text:
# 1 The lines of constant relative contribution 𝛿 of non-factorizable terms to Γ_{𝑠𝑙}(𝐷) overlayed on the CLEO results [] in the physical region 𝜆₁≤-0.37 at 𝛼_𝑠(𝑚_𝑐)=0.25 and 𝛼_𝑠(𝑚_𝑐)=0.3. The elliptical arcs correspond to the indicated levels of 𝜒² in the CLEO data. The filled circle is centered at the minimum of 𝜒² of about 1.2 in the physical region. The lines in the left part of the plots correspond to the indicated values of 𝛿.

The determination of the weak mixing parameter $`V_{ub}`$ from the data on inclusive semileptonic decays of $`B`$ mesons $`BX_u\mathrm{}\nu `$ requires kinematical cuts in order to discriminate against the dominant contribution of $`BX_c\mathrm{}\nu `$ (see e.g. in the review talks ). The inclusive decay rate in the kinematically restricted part of the phase space however is sensitive to effects that being relatively small in the total rate are dominantly concentrated in the kinematical region of interest. A typical example of such behavior is presented by the method  using a cut in the invariant mass of the lepton pair: $`q^2(M_BM_D)^2`$, which leaves only about 20% of the total inclusive decay rate of $`BX_u\mathrm{}\nu `$. When considered within the operator product expansion this inclusive decay rate however receives a contribution from a matrix element over the $`B`$ mesons of a non-factorizable four-quark operator. More specifically, this contribution reads as (see e.g.  and references therein)

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_u\mathrm{}\nu )=\frac{G_F^2|V_{ub}|^2f_B^2m_b^2m_B}{12\pi }(B_2B_1),$$
(1)
where $`f_B`$ is the $`B`$ meson annihilation constant, and the phenomenological parameters “bag constants” $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ parameterize the matrix elements of four quark operators over the $`B`$ meson111The nonrelativistic normalization: e.g. $`B|b^{}b|B=1`$, for heavy quark operators is used throughout this paper.:

$`B|(\overline{b}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)u)(\overline{u}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b)|B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_B^2m_B}{2}}B_1,`$
$`B|\overline{b}(1\gamma _5)u)(\overline{u}(1+\gamma _5)b)|B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_B^2m_B}{2}}B_2.`$ (2)
In the factorization limit, where the matrix elements are saturated by the vacuum insertion between the two-quark factors, both constants $`B`$ are equal to one and cancel in the expression (1). However the deviations from factorization are expected to be at a $`10\%`$ level. (E.g. these deviations are generally $`O(N_C^2)`$ in the limit of large number of colors $`N_C`$.)

At the expected level of about 10% of breaking of the factorization relations, the natural magnitude of this contribution amounts to only about 2.5% of the total rate, but it is all concentrated near the maximal value of $`q^2`$, formally $`\delta (q^2m_b^2)`$, and thus is clearly greatly enhanced relative to the rate in the restricted part of the phase space. For this reason a better understanding of the magnitude of the non-factorizable terms is of a great importance for an accurate determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$ from the data.

The differences of the non-factorizable terms between heavy mesons with different light quark flavors, i.e. the flavor non-singlet part of these terms, can be tested  by measuring the differences of the semileptonic decay rates either between the $`B`$ mesons or between the $`D`$ mesons. An evaluation  of the non-singlet part of a similar non-factorizable term (although with a somewhat different color structure) from the difference of lifetimes of $`D_s`$ and $`D_0`$ mesons confirms that the deviations from factorization are indeed at a $`0.1`$ level.

An estimate of the light-flavor singlet part however requires an evaluation of the absolute decay rates of heavy mesons, rather than their differences, which also contain other, formally leading in the heavy quark expansion terms that are flavor-independent. Naturally, extracting the contribution of the non-factorizable terms from the absolute decay rates requires a quite precise knowledge of the parameters involved in the leading, perturbative term, as well as in the $`O(m_Q^2)`$ terms. This essentially leaves the semileptonic decays of $`D`$ mesons as the only appropriate testing ground for the flavor singlet part of the non-factorizable terms.

The problem of explaining the total semileptonic decay rates of $`D`$ mesons has been discussed in the literature in the past , where it has been noticed that the theoretical decay rate, scaling with mass of the charmed quark essentially as $`m_c^5`$, is significantly lower than the experimental value if $`m_c`$ is taken to be around $`1.4GeV`$, as suggested by the QCD sum rules for charmonium and possibly by other considerations. In order to remedy this contradiction Chernyak  suggested that the appropriate value of $`m_c`$ is substantially larger, $`m_c1.65GeV`$, while Blok, Dikeman and Shifman , keeping $`m_c`$ not larger than about 1.4 GeV, considered and dismissed a possible contribution of non-factorizable terms, but rather attributed the contradiction to possible violation of the quark-hadron duality. Certainly a violation of the duality and a general failure of the OPE at a scale as low as the charmed quark mass is a logical possibility, in which case a consideration of the $`BX_u\mathrm{}\nu `$ decay rate with the cut $`q^2(M_BM_D)^2`$ would also be of little meaning, since the scale involved in this case $`\mu _cm_c(1m_c/2m_b)`$  is yet somewhat lower. However, since there are no other indications of such failure, it looks more constructive to still use the heavy quark expansion and to explore the possibility that it is the contribution of the non-factorizable terms that reconciles the experimental semileptonic widths of the $`D`$ mesons with the theoretical expression using a moderate value of $`m_c`$. The latter possibility, also discussed in Ref., can now be addressed with better certainty, due to recent CLEO data  on the parameters $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ of the heavy quark expansion.

One can notice that when applied to semileptonic decay rates of the $`D`$ mesons, similarly to eq.(1) the contribution of the non-factorizable terms can be written as

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}(D)=\frac{G_F^2f_D^2m_c^2m_D}{12\pi }\left(|V_{cs}|^2\delta B_s+|V_{cd}|^2\delta B_d\right),$$
(3)
where $`\delta B_q`$ is an analog of the difference $`B_2B_1`$ for operators involving a light quark $`q`$, instead of the $`u`$ quark in eq.(2). In the leading order in heavy quark mass the parameter $`\delta B_q`$ can be written in terms of the matrix element of an operator involving only spatial components (in the rest frame of the heavy meson) of the $`VA`$ currents:

$$2P_Q|(\overline{Q}\stackrel{}{\gamma }(1\gamma _5)q)(\overline{q}\stackrel{}{\gamma }(1\gamma _5)Q)|P_Q=f_P^2m_P\delta B_q,$$
(4)
with $`P_Q`$ standing for a pseudoscalar meson containing a heavy quark $`Q`$. Numerically, the expression (3) gives

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}(D)=0.08ps^1\left(\frac{m_c}{1.4GeV}\right)^2\left(\frac{f_D}{0.2GeV}\right)^2\left(\frac{|V_{cs}|^2\delta B_s+|V_{cd}|^2\delta B_d}{0.1}\right).$$
(5)
Thus with ‘natural’ values $`\delta B_s,\delta B_d0.1`$ the effect of the non-factorizable terms easily reaches about one half of the experimental semileptonic decay rate, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}(D^0)=0.164\pm 0.007ps^1`$ . Therefore an analysis of these rates necessarily should include the non-factorizable terms even at their expected suppressed level.

As already mentioned the estimate of about 1.4 GeV for the ‘pole’ mass of the charmed quark originates from the charmonium sum rules . Subsequent development of this method had however revealed that the perturbative expansion in $`\alpha _s`$ for the propagation of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair, used in derivation of the sum rules, involves unusually large coefficients in the order $`\alpha _s^2`$ . This might cast a general doubt on reliability of extraction of the parameter $`m_c`$ from the sum rules.

An alternative way of extracting the heavy quark mass parameter from the data is based on the mass formula for a heavy pseudoscalar meson:

$$M_P=m_Q+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{\mu _\pi ^2\mu _g^2}{2m_Q}+O(m_Q^2),$$
(6)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is the mass shift due to light degrees of freedom in the meson, and $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ and $`\mu _g^2`$ describe the kinetic and chromomagnetic energy of the heavy quark inside the meson: $`\mu _\pi ^2=P|(\overline{Q}\stackrel{}{D}^2Q)|P`$, $`\mu _g^2=P|(\overline{Q}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B})Q)|P`$ with $`D_\mu `$ being the QCD covariant derivative and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ being the chromagnetic field operator (see e.g. in the review ). The parameter $`\mu _g^2`$ is readily found from the mass splitting of vector and pseudoscalar mesons, $`\mu _g^20.37GeV^2`$, while the values of the parameters $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ are less certain.

The value of $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ is however constrained by the inequality

$$\mu _\pi ^2\mu _g^2,$$
(7)
which follows, in terms of the nonrelativistic expansion for a heavy quark, from the non-negativity of the Pauli Hamiltonian $`(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{D})^2=\stackrel{}{D}^2(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B})`$, or from a more general inequality, not necessarily related to the heavy quark expansion,

$$\frac{M_P}{m_Q}=P|(\overline{Q}Q)|PP|(Q^{}Q)|P=1.$$
(8)
When applied to the expansion (6) the latter general inequality reduces to the constraint (7)222It can be noticed that the general inequality (8) implies the bound  on the difference of the $`b`$ and $`c`$ quark masses: $`m_bm_cM_BM_D3.41GeV`$, which does not rely on the heavy quark expansion..

Recently CLEO has published  an analysis of the parameters $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\lambda _1=\mu _\pi ^2`$ from their data on the inclusive photon spectrum in the decays $`BX_s\gamma `$ and on the second moment of the hadronic invariant mass in the semileptonic decays of $`B`$ mesons333It should be noted, for the sake of rigor, that depending on definition of perturbative renormalization contributions there may arise a difference between $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\mu _\pi ^2`$, as discussed in Ref.. However in the context of the analysis of Ref., no such difference arises, and $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ are equivalent. We switch to the notation $`\lambda _1`$ in the rest of this paper in order to facilitate following the relation to Ref... The results of this analysis can be converted, using the mass formula (6), into a value of $`m_c`$, which in turn can be used in the expression for the total semileptonic decay rate of the $`D`$ mesons and thus enables an evaluation of the contribution of the non-factorizable terms from comparison with the experimental rate. A calculation along these lines is to be presented in the rest of this paper. The additional element in this analysis as compared to Ref. is that the constraint (7), $`\lambda _10.37`$, is explicitly taken into account.

The expression for the semileptonic decay rate of a $`D`$ meson, including the perturbative QCD corrections up to two loops  and the terms in heavy quark expansion of order $`m_c^2`$  as well as the non-factorizable terms of order $`m_c^3`$ can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}(D)={\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2m_c^5}{192\pi ^3}}[|V_{cs}|^2(18{\displaystyle \frac{m_s^2}{m_c^2}})+|V_{cd}|^2]\times `$
$`\left[12.413{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}23.44\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2\right]\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1+\mu _g^2}{2m_c^2}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _g^2}{2m_c^2}}\right)+\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}(D),`$ (9)
where $`\alpha _s=\alpha _s(m_c)`$, $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}(D)`$ is given by eq.(3), and a certain inaccuracy has to be admitted in the treatment of the cross terms between e.g. the radiative corrections and the effect of the finite mass $`m_s`$ of the strange quark or between the radiative corrections and a part of the $`O(m_c^2)`$ terms. This inaccuracy however is at the level of other uncertainties involved in eq.(9), e.g. due to higher perturbative terms, or the experimental uncertainties in the data, and can be safely neglected in the present calculation.

The equation (9) can be used for evaluating the contribution of the non-factorizable terms as a function of $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, since these also determine the mass $`m_c`$ through the mass formula (6), and the actual rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}(D)`$ is known experimentally. The results of such evaluation are shown together with the CLEO data  in Fig.1 in terms of the dimensionless ratio $`\delta =\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}(D)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}(D^0)`$, where the experimental value is used for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}(D^0)`$ in the denominator. Only the physical region $`\lambda _10.37`$ is shown in the plots. Although the central point of the CLEO result lies above this region, the minimal value of $`\chi ^2`$ in the physical region is about $`1.2`$, so that the data are well consistent with the constraint (7). The parameters corresponding to this point of maximum likelihood are $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.456GeV`$ and (naturally) $`\lambda _1=0.37`$, saturating the bound (7). According to the mass formula (6) these values translate into $`m_c1.41GeV`$ and, when used in eq.(9) for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}(D)`$, the maximum probability corresponds to $`\delta 0.5`$ if $`\alpha _s(m_c)=0.25`$ and to $`\delta 0.6`$ if $`\alpha _s(m_c)=0.3`$. (Clearly, the estimated value of $`\delta `$ grows with $`\alpha _s(m_c)`$, since the QCD radiative corrections suppress the perturbative and $`O(m_c^2)`$ terms in the rate.) It can be also noted that the point of maximum likelihood corresponds to the ‘best value’ of the appropriate ‘pole’ mass of the $`b`$ quark $`m_b4.82GeV`$, in a reasonable agreement with the evaluation from the QCD sum rules for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ resonances .

The most likely values of $`m_c`$ and $`\delta `$ suggested by the CLEO data are in a very good agreement with theoretical expectations from other considerations. In particular the value of $`\delta `$ around $`0.50.6`$ agrees with the expectation that the suppression of the non-factorizable terms is about 0.1. As seen from the plots in Fig.1 the value $`\delta =0`$, and hence the mass $`m_c`$ around $`1.61.65GeV`$, has quite low likelihood and is only marginally consistent, at a level of about $`3\sigma `$, with the CLEO data and the constraint (7). Clearly, a more statistically significant evaluation of the parameters of the heavy quark expansion and thus of the quantity $`\delta `$ requires improvement of both the theoretical and experimental accuracy in an analysis along the lines of that in Ref. supplemented by the remarks presented in this paper. In any event, a precision determination of the weak mixing parameter $`|V_{ub}|`$ from a constrained spectrum of semileptonic $`B`$ decays is quite unlikely before the issues related to semileptonic decay rates of $`D`$ mesons are resolved both theoretically and experimentally.

I thank A. Czarnecki for an update on the status of perturbative calculations of semileptonic decay rates, R. Poling for a discussion of the CLEO work  and D. Cronin-Hennessy for e-mail communication concerning the results of the CLEO analysis and the parameters of the final plot in their paper. This work is supported in part by DOE under the grant number DE-FG02-94ER40823.


format: text

text:
# Robust SPR Synthesis for Low-Order Polynomial Segments and Interval Polynomials

Abstract:  We prove that, for low-order ($`n4`$) stable polynomial segments or interval polynomials, there always exists a fixed polynomial such that their ratio is SPR-invariant, thereby providing a rigorous proof of Anderson’s claim on SPR synthesis for the fourth-order stable interval polynomials. Moreover, the relationship between SPR synthesis for low-order polynomial segments and SPR synthesis for low-order interval polynomials is also discussed.

Keywords: Synthesis Method, Strict Positive Realness(SPR), Constructive Design, Robust Stability, SPR-invariance, Transfer Functions, Polynomial Segments, Interval Polynomials, Polytopic Polynomials.

## 1. INTRODUCTION

The notion of strict positive realness (SPR) of transfer functions plays an important role in absolute stability theory, adaptive control and system identification\[1-5\]. In recent years, stimulated by the robustness analysis method\[6-9\], the study of robust strictly positive real transfer functions has received much attention, and great progress has been made\[10-23\]. However, most available results belong to the category of robust SPR analysis. Much work remains to be done in robust SPR synthesis.

Synthesis problems are mathematically more difficult than analysis problems. Usually, the synthesis problems require answering questions of existence and construction, whereas the analysis problems can be dealt with under the assumption of existence. Synthesis problems are of more practical significance from the engineering application viewpoint.

The basic statement of the robust strictly positive real synthesis problem is as follows: Given an $`n`$-th order robustly stable polynomial set $`F`$, does there exist, and how to construct a (fixed) polynomial $`b(s)`$ such that, $`a(s)F,`$ $`a(s)/b(s)`$ is strictly positive real? (If such a polynomial $`b(s)`$ exists, then we say that $`F`$ is synthesizable.)

When $`F`$ is a low-order ($`n3`$) interval polynomial set, the synthesis problem above has been considered by a number of authors and several important results\[13,14,16,17,19-21\] have been presented. But when $`F`$ is a high-order ($`n4`$) interval polynomial set, even in the case of $`n=4,`$ the synthesis problem above is still open\[16,17,19-21\].

By the definition of SPR, it is easy to know that the Hurwitz stability of $`F`$ is a necessary condition for the existence of polynomial $`b(s)`$. In \[13-15\], it was proved that, if all polynomials in $`F`$ have the same even (or odd) parts, such a polynomial $`b(s)`$ always exists; In \[13,14,16,19-21\], it was proved that, if $`n3`$ and $`F`$ is a stable interval polynomial set, such a polynomial $`b(s)`$ always exists; Recent results in \[18-20\] show that, if $`n3`$ and $`F`$ is the stable convex combination of two polynomials $`a_1(s)`$ and $`a_2(s)`$, such a polynomial $`b(s)`$ always exists. Some sufficient condition for robust SPR synthesis are presented in \[10,17,19-21\], especially, the design method in  is numerically efficient for high-order polynomial segments and interval polynomials, and the derived conditions in  are necessary and sufficient for robust SPR synthesis of low-order ($`n3`$) polynomial segments or interval polynomials.

It should be pointed out that, Anderson et al.  transformed the robust SPR synthesis problem for the fourth-order interval polynomial set into linear programming problem in 1990 (namely, equations (58)-(60) in ), and by using linear programming techniques, they concluded that such a linear programming problem always had a solution, thus, it was thought that the robust SPR synthesis problem for the fourth-order interval polynomial set had been solved. But in 1993, a synthesizable example in  showed that the corresponding linear programming problem had no solution. Hence, for the fourth-order interval polynomial set, on one hand, we could not prove theoretically the existence of robust SPR synthesis, on the other hand, we could not find a counterexample that is not synthesizable. Therefore, the robust SPR synthesis problem for interval polynomial set, even in the case of $`n=4`$, is still an open problem\[16,17,13,14,19-21\].

In this paper, we prove that, for low-order ($`n4`$) stable polynomial segments or interval polynomials, there always exists a fixed polynomial such that their ratio is SPR-invariant, thereby providing a rigorous proof of Anderson’s claim on SPR synthesis for the fourth-order stable interval polynomials. Moreover, the relationship between SPR synthesis for low-order polynomial segments and SPR synthesis for low-order interval polynomials is also discussed. Our proof is constructive, and is useful in solving the general SPR synthesis problem.

## 2. MAIN RESULTS

In this paper, $`P^n`$ stands for the set of $`n`$-th order polynomials with real coefficients, $`R`$ stands for the field of real numbers, $`(p)`$ stands for the order of polynomial $`p()`$, and $`H^nP^n`$ stands for the set of $`n`$-th order Hurwitz stable polynomials.

In the sequel, $`p()P^m,q()P^n,f(s)=p(s)/q(s)`$ is a rational function.

Definition 1 A biproper rational function $`f(s)`$ (i.e., $`(p)=(q)`$) is said to be strictly positive real(SPR), if

(i) $`f(s)`$ is analytic in $`\text{Re}[s]0`$, i.e., $`q()H^n`$;

(ii) $`\text{Re}[f(j\omega )]>0,\omega R.`$

If $`f(s)=p(s)/q(s)`$ is proper, it is easy to get the following property:

Lemma 1 If $`f(s)=p(s)/q(s)`$ is a proper rational function, $`q(s)H^n,`$ and $`\omega R,\text{Re}[f(j\omega )]>0,`$ then $`p(s)H^nH^{n1}.`$

Denote $`F=\{a_i(s)=s^n+_{l=1}^na_l^{(i)}s^{nl},i=1,2\}`$ as the two endpoint polynomials of a stable polynomial segment $`\overline{F}`$ (convex combination), it is easy to prove that:

Lemma 2 $`a(s)\overline{F},`$ $`b(s)/a(s)`$ is strictly positive real, if and only if, $`b(s)/a_i(s),i=1,2,`$ are strictly positive real.

Consider an interval polynomials

$$K=\{a(s)=s^n+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_is^{ni},a_i[a_i^{},a_i^+],i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\}$$

Denote $`F=\{a_i(s)=s^n+_{l=1}^na_l^{(i)}s^{nl},i=1,2,3,4\}`$ as the four Kharitonov vertex polynomials of $`K`$\[6-9\].

Lemma 3 $`K`$ is robustly stable if and only if $`a_i(s)H^n,i=1,2,3,4.`$

The following result was proved by Dasgupta and Bhagwat:

Lemma 4 $`a(s)K,`$ $`b(s)/a(s)`$ is strictly positive real, if and only if, $`b(s)/a_i(s),i=1,2,3,4,`$ are strictly positive real.

First, for a low-order ($`n3`$) stable convex combination of polynomials, by \[18-20\], we have

Theorem 1 If $`F=\{a_i(s)=s^n+_{l=1}^na_l^{(i)}s^{nl},`$ $`i=1,2.\}`$ is the set of the two endpoint polynomials of a low order ($`n3`$) stable segment of polynomials (convex combination) $`\overline{F}`$, then there always exists a fixed polynomial $`b(s)`$ such that $`a(s)\overline{F},`$ $`b(s)/a(s)`$ is strictly positive real.

Furthermore, if $`F`$ is the four Kharitonov vertex polynomials of a low-order ($`n3`$) stable interval polynomial set, then we have

Theorem 2\[13,14,16,17,19-21\] If $`F=\{a_i(s)=s^n+_{l=1}^na_l^{(i)}s^{nl},`$ $`i=1,2,3,4.\}`$ is the set of the four Kharitonov vertex polynomials of a low order ($`n3`$) stable interval polynomial family $`K`$, then there always exists a fixed polynomial $`b(s)`$ such that $`a(s)K,`$ $`b(s)/a(s)`$ is strictly positive real.

The following two theorems are the main results of this paper:

Theorem 3 If $`F=\{a(s)=s^4+a_1s^3+a_2s^2+a_3s+a_4,`$ $`b(s)=s^4+b_1s^3+b_2s^2+b_3s+b_4\}`$ is the set of the two endpoint polynomials of a fourth order stable segment of polynomials (convex combination), then there always exists a fixed polynomial $`c(s)`$ such that $`c(s)/a(s)`$ and $`c(s)/b(s)`$ are strictly positive real.

Consider the fourth-order interval polynomials

$$K=\left\{\begin{array}{c}\hfill a(s)=s^4+a_1s^3+a_2s^2+a_3s+a_4,\\ \hfill a_i[a_i^{},a_i^+],i=1,2,3,4\end{array}\right\}$$

Denote

$$\begin{array}{c}a_1(s)=s^4+a_1^+s^3+a_2^+s^2+a_3^{}s+a_4^{}\hfill \\ a_2(s)=s^4+a_1^{}s^3+a_2^{}s^2+a_3^+s+a_4^+\hfill \\ a_3(s)=s^4+a_1^+s^3+a_2^{}s^2+a_3^{}s+a_4^+\hfill \\ a_4(s)=s^4+a_1^{}s^3+a_2^+s^2+a_3^+s+a_4^{}\hfill \end{array}$$

as the four Kharitonov vertex polynomials of $`K`$\[6-9\].

Theorem 4 If $`F=\{a_i(s),i=1,2,3,4\}`$ is the set of the four Kharitonov vertex polynomials of a fourth order stable interval polynomial family, then there always exists a fixed polynomial $`b(s)`$ such that $`a(s)F,`$ $`b(s)/a(s)`$ is strictly positive real.

Note that in Theorem 3, $`c(s)/a(s)`$ and $`c(s)/b(s)`$ being strictly positive real implies $`\lambda [0,1],`$ $`\frac{c(s)}{\lambda a(s)+(1\lambda )b(s)}`$ being strictly positive real (by Lemma 2); similarly, in Theorem 4, $`a(s)F,`$ $`b(s)/a(s)`$ being strictly positive real implies $`a(s)K,`$ $`b(s)/a(s)`$ being strictly positive real (by Lemma 4).

## 3. PROOFS OF MAIN RESULTS

In order to prove the main results above, we must first establish some lemmas.

Lemma 5 Suppose $`a(s)=s^4+a_1s^3+a_2s^2+a_3s+a_4H^4,`$ then the following quadratic curve is an ellipse in the first quadrant of the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane:

$$(a_2^24a_4)x^2+2(2a_3a_1a_2)xy+a_1^2y^2$$

$$2(a_2a_32a_1a_4)x2a_1a_3y+a_3^2=0$$

and this ellipse is tangent with $`y`$ axis at $`(0,{\displaystyle \frac{a_3}{a_1}}),`$ tangent with the lines $`x=a_1`$ and $`a_3ya_4x=0`$ at $`(a_1,a_2{\displaystyle \frac{a_3}{a_1}})`$ and $`({\displaystyle \frac{a_3^2}{a_2a_3a_1a_4}},{\displaystyle \frac{a_3a_4}{a_2a_3a_1a_4}})`$, respectively.

Proof: Since $`a(s)`$ is Hurwitz stable, Lemma 5 can be verified by a direct calculation.

Let $`a(s)=s^4+a_1s^3+a_2s^2+a_3s+a_4H^4,`$ for notational simplicity, denote

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Omega }_e^a:=\hfill & \{(x,y)|(a_2^24a_4)x^2+2(2a_3a_1a_2)xy+a_1^2y^2\hfill \\ & 2(a_2a_32a_1a_4)x2a_1a_3y+a_3^2<0\}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_t^a:=\hfill & \{(x,y)|a_1x0,a_2xa_1ya_30,\hfill \\ & a_3ya_4x>0\}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }^a:=\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_e^a\mathrm{\Omega }_t^a\hfill \end{array}$$

apparently, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^a`$ is a bounded convex set in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane.

Lemma 6 Suppose $`a(s)=s^4+a_1s^3+a_2s^2+a_3s+a_4H^4`$ and $`(x,y)\mathrm{\Omega }^a,`$ let $`c(s):=s^3+xs^2+ys+\epsilon ,`$ where $`\epsilon `$ is positive and sufficiently small,then $`\omega R,\text{Re}[{\displaystyle \frac{c(j\omega )}{a(j\omega )}}]>0.`$

Proof: Suppose $`(x,y)\mathrm{\Omega }^a,`$ let $`c(s):=s^3+xs^2+ys+\epsilon ,`$ where $`\epsilon >0`$ and is sufficiently small.

$`\omega R,`$ consider

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{Re}[\frac{c(j\omega )}{a(j\omega )}]\hfill & =\frac{1}{a(j\omega )^2}[(a_1x)\omega ^6\hfill \\ & +(a_2xa_1ya_3)\omega ^4+(a_3ya_4x)\omega ^2\hfill \\ & +\epsilon (\omega ^4a_2\omega ^2+a_4)]\hfill \end{array}$$

In order to prove that $`\omega R,\text{Re}[{\displaystyle \frac{c(j\omega )}{a(j\omega )}}]>0,`$ let $`t=\omega ^2,`$ we only need to prove that, for any sufficiently small $`\epsilon >0`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}f(t):=\hfill & t[(a_1x)t^2+(a_2xa_1ya_3)t+(a_3ya_4x)]\hfill \\ & +\epsilon (t^2a_2t+a_4)>0,t[0,+\mathrm{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`(x,y)\mathrm{\Omega }^a,`$ by definition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^a`$ and Lemma 5, $`(x,y)`$ satisfies $`a_1x>0,a_3ya_4x>0,`$ and

$`[a_2xa_1ya_3]^24(a_1x)(a_3ya_4x)<0`$

or

$$a_1x0,a_2xa_1ya_30,a_3ya_4x>0$$

Thus, $`t[0,+\mathrm{})`$

$$(a_1x)t^2+(a_2xa_1ya_3)t+(a_3ya_4x)>0.$$

On the other hand, we have $`f(0)>0,`$ and for any $`\epsilon >0,`$ if $`t`$ is a sufficiently large or sufficiently small positive number, we have $`f(t)>0.`$ Namely, there exist $`0<t_1<t_2`$ such that, for all $`\epsilon >0,t[0,t_1][t_2,+\mathrm{})`$, $`f(t)>0.`$

Denote

$$M=\underset{t[t_1,t_2]}{inf}t[(a_1x)t^2+(a_2xa_1ya_3)t+(a_3ya_4x)],$$

$$N=\underset{t[t_1,t_2]}{sup}t^2a_2t+a_4$$

then $`M>0`$ and $`N>0.`$ Choosing $`0<\epsilon <{\displaystyle \frac{M}{N}},`$ by a direct calculation, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}f(t)=\hfill & t[(a_1x)t^2+(a_2xa_1ya_3)t+(a_3ya_4x)]\hfill \\ & +\epsilon (t^2a_2t+a_4)>0,t[0,+\mathrm{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Namely

$$\omega R,\text{Re}[\frac{b(j\omega )}{a(j\omega )}]>0.$$

This completes the proof.

Lemma 7 Suppose $`a(s)=s^4+a_1s^3+a_2s^2+a_3s+a_4H^4,b(s)=s^4+b_1s^3+b_2s^2+b_3s+a_4H^4,`$ if $`\lambda b(s)+(1\lambda )a(s)H^4,\lambda [0,1],`$ then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^a\mathrm{\Omega }_e^b\varphi `$.

Proof:  If $`\lambda [0,1],`$ $`\lambda b(s)+(1\lambda )a(s)H^4,`$ by Lemma 5, for any $`\lambda [0,1],`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_\lambda }:=\hfill & \{(x,y)|(a_{\lambda 2}^24a_{\lambda 4})x^2+2(2a_{\lambda 3}a_{\lambda 1}a_{\lambda 2})xy\hfill \\ & +a_{\lambda 1}^2y^22(a_{\lambda 2}a_{\lambda 3}2a_{\lambda 1}a_{\lambda 4})x\hfill \\ & 2a_{\lambda 1}a_{\lambda 3}y+a_{\lambda 3}^2<0\}\hfill \end{array}$$

is also an elliptic region in the first quadrant of the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane, where $`a_{\lambda i}:=a_i+\lambda (b_ia_i),i=1,2,3,4.`$ Apparently, when $`\lambda `$ changes continuously from $`0`$ to $`1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_\lambda }`$ will change continuously from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^a`$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^b.`$

Now assume $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^a\mathrm{\Omega }_e^b=\varphi ,`$ by Lemma 5 (without loss of generality, suppose $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_3}{b_1}}>{\displaystyle \frac{a_3}{a_1}}`$), $`v[{\displaystyle \frac{a_3}{a_1}},{\displaystyle \frac{b_3}{b_1}}]`$ and $`u0,`$ such that the following line $`l`$

$$l:\frac{x}{u}+\frac{y}{v}=1$$
(1)
is tangent with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^b`$ simultaneously, and $`l`$ separates $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^b`$ (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^b`$ are on different sides of $`l`$).

Since $`l`$ is tangent with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^a`$, consider

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{x}{u}+\frac{y}{v}=1\hfill \\ (a_2^24a_4)x^2+2(2a_3a_1a_2)xy+a_1^2y^2\hfill \\ 2(a_2a_32a_1a_4)x2a_1a_3y+a_3^2=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
since $`a(s)`$ is Hurwitz stable and $`u0,`$ by a direct calculation, we know that the necessary and sufficient condition for $`l`$ being tangent with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^a`$ is

$$uv^2a_1v^2a_2uv+a_3v+a_4u=0$$
(3)
Since $`l`$ is tangent with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^b`$, for the same reason, we have

$$uv^2b_1v^2b_2uv+b_3v+b_4u=0$$
(4)
From $`(3)`$ and $`(4),`$ we obviously have $`\lambda [0,1],`$

$$uv^2a_{\lambda 1}v^2a_{\lambda 2}uv+a_{\lambda 3}v+a_{\lambda 4}u=0$$
(5)
$`(5)`$ shows that $`l`$ is also tangent with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_\lambda }(\lambda [0,1])`$, but $`l`$ separates $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^b,`$ and when $`\lambda `$ changes continuously from $`0`$ to $`1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_\lambda }`$ will change continuously from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^a`$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^b,`$ which is obviously impossible.This completes the proof.

Lemma 8 If $`F=\{a_i(s),i=1,2,3,4.\}`$ is the set of the four Kharitonov vertex polynomials of a fourth order stable interval polynomial family, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_2}\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_4}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_3}\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_1}.`$

Proof:  By the definition of the notation $`\mathrm{\Omega }^a,`$ it is easy to see that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_1}=\{(x,y)|\hfill & (a_1^+x)t^2+(a_2^+xa_1^+ya_3^{})t\hfill \\ & +(a_3^{}ya_4^{}x)>0,t[0,\mathrm{})\}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }^{a_2}=\{(x,y)|\hfill & (a_1^{}x)t^2+(a_2^{}xa_1^{}ya_3^+)t\hfill \\ & +(a_3^+ya_4^+x)>0,t[0,\mathrm{})\}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }^{a_3}=\{(x,y)|\hfill & (a_1^+x)t^2+(a_2^{}xa_1^+ya_3^{})t\hfill \\ & +(a_3^{}ya_4^+x)>0,t[0,\mathrm{})\}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }^{a_4}=\{(x,y)|\hfill & (a_1^{}x)t^2+(a_2^+xa_1^{}ya_3^+)t\hfill \\ & +(a_3^+ya_4^{}x)>0,t[0,\mathrm{})\}\hfill \end{array}$$

Obviously, we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_2}\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_4}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_3}\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_1}.`$ This completes the proof.

Lemma 9 If $`F=\{a_i(s),i=1,2,3,4.\}`$ is the set of the four Kharitonov vertex polynomials of a fourth order stable interval polynomial family, then $`_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_i}\varphi .`$

Lemma 9 plays an important role in proving Anderson’s claim on robust SPR synthesis for the fourth-order stable interval polynomials. For a complete understanding of it, we give three different proofs in the sequel.

Proof 1:  By Lemma 8, we only need to prove that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_2}\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_3}\varphi .`$ By Lemma 7, we know that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_2}\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_3}\varphi ,`$ but $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_2}=\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_2}\mathrm{\Omega }_t^{a_2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_3}=\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_3}\mathrm{\Omega }_t^{a_3},`$ thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_2}\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_3}\varphi .`$ This completes the proof.

Proof 2:  Since $`F`$ is the set of the four Kharitonov vertex polynomials of a fourth order stable interval polynomial family, by Lemma 5, in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_4}`$ are both tangent with $`x=0`$ at $`(0,{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^+}{a_1^{}}})`$ (denote this tangent point as $`A_{24}`$); $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_3}`$ are both tangent with $`x=0`$ at $`(0,{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^{}}{a_1^+}})`$ (denote this tangent point as $`A_{13}`$). Denote the tangent point of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_2}`$ ( $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_4}`$ ) and $`x=a_1^{}`$ as $`A_2(a_1^{},a_2^{}{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^+}{a_1^{}}})`$ ( $`A_4(a_1^{},a_2^+{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^+}{a_1^{}}})`$ ); and denote the tangent point of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_1}`$ ( $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_3}`$ ) and $`x=a_1^+`$ as $`A_1(a_1^+,a_2^+{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^{}}{a_1^+}})`$ ( $`A_3(a_1^+,a_2^{}{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^{}}{a_1^+}})`$ ). Furthermore, denote the intersection points of $`x=a_1^{}`$ and the straight line $`a_3^+ya_4^+x=0,a_3^+ya_4^{}x=0`$ as $`B_2(a_1^{},{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^{}a_4^+}{a_3^+}}),B_4(a_1^{},{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^{}a_4^{}}{a_3^+}}),`$ respectively; and denote the intersection points of $`x=a_1^+`$ and the straight lines $`a_3^{}ya_4^{}x=0,a_3^{}ya_4^+x=0`$ as $`B_1(a_1^+,{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^+a_4^{}}{a_3^{}}}),B_3(a_1^+,{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^+a_4^+}{a_3^{}}}),`$ respectively.

In what follows, $`(A,B)`$ stands for the set of points in the line segment connecting the point $`A`$ and the point $`B`$, not including the endpoints $`A`$ and $`B,`$ $`[A,B)`$ stands for the set of points in the line segment connecting the point $`A`$ and the point $`B`$, including the endpoint $`A`$, but not $`B,`$ $`(A,B]`$ stands for the set of points in the line segment connecting the point $`A`$ and the point $`B`$, including the endpoint $`B`$, but not $`A`$. Then it is easy to see that $`[A_2,B_2)\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_2},[A_2,B_2)[A_4,B_4)\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_4},[A_3,B_3)\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_3},[A_3,B_3)[A_1,B_1)\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_1},`$ and $`(A_{24},A_2]\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_2},(A_{24},A_2]\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_4},`$ $`(A_{13},A_3]\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_3},(A_{13},A_3]\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_1}.`$

Denote $`A_3^{}`$ as $`(a_1^{},({\displaystyle \frac{a_2^{}}{a_1^+}}2{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^{}}{a_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}}})a_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^{}}{a_1^+}}),`$ then $`A_3^{}(A_{13},A_3].`$

If $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^+}{a_1^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{a_3^{}}{a_1^+}},`$ i.e., $`a_1^{}=a_1^+`$ and $`a_3^{}=a_3^+.`$ Then, take $`\delta >0,\delta `$ sufficiently small, by Lemma 5, it is easy to verify that $`(\delta ,{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^+}{a_1^{}}})_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_i},`$ thus $`_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_i}\varphi .`$

Now, suppose $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^+}{a_1^{}}}>{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^{}}{a_1^+}}`$ and

$$a_2^{}\frac{a_3^+}{a_1^{}}(\frac{a_2^{}}{a_1^+}2\frac{a_3^{}}{a_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}})a_1^{}+\frac{a_3^{}}{a_1^+}$$

It is easy to verify that

$$(\frac{a_2^{}}{a_1^+}2\frac{a_3^{}}{a_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}})a_1^{}+\frac{a_3^{}}{a_1^+}>\frac{a_1^{}a_4^+}{a_3^+}$$

Thus, we have $`A_3^{}[A_2,B_2).`$ Hence $`A_3^{}[A_2,B_2)(A_{13},A_3].`$ Therefore $`A_3^{}_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_i}.`$ Thus $`_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_i}\varphi .`$

Finally, with $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^+}{a_1^{}}}>{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^{}}{a_1^+}},`$ if

$$a_2^{}\frac{a_3^+}{a_1^{}}<(\frac{a_2^{}}{a_1^+}2\frac{a_3^{}}{a_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}})a_1^{}+\frac{a_3^{}}{a_1^+}$$

then it is easy to see that $`(A_{13},A_3](A_{24},A_2]\varphi `$ and $`(A_{13},A_3](A_{24},A_2]_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_i}.`$ Thus, we also have $`_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_i}\varphi .`$ This completes the proof.

Proof 3:  $`A_{13}(0,{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^{}}{a_1^+}}),A_{24}(0,{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^+}{a_1^{}}}),B_2(a_1^{},{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^{}a_4^+}{a_3^+}})`$ and $`B_3(a_1^+,{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^+a_4^+}{a_3^{}}})`$ are defined identically as in the Proof 2 above. $`(A,B)`$ stands for the set of points in the line segment connecting the point $`A`$ and the point $`B`$, but not including the endpoints $`A`$ and $`B.`$

If $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^+}{a_1^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{a_3^{}}{a_1^+}},`$ i.e., $`a_1^{}=a_1^+`$ and $`a_3^{}=a_3^+.`$ Then, take $`\delta >0,\delta `$ sufficiently small, by Lemma 5, it is easy to verify that $`(\delta ,{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^+}{a_1^{}}})_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{a_i},`$ thus $`_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_i}\varphi .`$

Now, suppose $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^+}{a_1^{}}}>{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^{}}{a_1^+}},`$ then it is easy to see that $`(A_{13},B_3)(A_{24},B_2)\varphi `$ and $`(A_{13},B_3)(A_{24},B_2)_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_i}.`$ Thus, we also have $`_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_i}\varphi .`$ This completes the proof.

Lemma 10 Suppose $`a(s)=s^4+a_1s^3+a_2s^2+a_3s+a_4H^4,b(s)=s^3+xs^2+ys+z,`$ and $`\omega R,\text{Re}[{\displaystyle \frac{b(j\omega )}{a(j\omega )}}]>0,`$ take

$`\stackrel{}{b}(s):=b(s)+rc(s),r>0,r`$ sufficiently small

where $`c(s)`$ is a fixed fourth-order monic polynomial. Then $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{b}(s)}{a(s)}}`$ is strictly positive real.

Proof:  Obviously, $`(a)=(\stackrel{}{b}),`$ namely, $`\stackrel{}{b}(s)`$ and $`a(s)`$ have the same order. Since $`a(s)H^4,`$ there exists $`\omega _1>0`$ such that, for all $`\omega \omega _1,`$ Re$`[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{b}(j\omega )}{a(j\omega )}}]>0.`$ Denote

$`M_1=\underset{\omega \omega _1}{inf}\text{Re}[{\displaystyle \frac{b(j\omega )}{a(j\omega )}}]`$ $`N_1=\underset{\omega \omega _1}{sup}\text{Re}[{\displaystyle \frac{c(j\omega )}{a(j\omega )}}]`$

Then $`M_1>0`$ and $`N_1>0.`$ Choosing $`0<r<{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{N_1}},`$ it can be directly verified that

$$\omega R,\text{Re}[\frac{\stackrel{}{b}(j\omega )}{a(j\omega )}]>0$$

This completes the proof.

Now Theorem 3 is proved by simply combining Lemmas 5-7 and Lemma 10. Theorem 4 is proved by simply combining Lemmas 5-6 and Lemmas 9-10.

## 4. DISCUSSIONS AND EXAMPLES

The following three examples correspond to different cases in the proof of our main results.

Example 1 Suppose $`a_1(s)=s^4+89s^3+56s^2+88s+1,a_2(s)=s^4+11s^3+56s^2+88s+50,a_3(s)=s^4+89s^3+56s^2+88s+50,a_4(s)=s^4+11s^3+56s^2+88s+1`$ are the four Kharitonov vertex polynomials of a fourth-order interval polynomial set $`K`$, it is easy to check using Kharitonov’s Theorem that $`K`$ is robustly stable. By our method as in the constructive proof of Theorem 4, it is easy to get $`(11,7.6657)_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_i}.`$ Thus, choose $`b(s)=s^3+11s^2+7.76657s+\epsilon ,`$ where $`\epsilon `$ is a sufficiently small positive number ($`\epsilon `$ is determined by Lemma 6, in this example, $`0<\epsilon 3`$), take $`\epsilon =2,`$ by Lemma 6, $`\omega R,\text{Re}[{\displaystyle \frac{b(j\omega )}{a_i(j\omega )}}]>0,i=1,2,3,4.`$ Finally, let $`\stackrel{}{b}(s):=b(s)+rs^4,`$ where $`r>0,r`$ sufficiently small ($`r`$ is determined by Lemma 10, in this example, $`0<r0.5`$), it is easy to check that $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{b}(s)}{a_i(s)}},i=1,2,3,4,`$ are strictly positive real (note that $`b(s)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}(s)`$ are not unique).

In this example, if we take $`F=\{a_1(s)=s^4+11s^3+56s^2+88s+50,a_2(s)=s^4+89s^3+56s^2+88s+50\},`$ then it is exactly the counter-example provided in . It can be checked that $`F`$ does not satisfy the sufficient conditions in , but we can use the methods in \[13-15,19,20\] to do SPR synthesis. When $`F`$ is enlarged to the interval polynomial set $`K`$ in this example, the synthesis methods in \[13-15\] fail too, but we can still use the methods in  to do synthesis. It is quite straightforward to do synthesis using the method in this paper.

Example 2 Suppose $`a_1(s)=s^4+5s^3+6s^2+4s+0.5,a_2(s)=s^4+2s^3+6s^2+6s+1,a_3(s)=s^4+5s^3+6s^2+4s+1,a_4(s)=s^4+2s^3+6s^2+6s+0.5`$ are the four Kharitonov vertex polynomials of a fourth-order interval polynomial set $`K`$, it is easy to check using Kharitonov’s Theorem that $`K`$ is robustly stable. By our method as in the constructive proof of Theorem 4, it is easy to get $`(2,2.56)_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_i}.`$ Thus, choose $`b(s)=s^3+2s^2+2.56s+\epsilon ,`$ where $`\epsilon `$ is a sufficiently small positive number (in this example, $`0<\epsilon 1`$), take $`\epsilon =0.5,`$ by Lemma 6, $`\omega R,\text{Re}[{\displaystyle \frac{b(j\omega )}{a_i(j\omega )}}]>0,i=1,2,3,4.`$ Finally, let $`\stackrel{}{b}(s):=b(s)+rs^4,`$ where $`r>0,r`$ sufficiently small (in this example, $`0<r0.5`$), it is easy to check that $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{b}(s)}{a_i(s)}},i=1,2,3,4,`$ are strictly positive real.

Example 3 Suppose $`a_1(s)=s^4+2.5s^3+6s^2+4s+0.5,a_2(s)=s^4+2s^3+5s^2+6s+5,a_3(s)=s^4+2.5s^3+5s^2+4s+5,a_4(s)=s^4+2s^3+6s^2+6s+0.5`$ are the four Kharitonov vertex polynomials of a fourth-order interval polynomial set $`K`$, it is easy to check using Kharitonov’s Theorem that $`K`$ is robustly stable. By our method as in the constructive proof of Theorem 4, it is easy to get $`(1.1475,2.4262)_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Omega }^{a_i}.`$ Thus, choose $`b(s)=s^3+1.1475s^2+2.4262s+\epsilon ,`$ where $`\epsilon `$ is a sufficiently small positive number (in this example, $`0<\epsilon 1`$), take $`\epsilon =0.5,`$ by Lemma 6, $`\omega R,\text{Re}[{\displaystyle \frac{b(j\omega )}{a_i(j\omega )}}]>0,i=1,2,3,4.`$ Finally, let $`\stackrel{}{b}(s):=b(s)+rs^4,`$ where $`r>0,r`$ sufficiently small (in this example, $`0<r0.2`$), it is easy to check that $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{b}(s)}{a_i(s)}},i=1,2,3,4,`$ are strictly positive real.

Remark 1 From the proofs of Theorem 3 and Theorem 4, we can see that, this paper not only proves the existence, but also provides a design procedure.

Remark 2 Lemma 10 actually holds for arbitrary $`n`$-th order polynomials.

Remark 3 The constructive synthesis method is also insightful and helpful in solving the general robust SPR synthesis problem. In fact, we have recently succeeded in proving the existence on robust SPR synthesis for fifth-order stable convex combinations using a similar method. The SPR synthesis for higher-order systems is currently under investigation.

Remark 4 Robust stability of a polynomial segment can be checked by many efficient methods, e.g., eigenvalue method, root locus method, value set method, etc.. Robust stability of $`K`$ in Theorem 4 can be ascertained by checking only two Kharitonov vertex polynomials.

Remark 5 From the proofs of Lemma 9, we can establish the relationship between SPR synthesis for the fourth-order polynomial segments and SPR synthesis for the fourth-order interval polynomials. In fact, it is easy to see that Theorem 3 implies Theorem 4. Similarly, Theorem 1 implies Theorem 2. However, similar results may not be true for higher-order ($`n5`$) systems. This subject is currently under investigation.

Remark 6 Our results can easily be generalized to discrete-time case.

Finally, it should also be pointed out that, for the vertex set $`F=\{a_i(s)=s^n+_{l=1}^na_l^{(i)}s^{nl},i=1,2,\mathrm{},m.\}`$ of a general polytopic polynomial family $`\overline{F}`$, even if $`\overline{F}`$ is robustly stable, it is still possible that there does not exist a polynomial $`c(s)H^{n1},`$ such that, $`\omega R,\text{Re}[{\displaystyle \frac{c(j\omega )}{a(j\omega )}}]>0,`$ for all $`a(s)\overline{F}`$.

To see this, let us look at an example of a third order triangle polynomial family.

Example 4 Let $`F=\{a_1(s)=s^3+2.6s^2+37s+64,`$ $`a_2(s)=s^3+17s^2+83s+978,`$ $`a_3(s)=s^3+15s^2+28s+415\}.`$ It is easy to verify that $`a_i(s),i=1,2,3,`$ are Hurwitz stable. Moreover, all edges of $`\overline{F}`$, i.e., $`\lambda a_i(s)+(1\lambda )a_j(s),\lambda [0,1],i,j=1,2,3,`$ are also Hurwitz stable. Therefore, by Edge Theorem\[6-9\], $`\overline{F}`$ is robustly stable. On the other hand, by a direct computation, we can easily see that there does not exist a polynomial $`c(s)H^2,`$ such that $`\omega R,\text{Re}[{\displaystyle \frac{c(j\omega )}{a_i(j\omega )}}]>0,i=1,2,3.`$

Note that, in this example, though there does not exist a polynomial $`c(s)H^2`$ such that $`\omega R,\text{Re}[{\displaystyle \frac{c(j\omega )}{a_i(j\omega )}}]>0,i=1,2,3.`$ But if we take $`\stackrel{}{c}(s)=s^3+6s^2+73s+68,`$ it is easy to check $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{c}(s)}{a_i(s)}},i=1,2,3,`$ are strictly positive real. This shows some intrinsic differences between the SPR synthesis of interval polynomial families and the SPR synthesis of polytopic polynomial families. This problem deserves further investigation.

## 5. CONCLUSIONS

We have proved that, for low-order ($`n4`$) stable polynomial segments or interval polynomials, there always exists a fixed polynomial such that their ratio is SPR-invariant, thereby providing a rigorous proof of Anderson’s claim on SPR synthesis for the fourth-order stable interval polynomials. Moreover, the relationship between SPR synthesis for low-order polynomial segments and SPR synthesis for low-order interval polynomials has also been discussed.

### Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Key Project of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (69925307), Natural Science Foundation of Chinese Academy of Sciences and National Lab of Intelligent Control and Systems of Tsinghua University.


text:
# The Electrogravitational Field of an Electrically Charged Mass Point and the Causality Principle in RTG

## 1 Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to find the electrogravitational field produced by a charged mass point in the framework of the Relativistic Theory of Gravitation (RTG).

In Section 2, I present the basics of this new relativistic theory of gravitation elaborated by Logunov and his co-workers (see Logonov & Mestvirishvili 1989 and Logunov 1997). In RTG, a gravitational field is determined unambiguously solving the complete system of RTG’s Eqs. The Causality Principle (CP) in RTG, permits the selection of those solutions of RTG’s Eqs. which can have physical meaning.

In Section 3, I present a formulation of the basic laws of electromagnetism in the vacuum, in the presence of the gravitational field. The presentation is based on the fact that the behaviour of an electromagnetic field can be formulated in a four dimensional manifold without supplementary mathematical structure (see Truesdell & Toupin 1960, Sections 266-275 and also Soós 1992 Sections 1-3).

The problem of finding the field of an electrically charged mass point was solved in the framework of Einstein’s General Relativity Theory (GRT) by Nordström and Jeffrey (see Wang 1979, Section 56). At the beginning of Section 4, I present the solution obtained by them. But as was shown by Logunov and his co-workers, in GRT, one can not obtain an unique solution of the problem without introducing prior assumptions (see Logonov & Mestvirishvili 1989, Section12). Besides, the gravitational radius of the source point, as function depending on $`q^2`$ and $`m^2`$, where $`q`$ and $`m`$ representing the electric charge and the mass of the point source, has a discontinuity in $`q^2=m^2.`$

In RTG, the considered problem was firstly analysed by Karabut & Chugreev (1987), but only assuming $`m^2q^2`$. In Section 5, I present this solution. I verify also that this solution satisfies CP in RTG, so, it’s a solution which has physical sense.

Soós and me (2000) have reanalyzed the problem in RTG, considering also the possibility $`q^2>m^2.`$ It’s important to analyse this case because for the electron just this variant is true. The analytical form of the solution found by us, as well as its domain of definition, i.e. the gravitational radius $`r_g`$, depend essentially on the relation existing between $`q^2`$ and $`m^2`$. But, I’ll show in Section 6 that this solution doesn’t fulfill CP in RTG. So, this solution can’t be an acceptable solution in this theory.

I determine in Section 6, the unique solution of electrogravitational field produced by a charged mass point according to RTG. The obtained solution has the same analytical form for all order relations between $`q^2`$ and $`m^2`$. The gravitational radius depend on this relation but it’s a continuous function depending on $`q^2`$ and $`m^2.`$

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

RTG was constructed by Logunov and his co-workers (see Logonov & Mestvirishvili 1989 and Logunov 1997) 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 geometrization principle of RTG.

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

$`R_n^m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _n^mR+{\displaystyle \frac{m_g^2}{2}}\left(\delta _n^m+g^{mk}\gamma _{kn}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _n^mg^{kl}\gamma _{kl}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi T_n^m,`$ (2.3)
$`D_m\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{}m,n,p=1,2,3,4.`$ (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 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. All the field variables in the RTG depend on universal space-time coordinates of the Minkowski space. The presence of mass terms in Eq. (2.3) allows unambiguously determining the space-time geometry and the density of the gravitational field energy-momentum tensor in the absence of matter. Eqs. (2.4) tell us that a gravitational field can have only the spin states 0 and 2. In Logonov & Mestvirishvili (1989), this represents one of the basic assumption of RTG. In Logunov (1997), 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 essentially affects the Universe’s evolution and changes the character of the gravitational collapse.

In the present paper, because the graviton mass is negligibly small, we omitt the mass terms in Eq. (2.3). Hereafter, we use the relativistic system of units.

Eqs. (2.4) can be written in the following form (see Logonov & Mestvirishvili 1989, Appendix 1):

$`D_m\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}=\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn},_m+\gamma _{mp}^n\stackrel{~}{g}^{mp}=0`$, (2.4’) 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 (1997), 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:

$$\gamma _{mn}u^mu^n=0,$$
(2.5)
the metric of the effective Riemannian space-time satisfies the restriction:

$$g_{mn}u^mu^n0$$
(2.6)
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 Electromagnetic field equations in RTG

The theory of electromagnetism is a very elegant and formally simple part of physics. The two principles of conservation set up as the basis for this theory, are the conservation of charge and the conservation of magnetic flux (see Truesdell & Toupin 1960, Sections 266-270, and Soós 1992, Sections 1-3). These two laws of conservation can be formulated in a four dimensional manifold independent of any geometry of space-time. The differential form of the so-called Maxwell-Bateman laws is (see Soós 1992, Sections 1-3 ):

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{,m}^{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`K^n`$ (3.1)
$`F_{,m}^{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{}m,n,p=1,2,3,4,`$ (3.2)
where $`F^{mn}`$ is a contravariant axial 2-vector density representing the electromagnetic field, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{mn}`$ is a contravariant 2-vector density representing the electromagnetic induction and $`K^n`$ is a contravariant 1-vector density representing the electric current and the charge density. All the involved fields in Eqs. (3.1), (3.2), depend on an admissible coordinate system $`(x^n)`$ in the four dimensional manifold.

The conception of conservation as formulated here have a topological significance, being independent of the mathematics of length, time and angles. To interpret Eqs. (3.1), (3.2) in the familiar language of electromagnetic theory, a metric structure must be considered on the four dimensional manifold.

We assume now that our manifold is the Minkowski space-time of RTG. In this case we suppose that ($`\alpha ,\beta ,\delta =1,2,3`$):

$$F^{\alpha \beta }=\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \delta }E_\delta ,F^{\alpha 4}=B^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Psi }^{\alpha \beta }=\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \delta }H_\delta ,\mathrm{\Psi }^{\alpha 4}=D^\alpha ,K^\alpha =j^\alpha ,K^4=\rho .$$
(3.3)
In the above Eqs. $`\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \delta }`$ are the contravariant Ricci’s permutation symbols, $`E_\delta `$ are the covariant components of the electric field and $`B^\alpha `$ the contravariant components of the magnetic field, corresponding to the selected Minkowskian coordinate system which may be inertial or not. Also, $`H_\delta `$ are the covariant components of the magnetic induction and $`D^\alpha `$ are the contravariant components of the electric induction, whereas $`j^\alpha `$ and $`\rho `$ represent the contravariant components of the electric current and the density of the electric charge, respectively.

As a fundamental hypothesis of the relativistic electromagnetism in vacuum and excluding gravitation we assume that $`F^{mn}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{mn}`$ are connected by the Maxwell-Lorentz aether relation (see Truesdell & Toupin 1960, Section 280, and Soós 1992, Section 24):

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{mn}=\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{mp}\gamma ^{nq}\widehat{F}_{pq},\widehat{F}_{pq}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{mnpq}F^{mn},m,n,p,q=1,2,3,4,$$
(3.4)
where $`\epsilon _{mnpq}`$ are Ricci’s covariant permutation symbols and $`\widehat{F}_{pq}`$ is the dual of $`F^{mn}`$, being a skew-symmetric absolut tensor. From (3.4), in a Minkowskian inertial frame we get the familiar relations characterizing the vacuum:

$$D^\alpha =E_\alpha \text{}H_\alpha =B^\alpha .$$
(3.5)
Let us assume now the presence of the gravitational field. Eqs. (3.1), (3.2) rest also true. Taking into account the geometrization principle of RTG , I assume that in the presence of the gravitational field the Maxwell-Lorentz aether relation takes the following form:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{mn}=\sqrt{g}g^{mp}g^{nq}\widehat{F}_{pq},\widehat{F}_{pq}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{mnpq}F^{mn},m,n,p,q=1,2,3,4,$$
(3.6)
Introducing (3.6) into (3.1), (3.2) and taking into account that for any skew-symmetric tensor $`X^{mn}`$ we have the formula $`_mX^{mn}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{}{x^m}\left(\sqrt{g}X^{mn}\right),`$ $`_m`$being the operator of covariant differentiation with respect to the metric $`g_{mn}`$ , the laws describing the behaviour of an electromagnetic field in RTG can be written in the form:

$$_m\widehat{F}^{mn}=J^n,$$
(3.7)
$$_i\widehat{F}^{mn}+_m\widehat{F}^{ni}+_n\widehat{F}^{im}=0,$$
(3.8)
where $`J^n\frac{K^n}{\sqrt{g}}.`$

To get the energy-momentum tensor $`T_n^m`$ of the electromagnetic field (in vacuum) in RTG we start with its expression in the relativistic electromagnetism excluding gravitation (see Moller 1972, Section 7):

$$\sqrt{\gamma }T_n^m=\frac{1}{4\pi }\widehat{F}_{np}\mathrm{\Psi }^{mp}+\frac{1}{16\pi }\widehat{F}_{pq}\mathrm{\Psi }^{pq}\delta _n^m.$$
(3.9)
Using again the geometrization principle of RTG and the assumed Maxwell-Lorentz aether relations (3.6), we can conclude that in RTG, $`T_n^m`$ are given by:

$$T_n^m=\frac{1}{4\pi }\widehat{F}_{np}\widehat{F}^{mp}+\frac{1}{16\pi }\widehat{F}_{pq}\widehat{F}^{pq}\delta _n^m\text{}\widehat{F}^{mp}=g^{mi}g^{pj}\widehat{F}_{ij}.$$
(3.10)
In GTR, the electromagnetic field Eqs.(3.7), (3.8) and the energy-momentum tensor $`T_n^m`$ of the electromagnetic field (3.10), have the same form as below, the important difference being that in RTG all fields depend on the coordinates in the underlying Minkowski space-time.

## 4  The electrogravitational field produced by a charged mass point in RTG

In the framework of GRT the problem of finding the field produced by a charged mass point with mass $`m`$ and electric charge $`q`$, was solved by Nordström and by Jeffrey (see for example Wang 1979, Section 56).

The problem is static and spherically symmetric. The nonzero components of the Riemannian metric which represent the electrogravitational field, are the following:

$$g_{11}=\frac{1}{1\frac{2m}{r}+\frac{q^2}{r^2}}\text{}g_{22}=r^2\text{}g_{33}=r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \text{}g_{44}=1\frac{2m}{r}+\frac{q^2}{r^2}.$$
(4.1)
In the above relations $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ are two of the spherical coordinates {$`r,\theta ,\phi ,t`$} centered in the charged mass point, in which are written the components of the metric. The domains of definition for these coordinates are: $`0r_g<r<\mathrm{}`$ , $`0\theta \pi `$ , $`0\phi 2\pi `$ , $`\mathrm{}<t<\mathrm{}`$, $`r_g`$ representing the gravitational radius of the point source. According to GRT, the value of this gravitational radius depends on the relation between $`q^2`$ and $`m^2`$ in the following manner:

$$r_g=\{\begin{array}{c}m+\sqrt{m^2q^2}\text{, for }q^2m^2\\ \text{ }0\text{ , for }q^2>m^2\end{array}$$
(4.2)
We observe that the function $`r_g`$ depending on $`q^2`$ and $`m^2`$ has a discontinuity in $`q^2=m^2`$.

The static and spherically symmetric electrogravitational field (4.1) has been obtained solving the coupled system of Einstein’s Eqs. and Maxwell’s Eqs. (3.7), (3.8). In the selected system of coordinates the magnetic field $`B^\alpha `$ is zero, an only the radial component $`E_1=E(r)`$ of the electric field is non-vanishing, depending only on the coordinate $`r.`$ From (3.3) we can conclude that the only nonzero components of the electromagnetic tensor and of its dual are:

$$F^{23}(r)=F^{32}(r)=\widehat{F}_{14}(r)=\widehat{F}_{41}(r)=E(r).$$
(4.3)
The expression of the unknown function $`E(r)`$ has been obtained solving (3.7), (3.8), with $`J^n`$ 0. This $`E(r)`$ has been introduced in the expression (3.10), thus getting the energy-momentum tensor of the considered electromagnetic field. Finally, solving Einstein’s Eqs. the solution (4.1) has been obtained.

Let us now consider the problem of finding the electrogravitational field produced by a charged mass point according to RTG. We must solve the system of Eqs. (2.3), (2.4), (3.7), (3.8) in terms of the coordinate of the underlying Minkowski space-time. Only those solutions that satisfy CP can represent the physical acceptable fields.

I suppose that the spherical coordinates {$`r,\theta ,\phi ,t`$} centered in the charged mass point are the coordinates in the underlying Minkowski space-time. The solution (4.1) satisfies Eqs. (2.3) (without the mass terms), (2.4), (3.7), (3.8). I verify now if this solution satisfies (2.4) .

The metric of the Minkowski space-time in which we happen to be when the gravitational field is switched off is:

$$d\sigma ^2=dt^2dr^2r^2d\theta ^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2.$$
(4.4)
From (4.1), the nonzero components of the tensor $`g^{mn}`$ are:

$$g^{11}=\left(1\frac{2m}{r}+\frac{q^2}{r^2}\right)\text{}g^{22}=\frac{1}{r^2}\text{}g^{33}=\frac{1}{r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\text{}g^{44}=\frac{1}{1\frac{2m}{r}+\frac{q^2}{r^2}},$$
(4.5)
and the determinant of the metric tensor $`g_{mn}`$ is given as follows:

$$g=r^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .$$
(4.6)
From (4.5), (4.6) and (2.2) we obtain the nonzero components of $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{11}=\mathrm{sin}\theta \left(r^22mr+q^2\right)\text{}\stackrel{~}{g}^{22}=\mathrm{sin}\theta \text{}\stackrel{~}{g}^{33}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\text{}\stackrel{~}{g}^{44}=\frac{r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta }{1\frac{2m}{r}+\frac{q^2}{r^2}}.$$
(4.7)
Taking into account (4.4), the coefficients of the metric connection generated by $`\gamma _{mn}`$ are:

$$\gamma _{22}^1=r\text{}\gamma _{33}^1=r\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \text{}\gamma _{12}^2=\gamma _{13}^3=\frac{1}{r}\text{}\gamma _{33}^2=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \text{}\gamma _{23}^3=\mathrm{cot}\theta .$$
(4.8)
According to (4.7), (4.8), making $`n=1`$ in the system (2.4’), we obtain an equation which is not fulfilled.

So, the solution (4.1) written in the spherical coordinates {$`r,\theta ,\phi ,t`$} with the metric tensor of the Minkowski space-time having the form (4.4), does not satisfy Eq. (2.4); hence it is not an admissible solution in RTG.

For finding an admissible solution in RTG, I use the same procedure as Logunov & Mestvirishvili (1989), Chapter 13. Thus, I am looking for a system of coordinates {$`\eta ^i`$}$`=\{R,`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta },`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi },`$ $`T\}`$ in which Eqs. (2.3) (without mass terms), (3.7), (3.8) are fulfilled, Eqs. (2.4) establishing a one to one relationship with a nonzero Jacobian, between the sets of coordinates {$`\eta ^i`$} and {$`\xi ^i`$}={$`r,`$ $`\theta ,`$ $`\phi ,`$ $`t`$}, in the Minkowski space-time. I shift from the variables {$`\xi ^i`$} to the variables {$`\eta ^i`$} assuming that:

$$R=R(r),\mathrm{\Theta }=\theta ,\mathrm{\Phi }=\phi ,T=t.$$
(4.9)
The function $`R(r)`$ must satisfy the following restrictions:

$$R(r)>0\text{, for }r>r_g\text{ , }\frac{dR}{dr}>0\text{, for }r>r_g$$
(4.10)
The transformation is made in such a way that when the gravitational field disappears the metric of the underlying Minkowski space-time takes the form:

$$d\sigma ^2=dt^2dR^2R^2d\theta ^2R^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2.$$
(4.11)
The system of Eqs. (2.4) makes possible the finding of the explicit form of the function $`R(r)`$. Eqs. (2.4) can be written in the following form (see the relations (13.17), (13.22), from Logunov & Mestvirishvili 1989):

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g(\xi )}}\frac{}{\xi ^m}\left(\sqrt{g(\xi )}g^{mn}(\xi )\frac{\eta ^p}{\xi ^n}\right)=\gamma _{mn}^p(\eta )\frac{\eta ^m}{\xi ^i}.\frac{\eta ^n}{\xi ^j}g^{ij}(\xi ).$$
(4.12)
From (4.11) the nonzero components $`\gamma _{mn}^p(\eta )`$ have the expressions:

$$\gamma _{22}^1=R\text{}\gamma _{33}^1=R\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \text{}\gamma _{12}^2=\gamma _{13}^3=\frac{1}{R}\text{}\gamma _{33}^2=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \text{}\gamma _{23}^3=\mathrm{cot}\theta .$$
(4.13)
For $`n=2,3,4`$ taking into account (4.5), (4.6), (4.13), Eqs. of the system (2.4’) become identities, while for $`n=1`$ Eq. assumes the form:

$$\frac{d^2R(r)}{dr^2}(r^22mr+q^2)+2(rm)\frac{dR(r)}{dr}2R(r)=0\text{, for }r>r_g.$$
(4.14)
Here the gravitational radius $`r_g`$ is given by the expressions (4.2).

The solution of this Eq. depends essentially on the relation between $`q^2`$ and $`m^2`$ (see Soós and me 2000, Section 4).

## 5 Case $`q^2m^2`$

The solution of Eq. (4.14) obtained in this case is the following (see Soós and me 2000, Section 4):

$$R(r)=rm\text{, for }r>r_g=m+\sqrt{m^2q^2}$$
(5.1)
the admissible minimum value for $`R(r)`$ being:

$$R_g=\sqrt{m^2q^2}.$$
(5.2)
$`R_g`$ represents the gravitational radius of our point source in the system of coordinates {$`\eta ^i`$}.

From the tensor transformation law, the nonzero components of the effective Riemannian metric $`g_{mn}`$ in the new coordinate system {$`\eta ^i`$}={$`R,\theta ,\phi ,t`$} are:

$$g_{11}=\frac{(R+m)^2}{R^2m^2+q^2}\text{}g_{22}=(R+m)^2\text{}g_{33}=(R+m)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \text{}g_{44}=\frac{R^2m^2+q^2}{(R+m)^2}.$$
(5.3)
The above solution was obtained for the first time by Karabut & Chugreev (1987); E.Soós and me (2000) have obtained the same result.

The analysis of the problem in the framework of RTG doesn’t stop here. A necessary condition for that the solution (5.3) has physical sense, is CP. Allowing for the expression (4.11) of the underling Minkowski space-time, I choose the Minkowski isotropic vector $`u=(0,1,0,R(r)).`$ The condition (2.6) becomes:

$$(R^2m^2+q^2)R^2(R+m)^4,\text{ for }R>R_g,$$
(5.4)
$`R_g`$ being given by (5.2). It is easy to verify that this restriction is fulfilled.

Also, for the Minkowski isotropic vector $`u=(1,0,0,1)`$, the causality condition:

$$(R^2m^2+q^2)^2(R+m)^4,\text{ for }R>R_g,$$
(5.5)
must be satisfied. Because (5.4) is valid, the inequality (5.5) is obviously satisfied.

So, the solution (5.3) represents the physically acceptable solution in RTG.

## 6 Case $`q^2>m^2`$

According to the empirical values of $`q`$ and $`m,`$ for a single electron just this case is true. So, it’s important to see how looks the solution in this case. This case was firstly analysed in RTG, by Soós and by me in (2000).

Integrating Eq. (4.14) and choosing one of the two constants of integration which appear, in such way that for $`r`$ tends to $`\mathrm{}`$ , $`\frac{R(r)}{r}`$ tends to 1, we get:

$$R(r)=rm+C\left(1\frac{rm}{p}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{p}{rm}\right)\text{, for }r>r_g,$$
(6.1)
where $`p=\sqrt{q^2m^2}`$ and $`C`$ is a real constant.

The components of the effective Riemannian space-time , in the system of coordinates $`\{\eta ^i\}`$ are the following:

$$g_{11}=\left(\frac{dr(R)}{dR}\right)^2\left(\frac{1}{1\frac{2m}{r(R)}+\frac{q^2}{r^2(R)}}\right)\text{}g_{22}=r^2(R)\text{}g_{33}=r^2(R)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \text{}g_{44}=1\frac{2m}{r(R)}+\frac{q^2}{r^2(R)}$$
(6.2)
the function $`r(R)`$ being implicitly given by (6.1).

Eqs. (2.4) being general covariant, the system of coordinates $`\{\eta ^i\}`$ is not a privileged one. Thus, the solution (4.1) is also a solution of this system of Eqs., but the system of Minkowski coordinates in which is written this solution, is one in which the Minkowskian metric does not have the form (4.4) but the form:

$$d\sigma ^2=dt^2\left(\frac{dR(r)}{dr}\right)^2dr^2R^2(r)d\theta ^2R^2(r)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2,$$
(6.3)
$`R(r)`$ being explicitly given by (6.1).

Therefore, the solution obtained in this case can be written either in the form (6.2) in the system of coordinates for which the underlying Minkowskian metric has the form (4.11), or in the form (4.1) in the system of coordinates for which the underlying Minkowskian metric is (6.3). Soós E. and me (2000) have considered the form (6.2), (4.11).

Apparently, our problem has a family of solutions depending on the parameter $`C`$. Any way, the obtained solutions must satisfy CP in RTG. Because we don’t have the explicit form of the inverse function $`r(R)`$, I verify if this principle is satisfied, using the form (4.1), (6.3) of the solutions.

Considering the Minkowskian isotropic vector $`u=(0,1,0,R(r)),`$the causality condition (2.6) becomes:

$$\left(r^22mr+q^2\right)R^2(r)r^4\text{ for }r>r_g\text{}R>R_g\text{}$$
(6.4)
where $`R_g0`$ is the lower admissible bound for the function $`R(r)`$. This value must be also determined.

Also, for the Minkowskian isotropic vector $`u=(1,0,0,\frac{dR(r)}{dr})`$ the following inequality must be valid:

$$\left(r^22mr+q^2\right)^2\left(\frac{dR(r)}{dr}\right)^2r^4\text{ for }r>r_g\text{}R>R_g\text{}$$
(6.5)
For the considered case $`q^2>m^2`$, according to (4.2), $`r_g=0.`$ I’ll show that if we want the causality conditions (6.4), (6.5) be satisfied, $`r_g`$ can’t be zero. So, the solution obtained by Soós and by me (2000) doesn’t fulfill CP in RTG. This is the main reason for what I have reanalysed the problem considered by us.

Indeed, if $`r_g=0`$ and in (6.4) we make $`r`$ tends to zero and we get $`R(0)=0.`$ This yields:

$$C=\frac{m}{1\frac{m}{p}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{p}{m}}C_{1.}$$
(6.6)
And if in (6.5) we make $`r`$ tends to zero, we find $`\frac{dR(0)}{dr}=0,`$ implying:

$$C=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{p}{m}+\frac{m}{m^2+p^2}}C_{2.}$$
(6.7)
It’s easy to see that $`C_1<C_2.`$ Hence, we obtain a contradiction, since from (6.6), (6.7) we must have $`C_1=C_2`$. It results that the restrictions (6.4), (6.5) could be fulfilled only if :

$$r_g>0.$$
(6.8)
Now, I am looking for the value of this $`r_g.`$

I return to the conditions which must be fulfilled by the function $`R(r).`$ The function $`R(r)`$ has the analytical expression (6.1), and must satisfy the conditions (4.10), (6.4), (6.5). The real constant $`C`$ will be determined such that the positive and increasing function $`R(r)`$ gets in the possible minimum value $`r=r_g`$ its possible minimum value denoted by $`R_g.`$

From the analytical expression (6.1) of $`R(r),`$ we notice that this function has the straight line $`R(r)=rm`$ like oblique asymptote at $`\mathrm{}.`$ Allowing for the fact that the following function is positive:

$$f(r)=1\frac{rm}{p}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{p}{rm}0\text{, for }r>0,$$
(6.9)
from (6.1) we get :

$$R(r)rm\text{ if and only if }C0$$
(6.10)
and

$$R(r)>rm\text{ if and only if }C>0.$$
(6.11)
I’ll present separately the two possibilities (6.10), (6.11), respectively.

a) $`C0`$

In this case, taking into account the expression (6.1) of the function $`R(r),`$ the condition (4.10)<sub>1</sub> which this function must satisfy and the relation (6.9), we conclude that:

$$r>m.$$
(6.12)
Deriving the function (6.1), we get:

$$\frac{dR(r)}{dr}=1+C\left(\frac{1}{p}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{p}{rm}+\frac{rm}{(rm)^2+p^2}\right).$$
(6.13)
Since, the following function is negative:

$$h(r)=\frac{1}{p}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{p}{rm}+\frac{rm}{(rm)^2+p^2}0\text{, for }r>0,$$
(6.14)
in the considered case we obtain:

$$\frac{dR(r)}{dr}1\text{, for }r>r_g.$$
(6.15)
So, the condition (4.10)<sub>2</sub> is obviously fulfilled.

The causality condition (6.5) must be also valid for $`r>r_g,`$ $`R>R_g`$, and allowing for (6.15) we find:

$$r\frac{q^2}{2m}.$$
(6.16)
In view of (6.10), (6.16) and of the fact that $`rm<r`$, the causality condition (6.4) is satisfied.

The conditions (6.12), (6.16)are necessary conditions. For that (4.10)<sub>2</sub> and (6.5) to be valid, the real constant $`C`$ would have to satisfy:

$$C>\frac{mr}{1\frac{rm}{p}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{p}{rm}}\text{, for }r>r_g,$$
(6.17)
and respectively:

$$C\frac{2mrq^2}{\left(r^22mr+q^2\right)\left(\frac{1}{p}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{p}{rm}+\frac{rm}{(rm)^2+p^2}\right)}\text{, for }r>r_g.$$
(6.18)
According to (6.12), (6.16), we find:

$$r_g=\{\begin{array}{c}\text{ }m\text{,\hspace{1em}for }m^2<q^2<2m^2\\ \frac{q^2}{2m}\text{, \hspace{1em}for }2m^2q^2\text{.}\end{array}$$
(6.19)
Taking into account the criterion for choosing the real constant $`C`$, the inequalities (6.17), (6.18), where $`r_g`$ has the value (6.19), we finally get:

$$C=0.$$
(6.20)
Substituting (6.20) into (6.1), we find in this case :

$$R(r)=rm\text{, for }r>r_g.$$
(6.21)
$`r_g`$ being given by (6.19).

b) $`C>0`$

In this case, $`r`$ also can not take values smaller than $`m`$. Indeed, if $`r`$ would take the values smaller than $`m`$, from (6.13), the point $`r=m`$ would be a return point for $`R(r),`$ so, $`R(r)`$ wouldn’t be strictly increasing function.

Besides, in this case the condition (4.10)<sub>2</sub> is not fulfilled. Indeed, from (6.13), allowing for the fact that the function $`h(r)`$ from (6.14) is monotonously increasing function, and tends to zero for $`r`$ tends to $`\mathrm{},`$ we get that there exist $`r>r_gm`$ such that $`\frac{dR(r)}{dr}=0.`$

So, for $`C>0`$, the function $`R=R(r)`$ can’t be strictly increasing function for $`r>r_g.`$

Summing up, if the relation between $`q^2`$and $`m^2`$ is $`q^2>m^2`$, the only function, in the form (6.1), which satisfies the restrictions (4.10), (6.4), (6.5) is the function (6.21), where $`r_g`$ is given by (6.19).

Then the analytical expression of $`R=R(r)`$ is the same as in the case $`q^2m^2`$, but its domain of definition is different.

## 7 Conclusions

We can conclude that the solution of our problem according to RTG is unique for all order relations which can exist between $`m^2`$ and $`q^2`$. The analytical expression of the solution doesn’t depend on the relation between $`m^2`$ and $`q^2`$, but its domain of definition, i.e. $`r_g`$, depends on this relation. On the basis of (5.1), (6.21), (6.19), we can write:

$$R(r)=rm\text{, for }r>r_g.$$
(7.1)
where

$$r_g=\{\begin{array}{c}m+\sqrt{m^2q^2}\text{, for }q^2m^2\\ m\text{, for }m^2<q^2<2m^2\\ \frac{q^2}{2m}\text{, for }2m^2q^2.\end{array}$$
(7.2)
We notice that the function $`r_g`$ depending on $`q^2`$ and $`m^2`$ is a continuous one.

The expression of the effective Riemannian metric has in the system of coordinates $`\{\xi ^i\}=\{r,\theta ,\phi ,t\}`$ the same form (4.1) like in GRT. But in RTG , these coordinates are the spatial-temporal coordinates in the Minkowski universe. The line element of this universe doesn’t have the form (4.4) but the form (6.3). Substituting (7.1) into (6.3), we get this form:

$$d\sigma ^2=dt^2dr^2(rm)^2d\theta ^2(rm)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2.$$
(7.3)
Comparing (4.2) and (7.2), I also stress the difference between the gravitational radius in this two theories.

We can also write the components of the effective Riemannian metric in the system of coordinates $`\{\eta ^i\}=\{R,\theta ,\phi ,t\},`$in which the Minkowskian line element has the form (4.11). These are:

$$g_{11}=\frac{(R+m)^2}{R^2m^2+q^2}\text{}g_{22}=(R+m)^2\text{}g_{33}=(R+m)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \text{}g_{44}=\frac{R^2m^2+q^2}{(R+m)^2}.$$
(7.4)
From (7.1), (7.2), the gravitational radius in the system of coordinates $`\{\eta ^i\}`$ has the expression:

$$R_g=\{\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{m^2q^2}\text{, for }q^2m^2\\ 0\text{, for }m^2<q^2<2m^2\\ \frac{q^22m^2}{2m}\text{, for }2m^2q^2.\end{array}$$
(7.5)
$`R_g`$ like function depending on $`q^2`$ and $`m^2,`$ is also a continuous function.

The obtained result shows again the important role played by CP in RTG: indeed the analytical expression of the function $`R=R(r)`$ is much more simple as that obtained by E Soós and by me (2000).

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank my teacher E. Soós, who has directed and guided me in this field, for many helpful discussions and critical remarks which made me to undertake and finish this work. I am also grateful to Prof. V. Soloviev for translating this paper into Russian.