text:
# Nonstrange and other flavor partners of the exotic Θ⁺ baryon

## I Introduction

The observation of narrow peaks in the invariant mass spectra of $`nK^+`$ leps ; clas1 ; clas2 ; elsa ; clas3  and $`pK_S`$ itep1 ; itep2 ; herm ; zeus ; na49  events, verified by independent groups and laboratories worldwide, has solidified the evidence for an exotic baryon $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ with strangeness $`+1`$, a mass of about 1540 MeV, and a narrow width. The existence of such a particle implies a whole new family of $`SU(3)_F`$-partners, beyond the familiar octets and decuplets. This state was predicted (both the mass and the narrow width) dpp  on the basis of a chiral soliton approach to hadron dynamics. In this approach it should be a member of a flavor antidecuplet with $`J^P=1/2^+`$.

The antidecuplet had emerged even earlier in various versions of the soliton approach to 3-flavor QCD (for a brief review of the history and earlier references see, e.g., dpp ; kopwal ; pr1 ). However, the expected masses of its members had always been rather uncertain, at least up to $`100`$ MeV. Until Ref. dpp , the question of width, also essential for experimental searches, had not been addressed at all. To make the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$-mass prediction more definite, it was suggested in dpp  to identify the non-strange member of the antidecuplet with the $`N(1710)`$, the only nucleon state listed in the PDG-tables PDG02  having $`J^P=1/2^+`$ and being in the expected mass interval. Clearly, this assignment resulted in a good agreement with later experimental findings for the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ mass. Given the present more detailed knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$-properties, and with higher-statistics experiments under preparation, it is important to reconsider the antidecuplet nature of the $`N(1710)`$.

Let us first summarize our present knowledge of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$-width. The theoretical prediction, simultaneous with its mass, was $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}<15`$ MeV dpp , unexpectedly narrow for strong decays. Existing measurements, instead of determining $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}`$, have only shown it to be smaller than experimental resolution (see Table 1). Most experimental publications have given an upper bound of about $`20`$ MeV. Xenon bubble chamber data, corresponding in essence to the charge exchange reaction $`K^+nK^0p`$, have provided the slightly lower bound of 9 MeV itep1 .

Less direct determinations nuss , using previously measured $`K^+d`$ total cross sections, have led to a stronger limitation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}<6`$ MeV. A similar bound, $`<5`$ MeV, was obtained in Ref. hk  within a more elaborated theoretical description. The partial-wave analysis (PWA) of available $`KN`$ (elastic and charge exchange) scattering data similarly claims to exclude widths above 1–2 MeV asw . A more detailed reexamination of the approach in Ref. nuss  provides nearly the same result of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}<1.5`$ MeV asw1 . A similar method applied to the Xenon data itep1  has allowed even the tentative claim of a lower limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}=0.9\pm 0.3`$ MeV cahntr  (with additional assumptions and an unknown systematic uncertainty). One should emphasize, however, that all of these indirect treatments assume the existence of a $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$, which they can not confirm. Moreover, they are based mainly on rather old data, which may be shifted by the next generation of higher precision measurements. Nevertheless, we should take these results into account when discussing the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ as given by the present data.

Evidently, all of the above estimates for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}`$ are in sharp contrast with the width $`100`$ MeV ascribed PDG02  to the $`N(1710)`$, initially considered to be a unitary partner of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ dpp . Of course, members of the same unitary multiplet can have different widths, but in the absence of a special reason (say, mixing with members of another multiplet) it would be more natural for them to have comparable widths.

Additional information related to the assignment of unitary partners is due to a recent experimental result xi  giving evidence for one further explicitly exotic particle $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}^{}`$, with a mass $`1862\pm 2`$ MeV and width $`<18`$ MeV (i.e. less than resolution). Such a particle had been expected to exist as a member of the same antidecuplet containing the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$, but its mass was predicted to be about 2070 MeV dpp , essentially different from the experimental value. This has posed similar problems for the masses of other unitary partners of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$, nucleon-like and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-like. The supposed antidecuplet looks today as shown on Fig. 1, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$\- and $`N`$-masses determined by the Gell-Mann–Okubo rule.

The state $`N(1710)`$, though listed in the PDG Baryon Summary Table PDG02  as a 3-star resonance, is not seen in a recent analysis of pion-nucleon elastic scattering data aswp . Studies which have claimed to see this state have given widely varying estimates of its mass and width (from $`1680`$ MeV to $`1740`$ MeV for the mass and from $`90`$ MeV to $`500`$ MeV for the width). Branching ratios have also been given with large uncertainties (10–20% for $`N\pi `$, 40–90% for $`N\pi \pi `$, and so on), apart from one which has been presented with greater precision ($`6\pm 1\%`$ for $`N\eta `$).

Of course the non-observation of a broad $`N(1710)`$ state in pion-nucleon elastic analyses could be due to a very small $`\pi N`$ branching ratio. Standard procedures used in partial-wave analysis (PWA) may also miss narrow resonances with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<30`$ MeV (a similar situation below inelastic thresholds has been discussed in aasw ). Therefore, the true unitary partner of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ (if it is different from $`N(1710)`$ and sufficiently narrow) could have eluded detection.

Here we reconsider the identity of $`N^{}`$, the nucleon-like partner of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$, and investigate the possible existence and properties of narrow non-strange state(s) near 1700 MeV. We first consider modifications of a PWA with narrow resonances, and apply the results to $`\pi N`$ elastic scattering at $`W1700`$ MeV (Section II). Section III presents a discussion of possible properties of the $`N^{}`$ in the soliton picture with baryon mixing and for a small $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ width. Some expected properties of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}`$ are also considered. Our results are briefly discussed and conclusions formulated in Section IV.

## II Narrow resonances in partial-wave analyses

We have emphasized earlier aasw  that standard methods of PWA are insensitive to very narrow resonances. Therefore, a modified approach is required to search for the presence of a narrow resonance with particular values of mass and width aasw  (see also asw ). We consider the situation in more detail, separately for elastic and inelastic cases.

### II.1 Elastic case

Interaction in the elastic case may transform a state $`a`$ only to a similar state $`a^{}`$ (changing, for example, particle momenta without changing particle identity). One can then choose physical states, so as to diagonalize the $`S`$ matrix, (e.g., for the $`\pi N`$ scattering, take states with definite values of energy, isospin, parity, and angular momentum), and have only diagonal transitions $`aa`$ with $`S`$ matrix elements

$`a|S|a=e^{2i\delta _a}.`$ (1)
Standard methods employ some parametrization of the interaction phase $`\delta _a`$, fitting these parameters to describe experimental data. Instead, we will split the phase as

$`\delta _a=\delta _a^B+\delta _R.`$ (2)
The background part $`\mathrm{exp}(2i\delta _a^B)`$ may be parametrized as before, while the resonance part has the canonical Breit-Wigner form

$`e^{2i\delta _R}={\displaystyle \frac{M_RW+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_R/2}{M_RWi\mathrm{\Gamma }_R/2}}.`$ (3)
If refitting (over the whole database) with some fixed values of $`M_R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ provides a worse description (higher $`\chi ^2`$) than without the resonance, then a resonance $`R`$ with the corresponding mass and width is unsupported. If the new description is better (has lower $`\chi ^2`$), then the resonance may exist.

At first sight, we have increased the number of parameters and, therefore, should always have a better description. This is not necessarily so, due to the specific form used to introduce these two additional parameters, and the fixed values assigned to them. Moreover, we have demonstrated in Ref. aasw  that a better description (lower $`\chi ^2`$) may result for various reasons not associated with the presence of a resonance. Nevertheless, searching for a better description allows us to restrict the region in $`(M_R,\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)`$ space, where a resonance may be assumed. This is the approach that was used earlier as a basis for numerical procedures which restricted admissible widths of light $`\pi N`$ resonances aasw  and of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ asw .

### II.2 Inelastic case

For energies near $`W1700`$ MeV, we may be sensitive to thresholds for the production of additional (or different) mesons, and one should take the inelasticity into account even when investigating purely elastic $`\pi N`$ scattering.

Because of inelastic transitions, nondiagonal $`S`$ matrix elements, generally, do not vanish. However, the $`S`$ matrix is a unitary operator and, hence, can be diagonalized by a unitary transformation:

$`S=US^{(0)}U^1,`$ (4)
with $`S^{(0)}`$ having a diagonalized form and

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}|U_{an}|^2={\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}|U_{an}|^2=1,`$ (5)
due to unitarity. One can present an elastic amplitude (for example, a partial-wave amplitude) as

$`a|S|a={\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}|U_{an}|^2e^{2i\delta _n},`$ (6)
where the unitarity of $`U`$ has been used. The form (6) implies the well-known relation

$`|a|S|a|{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}|U_{an}|^2=1.`$ (7)
If the resonance candidate $`R`$ is narrow enough to avoid overlap with other resonances, the explicit resonance behavior can be inserted in only one of $`\delta _n`$, say, to $`\delta _0`$:

$`\delta _0=\delta _0^B+\delta _R`$ (8)
(compare to Eq. (2)). Then,

$`a|S|a=|U_{a0}|^2e^{2i\delta _0^B}e^{2i\delta _R}+{\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}|U_{an}|^2e^{2i\delta _n}.`$ (9)
All quantities on the right hand side of Eq. (9) depend on energy, but only $`\delta _R`$ has a sharp energy dependence near the resonance.

It is easy to see that

$`|U_{a0}|^2|_{W=M_R}=r_a`$ (10)
is the branching ratio for a particular decay mode $`Ra`$. Then, Eq. (5) provides the expected relation

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}r_a=1.`$ (11)
Now, we can rewrite Eq. (9) as

$`a|S|a=r_aA(W)e^{2i\delta _R}+(1r_a)B(W),`$ (12)
where

$`r_a|A(W)|+(1r_a)|B(W)|1,|A(M_R)|=1.`$ (13)
The expressions (12) and (13) can be used to construct a parametrization and numerical procedure, similar to one described in Ref. aswp , to test for the existence of a possible resonance $`R`$.

Note that, in the inelastic case, description of the resonance contribution to the elastic amplitude $`aa`$ contains three parameters ($`M_R,\mathrm{\Gamma }_R,r_a`$), instead of two in the elastic case. However, far from the resonance, at $`|WM_R|\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$, the contribution takes the form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^a/(M_RW)`$, sensitive only to the partial decay width

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^a=r_a\mathrm{\Gamma }_R.`$ (14)
This is trivially true for a purely elastic resonance, for which partial and total widths coincide.

### II.3 Fitting the data

Nucleon-like states may be revealed in various processes, with various initial and final states. But most convincing are their manifestations in $`\pi N`$ elastic scattering. As a result, we consider here only elastic (and charge exchange) data.

We begin by considering the $`\pi N`$ partial wave $`P_{11}`$, as this amplitude is associated with resonances having $`J^P=1/2^+`$. The character of $`\chi ^2`$-changes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$, after inserting a narrow resonance with a range of masses, widths, and branching fractions is illustrated in Fig. 2. The resonance mass has been allowed to vary from 1620 to 1760 MeV in 10 MeV steps. For the total width, we have used five values in the intervals 0.1$``$0.9 MeV (step 0.2 MeV) and 1$``$9 MeV (step 2 MeV). For easier tracing, we have connected points having consecutive values of the mass and identical values for the other parameters.

Negative values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ emerge most readily near $`M_R=1680`$ MeV and 1730 MeV. We see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ becomes negative only for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}`$ within the bounds

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}0.5[0.3]\mathrm{MeV}`$ (15)
for $`M_R=1680[1730]`$ MeV. The available data can not reliably discriminate values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}`$ below these bounds. Neither can they discriminate the particular values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}`$. Note that, for higher values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}`$, such states could presumably be seen in a standard PWA; however with the above restrictions for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}`$ these resonances would be extremely inelastic and have little effect on the elastic scattering process. Thus, for $`J^P=1/2^+`$, we see two possible mass values for the nucleon-type resonance state(s), both having rather small elastic (i.e. $`\pi N`$) partial widths.

It was demonstrated, however, in Ref. aasw  that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2<0`$ does not necessarily mean the real existence of a resonance. The “resonance” may be only an effective mechanism to introduce corrections, e.g., in the presence of unaccounted (or badly accounted) for singularities (say, thresholds), or insufficient and/or poor quality of data.

A true resonance should provide an effect only when being inserted into a particular partial amplitude, while non-resonant sources may show sensitivity in various partial-wave amplitudes. To check this possibility, we have repeated the insertion-refitting procedure for the partial-wave amplitudes $`S_{11}`$ and $`P_{13}`$, having the $`J^P`$ quantum numbers $`1/2^{}`$ and $`3/2^+`$, respectively. Using the same values as before for the mass, width, and branching ratio of the assumed resonance, produces the results for $`S_{11}`$ and $`P_{13}`$ illustrated in Fig. 3. No effect emerges at $`M_R`$ = 1680 MeV, enhancing the expectation of a true $`P_{11}`$ resonance effect at this mass.

In the 1700–1740 MeV region, variations for $`S_{11}`$ and $`P_{13}`$ show shallow dips, somewhat similar to one for $`P_{11}`$. This may cast doubt on the existence of a true narrow resonance in this interval. However, the dips for $`S_{11}`$ and $`P_{13}`$ are qualitatively different than for $`P_{11}`$; as a result, we do not consider a narrow resonance with $`M_R=1730`$ MeV to be excluded.

The above dips in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ could be induced by the nearby thresholds, $`N\omega `$ with $`W_{th}1720`$ MeV, and $`N\rho `$ with $`W_{th}1710`$ MeV (note, however, its larger distance from the physical region due to the width of the $`\rho `$). It is interesting that $`M_R=1680`$ MeV appears also near the $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ threshold with $`W_{th}1685`$ MeV. There are many-particle thresholds as well, but their contributions are expected to be less important than two-particle ones, due to much smaller phase-space near the thresholds, and we do not consider them here. None of these thresholds have been accounted for in the PWA parametrizations of $`\pi N`$ data.

Concluding this section, we emphasize that our results suggest two possible masses for a narrow nucleon-like resonance(s) having $`J^P=1/2^+`$ and a mass near 1700 MeV. One of these, near 1680 MeV, looks more promising. Though our approach can give candidate values of mass and width for narrow resonance(s), it does not prove the existence of a resonance. Therefore, all our candidates need further direct and detailed experimental checks.

## III Theoretical analysis

Let us discuss the above results as compared to expected properties of the antidecuplet members in the soliton picture.

The antidecuplet mass differences (say, between $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ and $`N^{}`$, its non-strange partner), based on this picture and presented in Ref. dpp , is about 180 MeV. Using the measured value $`M_\mathrm{\Theta }=1540`$ MeV, we should obtain $`M_N^{}=1720`$ MeV, which is close to the heavier candidate mass, 1730 MeV, of the preceding Section.

However, the soliton calculation of this mass difference requires some assumptions. In particular, it depends on the value of the $`\sigma `$-term, which is the subject of controversy. Its value, taken according to the latest data analysis pasw , leads to an antidecuplet mass difference of about 110 MeV dp .

Moreover, today one is able to use another, more phenomenological approach. If the states $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}`$ xi  and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are indeed members of the same antidecuplet, then, according to the Gell-Mann-Okubo rule, the mass difference of any two neighboring isospin multiplets in the antidecuplet should be constant and equal

$$(M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}}M_\mathrm{\Theta })/3107\mathrm{MeV}.$$

This gives $`M_N^{}1650`$ MeV, near but lower than our lighter candidate mass, 1680 MeV. Due to $`SU(3)_F`$-violating mixing with lower-lying nucleon-like octet states, $`M_N^{}`$ may shift upward, and reach about 1680 MeV dp . Mixing with higher-lying nucleon-like members of exotic 27- and 35-plets may also play a role (see Refs. pr1 ; kopwal ; ekp ). Note that the effects of multiplet mixing on masses is parametrically of order $`𝒪(m_s^2)`$ which is beyond approximations used in Ref. dpp .

In discussing the expected decays for the antidecuplet candidates, we mainly follow Ref. dpp . Though expressions for the widths will be taken in a somewhat more general form fn1 , mixing of states will be taken in the same simplified form as in Ref. dpp . We further assume that only one nucleon-like resonance exists near 1700 MeV.

### III.1 Decays of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$

We can write a partial width for the decay $`B_1M+B_2`$ as fn1bis

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(B_1MB_2\right)=g_{B_1B_2M}^2{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}|^3}{2\pi (M_1+M_2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{M_1}},`$ (16)
where $`|\stackrel{}{p}|`$ is the c.m. momentum of the final meson. In terms of the baryon masses $`M_1,M_2`$, and the meson mass $`m`$, we have

$`|\stackrel{}{p}|=\sqrt{[M_1^2(M_2+m)^2][M_1^2(M_2m)^2]}/2M_1.`$ (17)
Then, in the framework of the chiral soliton approach, for the total width of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ (summed over two decay modes), we obtain fn4

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{\Theta }^+KN\right)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}\left(\mathrm{cos}\varphi G_{\overline{10}}+\mathrm{sin}\varphi H_{\overline{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{4}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}_{KN}|^3}{2\pi (M_\mathrm{\Theta }+M_N)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{M_\mathrm{\Theta }}}.`$ (18)
Here, we admit the possibility of $`SU(3)_F`$-symmetry breaking, which allows mixing of the baryon antidecuplet and octet states. For simplicity, we mix here only a pair of soliton rotational states, the ground state $`N`$ and its rotational excitation $`N^{}`$, which is a member of the same antidecuplet as $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$. As a result, instead of one coupling parameter $`G_{\overline{10}}`$, we obtain the set of three parameters $`(H_{\overline{10}},\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,G_{\overline{10}})`$. The chiral soliton approach allows these to be determined, but with different levels of reliability.

The constants $`H_{\overline{10}}`$ and $`G_{\overline{10}}`$ can be expressed in terms of universal constants $`G_0,G_1`$, and $`G_2`$. The corresponding expressions are (see kimpra ; ekp  for $`H_{\overline{10}}`$ and dpp  for $`G_{\overline{10}}`$):

$`H_{\overline{10}}`$ $`=`$ $`G_0{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}G_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_2,`$ (19)
$`G_{\overline{10}}`$ $`=`$ $`G_0G_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_2.`$ (20)
Analysis of Ref. dpp  showed that the constant $`G_2`$ is very small, and in what follows we neglect it. The octet coupling $`G_8=G_0+G_1/2`$ can be reliably extracted from properties of octet and decuplet baryons; in accordance with Ref. dpp , we take it here as $`G_818`$. In this way, we can relate constants $`H_{\overline{10}}`$ and $`G_{\overline{10}}`$ by

$$2G_{\overline{10}}H_{\overline{10}}G_818.$$

Keeping this in mind, we give below only values of $`G_{\overline{10}}`$. Note that at small $`G_2`$ and $`G_1`$, $`G_{\overline{10}}H_{\overline{10}}G_8`$, while at small $`G_2`$ and $`G_{\overline{10}}`$, $`H_{\overline{10}}G_8`$.

The mixing angle $`\varphi `$ is less reliable. Basing on its estimates in Ref. dpp , we use $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi 0.085`$ (i.e., $`\varphi 5^{}`$).

The coupling $`G_{\overline{10}}`$ is the least known quantity. In the soliton picture, it receives different contributions which tend to cancel each other, making a definite conclusion difficult. Nevertheless, $`G_{\overline{10}}`$ was demonstrated to be suppressed, and the conservative upper bound of $`G_{\overline{10}}<9.5`$ has been given dpp ; moreover, it was shown that in the non-relativistic limit for the quarks, the constant $`G_{\overline{10}}`$ tends to zero (see also Ref. mpr , where it was shown that this cancellation happens for any number of colors). All these results suggest the coupling constant to be considerably smaller than its upper limit fn2 .

With expression (18) and $`M_\mathrm{\Theta }=1540`$ MeV, the restrictions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Theta }^+KN)1[3;5]\mathrm{MeV}`$ lead to $`1.4[2.9;4.0]G_{\overline{10}}2.9[4.5;5.6]`$. We do not insist on the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}1`$ MeV as given by Refs. asw ; asw1 ; cahntr , as it is based mainly on older experiments. But we consider values higher than 5 MeV to be improbable.

### III.2 Decays of $`N^{}`$

A large numerical value of $`G_8`$ (and $`H_{\overline{10}}`$), compared to $`G_{\overline{10}}`$, makes even a small octet–antidecuplet mixing a very important effect in decays of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$. It is even more important for decays of the $`N^{}`$, the non-strange $`P_{11}`$ member of the antidecuplet (assumed in Ref. dpp  to be identified with $`N(1710)`$).

First of all, the octet–antidecuplet mixing allows the decay $`N^{}\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$, otherwise forbidden for the pure antidecuplet member. In addition, mixing essentially influences the partial decay width $`N^{}K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. A description of mixing effects in $`N^{}`$ decays is most simple just for these two modes, since for them only the initial state $`N^{}`$ has octet partner(s) to mix with. (Both the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ could mix with the antidecuplet members only under isospin violation. In decays of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$, only the final nucleon can mix, by assumption, just with $`N^{}`$.) These decay modes allow us to draw interesting conclusions concerning the $`N^{}`$.

The corresponding partial widths of the $`N^{}`$ are fn6 :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(N^{}\pi \mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{5}}(\mathrm{sin}\varphi G_8)^2{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}|^3}{2\pi (M_N^{}+M_\mathrm{\Delta })^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{M_N^{}^2}},`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(N^{}K\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{20}}\left(\mathrm{cos}\varphi G_{\overline{10}}+\mathrm{sin}\varphi G_8{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{5}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }}|^3}{2\pi (M_N^{}+M_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_N^{}}}.`$ (22)
The decay widths here are summed over possible charge states of the final hadrons.

Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }(N^{}\pi \mathrm{\Delta })`$ is independent of the very uncertain antidecuplet coupling $`G_{\overline{10}}`$. Using the above-given values of other parameters, for $`M_N^{}=1680[1730]\mathrm{MeV}`$, leads to

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}2.8[3.5]\mathrm{MeV}`$ (23)
and (for positive $`G_{\overline{10}}`$) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{K\mathrm{\Lambda }}0.17[0.36]\mathrm{MeV}`$. Taking $`G_{\overline{10}}=2.9`$ (the highest value compatible with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Theta }=1`$ MeV) gives

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{K\mathrm{\Lambda }}0.70[1.56]\mathrm{MeV},`$ (24)
again, for $`M_N^{}=1680[1730]`$ MeV.

To investigate decays $`N^{}\pi N`$, $`\eta N`$, and $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, one needs to account for mixing of both initial and final baryons. Taking for coupling constants the linear approximation in $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N^{}\pi N\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{20}}\left(G_{\overline{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\sqrt{5}}}\left[7G_8{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}H_{\overline{10}}\right]\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi N}|^3}{2\pi (M_N^{}+M_N)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{M_N^{}}},`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N^{}\eta N\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{20}}\left(G_{\overline{10}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\sqrt{5}}}\left[G_8{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}H_{\overline{10}}\right]\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}_{\eta N}|^3}{2\pi (M_N^{}+M_N)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{M_N^{}}},`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N^{}K\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{20}}\left(G_{\overline{10}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\sqrt{5}}}\left[2G_8+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}H_{\overline{10}}\right]\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }}|^3}{2\pi (M_N^{}+M_\mathrm{\Sigma })^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{\Sigma }}{M_N^{}}}.`$ (27)
For positive $`G_{\overline{10}}`$, it gives a cancellation of the vertex for the $`\pi N`$ decay mode and enhancement due to mixing for the $`\eta N`$ mode (note in addition that the decay $`N^{}(1680)K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is forbidden and $`N^{}(1730)K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is suppressed by kinematics). This picture does not look contradictory. However, a detailed description of the decays by expressions (25), (26), and (27) may be too simplified. Indeed, Eq. (25) with $`G_{\overline{10}}=2.9`$ (which leads to the strongest cancellation compatible with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}=1`$ MeV) gives

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\pi N}=2.1[2.3]\mathrm{MeV}$$

for $`M_N^{}=1680[1730]`$ MeV, in contradiction with the restrictions (15). In other words, in such a simple picture of mixing between only two nucleon-like states, restrictions for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\pi N}`$ are incompatible with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}1`$ MeV. However, a very small $`\pi N`$ partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\pi N}`$ could be easily accommodated by the soliton picture of the octet–antidecuplet mixing if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}5`$ MeV.

The situation can be changed if we take into account mixing with one more nucleon-like state. Such a case was suggested, e.g., by Jaffe and Wilczek JW , as mixing with $`N(1440)`$. However, they assumed the complete flavor separation for a colored quark-antiquark pair, which contradicts the existing understanding of how the OZI-rule works. We prefer a more phenomenological version dp . If the sign of the mixing angle $`\theta _N`$, as introduced in Ref. dp , is opposite to the sign of the octet–antidecuplet mixing angle $`\varphi `$, then the additional contribution may provide additional cancellation, and diminish the partial width of the $`\pi N`$ decay mode, making it compatible with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}1`$ MeV. Regretfully, at present, we can not determine the correct relative sign for mixings of $`N^{}`$ with $`N`$ and, say, $`N(1440)`$. This would require a knowledge of the nature and/or inner structure of all the involved states. Given the small value of $`G_{\overline{10}}`$, we should not expect a large mixing angle $`\theta _N`$ of $`N^{}`$ with $`N(1440)`$, as it would lead to rather large $`\pi N`$ partial width of $`N^{}`$.

Thus, in the framework of the soliton picture (with mixing to additional nucleon-like states), a $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$-width of about 1 MeV implies that its non-strange partner in the antidecuplet may have a partial width of about 4 MeV for the $`SU(3)_F`$-violating $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ decay mode, up to 1 MeV for the $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ mode, and a couple of MeV for the $`\eta N`$ channel. Decay to $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ should be small, if possible at all. The total $`N^{}`$-width, with all decay modes together, might achieve $`10`$ MeV, so that the $`N^{}`$ state would be wider than the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$, though still narrow.

As a resonance in $`\pi N`$ collisions, the state $`N^{}`$ should be rather narrow and highly inelastic, with a preference to decay mainly into $`\pi \pi N`$ final states. Restrictions (15) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\pi N}`$ lead to a very small elastic branching for $`N^{}\pi N`$, not more than 5%. Such a peak can not be extracted by standard methods of PWA.

The assumption of a larger $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}`$ (up to about 5 MeV) does not influence the most intensive decay channel $`N^{}\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Therefore, it does not change the essential features of the above conclusions. Note that measurements of the ratio of $`\pi N`$ and $`\eta N`$ partial widths may provide us with valuable information about octet–antidecuplet mixing.

These findings together explain why the suggested $`N^{}`$ has not been observed up to now. At the same time, the above estimated width of the $`N^{}`$, as compared to $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$, looks much more reasonable for the antidecuplet member state than the range of values tabulated for the $`N(1710)`$ by the PDG PDG02 .

### III.3 Decays of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}`$

The above approach can be applied also to other antidecuplet members. We will not discuss here decays of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-like partner of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$, which should be more essentially influenced by mixing(s). Instead, we consider possible decays of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-like partner.

The quantum numbers and mass 1862 MeV of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}`$ admit 2-body decay modes $`\pi \mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\overline{K}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`\pi \mathrm{\Xi }(1530)`$. The latter decay would be analogous to $`N^{}\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$, but is stronger forbidden by the $`SU(3)_F`$-symmetry, since $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}`$, contrary to $`N^{}`$, can not be mixed with octet members, because of its different isospin. The decay could be allowed, nevertheless, by mixing of the decuplet $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1530)`$ with some octet $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$’s, which appears to be negligible. Another possibility for this decay would involve the mixing of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}`$ with a similar state belonging to a higher $`SU(3)_F`$-multiplet, such as the 27- or 35-plet. However, at present, we have not any definite information on such states. That is why we do not discuss here the decay to $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1530)`$, though its experimental study could give interesting and useful information.

For the partial widths of decay modes $`\pi \mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\overline{K}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we obtain expressions similar to Eq. (16):

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}\pi \mathrm{\Xi }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}G_{\overline{10}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi \mathrm{\Xi }}|^3}{2\pi (M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}}+M_\mathrm{\Xi })^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{\Xi }}{M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}}}},`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}\overline{K}\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}\left(\mathrm{cos}\varphi G_{\overline{10}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi H_{\overline{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{4}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}_{\overline{K}\mathrm{\Sigma }}|^3}{2\pi (M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}}+M_\mathrm{\Sigma })^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{\Sigma }}{M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}}}}.`$ (29)
Note that the decay $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}\pi \mathrm{\Xi }`$ depends only on $`G_{\overline{10}}`$.

For positive $`G_{\overline{10}}`$, consistent with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}1`$ MeV (i.e., $`G_{\overline{10}}2.9`$), these widths are the order of a few MeV,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}\pi \mathrm{\Xi }\right)2.6\mathrm{MeV},\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}\overline{K}\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)2.0\mathrm{MeV}.$$

On the other hand, for negative $`G_{\overline{10}}`$, again consistent with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}1`$ MeV (this time, $`G_{\overline{10}}1.4`$; note that negative values of $`G_{\overline{10}}`$ seem to be allowed theoretically), we obtain an extremely narrow $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}\pi \mathrm{\Xi }\right)0.6\mathrm{MeV},\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}\overline{K}\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)23\mathrm{keV},$$

with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}}`$ perhaps somewhat smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}`$. In both cases $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}}`$ is small and would be very difficult to measure directly. Instead, there is another interesting possibility. The relative intensity of the two $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}`$-decay modes, $`\pi \mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\overline{K}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, may be very different, depending on the manner of $`SU(3)_F`$-violating mixing. The branching ratio for the latter mode may be either negligible, or of the same order (or even larger) as compared to the former one. A measurement of this ratio should be experimentally feasible.

## IV Conclusion and discussion

To summarize, given our current knowledge of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$, the state commonly known as the $`N(1710)`$ is not the appropriate candidate to be a member of the antidecuplet together with the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$. Instead, we suggest candidates with nearby masses, $`N(1680)`$ (more promising) and/or $`N(1730)`$ (less promising, but not excluded). Our analysis suggests that the appropriate state should be rather narrow and very inelastic. Similar considerations have been applied to the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}(1862)`$, assumed to be also a member of the same antidecuplet. It should also be quite narrow.

One can ask how definite are our theoretical predictions. They have, indeed, essential theoretical uncertainties. For example, the mixing angle $`\varphi `$, taken from Ref. dpp , was actually determined through formulas containing the $`\sigma `$-term (just as the mass difference in the antidecuplet). If we use parameters corresponding to more recent information, for both the $`\sigma `$-term and the mass difference, we obtain larger mixing, up to $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi 0.15`$. With our formulas, this would most strongly influence the partial width $`N^{}\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$, increasing it to about 15 MeV. Other partial widths of $`N^{}`$ change not so dramatically, and the total width appears to remain not higher than $`30`$ MeV. Such a width could well be measured, but not in elastic scattering, because of an expected very small elastic branching ratio. Note, however, that the above large value for $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ may appear problematic, since the formulas of Ref. dpp  assume linearisation with respect to $`SU(3)_F`$-violation, and need to be reconsidered if the violation appears to be large.

A high degree of uncertainty emerges also because our approach can not definitely establish the existence of the resonance(s). We have assumed the presence of only one state with $`J^P=1/2^+`$, either $`N(1680)`$ or $`N(1730)`$. If both exist, they should essentially mix due to their nearby masses, strongly changing our estimates.

Nevertheless, even having in mind all theoretical uncertainties, we can suggest several directions for experimental studies. First of all, one should search for possible new narrow nucleon state(s) in the mass region near 1680 and/or 1730 MeV. Searches may use various initial states, (e.g., $`\pi N`$ collision or photoproduction). We expect the largest effect in the $`\pi \pi N`$ final state (though $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is forbidden by $`SU(3)_F`$). The final states $`\eta N`$ and $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ may also be interesting and useful, especially the ratio of $`\eta N`$ and $`\pi N`$ partial widths as the latter is very sensitive to the structure of the octet–antidecuplet mixing. Another interesting possibility to separate antidecuplet and octet components of $`N^{}`$ is provided by comparison of photoexcitation amplitudes for neutral and charged isocomponents of this resonance, the point being that the antidecuplet component does not contribute to the photoexcitation of the charged component of $`N^{}`$ (see details in Ref. Polyakov:2003dx ).

For $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}`$, attempts to measure the total width are necessary, though it could possibly be even smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}`$. Branching ratios for $`\overline{K}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Xi }(1530)`$, in relation to $`\pi \mathrm{\Xi }`$, are very interesting. These may give important information on the mixing of antidecuplet baryons with octets and higher $`SU(3)_F`$-multiplets.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank D. I. Diakonov, V. Y. Petrov, and P. V. Pobylitsa for many helpful discussions. Special thanks are due to M. Praszalowicz for very valuable discussions. Ya. A. thanks Prof. K. Goeke for hospitality extended to him in the Institute for Theoretical Physics II of the Ruhr-University Bochum at final stages of the work. The work was partly supported by the U. S. Department of Energy Grant DE–FG02–99ER41110, by the Jefferson Laboratory, by the Southeastern Universities Research Association under DOE Contract DE–AC05–84ER40150, by the Russian State Grant SS–1124.2003.2, and by the Sofja Kovalevskaja Programme of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and the Programme for Investment in the Future of the German Government.


format: text

text:
# A remark on the “Theory of neutrino oscillations”

## Abstract

It is shown that the derivation of standard oscillation phase in the plane wave approximation without equal energy assumption is fraught with inconsistencies.

The literature on quantum mechanics of neutrino oscillations is vast and controversial. Therefore, the words in ref  “Let us briefly describe the covariant derivation of the neutrino oscillation probability in the plane wave approach” attract special attention. The derivation in ref.  is given in six equations on one page and is based on the substitution $`tx=L`$ in the phase $`E_ktp_kx`$ for each of the three mass states ($`k=1,2,3`$):

$$\begin{array}{c}E_ktp_kx(E_kp_k)L=\frac{E_k^2p_k^2}{E_k+p_k}L=\frac{m_k^2}{E_k+p_k}L\frac{m_k^2}{2E}L,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`L`$ is the distance between the source and detector of neutrinos. Our Eq.(1) reproduces the key equation of ref. , namely, Eq.(5).

It is further noticed in ref. : “It is important to notice that Eq.(5) shows that the phase of massive neutrinos relevant for the oscillations are independent from any assumptions on the energies and momenta of different massive neutrinos, as long as the relativistic dispersion relation $`E_k^2=p_k^2+m_k^2`$ is satisfied. This is why the standard derivation of the neutrino oscillation probability gives the correct result, in spite of the unrealistic equal momenta assumption.”

We would like to point out that the replacing $`tx=L`$ is fraught with at least two problems:

1. If one assumes that $`x=t`$, then the so-called space velocities $`\overline{v}=x/t`$ of all three neutrinos are identical. But in this case the plane wave approximation is not valid.
2. If, on the other hand, one considers the so-called kinematical velocities $`v_k=p_k/E_k`$, according to the plane-wave picture, then there appears a correction to the Eq.(5) of ref. :

$$x=v_kt=\frac{p_k}{E_k}t(1\frac{m_k^2}{2E_k^2})t.$$
(2)
Hence $`t=(1+\frac{m_k^2}{2E_k^2})x`$,

$$E_ktp_kx(E_kp_k)L+\frac{m_k^2}{2E_k^2}L=2\frac{m_k^2}{2E_k^2}L$$
(3)
and one gets the standard formula multiplied by the notorious “factor of 2”, which had been shown to be wrong. Thus, the “theory” of ref.  is false.

In order to derive the standard phase in the plane wave approximation for the “clockless” neutrino oscillation experiments111In all neutrino oscillation experiments performed up to now time interval is not measured, only the distance between the source and detector is known. In that sense these experiments are “clockless” and imply integration over $`t`$ which kills $`t`$-dependent terms., one has to assume that all three $`E_k`$ are equal: $`E_1=E_2=E_3=E`$ (see refs. , ) and replace each $`p_kx`$ by $`EL\frac{m_k^2}{2E}L`$.

Acknowledgements

This work was partly supported by the grants RFBR No.2328.2003.2, No.01-02-17682a, grant INTAS No.99-0590 and by the A. von Humboldt award to L.O.


text:
# Averaging For Solitons With Nonlinearity Management

## Abstract

We develop an averaging method for solitons of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with periodically varying nonlinearity coefficient. This method is used to effectively describe solitons in Bose-Einstein condensates, in the context of the recently proposed and experimentally realizable technique of Feshbach resonance management. Using the derived local averaged equation, we study matter-wave bright and dark solitons and demonstrate a very good agreement between solutions of the averaged and full equations.

Introduction. Dispersive nonlinear wave equations are appropriate mathematical models for various nonlinear phenomena in fluid mechanics, optics, plasmas and condensed matter physics. The prototypical equation that generically emerges in the description of envelope waves is the nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equation  of the form:

$`iu_t=D\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Gamma }|u|^2u+V(𝐱)u.`$ (1)
Here $`u(𝐱,t)`$ is a complex envelope field, $`V(𝐱)`$ is an external potential, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Laplacian operator in multi dimensions, and $`D`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the coefficients of the dispersive and nonlinear terms respectively.

In a number of physical applications, the coefficients $`D`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ exhibit temporal periodic variations. When $`D=D(t)`$, the NLS equation (1) describes the dispersion management (DM) scheme in fiber optics, which is based on periodic alternation of fibers with opposite signs of the group-velocity dispersion. The DM scheme supports robust breathing solitons , which are well described through the averaging method by the integral NLS equation . Extensions of the averaging method were developed for strong management with large variations of the dispersion coefficient  and for weak management with small variations of the dispersion coefficient .

When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$, the NLS equation (1) has applications in optics for transverse beam propagation in layered optical media , as well as in atomic physics for the Feshbach resonance  of the scattering length of inter-atomic interactions in Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs). The periodic variation of the scattering length by means of an external magnetic field provides an experimentally realizable protocol for the generation of robust matter-wave breathers , and for their persistence against collapse type phenomena in higher dimensions . Solitary waves have become a focal point in studies of BEC both theoretically and experimentally  due to their coherence properties. Hence, nonlinearity management using Feshbach resonance promises to provide a viable alternative for the generation of coherent nonlinear wave structures.

Given the importance in nonlinear optics and condensed matter physics, of applications of the NLS equation (1) with periodically varying nonlinearity coefficient, we extend the averaging method of  to solitons with strong nonlinearity management, when the periodic variations of the nonlinearity coefficient are large in amplitude. Comparing with earlier works, we note that the averaged equation for strong dispersion management in  is nonlocal, whereas our main averaged equation (see Eq. (14)) for strong nonlinearity management is local. Furthermore, our averaging method is more general than the asymptotic expansion method, exploited for weak dispersion management in  and for weak nonlinearity management in . Since the averaged equation obtained herein is simple, we compute numerically solitary waves of the averaged equation and compare with those of the full problem, showing the excellent agreement between the two.

We emphasize that the main contribution of this work is two-fold. From a mathematical point of view, it is the derivation of a novel averaged equation that describes dynamics of solitary waves under nonlinearity management. From a physical point of view, the main result is the computation of the parameter domains, where nonlinear waves exist in the BEC and nonlinear optics. We hope that highlighting the relevant analogies and differences may also stimulate additional cross-fertilization between these sub-disciplines and their respective mathematical techniques. Furthermore, our work poses the interesting problem of understanding what happens in the parameter domains, where solitary waves do not exist. These fundamental problems are of interest not only to theorists and experimentalists in atomic and optical physics but also, more generally, to researchers in nonlinear and wave physics, where periodic temporal variations and their averaging methods are studied (see e.g., ).

Derivation of the averaged equation. We start with the NLS equation (1) with $`D=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$. The external potential $`V(x)`$ is left arbitrary but we keep in mind that the magnetic and laser trappings relevant to BEC applications impose parabolic and periodic potentials respectively. Also, we will restrict ourselves to one spatial dimension, but generalization of the method to multi-dimensions is straightforward. The resulting equation (also referred to as the Gross–Pitaevskii (GP) equation ) describes the “cigar-shaped” BECs and reads:

$$iu_t=u_{xx}+\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)|u|^2u+V(x)u,$$
(2)
where the nonlinearity coefficient (proportional to the scattering length in the BECs) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t+ϵ)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ is a smooth, sign-indefinite, periodic function of period $`ϵ`$. We assume that the period $`ϵ`$ of the nonlinearity management is small compared to the characteristic propagation time of nonlinear waves, while the nonlinearity variations are large in amplitude. In this case, we decompose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ into the mean-value part $`\gamma _0`$ and a large fast-varying part $`\gamma `$, according to the representation:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=\gamma _0+\frac{1}{ϵ}\gamma (\tau ),\tau =\frac{t}{ϵ},$$
(3)
where $`\gamma (\tau +1)=\gamma (\tau )`$ and $`_0^1\gamma (\tau )𝑑\tau =0`$. Using

$$u(x,t)=v(x,\tau )\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^\tau \gamma (\tau ^{})|v|^2(x,\tau ^{})𝑑\tau ^{}\right),$$
(4)
we remove the large fast variations of the nonlinearity coefficient and bring the GP equation (2) to an equivalent form:

$`iϵ^1v_\tau =v_{xx}+\gamma _0|v|^2v+V(x)v`$ (5)
$`+2iv_x{\displaystyle _0^\tau }\gamma (\tau ^{})|v|_x^2(x,\tau ^{})𝑑\tau ^{}+iv{\displaystyle _0^\tau }\gamma (\tau ^{})|v|_{xx}^2(x,\tau ^{})𝑑\tau ^{}`$ (6)
$`+v\left({\displaystyle _0^\tau }\gamma (\tau ^{})|v|_x^2(x,\tau ^{})𝑑\tau ^{}\right)^2.`$ (7)
In the averaging method (see  for details), we decompose solutions of the problem with variable coefficients (7) into a slowly varying mean part $`w(x,t)`$ and a small, fast-varying part $`v_1(x,\tau )`$:

$$v(x,\tau )=w(x,t)+ϵv_1(x,\tau ;w(x,t)),t=ϵ\tau .$$
(8)
The varying part $`v_1(x,\tau ;w)`$ is a periodic function of $`\tau `$ with unit period. To leading order, this condition is satisfied if $`w(x,t)`$ satisfies the averaged equation:

$`iw_t=`$ $``$ $`w_{xx}+\gamma _0|w|^2w+V(x)w`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`2i\nu _1w_x|w|_x^2+i\nu _1w|w|_{xx}^2+\nu _2w\left(|w|_x^2\right)^2,`$ (10)
where $`\nu _1=_0^1\nu (\tau )𝑑\tau `$, $`\nu _2=_0^1\nu ^2(\tau )𝑑\tau `$, and $`\nu (\tau )=_0^\tau \gamma (\tau ^{})𝑑\tau ^{}`$. The averaging method is simplified with the gauge transformation,

$$w(x,t)=\psi (x,t)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\nu _1|\psi |^2(x,t)\right),$$
(11)
which reduces (9) to the form:

$`i\psi _t\nu _1\psi |\psi |_t^2=`$ $``$ $`\psi _{xx}+\gamma _0|\psi |^2\psi +V(x)\psi `$ (12)
$`+`$ $`\mu \psi \left(|\psi |_x^2\right)^2,`$ (13)
where $`\mu =\nu _2\nu _1^2`$. Using the balance equation $`i|\psi |_t^2=\left(\overline{\psi }_x\psi \overline{\psi }\psi _x\right)_x`$, which follows from (13), we rewrite the averaged equation in the final form:

$`i\psi _t=`$ $``$ $`\psi _{xx}+\gamma _0|\psi |^2\psi +V(x)\psi +\mu \psi \left(|\psi |_x^2\right)^2`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`i\nu _1\psi \left(\overline{\psi }\psi _x\overline{\psi }_x\psi \right)_x.`$ (15)
The averaged equation (14) is the main result of this Letter. It is seen to be equivalent to the integral averaged equation derived for strong dispersion management in fiber optics , but it is a local evolution equation. A similar local equation was also derived for weak dispersion management in fiber optics , when the last two terms of (14) are small compared to the leading-order NLS equation. We emphasize that our main averaged equation (14) is derived for strong nonlinearity management and it captures all terms in the same, leading order of the averaging method.

Solitons in BECs. The simplest standing waves of the averaged equation (14) are obtained through the standard ansatz :

$$\psi (x,t)=\varphi (x)e^{i\omega t},$$
(16)
where $`\varphi (x)`$ solves the second-order differential equation:

$$\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+\omega \varphi +V(x)\varphi +\gamma _0\varphi ^3+4\mu (\varphi ^{})^2\varphi ^3=0.$$
(17)
As a typical example of a smooth periodic variation of the scattering length , we use the sinusoidal function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=\gamma _0+\gamma _1\mathrm{sin}(2\pi t)`$, in which case $`\mu =\gamma _1^2/(8\pi ^2)`$. We also set $`ϵ=1`$ and choose $`|\omega |[0.1,0.5]`$ to ensure validity of the averaged equation (17), when $`ϵ2\pi /|\omega |`$. We also use the parabolic potential $`V(x)`$ for the magnetic trapping of the BEC, $`V(x)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^2x^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2[0.02,0.4]`$.

To estimate actual physical quantities corresponding to the above values of the normalized parameters, we first note that the cases $`\gamma _0<0`$ ($`\gamma _0>0`$) are relevant to an attractive (repulsive) condensate, such as 7Li (85Rb), characterized by a negative (positive) scattering length $`a=1`$nm ($`a=0.8`$nm), in a magnetic field $`B650`$ G ($`B159`$ G). These values of the scattering lengths set the units in the parameters $`\gamma _0`$ and $`\gamma _1`$, which may take different values as long as the magnetic field $`B`$ is varied . On the other hand, the number of atoms $`N`$ in the two condensates is taken to be as follows: $`N=1\times 10^4`$ ($`N=2\times 10^5`$) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0.4`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0.02`$) for the 7Li condensate and $`N=4\times 10^3`$ ($`N=7.5\times 10^4`$) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0.4`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0.02`$) for the 85Rb condensate. Since we deal with cigar-shaped BECs, we may assume that the external magnetic trap is highly anisotropic, characterized by the confining frequencies $`\omega _{}=2\pi \times 3.6`$Hz and $`\omega _{}=2\pi \times 360`$Hz in the axial and transverse directions respectively. In such a case, the time and space units in the results that will be presented below, are $`44.2`$ms and $`2\mu `$m (for 7Li) or $`44.2`$ms and $`0.6\mu `$m (for 85Rb).

Numerical Results. Using Eq. (17), we can now obtain the solution $`\varphi (x)`$ for a given set of parameters ($`\gamma _0,\gamma _1,\mathrm{\Omega },\omega `$), by means of the Newton method. We also perform parameter continuations, to follow the solution branches as the parameters vary.

Fig. 1 shows two solutions of the averaged equation (17) with $`\gamma _0<0`$ (the attractive BEC with negative scattering length), $`\gamma _1=0.5`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0.4`$, and $`\omega =0.5`$. The solution on the left panel is the bright soliton, which has the form $`\varphi (x)=(2\omega /\gamma _0)^{1/2}\mathrm{sech}(\omega ^{1/2}x)`$ when $`\gamma _1=\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. The solution on the right panel is the so-called twisted soliton, which corresponds to a concatenation of two separated bright solitons of opposite parity (see e.g., ). The twisted soliton does not exist when $`\gamma _0<0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. Higher-order solutions with multiple nodes (zeros) may also exist in the averaged equation (17) with $`\gamma _0<0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, in some parameter domains.

Fig. 2 shows two solutions of the averaged equation (17) with $`\gamma _0>0`$ (the repulsive BEC with positive scattering length), $`\gamma _1=0.5`$, and $`\omega =0.5`$. In the case of $`\gamma _0>0`$, the localized solutions of Eq. (17) bifurcate from linear modes trapped by the parabolic potential $`V(x)`$, such that an infinite number of solitons with multiple nodes (zeros) exists for larger negative values of $`\omega `$. The solution on the left panel for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0.4`$ is the ground state, often approximated by the Thomas-Fermi cloud . The solution on the right panel for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0.02`$ is the (embedded in the Thomas-Fermi cloud) dark soliton which, in the case of $`\gamma _1=\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, has the form $`\varphi (x)=(|\omega |/\gamma _0)^{1/2}\mathrm{tanh}((|\omega |/2)^{1/2}x)`$ when $`\gamma _1=\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. The dark soliton is the only localized solution of Eq. (17) with $`\gamma _0>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. Notice that the regular dark soliton asymptotes to a non-vanishing amplitude when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, while it asymptotes to $`0`$ in the presence of the magnetic trap.

Fig. 3 shows two parameter $`(\gamma _0,\gamma _1)`$ continuation of the dark (top panel for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0.02`$) and bright (bottom panel for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0.4`$) soliton solutions of the averaged equation (17) with $`|\omega |=0.5`$. The branch of dark solitons exists above the bifurcation curve on the top panel, whereas the branch of bright solitons exists below the curve on the bottom panel. The two curves pass through the origin $`\gamma _0=\gamma _1=0`$. We note that the domain of existence of dark and bright solitons shrinks for increasing values of $`\gamma _1`$.

Finally, we examine how well the averaged equation (17) approximates bright and dark solitons of the GP equation (2). In our numerical simulations of Eq. (2), we initialize the wavefunction, using the spatial profile obtained from (17), and subsequently observe whether the temporal evolution of Eq. (2) preserves the average profile of Eq. (17).

Fig. 4 shows the temporal evolution of the bright soliton with $`\gamma _0=0.5`$, $`\gamma _1=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0.4`$, and $`\omega =0.5`$. The periodic variations of the nonlinearity coefficient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ in Eq. (2) lead to complicated oscillations of the solution’s maximum. While the solution oscillates between single-humped and double-humped solitons (a scenario that bears analogies to the observations of ), the average of the two extreme solitons (at the maximum and the minimum amplitudes) is practically indistinguishable from the profile $`\varphi (x)`$ of Eq. (17).

Fig. 5 shows the temporal evolution of the dark soliton with $`\gamma _0=0.5`$, $`\gamma _1=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0.02`$, and $`\omega =0.5`$. We notice that the center of the dark soliton remains at the origin $`x=0`$, without any oscillations. Only the maxima of $`|u|^2(x,t)`$ display periodic oscillations of small amplitude. The average of the extreme solitons is again essentially identical to the profile $`\varphi (x)`$ of the averaged equation (17).

Conclusion. We have derived and studied the averaged equation (14) for the NLS (GP) equation (2) with periodic modulation of the nonlinearity coefficient. Our results are of broad interest to diverse areas of atomic and optical physics, as well as of nonlinear and, also, mathematical physics. We have identified numerically several branches of solitary waves of the averaged stationary equation (17). We have also compared solutions of the averaged and full equations, obtaining a very good agreement. It is of particular and immediate interest to examine these predictions experimentally, as well as to identify what happens in parametric regimes where the present theory is no longer able to identify such waves. Furthermore, the averaged equation (14) can be useful for future studies of BECs, e.g., in optical lattice potentials or in higher dimensions.

This work was supported in part by NSERC grant # RGP238931 (DEP), and by a UMass FRG, NSF-DMS-0204585 and the Eppley Foundation for Research (PGK).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Penrose limit construction  associates to every spacetime metric and choice of null geodesic in that spacetime a plane wave metric

$$ds^2=2dudv+A_{ab}(u)x^ax^bdu^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2.$$
(1.1)
Here $`A_{ab}(u)`$ is the plane wave profile matrix and the computation of the Penrose limit along a null geodesic $`\gamma `$ amounts to determining the matrix $`A_{ab}(u)`$ from the metric of the original spacetime.

This has recently been used to show  that the Penrose limit of the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ IIB superstring background is the BHFP maximally supersymmetric plane wave . String theory in this RR background is exactly solvable , giving rise to a novel explicit form of the AdS/CFT correspondence . Following these developments, many Penrose limits have been computed for various supergravity backgrounds and their applications have been explored.

Despite these developments, the precise nature of the Penrose limit and the extent to which it encodes generally covariant properties of the original spacetime have remained somewhat elusive, also because the usual definition and practical implementations of the Penrose limit indeed require taking a limit and look rather non-covariant.

The primary purpose of this note is to provide a completely covariant characterisation and definition of the Penrose limit wave profile matrix $`A_{ab}(u)`$ which does not require taking any limit and which shows that $`A_{ab}(u)`$ directly encodes diffeomorphism invariant information about the original spacetime metric. Specifically, we will show that

$$A_{ab}(u)=R_{aubu}|_{\gamma (u)},$$
(1.2)
where $`R`$ is the curvature tensor of the original metric, and the components refer to a parallel-transported frame along the null geodesic with $`ds^2=2E^+E^{}+\delta _{ab}E^aE^b`$ and $`E_+=_u`$. Thus $`A_{ab}(u)`$, which is uniquely determined by these conditions up to constant orthogonal transformations, is nothing other than the standard \[7, Section 4.2\] transverse frequency matrix of the null geodesic deviation equation of the original metric.

In particular, therefore, since lightcone gauge string theory on a plane wave becomes a two-dimensional theory of free fields with mass (frequency) matrix $`(A_{ab})`$ , we see that the components of the mass matrix of the fields are certain components of the curvature tensor of the spacetime before the Penrose limit is taken. Thus imaginary frequencies, which lead to tachyonic worldsheet modes in the lightcone gauge (but need not signal an instability ), correspond to diverging null geodesics in the original spacetime.

Since singularities of $`A_{ab}(u)`$ result from curvature singularities of the original spacetime, it is of interest to analyse the nature of Penrose limits of spacetime singularities, as they encode information about the rate of growth of curvature and geodesic deviation as one approaches the singularity of the original spacetime along a null geodesic.

What we will demonstrate (referring to  for more details) is that in this case the Penrose limits exhibit a remarkably universal behaviour in the sense that for a large class of black hole, cosmological and null singularities, indeed all the Szekeres-Iyer metrics  with singularities of “power-law type”, one obtains plane wave metrics of the form

$$ds^2=2dudv+A_{ab}x^ax^b\frac{du^2}{u^2}+d\stackrel{}{x}^2,$$
(1.3)
with $`A_{ab}`$ constant and eigenvalues bounded by $`1/4`$. Due to the existence of the scale invariance $`(u,v)(\lambda u,\lambda ^1v)`$, these singular plane waves are homogeneous , reflecting the scaling behaviour of the original power-law singularities.

String theory in singular homogeneous plane wave backgrounds is exactly solvable . It has also been shown that in a class of such models the string oscillator modes can be analytically continued across the singularity . Since the Penrose limit can be considered as the origin of a string expansion around the original background  (see  for the AdS case), the above observations about the relation of these backgrounds to interesting spacetime singularities provide additional impetus for understanding string theory in an expansion around such metrics.

## 2 A Covariant Characterisation of the Penrose Limit

### 2.1 The Penrose Limit

The Penrose limit  associates to every spacetime metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and choice of null geodesic $`\gamma `$ in that spacetime a (limiting) plane wave metric. The first step is to rewrite the metric in coordinates adapted to $`\gamma `$, Penrose coordinates, as

$$ds^2=2dUdV+a(U,V,Y^k)dV^2+2b_i(U,V,Y^k)dVdY^i+g_{ij}(U,V,Y^k)dY^idY^j$$
(2.1)
This corresponds to an embedding of $`\gamma `$ into a twist-free congruence of null geodesics, given by $`V`$ and $`Y^k`$ constant, with $`U`$ playing the role of the affine parameter and $`\gamma (U)`$ coinciding with the geodesic at $`V=Y^k=0`$.

The next step is to perform the change of coordinates ($`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$)

$$(U,V,Y^k)=(u,\mathrm{\Omega }^2\overline{v},\mathrm{\Omega }y_k).$$
(2.2)
The Penrose limit metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ is then defined by

$$d\overline{s}^2=\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }0}{lim}\mathrm{\Omega }^2ds_\mathrm{\Omega }^2=2dud\overline{v}+\overline{g}_{ij}(U)dy^idy^j,$$
(2.3)
where $`ds_\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is the metric $`ds^2`$ in the coordinates $`(u,\overline{v},y^i)`$ and $`\overline{g}_{ij}(U)=g_{ij}(U,0,0)`$. This is the metric of a plane wave in Rosen coordinates. Pragmatically speaking, the Penrose limit metric is obtained by setting the components $`a`$ and $`b_i`$ of the metric to zero and restricting $`g_{ij}`$ to the null geodesic $`\gamma `$.

A coordinate transformation $`(u,\overline{v},y^k)(u,v,x^a)`$ puts the metric into the standard Brinkmann form

$$d\overline{s}^2=2dudv+A_{ab}(u)x^ax^bdu^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2.$$
(2.4)
Here

$$A_{ab}(u)=\overline{R}_{aubu}(u)=\overline{R}_{iuju}(u)\overline{E}_a^i(u)\overline{E}_b^j(u),$$
(2.5)
with $`\overline{R}_{aubu}(u)`$ the only non-vanishing component of the Riemann curvature tensor of $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$. $`\overline{E}_a^i`$ is an orthonormal coframe for the transverse metric $`\overline{g}_{ij}`$, satisfying the symmetry condition

$$\dot{\overline{E}}_{ai}\overline{E}_b^i=\dot{\overline{E}}_{bi}\overline{E}_a^i.$$
(2.6)
### 2.2 Curvature and Penrose Limits

We now establish the relation between the wave profile $`A_{ab}(u)`$ of the Penrose limit metric and certain components of the curvature tensor of the original metric.

We consider the components $`R_{UjU}^i`$ of the curvature tensor of the metric (2.1) which enter into the geodesic deviation equation of the corresponding null geodesic congruence. The first observation is that

$$R_{UjU}^i=(_U\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jU}^i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kU}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jU}^k)$$
(2.7)
does not depend on the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b_i`$ of the metric and only involves $`U`$-derivatives of $`g_{ij}`$. It follows that these components of the curvature tensor are related to those of the Penrose limit metric by

$$\overline{R}_{uju}^i=R_{UjU}^i|_\gamma $$
(2.8)
Next we introduce a pseudo-orthonormal frame $`E_\mu ^M`$, $`M=(+,,a)`$ for the metric (2.1),

$$ds^2=2E^+E^{}+\delta _{ab}E^aE^b,$$
(2.9)
which is parallel along the null geodesic congruence, $`_UE_\mu ^M=0`$. We choose $`E_+=_U`$ to be tangent to the geodesics. Then it is not difficult to see that $`E_a`$ has the form

$$E_a=E_a^i_i+E_a^U_U,$$
(2.10)
where $`E_i^a`$ is a vielbein for $`g_{ij}(U,V,Y^K)`$ satisfying

$$\dot{E}_{ai}E_b^i=\dot{E}_{bi}E_a^i.$$
(2.11)
This condition is independent of $`a,b_i`$ and only involves $`U`$-derivatives of $`E_i^a`$. We can thus conclude that the vielbeins $`\overline{E}_i^a`$ of the Penrose limit metric satisfying the symmetry condition (2.6) can be obtained from the parallel-propagated (2.11) vielbeins of the full metric by restriction to the null geodesic $`\gamma `$,

$$\overline{E}_i^a=E_i^a|_\gamma .$$
(2.12)
Combining (2.5) with (2.8) and (2.12), and using (2.10) we thus obtain the key result that the frequency matrix (wave profile) $`A_{ab}(u)`$ of the Penrose limit metric is the transverse null geodesic deviation matrix of the original metric, evaluated in a parallel propagated frame \[7, Section 4.2\],

$$A_{ab}(u)=(R_{i+j+}E_a^iE_b^j)|_\gamma .$$
(2.13)
As a consequence, even though we had to appeal to Penrose adapted coordinates (2.1) to implement the standard definition (2.3) of the Penrose limit, we now arrive at a fully covariant characterisation and definition of the Penrose limit. While this is implied by what we have already said, it may be worth reiterating it:

Given a null geodesic $`\gamma `$, one constructs a pseudo-orthonormal parallel propagated coframe $`(E_+,E_{},E_a)`$ with $`E_+=_u`$ tangent to the null geodesic and $`E_{}`$ characterised by $`g(E_{},E_{})=0`$ and $`g(E_+,E_{})=1`$. Then the Penrose limit is the plane wave metric characterised by the wave profile

$$A_{ab}(u)=R_{a+b+}|_\gamma ,$$
(2.14)
which is determined uniquely up to $`u`$-independent orthogonal transformations.

## 3 Singular Homogeneous Plane Waves from Penrose Limits of Spacetime Singularities

Given the above results it is of interest to study Penrose limits of spacetime singularities, as they encode diffeomorphism invariant information about the rate of growth of curvature and geodesic deviation along a null geodesic.

We will see that for a large class of spacelike, timelike or null singularities the Penrose limit metric is that of a singular homogeneous plane wave ,

$$ds^2=2dudv+A_{ab}x^ax^b\frac{du^2}{u^2}+d\stackrel{}{x}^2$$
(3.1)
exhibiting the scale invariance $`(u,v)(\lambda u,\lambda ^1v)`$. This has already been observed before in a variety of other special brane and cosmological backgrounds . Note that, because of the scale invariance, this metric is uniquely characterised by the eigenvalues of $`A_{ab}`$ (up to permutations), in contrast to the case of symmetric plane waves ($`A_{ab}(u)`$ constant) for which the eigenvalues are scaled by $`\lambda ^2`$ under the above transformation.

### 3.1 Examples: FRW and Schwarzschild Plane Waves

We briefly illustrate this with some examples which will be dicussed in more detail in .

The $`D=(n+1)`$-dimensional FRW metric

$$ds^2=dt^2+a(t)^2(dr^2+f_k(r)^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2),$$
(3.2)
($`f_k(r)=r,\mathrm{sin}r,\mathrm{sinh}r`$ for $`k=0,+1,1`$ respectively) has a unique Penrose limit, characterised by the diagonal wave profile $`A_{ab}=A(u)\delta _{ab}`$ with

$$A(u)=\frac{8\pi G}{n1}\frac{\rho (u)+p(u)}{a(u)^2}.$$
(3.3)
Here $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ are the energy-density and pressure of the perfect fluid, and $`a(u)=a(t(u))`$ etc., with $`a(t)`$ determined by the Friedmann equations and $`t(u)`$ determined by the null geodesic condition with $`u`$ the affine parameter. Specialising to the equation of state $`p=w\rho `$, one finds that near the singularity $`A(u)`$ behaves as111This is also the general behaviour of the $`k=0`$ metrics and generalises the result reported in .

$$A(u)=\frac{h}{(1+h)^2}u^2,$$
(3.4)
where $`h=2/n(1+w)`$. Thus this is a singular homogeneous plane wave, with frequency squares bounded by $`1/4`$ (which is attained for $`h=1`$). This is interesting because it is known  that the behaviour of particles and strings in the background (3.1) is qualitatively different for frequency squares less than or greater than $`1/4`$.

For the $`D=(d+2)4`$-dimensional Schwarzschild metric

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2+f(r)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_d^2,$$
(3.5)
where $`f(r)=12m/r^{d1}`$, one finds that $`A_{ab}(u)`$ is diagonal, with

$$A_{22}(u)=\mathrm{}=A_{dd}(u)=\frac{(d+1)m\mathrm{}^2}{r(u)^{d+3}}$$
(3.6)
and (since this is a vacuum plane wave) $`A_{11}=_{a=2}^dA_{aa}`$. Here $`r(u)`$ is the solution to the null geodesic equation and $`\mathrm{}0`$ the angular momentum. Thus the resulting plane wave metric is singular iff the original null geodesic runs into the singularity, which will happen for sufficiently small values of $`\mathrm{}`$. In this case, as $`r(u)0`$ one has

$$A_{22}(u)=\mathrm{}=A_{dd}(u)=\frac{2(d+1)}{(d+3)^2}u^2.$$
(3.7)
Again this is a singular homogeneous plane wave with frequencies bounded by $`1/4`$. Note that the behaviour near the singularity depends only on the spacetime dimension $`D=d+2`$, neither on the mass parameter $`m`$ of the black hole nor on the angular momentum $`\mathrm{}`$ of the null geodesic used to approach the singularity. Curiously, the frequency squares obtained in the Penrose limit of the Schwarzschild metric are precisely those of a dust-filled FRW universe of the same dimension (for example, $`6/25`$ for $`D=4`$).

Thus string and particle propagation in the near-singularity regime of the Schwarzschild plane wave is identical to that in the $`w=0`$ FRW plane wave in all but one of the transverse directions. The appearance of an imaginary frequency in the remaining transverse direction is of course dictated by the fact that the Schwarzschild plane wave is, unlike the FRW plane wave, a vacuum solution.

### 3.2 A general Result: Penrose Limits of Szekeres-Iyer Power-Law Type Singularities

From a purely calculational point of view, the occurrence of $`u^2`$-type plane waves with frequency squares bounded by $`1/4`$ can be attributed to the fact that in Rosen coordinates (2.3) the leading behaviour in $`U`$ of the transverse metric $`\overline{g}_{ij}(U)`$ close to the singularity is of power-law type , which is reflected in the scale invariance of the Penrose limit. Thus to assess the generality of this kind of result, one needs to enquire about the generality of spacetime singularities exhibiting such a power-law behaviour.

In  (see also ), in the context of investigations of the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis, Szekeres and Iyer studied a large class of four-dimensional spherically symmetric metrics they dubbed “metrics with power-law type singularities”. Such metrics encompass all the FRW metrics, Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi dust solutions, cosmological singularities of the Lifshitz-Khalatnikov type, as well as other types of metrics with null singularities. In “double-null form”, these metrics take the form

$$ds^2=2\text{e}^{A(U,V)}dUdV+\text{e}^{B(U,V)}d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(3.8)
where $`A(U,V)`$ and $`B(U,V)`$ have expansions

$`A(U,V)`$ $`=`$ $`p\mathrm{ln}X(U,V)+\mathrm{regular}\mathrm{terms}`$
$`B(U,V)`$ $`=`$ $`q\mathrm{ln}X(U,V)+\mathrm{regular}\mathrm{terms}`$ (3.9)
near the singularity surface $`X(U,V)=0`$. The residual coordinate transformations $`UU^{}(U)`$, $`VV^{}(V)`$ preserving the form of the metric (3.8) can be used to make $`X(U,V)`$ linear in $`U`$ and $`V`$,

$$X(U,V)=aU+bV,a,b=\pm 1,0,$$
(3.10)
with $`ab=\pm 1,0`$ corresponding to timelike, spacelike and null singularities respectively. This choice of gauge essentially fixes the coordinates uniquely, and thus the “critical exponents” $`p`$ and $`q`$ contain diffeomorphism invariant information. The Schwarzschild metric, for example, has $`p=1/2`$ and $`q=1`$, as is readily seen by starting with the metric in Eddington-Finkelstein or Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates and transforming to the Szekeres-Iyer gauge.

It is now a simple matter to determine all the Penrose limits of the near-singularity metrics

$$ds^2=2X^pdUdV+X^qd\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(3.11)
in order to study the genericity of the $`u^2`$-behaviour with frequency squares bounded by $`1/4`$. One finds that for generic values of $`p`$ and $`q`$ within certain regions of the $`(p,q)`$-plane the behaviour as $`X(u)0`$ is always of this type. For example, from this point of view the $`\pm 6/25`$ of the Schwarzschild metric arise as $`q(p+2)/(p+q+2)^2`$ and $`p(q+2)/(p+q+2)^2`$ for $`p=1/2`$, $`q=1`$.

Curiously, the resulting diagram in the $`(p,q)`$-plane delineating the regions with $`u^2`$-behaviour from other possibilities bears a tantalising resemblance to the Szekeres-Iyer phase diagram \[11, Fig.1\] of near-singularity energy-momentum tensors.

### Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 Quantum Spacetime and by the Swiss National Science Foundation. MBo thanks CONACyT (Mexico) and is grateful to the Institut de Physique, Neuchâtel, for hospitality during the final stages of this work. GP thanks the Abdus Salam ICTP for hospitality where part of this project was completed.