text:
# Algebraically special, expanding and twisting gravitational fields with vanishing NUT parameter

## I Introduction

There exist many papers dealing with algebraically special, expanding and twisting vacuum, pure radiation or Einstein-Maxwell fields. An extensive bibliography up to 1980 exists in . Further results on Einstein-Maxwell fields may be found in . Pure radiation fields have been studied extensively in \[3-8\]. Petrov type II fields are characterized by the non-vanishing of the second Weyl scalar $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\left(m+iM\right)\rho ^3$$
(1)
Here $`m`$ is the mass parameter, $`M`$ is the NUT parameter and $`\rho `$ is given by

$$\rho =\frac{1}{r+i\mathrm{\Sigma }}$$
(2)
where $`r`$ is the coordinate along the null congruence of geodesics and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the twist .

It has been noticed in different contexts that the condition $`M=0`$ simplifies the equations . In the present paper we explore this condition with the help of the method proposed in , putting the emphasis on intrinsically time-dependent solutions. We clarify the general structure of the solutions obtained by separation of the traditional variables $`r,`$ $`u,`$ $`\zeta ,`$ $`\overline{\zeta }`$ where $`u`$ is the retarded time and $`\zeta ,`$ $`\overline{\zeta }`$ span a two-dimensional surface. Known solutions are systematized and new solutions are given.

Twisting gravitational fields with $`M=0`$ generalize the classes of Robinson-Trautman (RT)  and Kerr-Schild (KS) fields  and are physically realistic, their simplest representatives being the Schwarzschild, Kerr and Wadia solutions.

In Sec. II the method of Stephani is applied to simplify the Einstein-Maxwell equations. In Sec. III the main field equation is reduced to a linear second order equation. Its general solution with separated variables is found and studied in Sec. IV. Sec. V is devoted to solutions linear in $`u`$, while in Sec. VI solutions with exponential behaviour are discussed. Sec. VII contains some conclusions.

## II The metric and field equations

The standard form of the metric for expanding and twisting fields is :

$$ds^2=\frac{2d\zeta d\overline{\zeta }}{\rho \overline{\rho }P^2}2\mathrm{\Omega }\left[dr+Wd\zeta +\overline{W}d\overline{\zeta }+H\mathrm{\Omega }\right]$$
(3)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }=du+Ld\zeta +\overline{L}d\overline{\zeta }`$

It is determined by the $`r`$-independent real functions $`P,`$ $`m,`$ $`M`$ and the complex function $`L`$:

$$2i\mathrm{\Sigma }=P^2\left(\overline{}L\overline{L}\right)$$
(4)
$$W=\rho ^1L_u+i\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(5)
$$H=r\left(\mathrm{ln}P\right)_u(mr+M\mathrm{\Sigma }\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }_1^0\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^0)\rho \overline{\rho }+\frac{K}{2}$$
(6)
$$K=2P^2Re\left[\left(\overline{}\mathrm{ln}P\overline{L}_u\right)\right]$$
(7)
where $`=_\zeta L_u`$ and $`\kappa `$ is the Newton constant. The basic functions satisfy the following system of equations:

$$\left(3L_u\right)\left(m+iM\right)=2\kappa P^1\mathrm{\Phi }_1^0\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^0$$
(8)
$$P^3M=Im\overline{}\overline{}V$$
(9)
$$\frac{n^2}{2P^2}=P\left[P^3\left(m+iM\right)\right]_u+P\left(\overline{}\overline{}V\right)_u\left(V\right)_u\left(\overline{}\overline{}V\right)_u$$
(10)
$$\left(2L_u\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_1^0=0$$
(11)
$$\left(L_u\right)\left(P^1\mathrm{\Phi }_2^0\right)+\left(P^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1^0\right)_u=0$$
(12)
where $`V_u=P,`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^0`$ are the essential parts of the Maxwell scalars

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\rho ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1^0$$
(13)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\rho \mathrm{\Phi }_2^0+\rho ^2P\left(2\overline{L}_u\overline{}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_1^0+2i\rho ^3P\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{L}_u\overline{}\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_1^0$$
(14)
and $`n`$ is either the energy density of pure radiation (then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_2=0`$ ) or is given in the Einstein-Maxwell case by

$$n^2=2\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }_2^0\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^0$$
(15)
Vacuum solutions have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_2=n=0`$.

The form of the metric is preserved by certain coordinate transformations, one of which is the change of the retarded time

$$u^{}=F(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })$$
(16)
$$P^{}=F_u^1P$$
(17)
$$L^{}=F_uLF_\zeta $$
(18)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=F_u^1\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(19)
$$\left(m+iM\right)^{}=F_u^3\left(m+iM\right)$$
(20)
Let us apply now to the system (8-12) the method of Stephani . It works when either $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^0`$ vanishes. Then equation (8) is solved by

$$m+iM=\varphi _u^3$$
(21)
The complex field $`\varphi `$ is invariant under equation (16). It satisfies $`\varphi =0`$, which stated differently gives

$$L=\frac{\varphi _\zeta }{\varphi _u}$$
(22)
When $`M=0`$ we can use equation (16) to transform $`m`$ to a positive or negative constant $`m_0`$ so that

$$\varphi =m_0\left[u+iq(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\right]$$
(23)
$$L=iq_\zeta $$
(24)
Obviously $`L_u=0`$. This gauge differs from the most popular Kerr’s gauge when $`P_u=0`$, but is very suitable when the NUT parameter vanishes. Eqs. (9) and (10) become

$$\overline{}\overline{}V=\overline{}\overline{}V$$
(25)
$$\frac{n^2}{2P^2}=3m_0P^3P_u+P\overline{}\overline{}PP\overline{}\overline{}P$$
(26)
with $`=_\zeta iq_\zeta _u`$. When $`P_u0,`$ $`n^2`$ can be made positive by the choice of $`m_0`$ at least for some region of spacetime .

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^0`$ $`=0`$ Eq. (12) gives

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_2^0=PG(\varphi ,\overline{\zeta })$$
(27)
where $`G`$ is an arbitrary function. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^0=0`$ Eqs. (11) and (12) give

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1^0=\overline{C}(\overline{\zeta })\mathrm{exp}\left[2i\left(\mathrm{ln}P\right)_uq_\zeta 𝑑\zeta \right]$$
(28)
with $`C\left(\zeta \right)`$ being an arbitrary analytic function. This is a particular case of Theorem 26.2 from . The expressions for the other functions in the metric simplify:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=P^2Q$$
(29)
$$W=i\left(P^2Q\right)$$
(30)
$$K=P^2\left(\overline{}+\overline{}\right)\mathrm{ln}P$$
(31)
$$H=r\left(\mathrm{ln}P\right)_u\left(m_0r\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }_1^0\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^0\right)\rho \overline{\rho }+\frac{K}{2}$$
(32)
We have introduced the real, invariant under (16), function

$$Q(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })=q_{\zeta \overline{\zeta }}$$
(33)
The Weyl scalars  contain a lot of terms with $`L_u`$ and also simplify in the gauge $`L_u=0`$. We quote only the leading terms:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_2=m_0\rho ^3$$
(34)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_3=\rho ^2P^3I+O\left(\rho ^3\right)$$
(35)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_4=\rho P^2I_u+O\left(\rho ^2\right)$$
(36)
$$I=P^1\overline{}\overline{}P$$
(37)
What remains to be solved is the couple of equations (25) and (26) for $`P`$ and $`q`$. For pure radiation Eq. (26) is just an inequality.

When $`m+iM=0`$ (Petrov types III and N) Eq.(8) holds identically, but still a potential $`\varphi `$ may be introduced with the property $`\varphi =0`$ and we can study the subclass of solutions satisfying Eq. (23) (with $`m_0=1)`$. Then in all other equations we can set $`m_0=0`$.

## III The field equation (25)

Eq. (25) is a linear equation of fourth order with respect to $`V`$. However, in the gauge $`L_u=0`$ it becomes a linear equation of second order for $`P`$. This can be established with the help of the commutator

$$[,\overline{}]=2iQ_u$$
(38)
Then Eq. (25) becomes

$$Q_{\zeta \overline{\zeta }}P+2Q_{\overline{\zeta }}P_\zeta +2Q_\zeta P_{\overline{\zeta }}+4QP_{\zeta \overline{\zeta }}+2i\left(q_{\overline{\zeta }}Q_\zeta q_\zeta Q_{\overline{\zeta }}\right)P_u+4iQ\left(q_{\overline{\zeta }}P_{\zeta u}q_\zeta P_{\overline{\zeta }u}\right)+4Qq_\zeta q_{\overline{\zeta }}P_{uu}=0$$
(39)
This equation characterizes the twisting solutions because when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$ it is trivial. It is non-linear in $`q`$ except for time-independent solutions when only the first four terms remain. In this case Eq. (26) turns into the equation for type III RT solutions, containing only $`P`$. It is logical to solve first Eq. (26) for $`P`$ and plug the result in Eq. (39) to find $`q`$. In the present paper time-dependent solutions will be discussed mainly. In this case Eq. (39) should be solved for $`P`$ when $`q`$ is given and the result placed in Eq. (26) to find $`n^2`$ for pure radiation solutions.

Similar equations have been derived for time-independent fields in  (see Eq. (25.46)) and  (Eq. (5.12)). For time-dependent fields and concrete expressions for $`q`$ such equations can be found in . A linear equation of second order for $`\left(2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^{1/2}`$ is found in  in terms of Cauchy-Riemann structures admitting Lie groups of symmetries and used in \[4-6\] to obtain pure radiation solutions.

If $`P`$ and $`q`$ depend on $`\zeta `$ and $`\overline{\zeta }`$ via a single function $`\alpha (\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ the terms in brackets in Eq. (39) cancel and it yields

$$\left(Q_{\alpha \alpha }\alpha _\zeta \alpha _{\overline{\zeta }}+Q_\alpha \alpha _{\zeta \overline{\zeta }}\right)P+4\left(Q_\alpha \alpha _\zeta \alpha _{\overline{\zeta }}+Q\alpha _{\zeta \overline{\zeta }}\right)P_\alpha +4Q\alpha _\zeta \alpha _{\overline{\zeta }}\left(P_{\alpha \alpha }+q_\alpha ^2P_{uu}\right)=0$$
(40)
Let $`\zeta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(x+iy\right)`$. Suppose that $`\alpha =x`$ and $`_y`$ is a Killing vector. Then equation (40) becomes

$$q_x^2QP_{uu}+QP_{xx}+Q_xP_x+\frac{1}{4}Q_{xx}P=0$$
(41)
and $`Q=\frac{1}{2}q_{xx}`$. In the case of axial symmetry $`\alpha =\sigma =\zeta \overline{\zeta }`$ and Eq. (40) reads

$$q_\sigma ^2P_{uu}+P_{\sigma \sigma }+\frac{\left(\sigma Q\right)_\sigma }{\sigma Q}P_\sigma +\frac{\left(\sigma Q_\sigma \right)_\sigma }{4\sigma Q}P=0$$
(42)
$$Q=\left(\sigma q_\sigma \right)_\sigma $$
(43)
The introduction of $`z=\mathrm{ln}\sigma `$ as a variable greatly simplifies Eqs. (42) and (43) making them an analog of Eq. (41):

$$q_z^2QP_{uu}+QP_{zz}+Q_zP_z+\frac{1}{4}Q_{zz}P=0$$
(44)
$$Q=e^zq_{zz}$$
(45)
Thus every solution with y-symmetry has an axisymmetric mirror with the same $`P`$ and $`Q`$ but as functions of $`z`$.

## IV Separation of variables

Let us search for twisting solutions by separating the variables $`P=p(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })f\left(u\right)`$. Eq.(39) transforms into

$$f_{uu}+Af_u+Cf=0$$
(46)
$$A=\frac{i}{2}\left[\frac{Q_\zeta }{q_\zeta Q}\frac{Q_{\overline{\zeta }}}{q_{\overline{\zeta }}Q}+2\left(\frac{p_\zeta }{q_\zeta p}\frac{p_{\overline{\zeta }}}{q_{\overline{\zeta }}p}\right)\right]$$
(47)
$$C=\left(4q_\zeta q_{\overline{\zeta }}Qp\right)^1\left(Q_{\zeta \overline{\zeta }}p+2Q_{\overline{\zeta }}p_\zeta +2Q_\zeta p_{\overline{\zeta }}+4Qp_{\zeta \overline{\zeta }}\right)$$
(48)
Eq. (46) is a well-known linear equation. It requires that $`A`$ and $`C`$ must be constant and possesses three types of solutions according to the sign of $`\lambda ^2=4CA^2`$:

$$f=e^{\frac{Au}{2}}\left(C_1e^{\frac{\beta u}{2}}+C_2e^{\frac{\beta u}{2}}\right)$$
(49)
$$f=e^{\frac{Au}{2}}\left(C_1\mathrm{sin}\frac{\lambda u}{2}+C_2\mathrm{cos}\frac{\lambda u}{2}\right)$$
(50)
$$f=e^{\frac{Au}{2}}\left(C_1u+C_2\right)$$
(51)
where $`\beta ^2\lambda ^2>0,`$ $`\lambda ^2>0`$ and $`\lambda =0`$ respectively. Notice the common exponential factor if $`A0`$. It is quite interesting that damping exponential behaviour is generic for RT solutions, but it stems from the analog of equation (26) in the non-twisting case . When Eq. (40) holds, $`A`$ vanishes. There are still three types of solutions, one of them with exponential behaviour. When there is y-symmetry Eqs. (46) and (41) become

$$f_{uu}+Cf=0$$
(52)
$$Qp_{xx}+Q_xp_x+\left(\frac{1}{4}Q_{xx}Cq_x^2Q\right)p=0$$
(53)
In the case of axial symmetry equation (52) still holds, but equation (53) is replaced either by the same equation with $`x`$ changed to $`z=\mathrm{ln}\sigma `$ or by

$$p_{\sigma \sigma }+\left(\mathrm{ln}\sigma Q\right)_\sigma p_\sigma +\left[\frac{\left(\sigma Q_\sigma \right)_\sigma }{4\sigma Q}Cq_\sigma ^2\right]p=0$$
(54)
Let us discuss next Eq. (26) for two of the types of $`u`$ -behaviour allowed by Eq. (39). Suppose first that $`P=pe^{cu}`$. Introduce the function $`B=pe^{icq}`$. Then Eq. (26) reads

$$n^2=6m_0c+2p^2\left(\psi e^{4icq}\right)_\zeta e^{2icq+4cu}$$
(55)
$$\psi =BB_{\zeta \overline{\zeta }\overline{\zeta }}B_\zeta B_{\overline{\zeta }\overline{\zeta }}$$
(56)
When $`m_0=0`$ the solution is of type III only when $`\psi 0`$ because $`I=\psi /B^2`$. When $`m_00`$ and $`\psi =0`$ the solution is of KS type because $`I=I_\zeta =0`$ and $`I`$ can be nullified by a coordinate transformation $`\overline{\zeta }^{}=\overline{g}\left(\overline{\zeta }\right)`$. This means $`P=0`$ (see Eq. (37)), which can be lifted to $`V=0`$. The latter is exactly the Kerr-Schild condition .

Suppose next that $`P=pu`$. When there is y-symmetry Eq. (26) yields

$$n^2=\frac{6m_0}{u}+\frac{1}{2}p^2\left(pp_{xxxx}p_{xx}^2\right)u^42p^2\left(q_xp_x+Qp\right)^2u^2$$
(57)
When there is axial symmetry Eq. (26) changes into

$$n^2=\frac{6m_0}{u}+2p^2\left[2pp_{\sigma \sigma }+4\sigma pp_{\sigma \sigma \sigma }+\sigma ^2\left(pp_{\sigma \sigma \sigma \sigma }p_{\sigma \sigma }^2\right)\right]u^42\sigma ^2\left[\left(q_\sigma p^2\right)_\sigma \right]^2u^2$$
(58)
Finally, let us perform the separation of variables in the Maxwell equations. Eq. (28) simplifies

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1^0=\overline{C}\left(\overline{\zeta }\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[2iq\left(\mathrm{ln}f\right)_u\right]$$
(59)
When $`f=u`$ and $`f=e^{cu}`$ this becomes respectively

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1^0=\overline{C}\left(\overline{\zeta }\right)e^{\frac{2iq}{u}}$$
(60)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1^0=\overline{C}\left(\overline{\zeta }\right)e^{2icq}$$
(61)
Eq. (12) or (27) separates as follows

$$P^1\mathrm{\Phi }_2^0=\overline{N}\left(\overline{\zeta }\right)e^{a\left(u+iq\right)}$$
(62)
$`N\left(\zeta \right)`$ being another arbitrary analytic function and $`a`$ is a constant different from $`c`$ in general. The energy density of a null Maxwell field (15) becomes

$$\frac{n^2}{2P^2}=\kappa N\left(\zeta \right)^2e^{2au}$$
(63)
Obviously polynomial dependence of $`P`$ in Eq. (26) is not allowed by (63). Consequently, null Maxwell fields can’t induce solutions with $`P=pu`$. It is seen also from Eqs. (55), (57) and (58) that vacuum solutions of type II are not possible because the different terms cannot cancel each other.

## V Solutions linear in $`u`$

These are solutions with $`C=0`$ in Eq. (46) or Eqs. (52), (53) and (54). Then these equations are identical to the equations for a $`u`$ -independent $`P`$. Therefore we can use any time-independent solution of Eqs. (25) and (26) found in the literature which has $`L_u=0`$ and axial or y-symmetry. We can also use time-independent solutions of Eq. (53) or Eq. (54) which are not solutions of Eq. (26).

For example, let us find polynomial solutions with y-symmetry which capitalize on the only known vacuum RT solution for type III fields . If we take $`L=ix^{b1},`$ $`b1`$ then Eq. (53) becomes the Euler equation

$$x^2p_{xx}+\left(b2\right)xp_x+\frac{1}{4}\left(b2\right)\left(b3\right)p=0$$
(64)
and its solutions are

$$p=x^a$$
(65)
$$p=\mathrm{ln}x$$
(66)
$$p=x^{\frac{3b}{2}}\left[C_1\mathrm{sin}\left(\mu \mathrm{ln}x\right)+C_2\mathrm{cos}\left(\mu \mathrm{ln}x\right)\right]$$
(67)
when $`b<3,`$ $`b=3`$ and $`b>3`$ respectively. Here $`a=\frac{1}{2}\left(3b\pm \sqrt{3b}\right)`$ and $`\mu =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b3}`$. The first of these solutions has been obtained essentially in  by a rather intricate procedure. Plugging Eq. (65) and $`q_x=x^{b1}`$ into Eq. (57) yields the inequality to be satisfied:

$$\frac{12m_0}{u}x^{2\left(b1\pm \sqrt{3b}\right)}+2a\left(a1\right)\left(32a\right)u^4\left(2\sqrt{3b}\right)^2x^{2b}u^20$$
(68)
Throughout the paper we consider $`u>0`$. The first term is always positive (we accept that $`m_0>0`$ unless stated otherwise), the third is always negative, while the second changes sign and is positive for $`a<0`$ and $`1<a<3/2`$. The third term has negative poles in $`x`$ for any $`b0`$ and $`b1`$ which cannot be compensated by the second term. Hence, pure radiation solutions of type III are not allowed and the first term should be present to compensate the negative poles with positive ones. This is achieved when $`b<2`$. The plus sign in the formula for $`a`$ must be taken in both cases. For growing $`u`$, however, the first term diminishes to zero. Thus the energy density is positive for $`b<2`$ and small enough $`u`$. When $`b=0`$ the third term is $`x`$-independent but the second is negative, excluding again a type III solution. Type II solution still exists. Finally, when $`b=1`$ the third term vanishes but the second is still non-positive because $`a=1`$ or $`a=3`$. When $`a=1`$ only the first term remains and $`n`$ is $`x`$-independent, positive and bounded. This is a KS solution because $`V=xq_x^2/2`$ and can be turned into zero by a $`u`$-independent transformation of $`V`$.

The second solution, given by Eq. (66), has no free parameters and leads to incurable negative poles and logarithmic singularities in $`n`$ and is therefore unphysical. As a last comment , we may start with $`p=x^{b1}`$ in Eq. (53) and obtain an Euler equation for $`Q`$ with the corresponding three types of solutions.

The simplest solution of Eq. (53) is probably when $`P`$ is $`u`$-dependent only, i.e. $`p=p_0=const`$. Then $`Q_{xx}=0`$ and $`P=p_0u`$, $`L=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}x\left(c_1x+2c_2\right)`$ where $`c_i`$ are arbitrary constants and

$$n^2=\frac{6m_0}{u}2p_0^4\left(c_1x+c_2\right)^2u^6$$
(69)
The energy density is positive for any $`x`$ when $`c_1=0`$ and $`u`$ is small enough. This is not a KS field.

Another simple solution is obtained when $`p=e^{ax}`$, $`a`$ being some constant. Then Eq. (53) has constant coefficients and one of the solutions is $`q_x=\mathrm{exp}\left(2ax\right)`$. The energy density is positive, $`n^2=6m_0/u`$ and $`I=a^2/2`$. Consequently the solution is of type II and is equivalent to a KS solution.

Let us investigate next the axisymmetric solutions. As has been mentioned in the previous sections, Eq. (53) has a counterpart for axisymmetric fields with the same $`Q`$ and $`P`$ but with $`x`$ replaced by $`z`$. However, $`q`$ and $`n`$ are different, being given by Eqs. (45) and (58) instead of $`q_{xx}=2Q`$ and Eq. (57). The solution with $`p=p_0`$ has a mirror solution

$$L=i\overline{\zeta }\left(c_3\mathrm{ln}\sigma +c_4\right)$$
(70)
$$n^2=\frac{6m_0}{u}2c_3^2p_0^4u^6$$
(71)
The energy density is positive for small $`u`$. When $`c_3=0`$ it is positive everywhere and the solution is a KS field.

Another solution has $`q=\sigma ,`$ $`L=i\overline{\zeta },`$ $`Q=1`$. Then Eq. (54) yields

$$p_{\sigma \sigma }+\frac{1}{\sigma }p_\sigma =0$$
(72)
and $`p=c_5\mathrm{ln}\sigma +c_6`$. It was found by a different method in . When $`c_5=0`$ it coincides with the previous solution with $`c_3=0`$.

A well-known solution is given by $`p=1+\sigma /2`$. Eq. (54) becomes linear with respect to $`Q`$:

$$\left(2+\sigma \right)\sigma Q_{\sigma \sigma }+\left(2+5\sigma \right)Q_\sigma +4Q=0$$
(73)
and its solution is the hypergeometric function $`F(2,2,1,\sigma /2)`$. It degenerates into a rational function for these values of its parameters and we have

$$Q=\frac{4k\left(2\sigma \right)}{\left(2+\sigma \right)^3}$$
(74)
$$L=\frac{ik\overline{\zeta }}{\left(1+\sigma /2\right)^2}$$
(75)
where $`k`$ is an arbitrary constant, characterizing the magnitude of the twist (rotation). This is the Kramer solution  which is of KS type and has $`n^2=6m_0/u`$. It represents a radiating Kerr metric. This is seen best in the gauge $`P_u=0`$.

It must be stressed that any solution of the type $`P=pu`$ can be transformed from the $`L_u=0`$ gauge to the $`P_u=0`$ gauge by choosing $`F=u^2/2`$ in Eq. (16). Then $`P^{}=p,`$ $`L^{}=\left(2u\right)^{1/2}L`$ , $`m^{}=\left(2u\right)^{3/2}m`$ which transfers the $`u`$-dependence to the mass parameter and the twist.

A generalization of the Kramer solution was undertaken in  for the same $`L`$ and the ansatz $`P=A(\sigma ,u)\left(1+\sigma /2\right)`$. It was shown that $`A`$ satisfies a second order linear equation. The results of this paper guarantee that $`P`$ also satisfies a second order linear equation.

The mirror of the solution with $`p=e^{ax}`$ described above is $`p=e^{az}`$ and $`Q=k\left(12a\right)e^{2az},`$ $`a1/2`$. Hence

$$P=\sigma ^au$$
(76)
$$L=ik\overline{\zeta }\sigma ^{2a}$$
(77)
It is very similar to the Kramer solution for $`a=1`$. For $`a=1/2`$ , $`P`$ is still given by Eq. (76) while $`L=ik\overline{\zeta }\sigma ^1\mathrm{ln}\sigma `$. The energy density is

$$n^2=\frac{6m_0}{u}2\delta _{1,2a}u^2$$
(78)
## VI Solutions with exponential behaviour

These are solutions with $`P=pe^{cu}`$ and $`C=c^2`$ in Eq. (46) or Eqs. (52), (53) and (54). We shall give two solutions with y-symmetry. First we take $`q_x=2\left(1b\right)x^{b1}`$, where the constant $`b1`$ and put this expression in Eq. (53):

$$x^2p_{xx}+\left(b2\right)xp_x+\left[\frac{1}{4}\left(b2\right)\left(b3\right)+4c^2\left(1b\right)^2x^{2b}\right]p=0$$
(79)
When $`b=0`$ this is the Euler equation, similar to Eq. (64) and has three types of solutions. The first two of them read

$$p=x^{\frac{3}{2}\pm \gamma }$$
(80)
$$p=x^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}x$$
(81)
when $`c^2<3/16`$ or $`c^2=3/16`$ respectively. Here $`\gamma =\frac{1}{2}\left(316c^2\right)^{1/2}`$. When $`b0`$ the solution is given by Bessel functions:

$$p=x^{\frac{3b}{2}}\left[C_1J_\nu \left(\epsilon x^b\right)+C_2Y_\nu \left(\epsilon x^b\right)\right]$$
(82)
where $`\nu =\sqrt{3b}/2b,`$ $`\epsilon =2b1c/b`$. In all cases

$$L=i\sqrt{2}\left(1b\right)x^{b1}$$
(83)
These are essentially the solutions found in  where x-symmetry was used instead together with a special transformation between a $`u`$-independent and a $`u`$-dependent solution.

The second solution to be presented is an analog of Eq. (69) i.e. $`P=e^{cu}`$ depends only on $`u`$. Then Eq. (53) may be integrated to

$$Q=\frac{1}{2}\left(b^2\frac{2}{3}c^2q_x^4+2dq_x\right)^{1/2}$$
(84)
where $`b>0`$ and $`d`$ are constants. When $`d=0`$ Eq. (84) is solved by elliptic functions:

$$L=i\frac{b}{\lambda }cn\left(\lambda x\right)$$
(85)
where $`\lambda =\left(\frac{8}{3}b^2c^2\right)^{1/4}`$ and the modulus of $`cn`$ is $`1/2.`$ It is clear from Eq. (84) that $`Qb/2`$. Eq. (55) yields

$$n^2=6cm_04c^2Q^2e^{4cu}$$
(86)
The second term is definitely negative and if $`m_0>0,`$ $`c>0`$ dominates for large $`u`$, no matter how big $`m_0`$ is. However, if $`m_0<0,`$ $`c<0`$ the first term remains positive while the second is damped exponentially for large retarded times. Choosing $`m_0`$ big enough we can arrange for $`n^2>0`$.

Let us give next an example of an axisymmetric solution. Let us substitute in Eq. (54) $`q_\sigma =Q=a=const`$ to obtain the generalization of Eq. (72):

$$p_{\sigma \sigma }+\frac{1}{\sigma }p_\sigma +a^2c^2p=0$$
(87)
It is solved by Bessel functions e.g.

$$P=e^{cu}J_0\left(ac\sigma \right)$$
(88)
$$L=ia\overline{\zeta }$$
(89)
This solution was found and discussed in .

Finally, we give an example of a solution without y-symmetry or axial symmetry. We shall obtain the most general KS pure radiation field with $`P=pe^{cu}`$. The results of Section IV and Eq. (56) show that

$$q=\frac{1}{2ic}\mathrm{ln}\frac{B}{\overline{B}}$$
(90)
$$P=\left(B\overline{B}\right)^{1/2}e^{cu}$$
(91)
where $`B`$ satisfies $`\psi =0`$, namely

$$B^2\left(\mathrm{ln}B\right)_{\zeta \overline{\zeta }}=S\left(\zeta \right)$$
(92)
$`S`$ is an arbitrary analytic function. If $`S0`$ we introduce the new variable $`\omega =^\zeta S\left(\zeta ^{}\right)𝑑\zeta ^{}`$ and Eq. (92) transforms into the Liouville equation

$$B^2\left(\mathrm{ln}B\right)_{\omega \overline{\zeta }}=1$$
(93)
Returning to the original variables, its general solution reads

$$B=S\left(\zeta \right)^{1/2}\frac{f\left(\zeta \right)+g\left(\overline{\zeta }\right)}{\sqrt{f\left(\zeta \right)_\zeta g\left(\overline{\zeta }\right)_{\overline{\zeta }}}}$$
(94)
The functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ are arbitrary. When $`S=0`$ the solution of Eq. (92) is

$$B=f\left(\zeta \right)g\left(\overline{\zeta }\right)$$
(95)
It has zero twist i.e. it is a RT solution. Then we may set $`L=q=0`$ which means $`f\left(\zeta \right)g\left(\zeta \right)`$ and $`P=f\overline{f}`$ $`e^{cu}`$. A coordinate transformation sets $`f=1`$. Therefore the solution (95) is equivalent to $`B=1`$.

In  the general axisymmetric pure radiation KS fields were found. Interestingly enough, their $`u`$-dependence covers the three types (49), (50) and (51) with $`A=0`$. The exponential solution was generalized in  to a non-symmetric one with

$$B=G\left(\zeta \right)+\overline{\zeta }K\left(\zeta \right)$$
(96)
$`G`$ and $`K`$ being arbitrary. Eq. (96) may be obtained from the general formula (94) by specializing to $`g\left(\overline{\zeta }\right)=\overline{\zeta }`$:

$$B=f\left(\zeta \right)\left[\frac{S\left(\zeta \right)}{f\left(\zeta \right)_\zeta }\right]^{1/2}+\overline{\zeta }\left[\frac{S\left(\zeta \right)}{f\left(\zeta \right)_\zeta }\right]^{1/2}$$
(97)
The general KS field with non-radiative Maxwell field has been given in . It was remarked in  that no solution with a null Maxwell field has been found. Formulae (94) and (95) allow the study of this question in the context of solutions with separated variables. The energy density (63) tolerates exponential dependence. Eq. (55) reads in this case:

$$3m_0c=\kappa N\left(\zeta \right)\overline{N}\left(\overline{\zeta }\right)B\overline{B}$$
(98)
Obviously $`B`$ can’t be given by Eq. (94) but a non-twisting solution with $`B=1`$ is possible. Then $`P=e^{cu}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^0=\left(3m_0c/\kappa \right)^{1/2}`$. The mass parameter is constant, as usual, $`m=m_0`$. This is nothing but a special case of the Einstein-Maxwell solution of Robinson and Trautman  in disguise (see also Eq. (24.41) in ). The conclusion is that there is no twisting KS solution with a null Maxwell field and separated variables.

## VII Conclusions

In this paper we have carried out the idea of Stephani based on the introduction of an invariant potential for algebraically special, twisting and expanding gravitational fields. It works best in the important subclass of fields with vanishing NUT parameter. The system of Einstein-Maxwell equations is reduced to the couple of equations (25) and (26) for $`P`$ and $`L`$ where $`L`$ is represented by a real function of two variables $`q(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ (the $`L_u=0`$ gauge). We have studied mainly pure radiational solutions for which Eq. (26) is an inequality. The main equation (25), originally of fourth order, becomes a linear second order equation for $`P`$ (39), which further simplifies for the most common symmetries. In some cases it is linear for $`q_x`$ too. Of course, it is not possible to enumerate all solutions of Eq. (39). The method of separation of variables was used to systematize most of the known solutions obtained in the past by a variety of different approaches. We have also investigated the region where the energy density of pure radiation is positive. Samples of new solutions were given to illustrate the application of Eqs. (39), (53), (54) and (55). Three types of behaviour with respect to the retarded time have been found: exponential, trigonometric and linear. Among the new solutions is the most general KS pure radiation field with exponential time behaviour. It was shown that the radiation field cannot be a null Maxwell field unless the twist vanishes. Finally, it should be mentioned that the case $`m=0,`$ $`M0`$ is much more difficult because Eq. (9) remains non-linear in $`P`$.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Bulgarian National Fund for Scientific Research under Contract No.F-632.


format: text

text:
# References

LPTENS 01/06

NON-RENORMALISATION THEOREMS IN GLOBAL SUPERSYMMETRY
J. Iliopoulos

Laboratoire de Physique Théorique CNRS-ENS

24 rue Lhomond, F-75231 Paris Cedex 05, France

ilio@physique.ens.fr

Invited talk at the Conference on ”30 Years of Supersymmetry”

Minneapolis, Minnesota, Oct. 13-15, 2000
ABSTRACT

We review the history of non-renormalisation theorems in global supersymmetry, as well as their importance in all attempts to apply supersymmetry to the real world.

Supersymmetry in four dimensions is thirty years old , . It started as a rather esoteric subject, but, for the last twenty years, it has occupied a unique position in elementary particle physics: It has received no experimental support, yet it has dominated most theoretical and much of the experimental work. Each one of us has his own motivations to study supersymmetry, but we are all fascinated by the aesthetic appeal of the theory. I have always considered supersymmetry as the natural extension to gauge theories. Let me explain:

We are all convinced that gauge theories have come to stay. They provide the unique framework, based on deep geometrical ideas, to describe all interactions among elementary particles. However, they have a number of shortcomings which show that they need completion. The particular one I want to mention here is the fact that, to our present understanding, they contain three independent worlds: The world of radiation consists of, initially, massless vector bosons. Their number, their properties and their interactions are uniquely determined by the gauge group, they are purely geometrical objects. In all our present models the world of matter consists of spin one-half fermions. Their number as well as their group-theory properties are arbitrary, but, once assumed, they uniquely determine the interaction with radiation. The third world is that of Higgs scalars. They are essential for mass generation but they are the ones which bring most of the arbitrariness in the theory. In the Standard Model most free parameters are connected with the Higgs sector. Furthermore, their quadratic mass divergences tend to mix the various scales of the theory. Much effort has been devoted to constructing gauge models with Higgs scalars replaced by a dynamical symmetry breaking mechanism, but with no great success until now. It is therefore natural to seek a symmetry principle to relate the three worlds and obtain a trully unified theory, with no distinction between matter and radiation, in which all fundamental fields have a geometrical meaning. One is thus led to supersymmetry.

Supersymmetric field theories are ”improved” field theories. The ”improvement” is connected with the ultraviolet properties of the theory and depends on whether one considers theories with global or local supersymmetry. In this lecture I will review some of the early work on the non-renormalisation theorems in global supersymmetry. They are the ones which offer the possibility to solve the technical part of the gauge hierarchy problem.

The first indication that supersymmetric theories have special properties under renormalisation was obtained by J. Wess and B. Zumino. In their first paper on supersymmetry  they introduced a very simple field theory model containing a Majorana spinor, a scalar and a pseudoscalar field. The Lagrangian density can be written as:

$``$ $`=`$ $`_0+_m+_{int}`$
$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(A)^2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(B)^2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\psi }/\psi +{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}F^2+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}G^2`$
$`_m`$ $`=`$ $`m(FA+GB{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\psi }\psi )`$
$`_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`g(FA^2GB^2+2GABi\overline{\psi }\psi A+i\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\psi B)`$ (1)
where $`F`$ and $`G`$ are auxiliary fields. Under the supersymmetry transformations

$`\delta A`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\alpha }\psi `$
$`\delta B`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\alpha }\gamma _5\psi `$
$`\delta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu (A\gamma _5B)\gamma ^\mu \alpha +(F+\gamma _5G)\alpha `$ (2)
$`\delta F`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\alpha }/\psi `$
$`\delta G`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\alpha }\gamma _5/\psi `$
the action derived from (S0.Ex1) remains invariant. In (S0.Ex4), $`\alpha `$, the parameter of the transformation, is a constant, anticommuting, Majorana spinor.

Upon elimination of the auxiliary fields, the model describes a superposition of Yukawa, $`\varphi ^4`$ and $`\varphi ^3`$ couplings; it is therefore renormalisable by power counting. Supersymmetry is manifest by means of relations between the masses and coupling constants of the model. Wess and Zumino tried to check by explicit calculation whether renormalisation at the level of one loop respects these relations . To their surprise, they discovered that it did much more: The only necessary counterterm was a single wave function renormalisation common to all fields. Neither mass nor coupling constant renormalisations were needed.

I was very sceptical when I first heard there results. I was inclined to believe that they were accidents of one loop and they would not survive at higher orders. Par acquit de conscience we decided with B. Zumino to check the two loop level. You guess the answer: The same result holds, although, this time the cancellation involves diagrammes with different topologies. It was clear that a general proof should exist. Indeed, it turned out to be rather simple .

As I said before, the model is renormalisable by power counting. Furthermore, because of the fact that the transformations (S0.Ex4) are global ($`\alpha `$ constant), one can find easily supersymmetry preserving regularisation schemes. For example, a higher derivative kinetic term will do . It follows that renormalisation will preserve supersymmetry, in other words one will need, at most, three counterterms, $`Z`$, $`\delta m`$ and $`Z_g`$, one for each term in (S0.Ex1). The surprising result was that only $`Z`$ was needed. These extra cancellations that give $`\delta m=0`$ and $`Z_g=1`$ clearly go beyond symmetry alone since the corresponding terms $`_m`$ and $`_{int}`$ are allowed by supersymmetry.

The particular property of (S0.Ex1) which is relevant for the proof is :

$$\frac{}{m}_m=\frac{1}{2g}\frac{}{A}_{int}$$
(3)
This property has an immediate analogue in terms of the 1P-I functions: Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[R]`$ be the generating functional where $`R`$ denotes, collectively, the classical fields, the conjugate variables under Legendre transformation of the external sources. We obtain:

$$\frac{}{m}\mathrm{\Gamma }[R]=\frac{m}{2g}R_F(y)d^4y+\frac{1}{2g}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[R]}{\delta R_A(y)}d^4y$$
(4)
which means that, for every vertex function other than the 1P-I part of $`<F>_0`$, the derivative with respect to the bare mass gives an insertion of a zero momentum $`A`$ field. On the other hand, using the supersymmetry Ward identities and the equations of motion of the regularized theory, it is easy to prove  that the vacuum expectation values of all fields vanish. We now take the functional derivative of (4) with respect to $`R_F`$ and then put all $`R`$’s equal to zero. Using the vanishing of $`<F>_0`$ we obtain:

$$m=Z^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{FA}(p^2=0)$$
(5)
which implies

$$m_r=Zm$$
(6)
i.e. $`\delta m=0`$. Similarly we obtain

$$g_r=Z^{\frac{3}{2}}g$$
(7)
i.e. $`Z_g=1`$. This completes the proof of the non-renormalisation theorem.

In terms of the renormalisation group functions (7) has an interesting consequence :

$$\beta (g)=3g\gamma (g)$$
(8)
Using (8), it is easy to show that the $`\beta `$ function of this model cannot have a non-trivial fixed point. Indeed, let us consider the massless case. A fixed point $`g_0`$ satisfies $`\beta (g_0)=0`$. But then (8) implies that $`\gamma (g_0)`$ also vanishes, i.e. all fields have canonical dimensions and all Green functions satisfy free-field theory renormalisation group equations. This is enough to show that the model is in fact free. But $`g`$ is defined as the value of the three point function at zero external momenta and cannot be non-zero for a free field theory. Turning to the massive case we can write the corresponding Callan-Symanzik equation:

$$[m\frac{}{m}+\beta (g)n\gamma (g)]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi _1\mathrm{}\varphi _n}(p_i;m,g)=\frac{m}{2g}\delta (g)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A,\varphi _1\mathrm{}\varphi _n}(0,p_i;m,g)$$
(9)
where $`m`$ and $`g`$ denote the renormalised quantities and

$$\beta (g)={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}g\frac{f}{1+f},\gamma (g)={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\frac{f}{1+f},\delta (g)=\frac{1}{1+f}$$
(10)
Equation (9) has some interesting features  : First, all three functions usually appearing, namaly $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$, are expressed in terms of the single function $`f`$. This is a direct consequence of the non-renormalisation theorem. In perturbation $`f`$ has a power series expansion in $`g`$:

$$f(g)=\frac{g^2}{4\pi ^2}+\mathrm{}$$
(11)
Second, at the right hand side of (9), instead of the familiar mass insertion, there appears an insertion of a zero momentum $`A`$ field. Notice that, since the added line carries zero momentum, the Green function in the left hand side still dominates in the deep Euclidean region.

At this stage these divergence cancellations appeared to be miraculous. We had no deeper understanding of their origin and we could only speculate. The first question was whether the remaining divergence, the wave function counterterm, was really present to all orders, in other words the question was whether the theory was in fact superrenormalisable. Our explicit calculation showed that, at least up to two loops, this did not seem to be the case, although a partial cancellation did occur . A related question was whether supersymmetry could turn a theory which is non-renormalisable by power counting into a renormalisable one. We could find no examples. Today we know the precise answer to such questions. We use a new formulation of supersymmetry , in which the base space is eight dimensional. Four are the usual Minkowski coordinates $`x_\mu `$, $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$ and the remaining four can be viewed as forming, under Lorentz transformations, a complex two-component Weyl spinor $`\theta _\alpha `$ together with its conjugate $`\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}`$, $`\alpha ,\dot{\alpha }=1,2`$. These components are taken to be totally anti-commuting elements of a Grassmann algebra. This space is called ”superspace”. We can show that supersymmetry transformations act on superspace as generalised translations. The important point is that, because of the anti-commutation properties of the components of $`\theta `$, any function in superspace is, in fact, a polynomial in $`\theta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$ with coefficients which are functions of $`x`$. In other words, a field in superspace, called ”superfield”, is equivalent to a finite multiplet of ordinary fields.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })=A(x)+\theta \psi (x)+\overline{\theta }\overline{\chi }+\mathrm{}..+\theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }R(x)$$
(12)
The fields $`A(x)`$, $`\psi (x)`$, etc which appear as coefficients in the expansion (12), have well-defined Lorentz transformation properties and transform among themselves and their derivatives under supersymmetry. Therefore, they form a representation, in general reducible. It is possible to find a complete set of covariant restrictions on superfields to obtain the irreducible representations. A particular example of such restrictions is given by the equation:

$$\frac{}{\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })=0$$
(13)
A superfield that satisfies (13) is a function of $`x`$ and $`\theta `$ only and is called ”chiral”. Its expansion in powers of $`\theta `$ is given by:

$$\varphi (x,\theta )=A(x)+\theta \psi (x)+\theta \theta F(x)$$
(14)
It is precisely the multiplet we considered in (S0.Ex1) written in complex notation.

These observations provide the basis for the representation theory of supersymmetry. Since the product of two superfields is again a superfield, they also provide the elements of a tensor calculus. The Lagrangian densities which were initially constructed by trial and error can be obtained now as superfields in superspace. The corresponding actions are eight dimensional integrals of the Lagrangian superfields. Integrals over Grassmann variables have unusual properties. In particular, they satisfy:

$$d\theta =0,\theta d\theta =1$$
(15)
which means that only the last term in the expansion of a superfield survives. With these results we can reformulate perturbation theory using Feynman rules directly in superspace . It follows that, although we can use a chiral superfield as part of a Lagrangian and integrate this piece only over $`\theta `$ to obtain the action, only integrals over the entire superspace appear as counterterms. Thus we can understand the origin of the non-renormalisation theorems. Going back to (S0.Ex1), we can show that both $`_m`$ and $`_{int}`$ are chiral superfields and depend only on $`\theta `$, while $`_0`$ depends on both $`\theta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$. Therefore only a wave function counterterm will appear.

Before leaving the scalar model I want to address the following question: After all, the supersymmetric model (S0.Ex1) is just a particular combination of Yukawa and scalar couplings. Are there any other combinations with similar remarkable properties? As an example, let us consider the massless Lagrangian :

$`=`$ $``$ $`{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(A)^2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(B)^2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\psi }/\psi `$
$``$ $`ig\overline{\psi }\psi A+ig\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\psi B`$
$``$ $`{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda (A^4+B^4)fA^2B^2`$
Invariance under supersymmetry is obtained for

$$\lambda =f=g^2$$
(17)
At one loop we can compute the counterterms of this model  with the following results: (i)Only under the supersymmetric relation (17) we obtain the non-renormalisation theorem. (ii)As expected, this relation is a fixed point of the renormalisation group flow. (iii)This fixed point is an infrared attractor, i.e. if we start at high energies somewhere in its vicinity, we shall be driven towards it at larger and larger distances.

The superfield techniques have been used to derive more general non-renormalisation theorems and they will be reviewed elsewhere. In the rest of my time I want to describe some early results on supersymmetry breaking.

In Nature we see no degeneracy between fermions and bosons. So it was immediately recognised that supersymmetry, if at all relevant, must be broken. In our first paper with Zumino  we addressed the question for the simple model of equation (S0.Ex1). An ordinary internal symmetry is spontaneously broken if an operator, usually one of the canonical fields, which transforms non trivially under the symmetry transformations, is allowed to take a non-zero vacuum expectation value. This is often achieved by choosing a negative value for the mass square term of a scalar field. In supersymmetry the situation turns out to be different. The masses of scalars and spinors are digenerate and the classical potential for any scalar field never becomes negative. In our model the only fields which can take non-vanishing vacuum expectation values without breaking Lorentz invariance or parity are $`A`$ and $`F`$. However the first one does not help because $`A`$ appears only in th! e ! transformation law of $`\psi `$ thr ough its derivative (S0.Ex4). Therefore, as long as we do not break translational invariance, we can shift it with a constant value without breaking supersymmetry. We are left with the $`F`$ field. It transforms by a total derivative (S0.Ex4) and therefore, we can add to the Lagrangian (S0.Ex1) a term linear in $`F`$ without breaking supersymmetry explicitly. But even this term does not help because it is straightforward to verify that it can always be eliminated by a shift of the $`A`$ field. We thus showed that there was no spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry, for any choice of the parameters of the model. We also asked the general question of the possibility of spontaneous breaking and we gave the wrong answer. We argued that, since the hamiltonian of a supersymmetric system can be expressed as the anti-commutator of two fermionic generators, the energy of an eigenstate which is annihilated by the generators is zero. On the other hand, the same relation! s! hows that the spectrum of the ha miltonian is positive semi-definite. Therefore we concluded that the supersymmetric invariant state will be always the ground state. We were aware of the fact that the statement was not rigorous and we said so, but we believed the result to be correct. I shall come back to the fate of spontaneous breaking in a moment, but let me examine first the consequences of a soft, explicit breaking for the model of equation (S0.Ex1).

The simplest breaking term is one linear in the field $`A`$ :

$$cA$$
(18)
This term can be eliminated by a simultaneous shift of the fields $`A`$ and $`F`$, $`AA+a`$, $`FF+f`$ with $`a`$ and $`f`$ constants given in terms of the original parameters $`m`$, $`g`$ and $`c`$. The shift in $`F`$ breaks supersymmetry and induces a mass-splitting in the multiplet:

$`m_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`m+2ga=c/f`$
$`m_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\psi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2fg`$ (19)
$`m_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\psi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2fg`$
The masses are no longer equal but, in the tree approximation, they satisfy the relation:

$$m_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=2m_{\psi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}$$
(20)
The remnant of the non-renormalisation theorem presented above, guarantees that this relation will receive no divergent corrections in higher orders.

If one eliminates $`f`$, one finds an equation of third degree for $`a`$. For small but finite $`c`$, its solutions correspond to the extrema of the potential for the field $`A`$:

$$V(a)={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}a^2(m+ga)^2+ca$$
(21)
As $`c0`$, the three solutions become

$$a_1=0,a_2=\frac{m}{g},a_3=\frac{m}{2g}$$
(22)
and the potential becomes symmetric around the value $`a_3`$. $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ correspond to the two minima of the potential and give two, stable, supersymmetric, physically equivalent solutions. $`a_3`$ corresponds to a local maximum and it is unstable. It is instructive to notice that if one could choose this unstable solution, one would have $`m_\psi =0`$, i.e. the $`\psi `$ field would become a Goldstone spinor and supersymmetry would be spontaneously broken . In this case the relation (20) shows that one of the bosons would have a negative square mass. This is the sign of instability.

This mass relation which shows an equal splitting among the levels in broken supersymmetry turns out to be very general in the breaking of both global ant local supersymmetries . In fact it poses severe constraints in model building. Although, in general, quantum corrections are expected to modify it, it turns out that it is remarkably robust .

I shall end with a short review of the mechanism of spontaneous breaking of global supersymmetry. As I explained before, the particular connection between supersymmetry generators and translations, shows that a supersymmetric invariant state is always a ground state . This was initially interpreted as an indication for the existence of a no-go theorem as regards to spontaneous supersymmetry breaking. In fact the situation is different: It is correct that a supersymmetric invariant state, if it exists, is always a ground state and global supersymmetry is unbroken. But, contrary to what happens in ordinary symmetries, a supersymmetric state may not exist at all. In this case, and in this case only, spontaneous breaking occurs. The first example  was that of the supersymmetric extension of a $`U(1)`$ gauge theory . The model describes the interaction of a charged scalar multiplet and a gauge vector multiplet. In a particular family of gauge choices! , ! the Wess-Zumino gauge , the Lagrangian is polynomial and renormalisable by power counting. In terms of physical fields, the gauge multiplet consists of the photon field $`𝒱_\mu (x)`$ and its supesymmetric partner which is a neutral Majorana spinor $`\lambda (x)`$. The matter multiplet consists of a Dirac spinor $`\psi (x)`$ (the electron) and two charged spin zero fields, a scalar $`A(x)`$ and a pseudoscalar $`B(x)`$. The photon has the usual electromagnetic couplings with the charged fields, characterised by a coupling constant $`e`$ and supersymmetry induces new, Yukawa type couplings between $`\lambda `$, $`\psi `$ and $`A`$ and $`B`$, with a coupling constant which is again equal to $`e`$. As with eq.(S0.Ex1), the transformations are simpler if one includes auxiliary fields, a charged scalar $`F`$, a charged pseudoscalar $`G`$ and a neutral pseudoscalar $`D`$. The first two are associated with the matter multiplet and the last one with the photon. Under supersymmetry transformations $`D`$ has properti! es! similar to those of $`F`$ and $`G`$ of eq.(S0.Ex4), i.e. it transforms by a four derivative and it appears without derivative in the transformation of $`\lambda `$. Therefore, we can add to the Lagrangian a term linear in the field $`D`$. This term preserves supersymmetry and gauge invariance and violates parity explicitly but softly. On the other hand, a non zero vacuum expectation value for $`D`$ breaks supersymmetry spontaneously. The classical potential for the spin zero fields is given by:

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}[F_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+F_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+G_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+G_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+D^2]`$
$`+`$ $`m(F_1A_1+F_2A_2+G_1B_1+G_2B_2)`$
$`+`$ $`eD(A_1B_2A_2B_1)+\xi D`$
where $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$ etc are the real and imaginary parts of the fields. The novel feature here is that the linear term $`\xi D`$ cannot be absorbed by a shift of an $`A`$ or $`B`$ field and, therefore, we expect supersymmetry to be spontaneously broken . Indeed, after elimination of the auxiliary fields and diagonalisation of the resulting mass terms, we obtain:

$$_m={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(m^2+e\xi )(\stackrel{~}{A}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{B}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}){\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(m^2e\xi )(\stackrel{~}{A}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{B}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})im\overline{\psi }\psi $$
(24)
where $`\stackrel{~}{A}_i`$ etc are linear combinations of the old fields. $`𝒱_\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ remain massless. In fact it is easy to show that $`\lambda `$ is the Goldstone spinor one expects after spontaneous breaking of a symmetry whose conserved current has spin equal to $`3/2`$. We can verify this result explicitly by studying the transformation properties of the fields under infinitesimal supersymmetry transformations. A Goldstone field is the one which has in its transformation law a constant term which is not proportional to any other field.

The relations (24) show that we can distinguish two cases depending on the sign of $`m^2e\xi `$. (We assume, without loss of generality, $`e\xi >0`$). The positive sign means that supersymmetry is spontaneously broken but gauge symmetry is not. In the oposite case they are both spontaneously broken and the photon becomes massive by the usual Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism. The Goldstone fermion is now a linear combination of $`\lambda `$ and $`\psi `$.

This simple example shows the general mechanism for spontaneous supersymmetry breaking. In fact, it would have been impossible to have such a breaking, if it were not for the peculiar property we mentioned earlier, namely the possibility of adding to the Lagrangian a term linear in the auxiliary fields without breaking supersymmetry explicitly. If we restrict ourselves to renormalisable theories, we can use only scalar and vector multiplets with auxiliary fields we have called brfore $`F`$, $`G`$, and $`D`$. The first is scalar, the other two pseudoscalar. Let $`\varphi `$ denote, collectively, all other physical, spin zero fields. We shall assume that Lorentz invariance is not broken, consequently all other fields have zero vacuum expectation values. The potential of the scalar fields in the tree approximation has the form:

$`V(\varphi )={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Sigma }F_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\Sigma }G_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\Sigma }D_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}]`$
$`+[\mathrm{\Sigma }F_iF_i(\varphi )+\mathrm{\Sigma }G_iG_i(\varphi )+\mathrm{\Sigma }D_iD_i(\varphi )]`$ (25)
where the functions $`F_i(\varphi )`$, $`G_i(\varphi )`$ and $`D_i(\varphi )`$ are polynomials in the physical fields $`\varphi `$ of degree not higher than second. The equations of motion which eliminate the auxiliary fields are

$$F_i=F_i(\varphi );G_i=G_i(\varphi );D_i=D_i(\varphi )$$
(26)
so the potential in terms of the physical fields reads:

$$V(\varphi )={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Sigma }F_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\varphi )+\mathrm{\Sigma }G_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\varphi )+\mathrm{\Sigma }D_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\varphi )]$$
(27)
The important point is that $`V`$ is non-negative and vanishes only when

$$F_i(\varphi )=0;G_i(\varphi )=0;D_i(\varphi )=0$$
(28)
i.e. when all auxiliary fields have zero vacuum expectation values and supersymmetry is unbroken. For spontaneous breaking we must arrange so that the system of the second degree algebraic equations (28) has no real solution. This was the case in the supersymmetric extension of Q.E.D. we presented before. We can also construct models with more than one scalar multiplets . A final remark: The non-renormalisation theorems we presented before show that, if global supersymmetry is unbroken in the tree approximation, it will remain unbroken to all orders in perturbation theory. This also puts severe restrictions in model building where non-perturbative breaking mechanisms must be invented .

As we saw in the previous example and as we know from general theorems, spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry results in the appearance of a zero mass Goldstone spinor. It satisfies the standard low-energy theorem, known as “Adler’s zero”. It states that the amplitude for the emission (or absorption) of a Goldstone particle of momentum $`k`$ vanishes at low energies linear in $`k`$. This means that this fermion cannot be identified with one of the neutrinos of the Standard Model, even if they have exactly zero mass . Although we have no experimental hint of any kind, the predominant philosophy to-day is to believe that such a Goldstone fermion is absorbed in a super-Higgs mechanism in the framework of a supergravity theory .

It is still too early to take bets on the final place that supersymmetry will occupy in particle physics. It is amusing to notice that several times in recent years, whenever experimental results appeared to depart from the Standard Model predictions, the first reaction of both theorists and experimentalists was to try to interpret them as indications of supersymmetry. Few theories have exercised so much fascination to so many physicists for so long. Looking for supersymmetric particles will be an important part of experimental research in the years to come. I hope that it will be both exciting and rewarding and that the fortieth anniversary Conference will be that of supersymmetric phenomenology.


text:
# Helicity Signatures in Subthreshold 𝜌⁰ Production on Nuclei

## Abstract

We report a helicity analysis of subthreshold $`\rho ^0`$ production on $`{}_{}{}^{2}H`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{12}C`$ nuclei at low photoproduction energies and large $`|t|`$. The results are indicative of a large longitudinal $`\rho ^0`$ polarization ($`l=1`$, $`m=0`$) and are consistent with a strong helicity-flip mechanism of $`\rho ^0`$ production. The analysis is model-independent and supports the large mass shift reported from the earlier $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ experiments.

PACS: 13.60.Le, 25.20.Lj, 14.40.Cs, 12.40 Yx

At high densities and temperatures of matter, such as are present in high-energy heavy-ion collisions, neutron stars and supernovae, particle properties are expected to be modified from their free state (vacuum) values. Because physical processes, such as those involved in the onset of chiral symmetry restoration and the phase transition to quark gluon plasma, depend on hadron properties in the nuclear medium, the role medium modifications play is of significant importance .

Heavy ion collider experiments have provided the first measurements of dilepton invariant mass spectra which exhibit an enhancement at lower mass regions, over that expected from vacuum mass values for the vector mesons . Nevertheless, the complexity of the reaction has raised alternate and more conventional explanations . Evidence for $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ mass modification at normal nuclear matter densities has also been reported .

The first experiments utilizing tagged photons to probe medium effects have been completed at INS-ES, using the large acceptance TAGX detector, and have been reported in the literature . The results were consistent with a substantial $`\rho ^0`$ mass modification in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He(\gamma ,\pi ^+\pi ^{})ppn`$ reaction. The photon energy region was mostly below the nominal 1080 MeV threshold on the free proton and was thus termed the $`subthreshold`$ regime. In this energy region, the Fermi momentum of the struck nucleon was utilized to produce the $`\rho ^0`$ via a quasi-free $`\gamma N`$ interaction. There were, however, mainly two reservations raised regarding these conclusions: (1) the $`\rho ^0`$ signal in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ data-set is small compared to competing processes (mainly $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$, $`N^{}\pi `$, $`N^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$) and (2) the analysis is model- and assumption- dependent. The spectral shape of the $`\rho ^0`$ in the nuclear medium is not known and may be quite different than the free spectral shape assumed in the fits. Although that analysis had been demonstrated to be relatively insensitive to reasonable variations in the cross sections of the background processes and the width of the $`\rho ^0`$ , a $`\rho ^0`$ signature based on fewer assumptions would increase the confidence in the interpretation of those results. Such analysis was first reported in  in the $`J=1`$ signature of the $`\rho ^0`$ in the $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay. In this letter, we describe the helicity analysis for two nuclear targets and the implications on the reaction mechanism and the mass modification.

The TAGX detector and the particle identification analysis used in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ experiment have been described in detail elsewhere . Results from $`{}_{}{}^{12}C`$ and $`CD_2`$ targets – in the form of research grade graphite and deuterated polyethylene – are reported for the first time here. The experimental techniques were the same as in  and will be presented in more detail in a later publication. Subtraction of the normalized $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ spectra for these two targets isolated the contribution of the deuterium.

At energies above 1.2 GeV, coherent (diffractive) production dominates the $`\rho ^0`$ photoproduction process ($`|t|0.1`$ (GeV/c)2). At such low $`t`$, the angular distribution of a decay pion with respect to the momentum vector of the di-pion system, $`\theta _{\pi ^+}^{}`$, exhibits a sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{\pi ^+}^{}`$ dependence. This is understood through helicity conservation: the $`\rho ^0`$ carries the helicity of the transversely polarized photon. Therefore, in the $`s`$-channel helicity conserving frame, helicity conservation results in pure sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{\pi ^+}^{}`$ distribution for unpolarized photons and the $`\rho ^0`$ carries the photon’s $`l=1,`$ $`m=\pm 1`$ quantum numbers. Even though such behaviour has been well established over a very wide photon energy range, there have been small helicity violation effects, for example those reported by the H1 collaboration . In contrast, the TAGX experiments are at much lower energies and higher $`t`$, and display strong cos$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{\pi ^+}^{}`$ dependence in the $`s`$-channel helicity frame , which implies that a helicity-flip mechanism dominates for those kinematics.

Among all $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ production processes in the 1 GeV photon energy region, only $`\rho ^0`$\- and $`\sigma `$-meson decay can produce $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ with a two-body kinematic distribution and a $`\pi \pi `$ opening angle of $`180^o`$ on an event-by-event basis in their respective rest frames. All other known processes are two-step in nature, with the two pions generated at different production vertices. The two-pion kinematical observables will follow multi-body phase-space and the kinematic correlation between the two pions will be weaker. This is a simple argument based solely on kinematic considerations and is independent of any relative angular momentum considerations among the two-step reaction products.

Returning to the single-step $`\rho \pi \pi `$ process, in the subthreshold region the Lorentz boost of the $`\rho ^0`$ in the lab frame is small and the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ opening angle remains large. All other reactions leading to $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ production result in significantly different angular correlations. This has been demonstrated with the use of Monte Carlo (MC) simulations incorporating the TAGX geometry and trigger requirements and has been reported in . Given the strong correlation, only a small fraction of the pions originating from the $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay is eliminated by an opening angle requirement of $`\theta _{\pi \pi }120^o`$. However, a large fraction of $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events originating from reactions other than $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\sigma `$ decays is eliminated.

Fig. 1 demonstrates the effect of the $`\theta _{\pi \pi }>120^0`$ lab frame opening angle cut upon two of the several mechanisms contributing to the data-set. The modeled processes shown are based on the quasi-free production reactions $`\gamma p_F\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\pi ^{}n`$, and $`\gamma p_F\rho ^0p^{}`$, where $`p_F`$ denotes a bound proton with the single nucleon Fermi momentum distribution appropriate for the $`{}_{}{}^{2}H`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{12}C`$ nuclei. The processes shown in Fig.1 are representative of the MC studies carried out in Refs.  for the dominant channels contributing to $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. The cos$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{\pi ^+}^{}`$ distribution exhibited in the right panel can only be produced by longitudinally polarized $`\rho ^0`$ ($`l=1,m=0`$) decay; all other processes give distributions similar to that shown in the left panel. Therefore, a definitive signature of $`\rho ^0`$ content in the data is found at kinematical regions which are little affected by such an opening angle cut.

The helicity angle $`\theta _{\pi ^+}^{}`$ is defined in the di-pion rest system in the following manner: (i) the summed momentum vector $`\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi \pi }`$ is formed, (ii) the longitudinal component $`p_{\pi ^+//}`$ of the $`\pi ^+`$ momentum with respect to $`\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi \pi }`$ in the lab frame is calculated; (iii) both $`p_{\pi ^+}`$ and $`p_{\pi ^+//}`$ are transformed to the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ center of mass frame, and $`\theta _{\pi ^+}^{}`$ is calculated from $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\pi ^+}^{}=\mathrm{p}_{\pi ^+//}/\mathrm{p}_{\pi ^+}`$.

If one accepts the existence of the $`\sigma `$-meson, the two pions produced as a result of its decay will also have opening angles of $`180^o`$ on an event-by-event basis in the $`\sigma `$ rest frame. However, since the width of the $`\sigma `$ is much broader than that of the $`\rho ^0`$ , $`\sigma `$ decay will effectively populate all the phase space acceptance available to the experiment and the Lorentz boost values will thus occupy a broader region than $`\rho ^0`$ decay. This will result in a broader distribution of the pion opening angles. Therefore, when one considers only opening angle and $`\theta _{\pi ^+}^{}`$ distributions, the experimental signature of the $`\sigma `$ will be nearly indistiguishable from that of the $`unpolarized`$ $`\rho ^0`$. The $`\sigma `$ cannot, however, differentially populate the regions of interest with $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\pi ^+}^{}0.5|`$, which are characteristic of the polarized $`\rho ^0`$, due to the $`\sigma `$-meson’s scalar ($`J=0`$) nature. In conclusion, no other $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ production reaction has been identified which will have $`both`$ the $`pwave`$ ($`l=1,m=0`$) signature of the polarized $`\rho ^0`$ decay $`and`$ the two-body decay opening angles of the $`\rho ^0`$. The $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay uniquely satisfies both conditions.

The $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ data are displayed in Figures 2 and 3 for the $`{}_{}{}^{2}He`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{12}C`$ targets, respectively, in the $`E_\gamma =7001000`$ MeV tagged photon energy region. In Fig. 2, the flatness of the distribution for the data-points with no $`\theta _{\pi \pi }`$ cut is characteristic of the superposition of background processes dominating the region between $`\pm 0.5`$. The shaded distribution, subject to $`\theta _{\pi \pi }>120^o`$, clearly shows that the populations outside that region, and near the edges of the distribution, are affected very little by the application of the $`\theta _{\pi \pi }`$ cut. However, in the region within $`\pm 0.5`$, the population is reduced by a factor of five. The $`pwave`$ shape ($`l=1,m=0`$) is clearly observed. The drop in the population at cos$`\theta _{\pi ^+}^{}=\pm 1`$ in Fig. 2 is due to the TAGX acceptance and has been verified by MC simulations. The application of a missing mass cut in panel (b) further suppress multi-pion production. The loss of events is verified by a visual comparison of panels (a) and (b). The $`pwave`$ signature in the shaded distribution is further enhanced by the missing mass cut, since multi-pion production cannot have the kinematic signatures of a two body decay.

Similar observations hold for the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C`$ target as well, as shown in Fig. 3. The statistical quality of the carbon data is not as good as that for the $`{}_{}{}^{2}H`$ data due to the thinness of the graphite target, however, the effect of the opening angle cut in both panels (a) and (b) is as dramatic as in Fig. 2. There is also no doubt that the distributions share very similar features for both nuclei. One also notes the less pronounced loss of acceptance at the extreme values of the distribution, unlike the case of $`{}_{}{}^{2}H`$ in Fig. 2. This is due to the larger single nucleon Fermi momentum in carbon and the resulting larger phase-space available to the $`\pi \pi `$ system.

The establishment of a unique signature for the $`\rho ^0`$ in the TAGX $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ data-set becomes a powerful tool with which to re-investigate the mass modifications reported already in the literature  for $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$. However, one has to first consider the issues arising from this helicity signature ($`l=1,m=0`$) for the $`\rho ^0`$. Small helicity violations, such as reported in  (and elsewhere), have been observed in high virtuality (high $`Q^2`$) $`\rho ^0`$ lepto-production data. Strong and rapidly rising helicity-flip amplitudes had also been observed in the $`t`$-channel, using photons, for values of $`|t|0.4`$ (GeV/c)2 . In this work, the $`|t|`$ values range between 0.6 and 1.1 (GeV/c)2 and exceed the values in . Unfortunately, the limited statistics available to the analysis do not allow a finer binning in $`t`$ and in invariant mass to further investigate the correlation. It has been verified, within the limited statistics, that the $`\rho ^0`$ candidates from regions of high $`t`$ are correlated to $`\rho ^0`$ candidates in the $`|cos\theta _{\pi ^+}^{}|0.7`$ distributions. One explanation proposed for such strong helicity-flip is based on a topological feature of QCD and is more applicable in the low energy regime . It has its foundation in the coupling of the $`\pi ^0`$ exhange particle to the $`\gamma `$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ vertex. It remains to be seen if such a mechanism accounts for the features and cross sections which will result from this work.

Data distributions for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ production from $`{}_{}{}^{2}H`$, in the $`700E_\gamma 1000`$ MeV range, are shown in Fig. 4 for four $`\pi \pi `$ invariant mass ($`m_{\pi \pi }`$) regions. One observes a pronounced $`pwave`$-like $`(l=1,m=0)`$ signature in the $`600m_{\pi \pi }700`$ MeV/c2 region. The 500-600 MeV/c2 $`m_{\pi \pi }`$ bin exhibits a weaker $`pwave`$ signature and the result of the opening angle cut is a dramatic reduction ($`10:1`$) in the number of surviving events in the central region. This is consistent with the MC simulations that point to the dominant role the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ production processes play in this invariant mass range . On the other hand, in this $`E_\gamma `$ energy region, little strength for the $`\rho ^0`$ is observed in the “natural” $`m_{\pi \pi }`$ range of 700-800 MeV/c2. Even in this case, however, $`\rho ^0`$ production is associated with a helicity-flip signature, from the $`l=1,m=\pm 1`$ substate dominant in coherent production to the $`l=1,m=0`$ substate mostly associated with the higher $`t`$ production mechanism in this experiment.

By assuming a slowly varying background in the invariant mass regions of 400-800 MeV/c2, an assumption borne out by similar analyses in , the shaded areas are consistent with an effective mass of the $`\rho ^0`$ populating the 500-700 MeV/c2 region. Phase-space acceptance corrections accounting for the overlap between the actual $`\rho ^0`$ spectral function, the tagged photon beam energy spectrum and the photon energy distributions may result in a modest upward correction, but, nevertheless, this assumption-free analysis is consistent with a significantly lower $`\rho ^0`$ effective mass. The results are not strongly supporting of a much broader $`\rho ^0`$ spectral shape or one with a long, low-invariant-mass tail of any significance, at this time.

A comparison of the data in the 700-800 MeV/c2 bin to the distribution and population in the 600-700 MeV/c2 bin is consistent with a much weaker $`\rho ^0`$ signature in the former as compared to the latter, of near vacuum-value $`m_{\rho ^0}`$ but also with a helicity-flip signature. In this higher $`m_{\pi \pi }`$ bin, however, some loss of strength can be accounted for by phase-space corrections and photon yield normalizations. However, even such corrections cannot account for the much higher population evident in the 600-700 MeV/c2 mass bin, unless the main strength of the $`\rho ^0`$ mass distribution is confined in the latter invariant mass range. It is worth mentioning here that a similar conclusion, for the break-up channel in $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$, has been reached by a completely different analysis and reported in . A more detailed analysis taking into account various modified spectral shapes for the $`\rho ^0`$, corrections for phase-space acceptance, as well as photon yields and spectral distributions, is underway to further investigate this behaviour and will be reported at a later date.

In conclusion, $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ photoproduction on light nuclei in the $`E_\gamma `$ energy region of 700 to 1000 MeV, which lies mostly below the $`\rho ^0`$ production threshold on the free proton, is reported here with emphasis on helicity information. The large values of $`t`$ in this work confirm similar helicity-flip evidence reported earlier and at higher energies . The helicity analysis, based only on the kinematical signatures expected in the decay of a particle into two pions, is consistent with a particle with an invariant mass distribution contained mostly within a 500-700 MeV/c2 region and with a dominant helicity zero ($`l=1,m=0`$) state. In the absence of any known particle with such quantum numbers and mass, the data are consistent with the production of the $`\rho ^0`$ and, thus, they imply strong helicity-flip amplitudes in the reaction mechanism. Such a unique signature of $`\rho ^0`$ in the data-set potentially allows the reliable separation of $`\rho ^0`$ from unrelated background. The strength and symmetry of the $`l=1,m=0`$ signatures in the data support our earlier reports of a decrease of the effective mass of the $`\rho ^0`$. Furthemore, these conclusions are largely independent of nuclear target and appear to emphasize a common underlying mechanism of the $`\gamma N`$ interaction, in the nuclear environmnt, leading to $`\rho ^0`$ production.

The authors wish to thank the staff of INS-ES for their hospitality and help during the experiments. This work has been partially supported by grants in aid of research by NSERC and INS-ES.