format: text

text:
# Acknowledgements

## Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jin-Ho Cho and Hyung Do Kim for useful discussion. We are also grateful to M.J. Duff and J.T. Liu for encouraging correspondence. This work is supported by No. 2000-1-11200-001-3 from the Basic Research Program of the Korea Science $`\&`$ Engineering Foundation and Korea Research Center for Theoretical Physics and Chemistry (Y. Kim).


text:
# The Inertial Polarization Principle: The Mechanism Underlying Sonoluminescence ?

## The Inertial Polarization Principle

In this paper we put forward a mechanism responsible for transducing the kinetic energy stored in an imploding spherical shock wave into electromagnetic radiation, which is based solely upon Maxwell’s equations, the existence of very small instabilities away from the spherically symmetric flow and the inertial polarization paradigm. Based on these premisses we obtained the spectral intensity of the outgoing radiation. The mechanism turns out to be so efficient that the observed energy emission rate of $`P(\lambda )10^{10}Watt/nm`$ calls for perturbation amplitudes no larger than $`\epsilon =10^{14}!`$ Maxwell’s equations are a pillar of theoretical physics while inertial polarization is a consequence of very elementary physics : an atom that undergoes an acceleration, say $`a`$ , develops in its interior polarized electromagnetic fields. The issue is made clear for an observer sitting in the frame of the molecule, where he sees inertial forces acting both upon the nucleus $`F_N=M_Na`$ and on the electronic cloud $`F_e=M_ea`$. The gradient between these forces tends to sag the cloud away from the nucleus, and the atom develops internal polarization fields, say $`E_0,`$ to compensate this gradient $`e`$ $`E_0(M_NM_e)a`$ . The role of inertial polarization remained hitherto unnoticed only because detectable polarization fields call for tremendous accelerations, say, $`E_01V/m`$ would require $`a(e/M_p)E_010^2(eV/(M_pc^2))(c^2/cm)10^{10}cm/\mathrm{sec}^2`$ which are absent in every day life experiments. Nevertheless, there are two instances where such large accelerations manifest: i.) in the realm of very strong gravitational fields where inertial polarization was shown to be the working mechanism that rescues the second law of thermodynamics from bankruptcy (otherwise super-luminal motion of black-holes inside dielectric media would entail a violation of the generalized second law ,); ii) in the realm of shock waves, because shocks are powerful accelerators of fluid molecules: a fluid molecule that crosses the shock undergoes a macroscopic velocity change (of the order of the fluid velocity itself ) within a microscopic distance – the shock width (of the order of the mean free path for the atomic collisions ).

The inertial polarization principle is the single non-very-well-established piece of physics in our recipe and we proceed by making our case for it. Consider a planar strong shock wave propagating within a perfect gas. Let $`v_2`$ and $`v_1`$ represent the fluid velocity in the back and in front the shock, respectively ( likewise, the index 2 (1) refer to physical quantities behind (in front) the shock ). As the fluid molecules cross the shock they experience a mean acceleration $`\overline{a}=(v_2v_1)(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }t})`$, where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ is the mean time it takes the gas to cross the shock-width $`\delta `$. Clearly $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }t}=\delta /\overline{v}`$, where $`\overline{v}(v_1+v_2)/2`$, is the mean velocity. Putting these pieces together

$$\overline{a}=\frac{v_2^2v_1^2}{2\delta }$$
(1)
For a strong shock propagating in a perfect gas :

$$v_2^2v_1^2=\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma +1}p_2V_1$$
(2)
where $`V_1`$ is the gas’ specific volume. The compression rate satisfies $`V_1/V_2=(\gamma +1)/(\gamma 1)`$

$$\overline{a}=\frac{\gamma }{\gamma 1}\frac{p_2V_2}{\delta }$$
(3)
The shock width $`\delta `$ is known to be of order of the mean free path for collisions of atoms in the fluid, $`\delta (n\sigma )^1`$, where $`n`$ stands for the number density of atoms and $`\sigma `$ for the collision’s cross section. Bearing in mind that $`nV=A/\mu `$ where $`A`$ is Avogadro’s number and $`\mu `$ is the molecular weight of the gas, we obtain the colossal figure for the mean acceleration atoms experience as they cross the shock:

$$\overline{a}\frac{\gamma }{\gamma 1}6\times 10^{13}\left(\frac{p_2}{\mathrm{a}tm}\right)\left(\frac{\sigma }{10^{16}\mathrm{c}m^2}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{g}ram}{\mu }\right)\mathrm{c}m/\mathrm{sec}^2.$$
(4)
The mean electric polarization developed across the shock $`\overline{E}_0(M_p/e)\overline{a}`$ is also sizeable

$$\overline{E}_06\times 10^3\frac{V}{\mathrm{m}eter}\frac{\gamma }{\gamma 1}\left(\frac{p_2}{\mathrm{a}tm}\right)\left(\frac{\sigma }{10^{16}\mathrm{c}m^2}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{g}ram}{\mu }\right).$$
(5)
Unfortunately, the shock is so thin that the voltage developed across its ends is very small

$$V\frac{\overline{a}M_p\delta }{e}1.2\times 10^6Volt\frac{\gamma }{\gamma 1}\left(\frac{p}{atm}\right)\left(\frac{cm^3}{g\varrho }\right)$$
(6)
Shock Polarization was first observed in the early sixties  for shock waves propagating inside water. Since then, both quality and range of the measurements improved considerably . Harris  credits the effect to the fact that large pressure gradients inside the shock results in a torque field acting upon the water molecule causing the molecule’s dipole to align. We reproduce his results via the table:

| $`p(kbar)`$ | $`98`$ | $`75`$ | $`74.5`$ | $`58`$ | $`54`$ | $`45`$ | $`36`$ | $`20`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`V(mV)/p(kbar)`$ | $`\mathrm{1.\hspace{0.17em}97}`$ | $`\mathrm{1.\hspace{0.17em}33}`$ | $`\mathrm{0.\hspace{0.17em}97}`$ | $`\mathrm{0.\hspace{0.17em}77}`$ | $`\mathrm{0.\hspace{0.17em}43}`$ | $`\mathrm{0.\hspace{0.17em}89}`$ | $`\mathrm{0.\hspace{0.17em}680}`$ | $`\mathrm{0.\hspace{0.17em}8}`$ |

The underlying Physics for a shock propagating in water is the very same as for a gas and we infer the averaged electric potential across the shock from eq.(6) bearing in mind that: i.)~the compression rate for water is of order one, therefore we go one step back in this equation by replacing $`\gamma /(\gamma 1)\gamma /(\gamma +1)1/2`$); ii.)~the equation was obtained for a gas and for liquids it should be regarded as the linear expansion of the function $`V(p)`$. Then it follows that $`V(mV)/p(kbar)0.6`$ , in agreement with the lower pressure region of the experimental data. Detection of shock polarization for non-polar fluids would vindicate the Inertial Polarization Principle.

The acceleration field inside planar shocks is space and time independent (and so the corresponding polarized electromagnetic fields) . Nevertheless, planar shocks are known to develop corrugation instabilities , small deformations of the planar geometry that detach from the shock and propagate throughout the fluid. They correspond to the spontaneous emission of sound from the shock. These instabilities will cause a space time dependent acceleration field inside the shock, and by the Inertial Polarization Principle a wiggling $`6\times 10^3V/m`$ electric field vector that is radiated away: sound and light are emitted simultaneously , provided the Inertial Polarization relaxation time is small enough. This brings to one’s mind the famous and intriguing sonoluminescence effect  in which under heavy bombarding of ultra-sound waves, a little ( $`5\mu m`$) bubble of air cavitating within a flask of water undergoes a spectacular collapse, attains the supersonic regime and glows (mainly) violet light. The effect has been around for sixty years or so ( ,\[firstime2\]) and proper understanding of the problem remains elusive. The most popular mechanism is the Bremsstrahlung from free electrons in the gas where the ionization is caused by two successive heating processes: first the adiabatic collapse of the bubble which is then followed by the motion of a shock wall inside the bubble (the shock’s Mach number controls the temperature rate $`T_2/T_1M^2)`$ .

The formation of a shock wall, a collapsing spherical front of radius $`R(t)=A(t)^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha <1),`$ happens by the time supersonic regime is attained inside the bubble . The acceleration of the shock front surface $`a(t)A(t)^{\alpha 2}`$, becomes very large at focusing $`(t0)`$ engendering very large space and time dependent Inertial-Polarization fields. Nevertheless, the spherical symmetric geometry of the problem prevents these fields to be radiated away: pursuing the present avenue seems to require some supplementary mechanism to account for the radiation flash (a sparking mechanism was proposed ). Fortunately, no supplementary mechanism is needed: numerical calculations () have shown the existence of unstable perturbations of the collapsing shock which provide the multipole time-dependent inertial-polarization fields that are radiated away. The purpose of this paper is to calculate the spectral distribution of the emitted light .

The paper is organized as follows. The following section reviews the dynamics of imploding shocks, and the existence of unstable multipole perturbation modes is rigorously proved. As a bonus, we obtain the energy and the power carried away by the sound waves that detach from the shock (corrugation instabilities). A novel semi-analytical procedure for solving the differential equations for the perturbations is developed, which nevertheless, is displayed in the appendix in order prevent the disruption of the main argument line with technicalities. In section II , we obtain the polarization fields engendered by the corrugation instabilities and show that they act as a source term in Maxwell’s equations. Then we calculate the spectrum of the outgoing radiation. The spectrum depends on the dynamics of the corrugation instabilities, but fortunately it is possible to obtain the main structure of the spectrum without having to delve too deeply into the dynamics. The intensity of the outgoing radiation turned out to be proportional to $`p\epsilon ^2`$ where $`\epsilon `$ is the corrugation instability amplitude and $`p=E_p^2/(2\alpha \mathrm{}),`$ is Inertial-Polarization power-constant ($`E_p`$ stands for the proton’s rest energy and $`\alpha `$ for the fine structure constant). This constant is of the order $`1.47\times 10^{16}\mathrm{W}att`$ (!): collapsing shock waves are the most efficient power-stations in nature, with the sole possible exception of astrophysical objects! Agreement with the experimental data calls for amplitudes of the order $`\epsilon 10^{13}`$ or $`\delta r10^{19}m`$! These tiny perturbations must have a quantum mechanical origin, and we support this conjecture by an order of magnitude estimative. Finally we suggest the resolution of the noble gas puzzle in SL.

## 1 Dynamics of Imploding Shocks

The non-viscous implosion of a spherical shock cannot be characterized by any dimensional parameter . Consequently the flow admits a self-similar symmetry. Let $`R(t)=A_i(t)^\alpha `$ represent the radius of the shock front, where $`A_i`$ and $`\alpha `$ are two constants and $`v_{shock}=\alpha R(t)/t`$, its implosion velocity. The self similar parameter here is $`\xi =r/R(t)`$; the surface of the shock is given by $`\xi =1`$. Self-similarity constrains the form of the speed of sound, radial flow velocity and density  :

$`c_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha r}{t}}\right)^2Z(\xi )`$ (7)
$`v_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha r}{t}}\right)V(\xi )`$ (8)
$`\rho _2`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _0G(\xi )`$ (9)
When expressed in terms of the self similar quantities $`Z,V`$ and $`G`$, the boundary conditions for a strong shock $`\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{v}_{shock}>>c`$ read,

$$G(1)=\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma +1},V(1)=\frac{2}{\gamma +1},Z(1)=\frac{2\gamma (\gamma 1)}{\left(\gamma +1\right)^2}$$
(10)
The equations that govern the flow are the entropy and mass conservation laws and Euler’s equation . They provide a set of non-linear coupled equations for $`G(\xi ),V(\xi )`$ and $`Z(\xi )`$, which when solved for $`Z(V)`$ and $`\xi (V),`$ yield the pair of equations

$$\frac{dZ}{dV}=\frac{Z}{1V}\left[\frac{\left(Z(1V)^2\right)\left(2/\alpha (3\gamma 1)V\right)}{\left(3V\kappa \right)ZV(1V)(1/\alpha V)}+\gamma 1\right]$$
(11)
and

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\xi }{dV}=\frac{Z(1V)^2}{(3V\kappa )ZV(1V)(1/\alpha V)}$$
(12)
where $`\kappa =2(1\alpha )/(\alpha \gamma )`$. Inspection of these equations reveals the existence of a singular point at $`Z=(1V)^2`$ ( $`dV/d\xi \mathrm{}\mathrm{?})`$. Clearly, all physical quantities, and their derivatives must be finite across the singular point, meaning that the conditions $`(3V\kappa )ZV(1V)(1/\alpha V)=0`$ and $`Z=(1V)^2`$ are simultaneous to each other at this point, such as to keep their ratio finite. Call $`V_c(\alpha ),Z_c(\alpha )`$ the solution of this pair of algebraic equations. The parameter $`\alpha `$ is obtained by numerically integrating $`Z(V)`$ from $`V=V(1)`$ to $`V_c`$ for different values of $`\alpha `$ until the matching $`Z(V_c(\alpha ))`$ = $`Z_c(\alpha )`$ is obtained. The good values for $`\alpha `$ are $`0.688376/0.71717`$ for a monatomic/diatomic gas. The limit $`t0_{}`$ corresponds to the shock’s focusing time, after which the shock reflects and reexpands. For latter reference, we mention the asymptotic behavior $`V\xi ^{1/\alpha }`$ as $`\xi \mathrm{}`$ .

We are seeking now perturbations away from this flow. Let $`\delta =\delta \rho /\rho `$ be the contrast function and $`\delta \stackrel{}{v}`$ the velocity fluctuation. The latter can be decomposed into its normal and perpendicular components $`\delta v_n=\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{v}`$ , $`\delta \stackrel{}{v}_{}=\delta \stackrel{}{v}\delta v_n\stackrel{}{n}`$.

The linearized mass and entropy conservation equations read

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+v\frac{}{r}\right)\delta +\delta v_n\frac{\mathrm{ln}\rho }{r}+\stackrel{}{}\delta \stackrel{}{v}=0$$
(13)
$$\left(\frac{}{t}+v\frac{}{r}\right)\delta s+\delta v_n\frac{s}{r}=0$$
(14)
while perturbing Euler’s equation yields

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+v\frac{}{r}\right)\delta \stackrel{}{v}+\delta v_n\frac{v}{r}\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{v}{r}\delta \stackrel{}{v}_{}=\frac{\delta \stackrel{}{}p\stackrel{}{}\delta p}{\rho }$$
(15)
Next, we introduce the self-similar ansatz

$`\delta v_n`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha r}{t_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}\right)^{\alpha \beta 1}(1V)\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ (16)
$`\delta \stackrel{}{v}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha r}{t_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}\right)^{\alpha \beta 1}\tau (\xi )\left(r\stackrel{}{}\right)Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon \left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}\right)^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi )Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$
$`\delta s`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon c_p\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}\right)^{\alpha \beta }\sigma (\xi )Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$
where $`c_p`$ is the specific heat of the gas , $`t_0`$ is shock formation time and $`\epsilon `$ the amplitude of the perturbation at this moment. After some tedious algebra we translate the previous equations in terms of the self-similar quantities. The mass and entropy conservation yield (13,\[entropy'\])

$$(1V)\xi \left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\right)=\beta \mathrm{\Delta }+3\mathrm{\Phi }l(l+1)\tau $$
(17)
$$(1V)\xi \sigma ^{}=\beta \sigma \kappa \mathrm{\Phi }$$
(18)
where $`\kappa =2(1\alpha )/(\alpha \gamma )`$. The projection of Euler’s equation (15) into the perpendicular direction yields a compact form

$$(1V)\xi \tau ^{}=(2V+\beta \frac{1}{\alpha })\tau +Z(\mathrm{\Delta }+\sigma ).$$
(19)
but the normal projection gives a more cumbersome expression

$$(1V)\xi \left((1V)^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}Z(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+\sigma ^{})\right)=$$
(20)
$$=\left[(1V)^2(2V+2\xi V^{}+\beta \frac{1}{\alpha })\right]\mathrm{\Phi }+Z((\gamma 1)\mathrm{\Delta }+\gamma \sigma )\left(3V+\xi V^{}\kappa \right)$$

Equation (17) suggests the definition of a new dynamical variable $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We display these equations in matrix form

$$\frac{d}{dV}|Y(V)=(V)|Y(V);0VV(1)V_1$$
(21)
where $`|X(V)=(\varphi (V),\tau (V),\pi (V),\sigma (V))`$, ; $`|X(V)=\mathrm{exp}[\beta _{V_1}^Vm(V)𝑑V]|Y(V)`$ and, furthermore

$$(V)=m(V)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}P(V)\varphi _1(V)& P(V)\varphi _2(V)& P(V)\varphi _3(V)& P(V)\varphi _4(V)\\ Z& 2V\frac{1}{\alpha }& Z& Z\\ 3+\beta & l(l+1)& 0& 0\\ \kappa & 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(22)
with

$$m(V)=\frac{1}{1V}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\xi }{dV};P(V)=\frac{1}{(1V)^2Z}$$
(23)
$`\varphi _1(V)`$ $`=`$ $`Z[52/\alpha +2\beta +(\gamma 1)(3V+dV)]+(1V)^2[1/\alpha +2V+2dV]`$ (24)
$`\varphi _2(V)`$ $`=`$ $`Zl(l+1)`$
$`\varphi _3(V)`$ $`=`$ $`Z[(\gamma 1)(3V+dV\kappa )+\beta )`$ (25)
$`\varphi _4(V)`$ $`=`$ $`Z[\gamma (3V+dV\kappa )+\beta ]`$
where $`dV(V)\xi V^{}`$. Clearly this set of differential equations possess a regular singular point when $`Z(1V)^2=0`$, that is to say, at $`V_c\text{}`$The limit $`V0(\xi \mathrm{}`$ , $`m(V)\alpha /V,P(V)1;\varphi _11/\alpha ;\varphi _{2,3,4}0)`$, reveals an additional singularity

$$\frac{d}{dV}|Y(V)\frac{1}{V}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ \alpha (3+\beta )& \alpha l(l+1)& 0& 0\\ \alpha \kappa & 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)|Y(V)$$
(26)
The matrix on the right-hand-side of this equation defines an eigenvalue problem whose solution

$`\lambda _{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`0\{\begin{array}{c}|\theta _1>=(0,0,1,0)\hfill \\ |\theta _2>=(0,0,0,1)\hfill \end{array}`$ (29)
$`\lambda _{3,4}`$ $`=`$ $`1\{\begin{array}{c}|\theta _3>=(l(l+1),3+\beta ,0,\alpha \kappa l(l+1))\hfill \\ |\theta _4>=(0,1,\alpha l(l+1),0)\hfill \end{array}`$ (32)
yields the asymptotic form

$$|X(V)V^{\alpha \beta }[(a_1|\theta _1>+a_2|\theta _2>)+V(a_3|\theta _3>+a_4|\theta _4>)];V0,$$
(33)
where $`a_n`$ are integration constants. Asymptotically regular fields require $`\mathrm{}(\beta )0`$ (except for the the particular mode $`a_1=a_2=0`$ which calls for a less stringent condition $`\mathrm{}(\beta )1/\alpha `$ ). A further constraint on $`\beta `$ arises from energetic considerations. The energy of a polytropic gas is

$$E=\rho [v^2+\frac{c^2}{\gamma (\gamma 1)}]𝑑V.$$
(34)
The lowest order contribution ( in the perturbation parameter $`ϵ`$ ) to the energy stored in the perturbed-shock is the second order expression

$$\delta E_l(t)=\delta \rho [v\delta v_n+\frac{\delta c^2}{\gamma (\gamma 1)}]4\pi r^2𝑑r,$$
(35)
or after some algebra

$$\delta E_l(t)=4\pi \alpha ^2\epsilon ^2\rho _0R_0^5\frac{t^{2\alpha \beta +5\alpha 2}}{t_0^{\alpha (2\beta +5)}}C_l,$$
(36)
where

$$C_l=_1^{\xi _c}G(\xi )[\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )+\mathrm{\Pi }(\xi )][V(1V)\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{Z}{\gamma (\gamma 1)}(\gamma \sigma (\xi )+(\gamma 1)(\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )+\mathrm{\Pi }(\xi ))]\xi ^4d\xi $$
(37)
and $`R_0`$ stands for the radius of the shock by the time it is first formed $`t_0`$. Note that for $`\xi >>\mathrm{~}1,\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )+\mathrm{\Pi }(\xi )V^{\alpha \beta }\xi ^\beta ,G(\xi )`$ const: the integral diverges as $`\xi ^{5+2\beta }`$, vindicating the introduction of the cut off $`\xi _c,`$ which represents the boundary of the self-similarity solution. Clearly, this energy has to remain finite at any time and at focusing it requires that $`1/\alpha 2.5`$ $`\mathrm{R}e(\beta )0`$. In the appendix we develop a semi-analytical method for solving eq.(21) and obtaining the correspondent spectrum for $`\beta _{l,n}`$. In consonance with previous numerical calculations () we confirm that $`\beta `$ lies in this interval. By the way, the most unstable modes are shown to lie in the interval$`.5+1/\alpha <\mathrm{R}e(\beta )<2.5+3/(2\alpha )`$ , even for very large values of $`l`$. For these modes, the energy emission rate

$$P_l(t)=4\pi (2\alpha \beta +5\alpha 2)\alpha ^2\epsilon ^2\rho _0R_0^5\frac{t^{2\alpha \beta +5\alpha 3}}{t_0^{\alpha (2\beta +5)}}C_l$$
(38)
diverges. This means that, in analogy with the corrugation instabilities in planar shocks, a burst of sound is emitted at the focusing. The total energy carried away during the shock-collapse is

$$E_{sound}=\underset{l=1}{}\delta E_l(t_0)=\frac{4\pi \alpha ^2\epsilon ^2\rho _0R_0^5}{t_0^2}C$$
(39)
where we defined $`C=\mathrm{R}e[_{l=1,\beta }C_l(\beta )].`$

## 2 Inertial Polarization At Work

As discussed already, electromagnetic bounded systems whose constituents have sizeable mass differences, say $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ , and which are subjected to a strong acceleration field $`d\stackrel{}{v}/dt`$ engender polarization fields $`\stackrel{}{E}_0,\stackrel{}{B}_0`$ that tend to restore the balance between electromagnetic and inertial forces. Clearly, these polarization fields satisfy

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M\frac{d\stackrel{}{v}}{dt}=Ze\left(\stackrel{}{E}_0+\frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{c}\times \stackrel{}{B}_0\right)$$
(40)
where $`A`$ and $`Z`$ correspond to the atomic and proton numbers and $`e`$ is the electronic charge. Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }MAM_p`$, where $`M_p`$ is the proton mass. Defining a polarized potential-vector $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\stackrel{}{A}_0)`$ in the usual way, allows us to write the balance equation in the form

$$\left[\frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{t}\stackrel{}{v}\times (\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{v})+\stackrel{}{}\frac{v^2}{2}\right]=\frac{Ze}{AM_pc}\left[\frac{\stackrel{}{A}_0}{t}\stackrel{}{v}\times (\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}_0)+\stackrel{}{}(c\mathrm{\Phi }_0)\right]$$
(41)
that suggests the identification $`\stackrel{}{A}_0\frac{AM_pc}{Ze}\stackrel{}{v}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\frac{AM_p}{Ze}v^2/2`$ . Other possible identifications exist, but they are gauge equivalent. The corresponding polarization fields are

$$\stackrel{}{E}_0=\frac{AM_p}{Ze}[\frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{t}+\stackrel{}{}\frac{v^2}{2}];\stackrel{}{B}_0=\frac{AM_pc}{Ze}\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{v}$$
(42)
The time varying inertial-polarization fields engender the radiation fields $`\stackrel{}{E},\stackrel{}{B}`$ and their superposition must satisfy the sourceless Maxwell’s equations:

$`\stackrel{}{}(\stackrel{}{E}+\stackrel{}{E}_0)=0`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{E}=4\pi \varrho _{eff}`$
$`\stackrel{}{}(\stackrel{}{B}+\stackrel{}{B}_0)=0`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{B}=0`$
$`\stackrel{}{}\times (\stackrel{}{E}+\stackrel{}{E}_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(\stackrel{}{B}+\stackrel{}{B}_0)=0`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{E}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{B}}{t}}=0`$ (43)
$`\stackrel{}{}\times (\stackrel{}{B}+\stackrel{}{B}_0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(\stackrel{}{E}+\stackrel{}{E}_0)=0`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{E}}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{c}}(\stackrel{}{J}_{eff}+\stackrel{}{j}_{eff})`$
with

$`\varrho _{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{AM_p}{4\pi Ze}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{v}}{t}}+^2{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{2}}\right]`$
$`\stackrel{}{j}_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{AM_p}{4\pi Ze}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{^2\stackrel{}{v}}{t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(\stackrel{}{}v^2)\right]`$
clearly satisfying the conservation equation $`\varrho _{eff}/t+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{j}_{eff}=0`$ and

$$\stackrel{}{J}=\frac{AM_pc^2}{4\pi eZ}\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{v}$$

For non-relativistic flows $`|j^\mu |/|J^\mu |(L/T)^2/c^2v^2/c^2`$, and the field equations reduce to

$`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (44)
$`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{E}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{B}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{E}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta \stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{v}`$
where $`\eta =AM_pc/Ze`$. Next we expand $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{E}\\ \stackrel{}{B}\end{array}\right)=_{n=1}^3\left(\begin{array}{c}E_n\\ B_n\end{array}\right)\stackrel{}{e}_n`$ where $`\stackrel{}{e}_n`$ is the familiar vector basis :

$$=(\stackrel{}{e}_1,\stackrel{}{e}_2,\stackrel{}{e}_3)=(\stackrel{}{n}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi ),(r\stackrel{}{})Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi ),(\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{})Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi ))$$
(45)
For latter reference we mention the following identities:

$$\stackrel{}{}=\frac{Y_{lm}}{r}(2,l(l+1),0);\stackrel{}{}\times =\frac{1}{r}(\stackrel{}{e}_3,\stackrel{}{e}_3,\stackrel{}{e}_2l(l+1)\stackrel{}{e}_1)$$
(46)
The unperturbed flow is rotation free and the leading contribution to Maxwell’s equations \[eq. (44)\] comes from the perturbed flow $`\delta \stackrel{}{v}=\delta v_n\stackrel{}{e}_1+\delta v_{}\stackrel{}{e}_2`$,

$$\frac{(r^2B_1)}{r}l(l+1)B_2r=0$$
(47)
$$\frac{(r^2E_1)}{r}l(l+1)E_2r=0$$
(48)
$$\frac{r}{c}\dot{B}_1l(l+1)E_3=0$$
(49)
$$\frac{r}{c}\dot{B}_2\frac{(rE_3)}{r}=0$$
(50)
$$\frac{r}{c}\dot{B}_3E_1+\frac{(rE_2)}{r}=0$$
(51)
$$\frac{r}{c}\dot{E}_1+l(l+1)B_3=\eta l(l+1)f(r,t)$$
(52)
$$\frac{r}{c}\dot{E}_2+\frac{(rB_3)}{r}=\eta \frac{(rf)}{r}$$
(53)
$$\frac{r}{c}\dot{E}_3B_1+\frac{(rB_2)}{r}=0$$
(54)
where $`f(r,t)=\frac{\delta v_{}}{r}+\frac{\delta v_{}\delta v_n}{r}`$. Notice that $`B_2,B_{1\text{ }}`$and$`E_3`$ are independent of the source term, and are taken to vanish identically. The other mode is

$$\stackrel{}{E}=E_1\stackrel{}{e}_1+E_2\stackrel{}{e}_2;\stackrel{}{B}=B_3\stackrel{}{e}_3.$$
(55)
Averaging the Poynting vector

$$\stackrel{}{S}=\frac{c}{8\pi }(\stackrel{}{E}\times \stackrel{}{B^{}})=\frac{cB_3^{}}{8\pi }\left[rE_1(Y\stackrel{}{}Y^{})+r^2E_2(\stackrel{}{}Y\stackrel{}{}Y^{})\stackrel{}{n}\right],$$
(56)
over all directions gives the radial energy flux

$$S_r=\frac{cl(l+1)}{8\pi }\mathrm{}(E_2B_3^{}).$$
(57)
The corresponding spectral intensity is

$$I_l(\omega )=\frac{cr^2l(l+1)}{2}\left|E_2(\omega )B_3^{}(\omega )\right|$$
(58)
We obtain the wave equation for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }E_1(\omega )r`$ by combining eqs.(47)-(54)

$$(_r^2+k^2)\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega )=ik\eta l(l+1)f(\omega ,r)$$
(59)
and in terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ the spectral intensity reads

$$I_l(\omega )=\frac{\omega }{2l(l+1)}\left|r\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega )\frac{(r\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\omega ))}{r}\right|$$
(60)
The wave equation is solved through the Green’s function method in the region away from the near zone:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega )=ikh_l^{(1)}(kr)[ik\eta l(l+1)f(\omega ,r)]j_l(kr)r^2dr.$$
(61)
In the radiation zone, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega )`$ reduces to :

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega )re^{ikr}(i)^{l+1}k\eta l(l+1)f(\omega ,r)j_l(kr)r^2dr$$
(62)
Putting these pieces together,

$$I_l(\omega )=\frac{1}{2}c\eta ^2k^4l(l+1)\left|A_l(k)\right|^2$$
(63)
with

$$A_l(k)=f(r,t)e^{i\omega t}j_l(kr)r^2𝑑r𝑑t$$
(64)
The function $`f(r,t)`$ can be expressed in terms of the fluctuation functions \[eqs.(16)\],

$$f(r,t)=\frac{\alpha \epsilon }{t_0}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{\alpha \beta 1}[\xi \tau ^{}(\xi )+2\tau (\xi )(1V(\xi ))\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi ).$$
(65)
Calling $`x=kr`$ and performing a change of integration variables we obtain radiation emission rate per wave-length $`\lambda `$:

$$P_l(\lambda )=\frac{p}{\lambda }\epsilon ^2\alpha ^2l(l+1)\left|W_l(k)\right|^2$$
(66)
with

$$W_l(k)=_0^{\mathrm{}}j_l(x)x^2dx_0^1[\xi \tau ^{}+2\tau (1V)\mathrm{\Phi }]y^{\alpha \beta 1}\mathrm{exp}[iQy]𝑑y,$$
(67)
where $`QkR_0(t_0/R_0c)`$ and $`pc^3\eta ^2/2`$ . According to Barber () the ratio $`\alpha R_0/t_0=c_0`$, the speed of sound, and $`Q=\alpha kR_0(c_0/c)10^5(kR_0).`$ The asymptotic behavior given by eq.(33) and the fact that $`V\xi ^{1/\alpha }`$ suggests the expansion:

$$[\xi \tau ^{}+2\tau (1V)\mathrm{\Phi }]=\underset{n=1}{}b_n\xi ^{\beta n/\alpha }=\underset{n=1}{}b_n\left(\frac{x}{kR_0}\right)^{\beta n/\alpha }y^{n\alpha \beta }$$
(68)
where the coefficients $`b_n`$ are determined by the dynamics of perturbations. Note that the sum does not contain the $`n=0`$ term because the leading term of the series \[see again eq.(33 )\] for the velocity components $`\mathrm{\Phi },\tau `$ is $`V^{1\alpha \beta }.`$ Therefore,

$$W_l(k)=\underset{n=1}{}b_n(kR_0)^{n/\alpha \beta }_0^1y^{n1}\mathrm{exp}[iQy]𝑑y_0^{kR_{\mathrm{max}}}j_l(x)x^{2+\beta n/.\alpha }dx.$$
(69)
The cutoff $`kR_{\mathrm{max}\text{ }}`$in the x-integral was introduced because the shock does not extend beyond $`R_{max}`$, the ambient radius of the bubble. For $`Q<<1`$ we might transform this expression into

$$W_l(k)=(kR_0)^\beta \underset{n=1}{}\frac{b_n}{n}\left[(kR_0)^{n/\alpha }_{kR_0}^{kR_{\mathrm{max}}}j_l(x)x^{2+\beta n/.\alpha }dx+_0^{kR_{\mathrm{max}}}j_l(x)x^{2+\beta }dx\right]$$
(70)
The detailed form of the spectrum requires a full knowledge of $`b_n`$, that is to say, dynamics of the fluctuations must be specified (this can be done analytically by using the method developed in the appendix). Fortunately, the major features of the spectrum can be obtained without delving into the differential equations. For instance, in the region where $`kR_{\mathrm{max}}<1`$ we can approximate $`j_l(x)(2x)^ll!/(2l+1)!`$ and then

$$W_l(k)\frac{2^ll!}{(2l+1)!}\left(kR_0\right)^{l+3}\underset{n=1}{}\frac{b_n}{n}\left\{\frac{1}{l+3+\beta n/\alpha }\left[\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{max}}}{R_0}\right)^{l+3+\beta n/\alpha }1\right]\frac{1}{(l+3+\beta )}\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{max}}}{R_0}\right)^{l+\beta +3}\right\}$$
(71)
In the other end of the spectrum $`kR_0>1`$, taking the asymptotic expression $`j_l(x)1/x\mathrm{sin}(xl\pi /2)`$ is justified, either because in the first integral the integration variable $`x>1`$ or because in the second integral the measure $`x^{2+\beta }`$ (with $`2+\beta >1`$) ensures that important contributions to the integral comes from the large arguments. Thus,

$$W_l(k)\left(kR_0\right)\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{max}}}{R_0}\right)^{\beta +1}\underset{n=1}{}\frac{b_n}{n}\left[f(\beta ;kR_{\mathrm{max}})+\left(\frac{R_0}{R_{\mathrm{max}}}\right)^{n/\alpha }f(\beta n/\alpha ;kR_{\mathrm{max}})f(\beta n/\alpha ;kR_0)\right];$$
(72)
where

$$f(\beta ;x)=\mathrm{I}m\left[e^{il\pi /2}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(ix)^{m+1}}{(m+\beta +2n/\alpha )m!}\right].$$
(73)
The dominant power low contribution to $`W_l(k)`$ in the region $`kR_0>1`$ comes from the linear term $`\left(kR_0\right)`$ because the series $`f(\beta ;x)`$ behaves nearly like $`\mathrm{sin}(x)`$, for $`x>1.`$ Taking the following figures $`R_{\mathrm{max}}5\mu m`$ , the ambient radius of the bubble and $`R_00.15\mu m,`$ (we shall explain in a moment) and defining $`\lambda _0=2\pi R_0,`$ we display our asymptotic expressions in the form

$$P_l(\lambda )p\epsilon ^2\{\begin{array}{c}A_l\lambda ^1\left(\lambda _0/\lambda \right)^{2l+6};\lambda >>\lambda _0\\ \lambda _0^2/\lambda ^3g_l(\lambda );\lambda <\lambda _0\end{array}$$
(74)
where

$$A_l=l(l+1)\left|\alpha \frac{2^ll!}{(2l+1)!}\underset{n=1}{}\frac{b_n}{n}\left\{\frac{1}{l+3+\beta n/\alpha }\left[\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{max}}}{R_0}\right)^{l+3+\beta n/\alpha }1\right]\frac{1}{(l+3+\beta )}\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{max}}}{R_0}\right)^{l+\beta +3}\right\}\right|^2$$
(75)
and

$$g_l(\lambda )=l(l+1)\left|\alpha \left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{max}}}{R_0}\right)^{\beta +1}h_l(k)\right|^2$$
(76)
with

$$h_l(k)=\underset{n=1}{}\frac{b_n}{n}\left[f(\beta ;kR_{\mathrm{max}})+\left(\frac{R_0}{R_{\mathrm{max}}}\right)^{n/\alpha }f(\beta n/\alpha ;kR_{\mathrm{max}})f(\beta n/\alpha ;kR_0)\right]$$
(77)
The apparent divergence of $`g_l(\lambda )`$ at large angular momenta \[see eq. (76)\] seems to endanger the present results. This worry is removed studying the asymptotic behavior $`g_l(\lambda )`$, bearing in mind that in this limit $`\beta \pm il\sqrt{(\gamma 1)/(\gamma +1)},`$ \[wu+roberts\]. This yields that $`g_l(\lambda )0`$ as $`l\mathrm{}`$, regardless of the specific form of the dynamical coefficients $`b_n`$ may take.

## 3  Assessment of the Results

The present SL mechanism relies on very basic pieces of physics, the existence of corrugation instabilities in spherical shocks, whose existence is well known, Maxwell’s equations and the inertial polarization paradigm. As we had the opportunity to explain, this paradigm stems from very elementary physics and it has remained hitherto unnoticed only because huge accelerations are required for sizeable polarizations. The detection of shock polarization in non-polar liquids would lend an undisputable status to the inertial polarization principle . In the transduction of sound into radiation , the flash of light must be coincident with a burst of sound since the emission of radiation is caused by corrugation instabilities . According to eq.(55), only one field-mode is related to the sonoluminescent light. This mode has a longitudinal electric field component $`E_1`$, and some experiment must be devised to detect it .The transversal component $`E_2`$points into the direction of the vector

$$\stackrel{}{e}_2=\sqrt{\frac{2l+1}{4\pi }\frac{(lm)!}{(l+m)!}}e^{im\phi }\mathrm{sin}\left(\theta \right)\left(imP_l^m(\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\stackrel{}{e}_\phi P_l^m(\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\stackrel{}{e}_\theta \right)$$

and this (weird) polarization should be observed in sonoluminescent light.

Physics is seldom controlled by cut-off parameters, and we expect the cut-off parameter $`R_{max}`$ ( the bubble’s ambient radius) to play a marginal role in delimiting the frequency band where light is emitted. The main features of the spectrum should be controlled by the remaining parameters: $`R_0,`$ the radius of the shock-wave when it is first formed and the perturbation amplitude $`\epsilon `$ . Thus, $`R_0`$ should characterize the typical wave-length of the emitted light $`\lambda \lambda _0=2\pi R_0`$. Our asymptotic results \[eq.(74)\] confirms this feeling. Numerical and theoretical studies of the dynamics of imploding shocks support the picture that the bubble collapses at the speed of sound by the time it passes through its ambient radius as the right criterion both for shock formation and the existence of SL (\- ). According to these investigations, at $`100ps`$ before the bubble reaches its minimum size, a shock wave of initial radius $`R_0=0.15\mu m`$ develops: by this time the interface is imploding with 4 to 5 times the ambient speed of sound. With these figures, we predict the emitted light to lie in $`\lambda \lambda _0=900nm`$ spectral region, regardless the kind of gas present in the bubble; in SL experiments light is observed in the $`200nm`$ $`\lambda 800nm`$ interval. According to this result, it is legitimate to infer the spectrum in this wave-length interval through the asymptotic formula for $`\lambda \lambda _0`$\[see eq.(74)\]. How does the particular kind of gas present in the bubble impact on the the emission power? The dependence of the emitted light upon the particular type of gas present in the bubble stems from two different factors:

i.) different values of the adiabatic index $`\gamma `$ leads to a different shock-wave and corrugation instability dynamics; ii.) different gases have different dielectric permeability $`ϵ`$.

The dielectric nature of the gas is implemented through the replacement $`ED`$ in the Poynting vector, which corresponds to the replacement of $`\left|W_l(k)\right|^2`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(k)\left|W_l(k)\right|^2`$ , or $`g_l(\lambda )`$

$``$ $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(k)g_l(\lambda )`$

. Different adiabatic indexes would cause $`h_l(k)`$ to change because both the spectrum of $`\beta `$ and the dynamical coefficients $`b_n`$ , depend upon $`\gamma `$. These two conditions will cause a change on the shape of the function $`g_l(\lambda )`$

. Assuming that after taking these corrections into account, the function $`g_l(\lambda )`$ still remains marginally dependent upon the wave-length (non power law), the overall change produced by different gases in the shape on the logartithmic representation of the spectrum $`\mathrm{ln}P3\mathrm{ln}\lambda +\mathrm{ln}g_l(\lambda )+const`$ for $`\lambda \lambda _0`$ , is a displacement of the nearly parallel lines of inclination $`m3`$. This behaviour is changed as we approach the $`\lambda <<\lambda _0`$ region because then the dielectric constant being governed by the plasma frequency of the gas, causes the function $`\mathrm{ln}g_l(\lambda )`$ to strongly depend upon $`\lambda `$ .

Infering the uncorrected spectra for transmission by the surrounding medium observed by Hiller in SL experiments for bubbles trapping pure noble gases bubbles at $`0^0C`$ () we infered $`m2.7`$. For pure He, $`m2.5.`$ Inspection of the spectra shows the nearly linear dependence for $`Ar,He,He^3,`$and $`Ne`$. The agreement is less accurate for $`Xe`$ and $`Kr,`$ for reasons which are presently unclear: it might well be the that heavier noble gases cannot be handled with the naive classical Inertial Polarization picture, they have too much internal structure and must be handled with a full quantum mechanical approach. The spectrum for a mixture of 1% of $`He`$ and $`N_2`$ closely resemble the behavior of pure He<sub>2</sub>(). Differences might be credited to the superimposition of the Bremsstrahlung spectrum of free electrons of the ionized $`N_2`$ gas in the mixture to the original spectrum, or even the effect of the Inertial-Polarization fields upon these electrons.

Regarding now the intensity of the outgoing radiation, it is governed by the product$`p\epsilon ^2`$. A small $`p`$ would require large corrugation instabilities, invalidating the linear regime approximations. Surprisingly, $`p=E_p^2/(2\mathrm{}\alpha )1.47\times 10^{16}\mathrm{W}att`$ , imploding shocks are fantastic power stations ! Actually, we have to worry to have sufficiently small perturbations to fit the experimental data! Typical power emissions are of of the order of $`10^{11}Watt/nm`$ in the $`\lambda _0`$ region , calling for an amplitude $`\epsilon 10^{12}`$ or $`\delta r=\epsilon R_010^{19}m`$, which being much smaller then the nuclear dimensions can have only a quantum mechanical origin. Now, the radius of the shock at the moment it is formed $`R_0`$ is governed by the radius of the bubble wall $`R_b`$,

by the time it is collapsing at 4-5 times the ambient speed of sound. The dependence of the former on the latter is linear. In a semi-classical approach, it is to be expected that the fluctuations on the shape of the imploding shock are also governed by bubble wall fluctuations, $`ϵ=\delta R_0/R_0=\delta R_b/R_b.`$ The fluctuations of the bubble interface should be of the order of the bubble’s Compton wave-length $`\lambda _b`$ and $`\delta r=(R_0/R_b)\lambda _b\lambda _p/N`$, where $`\lambda _p10^{15}m`$ is the Compton wave-length of the proton and $`N`$ is the number of gas atoms trapped inside the bubble , $`N10^7.`$ Thus, in this scenario $`\delta r10^{22}m`$, which is close to the amplitude needed to fit the observed intensity of the radiation.

One of the most intriguing issues in SL is beyond any doubt the noble gas puzzle: only bubbles containing noble gas,even at very small concentrations, glow. What can we say in this respect? Does our paradigm shed some light in this direction? Here is a clue. As the bubble collapses and the attains supersonic regime the adiabatic heating raises the gas temperature to $`0.4eV`$ () . The gas is further heated when it crosses the shock front, the temperature is increased by a factor $`M^4`$ . This is more than enough to bring diatomic gases to their excited states, but not for noble gases. The dipole contribution $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{lmn}\left|\widehat{p}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_{lmn}r^3`$ of the excited states being much larger than the Inertial Polarization Fields will wash away information regarding the latter. A full quantum mechanical calculation should resolve this issue.

There are immense challenges ahead. From the theoretical point of view, one needs to calculate the detailed spectrum taking full account of the shock dynamics, study the back reaction of the polarized fields upon the dynamics, clarify whether the polarization caused by quantum mechanical transitions of a diatomic molecule are the culprits for washing out the Inertial Polarization fields, etc. The immediate experimental challenge is to detect Shock Polarization in non-polar fluids. If the effect is confirmed in non-polar fluids then it will be very hard to defuse the present transduction mechanism

.

### Appendix – A semi-analytical solution of the differential equations for the perturbed flow

In order to solve the set of differential equations we split the matrix into its regular and divergent parts

$$(V)=\frac{𝒜}{(VV_c)}+(V)$$
(78)
with

$$𝒜=\frac{m(V_c)}{(dP/dV)_{V_c}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\varphi _1& \varphi _2& \varphi _3& \varphi _4\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right);=m(V)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1(V)& \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2(V)& \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3(V)& \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_4(V)\\ Z& 2V\frac{1}{\alpha }& Z& Z\\ 3+\beta & l(l+1)& 0& 0\\ \kappa & 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(79)
where $`\varphi _\alpha `$is a short notation for $`\varphi _\alpha (V_c)`$ and $`\varphi _\alpha (V)=`$ $`\varphi _\alpha (V)/P(V)m(V_c)/(m(V)(dP/dV)_{V_c}(VVc))`$. Assuming $`B(V)`$ and $`|Y(V)`$ regular functions at the critical point $`V_c`$ permits the expansions $`B(V)=_nB_n(VV_c)^n;|Y(V)=_k𝐘_k(VV_c)^k`$. Substitution into the differential equation yields the recurrence formulae:

$`𝒜𝐘_0`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (80)
$`𝐘_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`[(n+1)𝒜]^1{\displaystyle \underset{mn}{}}_{nm}𝐘_m`$ (81)
The matrix $`𝒜`$ possess three distinct null-eigenvectors:

$`Y_0^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\varphi _2,\varphi _1,0,0)`$
$`Y_0^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\varphi _3,0,\varphi _1,0)`$ (82)
$`Y_0^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\varphi _4,0,0,\varphi _1).`$
Associated to each one of these eigenvectors we can construct through the recurrence relations $`|Y^{(i)}(V).`$ The solution of the differential equation is the linear combination $`|Y(V)=_{i=2,4}c_i`$ $`|Y^{(i)}(V).`$ The fulfillment of the boundary requires that

$$|X(V_1)=|Y(V_1)=\underset{k}{}[c_2𝐘_k^{(2)}+c_3𝐘_k^{(3)}+c_4𝐘_k^{(4)}](V_1V_c)^k.$$
(83)
This equation constitutes a set of four equations for the unknown $`(c_i,\beta )`$, which can be solved in a perturbational approach in powers $`(V_1V_c)`$, once the state $`|X(V_1)`$ is known. The only missing piece of information is the set of boundary conditions for the perturbed fields.

#### The boundary conditions for the perturbed flow

Supersonic motion produces a discontinuity in the fluid flow known as a shock wave or simply shock. Let us call $`\stackrel{}{v}_2`$ and $`\rho _2`$ the fluid velocity and density, and $`c_{2\text{ }}`$the speed of sound behind the shock, as measured in the laboratory frame(likewise, the subscript $`1`$ refers to the same quantities in the front of the shock). The normal to the shock is $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ and its velocity in the lab frame is $`\stackrel{}{v}_{shock}`$. The discontinuities have to fulfill the following conditions at the shock surface

$$\stackrel{}{n}\times \left[\stackrel{}{v}_1\stackrel{}{v}_{shock}\right]=\stackrel{}{n}\times \left[\stackrel{}{v}_2\stackrel{}{v}_{shock}\right]$$
(84)
$$\frac{\stackrel{}{n}\left[\stackrel{}{v}_2\stackrel{}{v}_{shock}\right]}{\stackrel{}{n}\left[\stackrel{}{v}_1\stackrel{}{v}_{shock}\right]}=\frac{\rho _1}{\rho _2}=\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma +1}$$
(85)
$$c_2^2=\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma +1}\left[c_1^2+\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma +1}\left(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{v}_{shock}\right)^2\right]$$
(86)
In the perturbed flow the shock front is displaced from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0:rR(t)=0`$ to ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0+\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }):rR(t)\delta r(t,\theta ,\varphi )=0`$. The corresponding perturbed normal is $`\delta \stackrel{}{n}=\stackrel{}{}\delta r`$, the perturbed shock velocity is $`\dot{\delta r}`$ while the location of the shock itself in self-similar coordinate is $`1+\delta \xi `$, $`\delta \xi =\delta r/R(t)`$. Accordingly,

$`\delta \xi `$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon \left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}\right)^{\alpha \beta }Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$
$`\delta r`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon R(t)\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}\right)^{\alpha \beta }Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$
$`\delta \stackrel{}{n}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon \left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}\right)^{\alpha \beta }(R(t)\stackrel{}{})Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$
$`\delta \stackrel{}{v}_s`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon \alpha (1+\beta )R(t)\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}\right)^{\alpha \beta 1}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )\stackrel{}{n}`$ (87)
The first order corrections to the boundary conditions \[eqs. (84)-(86) \] are:

$`\stackrel{}{n}\times \left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{\xi }}\delta \xi +\delta v_n\delta v_s\right)\stackrel{}{n}+\delta \stackrel{}{v}_{}\right]+\delta \stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{n}\left(vv_s\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{n}\times \delta \stackrel{}{v}_s\delta \stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{n}v_s`$
$`\delta \rho _2(1)+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _2}{\xi }}\delta \xi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (88)
$`\stackrel{}{n}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{\xi }}\delta \xi +\delta v_n\delta v_s\right)\stackrel{}{n}+\delta \stackrel{}{v}_{}\right]+\delta \stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{n}(vv_s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma +1}}(\delta v_s+\stackrel{}{n}\delta \stackrel{}{n}v_s)`$
$`\delta c_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2^2}{\xi }}\delta \xi `$ $`=`$ $`2Z(1)v_s\left(\delta \stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{v_s}+\stackrel{}{n}\delta \stackrel{}{v}_s\right)`$
Inserting eqs.(87)-(16) into these boundary conditions, yields

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta V_1V_1^{^{}}}{1V_1}};`$
$`\tau _1`$ $`=`$ $`V_1;`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_1^{^{}}}{G_1}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z_1}{Z_1}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\beta {\displaystyle \frac{Z_1^{^{}}}{Z_1}})`$ (89)
or, equivalently

$$|X(V_1)=\epsilon \left(\begin{array}{c}(\beta V_1V_1^{^{}})/(1V_1)\\ V_1\\ (\beta +3)V_1/(1V_1)\\ 2(\beta +(1/\alpha V_1)/(1V_1))/\gamma \end{array}\right)$$
(90)
#### Numerical Procedure

Our procedure for resolving the spectrum of $`\beta `$ consists of first fitting the unperturbed flow ($`Z(V),dV(V)`$) by a polynomial in $`V`$, from which we extract the matrices $`𝒜`$and $`(V)`$ as power series in $`V`$. Then through the recurrence formulae (LABEL:recurence) we obtain the expansion coefficients $`𝐘_n`$($`\beta )`$ up to a given order and insert then into eq.(83), in conjunction with the above boundary condition $`|X(V_1)`$ \[eq.(90) \] . This procedure yields a polynomial equation for $`\beta `$ , which is solved numerically. We display the results for $`\gamma =7/5,l=1,2,3,4.`$

Acknowledgments: I am thankful to N. Shnerb, J.Bekenstein, M.Chacham, S. Oliveira and J. Portnoy for the enlightening conversations.


text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

The BRST formalism has its roots in quantum field theory where it was first established for gauge theories of the Yang-Mills type . Since then the construction was generalized in several ways. The best known generalization is the so-called antifield formalism  (for reviews see ) which generalizes the original construction to Lagrangean gauge theories of any kind (with irreducible or reducible gauge symmetries, whose commutator algebra closes off-shell or only on-shell). More recently it has been generally proved that the construction can be generalized so as to include also global symmetries of the Lagrangian or ‘higher order symmetries’ . Moreover, the formalism is by no means restricted to Lagrangean field theories but can be established already at the level of the equations of motion, whether or not these equations are Euler-Lagrange equations .111Particular features of Lagrangean models, such as the antibracket , have no counterpart in a general non-Lagrangean model. The present work applies to any of these generalizations.

The central object of the BRST formalism and its generalizations is a differential $`s`$ which contains – through the $`s`$-transformations of the fields and antifields – the equations of motion, the nontrivial gauge symmetries (if any), possibly global or higher order symmetries, as well as related structure, such as the commutator algebra of the symmetries contained in it. The local BRST cohomology concerns cohomology groups of $`s`$ defined on jet-spaces associated with the fields and antifields222These are spaces whose coordinates are the coordinates $`x^\mu `$ of the base space, the fields, antifields and derivatives of the fields and antifields. In the context of local BRST cohomology it is useful to count also the differentials $`dx^\mu `$ among the jet coordinates. This is done here.; of particular interest in physics are $`H(s)`$ and $`H(s|d)`$, the cohomology of $`s`$ and of $`s`$ modulo $`d`$ in the space of differential forms on these jet spaces, see  for a recent review and for applications. $`H(s|d)`$ is related to $`H(s)`$ through the so-called descent equations, though the precise relation can be quite involved . Furthermore the physically important cohomology groups $`H^{,n}(s|d)`$ in maximal form-degree $`n`$ (= base space dimension) are directly related to $`H(s+d)`$ through the descent equations . We denote the combination $`s+d`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{s}:=s+d.$$
(1)
An important technique within the calculation of $`H(s)`$ or $`H(\stackrel{~}{s})`$ are contracting homotopies which eliminate pairs of variables from the respective cohomology. In case of $`H(s)`$, these pairs are $`s`$-doublets $`(u^{\mathrm{}},v^{\mathrm{}})`$,

$$su^{\mathrm{}}=v^{\mathrm{}}(sv^{\mathrm{}}=0).$$
(2)
Accordingly they are $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$-doublets $`(\stackrel{~}{u}^\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{~}{v}^\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})`$ in case of $`H(\stackrel{~}{s})`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{u}^\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}=\stackrel{~}{v}^\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{v}^\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}=0).$$
(3)
However, (2) or (3) alone do not guarantee the existence of contracting homotopies that eliminate the $`u`$’s and $`v`$’s, or $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$’s and $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$’s, not even locally (simple counterexamples are the $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$-doublets $`(x^\mu ,dx^\mu )`$ in Yang-Mills theory, see below). For (2), a suitable supplementary requirement  is the existence of variables $`w^I`$ which complete the set $`\{u^{\mathrm{}},v^{\mathrm{}}\}`$ to a new jet coordinate system and are such that $`sw^I`$ is a function which can be expressed solely in terms of the $`w`$’s,

$$sw^I=r^I(w).$$
(4)
Furthermore the $`w^I`$ are required to be local functions of the fields and antifields333The precise definition of ‘local function’ depends on the context, i.e., on the model and applications one is studying. Often a local function is required to live on a finite dimensional jet space, or to have an expansion in antifields or coupling constants such that each term in the expansion lives on a finite dimensional jet space.. (2) and (4) imply that $`s`$ leaves separately invariant the subspaces of local functions $`f(u,v)`$ and $`f(w)`$ depending only on the $`u`$’s and $`v`$’s, and $`w`$’s, respectively. As an immediate consequence, $`H(s)`$ factorizes by the Künneth formula (see, e.g., ) into the $`s`$-cohomology in these subspaces,

$$H(s)=H(s,_{u,v})H(s,_w),_{u,v}=\{f(u,v)\},_w=\{f(w)\}.$$
(5)
Hence, $`H(s)`$ can be obtained by computing separately $`H(s,_{u,v})`$ and $`H(s,_w)`$. Furthermore (2) implies in many (though not in all) cases that $`H(s,_{u,v})`$ is trivial (represented just by constants) so that the $`u`$’s and $`v`$’s disappear from the cohomology and $`H(s)`$ is given just by $`H(s,_w)`$.444Whether or not $`H(s,_{u,v})`$ is trivial depends on the precise properties of $`_{u,v}`$ (in particular on topological features) and is not to be discussed here (the focus of the present work is on the construction of the $`w`$’s rather than on contracting homotopies for $`u`$’s and $`v`$’s). An instructive example where $`H(s,_{u,v})`$ is not trivial can be found in section 5 of , see theorem 5.1 there.

Analogous results hold for $`H(\stackrel{~}{s})`$ if there is a jet coordinate system $`\{\stackrel{~}{u}^\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{~}{v}^\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{~}{w}^{\stackrel{~}{I}}\}`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{w}^{\stackrel{~}{I}}=\stackrel{~}{r}^{\stackrel{~}{I}}(\stackrel{~}{w}).$$
(6)
There are three types of $`u`$’s and $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$’s which one typically meets (see, e.g., the Yang-Mills example below): (a) antighost fields and their derivatives, (b) antifields and a subset of their derivatives, (c) gauge fields and a subset of their derivatives. In reducible gauge theories there are normally additional $`u`$’s and $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$’s given by a subset of derivatives of ghosts, ghosts for ghosts etc. (4) and (6) pose no problem in connection with the antighost fields and the corresponding $`v`$’s (these $`v`$’s are Nakanishi-Lautrup fields used for gauge fixing) or $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$’s because the $`s`$-transformations and $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$-transformations of the other fields and antifields do not involve these fields555We refer here to the so-called “classical basis” of the antifields. It is related to the “gauge fixed” basis simply by a “canonical transformation” which is just a local (anti)field redefinition, see e.g. section 2.6 of . Of course, the cohomology does not depend on the basis used to compute it.. (4) and (6) are much more challenging – and much more interesting – in connection with the $`s`$-doublets and $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$-doublets associated with the gauge fields and antifields. The construction of corresponding $`w`$’s can be quite a nontrivial matter. The existence of such $`w`$’s is related to a tensor calculus and a gauge covariant algebra. This was discussed in  and will be briefly reviewed at the end of this letter.

The purpose of this letter is to discuss how and when one can construct $`w`$’s and $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$’s fulfilling (4) and (6), respectively. We shall describe an iterative construction which can be used as an algorithm to construct the $`w`$’s explicitly or to prove their existence if only one can show that the iteration terminates or, at least, that it results in meaningful (local) expressions for the $`w`$’s (the algorithm applies to the construction of $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$’s as well). Such a proof is model dependent. To give an example, we shall prove that the algorithm terminates for Yang-Mills theory. We shall also briefly comment on how one can master a typical complication in supersymmetric models related to the supersymmetry ghosts.

If one can prove in this manner the existence of the $`w`$’s, then the algorithm also shows that the functions $`r^I`$ in (4) can be already read off from the original $`s`$-transformations, i.e., it is not necessary to construct the $`w`$’s explicitly in order to determine their $`s`$-transformations. Hence, one may then analyse $`H(s)`$ even without having to construct the $`w`$’s explicitly. This can have practical use because the explicit construction of the $`w`$’s can be rather involved. Furthermore, the functions $`r^I`$ provide directly the tensor calculus and gauge covariant algebra associated with the $`w`$’s and thus even this algebra can be obtained without an explicit construction of the $`w`$’s. Analogous comments apply to the functions $`\stackrel{~}{r}^{\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ in (6) and to $`H(\stackrel{~}{s})`$. The relation to the tensor calculus may be used in two ways. If an appropriate tensor calculus is already known for a particular model under study, it may be useful for the finding or construction of the $`w`$’s. Conversely one may derive a previously unknown tensor calculus for a model from (4) or (6).

## Iterative construction of $`w`$’s

Since $`s`$-doublets are obvious from the $`s`$-transformations of the fields and antifields, our starting point is the assumption that there is jet coordinate system $`\{u^{\mathrm{}},v^{\mathrm{}},w_{(0)}^I\}`$ such that (2) holds and that $`sw_{(0)}^I`$ is a power series in the $`u`$’s and $`v`$’s,

$$sw_{(0)}^I=r^I(w_{(0)})+O(1),$$
(7)
where $`O(1)`$ collects all terms that are at least linear in $`u`$’s or $`v`$’s. The aim is to complete the $`w_{(0)}^I`$ to local functions $`w^I=w_{(0)}^I+O(1)`$ which fulfill (4).666The notation anticipates that the algorithm yields the same functions $`r^I`$ in (4) as in (7). Assume that we constructed already a jet coordinate system $`\{u^{\mathrm{}},v^{\mathrm{}},w_{(m)}^I\}`$ with $`w_{(m)}^I=w_{(0)}^I+O(1)`$ such that

$$sw_{(m)}^I=r^I(w_{(m)})+h_{m+1}^I(u,v,w_{(m)})+O(m+2)$$
(8)
where the non-vanishing $`h_{m+1}^I(u,v,w_{(m)})`$ have degree $`m+1`$ in the $`u`$’s and $`v`$’s and $`O(m+2)`$ collects all terms of higher degrees. Note that we refer here to the jet coordinates $`(u,v,w_{(m)})`$; expressed in terms of the coordinates $`(u,v,w_{(0)})`$, $`h_{m+1}^I`$ has, in general, no definite degree in the $`u`$’s and $`v`$’s but decomposes into terms of various degrees $`m+1`$, owing to $`w_{(m)}=w_{(0)}+O(1)`$. We now define, again referring to the coordinates $`(u,v,w_{(m)})`$,

$$\rho _{(m)}:=u^{\mathrm{}}\frac{}{v^{\mathrm{}}}.$$
(9)
Using (8), one easily computes the anticommutator of $`\rho _{(m)}`$ and $`s`$. On the $`u^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`v^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`w_{(m)}^I`$ one gets, respectively,

$`(\rho _{(m)}s+s\rho _{(m)})u^{\mathrm{}}=u^{\mathrm{}},(\rho _{(m)}s+s\rho _{(m)})v^{\mathrm{}}=v^{\mathrm{}},`$
$`(\rho _{(m)}s+s\rho _{(m)})w_{(m)}^I=\rho _{(m)}sw_{(m)}^I=Y_{m+1}^I+O(m+2)`$ (10)
where

$$Y_{m+1}^I:=\rho _{(m)}h_{m+1}^I(u,v,w_{(m)}).$$
(11)
Note that one has $`Y_{m+1}^I=Y_{m+1}^I(u,v,w_{(m)})`$ and that $`Y_{m+1}^I(u,v,w_{(m)})`$ has degree $`m+1`$ in the $`u`$’s and $`v`$’s. Since both $`\rho _{(m)}`$ and $`s`$ are antiderivations, (10) implies, on functions $`f(u,v,w_{(m)})`$,

$$\rho _{(m)}s+s\rho _{(m)}=N_{u,v}+[Y_{m+1}^I+O(m+2)]\frac{}{w_{(m)}^I},$$
(12)
where $`N_{u,v}`$ is the counting operator for the $`u`$’s and $`v`$’s,

$$N_{u,v}f(u,v,w_{(m)})=\left[u^{\mathrm{}}\frac{}{u^{\mathrm{}}}+v^{\mathrm{}}\frac{}{v^{\mathrm{}}}\right]f(u,v,w_{(m)}).$$

We now evaluate $`(\rho _{(m)}s+s\rho _{(m)})sw_{(m)}^I`$ in two ways. On the one hand, we get, using that $`s`$ is a differential ($`s^2=0`$),

$`(\rho _{(m)}s+s\rho _{(m)})sw_{(m)}^I`$ $`\stackrel{s^2=0}{=}`$ $`s\rho _{(m)}sw_{(m)}^I`$ (13)
$`\stackrel{(\text{8})}{=}`$ $`s\rho _{(m)}[r^I(w_{(m)})+h_{m+1}^I(u,v,w_{(m)})+O(m+2)]`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{9}),(\text{11})}{=}`$ $`sY_{m+1}^I+O(m+2).`$
On the other hand we get, using (12) and $`N_{u,v}h_{m+1}^I(u,v,w_{(m)})=(m+1)h_{m+1}^I(u,v,w_{(m)})`$,

$$(\rho _{(m)}s+s\rho _{(m)})sw_{(m)}^I\stackrel{(\text{8}),(\text{12})}{=}Y_{m+1}^J\frac{r^I(w_{(m)})}{w_{(m)}^J}+(m+1)h_{m+1}^I(u,v,w_{(m)})+O(m+2).$$
(14)
(13) and (14) imply

$$h_{m+1}^I(u,v,w_{(m)})=\frac{1}{m+1}\left[sY_{m+1}^IY_{m+1}^J\frac{r^I(w_{(m)})}{w_{(m)}^J}\right]+O(m+2).$$

Using this in (8), the latter yields

$`s\left[w_{(m)}^I\frac{1}{m+1}Y_{m+1}^I\right]`$ $`=`$ $`r^I(w_{(m)})\frac{1}{m+1}Y_{m+1}^J{\displaystyle \frac{r^I(w_{(m)})}{w_{(m)}^J}}+O(m+2)`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`r^I(w_{(m)}\frac{1}{m+1}Y_{m+1})+O(m+2).`$
Defining now

$$w_{(m+1)}^I:=w_{(m)}^I\frac{1}{m+1}Y_{m+1}^I,$$
(16)
equation (15) gives

$$sw_{(m+1)}^I=r^I(w_{(m+1)})+h_{m+2}^I(u,v,w_{(m+1)})+O(m+3)$$
(17)
for some $`h_{m+2}^I(u,v,w_{(m+1)})`$ which has degree $`m+2`$ in the $`u`$’s and $`v`$’s. This is an equation as (8), but for $`m+1`$ in place of $`m`$. Furthermore (8) holds for $`m=0`$ by assumption (eq. (7)). Hence, the algorithm provides indeed an inductive existence proof for a set $`\{w^I\}`$ fulfilling (4) if one can prove that it terminates or that it results in closed local expressions for the $`w`$’s. Such a proof can often be accomplished by means of appropriate degrees that can be assigned to the variables, such as the ghost number and the (mass) dimension of the variables, see the example below. Note that the iteration does not modify the functions $`r^I`$ and thus one can read off the resulting functions $`r^I`$ in (4) already from the transformations of the $`w_{(0)}`$’s in (7), as promised.

## Yang-Mills theory as an example

To get an idea how one may prove that the algorithm terminates or results in local expressions let us assume for a moment that one can assign a dimension to each of the variables $`u^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`v^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`w_{(0)}^I`$ such that (i) $`s`$ has dimension 0 when all (coupling) constants are dimensionless; (ii) all $`u`$’s and $`v`$’s have positive dimensions; (iii) there are only finitely many $`w_{(0)}`$’s with negative dimensions and all of these variables are Grassmann odd (anticommuting). Let us also assume that local functions are power series’ in all variables with nonvanishing dimensions and that the spectrum of dimensions of the variables is quantized in integer of half-integer units (which is the standard case). Then it is easy to prove that the inductive construction of the $`w`$’s terminates: because of (i), the algorithm implies that each $`Y_m^I`$ which appears in the construction has the same dimension as the corresponding $`w_{(0)}^I`$; furthermore, each $`Y_m^I`$ is a local function (by assumption, $`s`$ is a local operator which implies that $`h_m^I`$ is local and thus $`Y_m^I`$ is local too); because of (ii) and (iii) a local function with definite dimension cannot have arbitrarily high degree in the $`u`$’s and $`v`$’s and thus there is a bound $`m_I`$ for each value of $`I`$ such that $`Y_m^I=0m>m_I`$ (recall that $`Y_m^I(u,v,w_{(0)})`$ contains only terms with degrees $`m`$ in the $`u`$’s and $`v`$’s); hence, one gets $`w^I=w_{(0)}^I_{m=1}^{m_I}(1/m)Y_m^I`$.

An example to which this argument applies is Yang-Mills theory with standard Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{4}g_{ab}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{\mu \nu b},F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+f_{bc}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c$$
(18)
where $`g_{ab}`$ and $`f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}`$ are the Cartan-Killing metric and structure constants of the Lie algebra of the gauge group, respectively. We denote the gauge fields and ghost fields by $`A_\mu ^a`$ and $`C^a`$, their antifields by $`A_a^\mu `$ and $`C_a^{}`$, respectively (the inclusion of antighost fields and Nakanishi-Lautrup fields is trivial and therefore we neglect them). ‘Local functions’ are in this example required to depend polynomially on the fields, antifields and their derivatives. The $`s`$-transformations of these fields and antifields are

$`sA_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`D_\mu C^a`$
$`sC^a`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}f_{bc}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}C^cC^b`$
$`sA_a^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`g_{ab}D_\nu F^{\nu \mu b}+C^bf_{ba}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}A_c^\mu `$
$`sC_a^{}`$ $`=`$ $`D_\mu A_a^\mu +C^bf_{ba}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}C_c^{}`$ (19)
where $`D_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative,

$$D_\mu X^a=_\mu X^a+A_\mu ^bf_{bc}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}X^c,D_\mu X_a=_\mu X_aA_\mu ^bf_{ba}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}X_c.$$

The $`s`$-transformations of the coordinates and differentials vanish,

$$sx^\mu =0,sdx^\mu =0.$$
(20)
The $`s`$-transformations of derivatives of the fields and antifields are obtained from (19) simply through prolongation, using $`[s,_\mu ]=0`$. One verifies readily that (i) is fulfilled with the following standard dimension assignments:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}& x^\mu ,dx^\mu & C^a& A_\mu ^a,_\mu & A_a^\mu & C_a^{}\\ \mathrm{dimension}:& 1& 0& 1& 3& 4\end{array}$$
(21)
Let us now identify $`s`$-doublets and a corresponding jet coordinate system $`\{u^{\mathrm{}},v^{\mathrm{}},w_{(0)}^I\}`$. The antifields $`C_a^{}`$ and their independent derivatives are $`u`$’s; the corresponding $`v`$’s, given by $`_\mu A_a^\mu +\mathrm{}`$ and derivatives thereof, are taken as elements of the sought jet coordinate system $`\{u^{\mathrm{}},v^{\mathrm{}},w_{(0)}^I\}`$. $`A_a^\mu `$ and their remaining derivatives of are also $`u`$’s; their $`v`$’s, given by $`g_{ab}_\nu (^\nu A^{\mu b}^\mu A^{\nu b})+\mathrm{}`$ and derivatives thereof, are also taken as new jet coordinates. The remaining $`u`$’s are the undifferentiated gauge fields and their symmetrized derivatives $`_{(\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{\mu _k}A_{\nu )}^a`$; the corresponding $`v`$’s are new jet coordinates substituting for all derivatives of the ghost fields $`C^a`$. A possible set $`\{w_{(0)}^I\}`$ contains thus only the undifferentiated $`C^a`$, the $`dx^\mu `$ and $`x^\mu `$, and derivatives of the gauge fields which complete those derivatives contained already in $`\{u^{\mathrm{}},v^{\mathrm{}}\}`$ to a basis for all derivatives of the gauge fields. Property (ii) is then fulfilled too. Property (iii) is not fulfilled because the $`x^\mu `$ are bosonic variables with negative dimension. However, this does not spoil the argument since the $`x^\mu `$ are $`s`$-singlets which do not occur in the $`s`$-transformations of the fields, antifields and their derivatives; hence, one can simply disregard the $`x^\mu `$ when applying the algorithm and concludes that the $`w`$’s exist, without having to construct them explicitly.

Of course, since we know the tensor calculus of Yang-Mills theory, it is not difficult to find the set of $`w`$’s explicitly in this case and thus a formal existence proof is not needed: obviously $`\{w^I\}=\{C^a,dx^\mu ,x^\mu ,F_{\mu \nu }^a,\mathrm{}\}`$ fulfills all requirements where the nonwritten elements are first and higher order covariant derivatives of $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ corresponding to the second and higher order derivatives of $`A_\mu ^a`$ contained in $`\{w_{(0)}^I\}`$.

However, when one now considers $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ rather than $`s`$, then one gets already an example where an existence proof is simpler than an explicit construction. Indeed, the existence of $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$’s for pure Yang-Mills theory can be proved along exactly the same lines as the existence of $`w`$’s, but the explicit construction of the $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$’s is much more involved than the construction of the $`w`$’s. This is seen as follows. Using that $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ is dimensionless with the assignments (21), one readily checks that all arguments go through for $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ in place of $`s`$, with the same $`u`$’s and $`w_{(0)}`$’s (i.e., one can use $`\{\stackrel{~}{u}^\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\}=\{u^{\mathrm{}}\}`$ and $`\{\stackrel{~}{w}_{(0)}^{\stackrel{~}{I}}\}=\{w_{(0)}^I\}`$). One concludes the existence of a set $`\{\stackrel{~}{w}^I\}=\{\stackrel{~}{C}^a,dx^\mu ,x^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^a,\mathrm{}\}`$ such that (6) holds. The explicit form of these variables is quite involved, though. For instance, $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^a`$ contains $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ but also antifield dependent terms proportional to $`g^{ab}dx_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]b}^{}`$ and $`g^{ab}dx_\mu dx_\nu C_b^{}`$, as can be verified by applying the algorithm explicitly (the origin of these antifield dependent terms is the presence of $`D^\rho F_{\rho \nu }^a`$ in $`(s+d)F_{\mu \nu }^a`$).

Note that we have counted $`x^\mu `$ and $`dx^\mu `$ among the $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$’s in spite of the fact that they form $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$-doublets,

$$\stackrel{~}{s}x^\mu =dx^\mu .$$
(22)
The reason is that the algorithm would not terminate if one included $`x^\mu `$ in $`\{\stackrel{~}{u}^\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\}`$. The proof sketched above breaks down because property (ii) does not hold anymore ($`x`$ and $`dx`$ have negative dimension). What happens, is the following. $`\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{w}_{(0)}`$ contains $`dx^\mu _\mu \stackrel{~}{w}_{(0)}`$ and therefore the algorithm would give, among others, a contribution $`x^\mu _\mu \stackrel{~}{w}_{(0)}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_1`$ (as $`dx^\mu `$ would be a $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ when $`x^\mu `$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$). This contribution creates a term $`x^\mu x^\nu _\mu _\nu \stackrel{~}{w}_{(0)}`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_2`$ and so forth; one gets $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_k`$ containing $`x^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}x^{\mu _k}_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{\mu _k}\stackrel{~}{w}_{(0)}`$ with arbitrarily large $`k`$.

The Yang-Mills example provides a simple example how one may keep control of locality. Other models may be treated similarly, using appropriate properties that substitute for (i)–(iii). For instance, when $`s`$ contains global or local supersymmetries (with constant ghosts in the case of global supersymmetries), the undifferentiated supersymmetry ghosts are Grassmann even variables with dimension $`1/2`$ (as follows from the supersymmetry algebra, assuming standard dimension assignments). Hence, property (iii) is not fulfilled in that case, even when one disregards $`x^\mu `$. Nevertheless, even in supersymmetric models one may often use arguments similar to those above by taking the ghost numbers of the variables into account. For instance, assume that all relevant variables with negative ghost numbers (i.e., the antifields) have dimensions $`1`$ and that the undifferentiated supersymmetry ghosts and the $`x^\mu `$ are the only Grassmann even variables with negative dimensions (this is the standard case in supersymmetric models, for the $`dx^\mu `$ and the translation or diffeomorphism ghosts are Grassmann odd). Then one cannot construct local $`x`$-independent functions with a fixed ghost number and a fixed dimension containing arbitrarily high powers of supersymmetry ghosts, i.e., effectively the degree in variables with negative dimensions is still bounded from above.

## Gauge covariant algebras and tensor calculus

In the following we review very briefly the relation to gauge covariant algebras and tensor calculus, referring to  for details and further discussion. For illustrative purpose we assume that there is a jet coordinate system $`\{u^{\mathrm{}},v^{\mathrm{}},w^I\}`$ with the properties described above, and that the set of $`w`$’s contains variables of ghost number 0 and 1 only,

$$\{w^I\}=\{C^M,T^A\},\mathrm{𝑔ℎ}(C^M)=1,\mathrm{𝑔ℎ}(T^A)=0.$$
(23)
Such a set of $`w`$’s arises typically in irreducible gauge theories, such as Yang-Mills theory or gravity (in fact we have seen above that it arises in pure Yang-Mills theory). The reason is the following. An irreducible gauge theory contains only fields with ghost numbers $`1`$ (there are no ‘ghosts for ghosts’). Assuming that appropriate regularity conditions are fulfilled (see e.g., ), all antifields and their derivatives appear in $`s`$-doublets. The same holds of course for the antighost fields. Hence, all field and antifield variables with negative ghost numbers will then give rise to $`s`$-doublets. Assuming that corresponding $`w`$’s exist, one gets (23). The $`C^M`$ will be appropriate ghost variables, typically corresponding to the undifferentiated ghost fields and (possibly) a subset of derivatives of the ghost fields which do not appear in $`s`$-doublets with the gauge fields and derivatives thereof. The $`T^A`$, or their antifield independent part, may be interpreted as tensor fields. The typical situation in reducible gauge theories is similar, the difference being that then there are also $`w`$’s with ghost numbers $`>1`$ corresponding to ghost fields with higher ghost numbers (‘ghosts for ghosts’). In the extended antifield formalism , the set $`\{C^M\}`$ contains in addition constant ghosts corresponding, for instance, to global symmetries.

Since $`s`$ has ghost number 1 (i.e., it raises the ghost number by one unit), (23) and (4) imply that

$$sT^A=C^MR_M^A(T),sC^M=\frac{1}{2}()^{ϵ_K+1}C^KC^LF_{LK}^{}{}_{}{}^{M}(T),$$
(24)
for some functions $`R_M^A(T)`$ and $`F_{KL}^{}{}_{}{}^{M}(T)`$ of the $`T`$’s. $`(ϵ_K+1)`$ denotes the Grassmann parity of $`C^K`$ and has been introduced to make the following formulae nicer (it can of course be absorbed into $`F_{KL}^{}{}_{}{}^{M}(T)`$ by redefining the latter). Owing just to $`s^2T^A=0`$ (and thus, in particular, regardless whether or not the commutator algebra of the gauge transformations closes off-shell), (24) implies an algebra

$$[_M,_N]=F_{MN}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}(T)_K$$
(25)
where $`[,]`$ is the graded commutator and $`_M`$ are the graded derivations

$$_M=R_M^A(T)\frac{}{T^A}.$$
(26)
$`s^2C^M=0`$ gives the consistency conditions for the algebra (25) equivalent to $`()^{ϵ_Kϵ_N}[_K,[_M,_N]]+\mathrm{cyclic}=0`$,

$$()^{ϵ_Kϵ_N}[_KF_{MN}^{}{}_{}{}^{L}+F_{MN}^{}{}_{}{}^{R}F_{RK}^{}{}_{}{}^{L}]+\mathrm{cyclic}=0.$$
(27)
In the Yang-Mills example discussed above, one simply gets:

Yang-Mills: $`\{C^M\}\{C^a\},\{T^A\}\{dx^\mu ,x^\mu ,F_{\mu \nu }^a,\mathrm{}\},`$
$`\{_M\}\{\delta _a\},\{F_{MN}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}\}\{f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}\}`$
where $`\delta _a`$ are the elements of the Lie algebra of the gauge group in a basis with structure constants $`f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}`$.

Similar consequences arise when there is a jet coordinate system $`\{\stackrel{~}{u}^\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{~}{v}^\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{~}{w}^{\stackrel{~}{I}}\}`$ with analogous properties. The analogue of (23) is

$$\{\stackrel{~}{w}^{\stackrel{~}{I}}\}=\{\stackrel{~}{C}^{\stackrel{~}{M}},\stackrel{~}{T}^{\stackrel{~}{A}}\},\mathrm{𝑡𝑜𝑡}(\stackrel{~}{C}^{\stackrel{~}{M}})=1,\mathrm{𝑡𝑜𝑡}(\stackrel{~}{T}^{\stackrel{~}{A}})=0$$
(28)
where $`\mathrm{𝑡𝑜𝑡}`$ is the degree associated to $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$, i.e., the sum of the ghost number and form-degree,

$$\mathrm{𝑡𝑜𝑡}=\mathrm{𝑔ℎ}+\text{form-degree}.$$

The implications of (28) are analogous to (24) through (27). However, there is an additional structure hidden in the resulting equations which comes from the presence of $`d`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$. To exhibit it, one decomposes $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{\stackrel{~}{M}}`$ into terms with different antifield numbers. Since $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{\stackrel{~}{M}}`$ has total degree 1, its antifield independent piece contains in general two pieces: one piece with form-degree 1 and ghost number 0, and another one with form-degree 0 and ghost number 1,

$$\stackrel{~}{C}^{\stackrel{~}{M}}=dx^\mu A_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{M}}+C^{\stackrel{~}{M}}+\text{terms with antifields},\mathrm{𝑔ℎ}(A_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{M}})=0,\mathrm{𝑔ℎ}(C^{\stackrel{~}{M}})=1.$$
(29)
The antifield independent piece of $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{\stackrel{~}{A}}`$ is denoted by $`T^{\stackrel{~}{A}}`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{T}^{\stackrel{~}{A}}=T^{\stackrel{~}{A}}+\text{terms with antifields}.$$
(30)
Using this decomposition in $`\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{T}^{\stackrel{~}{A}}=\stackrel{~}{C}^{\stackrel{~}{M}}\stackrel{~}{R}_{\stackrel{~}{M}}^{\stackrel{~}{A}}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$ which is the analogue of the first equation in (24), one gets by comparing the coefficients of $`dx^\mu `$ of the antifield independent pieces on both sides of the equation,

$$_\mu T^{\stackrel{~}{A}}A_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{\stackrel{~}{M}}T^{\stackrel{~}{A}},_{\stackrel{~}{M}}:=R_{\stackrel{~}{M}}^{\stackrel{~}{A}}\frac{}{T^{\stackrel{~}{A}}}$$
(31)
where $`R_{\stackrel{~}{M}}^{\stackrel{~}{A}}`$ is the antifield independent part of $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{\stackrel{~}{M}}^{\stackrel{~}{A}}(\stackrel{~}{T})`$ and $``$ denotes equality on-shell (in general one only has equality on-shell because the piece in $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{\stackrel{~}{A}}`$ with antifield number 1 gives rise to antifield independent terms in $`s\stackrel{~}{T}^{\stackrel{~}{A}}`$ which vanish on-shell). Normally (31) indicates that the set $`\{_{\stackrel{~}{M}}\}`$ contains covariant derivatives $`𝒟_m`$ corresponding to a subset $`\{A_\mu ^m\}`$ of $`\{A_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{M}}\}`$ which defines an invertible (generally field dependent) $`n\times n`$ matrix,

$`\{A_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{M}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{A_\mu ^m,A_\mu ^I\},\mu ,m\{1,\mathrm{},n\},`$ (32)
$`\{_{\stackrel{~}{M}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{𝒟_m,_I\},𝒟_m=A_m^\mu (_\mu A_\mu ^I_I),A_m^\mu A_\mu ^k=\delta _m^k.`$ (33)
In the Yang-Mills example, one gets:

Yang-Mills: $`\{\stackrel{~}{C}^{\stackrel{~}{M}}\}\{dx^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{C}^a\},\{A_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{M}}\}\{\delta _\mu ^m,A_\mu ^a\},`$
$`\{\stackrel{~}{T}^{\stackrel{~}{A}}\}\{x^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^a,\mathrm{}\},\{T^{\stackrel{~}{A}}\}\{x^\mu ,F_{\mu \nu }^a,\mathrm{}\},`$
$`\{_I\}\{\delta _a\},𝒟_m=\delta _m^\mu (_\mu A_\mu ^a\delta _a).`$