text:
# References

ONE-LOOP EFFECTIVE ACTION FOR THE EXTENDED
SPINOR ELECTRODYNAMICS WITH VIOLATION OF
LORENTZ AND CPT SYMMETRY

Yu.A. Sitenko 111e-mail: yusitenko@bitp.kiev.ua

Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, USA
and
Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences,
Kyiv, 03143, Ukraine

## Abstract

If violation of Lorentz and CPT symmetry is introduced into the fermion sector of conventional quantum electrodynamics, then the Chern-Simons term is radiatively induced with finite nonzero coefficient, as well as the Maxwell term is with logarithmically divergent one. The heat kernel expansion and the proper time methods are used to determine the effective action in the one-loop approximation unambiguously.

PACS numbers: 11.10.Gh, 11.30.Cp, 11.30.Er, 11.15.Tk

Keywords: Chern-Simons invariant; Effective action; Heat kernel; Fock-Schwinger method

Lorentz and CPT symmetry of conventional Maxwell electrodynamics is destroyed by inclusion a Chern-Simons term  into the action

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{4}d^4xF^{\mu \nu }(x)F_{\mu \nu }(x)k^\mu d^4xA^\nu (x)\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }(x),$$
(1)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ is the electromagnetic field strength, $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \omega }F_{\rho \omega }`$ is its dual, and metric of the Minkowski space-time is chosen as $`g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$. Gauge invariance of action (1) and of the corresponding equations of motion is maintained, provided that $`k^\mu `$ is a constant 4-vector. This vector selects a preferred direction in space-time, thus violating both Lorentz invariance and discrete CPT symmetry. Observation of distant galaxies puts a stringent bound on the value of $`k^\mu `$: it should effectively vanish .

On the other hand, a Lorentz- and CPT-violating extension of spinor electrodynamics can be proposed by adding an appropriate axial-vector interaction into the lagrangian

$$L(x)=\overline{\psi }(x)\left(i\widehat{}e\widehat{A}(x)+\widehat{b}\gamma ^5m\right)\psi (x),$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{}=\gamma ^\mu _\mu `$, $`[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]_+=2g^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\gamma ^5=i\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3`$, and $`b^\mu `$ is a constant 4-vector. Then classical action (1) attains a quantum correction, resulting from integrating out the spinor degrees of freedom, which in the one-loop approximation reads:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{quant}}=i\mathrm{ln}\left\{𝑑\overline{\psi }𝑑\psi \mathrm{exp}[id^4xL(x)]\right\}=i\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left(i\widehat{}e\widehat{A}(x)+\widehat{b}\gamma ^5m\right),$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{Tr}U=d^4x\mathrm{tr}x|U|x`$ is the trace of an operator in functional space, and the trace over spinor indices is denoted by $`\mathrm{tr}`$.

Natural questions arize: does the interaction of quantized spinor fields, as given by $`L(x)`$ (2), results in the emergence of the effective Chern-Simons ($`A\stackrel{~}{F}`$) term? and, if so, whether the observed smallness of the coefficient before the $`A\stackrel{~}{F}`$ term should be translated into a restriction on the parameter of Lorentz and CPT symmetry violation in the fermionic sector ($`b^\mu `$)? The answers to this questions, as is known from the literature, are quite different, even controversial. Whereas the authors of Refs. insist that the effective $`A\stackrel{~}{F}`$ term is not induced by radiative corrections, the authors of Refs. get the radiatively induced $`A\stackrel{~}{F}`$ term with coefficient $`\frac{3e^2}{16\pi ^2}b^\mu `$, and the authors of Refs. get this term with coefficient $`\frac{e^2}{8\pi ^2}b^\mu `$. Meanwhile, it is also claimed that the $`A\stackrel{~}{F}`$ term is induced with finite but ambiguous coefficient .

With the purpose of clarifying the situation, in the present Letter, a comprehensive analysis of one-loop effective action (3) will be carried out in the framework of covariant nonperturbative formalism involving the heat kernel expansion  and the Fock-Schwinger proper time  methods. We shall find out that the $`A\stackrel{~}{F}`$ term is radiatively induced with coefficient $`\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2}b^\mu `$.

Taking a functional derivative of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{quant}}`$ (3), let us define current

$$J^\mu (x)=\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{quant}}}{\delta A_\mu (x)}=ie\mathrm{tr}\gamma ^\mu x|\left(i\widehat{}e\widehat{A}(x)+\widehat{b}\gamma ^5m\right)^1|x,$$
(4)
which can be presented in the form

$`J^\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`ie\mathrm{tr}\gamma ^\mu x|(i\widehat{}e\widehat{A}(x)\widehat{b}\gamma ^5+m)\times `$ (5)
$`\times \left[(i\widehat{}+e\widehat{A}(x)\widehat{b}\gamma ^5+m)(i\widehat{}e\widehat{A}(x)\widehat{b}\gamma ^5+m)\right]^1|x=`$
$`=ie\mathrm{tr}\gamma ^\mu x|(\widehat{\pi }+m)(H^2+m^2)^1|x,`$
where

$$H^2=\pi ^\rho (x)\pi _\rho (x)+\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^{\omega \rho }eF_{\omega \rho }(x)+2m\gamma ^5\widehat{b}$$
(6)
and

$$\pi _\mu (x)=i_\mu eA_\mu (x)b_\mu \gamma ^5,[\pi _\mu (x),\pi _\nu (x)]_{}=ieF_{\mu \nu }(x),\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]_{}.$$
(7)
Expressions (4) and (5) can be regarded as purely formal and, strictly speaking, meaningless: they are ill-defined, suffering from infinite divergencies. The well-defined quantities are nondiagonal $`(x^{}x)`$ matrix elements of operators in these expressions. This suggests a point-splitting procedure to regularize divergencies, i.e. computing first the nondiagonal matrix elements and then tending $`x^{}x`$. Another procedure is to modify the operator by multiplying it with a suitable operator that smoothens singular behaviour of matrix elements as $`x^{}x`$. In this Letter we shall obtain results in the framework of both of these two regularization procedures.

Taking an exponential function of the denominator in the capacity of smoothening operator (which is reminiscent of Fujikawa’s computation of axial anomaly ), we define regularized current as

$$J^\mu (x)=ie\mathrm{tr}\gamma ^\mu x|(\widehat{\pi }+m)(H^2+m^2)^1\mathrm{exp}[t(H^2+m^2)]|x,$$
(8)
where $`t>0`$ plays a role of a regularization parameter. Upon the Wick rotation of the time axis $`(x^0=ix^4)`$, operator $`H^2(6)`$ becomes a positive definite elliptic operator. Our aim is to find out an asymptotic expansion of quantity (8) as $`t0_+`$; then divergent at $`t0_+`$ terms will represent the divergencies in current $`J^\mu `$.

The asymptotic expansion of the diagonal matrix element of the exponential function of an elliptic second-order differential operator has the form

$$x|\mathrm{e}^{t(H^2+m^2)}|x\underset{t0_+}{}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_l(x|H^2+m^2)t^{\frac{d}{2}+l},$$
(9)
where summation runs over nonnegative integers and $`d`$ is the dimension of the base space. This expansion (known as the asymptotic heat kernel expansion) is extensively studied and intensely employed in various areas of theoretical and mathematical physics. Coefficients $`E_l`$ (known as De Witt-Seeley-Gilkey coefficients) ) are endomorphisms of a fiber bundle, they are local covariant quantities composed from the coefficient functions of operator $`H^2`$, curvatures of the bundle and its base, and their covariant derivatives. The asymptotic expansion of diagonal matrix element

$$x|(H^2+m^2)^\alpha \mathrm{e}^{t(H^2+m^2)}|x$$

with an arbitrary real-valued $`\alpha `$ was obtained in Ref. where the expansion coefficients were expressed in terms of $`E_l(x|H^2+m^2)`$ and $`E_l(x|H^2)`$. For our purpose it suffices to use the result (Eq.(26) in Ref.) for particular values $`\alpha =1`$ and $`d=4`$:

$`x|(H^2+m^2)^1\mathrm{e}^{t(H^2+m^2)}|x`$ $`\underset{t0_+}{}`$ $`i\{E_0t^1E_1(x|H^2+m^2)[\mathrm{ln}(tm^2)+\gamma ]+`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}E_l(x|H^2)m^{22l}(l2)!\},`$
where factor $`i`$ emerges after a formal return back to Minkowski space-time $`(x^4=ix^0)`$ and terms of order $`t`$, $`t\mathrm{ln}t`$ and higher are omitted; $`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant. Since $`E_0=(4\pi )^2`$, the term with leading divergence $`(t^1)`$ does not contribute to $`J^\mu `$ (8). For a general operator $`H^2`$ in the form

$$H^2=\pi ^\rho \pi _\rho +X,$$
(11)
the next coefficients in expansion (10) take form

$$E_1(x|H^2+m^2)=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}\left(X+m^2\right).$$
(12)
$$E_2(x|H^2)=\frac{1}{2(4\pi )^2}\left(X^2+\frac{1}{3}\pi ^\rho \pi _\rho X+\frac{1}{6}[\pi _\omega ,\pi _\rho ]_{}[\pi ^\omega ,\pi ^\rho ]_{}\right).$$
(13)
In the case of $`H^2`$ in the form of Eq.(6), one has

$$X=\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^{\omega \rho }eF_{\omega \rho }+2m\gamma ^5\widehat{b}.$$
(14)
Decomposing $`J^\mu `$ (8) into two parts,

$$J^\mu (x)=J_1^\mu (x)+J_2^\mu (x),$$
(15)
where

$$J_1^\mu (x)=ie\mathrm{tr}\gamma ^\mu x|\widehat{\pi }(H^2+m^2)^1\mathrm{exp}[t(H^2+m^2)]|x$$
(16)
and

$$J_2^\mu (x)=iem\mathrm{tr}\gamma ^\mu x|(H^2+m^2)^1\mathrm{exp}[t(H^2+m^2)]|x,$$
(17)
one can note that the $`E_1`$ coefficient contributes only to $`J_1^\mu `$ (16). Thus $`J_2^\mu `$ (17) is finite in the limit $`t0_+`$. Computing the contribution of the $`E_2`$ coefficient to Eq.(17) by taking an appropriate trace over $`\gamma `$-matrices, we find that only crossed terms in the square of $`X`$ (14) are relevant. Thus we get expression

$$J_2^\mu (x)=\frac{e^2}{2\pi ^2}\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }(x)b_\nu ,$$
(18)
which yields the CPT-odd part of the effective action:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{odd}}^{\mathrm{quant}}=d^4xA_\mu (x)J_2^\mu (x)=\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2}b^\mu d^4xA^\nu (x)\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }(x).$$
(19)
In order to compute current $`J_1^\mu `$ (16), we use the relation obtained in Ref. (see Eq.(31) there), which after a formal return to the Minkowski space-time takes form

$$x|\pi _\nu \mathrm{e}^{t(H^2+m^2)}|x\underset{t0_+}{}i\frac{t^{1\frac{d}{2}}}{2(4\pi )^{d/2}}\left(\pi _\nu X+\frac{1}{3}\pi ^\rho [\pi _\rho ,\pi _\nu ]_{}\right)+O(t^{2\frac{d}{2}}).$$
(20)
Employing the results of Ref., we get in the $`d=4`$ case

$$x|\pi _\nu (H^2+m^2)^1\mathrm{e}^{t(H^2+m^2)}|x\underset{t0_+}{}i\frac{\mathrm{ln}(tm^2)+\gamma }{2(4\pi )^2}\left(\pi _\nu X+\frac{1}{3}\pi ^\rho [\pi _\rho ,\pi _\nu ]_{}\right),$$
(21)
where finite terms forming a series in inverse mass squared ($`m^{22l}`$, $`l2`$) are omitted. It is now straightforward to obtain expression

$$J_1^\mu (x)=\frac{e^2}{12\pi ^2}[\mathrm{ln}(tm^2)+\gamma ]_\nu F^{\nu \mu }(x),$$
(22)
which yields the CPT-even part of the effective action:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{even}}^{\mathrm{quant}}=d^4xA_\mu (x)J_1^\mu (x)=\frac{e^2}{48\pi ^2}[\mathrm{ln}(tm^2)+\gamma ]d^4xF^{\mu \nu }(x)F_{\mu \nu }(x).$$
(23)
Certainly, Eq.(23) is of no surprise, presenting the well-known phenomenon of charge renormalization in the one-loop approximation (for details see below). However, our intention was to compute both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{even}}^{\mathrm{quant}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{odd}}^{\mathrm{quant}}`$ consistently, in the framework of the same regularization scheme. What we have found is that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{even}}^{\mathrm{quant}}`$ is logarithmically divergent and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{odd}}^{\mathrm{quant}}`$ is finite; the coefficient before the Chern-Simons ($`A\stackrel{~}{F}`$) term, as well as the coefficient before the logarithmically divergent part of the Maxwell ($`F^2`$) term, is determined unambiguously.

The same result is maintained in the framework of the point-splitting regularization with the use of the Fock-Schwinger proper time method . The nondiagonal matrix element of $`(H^2+m^2)^1`$ is presented in the form

$$x|(H^2+m^2)^1|x^{}=i\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{0}{}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{tr}x|\mathrm{e}^{i\tau (H^2+m^2)}|x^{},$$
(24)
where it is implied that the mass squared entails a small negative imaginary part, $`m^2m^2iϵ`$. Derivation of the expression for the integrand in Eq.(24) in the case of vanishing $`b_\mu `$ and constant uniform $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ can be found in a textbook (see, e.g., Ref.). Following exactly the same way, we have derived the expression in the case of nonvanishing constant $`b_\mu `$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$:

$`x|(H^2+m^2)^1|x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\mathrm{exp}(ie{\displaystyle \underset{x^{}}{\overset{x}{}}}d\xi ^\nu A_\nu i\gamma ^5b_\nu x^\nu ){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{0}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{\tau ^2}}[det\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\tau eF}{\tau eF}}\right)_{\rho \rho ^{}}]^{\frac{1}{2}}\times `$ (25)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(xx^{})^\omega (eF\mathrm{coth}\tau eF)_{\omega \omega ^{}}(xx^{})^\omega ^{}+i\tau ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma ^{\omega \omega ^{}}eF_{\omega \omega ^{}}+`$
$`+2m\gamma ^5\widehat{b}+m^2)+2m\widehat{b}b^\omega [(eF)^1+\tau (1\mathrm{coth}\tau eF)]_{\omega \omega ^{}}(xx^{})^\omega ^{}`$
$`4i\tau m^2b^2b^\omega [(eF)^2(1\tau eF\mathrm{coth}\tau eF)]_{\omega \omega ^{}}b^\omega ^{}\}.`$
In order to get the contribution to

$$iem\mathrm{tr}\gamma ^\mu x|(H^2+m^2)^1|x^{},$$

it is sufficient to retain linear in $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ terms in Eq.(25), and, among them, only those are relevant, which are of the order $`\tau ^2`$ in the expansion of the exponential,

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[i\tau (\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^{\omega \omega ^{}}eF_{\omega \omega ^{}}+2m\gamma ^5\widehat{b})\right]=[1+i\tau (\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^{\omega \omega ^{}}eF_{\omega \omega ^{}}+2m\gamma ^5\widehat{b})$$

$$\frac{\tau ^2}{2}(\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^{\omega \omega ^{}}eF_{\omega \omega ^{}}+2m\gamma ^5\widehat{b})^2+\mathrm{}].$$

Thus we get that this contribution is finite in the limit $`x^{}x`$:

$`iem\mathrm{tr}\gamma ^\mu x|(H^2+m^2)^1|x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2m^2}{2(4\pi )^2}}\mathrm{tr}\left(\gamma ^\mu \sigma ^{\omega \omega ^{}}\gamma ^5\widehat{b}+\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5\widehat{b}\sigma ^{\omega \omega ^{}}\right)F_{\omega \omega ^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{0}{}}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{e}^{i\tau m^2}=`$ (26)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2\pi ^2}}\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }b_\nu ,`$
coinciding with Eq.(18), and, consequently, yielding Eq.(19).

As to the CPT-even part of the effective action, instead of quantity

$$ie\mathrm{tr}\gamma ^\mu x|\widehat{\pi }(H^2+m^2)^1|x^{}=\frac{ie}{2}\mathrm{tr}x|\frac{\delta }{\delta \pi _\mu }\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{0}{}}\frac{d\tau }{\tau }\mathrm{e}^{i\tau (H^2+m^2)}|x^{},$$
(27)
let us consider corresponding effective lagrangian

$$L_1^{\mathrm{quant}}=\frac{i}{2}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{0}{}}\frac{d\tau }{\tau }\mathrm{tr}x|\mathrm{e}^{i\tau (H^2+m^2)}|x,$$
(28)
which, with the use of Eq.(25), takes form

$`L_1^{\mathrm{quant}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{0}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{\tau ^3}}[det\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\tau eF}{\tau eF}}\right)_{\rho \rho ^{}}]^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{exp}[i\tau ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma ^{\omega \omega ^{}}eF_{\omega \omega ^{}}+`$ (29)
$`+2m\gamma ^5\widehat{b}4m^2b^2b^\omega [(eF)^2(1\tau eF\mathrm{coth}\tau eF)]_{\omega \omega ^{}}b^\omega ^{}+m^2)].`$
Subtracting the qudratically divergent ($`\stackrel{0}{}\frac{d\tau }{\tau ^3}`$) contribution of the free Dirac operator, we get logarithmically divergent quantity

$$L_1^{\mathrm{quant}}L_1^{\mathrm{quant}}|_{F_{\mu \nu }=0}=\frac{e^2}{48\pi ^2}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{0}{}}\frac{d\tau }{\tau }\mathrm{e}^{i\tau m^2},$$
(30)
which yields effective action,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{even}}^{\mathrm{quant}}=d^4x(L_1^{\mathrm{quant}}L_1^{\mathrm{quant}}|_{F_{\mu \nu }=0}),$$

coinciding with Eq.(23) under substitution $`\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{0}{}}\frac{d\tau }{\tau }\mathrm{e}^{i\tau m^2}\mathrm{ln}(tm^2)+\gamma `$.

Thus, we conclude that the use of two methods – the one involving heat kernel coefficients and the one of proper time – yieds consistent results; an obvious advantage of the heat kernel method is that it allows one to get the results easily in the case of the inhomogeneous field strength.

Taking, instead of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (1), classical action without the Chern-Simons ($`A\stackrel{~}{F}`$) term, as an input,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{class}}=\frac{1}{4}d^4xF^{\mu \nu }(x)F_{\mu \nu }(x),$$
(31)
and adding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{odd}}^{\mathrm{quant}}`$(19) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{even}}^{\mathrm{quant}}`$(23), we get total action, classical plus quantum,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{class}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{quant}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{12\pi ^2}}[\mathrm{ln}(tm^2)+\gamma ]\right\}{\displaystyle d^4xF^{\mu \nu }(x)F_{\mu \nu }(x)}`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2}}b^\mu {\displaystyle d^4xA^\nu (x)\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }(x)}.`$
The coefficients before the Maxwell $`(F^2)`$ term are gathered in a familiar manner to exhibit charge renormalization,

$$e_{\mathrm{ren}}^2=e^2\left\{1\frac{e^2}{12\pi ^2}[\mathrm{ln}(tm^2)+\gamma ]\right\}^1,$$
(33)
$`e`$ is the bare charge which is divergent as $`t0_+`$, and $`e_{\mathrm{ren}}`$ is the finite physical charge. Appropriately, electromagnetic field is renormalized,

$$A_\mu ^{(\mathrm{ren})}(x)=\frac{e}{e_{\mathrm{ren}}}A_\mu (x),F_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{ren})}(x)=\frac{e}{e_{\mathrm{ren}}}F_{\mu \nu }(x),$$
(34)
and Eq.(32) takes final form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{class}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{quant}}=\frac{1}{4}d^4xF_{(\mathrm{ren})}^{\mu \nu }(x)F_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{ren})}(x)\frac{e_{\mathrm{ren}}^2}{4\pi ^2}b^\mu d^4xA_{(\mathrm{ren})}^\nu (x)\stackrel{~}{F}_{(\mathrm{ren})}^{\mu \nu }(x).$$
(35)
As a result, we have arrived at the same expression as Eq.(1), where, instead of $`k^\mu `$, stands

$$k_{\mathrm{eff}}^\mu =\frac{e_{\mathrm{ren}}^2}{4\pi ^2}b^\mu .$$
(36)
It should be noted that operator $`H^2`$ (6) is nonhermitian in the case of timelike $`b^\mu `$. Perhaps, this reflects the tachyonic instability emerging in a theory governed by action (1) in the case of timelike $`k^\mu `$ .

One might think that stringent astrophysical bounds  should be imposed on the value of $`k_{\mathrm{eff}}^\mu `$ (36). However, the following circumstances have to be taken into account, warning against such a conclusion.

Firstly, there is no principle that rules out an appearance of the ($`A\stackrel{~}{F}`$) term in the classical electromagnetic action. Thus, if we take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (1) as a classical action, then, after adding quantum correction in the one-loop approximation, Eqs.(19) and (23), we arrive at

$$\stackrel{~}{k}^\mu =\frac{e_{\mathrm{ren}}^2}{e^2}k^\mu +\frac{e_{\mathrm{ren}}^2}{4\pi ^2}b^\mu ,$$
(37)
instead of Eq.(36). Evidently, a restriction, if any, on the value of $`\stackrel{~}{k}^\mu `$ leaves the value of $`k_{\mathrm{eff}}^\mu `$ (36) unrestricted, owing to indefiniteness of the value of $`k^\mu `$ and charge renormalization. This is one of the sources of ambiguity in the value of the coefficient before the $`A\stackrel{~}{F}`$ term, as discussed in the literature .

Secondly, the nature of constant vector $`b^\mu `$ has not been yet specified. A plausible assumption is that it is generated as the vacuum expectation value of a certain gauge vector field coupled to the axial-vector fermionic current. Then, if one sums over all fermion species (e.g., leptons and quarks in the standard model), the net result is zero , as a consequence of the axial anomaly cancellation condition which should be valid in the standard model and in any of its reasonable extensions as well. The individual values in each fermion sector are therefore irrelevant for comparison with astrophysical observation data. As it is shown in the present Letter, the use of the covariant nonperturbative formalism allows us to determine these individual values in the one-loop approximation unambiguously.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to R. Jackiw for enlightening discussions and helpful remarks. I would like also to thank V.P. Gusynin, A.U. Klimyk, D.G.C. McKeon and M. Perez-Victoria for interesting discussions. The work was supported by U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation (CRDF grant UP1-2115) and Swiss National Science Foundation (SCOPES 2000-2003 grant 7IP 62607).


format: text

text:
# The difficulty in using orphan afterglows to measure gamma-ray burst beaming

## 1 Introduction

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are observed at a rate of about one per day and are in some cases accompanied by optical afterglows that are useful in determining properties of the burst such as its redshift. Current models that attempt to explain the enormous apparent energy release, the multiband spectra and the temporal behavior of afterglow lightcurves typically invoke a highly collimated relativistic jet which is beamed towards the Earth. The lightcurve from a highly collimated jet is expected initially to decay as a low power of $`t`$ (e.g. flux $`t^{1.1}`$) and then break to a steeper slope (e.g. flux $`t^{2.4}`$) at late times (Piran, 1999). A number of GRB afterglows show evidence for just this behavior (Sari, Piran & Halpern, 1999). This has led Frail et al. (2001) to conclude that the GRB emission is collimated into opening angles between 3 and 25 with $`4^{}`$ as an average.

One important feature of the jet model of GRBs is that the vast majority of GRBs are beamed in directions away from the Earth and therefore not observed in gamma-rays. However, the afterglow emission, occurring at much later time and at longer wavelength should be beamed into a larger fraction of the sky due to the decay of the jet Lorentz factor with time. There should therefore be afterglows that are observable when the associated GRB is not (Rhoads, 1997; Perna & Loeb, 1998; Mészáros, Rees & Wijers, 1999; Rhoads, 2000). As first suggested by Rhoads (1997), the ratio of the “orphan” afterglow rate to the GRB rate might allow measurement of the GRB collimation angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$, via the equation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{opt}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{jet}}=\dot{N}_{\mathrm{grb}}/\dot{N}_{\mathrm{opt}}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is the solid angle subtended by the jet, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ is the angle into which the afterglow is beamed, and $`\dot{N}_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ is the efficiency corrected event rate for optical afterglows. Thus, by counting the rate at which orphan afterglows are detected, we could measure the average GRB jet angle, and independently check other methods (Frail et al., 2001) of measuring GRB collimation.

Rhoads’ method has already been applied several times to extant searches for type Ia supernovae and other optical transients. Rhoads argued that the lack of afterglow detections by the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-$`z`$ Supernova Search roughly limited $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{opt}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{jet}}100`$, based upon a lack of detections over 2 years’ exposure. The continued non-detection of orphans since that time has been used by several groups to set stronger collimation limits. For example, Rees (1999) found $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{opt}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{jet}}20`$, and Rhoads (2001) quotes a transient search by Shaefer et al. to claim $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{opt}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{jet}}100`$. If optical afterglow emission is only mildly beamed (e.g. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{opt}}1`$), then this is marginally inconsistent with the collimation factors ($`500`$) claimed by Frail et al. (2001), and could render untenable most solar mass progenitor models, given the inefficiency of converting rest mass into gamma-ray emission (Kumar, 1999).

In this paper, however, we argue that current supernova searches place no constraints upon GRB collimation. One reason for this is that present surveys are too shallow, narrow, and infrequent to detect significant off-axis emission. Using a simplified model of GRB afterglow emission and survey detection efficiency, we show that present supernova surveys are generically expected to detect (far) less than one orphan afterglow. A deeper reason for the impotence of present surveys is the fact that, within the context of the leading GRB afterglow model (Sari, Piran & Halpern, 1999; Rhoads, 1999), the effective afterglow beaming angle scales with the GRB jet angle, $`\theta _{\mathrm{opt}}\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$. Because of this scaling, the ratio $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{opt}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is unchanged even as the GRB jet angle is varied from moderate angles ($`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}20^{}`$) to arbitrarily small angles ($`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}0.1^{}`$), and so the ratio of detected orphan afterglows to GRBs cannot be used to measure $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$.

We derive this scaling below using a simplified model of GRB jet emission, however we can understand this result in more general terms. From relativistic kinematics, we know that the jet Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$, beaming angle $`\theta `$, and observer time $`t`$ are related by simple power laws, and as mentioned above the observed flux $`f`$ is a simple power law in time. Thus, the beaming angle is a (scale free) power law in $`\gamma `$, $`t`$ and $`f`$. In the limit $`\gamma 1`$ the only angular scale in the problem becomes $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$, so we expect the effective beaming angle to scale as the jet angle, $`\theta _{\mathrm{opt}}\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$. This should break down in the nonrelativistic limit $`\gamma 1`$.

This scaling of $`\theta _{\mathrm{opt}}`$ with $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$ severely hampers the ability of optical orphan searches to measure or constrain GRB collimation. In fact, we argue in this paper that measurement of the GRB jet angle may be impossible using either present or future optical supernova surveys. The plan of the paper is as follows. In § 2 we describe our simple model of emission from a GRB afterglow. In § 3 we estimate the afterglow detection rate using this simple model. In § 4 we discuss the results of our calculations, and in § 5 we give our conclusions, along with some discussion and caveats.

## 2 A simple model of optical afterglow emission

GRB-alerted afterglows (“on-axis afterglows”) are now well studied. In most cases, their time dependence can be characterized as a broken power-law, $`ft^\alpha `$, with a power-law break from $`\alpha 1.1`$ to $`\alpha 2.4`$ occurring at late times when the relativistic beaming angle $`\gamma ^1`$ exceeds the jet opening angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$. Here $`\gamma `$ is the bulk Lorentz factor of the relativistic jet. This break occurs at a time (Sari, Piran & Halpern, 1999)

$$t_{\mathrm{break}}6.2(E_{52}/n_1)^{1/3}(\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}/0.1)^{8/3}\text{hr},$$
(1)
where $`E_{52}`$ is the inferred energy of the ejecta assuming isotropic expansion, in units of $`10^{52}`$ ergs, and $`n_1`$ is the density of the surrounding ISM in cm-3. GRB optical emission has a wide range in apparent brightness, ranging from 9th magnitude for the prompt optical emission associated with GRB 990123, down to the limiting magnitude $`R2324`$ of follow-up searches for afterglows. Fynbo et al. (2001) have argued that most ($`70\%`$) afterglows are even fainter than this, and have therefore eluded detection.

Observers of orphan afterglows, on the other hand, would see off-axis lightcurves, which differ from on-axis lightcurves. The behavior of off-axis emission is governed by relativistic effects, as well as the lateral spreading and internal structure of the jet. We will first consider the effects of relativistic kinematics, and then consider lateral spreading and jet internal structure. Since the internal structure and time evolution of GRB jets is quite uncertain we will consider throughout two limiting cases which we hope will bracket reality.

As a simple model, consider a radiating plasma moving relativistically along the jet axis, with bulk Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ relative to us, and radiating isotropically in its own frame. The measured power, as a function of angle $`\theta `$ with respect to the jet axis in our frame, is (Rybicki & Lightman, 1979)

$$\frac{dP}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{F}{\gamma ^4(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )^4}$$
(2)
where $`F`$ is the (isotropic) power per unit solid angle in the plasma frame, and $`\beta =(1\gamma ^2)^{1/2}`$ as usual. Let us assume that the Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ and rest frame flux $`F`$ evolve with time to give an observed on-axis ($`\theta =0`$) lightcurve $`f(t)`$ matching the lightcurves observed for optical GRB afterglows, i.e. $`f(t)t^\alpha `$. For early times before the break $`\alpha =11.21.1`$ while at late times after the break $`\alpha 2.4`$. Since $`\gamma t^\mu `$, with $`\mu =3/8`$ before the break and $`\mu =1/2`$ after the break (Sari, Piran & Halpern, 1999), this means $`f\gamma ^{\alpha /\mu }`$. This then requires $`F\gamma ^{\alpha /\mu }(dP/d\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta =0))^1`$. With our assumption of rest frame isotropy, we obtain the flux seen by off-axis observers as a function of angle $`\theta `$ and Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$,

$$f(t)=f_{\mathrm{break}}\left(\frac{t}{t_{\mathrm{break}}}\right)^\alpha \left(\frac{1\beta }{1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)^m.$$
(3)
Here $`f_{\mathrm{break}}`$ is the flux seen by an on-axis observer at the break time $`t_{\mathrm{break}}`$, and we have generalized the exponent 4 to the parameter $`m`$ for later use. This function with $`m=4`$ is plotted as a function of $`t`$ for several values of $`\theta `$ in Figure 1. Several features follow from equation 3 and Figure 1. First, the lightcurve seen at angle $`\theta `$ peaks at a time $`t_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ which can be estimated by setting $`\gamma \theta ^1`$. Next, the flux rises to the peak roughly as $`t^{2m\mu \alpha }`$, and decays after peak as $`t^\alpha `$. Also, the flux is nearly independent of angle for $`\theta \gamma ^1`$; that is the various lightcurves all match together at late times when the viewing angle becomes small relative to the beaming angle. Finally, when $`\gamma <\theta ^1`$, an off-axis viewer at $`\theta >\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$ should see comparable flux to an on-axis observer inside $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$, and the off-axis afterglow lightcurve should decay with roughly the same slope as the on-axis afterglow.

Note that off-axis ($`\theta >\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$) afterglows do not peak until after the on-axis power-law break, which typically occurs hours to days after the GRB (Frail et al., 2001). This implies that orphan afterglows, even at peak brightness, should be far fainter than their GRB-triggered siblings, and thus should be much more difficult to detect. We can roughly estimate how much fainter as follows. After the break, the afterglow flux decays as $`t^{2.4}`$, while the Lorentz factor decays as $`\gamma t^{1/2}`$ (Sari, Piran & Halpern, 1999), so the flux scales as $`\gamma ^{4.8}`$. For a reasonable estimate of the jet angle, we would like to detect orphans at large viewing angles, say $`\theta 0.20.3`$. This means detecting emission at times when the Lorentz factor has decayed to $`\gamma 34`$. Taking $`\gamma (4^{})^115`$ at the break, we see that the flux is 7 or 8 magnitudes fainter by the time $`\gamma 34`$ than at the break.

This immediately shows why current supernova searches are not expected to detect orphan afterglows. Typical limiting magnitudes for such searches are near $`R23`$, which Fynbo et al. (2001) claim is too shallow to detect most on-axis afterglows, let alone far fainter off-axis orphan afterglows. This implies that detectable orphan afterglows are mostly contained in a cone of opening angle not much larger than $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$, so we do not expect many more orphan afterglows to appear in SN surveys than on-axis afterglows. Additionally, we show in the next section that the relatively infrequent monitoring characteristic of current SN surveys (e.g. $`t_{\mathrm{mon}}=21`$ days) causes most bright orphans to be missed.

We shall quantify these broad statements in the next section with a calculation of the detection rates expected in surveys, using this simple model of off-axis afterglow emission. Before proceeding, we pause to note that we have, so far, neglected the effects of finite jet width and jet spreading. Both of these should lead to greater off-axis emission than indicated by equation 3. To obtain an upper limit to the effects of the uncertain jet evolution (and thus bracket the range of possible fluxes seen by off-axis observers), we consider the following simple picture. The effect of finite jet width on the off-axis lightcurve is to point some of the emitting material more closely to the observer’s line of sight, and to point other emitting material further from the observer’s line of sight. A proper calculation of this effect would involve specifying the emission profile in the jet and integrating over the jet face (Woods & Loeb, 1999), but in the spirit of setting upper bounds on the detection rate, we can get a sense of the effect by simpler means. Consider the emission from the part of the jet face most closely pointing to a fiducial off-axis observer at $`\theta `$. This material is moving at an angle $`\theta \theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$ from the observer’s line of sight, so we can approximate the flux from this part of the jet face by replacing $`\theta `$ with $`\theta \theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$ in equation 3. We immediately see that the asymptotic scalings remain unchanged (i.e. $`t^{4\alpha }`$ and $`t^\alpha `$), but that the peak time changes, to $`\gamma ^1\theta \theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$. This makes sense, because we roughly expect the flux to beam into an angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}+\gamma ^1`$. This of course overestimates the total flux and the true visible angle, because emission from the rest of the jet face is less blueshifted and therefore less bright. Also note that the emission from other regions of the jet face should peak at later times, so that we expect a broader lightcurve peak for off axis viewers than on axis viewers. This broadening of the peak is seen in numerical simulations of relativistic jet hydrodynamics and emission (Granot et al., 2001).

An upper limit on the effects of lateral spreading of the jet on the off-axis lightcurve may be obtained by noting that if in the jet comoving rest frame the emitting material is expanding laterally at speed $`v`$, then the apparent angular size of the jet face becomes $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}=\theta _{\mathrm{jet},0}+(v/c)\gamma ^1`$. Then our previous discussion applies, merely replacing the constant jet angle with this spreading jet size. To bracket possible jet morphologies and evolution, for a lower bound on off-axis emission we use equation 3, which has all emission coming from the jet center and no lateral spreading, and for an upper bound on off-axis emission we use equation 3 with $`\theta `$ replaced by $`\theta \theta _{\mathrm{jet}}\gamma ^1`$, which has all emission coming from the nearest jet edge and lateral jet spreading at the speed of light.

## 3 Event detection rate

Observing programs that aim to measure GRB collimation using orphans will measure the rate of orphan afterglow detection and compare this to the rate of GRB-triggered (on-axis) afterglow occurrence. Optical searches for orphan afterglows naturally piggyback on top of Type Ia supernova searches, which repeatedly monitor fixed regions of the sky and use differential photometry to detect transient optical sources. Ideally one would like to detect every afterglow occurring in the observed region, but some afterglows will be missed either because they are too faint or because the monitoring is not frequent enough to catch them. Note, however, that if one can accurately estimate the efficiency at which afterglows are found, then orphan searches may be useful even if many afterglows are missed.

In this section, we estimate the number of afterglows that an observing program would detect and the properties (such as viewing angle from the center of the jet) of those detected afterglows. We can estimate these quantities using the simple model of off-axis emission described in the previous section. First, we give a simple analytic calculation of the detection rate, appropriate in the limit of frequent or continuous monitoring, which captures the effects of jet behavior. To determine the effects of infrequent monitoring, we then perform a Monte Carlo simulation of a simplified observing program.

### 3.1 Analytic estimate

Consider a perfect orphan afterglow search capable of detecting any orphan afterglow above limiting flux $`f_{\mathrm{lim}}`$. We would like to determine which viewing angles $`\theta `$ see apparent fluxes above threshold, $`f>f_{\mathrm{lim}}`$, as a function of time $`t`$. Using equation 3 and $`\gamma =\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(t/t_{\mathrm{break}})^\mu `$, and taking $`\gamma `$few, we see that $`f>f_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ for viewing angles $`\theta <\theta _{\mathrm{max}}`$, where $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}`$ is given by

$$1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{max}}\frac{1}{2}\theta _{\mathrm{max}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(\frac{t}{t_{\mathrm{break}}}\right)^{2\mu }\left[\left(\frac{f_{\mathrm{break}}}{f_{\mathrm{lim}}}\right)^{1/m}\left(\frac{t}{t_{\mathrm{break}}}\right)^{\alpha /m}1\right]$$
(4)
Recall that before the break, $`\mu =3/8`$ and $`\alpha 1.1`$, while after $`t_{\mathrm{break}}`$ we have $`\mu =1/2`$ and $`\alpha 2.4`$. To compute the effective afterglow beaming angle, we maximize equation 4 with respect to time. Let us call $`t_{\mathrm{max}}`$ the time at which the visible angle is maximized. Depending upon whether or not $`t_{\mathrm{max}}`$ coincides with the break time, the $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}`$ expression becomes

$$\theta _{\mathrm{max},0}=\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\left[(f_{\mathrm{break}}/f_{\mathrm{lim}})^{1/m}1\right]^{1/2}& t_{\mathrm{max}}=t_{\mathrm{break}}\hfill \\ \left[\frac{f_{\mathrm{break}}}{f_{\mathrm{lim}}}\left(1\frac{\alpha }{2\mu m}\right)^m\right]^{\mu /\alpha }\left(\frac{\alpha }{2\mu m\alpha }\right)^{1/2}& t_{\mathrm{max}}t_{\mathrm{break}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
This discussion has neglected both the finite width of the jet and the possibility of lateral spreading of the jet. Including these effects as discussed in § 2 gives

$$\theta _{\mathrm{max}}(z)=\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}+\left(1+\frac{v}{c}\right)\theta _{\mathrm{max},0}$$
(6)
where $`\theta _{\mathrm{max},0}`$ is defined as in equation 5. We emphasize that this is an upper limit to the visible angle, and that a more careful treatment would give a $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}`$ somewhere in between that given by equation 5 and equation 6. Our previous expression for $`\theta _{\mathrm{max},0}`$ should underestimate off-axis emission, and so these two cases should bracket all possible jet emission.

In order to proceed, we next need to define the GRB properties. There are large uncertainties here, and we expect these to introduce substantial uncertainties in our estimates of the event rates. However, we argue that this will not affect our main conclusions.

First we follow Wijers et al. (1998) and Woods & Loeb (1998) in hypothesizing that the comoving rate at which GRBs occur is proportional to the star formation rate, $`R_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$. For simplicity we approximate the star formation rate, as measured by Steidel et al. (1999), as

$$\mathrm{log}_{10}R_{\mathrm{SFR}}(z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}Cz& z<1\hfill \\ C& 1<z<10,\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
with an arbitrary cutoff for $`z>10`$. For the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1,H_0=50`$ km/s/Mpc Einstein-de Sitter universe that Steidel et al. use, $`C1`$ appears adequate, and correcting this to the flat $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7,H_0=70`$ km/s/Mpc cosmology that we adopt gives instead $`C0.75`$. We absorb the overall normalization of $`R_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$ into our total event rate, which we normalize so that the overall rate of GRBs is $`666/`$yr over the full sky (Paciesas et al., 1999). 111 Note the number 666/yr includes both long and short GRBs, while afterglows have been detected only for long bursts. We conservatively assume here, however, that all bursts give rise to afterglows; this will soon be testable with experiments such as HETE-II or Swift.

Next we must make an assumption concerning the luminosity function of GRB afterglows. For simplicity we will assume that afterglows are standard candles with absolute magnitude $`M=25`$ at the time of the lightcurve break. This number is chosen so that $`70\%`$ of well-followed GRBs do not show afterglows because the afterglows are too faint at the time of observation, which we assume to be near the break time. Of course, it is known that the dozen or so afterglows with measured redshifts are widely distributed in absolute magnitude, but $`M=25`$ is a typical value. Since the effective beaming angle depends strongly on the apparent luminosity function (c.f. equation 5), uncertainty here will lead to substantial uncertainty in the event rate, as we discuss below.

One additional concern is the k-correction. At high frequencies, the afterglow spectrum is expected to behave as $`F_\nu \nu ^{\alpha /2}`$ (Sari, Piran & Halpern, 1999), so as a function of redshift $`z`$, $`f_{\mathrm{break}}(z)=f_{\mathrm{break}}(0)\times [1+z]^{\alpha /2}`$.

Finally, we assume that all GRBs have the same jet opening angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$, the same power law indices $`\alpha `$ and $`\mu `$ specified in § 2, and the same rest-frame break time $`t_{\mathrm{break}}1`$ day. Note that here by rest-frame, we mean as viewed by an observer at the same redshift, so that there is a $`(1+z)`$ correction. We do not mean the plasma rest frame time, for which there is an additional $`\gamma ^2`$ correction relative to observer time. Clearly there is a wide spread in the observed $`t_{\mathrm{break}}`$’s and power-law indices $`\alpha `$ for previous GRBs (Frail et al., 2001), and this will lead to uncertainties of order a few in our final numerical results.

We can now compute the expected rate of orphan afterglow detections. Let us write the effective beaming (solid) angle as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b(z)=4\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{max}}(z))`$. With our assumption of standard candle afterglows, we need only specify the redshift distribution to obtain the afterglow luminosity function. Assuming as above that the gamma-ray burst rate is proportional to the star formation rate, we may write the observed afterglow redshift distribution as

$$\frac{d\dot{N}}{dz}=A\frac{dV_{\mathrm{co}}}{dz}\frac{R_{\mathrm{SFR}}(z)}{1+z}\mathrm{\Omega }_b(z),$$
(8)
where $`dV_{\mathrm{co}}/dz`$ is the comoving volume element, $`z`$ is the GRB redshift, and $`A`$ is a normalization constant. The k-correction is incorporated as above and we set $`A`$ as above by assuming that all on axis gamma-ray bursts are bright enough to be detected; that is we set $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}=\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$ in equation 8 and integrate over redshift giving $`\dot{N}_{\mathrm{GRB}}=A\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{jet}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z(dV_{\mathrm{co}}/dz)R_{\mathrm{SFR}}/(1+z)=666`$ yr-1 over the full sky.

The calculation described above elucidates the overall behavior, but neglects effects which may affect numerical predictions for the overall detection rate. For example, we have extrapolated the scaling formulas for $`\gamma `$ to the nonrelativistic regime where the scalings break down; fortunately we will show that the regions of low $`\gamma `$ make a small contribution to the integral for all but the deepest surveys. We have also assumed continuous monitoring, which is certainly not the case in current SNe searches. In order to take into account the effect of imperfect monitoring and to check the above analytic calculation we ran a Monte Carlo simulation of a simplified observing program.

### 3.2 Monte Carlo simulation

We define an observing program by its limiting magnitude $`m_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ (and corresponding limiting flux $`f_{\mathrm{lim}}`$), by the time between exposures of a given field $`t_{\mathrm{mon}}`$, and by the total survey exposure (number of $`\mathrm{deg}^2`$yr). In an actual survey additional parameters and various experimental efficiencies would also be taken into account but these are not crucial for our considerations here. The observing program simulation is run for a given value of $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$ by distributing GRBs randomly throughout the Universe, proportionally to the product of comoving volume and star formation rate, and at a random viewing angle to the observer. The lightcurve is started at a random time and observed every $`t_{\mathrm{mon}}`$ days. The afterglow is considered to be detected if any of the observations find a flux above the limiting flux of the observing program. The total event rate and the distribution of detected events as a function of redshift, observing angle, etc. is thus easily found.

## 4 Results

Now, all the elements are in place to calculate the detection rate and average beaming factor for a given survey. Let us first consider a Type Ia supernova search (Schmidt et al., 1998; Perlmutter et al., 1999), with limiting magnitude of $`R23`$ and monitoring repeat baseline $`t_{\mathrm{mon}}21`$ days. Adopting an opening angle of $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}=4^{}`$ (Frail et al., 2001) our Monte Carlo calculation gives an expected rate of $``$ 0.0008 deg-2 yr-1 if the flux is concentrated at the jet center and there is no lateral spreading, and $``$0.014 deg-2 yr-1 if lateral spreading is maximal and the flux is concentrated at the jet edge. So, taking an exposure of 10 deg2 yr, the we predict between 0.008 and 0.14 detections from previous Type Ia supernova surveys. We note that in the limit of very small $`t_{\mathrm{mon}}`$ the Monte Carlo results are close to the analytic results, which finds 3 - 5 times more events depending on jet morphology.

Now, the important point to note is that these numbers, besides being small, are fairly independent of $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$. The reason for this should be clear. The only dependence of equation 8 on $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b(z)`$ factor, which was the effective beaming angle as a function of redshift. Since $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{jet}}`$. But since the total GRB rate scales like $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{jet}}^1`$ to hold fixed the number of observed GRBs, this means that the expected number of detected orphans is also held fixed. So the non-detection of orphan afterglows is not only consistent with opening angles of $`4^{}`$, it is consistent with almost any opening angle.

Next we consider a more powerful future observing program with limiting magnitude $`R_{lim}27`$, and frequent enough monitoring that our analytic estimates are accurate. Here the number of predicted afterglow detections can rise above unity if many tens of square degrees are monitored. The number of expected events is shown in Figure 2 as a function of the opening jet angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$. For opening angles ranging from moderate ($`20^{}`$) to arbitrarily small ($`0.01^{}`$) there is essentially no change in the predicted number of detections. Note, however, that for large jet angles ($`30^{}`$) there can be a significant decrement in the predicted number of detected orphans, in part because the relativistic scalings we have employed break down, and in part because the emission begins to subtend the full sky. However, it is clear that for the angles being considered in the leading jet models, the ratio of GRB detection to afterglow detection will give no information on the GRB collimation.

## 5 Discussion and conclusions

We have shown that within the framework of the leading model for the late time GRB jet evolution, current optical surveys cannot constrain GRB beaming. Part of the problem is that current surveys are too infrequent, narrow and shallow.

A more basic problem is that the effective afterglow beaming angle scales as the jet angle for small ($`<20^{}`$) jet angles, and so the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{opt}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ cannot be used to measure $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$. This conclusion depends on the simple scaling laws of flux and Lorentz factor that apply during the relativistic phase of the expansion. In order to see emission from large viewing angles, one must wait until the jet has become only moderately relativistic and therefore dim. In Figure 3 we plot the distribution of viewing angles for several different limiting magnitudes. Only the $`R=30`$ lightcurve has any sensitivity to large viewing angles, and it is still dominated by small $`\theta `$. Finding optical afterglows this faint or fainter will be difficult due to, for example, host galaxy domination.

Absent the capability to detect emission from viewing angles near unity, measuring the GRB jet angle using orphans is all but impossible. This is shown in Fig. 2, in which we plot the number of expected afterglow detections per year per square degree as a function of jet opening angle, for a limiting magnitude of $`R=27`$. As mentioned above, there is essentially no variation in the predicted number of detections as the jet solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is varied by orders of magnitude, until nearly isotropic jets ($`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}30^{}`$) are reached. Now, once the GRB afterglow luminosity function is well measured, as should be possible with future missions such as Swift or HETE-II, and once GRB jet dynamics are better understood, then a prediction can be made for the expected number of afterglows any given survey can detect. A significant downward departure from this expected rate would be hard to reconcile with small jet angles, within the context of accepted models. A statistically significant detection of such a deficit would require a very deep survey expected to detect hundreds of orphans over a large region of sky.

To establish our conclusion of the difficulty of using optical afterglow searches to constrain small beaming angles, we have presented two sets of detection rates in an attempt to bracket the effects of uncertain jet morphology and evolution. We caution that our upper bound is probably not realistic because it assumes that the jet emits all of its flux as near as possible to the direction of the observer. In addition, for both the upper and lower bounds we have neglected the frequency redshift of photons received by off axis observers relative to on-axis observers. This should be taken into account for observers interested in the narrow frequency range within the optical band. For a narrow pencil beam moving along the $`\theta =0`$ axis the relative redshift of photons received by an observer at $`\theta _{obs}`$ is $`\nu (\theta _{obs})/\nu (\theta =0)=(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{obs})/(1\beta )`$. If the afterglow spectrum behaves as $`F_\nu \nu ^{\alpha /2}`$ (Sari, Piran & Halpern, 1999), then the redshift effect drives the exponent in equation 3, which we previously found to be $`m=4`$, to $`m=(4+\alpha /2)`$. Replacing $`m=4`$ in our equations with $`m=4+\alpha /2`$ slightly diminishes the expected number of detections by $`30\%`$. Were an orphan afterglow search to be performed, these corrections, as well as a detailed study of the jet evolution and emission, would be required to calculate a more accurate estimate of the expected rate.

In our calculations we have assumed particular values for the parameters describing GRB afterglows. These parameters are the power law exponents $`\alpha `$ and $`\mu `$, the absolute magnitude of the on-axis afterglow at break, and the break time $`t_{\mathrm{break}}`$. Uncertainties in these parameters will introduce uncertainties in the overall rates. For example, changing $`\alpha `$ from 2.4 to 1.8 increases the detection rate by a factor of $`3`$. Similarly, changing the absolute magnitude at break from $`M=25`$ to $`M=29`$ (an increase in luminosity by a factor of 40), increases the overall detection rate by a factor of 4-5, as expected from equation 5. Changing $`t_{\mathrm{break}}`$ does not affect our calculations for continuous monitoring, but can change the detection efficiency depending upon the monitoring time. In the limit of small efficiency the rate should scale as $`t_{\mathrm{break}}`$. Most importantly, the constancy of the calculated detection rate with respect to the jet opening angle remains valid for $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}20^{}`$.

One caveat to our estimate for the orphan afterglow detection rate and to our constraint on the observed ratio of orphans to GRBs is the possibility of processes that lead to weakly beamed optical emission while remaining consistent with the good agreement between the expected and observed power law decay and break of the late time afterglow. For example the GRB central engine might emit, coincident with an ultra-relativistic jet, a moderately relativistic spherical shell that leads to isotropic optical emission. This might occur in central engine models where rotation leads to small baryon contamination and ultra-relativistic flow along the rotation axis, but also to “dirtier”, moderately relativistic flow away from the rotation axis (e.g. in the collapsar model, MacFadyen & Woosley, 1999). Such an isotropic component, if bright enough to be detected off-axis but faint enough to avoid on-axis detection, would clearly confound our analysis and allow direct measurement of GRB collimation. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that we have underestimated the off axis optical emission from the jet itself, because this estimate derives principally from simple relativistic kinematics. Similarly, the upper limit to the degree of angular spreading in the jet comes from the maximal assumption that the lateral expansion velocity is $`c`$ in the jet comoving rest frame. Recent numerical hydrodynamics simulations (Granot et al., 2001) of the relativistic jet dynamics appear to indicate that the afterglow emission is indeed more tightly beamed in the forward direction than we have assumed, suggesting that our calculations neglecting spreading are more realistic than our calculations including lateral spreading.

Finally, we note that radio afterglows are not subject to the analysis presented here. They do not decay as steeply as their higher frequency counterparts and remain visible until the afterglow emission is effectively isotropic. Perna & Loeb (1998) have proposed that a full-sky survey sensitive to 0.1 mJy could legitimately test the jet model of GRB emission. It appears that this may be the best way to implement Rhoads’ suggestion of using burst-less afterglows to measure the GRB jet angle.

We thank Kev Abazajian, George Fuller, Bob Kehoe, and Rick Rothschild for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DEFG03-90-ER 40546. JP was supported in part by the NSF under grant PHY98-00980. ND was also supported by the ARCS Foundation.


text:
# 1 The diagram for 𝑝+𝑝⃗→𝑝+Λ⃗_𝑐⁺+𝑋 at the lowest oder in the framework of hard-scattering factorization (left side) and its subprocess diagrams (right side). In the left side, the particles with arrows are polarized. 𝐼𝑃 denotes the pomeron.

KOBE FHD 01–1
hep–ph/0103134

Single Diffractive $`𝚲_c^\mathbf{+}`$ Production in Polarized $`pp`$

Scattering with Polarized Gluon Distribution

in the Proton

Kazumasa OHKUMA$`^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}),}`$a)a)a)E-mail address: ohkuma@cnb.phys.ynu.ac.jp, and Toshiyuki MORII$`^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}),}`$b)b)b)E-mail address: morii@kobe-u.ac.jp

$`1)`$ Faculty of Technology, Yokohama National University

Hodogaya, Yokohama 240-8501, JAPAN

$`2)`$ Faculty of Human Development, Kobe University

Nada, Kobe 657-8501, JAPAN

ABSTRACT

Based on the hard-scattering factorization which decomposes the diffractive structure function into a pomeron flux and a pomeron structure function, we study the single diffractive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ production in polarized $`pp`$ scattering: $`p+\stackrel{}{p}p+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^++X`$, which will be observed at forthcoming RHIC experiment. By analyzing the cross section and correlation of the spin polarization between the initial proton and produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$, we found that the process might be effective for testing both hard-scattering factorization and models of the polarized gluon distribution in the proton.

As is well known, the diffractive interaction which is characterized by a large rapidity gap event is described by pomeron exchange in the Regge theory . Although the pomeron carrying the vacuum quantum number plays a crucial role in diffractive scattering, nature of the pomeron is still mysterious in the framework of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Ingelman and Schlein suggested that the single pomeron exchange in proton-proton interaction can be probed as a hard scattering process between a hard parton in the pomeron emitted from a proton and a parton in another proton . The evidence of the hard partonic structure of the pomeron was first reported by the UA8 Collaboration at CERN $`p\overline{p}`$ collider at $`\sqrt{s}=630`$ GeV by observing diffractive dijet production . This result has been confirmed by further experiments . In addition, recent experiment found the hard-gluon fraction in the pomeron to be $`0.7\pm 0.2`$ , which means the pomeron being an almost gluonic object. Those results suggest us to apply the factorization theorem to diffractive hard process as well as to usual inclusive processes. However, Collins proved that the factorization theorem for diffractive deep inelastic scattering (DDIS) is not expected to be applicable to hadron-hadron collisions, though this theorem works for the lepton and direct photon induced hard DDIS . In fact, the predicted cross sections for hadron-hadron collisions are several times larger than the experimental data, and hence the hard factorization for DDIS does not work well for the hadron-hadron collision . In order to overcome such difficulty, Goulianos proposed a phenomenological model in which the structure of the pomeron is derived from the structure of the parent hadron ; he introduced a renormalized pomeron flux factor which was given by renormalizing the standard pomeron flux carried by a proton to be unity (renormalized pomeron flux model). Although the prediction by this model seems to be in agreement with experimental data , further tests of this model are necessary for various processes .

On the other hand, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) will start soon. One of the important purposes of RHIC experiment is to extract information about the polarized gluon distribution in the proton. That information is a key to understand the proton spin puzzle which is still one of the most challenging current topics in the nuclear and particle physics . So far there are many models of the polarized parton distribution in the proton, which are extracted from a fit to the data on $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ . Those models can excellently reproduce experimental data on the polarized structure function of nucleons. However the behavior of the polarized gluon distributions is quite different among these models. In other words, the data on polarized structure functions of nucleon and deuteron alone are not enough to distinguish the model of gluon distribution functions. Although various processes have been proposed so far to test the models of the polarized gluon, knowledge of it is still poor.

In this work, we propose another diffractive semi-inclusive process: $`p+\stackrel{}{p}p+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^++X`$ ( left side of Fig. 1 ), which can be a test of the renormalized pomeron flux model and also the polarized gluon distribution function. In this process, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ is dominantly produced via gluon-gluon fusion at the lowest order as shown in the right side of Fig. 1♯♯\sharp1♯♯\sharp1$`\mathrm{}`$1 Since the charm quark content is extremely tiny and furthermore the pomeron is dominantly composed of gluons , the gluon-gluon fusion is the dominant process for charm quark pair production.  , where one of the 2 gluons is originated from the pomeron. Moreover, since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ is composed of a heavy quark $`c`$ and antisymmetrically combined light $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, the spin of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ is expected to be carried by the $`c`$ quark and thus, the production of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ in polarized proton-proton collisions gives us an interesting information about polarized gluons in the initial proton .

To test the hard-scattering factorization and polarized gluon distribution model for this attractive process;

$$p(p__A)+\stackrel{}{p}(p__B)p(p__A^{})+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^+(p_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda }__c^+}})+X,$$
(1)
whose lowest order subprocess is♯♯\sharp2♯♯\sharp2$`\mathrm{}`$2 A subprocess in this model is a hard gluon-gluon scattering in the pomeron-proton system, as shown in Fig. 1.

$$\mathrm{g}(p__a)+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{g}}(p__b)\stackrel{}{c}(p_c)+\overline{c}(p_{\overline{c}}),$$
(2)
where $`p_i(i=A,B,a,b,c,\overline{c},\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)`$ in the parentheses denote the four-momentum of each particle and the over-arrow means that an initial gluon with momentum $`p_b`$ and a produced $`c`$ quark with momentum $`p_c`$ are polarized, we introduce two useful observables; one is the $`d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /dp__T`$ defined in Eq.(3), which we call hereafter the polarized differential cross section, and the other is the $`A_{LL}`$ defined in Eq.(4), which we call the spin correlation asymmetry;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }{dp__T}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (++)d\sigma (+)+d\sigma ()d\sigma (+)}{dp__T}},`$ (3)
$`A_{LL}{\displaystyle \frac{[d\sigma (++)d\sigma (+)+d\sigma ()d\sigma (+)]/dp__T}{[d\sigma (++)+d\sigma (+)+d\sigma ()+d\sigma (+)]/dp__T}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /dp__T}{d\sigma /dp__T}},`$ (4)
where $`d\sigma (+)/dp__T`$, for example, denotes the spin-dependent differential cross section with positive helicity of the target proton and negative helicity of the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$.

Let us consider the process in the proton-proton center-of-mass frame. In this frame, we can take four-momenta of $`p_i`$ as follows;

$`p_{_{A,B}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}(1,\beta ,\stackrel{}{0})\mathrm{with}\beta \sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_p^2}{s}}},`$
$`p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}=(E_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+},p__L,\stackrel{}{p}__T)`$
$`=(\sqrt{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}^2+p__T^2\mathrm{cosec}^2\mathrm{\Theta }},p__T\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta },\stackrel{}{p}__T),`$
$`p_{_{IP}}=\xi p__A,p__a=x__ap_{_{IP}},p__b=x__bp__B,p__c={\displaystyle \frac{p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}}{z}},`$ (5)
where the first, second and third components in parentheses are the energy, the longitudinal momentum and the transverse momentum, respectively. $`m_i`$ is the mass of the $`i`$-particle. The polarized differential cross section, $`d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /dp__T`$, can be calculated as follows;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }{dp__T}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^0}𝑑t{\displaystyle _{\xi ^{\mathrm{min}}}^{\xi ^{\mathrm{max}}}}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mathrm{min}}}^{\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mathrm{max}}}}𝑑\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle _{x_a^{\mathrm{min}}}^1}𝑑x__a{\displaystyle _{x_b^{\mathrm{min}}}^1}𝑑x__b`$ (6)
$`\times f_{IP/p}^{\mathrm{RN}}(\xi ,t)f_{\mathrm{g}/IP}(x_a,Q^2)\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{g}}/\stackrel{}{p}}(x_b,Q^2)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{t}}}𝒥\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{D}_{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^+/\stackrel{}{c}}(z),`$
where $`t`$ is the square of the four-momentum transfer of the proton which emits the pomeron. $`𝒥`$ is the Jacobian which transforms the variables $`z`$ and $`\widehat{t}`$ into $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`p__T`$. $`f_{\mathrm{g}/IP}(x__a,Q^2)`$ and $`f_{IP/p}^{\mathrm{RN}}(\xi ,t)`$ are the hard gluon distribution function in the pomeron and the renormalized pomeron flux in the proton, respectively. The renormalized pomeron flux which was proposed by Goulianos to predict the observed single diffractive cross section , is defined by

$$f_{IP/p}^{\mathrm{RN}}(\xi ,t)Df_{IP/p}(\xi ,t),$$

where $`f_{IP/p}(\xi ,t)`$ and $`D`$ are the standard pomeron flux and renormalization factor, respectively. $`f_{IP/p}(\xi ,t)`$ is given by

$$f_{IP/p}(\xi ,t)=K\xi ^{12\alpha (t)}F^2(t),$$
(7)
with the parameters which are chosen as

$`K=0.73\mathrm{GeV}^2,`$ $`\alpha (t)=1+0.115+0.26[\mathrm{GeV}^2]t,`$
$`F^2(t)=e^{4.6t}.`$
The renormalization factor $`D`$ is defined as

$$D=\mathrm{min}(1,\frac{1}{N})$$
(8)
with

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{M_0^2/s}^{0.1}}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle _{t=0}^{t=\mathrm{}}}f_{IP/p}(\xi ,t)𝑑t`$ (9)
where $`M_0^2`$ is 1.5 $`\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ being the effective diffractive threshold and the upper limit for the $`\xi `$ integration is a coherence limit. In addition, $`\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{g}}/\stackrel{}{p}}(x_b,Q^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{D}_{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^+/\stackrel{}{c}}(z)`$ represent the polarized gluon distribution function in the proton and the polarized fragmentation function of the outgoing charm quark decaying into a polarized $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^+`$, respectively.

Since the subprocesses considered here are the same with the ones discussed in Ref., here we repeat some important formulas for reader’s convenience. By using the kinematical variables in Eq.(5), the polarized differential cross section, $`d\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\sigma }/d\widehat{t}`$, for the subprocess is calculated to be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{t}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha _s^2}{\widehat{s}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{24}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{9\widehat{t}_119\widehat{u}_1}{\widehat{t}_1\widehat{u}_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8\widehat{s}}{\widehat{u}_1^2}}\}`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{6}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{t}_1\widehat{u}_1}{\widehat{t}_1\widehat{u}_1}}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{t}}{\widehat{s}}}+1\}],`$
where $`\widehat{s}`$$`\widehat{t}_1`$ and $`\widehat{u}_1`$ are defined as $`\widehat{s}(p__a+p__b)^2`$, $`\widehat{t}_1(p__bp__c)^2m_c^2`$ and $`\widehat{u}_1(p__ap__c)^2m_c^2`$, respectively. The Jacobian $`𝒥`$ is given by

$$𝒥=\frac{2s\beta p__T^2\mathrm{cosec}^2\mathrm{\Theta }}{z(s2m_p^2)\sqrt{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}^2+p__T^2\mathrm{cosec}^2\mathrm{\Theta }}},$$
(11)
where $`s`$ and $`z`$ are defined as $`s(p__A+p__B)^2`$ and $`z\frac{x_1}{x_a\xi }+\frac{x_2}{x_b}`$ , respectively, with $`x_1\frac{2p__Bp_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}}}{s2m_p^2}`$, $`x_2\frac{2p__Ap_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}}}{s2m_p^2}`$.

In order to estimate the asymmetry, $`A_{LL}`$, we need the unpolarized cross section which can be obtained by replacing polarized functions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{g}}/\stackrel{}{p}},d\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\sigma }/d\widehat{t}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{D}_{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^+/\stackrel{}{c}}`$ by unpolarized functions, $`G_{\mathrm{g}/p},d\widehat{\sigma }/d\widehat{t}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+/c}`$, respectively, in Eq. (6). The explicit formula of the unpolarized differential cross section for this subprocess was given by Babcock et al. . As for the gluon distributions, we take the AAC  and the GRSV01  parameterization models for the polarized distribution and the GRV98  model for the unpolarized one. Here, we set $`Q^2`$ as $`(2m_c)^2`$ for each models. As for the unpolarized fragmentation function, we use Peterson fragmentation function , $`D_{c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}(z)`$. However, unfortunately at present there are no established polarized fragmentation function $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_{c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}`$ because of lack of experimental data. Thus, by analogy with the study on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization , we take the following ansatz:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^+}(z)=C_{c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}D_{c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+},$$

where $`C_{c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}`$ is scale-independent spin transfer coefficient. Here we apply the analysis on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ production and choose the following two typical models:

> (i) $`C_{c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}=1`$ (non-relativistic quark model),
> (ii) $`C_{c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}=z`$ (Jet fragmentation model ).

For the hard gluon distribution function of the pomeron, we use ;

$$xf_{\mathrm{g}/IP}(x,Q^2)=f_\mathrm{g}6x(1x),f_\mathrm{g}=0.7\pm 0.2,$$
(12)
where $`f_\mathrm{g}`$ is the hard gluon fraction in the pomeron. To determine the value of the renormalization factor $`D`$ given by Eq.(7), we estimated the value of $`N`$ defined by Eq.(9) to be $`N=3.4(5.0)`$ for $`\sqrt{s}=`$200 (500) GeV using Eq.(7) .

For numerical calculation, we use, as input parameters, $`m_c=1.25`$ GeV, $`m_p=0.938`$ GeV and $`m_{_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}}=2.285`$ GeV . In numerically integrating Eq. (6), the minimum values of $`\xi ,x__a`$ and $`x__b`$ are given by $`\xi ^{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{x_1}{1x_2},x__a^{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{x_1}{\xi (1x_2)}\mathrm{and}x__b^{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{\xi x__ax__2}{\xi x__ax_1},`$ respectively. In addition, to reduce possible non-pomeron contribution, we set $`\xi ^{\mathrm{max}}`$=0.05 as usual . Furthermore, in order to get rid of the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ entering the beam pipe, we limit the integration region of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ for produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ as $`\frac{\pi }{6}\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{5\pi }{6}`$. $`p__T`$ region is kinematically constrained from the condition of the diffractive production.

We show the $`p__T`$ distribution of $`|d(\mathrm{\Delta })\sigma /dp__T|`$ and $`A_{LL}`$ in Fig. 2 for $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV and in Fig. 3 for $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, respectively. Notice that the absolute value of $`d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /dp__T`$ is presented in these figures, because the negative value of $`d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /dp__T`$ cannot be depicted in the figure which has an ordinate with logarithmic scale. Actually, the value of $`d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /dp__T`$ is negative for $`p__T`$ region larger than the value corresponding to the apparent sharp dip shown in Fig. 2. Information on the dip is expected to be useful for distinguishing the models of the polarized gluon distribution functions because each parameterization model has a dip at different $`p__T`$ as shown in the left panel of Figs. 2. At $`\sqrt{s}=500`$GeV, the dip is not seen as shown in the left panel of Fig. 3, because the dip is in the region smaller than $`p__T=1`$GeV for the case of $`\sqrt{s}=500`$GeV. Thus, the polarized differential cross section are actually negative in the kinematical region presented in Fig. 3. From the right panel of Figs. 2 and 3, it seems that the $`A_{LL}`$ is an effective observable to distinguish various models of polarized gluon distribution functions, even if there are uncertainties of the spin-dependent fragmentation function. Notice that if the renormalized pomeron flux model is not taken into account for the present process, the polarized differential cross section and unpolarized differential cross section become 3.4 (5.0) times larger than our calculation for $`\sqrt{s}=200(500)`$ GeV. Therefore, measurement of those cross sections can be a good test of the renormalized pomeron flux model, though the $`A_{LL}`$ is not useful for testing the renormalized flux model because the renormalized flux factors are canceled out between the numerator and the denominator of Eq.(4).

Finally, some comments are in order, regarding uncertainty of the calculated result on the value of $`m_c`$ and the choice of $`Q^2`$. We have examined the variation of $`A_{LL}`$ on $`m_c`$ for the region of 1.15GeV $`m_c`$ 1.35GeV and found that the result remain to be unchanged. We also found that the $`Q^2`$ dependence is rather insensitive; we have examined the 3 cases, (i) $`Q^2=(2m_c)^2`$, (ii) $`Q^2=p__T^2`$ and (iii) $`Q^2=m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}^2+p__T^2`$, without much difference.

In summary, we have calculated the polarized differential cross section, $`d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /dp__T`$, and the spin correlation asymmetry, $`A_{LL}`$, for the single diffractive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ production in polarized $`pp`$ reactions at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV and $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, based on the hard-scattering factorization with the renormalized pomeron flux. We found that $`d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /dp__T`$ and $`A_{LL}`$ largely depend on the model of the polarized gluon distribution function. Therefore, the process looks promising for testing the models of polarized gluon distribution function. Moreover, it is expected that the measurement of $`d(\mathrm{\Delta })\sigma /dp__T`$ is quite effective for testing the renormalized pomeron flux model. In order to get more reliable prediction, the next-to-leading order calculation and error estimation might be necessary, which will be given in the forthcoming paper. In addition, since our prediction somewhat depends on the model of polarized fragmentation function, further experimental and theoretical study on polarized fragmentation functions is necessary for getting more reliable predictions.

Although the present calculation is confined in the leading order, the results are interesting and we hope our prediction will be tested in the forthcoming RHIC experiment.

The authors thanks N. Saito for informing the physical parameters and condition of the RHIC experiment. We are also deeply grateful to M. Reya and W. Vogelsang for sending Fortran program of GRSV01. One of the authors (T.M.) would like to thank for the financial support by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan (No.11694081).


text:
# Equivariant Framings, lens spaces and Contact Structures

## 1. The Definition of the Framing invariant

To define the framing invariant, we need some (straightforward) results.

###### Proposition 1.1.

The set of homotopy classes of trivialisations of $`TS^3`$ is a torseur of $``$.

###### Proof.

Given two trivialisations, expressing one in terms of the other gives a map from $`S^3`$ to $`SO(3)`$. The homotopy classes of trivialisations are the homotopy classes of such maps. But as $`S^3`$ is simply connected such maps lift to maps $`S^3SU(2)S^3`$, as do homotopies between them. The homotopy class of a map from $`S^3`$ to itself is determined by its degree (as orientations have been fixed), making the homotopy classes of trivialisations a torseur of $``$. ∎

###### Definition 1.1.

Consider $`S^3SU(2)`$ as the Lie group of unit quaternions. The *canonical framing* of $`TS^3`$ is the framing of $`S^3`$ which is invariant under left multiplication and is $`(i,j,k)`$ at the identity.

###### Proposition 1.2.

The homotopy class of the canonical framing is determined by an orientation of $`S^3`$, and does not depend on the identification with $`SU(2)`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`f:S^3SU(2)`$ is an isomorphism giving a second Lie group structure to $`S^3`$. Then we have an induced orientation-preserving diffeomorphism $`\varphi :S^3S^3`$, and we need to show that the pullback of the canonical trivialisation under $`\varphi `$ is homotopic to the canonical trivialisation. But it is well known that any orientation preserving homeomorphism from $`S^3`$ to itself is isotopic to the identity. Thus, the pullback fixes the homotopy class of any trivialisation, in particular the identity trivialisation. ∎

For the remainder of the section, let $`M=S^3/G`$, where $`G`$ is a finite group that acts without fixed points on $`S^3`$. Let $`\pi :S^3M`$ be the projection map.

###### Proposition 1.3.

The set of homotopy classes of trivialisations of $`TM`$ is a torseur of $``$ when $`H_1(M,/2)=0`$(in particular when $`\left|G\right|`$ is odd). When $`_1(M,/2)0`$, the trivialisation is determined by a map $`MSO(3)`$

###### Proof.

As with $`S^3`$, the difference between trivialisations is determined by a map $`f:MSO(3)`$. When $`H_1(M,/2)=0`$, this lifts to a map $`\varphi :\pi _1(M)S^3`$. It is well known that the homotopy class of such a map is determined by its degree. ∎

Thus, when $`H_1(M,/2)=0`$, the difference between two trivialisations of $`M`$ can be regarded as an integer. In particular this is true for $`S^3`$.

###### Proposition 1.4.

Suppose $`\tau _i,i=1,2`$ are trivialisations of $`TM`$ and $`\pi ^{}(\tau _i)`$ are their pullbacks. Then $`\pi ^{}(\tau _1)\pi ^{}(\tau _2)`$ is divisible by $`\left|G\right|`$ when $`H_1(M,/2)=0`$ and by $`\left|G\right|/2`$ when $`H_1(M,/2)0`$.

###### Proof.

As above, when $`H_1(M,/2)=0`$, we have a map $`\varphi :MS^3`$ representing the difference between the $`\tau _i`$. It is easy to see that the map $`\varphi \pi `$ represents the difference between the pullbacks. As $`\pi `$ has degree $`\left|G\right|`$ and the degree is multiplicative, it follows that $`\pi ^{}(\tau _1)\pi ^{}(\tau _2)=deg(\varphi \pi )`$ is divisible by $`\left|G\right|`$.

In the case when $`H_1(M,/2)0`$ (as also when $`H_1(M,/2)=0`$), there is a map $`\varphi :MSO(3)`$ representing the difference between the trivialisations. On composing with the covering map, this gives the a map representing $`\pi ^{}(\tau _1)\pi ^{}(\tau _2)`$ which lifts to $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }:S^3S^3`$. Thus, if $`\alpha :S^3SO(3)`$ is the covering map, we get a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}S^3& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{}& S^3\\ \pi & & \alpha & & \\ M& \stackrel{\varphi }{}& SO(3)\end{array}$$

As the degree of maps is multiplicative, and $`deg(\pi )=\left|G\right|`$ and $`deg(\alpha )=2`$, we get $`2deg(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })=\left|G\right|deg(\varphi )`$, or $`deg(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })=\frac{\left|G\right|}{2}deg(\varphi )`$. The result follows

We are now in a position to define the invariant $`𝔉(M)`$

###### Definition 1.2.

Let $`M=S^3/G`$, where $`G`$ is an finite group acting without fixed points on $`S^3`$. The framing invariant $`𝔉(M)/G`$, where $`G=\left|G\right|`$ when $`H_1(M,/2)=0`$ and $`G=\left|G\right|/2`$ when $`H_1(M,/2)0`$, is the equivalence class of the trivialisation of $`TS^3`$ obtained by pulling back a trivialisation of $`M`$.

## 2. Computation for lens spaces

It is easy to see that $`𝔉()`$ is a non-trivial invariant, and is in fact sensitive enough to distinguish between homotopy equivalent manifolds. For, the lens spaces $`L(p,1)`$ are quotients of $`S^3`$ by a subgroup of the unit quaternions acting on themselves by left multiplication, and hence the canonical trivialisation is equivariant. On the other hand, the spaces $`L(p,1)`$ are quotients by a subgroup of the unit quaternions acting on themselves by right multiplication, making the right-invariant trivialisation equivariant. These two trivialisations differ by the adjoint action of $`SU(2)`$ on its Lie algebra. This lifts to a degree $`1`$ map from $`SU(2)`$ to itself. Thus the framing invariant suffices to show that there is no orientation preserving homeomorphism between $`L(p,1)`$ and $`L(p,1)`$ when $`p2`$.

But for $`p1(mod4)`$, with $`p`$ a prime, there is an orientation preserving homotopy equivalence between $`L(p,1)`$ and $`L(p,1)`$. By uniqueness of prime decompositions of $`3`$-manifolds, it follows, for example, that $`L(5,1)\mathrm{\#}L(5,1)`$ is homotopy equivalent but not homeomorphic to $`L(5,1)\mathrm{\#}L(5,1)`$.

Thus, $`𝔉()`$ depends essentially on the homeomorphism type, and not just the homotopy type, of a lens space. Our goal here is to compute this explicitly for odd-order lens spaces, and show that if $`p`$ is an odd prime, $`𝔉()`$ suffices to classify lens spaces.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Suppose $`p`$ is odd. Then $`𝔉(L(p,q))=\frac{(q1)(q^11)}{4}`$, where $`q^1`$ is a multiplicative inverse of $`q`$ modulo $`p`$, and $`q`$ and $`q^1`$ have been chosen to be odd representatives of their mod $`p`$ equivalence class.

###### Remark 2.2.

The formula above does not depend on the choice of the odd representatives for $`q`$ and $`q^1`$

###### Proof.

It will be useful to regard $`S^3`$ as the join $`S^1S^1`$, which is embedded in the natural way in the quaternions. Then the action corresponding to the lens space $`L(p,q)`$ is the join of actions on the circle $`S^1`$ generated respectively by $`z_1e^{\frac{2\pi 𝒊}{p}}z_1`$ and $`z_2e^{\frac{2\pi 𝒊q}{p}}z_2`$. We first find an equivariant trivialisation along the circles $`(z_1,0)`$ and $`(0,z_2)`$ and then extend these to $`S^3`$.

Henceforth the equivariant trivialisation is given in terms of the map $`f:S^3SU(2)S^3`$ representing the difference with the left-invariant trivialisation. Along the circle $`C_1=\{(z_1,0):z_1S^1\}`$, we can take the first vector to point along the circle. An equivariant trivialisation is obtained by choosing the other two vectors so that they rotate $`q`$ times, for some choice in the mod $`p`$ class of $`q`$. This follows as the arc joining $`(1,0)`$ to $`(e^{\frac{2\pi 𝒊}{p}},0)`$ is a fundamental domain, with the only identification due to the group action being that of the endpoints induced by the element $`(z_1,z_2)(e^{\frac{2\pi 𝒊}{p}}z_1,e^{\frac{2\pi 𝒊q}{p}}z_2)`$, and this element rotates the normal plane to the circle by $`e^{\frac{2\pi 𝒊q}{p}}`$.

This trivialisation differs from the left-invariant trivialisation by $`q1`$ rotations, and if $`q`$ is chosen odd, this gives a comparison map which lifts to $`S^3`$. The resulting restriction of $`f`$ is the map $`f:(z_1,0)(z_1^{\frac{q1}{2}},0)`$ of degree $`\frac{q1}{2}`$ from the circle to itself.

Likewise, we can trivialise the tangent bundle along the circle $`C_2=\{(0,z_2):z_2S^1\}`$. It is convenient to choose the trivialisation so that it differs from the left invariant one at $`(0,1)`$ by $`𝒋=(0,1)`$. Then the map $`f`$ restricted to this circle is the map $`f:(0,z_1)(0,z_2^{\frac{q^11}{2}})`$ of degree $`\frac{q^11}{2}`$ from the circle to itself as the identification on the boundary of the fundamental domain is induced in this case by $`(z_1,z_2)(e^{\frac{2\pi iq^1}{p}}z_1,e^{\frac{2\pi 𝒊}{p}}z_2)`$.

We now extend this map to a map from the disc $`D_0=\{(z_1,r)S^3:\left|z_1\right|1,r\}S^3`$ of the form $`re^{i\theta }re^{i\frac{q1}{2}\theta },r,\theta `$. Since the only points in the disc which are identified by the group action are on the boundary, and the trivialisation on the boundary is equivariant, we get an equivariant trivialisation of the disc corresponding to this map.

We extend this by requiring equivariance to the disc $`D_1=\{(z_1,re^{\frac{2\pi 𝒊}{p}})S^3:\left|z_1\right|1,r\}`$. The map is previously defined on the boundary of this disc, where it is equivariant. Thus, we have a uniquely equivariant extension.

The midpoint of $`D_1`$ is part of the circle $`C_2`$, as is an arc $`\alpha `$ joining the midpoints of $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$. The map $`f`$ as previously defined on $`C_2`$, must agree with the definition on $`D_1`$ at the midpoint as both these have been defined so that the trivialisation is equivariant.

The discs $`D_0`$ and $`D_1`$ bound a *lens* $`N`$, which is a fundamental domain for the group action. The map $`f`$ has already been defined on the boundary discs as well as the arc $`\alpha `$. This extends to a map on $`N`$, and hence a trivialisation of the tangent bundle. Up to homotopy, any other choice of $`f`$ can be obtained by replacing $`f`$ in a small neighbourhood of an interior point $`x`$ of the fundamental domain by a degree $`k`$ map from $`S^3`$ to itself for some $`k`$. More precisely, $`f`$ is homotopic to a map that is constant on the neighbourhood of the point $`x`$. Replace this map in this neighbourhood by a map to $`S^3`$ that maps the boundary of the neighbourhood to a single point and so that the inverse image of a generic point has algebraic multiplicity $`k`$. We shall call such a transformation ‘blowing a degree–$`k`$ bubble’.

We now extend the trivialisation equivariantly from the fundamental domain to all of the manifold, and define $`f`$ accordingly. This is an extension of the map on $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ that was previously defined.

The resulting map $`f:S^3S^3`$ is homotopic to a map obtained from the join of maps $`C_iC_i`$ defined by taking powers on the unit circle in $``$ by blowing a degree–$`k`$ bubble in each of the $`p`$ images of the fundamental domain. Thus, it has degree $`\frac{(q1)(q^11)}{4}+kp`$. This proves our claim. ∎

###### Corollary 2.3.

Suppose $`p`$ is a prime, then $`L(p,q)=L(p,q^{})`$ as oriented manifolds if and only if $`q^{}=q^{\pm 1}`$

###### Proof.

It is well known that $`L(p,q)=L(p,q^{\pm 1})`$ as oriented manifolds (a homeomorphism is induced by $`(z_1,z_2)(z_2,z_1)`$. Conversely, for a fixed $`q`$, the condition $`𝔉(L(p,q^{}))=𝔉(L(p,q))`$ is a quadratic equation in $`q^{}`$ over the field $`/p`$, with roots $`q`$ and $`q^1`$.

If $`q^1q`$, then these are two distinct root of the quadratic equation, and hence the only solutions for $`q^{}`$. If $`q=q^1`$, and $`q^{}q`$ is another root, then we also have $`q^{}=(q^{})^1`$, otherwise we would have three distinct roots. But this means that $`q^{}=\pm 1`$ and $`q=\pm 1`$, and we have already seen that $`𝔉(L(p,1))𝔉(L(p,1))`$. Alternatively, using $`q^{}=q^1`$, the above reduces to a linear equation for $`q^{}`$ that is satisfied by $`q`$, and hence $`q^{}=q`$. ∎

The same statement is well known to be true for all values of $`p`$ and there are several proofs of this (see, for instance, , ,  and ).

###### Remark 2.4.

It is more natural to declare the left invariant framing to be $`\frac{1}{2}`$ rather than $`0`$. Then we have the relation $`𝔉(L(p,q))=𝔉(L(p,q))`$.

###### Remark 2.5.

More generally, after re-normalising as above, $`𝔉(M)=𝔉(M)`$. This is immediate from section 4 and can also be proved directly.

## 3. Universally tight contact structures

Let $`M`$ be a closed, orientable $`3`$-manifold. Recall that a contact structure $`\xi `$ on $`M`$ is a totally non-integrable tangent plane field. We shall assume that the tangent plane field is co-orientable (we shall say that the contact structure is co-orientable). In this situation, we can express $`\xi =ker(\alpha )`$, where $`\alpha `$ is a $`1`$-form consistent with the co-orientation.

The hypothesis of $`\xi `$ being nowhere integrable is equivalent to $`\alpha d\alpha `$ being a non-degenerate $`3`$-form. Thus, this is everywhere a non-zero multiple of the volume form, and hence induces an orientation on $`M`$. We say that $`\xi `$ is *positive* if this orientation agrees with the orientation of $`M`$.

A fundamental dichotomy among contact structures on $`3`$-manifolds is between *tight* and *overtwisted* contact structures. An *overtwisted* contact structure is one that contains an unknot that is everywhere tangent to the contact structure so that the framing induced by the contact structure is the $`0`$-framing. A contact structure that is not overtwisted is said to be *tight*. A *universally tight* contact structure is one that pulls back to a tight contact structure on every cover of $`M`$.

A fundamental result of Eliashberg is that $`S^3`$ with a fixed orientation has a unique positive tight contact structure, namely the contact structure invariant under left multiplication. Our results follow from this and some simple observations.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`M`$ be an integral homology $`3`$-sphere with a contact structure $`\xi `$. Then there is a canonical framing associated to $`\xi `$. Further, the pullback of this framing to any homology sphere that covers $`M`$ is the framing induced by the pullback of the contact structure.

###### Proof.

As $`M`$ is a homology sphere, the contact-structure is co-orientable. Choose and fix a co-orientation. This induces an orientation on the plane-bundle given by the contact structure, which we identify with $`\xi `$.

As $`H^2(M)=0`$, the Euler class of $`\xi `$ is trivial. Hence there is a trivialisation of $`\xi `$. Further, two trivialisations differ by a map onto $`S^1`$. As $`H^1(M)=0`$, any such map is homotopic to a constant map.

Thus, there is a trivialisation $`(X_1,X_2)`$ of $`\xi `$, canonical up to homotopy. This, together with a vector $`X_3`$ normal to $`\xi `$, that is consistent with the co-orientation, gives a framing $`(X_1,X_2,X_3)`$.

The homotopy class of this trivialisation does not depend on the choice of co-orientation since $`(X_1,X_2,X_3)`$ gives a trivialisation corresponding to the opposite co-orientation, and this is clearly homotopic to the trivialisation $`(X_1,X_2,X_3)`$.

As the trivialisation of $`\xi `$ pulls back to give a trivialisation of the pullback to any cover of $`\xi `$, the second claim follows. ∎

Now let $`𝔓`$ be the Poincare homology sphere with a fixed orientation, and let $`𝔓`$ denote the same manifold with the opposite orientation. These manifolds have finite fundamental group. The Poincaré homology sphere is the quotient of $`S^3`$ by a group acting by left multiplication, and $`𝔓`$ is the quotient of an action by right multiplication. We can now prove the following theorem. Note that any contact structure on a homology sphere is automatically co-orientable.

###### Theorem 3.2 (Gompf).

The manifold $`𝔓`$ does not have a universally tight positive contact structure.

###### Proof.

As $`𝔓`$ is the quotient of $`S^3`$ by a group acting by right multiplication, it follows that any framing on $`𝔓`$ pulls back to one homotopic to a framing invariant under right Lie multiplication, or one differing from this by $`\left|\pi _1(𝔓)\right|`$ units (as $`H_1(𝔓,_2)=0`$). However, if $`𝔓`$ had a universally tight positive contact structure, then the associated framing must pulls back to give the framing associated to left Lie multiplication. This gives the required contradiction. ∎

###### Remark 3.3.

Etnyre and Honda  have shown that $`𝔓`$ does not have a tight contact structure.

###### Remark 3.4.

We see in section 5 that the proof of the above result translates to Gompf’s proof under the correspondence between framings and trivialisable tangent plane fields.

V.Colin  shows that tight contact structures on connected sums of manifolds are connected sums of tight contact structures on each summand. Using this, we obtain the following result.

###### Corollary 3.5.

The manifold $`𝔓\mathrm{\#}𝔓`$ does not admit a universally tight contact structure.

## 4. 2-Framings and invariants of covers

We now generalise and sharpen the framing invariant using so called canonical $`2`$-framings as introduced by Atiyah . Atiyah has shown that any $`3`$-manifold has associated to it a canonical framing $``$ of the Whitney sum $`2TM=TMTM`$ of the tangent bundle with itself, considered as a Spin(6)-bundle with the natural spin structure. The framing $``$ is characterised by

$$\sigma (W^4)=\frac{1}{6}p_1(2TW,)$$

for any smooth $`4`$-manifold $`W`$ with $`W=M`$. Here $`\sigma `$ denotes the signature and $`p_1`$ the relative Pontrjagin class. By the Hirzebruch signature formula this does not depend on the choice of $`W`$.

Atiyah has shown that such a $`2`$-framing always exists, and the $`2`$-framings form a torseur of $``$. Now, we can define the framing invariant $`𝔉(M,N)`$ associated to a cover $`MN`$ \- pull back the canonical $`2`$-framing of $`N`$ and compare this with the canonical $`2`$-framing of $`M`$. Thus, we get an integer-valued invariant. We state for reference the following lemma, which is an immediate consequence of Atiyah’s result.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Suppose $`M`$ is a $`3`$-manifold bounding a $`4`$-manifold $`W`$ and let $``$ be any $`2`$-framing of $`M`$. The difference between $``$ and the canonical framing is $`\sigma (W^4)\frac{1}{6}p_1(2TW,)`$

As a framing gives a $`2`$-framing, we see that we have a sharpening of the framing invariant defined earlier. We show here that this is a non-trivial invariant.

###### Remark 4.2.

A hyperbolic $`3`$-manifold has many covers, hence many invariants associated to it. It is not clear whether these are useful.

###### Theorem 4.3.

Suppose $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ are $`h`$-cobordant $`3`$-manifolds, $`M`$ is a cover of $`N`$ and $`M^{}`$ the corresponding cover of $`N^{}`$. Then $`𝔉(M,N)=𝔉(M^{},N^{})`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`X`$ be the $`h`$-cobordism between $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$, so that $`W=N^{}N`$. If $`W`$ is a $`4`$-manifold with boundary $`N`$, then $`W^{}=W_NX`$ is a $`4`$-manifold with boundary $`N^{}`$ with the same signature as $`W`$. By considering these manifolds, it is immediate that that if $`𝔉`$ is the canonical $`2`$-framing for $`M`$, then the canonical framing $`𝔉^{}`$ of $`N^{}`$ is characterised by

$$p_1(2TX,𝔉,𝔉^{})=0$$

The $`h`$-cobordism $`X`$ lifts to an $`h`$-cobordism $`Y`$ between $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$, and the Pontrjagin class relative to the framings pulled back is the pullback of the Pontrjagin class and hence is zero. Let $`U`$ be a $`4`$-manifold with boundary $`M`$, and let $`U^{}=U_MY`$. Applying lemma 4.1 to $`U`$ and to $`U^{}`$, the result follows. ∎

We can generalise the above theorem to the following.

###### Theorem 4.4.

Let $`X`$ be a cobordism between $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ and let $`\varphi :\pi _1(W)H`$ be a surjective map onto a finite group that restricts to surjections on $`\pi _1(N_1)`$ and $`\pi _1(N_2)`$. Suppose that the cover $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ with fundamental group $`ker(\varphi )`$ satisfies

$$\sigma (\stackrel{~}{W})=\left|H\right|\sigma (W)$$

and $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are the covers of $`N_i`$ with fundamental group $`ker(\varphi )`$. Then $`𝔉(M,N)=𝔉(M^{},N^{})`$.

###### Proof.

We use the additivity of the signature and relative Pontrjagin classes. The above proof generalises immediately. ∎

###### Example 4.1.

Let $`N_1`$ be a lens space, $`M_1`$ be $`S^3`$ and $`K`$ be a homologically trivial knot in $`N_1`$ the components of whose lift to $`S^3`$ are unlinked (for instance, the untwisted Whitehead double of any homologically trivial knot). Add a $`2`$-handle to $`N_1`$ along $`K`$ with framing $`1`$ to get a $`4`$-manifold $`W`$, and let its other boundary component be $`N_2`$. Let $`\varphi `$ be the map onto $`\pi _1(N_1)`$ that extends the identity map on $`N_1`$. Then $`𝔉(M,N)=𝔉(M^{},N^{})`$.

The manifold $`N_2`$ is the result of surgery about the knot $`K`$. Using this construction and taking connected sums, we get hyperbolic manifolds with covers having various framings.

## 5. Relation to Gompf’s invariants

In this section we relate equivariant framings to Gompf’s invariant, equivalent to the $`3`$-dimensional obstruction in Pontrjagin’s classification, for tangent plane fields. Assume henceforth that $`M`$ is an oriented rational homology sphere (for instance, $`M=S^3/G`$). We first establish a canonical correspondence between homotopy classes of framings $``$ of $`M`$ and homotopy classes of orientable tangent plane fields $`\xi `$ on $`M`$ with $`c_1(\xi )=0`$.

###### Proposition 5.1.

Let $`M`$ be an rational homology $`3`$-sphere. Then there is a natural bijective correspondence between homotopy classes of framings $``$ of $`M`$ and homotopy classes of orientable tangent plane fields $`\xi `$ on $`M`$ with $`c_1(\xi )=0`$.

###### Proof.

We proceed as in Proposition 3.1. Given an orientable tangent plane fields $`\xi `$ on $`M`$ with $`c_1(\xi )=0`$, fix an orientation on $`\xi `$. There is a trivialisation $`(X_1,X_2)`$ of $`\xi `$ respecting the orientation. Further, the homotopy classes of such trivialisations are classified by $`H^1(M)=0`$. Hence, as $`M`$ is a rational homology sphere, the trivialisation is canonical up to homotopy.

Find a vector field $`X_3`$ normal to $`\xi `$ such that $`(X_1,X_2,X_3)`$ respects the orientation on $`M`$. This is possible as $`\xi `$ and $`M`$ are orientable. Then $`=(X_1,X_2,X_3)`$ is a framing of $`M`$. As before this does not depend on the choice of orientation.

Conversely, given a framing $`=(X_1,X_2,X_3)`$ let $`\xi `$ be the span of $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$. Evidently these constructions are inverses of each other. ∎

We now recall the invariant of Gompf for such tangent plane fields. To do this one finds an almost complex $`4`$-manifold $`(X,J)`$ with $`X=M`$ so that the plane field $`TMJ(TM)`$ on $`M`$ induced by the almost complex structure is $`\xi `$. Using this, one would wish to define the invariant $`c_1^2(X)2\chi (X)3\sigma (X)`$, where $`\chi `$ and $`\sigma `$ denote the Euler characteristic and the signature.

One cannot always define such an invariant as $`c_1(X)H^2(X)H_2(X,X)`$ and there is no natural pairing on $`H_2(X,X)`$. Gompf works instead with a pairing on surfaces representing elements of $`H_2(X,X)`$ with given framings on their boundaries.

In case of tangent plane fields $`\xi `$ on $`M`$ with $`c_1(\xi )=0`$, we can define the invariant directly by the following lemma.

###### Lemma 5.2.

Let $`X`$ be an almost complex $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ with $`X=M`$ so that the plane field $`\xi `$ on $`M`$ induced by the almost complex structure satisfies $`c_1(\xi )=0`$. Then the Poincaré dual $`PD(c_1(X))H_2(X,X)`$ of $`c_1(X)`$ is contained in the image of $`H_2(X)`$ under the inclusion map.

###### Proof.

If $`[F]=PD(c_1(X))`$ for a properly embedded surface $`F`$ with boundary, then it is easy to see that $`[F]=PD(c_1(\xi ))`$ as $`TX|_X`$ splits as the sum of a trivial complex line bundle and $`\xi `$. It follows that $`[F]=0`$. Hence $`PD(c_1(X))`$ is in the image of $`H_2(X)`$ by the long exact sequence of homology groups. ∎

Thus, Gompf’s invariant reduces to $`c_1^2(X)2\chi (X)3\sigma (X)`$. Using $`p_1(X,)=c_1^2(X)+2c_2(X)`$ and $`c_2(X)=\chi (X)`$, we see that this is $`3(\sigma (X)\frac{1}{6}p_1(2TX,))`$. We saw that $`\sigma (X)\frac{1}{6}p_1(2TX,𝔉)=0`$ characterises the canonical framing, which is used to give an integral sharpening of the framing invariant.

To prove theorem 3.2, Gompf uses the fact that if we pullback two tangent plane fields from $`𝔓`$ to $`S^3`$, then the difference between the values of the invariant for the two plane fields is a multiple of $`4`$ times the degree of the cover (the factor of $`4`$ comes about in the process of defining the invariant for general plane fields). This is equivalent to our argument using equivariant framings.