format: text

text:
# Stationary and Axisymmetric Perfect Fluids with one Conformal Killing Vector

## 1 Introduction

In a recent paper  we considered the study of stationary (non-static) and axisymmetric non-convective differentially rotating perfect-fluid solutions admitting one proper conformal Killing vector. A purely geometric result  for stationary and axisymmetric spacetimes (with a well-defined axis of symmetry) admitting one conformal motion implies that both the stationary and the axial Killing vectors necessarily commute with the conformal Killing. Thus, the Lie algebra of the three dimensional conformal group can only adopt four inequivalent forms, which were labeled in  as Abelian Case and Cases I, II and III, and which correspond to

Abelian Case $`[\stackrel{}{\xi },\stackrel{}{k}]=\stackrel{}{0},`$
Case I $`[\stackrel{}{\xi },\stackrel{}{k}]=b\stackrel{}{k},`$ (1)
Case II $`[\stackrel{}{\xi },\stackrel{}{k}]=c\stackrel{}{\xi },`$
Case III $`[\stackrel{}{\xi },\stackrel{}{k}]=v\stackrel{}{\eta },`$
where $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$ is the timelike Killing vector, $`\stackrel{}{\eta }`$ is the axial Killing vector, $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is the conformal Killing and $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`v`$ are arbitrary non-vanishing constants (these constants can be normalised to one, but as they usually carry dimensions we prefer to retain them). In  the general solution of Einstein’s field equations for the Abelian and Case I was found. The general solution for the Abelian Case depends on an arbitrary function of a single variable and the perfect fluid satisfies the barotropic equation of state $`\rho =p+`$const. The solution is Petrov type D and the fluid velocity vector lies in the two plane generated at each point by the two repeated principal directions of the Weyl tensor. This solution was first found under completely different hypotheses by one of us . In Case I, the general solution is an explicit Petrov type D metric with the fluid velocity vector lying outside the two-plane generated by the repeated principal directions and the perfect fluid satisfying the barotropic equation of state $`\rho +3p=0`$. Let us remark here that  contained an erroneous statement concerning this solution which is corrected at the end of this paper: the fluid velocity vector for this solution was claimed to rotate differentially when the solution is, actually, rigidly rotating. Then, as a consequence of the results in , this solution is contained in the general Wahlquist family  of Petrov type D rigidly rotating perfect fluids with equation of state $`\rho +3p=`$const.

The Cases II and III were also considered, but the study of solutions was only performed under the severe restriction imposed by an Ansatz of separation of variables in one of the metric functions. For the first two cases in (1) this separation of variables is a consequence of one of the Einstein field equations but, for the remaining Cases II and III, it had to be imposed as an additional assumption in order to handle the field equations. The solution under this assumption was found and the conformal Killing vector turned out to be, in fact, homothetic.

The aim of this paper is to complete the study performed in  by analysing the general non-convective differentially rotating perfect-fluid solution of Einstein’s field equations for a stationary and axisymmetric spacetime with one conformal symmetry such that the Lie algebra of the conformal group belongs to one of the Cases II or III above. It turns out that there exists one perfect-fluid family of solutions for both cases. The dependence of all metric coefficients of these solutions on one of the coordinates is explicit. The dependence on the other non-trivial coordinate can be obtained by solving a remaining compatible system of ordinary differential equations. The general solution of this system depends on an arbitrary function which cannot be reabsorbed by any coordinate change. It also results that the conformal Killing for these two families is necessarily homothetic which proves that no non-convective stationary and axisymmetric perfect fluid admitting one proper conformal motion exists apart from those in ,. We remark that the families we will find in this paper contain as particular cases the solutions for Cases II and III considered in .

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we recall the line-element and the form of the conformal Killing for the Lie algebras II and III. We rewrite the metric in a way which allows us to consider the two cases together. Then we write the Einstein field equations for a perfect-fluid energy-momentum tensor and concentrate our efforts in a subsystem constituted by two partial differential equations for a single function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)`$ (the conformal factor of the metric). In section 3 we find the general solution of this system of equations which turns out to be a set of four different families that we label as Solutions 1, 2, 3 and 4. Section 4 is devoted to impose the remaining Einstein equation (which is quadratic in the second derivatives) for each of the four solutions. We prove that Solution 1 does not represent a perfect fluid. Regarding Solutions 2 and 3, we show that they can be treated together and that the quadratic equation gives rise to a system of ordinary differential equations which can be shown to give no solution with a regular axis of symmetry. In an Appendix we proof this statement completely for the Case III and give the main indications regarding the Case II (the proof for this case is much longer but still not difficult to perform). Let us remark here that the assumption of regular axis is not an additional one in our work because the restriction to the four possible Lie algebras (1) is based essentially on this regularity of the axis -.

Then we consider Solution 4, which makes the quadratic equation compatible thus giving perfect-fluid solutions of Einstein’s equations which are analysed in Section 5, where we rewrite the line-elements for these solutions in the simplest forms and write down the remaining ordinary differential equations including a discussion on the compatibility of the system. We also give the expressions for the density and pressure and for the fluid velocity vectors. We finish the section by enclosing a table which summarizes all the non-convective stationary and axisymmetric perfect-fluid solutions of Einstein’s equations admitting one conformal Killing vector. We end this paper by including a corrigendum for an erroneous statement in  concerning the solution in Case I (see above).

## 2 Canonical forms of the metric and Einstein field equations

As we have stated in the Introduction, we are interested in studying the Einstein field equations for a non-convective, differentially rotating perfect fluid in stationary and axisymmetric spacetimes admitting one conformal motion such that the conformal algebra belongs to Cases II or III defined above. The canonical form of the metric in these two cases is explicitly given in  where it is shown that there exist coordinates in which the line-elements and the conformal Killing vectors take the forms

Case II

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Psi }^2(x,y)}}\left[\stackrel{~}{F}(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}e^{cy}dt+\stackrel{~}{P}(x)d\varphi \right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}^2(x)}{\stackrel{~}{F}(x)}}d\varphi ^2+dx^2+dy^2\right],`$ (2)
$`\stackrel{}{k}=ct{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}.`$
Case III

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Psi }^2(x,y)}}\left[F(x)dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2(x)}{F(x)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}d\varphi +\left(P(x)vy\right)dt\right)^2+dx^2+dy^2\right],`$ (3)
$`\stackrel{}{k}=vt{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}.`$
In both metrics the dependence of the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)`$ on the variable $`y`$ must be non-trivial because, otherwise, the conformal Killing $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ becomes a true Killing field.

As we will see in what follows, it is very convenient to study the two Cases II and III together as they have similar properties. It is obvious that the two line-elements can be fused into the following expression

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Psi }^2(x,y)}}\left[F(x)e^{2cy}dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2(x)}{F(x)}}\left(d\varphi +e^{cy}\left(P(x)vy\right)dt\right)^2+dx^2+dy^2\right],`$ (4)
where the expressions relating the functions $`\stackrel{~}{F}(x)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{P}(x)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(x)`$ with $`F(x)`$, $`P(x)`$ and $`Q(x)`$ for Case II can be easily obtained. Case III is recovered by setting $`c=0`$ and Case II corresponds to $`v=0`$. Thus, we can set the product $`cv=0`$ wherever it occurs in the calculation of the Einstein tensor. The orthonormal tetrad that we will use in order to write the components of the tensor quantities is given by

$$𝜽^\mathrm{𝟎}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\sqrt{F}e^{cy}𝒅𝒕,𝜽^\mathrm{𝟏}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\frac{Q}{\sqrt{F}}\left(\frac{}{}𝒅\mathit{\varphi }+e^{cy}\left(Pvy\right)𝒅𝒕\right),𝜽^\mathrm{𝟐}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Psi }}𝒅𝒙,𝜽^\mathrm{𝟑}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Psi }}𝒅𝒚.$$

We are interested in perfect-fluid solutions of the Einstein field equations, so that the energy-momentum tensor takes the following standard form

$`T_{\alpha \beta }=\left(\rho +p\right)u_\alpha u_\beta +pg_{\alpha \beta },`$
where $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ are the energy density and the pressure of the fluid respectively and $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ is the fluid velocity vector. The fluid motion is taken as non-convective, that is to say, the velocity vector $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ lies on the two-plane generated at each point by the two Killing vectors $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\eta }`$. In the above orthonormal tetrad the fluid one-form $`𝒖`$ is given by

$`𝒖=u_0𝜽^\mathrm{𝟎}+u_1𝜽^\mathrm{𝟏},u_0^2u_1^2=1,`$
so that the Einstein field equations, in $`c=8\pi G=1`$ units, read

$`S_{00}=\left(\rho +p\right)u_0^2p,S_{01}=\left(\rho +p\right)u_0u_1,S_{11}=\left(\rho +p\right)u_1^2+p,`$
$`S_{22}=S_{33}=p,S_{02}=S_{03}=S_{12}=S_{13}=S_{23}=0,`$
where $`S_{\alpha \beta }`$ stands for the components of the Einstein tensor in the $`\{𝜽^𝜶\}`$ cobasis. Some of these equations can be rewritten involving only the Einstein tensor, while the energy density, pressure and velocity vector are calculated once these equations are solved. Due to the separation of the metric into two orthogonal blocks, some of the Einstein tensor components are identically vanishing in the tetrad we are considering. Specifically, it can be shown by direct calculation that

$`S_{02}0,S_{03}0,S_{12}0,S_{13}0`$
and consequently, the only non-trivially satisfied Einstein equations are

$`\left(S_{00}+S_{22}\right)\left(S_{11}S_{22}\right)S_{01}^2=0,`$ (5)
$`S_{22}S_{33}=0,`$ (6)
$`S_{23}=0.`$ (7)
We will now concentrate on the last two equations (6)-(7), which read (after dropping some global non-vanishing factors)

$$_{xy}\mathrm{\Psi }=H(x)\mathrm{\Psi },_{xx}\mathrm{\Psi }_{yy}\mathrm{\Psi }=G(x)\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(8)
where the expressions for $`H(x)`$ and $`G(x)`$ are

$`H(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(cPP^{}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}}c{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}+vP^{}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}}\right),`$ (9)
$`G(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{F^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}Q^{}}{FQ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{\prime \prime }}{Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{P^2Q^2}{F^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}},`$ (10)
the primes meaning derivatives with respect to $`x`$. These equations were studied in  only under the simplifying assumption $`\mathrm{\Psi }=g(x)+h(y)`$, which obviously corresponds to the vanishing of the function $`H`$. Given that this case was completed in the mentioned paper, we can assume from now on that $`H`$ does not vanish identically. In the next section we are going to find the general solution of the system of partial differential equations (8) for the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)`$ when $`H0`$.

## 3 Solution of the system of equations for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

In order to solve the system (8), let us find all the third-order partial derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with respect to the variables $`x`$ and $`y`$. Deriving the first of the equations with respect to $`x`$ and with respect to $`y`$ we immediately get, respectively

$`_{xxy}\mathrm{\Psi }=H^{}\mathrm{\Psi }+H_x\mathrm{\Psi },_{xyy}\mathrm{\Psi }=H_y\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (11)
and considering the derivatives of the second equation we find, after making use of (11)

$`_{xxx}\mathrm{\Psi }=H_y\mathrm{\Psi }+G_x\mathrm{\Psi }+G^{}\mathrm{\Psi },_{yyy}\mathrm{\Psi }=H^{}\mathrm{\Psi }+H_x\mathrm{\Psi }G_y\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (12)
We can now impose integrability conditions on this set of partial differential equations. For instance, the difference of the partial derivative of the first equation in (11) with respect to $`x`$ with the partial derivative of the first equation in (12) with respect to $`y`$ gives the following first order equation

$`H^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Psi }+2H^{}_x\mathrm{\Psi }=G^{}_y\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (13)
where the original system (8) has been taken into account. It is easy to see that the integrability condition for the other two equations is given again by (13).

If the function $`G`$ is a constant, then (13) implies that either $`H`$ is also a constant or $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ takes the form of a product of a function of $`x`$ and a function of $`y`$. From (13) it also follows that when $`H`$ is a constant then $`G(x)`$ must also be constant (because the other possibility $`_y\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ needs not be considered as discussed above). Thus, let us first study the case when both $`H`$ and $`G`$ are constants. Since we can assume $`H0`$, the original system (8) implies the following homogeneous equation

$`_{xx}\mathrm{\Psi }_{yy}\mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \frac{G}{H}}_{xy}\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$
which can be immediately solved (given that $`G`$ and $`H`$ are constants) to give

$`\mathrm{\Psi }=f_1\left(ya^2Hx\right)+f_2\left(y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2H}}x\right)`$
where $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ are arbitrary functions of their arguments and the positive constant $`a`$ is defined by

$$a^2\frac{G+\sqrt{G^2+4H^2}}{2H^2}\frac{1}{a^2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(G+\sqrt{G^2+4H^2}\right).$$
(14)
With this form for the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the second equation in (8) can be trivially separated into the following two equations

$`\ddot{f}_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}\left(f_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2H}}\right),\ddot{f}_2=H^2a^2\left(f_2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2H}}\right).`$ (15)
where $`\alpha `$ is a separation constant and dots indicate derivatives with respect to their respective arguments. The redefinitions $`f_1+\frac{\alpha }{2H}f_1`$ and $`f_2\frac{\alpha }{2H}f_2`$, which leave invariant its sum $`\mathrm{\Psi }=f_1+f_2`$, allow us to set the constant $`\alpha =0`$. Thus, the solution of the system (15) is clearly

$`\text{Solution 1}\text{:}\mathrm{\Psi }=Ae^{aHy+\frac{x}{a}}+Be^{\left(aHy+\frac{x}{a}\right)}+C\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y}{a}}aHx+x_0\right)`$
where $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$ are arbitrary constants and $`x_0`$ is a superfluous constant that can be reabsorbed into the coordinates. Let us remember that $`G`$ is obtained in terms of $`H`$ and $`a`$ from (14).

We shall momentarily discard the case when $`G`$ is a constant and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a product of a function of $`x`$ and a function of $`y`$ because it is contained in a more general situation we will meet later. Let us then consider the general case when $`G^{}0`$ (and then $`H^{}0`$). Deriving equation (13) with respect to $`x`$ and using the first equation in (8) we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2H^{}}{G^{}}}_{xx}\mathrm{\Psi }+\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{2H^{}}{G^{}}}\right)^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{H^{\prime \prime }}{G^{}}}\right]_x\mathrm{\Psi }+\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{H^{\prime \prime }}{G^{}}}\right)^{}H\right]\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (16)
The nice property of this partial differential equation is that all the coefficients and all the derivatives involve only the variable $`x`$. Thus, its general solution is

$`\mathrm{\Psi }=A_1(y)v_1(x)+A_2(y)v_2(x),`$ (17)
where $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are arbitrary integration coefficients which can depend on $`y`$, and $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are two linearly independent solutions (so that in particular they are non-vanishing) of the ordinary second order differential equation given by the same expression (16) with ordinary derivatives substituted for the partial derivatives. Our aim now is to find all the solutions of the original system (8) with the form for the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ given in (17). It is obvious that we will also find all the solutions which are products of a function of $`y`$ and a function of $`x`$ (say by imposing $`A_2(y)=0`$ in (17)), and thus the case $`G^{}=0`$ with $`H^{}0`$ we had left aside is also contained in this study.

The first equation in the system (8) for a function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of the type (17) takes the form

$`\dot{A_1}v_1^{}+\dot{A_2}v_2^{}A_1Hv_1A_2Hv_2=0,`$ (18)
where dots mean derivative with respect to $`y`$ from now on. The lefthand side of this equation is a linear combination of the four functions of $`y`$, $`\dot{A_1}`$, $`\dot{A_2}`$, $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$, with coefficients not depending on $`y`$. Thus, we can study this equation by considering all the possibilities of linear independence of these four functions. First of all, it is obvious that the case in which all four functions of $`y`$ are linearly independent need not be considered as it implies the vanishing of each coefficient in (18) which is clearly impossible. Thus, we can move to the case in which $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are linearly independent and $`\text{rank}\{\dot{A_1},\dot{A_2},A_1,A_2\}=3`$, so that without loss of generality we can consider that $`\dot{A_2}`$ is linearly independent of $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ and write $`\dot{A_1}=\beta _1\dot{A_2}+\beta _2A_1+\beta _3A_2`$, where $`\beta _1`$, $`\beta _2`$, $`\beta _3`$ are constants. The equation (18) becomes

$`A_1\left(\beta _2v_1^{}Hv_1\right)+A_2\left(\beta _3v_1^{}Hv_2\right)+\dot{A_2}\left(\beta _1v_1^{}+v_2^{}\right)=0,`$
so that each term between brackets must vanish. From the coefficient multiplying $`A_1`$ and $`H0`$ we have that $`\beta _20`$ and thus $`v_1^{}=Hv_1/\beta _2`$. Substituting this value of $`v_1^{}`$ into the second term in brackets and dropping a global factor $`H`$ we obviously get $`v_2=\beta _3v_1/\beta _2`$ so that the two functions $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are linearly dependent which is impossible. Thus, this possibility gives no solution for the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ either.

Let us now consider the next possibility given by $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ linearly independent and $`\text{rank}\{\dot{A_1},\dot{A_2},A_1,A_2\}=2`$. Thus, each function $`\dot{A_1}`$ and $`\dot{A_2}`$ is a linear combination with constant coefficients of $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$:

$`\dot{A_1}=\beta _1^1A_1+\beta _1^2A_2,\dot{A_2}=\beta _2^1A_1+\beta _2^2A_2.`$
We can redefine the two functions $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ using arbitrary non-singular linear combinations of themselves because this does not change the form (17) of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (obviously, we must redefine the two functions $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ appropriately). Under such a change, the coefficients $`\beta _a^b`$ ($`a,b`$ = 1,2) transform like an endomorphism that can be rewritten in its canonical form. Consequently, the only two inequivalent possibilities that can arise are

$$\begin{array}{c}\dot{A_1}=\beta _1A_1\hfill \\ \dot{A_2}=\beta _2A_2.\hfill \end{array}\},\begin{array}{c}\dot{A_1}=\beta A_1\hfill \\ \dot{A_2}=A_1+\beta A_2\hfill \end{array}\}.$$
(19)
In the second case, equation (18) takes the form

$`A_1\left(\beta v_1^{}Hv_1+v_2^{}\right)+A_2\left(\beta v_2^{}Hv_2\right)=0`$
which implies that each term enclosed in round brackets must vanish. Again $`\beta `$ must be non-vanishing so that we can set $`\beta =\frac{1}{\alpha }`$. The solutions for $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are trivially

$`v_1=r(x)e^{\alpha r(x)},v_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}e^{\alpha r(x)},\text{with}r^{}=H,`$
while the solutions for $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are

$`A_1=Ae^{\frac{y}{\alpha }},A_2=A\left(yy_0\right)e^{\frac{y}{\alpha }},`$
where $`A0`$ and $`y_0`$ are constants. Obviously, we can reabsorbe $`y_0`$ into the variable $`y`$. Finally, by imposing the second equation in (8) and using the above results we obtain the following two equations

$`r^{\prime \prime }+2\alpha r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha ^3}}=0,G+\alpha ^2r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\alpha ^2}}=0.`$ (20)
The first equation gives $`r(x)`$ explicitly (and thereby the function $`H(x)`$ after derivation), and the second gives $`G(x)`$. Thus, both of them are differential relations for the unknown metric coefficients $`F(x)`$, $`Q(x)`$ and $`P(x)`$. Summing up, we have

$`\text{Solution 2}\text{:}\mathrm{\Psi }=Ae^{\alpha r(x)+\frac{y}{\alpha }}\left(r(x){\displaystyle \frac{y}{\alpha ^2}}\right)\text{with}H=r^{}`$
and the two relations (20) must hold.

We must now consider the possibility given by the first set of differential relations in (19). Using these equations, the relation (18) takes the form

$`A_1\left(\beta _1v_1^{}Hv_1\right)+A_2\left(\beta _2v_2^{}Hv_2\right)=0,`$
so that again each term in brackets must vanish. As neither $`v_1`$ nor $`v_2`$ can be zero, we have that the constants $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ are non-vanishing so that we can rename them respectively as $`\frac{1}{\alpha _1}`$ and $`\frac{1}{\alpha _2}`$. The equations for $`\dot{A_1}`$ $`\dot{A_2}`$, $`v_1^{}`$ and $`v_2^{}`$ allow us to write the final form of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ immediately as

$`\text{Solution 3}\text{:}\mathrm{\Psi }=Ae^{\alpha _1r(x)+\frac{y}{\alpha _1}}+Be^{\alpha _2r(x)+\frac{y}{\alpha _2}},H=r^{}`$
(with $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ in order to have $`A_1`$ linearly independent of $`A_2`$). The second equation of (8) is equivalent now to the two equations:

$`r^{\prime \prime }+\left(\alpha _1+\alpha _2\right)r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+\alpha _2}{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}}=0,G+\alpha _1\alpha _2r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _2^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}}=0.`$ (21)
It is convenient to note here that the constants $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$, $`A`$ and $`B`$ can be complex still giving a real function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. This can be accomplished only when $`\alpha _1=\alpha +i\beta `$, $`\alpha _2=\overline{\alpha }_1`$, $`A=\overline{B}`$ where the bar means complex conjugation. In this case the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ becomes

$`\mathrm{\Psi }=Ae^{\alpha r(x)+\frac{\alpha }{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}y}\mathrm{sin}\left(\beta r(x){\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}}y+x_0\right)`$
where $`x_0`$ is a constant that can be made zero by redefining the variable $`x`$.

Let us finally consider the case when the two functions $`A_1(y)`$ and $`A_2(y)`$ are linearly dependent. Due to the symmetry in the indexes $`1`$ and $`2`$ we can choose $`A_2`$ proportional to $`A_1`$, $`A_2(y)=\lambda A_1(y)`$ where $`\lambda `$ is an arbitrary constant. The form of the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is now

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=A_1(y)\left[v_1(x)+\lambda v_2(x)\right]A_1(y)X(x)`$
so that it is the product of a function of only $`x`$ and a function of only $`y`$. The first equation in (8) is now

$`X^{}\dot{A_1}=H(x)XA_1\dot{A_1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}A_1,X^{}=\alpha HX`$
for some non-vanishing separation constant $`\alpha `$. The second equation of the system (8) becomes (after dropping a global factor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$)

$`G(x)\alpha r^{\prime \prime }\alpha ^2r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}=0.`$ (22)
Thus, the final possibility for the system (8) is given by

$`\text{Solution 4}\text{:}\mathrm{\Psi }=Ae^{\alpha r(x)+\frac{y}{\alpha }},r^{}=H`$
together with the differential equation (22).

## 4 Analysis of the remaining Einstein equation

Having found all the possible solutions of the system (8), we must now impose the quadratic equation (5) on each one of these possibilities in order to find which of them give rise to a perfect-fluid solution of Einstein’s equations. In order to deal with the mentioned quadratic equation it is worth considering it as the vanishing of the norm of a three-dimensional vector with components

$`\stackrel{}{S}(S_{00}+S_{33},S_{11}S_{22},S_{01})`$ (23)
in a three-dimensional vector space endowed with a scalar product given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \frac{1}{2}& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$
This quadratic form has signature $`(1,1,1)`$, and therefore, equation (5) states that the vector (23) is null in this indefinite scalar product. Now, evaluating the components of the Einstein tensor of the metric (4) we find

$$\begin{array}{c}S_{00}+S_{33}=\mathrm{\Psi }\left[\frac{}{}R_1(x)\mathrm{\Psi }+R_2(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}+2\mathrm{\Psi }_{,yy}+2c\mathrm{\Psi }_{,y}\right],\\ \\ S_{11}S_{33}=\mathrm{\Psi }\left[\frac{}{}M_1(x)\mathrm{\Psi }+M_2(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}2\mathrm{\Psi }_{,yy}\right],\\ \\ S_{01}=\mathrm{\Psi }\left[\frac{}{}L_1(x)\mathrm{\Psi }+L_2(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}+L_3(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{,y}\right]\end{array}$$

where the expressions for $`R_1`$, $`R_2`$, $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, $`L_1`$, $`L_2`$ and $`L_3`$ are

$`R_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F^{\prime \prime }}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{F^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}Q^{}}{FQ}}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}}\right),R_2={\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}},`$
$`M_1=R_1{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{\prime \prime }}{Q}}c^2{\displaystyle \frac{P^2Q^2}{F^2}}+c^2v^2{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}},M_2=2{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}},`$
$`L_1={\displaystyle \frac{Q}{F}}\left(P^{}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}P^{}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}\right),L_2=P^{}{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{F}},L_3={\displaystyle \frac{Q}{F}}\left(cP+v\right).`$
Let us now study the consequences of equation (5) when the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ takes each one of its possible forms. Let us begin by what we have named Solution 1.

#### Solution 1

As convenient notation let us define the following three functions of the two variables $`x`$ and $`y`$

$`k_1(x,y)e^{aHy+\frac{x}{a}},k_2(x,y)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y}{a}}aHx\right),k_3(x,y)\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y}{a}}aHx\right),`$
so that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is written as $`\mathrm{\Psi }=Ak_1+B/k_1+Ck_2`$. If in this expression $`C`$ vanished, the solution would in fact belong to Solution 3. Similarly, if both $`A`$ and $`B`$ vanished, the solution would be also contained in Solution 3. In consequence, we must have $`C0`$ and at least one of the $`A`$ and $`B`$ non-zero. By using the change $`aa`$ we can obviously assume $`A`$ and $`C`$ non-vanishing in what follows without loss of generality .

By taking the derivatives of the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the vector (23) becomes

$$\frac{\stackrel{}{S}}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=Ak_1\stackrel{}{X_1}+\frac{1}{k_1}\stackrel{}{X_2}+Ck_2\stackrel{}{X_3}+Ck_3\stackrel{}{X_4},$$
(25)
where the four vectors $`\stackrel{}{X_j}(i,j=1,2,3,4)`$ depend only on $`x`$ and are given by

$`\stackrel{}{X_1}=(R_1+{\displaystyle \frac{R_2}{a}}+2a^2H^2+2caH,M_1+{\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{a}}2a^2H^2,L_1+{\displaystyle \frac{L_2}{a}}+aHL_3),`$
$`\stackrel{}{X_2}=B(R_1{\displaystyle \frac{R_2}{a}}+2a^2H^22caH,M_1{\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{a}}2a^2H^2,L_1{\displaystyle \frac{L_2}{a}}aHL_3),`$
$`\stackrel{}{X_3}=(R_1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a^2}},M_1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a^2}},L_1),`$
$`\stackrel{}{X_4}=({\displaystyle \frac{2c}{a}}aHR_2,aHM_2,aHL_2+{\displaystyle \frac{L_3}{a}}),`$
and we have included $`B`$ in $`\stackrel{}{X_2}`$ because $`B`$ is the only constant that can vanish. Taking into account that the only vanishing linear combination of products of two functions in the set $`\{k_1,1/k_1,k_2,k_3\}`$ is $`k_1/k_1k_2^2k_3^2=0`$, the vanishing of the norm of the vector (25) implies

$`\stackrel{}{X}_1\stackrel{}{X}_1=\stackrel{}{X}_1\stackrel{}{X}_3=\stackrel{}{X}_1\stackrel{}{X}_4=\stackrel{}{X}_2\stackrel{}{X}_2=\stackrel{}{X}_2\stackrel{}{X}_3=\stackrel{}{X}_2\stackrel{}{X}_4=\stackrel{}{X}_3\stackrel{}{X}_4=0,`$
$`\stackrel{}{X}_3\stackrel{}{X}_3\stackrel{}{X}_4\stackrel{}{X}_4=0,2A\stackrel{}{X}_1\stackrel{}{X}_2+C^2\stackrel{}{X}_4\stackrel{}{X}_4=0.`$
If $`\stackrel{}{X}_1\stackrel{}{X}_20`$ then the vector $`\stackrel{}{X}_4`$ would be non-null and $`\{\stackrel{}{X}_1,\stackrel{}{X}_2,\stackrel{}{X}_4\}`$ would be a basis of the vector space. From the first set of equations above it would follow that $`\stackrel{}{X}_3`$ should be the zero vector. Then, the second equation would be incompatible. Thus, we must necessarily have $`\stackrel{}{X}_1\stackrel{}{X}_2=0`$ and every scalar product of each vector $`\stackrel{}{X_i}`$ with each $`\stackrel{}{X_j}`$ must vanish. Therefore, all these four vectors are proportional to some null vector and, as an obvious consequence, we have that the linear combination

$`\stackrel{}{X_1}\stackrel{}{X_3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2H^2}}\stackrel{}{X_4}=\left[a^2H^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}\right](2+2{\displaystyle \frac{c}{aH}},2,{\displaystyle \frac{L_3}{aH}})`$
has to be also a null vector, that is to say

$`4+{\displaystyle \frac{4c}{aH}}+{\displaystyle \frac{L_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{a^2H^2}}=0,`$
from which we learn that $`c`$ cannot vanish. Consequently, Case III is impossible and we can set $`v=0`$, so that from the definition of $`L_3`$ we have $`L_3=c\frac{QP}{F}`$. The equation above shows that $`L_3`$ must be constant so that every vector $`X_i`$ is proportional to the constant null vector $`(2+2c/aH,2,L_3/aH)`$. In particular, from the proportionality of $`\stackrel{}{X_4}`$ with this vector and the fact that $`H`$ is actually a constant in Solution 1, it immediately follows that $`\frac{F^{}}{F}`$ and $`\frac{Q^{}}{Q}`$ are also constants. Now, it is very easy to find the most general solution of Einstein’s equations in this case, given by the following functions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{a}},P=ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{F}{Q}},{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}=\gamma c=2aH,\mathrm{\Psi }=Ae^{aHy+\frac{x}{a}}+C\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y}{a}}aHx\right).`$ (26)
where $`ϵ`$ is a sign and $`\gamma `$ an arbitrary constant. The Einstein tensor for the metric (4) with these explicit forms for the functions $`F`$, $`Q`$, $`P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ takes the following form

$`S_{00}+S_{22}=S_{11}S_{22}=ϵS_{01},S_{22}=S_{33}=3C^2\left(a^2H^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}\right),S_{23}=0.`$
Thus, it is clear that the Einstein field equations (5), (6) and (7) are satisfied. However this metric does not represent a perfect fluid because the fluid velocity vector is not defined. The reason is that the quadratic equation (5) states exactly that the determinant of the $`2\times 2`$ matrix

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}S_{00}+S_{22}& S_{01}\\ S_{01}& S_{11}S_{22}\end{array}\right)`$

vanishes. This is in turn equivalent to the existence of two functions $`U_0`$ and $`U_1`$ such that

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}S_{00}+S_{22}& S_{01}\\ S_{01}& S_{11}S_{22}\end{array}\right)=\sigma \left(\begin{array}{cc}U_0^2& U_0U_1\\ U_0U_1& U_1^2\end{array}\right),`$

where $`\sigma `$ is the sign of the component $`S_{00}+S_{11}`$ (if it vanishes then $`\sigma `$ is the sign of $`S_{11}S_{22}`$, if both are zero then the whole matrix is vanishing). When these two functions $`U_0`$ and $`U_1`$ satisfy

$`U_0^2U_1^2>0`$
we can normalise this “vector” and define the two components $`u_0`$ and $`u_1`$ of the fluid velocity vector as

$`\sigma U_0^2\left(\rho +p\right)u_0^2,\sigma U_1^2\left(\rho +p\right)u_1^2,\text{with}u_0^2u_1^2=1.`$
These expressions also define $`\rho +p`$. However, other possibilities may also happen. First, there exist solutions of the quadratic equation (5) which satisfy

$`U_0^2U_1^2<0.`$
This case would correspond to a perfect-fluid-like Einstein tensor but with the “fluid” velocity being spacelike and thus it has no physical interest as it does not describe any known matter. Finally, there exist solutions satisfying

$`U_0^2U_1^2=0,S_{00}+S_{22}=S_{11}S_{22}.`$
In this case the Einstein tensor is of the form

$`S_{\alpha \beta }=K_\alpha K_\beta +pg_{\alpha \beta }`$
where $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ is a null vector lying in the two plane spanned by the Killings $`_t`$ and $`_\varphi `$. Thus, this solution represents a radiative fluid with pressure. So, we conclude that the quadratic equation (5) contains solutions which do not represent perfect-fluids and that this must be checked after having found the solution. It is clear now that the solution (26) belongs to this class of radiative fluids with pressure and thus will not be considered here any further. We can now move to the following solution given by

#### Solutions 2 and 3

Let us define the function

$`W(x,y)r(x){\displaystyle \frac{y}{\alpha ^2}}`$
so that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for Solution 2 is written as $`\mathrm{\Psi }=Ae^{\alpha r(x)+\frac{y}{\alpha }}W`$. The calculation of the vector (23) gives now $`\stackrel{}{S}=\mathrm{\Psi }Ae^{\alpha r(x)+\frac{y}{\alpha }}\left[W\stackrel{}{Y_1}+\stackrel{}{Y_2}\right]`$ where the two vectors $`\stackrel{}{Y_1}(x)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{Y_2}(x)`$ are given by the expressions

$`\stackrel{}{Y_1}=(R_1+\alpha r^{}R_2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{\alpha }},M_1+\alpha r^{}M_2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha _1}},L_1+\alpha r^{}L_2+{\displaystyle \frac{L_3}{\alpha }}),`$
$`\stackrel{}{Y_2}=(r^{}R_2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\alpha ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{\alpha ^2}},r^{}M_2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\alpha ^3}},r^{}L_2{\displaystyle \frac{L_3}{\alpha ^2}}).`$
From the fact that $`W`$ depends on $`y`$ while the two vectors $`\stackrel{}{Y_1}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{Y_2}`$ involve only functions of $`x`$ it follows that the vanishing of the norm of the vector $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ is equivalent to the three equations:

$$\stackrel{}{Y_1}\stackrel{}{Y_1}=0,\stackrel{}{Y_1}\stackrel{}{Y_2}=0,\stackrel{}{Y_2}\stackrel{}{Y_2}=0.$$
(27)
This is a system of ordinary differential equations to be satisfied by the unknown metric coefficients. At this stage, however, it is convenient to study the possibility given by Solution 3 rather than studying this system of equations because, as we will see, the two systems of equations for Solutions 2 and 3 can be treated together.

For Solution 3 it is worth defining the two functions

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x,y)=e^{\alpha _1r(x)+\frac{y}{\alpha _1}},\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x,y)=e^{\alpha _2r(x)+\frac{y}{\alpha _2}},`$
so that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is written as $`\mathrm{\Psi }=A\mathrm{\Psi }_1+B\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are non-vanishing constants and $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$. Taking the partial derivatives of the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the vector (23) takes the form $`\stackrel{}{S}=\mathrm{\Psi }\left[A\mathrm{\Psi }_1\stackrel{}{Z_1}+B\mathrm{\Psi }_2\stackrel{}{Z_2}\right]`$, where the two vectors $`\stackrel{}{Z_1}(x)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{Z_2}(x)`$ are

$`\stackrel{}{Z_1}=(R_1+\alpha _1r^{}R_2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha _1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{\alpha _1}},M_1+\alpha _1r^{}M_2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha _1^2}},L_1+\alpha _1r^{}L_2+{\displaystyle \frac{L_3}{\alpha _1}}),`$
$`\stackrel{}{Z_2}=(R_1+\alpha _2r^{}R_2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha _2^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{\alpha _2}},M_1+\alpha _2r^{}M_2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha _2^2}},L_1+\alpha _2r^{}L_2+{\displaystyle \frac{L_3}{\alpha _2}}).`$
As $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^2`$ are linearly independent functions of $`y`$, it follows that the quadratic equation (5) is equivalent to the vanishing of all the scalar products of $`\stackrel{}{Z_1}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{Z_2}`$ so that both vectors must be proportional to some null vector. Of course any linear combination of them has also the same property. It is convenient to consider the linear combination given by

$`\stackrel{}{Z_1}\stackrel{}{Z_2}=\left[\alpha _1\alpha _2\right](r^{}R_2{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _1+2\alpha _2}{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}},r^{}M_2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _1+2\alpha _2}{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}},r^{}L_2{\displaystyle \frac{L_3}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}}).`$
As $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ is non-vanishing, we can drop this global factor and the full set of Einstein’s field equations to be satisfied in this case are given by

$`r^{\prime \prime }+\left(\alpha _1+\alpha _2\right)r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+\alpha _2}{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}}=0,`$ (28)
$`H=r^{},`$ (29)
$`G+\alpha _1\alpha _2r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\alpha _1+\alpha _2\right)^2}{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}}=0,`$ (30)
$`\left(R_1+\alpha _1r^{}R_2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha _1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{\alpha _1}}\right)\left(M_1+\alpha _1r^{}M_2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha _1^2}}\right)\left(L_1+\alpha _1r^{}L_2+{\displaystyle \frac{L_3}{\alpha _1}}\right)^2=0,`$ (31)
$`(R_1+\alpha _1r^{}R_2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha _1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{\alpha _1}})(r^{}M_2+2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+\alpha _2}{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}})+(r^{}R_22{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+\alpha _2}{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}}\left)\right(M_1+\alpha _1r^{}M_2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha _1^2}})2(L_1+\alpha _1r^{}L_2+{\displaystyle \frac{L_3}{\alpha _1}}\left)\right(r^{}L_2{\displaystyle \frac{L_3}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}})=0,`$ (32)
$`\left(r^{}R_22{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+\alpha _2}{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}}\right)\left(r^{}M_2+2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+\alpha _2}{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}}\right)\left(r^{}L_2{\displaystyle \frac{L_3}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}}\right)^2=0.`$ (33)
At the sight of this system of ordinary differential equations, we note that although Solution 3 is characterized by the property $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$, the system (28)-(33) itself can be particularized to $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2`$ without problem (this is due to the fact that we have dropped a global factor $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ above) and gives exactly the system (27) which had to be satisfied for the previous Solution 2. Thus, by studying the compatibility of system (28)-(33) we are considering both Solutions 2 and 3 together and thereby we have reduced considerably the amount of work to be done. By assuming that the resulting spacetime has a well-defined axis of symmetry we can expand the functions involved in this system around the axis of symmetry and check the compatibility of this system of differential equations. In the Appendix we show that that the system (28)-(33) has no solution giving rise to a spacetime with regular axis of symmetry. Let us emphasize that this assumption of regular axis is not an additional condition in our work because the restriction of the possible Lie algebras to the four cases listed in the Introduction is based on a geometrical result proven in  which makes essential use of this regularity property.

#### Solution 4

This last case is the most interesting one because it gives rise to a family of stationary non-convective differentially rotating perfect-fluid solutions. In fact, from the explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Psi }=Ae^{\alpha r(x)+\frac{y}{\alpha }}`$ the vector (23) takes the form

$`\stackrel{}{S}=A\mathrm{\Psi }^2(R_1+\alpha r^{}R_2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2c}{\alpha }},M_1+\alpha r^{}M_2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha ^2}},L_1+\alpha r^{}L_2+{\displaystyle \frac{L_3}{\alpha }}),`$
so that the condition that this vector is null gives only one condition for the three functions $`F`$, $`Q`$ and $`P`$. Besides, we know that for this Solution 4, $`H`$ and $`G`$ had to satisfy only the two relations $`H=r^{}`$ and (22), with no relation involving only $`r`$. Thus, the Einstein field equations reduce to a system of three ordinary differential equations for the four unknowns $`r`$, $`F`$, $`Q`$ and $`P`$. We devote the following section to consider these perfect-fluid solutions.

## 5 The solutions

In order to write down explicitly the field equations and the density and pressure for the family just found, let us rewrite the line-element in a separate way for the Cases II and III. It is obvious that the metric for the Case II can be rewritten as

$`ds^2=e^{2bcy}\left[F(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}e^{cy}dt+P(x)d\varphi \right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2(x)}{F(x)}}d\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2(x)}}dx^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2(x)}}dy^2\right]`$ (34)
where $`b`$ is a constant and the functions $`F`$, $`Q`$ and $`P`$ are different from those used in the previous sections. We do not use different symbols for this metric coefficients in order to avoid using too much notation. In terms of these functions, the field equations to be solved read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F^2}{Q^2}}PP^{}+\left(24b\right){\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}=0,`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{F^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^2}{Q^2}}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{\prime \prime }}{Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{P^2F^2}{Q^2}}+c^2\left(2b^21\right)=0,`$ (36)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}\right)^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}\right)^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^2}{Q^2}}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2bc^2\left(b1\right)+c^2{\displaystyle \frac{P^2F^2}{Q^2}}\right]`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}\right)^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^2}{Q^2}}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{\prime \prime }}{Q}}c^2\left(2b^21\right)\right]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{F^2}{Q^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}P^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}P^{}+c^2P\left(b1\right)\right]^2.`$ (37)
The explicit expressions for the density and pressure are simply

$`p={\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{e^{2bcy}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{F^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^2}{Q^2}}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{P^2F^2}{Q^2}}+c^2\left(b1\right)^2\right],`$
$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{e^{2bcy}}}\left[2\left({\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}\right)^{}+2{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{\prime \prime }}{Q}}+c^2{\displaystyle \frac{P^2F^2}{Q^2}}+c^2\left(2b^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)\right],`$
while the fluid velocity vector of this solution reads

$`\stackrel{}{u}=e^{bcy}A(x)\left(e^{cy}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+R(x){\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}\right),`$
where $`A(x)`$ and $`R(x)`$ are rather long expressions depending on the functions $`F`$, $`Q`$, $`P`$ and $`L`$. We note that the solution is differentially rotating except when $`R(x)0`$, which corresponds to the case when both the second and third terms in square brackets in the last equation are vanishing.

The system of equations (35)-(37) is formed by three ordinary differential equations for four unknowns so that, in principle, it contains an arbitrary function in its general solution. However, the third equation in the system is quadratic so that the compatibility of the system is not obvious at first sight. In order to see explicitly that the system is indeed compatible and contains an arbitrary function, let us define a new function $`M(x)`$ by

$`F{\displaystyle \frac{Q\sqrt{M}}{P}}.`$
Thus, we are assuming $`P0`$ (the case $`P0`$ will be dealt with below). Notice that when $`P`$ is non-zero we can always make it positive (locally) by using the coordinate change $`\varphi \varphi `$. Now, we define three new functions $`u(x)`$, $`s(x)`$ and $`w(x)`$ by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}u,{\displaystyle \frac{P^{}}{P}}s,{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}w.`$
We will consider $`M`$ as the arbitrary function so that the system gives differential equations for $`u`$, $`s`$ and $`w`$. First of all we notice that the case $`M1`$ gives a solution which is not a perfect fluid (see the discussion above) and, therefore, we can assume $`M1`$ from now on. From equation (35) we obtain $`u`$ and substitute it into the other two equations. Then, (36) allows us to obtain $`s^{}`$ in terms of the rest of the functions. Substituting into (37) we obtain an expression of the form

$`w_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(M1\right)\left(4b^24b+M\right)+w^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(M,M^{}M^{\prime \prime },w,s)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(M,M^{},M^{\prime \prime },w,s)=0.`$
When $`M4b4b^2`$ the system (36)-(37) is linear in their two highest derivatives $`(w^{},s^{})`$ and therefore the existence theorems apply. In the more general case $`M4b4b^2`$, we have to solve $`w^{}`$ from this quadratic equation to obtain a system which is linear in their highest derivatives. This can be done unless the discriminant of this equation is negative. Evaluating this discriminant we notice that contains both positive and negative terms so that it is not negative definite for all $`M`$ and all initial conditions. In general, there will be functions $`M`$ and initial conditions for $`n`$ and $`s`$ (as well as for the constant $`b`$) which make the discriminant positive thus giving solutions to the system. Just to give an explicit very particular example (they are trivial to construct), the value $`b=1`$, the initial conditions $`w_{x=0}=0`$, $`s_{x=0}`$ and any function M with $`M_{x=0}=1/2,`$ $`M^{}_{x=0}=0`$ and $`M^{\prime \prime }_{x=0}=0`$ give a positive discriminant and produce a well-defined solution. Thus, we conclude that, even though we cannot prescribe the function $`M`$ freely, the general solution of the system (35)-(37) contains an arbitrary function $`M`$ belonging to a suitable open subset of the whole class of $`C^2`$ functions.

Let us now consider what happens when $`P0`$ (which corresponds to the static limit of the family). It is indeed very simple to show that the equations can be rewritten in this case in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}w(x)0,{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}=2\left(2b1\right)w,{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}={\displaystyle \frac{w^{}}{w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2b1\right)^2}{b1}}w,(b1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{w^{\prime \prime }}{w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8b^24b1}{b1}}w^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2b^21\right)^2}{\left(b1\right)^2}}\left[\left(2b1\right)^2w^2+\left(b1\right)^2c^2\right]=0`$ (38)
(the case $`w=0`$ is slightly different and can be integrated completely to give a solution which contains more symmetry). The energy-momentum contents for the solutions of (38) is that of a fluid with velocity vector proportional to $`_t`$ and density and pressure given by

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{e^{2bcy}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(b+1\right)}{\left(b1\right)}}\left[2\left(b1\right)w^{}+\left(2b1\right)^2w^2+\left(b1\right)^2c^2\right],p={\displaystyle \frac{b1}{b+1}}\rho ,`$
so that it satisfies a barotropic equation of state.

We consider now the Case III. The metric takes the form

$`ds^2=e^{2bvy}\left[F(x)dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2(x)}{F(x)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}d\varphi +\left(P(x)vy\right)dt\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2(x)}}\left(dx^2+dy^2\right)\right]`$ (39)
where the functions $`F`$ and $`Q`$ have been again redefined by introducing $`L(x)`$. Einstein’s equations with these new functions are

$`b{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}}P^{}=0,`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{F^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{\prime \prime }}{Q}}+2b^2v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}}=0,`$ (41)
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}\right)^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}\right)^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2b^2v^2][{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{\prime \prime }}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}\right)^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}}]={\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}P^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}P^{}+bv^2]^2.`$ (42)
The fluid velocity vector of this solution reads

$`\stackrel{}{u}=e^{bvy}A(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+\left[vy+R(x)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}\right)`$
where, as before, $`A(x)`$ and $`R(x)`$ are expressions depending on the four functions $`F`$, $`Q`$, $`P`$ and $`L`$. We note that in this case the solution is always differentially rotating (its rigidly rotating limit must satisfy $`v=0`$ and thus it actually belongs to the case when the conformal Lie algebra is abelian). The expressions for the density and pressure for this solution read

$`p={\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{e^{2bvy}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{F^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}}P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+b^2v^2{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}}\right],`$
$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{e^{2bvy}}}\left[2\left({\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}\right)^{}+2{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{\prime \prime }}{Q}}+2b^2v^2+v^2{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{F^2}}\right].`$
The same considerations we made regarding the existence of solutions for the quadratic set of differential equations (35)-(37) hold in this case. Given that the equations are simpler, the analysis is easier than before. We simply need to define a new function $`N(x)`$ by

$`QFN`$
and regard $`N`$ as the arbitrary function in the system. Introducing two new functions $`s(x)`$ and $`w(x)`$ by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}s,{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{L}}w,`$
we notice that (40) allows us to obtain $`P^{}`$ in terms of $`N`$ and $`w`$. Substituting into the other two equations we find that (41) contains $`s^{}`$ linearly and no other derivatives (except for $`N`$). Substituting $`s^{}`$ obtained from this equation into the last one we find, similarly as as before,

$`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4b^2}{N^2}}\right)w_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(N,N^{},N^{\prime \prime },w,s)w^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(N,N^{},N^{\prime \prime },w,s)=0.`$
Evaluating the discriminant of this quadratic equation it can be seen that it is not negative definite. Thus, there exist initial conditions and functions $`N`$ which make it positive. A trivial example is given now by $`s_{x=0}=0`$, $`w_{x=0}=0`$, $`b=1/2`$ and any function $`N`$ satisfying $`N_{x=0}=1`$, $`N^{}_{x=0}=0`$ and $`N^{\prime \prime }_{x=0}=0`$. Therefore, the general solution of the system (40)-(42) will contain an arbitrary function belonging to some open non-empty subset of the class of $`C^2`$ functions.

It is interesting to note also that the conformal Killing of all these solutions (both for algebra II and algebra III) is in fact homothetic as it satisfies

$`_\stackrel{}{k}g_{\mu \nu }=2bcg_{\mu \nu }\text{(Case II)},_\stackrel{}{k}g_{\mu \nu }=2bvg_{\mu \nu }\text{(Case III)},`$
so that the scale factor is a constant. Thus, the barotropic equation of state of the perfect fluid, in case it exists, must be a linear relation of the form $`p=\left(\gamma +1\right)\rho `$ for some constant $`\gamma `$ (see ). As the families of solutions contain an arbitrary function, there always exist solutions satisfying this barotropic equation of state.

Let us finally summarize the main results of this paper and Ref. in the following table where the solutions of Einstein’s field equations for stationary and axisymmetric space-times with a (non-isometric) conformal motion (proper for the Abelian Case and Case I, but homothetic for the remaining Cases II and III) and filled with a non-convective perfect fluid are written down.

| Abelian Case | $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}0`$ Schwarzschild interior solution  $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}=0`$ Solution in  |
| --- | --- |
| Case I | $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}0`$ Schwarzschild interior solution  $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}=0`$ Solution in  |
| Case II | $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{,y}=bc\mathrm{\Psi }`$ Solution (34) |
| Case III | $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{,y}=bv\mathrm{\Psi }`$ Solution (39) |

### Corrigendum to paper

Let us end this paper by adding a corrigendum to our previous paper . The general solution for the Case I was explicitly found there. However, the expression for the fluid velocity vector (the expression following formula (27) in ) is wrong and should read

$`\stackrel{}{u}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta \sqrt{\dot{H}^2H^2\omega ^2X^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}`$
which implies that the rotation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the fluid is constant. Thus the general perfect fluid solution in Case I is rigidly rotating contrarily to what was stated in . As a consequence, we have that this solution must be contained in the general Wahlquist family  which is the general solution (together with its limit cases ) for Petrov type D stationary and axisymmetric rigidly rotating perfect fluids with equation of state $`\rho +3p=`$const. (see ).

## Acknowledgements

The present work has been partially supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia under project No. PB93-1050. M. Mars wishes to thank the Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia for financial support.

All the tensors in this paper have been computed with the algebraic computer programs CLASSI and REDUCE. The calculations involved in the proof of incompatibility of the system of differential equations (28)-(33) have been performed with the essential help of REDUCE.

## 6 Appendix

The aim of this Appendix is to show that the overdetermined system of ordinary differential equations (28)-(33) has no solution representing an axially symmetric spacetime with a well-defined axis of symmetry. First of all, we need to find the conditions on the metric functions $`F`$, $`P`$ and $`Q`$ such that the metric (4) has well-defined axial symmetry. Thus, we must impose the existence of a two-dimensional surface where the axial Killing vector $`_\varphi `$ vanishes and where the so-called elementary flatness condition (see e.g. ) is fulfilled. A trivial calculation shows that these conditions are equivalent to the existence of a finite value of $`x`$ (which can be redefined to $`x=0`$ using a coordinate change $`xx+\text{const.}`$) where

$`Q_{x=0}=0,F_{x=0}=1\text{and}Q^{}_{x=0}=1`$ (44)
(in order to find these expressions we have also made use of the coordinate freedom of rescaling the coordinate $`t`$). We must now expand the metric functions around $`x=0`$ and show that the system of ordinary equations (28)-(33) is incompatible. The first thing we notice is that the equation (28) for $`r`$ can be completely integrated to give

$`r^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}}\mathrm{tan}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+\alpha _2}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}}\left(xx_0\right)\right]\text{if}\alpha _1+\alpha _20,`$
$`r^{}=\text{const}0\text{if}\alpha _1+\alpha _2=0.`$
In the second case we assume the constant $`r^{}`$ to be non-zero because otherwise the equation (29) gives $`H=0`$ which belongs to another case. Now, a very simple analysis of the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (which is given by Solution 2 or Solution 3) shows that $`r^{}`$ must be finite at $`x=0`$ in order to obtain a non-singular metric at the axis of symmetry $`x=0`$. This implies that $`\frac{\alpha _1+\alpha _2}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}x_0\pm \left(\frac{\pi }{2}+\pi n\right)`$ , ($`n`$ being an integer). This result is necessary in order to consider properly the different powers in $`x`$ of the equations.

We must now consider separately the case III from the case II. The first one $`(c=0,v0)`$ is simpler to study and the proof is as follows. First, we obtain

$`P^{}={\displaystyle \frac{4r^{}}{v}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^2}{Q^2}}`$
from the equation (29) and substitute this expression everywhere so that only the functions $`F`$, $`Q`$ and $`r^{}`$ are present in the equations. We define a new function $`w(x)`$ by $`Qxw(x)`$ so that $`w(0)=1`$ (see (44)). The coefficient in $`x^2`$ of equation (33) gives simply

$`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{v^2}}r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}_{x=0}=0,`$
which implies from the expression for $`r^{}`$ above that $`x_0=0`$ and $`\alpha _1+\alpha _20`$. Now, the coefficients in $`x^1`$ of equation (30) and (32) read, respectively

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[F^{}_{x=0}2w^{}_{x=0}\right]=0,{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+\alpha _2}{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}}\left[F^{}_{x=0}4w^{}_{x=0}\right]=0`$
so that obviously $`F^{}_{x=0}=0`$ and $`w^{}_{x=0}=0`$. Using these expressions the coefficient in $`x^2`$ of (31) reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\alpha _1+\alpha _2\right)^2}{\alpha _1^4\alpha _2^4}}=0`$
which is impossible and we have shown that no regular solutions around the axis of symmetry exist for the case III.

Regarding the case II $`(c0,v=0)`$, the proof is more involved because the equations are more complicated. The idea is, however, the same as in the previous case. Now it is convenient to define a new function $`M(x)`$ by

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{PQ}{\sqrt{M}}},`$ (45)
which allows us to write (29) in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P^{}}{P}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^{}}{M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4r^{}}{c}}\right)`$ (46)
(the subcase $`M1`$ can be easily shown to be impossible) and substitute $`\frac{P^{}}{P}`$ everywhere so that only the functions $`Q`$, $`M`$ and $`r^{}`$ appear in the system. We have to take into account, however, that we still do not know the behaviour of the function $`M`$ near $`x=0`$ because the regularity on the axis of symmetry does not tell us anything about the function $`P`$ (and therefore about $`M`$ through its definition), except that $`QP`$ must be finite at $`x=0`$ (because the norm of the timelike Killing $`_t`$ must be finite and negative on the axis of symmetry) and, therefore, the function $`M`$ must be regular at $`x=0`$. Our next aim is to show that necessarily $`r^{}_{x=0}=0`$ (or, equivalently, $`x_0=0`$ and $`\alpha _1+\alpha _20`$). Let us suppose, on the contrary, that $`r^{}_{x=0}0`$ (but finite as discussed above). Again we define the function $`w(x)`$ by $`Qxw(x)`$ and substitute everywhere. The coefficient in $`x^2`$ of (33) gives

$`M_{x=0}r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}_{x=0}=0M_{x=0}=0`$
and using this information, the coefficient in $`x^3`$ of (31) gives $`M^{}_{x=0}=0`$ and then the coefficient in $`x^2`$ in (32) gives $`M^{\prime \prime }_{x=0}=0`$. Thus, we have that $`M`$ has a zero of order $`n3`$ at $`x=0`$ which implies from its definition (45) that $`P`$ has a zero of order $`\frac{n}{2}1`$, but then the expression (46) is impossible in the limit $`x=0`$ and we have proven that $`r^{}_{x=0}=0`$.

It is convenient to perform the change of variables

$`u=\mathrm{tan}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\alpha _1+\alpha _2\right)}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}}x\right],`$
so thar $`r^{}=\frac{1}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}u`$ and the axis of symmetry is located at $`u=0`$. Now, expanding $`M`$ and $`w`$ around $`u=0`$ it is not difficult to show that the system of equations is incompatible. The calculations are, however, long and the use of computer algebra is needed. Moreover, a number of different subcases arise so that the proof is lengthy and cannot be reproduced here. Let us simply give the main indications for the proof. It is enough to restrict the analysis to the three simplest equations (30), (32) and (33) and it is convenient to redefine the constants to

$`\alpha _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{KK_2}},\alpha _2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K_2}}`$
and define a function $`n(x)`$ through

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^{}}{Q}}={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\alpha _1+\alpha _2\right)}{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{r^{}}}.`$
Finally, the system of equations takes a much simpler form by performing the following combination

$`\text{Equation1}4r^2\text{(}\text{30}\text{)}\text{(}\text{33}\text{)},`$
$`\text{Equation2}2r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\text{(}\text{32}\text{)}+r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\text{(}\text{33}\text{)}}{dx}}2\left[r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(\alpha _1\alpha _2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+\alpha _2}{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}}\left(n1\right)\right]\text{(}\text{33}\text{)},`$
$`\text{Equation3}\text{(}\text{33}\text{)}.`$
The first of these equations contains $`M`$ linearly and without derivatives of $`M`$. This allows us to substitute $`M`$ from that equation into the two others so that we have two equations for the single function $`n(u)`$. The analysis now is lengthy but trivial.


text:
# ADP-02-65/T505 ? QCD, Gauge Fixing, and the Gribov Problem

## 1 GAUGE FIXING

The naive Lagrangian density of QCD is

$$_{\mathrm{QCD}}=\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+\underset{f}{}\overline{q}_f(iD/m_f)q_f,$$
(1)
where the index $`f`$ corresponds to the quark flavours. The naive Lagrangian is neither gauge-fixed nor renormalized, however it is invariant under local $`SU(3)_c`$ gauge transformations $`g(x)`$. For arbitrary, small $`\omega ^a(x)`$ we have

$$g(x)\mathrm{exp}\left\{ig_s\left(\frac{\lambda ^a}{2}\right)\omega ^a(x)\right\}SU(3),$$
(2)
where the $`\lambda ^a/2t^a`$ are the generators of the gauge group $`SU(3)`$ and the index $`a`$ runs over the eight generator labels $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},8`$.

Consider some gauge-invariant Green’s function (for the time being we shall concern ourselves only with gluons)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|T(\widehat{O}[A])|\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{𝒟AO[A]e^{iS[A]}}{𝒟Ae^{iS[A]}},$$
(3)
where $`O[A]`$ is some gauge-independent quantity depending on the gauge field, $`A_\mu (x)`$. We see that the gauge-independence of $`O[A]`$ and $`S[A]`$ gives rise to an infinite quantity in both the numerator and denominator, which must be eliminated by gauge-fixing. The Minkowski-space Green’s functions are defined as the Wick-rotated versions of the Euclidean ones.

The gauge orbit for some configuration $`A_\mu `$ is defined to be the set of all gauge-equivalent configurations. Each point $`A_\mu ^g`$ on the gauge orbit is obtained by acting upon $`A_\mu `$ with the gauge transformation $`g`$. By definition the action, $`S[A]`$, is gauge invariant and so all configurations on the gauge orbit have the same action, e.g., see the illustration in Fig. 1.

The integral over the gauge fields can be written as the integral over a full set of gauge-inequivalent (i.e., gauge-fixed) configurations, $`𝒟A^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}`$, and an integral over the gauge group $`𝒟g`$. In other words, $`𝒟A^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}`$ is an integral over the set of all possible gauge orbits and $`𝒟g`$ is an integral around the gauge orbits. Thus we can write

$$𝒟A𝒟A^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}𝒟g.$$
(4)
To make integrals such as those in the numerator and denominator of Eq. (3) finite and also to study gauge-dependent quantities in a meaningful way, we need to eliminate this integral around the gauge orbit, $`𝒟g`$.

## 2 GRIBOV COPIES AND THE FADDEEV-POPOV DETERMINANT

Any gauge-fixing procedure defines a surface in gauge-field configuration space. Fig. 2 is a depiction of these surfaces represented as dashed lines intersecting the gauge orbits within this configuration space. Of course, in general, the gauge orbits are hypersurfaces and so are the gauge-fixing surfaces. Any gauge-fixing surface must, by definition, only intersect the gauge orbits at distinct isolated points in configuration space. For this reason, it is sufficient to use lines for the simple illustration of the concepts here. An ideal (or complete) gauge-fixing condition, $`F[A]=0`$, defines a surface that intersects each gauge orbit once and only once and by convention contains the trivial configuration $`A_\mu =0`$. A non-ideal gauge-fixing condition, $`F^{}[A]=0`$, defines a surface or surfaces which intersect the gauge orbit more than once. These multiple intersections of the non-ideal gauge fixing surface(s) with the gauge orbit are referred to as Gribov copies . Lorentz gauge ($`_\mu A^\mu (x)=0`$) for example, has many Gribov copies per gauge orbit. By definition an ideal gauge fixing is free from Gribov copies. We refer to the ideal gauge-fixing surface $`F[A]=0`$ as the Fundamental Modular Region (FMR) for that gauge choice. Typically the gauge fixing condition depends on a space-time coordinate, (e.g., Lorentz gauge, axial gauge, etc.), and so we write the gauge fixing condition more generally as $`F([A];x)=0`$.

Let us denote one arbitrary gauge configuration per gauge orbit as $`A_\mu ^0`$ and let this correspond to the “origin” of gauge configurations on that gauge orbit, i.e., to $`g=0`$ on that orbit. Then each gauge orbit can be labelled by $`A_\mu ^0`$ and the set of all such $`A_\mu ^0`$ is equivalent to one particular, complete specification of the gauge. Under a gauge transformation, $`g`$, we move from the origin of the gauge orbit to the configuration, $`A_\mu ^g`$, where by definition $`A_\mu ^0\stackrel{g}{}A_\mu ^g=gA_\mu ^0g^{}(i/g_s)(_\mu g)g^{}`$. Let us denote for each gauge orbit the gauge transformation, $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}[A^0]`$, as the transformation which takes us from the origin of that orbit, $`A_\mu ^0`$, to the configuration, $`A_\mu ^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}`$, which lies on the ideal gauge-fixed surface specified by $`F([A];x)=0`$. In other words, we have $`F([A];x)|_{A^{\stackrel{~}{g}}}=0`$ for $`A^{\stackrel{~}{g}}A_\mu ^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}\mathrm{FMR}`$.

The inverse Faddeev-Popov determinant is defined as the integral over the gauge group of the gauge-fixing condition, i.e.,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1[A^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟g\delta [F[A]]}`$ (5)
$`={\displaystyle 𝒟g\delta (g\stackrel{~}{g})\left|det\left(\frac{\delta F([A];x)}{\delta g(y)}\right)\right|^1}.`$
Let us define the matrix $`M_F[A]`$ as

$$M_F([A];x,y)^{ab}\frac{\delta F^a([A];x)}{\delta g^b(y)}.$$
(6)
Then the Faddeev-Popov determinant for an arbitrary configuration $`A_\mu `$ can be defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_F[A]\left|detM_F[A]\right|`$. (The reason for the name is now clear). Note that we have consistency, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1[A^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}]\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1[A^{\stackrel{~}{g}}]=𝒟g\delta (g\stackrel{~}{g})\mathrm{\Delta }_F^1[A]`$.

We have $`1=𝒟g\mathrm{\Delta }_F[A]\delta [F[A]]`$ by definition and hence

$`{\displaystyle 𝒟A^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟A^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}𝒟g\mathrm{\Delta }_F[A]\delta [F[A]]}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟A\mathrm{\Delta }_F[A]\delta [F[A]]}`$
Since for an ideal gauge-fixing there is one and only one $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ per gauge orbit, such that $`F([A];x)|_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=0`$, then $`|`$det$`M_F[A]|`$ is non-zero on the FMR. It follows that if there is at least one smooth path between any two configurations in the FMR and since the determinant cannot be zero on the FMR, then it cannot change sign on the FMR. The Gribov horizon is defined to by those configurations with $`detM_F[A]=0`$ which lie closest to the FMR. By definition the determinant can change sign on or outside this horizon. Clearly, the FMR is contained within the Gribov horizon and for an ideal gauge fixing, since the sign of the determinant cannot change, we can replace $`|detM_F|`$ with $`detM_F`$, \[i.e., the overall sign of the functional integral is normalized away in Eq. (3)\].

These results are generalizations of results from ordinary calculus, where

$$\left|\mathrm{det}\left(\frac{f_i}{x_j}\right)\right|_{\stackrel{}{f}=0}^1=𝑑x_1\mathrm{}𝑑x_n\delta ^{(n)}(\stackrel{}{f}(\stackrel{}{x}))$$
(8)
and if there is one and only one $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ which is a solution of $`\stackrel{}{f}(\stackrel{}{x})=0`$ then the matrix $`M_{ij}f_i/x_j`$ is invertible (i.e., non-singular) on the hypersurface $`\stackrel{}{f}(\stackrel{}{x})=0`$ and hence $`detM0`$.

## 3 GENERALIZED FADDEEV-POPOV TECHNIQUE

Let us now assume that we have a family of ideal gauge fixings $`F([A];x)=f([A];x)c(x)`$ for any Lorentz scalar $`c(x)`$ and for $`f([A];x)`$ being some Lorentz scalar function, (e.g., $`^\mu A_\mu (x)`$ or $`n^\mu A_\mu (x)`$ or similar or any nonlocal generalizations of these). Therefore, using the fact that we remain in the FMR and can drop the modulus on the determinant, we have

$$𝒟A^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}=𝒟AdetM_F[A]\delta [f[A]c].$$
(9)
Since $`c(x)`$ is an arbitrary function, we can define a new “gauge” as the Gaussian weighted average over $`c(x)`$, i.e.,

$`{\displaystyle 𝒟A^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟c\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{2\xi }d^4xc(x)^2\right\}}`$ (10)
$`\times {\displaystyle }𝒟A\mathrm{det}M_F[A]\delta [f[A]c]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟A\mathrm{det}M_F[A]}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\xi }}{\displaystyle d^4xf([A];x)^2}\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟A𝒟\chi 𝒟\overline{\chi }\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle }d^4xd^4y`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\times \overline{\chi }(x)M_F([A];x,y)\chi (y)\}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\xi }}{\displaystyle d^4xf([A];x)^2}\right\},`$
where we have introduced the anti-commuting ghost fields $`\chi `$ and $`\overline{\chi }`$. Note that this kind of ideal gauge fixing does not choose just one gauge configuration on the gauge orbit, but rather is some Gaussian weighted average over gauge fields on the gauge orbit. We then obtain

$`\mathrm{\Omega }|T(\widehat{O}[\mathrm{}])|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒟q𝒟\overline{q}𝒟A𝒟\chi 𝒟\overline{\chi }O[\mathrm{}]e^{iS_\xi [\mathrm{}]}}{𝒟q𝒟\overline{q}𝒟A𝒟\chi 𝒟\overline{\chi }e^{iS_\xi [\mathrm{}]}}},`$
where

$`S_\xi [q,\overline{q},A,\chi ,\overline{\chi }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F^{a\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}\left(f([A];x)\right)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}\overline{q}_f(iD/m_f)q_f]`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^4xd^4y\overline{\chi }(x)M_F([A];x,y)\chi (y)}.`$
## 4 STANDARD GAUGE FIXING

We can now recover standard gauge fixing schemes as special cases of this generalized form. First consider standard covariant gauge, which we obtain by taking $`f([A];x)=_\mu A^\mu (x)`$ and by neglecting the fact that this leads to Gribov copies. We need to evaluate $`M_F[A]`$ in the vicinity of the gauge-fixing surface for this choice:

$`M_F([A];x,y)^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F^a([A];x)}{\delta g^b(y)}}`$ (13)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\delta [_\mu A^{a\mu }(x)c(x)]}{\delta g^b(y)}}=_\mu ^x{\displaystyle \frac{\delta A^{a\mu }(x)}{\delta g^b(y)]}}.`$
Under an infinitesimal gauge transformation $`g`$ we have

$`A_\mu ^a(x)`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{small}g}{}`$ $`(A^g)_\mu ^a(x)=A_\mu ^a(x)`$ (14)
$`+g_sf^{abc}\omega ^b(x)A_\mu ^c(x)_\mu \omega ^a(x)+𝒪(\omega ^2)`$
and hence in the neighbourhood of the gauge fixing surface (i.e., for small fluctations along the gauge orbit around $`A_\mu ^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}`$), we have

$`M_F([A];x,y)^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu ^x{\displaystyle \frac{\delta A^{a\mu }(x)}{\delta \omega ^b(y)]}}|_{\omega =0}`$
$`=_\mu ^x\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}[^{x\mu }\delta ^{ab}+g_sf^{abc}A^{c\mu }(x)]\times \delta ^{(4)}(xy)\right).`$
We then recover the standard covariant gauge-fixed form of the QCD action

$`S_\xi [q,\overline{q},A,\chi ,\overline{\chi }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F^{a\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}\left(_\mu A^\mu (x)\right)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}\overline{q}_f(iD/m_f)q_f]`$
$`+(_\mu \overline{\chi }_a)(^\mu \delta ^{ab}gf_{abc}A_c^\mu )\chi _b.`$
However, this gauge fixing has not removed the Gribov copies and so the formal manipulations which lead to this action are not valid. This Lorentz covariant set of naive gauges corresponds to a Gaussian weighted average over generalized Lorentz gauges, where the gauge parameter $`\xi `$ is the width of the Gaussian distribution over the configurations on the gauge orbit. Setting $`\xi =0`$ we see that the width vanishes and we obtain Landau gauge (equivalent to Lorentz gauge, $`^\mu A_\mu (x)=0`$). Choosing $`\xi =1`$ is referred to as “Feynman gauge” and so on.

We can similarly recover the standard QCD action for axial gauge, where $`n_\mu A^\mu (x)=0`$. Proceeding as for the generalized covariant gauge, we first identify $`f([A];x)=n_\mu A^\mu (x)`$ and obtain the gauge-fixed action

$`S_\xi [q,\overline{q},A]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F^{a\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}\left(n_\mu A^\mu (x)\right)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}\overline{q}_f(iD/m_f)q_f].`$
Taking the “Landau-like” zero-width limit $`\xi 0`$ we select $`n_\mu A^\mu (x)=0`$ exactly and recover the usual axial-gauge fixed QCD action. Axial gauge does not involve ghost fields, since in this case

$`M_F([A^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}];x,y)^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`n_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta A^{a\mu }(x)}{\delta \omega ^b(y)]}}|_{\omega =0}`$ (18)
$`=n_\mu \left([^{x\mu }\delta ^{ab}]\delta ^{(4)}(xy)\right),`$
which is independent of $`A_\mu `$ since $`n^\mu A_\mu ^{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}(x)=0`$. In other words, the gauge field does not appear in $`M_F[A]`$ on the gauge-fixed surface. Unfortunately axial gauge suffers from singularities which lead to significant difficulties when trying to define perturbation theory beyond one loop. A related feature is that axial gauge is not a complete gauge fixing prescription. While there are complete versions of axial gauge on the lattice, these always involve a nonlocal element, or reintroduce Gribov copies at the boundary so as not to destroy the Polyakov loop.

## 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

There is no known Gribov-copy-free gauge fixing which is a local function of $`A_\mu (x)`$. In other words, such a gauge fixing cannot be expressed as a function of $`A_\mu (x)`$ and a finite number of its derivatives, i.e., $`F([A];x)F(_\mu ,A_\mu (x))`$ for all $`x`$. Hence, the gauge-fixed action, $`S_\xi [\mathrm{}]`$, in Eq. (12) becomes non-local and gives rise to a nonlocal quantum field theory. Since this action serves as the basis for the proof of the renormalizability of QCD, the proof of asymptotic freedom, local BRS symmetry, and the Schwinger-Dyson equations (to name but a few) the nonlocality of the action leaves us without a reliable basis from which to prove these features of QCD in the nonperturbative context.

It is well-established that QCD is asymptotically free, i.e., it is weak-coupling at large momenta. In the weak coupling limit the functional integral is dominated by small action configurations. As a consequence, momentum-space Green’s functions at large momenta will receive their dominant contributions in the path integral from configurations near the trivial gauge orbit, i.e., the orbit containing $`A_\mu =0`$, since this orbit minimizes the action. If we use standard gauge fixing, which neglects the fact that Gribov copies are present, then at large momenta $`𝒟A`$ will be dominated by configurations lying on the gauge-fixed surfaces in the neighbourhood of each of the Gribov copies on the trivial orbit. Since for small field fluctuations the Gribov copies cannot be aware of each other, we merely overcount the contribution by a factor equal to the number of copies on the trivial orbit. This overcounting is normalized away by the ratio in Eq. (3) and becomes irrelevant. Thus it is possible to understand why Gribov copies can be neglected at large momenta and why it is sufficient to use standard gauge fixing schemes as the basis for calculations in perturbative QCD. Since renormalizability is an ultraviolet issue, there is no question about the renormalizability of QCD.

Lattice QCD has provided numerical confirmation of asymptotic freedom, so let us now turn our attention to the matter of Gribov copies in lattice QCD. Since the observable $`O[A]`$ and the action are both gauge-invariant it doesn’t matter whether we sample from the FMR of an ideal gauge-fixing or elsewhere on the gauge orbit. The trick is simply to sample at most once from each orbit. Since there are an infinite number of gauge orbits (even on the lattice), no finite ensemble will ever sample the same orbit twice. This makes Gribov copies and gauge-fixing irrelevant in the calculation of color-singlet quantities on the lattice.

The calculation of gauge-dependent Green’s functions on the lattice does require that the gauge be fixed. The standard choice is naive lattice Landau gauge, which selects essentially at random between the Landau gauge Gribov copies for the gauge orbits represented in the ensemble. This means that, while the gauge fixing is well-defined in that there are no Gribov copies, the Landau gauge-fixed configurations are not from a single connected FMR. For this reason lattice studies of gluon and quark propagators are now being extended to Laplacian gauge for comparison. Laplacian gauge is interesting because it is Gribov-copy-free (except on a set of configurations of measure zero) and it reduces to Landau gauge at large momenta. Lattice calculations of the Laplacian gauge and Landau gauge quark and gluon propagators converge at large momenta and hence are consistent with this expectation.

In conclusion, it should be noted that throughout this discussion there has been the implicit assumption that nonperturbative QCD should be defined in such a way that each gauge orbit is represented only once in the functional integral, i.e., that it be defined to have no Gribov copies. This is the definition of nonpertubative QCD implicitly assumed in lattice QCD studies. We have seen that this assumption destroys locality and the BRS invariance of the theory. An equally valid point of view is that locality and BRS symmetry are central to the definition of QCD and must not be sacrificed in the nonpertubative regime, (see, e.g., Ref. ). This viewpoint impies that Gribov copies are necessarily present, that gauge orbits are multiply represented, and that the definition of nonperturbative QCD must be considered with some care. Since these nonpertubative definitions of QCD appear to be different, establishing which is the one appropriate for the description of the physical world is of considerable importance.