text:
# 1 Intoduction

## 1 Intoduction

And do not be called teachers;

for One is your Teacher,

the Christ Jesus.

Holy Bible, Matthew 23,10

Many recent ideas in theoretical physics assume the possibility that our world may have more than four dimensions. The discovery of the cancellation of infinities in superstring theories has stimulated the interest in higher-dimensional theories and their compactification. The renewed interest in Kaluza-Klein theories stems from the fact that multidimensional analogues of general relativity are able to generate non-Abelian gauge theories out of theories with symmetries of compact internal space. Multidimensional versions of supersymmetric theories are examples of another approach to construct a theory of elementary interactions ,, by exploiting the formal symmetry between bosons and fermions. These theories could provide better description of observational aspects of the world we see. However, the main problem of multidimensional models is their complexity reflected either in analytical or numerical studies — even in the case of models with the Ricci flat Calabi-Yau manifolds.

Up to now there is no well established experimental evidence of six-dimensionality of our world and our understanding of potential manifestations of higher dimensions is too poor. But there were also attempts in the literature to seek the effects of extra dimensions in the astrophysical setting pursued actively by Wesson , Lim, Kalligas, Everitt, Biesiada , Mańka, and Syska. This line of thinking is worth of developing in order to gain better understanding concerning possible manifestations of six-dimensionality of the world. In particular this would mean that the effects of extra dimensions may be well around us on the contrary of standard expectations that extremely high energies are necessary to probe the higher dimensions.

Hence the contents of the present paper suggest that there is an intimate ralation between the manifestations of six-dimensionality of this world and the so-called dark matter. But the first evidence for the existence of the dark matter in galaxies came into play when Oort in 1932  and Zwicly in 1933 have applied the famous virial theorem to vertical motion of stars in the Galaxy and to the radial velocities of members of Coma cluster, respectively. The problem revived and become well established in the seventies when it has been demonstrated  that the rotation curves of spiral galaxies were indicative to the presence of unseen333 The word unseen would perhapse reflect better the nature of the missing mass being free from potential negative connotations associated with the word dark. However in the rest of this work we shall use the traditional notion of dark matter. (in any part of electromagnetic spectrum) mass444 There are currently many candidates for the dark matter with massive compact halo objects (MACHOs) such like ”brown dwarfs”, ”jupiters” etc. on one extreme to hypothetical elementary particles such like massive neutrinos, axions and other weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) which till now are either unable to give the amount of needed mass or are in contradiction with other parts of proposed models.. In their paper  Neta Bahcall, Lubin and Dorman point to the evidence that most dark matter in the universe resides in large dark halos around galaxies.

Thus the present paper provides a description of properties of certain six-dimensional Kaluza-Klein type model with pointing to some of possible observational consequences. Section 2 contains a description of the model along with motivations for the choice of six-dimensional spacetime. Then we derive static spherically symmetric solutions of the multidimensional Einstein equations . They are in a sense analogous to the familiar four-dimensional Schwarzschild solution but fundamentally different i.e. they are horizon free. More detailed discussion of the properties of these solutions is presented in Sections 2 and 3. We also discuss briefly some strictly observable quantities in the model such like the redshift formulae. Section 4 is devoted to the analysis of motion of test particles. Finally Section 5 contains concluding remarks and perspectives. Some more formal although important remarks are put into Appendices in the end of this paper. Throughout Section 2 we are using natural units (c = $`\mathrm{}`$ =1) whereas in Sections 3, 4 and 5 which deal with some more observationally oriented issues we reintroduce explicitly the velocity of light (the Planck constant turns out to be irrelevant for these considerations).

## 2 Field equations

Let us consider a six-dimensional field theory comprising the gravitational self field described by a metric tensor, $`g_{MN}`$, and a real massless ”basic” scalar field, $`\phi `$. The scalar field $`\phi `$ is a dilaton field–hence, just below, the minus sign in front of its kinetic energy term . In a standard manner we decompose the action into two parts:

$$𝒮=𝒮_{EH}+𝒮_\phi ,$$
(1)
where $`S_{EH}`$ is the Einstein — Hilbert action

$$𝒮_{EH}=\frac{1}{2\kappa _6}\sqrt{g}d^6x$$
(2)
and $`S_\phi `$ is the action for a real massless scalar field555 This scalar field $`\phi `$ is the created fluctuation out from nothingness.

$`𝒮_\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \sqrt{g}\frac{1}{2}g_{MN}^M\phi ^N\phi d^6x}=`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \sqrt{g}_\phi d^6x}.`$
In Eq.(3), $`g=detg_{MN}`$ denotes the determinant of the metric tensor, $``$ is the curvature scalar of six - dimensional (in general curved) spacetime, and $`\kappa _6`$ denotes the coupling constant of the six-dimensional theory, analogous to familiar Newtonian gravity constant. $`_\phi `$ is the Lagrangian density for a scalar massless field $`\phi `$.

The motivations for choosing by many others six-dimensional models were diverse. Nishino, Sezgin , Salam and Sezgin  have suggested that one may obtain the fermion spectrum in four-dimensions within the framework of D=6, N=2 Kaluza-Klein supergravity. Their Lagrangian density was equal to

$$=_{EH}+_m,$$

where:

$`_{EH}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\kappa ^2}}`$
$`_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{MN}_M\phi _N\phi `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\kappa \mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2}\kappa \phi )F_{PQ}F^{PQ}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(g_0^3/\kappa ^3\right)\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2}\kappa \phi ),`$
In the above equation, $`F_{PQ}=_PA_Q_QA_P`$, $`\phi `$, and $`A_P(P=0,\mathrm{},6)`$ are boson fields, $`g_0`$ is the U(1) coupling constant. The mathematical compactification of the full six-dimensional space into a direct product $`M^4\times S^2`$ is realized with the ground state expectation values: $`\phi =\phi _0`$, and $`F_{MN}=F_{mn}=\frac{1}{2}g_0b^2\epsilon _{mn}`$ for $`M,N=m,n`$, and $`0`$ otherwise ($`b`$ is the radius of the microspace). Our model is similar to the above model (considered in Refs. and ), in absence of boson fields666The inclusion of gauge fields into the model and its consequences for the problem of dark matter will be a subject of forthcoming papers. . A six-dimensional model of the Kaluza-Klein theory was also previously investigated by Ivashchuk and Melnikov , Bronnikov and Melnikov , and by one of us in .

The simplest extension of familiar four-dimensional spacetime is to consider five-dimensional models, as Wesson considered in . We have chosen a six - dimensional theory which is much more robust and interesting.

By extremalizing the action given by Eqs.(2)-(3) we obtain the Einstein equations

$$R_{MN}\frac{1}{2}g_{MN}=\kappa _6T_{MN}.$$
(4)
Here $`R_{MN}`$ is the six - dimensional Ricci tensor, $``$ is the six-dimensional curvature scalar and $`T_N^M`$ is the energy - momentum tensor of a real scalar field $`\phi `$ which is given by

$$T_N^M=_N\phi \frac{_\phi }{(_M\phi )}\delta _N^M_\phi .$$
(5)
Variation of the total action $`𝒮`$ with respect to the field $`\phi `$ gives the Klein - Gordon equation

$$\mathrm{}\phi =0,$$
(6)
where

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_M(\sqrt{g}g^{MN}_N)$$

and $`g^{MN}`$ is the tensor dual to $`g_{MN}`$ .

Now, we assume that we live in the compactified (which is quite a reasonable assumption) world, where the six - dimensional spacetime is a topological product of “our” curved four - dimensional physical spacetime (with the metric $`g_{\alpha \omega },\alpha ,\omega =0,1,2,3`$) and the internal space (with the metric $`g_{he},h,e=5,6`$).

Therefore the metric tensor can be factorized as

$`g_{MN}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{\alpha \omega }& 0\\ 0& g_{he}\end{array}\right).`$ (7)
The four-dimensional diagonal part is assumed to be that of a spherically symmetric geometry

$`g_{\alpha \omega }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}e^{\nu (r)}& & & \\ & e^{\mu (r)}& 0& \\ & 0& r^2& \\ & & & r^2sin^2\mathrm{\Theta }\end{array}\right),`$ (8)
where $`\nu (r)`$ and $`\mu (r)`$ are (at this stage) two arbitrary functions.
Analogously, we take the two-dimensional internal part to be

$`g_{he}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\varrho ^2(r)cos^2\vartheta & 0\\ 0& \varrho ^2(r)\end{array}\right).`$ (9)
The six-dimensional coordinates $`(x^M)`$ are denoted by $`(t,r,\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Phi },\vartheta ,\varsigma )`$ where $`t[0,\mathrm{})`$ is the usual time coordinate, $`r[0,\mathrm{}),`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }[0,\pi ]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }[0,2\pi )`$ are familiar three-dimensional spherical coordinates in the macroscopic space; $`\vartheta [\pi ,\pi )`$ and $`\varsigma [0,2\pi )`$ are coordinates in the internal two-dimensional space and $`\varrho (0,\mathrm{})`$ is the “radius” of this two-dimensional internal space. We assume that $`\varrho (r)`$ is the function of the radius $`r`$ in our external three-dimensional space777 special thanks to Ryszard Mańka for pointing to this direction.

The internal space is a 2-dimensional topological torus with $`r`$-dependent parameter $`\varrho (r)`$ which can be represented as a surface embedded in the three-dimensional Euclidean space

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}w^1=\varrho (r)cos\varsigma ,\varsigma [0,2\pi )\hfill & & \\ w^2=\varrho (r)sin\varsigma \hfill & & \\ w^3=\varrho (r)sin\vartheta ,\vartheta [\pi ,\pi ).\hfill & & \end{array}`$ (13)
Now using Eqs.(8)-(9), we can calculate the components of the Ricci tensor. The nonvanishing components are

$`R_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`(4\varrho ^2r\nu ^{}+4r^2\varrho ^{}\varrho \nu ^{}r^2\varrho ^2\mu ^{}\nu ^{}+`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`r^2\varrho ^2(\nu ^{})^2+2r^2\varrho ^2\nu ^{\prime \prime })(4e^\mu r^2\varrho ^2)^1`$
$`R_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`(4\varrho ^2r\mu ^{}4r^2\varrho ^{}\varrho \mu ^{}r^2\varrho ^2\mu ^{}\nu ^{}+`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`r^2\varrho ^2(\nu ^{})^2+8r^2\varrho \varrho ^{\prime \prime }+`$
$`+`$ $`2r^2\varrho ^2\nu ^{\prime \prime }\left)\right(4e^\mu r^2\varrho ^2)^1`$
$`R_\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{\Theta }=R_\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`(4e^\mu \varrho ^2+4\varrho ^2+8r\varrho \varrho ^{}`$ (16)
$``$ $`2r\varrho ^2\mu ^{}+2r\varrho ^2\nu ^{}\left)\right(4e^\mu r^2\varrho ^2)^1`$
$`R_\vartheta ^\vartheta =R_\varsigma ^\varsigma `$ $`=`$ $`(8\varrho r\varrho ^{}+4r^2(\varrho ^{})^22r^2\varrho \varrho ^{}\mu ^{}+`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`2r^2\varrho \varrho ^{}\nu ^{}+4r^2\varrho \varrho ^{\prime \prime }\left)\right(4e^\mu r^2\varrho ^2)^1`$
Let us assume that we are looking for a solution of the Einstein equations (see Eq.(4)) with the Ricci tensor given by Eqs.(14)-(17), with $`\nu (r)=\mu (r)`$, and with the following boundary conditions

$`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\nu (r)=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\mu (r)=0,`$ (18)
$`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\varrho (r)=d=constant0.`$ (19)
In other words, we are looking for the solution which at spatial infinity reproduces the flat external four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime and static internal space of “radius” $`d`$ which is of order of $`10^{33}m.`$

Now we make an assumption that the scalar field $`\phi `$ depends neither on time $`t`$ nor on internal coordinates $`\vartheta `$ and $`\varsigma `$. Now, because of assumed spherical symmetry of the physical spacetime, it is natural to suppose that the scalar field $`\phi `$ is the function of the radius $`r`$ alone, $`\phi =\phi (r)`$. We impose also the boundary condition for the scalar field $`\phi `$

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi (r)=0$$
(20)
which supplements boundary conditions (18) and (19) for the metric components.

By virtue of Eqs.(5) and (3) it is easy to see that the only nonvanishing components of the energy-momentum tensor are

$`T_r^r=T_t^t=T_\mathrm{\Theta }^\mathrm{\Theta }=T_\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`T_\vartheta ^\vartheta =T_\varsigma ^\varsigma =`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{rr}(_r\phi )^2.`$
Consequently, it is easy to verify that the solution of the Einstein equations (4) is

$`\nu (r)=\mu (r)=\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}\right)`$ (22)
$`\varrho (r)=d\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}}}`$ (23)
$`\phi (r)=\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _6}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}\right).`$ (24)
Hence we obtain that the only nonzero component of the Ricci tensor (see Eqs.(14)-(17)) is $`R_r^r`$ which reads888 Putting Eqs.(27),(21) and (26) together we can notice a similarity between the equation
$$R_r^r=\kappa _6(_r\phi )^2g^{rr}()$$
and its electromagnetic analog
$$^2𝐀=m_A^2𝐀,$$
where $`𝐀`$ is the electromagnetic vector potential. Eg.($``$) is the screening current condition in gravitation, analogous to that in electromagnetism.

$`R_r^r={\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2r^3(r+A)}}.`$ (25)
So the curvature scalar $``$ is equal to

$`=R_r^r={\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2r^3(r+A)}},`$ (26)
where $`A`$ is the real constant, with the dimensionality of length, which value is to be taken from observation for each particular system.

In derivation of the above solutions, we have used Eqs.(14)-(17) which together with Eq.(21), imply that all of the six diagonal Einstein equations are equal to just one

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}=\kappa _6T_r^r.`$ (27)
Now we can rewrite the metric tensor in the form

$`g_{MN}`$ $`=`$ $`diag({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}},{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}},r^2,r^2sin^2\mathrm{\Theta },`$ (28)
$`d^2{\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}}cos^2\vartheta ,d^2{\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}})`$
with its determinant equal to

$`g=detg_{MN}=(d^2r^2sin\mathrm{\Theta }cos\vartheta )^2.`$ (29)
Thus, we see that the spacetime of our model is stationary.

It is also necessary to verify, whether the solution of the Klein-Gordon equation (see Eq.(6)) is in agreement with Eq.(24), which follows from the Einstein equations. From Eq.(6), we obtain that

$`_r\phi (r)=Cg_{rr}r^2=C{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r(r+A)}},`$ (30)
where C is a constant. Comparing this result with Eq.(24) we conclude that if

$$C=\pm \frac{A}{\sqrt{2\kappa _6}}$$
(31)
then the solution of the Klein-Gordon equation is in agreement with the solution of the Einstein equations coupled to Klein-Gordon equation. Hence, the real massless ”basic” free scalar field $`\phi (r)`$ (see Eq.(24)) can be the source of the nonzero metric tensor as in Eq.(28). Only when the constant $`A`$ is equal to zero, the solutions (22) – (24) become trivial and the six-dimensional spacetime is Ricci flat.

It is worth noting that because the components $`R_\vartheta ^\vartheta `$ and $`R_\varsigma ^\varsigma `$ of the Ricci tensor are equal to zero for all values of $`A`$, the internal space is always Ricci flat. However, we must not neglect the internal space because its “radius” $`\varrho `$ is a function of $`r`$ and the two spaces, external and internal, are therefore “coupled”. Only when $`A=0`$ are these two spaces “decoupled”, and our four-dimensional spacetime becomes Minkowski flat999 When $`A`$ is not equal to zero our four-dimensional external spacetime is curved and its scalar curvature $`_4`$ could be given by Eq.(26)    $`_4=={\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2r^3(r+A)}}.`$  (32)  .

## 3 Some properties of solutions

If the parameter $`A`$ is strictly positive101010 The discussion of $`A<0`$ case will be left for the Appendix A.1., $`A>0,`$ then Eqs.(22)-(24) are valid for all $`r>0`$. The metric tensor becomes singular only at $`r=0`$, nevertheless its determinant $`g`$ (see Eq.(29)) remains well defined. Below, we shall collect several formulae which will be useful in our later discussion. We start with time and radial components of the metric $`g_{MN}`$ and the internal “radius” $`\varrho (r)`$ (see Eqs.(23) and (28))

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}g_{tt}=\frac{r}{r+A}\hfill & & \\ g_{rr}=\frac{r}{r+A}\hfill & & \\ \varrho (r)=d\sqrt{\frac{r+A}{r}}.\hfill & & \end{array}`$ (36)
It will also be useful to write the explicit relation for the real, physical radial distance $`r_l`$ from the center

$`r_l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^r}𝑑r\sqrt{g_{rr}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}}\left(r+A\right)+`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{A}{A+2r+2(r+A)\sqrt{\frac{r}{r+A}}}})<r.`$
Because $`g_{tt}1`$ for $`r\mathrm{}`$ (see Eq.(36)), it is interesting to compare the gravitational potential $`g_{tt}=\frac{r}{r+A}1\frac{A}{r}`$ for $`rA`$ with the gravitational potential $`g_{tt}=1\frac{G}{c^2}\frac{2M}{r}`$ induced by a mass $`M`$ in the Newtonian limit. $`G`$ and $`c`$ are the four-dimensional gravitational constant and the velocity of light, respectively. Comparing these two potentials, we obtain that $`A=2\frac{G}{c^2}M`$, so the parameter $`A`$ can have the same dynamical consequences111111 The dynamical interpretations of $`A`$ are different for other powers of $`\frac{A}{r}`$.  as the mass $`M`$. Table 1 contains some astrophysically interesting masses that mimic the values of the $`A`$ parameter.

In this case the gravitational potential $`g_{tt}`$ (see Eq.(28) or Eq.(36)) is attractive although there is no massive matter acting as a source.

Let us recall that, in standard derivation of the Schwarzschild solution, the free parameter in the metric tensor is identified with the total mass of spherically symmetric configuration by the demand that at large distances the metric tensor should reproduce the Newtonian potential. In our case, we cannot identify the $`A`$ parameter directly with $`M.`$ The reason is that our solution describes the case where ordinary matter is absent. The only contribution to the energy-momentum tensor comes from the dilaton (massless) scalar field $`\phi .`$

It is well known (see ) that the frequency $`\omega _0`$ of light, moving along the geodesic line in gravitational field which is static or stationary, measured in the units of time $`t`$, is constant ($`\omega _0=constant`$) along the geodesic. The frequency $`\omega `$ of light as a function of the proper time $`\tau `$ ($`d\tau =\sqrt{g_{tt}}dt`$ ) is equal to

$`\omega =\omega _0{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{\sqrt{g_{tt}}}}=\omega _0\sqrt{g^{tt}}.`$ (38)
Let us assume that photon with frequency $`\omega _s`$ (measured in units of the proper time $`\tau `$ ) is emitted from the source which is located at a point $`r=r_s`$ where $`g_{tt}=g_{tt}^s`$. Then the photon is moving along a geodesic line and it reaches the observer at the point $`r=r_{obs}`$, where $`g_{tt}=g_{tt}^{obs}`$, with the frequency $`\omega _{obs}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{obs}}{\omega _s}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g_{obs}^{tt}}{g_s^{tt}}}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g_{tt}^s}{g_{tt}^{obs}}}}.`$ (39)
Using Eq.(36) we can rewrite Eq.(39) as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{obs}}{\omega _s}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\frac{r_s}{r_s+A}}}{\sqrt{\frac{r_{obs}}{r_{obs}+A}}}}.`$ (40)
For simplicity, let us consider the limiting case when the observer is situated at the infinity. Then we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{obs}}{\omega _s}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r_s^w}{r_s^w+1}}},\mathrm{where}r_s^w={\displaystyle \frac{r_s}{A}}.`$ (41)
Therefore, we obtain that the nearer is the source to the center of the field $`\phi (r)`$ the more is the emitted photon redshifted at the point where it reaches the observer (It should also be emphasized that this redshift does depend on the relative radius $`r^w=\frac{r}{A}`$ rather than separately on $`r`$ and $`A`$ (see also Appendix A.2)).

## 4 Six-dimensional Hamilton-Jacobi equation for a “test particle”

In order to gain better understanding concerning possible manifestations of six-dimensionality of the world let us investigate the motion of a “particle” with a mass $`m0`$ in the central gravitational field described by the Eq.(28). Whether the moving object can be treated as a “test particle” depends on the value of the $`A`$ parameter in the metric tensor $`g_{MN}`$ (see Eq.(28)). Here $`m`$ is the mass of a “test particle” in the six - dimensional spacetime.

The Hamilton-Jacobi equation

$`g^{MN}_MS_NSm^2c^2=0`$ (42)
describing the motion of a test particle reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{ct}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{r}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Theta }}}\right)^2`$ (43)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2sin^2\mathrm{\Theta }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{cos^2\vartheta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\vartheta }}\right)^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\varsigma }}\right)^2m^2c^2=0,`$
where $`S`$ denotes the action121212 The action $`S`$ has the meaning of the complete integral of the Hamilton - Jacobi equation and should not be confused with six-dimensional field-theoretical action $`𝒮`$ invoked in Section 2..

Without lack of generality we shall restrict ourselves to the motion in the plane $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /2`$, thus

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Theta }}}=0.`$ (44)
The standard procedure of the separation of variables begins with the following factorization of $`S`$

$`S=_0t+_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }+S_r(r)+_\varsigma \varsigma +S_\vartheta (\vartheta ).`$ (45)
Then by separating Eq.(43) into four-dimensional and internal parts one arrives at the formula

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}}[{\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{_0}{c}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_r}{r}}\right)^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2sin^2\mathrm{\Theta }}}_\mathrm{\Phi }^2m^2c^2]=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{cos^2\vartheta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_\vartheta }{\vartheta }}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^2}}_\varsigma ^2=:k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2=constant.`$
The last equation in (4) is easy to integrate for $`S_\vartheta `$

$`S_\vartheta =\pm (d^2k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2_\varsigma ^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}sin\vartheta =\pm k_\vartheta sin\vartheta .`$ (47)
The separation constants $`_0`$, $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`_\varsigma `$ and $`k_\vartheta `$ have the meaning of the total energy, the effectual angular momentum, the internal angular momentum and internal momentum respectively. One may also distinguish the internal total momentum $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }`$

$`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2={\displaystyle \frac{_\varsigma ^2}{d^2}}+k_\vartheta ^2.`$ (48)
Analogously the quantity

$`m_4^2=m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2}{c^2}}`$ (49)
can be interpreted as the four - dimensional squared mass of a test particle in the flat Minkowskian limit at infinity. In the case of vanishing internal momentum $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }=0`$ the four and six-dimensional masses are equal $`m_4=m`$. If the six-dimensional mass is zero $`m=0`$ then the four - dimensional mass at spatial infinity would be solely of internal origin: $`m_4=\frac{|k_{\vartheta \varsigma }|}{c}`$.

Let us now consider the radial part $`S_r(r)`$ which can be easily read off from the Eq.(4)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dS_r}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{_0^2}{c^2}}(m^2c^2+{\displaystyle \frac{_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{r^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}`$ (50)
$``$ $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}\right)^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
or after formal integration

$`S_r(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dr[{\displaystyle \frac{_0^2}{c^2}}(m^2c^2+{\displaystyle \frac{_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{r^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}`$ (51)
$``$ $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}\right)^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
The trajectory of a test particle is implicitly determined by the following equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{_0}}=\alpha _1=t+{\displaystyle \frac{S_r(r)}{_0}}`$ (52)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{_\mathrm{\Phi }}}=\alpha _2=\mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{S_r(r)}{_\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$ (53)
where $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ are constants and without lack of generality the initial conditions can be chosen so that $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2=0.`$ In other words integration of Eq.(53) gives the trajectory $`r=r(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ of a test particle and Eq.(52) provides the temporal dependence of radial coordinate $`r=r(t).`$ These two relations determine the trajectory of a test particle $`r=r(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ .

Implementing the above outlined procedure we obtain (from Eq.(52) and Eq.(51))

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_0}{c^2}}{\displaystyle }dr[{\displaystyle \frac{_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{c^2}}(m^2c^2+{\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}`$ (54)
$``$ $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}\right)^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
and consequently the radial velocity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{_0}}[{\displaystyle \frac{_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{c^2}}(m^2c^2+{\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}`$ (55)
$``$ $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}\right)^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
It is easy to notice that the quantity

$`m_4(r)=\sqrt{m^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2}{c^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}\right)^2}`$ (56)
can be interpreted as the mass in the four - dimensional curved spacetime. The $`m_4`$ of Eq.(49) is recovered as the limit of $`m_4(r)`$ for $`r\mathrm{}`$. Similarly to our previous discussion, if $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }=0`$ then $`m_4(r)=m\sqrt{\frac{r}{r+A}}`$ and if $`m=0`$ then the mass $`m_4(r)`$ would have the internal origin $`m_4(r)=\frac{|k_{\vartheta \varsigma }|}{c}\left(\frac{r}{r+A}\right)`$. It should also be emphasized that $`m_4(r)`$ does depend on the ratio $`r^w=\frac{r}{A}`$ rather than separately on $`r`$ and $`A`$, reflecting the scale-invariance of the model (see also Appendix A.2).

In a similar manner using the Eq.(53) and Eq.(51) we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{c^2}}(m^2c^2+{\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}`$ (57)
$``$ $`\left(k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}\right)^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{_\mathrm{\Phi }dr}{r(r+A)}}`$
and consequently using Eqs.(57) and (55) the angular velocity of the particle reads

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_t={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{c^2_\mathrm{\Phi }}{_0r\left(A+r\right)}}.`$ (58)
Now the proper angular velocity of the particle is equal to

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\tau }}=\mathrm{\Omega }_t\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}}},`$ (59)
where $`\tau `$ is the proper time and $`d\tau =\sqrt{g_{tt}}dt`$ (see Eq.(28)).

The transversal velocity of the particle (i.e. the component perpendicular to the radial direction) is equal to (see Eq.(37))

$`v_t=\mathrm{\Omega }_tr_l`$ (60)
and analogously the transversal component of the proper velocity (written in the units of proper time $`\tau `$ ) is equal to

$`v_\tau =\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau r_l=v_t\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}}}`$ (61)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau `$ and $`r_l`$ are given by Eqs.(58),(59) and (37) respectively.

Let us rewrite Eq.(55) in the following form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{c}{_0}}\sqrt{_0^2𝒰_{eff}^2(r)}`$ (62)
where

$`𝒰_{eff}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`[(m^2c^4+\left({\displaystyle \frac{_\mathrm{\Phi }}{r}}\right)^2c^2){\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}+`$ (63)
$`+`$ $`\left(k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2c^2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}\right)^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
The function $`𝒰_{eff}(r)`$ plays the role of the effective potential energy in the sense that the relation between $`_0`$ and $`𝒰_{eff}(r)`$ determines the allowed regions of the motion of the particle.

The proper radial velocity of the particle is equal to

$`v_r={\displaystyle \frac{dr_l}{d\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g_{rr}}dr}{\sqrt{g_{tt}}dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dt}},`$ (64)
where in the last equality we used the relation $`g_{tt}=g_{rr}`$ (see Eq.(36)) and $`\tau `$ is the proper time. So the radial velocity $`dr/dt`$ and the proper radial velocity $`v_r=dr_l/d\tau `$ are equal and one should stress that this property is fundamentally different from the analogical relation for the black hole.

### 4.1 Stable circular orbits.

Let us now consider the motion of a particle with given values of $`_\mathrm{\Phi }0`$ and $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }`$. Figure 1 illustrates the function $`𝒰_{eff}(r)`$ for different values of $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }=0.`$

Similarly Figure 2 shows the function $`𝒰_{eff}(r)`$ for different values of $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }`$ with fixed value of $`_\mathrm{\Phi }.`$

Let us consider a stable circular orbit with given values of $`_0`$, $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }`$. The radius of this orbit can be calculated from the following equations (see Eqs.(62), (63))

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dt}}=0,`$ (65)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2r}{dt^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}({\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dt}})=0.`$ (66)
From Eqs.(66),(62),(63) we obtain the implicit relation between the radius $`r`$ of the stable circular orbit, the angular momentum of the particle $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the internal “total momentum” $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }`$

$`(_\mathrm{\Phi })^2=\left(m^2c^2+2k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}})\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{2r+A}}\right)r^2`$ (67)
so

$`_\mathrm{\Phi }=\pm A^{1/2}r\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(r+A)m^2c^2+2k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2r}{A^2+3Ar+2r^2}}}.`$ (68)
It is easy to verify that $`_\mathrm{\Phi }/r0`$ as $`r`$ tends to infinity. Using Eqs.(65),(62), (63) we calculate the total energy $`_0`$ of the particle moving along this stable circular orbit of radius $`r`$

$`(_0)^2`$ $`=`$ $`[m^2c^4+(m^2c^4+`$ (69)
$`+`$ $`2k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2c^2({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}})){\displaystyle \frac{A}{2r+A}}\left]\right({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}})+`$
$`+`$ $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2c^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}\right)^2`$
or in other words

$`_0=c^2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r\left(2\left(r+A\right)^2m^2c^2+3Ark_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2+2r^2k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2\right)}{c^2\left(r+A\right)^2\left(2r+A\right)}}}.`$ (70)
There are some physically obvious conditions which in turn restrict admissible values of radii of stable orbits for given internal momentum $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma },`$ namely

$`\left(_\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2>0,\mathrm{so}k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2>{\displaystyle \frac{m^2c^2}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}})`$ (71)
$`\left(_0\right)^20,\mathrm{so}k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2m^2c^2{\displaystyle \frac{2(r+A)}{3A+2r}}({\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}}).`$ (72)
It is not difficult to verify that condition (71) is stronger than (72).

Now let us calculate the proper angular velocity, and the proper transversal velocity of the particle moving along the stable circular orbit given by Eqs.(65),(66). Using Eqs.(58)-(61) with $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`_0`$ given by Eqs.(68), (70) respectively, we obtain the proper angular velocity

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau ^{st}={\displaystyle \frac{c^2_\mathrm{\Phi }}{_0r\left(A+r\right)}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}}}`$ (73)
and the proper tangent velocity

$`v_\tau ^{st}={\displaystyle \frac{c^2_\mathrm{\Phi }}{_0r\left(A+r\right)}}r_l\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}}}`$ (74)
on the stable (index $`st`$) circular orbit.
One can notice from Eq.(74) and Eqs.(68), (70) that if $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2Constantm^2`$ then $`v_\tau ^{st}`$ does not depend explicitly on mass $`m`$ of the particle. However $`v_\tau ^{st}`$ is still parameterized by the value of proportionality constant which is clearly non-classical effect. It is also not difficult to see that $`v_\tau ^{st}`$ again depends on the ratio $`r^w=\frac{r}{A}`$ rather then on $`r`$ and $`A`$ independently.

#### 4.1.1 The case with $`m0`$.

From Eq.(71) (see Figure 3) we may notice that if $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2>\frac{1}{2}m^2c^2`$ then all values of the radius $`r`$ (or $`r_l`$ cf. Eq.(37)) for stable orbits are allowed.

If however $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma ,min}^2k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2<\frac{1}{2}m^2c^2`$ (the lower limit $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma ,min}^2`$ is till now undefined) then according to Eq.(71) the stable orbits may exist only up to a radius

$$r_0A/(1+\frac{2k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2}{m^2c^2}).$$
(75)
In other words Eq.(71) implies that one cannot find any stable orbit with $`rr_0`$ for fixed $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }`$ and the angular momentum $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ chosen according to Eq.(68). From the demand that the value of the effective potential at infinity can be lowered only up to the value of the local minimum of the effective potential at radius $`r`$, it follows that the lower limit $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma ,min}^2`$ (which appears to depend on the radius $`r`$ ($`r>0`$)) is equal to

$$k_{\vartheta \varsigma ,min}^2(r)m^2c^2\frac{(1+\frac{r}{A})^2}{1+4\frac{r}{A}+2(\frac{r}{A})^2}>m^2c^2.$$
(76)
Now from Eq.(76) we obtain another limit for allowed stable orbits (in the case of $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma ,min}^2k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2<\frac{1}{2}m^2c^2`$)

$$0<r_{max}r_0A\frac{2k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2+\sqrt{k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2\left(2k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2+m^2c^2\right)}}{2k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2+m^2c^2}<r_0,$$
(77)
so, the maximal allowed radius of the stable orbit is equal to $`r_{max}`$ which is smaller than $`r_0`$.

Figure 3 displays the rotation curves calculated according to Eq.(74) (in units of the velocity of light c) for different values of $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }`$. It shows that the whole effect, mostly pronounced in regions close to the center of spherically symmetric configurations of the field $`\phi `$, is extended from the center to the infinity. (The value of contribution to total rotational velocity coming from the scalar field $`\phi `$ for the Sun at a distance of $`7.5kpc`$ from the center of the scalar field in our Galaxy for $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }=0`$ is equal to $`1.73km/s`$.)

#### 4.1.2 The case with $`m=0`$ and $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }0`$.

In the case $`m=0`$ and $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }0`$ we can see from the Eqs.(71) and (72) that $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2>0`$ and according to our previous discussion all values of $`r`$ are allowed.

### 4.2 Radial trajectories.

In this case we shall investigate free motion of a test particle (with given internal “total momentum” $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }`$) along the geodesic $`\mathrm{\Phi }=constant`$ ($`_\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$) crossing the center of the gravitational field $`g_{MN}`$. From the Eqs.(62),(63) and (64) we obtain

$`v_r={\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dt}}=`$ (78)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{_0}}\sqrt{_0^2\left(m^2c^4\right){\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2c^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+A}}\right)^2}.`$
From this equation we may see that for the particle which is initially ($`t=t_o`$) at rest ($`v_r=v_{r_o}=0`$) at the point $`r=r_o0`$ the total energy is equal to (compare Eq.(56))

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{m^2c^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_o}{r_o+A}}\right)+k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2c^2({\displaystyle \frac{r_o}{r_o+A}})^2}=`$ (79)
$`=`$ $`m_4(r_o)c^2.`$
Hence the particle is oscillating and crosses the center with velocity $`v_r(r=0)=c`$ (at the center the particle becomes massless $`m_4(r=0)=0`$). The acceleration of the particle is equal to

$`a_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dv_r}{d\tau }}=`$ (80)
$`=`$ $`Ac^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^2c^4+2k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2c^2\left(\frac{r}{r+A}\right)}{2_0^2(r+A)^2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r+A}{r}}}.`$
Because the potential energy at infinity cannot be lower than at the center at $`r=0`$, then simple comparison of these limits based on formula (63) reveals that $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2m^2c^2`$, hence $`m_4^2(r)0`$ everywhere131313 Because in this case the effective potential is globally the lower one, it follows from this condition that the proportionality constant in equation $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2Constantm^2`$ should be equal to $`(c^2)`$. Hence we obtain $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2=c^2m^2`$ as the lower value for all test particles with $`m^20`$, which we  believe to be the fundamental law of nature - which we call - the law of the lower potential.  (cf. Eq.(56)).

Note: A remark is in order at this point. Namely it may appear obvious that $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2m^2c^2`$ (so we admit imaginary values of $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }`$). However it is our conviction that one should not uncritically transfer four-dimensional intuitions (such like $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^20`$ or $`m^20`$, although some of them may turn out to be true) but rather build on safe grounds of known properties of four-dimensional sector i.e. $`m_4^20`$ in this case.

#### 4.2.1 The case with $`m0`$.

From Eq.(80) we see that the acceleration tends to minus infinity at the center and when $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2>\frac{1}{2}m^2c^2`$ it monotonously increases to the zero value when $`r`$ is going to infinity. So, in this case, the particle is attracted to the center for all values of $`r`$ (see Figure 4).

In the case of $`m^2c^2k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2<\frac{1}{2}m^2c^2`$ there exists the finite value of $`r=r_{a_r=0}`$ for which $`a_r=0`$. For $`rr_o<r_{a_r=0}`$ the particle is attracted to the center with $`a_r\mathrm{}`$ for $`r0`$ and for $`rr_o>r_{a_r=0}`$ the particle is repelled from the center and the acceleration $`a_r0`$ when $`r\mathrm{}`$ (see Figure 4). On Figure 5 the radial acceleration $`a_r`$ of the particle which is very closely to the center of the field $`\phi `$ is presented. Because the solution is horizon free the achieved values of acceleration of the particle would be the cause of a visible point like radiation (see Section 5).

#### 4.2.2  The case with $`m=0`$ and $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }0`$.

In this case the requirement of $`_0^2>0`$ implies $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2>0`$ (see Eq.(79)). From Eqs.(78), (79) and (80) we conclude that the particle is attracted to the center ($`a_r<0`$) for all values of $`r`$.

### 4.3  The case with $`m=0`$ and $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }=0`$.

Now we have $`_0=constant0`$ and one can read from Eqs.(78) and (80) that $`v_r=c`$ and $`a_r=0`$ for all values of $`r`$. So the particle which has both the six-dimensional mass $`m`$ and the internal “total momentum” $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }`$ equal to zero (which is a reasonable representation of a photon for example) does not feel (except of changing the frequency, see Eq.(38)) the curvature of the spacetime when moving along the geodesic line crossing the center. On the other hand for $`_\mathrm{\Phi }0`$, $`m=0`$ and $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }=0`$ by using the Eq.(57) and introducing formally the parameter141414 We should use for $`m=0`$ and $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }=0`$ the eikonal equation instead of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. However formal (technical) substitution of $`r_m=\frac{_\mathrm{\Phi }c}{_0}`$ gives the same analytical result. $`r_m=\frac{_\mathrm{\Phi }c}{_0}`$ we obtain the trajectory of the particle

$`\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \left[\frac{1}{r_m^2}\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{r}{r+A}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{dr}{r(r+A)}}.`$ (81)
When $`A0`$ then the trajectory calculated according to above equation is the straight line $`r=r_m/(cos\mathrm{\Phi })`$ passing by the center at a distance of $`r_m`$ (impact parameter). On the other hand light traveling in our spacetime (with $`A0`$) is deflected even in absence of baryonic matter.

### 4.4 Redshift of the radiation from stable circular orbits.

Let us suppose for simplicity that distant observer is located far away from the center of the system at a distance far bigger than the size of the system, so its peculiar motion with respect to the center of the system is negligibly small. Let us also assume that the dynamical time scale $`t_{dyn}`$ is greater than the characteristic timescale $`t_{obs}`$ over which the observations are performed i.e. $`t_{dyn}>t_{obs}.`$ In such a case the observed motion of the “particle” is seen only as instantaneous redshift or blueshift. If the motion of a “particle” takes place along the stable circular orbit the Doppler shift is equal to (see Figure 6)

$`z_D=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{c+v_\tau ^{st}sin\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )}{cv_\tau ^{st}sin\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )}}}1,`$ (82)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )=_0^\tau \mathrm{\Omega }_\tau ^{st}𝑑\tau `$ (see Eq.(59) and Eq.(73)) and the angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )`$ is counted from the direction to observer i.e. $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau =0)=0`$ and $`v_\tau ^{st}`$ is given by Eq.(74). Now the gravitational redshift according to Eq.(41) is equal to (see Figure 5)

$`z_g={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{obs}}{\lambda _s}}1={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _s}{\omega _{obs}}}1=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r_s+A}{r_s}}}1.`$ (83)
It is not difficult to see that the combined effect of these redshifts is the following (see Figure 7)

$`z=\left(z_g+1\right)\left(z_D+1\right)1.`$ (84)
## 5 Conclusions and perspectives

In the present paper we have recognized certain non-perturbative six-dimensional ”spherically” symmetric solutions of the Einstein equations. They are asymptotically flat but fundamentally different from the Schwarzschild solutions in four-dimensional spacetime. The motion of test particles has been analyzed. The solutions presented in Section 3 are parameterized by the parameter $`A`$ which has similar dynamical consequences (especially for $`r>>A`$) as the mass $`M={\displaystyle \frac{Ac^2}{2G}}`$ — its existence would be perceived by an observer in the same way as invisible mass.

We may imagine that our six-dimensional world could be compactified in an non-homogeneous manner. In this picture the scalar ”basic” field $`\phi `$ would form a kind of ground field151515 It is interesting to notice that recently there has been a strong tendency to draw analogies between cosmology and condensed matter physics .. The phenomenon of flat rotation curves and the connection of presented model to the so called dark matter problem will be a subject of separate paper.

However looking from the above mentioned perspective, we would like to invoke here two classes of phenomena. Some time ago Tanaka (1995) reported the detection of the relativistic effects in an X-ray emission line (the $`K\alpha `$ line) from ionized iron in the galaxy MCG-6-30-15. The line is extremely broad, corresponding to a velocity of $`10^5km/s0.3c`$, and asymmetric, with most of the line flux being redshifted. This observation is not isolated since, in several objects, broad redshifted lines have been detected but no strong blue-shifted lines have been seen . This is an argument against any asymmetrical-outflow hypothesis in which the flow is directed away from us because some objects should then have the flow directed towards us. On the other hand these observations have just been properly explained (Section 4) for the motion along circular orbits with the internal “total momentum” square $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2<0`$ because in the model even the whole Doppler effect connected with the blue wing moving towards us could be hidden bellow the gravitational redshift effect (see Figures 6,7).

There are also other phenomena which call for explanation and are hard to understand from the point of view of the standard lore. One class of such problems is associated with the nature of the redshift of galaxies. There is a number of evidence that the redshifts are at least partially intrinsic properties of the galaxies, apparently quantized and time variable .

It has been known for a long time that there exist associations of quasars and galaxies where the components have widely discrepant redshifts . We can think of a simple explanation of such apparently strange phenomena in terms of presented model which has nothing to do with standard cosmological interpretation of the redshift as a manifestation of the Hubble expansion. Let us imagine that a quasar and galaxy system is captured by the local configuration of the scalar field $`\phi `$ – such like described in our model. It is natural to suppose that both the quasar and the galaxy are moving along the stable orbits and we may thus apply the results obtained in the Section 4. If the things are arranged so that the quasar is closer to the center of the $`\phi `$ ground field configuration, it would have a (much) greater redshift than the galaxy located peripherally. As it has been illustrated on Figs.6,7 the whole idea works if the quasar is closer to the center than a fraction of $`A.`$ At such distance the combined gravitational Doppler redshift given by Eq.(84) is a steep function of $`r`$, which makes the idea working if the quasar–galaxy constitute a close binary system. Such a possibility has an attractive feature that bridges connecting galaxies and quasars may be explained as evidence of an infall of matter from the galaxy to the center of the field $`\phi `$. Let us recall that the field $`\phi `$ strongly accelerates the infalling particles (see Eq.(80)), and having in mind our demand that the quasar is located closer to the center it may shed some light on the nature of quasar emission. The idea briefly outlined above deserves further deeper considerations. It would be also of interest to examine interactions of these dilatonic centers and their distribution in the universe.

The above mentioned observational facts  cannot find any reasonable explanation within the standard interpretation which claims that the Hubble expansion is responsible for the redshifts of galaxies. Hence, they require the search for models entirely different from evolutionary ones. The true view of the universe is not so faraway from us.

## 6 Appendix A.1: The solution for $`A<0`$

If the parameter $`A<0`$ then Eqs.(22)-(24) are valid only when $`r>|A|`$. The metric tensor becomes singular for $`r=|A|.`$ However its determinant $`g`$ (see Eq.(29)) remains well defined. As in Section 3 we write the temporal and radial components of the metric $`g_{MN}`$ and the internal “radius” $`\varrho (r)`$ (see Eqs.(23) and (28))

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}g_{tt}=\frac{r}{r|A|}\hfill & & \\ g_{rr}=\frac{r}{r|A|}\hfill & & \\ \varrho (r)=d_{out}\sqrt{\frac{r|A|}{r}}.\hfill & & \end{array}`$ (88)
The formulae for the scalar curvature $``$ (see Eq.(26)) and scalar field $`\phi `$ Eq.(24) are

$`={\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2r^3(r|A|)}}`$ (89)
$`\phi (r)=\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _6}}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r|A|}}),`$ (90)
where $`d_{out}`$ is the constant.

Now the physical radial distance $`r_{lA}`$ from the the radius $`|A|`$ to the radius $`r>|A|`$ is equal to

$`r_{lA}`$ $`={\displaystyle _{\left|A\right|}^r}𝑑r\sqrt{g_{rr}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r\left|A\right|}}}\left(r\left|A\right|\right)+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left|A\right|\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left|A\right|+2r+2\left(r\left|A\right|\right)\sqrt{\frac{r}{r\left|A\right|}}}{\left|A\right|}}\right)>r\left|A\right|.`$
Like in Section 2 we have $`g_{tt}1`$ for $`r\mathrm{}`$ (see Eq.(36)). Hence comparing the gravitational potential $`g_{tt}=\frac{r}{r|A|}1+\frac{|A|}{r}`$ for $`r|A|`$ with the gravitational potential $`g_{tt}=1\frac{G}{c^2}\frac{M}{r}`$ for a field induced by the mass $`M`$ we notice, that gravitational potential $`g_{tt}`$ (see Eq.(88)) is the repulsive one. This is the reason why this case has been omitted in the main text as till now unobserved but because it formally provides a solution to the model we reproduce some of its properties here.

Now the real radial distance $`r_l`$ from the center $`r=0`$ to the point with $`r>|A|`$ is equal to (see Eq.(6))

$`r_l=|A|+r_{lA}>r.`$ (92)
Using Eq.(88) we can rewrite Eq.(39) as follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{ob}}{\omega _s}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\frac{r_s}{r_s|A|}}}{\sqrt{\frac{r_{obs}}{r_{obs}|A|}}}}.`$ (93)
As before, we take for simplicity the limit when the observer is in the infinity. So we get (see Figure 8)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{obs}}{\omega _s}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r_s^w}{r_s^w1}}}\mathrm{where}r_s^w={\displaystyle \frac{r_s}{|A|}}.`$ (94)
We obtained the result that the nearer the source is to the surface given by the equation $`r=|A|`$ the more the emitted photon which reaches the observer is blueshifted.

## 7 Appendix A.2: Scale invariance

Let us rewrite the Hamilton-Jacobi equation (see Eq.(43)) in the following way

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r^w+1}{r^w}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{t^w}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{r^w+1}{r^w}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{r^w}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(r^w\right)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Theta }}}\right)^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(r^w\right)^2sin^2\mathrm{\Theta }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(d^w\right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^w}{r^w+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{cos^2\vartheta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\vartheta }}\right)^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(d^w\right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^w}{r^w+1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\varsigma }}\right)^2\left(l^wc\right)^2=0,`$ (95)
where

$`r^w={\displaystyle \frac{r}{A}},t^w={\displaystyle \frac{ct}{A}},d^w={\displaystyle \frac{d}{A}},l^w=mA.`$ (96)
From the form of this equation we can notice that the model is explicitly scale invariant. It means that the systems with different values of $`r`$, $`A`$, $`d`$, $`m`$ and $`t`$ have the same physical properties provided the values of $`l^w`$, $`r^w`$, $`t^w`$ and $`d^w`$ are the same. In the other words this means that whenever the scalar field $`\phi `$ is present the classical picture of the world follows the same patterns from the micro to the marco-scale. The discussion of quantum aspects shall be presented in a separate paper but it is worth noting here that the Klein-Gordon equation for our six-dimensional model possesses similar scaling properties as the Hamilton-Jacobi equation above.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported by L.J.CH.

## 8 Figure captions

Figure 1. The potential $`𝒰_{eff}`$ (in units of $`mc^2`$) (see Eq.(63)) for $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }=0`$ and different values of $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as a function of the relative radius $`r^w=r/A`$. Horizontal arrow above the curves denotes the direction of increasing angular momentum $`_\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ The minimum of the potential $`𝒰_{eff}`$ determines the radius $`r^w`$ (and hence the value of $`r=r^wA`$) of a stable circular orbit. The radii $`r^w`$ of stable orbits correspondes to minima of the potentials depicted on Figure 1 are $`\mathrm{7.5\hspace{0.33em}10}^9`$, $`\mathrm{1.5\hspace{0.33em}10}^{10}`$ and $`\mathrm{3.\hspace{0.33em}10}^{10}`$ respectively. The middle curve (continuous) with $`A`$ parameter equal to $`\mathrm{5.\hspace{0.17em}10}^7pc`$ illustrates the effective potential for a stable orbit located at a distance equal to the distance of the Sun from the center of the $`\phi `$ scalar field in our Galaxy i.e. $`r_{}=7.5kpc.`$

Figure 2. The potential $`𝒰_{eff}`$ (in units of $`mc^2`$) (see Eq.(63)) for different values of $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }`$ and fixed value of $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (chosen for $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }=k_{\vartheta \varsigma ,min}(r^w=1/2)`$, see Eq.(76)) as a function of the relative radius $`r^w=r/A`$. The curve for $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma ,min}(r^w=1/2)`$ (continuous line) has a minimum at $`r^w`$ equal to $`1/2`$ and a maximum at finite $`r^w`$ (equal to $`2.8`$).

Figure 3. The proper transversal velocity $`v_\tau ^{st}`$ (see Eq.(74)) of a particle (in units of the velocity of light c) moving along a stable circular orbit given by Eqs.(65),(66) for different (but fixed for each curve) values of $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }`$ as a function of the relative radius $`r^w=r/A`$. If $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2>\frac{1}{2}m^2c^2`$ then all values of the radius $`r^w`$ (or $`r_l^w=r_l/A`$ cf. Eq.(37)) are allowed for stable orbits. If $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma ,min}^2(r_{max}^w)k_{\vartheta \varsigma }^2<\frac{1}{2}m^2c^2`$ then the stable orbits, for fixed $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }`$ and angular momentum $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ chosen according to Eq.(68), may exist only up to a radius $`r_{max}`$ (see Eqs.(77),(75)). (As in Figure 2 $`r_{max}^w=1/2`$ (then $`r_0^w=3.5`$)). For $`m0`$ the curve drawn in dotted line has physical meaning only up to $`r_{max}^w=1/2.`$

Figure 4. The acceleration $`a_r`$ (in units of $`1/A`$) of a particle moving along a radial trajectory (see Eq.(80)). As in Figure 2 $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }`$ is chosen equal to $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma ,min}(r_{max}^w=1/2)`$. Consequently $`a_r=0`$ for the relative radius $`r^w=r_0^w=3.5`$ (see Eq.(75),(77)) and the “particle” is attracted to the center for all values of $`r^w<r_0^w`$ and repelled for $`r^w>r_0^w`$. For simplicity we have chosen $`r_o^w=r_o/A=r_0^w`$ (see text). For other curves the particle is attracted to the center ($`a_r<0`$) for all values of $`r^w`$.

Figure 5. Radial acceleration $`a_r`$ of a particle (see Eq.(80)) for $`k_{\vartheta \varsigma }=k_{\vartheta \varsigma ,min}(r_{max}=A/2)`$ where $`A=\mathrm{2.\hspace{0.33em}10}^5pc`$ has been chosen as typical for quasar-galaxy systems (see Table 1 in Section 3).

Figure 6. Doppler shift (maximal) $`z_D`$ caused by motion of a particle along a stable circular orbit (see Eq.(82)) for different values of internal momentum. The curve $`z_g`$ denotes the gravitational redshift (see Eq.(83)). Analogously as in Figure 3 the dotted line has physical meaning only up to $`r_{max}^w=1/2.`$

Figure 7. The combined effect of gravitational and Doppler redshifts (see Eq.(84)). Analogously as in Figure 3 the dotted line has physical meaning only up to $`r_{max}^w=1/2.`$

Figure 8. The ratio of the frequency $`\omega _{obs}`$ of the photon which reaches the observer to the frequency $`\omega _s`$ of the photon emitted from the source as a function of the relative distance $`r_s^w=\frac{r_s}{|A|}`$ of the source from the center of $`\phi `$ field ($`A<O`$).


format: text

text:
# The antikaon nuclear potential in hot and dense matter

## I Introduction

The study of the properties of hadrons in hot and dense matter is receiving a lot of attention in the last years, in connection to the experimental programs at SIS-GSI, SPS-CERN, RHIC-BNL and the forthcoming operation of LHC . A particular effort has been invested in understanding the properties of antikaons due to the direct implications they have in astrophysical phenomena. If the antikaon mass drops in matter below the electron chemical potential, a condensed fraction of $`K^{}`$ would appear , giving rise to a softer nuclear equation of state and to a substantial reduction of the maximum mass that neutron stars could sustain (see updated references in Ref. ).

There have been some attempts to extract the antikaon-nucleus potential from best-fit analysis of kaonic-atom data and some solutions favor very strongly attractive well depths of the order of 200 MeV at normal nuclear matter density . However, recent self-consistent calculations based on a chiral lagrangian  or meson-exchange potentials  only predict moderate attractive depths of 50 to 80 MeV. In addition, studies of kaonic atoms using the chiral $`\overline{K}N`$ amplitudes of Ref.  show that it is indeed possible to find a reasonable reproduction of the data with a relatively shallow antikaon-nucleus potential , albeit adding an additional moderate phenomenological piece . This has been recently corroborated by a calculation , where a good fit to both scattering $`K^{}p`$ data and kaonic-atom data only required to modify slightly the parameters of the chiral meson-baryon interaction model of Ref. . The lesson learned is that kaonic atom data do not really provide a suitable constraint on the antikaon-nucleus potential at normal nuclear matter density.

Heavy-ion collisions can also offer information on the modification of the properties of hadrons. In particular, the enhanced $`K^{}/K^+`$ ratio measured at GSI  can be understood assuming that the antikaons feel a strong attraction , although other interpretations in terms of the enhanced cross sections due to the shifting of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance to higher energies have also been advocated , a mechanism that was already suggested in Ref.  to explain the data of $`K^{}`$ absorption at rest on 12C .

In fact, the antikaon-nucleon amplitude in isospin $`I=0`$ is dominated by the presence of this $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonant structure, which in free space appears only 27 MeV below the $`\overline{K}N`$ threshold. The resonance is generated dynamically from a $`T`$-matrix scattering equation in coupled channels using a suitable meson-baryon potential. The coupling between the $`\overline{K}N`$ and $`\pi Y`$ ($`Y=\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) channels is essential to get the right dynamical behavior in free space. Relatedly, the in-medium properties of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ such as its position and its width, which in turn influence strongly the behavior of the antikaon-nucleus optical potential, are very sensitive to the many-body treatment of the medium effects. Previous works have shown, for instance, that a self-consistent treatment of the $`\overline{K}`$ self-energy had a strong influence on the scattering amplitudes  and, consequently, on the in-medium properties of the antikaon. The incorporation of the pion with its medium modified properties also proved to be important , although most works until now have ignored it .

In our previous work  we performed a study of the antikaon properties in the medium within a self-consistent dynamical model which used, as bare interaction, the meson-exchange potential of the Jülich group . Since antikaons are produced at finite momentum, we focussed on the effect of high partial waves, typically excluded in the chiral models . We note, however, that the p-waves have been incorporated recently in the chiral amplitudes , and a first estimation of their contribution to the in-medium properties of the antikaons has also been recently reported .

One must keep in mind that heavy-ion collisions produce dense and hot matter. Therefore, to learn about the meson properties in this environment, it is necessary to incorporate in the formalism not only the medium effects but also those associated with having a finite non-zero temperature. The purpose of the present work is, precisely, to develop a proper self-consistent calculation of the antikaon properties in a dense and hot medium, extending to finite $`T`$ our previous $`T=0`$ model . We will indeed show that the antikaon properties at finite $`T`$ depend very strongly on the treatment of the medium. The present work focuses on typical scenarios found in heavy-ion collisions at GSI. For this reason, results will be shown up to densities of twice nuclear saturation density and up to temperatures of 70 MeV.

We have organized the present paper as follows. In Sect. II we first review our formalism at $`T=0`$ and include some updated ingredients, such as the incorporation of the pion self-energy and the use of some slightly different prescriptions for the single-particle energies of the baryons. Next, we show how we treat the temperature effects, which amount to using the appropriate finite $`T`$ nucleon Pauli blocking factor, as well as using temperature dependent self-energies for the mesons (antikaons and pions) and the nucleons. Some lengthy derivations are relegated to the appendix. Our results are presented and discussed in Sect. III and the concluding remarks are given in Sect. IV.

## II FORMALISM

In this section we review the calculation of the single-particle potential of the $`\overline{K}`$ meson at $`T=0`$ in symmetric nuclear matter. In addition to the self-consistent incorporation of the $`\overline{K}`$ self-energy, as done in our previous work , we also include here the self-energy of the pion in the intermediate $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ states present in the construction of the $`\overline{K}N`$ effective interaction, since this was shown to be important in Ref. . In a further step, we extend the model to finite temperature, which affects the Pauli blocking of the nucleons in the intermediate states, as well as the dressing of mesons and baryons.

### A Revision of the $`T=0`$ formalism

In Ref. , the effective $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction in the nuclear medium ($`G`$-matrix) at $`T=0`$ was derived from a meson-baryon bare interaction built in the meson exchange framework . As the bare interaction permits transitions from the $`\overline{K}N`$ channel to the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ones, all having strangeness $`S=1`$, we are confronted with a coupled channel problem. Working in isospin coupled basis, the $`\overline{K}N`$ channel can have isospin $`I=0`$ or $`I=1`$, so the resultant $`G`$-matrices are classified according to the value of isospin. For $`I=0`$, $`\overline{K}N`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are the only channels available, while for $`I=1`$ the $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ channel is also allowed. In a schematic notation, each $`G`$-matrix fulfills the coupled channel equation

$`M_1B_1G(\mathrm{\Omega })M_2B_2`$ $`=M_1B_1V(\sqrt{s})M_2B_2`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{M_3B_3}{}}M_1B_1V(\sqrt{s})M_3B_3{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{M_3B_3}}{\mathrm{\Omega }E_{M_3}E_{B_3}+i\eta }}M_3B_3G(\mathrm{\Omega })M_2B_2,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the so-called starting energy, given in the lab frame, and $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the invariant center-of-mass energy. In Eq. (2), $`M_i`$ and $`B_i`$ represent, respectively, the possible mesons ($`\overline{K}`$, $`\pi `$) and baryons ($`N`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$), and their corresponding quantum numbers, such as coupled spin and isospin, and linear momentum. The function $`Q_{M_3B_3}`$ stands for the Pauli operator preventing the nucleons in the intermediate states from occupying already filled ones.

The prescription for the single-particle energies of all the mesons and baryons participating in the reaction and in the intermediate states is written as

$$E_{M_i(B_i)}(k)=\sqrt{k^2+m_{M_i(B_i)}^2}+U_{M_i(B_i)}(k,E_{M_i(B_i)}^{qp}),$$
(3)
where $`U_{M_i(B_i)}`$ is the single-particle potential of each meson (baryon) calculated at the real quasi-particle energy $`E_{M_i(B_i)}^{qp}`$. For baryons, this quasi-particle energy is given by

$$E_{B_i}^{qp}(k)=\sqrt{k^2+m_{B_i}^2}+U_{B_i}(k),$$
(4)
while, for mesons, it is obtained by solving the following equation

$$(E_{M_i}^{qp}(k))^2=k^2+m_{M_i}^2+\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Pi }_{M_i}(k,E_{M_i}^{qp}),$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{M_i}`$ is the meson self-energy.

The $`\overline{K}`$ single-particle potential in the Brueckner-Hartree-Fock approach is schematically given by

$$U_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},E_{\overline{K}}^{qp})=\underset{NF}{}\overline{K}NG_{\overline{K}N\overline{K}N}(\mathrm{\Omega }=E_N^{qp}+E_{\overline{K}}^{qp})\overline{K}N,$$
(6)
where the summation over nucleon states is limited by the nucleon Fermi momentum. The $`\overline{K}`$ self-energy is obtained from the optical potential through the relation

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},\omega )=2\sqrt{k_{\overline{K}}^2+m_{\overline{K}}^2}U_{\overline{k}}(k_{\overline{K}},\omega ).$$
(7)
As it can be easily seen from Eq. (6), since the $`\overline{K}N`$ effective interaction ($`G`$-matrix) depends on the $`\overline{K}`$ single-particle energy, which in turn depends on the $`\overline{K}`$ potential through Eq. (7), we are confronted with a self-consistency problem.

We proceed as in Ref. , where self-consistency for the optical potential was demanded at the quasi-particle energy. After self-consistency is reached, the complete $`\overline{K}`$ energy-and-momentum dependent self-energy of the $`\overline{K}`$ can be obtained, from which the $`\overline{K}`$ propagator

$$D_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},\omega )=\frac{1}{\omega ^2k_{\overline{K}}^2m_{\overline{K}}^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},\omega )},$$
(8)
and the corresponding spectral density, defined as

$$S_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{I}mD_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},\omega ),$$
(9)
can be derived. We note that our self-consistent procedure amounts to replacing in the $`\overline{K}`$ propagator the energy dependent self-energy, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},\omega )`$, by that evaluated at the quasiparticle energy, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},\omega =E_{\overline{K}}^{qp}(k_{\overline{K}}))`$. This is what we refer to as the quasi-particle self-consistent approach, which retains the position and the width of the peak of the $`\overline{K}`$ spectral function at each iteration. This simplification versus the more complete self-consistent job done in Refs.  allows one to perform analytically the energy integral of the intermediate loops, thus reducing the four-dimensional integral equation to a three-dimensional one.

In this paper, our model at $`T=0`$ has been reviewed by implementing some modifications in the properties of the baryons and mesons. Firstly, we have introduced slight modifications in the single-particle potential of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons, following the parameterization of Ref. ,

$$U_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\rho )=340\rho +1087.5\rho ^2,$$
(10)
which is more appropriate in the high density regime than the simple parameterization, linear in $`\rho `$, used previously.

For nucleons, we have used a relativistic $`\sigma \omega `$ model, where the scalar and vector coupling constants, $`g_s`$ and $`g_v`$ respectively, are density dependent . This is a simple way to mimic results from Dirac-Brueckner-Hartree-Fock calculations.

The most important modification comes from the introduction of the pion self-energy, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pi (k_\pi ,\omega )`$, in the intermediate $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ states present in the construction of the $`\overline{K}N`$ effective interaction. The pion is dressed with the momentum and energy-dependent self-energy already used in Ref. . This self-energy incorporates a p-wave piece built up from the coupling to $`1p1h`$, $`1\mathrm{\Delta }1h`$ and $`2p2h`$ excitations, plus short-range correlations. The model also contains a small and constant s-wave part (see the appendix for details and appropriate references of the model).

As in the case of the $`\overline{K}`$ meson, we can define a pion optical potential, $`U_\pi (k_\pi ,\omega )`$, from the complete $`\pi `$ self-energy. We use

$$U_\pi (k_\pi ,\omega )=\sqrt{k_\pi ^2+m_\pi ^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_\pi (k_\pi ,\omega )}\sqrt{k_\pi ^2+m_\pi ^2},$$
(11)
which ensures that, when inserted in the $`G`$-matrix equation, one is using a quasiparticle approximation to the spectral function, with the peak located at the right quasiparticle energy defined in Eq. (5). Due to the small mass of the pion, it has not been possible to retain only the first term in the expansion of the first square root of Eq. (11), as we did for the $`\overline{K}`$ meson.

The spectral density for $`\pi `$ is calculated from Eqs. (8) and (9), by replacing the $`\overline{K}`$ properties for those of the $`\pi `$.

### B Temperature effects

The introduction of temperature in the calculation of the $`G`$-matrix affects the Pauli blocking of the intermediate nucleon states, as well as the dressing of mesons and baryons. The $`G`$-matrix equation at finite $`T`$ reads formally as in Eq. (2), but replacing

$`Q_{MB}`$ $``$ $`Q_{MB}(T)`$ (12)
$`G(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $``$ $`G(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ (13)
$`E_M,E_B`$ $``$ $`E_M(T),E_B(T).`$ (14)
The function $`Q_{MB}(T)`$ is unity for meson-hyperon states while, for $`\overline{K}N`$ states, it follows the law $`1n(k_N,T)`$, where $`n(k_N,T)`$ is the nucleon Fermi distribution at the corresponding temperature

$`n(k_N,T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{e}^{\left(\frac{E_N(k_N,T)\mu }{T}\right)}}}.`$ (15)
The nucleonic spectrum at finite $`T`$, $`E_N(k_N,T)`$, is obtained following a $`\sigma \omega `$ model that will be described below and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential obtained imposing the normalization property

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle d^3k_Nn(k_N,T)},`$ (16)
at each density $`\rho `$, where $`\nu =4`$ is the degeneration factor of symmetric nuclear matter.

As in the $`T=0`$ case, we perform an angle average of the Pauli operator $`Q_{\overline{K}N}(T)`$, a strategy which facilitates the solution of the $`G`$-matrix equation in a partial wave basis. We first define $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ as the total and relative momenta of the $`\overline{K}N`$ pair, respectively,

$$\stackrel{}{P}=\stackrel{}{k}_{\overline{K}}+\stackrel{}{k}_N,\stackrel{}{k}=\frac{m_N\stackrel{}{k}_{\overline{K}}m_{\overline{K}}\stackrel{}{k}_N}{m_{\overline{K}}+m_N},$$
(17)
which allow us to rewrite the nucleon and antikaon momenta in the laboratory system, $`\stackrel{}{k}_N`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_{\overline{K}}`$, as

$$\stackrel{}{k}_N=\stackrel{}{k}+\frac{\xi }{1+\xi }\stackrel{}{P},\stackrel{}{k}_{\overline{K}}=\stackrel{}{k}+\frac{1}{1+\xi }\stackrel{}{P},$$
(18)
where $`m_{\overline{K}}`$, $`m_N`$ are the kaon, nucleon masses, respectively, and $`\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{m_N}{m_{\overline{K}}}}`$. In terms of the total and relative momenta, the Pauli operator $`Q_{\overline{K}N}(k_N,T)`$ reads $`Q_{\overline{K}N}(\frac{\xi }{1+\xi }\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{k},T)`$ , which shows explicitly the dependence on the angle between $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$. This dependence is eliminated in the $`G`$-matrix equation by replacing $`Q_{\overline{K}N}`$ by its angle average

$$\overline{Q}_{\overline{K}N}(P,k,T)=\frac{1}{2}_1^1𝑑xQ_{\overline{K}N}(\stackrel{}{P},\stackrel{}{k},T)=\frac{1}{2B}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{e}^A+\mathrm{e}^B}{\mathrm{e}^A+\mathrm{e}^B},$$
(19)
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{T}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2+(\frac{\xi }{\xi +1})^2P^2}{2m_NT}}`$ (20)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k\xi P}{T(1+\xi )m_N}}.`$ (21)
Temperature also affects the properties of the particles involved in the process. The $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential at a given temperature is calculated according to

$$U_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},E_{\overline{K}}^{qp},T)=d^3k_Nn(k_N,T)\overline{K}NG_{\overline{K}N\overline{K}N}(\mathrm{\Omega }=E_N^{qp}+E_{\overline{K}}^{qp},T)\overline{K}N.$$
(22)
Once more, this is a self-consistent problem for $`U_{\overline{K}}`$. More explicitly, using the partial wave components of the $`G`$-matrix, we obtain (similarly to Ref. )

$`U_{\overline{K}}`$ $`(k_{\overline{K}},E_{\overline{K}}^{qp},T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{L,J,I}{}}(2J+1)(2I+1){\displaystyle n(k_N,T)k_N^2𝑑k_N}`$ (24)
$`\times (\overline{K}N);\overline{k}|G^{LJI}(\overline{P},E_{\overline{K}}^{qp}(k_{\overline{K}})+E_N^{qp}(k_N),T)|(\overline{K}N);\overline{k},`$
where $`\overline{k}`$ and $`\overline{P}`$ are the relative and center-of-mass momentum, respectively, averaged over the angle between the external $`\overline{K}`$ momentum in the lab system, $`k_{\overline{K}}`$, and the internal momentum of the nucleon, $`k_N`$. In the actual calculations, we include partial waves up to $`L=4`$.

We also have to pay attention to the temperature effects on the properties of the other hadrons participating in the process. We have to be especially careful with the pion, since its small mass makes it very sensitive to variations in its properties. As mentioned before, the pion self-energy at $`T=0`$ has been obtained following a model that includes the coupling to $`1p1h`$, $`1\mathrm{\Delta }1h`$ and $`2p2h`$ excitations. The details on how this model is modified by the effect of a finite temperature are presented in the appendix.

In the case of nucleons, we have introduced temperature effects following the Walecka $`\sigma \omega `$ model , using the density dependent scalar and vector coupling constants at $`T=0`$ given in Ref. . We have obtained the baryonic chemical potential, $`\mu `$, the effective mass, $`m^{}`$, and the vector potential, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, simultaneously, fixing the temperature and the density. The value of $`\mu `$ is defined via the baryonic density, $`\rho `$, \[see Eqs. (15) and (16)\], where $`E_N(k_N,T)`$ is the nucleonic energy spectrum,

$`E_N(k_N,T)=\sqrt{k_N^2+m^{}(T)^2}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,`$ (25)
and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ and $`m^{}`$ are defined as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_v}{m_v}}\right)^2\rho `$ (26)
$`m^{}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`m\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_s}{m_s}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle d^3k_N\frac{m^{}(T)}{\sqrt{k_N^2+m^{}(T)^2}}n(k_N,T)}.`$ (27)
One clearly sees that, given $`g_s`$ and $`g_v`$ at $`T=0`$, and a fixed $`\rho `$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ is easily obtained. On the other hand, a simultaneous solution of $`\mu `$ and $`m^{}`$ is needed to determine the nucleonic spectrum.

We note that the antiparticle contribution to the density $`\rho `$ has been proven to be negligible, so it is not considered here. We have not considered either changes in the hyperon properties induced by the use of a finite temperature. We have checked, in a schematic Skyrme-Hartree-Fock calculation, that these changes are small within the temperature range explored in this work.

## III Results

We start this section by studying the effect of the temperature on the nucleon spectrum and the pion self-energy, both of them crucial ingredients for the calculation of $`U_{\overline{K}}`$. In Fig. 1, the nucleon spectrum and the nucleon potential, defined as $`U_N=E_N\sqrt{k_N^2+m_N^2}`$, are given as functions of the nucleon momentum for various temperatures at the nuclear saturation density $`\rho _0=0.17\mathrm{fm}^3`$. The lowest curves in both graphs correspond to $`T=0`$ and , as the value of the temperature increases up to $`T=70`$ MeV (solid lines), the attractive potential gets reduced from around $`80\mathrm{MeV}`$ to $`40\mathrm{MeV}`$ at $`k_N=0`$. Consequently, the energy spectrum for $`k_N=0`$ goes from $`860\mathrm{MeV}`$ to $`900\mathrm{MeV}`$. A similar trend is observed for higher values of the nucleon momentum. This behavior is well known for the $`\sigma \omega `$ models, as it is reported in Ref. .

The next two figures give us information about the pion self-energy and how it is modified by temperature. Figure 2 displays the spectral density of the pion as a function of energy at nuclear saturation density, $`\rho _0=0.17\mathrm{fm}^3`$, for two pion momenta, $`k_\pi =200,400\mathrm{MeV}`$, and two different temperatures, $`T=0\mathrm{MeV}`$ (dotted lines) and $`T=70\mathrm{MeV}`$ (solid lines). At $`T=0`$, the structure of the $`1p1h`$ excitations can be seen very clearly on the left side of the quasiparticle peak. This structure smooths out as temperature increases. The effect of $`1\mathrm{\Delta }1h`$ excitations is more difficult to be identified for these two momenta. It is only somewhat appreciated at $`T=0`$ by a slower fall of the spectral function with energy to the right of the quasiparticle peak. The effect of temperature is to move the quasiparticle peak slightly away from the $`T=0`$ position towards lower energies, making it noticeably wider.

In Fig. 3 we show the pion optical potential as defined in Eq. (11). The real and imaginary parts of the pion optical potential at nuclear saturation density are displayed as functions of the pion momentum, $`k_\pi `$, for different temperatures. The dotted lines correspond to $`T=0`$, and the results for the highest temperature studied, $`T=70\mathrm{MeV}`$, are represented by the solid ones. In the region of pion momenta explored here, the imaginary part shows a stronger dependence on the temperature than the real part, which is practically $`T`$-independent. Note that the quasiparticle energy, which defines the position of the quasiparticle peak in the spectral function, is determined through the real part of the pion self-energy \[see Eq. (5)\], and it is not directly obtained from $`\mathrm{Re}U_\pi `$, where $`U_\pi `$ is given in Eq. (11). This explains that, while $`\mathrm{Re}U_\pi `$ at $`k_\pi =400`$ MeV is practically the same for $`T=0`$ and $`70`$ MeV, the location of the peak differs more markedly. Similarly, the width (or height) of the peak for the different temperatures cannot be directly calculated from $`\mathrm{Im}U_\pi `$, but has to be obtained from $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_\pi `$ at the quasiparticle energy.

Once the pion self-energy is introduced in the calculation of the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential, its effects can be studied by comparing the results obtained by dressing only the $`\overline{K}`$ mesons with those in which not only the $`\overline{K}`$ mesons but also the pions in the intermediate meson-baryon states are dressed. In Fig. 4, the real and imaginary parts of the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential at nuclear saturation density are shown as functions of the antikaon momentum, $`k_{\overline{K}}`$, for different temperatures. On the left panels, only the $`\overline{K}`$ mesons have been dressed, while the results on the right panels incorporate, in addition, the dressing of the pions. Dotted lines correspond to $`T=0`$ and solid lines to $`T=70\mathrm{MeV}`$. At $`T=0`$ we find the same qualitative effects from dressing the pions as those found by the chiral model  shown in Ref. . When the pions are dressed, the real part of the antikaon potential becomes less attractive and the imaginary part loses structure. This behavior is a direct consequence of a smoother energy dependence of the $`\overline{K}N`$ effective interaction when the pions are dressed \[see Fig. 4 in Ref. \], as well as to the fact that, due to the less attractive antikaon potential, one explores this interaction at higher energies, further away from the resonant structure. When temperature increases, the optical potential loses attraction and absorptive power, although the effect is moderate. The reason is obvious: as it can be seen from Eq. (22), and assuming a weak dependence of the effective interaction $`G_{\overline{K}N}`$ on temperature, at a non-vanishing $`T`$, one is averaging over higher momentum states, where this interaction is weaker. Nevertheless, at sufficient high $`T`$ \[see the $`70\mathrm{MeV}`$ results on the right panels\], one starts to gain some attraction and absorption. Evidently, this is a consequence of the $`T`$-dependence of the effective interaction. To visualize this additional dependence on $`T`$, we show in Fig. 5, the effective $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction for the channels $`L=0`$, $`I=0`$ and $`L=0`$, $`I=1`$, at zero center-of-mass momentum, for two different temperatures, $`T=0`$ (dotted lines) and $`T=70\mathrm{MeV}`$ (solid lines). The general trends of the effective $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction at these two temperatures are similar but there are small differences that explain the behavior observed in the previous figure for the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential. Indeed, the $`\overline{K}N`$ amplitudes involved in the construction of the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential correspond to energies above 1300 MeV and, in that region, the magnitude of the real part of the $`T=70`$ amplitudes is larger than the $`T=0`$ ones, thereby compensating the loss of attraction induced by the higher relative momentum components present in the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential at finite $`T`$.

It is especially interesting to observe the structure in the $`I=0`$ amplitude appearing below the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ threshold, a region in energy not explored in previous works . It appears that the resonance in the medium, previously identified with the bump in the imaginary part around 1400 MeV, might be more appropriately identified with the more pronounced peak appearing around 1300 MeV. Whether this is a new resonance (an additional pole in the complex plane) or just a reflection of the same one but distorted by the presence of a cusp at the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ threshold is something that deserves further study. At the moment, we can only say that there is an enhanced probability of finding a state with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-like quantum numbers around 1300 MeV. We note that this would have been signaled by a pole in the real axis if neither the pions nor the antikaons would have been dressed, since in this case there would not have been allowed states to decay to. In the self-consistent many-body approach used here, the states to which this peaked structure can decay are of the type $`\pi (ph)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ or $`\overline{K}(\mathrm{\Lambda }h\pi )N`$, where in parentheses we have denoted an example for the component of the $`\pi `$ and $`\overline{K}`$ mesons that could show up at energies below the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ threshold.

We have also studied the contributions of angular momentum components larger than $`L=0`$ to the antikaon optical potential, as we did in our $`T=0`$ work . In Fig. 6, we display the contribution of the different partial waves to the real and imaginary parts of the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential at nuclear saturation density and a temperature of $`T=70\mathrm{MeV}`$. We observe that, adding the higher partial waves to the $`L=0`$ contribution, produces significant changes. The momentum dependence of the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential becomes smoother, the real part becomes more attractive, and the imaginary part increases by about $`25\%`$ at $`k_{\overline{K}}=0`$ and by $`50\%`$ at momenta around $`500\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}`$.

In Fig. 7 we plot the real and imaginary parts of $`U_{\overline{K}}`$ as functions of temperature for different densities. It is interesting to observe that $`U_{\overline{K}}`$ depends very weakly on temperature and stays attractive over the whole range of temperatures explored. This is qualitatively different from the results shown in Fig. 2 of Ref. , where the potential becomes repulsive at a finite temperature of $`T=30\mathrm{MeV}`$ for $`\rho =\rho _0`$. We note that, although in that work a self-consistent scheme was also applied, the only source of medium effects in their Fig. 2 is the Pauli blocking of the nucleons in the intermediate states. As noted in Ref. , the transition from attraction at $`T=0`$ to repulsion at finite $`T`$ is in fact a consequence of the weakened Pauli blocking effects associated to a thermal smearing of the Fermi surface, such that eventually one is recovering the $`\rho =0`$ repulsive behavior. We have checked that, under the same conditions, we obtain the same qualitative behavior. Therefore, the results shown in Fig. 7 demonstrate that self-consistency effects have a tremendous influence on the behavior of the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential with temperature. In particular, for temperatures as high as 70 MeV, the real part of $`U_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}}=0)`$ at $`\rho _0`$ is very similar to that at $`T=0`$, having lost only about 10 MeV of attraction. Hence, our results, based on a fully self-consistent calculation, do not support the claims that the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential might be repulsive at finite $`T`$. The attraction found here for the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential at finite $`\rho `$ and $`T`$, together with enhanced in-medium $`K^{}`$ production cross sections , may help to explain the enhanced $`K^{}/K^+`$ ratio measured at GSI by the KaoS collaboration .

Finally, in Fig. 8 we present the $`\overline{K}`$ spectral function as a function of energy for two momentum values, $`k_{\overline{K}}=0`$ and 400 MeV/c, at $`T=0`$ (dotted lines) and $`T=70`$ MeV (solid lines). The structures observed on the left hand side of the peaks, especially visible for the $`T=0`$ spectral functions, are due to the excitation of hyperon-hole states with $`\overline{K}`$ quantum numbers that are present when the $`L=1`$ components of the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction are incorporated. We note, however, that the highest peak observed in the $`T=0`$ spectral function for $`k_{\overline{K}}=0`$ corresponds to the enhancement observed in the $`I=0`$ $`\overline{K}N`$ amplitude below the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ threshold. The inclusion of a finite $`T`$ washes most of these structures out, and the resulting spectral functions show basically a single pronounced peak.

## IV Conclusions

We have studied the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction in hot and dense matter by extending to finite $`T`$ our previous $`T=0`$ model, which is based on a self-consistent coupled-channel calculation taking, as bare interaction, the meson-exchange potential of the Jülich group.

Although more moderate than in the $`T=0`$ case, we have also found at finite temperature that dressing the pions in the intermediate $`\pi Y`$ loops has a strong influence on the $`\overline{K}N`$ amplitudes and, consequently, on the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential.

Partial waves higher than the $`L=0`$ component of the $`\overline{K}N`$ effective interaction contribute significantly to the antikaon optical potential at finite temperature. The real part gains attraction and the imaginary part becomes more absorptive. At a momentum of 500 MeV/c, the contribution of the $`L>0`$ components is as large as that of the $`L=0`$ ones.

We have found that self-consistency effects have a tremendous influence on the behavior of the antikaon optical potential with temperature. At normal saturation density, the optical potential remains attractive for temperatures as large as 70 MeV, contrary to what would be observed if only Pauli blocking medium effects were considered, which would give a repulsive optical potential at these high temperatures.

In general, temperature effects smear out the different observables with respect to the $`T=0`$ case. For instance, the antikaon spectral function at finite temperature shows much less structure than that at $`T=0`$, reducing its shape basically to a peak located at the quasiparticle energy.

The attractive potential found here for finite density, finite temperature and finite momentum, i.e. for the typical scenario found in heavy-ion collisions at GSI, is especially interesting to understand the enhanced $`K^{}/K^+`$ ratio measured by the KaoS collaboration at GSI, together with other mechanisms that have been already suggested in the literature, such as an enhanced production of $`K^{}`$ through $`\pi Y`$ collisions. Work along these lines is in progress.

## Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to Dr. Jürgen Schaffner-Bielich and Dr. Wolfgang Cassing for useful discussions. L.T. wishes to acknowledge the hospitality extended to her at Brookhaven National Laboratory. This work is partially supported by DGICYT project PB98-1247 and by the Generalitat de Catalunya project 2000SGR00024. L.T. also wishes to acknowledge support from the Ministerio de Educación y Cultura (Spain).

## Appendix

In this appendix we show how to obtain the pion self-energy at finite temperature. First, we will review the formalism at $`T=0`$.

When the pion propagates in nuclear matter, it scatters with the surrounding nucleons and the basic first order response of the medium to the propagation of the pion field is the excitation of a particle-hole pair. In the region of intermediate energies ($`T_\pi =0300`$ MeV), $`\mathrm{\Delta }hole`$ excitation also takes place due to the excitation of internal degrees of freedom of the nucleon. Therefore, to obtain the pion self-energy in symmetric nuclear matter at $`T=0`$, both effects have to be taken into account. We follow the nomenclature, parameters and approximations mentioned in the appendix of Ref. . According to this reference, the two contributions to the pion self-energy can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_N}{m_\pi }}\right)^2\stackrel{}{q}^2U(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)`$ (A.1)
$`U(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)=U_N(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)+U_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q},q^0),`$ (A.2)
where $`U(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)`$ is the sum of $`1p1h`$ and $`1\mathrm{\Delta }1h`$ Lindhard functions, which at $`T=0`$ read

$`U_N(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)=`$ (A.3)
$`\nu _N{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\left[\frac{\theta (k_F|\stackrel{}{k}|)(1\theta (k_F|\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q}|))}{q^0+E_N(\stackrel{}{k})E_N(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q})+i\eta }+\frac{\theta (k_F|\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q}|)(1\theta (k_F|\stackrel{}{k}|))}{q^0E_N(\stackrel{}{k})+E_N(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q})+i\eta }\right]}`$ (A.4)
$`U`$ $`{}_{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)=`$ (A.6)
$`\nu _\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \left[\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\theta (k_F|\stackrel{}{k}|)}{q^0+E_N(\stackrel{}{k})E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q})+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)}{2}}+\frac{\theta (k_F|\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q}|)}{q^0+E_N(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q})E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{k})+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)}{2}}\right]},`$
where $`\nu _N`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contain the sum over spin-isospin degrees of freedom in symmetric nuclear matter. In the case of $`1\mathrm{\Delta }1h`$, it also includes the decay constant $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ fitted experimentally. Hence,

$`\nu _N`$ $`=`$ $`4,`$ (A.7)
$`\nu _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{f_N}}\right)^2,{\displaystyle \frac{f_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{f_N}}=2.13.`$ (A.8)
The quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{q},\pm q^0)`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ width, which we take to depend only on the external variables of the pion, as in Ref. .

The definitions of the Lindhard functions, Eqs. (A.3) and (A.6), have been written explicitly here in order to facilitate the comparison with the finite $`T`$ case. On the other hand, the analytical results can be found in the appendix of Ref. . We also include in the pion self-energy the coupling to $`2p2h`$ excitations, following the phase-space approach of Ref. .

Once $`1p1h`$ ($`2p2h`$) and $`1\mathrm{\Delta }1h`$ excitations are computed, form-factors and short-range correlations are introduced. One pion exchange provides a good description of the nucleon-nucleon interaction for long distances, but this is not the only ingredient. At shorter distances other effects must be considered, such as correlated and uncorrelated two pion exchange and the exchange of heavier mesons. The final expression for the pion self-energy reads

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)`$ $`=`$ $`F(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_N}{m_\pi }}\right)^2\stackrel{}{q}^2{\displaystyle \frac{U(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)}{1(\frac{f_N}{m_\pi })^2g^{}U(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)}}`$ (A.9)
$`U(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)`$ $`=`$ $`U_N(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)+U_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q},q^0),`$ (A.10)
where $`F(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)`$ is the form factor,

$`F(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_\pi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(q^{02}\stackrel{}{q}^2)}}\right)^2`$ (A.11)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`1200\mathrm{MeV},`$ (A.12)
and $`g^{}`$ the Landau-Migdal parameter taken from the particle-hole interaction described in Ref. , which includes $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ exchange modulated by the effect of nuclear short-range correlations.

The pion self-energy also includes a s-wave piece

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(\rho )_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{wave}}=4\pi (1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi }{m_N}})b_0\rho ,`$ (A.13)
with $`b_0=\frac{0.0285}{m_\pi }`$, taken from the parameterization of Ref.  , which is equivalent to the results of Ref. .

### A $`1p1h`$ and $`1\mathrm{\Delta }1h`$ Lindhard functions at finite temperature

The effect of temperature in the pion self-energy comes from the modification of the Fermi sea. At a given temperature, nucleons are distributed following the corresponding Fermi-distribution. Then, $`U(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)`$ transforms into

$`U`$ $`(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)=U_N(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)+U_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)`$ (A.14)
with

$`U_N(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)=`$ (A.15)
$`\nu _N{\displaystyle \left[\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{n(\stackrel{}{k},T)(1n(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},T))}{q^0+E_N(\stackrel{}{k})E_N(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q})+i\eta }+\frac{n(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},T)(1n(\stackrel{}{k},T))}{q^0E_N(\stackrel{}{k})+E_N(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q})+i\eta }\right]}`$ (A.16)
and

$`U`$ $`{}_{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)=`$ (A.18)
$`\nu _\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \left[\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{n(\stackrel{}{k},T)}{q^0+E_N(\stackrel{}{k})E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q})+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(q^0,\stackrel{}{q})}{2}}+\frac{n(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},T)}{q^0+E_N(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q})E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{k})+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)}{2}}\right]},`$
where the step function $`\theta `$ for nucleons has been substituted by the distribution $`n(\stackrel{}{k},T)`$ at the corresponding temperature.

The imaginary part of $`U_N(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)`$ at finite temperature can be obtained analytically

$`\mathrm{Im}U_N(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Im}U_N^D(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)+\mathrm{Im}U_N^C(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)=\mathrm{Im}U_N^D(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)\left(1+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{q^0}{T}}\right)`$ (A.19)
$`\mathrm{Im}U_N(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\pi \rho {\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2T}{k_F^3|\stackrel{}{q}|}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1n(p^+,T)}{1n(p^{},T)}}\mathrm{cotanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^0}{2T}}\right)`$ (A.21)
$`p^+={\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi }{|\stackrel{}{q}|}}\left|q^0+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{2m_\pi }}\right|,p^{}={\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi }{|\stackrel{}{q}|}}\left|q^0{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{2m_\pi }}\right|,`$
where $`\mathrm{Im}U_N^D(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}U_N^C(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)`$ are the imaginary parts of the direct and crossed contributions (first and second terms on the r.h.s. of Eq. (A.15), respectively).

The real part of $`U_N(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)`$ is obtained via the dispersion relation

$`\mathrm{Re}U_N(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}P{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega ^{}\frac{\mathrm{Im}U_N^D(\omega ^{},\stackrel{}{q},T)}{q^0\omega ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}P{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega ^{}\frac{\mathrm{Im}U_N^C(\omega ^{},\stackrel{}{q},T)}{q^0+\omega ^{}}},`$ (A.22)
or, in a more compact form,

$`\mathrm{Re}U_N(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}P{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega ^{}\frac{\mathrm{Im}U_N(\omega ^{},\stackrel{}{q},T)\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\omega ^{}}{2T}\right)}{q^0\omega ^{}}}.`$ (A.23)
Eqs. (A.21) and (A.23) define the nucleon Lindhard function at finite $`T`$.

As mentioned in the appendix of Ref. , the $`1\mathrm{\Delta }1h`$ Lindhard function at $`T=0`$, $`U_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q},q^0)`$, can be derived analytically by neglecting the difference of $`\stackrel{}{k}^2`$ terms in

$`E_N(\stackrel{}{k})E_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{k}\pm \stackrel{}{q})={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}^2}{2m_N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}^2}{2m_\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{2m_\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}}{m_\mathrm{\Delta }}}+m_Nm_\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (A.24)
and assuming that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ width only depends on the external variables. We perform the same approximations at finite $`T`$. Redefining $`\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}`$ in the second term on the r.h.s of Eq. (A.18), such that it becomes the same as the first one but changing $`q^0q^0`$, we finally arrive at

$`U_\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{q},q^0,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{f_N}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{qk_F^3}}{\displaystyle 𝑑kkn(k,T)\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z^++1}{z^+1}\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z^{}+1}{z^{}1}\right)\right]}`$ (A.25)
$`z^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{\Delta }}{qk}}\left(\pm q^0{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{2m_\mathrm{\Delta }}}(m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_N)+i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pm q^0,\stackrel{}{q})}{2}}\right).`$ (A.26)