text:
# Light response of pure CsI calorimeter crystals painted with wavelength-shifting lacquer

## 1 Introduction

The PIBETA detector at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland was designed for the precise measurement of the pion beta ($`\pi \beta `$) decay branching ratio ($`\pi ^+`$$``$$`\pi ^0e^+\nu _e`$) as well as for study of other rare pion and muon decays . The experiment has started to take production data in the summer of 1999. The heart of the detector is the $``$3$`\pi `$sr pure cesium iodide (CsI) segmented calorimeter. In-depth knowledge of the calorimeter response to the positrons and photons in the energy range 10–100 MeV is essential in order to achieve the proposed accuracy of the branching ratio measurements of $``$0.5 %. Experimental signature of a $`\pi \beta `$ event is determined by the prompt decay $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$. The (1.025$`\pm `$0.034)$`\times `$$`10^8`$ pion beta decay branching ratio  will be remeasured relative to the $`10^4`$ times more probable $`\pi ^+`$$``$$`e^+\nu _e`$ decay rate, that is known with the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty of $``$0.33 % .

The detector energy response functions were determined both experimentally, by scanning the calorimeter with the monoenergetic $`e^+`$ and $`\gamma `$ beams, and in Monte Carlo simulations. Inputs to the simulation calculations were the average light outputs and light output nonuniformity functions for each individual calorimeter module. In this paper we describe how these input parameters, essential for a realistic Monte Carlo detector simulation, have been measured in a dedicated tomography apparatus. Section 2 details the surface treatment of the CsI scintillator crystals. Design and operation of the radioactive source scanning apparatus are explained in Sec. 3. The extracted light output parameters are discussed in Secs. 4 and 5. In Sec. 6 we explain how these parameters are used in a GEANT-based calculation of the calorimeter response.

## 2 CsI Crystal Surface Treatment

The PIBETA calorimeter consists of 240 truncated crystal pyramids with a height of 22 cm, which corresponds to 12 radiation lengths. Nine different detector shapes were required to complete the crystal sphere : four irregular hexagonal truncated pyramids (we labeled them HEX–A, HEX–B, HEX–C, and HEX–D), one regular pentagonal (PENT) and two irregular half-hexagonal truncated pyramids (HEX–D1 and HEX–D2), and two trapezohedrons (VET–1, VET–2). The volumes of studied CsI crystals vary from 797 cm3 (HEX–D1/2) to 1718 cm3 (HEX–C).

Twentyfive pure CsI crystals were produced by Bicron Corporation facility in Newbury, Ohio. The reminder of the crystals were grown and cut in the Institute for Single Crystals (AMCRYS) in Harkov, Ukraine. The more detailed description of the PIBETA calorimeter design is given in Refs.  and . In Fig. 1 we show the partially assembled calorimeter with front faces and wrapped side surfaces of exposed CsI modules visible inside the mechanical support structure.

The light output of each crystal, namely the average number of photoelectrons for unit energy deposition caused by ionizing charged particles, can be tuned by using the different polishing, matting and wrapping treatments of the detector surfaces. The goal of such treatments is usually to maximize the light yield thus obtaining the best energy resolution, while keeping the detector response linear irrespective of the location of the energy deposition.

Our initial treatment of the crystal surfaces involved a test sample of 74 CsI detectors and consisted of: (a) polishing the crystal surfaces with a mixture of 0.2 $`\mu `$m aluminum oxide powder and etylenglycol, (b) wrapping the lateral surfaces with two layers of Teflon foil plus one layer of aluminized Mylar sheet, and (c) covering the front crystal surface with a black paper template. The crystal back surface with the glued phototube was left uncovered. We reported the predicted response of the calorimeter with all CsI modules treated in the described manner in our previous paper .

Further test measurements and the technical developments  suggested an improved optical treatment of crystal surfaces. Due to the fact that CsI is slightly hygroscopic, it is desirable to “seal” the scintillators against potential surface deterioration and thus minimize changes of the detector response throughout the duration of the experiment. Traditional polishing and wrapping methods cannot ensure long term stability of the relevant scintillation parameters due to the insufficient chemical resistance of alkali halides . Furthermore, a suitable protective coating of the crystal surfaces can at the same time be used to modulate the scintillator light collection properties and can be easily removed, if necessary.

We therefore decided to paint the surfaces of every CsI crystal using a special organosilicon mixture. The solution was developed at the Harkov Single Crystals Research Institute . For our purposes the most useful polymers were polyphenylsiloxanes due to their high thermal stability, good radiation resistance and the moisture-proof quality. The optical properties of the organosilicon coatings depend on the nature of the organic radicals. Their phenyl polymer bonds can efficiently transfer the energy to the luminescent admixtures . The selected polymers and solvents have a nonpolar character resulting in a low moisture absorption. On the other hand, the high optical transparency of the varnishes was achieved in a purification process by the absorption trapping of silica, aluminum oxide and hydroxide impurities. The resulting absorption and reemission of light by the coating in the wavelength range above 300 nm was better than 99%.

Specifically, the waveshift lacquer was the ladder organosilicon copolymer with the chemical composition PPO+POPOP+COUM.1, where PPO is 2.5–Diphenyloxazole, POPOP represents 1.4-Di-2-(5-Phenyloxazolile-Benzene) and COUM.1 is 7-Diethylamine-4-Methylcoumarin . That paint solution was applied twice resulting in a protective cover with a total thickness of 120 $`\mu `$m. The dried paint layer has the index of refraction $`n_D`$=1.62 and the density $`\rho `$=1.094, and is soluble in ethyl alcohol. Following the paint application each detector module was wrapped in two layers of a 38 $`\mu `$m PTFE Teflon sheet and two layers of 20$`\mu `$m thick aluminized Mylar to make it optically insulated from its calorimeter neighbors.

We have compared the average fast-to-total (F/T) analog signal ratio and the photoelectron statistics of all lacquer-treated crystals with the measurements of polished and Teflon-wrapped crystals we reported on in Ref. . The F/T ratio was virtually unchanged at 0.77, while the number of photoelectrons per MeV was just under 3 % lower, changing from an average of 64 to 62 Photoelectrons/MeV at the ambient temperature of 18C. The combined statistical and systematic uncertainty of these measurements was less then 1 Photoelectron/MeV.

The averaged lineshape of an analog cosmic muon signal from one CsI detector captured on a digital oscilloscope is shown in Fig. 2. The 10-to-90 % amplitude rise time of the analog signal changed from 4.0 ns for the Teflon-wrapped scintillators to 4.8 ns for the lacquer-painted detectors, due to the fact that a fraction of the scintillator light is now absorbed by the wavelength-shifting surfaces and reemitted later with the different wavelength. Histograms of the F/T ratios and the photoelectron numbers for the painted crystals are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.

## 3 RASTA: RAdioactive Source Tomography Apparatus

The total light output and the position-dependent light collection probabilities for each CsI detector were measured in a test setup using a 137Cs radioactive gamma source with an activity of 3.7 MBq. It was found that this method produced results consistent with the cosmic muon tomography  and was well suited for the routine crystal uniformity tests. Thus an apparatus was designed and built to allow a fast, precise and reproducible method of determining the optical nonuniformity of each CsI crystal.

The drawing of the main parts of the apparatus is shown in Fig. 5. The 137Cs radioactive gamma source was embedded in a lead collimator. The collimator had a thickness of 5 cm while its pin-hole had a diameter of 6 mm. The probability for the 0.662 MeV 137Cs photons to penetrate that lead thickness is $`<1`$%. The ionization energy deposited at the central axis of a CsI crystal is about one-sixth of the energy deposition near the crystal surface. The collimator was mounted on an aluminum plate, which was moved by a stepping motor. The precision of the step motor movements was 12.5$`\mu `$m. The examined crystal was placed on a horizontal aluminum plate using a dedicated positioning system with a precision of $``$0.3 mm. The stepping motor was controlled by a PC486 personal computer through a RS232 interface.

The schematic diagram of the logic electronics is shown in Fig. 6. The analog photomultiplier signal was amplified by a factor of 10 using an LRS 612A photomultiplier amplifier. The signal was then split, one copy going into the trigger logic while the other copy was delayed and fed into an LRS 2249A CAMAC ADC. The trigger created a computer LAM in the SIN IO506 input/output unit. The CAMAC modules were controlled using a HYTEC 1331 Turbo CAMAC–PC interface.

The stability of the system after switching on the PMT high voltage was studied in preliminary calibrations. The data were taken with a CsI crystal in a fixed position every 5 minutes and the results are shown in Fig. 7. We concluded that the PMT high voltage should be switched on for at least one hour before doing any measurements with the detector.

A full calibration was performed on each CsI crystal by scanning it four times within three hours. The measured light output as a function of scan position are shown in Fig. 8 for the CsI detector number S040. After the cross-normalization the results of different measurements agreed within the 0.5 % statistical uncertainty.

## 4 Total Light Output of the CsI Detectors

Scintillation light of a full-sized CsI crystal was read by a 78 mm diameter EMI 9821QKB photomultiplier tube with quartz photocathode window. The smaller half-sized crystals were directly coupled to a 52 mm $`\varphi `$ EMI 9211QKA PMTs with similar characteristics . Both phototube types were glued to the back faces of the crystals using a clear silicone elastomer Sylgard 184 manufactured by Dow Corning .

A light-emitting diode (LED) was attached to the exposed back side of the CsI detector. The whole detector assembly was placed in the light-tight RASTA box. The LEDs were excited at a $``$10 Hz rate using a NIM diode driver with an adjustable output voltage. The LED pulses simulated constant energy depositions in the CsI crystal corresponding to a 10–100 MeV range. The absolute energy calibration was established by comparison with measured cosmic muon ADC spectra. These spectra were acquired in calibration runs triggered by two small plastic scintillator tag counters placed above and below the CsI crystal. Their expected peak positions, expressed in the units of MeV, were calculated in a GEANT Monte Carlo simulation.

For LED measurements the variance $`\sigma _E^2`$ of a PMT pulse-height spectrum depends upon the mean number of photoelectrons $`\overline{N}_{pe}`$ from the photocathode created per unit energy deposition in the scintillator:

$$\sigma _E^2=\underset{i}{}\sigma _i^2+\overline{E}/\overline{N}_{pe},$$
(1)
where $`\overline{E}`$ is the spectrum peak position and $`\sigma _i^2`$’s are assorted variances, such as the instabilities of LED driving voltage and temporal ADC pedestal variations.

The energy resolutions $`\sigma _E`$’s were measured for 9 different values of the LED driving voltage and the photoelectron numbers $`\overline{N}_{pe}`$ were calculated by the least-squares fit using Eq. (1). The mean numbers of photoelectrons normalized to the unit equivalent-energy deposition in MeV and scaled down the ambient temperature of 18C are shown in Fig. 4. The histograms for the full-sized crystals and half-sized crystals are displayed separately, with the ratio of 2.4 in photoelectron statistics essentially consistent with the surface area ratio of 2.25 in the two differently-sized photocathodes.

## 5 Spatial Light Output Nonuniformity of the CsI Detectors

The 3-dimensional spatial distribution of scintillation light output can be specified by giving the number of photoelectrons $`N_{\mathrm{pe}}(x,y,z)`$ produced by a 1 MeV energy deposition at the point ($`x,y,z`$) (“3-dimensional light nonuniformity function”). In the following discussion we limit ourselves to the linear and one-dimensional variation of the detected light output $`N_{\mathrm{pe}}(z)`$ along the long axis of the detector:

$`N_{\mathrm{pe}}(z)\{\begin{array}{cc}N_1+a_{z1}z\hfill & 0z10\mathrm{cm}\text{,}\hfill \\ N_2+a_{z2}z\hfill & 10z18\mathrm{cm}\text{,}\hfill \\ N_3+a_{z3}z\hfill & 18z22\mathrm{cm}\hfill \end{array}`$ (2)
where $`a_z`$’s are the linear optical nonuniformity coefficients in the axial coordinate $`z`$, and the coordinate system origin is at the center of the detector front face. In this approximation the transverse light output variations are integrated away. In our figures and tables we are quoting the $`a_z`$ light nonuniformity parameters in units of %/cm.

The complete RASTA database of all 240 studied CsI crystals is made available for online inspection at the PIBETA WWW site . The measurements for each CsI crystal are summarized on separate WWW pages. Individual pages start with the pulse-height spectra recorded with the cosmic muon trigger that is used for the absolute energy calibration of the ADC scale. The LED “energy” spectra corresponding to 9 different LED intensities are shown next, together with the superimposed Gaussian fits. The least-square linear fits of the data using the Eq. (1), which allow the deduction of the average number of photoelectrons per MeV, as well as the associated fit uncertainties, are documented below the spectra. The timing resolution histogram is also presented; it gives the standard deviation of the CsI detector timing spectrum with respect to the tag counters TDC value for the cosmic muon triggers.

Also displayed are the ADC spectra taken with the 137Cs radioactive source at 11 equidistant positions along the long axis of a studied crystal, together with Gaussian-exponential fits. The fitted Gaussian peak positions are plotted in the axial light nonuniformity figures that follow next. The relative axial variations of the light collection nonuniformities are shown for 6 representative CsI crystals in Fig. 9. The extracted linear nonuniformity coefficients $`a_z`$’s are listed last.

The relation between the linear nonuniformity coefficients $`a_{z1}`$ in the front part of the crystal ($`z10`$cm) and the coefficients $`a_{z2}`$ describing the position-dependent change of the axial light output in the central and back crystal part is shown on the scatter plot in Fig. 10 for all 240 crystals. Fig. 11 compares the linear function $`a_{z2}=c_1+c_2a_{z1}`$ fitted to the scatter plot with the result deduced from our previous measurements of the Teflon-wrapped crystals, Ref. . The parameters $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ were determined by the “robust” estimation method  by imposing the requirement of the minimum absolute deviation between the measured and calculated values. The treatment of crystal surfaces with the wavelength-shifting lacquer produces more favorable light output collection along the detector axis by increasing the collected light from the back part of a crystal and thus compensating for the energy leakage of electromagnetic showers and improving the detector energy resolution. These results were confirmed in the full-fledged GEANT simulation described in Sec 6.

In Fig. 12 we show the timing resolutions for the all measured CsI crystals. We have histogrammed the standard deviations of the Gaussian functions fitted to the spectrum of the timing differences between the CsI detector and the small scintillator tag counter just above the crystal. The average CsI detector timing uncertainty specified in such a way is 0.68 ns.

We have summarized the average scintillation properties of all 240 studied CsI crystals in Tables 1 and 2.

## 6 Simulated ADC Lineshapes of 70 MeV/c $`e^\pm `$’s and $`\gamma `$’s

We have developed a comprehensive GEANT Monte Carlo description of the PIBETA detector that includes all major active as well as passive detector components . The user code is written in a modular form in standard FORTRAN and organized into over 300 subroutines and data files . The graphical user interface to the code based on Tcl routines supplements the program.

Standard GEANT routines account for electromagnetic shower processes in CsI: leak-through, lateral spreading, backsplash, as well as the electromagnetic interactions in the active target and tracking detectors: bremsstrahlung, Bhabha scattering, in-flight annihilation for positrons, and pair production, Compton scattering, etc. for photons.

The individual PIBETA detector components, both passive and active ones, can be positioned or “switched off” without recompiling the code. The following detectors are defined in the Monte Carlo geometry:

1. a beam counter, an active plastic scintillator degrader and several versions of segmented stopping active targets;
2. two concentric cylindrical multiwire proportional chambers used for charged particle tracking;
3. a 20-piece cylindrical plastic scintillator hodoscope used for charged particle detection and discrimination;
4. a 240-module pure CsI calorimeter sphere;
5. a 5-plate cosmic muon veto scintillator system;
6. passive calorimeter support structure and the individual detector support systems,
7. the detector phototubes and HV divider bases, and the lead brick shielding structure.

User input to the simulation code requires the detector version, e.g., the run year, the beam properties, the selected reaction/decay final states, and the version of the ADC and TDC simulation codes. User can select one particular final state or any combination of different final states with the relative probabilities defined by the reaction cross sections and decay branching ratios. The simulation of ADC values and TDC hits takes into account the individual detector photoelectron statistics, the axial and transverse light collection detector nonuniformities, ADC pedestal variations, electronics noise, and the event pile-up effects. The photoelectron statistics and the individual detector light collection nonuniformity coefficients are initialized from the RASTA database file. Calculation of accidental coincidences up to the fourth order is optional.

Selectable options also include the effects of:

1. lateral and axial extent and the divergences of the stopping pion beam;
2. positron and muon beam contamination;
3. photonuclear and electron knockout reactions in CsI material ;
4. aluminized Mylar wrapping of CsI modules and plastic scintillator veto staves;
5. cracks between the CsI detector modules;
6. temperature coefficients of the individual calorimeter modules;
7. gain instability of the calorimeter detector modules;
8. electronics discriminator thresholds and ADC gate width.

Particular attention was paid to the correct accounting of “software gains” for the individual CsI modules. In the simulation calculation the values of the detector software gains allow the same user control element as the detector high voltages in the operation of the physical detector. The software gains are determined in an iterative procedure constrained by the Monte Carlo $`\pi e^+\nu `$ positron ADC spectra in each CsI detector. Namely, in the real experiment the high voltages of the individual CsI detectors are also set by matching the positions of the 69.8 MeV positron peaks.

The output of the calculation provides the selected experimental layout and the final states chosen in the calculation, as well as the used production cross sections and branching ratios. A number of physical variables that could be of interest to a user are histogrammed in 1- and 2-dimensional format. Raw-wise and column-wise PAW Ntuples  are used to digitize the individual events. Simulated energy depositions and the ADC and TDC values associated with the active detectors are saved on an event-per-event basis. A single event display program can be used to examine in detail the particular event in an output stream.

Simulated calorimeter ADC spectra for 69.8 MeV monoenergetic positrons and 70.8 MeV photons generated in the stopping target are shown in Fig. 13. The figure shows the ADC lineshapes summed over all 220 calorimeter signals that make up the low threshold ($`E_{\mathrm{THR}}`$$`>`$$`5`$MeV) trigger logic. The top panel shows the spectra without the energy cut on the 20 summed veto CsI signals that define the beam opening/exit calorimeter surfaces, the bottom panel shows the same spectra with the imposed veto energy cut. Fig. 14 displays the same variables but now summed only over the calorimeter detector with the maximum energy deposition and its nearest neighbors. That restricted ADC sum should reduce the contribution of accidental event pile-up to the smearing of the energy spectra.

The $`e^+`$ and $`\gamma `$ peak positions, their widths and tail fractions of the simulated ADC lineshapes are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. We see that the calorimeter energy resolution is improved and the energy spectra tail fractions reduced in the detector with the paint-treated crystals. The improvement is smaller for the positron showers which deposit most of their energy close to the incident particle impact point, but is considerable, over 15 %, for the 70 MeV photons which penetrate deeper into the calorimeter.

## 7 Conclusion

We have measured the scintillation properties of the individual pure CsI crystals used in the PIBETA calorimeter. The crystals were treated with a special wavelength-shifting organosilicon paint. The fraction of the fast decay component in the total light output, the photoelectron statistics and the temperature dependence of the light output are documented for the each detector. A 137Cs radioactive source scanning apparatus was designed and used to determine the axial light collection nonuniformity of all scintillator crystals. An individual CsI detector response was described by three linear light nonuniformity coefficients.

These experimentally determined scintillation properties of the calorimeter components provide the essential input to a comprehensive GEANT Monte Carlo of the PIBETA detector. We have compared the simulated performance of the PIBETA calorimeter having the waveshift-painted CsI crystals with an idealized calorimeter characterized by the uniform light collection from every volume element of the scintillator. The comparison shows that the PIBETA calorimeter made up of the painted CsI crystals has better energy resolution, while its timing resolution is not compromised.

## 8 Acknowledgements

This work is supported and made possible by grants from the US National Science Foundation and the Paul Scherrer Institute.

## 9 Appendix A. RASTA Programs

The main computer program which operated the apparatus was named RASTA. Its main tasks were to:

1. control the stepping motor operation;
2. control and read out the CAMAC modules;
3. perform histogram analysis including pedestal and background subtraction, histogram filling and fitting;
4. provide graphical data display.

Upon the execution of the program, the operator was first asked for the serial number Sxxx of the crystal being tomographed. A new disk subdirectory hisxxx was created in which all the relevant histograms of a scan process were stored.

The starting parameters of the program were defined in the file RASTA.INI:

```
[Scan]
Time=20
Origin=1.0
Stepsize=2.0
NumberofSteps=11
[Fit]
PeakFindMin=10.
PeakFindMax=800.
Transition=-20.0
NsigmaXLow=2.0
NsigmaXHigh=6.0

```

The category Scan controlled the scanning process:

1. Time is the scan time per point in seconds;
2. Origin is the starting point of the scan (with the origin marked in the drawing of the apparatus, Fig. 5);
3. Stepsize is the distance between measured points given in centimeters.

The category Fit executed the fitting process:

1. PeakFindMin (PeakFindMax) is the lower (upper) limit of the peak position passed to the fitting program when searching for the maximum ADC value and FWHM of the pulse-height spectrum;
2. Transition is the value of the Gauss–exponential transition of the fit function measured from the peak position;
3. NsigmaXLow and NsigmaXHigh define the histogram range to be fitted in units of the Gaussian standard deviation from the peak position.

After having changed or accepted the default run parameters the step motor was initialized and the collimator moved to the parking position where the pedestal data and background data were taken.

The crystal was then scanned automatically at the points specified in the RASTA.INI file. Fig. 15 shows the computer display as it appeared during the scanning process.

At the end of the scan all histograms were stored so that the data could be easily reviewed in a Microsoft EXCEL spreadsheet (histograms numbers 0 and 1) or with the in-house developed Histogram Manager utility  (histograms 2 to NSTEP+3).

Two other programs are supplied together with the RASTA package:

1. HVSET, which helps select the high voltage (HV) value for the photomultiplier attached to a new crystal being prepared for tomography. The additional input parameters are the HV starting value, the preset pulse-height spectrum peak value and maximum differ ence between the preset and fitted peak value;
2. MOVE, which allows to position the collimator at the required location.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

FIGURE 7

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10

FIGURE 11

FIGURE 12

FIGURE 13

FIGURE 14

FIGURE 15


format: text

text:
# Reply to the comment on ’Validity of certain soft photon amplitudes’

## Abstract

We respond to the accompanying Comment on our paper, ’Validity of certain soft photon amplitudes’. While we hope the discussion here clarifies the issues, we have found nothing which leads to a change in the original conclusions of our paper.

preprint: TRI-PP-98-42

In Ref. , hereafter referred to as I, we discussed some problems which arise with generalized soft photon approximations (SPA). Such generalized SPA’s result from the infinite number of ways one can choose variables to describe the elastic amplitude. Such choices give identical elastic amplitudes when momenta satisfying $`p_1+p_2=p_3+p_4`$ are used. However when the variables are evaluated using the radiative momenta, $`p_1+p_2=p_3+p_4+k`$, as is done in the derivation of a SPA, the results differ. Thus one obtains generalized SPA’s, which however differ only by terms $`O(k)`$. Our paper was motivated in part by Ref. , which applied the so-called TuTts and TsTts generalized SPA’s to proton-proton bremsstrahlung. However the work of I was intended to be much more general and not just a comment on Ref. .

In the accompanying Comment  Liou, et al. raised two objections to I. While we find these objections invalid, and stand by the conclusions of the original paper, we wish to discuss them, as they reemphasize some of the ambiguities which appear in these generalized SPA’s.

In I we originally discussed two kinds of problems. The first dealt with phase space and arises because for certain choices of variables the elastic amplitude, evaluated using the radiative momenta, is required outside the region which is physically measurable. This is the case for the TsTts amplitude, if evaluated for proton-proton bremsstrahlung as described in detail by Liou, et al. \[Ref. , p. 375, 2nd column\]. We learned however in the course of discussion of this Comment that the evaluation was actually not done as described but instead by using a prescription (TETAS) which in effect moved the variables back into the physical region as necessary. This bypasses, albeit in an ad hoc fashion, the first difficulty raised in I.

The first objection raised by Liou, et al. deals with the second problem discussed in I, which had to do with the proper (anti)symmetrization of amplitudes involving identical particles. We will discuss here only the spin zero case for which the amplitudes must be symmetric. The generalization to spin one-half and antisymmetric amplitudes is obvious as here spin is truly an ’inessential complication.’ The original TuTts amplitude, reproduced in Eq. (26) of I, but originally from , was not properly symmetrized. Symmetrizing in $`p_3p_4`$ leads to Eq. (27) of I, which however cannot obviously be expressed in terms of properly symmetrized elastic amplitudes, which is necessary for a SPA expressed in terms of measurable non radiative quantities. The problem arises with the ad hoc terms $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ which are added to force gauge invariance. In the discussion following Eq. (30) we derived sufficient conditions on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$’s to ensure that the SPA amplitude, valid through $`O(k^0)`$, was gauge invariant, could be expressed in terms of symmetrized elastic amplitudes, and had the proper analyticity properties, namely the $`O(k^0)`$ terms do not have pieces of $`O(k/k)`$, all as required by the general principles of SPA. We then gave four examples for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ chosen from the infinite set of possibilities. Liou, et al. also recognized this symmetrization problem and in a paper  subsequent to their original one obtained an amplitude corresponding to one of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ examples we had given.

In their Comment Liou, et al. work through a lot of algebra, but the essence of their claim is that their particular choice of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is the only correct one because the others have $`k/k`$ type structures at $`O(k)`$, i. e. terms of $`O(k^2/k)`$. Such structures do exist as they claim, but in our view they are irrelevant for a discussion of the validity of a SPA as a soft photon approximation. As is well known, gauge invariance provides only one condition and is sufficient only to fix the $`O(k^0)`$ terms. Thus SPA’s are valid only through $`O(k^0)`$. There will be many terms at $`O(k)`$, including some with structure $`O(k^2/k)`$ coming from higher order expansions of the external radiation graphs, which are just not determined in a SPA and thus are not relevant to SPA discussions. This principle, that what happens at $`O(k)`$ is immaterial, is actually acknowledged by Liou, et al. in their Comment, below Eq. (6), in reference to their second objection.

On the other hand if one wants to make a model dependent choice among the infinite set of SPA’s to find one that fits data, as was done in Ref. , but not in I, then such external criteria, while having nothing to do with SPA as such, would be relevant and clearly in the absence of other information one would choose the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ which was in some sense ’smoothest’.

The second objection of the Comment deals with the size of the error incurred in using a TuTts amplitude which is not properly symmetrized. The authors of the Comment attribute to us a much more general statement than we intended or actually worked out in I. Specifically in I we compared Eq. (27), which was the TuTts amplitude properly symmetrized, with Eq. (28) which was the prescription we understood was used in Ref.  to obtain numerical results using a TuTts amplitude which did not have the proper symmetry properties. All of our remarks concerning the relative size of corrections refer to this specific comparison. Subsequently Liou, et al.  derived a properly symmetrized amplitude to be used in their numerical calculations, thus making a prescription unnecessary, and our choices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ lead to similar amplitudes. Thus in our opinion this comparison has been superseded and is not particularly important. However it does illustrate yet a further ambiguity in such SPA’s, and so for that reason is perhaps worth discussing. The problem arises because of the multiple ways one can define a properly symmetrized elastic amplitude. We define one such amplitude in Eq. (29) of I for one case, which happens to be simultaneously symmetric in $`p_3p_4`$ and $`ut`$. For the other amplitudes however there is a choice, because of the freedom to define the elastic variables in different ways. For example we could define $`A^S(u_{23},t_{13})=A^{}(u_{23},t_{13})+A^{}(t_{24},u_{14})`$ which is symmetric in $`p_3p_4`$ but not in $`ut`$ and which might be appropriate if the elastic amplitude comes from a diagrammatic calculation easily expressed in terms of the $`p_i`$. Alternatively we could take $`A^S(u_{23},t_{13})=A^{}(u_{23},t_{13})+A^{}(t_{13},u_{23})`$ which is symmetric in $`ut`$ but not in $`p_3p_4`$ and which might be more appropriate for an elastic amplitude taken from numerical data given as a function of energy and angle. For the elastic amplitude evaluated for the nonradiative momenta $`p_1+p_2=p_3+p_4`$ these are of course identical, but they are formally different functions of the momenta so they differ, by terms of $`O(k)`$, when evaluated using the radiative momenta $`p_1+p_2=p_3+p_4+k`$. Thus when we compare Eq. (27) and (28) using the first of these, as we did in I, the difference is $`O(k/k)`$ as was stated, while if we use the second, as apparently is being done by Liou, et al. in the context of their second objection, the difference is $`O(k)`$. Clearly this difference can arise only because Eq. (28) is a prescription which may not be a ’real’ SPA (cf. discussion following Eq. (29) in I) since we know that ’real’ SPA’s can differ only at $`O(k)`$.

In summary, in our view neither of the objections raised by Liou, et al. in their Comment lead to any changes in the conclusions of I. They do however serve to reemphasize the main point of I, namely that there are a lot of ambiguities related to the use of these generalized SPA’s. One is always faced with a dilemma. If $`k`$ is small, the $`O(k)`$ terms are small and all SPA’s are the same and essentially model independent. On the other hand if $`k`$ is larger, as is the case for all modern measurements of proton-proton bremsstrahlung, then the $`O(k)`$ terms make a difference and one must make a whole set of model dependent choices which basically have nothing to do with SPA’s per se, but which can affect the quality of fit to the data and the predictive power, or lack thereof, of the model.

This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


text:
# Comment on “Comparison of strangeness production between A+A and p+p reactions from 2 to 160 A GeV”, by J. C. Dunlop and C. A. Ogilvie

## Abstract

A recent paper on energy dependence of strangeness production in A+A and p+p interactions written by Dunlop and Ogilvie  indicates that there is a significant misunderstanding about the concept of strangeness enhancement and its role as a signal of Quark Gluon Plasma creation. In this comment we will try to clarify some essential points.

In a recent publication Dunlop and Ogilvie (DO)  studied the energy dependence of strangeness production and considered it from the point of view of a possible transition to Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP). In our opinion the DO paper does not reflect the status of the discussion on these subjects correctly and it is even misleading. We, therefore, feel the need to comment on the observation of anomalous energy dependence of strangeness production in nucleus–nucleus (A+A) collisions and its possible interpretation. In the first section of our comment we show that the data analysis part of the DO paper repeats our earlier work without, however, any reference to it. In the second section we argue that the DO proposal to search for the transition by studying the energy dependence of strangeness enhancement factor is unjustified and misleading.

I. Data on Strangeness Production

In 1994 the idea that the creation of a transient QGP state in the early stage of A+A collisions should be reflected in the collision energy dependence of basic observables triggered our analysis of results on hadron multiplicities in A+A and nucleon–nucleon (N+N) collisions. The work commenced from the relatively rich data on pion production . In 1996 this study was extended to strangeness production . The basic experimental observations concerning strangeness here called strangeness anomaly were the following:

* the strangeness to pion ratio in central A+A collisions increases rapidly with the collision energy up to the top AGS (15 A$``$GeV) energy; the ratio at top SPS (200 A$``$GeV) energy is approximately equal to the ratio at AGS;
* a very different energy dependence is observed for N+N interactions, a monotonic increase is seen at all energies, between top AGS and SPS energies the ratio increases by a factor of about 2.

This strangeness anomaly is rediscovered in the very recent DO paper  on the basis of data on central Pb+Pb collisions at SPS energy (158 A$``$GeV)  and Au+Au collisions at AGS energies . After clarifying two points, the similarity becomes obvious:

1.) In the original paper  the strangeness to pion ratio was quantified by the measure

$$E_S\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+K+\overline{K}}{\pi },$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`K+\overline{K}`$ and $`\pi `$ are mean multiplicities of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons, $`K+\overline{K}`$ mesons and all pions, respectively. For the comparison of the A+A collisions to nucleon-nucleon interactions the N+N results were constructed by a proper averaging of p+p, n+p and n+n data. The above procedure yields the best experimental estimate of the total strangeness to pion ratio. Our compilations indicate that the $`K^+/\pi ^+`$ ratio used in DO paper is closely (within 20–30 %) related to the $`E_S`$ measure.

2.) In refs.  the energy dependence of pion and strangeness production is presented by using the Fermi energy measure:

$$F(\sqrt{s}2m)^{3/4}/\sqrt{s}^{1/4}\sqrt{s}^{1/2},$$
(2)
where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the c.m. energy for a nucleon–nucleon pair and $`m`$ is the nucleon mass. In the statistical model of the early stage of the collision both entropy and the early stage temperature are approximately proportional to $`F`$ . In the DO paper the dependence on $`\sqrt{s}`$ is studied.

Keeping these two technical differences in mind one observes that Figs. 1, 2, 3(5) and 4 in the DO paper are almost identical to, respectively, Figs. 3(4) in , 1 in , 7(8) in  (for the most recent version see also Fig. 3 in ) and Fig. 3 in . Therefore, the analysis presented in the DO paper fully confirms the observations made in refs.  ( however, without any references to these papers).

II. Interpretation of Strangeness Anomaly

The anomalous energy dependence of the strangeness to pion ratio in A+A collisions (see the previous section) was established experimentally and its connection with a possible observation of transition to QGP in A+A collisions between AGS and SPS was stressed in Refs. . Note also that it serves as one of the basic arguments for the current study of the low energy (40 A$``$GeV) Pb+Pb collisions at CERN SPS . In contrast to this suggestion it is proposed in the DO paper that in order to search for the transition to QGP one should study the energy dependence of the strangeness enhancement factor, i.e. the increase of the strangeness to pion ratio between N+N and A+A collisions. The idea of strangeness enhancement as a QGP signal was formulated about 20 years ago  and was based on the estimate that the strangeness equilibration time in QGP is of the same order ($`10`$ fm/c) as the expected life time of the fireball created in A+A collisions. Thus in the case of QGP formation the strangeness content is expected to approach its equilibrium value in QGP. This equilibrium value is significantly higher (factor 2 or more depending on energy) than the strangeness production in elementary N+N interactions. Furthermore it was estimated that the strangeness production in secondary hadronic interactions which may follow initial N+N interactions is small . Therefore, if QGP is not formed, the strangeness yields would be expected to be much lower than those predicted by equilibrium QGP calculations***In the DO discussion of the results of the data analysis performed within hadron gas models the usage of the model parameters $`\gamma _S`$ (strangeness saturation factor) and $`\lambda _S`$ (strangeness suppression factor) have apparently been confused.. For experimental and theoretical reasons it is convenient to analyse the strangeness to pion ratio in an actual study of strangeness production. Then a simple and elegant signature of QGP creation appeared: a transition to QGP should be signalled by an increase of the strangeness to pion ratio from the value close to that measured in N+N interactions at the corresponding energy to the level given by QGP in equilibrium. This idea motivated study of the strangeness to pion ratio in A+A collisions relatively to the corresponding ratio in N+N interactions as a function of nuclear mass number and collision energy.

The comparison of the above expectations with the data was for the first time possible in 1988 when the preliminary results from S and Si beams at SPS and AGS were presented. Experiment NA35 reported  that in central S+S collisions at 200 A$``$GeV the strangeness to pion ratio is two times higher than in N+N interactions at the same energy per nucleon. Surprisingly even larger enhancement (a factor of about 3) was measured by E802 in Si+A collisions at AGS . Recent data on central Au+Au collisions at low AGS energies  complete the picture: strangeness enhancement is observed at all energies, it is even stronger at lower energies than at the SPS energy. Thus the interpretation in line with the original concept (strangeness enhancement $``$ QGP) was put in question from the very beginning by the AGS data. At the low AGS energies one does not expect the creation of QGP and therefore one should not observe substantial strangeness enhancement. Consequently AGS measurements of strangeness enhancement larger than that at SPS clearly leads to the following conclusion: the simple concept of strangeness enhancement as a signal of QGP is incorrect. Furthermore the observed enhancement is very large (factor several), indicating that a potential connection between strangeness measured in A+A collisions and that produced in initial N+N interactions is lost. Therefore, the proposal of the DO paper to search for the transition to QGP by studying the energy dependence of the strangeness enhancement factor should be treated as unjustified and misleading, it is not based on any specific model or at least an intuitive physical picture.

From our point of view it is more natural to concentrate on the strangeness to pion ratio in A+A collisions instead of relating it to N+N interactions, which may only introduce additional problems into the data interpretation. This suggestion is justified by the statistical model of the early stage of A+A collisions  which, for a reasonable selection of the model parameters, predicts a transition to QGP between AGS and SPS energies and explains the observed strangeness anomaly by the presence of this transition. We would like to stress once more the simplicity of the argument, which relies on the basic assumption of the model that in both confined and deconfined matter a maximum entropy state is created at the early stage of the collisions. In confined matter the mass of strange and non–strange degrees of freedom are expected to be of the order of kaon and pion masses ($`m_S0.5`$ GeV, $`m_{NS}0.14`$ GeV), respectively, and the temperature is $`T<T_C0.170`$ GeV. Thus, strange degrees of freedom are heavy ($`m_S>T`$) and non-strange light ($`m_{NS}<T`$). Therefore, in the statistical model one obtains approximately

$$\frac{n_S}{n_{NS}}\frac{T^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}(m_S/T)}{T^3},$$
(3)
which is an increasing function of $`T`$ for $`T<T_C(<2m_S/3)`$. In QGP $`m_S0.170`$ GeV and $`m_{NS}0.01`$ GeV. Both strange and non-strange degrees of freedom are light ($`mT`$), and therefore one gets approximately

$$\frac{n_S}{n_{NS}}\mathrm{const}(T).$$
(4)
Consequently within the statistical model of the early stage we find a simple explanation for a fast increase of the strangeness to pion ratio at low energies (Eq. 3) and its rapid saturation at high energies (Eq. 4) provided that the threshold for QGP creation is crossed.

Two striking predictions follow from our approach.
1.) Very similar strangeness to pion ratio is predicted for SPS, RHIC and LHC energies. This follows from the observations that the model predicts the transition to QGP to occur below top SPS energy (and above top AGS energy) and that in QGP the ratio $`n_S/n_{NS}`$ is almost independent of temperature (collision energy).
2.) A non–monotonic (or kinky) energy dependence of the strangeness to pion ratio is predicted in the vicinity of the transition region. This is due to the fact that the model predicts the transition to occur at an energy where the strangeness to entropy (pion) ratio in the confined matter is higher (or equal) than in the QGP. Thus an initial fast increase of the ratio is expected to be followed by a decrease (or a saturation) to the level expected in an equilibrium QGP. The decrease starts at the onset of the transition region ($`30`$ A$``$GeV) and ends when the pure QGP phase is produced ($`60`$ A$``$GeV) .

In Fig. 1 the discussd above predictions of the statistical model of the early stage calculated for $`T_C=200`$ MeV  are confronted with the experimental data on strangeness to pion ratio. In the case of $`T_C=170`$ MeV the onset of transition takes place at the top AGS energy and the non–monotonic behaviour is substituted by a kink in the energy dependence. In general, one might try to extend the model calculations to N+N interactions; in this case, however, canonical, and at low energy even micro-canonical, calculations are needed. Note that this introduces additional dependence on model assumptions and parameters and therefore also from the point of view of our model study of strangeness enhancement factor only confuses the interpretation of the data.

We hope to have shown that the idea to search for QGP by studying the strangeness enhancement factor, as proposed by DO, is unjustified and may lead to misleading conclusions.

Acknowledgements

We thank M. van Leeuwen for comments on the manuscript. We acknowledge the financial support of BMBF and DFG, Germany.


text:
# On the stress-energy tensor of a rotating wormhole

\[

## Abstract

Abstract

We analyze the stress-energy tensor necessary to generate a general stationary and axisymmetric spacetime. The constraints on the geometry arising from considering a perfect fluid as a source are derived. For a fluid with a nonzero stress tensor, we obtain two necessary conditions on the metric. As an example, we show that the rotating wormhole presented in the literature can not be described by either a perfect fluid or by a fluid with anisotropic stresses.

\] 11footnotetext: Electronic mail: santiago@lafex.cbpf.br

A wormhole is a configuration of the gravitational and matter fields that can be understood as a “handle” connecting either two universes or two distant places in the same universe. Since the seminal paper by Morris and Thorne , a number of static and dynamic wormholes have been found both in General Relativity and in alternative theories of gravitation (see  and references therein). One of the most remarkable features of this field configuration is that under particular circumstances it permits the formation of closed timelike curves (CTC’s) . Another striking characteristic of this type of spacetime is that it needs matter that violates the energy conditions as a source. This issue has been analyzed in detail both in static wormholes  and in a completely general (i.e. non-symmetric and time dependent) traversable wormhole . It was shown that the null energy condition (NEC) must be violated in both cases. Let us remark that the issue of the existence of large amounts of NEC violating matter has not yet been settled. However, many results have been obtained assuming that wormholes exist and observational consequences of their existence have been examined . These articles are concerned with the case of a static wormhole and many also assume that the configuration has spherical symmetry. Although these two hypotheses vastly simplify the calculations, it should be noted that astrophysical objects in nature are likely to have a nonzero angular momentum.

Rotating wormholes were introduced by Teo , who addressed the restrictions that must be imposed on the geometry in order to have a stationary and axisymmetric wormhole. However, in this article no consideration was given to the r.h.s. of Einstein’s equations. In other words, it is still not known what kind of matter could be a source of this otherwise geometrical construct. In this brief report, we seek to shed light on this issue. We present the constraints on the Einstein tensor that arise from the matter used as a source of Einstein’s equations for a general axially symmetric and stationary spacetime. In turn, these constraints restrict the dependence of the metric coefficients on the coordinates. Finally, we examine the effect of these conditions on a particular geometry given as an example of a rotating wormhole in .

The general metric for a stationary and axisymmetric spacetime can be written as

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`N^2dt^2+e^{2\mu }dr^2`$ (2)
$`+r^2K^2[d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (d\varphi \omega dt)^2],`$
where the metric coefficients $`N,e^{2\mu },K`$ and $`\omega `$ depend only on $`r`$ and $`\theta `$. The function $`\omega `$ is the angular velocity of “cumulative dragging”  and the function $`K`$ determines the proper radial distance. In order to avoid a singularity on the axis of rotation, the $`\theta `$-derivative of the functions $`N`$, $`\mu `$, and $`K`$ must vanish for $`\theta =0,\pi `$.

It is convenient to introduce the function $`b=b(r,\theta )`$, defined by

$$e^{2\mu }=1\frac{b}{r}.$$
(3)
It is easily seen that with this definition, the metric Eq. (2) reduces to the metric introduced in  for the case of null rotation and spherical symmetry. It was shown in  that for the metric given by Eq. (2) to describe a wormhole, the following conditions must be satisfied ($`r_{\mathrm{th}}`$ is the radius of the throat):

* $`b`$ must satisfy the inequality $`brr`$, with the equality valid only at the throat,
* $`\frac{b}{r}|_{\mathrm{r}_{\mathrm{th}}}<1`$ (“flaring out” condition),
* $`\frac{b}{\theta }|_{\mathrm{r}_{\mathrm{th}}}=0`$ (to ensure that the curvature scalar is nonsingular at the throat),
* $`N`$ must be finite and nonzero for every $`r`$ (to ensure that no singularities or event horizons are present).

These are necessary (but not sufficient as we shall see below) conditions for the metric functions $`N,b,K`$ and $`\omega `$ to describe a rotating wormhole whose throat joins two identical regions.

Notice that by defining the orthonormal tetrads

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^0`$ $`=`$ $`Ndt,\mathrm{\Theta }^1=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}\right)^{1/2}dr,`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }^2`$ $`=`$ $`rKd\theta ,\mathrm{\Theta }^3=rK\mathrm{sin}\theta (d\varphi \omega dt),`$ (5)
the metric Eq. (2) can be rewritten as

$$ds^2=(\mathrm{\Theta }^0)^2+(\mathrm{\Theta }^1)^2+(\mathrm{\Theta }^2)^2+(\mathrm{\Theta }^3)^2.$$
(6)
The energy-momentum tensor of a fluid with anisotropic stresses can be expressed as

$$T_{\mu \nu }=(\rho +p)u_\mu u_\nu +p\eta _{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu },$$
(7)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the metric given by Eq. (6) and $`u_\mu `$ is the four-velocity of the fluid. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ is the stress tensor and satisfies the constraints

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^\mu =0,$$
(8)
and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }u^\nu =0.$$
(9)
The one-form associated to the velocity must have the form

$$u_\mu =u_0\mathrm{\Theta }^0+u_3\mathrm{\Theta }^3,$$
(10)
in order to respect the axisymmetry and stationarity of the spacetime described by Eq. (2). Its components are related by

$$u_0^2u_3^2=1.$$
(11)
Einstein’s field equations in the tetrad basis Eq. (5) are

$$G_{00}=(\rho +p)u_0^2p+\mathrm{\Pi }_{00},$$
(12)
$$G_{33}=(\rho +p)u_3^2+p+\mathrm{\Pi }_{33},$$
(13)
$$G_{03}=(\rho +p)u_0u_3+\mathrm{\Pi }_{03},$$
(14)
$$G_{11}=p+\mathrm{\Pi }_{11},$$
(15)
$$G_{22}=p+\mathrm{\Pi }_{22},$$
(16)
$$G_{12}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{12},$$
(17)
and the remaining components of the Einstein tensor must be identically zero.

We begin by considering a perfect fluid described by Eq. (7) with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=0`$. The system of equations (11) - (17) can be rearranged to the following

$$G_{11}G_{22}=0,$$
(18)
$$G_{12}=0,$$
(19)
$$G_{03}^2=(G_{00}+G_{22})(G_{11}G_{33}),$$
(20)
$$u_0^2=\frac{G_{00}+G_{22}}{G_{00}+G_{33}},$$
(21)
$$u_3^2=\frac{G_{33}G_{22}}{G_{00}+G_{33}},$$
(22)
$$\rho =G_{00}+G_{33}G_{22},$$
(23)
$$p=G_{22}.$$
(24)
The first three equations are constraints to be satisfied by the Einstein tensor, while the remaining relations define the components of the velocity, energy density and pressure of the fluid.

The geometry described by Eq. (2) can have a perfect fluid as a source only if Eqs. (18)-(20) are satisfied and the square of the components of the velocity Eqs. (21)-(22) are non-negative. It is easy to show that the metric given by Eq. (2) will not satisfy these constraints unless further restrictions on the metric coefficients are imposed.

We now consider a fluid with anisotropic stresses, for which Eqs. (11)-(17) constitute a system of ten equations in ten unknowns. This system can be conveniently rewritten in terms of the variable $`x`$ defined by

$$x=\frac{u_0}{u_3},$$
(25)
which, after some algebraic manipulation, is given by the expression

$$x=\frac{G_{00}+G_{33}}{2G_{03}}\pm \frac{\sqrt{(G_{00}+G_{33})^24G_{03}^2}}{2G_{03}}.$$
(26)
The functions that solve the system and characterize the fluid are now given by

$$u_3^2=\frac{1}{x^21},$$
(27)
$$u_0=xu_3,$$
(28)
$$3p=G_{11}+G_{22}+G_{03}xG_{00},$$
(29)
$$\rho =G_{03}xG_{33},$$
(30)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}=\frac{2pG_{11}G_{22}}{x^21}x^2,$$
(31)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}=G_{11}+G_{22}2p+\mathrm{\Pi }_{33},$$
(32)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{03}=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}}{x},$$
(33)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}=G_{11}p,$$
(34)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}=G_{22}p,$$
(35)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}=G_{12}.$$
(36)
The following restrictions must be imposed on the solution of the system:

$$G_{00}+G_{33}2G_{03},$$
(37)
$$x^2>1.$$
(38)
The first constraint arises from Eq. (26), while the second comes from Eq. (11) and restricts the Einstein tensor through Eq. (26). Let us emphasize that the metric given by Eq. (2) can be generated by a fluid with a nonzero $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ only if conditions (37) and (38) are satisfied.

We now present an example to illustrate how our constraints (16)-(18) and (35)-(36) limit the possible candidates for the matter that generates a given metric. Let us consider what type of matter corresponds to the particular example of a rotating wormhole given in . The relevant functions are

$$\omega =\frac{2a}{r^3},N=K=1+\frac{(4a\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2}{r},b=1,$$
(39)
where $`a`$ is the angular momentum of the wormhole.

It was shown in  that these metric functions satisfy the geometric conditions needed in order to have a wormhole. This geometry cannot be generated by a perfect fluid because Eq. (19) in this case gives

$`16a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +3r=0,`$ (40)
which is not valid for every spacetime point. A fluid with anisotropic stresses cannot be a source of this wormhole either. This can be seen from Eq. (37) which may be rewritten in the form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{6}{}}}q_n(\theta )r^n0.`$ (41)
This inequality will not hold for every value of $`\theta `$. Consequently the source of the wormhole described by Eq. (39) must incorporate more realistic (in the astrophysical sense) features, for example heat flux.

Summary: We have derived the restrictions that a general axisymmetric and stationary spacetime described by the metric Eq. (2) must satisfy to have a perfect nonconvective fluid with differential rotation as a source. These restrictions are given by Eqns. (18)-(20). An example of a metric that satisfies these constraints was given by Mars and Senovilla , who found a family of axisymmetric and stationary spacetimes with a perfect fluid admitting a proper conformal motion as a source. It would be constructive to study if any of these solutions can represent a wormhole.

For a fluid with a nonzero stress tensor as a source of Einstein’s equations, we showed that the Einstein tensor, hence the metric given by Eq. (2) must satisfy Eqns. (37) and (38).

Let us remark that our results do not depend on the coordinate system chosen to describe the spacetime. The fact that the tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }`$ is zero for the metric Eq. (2) is a coordinate-independent statement.

It must be noted that our results are valid for any stationary and axisymmetric spacetime. In particular, they can be applied to the spacetimes discussed in . In that article, the conditions that must be imposed on the geometry in order to have a rotating wormhole were given. However, it must be emphasized that an analysis of the matter side of Einstein’s equations is essential. From our results it follows that the metric of a wormhole with a given type of fluid as a source must satisfy the corresponding constraints discussed above. We demonstrated that the geometry proposed in  as a rotating wormhole can not be generated either by a perfect fluid or by a fluid with anisotropic stresses.

Acknowledgements: SEPB acknowledges financial support from CONICET (Argentina). KEH is supported by FAPERj (Brazil). The authors would like to thanks J. Salim for valuable discussions. Many of the calculations in this paper were done with the package Riemann .