text:
# FLUX LIMITER METHODS IN 3D NUMERICAL RELATIVITY

## 1 Introduction

From the very beginning, 3D numerical relativity has not been an easy domain. Difficulties arise either from the computational side (the large amount of variables to evolve, the large number of operations to perform, the stability of the evolution code) or from the physical side, like the complexity of the Einstein equations themselves, boundary conditions, singularity avoidant gauge choices, and so on. Sometimes there is a connection between both sides. For instance, the use of singularity avoidant slicings generates large gradients in the vicinity of black holes. Numerical instabilities can be produced by these steep gradients. The reason for this is that the standard evolution algorithms are unable to deal with sharp profiles. The instability shows up in the form of spurious oscillations which usually grow and break down the code.

Numerical advanced methods from CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) can be used to avoid this. Stable codes are obtained which evolve in a more robust way, without too much dissipation, so that the shape of the profiles of the evolved quantities is not lost. These advanced methods are then specially suited for the problem of shock propagation, but they apply only to strongly hyperbolic systems, where one is able get a full set of eigenfields which generates all the physical quantities to be evolved. In the 1D case, these methods usually fulfill the TVD (Total Variation Diminishing) condition when applied to transport equations. This ensures that no new local extreme appear in the profiles of the eigenfields, so that spurious oscillations are ruled out ab initio (monotonicity preserving condition). Unluckily, there is no general method with this property in the 3D case, mainly because the eigenfield basis depends on the direction of propagation. We will show how this can be achieved at least in some cases.

The specific methods we will use are known as flux limiter algorithms. We will consider plane waves in 3D as a first generalization of the 1D case, because the propagation direction is constant. This specific direction leads then to an specific eigenfield basis, so that the 1D numerical method can be easily generalized to the 3D case.

The algorithm will be checked with a ”Minkowski waves” metric. It can be obtained by a coordinate transformation from Minkowski space-time. All the metric components are transported while preserving their initial profiles. The line element has the following form:

$$ds^2=H(xt)dt^2+H(xt)dx^2+dy^2+dz^2$$
(1)
where $`H(xt)`$ is any positive function. We can choose a periodic profile with sharp peaks so both the space and the time derivatives of $`H(xt)`$ will have discontinuous step-like profiles. If we can solve well this case (the most extreme), we can hope that the algorithm will work as well in more realistic cases where discontinuities do not appear.

Minkowski waves are a nice test bed because the instabilities can arise only from the gauge (there are pure gauge after all!). This is a first step to deal with evolution instabilities in the Einstein equations by the use of flux limiter methods. This will allow us to keep all our gauge freedom available to deal with more physical problems, like going to a co-rotating frame or adapting to some special geometry. Advanced numerical methods take care of numerical problems so that ’physical’ gauge choices can be used to take care of physics requirements.

## 2 The system of equations

We will use the well known 3+1 description of spacetime  which starts by decomposing the line element as follows:

$$ds^2=\alpha ^2dt^2+\gamma _{ij}(dx^i+\beta ^idt)(dx^j+\beta ^jdt)i,j=1,2,3$$
(2)
where $`\gamma _{ij}`$ is the metric induced on the three-dimensional slices and $`\beta ^i`$ is the shift. For simplicity the case $`\beta ^i=0`$ (normal coordinates) will be considered. The intrinsic curvature of the slices is then given by the three-dimensional Ricci tensor $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}R_{ij}^{}`$, whereas their extrinsic curvature $`K_{ij}`$ is given by:

$$_t\gamma _{ij}=2\alpha K_{ij}$$
(3)
In what follows, all the geometrical operations (index raising, covariant derivations, etc) will be performed in the framework of the intrinsic three-dimensional geometry of every constant time slice. With the help of the quantities defined in (2,3), the ten fourdimensional field equations can be expressed as a set of six evolution equations:

$`_tK_{ij}=_i\alpha _j+\alpha [{}_{}{}^{(3)}R_{ij}^{}2K_{ij}^2+trKK_{ij}8\pi (T_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}\gamma _{ij})]`$ (4)
plus four constraint equations

$$^{(3)}Rtr(K^2)+(trK)^2=16\pi \alpha ^2T^{00}$$
(5)
$$_kK_{}^{k}{}_{i}{}^{}_i(trK)=8\pi \alpha T_i^0$$
(6)
The evolution system (4) has been used by numerical relativists since the very beginning of the field (see for instance the seminal work of Eardley and Smarr ), both in spherically symmetric (1D) and axially symmetric (2D) spacetimes. By the turn of the century, the second order system (4) has been rewritten as a first-order flux conservative hyperbolic (FOFCH) system  in order to deal with the generic (3D) case, where no symmetries are present. But the second order system (4) is still being used in 3D numerical calculations , mainly when combined with the conformal decomposition of $`K_{ij}`$ as introduced by Shibata and Nakamura . In the system(3,4) there is a degree of freedom to be fixed because the evolution equation for the lapse function $`\alpha `$ is not given. In the study of Black Holes, the slicing is usually chosen in order to avoid the singularity :

$$_t\mathrm{ln}\alpha =\alpha Q$$
(7)
where:

$$Q=f(\alpha )trK$$
(8)
Three basic steps are needed to obtain a FOFCH system from the ADM system. First, one must introduce some new auxiliary variables to express the second order derivatives in space as first order. These new quantities correspond to the space derivatives:

$$A_k=_k\mathrm{ln}\alpha ,D_{kij}=1/2_k\gamma _{ij}$$
(9)
The evolution equations for these variables are:

$`_tA_k+_k(\alpha ftrK)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (10)
$`_tD_{kij}+_k(\alpha K_{ij})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (11)
At the second step the system is expressed in a first order balance law form

$$_t\stackrel{}{u}+_kF^k(\stackrel{}{u})=S(\stackrel{}{u}),$$
(12)
where the array $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ displays the set of independent variables to evolve and both ”fluxes” $`F^k`$ and ”sources” $`S`$ are vector valued functions. At the third step another additional independent variable is introduced to obtain a strongly hyperbolic system :

$$V_i=D_{ir}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}D_{}^{r}{}_{ri}{}^{}$$
(13)
and its evolution equation is obtained using the definition of $`K_{ij}`$ from (3) and switching space and time derivatives in the momentum constraint (6). The result is an independent evolution equation for $`V_i`$ while the previous definition (13) in terms of space derivatives can be instead be considered as a first integral of the extended system. The extended array $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ will then contain the following 37 functions $`\stackrel{}{u}=(\alpha `$, $`\gamma _{ij}`$, $`K_{ij}`$, $`A_i`$, $`D_{kij}`$, $`V_i)`$.

## 3 The numerical algorithm

Due to the structure of the equations, the evolution(represented by the operator $`E(\mathrm{\Delta }t))`$ described by (12) can be decomposed into two separate processes; the first one is a transport process and the second one is the contribution of the sources.

The sources step (represented by the operator $`S(\mathrm{\Delta }t))`$ does not involve space derivatives of the fields, so that it consists in a system of coupled non-linear ODE (Ordinary Differential Equations):

$$_t\stackrel{}{u}=S(\stackrel{}{u})$$
(14)
The transport step (represented by the operator $`T(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$) contains the principal part and it is given by a set of quasi-linear transport equations:

$$_t\stackrel{}{u}+_kF^k(\stackrel{}{u})=0$$
(15)
The numerical implementation of these separated processes is quite easy. Second order accuracy in $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ can be obtained by using the well known Strang splitting.

$$E(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=S(\mathrm{\Delta }t/2)T(\mathrm{\Delta }t)S(\mathrm{\Delta }t/2)$$
(16)
According to (3,7) the lapse and the metric have no flux terms. It means that a reduced set of 30 quantities $`\stackrel{}{u}=(K_{ij},A_i,D_{kij},V_i)`$ are transported in the second step over an inhomogeneous static background composed by $`(\alpha ,\gamma _{ij})`$. The equations for the transport step (15) are given by:

$`_tK_{ij}+_k(\alpha \lambda _{}^{k}{}_{ij}{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (17)
$`_tA_k+_k(\alpha f(\alpha )trK)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (18)
$`_tD_{kij}+_k(\alpha K_{ij})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (19)
$`_tV_k`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (20)
where:

$$\lambda _{}^{k}{}_{ij}{}^{}=D_{ij}^k\frac{m}{2}V^k\gamma _{ij}+1/2\delta _i^k(A_j+2V_jD_{jr}^{}{}_{}{}^{r})+1/2\delta _j^k(A_i+2V_iD_{ir}^{}{}_{}{}^{r})$$

and m is an arbitrary parameter.

To evolve the transport step, we will consider flux-conservative numeric algorithms , obtained by applying the balance to a single computational cell. In the 1D case the cell goes from n to n+1 in time ($`t=n\mathrm{\Delta }t`$) and from j-1/2 to j+1/2 in space ($`x_j=j\mathrm{\Delta }x`$), so that we have:

$$U_j^{n+1}=U_j^n\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}[F_{j+1/2}^{n+1/2}F_{j1/2}^{n+1/2}]$$
(21)
Interface fluxes can be calculated in many different ways, leading to different numerical methods. We will use here the well known MacCormack method. This flux-conservative standard algorithm works well for smooth profiles, as it can be appreciated in Figure 1.

But this standard algorithm is not appropriate for step-like profiles because it produces spurious oscillations near the steep regions, as it can be appreciated in Figure 2.

More advanced numerical methods must be used to eliminate (or at least to reduce) these oscillations. These advanced methods use information about the eigenfields and the propagation direction, so the flux characteristic matrix along the propagation direction must be diagonalized.

## 4 Eigenfields

We will use a convenient method to compute the eigenfields. Let us study the propagation of a step-like discontinuity in the transported variables $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ which will move along a specific direction $`n`$ with a given velocity $`v`$. Information about the corresponding eigenfields can be extracted from the well known Rankine-Hugoniot shock conditions :

$$v[u]=n_k[F^k(u)]$$
(22)
where $`[]`$ represents the jump in the discontinuity. In our case

$`v[K_{ij}]`$ $`=`$ $`n_r[\alpha \lambda _{}^{r}{}_{ij}{}^{}]`$ (23)
$`v[A_k]`$ $`=`$ $`n_k[\alpha f(\alpha )trK]`$ (24)
$`v[D_{kij}]`$ $`=`$ $`n_k[\alpha K_{ij}]`$ (25)
$`v[V_k]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (26)
where we must note that both the background metric coefficients and the propagation direction are supposed to be continuous, so they are transparent to the $`[]`$ symbol.

If we develop this expressions we arrive at the following conclusions, where $`S_n=n^rS_r`$ is the projection of the quantity $`S`$ over $`n`$ and $`S_{}=S_kS_nn_k`$ are the transverse components:

1) $`[V_k],[A_{}],[D_{ij}]`$ and $`[A_nftrD_n]`$ propagate along $`n`$ with speed $`v=0`$. There are 18 such eigenfields. For the line element given by (1) $`n^k`$ is along the x axis and all these fields are actually zero.

2) $`[\lambda _{}^{n}{}_{ij}{}^{}tr\lambda ^nn_in_j]`$ and $`[K_{ij}trKn_in_j]`$ do generate eigenfields propagating along $`n`$ with speed $`v=\pm \alpha `$ (light cones). There are only 10 such eigenfields because all of them are traceless. For Minkowski waves, where there is only gauge, all these combinations are zero. This indicates that the correct way to get the traceless part of a given tensor $`S_{ij}`$ in this context is just to take $`S_{ij}trSn_in_j`$, so that the contribution of gauge modes will disappear.

3) $`[A_n]`$ and $`[trK]`$ do generate eigenfields propagating along $`n`$ with speed $`v=\pm \sqrt{f}\alpha `$ (gauge cones). There are 2 such eigenfields corresponding to the gauge sector. For Minkowski waves, there are the only non-zero components. We are left with:

$`v[trK]`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha [A_n]`$ (27)
$`v[A_k]`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha f(\alpha )[trK]n_k`$ (28)
so that $`[A_k]`$ is proportional to $`n_k`$. Now we can get the gauge eigenfields:

$$\sqrt{f}n_kF^k(trK)\pm F(A_n)$$
(29)
These eigenfields propagate along $`n`$ according simple advection equations, a familiar situation in the 1D case. Although this decomposition and diagonalization is trivial in 1D, it is very useful in the multidimensional case for a generic direction $`n`$.

## 5 Flux limiter methods

The flux limiter methods  we will use can be decomposed into some basic steps. First of all the interface fluxes have to be calculated with any standard second order accurate method (MacCormack in our case). Then, the propagation direction $`n`$ and the corresponding eigenfields can be properly identified at every cell interface. Two advection equations (one for every sense of propagation) are now available for the gauge eigenfluxes (29).

Let us choose for instance the eigenflux which propagates to the right (an equivalent process will be valid for the other eigenflux propagating to the left). This interface eigenflux $`F_{j+1/2}^{n+1/2}`$ can be understood as the grid point flux $`F_j^n`$ plus some increment $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j+1/2}=F_{j+1/2}^{n+1/2}F_j^n`$. In general, the purpose of the limiter is to use of a mixture of the increments $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j+1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j1/2}`$ to ensure monotonicity. In our case we are using a robust mixture which goes by applying the well known minmod rule to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j+1/2}`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_{j1/2}`$. In that way, the limiter acts only in steep regions, where the proportion between neighbouring increments exceeds a factor of two.

We can apply this method to the step-like initial data propagating along the x axis. We can see in Figure 3 that the result is much better than before. It can be (hardly) observed a small deviation from the TVD condition, which is produced by the artificial separation produced by the Strang splitting into transport and non-linear source steps.

This method can be applied, with the general decomposition described in section 4, to discontinuities which propagate along any constant direction, and not only to the trivial case, aligned with the x axis, that we have considered until now. To prove it, we have rotated the metric of Minkowski waves in the x-z plane to obtain a diagonal propagation of the profile. The line element in this case has the following form:

$`ds^2=`$ $``$ $`H({\displaystyle \frac{x+z}{\sqrt{2}}}t)dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[1+H({\displaystyle \frac{x+z}{\sqrt{2}}}t)](dx^2+dz^2)+dy^2`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[1+H({\displaystyle \frac{x+z}{\sqrt{2}}}t)](dxdz+dzdx)`$
We show the results in the Figure 4.

We can also see in Figure 5 a z=constant section of the same results to allow a more detailed comparison with the initial data.

Acknowledgements: This work has been supported by the EU Programme ’Improving the Human Research Potential and the Socio-Economic Knowledge Base’ (Research Training Network Contract (HPRN-CT-2000-00137) and by a grant from the Conselleria d’Innovacio i Energia of the Govern de les Illes Balears


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently a lot of papers were devoted to multidimensional generalizations of the well-known Melvin solution  (for exact solutions and their applications see - and references therein). We remind that the original Melvin solution describes the gravitational field of a magnetic flux tube. In the works of Gibbons and Wiltshire  and Gibbons and Maeda  the Melvin solution was generalized to arbitrary dimensions (in  with the inclusion of dilaton), and hence the simplest fluxbranes appeared. 222The reference  is added in the new version. (A term fluxbrane was suggested in . The Melvin solution is currently denoted as $`F1`$.) In papers , devoted to Kaluza-Klein Melvin solution (e.g. non-perturbative instability and pair production of magnetically charged black holes) it was shown that $`F1`$-fluxbrane supported by potential $`1`$-form has a nice interpretation as a modding of flat space in one dimension higher. This ”modding” technique is widely used in construction of new solutions in supergravitational models and also for various physical applications in string and $`M`$-theory: construction of exact string backgrounds , duality between $`0A`$ and $`IIA`$ string theories , dielectric effect , construction of supersymmetric configurations  etc

The ”modding” technique may be also used for $`Fp`$-fluxbranes supported by forms of higher ranks (constructed by use of $`1`$-forms). Another approach suggested in , which works for $`Fp`$-fluxbranes, is based on generating techniques for certain duality groups. An important result here is a construction by Chen, Gal’tsov and Sharakin  of intersecting $`F6`$ and $`F3`$ fluxbranes corresponding to $`M`$-branes in $`D=11`$ supergravity.

The third and the most direct method is based on solving of Einstein equations . This article is devoted to further developing of this approach using the $`p`$-brane solutions from  (for a review of $`p`$-brane solutions see ). We remind, that in  a family of $`p`$-brane ”cosmological-type” solutions with nearly arbitrary (up to some restrictions) intersection rules were obtained (see Sect. 2). These solutions are defined up to solutions to Toda-type equations and contain as a special case a subclass of solutions with cylindrical symmetry. Here we single out a subclass of generalized fluxbrane configurations related to Toda-type equations with certain asymptotical conditions imposed (Sect. 3). These fluxbrane solutions are governed by functions $`H_s(z)>0`$ defined on the interval $`(0,z_0)`$ and obeying a set of second order non-linear differential equations

$$\frac{d}{dz}\left(\frac{z}{H_s}\frac{d}{dz}H_s\right)=\widehat{B}_s\underset{s^{}S}{}H_s^{}^{A_{ss^{}}},$$
(1.1)
with the following boundary conditions imposed:

$`(𝐢)H_s(+0)=1,`$ (1.2)
$`sS`$, ($`S`$ is non-empty set). In (1.1) all $`\widehat{B}_s0`$ are constants and $`(A_{ss^{}})`$ is a ”quasi-Cartan” matrix ($`A_{ss}=2`$) coinciding with the Cartan one when intersections are related to Lie algebras. In most interesting examples $`z_0=+\mathrm{}`$ and all $`\widehat{B}_s>0`$.

We remind that a slightly different equations occur for black brane solutions from

$$\frac{d}{dz}\left(\frac{(12\mu z)}{H_s}\frac{d}{dz}H_s\right)=\overline{B}_s\underset{s^{}S}{}H_s^{}^{A_{ss^{}}},$$
(1.3)
where $`\mu >0`$ is extremality parameter, $`z(0,(2\mu )^1)`$ and all $`\overline{B}_s0`$, (in most interesting cases $`\overline{B}_s<0`$). For black brane solutions the finite limits (on a horizon) $`H_s((2\mu )^10)=H_{s0}>0`$ exist. We note that fluxbrane ”master equations” (1.1) may be obtained from the black brane ones (1.3) in the limit $`\mu \mathrm{}`$. For different aspects of p-brane/fluxbrane correspondence see .

In Sect. 4 we suggest a hypothesis: the solutions to eqs. (1.1), (1.2) are polynomials when intersection rules correspond to semisimple Lie algebras. This hypothesis (Conjecture ) may be proved for Lie algebras $`A_m`$, $`C_{m+1}`$, $`m=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, along a line as it was done in  for black brane solutions. It is also confirmed by special ”block-orthogonal” fluxbrane solutions and explicit formulas for the solutions corresponding to Lie algebras $`A_1\mathrm{}A_1`$ and $`A_2`$. In Sect. 5 certain examples of solutions in $`D=11`$ supergravity, i.e. $`F6`$ and $`F3`$ fluxbranes, $`F6F3`$ solutions with $`A_1A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ intersection rules, $`F7,(NS)F6,F5`$ and (dual) $`F1,(NS)F2,F3`$ fluxbranes in $`D=10`$ $`IIA`$ supergravity and Kaluza-Klein dyonic $`A_2`$-flux tube, are considered.

## 2 $`p`$-brane cosmological-type solutions
with general intersection rules

### 2.1 The model

We consider a model governed by the action

$$S=d^Dx\sqrt{|g|}\left\{R[g]h_{\alpha \beta }g^{MN}_M\phi ^\alpha _N\phi ^\beta \underset{a\mathrm{}}{}\frac{\theta _a}{n_a!}\mathrm{exp}[2\lambda _a(\phi )](F^a)^2\right\}$$
(2.1)
where $`g=g_{MN}(x)dx^Mdx^N`$ is a metric, $`\phi =(\phi ^\alpha )\text{R}^l`$ is a vector of scalar fields, $`(h_{\alpha \beta })`$ is a constant symmetric non-degenerate $`l\times l`$ matrix $`(l\text{N})`$, $`\theta _a=\pm 1`$,

$$F^a=dA^a=\frac{1}{n_a!}F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_{n_a}}^adz^{M_1}\mathrm{}dz^{M_{n_a}}$$
(2.2)
is a $`n_a`$-form ($`n_a1`$), $`\lambda _a`$ is a 1-form on $`\text{R}^l`$: $`\lambda _a(\phi )=\lambda _{\alpha a}\phi ^\alpha `$, $`a\mathrm{}`$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},l`$. In (2.1) we denote $`|g|=|det(g_{MN})|`$,

$$(F^a)_g^2=F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_{n_a}}^aF_{N_1\mathrm{}N_{n_a}}^ag^{M_1N_1}\mathrm{}g^{M_{n_a}N_{n_a}},$$
(2.3)
$`a\mathrm{}`$. Here $`\mathrm{}`$ is some finite set.

### 2.2 ”Cosmological-type” solutions

Let us consider a family of solutions to field equations corresponding to the action (2.1) and depending upon one variable $`u`$ . These solutions are defined on the manifold

$$M=(u_{},u_+)\times M_1\times M_2\times \mathrm{}\times M_n,$$
(2.4)
where $`(u_{},u_+)`$ is an interval belonging to R. The solutions read

$`g=\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}[f_s(u)]^{2d(I_s)h_s/(D2)}\right)\{\mathrm{exp}(2c^0u+2\overline{c}^0)wdudu+`$ (2.5)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}[f_s(u)]^{2h_s\delta _{iI_s}}\right)\mathrm{exp}(2c^iu+2\overline{c}^i)g^i\},`$
$`\mathrm{exp}(\phi ^\alpha )=\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}f_s^{h_s\chi _s\lambda _{a_s}^\alpha }\right)\mathrm{exp}(c^\alpha u+\overline{c}^\alpha ),`$ (2.6)
$`F^a={\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\delta _{a_s}^a^s,`$ (2.7)
$`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},l`$. In (2.5) $`w=\pm 1`$, $`g^i=g_{m_in_i}^i(y_i)dy_i^{m_i}dy_i^{n_i}`$ is a Ricci-flat metric on $`M_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$,

$$\delta _{iI}=\underset{jI}{}\delta _{ij}$$
(2.8)
is the indicator of $`i`$ belonging to $`I`$: $`\delta _{iI}=1`$ for $`iI`$ and $`\delta _{iI}=0`$ otherwise.

The $`p`$-brane set $`S`$ is by definition

$$S=S_eS_m,S_v=_a\mathrm{}\{a\}\times \{v\}\times \mathrm{\Omega }_{a,v},$$
(2.9)
$`v=e,m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,e},\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,m}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$ is the set of all non-empty subsets of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Here and in what follows $``$ means the union of non-intersecting sets. Any $`p`$-brane index $`sS`$ has the form

$$s=(a_s,v_s,I_s),$$
(2.10)
where $`a_s\mathrm{}`$ is colour index, $`v_s=e,m`$ is electro-magnetic index and the set $`I_s\mathrm{\Omega }_{a_s,v_s}`$ describes the location of $`p`$-brane worldvolume.

The sets $`S_e`$ and $`S_m`$ define electric and magnetic $`p`$-branes correspondingly. In (2.6)

$$\chi _s=+1,1$$
(2.11)
for $`sS_e,S_m`$ respectively. In (2.7) forms

$$^s=Q_s\left(\underset{s^{}S}{}f_s^{}^{A_{ss^{}}}\right)du\tau (I_s),$$
(2.12)
$`sS_e`$, correspond to electric $`p`$-branes and forms

$$^s=Q_s\tau (\overline{I}_s),$$
(2.13)
$`sS_m`$, correspond to magnetic $`p`$-branes; $`Q_s0`$, $`sS`$. In (2.13) and in what follows

$$\overline{I}I_0I,I_0=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}.$$
(2.14)
All manifolds $`M_i`$ are assumed to be oriented and connected and the volume $`d_i`$-forms

$$\tau _i\sqrt{|g^i(y_i)|}dy_i^1\mathrm{}dy_i^{d_i},$$
(2.15)
and parameters

$$\epsilon (i)\mathrm{sign}(det(g_{m_in_i}^i))=\pm 1$$
(2.16)
are well–defined for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Here $`d_i=\mathrm{dim}M_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, $`D=1+_{i=1}^nd_i`$. For any $`I=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k\}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`i_1<\mathrm{}<i_k`$, we denote

$`\tau (I)\tau _{i_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{i_k},`$ (2.17)
$`M(I)M_{i_1}\times \mathrm{}\times M_{i_k},`$ (2.18)
$`d(I)\mathrm{dim}M(I)={\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}d_i,`$ (2.19)
$$\epsilon (I)\epsilon (i_1)\mathrm{}\epsilon (i_k).$$
(2.20)
$`M(I_s)`$ is isomorphic to $`p`$-brane worldvolume (see (2.10)).

The parameters $`h_s`$ appearing in the solution satisfy the relations

$$h_s=K_s^1,K_s=B_{ss},$$
(2.21)
where

$$B_{ss^{}}d(I_sI_s^{})+\frac{d(I_s)d(I_s^{})}{2D}+\chi _s\chi _s^{}\lambda _{\alpha a_s}\lambda _{\beta a_s^{}}h^{\alpha \beta },$$
(2.22)
$`s,s^{}S`$, with $`(h^{\alpha \beta })=(h_{\alpha \beta })^1`$. Here we assume that

$$(𝐢)B_{ss}0,$$
(2.23)
for all $`sS`$, and

$$(\mathrm{𝐢𝐢})\mathrm{det}(B_{ss^{}})0,$$
(2.24)
i.e. the matrix $`(B_{ss^{}})`$ is a non-degenerate one. In (2.12) another non-degenerate matrix (a so-called ”quasi-Cartan” matrix) appears

$$(A_{ss^{}})=\left(2B_{ss^{}}/B_{s^{}s^{}}\right).$$
(2.25)
Here some ordering in the set $`S`$ is assumed.

In (2.5), (2.6)

$$f_s=\mathrm{exp}(q^s),$$
(2.26)
where $`(q^s)=(q^s(u))`$ is a solution to Toda-type equations

$$\ddot{q^s}=B_s\mathrm{exp}(\underset{s^{}S}{}A_{ss^{}}q^s^{}),$$
(2.27)
with

$$B_s=\epsilon _sK_sQ_s^2,$$
(2.28)
$`sS`$. Here

$$\epsilon _s=(\epsilon [g])^{(1\chi _s)/2}\epsilon (I_s)\theta _{a_s},$$
(2.29)
$`sS`$, $`\epsilon [g]signdet(g_{MN})`$. More explicitly (2.29) reads: $`\epsilon _s=\epsilon (I_s)\theta _{a_s}`$ for $`v_s=e`$ and $`\epsilon _s=\epsilon [g]\epsilon (I_s)\theta _{a_s}`$, for $`v_s=m`$.

Vectors $`c=(c^A)=(c^i,c^\alpha )`$ and $`\overline{c}=(\overline{c}^A)`$ satisfy the linear constraints

$$U^s(c)=\underset{iI_s}{}d_ic^i\chi _s\lambda _{a_s\alpha }c^\alpha =0,U^s(\overline{c})=\underset{iI_s}{}d_i\overline{c}^i\chi _s\lambda _{a_s\alpha }\overline{c}^\alpha =0,$$
(2.30)
$`sS`$, and

$`c^0={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d_jc^j,\overline{c}^0={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d_j\overline{c}^j,`$ (2.31)
$`2E=2E_{TL}+h_{\alpha \beta }c^\alpha c^\beta +{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d_i(c^i)^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d_ic^i\right)^2=0,`$ (2.32)
where

$$E_{TL}=\frac{1}{4}\underset{s,s^{}S}{}h_sA_{ss^{}}\dot{q^s}\dot{q^s^{}}+\underset{sS}{}A_s\mathrm{exp}(\underset{s^{}S}{}A_{ss^{}}q^s^{}),$$
(2.33)
is an integration constant (energy) for the solutions from (2.27). Here $`A_s=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _sQ_s^2=B_sh_s/2`$, $`sS`$. Eqs. (2.27) correspond to the Toda-type Lagrangian

$$L_{TL}=\frac{1}{4}\underset{s,s^{}S}{}h_sA_{ss^{}}\dot{q^s}\dot{q^s^{}}\underset{sS}{}A_s\mathrm{exp}(\underset{s^{}S}{}A_{ss^{}}q^s^{}).$$
(2.34)
Remark 1. Here we identify notations for $`g^i`$ and $`\widehat{g}^i`$, where $`\widehat{g}^i=p_i^{}g^i`$ is the pullback of the metric $`g^i`$ to the manifold $`M`$ by the canonical projection: $`p_i:MM_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. An analogous agreement will be also kept for volume forms etc.

Due to (2.12) and (2.13), the dimension of $`p`$-brane worldvolume $`d(I_s)`$ is defined by

$$d(I_s)=n_{a_s}1,d(I_s)=Dn_{a_s}1,$$
(2.35)
for $`sS_e,S_m`$ respectively. For a $`p`$-brane: $`p=p_s=d(I_s)1`$.

### 2.3 Restrictions on $`p`$-brane configurations.

The solutions presented above are valid if two restrictions on the sets of $`p`$-branes are satisfied. These restrictions guarantee the block-diagonal form of the energy-momentum tensor and the existence of the sigma-model representation (without additional constraints) .

Let us denote $`w_1\{i|i\{1,\mathrm{},n\},d_i=1\}`$, and $`n_1=|w_1|`$ (i.e. $`n_1`$ is the number of 1-dimensional spaces among $`M_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$).

Restriction 1. For any $`a\mathrm{}`$ and $`v=e,m`$ there are no $`I,J\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,v}`$ such that $`I=\{i\}(IJ)`$, and $`J=(IJ)\{j\}`$ for some $`i,jw_1`$, $`ij`$.

Restriction 2.. For any $`a\mathrm{}`$ there are no $`I\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,e}`$ and $`J\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,m}`$ such that $`\overline{J}=\{i\}I`$.

Restriction 1 is satisfied for $`n_11`$ and also in the non-composite case: $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,e}|+|\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,m}|=1`$ for all $`a\mathrm{}`$. For $`n_12`$ it forbids the following pairs of two electric or two magnetic $`p`$-branes, corresponding to the same form $`F^a,a\mathrm{}`$:

| $`i`$ |  |  | $`I`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  |
|  |  | $`j`$ | $`J`$ |

Figure 1. A forbidden by Restriction 1 pair of two electric or two magnetic p-branes.

Here $`d_i=d_j=1`$, $`ij`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Restriction 1 may be also rewritten in terms of intersections

$$(\mathrm{𝐑𝟏})d(IJ)d(I)2,$$
(2.36)
for any $`I,J\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,v}`$, $`a\mathrm{}`$, $`v=e,m`$ (here $`d(I)=d(J)`$).

Restriction 2 is satisfied for $`n_1=0`$. For $`n_11`$ it forbids the following electro-magnetic pairs, corresponding to the same form $`F^a,a\mathrm{}`$:

|  | $`i`$ | $`\overline{J}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |
|  |  | $`I`$ |

Figure 2. Forbidden by Restriction 2 electromagnetic pair of p-branes

Here $`d_i=1`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. In terms of intersections Restriction 2 reads

$$(\mathrm{𝐑𝟐})d(IJ)0,$$
(2.37)
for $`I\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,e}`$ and $`J\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,m}`$, $`a\mathrm{}`$.

### 2.4 $`U^s`$-vectors and scalar products

Here we remind a minisuperspace covariant form of constraints using so called $`U^s`$-vectors . The constraints (2.30) may be written in the following form

$$U^s(c)=U_A^sc^A=0,U^s(\overline{c})=U_A^s\overline{c}^A=0,$$
(2.38)
where

$$(U_A^s)=(d_i\delta _{iI_s},\chi _s\lambda _{\alpha a_s}),$$
(2.39)
$`s=(a_s,v_s,I_s)S`$, $`A=(i,\alpha )`$.

The quadratic constraint (2.32) reads

$$E=E_{TL}+\frac{1}{2}\widehat{G}_{AB}c^Ac^B=0,$$
(2.40)
and

$$(\widehat{G}_{AB})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_{ij}& 0\\ 0& h_{\alpha \beta }\end{array}\right),$$
(2.41)
is the (truncated) target space metric with

$$G_{ij}=d_i\delta _{ij}d_id_j,$$
(2.42)
$`i,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Let

$$(U,U^{})=\widehat{G}^{AB}U_AU_B^{},$$
(2.43)
be the scalar product, where $`U=U_Az^A`$, $`U^{}=U_Az^A`$ are linear functions (1-forms) on $`\text{R}^{n+l}`$, and $`(\widehat{G}^{AB})=(\widehat{G}_{AB})^1`$. The scalar products (2.43) for co-vectors $`U^s`$ from $`(\text{2.39})`$ were calculated in

$$(U^s,U^s^{})=B_{ss^{}},$$
(2.44)
$`s,s^{}S`$ (see (2.22)).

Intersection rules. ¿From (2.21), (2.22) and (2.25) we get the $`p`$-brane intersection rules corresponding to the quasi-Cartan matrix $`(A_{ss^{}})`$

$$d(I_sI_s^{})=\frac{d(I_s)d(I_s^{})}{D2}\chi _s\chi _s^{}\lambda _{a_s}\lambda _{a_s^{}}+\frac{1}{2}K_s^{}A_{ss^{}},$$
(2.45)
where $`\lambda _{a_s}\lambda _{a_s^{}}=\lambda _{\alpha a_s}\lambda _{\beta a_s^{}}h^{\alpha \beta }`$; $`s,s^{}S`$.

The contravariant components $`U^{sA}=\widehat{G}^{AB}U_B^s`$ read

$$U^{si}=G^{ij}U_j^s=\delta _{iI_s}\frac{d(I_s)}{D2},U^{s\alpha }=\chi _s\lambda _{a_s}^\alpha ,$$
(2.46)
$`sS`$. Here

$$G^{ij}=\frac{\delta ^{ij}}{d_i}+\frac{1}{2D},$$
(2.47)
$`i,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, are the components of the matrix inverse to $`(G_{ij})`$ from (2.42). The contravariant components (2.46) appear as powers in relations for the metric and scalar fields in (2.5) and (2.6).

We note that the solution under consideration for the special case of the $`A_m`$ Toda chain was obtained earlier in .

## 3  Generalized fluxbrane solutions

### 3.1 The choice of parameters

In what follows we put

$$w=1,d_1=1,$$
(3.1)
i.e. the manifold $`M_1`$ is one-dimensional one and

$$1I_s,sS,$$
(3.2)
i.e. all branes contain $`M_1`$-submanifold. We note that Restriction 2 is satisfied automatically due to (3.2).

Here we restrict ourselves to solutions with linear asymptotics at infinity

$$q^s=\beta ^su+\overline{\beta }^s+o(1),$$
(3.3)
$`u+\mathrm{}`$, where $`\beta ^s,\overline{\beta }^s`$ are constants, $`sS`$. This relation gives us an asymptotical solution to Toda type eqs. (2.27) if

$$\underset{s^{}S}{}A_{ss^{}}\beta ^s^{}>0,$$
(3.4)
for all $`sS`$. In this case the energy (2.33) reads

$$E_{TL}=\frac{1}{4}\underset{s,s^{}S}{}h_sA_{ss^{}}\beta ^s\beta ^s^{}.$$
(3.5)
We put

$$\overline{c}^A=0,\overline{\beta }^s=0.$$
(3.6)
$`A=(i,\alpha )`$, $`sS`$. (These relations guarantee the asymptotical flatness for $`u+\mathrm{}`$ of the $`2`$-dimensional section of the metric for $`M_1=S^1`$ and $`g^1=d\varphi d\varphi `$).

We also put

$`c^A=\delta _1^A+{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}h_s\beta ^sU^{sA},`$ (3.7)
$`\beta ^s=2{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}S}{}}A^{ss^{}},`$ (3.8)
where $`sS`$, $`A=(i,\alpha )`$, and the matrix $`(A^{ss^{}})`$ is inverse to the matrix $`(A_{ss^{}})=(2(U^s,U^s^{})/(U^s^{},U^s^{}))`$. It may be verified that the constraints (2.38) and (2.40) are satisfied identically, due to conditions (3.1), (3.2).

Relations (3.7) and (3.8) look similar to analogous relations for black branes  which appear from the horizon condition. These relations play a key role in this paper. Their physical sence (possibly related to regularity of the metric at $`u\mathrm{}`$) will be clarified in a separate publication.

### 3.2 The main solution

We introduce a new radial variable

$`\mathrm{exp}(u)=\rho `$ (3.9)
and denote

$$H_s=f_se^{\beta ^su}=e^{q^s\beta ^su},$$
(3.10)
$`sS`$. Then the solutions (2.5)-(2.7) may be written as follows

$`g=\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}H_s^{2h_sd(I_s)/(D2)}\right)\{d\rho d\rho `$ (3.11)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}H_s^{2h_s}\right)\rho ^2g^1+{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}H_s^{2h_s\delta _{iI_s}}\right)g^i\},`$
$`\mathrm{exp}(\phi ^\alpha )={\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}H_s^{h_s\chi _s\lambda _{a_s}^\alpha },`$ (3.12)
$`F^a={\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\delta _{a_s}^a^s,`$ (3.13)
where

$$^s=Q_s\left(\underset{s^{}S}{}H_s^{}^{A_{ss^{}}}\right)\rho d\rho \tau (I_s),$$
(3.14)
$`sS_e`$,

$$^s=Q_s\tau (\overline{I}_s),$$
(3.15)
$`sS_m`$. Here $`Q_s0`$, $`h_s=K_s^1`$; parameters $`K_s0`$ and the non-degenerate matrix $`(A_{ss^{}})`$ are defined by relations (2.21), (2.22), (2.25), $`sS`$.

Functions $`H_s>0`$ obey the equations

$$\frac{d}{\rho d\rho }\left(\frac{\rho }{H_s}\frac{dH_s}{d\rho }\right)=B_s\underset{s^{}S}{}H_s^{}^{A_{ss^{}}},$$
(3.16)
$`sS`$, where $`B_s0`$ are defined in (2.28). These equations follow from Toda-type equations (2.27) and the definitions (3.9) and (3.10).

It follows from (3.3), (3.6) and (3.10) that there exist finite limits

$$H_s1,$$
(3.17)
$`sS`$, for $`\rho 0`$.

For cylindrically symmetric case

$$M_1=S^1,g^1=d\varphi d\varphi ,$$
(3.18)
$`0<\varphi <2\pi `$, we get a family of composite fluxbrane solutions. They are defined up to solutions to radial equations (3.16) with the boundary conditions (3.17) imposed. In the next sections we consider several exact solutions to eqs. (3.16) and (3.17).

Another possibility

$$M_1=\text{R},g^1=dtdt,$$
(3.19)
$`\mathrm{}<t<+\mathrm{}`$ ($`t`$ is time variable), will lead us to generalized Milne-type solution (that may be also a subject of a separate publication).

### 3.3 Fluxbrane intersection rules

The fluxbrane submanifold (worldvolume) is isomorphic to $`M(\overline{I}_s)`$ (see (2.14), (2.18)) and has the following dimension

$$d(\overline{I}_s)=D1d(I_s),$$
(3.20)
$`sS`$, (see (2.35)). The fluxbrane intersection rules read

$$d(\overline{I}_s\overline{I}_s^{})=D1d(I_s)d(I_s^{})+d(I_sI_s^{}),$$
(3.21)
$`ss^{}`$, with $`p`$-brane intersections defined in (2.45). This relation follows from the identity

$$\overline{I}_s\overline{I}_s^{}=I_0(I_sI_s^{}),$$
(3.22)
(see (2.14)).

We note that here we use $`p`$-brane notations for description of flux $`p`$-branes or $`Fp`$-branes. An electric (magnetic) $`p`$-brane corresponds to a magnetic (electric) $`F(D3p)`$ fluxbrane.

## 4 Polynomial structure of $`H_s`$ for Lie algebras

Now we deal with solutions to second order non-linear differential equations (3.16) that may be rewritten as follows

$$\frac{d}{dz}\left(\frac{z}{H_s}\frac{d}{dz}H_s\right)=\frac{1}{4}B_s\underset{s^{}S}{}H_s^{}^{A_{ss^{}}},$$
(4.1)
where $`H_s(z)>0`$, $`sS`$, $`z=\rho ^2`$. Eqs. (3.17) read

$$H_s(z=+0)=1,$$
(4.2)
$`sS`$. (Here we repeat equations (1.1)-(1.2) for convenience.)

In general one may try to seek solutions of (4.1) in a class of functions analytical in some disc $`|z|<L`$:

$$H_s(z)=1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_s^{(k)}z^k,$$
(4.3)
where $`P_s^{(k)}`$ are constants, $`sS`$. Substitution of (4.3) into (4.1) gives us an infinite chain of relations on parameters $`P_s^{(k)}`$ and $`B_s`$. The first relation in this chain

$$P_sP_s^{(1)}=\frac{1}{4}B_s,$$
(4.4)
$`sS`$, corresponds to the $`z^0`$-term in the decomposition of (4.1). For analytical function $`H_s(z)`$ (4.3) ($`z=\rho ^2`$) the metric (3.11) is regular at $`\rho =0`$.

### 4.1 Solutions for Lie algebra $`A_1\mathrm{}A_1`$

#### 4.1.1 Orthogonal case

Meanwhile there exist solutions to eqs. (4.1)-(4.2) of polynomial type. The simplest example occurs in orthogonal case, when

$$(U^s,U^s^{})=B_{ss^{}}=0,$$
(4.5)
for $`ss^{}`$, $`s,s^{}S`$. In this case $`(A_{ss^{}})=\mathrm{diag}(2,\mathrm{},2)`$ is a Cartan matrix for semisimple Lie algebra $`A_1\mathrm{}A_1`$ and

$$H_s(z)=1+P_sz,$$
(4.6)
with $`P_s0`$ satisfying (4.4). (For $`A_1`$-case see ).

#### 4.1.2 Block-orthogonal case

The solution (4.6) may be generalized to so-called ”block-orthogonal” (BO) case:

$$S=S_1\mathrm{}S_k,$$
(4.7)
$`S_i\mathrm{}`$, i.e. the set $`S`$ is a union of $`k`$ non-intersecting (non-empty) subsets $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_k`$, and

$$(U^s,U^s^{})=0$$
(4.8)
for all $`sS_i`$, $`s^{}S_j`$, $`ij`$; $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},k`$. (For ”block-orthogonal” black branes see .) In this case (4.6) is modified as follows

$$H_s(z)=(1+\overline{P}_sz)^{\beta ^s},$$
(4.9)
where $`\beta ^s`$ are defined in (3.8) and parameters $`\overline{P}_s`$ are coinciding inside blocks, i.e. $`\overline{P}_s=\overline{P}_s^{}`$ for $`s,s^{}S_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, and satisfy the following relations

$$\overline{P}_s=B_s/(4\beta ^s),$$
(4.10)
for $`\beta ^s0`$, $`sS`$. In this case $`H_s`$ are analytical in $`|z|<L`$, where $`L=\mathrm{min}(|\overline{P}_s|^1,sS`$).

Let $`(A_{ss^{}})`$ be a Cartan matrix for a finite-dimensional semisimple Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. In this case all powers in (3.8) are natural numbers

$$\beta ^s=2\underset{s^{}S}{}A^{ss^{}}=n_s\text{N},$$
(4.11)
and hence, all functions $`H_s`$ are polynomials, $`sS`$. Integers $`n_s`$ coincide with the components of the twice dual Weyl vector in the basis of simple roots .

Conjecture. Let $`(A_{ss^{}})`$ be a Cartan matrix for a semisimple finite-dimensional Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. Then the solution to eqs. (4.1), (4.2) (if exists) is a polynomial

$$H_s(z)=1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_s}{}}P_s^{(k)}z^k,$$
(4.12)
where $`P_s^{(k)}`$ are constants, $`k=1,\mathrm{},n_s`$, integers $`n_s`$ are defined in (4.11) and $`P_s^{(n_s)}0`$, $`sS`$.

This conjecture may be verified for Lie algebras $`A_m`$, $`C_{m+1}`$ repeating all arguments from  with the replacement of $`F(z)=12\mu z`$ by $`F(z)=z`$.

### 4.2 Solutions for Lie algebra $`A_2`$

Let us consider the Lie algebra $`A_2=sl(3)`$ with the Cartan matrix

$$\left(A_{ss^{}}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}2& 1& & & & \\ 1& 2& & & & \end{array}\right)$$
(4.13)
According to the Conjecture we seek the solutions to eqs. (4.1)-(4.2) in the following form ($`n_1=n_2=2`$):

$$H_s=1+P_sz+P_s^{(2)}z^2,$$
(4.14)
where $`P_s`$ and $`P_s^{(2)}0`$ are constants, $`s=1,2`$.

The substitution of (4.14) into equations (4.1) and decomposition in powers of $`z`$ lead us to relations (4.4) and

$`P_s^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}P_1P_2.`$ (4.15)
Thus, in the $`A_2`$-case the solution is described by relations (3.11)-(3.15) with $`S=\{s_1,s_2\}`$, $`p`$-brane intersection rules (2.45), or, equivalently,

$`d(I_{s_1}I_{s_2})={\displaystyle \frac{d(I_{s_1})d(I_{s_2})}{D2}}\chi _{s_1}\chi _{s_2}\lambda _{a_{s_1}}\lambda _{a_{s_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K,`$ (4.16)
$`d(I_{s_i}){\displaystyle \frac{(d(I_{s_i}))^2}{D2}}+\lambda _{a_{s_i}}\lambda _{a_{s_i}}=K,`$ (4.17)
where $`K=K_{s_i}0`$, and functions $`H_{s_i}=H_i`$ are defined by relations (4.14), (4.4), (4.15) with $`z=\rho ^2`$, $`i=1,2`$.

## 5 Examples of fluxbrane solutions

Here we present certain examples of fluxbrane solutions with $`M_1=S^1`$ and $`g^1=d\varphi d\varphi `$. In all examples below the total metric $`g`$ has the signature $`(,+,\mathrm{},+)`$ and all ($`p`$-brane) signature parameters are positive: $`\epsilon _s=\epsilon (I_s)=+1`$ (here all $`\theta _a=1`$). In what follows $`0<\rho <+\mathrm{}`$. In all examples the metrics are regular at $`\rho =0`$.

### 5.1 Solutions for algebra $`A_1`$

We start with single fluxbrane solutions ($`S=\{s\}`$).

#### 5.1.1 Melvin solution ($`F1`$ fluxbrane)

Let $`D=4`$, $`n=3`$, $`M_2=\text{R}`$ with $`g^2=dtdt`$ and $`M_3=\text{R}`$ with $`g^3=d\eta d\eta `$, and $`I_s=\{1\}`$. The solution reads

$`g=H^2\left\{d\rho d\rho +H^4\rho ^2d\varphi d\varphi dtdt+d\eta d\eta \right\}.`$ (5.1)
$`F=QH^2\rho d\rho d\varphi ,`$ (5.2)
where $`H=1+\frac{1}{8}Q^2\rho ^2`$. Here $`Q`$ is proportional to magnetic field in the core.

#### 5.1.2 $`F6`$ fluxbrane (corresponding to $`M2`$-brane)

Consider $`D=11`$ supergravity with the metric $`g`$ and $`4`$-form $`F`$ in the bosonic sector . Let $`n=3`$, $`M_3`$ be $`7`$-dimensional (Ricci-flat) manifold with the metric $`g^3=g_{\mu \nu }^3dx^\mu dx^\nu `$ of signature $`(,+,\mathrm{},+)`$ and $`M_2`$ be $`2`$-dimensional (flat) manifold of signature $`(+,+)`$ with the metric $`g^2=g_{mn}^2dy^mdy^n`$ and $`I_s=\{1,2\}`$. The solution reads

$`g=H^{1/3}\left\{d\rho d\rho +H^1(\rho ^2d\varphi d\varphi +g^2)+g^3\right\},`$ (5.3)
$`F=QH^2\rho d\rho d\varphi \tau _2,`$ (5.4)
where $`H=1+\frac{1}{2}Q^2\rho ^2`$. For flat $`g^3`$ this solution was obtained earlier in .

#### 5.1.3 $`F3`$ fluxbrane (corresponding to $`M5`$-brane)

Now we consider the solution dual to $`F6`$. Let $`n=3`$, $`M_3`$ be $`4`$-dimensional (Ricci-flat) manifold with the metric $`g^3=g_{\mu \nu }^3dx^\mu dx^\nu `$ of signature $`(,+,+,+)`$, and $`M_2`$ be $`5`$-dimensional (Ricci-flat) manifold of signature $`(+,\mathrm{},+)`$ with the metric $`g^2=g_{mn}^2dy^mdy^n`$ and $`I_s=\{1,2\}`$. The solution reads

$`g=H^{2/3}\left\{d\rho d\rho +H^1(\rho ^2d\varphi d\varphi +g^2)+g^3\right\},`$ (5.5)
$`F=Q\tau _3,`$ (5.6)
where $`H=1+\frac{1}{2}Q^2\rho ^2`$. For flat $`g^2`$ and $`g^3`$ see .

#### 5.1.4 $`F7,F6,F5`$ and $`F1,F2,F3`$ fluxbranes in $`IIA`$ supergravity

The bosonic part of action for $`D=10`$ $`IIA`$ supergravity reads

$$S=d^{10}z\sqrt{|g|}\left\{R[g](\phi )^2\underset{a=2}{\overset{4}{}}e^{2\lambda _a\phi }(F^a)^2\right\}\frac{1}{2}F^4F^4A^2,$$
(5.7)
where $`F^a=dA^{a1}+\delta _4^aA^1F^3`$ is an $`a`$-form, $`a=2,3,4`$, and

$$\lambda _2=3\lambda _4,\lambda _3=2\lambda _4,\lambda _4^2=1/8.$$
(5.8)
The dimensions of $`p`$-brane worldvolumes are

$$d=d(a,\chi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,2,3\hfill & \text{ in electric case},\chi =+1,\hfill \\ 7,6,5\hfill & \text{ in magnetic case},\chi =1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.9)
for $`a=2,3,4`$, respectively.

The fluxbrane solutions read

$`g=H^{d/8}\left\{d\rho d\rho +H^1\rho ^2d\varphi d\varphi +H^1g^2+g^3\right\},`$ (5.10)
$`\mathrm{exp}(2\phi )=H^{\chi \lambda _a},`$ (5.11)
and

$$F^a=QH^2\rho d\rho \tau _2,\mathrm{for}\chi =+1,$$
(5.12)
or

$$F^a=Q\tau _3,\mathrm{for}\chi =1,$$
(5.13)
with $`H=1+\frac{1}{2}Q^2\rho ^2`$, $`a=2,3,4`$.

For $`\chi =+1`$ we get a $`F(9a)`$ fluxbrane with $`d_2=a2`$, $`d_3=10a`$, and for $`\chi =1`$ we obtain a (dual) $`F(a1)`$ fluxbrane with $`d_2=8a`$, $`d_3=a`$, ($`a=2,3,4`$). (Here the presence of Chern-Simons terms does not modify the solutions from Sect. 3.2.)

### 5.2 Solution for algebra $`A_1A_1`$

$`F6F3`$ fluxbranes. We put $`n=5`$, $`d_2=1`$, $`g^2=dy^2dy^2`$, $`d_3=1`$, $`g^3=dy^3dy^3`$, $`d_4=4`$ and $`g^4`$ has the Euclidean signature, $`d_5=3`$ and $`g^5`$ has the signature $`(,+,+)`$, $`I_{s_e}=\{1,2,3\}`$ and $`I_{s_m}=\{1,2,4\}`$. The solution has the following form

$`g=H_e^{1/3}H_m^{2/3}\left\{d\rho d\rho +H_e^1H_m^1(\rho ^2d\varphi d\varphi +g^2)+H_e^1g^3+H_m^1g^4+g^5\right\},`$ (5.14)
$`F=Q_eH_e^2\rho d\rho d\varphi dy_2dy_3+Q_mdy_3\tau _5,`$ (5.15)
where $`H_s=1+\frac{1}{2}Q_s^2\rho ^2`$, $`s=e,m`$. For flat $`g^i`$ see .

### 5.3 Solutions for algebra $`A_2`$

#### 5.3.1 $`F6F3`$ fluxbranes with $`A_2`$-intersection

Now we consider a new $`F6F3`$ fluxbrane configuration with (a non-standard) $`A_2`$ intersection rules defined on the manifold

$$M=(0,+\mathrm{})\times M_1\times M_2\times M_3\times M_4,$$
(5.16)
where $`d_2=2`$, $`d_3=5`$, $`d_4=2`$. The solution is following

$`g=H_e^{1/3}H_m^{2/3}\left\{d\rho d\rho +H_e^1H_m^1\rho ^2d\varphi d\varphi +H_e^1g^2+H_m^1g^3+g^4\right\},`$ (5.17)
$`F=Q_eH_e^2H_m\rho d\rho d\varphi \tau _2+Q_m\tau _2\tau _4,`$ (5.18)
where metrics $`g^2`$ and $`g^3`$ are (Ricci-flat) metrics of Euclidean signature, $`g^4`$ is the (flat) metric of the signature $`(,+)`$ and

$$H_s=1+P_s\rho ^2+\frac{1}{4}P_1P_2\rho ^4,$$
(5.19)
where $`P_s=\frac{1}{2}Q_s^2`$, $`s=e,m`$.

#### 5.3.2 Dyonic flux tube in Kaluza-Klein model

Let us consider $`4`$-dimensional model

$$S=_Md^4z\sqrt{|g|}\left\{R[g]g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \phi _\nu \phi \frac{1}{2!}\mathrm{exp}[2\lambda \phi ]F^2\right\}$$
(5.20)
with scalar field $`\phi `$, two-form $`F=dA`$ and $`\lambda =\sqrt{3/2}`$. This model originates after Kaluza-Klein reduction of $`5`$-dimensional gravity. The 5-dimensional metric in this case reads

$$g^{(5)}=\mathrm{\Phi }g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +\mathrm{\Phi }^2(dy+𝒜)(dy+𝒜),$$
(5.21)
where

$$𝒜=\sqrt{2}A=\sqrt{2}A_\mu dx^\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{exp}(2\phi /\sqrt{6}).$$
(5.22)
We consider ”dyonic” flux-tube solution defined on the manifold

$$M=(0,+\mathrm{})\times (M_1=S^1)\times M_2,$$
(5.23)
where $`M_2=\text{R}^2`$ and $`g^2=dtdt+d\eta d\eta `$. This solution reads

$`g=\left(H_eH_m\right)^{1/2}\{d\rho d\rho H_e^1H_m^1\rho ^2d\varphi d\varphi dtdt+d\eta d\eta \},`$ (5.24)
$`\mathrm{exp}\phi =H_e^{\lambda /2}H_m^{\lambda /2},`$ (5.25)
$`F=dA=Q_eH_e^2H_m\rho d\rho d\varphi +Q_mdtd\eta ,`$ (5.26)
where functions $`H_s`$ are defined by relations (5.19),

For 5-metric we obtain from (5.21)-(5.25)

$`g^{(5)}=H_m\{d\rho d\rho +H_e^1H_m^1\rho ^2d\varphi d\varphi dtdt+d\eta d\eta \}`$ (5.27)
$`+H_eH_m^1(dy+𝒜)(dy+𝒜),`$
$`d𝒜=\sqrt{2}F`$. For $`Q_m0`$ we get the solution from  and for $`Q_e0`$ we are led to its dual version (see ).

## 6 Conclusions

Thus, here we obtained a family of fluxbrane solutions with general intersection rules. (See relations (2.23), (2.24) and Restriction 1. Restriction 2 is satisfied, since all $`p`$-branes have a common $`M_1`$.) These solutions are given by relations (3.11)-(3.17). The metrics of solutions contain $`n`$ Ricci-flat metrics. The solutions are defined up to a set of ”moduli” functions $`H_s`$ obeying a set of equations (3.16) with the boundary conditions (3.17) imposed. These solutions are new and generalize a lot of special fluxbrane solutions considered earlier in the literature.

Here we suggested a conjecture on polynomial structure of $`H_s`$ for intersections related to semisimple Lie algebras. This conjecture is valid for Lie algebras $`A_m`$ and $`C_{m+1}`$, $`m1`$, at may be verified with a little modification of the proof for the black brane case .

We obtained explicit formulas for $`A_1\mathrm{}A_1`$ (orthogonal), block-ortogonal and $`A_2`$ solutions. These formulas are illustrated by certain examples of solutions in $`D=10,11`$ supergravities (e.g. with $`A_2`$ intersection rules) and Kaluza-Klein dyonic $`A_2`$ flux tube. Explicit relations for $`H_s`$ corresponding to other examples of Lie algebras (e.g. $`A_3`$, $`B_2`$ etc) will be a subject of further publications. (Another topic of interest is related to supersymmetric composite fluxbranes on product of Ricci-flat manifolds. For $`M`$-branes see  and references therein).

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Russian Ministry for Science and Technology, Russian Foundation for Basic Research, DFG foundation and project SEE.


text:
# I INTRODUCTION

## I INTRODUCTION

Quasi free scattering of high energy electrons (QF) on nuclei is the field of nuclear physics which is traditionally devoted to the study of the single particle aspects of nuclear structure: single particle binding energies, momentum distributions, occupation numbers, etc.

A new branch of these investigations is the study of decay channels of single hole states in the residual nucleus, created as a result of the QF process. Especially interesting is to study a fission decay following a QF process. In this case we have a single particle process in the first reaction stage, and essentially a collective process in the final reaction stage. The collective degrees of freedom are excited in the intermediate reaction stage due the residual interaction.

This is a new sort of nuclear reaction which may allow one to get unique information on the dissociation of well defined single hole configurations ( which we can select by coincidence $`(e,e^{}p)`$) into complex nuclear configurations, and its role in nuclear fission. The new and most important aspect of this reaction is that, after knocking-out a proton, we obtain the heavy nucleus 237Pa in a single hole doorway state (see discussion below) which could undergo nuclear fission. Indeed, instead of dealing with collective doorway states, which are coherent sums of a great number of 1p-1h configurations ( as the well-known giant resonances), these non-collective doorway states will be represented by only one, well defined, 1h configuration. The residual interaction in 237Pa mixes these 1h configurations into more complicate 2h-1p and 3h-2p ones. So, there would be some competing channels for fission. It may occur either directly from 1h configurations, or, with some delay, from mixed states (or their components). In a QF process we have in the initial state only one configuration; thus, the fission probability $`P_f`$ should be more sensitive to the individual structure of this initial state as compared with conventional reactions, where the effects of the structure are averaged out over many single particle states forming the doorway.

The unambiguous extraction of single hole contributions is possible only in an exclusive experimental scheme (reaction $`(e,e^{}`$ $`pf)`$) and involves extremely thin targets (fission fragments have to leave the target with small energy losses), high energy resolution, and coincidence requirement between the final particles in order to separate the single hole states. The exclusive $`(e,e^{}pf)`$-experiment is very difficult for practical realization, and never has been so far performed. The integral contribution of the quasi free electron scattering to the fission process was studied only in inclusive experiments: $`(e,f)`$  and $`(e,e^{}f)`$) . These works dealt only with the issue of the QF contribution in electrofission.

The advent of high energy, CW, electron accelerators combined with the development of high resolution facilities, opens the possibility of studying the fission channel for quasi free electron scattering in an exclusive experimental setup. The most suitable accelerator for this experiment is at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF).

For excitation of the residual nucleus to an well defined single hole state, the initial and final state interactions have to be negligible. This situation corresponds to high momentum transfer and high proton exit energy, when the Plane Wave Impulse Approximation (PWIA) for the calculation of the quasi free electron scattering cross section is valid.

This work presents the results of a PWIA calculations for the quasi free $`(e,e^{}p)`$-differential cross section for deformed orbitals of $`^{238}`$U, in the framework of the macroscopic-microscopic approach, plus an estimate of the fissility for single hole states in the residual nucleus 237Pa, performed on the statistical theory grounds. These calculations could serve as first order magnitude guide-line for expected cross sections.

## II PWIA CROSS SECTION

In the first order Born approximation the electron with initial four-momentum $`k_{1\mu }=(\stackrel{}{k}_1,i\epsilon _1)`$ and final $`k_{2\mu }=(\stackrel{}{k}_2,i\epsilon _2)`$ , transfers a virtual photon with four-momentum $`q_\mu =(\stackrel{}{q},i\omega )=k_{1\mu }k_{2\mu }`$ , resulting in the final state a knocked-out nucleon with $`p_\mu =(\stackrel{}{p_p},iE_p)`$ and a residual nucleus with $`P_{A1\mu }=(\stackrel{}{P}_{A1},iE_{A1})`$.

In the impulse approximation a virtual photon interacts with a bound nucleon (proton or neutron) of four-momentum $`p_m=`$ $`(\stackrel{}{p}_m,iE_m),`$which exits the nucleus with four-momentum $`p_\mu =(\stackrel{}{p_p},iE_p)`$ without further interaction (no FSI). The corresponding momentum diagram in the impulse approximation is shown in Fig. 1 for the Laboratory system..

In the plane wave impulse approximation (PWIA) $`\stackrel{}{p}_m=\stackrel{}{P}_{A1},`$ and the missing quantities (momentum and energy of the proton before interaction) can be defined from the energy and momentum conservation law in the following way:

$`\stackrel{}{p}_m`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{p}_p\stackrel{}{q},`$ (1)
$`E_m`$ $`=`$ $`\omega T_pT_{A1},`$ (2)
where $`E_m=M_{A1}+m_pM_A`$ is the proton missing (or separation) energy, $`T_p`$ is the kinetic energy of the outgoing proton, and $`T_{A1}`$ is the kinetic energy of the residual nucleus. The momentum and energy transfer of the virtual photon can be varied independently.

In the PWIA the six folded differential cross section of the $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction in the Laboratory system has the following form:

$$\frac{d^6\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\mathrm{\Omega }_p\text{ }d\epsilon _2dE_p\text{ }}=p_pE_p\sigma _{ep}S(E_m,\stackrel{}{p_m}),$$
(3)
where

$$\sigma _{ep}=\sigma _{mott}\left(V_CW_C+V_TW_T+V_IW_I+V_SW_S\right)$$
(4)
is the off-shell electron-nucleon cross section, $`S(E_m,\stackrel{}{p_m})`$ is the spectral function which defines the combined probability to find a bound proton with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p_m}`$ on the shell with separation energy

$`E_m.`$

The kinematic functions $`V`$ in Eq. (4) can be expressed , neglecting the mass of the electron, as:

$`V_C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q__\mu ^4}{q^4}},`$ (5)
$`V_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q__\mu ^2}{2q^2}}+\mathrm{tan}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _e}{2}}),`$ (6)
$`V_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q__\mu ^2}{q^2}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{q__\mu ^2}{q^2}}+\mathrm{tan}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _e}{2}})},`$ (7)
$`V_S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q__\mu ^2}{q^2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +\mathrm{tan}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _e}{2}}),`$ (8)
and

$$\sigma _{mott}=\frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta _e}{2}}{4\epsilon _1^2\mathrm{sin}^4\frac{\theta _e}{2}}(1+\frac{2\epsilon _1}{m_p}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta _e}{2})^1$$
(9)
is the Mott cross section, $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the scattering plane and the plane defined by the vectors $`\stackrel{}{p}_p`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}.`$

For the structure functions W in Eq.(4) we use the off-shell prescription of de Forest :

$`W_C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\overline{E}E_p}}\{(\overline{E}+E_p)^2(F_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}_\mu ^2}{4m_p^2}}\kappa _p^2F_2^2)q^2(F_1+\kappa _pF_2)^2\},`$ (10)
$`W_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}_\mu ^2}{2\overline{E}E_p}}(F_1+\kappa _pF_2)^2,`$ (11)
$`W_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_p\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\overline{E}E_p}}(\overline{E}+E_p)(F_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}_\mu ^2}{4m_p^2}}\kappa _p^2F_2^2),`$ (12)
$`W_S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_p^2\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma }{\overline{E}E_p}}(F_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}_\mu ^2}{4m_p^2}}\kappa _p^2F_2^2),`$ (13)
where $`\kappa _{p\text{ }}`$=1.793 is the anomalous magnetic moment of the proton in units of the Bohr magneton ,

$$\overline{E}=\sqrt{p_m^2+m_p^2}\text{,}$$
(14)
$`m_p`$ is the mass of the proton, $`\overline{q}_\mu `$ $`=(\stackrel{}{q},i\overline{\omega }),\overline{\omega }=E_p\overline{E},`$ $`\gamma `$ is the angle between $`\stackrel{}{p}_p`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q},`$

$`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are the on-shell Dirac and Pauli proton form factors, respectively:

$$F_1(q__\mu ^2)=\frac{1}{1+\frac{q__\mu ^2}{4m_p^2}}[G_E(q__\mu ^2)+\frac{q__\mu ^2}{4m_p^2}G_M(q__\mu ^2)],$$
(15)
$$\kappa _pF_2(q)=\frac{1}{1+\frac{q__\mu ^2}{4m_p^2}}[G_M(q__\mu ^2)G_E(q__\mu ^2)],$$
(16)
where

$$G_E(q__\mu ^2)=(\frac{1}{1+\frac{q__\mu ^2}{0.71}})^2,$$
(17)
$$G_M(q__\mu ^2)=\mu _pG_E(q__\mu ^2)],$$
(18)
$`\mu _p=2.793`$ is the proton magnetic moment in units of the Bohr magneton and $`q__\mu ^2`$ in Eq.(17) is in (GeV/c)$`^2.`$

In the independent particle shell model the spectral function for the spherical orbitals $`\alpha nlj`$ with binding energy $`E_\alpha `$ takes the simple form:

$$S(E_m,\stackrel{}{p_m})=\delta \left(EE_\alpha \right)\text{ }\upsilon _\alpha ^2\text{ }n_\alpha \left(\stackrel{}{p_m}\right),$$
(19)
where $`\upsilon _\alpha ^2`$ and $`n_\alpha \left(p\right)`$ are the occupation number and momentum distribution of the $`\alpha `$ orbital, respectively. The six folded $`(e,e^{}p)`$cross section could be transformed into a five folded one:

$$\frac{d^5\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\mathrm{\Omega }_p\text{ }dE_p\text{ }}=p_pE_p\sigma _{ep}\upsilon _\alpha ^2n_\alpha \left(\stackrel{}{p_m}\right),$$
(20)
where it is imposed energy and momentum conservation for the kinematics variables in $`\sigma _{ep}`$.

## III SINGLE PARTICLE BOUND STATES

The single particle bound state energies and momentum distributions were calculated in the framework of the macroscopic-microscopic approach by using the BARRIER code .

The energy of the nucleus is presented as:

$$E_{tot}=E_{LD}+\delta E_{shell},$$
(21)
where $`E_{LD}`$ is the macroscopic liquid drop part of the energy and $`\delta E_{shell}`$ is the shell correction, which describes shell and pairing effects. Both shell correction and the macroscopic part of the energy have been calculated according to .

### A Nuclear shape parametrization

Only axially symmetric nuclear shapes have been considered in the present work, and the deformed shape (up to and beyond its separation into two fragments) can be conveniently described by the Cassini ovoids . The potential-energy surfaces are calculated as functions of $`\epsilon `$ (elongation) and $`\alpha _4`$ (hexadecapolar momentum). From these potential energy surfaces, the equilibrium (ground state) deformation parameters $`\epsilon `$ and $`\alpha _4`$ were calculated by minimizing the total nuclear energy ( Eq.(21)): $`\epsilon =0.227`$ and $`\alpha _4=0.059`$.

### B Nuclear Potential

An Woods- Saxon potential, consisting of the central part $`V`$, spin-orbit $`V_{SO}`$, and the Coulomb potential $`V_{Coul}`$ for protons, was employed:

$$V^{WS}(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })=V(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })+V_{so}(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })+V_{Coul}(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })$$
(22)
The real potential $`V(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })`$ involves the parameters V0, $`r_0`$ and $`a`$ , describing the depth of the central potential, the radius and the diffuseness parameter, respectively, and it is expressed as:

$$V(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })=\frac{V_0}{1+exp\left[\frac{dist(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })}{a}\right]},$$
(23)
where $`dist(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })`$ is the distance between a point and the nuclear surface, and $`\epsilon `$ and $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ are deformation parameters.

The depth of the central potential is parametrized as

$$V_0=V_0[1\pm \kappa (NZ)/(N+Z)],$$
(24)
with the plus sign for protons and the minus sign for neutrons, with the constant $`\kappa =0.63`$.

The spin-orbit interaction is then given by:

$$V_{so}(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })=\lambda \left(\frac{h}{2Mc}\right)^2V(r,z,\epsilon ,\widehat{\alpha })(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\times \stackrel{}{p}),$$
(25)
where $`\lambda `$ denotes the strength of the spin–orbit potential and M is the nucleon mass. The vector operator $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ stands for Pauli matrices and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is the linear momentum operator.

The Coulomb potential is assumed to be that corresponding to the nuclear charge $`(Z1)e`$, taken to be uniformly distributed inside the nucleus. It is computed in cylindrical coordinates by using the expression given in .

### C Single particle potential parameter definitions

For the ground state deformation of 238U, small changes in $`\lambda `$ (spin-orbit potential strength) and $`r_{0so}`$ (spin-orbit potential radius) of the Chepurnov parameters are introduced in order to reproduce adequately the spin/parity of the levels sequence. Using single particle states obtained by this procedure, the quasiparticle states can be calculated for the first minimum region, providing spin, parity, energy and level spacing for the ground and some low–lying states. The quasiparticle spectrum was obtained by using the semi-microscopic combined method .

The potential parameters were chosen to give the best fit to the spectrum of single-quasiparticle excitations of the Z-odd neighboring nuclei 239Np.

### D Single particle wave functions

The Hamiltonian matrix elements are calculated with the wave functions of a deformed axially symmetric oscillator potential. The wave functions in the coordinate space $`\varphi _i`$ are expanded into eigenfunctions of the axially deformed harmonic oscillator potential.

These eigenfunctions form a complete orthonormal basis for the single particle Woods-Saxon wave function

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_i(\stackrel{}{R},\sigma )=\underset{n_\rho ,n_z,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}C_{n_\rho ,n_z,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}^i\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_\rho ,n_z,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\stackrel{}{R},\sigma ).$$
(26)
From this expansion, we may conveniently express the single particle Woods-Saxon wave function in momentum space:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }_i}(\stackrel{}{K},\sigma )=\underset{n_\rho ,n_z,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}C_{n_\rho ,n_z,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}^i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n_\rho ,n_z,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\stackrel{}{K},\sigma ),$$
(27)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n_\rho ,n_z,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\stackrel{}{R},\sigma )=\frac{1}{2\pi ^{3/2}}𝑑\stackrel{}{R}e^{i\text{ }\stackrel{}{K}\stackrel{}{R}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_\rho ,n_z,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\stackrel{}{R},\sigma )$$
(28)
normalized to one.

We define densities $`n_i\left(\stackrel{}{K}\right)`$ in momentum space in an analogous way of that in the configuration space:

$$\rho _i\left(\stackrel{}{R}\right)=\rho _i(r,z)=\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_i^+(r,z)\right|^2+\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}(r,z)\right|^2,$$
(29)
with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i^\pm (r,z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\underset{n_\rho ,n_z,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}\delta _{\mathrm{\Sigma },\pm \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }}C_{n_\rho ,n_z,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}^i\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_\rho ,n_z,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\stackrel{}{R},\sigma ),$$
(30)
and

$$n_i\left(\stackrel{}{K}\right)=n_i(k,k_z)=\left|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^+(k,k_z)\right|^2+\left|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^{}(k,k_z)\right|^2,$$
(31)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i^\pm (k,k_z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\underset{n_\rho ,n_z,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}\delta _{\mathrm{\Sigma },\pm \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }}C_{n_\rho ,n_z,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}^i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n_\rho ,n_z,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\stackrel{}{K},\sigma ).$$
(32)
These single particle momentum distributions $`n_i\left(\stackrel{}{K}\right)`$ were averaged over nuclear symmetry axis directions.

Similarly to the total density

$$\rho \left(\stackrel{}{R}\right)=\underset{i}{}2\upsilon _i^2\rho _i\left(\stackrel{}{R}\right),$$
(33)
the total momentum distribution is given by

$$n\left(\stackrel{}{K}\right)=\underset{i}{}2\upsilon _i^2n_i\left(\stackrel{}{K}\right),$$
(34)
where $`\upsilon _i^2`$ is the occupation probability resulting from the BCS model.,

The results for the occupation number calculations are shown in Fig. 2.

The energies of the $`{}_{}{}^{238}U`$ proton bound states are shown in table 1.

## IV FISSILITY

The quasifree knockout of nucleons leads to the excitation of the residual nucleus. This excitation energy ($`E^{}`$, nucleus A-1) has two origins: holes in the shells of the nucleus A, which appear as a result of the knockout of nucleons, and final state interaction (FSI) of the outgoing nucleon, which we assume as negligeable due to the high energy of the proton.

The fast, quasi free reaction stage occurs at zero thermal excitation (ground state) of the initial nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{238}U,`$ and results in a single hole in one of the shells. This single hole configuration forms a doorway for a thermalization process which leads to the thermal excitation $`E^{}`$of the residual nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa.`$

The thermalization is a complicate process which involves creation of new many particle-hole configurations in competition with particles emission and fission, and for some doorway configurations it might has non statistical character, but, as a first guide-line for order of magnitude estimates we calculate the total fission probability (nucleus with energy $`E^{}`$ deexcites in several steps) on the statistical theory grounds, both with and without taking into account the preequilibrium decay.

### A Compound nucleus model

Firstly, we considered a extreme situation, by assuming that the residual interaction leads to thermalization and formation of compound nucleus just after the fast reaction stage, without any preequilibrium particle emission In this case, the compound nucleus excitation energy is assumed to be :

$$E^{}=E_\alpha $$
(35)
where $`E_\alpha `$ is the energy of the bound state (hole).

For calculations of compound nucleus fissility we used the Bohr Wheeler  and Weisskopf  models for the description of the evaporation/fission competition. It was developed a Monte Carlo algorithm for the evaporation/fission processes which includes not only the neutron evaporation vs. fission competition, but also takes into account the proton and alpha-particle contributions.

The probability for the emission of a particle $`j`$ with kinetic energy between $`E_k`$ and $`E_k+dE_k`$ is calculated within the Weisskopf statistical model as:

$$P_f(E_k)dE_k=\gamma _j\sigma _jE_k\left(\frac{\rho _f}{\rho _i}\right)dE_k,$$
(36)
where $`\sigma _j`$ is the nuclear capture cross section for the particle $`j`$, $`\gamma _j=\frac{gm}{\pi ^2h^3}`$, where $`g`$ denotes the number of spin states, and $`m`$ is the particle mass. The level densities for the initial and final nucleus, $`\rho _i`$ and $`\rho _f`$, respectively, are calculated from the Fermi gas expression

$`\rho (E_j^{})=\mathrm{exp}\left[2(\text{ }aE_j^{})^{1/2}\right],`$where $`a`$ is the level density parameter (see below),

$$E_j^{}=E^{}\left(B_j+V_j\right),$$
(37)
$`E^{}`$ is the nuclear excitation energy in the initial state, $`B_j`$ is the particle separation energy, and $`V_j`$ is the Coulomb barrier corrected for the nuclear temperature, $`\tau `$, defined by $`E^{}=a\tau ^2.`$

The particle emission width is calculated as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_j=_0^{E_j^{}}P_j(E_k)𝑑E_k.$$
(38)
From this general equation, the $`k`$-particle emission probability relative to the $`j`$-particle emission is:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}=\left(\frac{\gamma _k}{\gamma _j}\frac{E_k^{}}{E_j^{}}\frac{a_j}{a_k}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[2\left(\left(a_kE_k^{}\right)^{1/2}\left(a_jE_j^{}\right)^{1/2}\right)\right].$$
(39)
The level density parameter for neutron emission is :

$$a_n=(0.134\text{ }A1.21\text{ }10^4\text{ }A^2)\text{ MeV}^1,$$
(40)
and for all other particle emission this quantity is related to $`a_n`$ by,

$$a_j=r_ja_n,$$
(41)
where $`r_j`$ is an adimensional constant.

Shell model corrections  are not taken into account. For high excitation energies their effects are likely to cancel each other upon averaging over all possible nuclei created during the reaction.

Using the fission width from the liquid drop model , and the neutron emission width from Weisskopt , we get

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_f}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}=K_f\text{ }\mathrm{exp}\left[2\left(\left(a_fE_f^{}\right)^{1/2}\left(a_nE_n^{}\right)^{1/2}\right)\right],$$
(42)
where

$$K_f=K_0\text{ }a_n\frac{2((a_fE_f^{})^{1/2}1}{4A^{2/3}a_fE_n^{}},$$
(43)
with $`K_0=14.39`$ MeV and $`E_j^{}=E^{}B_f.`$ Here $`B_f`$ is the fission barrier height discussed below.

For proton emission we get

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_p}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}=\left(\frac{E_p^{}}{E_n^{}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[2\left(a_n\right)^{1/2}(\left(r_pE_p^{}\right)^{1/2}(E_n^{})^{1/2})\right],$$
(44)
and for alpha-particle emission,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_a}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}=\left(\frac{2E_a^{}}{E_n^{}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[2(a_n)^{1/2}((r_aE_a^{})^{1/2}(E_n^{})^{1/2})\right].$$
(45)
In the above equations, the Coulomb potential for protons is

$$V_p=C\frac{k_p(Z1)e^2}{r_0(A4)^{1/3}+R_p},$$
(46)
and for alphas,

$$V_a=C\frac{2K_a(Z2)e^2}{r_0(A4)^{1/3}+R_a},$$
(47)
where $`K_p`$ $`=0.70`$ and $`K_a`$ $`=0.83`$ are the Coulomb barrier penetrability for protons and alpha particles, respectively, $`R_p`$ $`=1.14`$ fm is the proton radius ,$`R_a=2.16`$ fm is the alpha particle radius, and $`r_0=1.2`$ $`fm`$ . The factor $`C`$ introduces in a semi-empirical way the dynamical effects in particle separation energy and fission barrier due to the nuclear temperature , namely

$$C=1\frac{E^{}}{B},$$
(48)
where $`B`$ is the total nuclear binding energy (B=1794 MeV for $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa`$ ).

The fission barrier is calculated by,

$$B_f=C(0.22(AZ)1.40Z+101.5)\text{ MeV.}$$
(49)
The neutron separation energy was taken as $`5.78`$ MeV for the first step ($`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa`$) , and for the other steps as:

$$B_n=(0.16(AZ)+0.25Z+5.6)\text{ MeV,}$$
(50)
while the proton and alpha-particle separation energies are calculated through the nuclear mass formula:

$$B_p=m_p+M(A1,Z1)M(A,Z),$$
(51)
where $`m_p`$ is the proton mass, and $`M(A,Z)`$ is the nuclear mass calculated with the parameters from reference . For the alpha particles we get

$$B_a=m_a+M(A4,Z2)M(A,Z),$$
(52)
where $`m_a`$ is the alpha particle mass.

These values reproduce the experimental data for Pf (see discussion below)

The present Monte Carlo code for evaporation-fission calculates, at each step $`i`$ of the evaporation chain, the fission probability, $`F_i`$, defined as

$`F_i={\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_f}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n})_i}{1+(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_f}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n})_i+(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_p}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n})_i+(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha }{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n})_i}},`$

An evaporating particle $`j`$ is randomly chosen (neutron, proton or alpha particle), according to its relative branching ratios. Once one of these particles is chosen , the mass and atomic numbers are recalculated through

$`A_{i+1}=A_i\mathrm{\Delta }A_i,`$and

$`Z_{i+1}=Z_i\mathrm{\Delta }Z_i,`$where $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_i`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }Z_i`$, are, respectively, the mass and atomic numbers of the ejected particle at the $`ith`$ step in the evaporation process. The nuclear excitation energy is modified according to the expression

$`E_{i+1}^{}=E_i^{}B_iT_i,`$where $`B_i`$ and $`T_i`$ are the separation and the asymptotic kinetic energies of the particle being ejected, respectively. For neutrons $`T=2`$ MeV, and for protons and alpha particles $`T=0`$ MeV. The expressions described above ensure that the nuclear excitation energy will be, at each step in the evaporation chain, smaller than in the previous step. This process continues until the excitation energy available in the nucleus is not enough to emit any one of the possible evaporating particles. At this point the evaporation process stops, and we can calculate the nuclear fissility by the expression

$$W=\underset{i}{}\left[\underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}(1F_j)\right]F_i.$$
(53)
Using the model described above, we calculated the fissility for $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa`$ (figure 3, solid curve). Peaks observed for the fissility reflect the opening of the fission channel in the daughter nuclei. Figure 3 also shows ( rectangle) the data for the fissility of $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa`$ obtained by extrapolation of the neutron to fission widths ratios for $`Z=91,`$ and $`A=230,231,232,233`$ to $`A=237`$ , by using the empirical trend presented in Vandenbosch and Huizenga

It should be pointed out that in our calculations of the fissility we assumed that the hole excitation energies for an A-1 nucleus correspond to the compound nucleus excitation energies , that is to say, the complete thermalization is reached without any preequilibrium decay. Such calculations could be considered as an upper limit estimate for the fissility.

### B  Exciton model

During the thermalization of the hole excitation energy, the nucleus $`A1`$ could undergo particle evaporation (preequilibrium decay , ).

In this case, the energy of the hole is not attributed to the nuclear temperature but, instead, assumed as a characteristic of the doorway state in the thermalization process followed by the emission of particles or fission.

The calculation involving the preequilibrium decay was performed within the framework of the exciton model , using the code STAPRE. In this model, the states of the system are classified according to the number of excitons $`n`$, which corresponds to the total number of excited particle $`p`$ and hole $`h`$ degrees of freedom, $`n=p+h`$. The exciton model included in STAPRE does not distinguish between protons and neutrons. Starting from a simple configuration of low exciton number, the system is assumed to equilibrate through a series of two-body collisions and to emit particles from all intermediate states. The application of a two-body interaction to the states of a $`(p,h)`$ configuration results in states with $`(p+1,h+1)`$, $`(p,h)`$, and $`(p1,h1)`$ excited particles and holes. The difference between the number of excited particles and holes remains fixed, justifying the use of the exciton number to label the states. However, the transition rates, which are an averaging over all states of a configuration, do depend on the number of excited particles and holes. The equation governing the time development of the occupation $`P(n)`$ of the $`nth`$ exciton configuration can thus be written as

$$\frac{dP(n)}{dt}=\lambda _{}(n+2)P(n+2)+\lambda _0(n)P(n)+\lambda _+(n2)P(n2)\lambda (n)P(n)$$
(54)
where $`\lambda (n)`$ is the total transition rate,

$$\lambda (n)=\lambda _{}(n)+\lambda _0(n)+\lambda _+(n)+\lambda _e(n),$$
(55)
with $`\lambda _e(n)`$ being the total rate of particle emission from the $`nth`$ exciton configuration. The quantities $`\lambda _{}(n)`$, $`\lambda _0(n)`$, and $`\lambda _+(n)`$ are the average rates for internal transitions from the $`nth`$ exciton configuration with a change of exciton numbers by -2, 0, or +2.

The internal transition rates can be written as the product of the average squared matrix element of the residual interaction $`|M|^2`$with the relative density of available states. For the latter, STAPRE uses the expressions of Williams  as corrected for the Pauli principle by Cline . These yield

$`\lambda _{}(n)\lambda _{}(p,h,E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}|M|^2{\displaystyle \frac{g\left(gEC_{p+1,h+1}\right)^2}{p+h+1}},`$ (56)
$`\lambda _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(n)\lambda _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(p,h,E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}|M|^2g(p+h1)\left(gEC_{p,h}\right),`$ (57)
$`\lambda _+(n)\lambda _+(p,h,E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}|M|^2gph(p+h2),`$ (58)
where

$`C_{p,h}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(p^2+h^2\right),`$with E the excitation energy of the system. The parameter g is the single-particle state density, which is taken to be $`g=\frac{6}{\pi ^2}a`$, with $`a`$ as the level density parameter. Following Kalbach-Cline, the average matrix element is approximated as

$`|M|^2={\displaystyle \frac{f_M}{A^3E}},`$where $`A`$ is the mass number of the system and $`f_M`$ is a parameter, which we assumed to be $`f_M=230`$ MeV3 in our calculations.

The particle emission rate $`\lambda _e(n)`$ is the sum of the integrated proton and neutron differential emission rates, $`\lambda _{e\nu }(n,\epsilon )d\epsilon _\nu `$, which are determined through considerations of detailed balance,

$`\lambda _{e\nu }(n,\epsilon )d\epsilon _\nu `$ $``$ $`\lambda _{e\nu }(p,h,E,\epsilon _\nu )d\epsilon _\nu `$ (59)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}}\mu _\nu \epsilon _\nu \sigma _\nu (\epsilon _\nu )R_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\omega (p1,h,EB_\nu \epsilon _\nu )}{\omega (p,h,E)}}d\epsilon _\nu ,`$ (60)
where $`\mu _\nu `$ is the reduced mass of the emitted neutron/proton, $`\epsilon _\nu `$ its outgoing kinetic energy, $`B_\nu `$ its separation energy, and $`\sigma _\nu (\epsilon _\nu )`$ is the cross section for the inverse absorption process. The factor $`R_\nu `$ is a simple correction standing for the fact that neutrons and protons have not been distinguished in the process; thus,

$`R_\nu =\{\begin{array}{c}N/A\text{for neutron emission}\\ Z/A\text{for proton emission}\end{array}.`$The densities of states are taken to be the Williams densities,

$$\omega (p,h,E)=\frac{g\left(gEA_{p,h}\right)^{p+h1}}{p!h!(p+h1)!},$$
(61)
where the Pauli blocking correction is

$`A_{p,h}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(p^2+h^2+p3h\right).`$The differential emission rates differ from those of usual Weisskopf compound nucleus emission by the factor $`R_\nu `$ and by the use of exciton state densities rather than compound nucleus ones.

The time evolution equation, Eq. (54), form a set of coupled linear differential equations whose solution could be written in the form of a vector as,

$`\stackrel{}{P}(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }t\right]\stackrel{}{P}_{0,}`$where the matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{nn^{}}=\lambda (n)\delta _{n^{},n}\lambda _{}(n+2)\delta _{n^{},n+2}\lambda _0(n)\delta _{n^{},n}\lambda _+(n2)\delta _{n^{},n2},`$and the vector $`\stackrel{}{P}_0`$ describes the initial exciton configuration of the system,

$`P_0(n)P_0(p,h)=\delta _{p,p_0}\delta _{h,h_0}.`$The decay of the system into all possible final configurations can be obtained by integrating the total emission rate over all time,

$$\underset{n}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _e(n)P(n,t)𝑑t=\underset{n,n^{}}{}\lambda _e(n)\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\right)_{n,n^{}}P_0(n^{}).$$
(62)
The decay of the fraction of the initial probability, which survives preequilibrium emission, is described using the Hauser-Feshbach formalism. We have considered fission in competition with neutron and gamma emission.

The initial configuration in 237Pa consists of one-particle at the Fermi level and one-hole in a bound state. This configuration is consistent with the proton knockout reaction for $`{}_{}{}^{238}U`$ initiating the statistical cascade. Our calculations were performed assuming an one -hole initial configuration of the l=0 partial wave alone. The particle at the Fermi level contributes negligibly to the equilibration process. The fission barriers, neutron separation energies and level density parameters were taken the same as those of the compound nucleus calculations in the previous section.

The exciton model fissility results for single hole states of 237Pa are shown in fig 3 by the dotted curve. We note that these calculations for fissility show a smoother behavior than that for compound model. The preequilibrium particle emission removes some excitation energy before a equilibrium is reached reducing, therefore, the probability of opening new chances for fission.

## V Final results

The differential cross section for the $`(e,e^{}pf)`$-reaction was obtained by assuming an isotropic angular distribution for the fission fragments, and the fissility as a factor :

$$\frac{d^7\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\mathrm{\Omega }_p\text{ }dE_p\text{ }d\mathrm{\Omega }_f}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{d^5\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\mathrm{\Omega }_p\text{ }dE_p\text{ }}P_f$$
(63)
Fig. 4 shows the seven folded differential cross sections$`\frac{d^7\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_e\text{ }d\mathrm{\Omega }_p\text{ }dE_p\text{ }d\mathrm{\Omega }_f}`$ for some bound proton states (table 1) and the compound nucleus model fissility (solid curve in fig.3) calculated for $`\epsilon _1`$=2000 MeV , $`\theta e=23^0`$ and the parallel kinematics . In this kinematics $`\epsilon _1`$ and $`\theta e`$ are fixed, and for each value of $`\epsilon _2`$ the proton spectrum is measured in the direction of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ , varying each time the angle $`\theta _{P_pk_1}.`$(see fig.1). For such scheme of measurements the initial (missing ) momentum of the proton $`\stackrel{}{p_m}`$ is always parallel (or antiparallel) to $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ . The parallel kinematics simplify the accounting of FSI, since there are no contribution of interference terms in the cross sections (see Eqs. (10)). Figs 5 and 6 show the momentum distributions for states used in the calculation of the cross sections presented in fig. 4, and fig. 7 shows the outgoing proton kinetic energy and angle $`\theta _{Ppk_1}`$ versus $`\epsilon _2`$ for the parallel kinematics we use.

Figs. 8 and 9 show the differential $`(e,e^{}pf)`$cross sections calculated for the same $`\epsilon _1`$ and $`\theta e`$ but for two fixed proton angles: $`\theta _{P_pk_1}=0.98`$ rad for the group of proton states of $`{}_{}{}^{238}U`$ which have a maximum in the low missing momentum region (fig.5), and $`\theta _{P_pk_1}=0.82`$ rad for the group having a maximum in the high missing momentum region (fig.6) . These angles $`\theta _{P_pk_1}`$were chosen in order to achieve parallel kinematics, that is $`\theta _{P_pq}0`$ , and maximum for cross sections at both the low ( $`\theta _P=0.98`$ rad ) and high ($`\theta _P=0.82`$ rad ) missing momentum regions. Fig.10 shows the missing momentum Pm and the angle $`\theta _{P_pq}`$ as functions of the outgoing proton kinetic energy for $`\theta _p=0.98`$ rad ( solid curve) and $`0.83`$ rad ( dashed curve).

It is seen from the figures 8,9 and 10 that for such a choice the cross sections have maxima at $`E_p`$ around $`300`$ and $`400`$ MeV and, for these energies, the proton angles $`\theta _{P_pq\text{ }}`$are small (parallel kinematics).

The differential cross-sections presented in figures 4, 8 and 9 correspond to the situation when the hole excitation energies for an A-1 nucleus is the compound nucleus excitation energies , that is to say, the complete thermalization is reached without any preequilibrium decay. Such calculations could be considered as an upper limit estimate for the cross section

## VI Conclusions

We presented a theoretical study for the quasifree electrofission of $`{}_{}{}^{238}U.`$

The proton bound states were calculated in the framework of the Macroscopic-Microscopic approach, using the axially deformed Woods-Saxon single particle potential. The occupation numbers were calculated in the BCS approach.

The exclusive differential cross sections for the quasi free scattering reaction stage were calculated in PWIA using off-shell electron-nucleon cross sections.

The fissility for the single hole states of the residual nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa`$ was calculated in the framework of two approaches: compound nucleus model without taking into account the preequilibrium emission of the particles, and the exciton model accounting for preequilibrium emission. Both models exhibit the same general trend, but the fissility as given by the preequilibrium model is smoother.

The obtained results could serve as a first guide-line on order of magnitude estimates of the expected cross sections for quasi free electrofission of $`{}_{}{}^{238}U.`$

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Brazilian agencies CNPq and FAPESP for the partial support to this work and the graduate students W.R. Carvalho, M.S. Vaudeluci and L.F.R. Macedo for their help.

Table I: Proton single-particle levels of $`^{238}`$U. The Fermi level is the level 46.

\[MeV\] $`\pi `$J  \[N nz $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\]  \[MeV\] $`\pi `$J  \[N nz $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\]  \[MeV\] $`\pi `$J  \[N nz $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\]  1 -33.685 1/2 1/2 \[ 0 0 0\] 23 -16.192 -3/2 3/2 \[ 3 0 1\] 45 -7.491 3/2 3/2 \[ 4 0 2\]  2 -31.397 -1/2 1/2 \[ 1 1 0\] 24 -15.490 -1/2 1/2 \[ 3 0 1\] 46 -7.195 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 0 0\]  3 -30.043 -3/2 3/2 \[ 1 0 1\] 25 -15.415 7/2 7/2 \[ 4 1 3\] 47 -6.277 5/2 5/2 \[ 6 4 2\]  4 -29.670 -1/2 1/2 \[ 1 0 1\] 26 -14.529 9/2 9/2 \[ 4 0 4\] 48 -6.189 -5/2 5/2 \[ 5 2 3\]  5 -28.141 1/2 1/2 \[ 2 2 0\] 27 -14.302 3/2 3/2 \[ 4 2 2\] 49 -5.348 -3/2 3/2 \[ 5 2 1\]  6 -26.630 3/2 3/2 \[ 2 1 1\] 28 -13.984 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 3 0\] 50 -4.827 7/2 7/2 \[ 6 3 3\]  7 -25.963 1/2 1/2 \[ 2 1 1\] 29 -13.111 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 2 0\] 51 -4.340 -7/2 7/2 \[ 5 1 4\]  8 -25.542 5/2 5/2 \[ 2 0 2\] 30 -13.091 -3/2 3/2 \[ 5 4 1\] 52 -3.949 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 2 1\]  9 -24.473 3/2 3/2 \[ 2 0 2\] 31 -12.383 5/2 5/2 \[ 4 1 3\] 53 -3.667 1/2 1/2 \[ 6 5 1\]  10 -24.025 -1/2 1/2 \[ 3 3 0\] 32 -11.735 -5/2 5/2 \[ 5 3 2\] 54 -3.465 -5/2 5/2 \[ 5 1 2\]  11 -22.836 1/2 1/2 \[ 2 0 0\] 33 -11.053 7/2 7/2 \[ 4 0 4\] 55 -3.417 9/2 9/2 \[ 6 2 4\]  12 -22.716 -3/2 3/2 \[ 3 2 1\] 34 -10.831 3/2 3/2 \[ 4 1 1\] 56 -3.051 -9/2 9/2 \[ 5 0 5\]  13 -21.614 -1/2 1/2 \[ 3 2 1\] 35 -10.388 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 4 1\] 57 -2.261 11/2 11/2 \[ 6 1 5\]  14 -21.292 -5/2 5/2 \[ 3 1 2\] 36 -10.280 -7/2 7/2 \[ 5 2 3\] 58 -2.207 -1/2 1/2 \[ 7 5 0\]  15 -20.333 -7/2 7/2 \[ 3 0 3\] 37 -9.794 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 1 1\] 59 -2.182 7/2 7/2 \[ 5 0 3\]  16 -19.621 -3/2 3/2 \[ 3 1 2\] 38 -9.301 5/2 5/2 \[ 4 0 2\] 60 -1.773 3/2 3/2 \[ 6 4 2\]  17 -19.254 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 2 0\] 39 -9.054 -9/2 9/2 \[ 5 1 4\] 61 -1.669 1/2 1/2 \[ 6 4 0\]  18 -18.229 -5/2 5/2 \[ 3 0 3\] 40 -8.356 -3/2 3/2 \[ 5 3 2\] 62 -1.553 -3/2 3/2 \[ 7 4 1\]  19 -18.189 3/2 3/2 \[ 4 3 1\] 41 -8.276 1/2 1/2 \[ 6 4 0\] 63 -1.459 13/2 13/2 \[ 6 0 6\]  20 -18.130 -1/2 1/2 \[ 3 1 0\] 42 -8.217 -11/2 11/2 \[ 5 0 5\] 64 -1.118 -3/2 3/2 \[ 5 1 2\]  21 -16.730 5/2 5/2 \[ 4 2 2\] 43 -7.624 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 3 0\] 65 -1.065 -1/2 1/2 \[ 5 1 0\]  22 -16.416 1/2 1/2 \[ 4 3 1\] 44 -7.597 3/2 3/2 \[ 6 5 1\] 66 -0.393 -5/2 5/2 \[ 7 5 2\]

Figure Captions

Fig.1. Momentum diagram of the $`A(e,e^{}p)A1`$ reaction in the impulse approximation: $`\stackrel{}{k}_1,`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ are the initial and final electron momenta, respectively; $`\stackrel{}{p}_m`$ is the momentum of proton before interaction;$`\stackrel{}{\text{ }p_p}`$ is the momentum of knocked-out proton.

Fig.2. Occupation probabilities for the single particle bound states of $`^{238}`$U.

Fig.3. Fissility of $`{}_{}{}^{237}Pa`$ vs the hole excitation energy. The solid curve shows the compound nucleus model calculation, assuming that the hole excitation energies correspond to the compound nucleus excitation energies: the complete thermalization is reached without any preequilibrium decay. The dotted curve corresponds to the exciton model calculations, which take into account the preequilibrium decay. The rectangle shows the extrapolated experimental data (se text for details).

Fig. 4. Seven folded differential cross sections for the parallel kinematics. The calculations of the cross sections were accomplished for $`\epsilon _1=2000`$ MeV, $`\theta e=23^0,\varphi =0^0`$ . The cross section for E=-10.388 MeV state ( subbarier) is multiplied by 100.

Fig.5. Momentum distributions for some proton bound states having maxima at the low missing momentum region.

Fig.6. Momentum distributions for some proton bound states having maxima at the high missing momentum region.

Fig. 7. Variation of the angle $`\theta _{p_pk_1}`$ (see fig.1) and the outgoing proton kinetic energy Ep vs $`\epsilon _2`$ for the parallel kinematics and $`\epsilon _1=2000`$ MeV, $`\theta e=23^0.`$

Fig.8. Differential cross sections for some bound states of $`^{238}`$U, having maxima of the momentum distributions at the low missing momentum region. The calculations of the cross sections were accomplished for $`\epsilon _1=2000`$ MeV, $`\theta e=23^0,\varphi =0^0`$ and $`\theta _{p_pk_1}=0.98`$ rad.

Fig.9. The same as in figure.5, but for some bound states of $`^{238}`$U, having maxima of the momentum distributions at the high missing momentum region and for $`\theta _{p_pk_1}=0.82`$ rad .

Fig.10. Missing momentum pm and angle $`\theta _{P_pq}`$ as functions of the outgoing proton kinetic energy for $`\theta _{p_pk_1}=0.98`$ rad ( solid curve) and $`0.83`$ rad ( dashed curve).