text:
# Interaction of High-Velocity Pulsars with Supernova Remnant Shells

## 1 Introduction

A supernova explosion of a massive star will result in an expanding supernova remnant (SNR). In some cases the fossil of the progenitor star is a pulsar moving at high velocity. Even though the precise physical mechanism responsible for imparting a large kick velocity to single radio pulsars at birth has not been identified, observations of the pulsar distribution with respect to the mid-plane of the galaxy indicate that they are born with a velocity in the range $`V_{\mathrm{psr}}1001000`$ km/s (Harrison et al. 1992; Lyne & Lorimer 1994). A similar range of values is obtained from a sample of SNR-pulsar associations (Frail et al. 1994).

The expansion of a SNR is decelerated due to mass-loading by swept up interstellar medium (ISM) or by material from a progenitor wind. As the pulsar moves with a constant velocity it will ultimately break through the SNR shell. Two observed systems are often presented as an illustration of this scenario:

CTB80: in this supernova remnant the pulsar PSR B1951+32 is located (in projection) just inside the outer edge of the remnant. The spectral index of the synchrotron emission in the vicinity of the pulsar system indicates that there is a plerionic nebula around the pulsar, see for example Strom (1987) and Strom & Stappers (2000).

G5.4-1.2: in this case the pulsar is located well outside the supernova remnant. At radio frequencies an emission bridge appears to connect the pulsar B1757-24 and the associated pulsar wind nebula (PWN) with the supernova remnant (Frail & Kulkarni 1991), suggesting a physical association between the supernova remnant and the pulsar. It should be pointed out, however, that a new upper limit on the proper motion of B1757-24 (Gaensler & Frail 2000) puts the component of the pulsar velocity in the plane of the sky at $`V_{\mathrm{psr}}600`$ km/s for an assumed distance of 5 kpc. This leads to a discrepancy between the characteristic pulsar age, obtained from its spin period derivative ($`P/2\dot{P}16`$ kyr), and the dynamical age obtained from the offset distance $`R_{\mathrm{psr}}`$ from the center of G5.4-1.2 ($`R_{\mathrm{psr}}/V_{\mathrm{psr}}39`$ kyr).

Both systems are clearly brightened at radio wavelengths near the position of the pulsar, and it has been suggested that the associated pulsar wind is rejuvenating the radio emission from the SNR shell by the injection of fresh relativistic electrons (Shull et al. 1989). In this paper we will investigate the hydrodynamical aspects of the interaction between a pulsar wind and a SNR shell.

Most pulsars have a lifetime ($`10^610^7`$ yr) which is much larger than the age $`<10^4`$ yr of a SNR in the Sedov phase. Therefore pulsars will remain visible long after the associated SNR has dissolved into the interstellar medium. The pulsar then moves as an isolated pulsar through the interstellar medium, and can form a pulsar wind nebula bow shock system. A typical example of such a system is the Guitar Nebula around PSR B2224+65 which has been detected both in H$`\alpha `$ (Cordes et al. 1993) and in X-rays (Romani et al. 1997), but which has no associated SNR.

In this paper we consider the case where the pulsar’s kick velocity is sufficiently high so that it leaves the supernova remnant while it is still in the Sedov stage. We describe three different stages in the evolution of the pulsar-SNR system: (1) the stage where the PWN/bow shock resides inside the SNR, (2) the PWN/bow shock breaking through the shell of the SNR and (3) the stage where the PWN/bow shock moves through the ISM.

## 2 Physics of a PWN bow shock inside a SNR

### 2.1 Dynamics of the pulsar/SNR system

In rapidly rotating (young or recycled) pulsars, it is believed that a pulsar wind carries away most of the spindown luminosity,

$$L=I\mathrm{\Omega }\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }},$$

of a pulsar with rotation period $`P=2\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and moment of inertia $`I`$. This relativistic wind is presumably generated in the pulsar magnetosphere, and accelerates electrons, positrons and possibly nuclei to ultra-relativistic speeds.

The pulsar wind blows a bubble or pulsar wind nebula (PWN) into the surrounding medium. This PWN is initially located well within the interior of the SNR created at the birth of the neutron star. During the free expansion stage of the SNR evolution the typical expansion speed of the stellar ejecta as determined by the mechanical energy $`E_{\mathrm{snr}}`$ released in the explosion and the ejecta mass $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}`$,

$$V_{\mathrm{ej}}\sqrt{\frac{10}{3}\frac{E_{\mathrm{snr}}}{M_{\mathrm{ej}}}}\mathrm{10\hspace{0.33em}000}\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s},$$

is generally much larger than the kick velocity of the pulsar. As a result the PWN is located relatively close to the center of the SNR at this stage. In this regime, the results of our earlier, spherically symmetric simulations (van der Swaluw et al. 2001) are expected to remain approximately valid. Only when the SNR expansion slows down as it enters the Sedov stage after some $`500\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}000}\mathrm{yr}`$, a situation is possible where the pulsar position becomes strongly excentric with respect to the SNR.

The Sedov stage of SNR expansion lasts until internal (radiative) cooling becomes important. The SNR then enters the so-called pressure-driven snowplow (PDS) stage. The relevant transition time is calculated by Blondin et al. (1998):

$$t_{\mathrm{PDS}}=2.9\times 10^4E_{51}^{4/17}n_0^{9/17}\mathrm{yr}.$$
(1)
Here $`E_{51}`$ is the explosion energy $`E_{\mathrm{snr}}`$ in units of $`10^{51}`$ ergs and $`n_0`$ denotes the hydrogen number density in the ISM.

We will describe the physics of a pulsar wind interaction with the shell of a SNR in the Sedov stage. The results presented below only apply for certain range of values for the pulsar velocity $`V_{\mathrm{psr}}`$. Equating the distance traveled by the pulsar,

$$R_{\mathrm{psr}}=V_{\mathrm{psr}}t,$$

with the radius for a SNR embedded in a homogeneous interstellar medium of density $`\rho _{\mathrm{ism}}`$ in the Sedov stage,

$$R_{\mathrm{snr}}1.15\left(\frac{E_{\mathrm{snr}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{ism}}}\right)^{1/5}t^{2/5},$$
(2)
one gets the crossing time for the pulsar:

$$t_{\mathrm{cr}}=1.27\left(\frac{E_{\mathrm{snr}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{ism}}V_{\mathrm{psr}}^5}\right)^{1/3},$$
(3)
which is

$$t_{\mathrm{cr}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1.4}\times 10^4E_{51}^{1/3}V_{1000}^{5/3}n_0^{1/3}\mathrm{yr}.$$
(4)
Here $`V_{1000}`$ is the velocity of the pulsar in units of 1,000 km/sec, and $`n_0`$ the hydrogen number density of the ISM in units of $`\mathrm{cm}^3`$. The requirement $`t_{\mathrm{cr}}t_{\mathrm{PDS}}`$ yields the minimum velocity a pulsar needs in order to break out of the SNR while the latter is still in the Sedov stage:

$$V_{\mathrm{psr}}650n_0^{2/17}E_{51}^{1/17}\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}.$$
(5)
Although this is a rather high value, it is still in the range of values observed by Harrison et al. (1992).

One can use the Rankine-Hugoniot relations to determine the pressure just behind the Sedov-Taylor blast wave bounding the SNR (assuming a strong shock and a gas with specific heat ratio $`\gamma =5/3`$)

$$P_{\mathrm{sh}}=\frac{3}{4}\rho _{\mathrm{ism}}V_{\mathrm{snr}}^2,$$
(6)
where

$$V_{\mathrm{snr}}\frac{\mathrm{d}R_{\mathrm{snr}}}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{2}{5}\frac{R_{\mathrm{snr}}}{t}$$

is the SNR expansion speed. Using this expression together with expression (3) for the crossing time and the Sedov solution (2), one can derive the following equations valid at the moment of break-through. The speed of the pulsar is related to the SNR expansion speed by

$$V_{\mathrm{psr}}=\frac{5}{2}V_{\mathrm{snr}},$$
(7)
while the material in the shell behind the SNR blast wave moves with a velocity

$$V_{\mathrm{sh}}=\frac{3}{4}V_{\mathrm{snr}}.$$
(8)
This corresponds to a relative speed between pulsar and post-shock material equal to

$$V_{\mathrm{rel}}V_{\mathrm{psr}}V_{\mathrm{sh}}=\frac{7}{4}V_{\mathrm{snr}}.$$
(9)
The density in the shell is roughly the post-shock density for a strong shock, $`\rho _{\mathrm{sh}}=4\rho _{\mathrm{ism}}`$, so the Mach number $`_{\mathrm{psr}}`$ of the pulsar motion through the shell material satisfies

$$_{\mathrm{psr}}=\frac{V_{\mathrm{rel}}}{\sqrt{\gamma P_{\mathrm{sh}}/4\rho _{\mathrm{ism}}}}=\frac{7}{\sqrt{5}}3.13.$$
(10)
Since the proper motion of the pulsar is supersonic with respect to the surrounding medium the outer rim of the PWN will become a-spherical and a bow shock will form.

### 2.2 Pulsar Wind

A pulsar wind is believed to consist of an ultra-relativistic, cold flow with a large bulk Lorentz factor, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}10^3`$ in the case of the Crab (Gallant et al. 2002). The cold wind is terminated by a termination shock which thermalizes the flow, leading to a relativistically hot downstream state with sound speed $`sc/\sqrt{3}`$. Following Kennel & Coroniti (1984), the luminosity of the pulsar wind at the wind termination shock, $`R_{\mathrm{ts}}`$ is given by a combination of particle and magnetic luminosity:

$$L=4\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}^2n_\mathrm{w}R_{\mathrm{ts}}^2mc^3(1+\sigma ),$$
(11)
where $`n_\mathrm{w}`$ is the proper density in the wind, $`m`$ the mean mass per particle and $`\sigma `$ is the ratio of Poynting flux to plasma kinetic energy flux. In this paper we consider an unmagnetised pulsar wind, i.e. $`\sigma =0`$. The typical pressure behind the ultra-relativistic termination shock is (e.g. Kennel & Coroniti 1984)

$$P_{\mathrm{ts}}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{w}^2n_\mathrm{w}mc^2=\frac{L}{6\pi R_{\mathrm{ts}}^2c}.$$
(12)
The first equality is approximate because of deviations of sphericity of the pulsar wind region, induced by the proper motion of the pulsar. The shocked pulsar wind material is separated from material that has gone through the bow shock by a contact discontinuity. Because of the high internal sound speed, both in the pulsar wind material and in the material that has passed through the bow shock, and because of the small size of the region between the termination shock and bow shock, this region can be considered to be isobaric to lowest approximation. Using the Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions at the stagnation point at the head of the bow shock surrounding the PWN, the pressure equals:

$$P_{\mathrm{bs}}=(5_{\mathrm{psr}}^21)P_{\mathrm{sh}}/4=9\rho _{\mathrm{ism}}V_{\mathrm{snr}}^2.$$
(13)
After the pulsar has broken through the shell the pulsar wind is completely confined by the ram pressure of the cold ISM and the stagnation-point pressure, using the Rankine-Hugoniot relations again, drops to

$$P_{\mathrm{bs}}=\frac{3}{4}\rho _{\mathrm{ism}}V_{\mathrm{psr}}^2=\frac{75}{16}\rho _{\mathrm{ism}}V_{\mathrm{snr}}^2,$$
(14)
a pressure reduction by roughly 50% as the pulsar leaves the SNR. The fact that the region between termination shock and bow shock is almost isobaric implies

$$P_{\mathrm{bs}}P_{\mathrm{ts}}.$$

This condition, together with Eqn. (12), determines the stand-off distance of the pulsar wind termination shock as

$$R_{\mathrm{ts}}=\eta \left(\frac{L}{6\pi \rho _{\mathrm{ism}}V_{\mathrm{psr}}^2c}\right)^{1/2},$$
(15)
where the numerical factor $`\eta `$ is determined by Eqns (13) or (14). This parameter takes the value $`\eta =5/60.83`$ when the pulsar is still just inside the SNR, and $`\eta =2/\sqrt{3}1.15`$ when the pulsar moves through the ISM. The radius $`R_{\mathrm{ts}}`$ is also the typical stand-off distance of the bow shock, which is always close to the termination shock at the head of the pulsar wind nebula.

These expressions allow us to calculate the relative size of the pulsar wind to the supernova remnant at the moment of break-through. From the expression (3) for the crossing time one has

$$R_{\mathrm{snr}}(t_{\mathrm{cr}})=V_{\mathrm{psr}}t_{\mathrm{cr}}=13.6E_{51}^{1/3}V_{1000}^{2/3}n_0^{1/3}\mathrm{pc}.$$

The termination shock radius is of order

$$R_{\mathrm{ts}}2.8\times 10^3\eta L_{36}^{1/2}n_0^{1/2}V_{1000}^1\mathrm{pc},$$

here $`L_{36}=L/(10^{36}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s})`$. Note that the size of the SNR shell is much larger then the size of the PWN. For this reason we will neglect the curvature of the SNR blast wave and perform a hydrodynamical simulation where the pulsar moves with a Mach number of $`_{\mathrm{psr}}=7/\sqrt{5}3.13`$ through the post-shock flow of a strong plane-parallel shock, ultimately crossing this shock into the unshocked medium.

## 3 Numerical simulations of the PWN bow shock

### 3.1 Simulation Method

We simulate a pulsar wind using the Versatile Advection Code 111See http://www.phys.uu.nl/~toth/ (VAC), a general-purpose software package developed initially by G. Tóth at the Astronomical Institute in Utrecht (Tóth 1996; Tóth & Odstrc̆il 1996). The configuration is depicted in figure 1, showing both shocks which are of interest: the pulsar wind termination shock and the bow shock bounding the PWN. This system is assumed to be axially symmetric around the direction of motion of the pulsar. Out of the several choices for discretizing the equations of hydrodynamics in conservative form available in VAC, we use a shock-capturing, Total-Variation-Diminishing Lax-Friedrich scheme (Tóth & Odstrc̆il, 1996). Our simulations have been performed in two dimensions, using a cylindrical coordinate system.

### 3.2 Initialising a pulsar wind

The current version of the hydrodynamics code uses one fluid with a single equation of state in the computational domain. For simplicity, and accuracy in the non-relativistic part of the flow, we use an ideal fluid with specific heat ratio $`\gamma =5/3`$. The pulsar wind is modeled by continuously depositing thermal energy at a constant rate $`L`$ (the spindown luminosity) in a small volume, together with an associated mass injection $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{pw}}`$. The hydrodynamics code itself then develops a thermally driven wind with terminal velocity $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ which is subsequently randomised at a termination shock. In order to increase the computationally efficiency, we take the mechanical luminosity $`L`$ and mass deposition rate $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{pw}}`$ such that the terminal velocity of the wind as determined from these two parameters is much larger than the other velocities of interest:

$$v_{\mathrm{}}=\sqrt{2L/\dot{M}_{\mathrm{pw}}}.$$

This choice will result in the correct global behaviour of the PWN. This method is similar to the method as described in van der Swaluw et al. (2001). We employ a non-uniform grid with highest resolution near the pulsar in order to fully resolve the pulsar wind region. The non-uniform grid is chosen in such a way that the difference in size between adjacent grid cells is always less then 5 % . The radius of the termination shock, given by Eqn. (15) in the relativistic case, is replaced by its non-relativistic equivalent,

$$R_{\mathrm{ts}}\eta \left(\frac{L}{2\pi \rho _{\mathrm{ism}}V_{\mathrm{psr}}^2v_{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{1/2},$$

and will have roughly the correct value when $`v_{\mathrm{}}c`$.

### 3.3 Steady PWN bow shock in a uniform medium

Our calculations are performed in the pulsar rest frame. The pulsar wind nebula is allowed to evolve in a uniform medium, moving at a constant speed $`V_{\mathrm{psr}}`$ at large distances from the pulsar. This medium represents the interior of the supernova remnant (shocked ISM) close to the blast wave. The velocity $`V_{\mathrm{psr}}`$ is supersonic with respect to the internal sound speed of the medium so that a bow shock develops around the PWN. We let the hydrodynamics code evolve the system until the large-scale flow is steady.

This simulation has been performed with parameters as denoted in table 1. In order to determine when the system is steady, we employ the prescription of Tóth et al.(1998). This prescription compares all $`N_{\mathrm{var}}`$ flow variables at time $`t_n`$, denoted by $`U_{\alpha i}^n`$ at grid point $`i`$, with their values at the previous time $`t_{n1}`$. We then calculate the residual $`\mathrm{𝚁𝚎𝚜}`$ defined as

$$\mathrm{𝚁𝚎𝚜}\sqrt{\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{var}}}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{var}}}{}}\frac{\underset{i}{}\left[U_{\alpha i}^{n+1}U_{\alpha i}^n\right]^2}{_i\left[U_{\alpha i}^n\right]^2}},$$
(16)
and halt the calculation when $`\mathrm{𝚁𝚎𝚜}`$ has a value less than a predetermined critical value, typically $`\mathrm{𝚁𝚎𝚜}=10^4`$.

Wilkin (1996) has given an analytical equation for the geometry of a stellar wind bow shock. His solution, for the distance $`r`$ to the wind source in terms of the polar angle $`\theta `$ with respect to the symmetry axis, reads:

$$\frac{r(\theta )}{R_0}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\sqrt{3\left(1\frac{\theta }{\mathrm{tan}\theta }\right)}.$$
(17)
Here $`R_0R_{\mathrm{bs}}`$ is the stand-off distance of the bow shock on the symmetry axis ($`\theta =0`$). We compare our morphology with Wilkin’s result, where we equate $`R_0`$ to the stand-off distance of the bow shock in the simulations. This is depicted in figure 2. The asymptotic cone of Wilkin’s solution is seen to be significantly narrower than that of the bow shock in the simulation. This is because his solution balances only the ram pressures of the wind and the ambient medium, i.e. it corresponds to the limit $`_{\mathrm{psr}}1`$, while in our case the Mach number is moderate: $`_{\mathrm{psr}}3.13`$.

The figures 3 and 4 show density profiles of the PWN bow shock of a pulsar moving through a uniform medium. One can see the contact discontinuity, midway between the termination shock and the bow shock, separating the shocked pulsar wind material and the much denser shocked ISM. The synchrotron emission of the plerionic PWN is expected to come from the shocked pulsar wind material, whereas the material swept up by the bow shock can show up as H$`\alpha `$ emission.

Figure 5 shows the pressure distribution and figure 6 shows the pressure profile along the symmetry axis. One can see the pulsar wind, originating at the pulsar position $`z=0`$, and its termination shock at $`z0.005`$ pc ahead of the pulsar in the direction of motion, and at $`z0.017`$ pc behind the pulsar. The bow shock bounding the PWN is located at $`z0.012`$ pc. The region between the pulsar wind termination shock and the bow shock is almost isobaric. As shown by van der Swaluw et al. (2001), this is also the case for a PWN around a stationary pulsar located at the center of the SNR.

### 3.4 Interaction of the PWN with a shock

In this section we present results of the break-through of the PWN bow shock when it crosses the shell of its supernova remnant. The simulation is performed once more in the rest frame of the pulsar. We initialise a steady-state configuration of the PWN bow shock as described above, with the same parameters as denoted in table 1. Next we use the Rankine-Hugoniot relations to initiate a strong shock front (with Mach number $`100`$) near the bottom (low $`z`$) end of the grid, with which the pulsar wind bow shock then catches up in accordance with equations (7)-(10). As stated in section 2, the PWN bow shock is much smaller than the radius of the SNR, so we can safely approximate the SNR blast wave as a plane-parallel strong shock.

At the end of the simulation, when the strong shock is almost at the upper boundary of the grid, numerical instabilities arise. Therefore we stop the simulation after the configuration as shown in the figures 7-9, when the influence of the numerical instabilities are not influencing the solution too strongly.

Figures 7 and 8 show the system, some time after the SNR shock has passed the head of the bow shock. Figure 7 shows the pressure distribution and figure 8 the density distribution. Figure 9, which compares the density profile along the $`z`$-axis before and after the passage of the supernova blast wave, shows that the pulsar wind nebula expands, roughly by a factor 1.5, after it leaves the SNR. This reflects the reduction in the confining (ram-)pressure, as calculated in Section 2. Figure 7 also shows that the bow shock shape in the ISM now closely fits the analytical result of Wilkin (1996). Once the pulsar wind bow shock has crossed the supernova blast wave, its Mach number with respect to the interstellar medium is much larger than unity. This agreement is all the more remarkable given that strictly speaking, the assumptions under which Wilkin’s solution is derived (geometrical thinness and complete mixing of the post-shock fluids) are not fulfilled in pulsar bow-shock nebulae (Bucciantini & Bandiera 2001).

During the interaction between the pulsar wind and the shell of the SNR, the PWN bow shock and the SNR blast wave intersect. This intersection produces an additional pressure gradient which results in an accumulation of mass. The resulting pressure and density enhancements can be seen as dark spots at the region of intersection in the figures 7 and 8. When the bow shock moves through the shell of the remnant it encounters the unshocked ISM. The ambient density is reduced by a factor 4, which results in a similar density reduction behind the bow shock.

## 4 Conclusions

We have considered the case of a pulsar wind breaking through the shell of a SNR in the Sedov-Taylor stage. Only high-velocity pulsars reach the edge of the SNR while the latter is still in the Sedov stage of its evolution. At the moment of break-through, the ratio of the pulsar velocity and SNR expansion speed is $`V_{\mathrm{psr}}/V_{\mathrm{snr}}=5/2`$, and the Mach number associated with the pulsar motion equals $`_{\mathrm{psr}}=7/\sqrt{5}`$. These conclusions are independent of the explosion energy $`E_{\mathrm{snr}}`$ or the pulsar speed $`V_{\mathrm{psr}}`$.

Our simulations show that the break-through of the PWN does not lead to a significant disruption. The reduction of stagnation pressure by about 50% leads to a moderate expansion of the PWN where its radius increases by a factor $`1.5`$. The latter result was also obtained analytically in Eqns. (13)-(15).

There is good agreement between our numerical results and analytical estimates, based on pressure balance arguments, for the size of the bow shock surrounding the PWN. The only clear indication of the interaction between the PWN bow shock and the SNR (Sedov-Taylor) blast wave is a density and pressure enhancement at the intersection of these two shocks.

In a subsequent paper we will consider the effects of the energetic particles which were injected by the pulsar wind into the surroundings; some preliminary results of this investigation can be found in van der Swaluw et al. (2002).

###### Acknowledgements.

The Versatile Advection Code was developed as part of the Massief Parallel Rekenen (Massive Parallel Computing) program funded by the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). The authors thank Dr. S. Falle (Dept. of Applied Mathematics, University of Leeds) for his assistance. EvdS is currently supported by the European Commission under the TMR programme, contract number ERB-FMRX-CT98-0168. Y.A.G. acknowledges support from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) through GBE/MPR grand 614–21–008, and a Marie Curie Fellowship from the European Commission, contract number HPMFCT-2000-00671.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

At the present time the theory of electroweak interactions has a status of theory which is confirmed with a high degree of precision. However, some experimental results (the existence of the quarks and the leptons families, etc.) have not got any explanation in the framework of the theory. One part of the electroweak theory is the existence of quark mixings introduced by the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrices (i.e., these matrices are used for parametrization of the quark mixing).

In previous works  a dynamical mechanism of quark mixing by the use of four doublets of massive vector carriers of weak interaction $`B^\pm ,C^\pm ,D^\pm ,E^\pm `$, i.e. expansion of the standard theory of weak interaction (the theory of dynamical analogy of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrices) working at the tree level, was proposed.

The vacuum oscillation of neutral $`K`$ mesons is well investigated at the present time . This oscillation is the result of $`d,s`$ quark mixings and is described by Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrices . The angle mixing $`\theta `$ of neutral $`K`$ mesons is $`\theta =45^O`$ since $`K^o,\overline{K}^o`$ masses are equal (see $`CPT`$ theorem). Besides, since their masses are equal, these oscillations are real, i.e. their transitions to each other are going without suppression.

This work is devoted to the study of $`K^0,\overline{K}^0`$ oscillations in the phase volume approach in the frame work of the standard model and the model of dynamical analogy of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrices.

At first, we will give the general elements of the model of dynamical analogy of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrices, the $`K^0,\overline{K}^0`$ oscillations will be considered in the frame work of these models and then the comparison of length of oscillations in the diagram and phase volume approaches is fulfilled.

## 2 The Theory of Dynamical Analogy of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrices

In the case of three families of quarks the current $`J^\mu `$ has the following form:

$$J^\mu =\left(\overline{u}\overline{c}\overline{t}\right)_L\gamma ^\mu V\left(\begin{array}{c}d\\ s\\ b\end{array}\right)_L$$
$`\left(1\right)`$
$$V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_{ud}& V_{us}& V_{ub}\\ V_{cd}& V_{cs}& V_{cb}\\ V_{td}& V_{ts}& V_{tb}\end{array}\right).$$

where $`V`$ is a Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix .

Mixings of the $`d,s,b`$ quarks are not related to the weak interaction (i.e., with $`W^\pm ,Z^o`$ bosons exchanges). From equation (1) it is well seen that mixings of the $`d,s,b`$ quarks and exchange of $`W^\pm ,Z^o`$\- bosons take place in an independent manner (i.e., if matrix $`V`$ were diagonal, mixings of the $`d,s,b`$ quarks would not have taken place).

If the mechanism of this mixings is realized independently of the weak interaction ($`W^\pm ,Z^o`$-boson exchange) with a probability determined by the mixing angles $`\theta ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta `$ (see below), then this violation could be found in the strong and electromagnetic interactions of the quarks as clear violations of the isospin, strangeness and beauty. But, the available experimental results show that there are no clear violations of the number conservations in strong and electromagnetic interactions of the quarks. Then we must relate the non-conservation of the isospins, strangeness and beauty (or mixings of the $`d,s,b`$ quarks) with some type of interaction mixings of the quarks. We can do it introducing (together with the $`W^\pm ,Z^o`$-bosons) the heavier vector bosons $`B^\pm ,C^\pm ,D^\pm ,E^\pm `$ which interact with the $`d,s,b`$ quarks with violation of isospin, strangeness and beauty.

We shall choose parametrization of matrix $`V`$ in the form offered by Maiani

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& c_\gamma & s_\gamma \\ 0& s_\gamma & c_\gamma \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_\beta & 0& s_\beta \mathrm{exp}\left(i\delta \right)\\ 0& 1& 0\\ s_\beta \mathrm{exp}\left(i\delta \right)& 0& c_\beta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_\theta & s_\theta & 0\\ s_\theta & c_\theta & 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

$$c_\theta =\mathrm{cos}\theta ,s_\theta =\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\mathrm{exp}\left(i\delta \right)=\mathrm{cos}\delta +i\mathrm{sin}\delta .$$
$`\left(2\right)`$
To the nondiagonal terms in (2), which are responsible for mixing of the $`d,s,b`$\- quarks and $`CP`$-violation in the three matrices, we shall correspond four doublets of vector bosons $`B^\pm ,C^\pm ,D^\pm ,E^\pm `$ whose contributions are parametrized by four angles $`\theta ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta `$ . It is supposed that the real part of $`Re\left(s_\beta \mathrm{exp}\left(i\delta \right)\right)=s_\beta \mathrm{cos}\delta `$ corresponds to the vector boson $`C^\pm `$ , and the imaginary part of $`Im\left(s_\beta \mathrm{exp}\left(i\delta \right)\right)=s_\beta \mathrm{sin}\delta `$ corresponds to the vector boson $`E^\pm `$ (the couple constant of $`E`$ is an imaginary value !). Then, when $`q^2<<m_W^2`$ , we get:

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta \frac{m_W^2g_B^2}{m_B^2g_W^2},\mathrm{tan}\beta \frac{m_W^2g_C^2}{m_C^2g_W^2},$$

$$\mathrm{tan}\gamma \frac{m_W^2g_D^2}{m_D^2g_W^2},\mathrm{tan}\delta \frac{m_W^2g_E^2}{m_E^2g_W^2}.$$
$`\left(3\right)`$
If $`g_{B^\pm }g_{C^\pm }g_{D^\pm }g_{E^\pm }g_{W^\pm }`$ , then

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta \frac{m_W^2}{m_B^2},\mathrm{tan}\beta \frac{m_W^2}{m_C^2},$$

$$\mathrm{tan}\gamma \frac{m_W^2}{m_D^2},\mathrm{tan}\delta \frac{m_W^2}{m_E^2}.$$
$`\left(4\right)`$
Concerning the neutral vector bosons $`B^0,C^0,D^0,E^0`$, the neutral scalar bosons $`B^{}_{}{}^{}0,C^{}_{}{}^{}0,D^{}_{}{}^{}0,E^{}_{}{}^{}0`$and the GIM mechanism , we can repeat the same arguments which were given in the previous work .

Using the data from  and equation (4), we have obtained the following masses for $`B^\pm ,C^\pm ,D^\pm ,E^\pm `$-bosons:

$`m_{B^\pm }169.5÷171.8\text{ GeV.};`$

$`m_{C^\pm }345.2÷448.4\text{ GeV.};\left(5\right)`$

$`m_{D^\pm }958.8÷1794`$ GeV.;

$`m_{E^\pm }4170÷4230\text{ GeV..}\text{}`$

## 3 Oscillations of Neutral $`K^0,\overline{K}^o`$ Mesons in the Phase Volume Approach in the Standard Model and in the Model of Dynamical Analogy of Kabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa Matrices

The oscillations of $`K^0,\overline{K}^0`$ mesons are characterized by two parameters: angle mixing–$`\theta `$ and length– $`R`$ or time oscillations–$`\tau `$.

At first, we will consider mixings of $`K^0`$ mesons in the phase volume approach and obtain the expression for matrix elements and the time of $`K^0,\overline{K}^0`$ transitions arising for existence of the strangeness violation of the weak interaction through $`sin\theta W`$ or $`B`$ exchange in the standard or in our model of dynamical analogy of Kabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrices. The general scheme of $`K^0,\overline{K}^0`$ meson oscillations is given in the end of the article.

In further considerations, for transition from the standard model to our model, the following values are used for $`sin\theta ,cos\theta `$ and $`G_F`$:

$$sin\theta \frac{m_W^2g_B^2}{m_B^2g_W^2}\frac{m_W^2}{m_B^2},$$

$$cos^2\theta =1sin^2\theta ,$$
$`\left(6\right)`$
$$G_F^2=\frac{g_W^2}{32m_W^2}.$$

A) Mixings of $`K^0,\overline{K}^0`$ Mesons

Let us consider mixings of $`K^0,\overline{K}^0`$ mesons. $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K}^0`$ consist of $`\overline{d},s,d,\overline{s},`$ quarks and have the same masses (it is a consequence of the $`CPT`$ invariance) but their strangenesses are different $`s_{K^0}=1,s_{\overline{K}^0}=1`$. Since the weak interaction through $`B`$ boson exchanges changes the strangeness, then the $`K^0,\overline{K}^0`$ are mixed.

The mixings of $`K^0`$ mesons can be considered by using the following nondiagonal mass matrix of $`K^0`$ mesons:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{K^0}^2& m_{K^0\overline{K}^0}^2\\ m_{\overline{K}^0K^0}^2& m_{\overline{K}^0}^2\end{array}\right).$$
$`\left(7\right)`$
Since $`m_{K^0}^2=m_{\overline{K}^0}^2`$, the angle $`\theta ^{}`$ of $`K^0,\overline{K}^0`$ mixing, or the angle rotation for diagonalization of this matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_1^2& 0\\ 0& m_2^2\end{array}\right),$$

is given by the expression:

$$tg2\theta ^{}=\frac{m_{K^0\overline{K}^0}^2}{m_{K^0}^2m_{\overline{K}^0}^2},$$

and is equal to ($`\theta ^{}=)\frac{\pi }{4}`$ and

$$m_{1,2}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\left(m_{K^0}^2m_{\overline{K}^0}^2\right)\pm \sqrt{\left(m_{K^0}^2m_{\overline{K}^0}^2\right)^2+4\left(m_{K^0\overline{K}^0}^2\right)^2}\right),$$
$`\left(8\right)`$
$$m_1^2m_1^2=m_{K^0\overline{K}^0}^2.$$
$`\left(9\right)`$
Then the following new states $`K_1^0,K_2^0`$ arise:

$$K_1^0=\frac{K^0+\overline{K}^0}{\sqrt{2}},K_2^0=\frac{K^0\overline{K}^0}{\sqrt{2}}$$
$`\left(10\right)`$
In the quark model we can take a mass matrix with masses in the first degree ($`m_{ab}^2m_{ab}`$).

Below the $`CP`$ –invariance is supposed to be strong conserved (the consequences which arise of the $`CP`$ violation were discussed in work  ), and then the following decays are possible: ($`CP`$ parity of $`K_1^0`$ is $`P\left(K_1^0\right)=+1`$, and $`\overline{K}_2^0`$ is $`P\left(\overline{K}_2^0\right)=1`$)

$$K_1^02\pi ,K_2^03\pi .$$
$`\left(11\right)`$
B). Estimation of Probability or Time of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ Meson Transitions in the Phase Volume Approach

The calculation of probability or time of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ meson transitions will be executed in the framework of the weak quark interactions by using the following Feynman diagram:

where $`sin\theta W`$ and $`B`$ are a bosons changing the strangeness; $`u,c`$ are quarks (for simplification the $`t`$ quark is not taken into account).

We do not give here the details of the calculation on this diagram, since they were widely discussed in literature . Using the standard Feynman rules for the weak interaction (after integrating on the inside lines, twice using the Firtz rules and without the outside momenta), we obtain the following expression for the amplitude of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ transition:

$$M\left(K^0\overline{K}^0\right)=\frac{G_F^2m_c^2sin^2\theta cos^2\theta }{8\pi ^2}\overline{d}Q_\alpha s\overline{d}Q^\alpha s=$$
$`\left(12\right)`$
$$=G\overline{d}Q_\alpha s\overline{d}Q^\alpha s,$$

where

$$G=\frac{G_F^2m_c^2sin^2\theta cos^2\theta }{8\pi ^2},Q_\alpha =\gamma _\alpha \left(1\gamma _5\right).$$

Then we use the following phenomenological expression:

$$<0\overline{s}Q_\alpha dK^0>=\phi _Kf_Kp_\alpha ,$$
$`\left(13\right)`$
where $`\varphi _K`$ is a $`K`$-meson wave function and $`\varphi _K_2=1`$, $`f_K`$ is a $`K`$ constant decay and $`f_K1.27f_\pi `$ ($`f_\pi 125`$ MeV), $`p_\alpha `$ is a $`\pi `$ four-momentum.

Also, we suppose that the beginning state $`\overline{s}Q_\alpha d`$ corresponds to $`K^0`$ meson.

Introducing the values $`F_\alpha =f_K\varphi _Kp_\alpha `$, $`Q^\alpha =\overline{d}_L\gamma ^\alpha u_L`$, we rewrite exp.(12) in the following form:

$$M=GF_\alpha Q^\alpha =,$$
$`\left(14\right)`$
If we use the expression $`\widehat{p}_\pi =\widehat{p}_s+\widehat{p}_{\overline{d}}`$ and the Dirac equation

$$\left(\widehat{p}m\right)u=0$$

(where $`u`$ is a quark wave function), then one can rewrite Eq.(14) in the following form:

$$M=Gf_K\varphi _K\left(m_s+m_{\overline{d}}\right)\overline{d}_L\gamma _5s_L.$$
$`\left(15\right)`$
Using the standard procedure for $`\overline{M^2}`$, one obtains the following expression:

$$\overline{M^2}=G^2f_K^2\left(m_s+m_{\overline{d}}\right)^24\left(p_{\overline{d}}p_s\right)$$

$$4G^2f_K^2\left(m_s+m_{\overline{d}}\right)^2m_KE_d,$$
$`\left(16\right)`$
where $`E_d`$ is the energy of $`d`$ quark in $`K^0`$ meson ($`(p_d,p_s)=(p_d,\left(p_Kp_d\right))=m_KE_dm_d^2m_dm_K,m_d^20`$).

$$E_d=m_K\left(1\frac{m_s^2}{m_K^2}\right)^2.$$
$`\left(17\right)`$
Then the probability $`W\left(\mathrm{}\right)`$ of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ meson transitions is

$$W(K^0\overline{K}^0)=2\frac{\overline{M^2}}{2m_{K^0}}\frac{d^3p_d}{2E_d\left(2\pi \right)^3}\frac{d^3p_s}{2E_s\left(2\pi \right)^3}\left(2\pi \right)^4\delta (p_s+p_{\overline{d}}p_\pi )=$$

$$=2\frac{\overline{M^2}}{4\pi m_{K^0}}\delta \left(E_{\overline{d}}+E_sm_K^0\right)\frac{E_{\overline{d}}dE_{\overline{d}}}{E_u}$$

$$2\frac{\overline{M^2}}{4\pi }\frac{E_d}{m_{K^0}^2},$$
$`\left(18\right)`$
where $`E_d`$ is given by expression (17).

Then using the expression (16) for $`\overline{}M^2`$, one can rewrite equation (4) in the form:

$$W(K^0\overline{K}^0)\frac{G^2f_{K^0}^2\left(m_s+m_{\overline{d}}\right)^2m_{K^0}}{8\pi },$$
$`\left(19\right)`$
and

$$\tau _0=\frac{1}{W_0\left(\mathrm{}\right)}.$$

Then the time $`\tau \left(\mathrm{}\right)`$ of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ transition is

$$\tau (K^0\overline{K}^0)=\frac{1}{W(K^0\overline{K}^0)}.$$
$`\left(20\right)`$
The mass difference of $`K_1^0K_2^0`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_1m_2=\frac{h}{\tau _{K^0}}.$$
$`\left(21\right)`$
The length $`L`$ of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ oscillations is

$$L_{phas}=\tau _{K^0}\left(\mathrm{}\right)v_{K^0},$$
$`\left(22\right)`$
where $`v_{K^0}`$ is the velocity of $`K^0`$ meson.

and

$$L_{phas}=\tau V=\frac{8\pi p_{K^o}}{G^2f_{K^o}^2m_s^2m_{K^o}^2}.$$
$`\left(23\right)`$
Transition to the length of $`K^o`$ oscillations for $`L_{phys}`$ in the model of dynamical analogy of Cabibbo-Kobayashi- Maskawa matrices is given by Exp. (22) by using Exp. (6).

C) The scheme of $`K^0,\overline{K}^0`$ oscillations

As an example of this oscillation we consider the oscillation of $`K^0`$ mesons produced in the reaction $`\pi ^{}+PK^0+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. At $`t=0`$ there is the state $`K^0\left(0\right)`$, then in time $`t0`$ for $`K^0\left(t\right)`$, if to take into account equation (10), we get $`K^0`$:

$$K^0\left(t\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(K^0+\overline{K}^0\right)exp\left(im_1t\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1t}{2}\right)+\left(K^0\overline{K}^0\right)exp\left(im_2t\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2t}{2}\right)\right]=$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}K^0exp\left(im_2t\right)\left[exp\left(i\mathrm{\Delta }mt\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{2}t\right)+exp\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{2}t\right)\right]+$$
$`\left(24\right)`$
$$+\frac{1}{2}\overline{K}^0exp\left(im_1t\right)\left[exp\left(i\mathrm{\Delta }mt\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{2}t\right)+exp\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{2}t\right)\right].$$

From (23) it is clear that on the background of $`K^0`$ meson decays, the oscillations of $`K^0`$ mesons take place .

## 4  Comparisons of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ Oscillations in the Diagram and the Phase Volume Approaches

The length of $`K^o\overline{K}^o`$ in diagram approach is

$$L_{diag}=2\pi \frac{2p_{K^o}}{\left|m_1^2m_2^2\right|}=\pi \frac{2p_{K^o}}{m_{K^o}\mathrm{\Delta }m},$$
$`\left(25\right)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=\frac{8}{3}m_{K^o}f_{K^o}^2G,$$
$`\left(26\right)`$
and $`G`$ is given by expression (12).

The relation of these two lengths is:

$$\frac{L_{osc}}{L_{phas}}=\frac{3}{32}Gm_s^2,$$
$`\left(27\right)`$
and

$$\frac{L_{osc}}{L_{phas}}<<1,$$
$`\left(28\right)`$
i.e., the length of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ oscillations in the phase volume approach in the standard model and in the model of dynamical analogy of Cabibbo-Kobayashi- Maskawa matrices is much more than the length of these oscillations in the diagram approach and in the model of dynamical analogy of Cabibbo-Kobayashi- Maskawa matrices. It means that on the background of $`K^o`$ decays it is hard to register the phase volume $`K^o`$ oscillations in contrast to $`K^o`$ oscillations in the diagram approach.

## 5 Conclusion

The elements of the theory of dynamical expansion of the theory of weak interaction working at the tree level, i.e. the model of dynamical analogy of Cabibbo-Kobayashi- Maskawa matrices, were given.

The equation for mass difference of $`K_1^0,K_2^0`$ mesons or the length of $`K^0,\overline{K}^0`$ meson oscillations in the phase volume approach in the frame work of the standard model of the weak interactions and the model of dynamical analogy of Cabibbo-Kobayashi- Maskawa matrices have been calculated (in this model the oscillations of $`K^0,\overline{K}^0`$ mesons arise at violation of strangeness by $`B`$ bosons). Comparison of the length of oscillations in the diagram and phase volume approaches was done. The length of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ oscillations in the phase volume approach is much more than the length of these oscillations in the diagram approach.

References

1. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR, E2-94-293, Dubna, 1994;

Turkish Journ. of Physics 1996, 20, p.1245;

JINR, E2-95-535, Dubna, 1995;

JINR, P2-96-450, Dubna, 1996.

JINR Commun. E2-97-210, Dubna, 1997.

2. Review of Particle Prop., Phys. Rev. 1992, D45, N. 11.

3. Cabibbo N., Phys. Rev. Lett., 1963, 10, p.531.

4. Kobayashi M. and Maskawa K., Prog. Theor. Phys., 1973, 49,

p.652.

5. Maiani L., Proc.Int. Symp. on Lepton-Photon Inter., Hamburg,

DESY, p.867.

6. Glashow S., Iliopoulos J. and Maiani L., Phys. Rev., 1970,

D2, p.1285.

7. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Commun. E2-93-167, Dubna, 1993.

Chinese Journal of Phys. 1996, v.34, p.979.

8. Okun L.B., Leptons and Quarks, M., Nauka, 1990.

9. Buras A.J., Harlander M.K., MPI–PAE/TTh/92, TUM–T31–25/92.

10. Beshtoev Kh.M., Fiz. Elm. Chastitz At. Yadra, 1996, v.27, p.23.

11. Beshtoev Kh. M., JINR Commun. E2-98-125, Dubna, 1998.


text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been a lot of activity in trying to generalize the AdS/CFT correspondence and promote it to a more general gauge/gravity duality for theories without conformal invariance or with less supersymmetry. Indeed many different approaches have been proposed to this aim, like for example the study of mass deformations of conformal field theories and of the corresponding RG flows, or the study of D-branes wrapping supersymmetric cycles of K3 and Calabi-Yau spaces, or finally the study of fractional D-branes, in conifold and orbifold backgrounds.

Fractional branes in conifolds backgrounds were first considered in Refs. where a configuration of $`N`$ regular and $`M`$ fractional D3 branes on $`T^{1,1}`$ has been analyzed and the corresponding supergravity solution has been derived. This solution has been successfully used to describe the dual four dimensional gauge theory, which has $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry, a gauge group $`SU(N+M)\times SU(N)`$ and a non trivial matter content . While very interesting IR properties of this gauge theory have been obtained by considering the non-singular solution on a deformed conifold , to describe the UV features of the gauge theory it is enough to consider the singular solution of Ref.  which indeed accounts for the logarithmic running of the coupling constants and the precise coefficients of the $`\beta `$-functions of the two gauge groups . Very recently, in Ref.  it has been shown that also the chiral anomaly and the breaking of the $`U(1)`$ R-symmetry to $`𝐙_{2M}`$ are correctly incorporated in the classical UV supergravity solution of Ref. .

Fractional D-branes in orbifold backgrounds have been extensively considered in the recent literature. In Ref.  the supergravity solution of $`M`$ fractional D3 branes in a $`𝐂^2/𝐙_2`$ orbifold has been explicitly obtained (see also Ref. ) and used to derive the exact (perturbative) $`\beta `$-function of the dual $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(M)`$ Yang-Mills theory. This analysis has been subsequently generalized by adding fractional D7 branes that yield hypermultiplets in the gauge theory , or by considering D-branes in $`𝐙_k`$ orbifolds  (see Ref.  for a recent review on fractional branes in $`𝒩=2`$ orbifolds and a complete list of references). More recently, similar results have been also obtained for fractional D-branes in the $`𝒩=1`$ orbifold $`𝐂^3/(𝐙_2\times 𝐙_2)`$ .

In this paper, prepared while Ref. , which contains also a brief discussion of the chiral anomaly for the $`𝒩=2`$ orbifold, has appeared, we show how the chiral anomalies of both $`𝒩=2`$ and $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories in four dimensions can be very simply obtained from the explicit supergravity solutions describing fractional D3 branes in $`𝐂^2/𝐙_2`$ and $`𝐂^3/(𝐙_2\times 𝐙_2)`$ orbifolds presented, respectively, in Refs.  and Ref. . In particular, we show how to obtain the correct $`\beta `$-function and the chiral anomaly of the pure $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills. It is worth to emphasize that our present analysis does not rely on the probe technique which instead was used in our previous papers. In fact, here we will exploit a simple holographic representation of a gauge theory operator in terms of supergravity bulk quantities and deduce from it how the scale and chiral transformations are realized in the supergravity description.

## 2 $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theories and fractional branes in $`𝐙_2`$ orbifolds

Let us consider a $`𝒩=2`$ super Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions with gauge group $`SU(M)`$ and $`N`$ fundamental hypermultiplets. As is well known (see for example Ref. ), this theory has a $`\beta `$-function given by

$$\beta (g)=\frac{(2MN)}{16\pi ^2}g^3$$
(2.1)
where $`g`$ is the running coupling constant, and a $`U(1)_R`$ anomaly given by

$$_\alpha J_R^\alpha =2(2MN)q(x);q(x)=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}F_{\alpha \beta }^a\stackrel{~}{F}_a^{\alpha \beta }$$
(2.2)
where $`J_R`$ is the $`R`$-current and $`q(x)`$ is the topological charge density. In writing these formulas we have used standard conventions, namely we have normalized the generators of $`SU(M)`$ so that the quadratic Casimir invariant is $`M`$ in the adjoint representation and $`1/2`$ in the fundamental representation, and have assigned a $`R`$-charge $`1`$ to the gauginos and $`1`$ to the chiral fermions in the hypermultiplets 111We note that in Ref. a different $`R`$-charge assignment has been given to the various fields. In particular their charges differ from ours by a factor of 1/3..

In supersymmetric theories the scale anomaly, proportional to the $`\beta `$-function, and the chiral anomaly are in the same supersymmetry multiplet. In the theory at hand, this fact can easily be seen by introducing the complex quantity

$$\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}\frac{\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}}{2\pi }+\mathrm{i}\frac{4\pi }{g^2}$$
(2.3)
where $`\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}`$ is the Yang-Mills $`\theta `$-angle, and observing that the term reproducing the anomalies has the following form

$$\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}=\mathrm{i}\frac{2MN}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{\varphi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}$$
(2.4)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the dynamically generated scale and $`\varphi `$ is the (complex) scalar field of the $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet. As is well known, due to $`𝒩=2`$ non-renormalization theorems, Eq. (2.4) is the complete perturbative result which is corrected only by instanton effects. Then the scale and chiral anomalies can be simply obtained by looking at the response of $`\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}`$ to a rescaling of the energy by a factor of $`\mu `$ and to a $`U(1)_R`$ transformation with parameter $`\alpha [\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},2\pi )`$ respectively. Under these transformations the scalar field $`\varphi `$, which has the scale dimension of a mass and a $`R`$-charge 2 (remember that the gauginos have $`R`$-charge 1), transforms as follows

$$\varphi \mu \mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}\alpha }\varphi ,$$
(2.5)
and thus from Eq.(2.4) we easily find that

$$\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}+\mathrm{i}\frac{2MN}{2\pi }(\mathrm{log}\mu +2\mathrm{i}\alpha ).$$
(2.6)
This equation implies that

$$\frac{1}{g^2}\frac{1}{g^2}+\frac{2MN}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\mu \mathrm{and}\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}2(2MN)\alpha ,$$
(2.7)
which are equivalent to Eqs.(2.1) and (2.2) respectively.

We now show how these results can be obtained in a very simple way by using the supergravity solutions of fractional D-branes that we presented in Refs. . Let us recall that in string theory the simplest way to realize a four dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $`SU(M)`$ and $`N`$ hypermultiplets is to consider a stack of $`M`$ fractional D3 branes and $`N`$ D7 branes of type IIB in the orbifold $`𝐂^2/𝐙_2`$ . For definiteness we assume that the $`𝐙_2`$ parity acts as a reflection in the directions 6789 (labeled by indices $`\mathrm{},m,\mathrm{}`$), and that the D3 branes extend along the directions 0123 (labeled by indices $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$) while the D7 branes wrap the directions 01236789. With this arrangement, the directions 4 and 5 are transverse to both types of branes and define a plane where they can move. In this plane it is convenient to use the complex coordinate

$$zx^4+\mathrm{i}x^5=\rho \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta }.$$
(2.8)
The supergravity background created by this D3/D7 brane system comprises the dilaton $`\phi `$, the (Einstein frame) metric of the form

$$ds^2=H^{1/2}\eta _{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta +\mathrm{e}^\phi H^{1/2}\left(d\rho ^2+\rho ^2d\theta ^2\right)+H^{1/2}\delta _\mathrm{}mdx^{\mathrm{}}dx^m,$$
(2.9)
a R-R 0-form $`C_{(0)}`$, a R-R 4-form $`C_{(4)}`$, and two 2-forms, namely $`B_{(2)}`$ from the NS-NS sector and $`C_{(2)}`$ from the R-R sector, which are given by

$$C_{(2)}=c\omega _{(2)},B_{(2)}=b\omega _{(2)}$$
(2.10)
where $`\omega _{(2)}`$ is the anti-self dual 2-form associated to the vanishing 2-cycle of the orbifold ALE space. The explicit expressions for the various fields have been derived in Ref.  (see also Ref. ), but for our present purposes it is enough to recall that

$`\mathrm{e}^\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{Ng_s}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho }{ϵ}}},`$ (2.11)
$`C_{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Ng_s}{2\pi }}\theta ,`$ (2.12)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{(2MN)g_s}{\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho }{ϵ}}{1\frac{Ng_s}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho }{ϵ}}},`$ (2.13)
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi \alpha ^{})g_s\left(2M{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\frac{2Mg_s}{\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho }{ϵ}}{1\frac{Ng_s}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho }{ϵ}}}\right)\theta `$ (2.14)
where $`g_s`$ is the string coupling constant and $`ϵ`$ is a regulator. Notice that the explicit appearance of the angle $`\theta `$ in the above expressions of $`C_0`$ and $`c`$ implies that this supergravity solution is not invariant under rotations in the transverse plane, a fact that is similar to what has been recently emphasized in Ref.  for the fractional D-branes of the conifold.

Let us now consider the world-volume theory of the fractional D3/D7 brane system which, in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$, reduces to $`𝒩=2`$ super Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $`SU(M)`$ and $`N`$ fundamental hypermultiplets in four dimensions. In particular, the action $`S_{\mathrm{YM}}`$ for the bosonic fields in the vector multiplet can be simply obtained by taking the Dirac-Born-Infeld action plus the Wess-Zumino term of a fractional D3 brane and expanding it in the supergravity background previously considered. Taking the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ and keeping fixed the combination

$$\varphi =(2\pi \alpha ^{})^1z$$
(2.15)
which plays the role of the scalar field of the $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet, we easily find

$$S_{\mathrm{YM}}=\frac{1}{g^2}d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{4}F_{\alpha \beta }^aF_a^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{2}_\alpha \overline{\varphi }^\alpha \varphi \right\}+\frac{\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}}{32\pi ^2}d^4xF_{\alpha \beta }^a\stackrel{~}{F}_a^{\alpha \beta }$$
(2.16)
where 222We take this opportunity to correct a sign misprint in Eq.(5.5) of Ref. .

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^\phi b}{16\pi ^3\alpha ^{}g_s}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi g_s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2MN}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{ϵ}}`$ (2.17)
$`\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c+C_{(0)}b}{2\pi \alpha ^{}g_s}}=(2MN)\theta .`$ (2.18)
Inserting these expressions in Eq.(2.3), we can see that $`\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}`$ is a simple holomorphic function of $`z`$, namely

$$\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}=\mathrm{i}\frac{2MN}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{z}{\rho _e}$$
(2.19)
where $`\rho _e=ϵ\mathrm{e}^{\pi /(2MN)g_s}`$ is the distance in the $`z`$-plane where the enhançon phenomenon takes place . Finally, using Eqs.(2.5) and (2.15) we deduce that the scale and chiral transformations are realized on the supergravity coordinate $`z`$ as follows

$$z\mu \mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}\alpha }z,$$
(2.20)
and hence the field theory results (2.6) and (2.7) are precisely reproduced from the supergravity classical solution.

The above analysis can be easily generalized by discussing a more general bound state in which both types of fractional D3 branes present in the $`𝐙_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ orbifold are considered . The most general configuration one can have is made of $`N_1`$ branes of type 1 and $`N_2`$ branes of type 2. In this case the world-volume theory is a $`𝒩=2`$ Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $`SU(N_1)\times SU(N_2)`$ 333We neglect a diagonal $`U(1)`$ factor which is decoupled, and the relative $`U(1)`$ which are subleading in the large $`N`$-limit. and two hypermultiplets in the bifundamental representations $`(𝐍_\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{𝐍}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ and $`(\overline{𝐍}_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐍_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ respectively. In this case our previous analysis can be generalized in a straightforward way and the correct results are simply obtained by replacing in all formulas the quantity $`(2MN)`$ with $`2(N_1N_2)`$ if we refer to the first factor of the gauge group, or with $`2(N_2N_1)`$ if instead we refer to the second factor of the gauge group.

Finally, we would like to point out that the method of obtaining the $`\beta `$-function and the chiral anomaly from the fractional brane solutions as we have described it now, does not rely on the use of the probe technique which instead was employed in Refs. , and in particular does not require that the analysis be made in the Coulomb branch of the $`𝒩=2`$ theory. The only necessary ingredients are the holographic identification of a world-volume field in terms of bulk supergravity quantities, as we did for example in Eq.(2.15), and its behavior under scale and chiral transformations. Everything else then follows from the explicit expressions Eqs.(2.17) and (2.18) of the gauge coupling constant and the $`\theta `$-angle in terms of the supergravity fields, expressions that are dictated by the low-energy limit of the world-volume action of the fractional branes. Thus this method can be in principle applied also to $`𝒩=1`$ models as we will discuss in the next section.

## 3 $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theories and fractional branes in $`𝐙_2\times 𝐙_2`$ orbifolds

Let us now consider type IIB string theory in the orbifold $`𝐂^3/(𝐙_2\times 𝐙_2)`$ which provides the simplest set up to realize supersymmetric gauge theories with $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry in four dimensions by means of fractional D3 branes, whose supergravity solution was obtained in Ref. . For definiteness we take the orbifold directions to be $`x^4,\mathrm{},x^9`$, introduce three complex coordinates defined by

$$z_1x^4+\mathrm{i}x^5=\rho _1\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _1},z_2x^6+\mathrm{i}x^7=\rho _2\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _2},z_3x^8+\mathrm{i}x^9=\rho _3\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _3},$$
(3.1)
and consider fractional D3 branes that are completely transverse to the orbifold, i.e. that are extended along $`x^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$. As explained in Refs. , there are four types of such fractional D3 branes corresponding to the four irreducible representations of $`𝐙_2\times 𝐙_2`$, none of which is free to move in the transverse space. The most general configuration we can consider is therefore a stack of $`N_1`$ branes of type 1, $`N_2`$ of type 2, $`N_3`$ of type 3 and $`N_4`$ of type 4, all located at the orbifold fixed point. On the world volume of this bound state there is a four dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $`SU(N_1)\times SU(N_2)\times SU(N_3)\times SU(N_4)`$ 444Again we do not consider irrelevant $`U(1)`$ factors. and bifundamental matter. In particular for each factor $`SU(N_I)`$ of the gauge group one finds 6 chiral multiplets, 3 of them transforming in the bifundamental representation ($`𝐍_𝐈,\overline{𝐍}_𝐉`$) and 3 in the conjugate representation ($`\overline{𝐍}_𝐈,𝐍_𝐉`$) with $`JI`$, for a total of 12 chiral multiplets. In the explicit string realization these fields are equipped with a suitable $`4\times 4`$ Chan-Paton matrix that specifies on which of the four types of branes the two end-points of the open string are attached. Taking this fact into account and picking the same complex structure as in Eq.(3.1), under the same conventions as those of Ref. , one can rearrange the 12 chiral multiplets into three $`4\times 4`$ matrices given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& A_1& 0& 0\\ B_1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& C_1\\ 0& 0& D_1& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& A_2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& B_2\\ C_2& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& D_2& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Phi }_3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& A_3\\ 0& 0& B_3& 0\\ 0& C_3& 0& 0\\ D_3& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(3.2)
where $`A_i,\mathrm{},D_i`$ are each a chiral multiplet. The position of these multiplets inside the matrices indicates from which types of open strings they originate, for example $`A_1`$ arises from strings stretched between branes of type 1 and branes of type 2, whereas $`C_3`$ from strings stretched between branes of type 3 and branes of type 2 and so on. Each field matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ encodes those chiral superfields having dynamics in the $`z_i`$ plane.

There are several important points that we would like to emphasize. First of all, the Lagrangian of this $`𝒩=1`$ theory contains a cubic superpotential of the form $`W=\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1[\mathrm{\Phi }_2,\mathrm{\Phi }_3])`$, which is renormalizable in the UV. This is to be contrasted to what happens in the conifold theory where the matter fields have a quartic unrenormalizable superpotential . Secondly, the Lagrangian of the orbifold theory is classically invariant under scale transformations of the energy and $`U(1)_R`$ transformations. Due to the presence of the cubic superpotential, the superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ have $`R`$-charge 2/3, and hence their scalar components $`\varphi _i`$ have charge 2/3 while the chiral fermions have charge $`1/3`$. Therefore, under a scale transformation with parameter $`\mu `$ and a $`U(1)_R`$ transformation with parameter $`\alpha `$ we have

$$\varphi _i\mu \mathrm{e}^{\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\alpha }\varphi _i$$
(3.3)
for $`i=1,2,3`$. As is well known, these transformations become anomalous in the quantum theory. Indeed, focusing for simplicity on the first factor of the gauge group (similar considerations hold for any gauge groups), we find a scale anomaly proportional to the (Wilsonian) $`\beta `$-function

$$\beta (g)=\frac{(3N_1N_2N_3N_4)}{16\pi ^2}g^3$$
(3.4)
where $`g`$ is the running coupling constant of $`SU(N_1)`$, and a $`U(1)_R`$ anomaly given by

$$_\alpha J_R^\alpha =2\left(N_1\frac{1}{3}\left(N_2+N_3+N_4\right)\right)q(x)$$
(3.5)
where $`q(x)`$ is the topological charge density for $`SU(N_1)`$ (see Eq.(2.2)). Just like in the $`𝒩=2`$ theories, also in this case we can combine the effect of the scale and chiral anomalies together by writing

$$\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}+\mathrm{i}\frac{(3N_1N_2N_3N_4)}{2\pi }\left(\mathrm{log}\mu +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\alpha \right)$$
(3.6)
where $`\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}`$ is defined as in Eq.(2.3) in terms of the coupling constant and $`\theta `$-angle of the first factor of the gauge group. Of course similar expressions hold for the other factors and can be obtained from the previous formulas in a straightforward way. Notice that while the chiral anomaly is a one-loop effect, in $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theories the $`\beta `$-function receives corrections at all loops. The reason why it is possible to construct the complex combination (3.6) is because here we are discussing the Wilsonian $`\beta `$-function which is perturbatively exact at one loop .

Let us now consider the supergravity background corresponding to our bound state of fractional D3 branes . This is characterized by a metric of the form

$$ds^2=H^{1/2}\eta _{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta +H^{1/2}\delta _\mathrm{}mdx^{\mathrm{}}dx^m,$$
(3.7)
a R-R 4-form $`C_{(4)}`$ and three pairs of scalars $`b_i`$ and $`c_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) which correspond to the components of the 2-forms $`B_{(2)}`$ and $`C_{(2)}`$ along the anti-self dual forms $`\omega _{(2)}^i`$ associated to the three exceptional vanishing cycles of the orbifold, namely

$$C_{(2)}=c_i\omega _{(2)}^i,B_{(2)}=b_i\omega _{(2)}^i$$
(3.8)
The explicit form of the solution can be found in Ref. ; here we simply recall that

$`b_i`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi ^2\alpha ^{})\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2g_s}{\pi }}f_i(N_I)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _i}{ϵ}}\right)`$ (3.9)
$`c_i`$ $`=`$ $`(4\pi \alpha ^{})g_sf_i(N_I)\theta _i`$ (3.10)
where

$`f_1(N_I)`$ $`=`$ $`N_1+N_2N_3N_4,`$
$`f_2(N_I)`$ $`=`$ $`N_1N_2+N_3N_4,`$ (3.11)
$`f_3(N_I)`$ $`=`$ $`N_1N_2N_3+N_4.`$
As we mentioned before, the world-volume action of our bound state of fractional D3 branes in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ reduces to a $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions with gauge group $`SU(N_1)\times SU(N_2)\times SU(N_3)\times SU(N_4)`$ and bifundamental matter. The bosonic part of this action can be obtained by expanding the Dirac-Born-Infeld action plus the Wess-Zumino term for fractional D3 branes in the corresponding supergravity background, and then observing that the complex coordinates $`z_i`$ of Eq. (3.1) can be traded for the scalar components $`\varphi _i`$ of the chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ of Eq. (3.2), similarly to what we have done in Eq. (2.15) with the scalar component of the $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet. This correspondence can also be understood by looking at the explicit open-string realization of the scalars $`\varphi _i`$, each of which is indeed related to a position in the $`z_i`$ plane . Using this identification between $`\varphi _i`$ and $`z_i`$, and Eq. (3.3), we can find the realization of the scale and chiral transformations on the supergravity coordinates, namely

$$z_i\mu \mathrm{e}^{\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{i}\alpha }z_i$$
(3.12)
We now focus for simplicity on those terms of world-volume action that, in the low-energy limit, depend only on the gauge fields of the first factor $`SU(N_1)`$ of the gauge group. These terms are simply

$$S_{\mathrm{YM}}=\frac{1}{4g^2}d^4xF_{\alpha \beta }^aF_a^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}}{32\pi ^2}d^4xF_{\alpha \beta }^a\stackrel{~}{F}_a^{\alpha \beta }$$
(3.13)
where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi g_s}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}b_i1\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi g_s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}f_i(N_I)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _i}{ϵ}}`$
$`\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}g_s}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_i={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}f_i(N_I)\theta _i`$ (3.14)
Using these formulas, we see that the supergravity realization of the complex coupling $`\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}`$ is

$$\tau _{\mathrm{YM}}=\mathrm{i}\left[\frac{1}{4g_s}+\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{i}{}f_i(N_I)\mathrm{log}\frac{z_i}{ϵ}\right]$$
(3.15)
From this equation it is now immediate to see that the field theory result (3.6) is correctly reproduced if we use the transformation (3.12) and the explicit definitions of the functions $`f_i(N_I)`$ given in Eq. (3.11).

We conclude by observing that a pure $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions can be realized on a stack of $`M`$ fractional D3 branes of just one type, for example by putting $`N_1=M`$ and $`N_2=N_3=N_4=0`$ in our previous analysis. Therefore, the method we have described allows to obtain the correct $`\beta `$-function and chiral anomaly of this theory from the supergravity solution, namely

$$\frac{1}{g^2}\frac{1}{g^2}+\frac{3M}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\mu \mathrm{and}\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}\theta _{\mathrm{YM}}2M\alpha .$$
(3.16)
Notice that the equation above correctly accounts for the breaking of the $`U(1)`$ R-symmetry to $`𝐙_{2M}`$. To our knowledge this is the first quantitative derivation of these results for pure $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills theory using a supergravity dual background. Since these are UV results, the naked singularity of the supergravity solution does not play any role. It would be very interesting to explore the possibility of resolving this singularity, for example by suitably deforming the orbifold $`𝐂^3/(𝐙_2\times 𝐙_2)`$, and see whether in this way one can get some information on the IR behavior of the dual gauge theory.

Acknowledgments M.F. and A.L. thank M. Billó and I. Pesando and M.B. thanks G. Ferretti, E. Imeroni, E. Lozano-Tellechea and J.L. Petersen for useful discussions and exchange of ideas. M.B. is supported by a EC Marie Curie Postdoc Fellowship under contract number HPMF-CT-2000-00847.


text:
# Can the notion of a homogeneous gravitational field be transferred from classical mechanics to the Relativistic Theory of Gravity?

## 1 Introduction

In Newton’s Classical Mechanics (CM), the homogeneous gravitational field is the gravitational field which, in every point, has the same gradient of the potential. Such a field is produced by an infinite material plane with the constant surface density of mass. In Section 3, is presented this field in CM.

It’s natural to ask if the classical concept of the homogeneous gravitational field can be conserved in the Relativistic Theory of Gravitation (RTG). The source of inspiration in the analysis of this problem is the monograph by Bogorodskii , Section 17.

In his monograph, Bogorodskii considers the problem of finding the gravitational field produced by a system of masses uniformly distriduted on a plane, according to Einstein’s General Relativity Theory (GRT). In Section 4, I present what Bogorodskii means by homogeneous gravitational field in GTR. But, as we’ll see, his solution has an unccountable singularity wich appears without any physical explanation.

The problem of such a homogeneous gravitational field in RTG, has briefly considered by E. Soós and by me in the paper , Section 3. In Section 5 of the present paper, I analysed in all details this problem. The solution of the complet system of RTG’s Eqs. for the considered problem, differs from Bogorodskii’s solution. The obtained solution is regular in its entire domaine of definition but it can’t be acceptable like a real gravitational field with physical sense because it doesn’t fulfill the Causality Principle (CP) in RTG. So, it remains open the problem of finding this field according to RTG.

In section 6, I show that if the solution obtained by me is not rejected using CP, the velocity of some free test particles in the produced field, overpass the velocity of light in vacuum.

## 2 RTG’s equations and the Causality Principle in RTG

RTG was constructed by Logunov and his co-workers (see , ) as a field theory of the gravitational field within the framework of Special Relativity Theory (SRT). The Minkowski space-time is a fundamental space that incorporates all physical fields, including gravitation. The line element of this space is:

$$d\sigma ^2=\gamma _{mn}(x)dx^mdx^n,$$
(2.1)
where $`x^m,`$ $`m=`$1, 2, 3, 4, is an admissible coordinate system in the underlying Minkowski space-time; $`\gamma _{mn}(x)`$ are the components of the Minkowskian metric in the assumed coordinate system.

The gravitational field is described by a second order symmetric tensor $`\varphi ^{mn}(x)`$, owing to the action of which un effective Riemannian space-time arises.

One of the basic assumption of RTG tells us that the behaviour of matter in the Minkowskian’s space -time with metric $`\gamma _{mn}(x)`$, under the influence of the gravitational field $`\varphi ^{mn}(x),`$ is identical to its behaviour in the effective Riemannian space-time with metric $`g_{mn}(x)`$, determined according to the rules:

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}=\sqrt{g}g^{mn}=\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{mn}+\sqrt{\gamma }\varphi ^{mn},g=det(g_{mn}),\gamma =det(\gamma _{mn}).$$
(2.2)
Such interaction of the gravitational field with matter was termed the geometrisation principle of RTG.

The behaviour of the gravitational field is governed by the following differential laws of RTG:

$$R_n^m\frac{1}{2}\delta _n^mR+\frac{m_g^2}{2}\left(\delta _n^m+g^{mk}\gamma _{kn}\frac{1}{2}\delta _n^mg^{kl}\gamma _{kl}\right)=8\pi T_n^m,$$
(2.3)
$$D_m\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}=0\text{}m,n,k,l=1,2,3,4.$$
(2.4)
Here $`R_n^m`$ is Ricci’s tensor corresponding to $`g_{mn}`$ , $`R=R_m^m`$ is the scalar curvature, $`\delta _n^m`$ are Kronecker’s symbols, $`m_g`$ is the graviton mass and $`T_n^m`$ denotes the energy-momentum tensor of the sources of the gravitational field. In (2.4) $`D_m`$ is the operator of covariant differentiation with respect to the metric $`\gamma _{mn}`$. Eqs. (2.3), (2.4) are covariant under arbitrary coordinate transformations with a nonzero Jacobian. In RTG all field variables depend on the universal spatial-temporal coordinates in the Minkowski space-time. The presence of the mass terms in Eqs. (2.3) makes it possible to unambiguously determine the geometry of space-time and the gravitational field energy-momentum density in the absence of matter. Eqs. (2.4) tell us that a gravitational field can have only the spin states 0 and 2. In the work , these Eqs. which determine the polarization states of the field, are consequences of the fact that the source of the gravitational field is the universal conserved density of the energy-momentum tensor of the entire matter including the gravitational field. The graviton mass substantially influences on the Uniserse evolution and alters the nature of gravitational collapse.

In this work, because of the extreme smallness of the graviton mass ($`m_g10^{66}`$ grams), we will analyse the problem of finding the homogeneous gravitational field in RTG, considering Eqs. (2.3) without mass terms.

Relativistic units are used in all Eqs. .

Eqs. (2.4) can be written in the following form (see , Appendix 1):

$`D_m\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}=\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn},_m+\gamma _{mp}^n\stackrel{~}{g}^{mp}=0,`$ (2.5)
where $`\gamma _{mp}^n`$ are the components of the metric connection generated by $`\gamma _{mn}`$ and the comma is the derivation relative to the involved coordinate. The causality principle (CP) in RTG is presented and analysed by Logunov in , Section 6.

According to CP any motion of a pointlike test body must have place within the causality light cone of Minkowski’s space-time. According to Logunov’s analysis CP will be satisfied if and only if for any isotropic Minkowskian vector $`u^m`$ , i.e. for any vector $`u^m`$ satisfying the condition:

$$\gamma _{mn}u^mu^n=0,$$
(2.6)
the metric of the effective Riemannian space-time satisfies the restriction:

$$g_{mn}u^mu^n0$$
(2.7)
According to CP of RTG only those solutions of the system (2.3), (2.4) can have physical meaning which satisfies the above restriction.

It’s important to stress the fact that CP in the above form can be formulated only in RTG, because only in this theory, the space-time is Minkowskian and the gravitational field is described by a second order symmetric tensor field $`\varphi _{mn}(x)`$, $`x^m`$ being the admissible coordinates in the underlying Minkowskian space-time, $`x^1,x^2,x^3`$ being the space-like variables and $`x^4`$ being the time-like variable.

## 3 Homogeneous gravitational field in CM

In CM a gravitational field is named homogeneous if its intensity is a constant magnitude or a picewise constant magnitude. Such a field is generated by a system of masses uniformly distributed on a plane. The connection between the surface density $`\sigma `$ of the mass and the acceleration $`𝒢`$ due to the produced gravitational field is given by the relation:

$$𝒢=2\pi \sigma k>0,$$
(3.1)
$`k`$ being Newton’s gravitational constant.

Choosing the Cartesian axes $`x`$ and $`y`$ in the mentioned plane and the axis $`z`$ perpendicular to this plane, the motion of a free test particle in this gravitational field is governed by Eqs.:

$$\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=0\text{}\frac{d^2y}{dt^2}=0$$
(3.2)
$$\frac{d^2z}{d^2t}+𝒢=0\text{, for }z>0\text{ and }\frac{d^2z}{dt^2}𝒢=0\text{, for }z<0,$$
(3.3)
where $`t`$ is the Newtonian time.

It can be also notice that in a non-inertial frame which moves with constant proper acceleration $`𝒢,`$ the laws of motion of a free test particle have the following form:

$$\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=0\text{}\frac{d^2y}{dt^2}=0\text{}\frac{d^2z}{dt^2}+𝒢=0\text{, for any }z.$$
(3.4)
Here $`x,`$ $`y,`$ $`z`$ represent the coordinates of the particle in the non-inertial frame.

In spite of the formal similarity between the system of Eqs. (3.2), (3.3) and Eqs. (3.4), these two sets of laws are not equivalent. For this, it’s sufficient to compare Eqs. (3.3) and (3.4)$`_3.`$ While the laws (3.4) can take, by a transformation of frame, the following form:

$$\frac{d^2X}{dt^2}=0\text{}\frac{d^2Y}{dt^2}=0\text{}\frac{d^2Z}{dt^2}=0\text{, for any }Z,$$
(3.5)
such an operation it’s not possible for the laws (3.2), (3.3). The non-equivalence between these two sets of laws reflects the fact that in the first case we deal with a real gravitational field unlike the second case in which an inertial force is present.

That example shows that even in CM, there is a difference between a real gravitational force produced by a distribution of mass and an inertial force acting in a non-inertial frame.

## 4 Homogeneous gravitational field in GTR

In his monograph , Section 17, Bogorodskii has searched for an answer to the following questions: There exists such a homogeneous gravitational field in GTR? Which is the Riemannian metric that represents in GTR the gravitational field produced by an infinite material plane with constant surface density of mass? His answers at these questions are presented below.

Taking into account the classical results, Bogorodskii looks for the solutions of Einstein’s Eqs. in the form:

$$ds^2=Adx^2Ady^2Cdz^2+Ddt^2$$
(4.1)
where $`A`$, $`C`$, $`D`$ are positive functions depending only on $`z`$.

The energy -momentum tensor of the sources which are uniformely distributed on the plane $`z`$=0 is:

$$T^{mn}0,\text{for any }z0.$$
(4.2)
For the metric (4.1) and for the expression of the energy-momentum tensor (4.2), Bogorodskii concludes that Einstein’s field Eqs. are fulfilled if the unknown functions $`A,`$ $`C,`$ $`D,`$ satisfy the following Eqs.:

$$2\left(\frac{A^{^{}}}{A}\right)^{^{}}\frac{A^{^{}}C^{^{}}}{AC}+\frac{A^{^{}}}{A}\left(\frac{2A^{^{}}}{A}+\frac{D^{^{}}}{D}\right)=0,$$

$$2\left(\frac{D^{^{}}}{D}\right)^{^{}}\frac{C^{^{}}D^{^{}}}{CD}+\frac{D^{^{}}}{D}\left(\frac{2A^{^{}}}{A}+\frac{D^{^{}}}{D}\right)=0,$$
(4.3)
$$\frac{A^{^{}}}{A}\left(\frac{A^{^{}}}{A}+\frac{2D^{^{}}}{D}\right)=0.$$

Here the prime mark denotes the derivation relative to the coordinate $`z.`$

According to the last Eq., there are two possibilities:

$$A^{^{}}=0\text{ or }\left(\frac{A^{^{}}}{A}+\frac{2D^{^{}}}{D}\right)=0.$$
(4.4)
In the first case it can be taken $`A=1,`$ because the functions $`A,`$ $`C,`$ $`D`$ are determined up to a constant. In this case, Eq. (4.3)1 is evidentely fulfilled and (4.3)2 becomes:

$$\left(\frac{D^{^{}}}{D}\right)^{^{}}\frac{1}{2}\frac{C^{^{}}D^{^{}}}{CD}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{D^{^{}}}{D}\right)^2=0.$$
(4.5)
This yields $`C=aD^1D^{^{}}`$ 2, $`a`$ being a real constant of integration.

So, for this case the solution of Einstein’s Eqs. has the form:

$$A=1\text{}C=aD^1D^{^{}}^2,$$
(4.6)
$`D`$ being an arbitrary function on $`z`$ .

For the second case it can be taken $`A=D^2`$ and Eqs. (4.3)1, (4.3)2 become:

$$\left(\frac{D^{^{}}}{D}\right)^{^{}}\frac{1}{2}\frac{C^{^{}}D^{^{}}}{CD}\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{D^{^{}}}{D}\right)^2=0.$$
(4.7)
This yields $`C=bD^5D^{}`$ 2, $`b`$ being a constant of integration.

Thus for the second case, the solution of Einstein’s Eqs. has the form:

$$A=D^2\text{}C=bD^5D^{}^2,$$
(4.8)
$`D`$ being an arbitrary function on $`z`$ .

With the view of finding $`D`$($`z`$), Bogorodskii observes that the motion of a free test particle in the produced gravitational field is determined by Eqs. of geodesics:

$$\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}+\left(\frac{A^{}}{A}\frac{D^{}}{D}\right)\frac{dx}{dt}\frac{dz}{dt}=0\text{}\frac{d^2y}{dt^2}+\left(\frac{A^{}}{A}\frac{D^{}}{D}\right)\frac{dy}{dt}\frac{dz}{dt}=0\text{,}$$
(4.9)
$$\frac{d^2z}{dt^2}\frac{A^{}}{2C}\left[\left(\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^2+\left(\frac{dy}{dt}\right)^2\right]+\left(\frac{C^{}}{2C}\frac{D^{}}{D}\right)\left(\frac{dz}{dt}\right)^2+\frac{D^{}}{2C}=0.$$
(4.10)
From the above system it can be seen that the vertical motion, with the velocity equals to zero at the initial moment, is described by the system of Eqs.:

$$\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=0\text{}\frac{d^2y}{dt^2}=0\text{,}$$
(4.11)
$$\frac{d^2z}{dt^2}+\left(\frac{C^{}}{2C}\frac{D^{}}{D}\right)\left(\frac{dz}{dt}\right)^2+\frac{D^{}}{2C}=0.$$
(4.12)
In the case of slow motion, the term which contains the velocity must be omitted, so, Eq.(4.12) becomes :

$$\frac{d^2z}{dt^2}+\frac{D^{}}{2C}=0.$$
(4.13)
Comparing the system of Eqs. (4.11), (4.13) with the classical one, Bogorodskii requires:

$$\frac{D^{}}{2C}=𝒢.$$
(4.14)
I’ll return at this condition.

Finally, taking the constants $`a,`$ $`b`$ equal to $`\frac{1}{4𝒢^2}`$ and using the relation (4.14), from (4.6), (4.8) Bogorodskii obtaines the solutions:

$$A=1\text{}C=e^{2𝒢z}\text{}D=e^{2𝒢z}\text{,}$$
(4.15)
and

$$A=(18𝒢z)^{1/2}\text{}C=(18𝒢z)^{5/4},D=(18𝒢z)^{1/4}.$$
(4.16)
For the first solution (4.15), the Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor is identically zero. Thus, the autor concludes that (4.15) does not represent a real gravitational field. It’s easy to see that by the transformations:

$$X=x\text{}Y=y\text{}Z=\frac{1}{𝒢}[e^{𝒢z}ch(𝒢t)1]\text{}T=\frac{1}{𝒢}e^{𝒢z}sh(𝒢t)\text{,}$$
(4.17)
the fundamental invariant (4.1) becomes the Minkowskian one:

$$d\sigma ^2=dX^2dY^2dZ^2+dT^2.$$
(4.18)
The properties and the singularities of the non-inertial frame characterized by the relations (4.17) are studied in detail in the monograph of Jukov , Section15. I don’t present here these properties.

Consequently, the first solution (4.15) corresponds to a non-inertial frame whose origine moves with the constant proper acceleration $`𝒢`$ along the pozitive axis Z of an inertial frame.

The Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor corresponding to the second solution (4.16) is not zero. According to Bogorodskii, this solution represents the real homogeneous gravitational field in GRT, produced by the considered distribution of mass.

First of all, it can be observed that the solution (4.16) has a strange singularity in $`z=\frac{1}{8𝒢}`$ , which is difficult to be explained.

Now, it’s the moment to return to the condition (4.14) required by Bogorodskii. It has been pointed out in Section 3, that in CM the motion of a free test particle in the real gravitational field is governed by the system of Eqs. (3.2), (3.3) not by the system (3.4). Thus, Bogorodskii’s relation (4.14) must be replaced with:

$$\frac{D^{}}{2C}=\{\begin{array}{c}𝒢\text{ , }z>0\\ 𝒢\text{ , }z<0\end{array}$$
(4.19)
Hence, Bogorodskii’s solution (3.12) must be replaced with:

$$A=(18𝒢z)^{1/2}\text{}C=(18𝒢z)^{5/4}\text{}D=(18𝒢z)^{1/4}\text{,}$$
(4.20)
the sign + corresponds to $`z<0`$, the sign - corresponds to $`z>0`$.

The solution (4.20) can be accepted only for $`\frac{1}{8𝒢}<z<\frac{1}{8𝒢}`$ and the singularities in $`z=\pm \frac{1}{8𝒢}`$ still remain without any physical explanation.

## 5 Homogeneous gravitational field in RTG

The problem of finding the homogeneous gravitational field according to RTG was shortly considered by E. Soós and by me in the paper , Section 3. I present here all details concerning this problem.

To study any problem in RTG’s framework, one must solve Eqs. (2.3), (2.4) in terms of the coordinates of the underlying Minkowski space-time. Only those solutions that satisfiy CP could represent physical acceptable gravitational fields.

I keep the same point of departure as Bogorodskii. So, I look for the solutions of this problem in RTG in the form (4.1). Two approaches can be employed in obtaining these solutions. The both will be presented.

At first, I use the already found solutions, (4.15), (4.20), which fulfill Eqs. (2.3). I verify if these solutions satisfy Eqs. (2.4).

For the solution (4.15), the components of the underlying Minkowskian metric and the components of the Riemannian effective metric coincide because this solution appears at the transition from an inertial reference system to an accelerated reference system in Minkowski’s space-time.Thus, Eqs. (2.4) are obviously satisfied, $`D_m`$ being the operator of covariant differentiation with respect to the Minkowskian metric.

For the solution (4.20) , first of all, it must be establish the reference system of the underlying Minkowski space-time. This reference system can be obtained assuming the vanishment of the gravitational field. In this way, for $`\sigma `$=0 and implicitly $`𝒢`$=0, the metric (4.1) in the above reference system becomes:

$$d\sigma ^2=dx^2dy^2dz^2+dt^2.$$
(5.1)
Consequently, for the chosen system of coordinates, the components of the metric connection $`\gamma _{mp}^n`$ are zero and Eqs. (2.5) have the simple form:

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn},_m=0\text{.}$$
(5.2)
Taking into account (2.2), (4.1), (4.20), Eqs. (5.2) are not fulfilled. So, (4.20) is not an admissible solution in RTG. For finding an admissible solution in RTG, I use the same procedure as Logunov and Mestvirishvili in , Chapter 13. Thus, I am looking for a system of coordinates {$`\eta ^i`$}$`=\{X,`$ $`Y,`$ $`Z,`$ $`T\}`$ in which Eqs. (2.3) are fulfilled, Eqs. (2.4) establishing a one to one relationship between the sets of coordinates {$`\eta ^i`$} and {$`\xi ^i`$}={$`x,`$ $`y,`$ $`z,`$ $`t`$} in the Minkowski space-time. This change is made in such a way that, when the gravitational field is swiched off, we arrive in the Minkowski space-time with Galilean metric:

$$d\sigma ^2=dX^2dY^2dZ^2+dT^2.$$
(5.3)
Thus, $`\gamma _{mp}^n`$ in this system of coordinates are identically null. Because the components of the metric (4.1) depend only on $`z`$, I shift from the variables {$`\xi ^i`$} to the variables {$`\eta ^i`$} assuming that:

$$X=x,Y=y,Z=Z(z),T=t.$$
(5.4)
We write Eqs. (2.4) in the chosen system of coordinates, in a somewhat different form (see the relations (13.17), (13.22), from ):

$$\frac{}{\xi ^m}\left(\sqrt{g(\xi )}g^{mn}(\xi )\frac{\eta ^p}{\xi ^n}\right)=0.$$
(5.5)
For the transformation (5.4), taking into account (4.1), (4.20), the system (5.5) becomes:

$$\frac{d}{dz}\left(\left(18𝒢z\right)\frac{dZ}{dz}\right)=0.$$
(5.6)
Integrating this Eq. and choosing the constant of integration, in such a way that for $`𝒢`$ converges to zero, $`Z`$ converges to $`z,`$we get:

$$Z=\frac{1}{8𝒢}\mathrm{ln}\left(18𝒢z\right).$$
(5.7)
Now, it’s sufficient to employ the tensor transformation law and we find the components of the metric (4.1), in this second case, in the the system of coordinates (5.4), (5.7):

$$A=e^{4𝒢Z}\text{}C=e^{6𝒢Z}\text{}D=e^{2𝒢Z}\text{, for any }Z>0$$

$$A=e^{4𝒢Z}\text{}C=e^{6𝒢Z}\text{}D=e^{2𝒢Z}\text{, for any }Z<0$$
(5.8)
The solution (5.8) satisfies the complet system of Eqs. (2.3), (2.4). This solution is regular for any $`Z0.`$ Anyway, it is not derivable for $`Z`$=0 and crossing this plane the derivatives of the functions $`A,`$ $`C,`$ $`D`$ have finite jumps. Of course, the appearence of this singularity, concentrated in the plane $`Z`$=0, reflects the fact that this real gravitational field has like source a system of masses distributed on the respective plane. We observe also that the condition (4.19) can be only approximately fulfilled, because, for example, from (5.8)1:

$$\frac{D^{^{}}}{2C}=𝒢e^{8𝒢Z}\text{, for any }Z>0.$$
(5.9)
As the same time, we notice that this approximation is justified somehow. If we use the usual units, we get:

$$\frac{D^{^{}}}{2C}=\frac{𝒢}{c^2}e^{\frac{8𝒢Z}{c^2}}\text{, for any }Z>0,$$
(5.10)
$`c`$ being the speed of light in vacuum, relative to an inertial frame. Consequently, for any $`Z>0`$ with:

$$Z\frac{c^2}{𝒢},$$
(5.11)
the ratio $`\frac{D^{^{}}}{2C}`$ can be considered approximately constant.

The analysis in RTG can’t be stoped here, since the solutions must be also submitted to CP.

For the first solution (4.15), CP is fulfilled evidently, because in this case, as it was already mentioned, the Minkowskian metric and the Riemannian metric are the same. Thus, the solution (4.15) is also an admissible solution in RTG. Its physical significance was already clarified.

For the second solution (5.8), taking into account the form (5.3) of the underlying Minkowski space-time, $`u`$=(1, 0, 0,1) is an isotropic Minkowskian vector. Consequently, the condition(2.7) is fulfilled if:

$$e^{2𝒢Z}e^{4𝒢Z}\text{, for }Z>0\text{ and }e^{2𝒢Z}e^{4𝒢Z}\text{, for }Z<0.$$
(5.12)
These conditions are not fulfilled for any $`Z>0`$ or $`Z<0`$, if $`𝒢`$ is not zero.

We conclude that in accordance with RTG, can’t exist a generalization of the homogenouse gravitational field in Bogorodskii’s sense.

It can also be employed the following approache for finding the solution of the considered problem in RTG. From Eqs. (2.3) with $`T_n^m0,`$ for $`z0,`$ we get the solutions (4.6), (4.8). I stress that in (4.6), (4.8), $`D(z)`$ is an arbitrary function. This fact shows clearly that Einstein’s field Eqs., are not enough for finding in an unique manner the gravitational field produced by the considered distridution of mass. I determine the unknown function $`D(z)`$, using Eqs. (2.4).

Let us consider $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$, $`t`$ the Galilean coordinates of an inertial frame. So, Eqs. (2.4) take the simple forme (5.2). Taking into account (2.2), (4.1), (4.6), (4.8), from (5.2) we get:

$$D(z)=pe^{qz}\text{,}$$
(5.13)
where $`p`$ and $`q`$ are real constants.

Thus, introducing (5.13) into (4.6), we obtain the first solution according to RTG:

$$A=1\text{}C=ape^{qz}\text{}D=pe^{qz}$$
(5.14)
and from (4.8) the second solution:

$$A=p^2e^{2qz}\text{}C=bp^3e^{3qz}\text{}D=pe^{qz}\text{.}$$
(5.15)
For the first solution (5.14), the Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor is identically zero and for the second solution (5.15) it’s different from zero.

The constants $`a`$, $`b`$, $`p`$, $`q`$ must be determined from the Correspondence Principle: after switching off the gravitational field, the curvature of space disappears and we find ourselves in the Minkowski space-time in the chosen reference system. So, Eqs. of motion become classical Eqs. of motion in the chosen reference system. From the geometrization principle of RTG, Eqs. of motion in the considered gravitational field are given by Eqs. (4.9), (4.10). In the case of vertical and slow motion, this system of Eqs. become the system (4.11), (4.13). Thus, from the Correspondence Principle, we must have the relation (4.14) for the solution (5.14) and the relation (4.19) for the solution (5.15).

For the same principle, the metric must tend to the Galilean metric for $`𝒢`$ converges to zero. Thus, in the first case, we get the solution (4.15) and in the second case the solution (5.8). For this last solution the relation (4.19) is only approximately fulfilled, as we have already discused.

So, by the two approaches, we have obtained the same result: one solution, (4.15), that represents an inertial force and the other, (5.8), which can’t be accepted as the real homogeneous gravitational field produced by the considered distribution of mass, because it doesn’t fulfill CP (see 5.12).

## 6 The importance of CP in RTG

The example which will be presented in this Section shows clearly the importance of CP in deciding the rejection of the solution (5.8). I’ll show that there exist free test particles, in the obtained space-time (5.8), which move quickly than the light in vacuum.

Let us consider a free test particle, situated at the initial moment $`t=0`$, at the distance $`h>0`$ from the plane $`z`$=0, where the masses are concentrated. For the sake of simplicity, we consider the problem in the plane $`xOz.`$ At the initial moment $`t`$=0, when the particle has the assumed position:

$$x(0)=0$$
(6.1)
$$z(0)=h>0$$
(6.2)
it is thrown up.

From the geometrization principle, if we want to study the behavior of this particle under the influences of the considered homogeneous gravitational field, we can study its behaviour in the following effective Riemannian space-time (see (5.8)1):

$$ds^2=e^{4𝒢z}dx^2e^{6𝒢z}dz^2+e^{2𝒢z}dt^2$$
(6.3)
Taking into account Eqs. (4.9)1, (4.10) of geodesics and the expression (6.3) of the Riemannian metric, the trajectories of the particle are described by:

$$\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}6𝒢\frac{dx}{dt}\frac{dz}{dt}=0\text{,}$$
(6.4)
$$\frac{d^2z}{dt^2}+2𝒢e^{2𝒢z}\left(\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^25𝒢\left(\frac{dz}{dt}\right)^2+𝒢e^{8𝒢z}=0.$$
(6.5)
We also consider that at the initial moment $`t`$=0:

$$\dot{x}(0)=a>0,$$
(6.6)
$$\dot{z}(0)=b>0,$$
(6.7)
$`a,`$ $`b`$ beaing real constants.

Solving Eq. (6.4) and taking into account (6.2), (6.6), we get:

$$\dot{x}(t)=ae^{6𝒢(zh)}.$$
(6.8)
Also solving Eq. (6.5), on the basis of (6.2), (6.6), (6.7), we get:

$$\dot{z}(t)=e^{4𝒢z}\sqrt{1+Le^{2𝒢z}a^2e^{12𝒢h}e^{6𝒢z}.}$$
(6.9)
Here $`L`$ is a real constant equals to:

$$L=b^2e^{10𝒢h}+a^2e^{8𝒢h}e^{2𝒢h}.$$
(6.10)
Now, we single out in (6.3) the time-like part and the space-time part:

$$ds^2=d\sigma ^2dl^2,$$
(6.11)
where:

$$d\sigma ^2=e^{2𝒢z}dt^2,$$
(6.12)
$$dl^2=e^{4𝒢z}dx^2+e^{6𝒢z}dz^2.$$
(6.13)
So, if a pointlike event has coordinates ($`x,`$ $`0,`$ $`z,`$ $`t`$) and another pointlike event has coordinates ($`x+dx,`$ $`0,`$ $`z+dz,`$ $`t+dt`$), then an observer in ($`x,`$ $`0,`$ $`z,`$ $`t`$) with four-velocity ($`\frac{dx}{ds},`$ $`0,`$ $`\frac{dz}{ds},`$ $`\frac{dt}{ds}`$), measures between the two events a proper spatial distance $`dl`$ and an interval of proper time $`d\sigma .`$

The velocity $`v`$($`v^1=\frac{dx}{dt},`$ $`0,`$ $`v^3=\frac{dz}{dt}`$) of the particle, in the considered effective Riemannian space-time, has the following absolute value:

$$v^2=\frac{dl^2}{dt^2}=e^{4𝒢z}\dot{x}^2+e^{6𝒢z}\dot{z}^2$$
(6.14)
It is natural to demand that the initial velocity of our particle be smaller than the velocity of light in vacuum. So, from (6.2), (6.6), (6.7), (6.14), we get:

$$e^{4𝒢h}a^2+e^{6𝒢h}b^2<1.$$
(6.15)
Taking into account (6.10), (6.15), we obtain the following restriction for the constant $`L:`$

$$L<e^{4𝒢h}e^{2𝒢h}$$
(6.16)
We have considered $`h>0`$, so, from (6.16):

$$L<0.$$
(6.17)
Now, I show that for the case chosen by me, there are some coordinates $`z`$, such that the velocity of the particle at these points overpass the velocity of light in vacuum.So, I find some coordinate $`z`$ such that:

$$v^2(z)>1.$$
(6.18)
Introducing (6.8), (6.9) into (6.14), the inequality (6.18) is equivalent to:

$$e^{2𝒢z}+Le^{4𝒢z}>1.$$
(6.19)
Taking into account (6.17), by some calculus, we obtain that for:

$$\frac{1}{4}<L<0,$$
(6.20)
so, for some conditions imposed on the initial values of the velocity, for any $`z`$ satisfying:

$$\frac{1}{2𝒢}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1+4L}}{2L}\right)<z<\frac{1}{2𝒢}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1\sqrt{1+4L}}{2L}\right),$$
(6.21)
the inequality (6.19) is fulfilled.

For example, the restrictions (6.20) are fulfilled for the following $`a`$ and $`b`$:

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\rho e^{2𝒢h}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`\rho e^{3𝒢h}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\text{with }\theta (0,\pi /2),0<\rho <1,\rho ^2>1{\displaystyle \frac{(e^{^{2𝒢h}}2)^2}{4}}.`$
Hence, if we consider in the effective Riemannian space-time (5.8)1 a free test particle, which has at the initial time the position (6.1), (6.2) and the velocity (6.6), (6.7), such that, taking into account (6.10), the real constants $`a,`$ $`b`$ satisfy the restrictions (6.20), this particle moves quikly than the light in vacuum.

## 7 Conclusions

As we have seen, in CM, GRT, RTG, if a frame is moving at a constant proper acceleration, relative to an inertial frame, then the inertial field due to the force of inertia, is a constant field. The expression of the Minkowski line element (4.15) is the same in GRT and RTG. In CM, it was considered that this constant field is indistingushable from a homogeneous gravitational field produced by an infinite material plane. But from (3.2), (3.3) and (3.4) we have seen that there exists a difference, even in CM, between these two fields. This is due to the fact that the gravitational force is a force of attraction. In GRT and RTG the difference between the constant field produced by an inertial force and the homogeneous gravitational field due to the presence of mass, is substantial. Bogorodskii’s solution in GRT, for the homogeneous gravitational field, is given by (4.16). As we have already discused, his solution has an unccountable singularity. The solution obtained in RTG has the form (5.8). Unfortunately, this solution can’t be kept because it doesn’t satisfy CP in RTG. The decision of the rejection of this solution, using CP, it’s right. Indeed, in the obtained space-time (5.8), the velocity of a free test particle can overpass the velocity of light in vacuum. Ending to this analysis, I can conclude that the problem of finding in RTG the gravitational field produced by a uniform distribution of mass concentrated on an infinite plane is a very interesting problem, but which remains open.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank my teacher E. Soós, for many helpful and interesting discussions which stimulated me to undertake this work. I am also grateful to Prof. V. Soloviev for translating this paper into Russian.