text:
# Magnetic Field Diagnostics Based on Far-Infrared Polarimetry: Tests Using Numerical Simulations

## 1 Motivation

The significance of magnetic fields in the dynamics of molecular clouds, and in star formation itself, is still uncertain.

Theory and modelling have demonstrated that the strength of magnetic fields can have a profound influence on the processes which lead to the formation of stars. There is a critical ratio of magnetic flux to mass above which magnetic fields can prevent gravitational collapse (magnetically subcritical) and below which they cannot (magnetically supercritical; e.g. Mouschovias & Spitzer 1976). Redistribution of magnetic flux by ambipolar diffusion in a magnetically subcritical region can lead to loss of support against self-gravitation, and eventually to low mass star formation (see Shu, Adams, & Lizano 1987, Myers & Goodman (1988), Porro & Silvestro (1993), Ciolek & Mouschovias 1993, 1994, 1995, Safier, McKee, & Stahler 1997, Ciolek & Königl 1998). However, magnetically subcritical regions do not appear to reproduce observations of molecular cloud cores (Nakano 1998), nor can this scenario explain the large fraction of cloud cores containing protostellar objects (Ward-Thompson, Motte, & André 1999). It is possible that magnetically supercritical regions can be supported by turbulence (Bonazzola et al. 1987, McKee & Zweibel 1995), which, to support a highly supercritical region, must be quite nonlinear (Myers & Zweibel 2001). Recent 3D simulations (Heitsch, Mac Low, & Klessen 2001, hereafter HMK, Ostriker, Stone, & Gammie 2001) demonstrate that strong turbulence can provide large-scale support against collapse, though it cannot prevent collapse on small scales. The degree to which clouds are supported at all, of course, depends on their lifetimes and on the star formation rate (Ballesteros-Paredes, Hartmann, & Vazquez-Semadeni 1999, Elmegreen 2000).

Magnetic fields affect other dynamical processes in clouds besides gravitational collapse. In a strong magnetic field, weakly compressible turbulence is anisotropic (Sridhar & Goldreich 1994; Goldreich & Sridhar 1995, 1997) and energy dissipation is relatively more in waves and less in shocks (Smith, Mac Low, & Zuev 2000), although the overall rate of energy dissipation is not strongly dependent on the fieldstrength (Mac Low 1999). Magnetic fields may also play a role in collimating molecular outflows, and in transferring their momentum to the ambient medium.

The actual strength of magnetic fields in molecular clouds will ultimately determine which theoretical picture is correct, so observations of field strengths are crucial. The integrated line of sight component of the field, weighted by the density of the tracer species, can be measured through the Zeeman effect. However, Zeeman mapping is time consuming and requires high sensitivity and the presence of particular tracers (most commonly OH). Moreover, this technique does not probe the field in the plane of the sky. For all of these reasons, it is desirable to have a complementary method of mapping the field.

Following the first detection by Cudlip et al. (1982), it has been shown that the polarization of the far infrared thermal radiation emitted by magnetically aligned dust grains can be used to map the orientation of the magnetic field on the plane of the sky (see Hildebrand et al 2000 for methodology). This has been done, at various wavelengths, for a number of nearby clouds (Gonatas et al. 1990, Jarrett et al 1994, Dotson 1996, Rao et al. 1998, Schleuning 1998, Glenn, Walker, & Young 1999, Dotson et al. 2000, Schleuning et al. 2000, Vallée, Bastien, & Greaves 2000, Ward-Thompson et al 2000) and near the Galactic Center (Werner et al. 1988, Hildebrand et al. 1990, 1993, Dowell 1997, Novak et al. 1997, 2000). Far infrared polarization maps display the morphology of the field relative to other structures in the cloud, and can also be used to estimate the strength of the mean field according to a dynamical method originally proposed by Chandrasekhar & Fermi (1953, hereafter CF). Applications of the CF-method generally suggest fieldstrengths in the milligauss range or above. Such fieldstrengths are larger than what is typically measured by the Zeeman effect (e.g. Glenn et al. 1999, Lai et al. 2000).

The CF-method is subject to errors arising from line of sight and angular averaging, and rests on the assumptions of equipartition between turbulent kinetic and magnetic energy, and isotropy of fluid motions. Spatial averaging, by smoothing the maps, can give misleading impressions about the magnetic field morphology. However, since the information carried in the maps is unique, it is difficult to test the magnitude of these effects with astronomical observations.

Numerical simulations of turbulent, magnetized molecular clouds offer the means to calibrate the accuracy of polarization maps and develop new techniques to analyze them. The actual strength and structure of the field are known at all gridpoints and at selected times, as are the gas velocity and density. It is possible to create synthetic polarization maps, analyze them as though they were astronomical data, and check the accuracy of the results. That is the subject of this paper. Ostriker, Stone, & Gammie (2001) have used a set of simulations to calibrate the CF-method in this manner.

In section 2, we describe the numerical models and the method by which we generate polarization maps. Most of the results relevant to polarization maps are in section 3, in which we discuss the morphology shown in the maps, implement the CF-method, devise an alternative to it, and show what can be learned about the spectrum of magnetic field fluctuations. Section 4 is a summary and discussion.

## 2 Models and Methods

### 2.1 Models of 3D-MHD-turbulence

We base our investigation on full 3D models of driven MHD-turbulence in a cube with periodic boundary conditions, simulating a portion of the interior of a molecular cloud. We chose an isothermal equation of state, because the cooling times are much shorter than the dynamical times at the high densities typical of molecular clouds. We performed the simulations at $`128^3`$ and $`256^3`$ grid zones resolution using ZEUS-3D, a well-tested Eulerian finite-difference code (Stone & Norman 1992a, 1992b, Clarke 1994) with second-order advection and a von Neumann artificial viscosity to capture shocks. The MHD induction equation is followed using the method of consistent transport along characteristics (Hawley & Stone 1995). We employed the massively-parallel version of the code, ZEUS-MP (Fiedler 1998, Norman 2000), to produce a data set at resolution $`512^3`$.

We used the uniform driving mechanism described in Mac Low (1999). At each timestep, a fixed pattern of velocity perturbations is added, with the amplitude adjusted such that the energy input rate is kept constant. The driving results in an rms Mach number of $`=5`$ for models of series $`𝒢`$ and of $`=10`$ for such of series $``$ (see Table 1). The mechanism for generating the perturbation field allows us to select fixed spatial ranges. All models presented in this work employ driving at wavenumbers k=$`12`$ waves per box length $`L`$.

Our measurements begin at system time $`t`$ = 0.0, when the model has reached an equilibrium state between the energy dissipation rate due to shock interaction and numerical diffusion, and the driving energy input rate. Self-gravity is implemented via an FFT-Poisson solver for Cartesian coordinates (Burkert & Bodenheimer 1993). It is activated as soon as the model reaches the dissipation equilibrium at $`t`$ = 0.0.

The isothermal equation of state renders the system scale free. In code units, the length of the box is $`L=2`$ and the mass is $`M=1`$. We dimensionalize the results by choosing the Jeans length $`\lambda _J`$, Jeans mass $`M_J`$, and free fall time $`t_{ff}`$ (see Klessen, Heitsch, & Mac Low 2000 for discussion of the scaling). The number of Jeans masses and Jeans lengths in each run are given in Table 1.

All the models are initialized with a uniform magnetic field stretching across the box along the $`z`$-direction. The field becomes distorted over time, but the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ through the boundaries should be constant according to the equations of ideal MHD, and is typically preserved by the code to a relative accuracy of 10-3 \- 10-4.

As in HMK, we scale the initial magnetic fieldstrength by the plasma beta $`\beta 8\pi P/B^2`$. The parameter $`\beta `$ is directly related to the critical magnetic flux required to prevent global gravitational collapse (see McKee et al 1993)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_c=\frac{G^{1/2}M}{c_\mathrm{\Phi }},$$
(1)
where the constant $`c_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is found to be 0.13 for a uniformly magnetized sphere (Mouschovias & Spitzer 1976) and 0.16 for a uniformly magnetized sheet (Nakano & Nakamura 1978). Here we choose the latter value. We find

$$\beta =8\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_c}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{\lambda _J}{L}c_\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2=8\left(\frac{M}{M_c}\frac{\lambda _J}{L}c_\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2,$$
(2)
where $`M/M_c=\mathrm{\Phi }_c/\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the ratio of mass to critical mass as in HMK. The models discussed in this paper span the range $`\beta =0.054.04`$ and $`M/M_c=0.888.3`$. The Alfvén Mach number $`_A`$ is related to $`\beta `$ and the sonic Mach number $``$ by $`_A=(\beta /2)^{1/2}`$. Thus, we consider both sub-Alfvénic and super-Alfvénic models.

A detailed discussion of the model sets is given by HMK. Here we describe their physical properties just briefly. The supersonic turbulence supports the gravitationally unstable region against global collapse, however, it cannot prevent local collapse, even in the presence of magnetic fields too weak to provide magnetostatic support. Collapsing regions evolve from shock-induced filaments and cores. The models reach density contrasts of $`23`$ orders of magnitude above and below the mean density. The gravitationally bound regions can be interpreted as the initial stages of a protostellar core which may subsequently evolve into stars. Once a core begins to collapse, we cannot resolve it well enough to follow its evolution further (Truelove et al. 1997, HMK).

The isotropy of a model depends largely on its field strength. For the weak-field-model $`h1a`$, the resulting distribution of magnetic energy is fairly isotropic, whereas for the models with stronger fields (e.g. $`h1d`$), the field imprints its initial direction onto the gas flows. The flows, in turn, act on the field. Two quantities of interest for the polarization studies are the ratio of the mean field energy to the total magnetic energy, $`B^2/B^2`$, and the dispersion in the angle $`\delta `$ between the local magnetic field direction and the mean direction, $`\sigma ^2(\delta )`$ (the two are not equivalent; for example, the energy in the field could be increased by collecting it into strong unidirectional filaments with no dispersion in angle). Both quantities are given in Table 2.

Equipartition between turbulent kinetic and turbulent magnetic energy is often assumed in astrophysics; it has been shown to hold rigorously only in certain cases, such as weak Alfvén wave turbulence (Zweibel & McKee 1995) and the incompressible Alfvénic turbulence modelled by Goldreich & Sridhar (1997). Observations do not yet yield clear evidence for or against equipartition, although data collected by Crutcher (1999) tend to speak against it. The models discussed here are not in exact equipartition; the ratio $`\xi =E_{mag}^{turb}/E_{kin}`$ of turbulent magnetic to turbulent kinetic energy for each model is listed in Table 2, and is typically a few tenths. It is unclear whether these departures from equipartition occur for physical reasons related to the nature of nonlinear, compressible MHD turbulence or occur because of numerical diffusivity or the nature of the forcing. We take the deviation from equipartition into account in § 3.3 to correctly interpret our polarization maps.

### 2.2 Generating Polarization Maps

The model cubes include density, magnetic fields and velocity fields. These data allow us to derive the Stokes parameters $`Q`$ and $`U`$, and the polarized intensity $`P`$ according to Zweibel (1996)

$$P=Q+iUf(y)\frac{(B_x+iB_z)^2}{B_x^2+B_z^2}𝑑y$$
(3)
where $`B_x`$ and $`B_z`$ give the field vectors in the plane of sky perpendicular to the line of sight and are taken directly from the simulations. We integrate along the line of sight in $`y`$-direction.

The function $`f(y)`$ is a weighting function which accounts for the density, emissivity, and polarizing properties of the dust grains. In this paper, we take it to be the gas density normalized by the mean density. The polarized intensity is $`|P|=\sqrt{Q^2+U^2}`$, and the polarization angle is

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{Q}{U}.$$
(4)
Equation (3) is an approximate solution of the full radiative transfer equation for the Stokes parameters (Martin 1974, Lee & Draine 1985), valid for small polarization and low optical depth. At far infrared wavelengths, and at typical column densities for molecular clouds, the medium can safely be assumed to be optically thin (Hildebrand et al. 2000).

Polarization maps are made at finite resolution. We simulate the telescope beam by applying a Gaussian filter of the form

$$F(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }w}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{xx^{}}{w}\right)^2\right)$$
(5)
to the complex polarization $`P`$ given in equation (3). The width $`w`$ of the smoothing filter should not exceed one eighth of the box length $`L`$. For $`w>L/8`$, the tails of the filter – exceeding the map’s area – would contribute to such an extent that neglecting them would yield a too small average. For each model, we generated polarization maps with a set of smoothing widths $`0wL/8`$.

## 3 Results

The 2D polarization maps serve a threefold purpose: We discuss how their structure depends on self-gravity and limited observational resolution (§ 3.1), and we show that there is no preferred alignment between filamentary structures in our simulations and the magnetic fields (§ 3.2). Finally, in § 3.3 we discuss the Chandrasekhar-Fermi method of determining the mean field and an extension, which determines the rms field, both of which we test and calibrate.

### 3.1 Structure in Polarization Maps

The polarization maps showing column density and polarization vectors (Fig. 1 left column, model $`h1d`$) are highly structured. Shock fronts moving through the gas initiate formation of filaments and knots. After one free-fall time (lower left panel in Fig. 1), the filaments fragment and concentrate due to self-gravity. Qualitatively, no influence of self-gravity on the large-scale structure of the field is discernible, although there is some effect on the smallest scales.

Smoothing these maps with a Gaussian filter of $`4`$ pixels width (Fig. 1 right column, $`h1d`$) leads to a clumpier appearance of the previously well-defined filaments. Any substructure in these is lost. Single shock structures are smeared out. As expected, the field appears more uniform, thus in our case indicating more and more its initial orientation. Small scale variations in the field indicating turbulence and defining the turbulent cascade are lost due to the smoothing.

Figure 2 quantifies this effect in model $`h1d`$. It shows the power spectrum of the angle between the local and the mean magnetic field. This is equivalent to the line of sight averaged spectrum of the magnetic field fluctuation amplitude (recall that the total power in fluctuations is given in Table 2). Increasing the smoothing width from $`w=0`$ to $`w=L/8`$ results in a power loss of $`96`$%. Structures at a wave number of $`k=8`$ are suppressed by more than two orders of magnitude. The diamonds in Figure 2 indicate the power spectrum of perturbed against mean field energy $`E_{mag}^{turb}/E_{mag}`$, where $`E_{mag}^{turb}`$ is the magnetic energy corresponding to the perturbed field components perpendicular to the mean field. We use this as a measure of the true disorder in the magnetic field and as a gross check whether the polarization angles mirror the behaviour of the energies. Some power loss between the true angular dispersion and even the unsmoothed fluctuation amplitude is inevitable, because the latter involves line of sight averaging while the former is a true 3D quantity.

Inspection of Figure (1) shows no dramatic effects caused by self gravity after one free-fall time. Figure (3) shows that the width of the distribution of polarization angles does not change significantly under the effect of self-gravitation, but does certainly decrease with increasing beam width, as expected. The emerging asymmetry results from the reduced statistics due to the increasing beam width. Although every pixel contributes to the histogram, the number of independent measurements decreases with increasing beam width.

### 3.2 Shock-induced Filaments

There is an ongoing debate on the mechanisms generating the observed filamentary structures of molecular clouds (e.g. Loren 1989, Johnstone & Bally 1999, Matthews & Wilson 2000). Shocks come to mind as a natural explanation, either compressing the material (as in the simulations presented) or generating downstream flows resulting in the filaments (Loren 1989). The alignment of the magnetic field with the filaments has been used as a test for the validity of different filament models. The observations seem to favour no definite alignment. Maps of OMC-III (Matthews & Wilson 2000) show a perpendicular alignment, thus perhaps supporting the model of Fiege & Pudritz (2000a, 2000b), in which they propose helical fields to confine filamentary structures. Rizzo et al. (1998) found parallel and perpendicular alignment in their maps of background starlight polarization for Lupus 1 and Lupus 4, whereas Rao et al. (1998) find varying alignments for Orion-KL. Further examples of varying field alignments can be found in Dotson (1996) and Ward-Thompson et al. (2000).

In the simulations presented here, the filaments are solely due to shock interactions. We do not find a preferred alignment of the magnetic field with the filaments. We illustrate this in Figure 4, which shows the full polarization map for the $`512^3`$ zone model $`r1a`$, and with a selection of filaments of the same model in Figure 5. A detailed study of the filaments will be presented in a forthcoming paper.

### 3.3 Estimating the Field Strength: Chandrasekhar-Fermi-Method

Chandrasekhar & Fermi (1953; CF) suggested a method of estimating the mean magnetic field strength $`B`$ in the galactic spiral arms. It relates the line of sight velocity dispersion $`\sigma (v_{los})`$ to the dispersion of polarization angles $`\sigma (\mathrm{tan}\delta )`$ around a mean field component. The CF method rests on two main assumptions: that the fluctuations are isotropic about the direction of the mean field, and that there is equipartition between the mean kinetic and magnetic energies in the fluctuations. Under these conditions, the mean field component $`B`$ is given by

$$B^2=4\pi \rho \frac{\sigma (v_{los})^2}{\sigma (\mathrm{tan}\delta )^2}$$
(6)
where $`\rho `$ stands for the mean density. Because of the angular variations in the denominator, the result depends strongly on the actual mean field strength, and will in fact only be meaningful if there is a noticable mean field component. In terms of the parameter $`\xi `$, the ratio of turbulent magnetic to turbulent kinetic energy listed in Table 2, equation (6) generalizes to

$$B^2=4\pi \rho \frac{\sigma (v_{los})^2}{\sigma (\mathrm{tan}\delta )^2}\xi .$$
(7)
We initially set $`\xi =1`$ when implementing the CF-method, because observations do not yield clear evidence for or against equipartition (e.g. Crutcher 1999), but we correct for $`\xi 1`$ later (see Table 2).

In the following paragraphs, we present a modification of the CF-method (§ 3.3.1), compare both methods with the help of model data (§ 3.3.2) and discuss the effect of limited telescope resolution on the resulting field strength estimates in § 3.3.4.

#### 3.3.1 A Modification

The CF-method in its original form estimates the mean magnetic field. When the mean field is much less than the rms field, the dispersion in fluctuation angle $`\sigma ^2(\mathrm{tan}\delta )`$ is dominated by points where $`\delta \pi /2`$. Since $`B\sigma (\mathrm{tan}\delta )^1`$ (see eq. (6)), the result is usually an underestimate of $`B`$.

The CF-method can be extended to yield an estimate $`B^2`$ which is free of this problem. Suppose $`B=\widehat{z}B`$ and the $`xz`$ plane is the plane of the sky. Then

$$B^2=B^2+\mathrm{\Delta }B_z^2+B_x^2+B_y^2.$$
(8)
By definition of the angle $`\delta `$

$$B_x=B\mathrm{tan}\delta .$$
(9)
Squaring and averaging equation (9), assuming that the magnetic field fluctuations energies are the same for all components (see § 3.3.6), and using equation (6), equation (8) becomes

$$B^2=4\pi \rho \frac{\sigma (v_{los})^2}{\sigma (\mathrm{tan}\delta )^2}(1+3\sigma (\mathrm{tan}\delta )^2).$$
(10)
When the field is highly disordered, and the dispersion in polarization angles is large, equation (10) reflects the underlying physical assumptions of equipartition between kinetic and magnetic energy together with isotropy. The formula is valid for arbitrary ratios of turbulent magnetic to turbulent kinetic energy if we multiply the RHS by $`\xi `$. When the field is highly ordered, comparison of equation (10) with equation (6) shows that the mean and rms fields are nearly the same.

#### 3.3.2 Calibration with Model Data

We plotted the ratio of the estimated and model field strength $`aB_{est}/B_{model}`$ in Figure 6. The upper left panel displays $`a`$ for the CF-method, averaged over two lines of sight perpendicular to the mean field direction and over three physical times. The lower left panel shows the dispersion of a single measurement relative to the corresponding mean value. It decreases with increasing field strength. For strong fields, the CF-method overestimates the field strength derived from the unsmoothed maps (star symbols in Fig. 6) by a factor of $`2`$ to $`3`$. Thus we confirm the claim made by Ostriker et al. (2001). For weaker fields however, the method starts to develop a significant scatter, as shown in Figure 6 (lower panel).

The right column in Figure 6 show the corresponding results for the CF-method in its modified version according to equation (10). For the unsmoothed case (again star symbols), the strongest field is overestimated by $`a3`$. Whereas the original method breaks down at a field strength of $`B_{model}=1.2`$, the modified version still yields acceptable results for $`B_{model}=0.9`$.

The minimum field strength alone however does not tell us much about the reliability of the method. The parameter of interest is the Alfvén Mach number $`_A=v^2^{1/2}/c_A`$, as the angular variations $`\sigma (\mathrm{tan}\delta )`$ of polarization not only depend on the energy content in the field, but on the turbulent kinetic energy as well. A field strength of $`B_{model}=0.9`$ would correspond to $`_A=1.25`$, in the parameter set of models $`𝒢`$. With typical parameters of $`c_s=200\text{m}/\text{s}`$ and $`n(\text{H}_2)=10^3\text{ cm}^3`$, we can then scale $`B_{model}=7\mu \text{G}`$. Field strengths in molecular clouds are seen to be mostly larger than $`B10\mu \text{G}`$ (Crutcher 1999). In denser regions, the field strengths seem to increase with density as $`B\rho ^{0.47}`$ (Crutcher 1999), whereas the nonthermal line widths (the “turbulence”) decreases with decreasing size as $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{NT}R^{0.21}`$ (Caselli & Myers 1995). Thus we conclude, that both methods should yield acceptably accurate results for molecular cloud regions up to their densest parts, as long as the observations sample the angular variations sufficiently (see § 3.3.4).

We have to address the question of energy equipartition. Since $`\xi `$ is generally less than unity in our models (see Table 2), the CF-method and its extension overestimate both $`B`$ and $`B^2`$ by a factor of $`1/\sqrt{\xi }`$. Figure 7 shows $`aB_{est}/B_{model}`$ “corrected” for non-equipartition. Both methods now hit the model field strength at a factor between $`1`$ and $`1.5`$, at least for sufficiently large field strengths and for unsmoothed maps. The correction slightly reduces the largest deviations of the weak-field estimates. We conclude, that for a sufficiently well resolved (see below) polarization map and for large field strength, both methods yield reliable results. A main uncertainty factor is the ratio of magnetic to kinetic energy $`\xi `$ in the observed region.

Whereas the original CF-method underestimates low field strengths, the modified version overestimates them. For weak fields, the polarization angles can reach $`90^o`$ with respect to the mean field, which yields $`|\mathrm{tan}\delta |=\mathrm{}`$ in equations (6) and (10).

As the original CF-method, the modified version yields overestimated field strengths with increasing smoothing beam width. From the lower row in Figure 6 we conclude that even for the strongest fields the relative scatter is of order $`20`$%. Smoothing the maps leads to smaller scatter except for the weakest field strengths.

The effect of self-gravity on the field strength estimates is minute (Fig. 8). For small smoothing widths $`w`$, the varying small scale structure due to self-gravity leads to some statistical scatter, which is averaged out for large $`w`$. The CF-methods seem to be insensitive to effects of self-gravity on small scales.

#### 3.3.3 A Recipe

The fact that $`a_{CF}`$ and $`a_{rms}`$ vary by roughly the same logarithmic range, but with opposite signs, suggests that by taking the geometric mean

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_{gm}& =\sqrt{a_{CF}a_{rms}}\hfill \\ & =4\pi \rho \frac{\sigma (v_{los})^2}{\sigma (\mathrm{tan}\delta )^2}(1+3\sigma (\mathrm{tan}\delta )^2)^{1/2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
we would arrive at a more accurate estimate for the actual field strength. Applying this recipe yields Figure 9 (corresponding to Fig. 7). Clearly, the large deviations of $`a_{CF}`$ and $`a_{rms}`$ cancel sufficiently to yield estimates accurate to a factor of $`a_{gm}2.5`$ even for the weakest, unsmoothed fields, and is more accurate than that for moderately strong fields. Smoothed maps of course lead again to a systematic overestimation, here up to a factor of $`10`$. We would like to emphasize that equation (11) is only motivated by the (logarithmically) comparable deviations of $`a_{CF}`$ and $`a_{rms}`$.

To test this recipe, we applied it to a set of models with varying physical properties (Fig. 10). Models $`L1`$, $`L2`$ and $`L3`$ are a time series of decaying turbulence taken from Mac Low (1999). Models $`MC81`$, $`MA81`$ and $`MC41`$ (Mac Low et al. 1998) are simulations of driven turbulence as series $`𝒢`$, but with driving wave length of $`k=34`$ ($`MC41`$) and $`k=78`$ ($`MA81`$, $`MC81`$). See Tables 1 and 2 for their parameters. All these models have weak initial fields, corresponding to $`𝒢i1b`$. As in Figure 9, the scatter of $`a_{gm}`$ is more than one order of magnitude lower than for $`a_{CF}`$ and $`a_{rms}`$. The unsmoothed estimates are accurate again up to a factor of $`a_{gm}2.5`$. Again, smoothed fields are likely to be overestimated. Note that $`a_{rms}`$ on the whole leads already to slightly more accurate estimates than $`a_{CF}`$.

We conclude that the geometric mean $`a_{gm}`$ gives more reliable estimates than $`a_{CF}`$ or $`a_{gm}`$ even for very weak fields, being more accurate as well for moderate and strong fields. Thus, this recipe may prove useful when being applied to observational data.

#### 3.3.4 Smoothing, subsampling and their effect in a turbulent medium

Field estimates derived from smoothed maps tend to overestimate the field strength with increasing “beam width” (Fig. 6, all symbols except stars). We will discuss how limited telescope resolution in polarization maps of turbulent regions can lead to this overestimation.

Both CF-methods rely on perturbations of the magnetic field around a mean component. If all the power of these perturbations resided on spatial scales $`1/\widehat{k}=\widehat{w}<w`$, increasing the smoothing width above $`w`$ would have no effect on the power distribution of polarization angles, and varying smoothing widths would yield identical results. On the other hand, if the perturbations grew with increasing length scale, as e.g. in a turbulent power spectrum, a larger smoothing width $`w`$ would result in a greater power loss on larger scales, and thus to an overestimation of the field. Note that in equations (6) and (10) we find the angular variations in the denominator. So losing power in the variations increases the field estimate. The turbulence is driven between wave numbers $`k=12`$ in our simulations, thus letting the code evolve a turbulent cascade down to the dissipation scale at grid cell size. This turbulent cascade in our models is well reflected in the power spectrum of angular variations $`\sigma (\delta )`$ (Fig. 2). We lose more and more power when applying larger smoothing widths $`w`$. This power loss should depend on the steepness of the power spectrum. This suggests that it might be possible to measure the spectrum of magnetic field fluctuations by smoothing polarization maps by different filter widths, and comparing the dispersion of polarization angles.

To illustrate this relation, we will describe the smoothing as a convolution and then will determine analytically the loss of power in a spectrum due to smoothing. The convolution would be

$$𝒜(x^{})=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}A(x)F(xx^{})𝑑x$$
(12)
with the wave function $`A(x)`$

$$A(x)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{1}{k}\right)^\gamma \mathrm{sin}(2\pi kx)$$
(13)
and the Gaussian filter function $`F(xx^{})`$ as in equation (5). We identify $`A(x)`$ with the $`B_x^2/B^2`$ of equation (9). Instead of convolving directly, we use the Fourier transforms $`[A]`$ and $`[F]`$ of equations (13) and (5) to derive the power spectrum of the convolved function $`|[𝒜]|`$ via the convolution theorem

$$\widehat{𝒜}=\widehat{A}\widehat{F},$$
(14)
where the hatted quantities denote Fourier transformations. The Fourier transform of a Gaussian yields again a Gaussian, in our case with an additional phase shift. The frequency space variable is $`\omega `$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{F}(\omega )& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }w}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{xx^{}}{w}\right)^2\right)e^{i\omega x}𝑑x\hfill \\ & =e^{i\omega x}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\omega w)^2\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Applying the Fourier transform to the wave function $`A(x)`$ and integrating over $`k=[1,\mathrm{}]`$, we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{A}(\omega )& =_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{1}{k}\right)^\gamma \mathrm{sin}(2\pi kx)e^{i\omega x}𝑑k𝑑x\hfill \\ & =i\pi \left(\frac{2\pi }{\omega }\right)^\gamma \hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
Now we can multiply $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{F}`$, and taking the absolute value gives us the power spectrum of the convolved function $`𝒜`$.

$$|\widehat{𝒜}|=\pi \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\omega w)^2\right)\left(\frac{2\pi }{\omega }\right)^\gamma $$
(17)
As we are interested in the loss of power caused by the smoothing, we now try to determine the amount of power remaining in the spectrum after smoothing, i.e. the quantity

$$K(w)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\pi \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\omega w)^2\right)\left(\frac{2\pi }{\omega }\right)^\gamma 𝑑\omega $$
(18)
For $`\gamma 1`$, $`lim_{w0}K(w)=\mathrm{}`$. Figure 11 illustrates the behaviour of $`K(w)`$ for several values of $`\gamma `$. Note that this is a log-linear plot, so that, for example, $`K(w,\gamma =3/4)\mathrm{log}(w)^2`$. Curves for $`\gamma >1`$ have negative, the ones for $`\gamma <1`$ positive curvature. Normalizing the curves for $`\gamma <1`$ with $`K(0)`$ and plotting them together with the inverse of the ratio of estimated to model field strength $`a_{CF}`$ of model $`𝒢h1h`$ yields Figure 12. We normalized $`a_{CF}`$ to $`w=0`$ as well, in order to compare the measurements to the analytic curves $`K(w)`$. We note that the measurements start to flatten off for small $`w/L`$ because of line of sight averaging, which we do not include in the analytic derivation. The same argument applies for observations. Thus, even in the ideal case of $`w=0`$, the measurement may not reach $`a=1`$ but may overestimate the actual field strength. Of course, this would crucially depend on the length of line of sight and, generally, on optical depth effects. They, however, are neglegible in the far-infrared regime. Because we need a certain length in the line of sight in order to derive a meaningful velocity dispersion $`\sigma (v_{los})`$, this overestimate due to line-of-sight averaging gives an intrinsic error in the CF-methods. The power spectrum of angular variations in the simulations is by no means a clear power law, due to numerical dissipation and the signatures of the driving scale. Thus, the measured $`1/a_{CF}`$ (Fig. 12) does not correspond clearly to one of the analytic curves. However, if observations show a well defined power law in the angular variations $`\sigma (\mathrm{tan}\delta )`$, and provide sufficient resolution to create a series of maps smoothed over larger and larger areas, then it should be possible to extract information about the exponent of the power law and to correct the field estimate as well. Once a power law description is found for the observed region, $`K(w)/K(0)`$ supplies a correction factor for the field strength estimate $`B_{est}`$.

In polarization maps derived from observations, an additional effect could potentially lead to a systematic overestimation. When we derive the field estimates from our models, we use the complete domain, thus including all wave lengths occurring in the problem. However, it is not clear whether the observations do trace the largest scales in the field perturbations. If the power of angular variations is distributed in a power spectrum which decreases with increasing wave number, we will lose overproportionally much power when estimating the field strength within a domain which is smaller than the largest wave length contributing to the perturbations. Figure 13 illustrates this effect contributing to a systematic overestimation of the field strength. It shows the ratios $`a=B_{est}/B_{model}`$ for subframes of $`32^2`$, $`64^2`$ and $`128^2`$ cells for model $`𝒢h1h`$ at $`256^3`$ resolution. We averaged the estimates from all possible subframes. The error bars indicate the standard deviations of the means. With decreasing frame size, the field is overestimated slightly, thus indicating a decrease of $`\sigma (\mathrm{tan}\delta )`$. However, bearing in mind the large scatter around the mean values in Figure 13, this effect is not very distinct.

We conclude that, although the CF-methods are applicable in principle to molecular clouds, the resulting field strengths are most likely to be systematically overestimated for two reasons: (a) Any smoothing introduced by the finite telescope beam size will lead to a systematic removal of large-scale perturbations and thus to an overestimation of the field strength. (b) Deriving field estimates for a domain smaller than the maximum perturbation wave length present leads to power loss on large scales and thus as well to an overestimated field strength. This systematic overestimation due to limited resolution is different from uncertainties because of non-equipartition as discussed in § 3.3.2. In order to draw these conclusions we assume that the underlying power spectrum of perturbations follows a power-law-like distribution, at least, that it decreases with increasing wave number.

#### 3.3.5 Resolution Test

Figure 14 presents a test for resolution with models $`𝒢i1h`$ and $`𝒢h1h`$ at $`128^3`$ and $`256^3`$ grid cells. The beam width $`w_{256}`$ is given in pixels. Note that in order to compare both models, we have to compare them at the same physical beam width, i.e. we have to shift a data point of model $`𝒢i1h`$ at $`w_{128}=4`$ such that it corresponds to a point of $`w_{256}=8`$. We corrected all estimates with $`1/\xi `$ (see Table 2) in order to account for non-equipartition. Discrepancies at small scales are to be expected as model $`𝒢i1h`$ then already reaches the grid scale. Figure 14 allows us to conclude that numerical resolution does not affect our calibration of the CF-methods. Thus we feel justified to draw conclusions for observations of turbulent regions from our simulated observations of computational turbulence.

#### 3.3.6 Isotropy of simulated turbulence

We still have to substantiate the claim leading to equation (8), namely, that our simulated turbulent flows are isotropic enough to validate that the field components perpendicular to the mean field $`B=\widehat{z}B`$ obey $`B_x=B_y`$ and that the field perturbations in all three directions fulfill $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_z^2=B_x^2=B_y^2`$. The upper panel of Figure 15 supports the second assumption. There occur only minor differences in the rms values. Note that the initially homogeneous background field is oriented along the $`z`$-direction. Thus, we had to subtract this background in order to determine the corresponding mean values, yielding $`B_z`$ (lower panel of Fig. 15). The scatter of the means is considerably larger, however their absolute values are three to four orders of magnitudes lower than the corresponding field strengths. Ideally, the means should vanish, especially in the directions perpendicular to the initial field, namely the $`x`$\- and $`y`$-direction. Deviations from this ideal case are probably due to numerical diffusion in the code. This results in not conserving the total flux per coordinate direction. The small shifts in the means thus indicate how well the code actually does conserve the total flux.

## 4 Conclusions and Implications

Reliable methods for measuring and mapping magnetic fields in molecular clouds are urgently needed in order to assess the role of magnetic fields in the dynamics of molecular clouds and in star formation. Probes based on far infrared polarimetry of the thermal emission from magnetically aligned dust are now in widespread use. Far-IR polarimetry is complementary to the Zeeman method, which is the traditional means of measuring the field. There are few independent checks of its accuracy as a diagnostic of magnetic fields.

In this paper we used numerical simulations of turbulent, magnetized, self gravitating molecular clouds to assess the reliability of polarization maps. Although such simulations qualitatively reproduce many of the features seen in molecular clouds, we do not expect the computed densities, velocities, and magnetic fields to be completely realistic. We undertook the project with the expectation that analysis of simulated data would bring out the same issues as analysis of real data.

We assumed that the polarized emission is optically thin and proportional to gas density. The first assumption should be excellent. The second could be modified, for example by modelling the grain temperature point to point within the cloud. It might be possible to pick out particular structures along the line of sight by comparing maps at different wavelengths, but establishing this is beyond the scope of the present paper.

The salient properties of the models are given in Tables 1 and 2. Based on these models, our principal conclusions are as follows:

1. Filaments produced by shocks do not show a preferred alignment with the magnetic field.
2. Self-gravity has no discernible effect on the structure of the magnetic fields in our simulations. However, we have to bear mind that our self-gravitating regions are small with respect to the simulated region.
3. The Chandrasekhar-Fermi method in its original version yields field estimates accurate up to $`a_{CF}=B_{CF}/B=2`$. A modified version determining the rms field $`B_{CF}^{mod}`$ results in in $`a_{rms}=B_{CF}^{mod}/B_{rms}=2`$. This version proves to work more reliably for slightly weaker field strengths. Both methods should be applicable to magnetic fieldstrengths typical of molecular clouds.
4. The geometrical mean $`a_{gm}=\sqrt{a_{CF}a_{rms}}`$ yields field estimates accurate up to a factor of $`2.5`$ even for the weakest fields. For moderate and stronger fields, $`a_{gm}1`$. Thus, this recipe improves the reliability of field strength estimates for the whole range of physically realistic fields in molecular clouds, and may prove useful when applied to observational data.
5. The original and modified Chandrasekhar-Fermi methods are based on the assumption of equipartition between turbulent kinetic and magnetic energy. The field fluctuations in the models are below equipartition, leading to an overestimate of the field.
6. Limited angular resolution again leads to systematic overestimation of the magnetic field strength for both methods. Two effects can cause this overestimation: (a) In a power spectrum decreasing with increasing wave number, smoothing leads to an overproportionally large power loss on larger scales. Thus the angular variations are underestimated, which leads to larger field strengths. (b) If the domain used for deriving the field estimate does not trace the largest wave modes, this again leads to power loss on the largest scales.
7. If the power spectrum of magnetic field fluctuations is a power law, field estimates made from a series of maps with different smoothing widths can in principle be used to estimate the exponent of the fluctuation spectrum, assuming that this is well enough defined over at least two decades. With this information, one could correct for the overestimated field strengths.

FH, EGZ and M-MML express special thanks to the ITP at University of California at Santa Barbara (NSF Grant no. PHY94-07194), the hospitality of which during the Astrophysical Turbulence Program has made possible this research. The work of EGZ was supported in part by NSF AST 98-00616. M-MML was partially supported by an NSF CAREER Fellowship NSF AST 99-85392, and by NASA ATP grant NAG5-10103. Computations presented here were performed on SGI Origin 2000 machines of the Rechenzentrum Garching of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft and the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA). ZEUS-3D and ZEUS-MP were used by courtesy of the Laboratory for Computational Astrophysics at the NCSA. We have made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service.


format: text

text:
# Kähler geometry and SUSY mechanics.

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetric mechanics attracts permanent interest since its introduction . However, studies focussed mainly on the $`N=2`$ case, and the most important case of $`N=4`$ mechanics did not receive enough attention, though some interesting observations were made about this subject: let us mention that the most general $`N=4,D=1,3`$ supersymmetric mechanics described by real superfield actions were studied in Refs.  respectively, and those in arbitrary $`D`$ in Ref. ; in  $`N=4,D=2`$ supersymmetric mechanics described by chiral superfield actions were considered; the general study of supersymmetric mechanics with arbitrary $`N`$ was performed recently in Ref. . In the Hamiltonian language classical supersymmetric mechanics can be formulated in terms of superspace equipped with some supersymplectic structure (and corresponding non-degenerate Poisson brackets). After quantization the odd coordinates are replaced by the generators of Clifford algebra. It is easy to verify that the minimal dimension of phase superspace, which allows to describe a $`D`$dimensional supersymmetric mechanics with nonzero potential terms, is $`(2D|2D)`$, while supersymmetry specifies both the admissible sets of configuration spaces and potentials. In our recent paper  we proposed the $`N=4`$ supersymmetric one-dimensional sigma-models (with and without central charge) on Kähler manifold with $`(2d|2d)_{\text{I}\mathrm{C}}`$-dimensional phase space. We have shown that the constructed mechanics can be obtained by dimensional reduction from $`N=2`$ supersymmetric $`(1+1)`$dimensional sigma-models by Alvarez-Gaumé and Freedman ; in the simplest case of $`d=1`$ and in the absence of central charge these systems coincide with the $`N=4`$ supersymmetric mechanics described by the chiral superfield action .

In Section 2 we present the $`N=4`$ one-dimensional supersymmetric sigma-model constructed in Ref. .

In Section 3 we present a new model of $`N=2`$ supersymmetric mechanics with phase space corresponding the external algebra of a Kähler manifold. This construction seems to be the most general $`N=2`$ SUSY mechanics $`(2D|2D)`$dimensional phase space. We also consider the relation of presented system with the antisymplectic geometry, in the context of the old problem suggested by D.V.Volkov et al. .

## 2 Sigma-models with $`N=4`$ SUSY.

In order to get a one-dimensional $`N=4`$ supersymmetric sigma-model with $`(2D|2D)`$dimensional phase superspace one should require that the target space $`M_0`$ is a Kähler manifold $`(M_0,g_{a\overline{b}}dz^ad\overline{z}^{\overline{b}})`$, $`g_{a\overline{b}}=^2K(z,\overline{z})/z^a\overline{z}^b`$. This restriction follows also from the considerations of superfield actions: indeed, the $`N`$extended supersymmetric mechanics obtained from the action depending on $`D`$ real superfields, have a $`(2D|ND)_{\mathrm{IR}}`$-dimensional symplectic manifold, whereas those obtained from the action depending on $`d`$ chiral superfields have a $`(2d|Nd/2)_{\text{I}\mathrm{C}}`$dimensional phase space, with the configuration space being a $`2d`$dimensional Kähler manifold.

In that case the phase superspace can be equipped by the supersymplectic structure

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega _0i\overline{}𝐠=\\ =d\pi _adz^a+d\overline{\pi }_ad\overline{z}^a+\\ +R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}\eta _i^a\overline{\eta }_i^bdz^ad\overline{z}^b+g_{a\overline{b}}D\eta _i^aD\overline{\eta }_i^b\end{array}$$
(1)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐠=ig_{a\overline{b}}\eta ^a\sigma _0\overline{\eta }^b,\\ D\eta _i^a=d\eta _i^a+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^a\eta _i^adz^a,i=1,2\end{array}$$
(2)
while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^a,R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}`$ are respectively the connection and curvature of the Kähler structure, the odd coordinates $`\eta _i^a`$ belong to the external algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_0)`$, i. e. transforms as $`dz^a`$. This symplectic structure becomes canonical in the coordinates $`(p_a,\chi ^k)`$

$$\begin{array}{c}p_a=\pi _a\frac{i}{2}_a𝐠,\chi _i^m=\mathrm{e}_b^m\eta _i^b:\\ \mathrm{\Omega }=dp_adz^a+d\overline{p}_{\overline{a}}d\overline{z}^{\overline{a}}+d\chi _i^md\overline{\chi }_i^{\overline{m}},\end{array}$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{e}_a^m`$ are the einbeins of the Kähler structure: $`\mathrm{e}_a^m\delta _{m\overline{m}}\overline{\mathrm{e}}_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{m}}=g_{a\overline{b}}.`$ So to quantize this model, one chooses

$$\widehat{p}_a=i\frac{}{z^a},\widehat{\overline{p}}_{\overline{a}}=i\frac{}{\overline{z}^{\overline{a}}},[\widehat{\chi }_i^m,\widehat{\overline{\chi }}_j^{\overline{n}}]_+=\delta ^{m\overline{n}}\delta _{ij}.$$

The corresponding Poisson brackets are defined by the following non-zero relations (and their complex-conjugates)

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\pi _a,z^b\}=\delta _a^b,\{\pi _a,\eta _i^b\}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ac}^b\eta _i^c,\\ \{\pi _a,\overline{\pi }_b\}=R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}\eta _k^c\overline{\eta }_k^d,\{\eta _i^a,\overline{\eta }_j^b\}=g^{a\overline{b}}\delta _{ij}.\end{array}$$

To construct on this phase superspace the Hamiltonian mechanics with standard $`N=4`$ supersymmetry algebra

$$\begin{array}{c}\{Q_i^+,Q_j^{}\}=\delta _{ij},\\ \{Q_i^\pm ,Q_j^\pm \}=\{Q_i^\pm ,\}=0,i=1,2,\end{array}$$
(4)
let us choose the supercharges given by the functions

$$Q_1^+=\pi _a\eta _1^a+iU_{\overline{a}}\overline{\eta }_2^{\overline{a}},Q_2^+=\pi _a\eta _2^aiU_{\overline{a}}\overline{\eta }_1^{\overline{a}}.$$
(5)
Then, calculating the commutators (Poisson brackets) of these functions, we get that the supercharges (5) belong to the superalgebra (4) when the functions $`U_a,\overline{U}_{\overline{a}}`$ are of the form

$$U_a(z)=\frac{U(z)}{z^a},\overline{U}_{\overline{a}}(\overline{z})=\frac{\overline{U}(\overline{z})}{\overline{z}^a},$$
(6)
while the Hamiltonian reads

$$\begin{array}{c}=g^{a\overline{b}}(\pi _a\overline{\pi }_b+U_a\overline{U}_{\overline{b}})\\ iU_{a;b}\eta _1^a\eta _2^b+i\overline{U}_{\overline{a};\overline{b}}\overline{\eta }_1^{\overline{a}}\overline{\eta }_2^{\overline{b}}R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}\eta _1^a\overline{\eta }_1^b\eta _2^a\overline{\eta }_2^d,\end{array}$$
(7)
where $`U_{a;b}_a_bU\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^c_cU`$.

The constant of motion counting the number of fermions, reads

$$=ig_{a\overline{b}}\eta ^a\sigma _3\overline{\eta }^{\overline{b}}:\{Q_i^\pm ,\}=\pm iQ_i^\pm ,$$
(8)
Notice that the above-presented $`N=4`$ SUSY mechanics for the simplest case, i.e. $`d=1`$, was obtained by Berezovoy and Pashnev  from the chiral superfield action

$$𝒮=\frac{1}{2}K(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})+2U(\mathrm{\Phi })+2\overline{U}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a chiral superfield. It seems to be obvious that a similar action depending on $`d`$ chiral superfields will generate the above-presented $`N=4`$ SUSY mechanics.

Let us consider a generalization of the above system, which possesses $`N=4`$ supersymmetry with central charge

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\mathrm{\Theta }_i^+,\mathrm{\Theta }_j^{}\}=\delta _{ij}+𝒵\sigma _{ij}^3,\{\mathrm{\Theta }_i^\pm ,\mathrm{\Theta }_j^\pm \}=0,\\ \{𝒵,\}=\{𝒵,\mathrm{\Theta }_k^\pm \}=0.\end{array}$$
(10)
For this purpose one introduces the supercharges

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Theta }_1^+=\left(\pi _a+iG_{,a}(z,\overline{z})\right)\eta _1^a+i\overline{U}_{,\overline{a}}(\overline{z})\overline{\eta }_2^{\overline{a}},\\ \mathrm{\Theta }_2^+=\left(\pi _aiG_{,a}(z,\overline{z})\right)\eta _2^ai\overline{U}_{,\overline{a}}(\overline{z})\overline{\eta }_1^{\overline{a}},\end{array}$$
(11)
where the real function $`G(z,\overline{z})`$ obeys the conditions

$$_a_bG+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^c_cG=0,G_{,a}(z,\overline{z})g^{a\overline{b}}_{\overline{b}}\overline{U}(\overline{z})=0.$$
(12)
The first equation in (12) is nothing but the Killing equation of the underlying Kähler structure (let us remind, that the isometries of the Kähler structure are Hamiltonian holomorphic vector fields) given by the vector

$$𝐆=G^a(z)_a+\overline{G}^a(\overline{z})\overline{}_a,G^a=ig^{a\overline{b}}\overline{}_bG.$$
(13)
The second equation means that the vector field $`𝐆`$ leaves the holomorphic function invariant

$$_𝐆U=0G^a(z)U_a(z)=0.$$

Calculating the Poisson brackets of these supercharges, we get explicit expressions for the Hamiltonian

$$\begin{array}{c}g^{a\overline{b}}\left(\pi _a\overline{\pi }_{\overline{b}}+G_{,a}G_{\overline{b}}+U_{,a}\overline{U}_{,\overline{b}}\right)\\ iU_{a;b}\eta _1^a\eta _2^b+i\overline{U}_{\overline{a};\overline{b}}\overline{\eta }_1^{\overline{a}}\overline{\eta }_2^{\overline{b}}+\frac{1}{2}G_{a\overline{b}}(\eta _k^a\overline{\eta }_k^{\overline{b}})\\ R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}\eta _1^a\overline{\eta }_1^b\eta _2^c\overline{\eta }_2^d\end{array}$$
(14)
and the central charge

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒵=i(G^a\pi _a+G^{\overline{a}}\overline{\pi }_{\overline{a}})+\frac{i}{2}_a\overline{}_{\overline{b}}G(\eta ^a\sigma _3\overline{\eta }^{\overline{b}}).\end{array}$$
(15)
It can be checked by a straightforward calculation that the function $`𝒵`$ indeed belongs to the center of the superalgebra (10). The scalar part of each phase with standard $`N=2`$ supersymmetry can be interpreted as a particle moving on the Kähler manifold in the presence of an external magnetic field with strength $`F=iG_{a\overline{b}}dz^ad\overline{z}^{\overline{b}}`$ and in the potential field $`U_{,a}(z)g^{a\overline{b}}\overline{U}_{,\overline{b}}(\overline{z})`$.

Assuming that $`(M_0,g_{a\overline{b}}dz^ad\overline{z}^b)`$ is the hyper-Kähler metric and that $`U(z)+\overline{U}(\overline{z})`$ is a tri-holomorphic function while the function $`G(z,\overline{z})`$ defines a tri-holomorphic Killing vector, one should get the $`N=8`$ supersymmetric one-dimensional sigma-model. In that case instead of the phase with standard $`N=2`$ SUSY arising in the Kähler case, we shall get the phase with standard $`N=4`$ SUSY. The latter system can be viewed as a particular case of $`N=4`$ SUSY mechanics describing the low-energy dynamics of monopoles and dyons in $`N=2,4`$ super-Yang-Mills theory . Notice that, in contrast to the $`N=4`$ mechanics suggested in the mentioned papers, in the above-proposed (hypothetic) construction also the four hidden supersymmetries could be explicitly written.

The Lagrangian of the system is of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}=g_{a\overline{b}}\left(\dot{z}^a\dot{\overline{z}}^b+\frac{1}{2}\eta _k^a\frac{D\overline{\eta }_k^{\overline{b}}}{d\tau }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{D\eta _k^a}{d\tau }\overline{\eta }^{\overline{b}}\right)\\ g^{a\overline{b}}(G_aG_{\overline{b}}+U_a\overline{U}_{\overline{b}})+\\ +iU_{a;b}\eta _1^a\eta _2^bi\overline{U}_{\overline{a};\overline{b}}\overline{\eta }_1^{\overline{a}}\overline{\eta }_2^{\overline{b}}+R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}\eta _1^a\overline{\eta }_1^b\eta _2^a\overline{\eta }_2^d.\end{array}$$
(16)
So, we get the Lagrangian for a one-dimensional sigma-model with four exact real supersymmetries. It can be straightforwardly obtained by the dimensional reduction of the $`N=2`$ supersymmetric $`(1+1)`$ dimensional sigma-model by Alvarez-Gaumé and Freedman  (the mechanical counterpart of this system without potential term was constructed in ).

## 3 $`N=2`$ SUSY mechanics with Kähler phase space

Let us consider a supersymmetric mechanics whose phase superspace is the external algebra of the Kähler manifold $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(M)`$, where $`(M,g_{A\overline{B}}(z,\overline{z})dz^Ad\overline{z}^{\overline{B}})`$ plays the role of the phase space of underlying Hamiltonian mechanics. The phase superspace is $`(D|D)_{\text{I}\mathrm{C}}`$ dimensional supermanifold equipped by the Kähler structure

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }=i\overline{}\left(K(z,\overline{z})ig_{A\overline{B}}\theta ^A\overline{\theta }^{\overline{B}}\right)=\\ =i(g_{A\overline{B}}+iR_{A\overline{B}C\overline{D}}\theta ^C\overline{\theta }^{\overline{D}})dz^Ad\overline{z}^{\overline{B}}\\ +g_{A\overline{B}}D\theta ^AD\overline{\theta }^{\overline{B}},\end{array}$$
(17)
where $`D\theta ^A=d\theta ^A+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BC}^A\theta ^Bdz^C`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BC}^A`$, $`R_{A\overline{B}C\overline{D}}`$ are respectively the Cristoffel symbols and curvature tensor of the underlying Kähler metrics $`g_{A\overline{B}}=_A_{\overline{B}}K(z,\overline{z})`$.

The corresponding Poisson bracket can be presented in the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\{,\}=i\stackrel{~}{g}^{A\overline{B}}_A\overline{}_{\overline{B}}+g^{A\overline{B}}\frac{}{\theta ^A}\frac{}{\overline{\theta }^{\overline{B}}}\end{array}$$
(18)
where

$$_A=\frac{}{z^A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}^C\theta ^B\frac{}{\theta ^C},$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{A\overline{B}}^1=(g_{A\overline{B}}+iR_{A\overline{B}C\overline{D}}\theta ^C\overline{\theta }^{\overline{D}}).$$

On this phase superspace one can immediately construct a mechanics with standard $`N=2`$ supersymmetry

$$\{Q_+,Q_{}\}=,\{Q_\pm ,Q_\pm \}=\{Q_\pm ,\}=0,$$
(19)
given by the supercharges

$$\begin{array}{c}Q_+^0=_AK(z,\overline{z})\theta ^A,Q_{}^0=_{\overline{A}}K(z,\overline{z})\overline{\theta }^{\overline{A}}\end{array}$$
(20)
where $`K(z,\overline{z})`$ is the Kähler potential of the underlying Kähler structure, defined up to holomorphic and anti-holomorphic functions,

$$K(z,\overline{z})K(z,\overline{z})+f(z)+\overline{f}(\overline{z}).$$

The Hamiltonian of the system reads

$$\begin{array}{c}_0=g^{A\overline{B}}_AK_{\overline{B}}Kig_{A\overline{B}}\theta ^A\overline{\theta }^{\overline{B}}+\\ +i\theta ^CK_{C;A}\stackrel{~}{g}^{A\overline{B}}K_{\overline{B};\overline{D}}\overline{\theta }^{\overline{D}}\end{array}$$
(21)
where $`K_{A;B}=_A_BK\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}^C_CK`$.

One also consider another mechanics with standard $`N=2`$ SUSY whose supercharges are given by the expressions

$$\begin{array}{c}Q_+^c=_AG(z,\overline{z})\theta ^A,Q_{}^c=_{\overline{A}}G(z,\overline{z})\overline{\theta }^{\overline{A}}\end{array}$$
(22)
where $`G(z,\overline{z})`$ is the Killing potential of the underlying Kähler structure,

$$\begin{array}{c}_A_BG\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}^C_CG=0,\\ G^A(z)=g^{A\overline{B}}_{\overline{B}}G(z,\overline{z}).\end{array}$$

In this case the Hamiltonian of system reads

$$\begin{array}{c}^c=g_{A\overline{B}}G^AG^{\overline{B}}+i\overline{\theta }^{\overline{D}}G_{A\overline{D}}\stackrel{~}{g}^{A\overline{B}}G_{C\overline{B}}\theta ^C,\end{array}$$
(23)
where $`G_{A\overline{B}}=_A_BG(z,\overline{z})`$.

The commutators of the supercharges in these particular examples read:

$$\{Q_\pm ^c,Q_\pm ^0\}=_\pm ,\{Q_\pm ^c,Q_{}^0\}=𝒵,$$
(24)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝒵}G(z,\overline{z})+iG_{A\overline{B}}(z,\overline{z})\theta ^A\overline{\theta }^{\overline{B}},\\ _+=i\theta ^CK_{C;A}\stackrel{~}{g}^{A\overline{B}}G_{\overline{B};D}\theta ^D,\\ _{}=\overline{}_+.\end{array}$$
(25)
Hence, introducing the superschages

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\pm =Q_\pm ^0\pm iQ_{}^c,$$
(26)
we can define $`N=2`$ SUSY mechanics specified by the presence of central charge $`𝒵`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\mathrm{\Theta }_+,\mathrm{\Theta }_{}\}=\stackrel{~}{},\{\mathrm{\Theta }_\pm ,\mathrm{\Theta }_\pm \}=\pm i𝒵\\ \{𝒵,\mathrm{\Theta }_\pm \}=0,\{\stackrel{~}{},\mathrm{\Theta }_{}\}=0,\{𝒵,\stackrel{~}{}\}=0.\end{array}$$
(27)
The Hamiltonian of this generalized mechanics is defined by the expression

$$\stackrel{~}{}=_0+_c+i_+i_{}.$$
(28)
A “fermionic number” is of the form:

$$\stackrel{~}{}=ig_{AB}\theta ^A\overline{\theta }^{\overline{B}}:\{\stackrel{~}{},\mathrm{\Theta }_\pm ,\}=\pm i\mathrm{\Theta }_\pm .$$
(29)
Choosing the Kähler manifold to be a special type of the (co)tangent bundle of some Kähler manifold, one can provide the system by the additional pair of supercharges, recovering the above-constructed model of sigma-model with standard $`N=4`$ SUSY.

The phase space of the system under consideration can be equipped, in addition to the Poisson bracket corresponding to (17), with the antibracket (odd Poisson bracket) associated with the odd Kähler potential $`K_\alpha =\alpha Q_+^0+\overline{\alpha }Q_{}^0`$, $`\alpha =1,i`$:

$$\{,\}_1^{(\alpha )}=\alpha g^{\overline{A}B}_{\overline{A}}\frac{}{\theta ^B}+c.c..$$
(30)
It is easy to observe, that the following equality holds :

$$\{\stackrel{~}{𝒵},\}=\{Q^\alpha ,\}_1^{(\alpha )},$$
(31)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}Q^\alpha =\alpha Q_+^c+\overline{\alpha }Q_{}^c.\end{array}$$
(32)
Hence, the anti-symplectic structure generated by supercharges of the $`N=2`$ SUSY mechanics(20), (21) define the pair of anti-Hamiltonian structures for the Hamiltonian field corresponding to central charge (25), while the supercharges of the SUSY mechanics (22),(23) play the role of corresponding Hamiltonians.

The following relation holds:

$$\{G+,G+\}_1^{(\alpha )}=2Q^\alpha ,$$
(33)
which can be interpreted as $`N=1`$ supersymmetry of the anti-Hamiltonian mechanics given by the (odd) Hamiltonian $`Q`$. However, this supersymmetry is trivial (or false): it does not changes the initial Hamilonian dynamics, generated on the base manifold by the Killing potential $`G`$. On the other hand, squaring the odd Hamiltonian $`Q`$ under the even Poisson bracket (corresponding to squaring the corresponding quantum-mechanical supercharge $`\widehat{Q}`$) yields the Hamiltonian (23). Hence, in the $`N=2`$ SUSY mechanics given by the Hamiltonian (23), allows us to get the “square root” by the use of the antibracket.

Notice that the supermanifolds provided by the even and odd symplectic (and Kähler) structures, and particularly Eq. 31, were studied in cinnection with the problem of describing the supersymmetric mechanics in terms of antibrackets , which was considered for the first time by D.V.Volkov et al. . Let us remind that until the 1980’s the odd Poisson brackets (antibrackets) had no any applications in theoretical physics, due to the nontrivial Grassmann grading, and the absence of consistent quantization schemes. This situation drastically changed in 1981, when I.A.Batalin and G.A.Vilkovisky suggested a covariant Lagrangian BRST quantization scheme (which is presently known as BV-formalism) , whose key ingredient was the odd Poisson bracket. A bit later, in 1983, D.V.Volkov claimed, that the antibrackets can be considered, due to their non-zero Grassmann grading, as the “square root” of usual super-Poisson brackets relating the bosonic and fermionic components of super-spinors . The study of the possibility of an antibracket formulation of supersymmetric Hamiltonian systems, i.e. Eq. 31, was one of the steps of that program. Later, the supersymmetric mechanics, which are Hamiltonian with respect to both even and odd Poisson brackets, were found to be useful in equivariant cohomology, e.g. for the construction of equivariant characteristic classes and the derivation of localization formulae . Indeed, the vector field (31) can be identified with the Lie derivative, if choose $`\alpha =i`$:

$$\{Q,\}_1^{(i)}=iG^A(z)\frac{}{z^A}+iG_{,C}^A(z)\theta ^C\frac{}{z^A}+c.c.$$
(34)
The vector field $`\{\stackrel{~}{},\}_1^{(i)}`$, corresponds to the external differential

$$\{,\}_1^{(i)}=\theta ^A\frac{}{z^A}+c.c.,$$
(35)
while $`\{G,\}_1^{(i)}`$ corresponds to the operator of inner product

$$\{G,\}_1^{(i)}=iG^A(z)\frac{}{\theta ^A}+c.c..$$
(36)
Hence, equipping the external algebra of the Kähler manifold by a pair of antibrackets (corresponding to the choice $`\alpha =0,\pi /2`$) one can describe the external calculus in terms of the pair of antibrackets. One can observe that $`\{G+,\}_1`$ defines equivariant differential, while the function $`G`$ defines the equivariant Chern class; the relation (33) corresponds to the well-known Lie identity $`di_X+i_Xd=L_X`$, and so on. The Lie derivative of odd symplectic structure along the vector field $`\{G+,\}_1`$ yields the equivariant even pre-symplectic structure, generating equivariant Euler classes of the underlying Kähler manifold .

Let us mention also another similarity between the system under consideration and the Lagrangian BRST quantization schemes. The Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism admits the BRST-antiBRST-invariant extension which is known, in its most general form, under the name of “triplectic formalism” . This extension is formulated by the use of a pair of antibrackets, $`\{,\}_1^\alpha `$, the pair of nilpotent odd vector fields obeying the compatibility conditions

$$\begin{array}{c}(1)^{(p(f)+1)(p(h)+1)}\{f,g\}_1^{\{\alpha },h\}^{\beta \}}_1+\\ +\mathrm{cicl}.\mathrm{perm}.f,g,h=0\\ V^{\{\alpha }\{f,g\}_1^{\beta \}}=\\ =\{V^{\{\alpha }f,g\}_1^{\beta \}}+(1)^{p(f)+1}\{f,V^{\{\alpha }g\}_1^{\beta \}}\\ V^{\{\alpha }V^{\beta \}}=0.\end{array}$$
(37)
It is easy to see, that the antibrackets (30) and the vector fields $`V=\{,\}_1`$ corresponding to the choice $`\alpha =1,i`$, form a “classical triplectic algebra” (37). However, there is a crucial difference between the triplectic algebra arising in the context of BRST quantization and the above-presented one: the antibrackets appearing in the triplectic formalism, are degenerate, while the above-presented ones are nondegenerate. On the other hand, “classical triplectic algebra” corresponding to degenerate antibrackets, is also related with Kähler geometry .

## 4 Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to S. Krivonos for numerous enlightening discussions, to A. Galajinsky for useful comments and to the Organizers of D.V.Volkov Memorial Conference ”Supersymmetry and Quantum Field Theory” for inviting this contribution. A.N. thanks INFN for financial support and hospitality.


text:
# Locally Anisotropic Wormholes and Flux Tubes in 5D Gravity

## I Introduction

Recently one of the authors  studied a class of solutions to Einstein’s equations in three (3D) and four (4D) dimensions which had generic local anisotropy (e.g. static black hole and cosmological solutions with ellipsoidal or toroidal symmetry). These solutions were obtained and studied using the method of moving anholonomic frames with an associated nonlinear connection structure on (pseudo) Riemannian spaces. This technique was formally developed in Refs.  where it was used to investigate locally anisotropic (super) string theory and supergravity models with anisotropic structures. In this paper we apply this method of anholonomic frames to Kaluza–Klein theory in order to construct metrics which describe locally anisotropic wormhole and flux tube solutions for the 5D vacuum Einstein equations.

In 4D and higher dimensional gravity there are well known spherical symmetric solutions which describe black holes and wormholes . These solutions have diagonal metrics. Considering metrics in higher dimensional gravity which have non–zero off–diagonal components can lead to interesting physical consequences. Salam, Strathee and Perracci  showed that including off–diagonal components in higher dimensional metrics is equivalent to including gauge fields, and concluded that geometrical gauge fields can act as possible sources of exotic matter necessary for the construction of a wormhole.

In Refs.  various locally isotropic solutions with off–diagonal metric components were obtained for 5D vacuum Einstein equations. These solutions were similar to spherically symmetric 4D wormhole and/or flux tube metrics with “electric” and/or “magnetic” fields running along the throat of the wormhole. These “electromagnetic” fields arose as a consequence of the off–diagonal elements of the metric. By varying certain free parameters of the off–diagonal elements of the 5D metric, it was possible to change the relative strengths of the fields in the wormholes throat, and to change the longitudinal and transverse size of the wormhole’s throat. Also for certain values of these parameters the 5D solutions could be related to 4D Reissner–Nordstrom solutions.

In the present work we use the method of anholonomic frames with associated nonlinear connections to construct locally anisotropic wormhole and flux tube solutions that reduce to the solutions of Ref.  in the isotropic limit. These solutions have off–diagonal (with respect to coordinate frames) metrics with generic, anholonomic vacuum polarizations of the 5D vacuum gravitational fields. These solutions exhibit two, distinct features depending on how the anisotropies are introduced. For anisotropies in the extra spatial dimension, $`\chi `$, the solutions have a gravitational running or scaling of the “electromagnetic” charges. This gravitational scaling is linear rather than logarithmic, and might therefore provide an indirect signature for the presence of extra dimensions. For anisotropies in the axial angle, $`\phi `$, we find that an angle–dependent, anisotropic “electromagnetic” interaction results for a test particle which moves in the background field of the solution.

The paper is organized as follows : In Sec. 2 we review the results for locally isotropic wormhole and flux tube solutions. In Sec. 3 we present the necessary geometric background on anholonomic frames and associated nonlinear connections in 5D (pseudo) Riemannian geometry. In Sec. 4 we construct and analyze a new class of 5D metrics describing anisotropic wormhole and flux tube solutions of the vacuum Einstein equations. In Sec. 5 we give an example of a wormhole like solution where the extra spatial dimension is handled by an exponential warp factor  rather than being compactified as in standard Kaluza-Klein theory. In Sec. 6 we summarize and discuss the main conclusions of the paper.

## II  5D Locally Isotropic Wormhole Like Solutions

Here we give a brief review of the wormhole and flux tube solutions (DS-solutions) of Refs. . The ansatz for the spherically symmetric 5D metric is taken as

$`ds_{(DS)}^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\nu (r)}dt^2dr^2a(r)(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)`$ (1)
$``$ $`r_0^2e^{2\psi (r)2\nu (r)}\left[dx^5+\omega (r)dt+n\mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi \right]^2,`$ (2)
$`x^5`$ is the 5th extra, spatial coordinate; $`r,\theta ,\phi `$ are $`3D`$ spherical coordinates; $`n`$ is an integer; $`r\{R_0,+R_0\}`$ ($`R_0`$ $`\mathrm{}`$) and $`r_0`$ is a constant. All functions $`\nu (r),\psi (r)`$ and $`a(r)`$ are taken to be even functions of $`r`$ satisfying $`\nu ^{}(0)=\psi ^{}(0)=a^{}(0)=0`$. The coefficient $`\omega (r)`$ is treated as the $`t`$–component of the electromagnetic potential and $`n\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ is the $`\phi `$-component. These electromagnetic potentials lead to this metric having radial Kaluza-Klein “electrical” and “magnetic” fields. The metric (2) is assumed to solve the 5D Einstein vacuum equations

$$R_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta }R=0,$$
(3)
Greek indices $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$ run over $`0,1,2,3,4`$. The 5D Kaluza-Klein “electric” field is

$$E_{KK}=r_0\omega ^{}e^{3\psi 4\nu }=\frac{q_0}{a(r)}$$
(4)
with the “electric” charge

$$q_0=r_0\omega ^{}(0)$$
(5)
which can be parametrized as

$$q_0=2\sqrt{a(0)}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0,$$
(6)
The corresponding dual, “magnetic” field $`H_{KK}=Q_0/a(r)`$ with “magnetic” charge $`Q_0=nr_0`$ is parametrized as

$$Q_0=2\sqrt{a(0)}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0,$$

The following relation

$$\frac{(q_0^2+Q_0^2)}{4a(0)}=1$$
(7)
relates the “electric” and “magnetic” charges. Later when we consider anisotropic versions of the metric in Eq. (2) the charges will have a dependence on $`\phi `$ or $`\chi `$. Eq. (7) will still hold for these coordinate dependent charges, and thus enforces a definite relationship between the “electric” and “magnetic” charges. The solution in  satisfied the boundary conditions $`a(0)=1,\psi (0)=\nu (0)=0.`$ As the free parameters of the metric are varied there are five classes of solutions with the properties:

1. $`Q=0`$ or $`H_{KK}=0`$, a wormhole–like “electric” object;
2. $`q=0`$ or $`E_{KK}=0`$, a finite “magnetic” flux tube;
3. $`H_{KK}=E_{KK}`$, an infinite “electromagnetic” flux tube;
4. $`H_{KK}<E_{KK}`$, a wormhole–like “electromagnetic” object;
5. $`H_{KK}>E_{KK}`$, a finite, “magnetic–electric” flux tube.

Here we will generalize these solutions (2) to locally anisotropic configurations using anholonomic frames.

In order to simplify the procedure of construction of new classes of solutions with generic local anisotropy it convenient to introduce a new 5th coordinate $`\chi `$ by a transform $`x^5\chi `$ so that the coordinates are related via

$$dx^5+n\mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi =d\chi +n\mathrm{cos}\theta d\theta $$

this can be accomplished by taking $`\chi =x^5[\mu (\theta ,\phi )]^1𝑑\xi (\theta ,\phi )`$ with

$$\frac{\xi }{\phi }=\mu n\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\frac{\xi }{\theta }=\mu n\mathrm{cos}\theta $$

and

$$\mu (\theta ,\phi )=\mathrm{exp}(\theta \phi )|\mathrm{cos}\theta |^1.$$

so that the mixed partials of $`\xi `$ are consistent. With respect to the new extra dimensional coordinate $`\xi `$ the $`A_\phi `$ component of the electromagnetic potential is exchanged for a component $`A_\theta `$ and the metric interval (2) is rewritten as

$`ds_{(DS,new)}^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\nu (r)}dt^2dr^2a(r)(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)`$ (8)
$``$ $`r_0^2e^{2\psi (r)2\nu (r)}\left[d\chi +\omega (r)dt+n\mathrm{cos}\theta d\theta \right]^2,`$ (9)
This allows us to treat the $`(t,r,\theta )`$ coordinates as holonomic and the $`(\phi ,\chi )`$ coordinates as anholonomic.

## III Anholonomic Frames and Local Anisotropy

Let us consider a 5D pseudo–Riemannian spacetime of signature $`(+,,,,)`$ and denote the local coordinates $`u^\alpha =(x^i,y^a),`$ – or more compactly $`u=(x,y)`$ – where the Greek indices are conventionally split into two subsets $`x^i`$ and $`y^a`$ labeled respectively by Latin indices of type $`i,j,k,\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{}n`$ and $`a,b,\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},m,`$ with $`n+m=5.`$ The local coordinate bases, $`_\alpha =(_i,_a),`$ and their duals, $`d^\alpha =(d^i,d^a),`$ are defined respectively as

$$_\alpha \frac{}{du^\alpha }=(_i=\frac{}{dx^i},_a=\frac{}{dy^a})$$
(10)
and

$$d^\alpha du^\alpha =(d^i=dx^i,d^a=dy^a).$$
(11)
In Kaluza–Klein theories (see Ref.  for a review) one often parameterizes the metric as

$$g_{\alpha \beta }=\left[\begin{array}{cc}g_{ij}(u)+N_i^a(u)N_j^b(u)h_{ab}(u)& N_j^e(u)h_{ae}(u)\\ N_i^e(u)h_{be}(u)& h_{ab}(u)\end{array}\right]$$
(12)
with the coefficients, $`N_i^a(u)`$ etc., given with respect to a local coordinate basis. A 5D metric $`g^{(5)}`$ with coefficients (12) splits into a block $`\left(n\times n\right)+\left(m\times m\right)`$ form

$$\delta s^2=g_{ij}(x,y)dx^idx^j+h_{ab}(x,y)\delta y^a\delta y^b$$
(13)
Instead of using the coordinate bases (10) and (11) one can introduce locally anisotropic frames (bases)

$$\delta _\alpha \frac{\delta }{du^\alpha }=(\delta _i=_iN_i^b(u)_b,_a=\frac{}{dy^a})$$
(14)
and

$$\delta ^\alpha \delta u^\alpha =(\delta ^i=dx^i,\delta ^a=dy^a+N_k^a(u)dx^k).$$
(15)
The main ‘trick’ of the anholonomic frames method for integrating the Einstein equations  is to find $`N_j^a`$’s such that the block matrices $`g_{ij}`$ and $`h_{ab}`$ are diagonalized. This greatly simplifies computations. With respect to these anholonomic frames the partial derivatives are N–elongated (locally anisotropic).

This topic of anholonomic frames is related to the geometry of moving frames and nonlinear connection structures on manifolds and vector bundles. The idea is to take the coefficients $`N_i^a(x,y)`$ as defining a nonlinear connection (an N–connection) structure with the curvature (N–curvature)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^a\delta _jN_i^a\delta _iN_j^a$$

This induces a global decomposition of the 5D pseudo–Riemannian spacetime into holonomic (horizontal, h) and anholonomic (vertical, v) directions. In a preliminary form the concept of N–connections was applied by E. Cartan in his approach to Finsler geometry  and a rigorous definition was given by Barthel  (Ref.  gives a modern approach to the geometry of N–connections, and to generalized Lagrange and Finsler geometry). As a particular case one obtains the linear connections if $`N_i^a(x,y)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bi}^a\left(x\right)y^a.`$

A more surprising result is that N–connection structures can be naturally defined on (pseudo) Riemannian spacetimes  by associating them with some anholonomic frame fields (vielbeins) of type (14) satisfying the relations

$$\delta _\alpha \delta _\beta \delta _\beta \delta _\alpha =w_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma \delta _\gamma $$

where the anholonomy coefficients $`w_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$ are computed as follows

$`w_{ij}^k`$ $`=`$ $`0,w_{aj}^k=0,w_{ia}^k=0,w_{ab}^k=0,w_{ab}^c=0,`$ (16)
$`w_{ij}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^a,w_{bj}^a=_bN_j^a,w_{ia}^b=_aN_i^b.`$ (17)
One says that the N–connection coefficients model a locally anisotropic structure on spacetime ( an locally anisotropic spacetime) when the partial derivative operators and coordinate differentials, (10) and (11), are respectively changed into N–elongated operators (14) and (15).

A linear connection $`D_{\delta _\gamma }\delta _\beta =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (x,y)\delta _\alpha `$ is compatible with the metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ and N–connection structure on a 5D pseudo–Riemannian spacetimes, if $`D_\alpha g_{\beta \gamma }=0.`$ The linear connection is parametrized by irreducible h–v–components,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha =(L_{jk}^i,L_{bk}^a,C_{jc}^i,C_{bc}^a),$$

where

$`L_{jk}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{in}\left(\delta _kg_{nj}+\delta _jg_{nk}\delta _ng_{jk}\right),`$ (18)
$`L_{bk}^a`$ $`=`$ $`_bN_k^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^{ac}\left(\delta _kh_{bc}h_{dc}_bN_k^dh_{db}_cN_k^d\right),`$ (19)
$`C_{jc}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{ik}_cg_{jk},C_{bc}^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^{ad}\left(_ch_{db}+_bh_{dc}_dh_{bc}\right)`$ (20)
This defines a canonical linear connection (as distinguished from an N–connection) which is similar to the metric connection introduced by Christoffel symbols in the case of holonomic bases.

The anholonomic coefficients $`w_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$ and N–elongated derivatives give nontrivial coefficients for the torsion tensor, $`T(\delta _\gamma ,\delta _\beta )=T_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha \delta _\alpha ,`$ where

$$T_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \beta }^\alpha +w_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha ,$$
(21)
and for the curvature tensor, $`R(\delta _\tau ,\delta _\gamma )\delta _\beta =R_{\beta \gamma \tau }^\alpha \delta _\alpha ,`$ where

$$R_{\beta \gamma \tau }^\alpha =\delta _\tau \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha \delta _\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \tau }^\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\phi \tau }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \tau }^\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\phi \gamma }^\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \phi }^\alpha w_{\gamma \tau }^\phi .$$
(22)
We emphasize that the torsion tensor on (pseudo) Riemannian spacetimes is induced by anholonomic frames, whereas its components vanish with respect to holonomic frames. All tensors are distinguished (d) by the N–connection structure into irreducible h–v–components, and are called d–tensors. For instance, the torsion, d–tensor has the following irreducible, nonvanishing, h–v–components,

$$T_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha =\{T_{jk}^i,C_{ja}^i,S_{bc}^a,T_{ij}^a,T_{bi}^a\},$$

where

$`T_{.jk}^i`$ $`=`$ $`T_{jk}^i=L_{jk}^iL_{kj}^i,T_{ja}^i=C_{.ja}^i,T_{aj}^i=C_{ja}^i,T_{.ja}^i=0,`$ (23)
$`T_{.bc}^a`$ $`=`$ $`S_{.bc}^a=C_{bc}^aC_{cb}^a,T_{.ij}^a=\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^a,T_{.bi}^a=_bN_i^aL_{.bi}^a,T_{.ib}^a=T_{.bi}^a`$ (24)
(the d–torsion is computed by substituting the h–v–components of the canonical d–connection (19) and anholonomic coefficients (17) into the formula for the torsion coefficients (21)). The curvature d-tensor has the following irreducible, non-vanishing, h–v–components

$$R_{\beta \gamma \tau }^\alpha =\{R_{h.jk}^{.i},R_{b.jk}^{.a},P_{j.ka}^{.i},P_{b.ka}^{.c},S_{j.bc}^{.i},S_{b.cd}^{.a}\},$$

where

$`R_{h.jk}^{.i}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _kL_{.hj}^i\delta _jL_{.hk}^i+L_{.hj}^mL_{mk}^iL_{.hk}^mL_{mj}^iC_{.ha}^i\mathrm{\Omega }_{.jk}^a,`$ (25)
$`R_{b.jk}^{.a}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _kL_{.bj}^a\delta _jL_{.bk}^a+L_{.bj}^cL_{.ck}^aL_{.bk}^cL_{.cj}^aC_{.bc}^a\mathrm{\Omega }_{.jk}^c,`$ (26)
$`P_{j.ka}^{.i}`$ $`=`$ $`_aL_{.jk}^i+C_{.jb}^iT_{.ka}^b(\delta _kC_{.ja}^i+L_{.lk}^iC_{.ja}^lL_{.jk}^lC_{.la}^iL_{.ak}^cC_{.jc}^i),`$ (27)
$`P_{b.ka}^{.c}`$ $`=`$ $`_aL_{.bk}^c+C_{.bd}^cT_{.ka}^d(\delta _kC_{.ba}^c+L_{.dk}^cC_{.ba}^dL_{.bk}^dC_{.da}^cL_{.ak}^dC_{.bd}^c),`$ (28)
$`S_{j.bc}^{.i}`$ $`=`$ $`_cC_{.jb}^i_bC_{.jc}^i+C_{.jb}^hC_{.hc}^iC_{.jc}^hC_{hb}^i,`$ (29)
$`S_{b.cd}^{.a}`$ $`=`$ $`_dC_{.bc}^a_cC_{.bd}^a+C_{.bc}^eC_{.ed}^aC_{.bd}^eC_{.ec}^a`$ (30)
(the d–curvature components are computed in a similar fashion by using the formula for curvature coefficients (22)). The Ricci tensor $`R_{\beta \gamma }=R_{\beta \gamma \alpha }^\alpha `$ has the d–components

$$R_{ij}=R_{i.jk}^{.k},R_{ia}=^2P_{ia}=P_{i.ka}^{.k},R_{ai}=^1P_{ai}=P_{a.ib}^{.b},R_{ab}=S_{a.bc}^{.c}.$$
(31)
In general, since $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{ai}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}P_{ia}^{}`$, the Ricci d-tensor is non-symmetric (this could be with respect to anholonomic frames of reference). The scalar curvature of the metric d–connection, $`\stackrel{}{R}=g^{\beta \gamma }R_{\beta \gamma },`$ is computed as

$$\stackrel{}{R}=G^{\alpha \beta }R_{\alpha \beta }=\widehat{R}+S,$$
(32)
where $`\widehat{R}=g^{ij}R_{ij}`$ and $`S=h^{ab}S_{ab}.`$

By substituting (31) and (32) into the 5D Einstein equations (3) we obtain a system of vacuum, gravitational field equations with mixed holonomic–anholonomic degrees of freedom with an N–connection structure,

$`R_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\widehat{R}+S\right)g_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (33)
$`S_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\widehat{R}+S\right)h_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (34)
$`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{ai}^{}=0,^2P_{ia}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (35)
The definition of matter sources with respect to locally anisotropic frames is dealt with in Refs. . In this paper we deal only with vacuum 5D, locally, anisotropic gravitational equations.

## IV 5D Anisotropic Wormhole Like Solutions

The 5D metric (9) lends itself very naturally to the funfbein (5D frame) formalism. We are interested in constructing and investigating generalizations of this metric to anisotropic configurations with two anholonomic coordinates : $`\phi `$ and $`\chi .`$ An ansatz of type (13), written in terms of an locally anisotropic bases of type (15), is taken as

$$\delta s^2=dt^2b\left(\zeta \right)d\zeta ^2c(\zeta )d\theta ^2h_4(\zeta ,\theta ,y^1)(\delta y^1)^2h_5(\zeta ,\theta ,y^1)(\delta y^2)^2$$
(36)
for $`x^1=t,x^2=\zeta ,x^3=\theta ,y^1=v=\phi (\text{ or }v=\chi ),y^2=p=\chi (\text{ or }p=\phi ).`$ For nontrivial values of $`\nu (r)`$ the coordinate $`r`$ is related to $`\zeta `$ via $`\zeta =exp[\nu (r)]𝑑r`$. If $`\nu (r)`$ is fixed (e.g. $`\nu (r)=0`$) then we can set $`\zeta =r`$. The N–elongated differentials are

$`\delta y^1`$ $`=`$ $`dv+w_2(\zeta ,\theta ,v)d\zeta +w_3(\zeta ,\theta ,v)d\theta ,`$ (37)
$`\delta y^2`$ $`=`$ $`dp+n_2(\zeta ,\theta ,v)d\zeta +n_3(\zeta ,\theta ,v)d\theta ,`$ (38)
i.e. the coefficients of the N–connection are parametrized as $`N_1^1=0,N_{2,3}^1=w_{2,3}(\zeta ,\theta ,v),N_1^2=0,N_{2,3}^2=n_{2,3}(\zeta ,\theta ,v).`$ We will consider anisotropic dependencies on the coordinate $`y^1=v`$ (a similar construction holds if we consider dependencies on $`y^2=p`$).

The nontrivial components of the 5D vacuum Einstein equations (33) for the metric (36) are computed as

$`c^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c}}c_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2b}}c^{}b^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (39)
$`\ddot{h}_5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h_5}}\dot{h}_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h_4}}\dot{h}_5\dot{h}_4`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (40)
$`\beta w_{2,3}+\alpha _{2,3}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (41)
$`\ddot{n}_{2,3}+\gamma \dot{n}_{2,3}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (42)
where

$`\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{h}_5}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{h_4^{}}{h}}_4+{\displaystyle \frac{h_5^{}}{h}}_5\right)\dot{h}_5^{},\alpha _3={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{h}_5}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{h_4^{}}{h}}_5+{\displaystyle \frac{h_5^{}}{h_5}}\right)\dot{h}_5^{},`$ (43)
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\ddot{h}_5{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{h}_5^2}{2h_5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{h}_4}{\dot{h}_5}}2h_4,\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{h}_5}{h_5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{h}_4}{h_4}}.`$ (44)
For simplicity, the partial derivatives are denoted as $`\dot{h}_4=h_4/v,h_5^{}=h_5/\zeta `$ and $`h_5^{}=h_5/\theta .`$

### A Anisotropic solutions of 5D vacuum Einstein equations

It is possible to find the general solutions of the Eqs. (39), (40) and ( 42). Eq. (39) relates two functions $`c(\zeta )`$ and $`b(\zeta ).`$ For a prescribed value of $`b(\zeta )`$ the general solution is

$$c(\zeta )=\left[c_0+c_1\sqrt{|b(\zeta )|}𝑑\zeta \right]^2$$
(45)
where $`c_0`$ and $`c_1`$ are integration constants, which could depend parametrically on the $`\theta `$ variable. Alternatively for a prescribed $`c=c(\zeta )`$ the general solution is

$$b(\zeta )=b_0[c^{}(\zeta )]^2/c(\zeta )$$
(46)
with $`b_0=const.`$ In a similar fashion we can construct the general solution of (40),

$$h_5(\zeta ,\theta ,v)=\left[h_{5[1]}(\zeta ,\theta )+h_{5[0]}(\zeta ,\theta )\sqrt{|h_4(\zeta ,\theta ,v)|}𝑑v\right]^2,$$
(47)
where $`h_{5[0]}(\zeta ,\theta )`$ and $`h_{5[1]}(\zeta ,\theta )`$ are functions of holonomic variables, or

$$h_4(\zeta ,\theta ,v)=h_{4[0]}(\zeta ,\theta )[\dot{h}_5(\zeta ,\theta ,v)]^2/h_5(\zeta ,\theta ,v),$$
(48)
where $`h_{5[0]}(\zeta ,\theta )`$ is defined from some compatibility conditions with the local isotropic limit.

Having defined the functions $`h_5(\zeta ,\theta ,v),`$ and $`h_4(\zeta ,\theta ,v)`$ we can compute $`\alpha _{2,3}`$ and $`\beta `$, and express the solutions of equations (41) as

$$w_{2,3}=\alpha _{2,3}/\beta .$$
(49)
In a similar fashion, after two integrations of the anisotropic coordinate $`v`$ we can find the general solution to equations (42)

$$n_{2,3}(\zeta ,\theta ,v)=n_{2,3[0]}(\zeta ,\theta )+n_{2,3[1]}(\zeta ,\theta )\left(h_4(\zeta ,\theta ,v)/h_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/2}(\zeta ,\theta ,v)\right)𝑑v,$$
(50)
where $`n_{2,3[0]}(\zeta ,\theta )`$ and $`n_{2,3[1]}(\zeta ,\theta )`$ are defined from boundary conditions.

Equations (41) are second order linear differential equations of the anisotropic coordinate $`v`$. The functions $`h_{4,5}`$ can be thought of as parameters; the explicit form of the solutions of (41) depends on the values of these parameters. Compatibility with the locally isotropic limit (i.e. when $`w_{2,3}0,`$) is possible if the conditions $`\alpha _{2,3}=0`$ are satisfied for isotropic configurations. Methods for constructing solutions to such equations, when boundary conditions at some $`v=v_0`$ are specified, can be found in . We will assume that we can always define the functions $`w_{2,3}(\zeta ,\theta ,v)`$ for given $`h_5(\zeta ,\theta ,v)`$ and $`h_4(\zeta ,\theta ,v)`$; in this case equations (41) can be treated as linear algebraic equations for $`w_{2,3}`$ with the coefficients $`\alpha _{2,3}`$ and $`\beta `$ determined using the solutions of (40).

### B Locally anisotropic generalizations of DS–metrics

We now consider two particular types of solutions, which in the locally isotropic limit can be connected with the DS–metric (9). These anisotropic solutions of the 5D vacuum Einstein equations will satisfy

$$b(\zeta )=1,c(\zeta )=a(\zeta ),h_4(\zeta ,\theta )=a(\zeta )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,$$
(51)
as do the locally isotropic solutions of (2), but now $`r_0`$ is not a constant, but is a function like $`\widehat{r}_0^2(v).`$ The function $`h_5`$ is parametrized as

$$h_5=\mathrm{exp}[2\psi (\zeta )]\widehat{r}_0^2(v)$$
(52)
where

$$\widehat{r}_0^2(v)=r_{0(0)}^2(1+\epsilon v)^2$$
(53)
The “renormalization” constant, $`\epsilon `$, is obtained either from experiment or from some quantum gravity model. In the locally isotropic limit, ($`\epsilon v0`$) we recover the DS–metric.

In order to analyze the locally isotropic limit ($`\epsilon v0`$) where the frame functions transforms like

$$a(\zeta )a(r),\nu (\zeta )\nu (r),\psi (\zeta )\psi (r)$$

we impose the limiting condition $`[\dot{h}_5(\zeta ,\theta ,v)]^2/h_5(\zeta ,\theta ,v)\mathrm{exp}[2\psi (r)]`$ in (48) which is satisfied for $`\epsilon v0`$ if $`\epsilon =1/2r_{0(0)}^2`$ and choose the function $`h_{4[0]}(\zeta ,\theta )`$ from (48) so that

$$h_{4[0]}(\zeta ,\theta )\mathrm{exp}[2\psi (\zeta )]a(r)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .$$

It should be emphasized that (45) gives a dependence like

$$c(r)=a(r)\mathrm{exp}[\nu (r)]=\left(c_0+c_1r\right)^2$$

which holds for a fixed conformal factor $`\mathrm{exp}[\nu (r)]`$. Thus in the locally isotropic limit metric (36) becomes the DS–metric (9) multiplied by a conformal factor, $`\mathrm{exp}[2\nu (r)]ds_{(DS)}^2.`$

The 5D gravitational vacuum polarization renormalizes the charge defined in Eq. (5) as

$$q(v)=\widehat{r}_0(v)\omega ^{}(0)=r_{0(0)}(1+\epsilon v)\omega ^{}(0).$$
(54)
The angular parametrization (6) also becomes locally anisotropic,

$$q(v)=2\sqrt{a(0)}\mathrm{sin}\alpha (v),$$
(55)
and the formula for the “electric” field (4) transforms into

$$E_{KK}=\frac{q(v)}{a(r)}.$$
(56)
For the case when $`v=\chi `$ Eq. (54) implies that the “electric” charge of this solution exhibits a linear scaling with respect to the extra spatial coordinate. This can be contrasted with the standard quantum field theory calculation where the electric coupling grows logarithmically as the distance scale decreases. Also in the present case the scaling of the “electric” charge arises classically as a result of the anisotropy from the extra spatial coordinate. In contrast the usual logarithmic scaling of electric charge is a quantum field theory result. In the standard Kaluza-Klein scenario the extra spatial coordinate is taken to be compactified on the order of the Planck length (i.e. $`v=\chi L_{Planck}`$). Unless $`\epsilon `$ is unnaturally large this implies $`\epsilon \chi <<1`$ making this linear running of the “electric” charge unobservable. However, if the extra dimension(s) have a larger size  then such a linear, gravitational running of the charges, with respect to the size of the extra dimension(s), could be observable, and could provide an indirect indication of the presence of higher dimensions. The renormalization of the magnetic charge, $`Q_0Q(v)`$, can be obtained using the renormalized “electric” charge in relationship (7) and solving for $`Q(v).`$ The form of (7) implies that the running of the “magnetic” charge $`Q(v)`$ will be the opposite that of the “electric” charge, $`q(v)`$. For example, if $`q(v)`$ increases with $`v`$ then $`Q(v)`$ will decrease. For small values of the “renormalization” constant, $`\epsilon `$, the function $`a(r)`$ will take a form similar to that of the DS–solution.

In the case were the anisotropy arises from the $`\phi `$ coordinate one can see that the “electric” charge in Eq. (54) has a dependence on $`\phi `$, which leads to the Kaluza-Klein electric field having an anisotropic $`\phi `$ dependence. A test charge placed in the background of such a solution would experience an anisotropic, $`\phi `$–dependent interaction. Thus the anisotropies of this solution result in anisotropic interactions for the matter fields in 4D.

The usefulness of the anholonomic frames method in dealing with anisotropic configurations can be seen by writing out the ansatz metric (13), for the two classes of solutions (i.e. $`v=\phi `$ or $`v=\chi `$) discussed above, in a coordinate frame (10).

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1w_2^{2}h_4n_2^{2}h_5& w_2w_3h_4n_2n_3h_5& w_2h_4& n_2h_5\\ 0& w_3w_2h_4n_2n_3h_5& aw_3^{2}h_4n_3^{2}h_5& w_3h_4& n_3h_5\\ 0& w_2h_4& w_3h_4& h_4& 0\\ 0& n_2h_5& n_3h_5& 0& h_5\end{array}\right].$$
(57)
In this coordinate frame the ansatz metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ has many non–diagonal terms which complicates the study of this metric in the coordinate frame. In contrast in the anholonomic frame the metric has only diagonal terms (see Eq.(57) which makes the system much easier to study. From the above coordinate frame form of the ansatz metric one can see that in the locally isotropic limit – $`w_{2,3}0`$ , $`n_2\omega \left(r\right)`$ and $`n_3n\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ – the DS–solution is recovered. For small anisotropies the solutions presented above are similar to the five classes of wormhole or flux tube solutions enumerated at the end of section II. Stronger anisotropic, vacuum, gravitational polarizations could result in nonlinear renormalization of the effective “electromagnetic” constants, and could change substantially the wormhole – flux tube configurations.

## V Example : Anisotropic warped wormhole like configuration

Up to this point we have implicitly been working in the standard Kaluza-Klein scenario where the extra dimension, $`\chi `$ is assumed to be “curled up” or compactified. However, within the present set up it is possible to find wormhole like solutions which treat the 5th coordinate as in the Randall-Sundrum (RS) scheme  where an exponential warp factor multiples the four other coordinates (i.e. the RS metric has a form like $`ds^2=e^{2k|\chi |}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +d\chi ^2`$ which exponentially suppresses motion off of the 4D space). To this end we multiple the d–metric ansatz (36) by the conformal factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2(\zeta ,\theta )\mathrm{exp}[2k_\chi |\chi |]`$ where $`k_\chi `$ is an arbitrary constant

$$\delta s^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2(\zeta ,\theta )\mathrm{exp}(2k_\chi |\chi |)\left[dt^2b(\zeta )d\zeta ^2c(\zeta )d\theta ^2h_4(\zeta ,\theta ,\chi )(\stackrel{˘}{\delta }\chi )^2h_5(\zeta ,\theta ,\chi )(\delta \phi )^2\right]$$
(58)
where for the local coordinates are chosen $`x^1=t,x^2=\zeta ,x^3=\theta ,y^1=v=\chi ,y^2=p=\phi ,`$ with $`\stackrel{˘}{\delta }\chi `$ being an N–elongation of the $`\chi `$–variable

$$\stackrel{˘}{\delta }\chi =\delta \chi +\stackrel{˘}{w}_i(x^k,\chi )dx^i+\stackrel{˘}{w}_\phi (x^k,\chi )\delta \phi ,$$

and $`\delta \chi `$ and $`\delta \phi `$ are still N–elongated as in (37).

The 5D vacuum Einstein equations for this ansatz reduce to the system of equations (39)–(42) and some additional equations for the off–diagonal components of the Ricci d–tensor,

$$P_{4\stackrel{˘}{i}}=\psi _\chi \delta _{\stackrel{˘}{i}}\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{|h_4|},$$
(59)
where $`\psi _\chi =_\chi \mathrm{ln}|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{exp}(2k_\chi |\chi |)`$ and $`\delta _{\stackrel{˘}{i}}=_{\stackrel{˘}{i}}\stackrel{˘}{w}_{\stackrel{˘}{i}}`$. The index $`\stackrel{˘}{i}`$ runs over $`i`$ and $`\phi `$, i.e. $`\stackrel{˘}{w}_{\stackrel{˘}{i}}=(\stackrel{˘}{w}_i,\stackrel{˘}{w}_\phi )`$. A solution to these equations is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ $`=`$ $`c^{1/4}(\zeta )|\mathrm{sin}\theta |,h_4=c(\zeta )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{exp}(4k_\chi |\chi |),h_5=\mathrm{exp}[2\psi (\zeta )]\widehat{r}_0^2(v);`$ (60)
$`\stackrel{˘}{w}_1`$ $`=`$ $`0,\stackrel{˘}{w}_2=[\mathrm{ln}|\mathrm{ln}|c^{1/4}(\zeta )||]^{},\stackrel{˘}{w}_3=[\mathrm{ln}|\mathrm{ln}|\mathrm{sin}\theta ||]^{},\stackrel{˘}{w}_\phi =0.`$ (61)
The specific form for the functions $`b(\zeta ),c(\zeta ),`$ and $`h_5`$ is the same as in Eqs. (51), (52) and (53). This d–metric (58) with ansatz functions of the form (61) has the interesting property that it admits a warped conformal factor $`\mathrm{exp}(2k_\chi |\chi |)`$ which is induced by a conformal transformation of the anisotropic wormhole like solution (36).

One of the chief consequences of the RS scheme is an isotropic deviation of Newtonian gravitational potential. In the original RS scenario this takes the form

$$V(r)=G_N\frac{m_1m_2}{r}\left(1+\frac{1}{r^2k^2}\right)$$

for two interacting masses $`m_1,m_2`$. The deviation is isotropic since it only depends on $`r`$. Using a set up similar to our wormhole example of Eqs. (58)- (61), but applying it to the two brane scenario of Ref.  shows that anholonomic coordinates can give rise to “anisotropic” deviations of the Newtonian potential like

$$V(r)=G_N\frac{m_1m_2}{r}\left(1+\frac{e^{2k_y|y|}}{r^2k^2}\right)$$

where $`y`$ is a space-like coordinate and $`k_y`$ is a constant to be measured or constrained experimentally. The details of such a construction can be found in Ref.

## VI Conclusions

Solutions of wormhole–flux tube type are of fundamental importance in the construction of non–perturbative configurations in modern string theory, extra dimensional gravity and quantum–chromodynamics. Any solutions which aid in the physical understanding of such models are clearly beneficial. The solutions presented here have a number of features which achieve this aim. In addition this paper illustrates the usefulness of the method of moving anholonomic frames in finding new metrics and new types of locally anisotropic field interactions.

The class of solutions presented here demonstrates that wormholes and flux tubes are not only spherically symmetric, but can also have an anisotropic structure. Moreover these solutions demonstrate that the higher dimensional gravitational vacuum can be “polarized”. This induces observable anisotropic effects in 4D spacetime: either an angle dependent interaction from the anisotropies in $`\phi `$, or a running of the charges of the solution coming from the anisotropies in $`\chi `$. Such solutions with generic local anisotropy are consistent, in the locally isotropic limit, with previously known wormhole metrics . In section V we gave a wormhole like solution where the 5th coordinate was treated as in the RS scenario – motion off the 4D brane into the extra dimension is suppressed by an exponential warp factor. Our solution also exhibited an anisotropy through its dependence on the anholonomic variables. Applying these ideas to the Newtonian potential would lead to anisotropic deviations from the classical $`1/r`$ form

A substantial new result of this paper is that the vacuum Einstein equations for 5D Kaluza–Klein theory can describe higher dimensional, locally anisotropic gravitational fields. These fields in turn induce anisotropic field interactions in 4D gravity and matter field theory. This emphasizes the importance of the problem of fixing ones reference system in gravity theories. This is not done by any dynamical field equations, but via physical considerations arising from the symmetries of the metric and/or the imposed boundary conditions. The analysis presented here shows that the anholonomy of higher dimensional frame (vielbein) fields transforms the ‘lower’ dimensional dynamics of interactions, basic equations, and their solutions, into locally anisotropic ones. This in part supports the results of 3D and 4D calculations  that locally anisotropic configurations and interactions can be handled in general relativity and its extra–dimensional variants on (pseudo) Riemannian spacetimes, through the application of the method of anholonomic frames.

## Acknowledgments

S. V., V. B. and D. D. are grateful to the participants of the Seminar “String/M–theory and gravity” from the Academy of Sciences of Moldova for useful discussions. D.S would like to thank V. Dzhunushaliev for discussions related to this work.