(A.17) in

In a vacuum case, while the Minkowski spacetime can be obtained for all $`\alpha `$, the Schwarzschild spacetime can be obtained only for $`\alpha =3/2`$ since equations (A.8) and (A.10) in  are degenerated so that $`M_20`$ is possible in this case. The Schwarzschild spacetime in the Lemaitre’s choice of coordinates is written as

$`ds^2=dt^2+r_g^{\frac{2}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dR^2}{\left[\frac{3}{2}(Rt)\right]^{\frac{2}{3}}}}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(Rt)\right]^{\frac{4}{3}}d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right),`$ (20)
with $`r_g=(3/2)(Rt)`$ being the Schwarzschild radius . Changing the radial coordinate as $`R=r^{3/2}`$,

$`ds^2=dt^2+r_g^{\frac{2}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(9/4)dr^2}{\left[\frac{3}{2}(1t/r^{\frac{3}{2}})\right]^{\frac{2}{3}}}}+r^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(1t/r^{\frac{3}{2}})\right]^{\frac{4}{3}}d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right),`$ (21)
can be obtained.

## III No Go Theorem

Theorem.
Let the ($`^4`$,g) be a spherically symmetric spacetime which
a) admits a kinematic self-similar vector of the second kind $`\xi ^\mu `$ with similarity index $`\alpha 0,1`$ which is neither parallel nor orthogonal to the fluid flow; and
b) satisfies the Einstein equations for a perfect fluid obeying equation of state (I) or (II) for $`K0`$ and $`\gamma 0,1`$.
Then ($`^4`$,g) is the Minkowski spacetime with any $`\alpha `$ or the Schwarzschild spacetime with $`\alpha =3/2`$.
Proof. Subtracting equation (19) from equation (17) and eliminating $`S^{\prime \prime }`$ with using equation (A.17) in , we obtain

$`2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(P_1+W_1)e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}.`$ (22)
Then equations (A.13) and (A.14) in  result in

$`e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}(P_1+W_1)^2`$ $`=`$ $`4P_12P_1^{},`$ (23)
$`e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}(P_1+W_1)(P_2+W_2)`$ $`=`$ $`2P_2^{}.`$ (24)
If a perfect fluid obeys EOS (I) for $`K0`$ and $`\gamma 0,1`$, we find from equations (14) and (15) that

$`\alpha =\gamma ,P_1=W_2=0,P_2={\displaystyle \frac{K}{(8\pi G)^{\gamma 1}\gamma ^2}}\xi ^{2\gamma }W_1^\gamma \text{[case (A)]},`$ (25)
or

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }},P_2=W_1=0,P_1={\displaystyle \frac{K}{(8\pi G)^{\gamma 1}\gamma ^{2\gamma }}}\xi ^2W_2^\gamma \text{[case (B)]}.`$ (26)
If a perfect fluid obeys EOS (II) for $`K0`$ and $`\gamma 0,1`$, we find from equations (14) and (15) that

$`\alpha =\gamma ,P_1=0,P_2={\displaystyle \frac{K}{m_b^\gamma (8\pi G)^{\gamma 1}\gamma ^2}}\xi ^{2\gamma }W_1^\gamma =(\gamma 1)W_2\text{[case (C)]},`$ (27)
or

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }},P_2=0,P_1={\displaystyle \frac{K}{m_b^\gamma (8\pi G)^{\gamma 1}\gamma ^{2\gamma }}}\xi ^2W_2^\gamma =(\gamma 1)W_1\text{[case (D)]}.`$ (28)
$`P_1=0`$ directly implies $`W_1=0`$ from equation (23), while $`P_2=0`$ implies $`(P_1+W_1)W_2=0`$ from (24), which results in $`W_2=0`$ for cases (B) and (D). Therefore the spacetime must be vacuum for all possible cases.

## IV Summary and Discussion

We have shown that there are no spherically symmetric solutions that contain a perfect fluid obeying either polytropic EOS (I) or (II) and admit a ‘tilted’ kinematic self-similar vector of the second kind. There exist only vacuum solutions, the Minkowski solution with any $`\alpha 0,1`$ and the Schwarzschild solution with $`\alpha =3/2`$. The result is much different from that in Newtonian case, since in Newtonian case there exists the polytropic Larson-Penston solution, which is a self-similar solution describing the collapsing polytrope gas .

The result in this paper does not directly mean that the kinematic self-similarity of the second kind is incompatible with perfect fluids since the realistic equation of state in relativistic regime could be neither EOS (I) nor (II). The proof of the no go theorem strongly depends on the fact that $`P_1=0`$ or $`P_2=0`$ and the theorem has not been proved in more general cases. The non-trivial solutions could be obtained when we assume the equation of state in which $`P_1P_20`$ is possible. Such cases will be investigated elsewhere.

EOS’s (I) and (II) could be compatible with other kinds of self-similarities, i.e. the zeroth and the infinite kinds, or with the case which the kinematic self-similar vector is parallel or orthogonal to the fluid flow. These cases are considered in .

If the polytropic Larson-Penston solution is an attractor of generic collapse of the polytropic gas in Newtonian gravity as in the isothermal case, how does the collapse proceeds in the relativistic region when we assume that the polytropic equation of state in relativistic regime is described as EOS (I) or (II)? For $`0<\gamma <1`$, both EOS’s (I) and (II) are approximated by dust so that the generic collapse could converge to the spacetime of which the central region can be described by the Tolman-Bondi solution .

In order to show the whole picture of the generic collapse of the polytrope gas which obeys equation of state (I) or (II), the full numerical simulations of gravitational collapse will be quite helpful.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are very grateful to T. Torii for helpful comments. We would also like to thank K. Maeda for continuous encouragement. This work was partly supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Nos. 05540 and 11217) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.