format: text

text:
# Circular Holonomy, Clock Effects and Gravitoelectromagnetism: Still Going Around in Circles After All These Years …

## 1 Introduction

The geometry of circular orbits in general relativity is so rich that after all these years in which various aspects of it have been studied in many approaches, remarkably there is still something interesting left to say on the matter. Here we describe parallel and Fermi-Walker transport along these curves in black-hole spacetimes after reviewing the historical origins of Fermi-Walker transport and the other interesting class of curves for which the transport equations can be explicitly solved: general geodesics in stationary axisymmetric spacetimes admitting a Killing-Yano tensor, a case which includes black hole spacetimes. For circular orbits in black hole spacetimes, the total parallel transport or Fermi-Walker angle per orbital revolution is represented in factored form, revealing each of the spacetime geometric contributions to the final result, in contrast with the usual sum of terms decomposition associated with the gravitoelectric (GE), gravitomagnetic (GM) and space curvature effects.

Born in 1901, Fermi was a boy genius who grew up in Rome, arriving at the University of Pisa already having learned physics and advanced mathematics on his own, and having done many physics experiments with his friend Enrico Persico during high school (including measuring the precise acceleration of gravity in Rome) who together became the first two professors of theoretical physics in Italy in 1927. Fermi’s first three papers (on electromagnetism and relativity) were published in 1921 and 1922 while he still a university student at the University of Pisa caught up in the excitement of the newly born theory of general relativity (1916) and early evolution of quantum mechanics (he was the authority on the latter in Pisa as a student!), after which he returned to Rome briefly. Tullio Levi-Civita had just introduced the notion of parallel transport in 1917 (when Fermi finished high school) and had come to Rome from Padua in 1918 as a full professor of mathematics after having made fundamental contributions to the ‘absolute differential calculus’ largely developed by his mentor Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro (hence the title ‘Ricci-Calculus’ of Schouten’s encyclopedic book in 1954) but improved and applied to physics by Levi-Civita and passed on to Einstein by Marcel Grossmann. More details on these historical figures can be found in the many volumes of Gillispie’s standard reference.

Starting from Levi-Civita’s form of the metric for a uniform gravitational field published in a series of articles of 1917–1918

$$ds^2=a^2dt^2+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j,$$

Fermi studied the effects of acceleration on Maxwell’s equations in his second paper (essentially equivalent to a ‘variable speed of light’ $`a`$). He was then led to understand the way in which one could apply these results to a small enough spacetime region around the world line of a test observer in a first order approximation in the spatial distance from the world line, resulting in his third paper on what later came to be known as ‘Fermi transport.’ Strangely making no mention of Fermi’s earlier work and citing only Eisenhart (who does not discuss Fermi’s work but does list his article in the bibliography) as a reference for Riemann normal coordinates (Eisenhart, appendix 3, see also section 11.7 of 19), Walker repeated Fermi’s calculations for transporting vectors taking a different approach, making explicit the implicit spacetime Fermi transport equation contained in Fermi’s paper, and extended the analysis of the affect of curvature on the arclength of nearby curves to second order in the approximation, calculated only to first order by Fermi. Both examined the question on an $`n`$-dimensional manifold as an exercise in differential geometry. Eisenhart himself had extended Fermi’s discussion a few years after it had appeared to a general symmetric (not necessarily metric) connection.

## 2 Geometric Overview

In a spacetime with coordinates $`x^\alpha `$ and metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ (signature $``$+++), consider an arbitrary timelike world line or spacelike curve $`x^\alpha (s)`$ parametrized by an arclength paramter $`s`$ (respectively proper time and proper distance). The unit tangent is $`u^\alpha =dx^\alpha /ds`$ (4-velocity in the timelike case $`ϵ=1`$), where $`uu=u_\alpha u^\alpha =ϵ`$. The second derivative $`D^2x^\alpha /ds=DU^\alpha /ds=a^\alpha `$ (acceleration when $`ϵ=1`$) then satisfies $`au=0`$ (as follows from covariant differentiating $`uu=ϵ`$ along the curve). If $`v`$ is any vector defined along the curve which is orthogonal to $`u`$, i.e. $`uv=0`$, its equation of Fermi transport along the curve together with the transport equation for $`u`$ itself are

$$\frac{Du^\alpha }{ds}=a^\alpha ,\frac{Dv^\alpha }{ds}=ϵu^\alpha (a_\beta v^\beta ),$$
(1)
which were given by Fermi, so the second equation is often referred to as describing Fermi transport, generalizable to any tensors which are orthogonal to $`u`$. Vectors transported in this way along the curve remain orthogonal to $`u`$.

However, implicit in Fermi’s work is the way to transport any vector $`X`$ along the curve, namely when decomposed orthogonally with respect to $`u`$, the part along $`u`$ is held constant while the orthogonal piece is evolved with this law. Letting

$$X=X^{(||)}u+X^{()},X^{(||)}=ϵXu,X^{()}u=0,$$
(2)
then if $`X^{(||)}`$ is held constant along the curve and $`X^{()}`$ is transported by the Fermi transport law, then since $`Xa=X^{()}a`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{DX^\alpha }{ds}}`$ $`=`$ $`X^{(||)}{\displaystyle \frac{Du^\alpha }{ds}}+u^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{DX^{(||)}}{ds}}+{\displaystyle \frac{DX^{()\alpha }}{ds}},`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`ϵ(a^\alpha u_\beta u^\alpha a_\beta )X^\beta ,`$
which is the general transport law given by Walker, subsequently referred to as Fermi-Walker transport, corresponding to vanishing Fermi-Walker derivative along the curve

$$\frac{D_{(\mathrm{fw})}X^\alpha }{ds}=\frac{DX^\alpha }{ds}ϵ(a^\alpha u_\beta u^\alpha a_\beta )X^\beta =0,$$
(4)
easily extended to any tensor defined along the curve. Relative to parallel transport along the curve, the additional terms $`[ϵau]^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}X_{}^{\beta }`$ generate a rotation/pseudorotation in the plane of $`u`$ and $`a`$ by just the amount necessary to keep $`u`$ tangent to the curve, and for geodesics where $`a=0`$, this reduces to parallel transport. The metric itself has vanishing Fermi-Walker derivative along any curve and so in addition to preserving the orthogonal decomposition of the tangent space parallel and perpendicular to $`u`$ along the curve, all inner products are invariant under this transport.

Fermi derived his transport law by considering first an $`n`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold and then specialized his result to $`n=4`$ and scaled three coordinates by $`i`$ to change the signature to +$``$$``$$``$. His calculation can be retraced in modern language for the two cases $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ simultaneously. Although Fermi described the situation in words without any figures, a picture is worth a thousand words. Fig. 1 illustrates the argument for the simpler case of $`a`$ lying in the plane of $`u`$ and an orthogonal unit vector $`v`$, showing the “infinitesimal” vectors associated with two infinitesimally separated points on the curve.

Here $`u^{(||)}`$ and $`v^{(||)}`$ denote the parallel transported vectors from the point $`P`$ to the nearby point $`P+dP`$ on the curve. The unit vector $`u`$ has (pseudo-)rotated from $`u^{(||)}`$ by the amount $`Du=(uu^{(||)})ds=ads`$, which has the (pseudo-)angle as its magnitude. In order for $`v`$ to remain orthogonal to $`u`$, it must undergo the same (pseudo-)rotation (boost/rotation) in the plane of $`u`$ and $`a`$. The difference vector $`Dv=(vv^{(||)})ds`$ must then have the direction $`ϵu`$ shown in the figure, but since only the component of $`v`$ in the plane of $`u`$ and $`a`$ need change, the scalar amount must be the projection of $`v`$ along $`Du=ads`$, namely $`vads`$, so $`Dv=(ϵu)(vads)`$. Dividing through gives the Fermi relation $`Dv/ds=ϵuav`$, representing the minimal (pesudo-)rotation necessary to keep $`v`$ orthogonal to $`u`$.

Next Fermi introduces coordinates in the following way. Complete $`u`$ to an orthonormal frame along the curve by adding the vectors $`e_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, with $`n=4`$ in the case of a spacetime, where the orthogonal vectors are Fermi transported. For each unit vector $`n=n^ie_i`$ in the tangent space of a point on the curve at $`x^\alpha (s)`$, send out a geodesic in its direction and assign coordinates $`(s,y^i)`$ to points along it, where $`y^i=\stackrel{~}{s}n^i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ is the arclength along the geodesic, nicely illustrated by Fig. 13.4 in Misner, Thorne and Wheeler for the more general case of any completion of $`u`$ to an orthonormal frame. Fig. 2 gives the simpler picture analogous to Fig. 1. In the spacetime context $`\{e_\alpha \}=\{u,e_i\}`$ is a locally nonrotating (the spatial axes are fixed with respect to gyroscopes) proper frame for an observer with this world line, naturally called a Fermi frame, adapted to the observer’s local time direction and local rest space.

Along the curve itself, these are orthonormal coordinates. As one moves slightly off the curve, the effect of the (pseudo-)rotation of $`u`$ on a nearby curve of points all sharing the same coordinates $`y^i`$ causes the arclength $`ds_Q`$ separating the points $`Q`$ and $`Q+dQ`$ to shrink/stretch relative to the arclength $`ds_P`$ separating corresponding points $`P`$ and $`P+dP`$ on the original curve. The change $`Du_P=a^idse_i`$ is a (pseudo-)angle times a unit vector, but only the component of $`y_P=y^ie_i`$ along this unit vector changes by this (pseudo-)angle times its length to get the arclength of the change. Thus the dot product $`Duy_P=a^ids_Pe_iy^je_j=a_iy^ids_P`$ gives the amount by which $`ds_Q`$ differs from $`ds_Q`$, with sign $`ϵ`$ as in the figure: $`ds_Q=(1ϵa_iy^i)ds_P`$. To first order the square is just $`ds_Q{}_{}{}^{2}=(12ϵa_iy^i)ds_P^2`$. To first order only the metric component along the curve changes

$$\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}ds^2\mathrm{"}=ds_Q{}_{}{}^{2}+\eta _{ij}dy^idy^j+O(y^2)=ϵ(12ϵa_iy^i)ds_P{}_{}{}^{2}+\eta _{ij}dy^idy^j+O(y^2),$$
(5)
(quotes to distinguish the line element symbol from the arclength differential along the curve, $`\eta _{ij}`$ for the flat orthonormal coordinate 3-metric of the appropriate signature) or dropping the subscript:

$$\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}ds^2\mathrm{"}=ϵ(12ϵa_iy^i)ds^2+\eta _{ij}dy^idy^j+O(y^2).$$
(6)
This is most useful for a timelike curve in spacetime, where $`s=\tau `$ is the proper time along the world line and this becomes

$$ds^2=(1+2a_iy^i)d\tau ^2+\delta _{ij}dy^idy^j+O(y^2),$$
(7)
which is Eq. (13.71) of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler with zero Fermi rotation of the spatial axes. These are called ‘Fermi normal coordinates,’ and represent the locally nonrotating (with respect to gyroscopes) ‘proper reference frame’ of a test observer following this world line. Along a geodesic, the metric is then the usual flat one up to first order in the flat spatial coordinates, characterized by the fact that along the curve itself in these coordinates, the connection components vanish and the metric components are those of flat spacetime in inertial coordinates.

These were first used by Levi-Civita to study geodesic deviation in 1926, as discussed by Manasse and Misner, who construct the Fermi frame and compute the Fermi normal coordinate metric up to the second order terms where the curvature tensor along the world line appears as in Riemann normal coordinates (hence the name ‘Fermi normal coordinates’) and evaluate it for a radial geodesic in the Schwarzschild metric. O’Raifeartaigh investigated how one could duplicate the conditions of locally flat metric and vanishing connection components along an arbitrary accelerated curve, following up earlier work by Schouten. Synge discusses Fermi-Walker transport and Fermi coordinates at length in his 1960 book on general relativity.

Ironically Levi-Civita is the original source claiming that Fermi established that one could find local coordinates along an arbitrary curve for which the connection components vanish and even gives a general argument why this should be so (footnote on p. 167 of ref. 15). This claim is repeated by Schouten, Misner, Pirani and others, but Fermi only shows this for a geodesic, not an arbitrary curve, a puzzling fact. In Levi-Civita’s discussion of geodesic deviation, he makes this general claim about arbitrary curves, but then only explicitly constructs Fermi coordinates for a geodesic. However, the resolution of the puzzle is that for nongeodesics, one must give up Fermi-Walker transport in the construction, using only parallel transport, as explicitly described by the 1-dimensional submanifold specialization of the more general discussion of O’Raifeartaigh. This breaks the link between the adapted coordinates along the world line and the nice orthogonal decomposition of the tangent space associated with the observer’s local splitting of space and time, making the construction uninteresting from the point of view of gravitational theory.

Ni and Zimmerman followed up the Misner, Thorne and Wheeler discussion to evaluate the metric up to second order (curvature terms) for the more general rotating Fermi coordinate system along an arbitrary world line, the logical conclusion of the calculations started by Fermi and Walker. Their result shows how the gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic contributions at the connection level due to the acceleration of the observer and the rotation of the observer spatial frame (the observer’s GE and GM fields) and the gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic parts of the curvature tensor measured by the observer all contribute to the description of the local proper frame of the observer nearby its world line. The metric takes the form

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`[1+2ax+(ax)^2(\omega \times x)^2+R_{0ioj}x^ix^j]dx^0^2`$ (8)
$`+2[(\omega \times x)_i+\frac{2}{3}R_{0lmi}x^lx^m]dx^0dx^i`$
$`+[\delta _{ij}\frac{1}{3}R_{iljm}x^lx^m]dx^idx^j+O(x^3),`$
where the components of the acceleration $`a_i`$ of the world line and angular velocity $`\omega _i`$ of the orthonormal spatial frame $`e_i`$ (relative to a Fermi-transported spatial frame) are expressed in that frame, while the components of the Riemann tensor are evaluated in the orthonormal frame $`e_0,e_i`$ along the world line at $`x^i=0`$, where $`e_0`$ is the 4-velocity of the world line.

Even if one follows the Fermi normal coordinate construction exactly, one has problems with coordinate singularities and failure of the coordinates to cover all of spacetime even in the case of flat spacetime, as in the Rindler metric built on an observer family each member of which undergoes constant acceleration. Marzlin examines this difficulty with extending the coordinates away from the world line and suggests a modification of the construction to widen their extendibility. Märzke-Wheeler coordinates are another option for correcting these difficulties, discussed more recently by Pauri and Vallisneri and Dolby and Gull, involving radar time.

Walker’s approach to Fermi’s discussion is based on Riemann normal coordinates at two nearby points along the timelike or spacelike curve in an $`n`$-dimensional space, which he uses to compute to second order in the remaining Fermi coordinates $`y^i`$ the rate $`ds_Q/ds_P`$ at which arclength changes on a nearby curve traced out by a point Q as in the above discussion, namely $`y^i=y_0^i`$, $`s`$ varying. Along a timelike curve in a spacetime, this shows how the tidal curvature affects the proper time of clocks carried in the observer proper frame as their spatial distance from the observer world line increases enough to begin to detect the effects of the curvature of spacetime. This then enables him to find the energy of each point in a small test body with respect to a test observer at any fixed reference point in the body chosen as the given world line, which for a small rigid body reproduces an earlier result, the apparent goal of his investigation.

Walker starts by introducing an arbitrary orthonormal frame $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ defined along the curve and the corresponding components of the connection induced along the curve

$$\frac{De_\alpha }{ds}=e_\beta W^\beta {}_{\alpha }{}^{},$$
(9)
which defines a mixed tensor whose totally contravariant form $`W^{\mathrm{}}`$ or covariant form $`W^{\mathrm{}}`$ is antisymmetric, as follows from differentiating $`e_\alpha e_\beta =\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$

$$W_{(\alpha \beta )}=\frac{De_{(\alpha }}{ds}e_{\beta )}=0.$$
(10)
With hindsight we know that an antisymmetric second rank tensor can be expressed in terms of its electric and magnetic parts with respect to a unit vector direction

$$W^{\alpha \beta }=[uA]^{\alpha \beta }+B^{\alpha \beta },$$
(11)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are a vector and second rank antisymmetric tensor both orthogonal to $`u`$.

If one desires $`u=u^\alpha e_\alpha `$ to have constant components in such a frame along the curve, i.e. the frame vectors maintain constant angles with respect to the tangent $`u`$, then

$$a^\alpha =\frac{Du^\alpha }{ds}=W^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}u_{}^{\beta }=A^\alpha ,$$
(12)
but this leaves $`B`$ arbitrary, describing the rotation of the frame about the direction $`u`$. For a timelike curve in spacetime, if one chooses a frame containing $`u`$, then $`B`$ is the angular velocity of the remaining spatial frame vectors in the local rest space of $`u`$, with respect to gyro-fixed axes, also called the Fermi rotation of the frame.

Without saying this, Walker notes that the simplest choice of $`W`$ amounts to setting $`B=0`$, which corresponds to Fermi-Walker transport of the frame along the curve. For a geodesic, he notes that it is natural to pick the orthonormal frame $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ to contain its tangent $`u`$, and for an accelerated curve, the Frenet-Serret frame (containing $`u`$) is suggested, in order to construct the family of Riemann normal coordinates used in his calculations (one coordinate system for each point on the given curve, which in general can agree with a Fermi coordinate system only at that given point). In studying nearby curves, he chooses an orthonormal frame containing $`u`$ whose remaining frame vectors are Fermi-Walker transported along the given curve. It is this frame that is used to evaluate the energies associated with the world lines of nearby curves in the case of a timelike curve in spacetime, as seen by a test observer moving along that curve. (Ni and Zimmerman also give the coordinate accelerations of the world lines of these points, generalized to include rotation.)

## 3 Why Useful?

Fermi-Walker transport is useful because it describes the behavior of the spin vector $`S`$ of a torque-free test gyroscope carried by a test observer along its world line with 4-velocity $`u`$ (see Misner, Thorne and Wheeler)

$$uS=0,\frac{D_{(\mathrm{fw})}S}{d\tau }=0.$$
(13)
The spatial vectors of a Fermi frame along the world line are therefore locally nonrotating with respect to a set of three independently oriented test gyros carried by the test observer and span the associated local rest space. Along a test particle in free motion along a geodesic, the Fermi frame is parallel transported along the world line and gives a tool for operationally measuring tidal effects of spacetime curvature along the world line. However, in black hole spacetimes and the larger family of stationary axisymmetric spacetimes containing them, many families of accelerated test observers in uniform circular motion are defined by various aspects of the spacetime geometry and symmetry, so accelerated curves are important in interpreting this geometry and here Fermi-Walker transport is essential. Thus one is interested in the Fermi frame along both geodesics and accelerated curves.

## 4 Geodesics in Black Hole Spacetimes

For a proper time parametrized timelike geodesic world line of a test particle with 4-velocity $`u^\alpha =dx^\alpha /d\tau `$, 4-momentum $`P^\alpha =\mu u^\alpha `$, and vanishing acceleration $`a^\alpha =Du^\alpha /d\tau =0`$, the rest mass $`\mu `$ provides one constant of the motion $`PP=\mu ^2`$. For black hole spacetimes (and in fact the entire Carter family of type D solutions), the two Killing vectors $`\xi [t]`$, $`\xi [\varphi ]`$ associated with stationary axisymmetry together with the existence of a symmetric Killing tensor $`K_{\alpha \beta }`$ lead to three additional constants of the motion: $`E=\xi [t]P`$ (energy at infinity) and $`L_z=\xi [\varphi ]P`$ (axial component of angular momentum) and either $`𝒬`$ or $`𝒦`$, quadratic constants of the motion associated with the Killing tensor. These allow the second order geodesic equations to be reduced to a first order system of four differential equations which can be interpreted in terms of motion in a potential for each of the Boyer-Lindquist coordinate variables. Marck, with some initial guidance from Carter, later showed that the Killing tensor also allowed one to reduce the construction of a Fermi frame along a geodesic to a single first order differential equation for a rotation angle.

The tangent to an affinely parametrized timelike geodesic is parallel transported along the geodesic. If one can come up with a second independent parallel transported vector, its spatial projection will also be parallel transported and by normalization, one has the first two vectors of a Fermi frame, leaving the second two in the orthogonal 2-plane defined up to the angle of rotation in that plane.

For a Killing vector $`\xi `$, the quantity $`\xi u`$ is a conserved quantity (specific energy or angular momentum in our case) along a geodesic

$$\xi _{(\alpha ;\beta )}=0=a^\alpha ,\frac{D}{d\tau }(\xi _\gamma u^\gamma )=\xi _\alpha a^\alpha +\xi _{(\alpha ;\beta )}u^\beta u^\alpha =0,$$
(14)
using the chain rule $`DX/\tau =uX`$ for differentiating a field $`X`$ along the curve.

For a symmetric second rank tensor which is a Killing tensor

$$K_{[\alpha \beta ]}=0,K_{(\alpha \beta ;\gamma )}=0,$$
(15)
one can define a vector $`W^\alpha =K^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}u_{}^{\beta }`$, a scalar $`Q=K_{\alpha \beta }u^\alpha u^\beta =W_\alpha u^\alpha `$ and another vector $`[P(u)W]^\alpha =(\delta ^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}+u^\alpha u_\beta )W^\beta =W^\alpha +Qu^\alpha `$ which is orthogonal to $`u`$. Thus $`W=P(u)WQu`$ is the orthogonal decomposition of $`W`$ with respect to $`u`$. Similar calculations show that $`Q`$ is a quadratic constant of the motion, and the intrinsic derivatives of $`W`$ and $`P(u)W`$ along $`u`$ are both orthogonal to $`u`$, but in general nonzero. This fails to lead to a second parallel-transported direction.

However, black hole spacetimes also have a second rank Killing-Yano tensor, which is just an antisymmetric tensor satisfying

$$F_{(\alpha \beta )}=0,F_{\alpha (\beta ;\gamma )}=0,$$
(16)
found first by Penrose and Floyd. Its square $`F^\alpha {}_{\gamma }{}^{}F_{}^{\gamma }_\beta `$ is automatically a (symmetric) Killing tensor, which is just $`K`$ itself in this case. This has the advantage that the vector $`v^\alpha =F^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}u_{}^{\beta }`$ is not only parallel transported along this geodesic but is automatically orthogonal to $`u`$ (since $`v^\alpha u_\alpha =F_{\alpha \beta }u^\alpha u^\beta =0`$), and so only has to be normalized (provided that it is not zero) to get a second Fermi frame vector. These may be completed to an orthonormal frame by adding two spacelike unit vectors defined up to an angle of rotation in the plane orthogonal to the first two vectors. The equations of parallel transport leads to a first order differential equation for this angle to fix those vectors to also be parallel transported, leading to the Fermi frame. Because of the constants of the motion, this equation may be solved by an integral formula involving those constants.

Marck extends the Fermi frame calculation to null geodesics in his second article and then to spacetimes with two Killing vectors and a Killing-Yano tensor in his third article. He then uses the results to study tidal curvature effects along geodesics in nonrotating black hole spacetimes.

## 5 Circular Orbits in Stationary Axisymmetric Spacetimes

Accelerated orbits are much more difficult to treat, so one must assume more symmetry in the orbits themselves to make progress, and one must distinguish between parallel transport and Fermi-Walker transport. Circular orbits in stationary axisymmetric spacetimes (especially black hole spacetimes) are very interesting for many reasons, and turn out to have nice geometry associated with these transports which can be explicitly described without having to integrate any remaining differential equations. Although one can state the final result which solves the equations of parallel transport or Fermi-Walker transport for any vector along such orbits, one can build up the same formula by including a number of relativistic effects one by one, leading to the final factored form of that formula. This gives a nice geometric interpretation to the result.

Consider general accelerated but constant speed circular orbits in the equatorial plane $`\theta =\pi /2`$ of a black hole in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates $`t,r,\theta ,\varphi `$, with mass and specific angular momentum parameters $`m`$ and $`0a<1`$. This ‘plane’ admits a pair of oppositely rotating periodically intersecting circular geodesics which are timelike outside a certain radius and allow the study of various so called ‘clock effects’ by comparing either observer or geodesic proper time periods of orbital circuits defined by the observer or the geodesic crossing points. This can be extended to a comparison of parallel transported vectors, corresponding to special holonomy transformations, and with some modifications to Fermi-Walker transport corresponding to a sort of ‘spin holonomy.’

The stationary circular orbits containing every second meeting point of the oppositely rotating circular geodesics departing from an initial crossing point are called geodesic meeting point observers (GMPOs). Since they are intimately connected to the properties of parallel transport by their definition as having a parallel transported tangent vector, it should be no surprise that the circular geodesics (and these GMPOs) play a key role in the interpretation of the parallel transport transformation along a general circular orbit. If $`\zeta _{(\mathrm{geo})}<0<\zeta _{(\mathrm{geo})+}`$ are the angular velocities ($`d\varphi /dt`$) of oppositely rotating geodesics, the GMPOs have their average angular velocity $`\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}=\frac{1}{2}(\zeta _{(\mathrm{geo})+}+\zeta _{(\mathrm{geo})})`$, which is nonzero only for a rotating black hole where asymmetry exists between the corotating $`(+)`$ and counterrotating $`()`$ geodesics.

## 6 Closed $`\varphi `$ loops

First we study the various relativistic effects which describe parallel transport around accelerated circular orbits and then for Fermi-Walker transport around the same orbits. The primary effect to consider arises from the geometry of a single $`\varphi `$ coordinate loop at fixed time $`t`$, so that the tangent vector to the orbit lies in the local rest space of the ZAMOs (zero angular momentum observers), also called the locally nonrotating observers, whose 4-velocity is the unit normal $`n`$ to the $`t`$ hypersurfaces. Let $`R=g_{\varphi \varphi }^{1/2}`$ be the circumferential radius of the orbit at coordinate radius $`r`$, and let $`\rho =|(\mathrm{ln}R)_{,r}/g_{rr}^{1/2}|^1`$ be its Lie relative curvature, or more descriptively, the ZAMO intrinsic radius of turning.

For a tangent vector in the $`t`$-$`\varphi `$ subspace of the tangent space like the initial radial direction in Fig. 3, parallel transport around an orbital interval of angle $`\varphi `$ leads to a compensating (oppositely directed) angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the parallel transported direction relative to the actual radial direction which cancel each other out in a flat geometry: $`d\mathrm{\Phi }/d\varphi =1`$. When the intrinsic geometry of this plane is not flat, after completing one circuit of the orbit, the radial direction will be rotated forward by the angle $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }`$, an advance described by the relative frequency rate $`1d\mathrm{\Phi }/d\varphi `$. The amount is nicely interpreted by an explanation given by Thorne using the tangent cone to the surface of revolution embedding diagram for the intrinsic geometry of the equatorial plane.

When the ratio $`R/\rho <1`$, one can imbed this geometry in Euclidean 3-space as a surface of revolution about the $`z`$-axis, where $`R`$ is the distance of a point on this surface from the $`z`$-axis and $`\rho `$ is the distance to the vertex of the tangent cone to the surface which lies on the $`z`$-axis as shown in Fig. 4. This shows the relationship between the net parallel transport angle per completed orbital circuit

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=2\pi (1R/\rho )>0,$$
(17)
advancing in the same direction as the orbital direction. Since the $`r,\theta ,\varphi `$ coordinates are orthogonal and $`\varphi `$ is a Killing coordinate, parallel transport does not affect the component of a spatial vector (in the local rest space of $`n`$) perpendicular to the equatorial plane, so this rotation angle in the $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ tangent subspace completely describes the parallel transport around the closed $`\varphi `$ loops in the intrinsic curved geometry of the plane. This corresponds to a relative frequency rate $`0<d\mathrm{\Phi }/d\varphi =R/\rho <1`$.

In fact one can express this in 3-dimensional matrix notation in these coordinates as follows. If $`X(0)`$ is the initial (component) tangent vector and $`X(\varphi )`$ the final parallel transported vector after a change of orbital angle $`\varphi `$, one has

$$X(\varphi )=e^{\varphi A_{(\mathrm{int})}}X(0),[A_{(\mathrm{int})}]^i{}_{j}{}^{}=\frac{R}{\rho }[e_{\widehat{r}}^{\mathrm{}}e_{\widehat{\varphi }}^{\mathrm{}}]^i{}_{j}{}^{},$$
(18)
where $`e_{\widehat{r}}^{\mathrm{}}=g_{rr}^{1/2}dr`$ and $`e_{\widehat{\varphi }}^{\mathrm{}}=Rd\varphi `$ are the orthonormal 1-forms, and the matrix $`([A_{(\mathrm{int})}]^i{}_{j}{}^{})`$ consists of the coordinate components of a mixed second rank tensor, which is antisymmetric upon lowering its indices. This exponential representation of the parallel transport transformation arises as the solution of the constant coefficient linear system of intrinsic parallel transport equations for the coordinate components along the $`\varphi `$-parametrized curves

$$\frac{dX(\varphi )^i}{d\varphi }=A_{(\mathrm{int})}{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}X(\varphi )^j,$$
(19)
which corresponds to vanishing intrinsic covariant derivative of $`X`$ along $`\varphi `$

$$\frac{D_{(\mathrm{int})}X(\varphi )^i}{d\varphi }=\frac{dX(\varphi )^i}{d\varphi }A_{(\mathrm{int})}{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}X(\varphi )^j=0.$$
(20)
By applying this to the vector $`e_{\widehat{r}}^\alpha `$, which has the covariant derivative $`A^i{}_{j}{}^{}e_{\widehat{r}}^{j}`$, one sees that

$$\frac{D_{(\mathrm{int})}e_{\widehat{r}}}{d\varphi }=\frac{R}{\rho }e_{\widehat{\varphi }},$$
(21)
which in turn allows the contravariant form of the tensor $`A_{(\mathrm{int})}`$ to be re-expressed as

$$A_{(\mathrm{int})}^{\mathrm{}}=e_{\widehat{r}}\frac{D_{(\mathrm{int})}e_{\widehat{r}}}{d\varphi }.$$
(22)
However, the spacetime parallel transport issue is distinct from the intrinsic geometry parallel transport, since additional extrinsic curvature terms enter the calculation. It turns out (hindsight) that the radial variation of the tilting of the Killing $`t`$-coordinate lines (static observer world lines) away from the normal direction causes the 2-plane of this intrinsic parallel transport rotation to tilt as well in the context of spacetime parallel transport (from the extra Christoffel symbol terms due to the extrinsic curvature). This variation can be described by the angular velocity $`\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}=g_{t\varphi ,r}/g_{\varphi \varphi ,r}`$ of the GMPOs, and in the spacetime context, evaluating the parallel transport equations explicitly shows that in the above formula, one adds an additional term to the coefficient matrix which converts $`e_{\widehat{\varphi }}^{\mathrm{}}=Rd\varphi `$ into

$$Y(\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})})^{\mathrm{}}=R(d\varphi \zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}dt)=\gamma (\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})})^1e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})})^{\mathrm{}},$$
(23)
which is in the $`\varphi `$ angular direction within the local rest space of the GMPOs, but is the Lorentz contraction of the original unit vector $`e_{\widehat{\varphi }}`$ in the local rest space of the ZAMOs in our intrinsic discussion by the relative gamma factor of the geodesic meeting point observers with respect to the ZAMOs. Since the rotation plane belongs to the local rest space of the GMPOs, their 4-velocity $`u(\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})})`$ is invariant under parallel transport along these orbits.

The spacetime result is then

$$X(\varphi )=e^{\varphi A}X(0),A^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha {}_{\varphi \beta }{}^{}=\gamma (\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})})^1\frac{R}{\rho }[e_{\widehat{r}}^{\mathrm{}}e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})})^{\mathrm{}}]^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{},$$
(24)
which is the exponential solution of the linear system

$$\frac{dX(\varphi )^\alpha }{d\varphi }=A{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta }{}^{}X(\varphi )^\beta ,$$
(25)
so that the parallel transport angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the $`e_{\widehat{r}}`$-$`e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})})`$ plane satisfies

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\varphi }=\frac{\gamma (\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})})^1R}{\rho }.$$
(26)
This is the ratio of the Lorentz contraction of the ZAMO intrinsic circumferential radius of the orbit to the local rest space of the GMPOs in which the rotation takes place with the ZAMO intrinsic radius of turning, which sort of seems reasonable. Notice also that the gamma factor increases the slowing down of the parallel transport rotation compared to the orbital rotation of the intrinsic parallel transport alone and when $`R/\rho <1`$ (when the orbital ‘plane’ can be embedded in Euclidean 3-space), leads to a prograde rotation with angular velocity $`1d\mathrm{\Phi }/d\varphi >0`$ relative to the orbital angle.

As above one has the analogous relation

$$\frac{De_{\widehat{r}}}{d\varphi }=\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\varphi }e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}),$$
(27)
which can be used to re-express (24) as

$$A^{\mathrm{}}=e_{\widehat{r}}\frac{De_{\widehat{r}}}{d\varphi }.$$
(28)
## 7 Helical $`\varphi `$ loops: observer-dependent circuits

However, the closed $`\varphi `$ loop orbits are spacelike curves with infinite angular velocity, and we are interested in timelike circular orbits, so we have to now tilt the orbits themselves in time. Moreover, once we ‘open the loop’ by creating a helical curve in spacetime, another problem arises: how to define a complete circuit of the orbit. In fact each stationary circularly rotating observer defines a complete circuit differently, so it must be kept in mind that this concept is clearly observer-dependent, as illustrated by Fig. 5.

In a nonrotating (static) black hole, there is an obvious preferred choice of observer: the nonrotating static observers following the $`t`$-coordinate lines in the Boyer-Lindquist coordinates. The circuits are then simply characterized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\pm 2\pi `$, i.e. starting at a given $`t`$ line and then orbiting one loop around either direction to return to the same line. However, in a rotating black hole, many distinct choices exist all of which reduce to the preferred static observers in the limit of zero rotation:

* static observers or distantly nonrotating observers, following the time coordinate lines along the Killing vector field generating the stationary symmetry which reduces to time translation at spatial infinity,
* ZAMOs or locally nonrotating observers, whose world lines are orthogonal to the time coordinate hypersurfaces,
* geodesic meeting point observers, whose world lines contain every second meeting point of a pair of oppositely rotating geodesic orbits at a given radius,
* extremely accelerated observers (EAOs), for which the magnitude of their acceleration is maximal (except near the hole, where it is minimal),
* Carter observers, whose 4-velocity is the along the intersection of the 2-plane of the 2 repeated null directions of the Riemann curvature tensor with the tangent 2-plane to the $`t`$-$`\varphi `$ cylinder orbits of the stationary axisymmetric symmetry.

Each of these observer families has the same limit at spatial infinity far from the hole, but approaching the hole, each encounters an observer horizon at which their 4-velocity goes null. Some continue to be defined by their geometrical properties as spacelike curves within this horizon, while others do not. For the equatorial plane of our present discussion, Fig. 6 compares the various observer horizon radii, all of which lie in the interval $`1r/m4`$.

Passing to the case of general stationary circularly rotating curves requires the further change in the tangent vector: $`_\varphi _\varphi +\zeta ^1_t`$ and considering values of $`\zeta ^1`$ away from zero, tilting the curves in spacetime with respect to the closed $`\varphi `$ loops. This tangent vector corresponds to using the value of the coordinate $`\varphi `$ along the curve as its parameter. Switching to $`t`$ as a parameter along these curves leads to the rescaled tangent vector $`_t+\zeta _\varphi `$, where $`\zeta =d\varphi /dt`$ is the angular velocity of the curve. When nonnull ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\zeta )^20`$), the tangent can be normalized to a unit vector with corresponding 1-form

$`u(\zeta )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\zeta )[_t+\zeta _\varphi ],u(\zeta )^{\mathrm{}}=\gamma (\zeta )R[d\varphi \overline{\zeta }dt],`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\zeta )^2=[_t+\zeta _\varphi ][_t+\zeta _\varphi ],`$ (29)
where $`\overline{\zeta }`$ is the angular velocity of the circular orbit with unit tangent $`u(\overline{\zeta })`$ orthogonal to $`u(\zeta )`$ and $`\gamma (\zeta )`$ is the corresponding gamma factor with respect to the ZAMOs

$$u(\zeta )=\gamma (\zeta )[n+\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta )e_{\widehat{\varphi }}],\gamma (\zeta )=[1\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta )^2]^{1/2}=N\mathrm{\Gamma }(\zeta )$$
(30)
and $`N=(g^{tt})^{1/2}`$ is the lapse function. The relationship between the two relative velocities is a reciprocal one

$$\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}(\overline{\zeta })=1/\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta )=\overline{\nu }^{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta ),$$
(31)
where

$$\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta )=\frac{R}{N}(\zeta +N^\varphi ),N^\varphi =g_{\varphi t}/g_{\varphi \varphi }$$
(32)
relates the relative velocity to the angular velocity.

The additional term in the tangent vector leads to an additional tilt in the angular direction of the plane of the parallel transport rotation as one moves away from $`\zeta ^1=0`$, corresponding to the angular direction of a new stationary circularly rotating observer. The previous factor picks up an additional term involving the angular velocity $`\overline{\zeta }_{(\mathrm{car})}=g_{tt,r}/g_{t\varphi ,r}=a`$ of the curves orthogonal to the Carter observers

$`Y(\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})})^{\mathrm{}}=R(d\varphi \zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}dt)=\gamma (\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})})^1e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})})^{\mathrm{}}`$
$`R[d\varphi \zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}dt(\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}/\zeta )(d\varphi \overline{\zeta }_{(\mathrm{car})}dt)]`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}/\zeta )Y(𝒵(\zeta ))^{\mathrm{}},\hfill & \zeta \zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}\text{ ,}\hfill \\ (\overline{\zeta }_{(\mathrm{car})}\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})})Rdt,\hfill & \zeta =\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}\text{ ,}\hfill \\ (1\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}/\overline{\zeta }_{(\mathrm{car})})Rd\varphi ,\hfill & \zeta =\overline{\zeta }_{(\mathrm{car})}\text{ ,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (33)
where a map $`\zeta 𝒵(\zeta )`$ picking out the parallel transported direction is defined explicitly by

$$𝒵(\zeta )=\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}\frac{\zeta \overline{\zeta }_{(\mathrm{car})}}{\zeta \zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}}\stackrel{g_{\varphi t}0}{}\frac{g_{tt,r}}{g_{\varphi \varphi ,r}}\frac{1}{\zeta },$$
(34)
and satisfies $`𝒵(𝒵(\zeta ))=\zeta `$. $`𝒵(\zeta )`$ is the angular velocity of the stationary axisymmetric vector field tangent to the symmetry orbit which is covariant constant along the Killing trajectory with angular velocity $`\zeta `$, while $`Y(𝒵(\zeta ))=\gamma (𝒵(\zeta ))^1e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(𝒵(\zeta ))`$ is the angular direction in the orthogonal subspace of the tangent space. The limit $`lim_{\zeta ^10}𝒵(\zeta )=\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}`$ returns us to the closed $`\varphi `$ loop case.

Thus for $`\zeta \zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}`$ the parallel transport rotation takes place in the 2-plane spanned by $`e_{\widehat{r}}e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(𝒵(\zeta ))`$ and satisfies

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\varphi }=(1\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}/\zeta )\gamma (𝒵(\zeta ))^1\frac{R}{\rho }.$$
(35)
This corresponds to the exponential solution

$$X(\varphi )=e^{\varphi A(\zeta )}X(0),A(\zeta )^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha {}_{\varphi \beta }{}^{}+\zeta ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha {}_{t\beta }{}^{})=\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\varphi }[e_{\widehat{r}}^{\mathrm{}}e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(𝒵(\zeta ))^{\mathrm{}}]^\alpha _\beta $$
(36)
of the parallel transport equations

$$\frac{dX(\varphi )^\alpha }{d\varphi }=A(\zeta )^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}X(\varphi )^\beta .$$
(37)
Note that the vector field $`e_{\widehat{r}}`$, which is spatial with respect to all circularly rotating observers, satisfies

$$\frac{De_{\widehat{r}}}{d\varphi }=\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\varphi }e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(𝒵(\zeta )),$$
(38)
which again implies the relation

$$A(\zeta )^{\mathrm{}}=e_{\widehat{r}}\frac{De_{\widehat{r}}}{d\varphi }.$$
(39)
The $`\varphi `$ parametrization of the circular orbit corresponds to defining circuits with respect to the $`t`$-coordinate lines. However, the additional factor $`(1\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}/\zeta )`$ which now appears is exactly the factor needed to change the parametrization from the values of the angular coordinate $`\varphi `$ along the orbit to the values of the new angular coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\varphi \zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}t`$ dragged along by the GMPOs. Since $`dt/d\varphi =1/\zeta `$ along these orbits, one immediately gets $`d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }/d\varphi =(1\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}/\zeta )`$. $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }:0\pm 2\pi `$ describes one complete circuit corotating or counterrotating with respect to the GMPOs. The frequency rate ratio between parallel transport angle and the GMPO angle is then directly analogous to the closed $`\varphi `$ loop case

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}=\gamma (𝒵(\zeta ))^1\frac{R}{\rho }.$$
(40)
Of course as one increases $`\zeta ^1`$ from 0 at a given radius, the 4-velocity along the orthogonal direction to the 2-plane of the rotation goes null and then spacelike as one encounters the direction at which the rotation becomes a null rotation and then a boost. Since for geodesics their own 4-velocity is parallel transported, one has $`𝒵(\zeta _{(\mathrm{geo})\pm })=\zeta _{(\mathrm{geo})\pm }`$ and the 2-plane of the rotation lies in the local rest space of the geodesics themselves. Thus the orbit angular velocity interval where this 2-plane is not spacelike lies somewhere between the two geodesic angular velocities $`\zeta _{(\mathrm{geo})\pm }`$ when they are both timelike. In fact since $`𝒵^2=𝒵`$, the endpoints are $`𝒵(\zeta _\pm )`$, where $`\zeta _\pm `$ are the angular velocities of the pair of oppositely rotating null circular orbits at a given radius. As shown in Fig. 7, moving towards the black hole, this interval $`[𝒵(\zeta _{}),𝒵(\zeta _+)]`$ expands until it first encounters on its left side the counterrotating geodesic at the radius where it goes null, while even closer to the hole it then encounters on its right side the corotating geodesic at the radius where it goes null. This interval continues expanding until the radius $`r_{(\mathrm{gmp})}`$ of the GMPO horizon, where the left endpoint becomes infinite, corresponding to the null rotation which occurs for the closed $`\varphi `$ loops at that radius, while the right endpoint finally goes to infinity at the black hole horizon. The left endpoint then re-enters the top right corner of the plot to terminate at the horizon again at infinite velocity.

To explicitly construct a parallel transported orthonormal frame along one of these circular orbits, say for an angular velocity $`\zeta `$ outside the boost zone at a radius outside the GMPO horizon, one can take $`u(𝒵(\zeta ))`$ and $`e_{\widehat{\theta }}`$, which are orthogonal and both parallel transported along the orbit, and the pair of orthonormal unit vectors in the orthogonal 2-plane which result from the parallel transport of the vectors $`e_{\widehat{r}}`$ and $`e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(𝒵(\zeta ))`$ from their initial values through an angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (in the counterclockwise direction) related to the change in $`\varphi `$ (in the clockwise direction) from its initial value by the constant ratio (35). Inside the boost zone $`u(𝒵(\zeta )`$ and $`e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(𝒵(\zeta ))`$ simply swap causality properties and a boost replaces the rotation. On the boost zone boundary where $`u(𝒵(\zeta )`$ is null, a little more effort is required to get such an orthonormal frame.

## 8 Fermi-Walker transport

Finally one can construct the corresponding Fermi frames along the timelike circular orbits by considering the relationship between parallel transport and Fermi-Walker transport. If one considers the spacetime Fermi-Walker transport equation (4) applied to a vector $`X`$ which is orthogonal to $`u`$, i.e. ‘spatial’, then its Fermi-Walker derivative is also spatial so spatially projecting the equation leads to

$$\frac{D_{(\mathrm{fw})}X}{ds}=P(u)\frac{D_{(\mathrm{fw})}X}{ds}=P(u)\frac{DX}{ds}.$$
(41)
Thus for spatial vectors, Fermi-Walker transport is just spatially projected parallel transport at the derivative level.

Projecting the covariant derivative of the vector field $`e_{\widehat{r}}`$ (given by Eq. (38)) into the local rest space of $`u(\zeta )`$ yields its Fermi-Walker derivative along $`u(\zeta )`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{D_{(\mathrm{fw})}e_{\widehat{r}}}{d\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`P(U(\zeta )){\displaystyle \frac{De_{\widehat{r}}}{d\varphi }}={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\varphi }}P(u(\zeta ))e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(𝒵(\zeta ))`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\varphi }}\gamma (u(𝒵(\zeta )),u(\zeta ))e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta ).`$
Thus the ratio between the Fermi-Walker transport angle in the plane of $`e_{\widehat{r}}`$ and $`e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta )`$ of the local rest space of $`u(\zeta )`$ and the orbital angle is instead

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\mathrm{fw})}(\zeta )}{d\varphi }=\gamma (u(𝒵(\zeta )),u(\zeta ))\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }(\zeta )}{d\varphi },$$
(43)
with an extra relative gamma factor describing the inverse Lorentz contraction which occurs in the projection, which has unit value for geodesics where this projection reduces to the identity. The relative gamma factor may be expressed in terms of the ZAMO gamma factors  as

$$\gamma (u(𝒵(\zeta )),u(\zeta ))=\gamma (𝒵(\zeta ))\gamma (\zeta )[1\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}(𝒵(\zeta ))\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta )].$$
(44)
This extra gamma factor for Fermi-Walker transport relative to parallel transport allows $`D\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\mathrm{fw})}(\zeta )/d\varphi >1`$, which can then lead to a retrograde rotation rather than a prograde rotation as in the parallel transport case. Indeed in the flat spacetime limit where $`𝒵(\zeta )=0`$ (no tilt of the parallel transport plane relative to the Minkowski space time coordinate hypersurfaces), $`\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}=0`$ (the limiting GMPOs follow the time coordinate lines) and $`R=\rho =r`$ (no spatial curvature), only this factor $`\gamma (u(0),u(\zeta ))=\gamma (\zeta )`$ remains and leads to the retrograde Thomas precession in the local rest space of the circular orbit with angular frequency $`d\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\mathrm{fw})}(\zeta )/d\varphi 1=\gamma (\zeta )1`$ described explicitly in exercise 6.9 of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.

To explicitly construct a Fermi-Walker transported frame along one of these circular orbits, say for an angular velocity $`\zeta `$ outside the boost zone at a radius outside the GMPO horizon, one can take $`e_0=u(\zeta )`$ and $`e_3=e_{\widehat{\theta }}`$, which are orthogonal and Fermi-Walker transported along the orbit, and the pair of orthonormal unit vectors $`e_1,e_2`$ in the orthogonal 2-plane which result from the Fermi-Walker transport of the vectors $`e_{\widehat{r}}`$ and $`e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta )`$ respectively from their initial values through an angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\mathrm{fw})}`$ (in the counterclockwise direction) related to the change in $`\varphi `$ (in the clockwise direction) from its initial value by the constant ratio (43).

With the abbreviations $`\gamma =\gamma (\zeta )`$ and $`\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}=\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta )`$, one has

$$e_0=u(\zeta )=\gamma [n+\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}e_{\widehat{\varphi }}],e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta )=\gamma [e_{\widehat{\varphi }}+\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}n],$$
(45)
or

$$e_0\pm e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta )=e^{\pm \alpha }[n\pm e_{\widehat{\varphi }}],$$
(46)
where $`\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}=\mathrm{tanh}\alpha `$. Next, letting $`e_\pm =e_1\pm ie_2`$, one has to apply the Fermi rotation to the $`e_{\widehat{r}}`$-$`e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta )`$ plane

$$e_+=e_1+ie_2=e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\mathrm{fw})}}[e_{\widehat{r}}+ie_{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta )],$$
(47)
where one can take $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\mathrm{fw})}=(D\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\mathrm{fw})}/d\varphi )\varphi `$ along the orbit $`\varphi =\zeta t+\varphi _0`$. Letting $`e_3=e_{\widehat{\theta }}`$, then $`e_0,e_1,e_2,e_3`$ is a spatially righthanded Fermi frame, illustrated in Fig. 8 by suppressing the $`\theta `$ direction.

In the flat spacetime case, one has $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\mathrm{fw})}=\gamma \varphi `$ and $`\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}=r\zeta `$. This frame was apparently first given by Pirani (1957), as well as for the case of circular geodesics in the Schwarzschild spacetime, and later was used by Irvine (1964) and Corum (1980) to study Maxwell’s equations in a uniformly rotating coordinate system in Minkowski spacetime.

If $`n,e_x,e_y,e_z=e_{\widehat{\theta }}`$ is the nonrotating orthonormal inertial coordinate frame in Minkowski spacetime (at $`\theta =\pi /2`$), and therefore parallel transported along any curve, then it can be expressed in terms of the Fermi frame along a circular orbit with angular frequency $`\zeta `$ by a rotation by angle $`\gamma \varphi `$ in the $`e_1`$-$`e_2`$ plane, followed by a boost with velocity $`\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}`$ in the $`\varphi `$ direction, followed by a rotation by the angle $`\varphi `$ in the $`e_{\widehat{r}}`$-$`e_{\widehat{\varphi }}`$ plane

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}n\\ e_x\\ e_y\\ e_z\end{array}\right]=R(\varphi )B(\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }})R(\gamma \varphi )\left[\begin{array}{c}u\\ e_1\\ e_2\\ e_3\end{array}\right].$$
(48)
This is illustrated in Fig. 9.

The result of these three transformations, is

$`e_2`$ $`=`$ $`e_3,n=\gamma [u\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}\text{Im}(e^{i\gamma \varphi }e_+)],`$
$`e_x+ie_y`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i(\gamma 1)\varphi }e_++i(\gamma 1)e^{i\gamma \varphi }\text{Im}(e^{i\varphi }e_+)ie^{i\gamma \varphi }\gamma \nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}u.`$ (49)
If

$$S=S^nn+P(n)S,Su=0,S^n=Sn$$
(50)
is the spin vector of a test gyroscope carried along the circular orbit, belonging to the local rest space of the orbit, then its ‘laboratory’ components, letting $`S_\pm =Se_\pm `$, $`S_x=Se_x`$, etc., are

$`S_z`$ $`=`$ $`S_3,S^n=\gamma \nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}\text{Im}(e^{i\gamma \varphi }S_+),`$
$`S_x+iS_y`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i(\gamma 1)\varphi }S_++i(\gamma 1)e^{i\gamma \varphi }\text{Im}(e^{i\varphi }S_+).`$ (51)
Note that the Fermi frame components are constants since the spin vector is Fermi-Walker transported. The case $`S_2=0`$, $`S_+=S_1=S_3`$ reproduces Eqn. (6.28) of Misner, Thorne Wheeler.

The first term on the right hand side of the last equation, together with $`S_z`$, is the boosted spin vector $`B(n,u)S`$ actively boosted back from the local rest space of the circular orbit to the local rest space of the nonrotating laboratory frame, while the second term is the distortion in the spin vector due to its relative motion. The active boost identifies $`e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(\zeta )`$ and $`e_{\widehat{\varphi }}`$, removing the passive boost sandwiched between the two passive rotations which simply re-expresses the frames in terms of each other, leading to the pure rotation $`R((\gamma 1)\varphi )`$ of the laboratory boosted spin vector compared to the laboratory axes with the Thomas precession angular velocity

$$(\gamma 1)\zeta =\frac{\gamma ^2\nu ^2}{\gamma +1}\zeta ,$$
(52)
a secular precession which grows with time. The distortion term is a mere periodic oscillation which averages out in time.

This decomposition of the measured spatial vector is valid in general

$$P(n)S=B(n,u)S+[\gamma (n,u)1][\widehat{\nu }(n,u)S]\widehat{\nu }(u,n)$$
(53)
and is illustrated in Fig. 10 and discussed in Refs. 7, 36. Long term secular effects can be described by the boosted spin vector, which precesses with a constant angular velocity, while the second term is a periodic oscillation analogous to the stellar aberration effect for null directions. In fact in a gyroscope experiment, with the fixed stars as the reference, it is the spin vector boosted into the local rest space of the static observers which gives the secular spin precession formula (subtracting out the stellar aberration effect), since it is the static observers which are locked onto the distantly nonrotating observers, i.e., the fixed stars. This is calculated exactly for black hole spacetimes in Ref. 8. It is exactly this factor of $`\gamma (n,u)1`$ which occurs in the projection compared to the boost which leads to the relative (difference) precession frequency itself from Eq. (42).

The relationship between the parallel transported and Fermi-Walker transported axes remains true for circular orbits in black hole or even more general stationary axisymmetric spacetimes if for the parallel transported frame one takes $`u(𝒵(\zeta ))`$ in place of $`n`$ and $`e_{\widehat{\varphi }}(𝒵(\zeta ))`$ in place of $`e_{\widehat{\varphi }}`$ in the above discussion, with $`\gamma `$ replaced by the relative gamma factor $`\gamma (u(\zeta ),u(𝒵(\zeta )))`$. The secular precession of Fermi-Walker transport compared to parallel transport is governed by the same frequency relationship

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\mathrm{fw})}(\zeta )}{dt}\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }(\zeta )}{dt}=[\gamma (u(\zeta ),u(𝒵(\zeta )))1]\zeta ,$$
(54)
for which the Thomas precession is a special case. This relationship should remain valid for helical motion in stationary cylindrically symmetric spacetimes as well.

By considering the natural Frenet-Seret frame along a circular orbit (see Ref. 40 and the appendix of 6), with curvature $`\kappa `$ (magnitude of the acceleration in the timelike case) and first torsion $`\tau _1`$, while the second torsion $`\tau _2`$ vanishes in the equatorial plane, one easily sees the direct relationship between $`u(𝒵(\zeta ))`$ and $`u(\zeta )`$ can be expressed through the their relative velocity

$$\nu ^{\widehat{\varphi }}(u(𝒵(\zeta )),u(\zeta ))=\frac{\kappa }{\tau _1}=\frac{1}{\nu _{gmp}}\frac{(\nu \nu _+)(\nu \nu _{})}{(\nu \nu _{crit+})(\nu \nu _{crit})}.$$
(55)
Here the abbreviations $`\nu _\pm `$ denote the pair of geodesic relative velocities (zeros of $`\kappa `$), while $`\nu _{crit\pm }`$ denote the corresponding critical velocities for $`\kappa `$ and $`\nu _{gmp}`$ the GMPO relative velocity, all with respect to the ZAMOs. This formula follows from formulas (A.5) of Ref. 6 for $`\tau _1`$ and formulas (4.7) and (4.8) of Ref. 8. It can be directly expressed in terms of the relative velocities with respect to the circular orbit itself as follows

$$\nu (u(𝒵(\zeta )),u(\zeta ))=2\left(\frac{1}{\nu (u(\zeta _{\mathrm{geo}+}),u(\zeta ))}+\frac{1}{\nu (u(\zeta _{\mathrm{geo}}),u(\zeta ))}\right)^1.$$
(56)
Since the reciprocal map is the bar map giving the relative velocity of the orthogonal direction in the circular orbit cylinder, i.e. the angular direction for a timelike orbit, this states that the relative velocity of the direction along this cylinder giving the orientation of the Lorentz transformation plane is the average of the relative velocities of the local rest space angular directions of the pair of geodesics (when they are timelike).

The extremely accelerated observers have relative velocity $`\nu _{crit}`$ and not only see the timelike circular geodesics with the same relative speed but opposite directions, but also see the entire boost zone symmetrically. One can show that the map $`𝒵`$ when expressed in terms of relative velocities with respect to these observers (tilde notation) takes the simple form

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }_+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}/\stackrel{~}{\nu }\text{(where}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}=\stackrel{~}{\nu }_+)$$
(57)
characteristic of nonrotating black hole spacetimes, which implies that the boost zone endpoint velocities then become $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }(𝒵(\zeta _\pm ))=\stackrel{~}{\nu }_+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}`$. Thus parallel transport along circular orbits links together in various ways not only the GMPOs, Carter observers and static observers but also the extremely accelerated observers.

## 9 Circular Holonomy and Clock Effects?

What does all of this have to do with circular holonomy and clock effects? Rotation in black hole spacetimes introduces an asymmetry between the corotating and counterrotating circular geodesics. The various clock effects measure the difference between the two periods as seen by a given circularly rotating observer for one circuit compared to that observer (either the proper time periods measured by the geodesics themselves, or the observer proper-time periods). Choosing the observers to be the GMPOs leads to the observer-independent clock effect measuring the difference in the geodesic proper periods between every second geodesic crossing point. While all this clock time comparison is going on, it is reasonable to compare gyro spins as well to see how the rotation effects these differently on the pair of geodesics.

Holonomy is the study of how curvature affects vectors during parallel transport around closed loops from a fixed reference point; since parallel transport preserves length, only the direction can change by an element of the Lorentz group with respect to a fixed orthonormal frame in the tangent space at the reference point. The holonomy group at a given point is the subgroup of the Lorentz group which contains all the Lorentz transformations which result from all possible loops starting and stopping at that point. If one restricts the loops to piecewise smooth stationary circular orbits at a fixed radius in the equatorial plane of a black hole, one explores a subset of the holonomy group. The simplest such closed loops are the closed $`\varphi `$ loops characterized completely by the integer number $`q`$ of corotating $`q>0`$ or counterrotating $`q<0`$ circuits.

One can ask when this discrete set of holonomy Lorentz transformations contains the identity. Since parallel transport induces a one-parameter family of such transformations along the orbit relative to the orthonormal spherical frame, the radius must be in the rotation zone in order for these transformations to return to the identity. The rotation zone corresponds to where the GMPOs are timelike, a zone which terminates at their horizon approaching the black hole where $`\gamma (\zeta _{(\mathrm{mgp})})\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\varphi }(2\pi q)=2\pi p\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\varphi }=p/q$$
(58)
shows that in this zone where $`0<d\mathrm{\Phi }/d\varphi <1`$, for each proper fractional rational number value of this relative frequency function (which occurs at a dense set of radii in this zone), parallel transport will return every vector to its original state after a certain number of loops, leading to what Rothman, Ellis and Murugan have called a band of holonomy invariance extending from the GMPO horizon out to infinity. For black hole spacetimes only, this relative frequency function turns out to be the ratio of the proper (self) period of the GMPOs for one $`\varphi `$ coordinate loop to the average coordinate time period of the pair of oppositely rotating circular geodesics for the same loop, i.e., the time as seen by the distantly nonrotating observers far from the hole.

One can consider a stationary circular orbit which does not close but these are helices in spacetime so one needs two such orbits joined together at an initial point to obtain closed circuits. If one takes one to be one of the various geometrically preferred observers which generalize different aspects of the static spacetime nonrotating observers and the other a timelike geodesic, one can compare how a vector transported around the hole on a circular geodesic compares to the one carried by the observer when they meet. Or one can take a pair of oppositely rotating timelike circular geodesics which start at a common initial point. In the latter case for black holes only, the relative frequency function for each geodesic is also a simple ratio of the proper period (for a circuit defined by the geodesic crossing points themselves) to the average coordinate period for one $`\varphi `$ coordinate loop.

However, parallel transported vectors along timelike curves are not directly connected with an interesting physical property, while Fermi-Walker transported vectors describe how test gyros behave along these world lines, so it makes sense to extend the notion of holonomy to Fermi-Walker transport in order to compare how gyro spin vectors differ along different circular orbits from the same initial point when they meet again. This requires allowing a relative boost to identify corresponding spin vectors at meeting points since the spin vectors lie in distinct local rest spaces in general. This leads to ‘spin holonomy’. For clock effect oppositely-rotating timelike circular geodesic pairs, this discussion also involves the clock effect periods.

Circular orbits have grabbed the imaginations of so many of us over the past century. The present discussion has shown that their geometric richness has still not yet been depleted and has led to further insight about Fermi-Walker transport itself in this context.

## Acknowledgements

Professor Luigi Stazi is thanked for his help in obtaining Levi-Civita’s articles from the library of the Mathematics Department of the University of Rome “La Sapienza” where Levi-Civita taught for many years.


text:
# Rare Hadronic and Radiative Penguin B Decays at BABAR

## 1 MOTIVATION

A major effort is currently underway to test the flavor sector of the Standard Model (SM) in general and the origin of CP violation in particular. Measurements of the time-dependent CP-asymmetries in $`B^0J/\psi K_s^0`$ decays have led to the first observation of CP violation  in the $`B^0\text{}\overline{B^0}`$ system and to a measurement of the phase $`\beta `$ of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix element $`V_{td}`$–the current world average is $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.79\pm 0.10`$. The magnitude of $`V_{td}`$ is constrained by studies of $`B^0`$ and $`B_s^0`$ mixing and is expected to be determined with an uncertainty of $`5\%`$ in the near future.

The determination of the magnitude and phase ($`\gamma `$) of the CKM element $`V_{ub}`$ is expected to be much more difficult, due in part to the small rate for $`bu`$ transitions ($`0.51\%`$ compared to the rate for $`bc`$ transitions). In parallel with the measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ with $`B^0J/\psi K_s^0`$ decays, one can in principle determine $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$ from the time-dependent asymmetry in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays (where $`\alpha =\pi (\beta +\gamma )`$). However, the study of charmless two-body $`B`$ decays has shown that gluonic penguin $`bd`$ processes contribute significantly to the overall $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay rate and have a different weak phase than the dominant $`bu`$ tree process, thereby preventing a straightforward interpretation of the measured asymmetry. Improved understanding of gluonic penguins is thus of very high importance and constitutes an important challenge for current experiments.

Another motivation to study rare hadronic and radiative penguin decays is that many of these decays proceed via effective flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) transitions. Such FCNC processes are forbidden at tree level and involve heavy particles in loops (e.g. $`W`$ boson or top quark). This implies that the rates are low but also that such processes are sensitive to the presence of heavy non-SM particles in the loops.

Besides the measurement of decay rates, one can also study CP violation in the decay (a.k.a. direct CP violation). In this case, the relevant observable is

$$A_{CP}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}\overline{f})\mathrm{\Gamma }(Bf)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}\overline{f})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(Bf)}.$$
(1)
If both penguin and tree decay amplitudes contribute to the decay, the asymmetry can be expressed as

$$A_{CP}=\frac{2|P||T|\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\delta }{|P|^2+|T|^2+2|P||T|\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\delta },$$
(2)
where $`|P|`$ and $`|T|`$ represent the magnitudes of the penguin and tree decay amplitudes, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$ correspond to the difference between the weak and strong phases for the penguin and tree amplitudes, respectively. From this expression it can be seen that $`A_{CP}`$ is expected to be very small in the SM (less than 1%) for penguin-dominated decays like $`B\varphi K^{()},K^0\pi ,K^{}\gamma `$, and thus the observation of large CP asymmetries in these modes would clearly signal the presence of new physics in the penguin loops.

## 2 EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

In the following, we report the results of analyses based on a sample of 23 million $`B\overline{B}`$ events collected by the BABAR Collaboration at the asymmetric-energy PEP-II $`e^+e^{}`$ collider. This sample corresponds to 20.7 $`\text{ fb}^1`$ of $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation data recorded at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. An additional (off-resonance) sample corresponding to 2.6 $`\text{ fb}^1`$ recorded 40 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ below the resonance is also used to study continuum backgrounds. Charged particles are tracked and measured with the combination of a five-layer double-sided silicon microstrip detector and a 40-layer drift chamber immersed in a 1.5 T solenoidal magnetic field. Surrounding the tracking systems, a Cherenkov ring imaging detector (DIRC) relying on total internal reflection of the Cherenkov light produced in 4.9 m-long quartz bars provides charged particle identification. A Thallium-doped CsI electromagnetic calorimeter is used for photon detection and electron identification. Finally, an instrumented flux return provides muon and $`K_L^0`$ identification. Further detail about the BABAR detector is given elsewhere .

Most of the analyses presented here attempt to fully reconstruct the $`B`$ decay. To do so, we rely on the well-known beam energies and exploit kinematical constraints from energy and momentum conservation in the $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B\overline{B}`$ process. Two mostly uncorrelated kinematical variables are used: the beam-energy substituted mass, $`m_{ES}=\sqrt{E_{beam}^2𝐩_B^2}`$, and the energy difference in the $`e^+e^{}`$ center-of-mass system (CMS), $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_B^{}E_{beam}^{}`$, where $`E_{beam}^{}`$ and $`E_B^{}`$ are the energies of the beam and the $`B`$ meson candidate, and $`𝐩_B^{}`$ is the $`B`$ meson candidate momentum vector, all quantities being defined in the CMS. In some analyses, a kinematical fit is performed on the momenta of the $`B`$ decay products by imposing $`E_B^{}=E_{beam}^{}`$ and the corresponding energy-constrained mass $`m_{EC}`$ is used. The $`m_{ES}`$ resolution is dominated by the beam energy spread and has a typical value of 2.5 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ resolution is different for each particular final state and ranges between 20 and 70 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ (the resolution is noticeably worse for modes containing photons or $`\pi ^0\text{ }\mathrm{s}`$).

With the exception of the $`BK^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ analysis, the background from $`B\overline{B}`$ events is small or negligible for all other analyses. The dominant background from $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ continuum events ($`q=u,d,s,c`$) is suppressed using event shape and energy flow variables. These variables exploit the fact that $`B\overline{B}`$ events are much more spherical than continuum events due to the small $`B`$ momentum ($`340`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$) in the CMS.

Analyses have been optimized and tested using signal and background Monte Carlo samples, as well as off-resonance data and side-band data. The signal region remained hidden during this optimization and validation process.

## 3 RADIATIVE PENGUIN DECAYS

As mentioned earlier, the measurement of $`B^0`$ and $`B_s^0`$ oscillation frequencies will soon provide a determination of the ratio $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|`$ with an uncertainty of $`5\%`$. Radiative penguin decays are also sensitive to the same CKM elements and can provide a complementary determination via the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B\rho \gamma )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(BK^{}\gamma )`$.

A first step toward such a measurement is the determination of the branching fraction for $`BK^{}\gamma `$ decays. The analysis proceeds with the selection of high-energy photons with $`1.5<E_\gamma <4.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`2.30<E_\gamma ^{}<2.85\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the laboratory and CMS frames, respectively. Photons consistent with originating from $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\eta `$ decays are removed. Photons are further required to be isolated to remove contamination from high-energy $`\pi ^0`$ decays. $`K^{}`$ candidates are reconstructed in $`K^+\pi ^{}`$, $`K_S^0\pi ^0`$, $`K^+\pi ^0`$ and $`K_S^0\pi ^+`$ modes111Charged conjugate states are implied throughout, unless noted otherwise., making use of DIRC information to select charged kaons. The dominant backgrounds consist of events with photons from initial state radiation or from $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\eta `$ decay. These are suppressed by utilizing event shape variables, the polar angle of the $`B`$ candidate and the helicity angle of the $`K^{}`$ decay.

$`BK^{}\gamma `$ candidates are required to satisfy $`m_{ES}>5.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`0.2<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.1\mathrm{GeV}`$ (for $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K_S^0\pi ^+`$ modes) or $`0.225<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.125\mathrm{GeV}`$ (for $`K_S^0\pi ^0`$ and $`K^+\pi ^0`$ modes). An unbinned likelihood method is used to extract signal yields from the $`m_{ES}`$ distributions, see Fig. 1. The branching fractions for each of the four modes are shown in Table 1. Averaging the two $`K^0`$ and $`K^+`$ modes yields $`(B^0K^0\gamma )=(42.3\pm 4.0(\mathrm{stat})\pm 2.2(\mathrm{syst}))\times 10^6`$ and $`(B^+K^+\gamma )=(38.3\pm 6.2(\mathrm{stat})\pm 2.2(\mathrm{syst}))\times 10^6`$. These values, although somewhat lower, agree with recent theoretical predictions, given the $`40\%`$ uncertainty in the predictions.

We have also searched for the rare decay $`B^0\gamma \gamma `$, which is predicted to have a branching fraction in the range of $`(0.12.3)\times 10^8`$ within the SM. However, this could be enhanced by new physics contributing to the loops. Given the current size of the event sample, any observation would be clear evidence for physics beyond the SM. The analysis proceeds in a way similar to the $`K^{}\gamma `$ analysis. One event is found in the signal region, defined by the $`\pm 2\sigma `$ ranges $`|m_{ES}m_{B^0}|<0.0078\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<0.144\mathrm{GeV}`$, in agreement with the expected background of 0.9 event. As a result, a limit is set to be $`(B^0\gamma \gamma )<1.7\times 10^6`$ at the 90% C.L. This represents a factor of 20 improvement over the best previous limit.

We have searched for $`B^+K^{()+}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ with $`K^+K_S^0\pi ^+`$ and $`B^0K^{()0}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ with $`K^0K^+\pi ^{}`$. Not only does this analysis need to suppress background from continuum events, it also needs to suppress background from $`B\overline{B}`$ events. Major sources of $`B\overline{B}`$ background are events in which both $`B`$ mesons decay semileptonically or one decays to $`J/\psi K^{()}`$ or $`\psi (2\mathrm{S})K^{()}`$ final states with $`J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ or $`\psi (2\mathrm{S})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. It is particularly important to suppress $`B`$ decays to charmonium since these have characteristics that are similar to the signal. The event yields are extracted with an unbinned likelihood fit in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$-$`m_{ES}`$ plane. The overall efficiencies for the different modes range between 6% for $`K^+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and 18% for $`K^+e^+e^{}`$. No significant signal is observed but the limits (see Table 1) are close to SM calculations.

## 4 RARE HADRONIC B DECAYS

Rare hadronic decays have been searched for in two-body, quasi two-body and three-body modes. In the case of two-body decays, the following topologies are examined: $`h^+h^{}`$, $`h^+\pi ^0`$, $`K_S^0h^+`$, $`K_S^0\pi ^0`$ and $`K_S^0K_S^0`$, where $`h`$ represents a charged pion or kaon. Signal yields are extracted using an extended likelihood function taking all relevant topologies into account. The likelihood incorporates information from event kinematics ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`m_{ES}`$), event shape and energy flow via a Fisher discriminant, as well as mode-specific information like the Cherenkov angle for charged hadrons, the invariant mass for $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ candidates or the helicity angle. This analysis benefits from the excellent $`\pi /K`$ separation provided by the DIRC. The significance of the separation is greater than $`4\sigma `$ up to laboratory momenta of 3 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ and is $`2.5\sigma `$ at the highest momentum ($`4.3`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$).

Signal yields and branching fractions are summarized in Table 2. The large rate for $`K\pi `$ final states as compared to $`\pi \pi `$ final states confirms the previous observation by the CLEO Collaboration. Since tree diagrams for $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ decays are Cabibbo-suppressed as compared to $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays, the larger rate for $`K\pi `$ final states is a clear indication that gluonic penguin diagrams contribute significantly to the decay.

A host of quasi two-body decays were also studied. These involve $`\omega `$, $`\eta `$, $`\eta ^{}`$ or $`\varphi `$ resonances and offer another window to study decays mediated by either or both tree and penguin decay amplitudes. For example, $`B\omega \pi `$ decays are dominated by tree decay amplitudes, whereas $`B\varphi K`$ decays are dominated by gluonic penguin decay amplitudes. The later decay mode also holds the promise of a $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ measurement via the time-dependent asymmetry in $`B^0\varphi K_S^0`$. Such a measurement is of interest to test the consistency of the CKM picture in two different decay mechanisms, $`B^0J/\psi K_s^0`$ involving $`bc\overline{c}s`$ transitions and $`B^0\varphi K_S^0`$ involving $`bs\overline{s}s`$ transitions. $`B\varphi K^0`$ and $`B^+\varphi K^+`$ decays were first observed by the BABAR Collaboration. A significant signal is also observed in $`B^+\omega \pi ^+`$ decays, see Table 2 and Fig. 2.

Previous studies of $`B\eta ^{()}K^{()}`$ decays reported a surprizingly large branching fraction. With a larger data sample, we confirm higher than expected rates for $`B\eta K^{}`$ and $`B\eta ^{}K`$ decays, see Table 2 and Fig. 2. Since tree contributions are Cabibbo-suppressed one needs to invoke a large enhancement in the penguin contributions, possibly originating from interference between different penguin amplitudes ($`g^{}u\overline{u}`$ and $`g^{}s\overline{s}`$).

To further explore the large decay rate into $`\eta ^{}`$, we have performed a semi-inclusive reconstruction of the decay $`B\eta ^{}X_s`$, where $`X_s`$ represents a hadronic system with non-zero strangeness. The $`\eta ^{}`$ candidates are reconstructed in the $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel (with $`\eta \gamma \gamma `$) and are required to have momentum $`p^{}>2`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ in the CMS to remove most of the $`bc\eta ^{}`$ background. The hadronic system is reconstructed in 16 different modes including one kaon and at most 3 pions (and no more than 1 $`\pi ^0`$). To discriminate between all combinations in a given event, the combination with the lowest value of $`\chi ^2=(\frac{m_{ES}m_B}{\sigma _{m_{ES}}})^2+(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }E}})^2`$ is selected. The rate for $`B\eta ^{}X_s`$ events with $`p_\eta ^{}^{}>2`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ is found to be $`(6.8_{1.0}^{+0.7}\pm 0.6_{0.5}^{+0.0})\times 10^4`$, where the first error is statistical, the second is systematic, and the third corresponds to the uncertainty in the contribution from $`B\eta ^{}D^{()0}`$ decays. This measurement confirms the large rate previously measured by CLEO. Such a large rate is generally believed to be due to the anomalous coupling of the $`\eta ^{}`$ to two gluons.

We have also investigated $`B`$ decays to three-body final states. Particularly promising is the decay $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$, which could provide a clean measurement of the CP-violating phase $`\alpha `$ via a Dalitz amplitude analysis. Due to the small expected signal yield, the current version of the analysis aims to determine the $`B`$ decay rates to $`\rho ^\pm (770)\pi ^{}`$, $`\rho ^0(770)\pi ^0`$, $`\rho ^\pm (1450)\pi ^{}`$, $`\rho ^0(1450)\pi ^0`$, $`(\mathrm{charged}\mathrm{scalar})^\pm \pi ^{}`$, $`f^0\pi ^0`$, and non-resonant $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ final states. A significant signal is found only in the $`B^0\rho ^\pm (770)\pi ^{}`$ mode.

Also promising for the measurement of $`\alpha `$ is the decay $`B^0a_0^\pm (980)\pi ^{}`$, which is expected to be free of main tree contributions. The analysis relies on a neural network algorithm to select $`B^0`$ decays to $`a_0^\pm (980)\pi ^{}`$, with $`a_0^\pm \eta \pi ^\pm `$ and $`\eta \gamma \gamma `$. A likelihood fit using the neural network output, $`\gamma \gamma `$ mass, $`m_{ES}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ extracts a signal yield of $`18.1_{7.4}^{+8.7}`$ events with a corresponding statistical significance of $`3.7\sigma `$. The $`\eta \pi ^\pm `$ invariant mass is not included in the fit because the parameters of the $`a_0`$ resonance are not well known.

Finally, we also measured the branching fraction for $`B^+`$ decays into $`K^0\pi ^+`$. Part of the interest in this process stems from the expectation that tree and penguin amplitudes have comparable magnitudes, which makes this decay an ideal candidate for the observation of direct CP violation, see Eq. 2. The measured yields and branching fractions for this and all other rare hadronic decays are summarized in Table 2.

## 5 DIRECT CP VIOLATION

We searched for CP violation in the decay of the flavor self-tagged modes listed in Table 3. The table shows the measured CP-asymmetries as defined in Eq. 1. For the $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ decay mode, an on-resonance sample with an integrated luminosity of 30.4 $`\text{ fb}^1`$ is used . In the case of the $`B^0\rho ^\pm \pi ^{}`$ mode, no tagging of the $`B^0`$ flavor is attempted and the asymmetry quoted in Table 3 corresponds to the asymmetry between the number of $`\rho ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\rho ^{}\pi ^+`$ events. No evidence for direct CP violation has been found but the precision is now better than 10% in some of the more abundant modes and, thus, these data become more useful in constraining models.

## 6 SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

The large data sample accumulated at the SLAC PEP-II B Factory is already providing a substantial amount of interesting results. We are now sensitive to rare $`B`$ decays with branching fractions as low as $`4\times 10^6`$. A search for direct CP violation in radiative penguin and rare hadronic decays finds no evidence for CP violation in the decay process. It should be noted that some of the results presented here are preliminary.

PEP-II is expected to deliver an integrated luminosity of approximately 100 $`\text{ fb}^1`$ by the summer of 2002, which will provide a five-fold increase in statistics compared to the results reported here. This will allow many more rare processes to be studied.


text:
# Kinetic-theory approach to Gluon Self-energy beyond Hard Thermal Loops This work is supported by NNSF of China under grant No. 10175026

## 1 Introduction

It is predicted that nuclear matter will transform to a quark-gluon plasma(QGP) from hadron matter at high temperature or density.

The temperature field theory and the kinetic theory are universally used to investigate the collective dynamics. First of all, the effective theory so-called the ”hard thermal loops”(HLT) for the soft gauge fields at the scale $`gT`$, where $`g`$ is gauge coupling and $`T`$ is temperature, is constructed according to the fully quantum field theory techniques. Soon afterwards, the effective action generating HTLs is straightforwardly derived from classical kinetic theory and the kinetic theory is compatible with the temperature field theory approaches in calculations of the polarization tensor. As well known, perturbation theory for non-Abelian gauge theories breaks down at the spatial momentum scale $`g^2T`$ even if the running gauge coupling $`g`$ is small. For static quantities, one can integrate out the high momentum modes($`pg^2T`$) in perturbation theory using dimensional reduction and then at leading order, the non-perturbative physics associated with the scale $`g^2T`$ can be treated in lattice simulations, of which the recent results show this contribution is small. However, dynamics quantities, such as transport coefficients, are sensitive to the scale $`g^2T`$ and more difficult to deal with due to failure of dimensional reduction for the consideration of non-zero real frequencies. In recent years, one devoted to constructing effective theories of the ultrasoft gauge fields(momentum scale $`g^2T`$) and fortunately obtained the effective theory by integrating out high momentum degrees of freedom using perturbation theory. To leading logarithmic contributions, the diagrammatic explanations is given. The results show that the contributions do not have an Abelian analogue since there are no hard thermal loop vertices in Abelian theories. Interestingly, there is another way to arrive at the same effective dynamics, that is so-called mean field dynamics from kinetic theory. Those furthermore demonstrate the connection between kinetic theory and temperature theory under specified conditions.

In this article, we will extend and apply the non-Abelian kinetic theory to compute the self-energy of the ultra-soft modes. The polarization tensor obtained by Bödeker method is from two effective one-loop contributions but they correspond to two 2-loop and a 3-loop diagrams in the original theory, which involves the sum over Matsubara frequencies while the sum is not easy to compute. In comparison with diagrammatic approach, the kinetic-theory appears to be much technically easier in calculus because some of the intrinsic complications of a quantum field theoretical description can be avoided. Especially, the kinetic-theory –the temperature field theory connection can further be uncovered by another representative example beyond the ”hard thermal/density loops”, i.e. from soft field dynamics in non-perturbation domain. This article is organized as follows: Sect.2 briefly reviews the the effective one-loop contributions to the 4-point function within the hard thermal loop effective theory. Sect.3 introduces the non-Abelian kinetic theory to compute the polarization tensor involving ultra-soft fields. Sect.4 gives the summary and discussion.

## 2 The effective one-loop polarization tensor

It is well-known that the one-loop diagrams for large loop momentum($`T`$) and soft external momentum($`gT`$) are called hard thermal loops(HTL’s). The HTL 2-point function, which is the same in Abelian and non-Abelian gauge theories, easily reads

$$\delta \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=m_D^2\left[g_{\mu 0}g_{\nu 0}+p_0\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐯}{4\pi }\frac{v_\mu v_\nu }{vP}\right]$$
(1)
where the factor $`m_D`$ is Debye mass, of which the square is equal to $`(1/3)(N+N_f/2)g^2T^2`$ for a SU($`N`$) gauge theory with $`N_f`$ fermions.

For momenta $`p_0,pgT`$, the resummatiom of the hard thermal loop can give the correction to the tree level kinetic term. However, the investigations found that the HTL approximation is not sufficient for obtaining the correct effective theory for the softer modes. The some higher loop contributions should be considered. The two- and three-diagrams by adding soft lines($`gT`$) in hard momenta($`T`$) (see fig 1 and fig 3 in ) are shown to be as large as $`\delta \mathrm{\Pi }(P)`$ when the external momenta $`p_0`$ and $`p`$ are of order $`g^2T`$ or smaller. Fortunately, the higher loop diagrams can be regard as two effective one-loop diagrams with so-called hard thermal loop vertices( fig (a) and (b)).

Thus the one-loop polarization tensors corresponding respectively to two 2-loop(with a hard loop momentum) and a 3-loop(with two hard loop momenta) diagrams in original theory can be computed if ones use the HTL effective theory. Bödeker derived from those after complicated treatments

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}(P)\frac{i}{4\pi }m_D^2Ng^2Tp_0\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐯}{4\pi }\frac{v_\mu v_\nu }{(vP)^2}\left[\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{gT}{\mu }\right)+\mathrm{finite}\right],$$
(2)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(3)}(P)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi ^2}}m_D^2Ng^2Tp_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐯_1}}{4\pi }\frac{v_{1\mu }}{v_1P}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐯_2}}{4\pi }\frac{v_{2\nu }}{v_2P}}`$ (3)
$`\left[\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{gT}{\mu }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(𝐯_1𝐯_2)^2}{\sqrt{1(𝐯_1𝐯_2)^2}}}+\mathrm{finite}\right],`$
where supperscripts 2 and 3 represent respectively the 2- and 3-loop contributions in original theory while $`\mu `$ in logarithmic term is a introduced scale, which denotes a separation of ultra-soft momenta from momenta of order $`gT`$, such that

$$g^2T\mu gT.$$
(4)
Adding Eqs(2) and (3), the polarization tensor at leading logarithmic accuracy becomes

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{LA})}(P)=\frac{i}{4\pi }m_D^2Ng^2T\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{gT}{\mu }\right)p_0\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐯_1}}{4\pi }\frac{v_{1\mu }}{v_1P}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐯_2}}{4\pi }\frac{v_{2\nu }}{v_2P}I(𝐯_1,𝐯_2).$$
(5)
This expression is identical with ref except that a prefactor $`\frac{1}{4\pi }`$ exists. It is because we here adopt Litim’s notation

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }I(𝐯_1,𝐯_2)=0,$$
(6)
with

$$I(𝐯_1,𝐯_2)=\delta ^{(2)}(𝐯_1𝐯_2)\frac{4}{\pi }\frac{(𝐯_1𝐯_2)^2}{\sqrt{1(𝐯_1𝐯_2)^2}},$$
(7)
while it has $`d\mathrm{\Omega }I(𝐯_1,𝐯_2)=0`$ in ref instead.

## 3 Calculus of gluon self-energy based on kinetic theory

The results obtained above are based on full field theory, which have been done in detail in. As we have known, the leading kinetic equations closed to thermal equilibrium can derive the HTL’s self-energy as well as field theory method. Hence we here hope to reproduce the polarization tensor beyond HTL in the framework of classical kinetic theory.

### 3.1 Classical kinetic equations in non-Abelian plasma

The definite trajectories described with $`x(\tau ),p(\tau )`$ and $`Q(\tau )`$ for color classical particles are govern by Wong equations

$$m\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }=p^\mu ,m\frac{dp^\mu }{d\tau }=gQ^aF_a^{\mu \nu }p_\nu ,m\frac{dQ^a}{d\tau }=gp_\mu f^{abc}A_b^\mu Q_c$$
(8)
From Liouville’s theorem $`\frac{df}{d\tau }=0`$, we can immediately get

$$p^\mu [_\mu gf^{abc}A_\mu ^bQ_c_a^QgQ_aF_{\mu \nu }^a_p^\nu ]f(x,p,Q)=0,$$
(9)
where, $`f_{abc}`$ are the structure constants of SU($`N`$), $`A_\mu ^a`$ denotes the microscopic vector gauge field, $`F_{\mu \nu }^a[A]=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+gf_{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c`$ is the corresponding microscopic field strength govern by Yang-Mills field equations

$$D_\mu F^{\mu \nu }(x)=J^\nu (x).$$
(10)
It couples to the kinetic equation (9) by the currents

$$J_a^\mu (x)=g𝑑P𝑑Qp^\mu Q_af(x,p,Q).$$
(11)
with the integral measure $`\mathrm{d}P\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{P}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }`$, where $`\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{P}=4\pi \mathrm{d}p_0\mathrm{d}|𝐩||𝐩|^22\mathrm{\Theta }(p_0)\delta (p^2)`$

In principle, the set of equations can be applied to all collective dynamics except quantum effects. When ones expand the distribution function $`f(x,p,Q)`$ in powers of $`g`$, a polarization tensor formulated as eq(1) can easily be derived from the Boltzmann equation for $`f^{(1)}`$, the distribution function at leading order in $`g`$.

### 3.2 Beyond HTL

The deviation $`f^{(1)}`$ from equilibrium distribution function is thought of as a small fluctuation closed to equilibrium state. Therefore the excitation induced by the fluctuation is of order $`gT`$. This just corresponds to the situation of HTL approximation. However the ultra-soft field(or mean field called in) dynamics can be constructed in the framework of kinetic theory if we take statistical average over Eqs(9),(10)and (11). This effective transport theory gives a detail description in. Here we give a slightly different simplified version in comparison with Litim-Manuel theory. The quantities $`A_\mu ^a,f,J_a^\mu `$ are decomposed into mean terms and fluctuation terms

$$A_\mu ^a=\overline{A}_\mu ^a+a_\mu ^a,f=\overline{f}+\delta f,J_a^\mu =\overline{J}_a^\mu +\delta J_a^\mu ,$$
(12)
Keeping only the terms including the largest contributions, we have the equations for mean fields and fluctuations

$$p^\mu (\overline{D}_\mu gQ_a\overline{F}_{\mu \nu }^a_p^\nu )\overline{f}=\overline{\xi },$$
(13)
$$p^\mu \overline{D}_\mu \delta f=gp^\mu Q_af_{\mu \nu }^a_\nu ^p\overline{f}+gp^\mu a_{b,\mu }f^{abc}Q_c_a^Q\overline{f},$$
(14)
$$D_\mu ^ff_a^{\mu \nu }=\delta J_\nu ^a,$$
(15)
where $`\overline{D}D[\overline{A}],D^fD[a],\overline{F}F[\overline{A}],ff[a]`$ and $`\xi `$ reads

$$\xi =gp^\mu f^{abc}Q^c_a^Qa_a^\mu \delta f.$$
(16)
For convenience, we use the Litim-manuel’s notion to define a new quantity $`𝒥`$ by the following relation

$$J(x)=\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }𝒥(x,v).$$
(17)
It now is well reasoned that the equations(13) and (14) transform into the ones for currents $`𝒥`$ and $`\delta 𝒥`$ by the integration of Eqs(13)and (14) over d$`\stackrel{~}{P}`$d$`Q`$

$$v^\mu \overline{D}_\mu \overline{𝒥}^\rho +m_D^2v^\mu v^\nu \overline{F}_{\mu 0}=\overline{\xi }^\rho ,$$
(18)
$$(v^\mu \overline{D}_\mu \delta 𝒥^\rho )_a=m_D^2v^\rho v^\mu f_{a,\mu 0}gf_{abc}v^\mu a_\mu ^b\overline{𝒥}^{c,\rho },$$
(19)
and hence we have

$$\xi _a^\rho =gf_{abc}v^\mu a_\mu ^b\delta 𝒥^{c,\rho }.$$
(20)
From these, we can reproduce the equations found in follows as

$$v^\mu D_\mu 𝒥^\rho (x,v)+m_D^2v^\rho v^\mu F_{\mu 0}(x)=\gamma v^\rho \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐯^{}}{4\pi }I(𝐯,𝐯^{})𝒥^0(x,v^{})+\zeta ^\rho (x,v),$$
(21)
Here we remove the notion bar denoting the mean fields, the $`\zeta ^\rho `$ represents the stochastic noise, the coefficient $`\gamma `$ reads

$$\gamma =\frac{g^2}{4\pi }NT\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{gT}{\mu }\right).$$
(22)
Combining the equations and the Yang-Mills equations of mean fields together, Litim and Manuel derived the color conductivity with the logarithmic effect $`\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{gT}{\mu }\right)`$.

### 3.3 Self-energy beyond HTL approximation

We can now proceed to do calculations from eq(21) to obtain the polarization tensor beyond HTL approximation. We adopted the iterating method in  to solve the equation(21). The distinct scale parameters involving (21) are well separated

$$g^2T\gamma gTT.$$
(23)
Then we expand $`𝒥^\mu (x,v)`$ in term of $`\frac{\gamma }{vD}`$ close to the scale of $`gT`$

$$𝒥^\mu (x,v)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒥_{(n)}^\mu (x,v),$$
(24)
Therefore, for momenta about the Debye mass, it immediately has

$$v^\mu D_\mu 𝒥_{(0)}^\rho (x,v)=m_D^2v^\rho v^\mu F_{\mu 0}(x)+\zeta ^\rho (x,v),$$
(25)
while for momenta below the Debye mass, the damping term of collision integral is important,

$$v^\mu D_\mu 𝒥_{(n)}^\rho (x,v)=\gamma v^\rho \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐯^{}}{4\pi }I(𝐯,𝐯^{})𝒥_{(n1)}^0(x,v^{}).$$
(26)
The current $`𝒥_{(0)}^\rho `$ obeying the equation (25) coincides with the HTL current besides the noise term. In local limit approximation, the equation becomes in momentum space

$$ivK𝒥_{(0)}^\rho (K,v)=m_D^2v^\rho v^\mu F_{\mu 0}(K),$$
(27)
Taking $`\rho =0`$, we have

$$𝒥_{(0)}^0(K,v)=im_D^2\frac{v^\mu }{vK}F_{\mu 0}(K)=m_D^2\left[g^{0\mu }+k_0\frac{v^\mu }{vK}\right]A_\mu ,$$
(28)
Substituting this into the equation for $`n=1`$ in (26), we get in momentum space

$$iv^\mu K_\mu 𝒥_{(1)}^\rho (K,v)=\gamma v^\rho \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐯^{}}{4\pi }I(𝐯,𝐯^{})𝒥_{(0)}^0(K,v^{}).$$
(29)
The current reads

$$𝒥_{(1)}^\rho (K,v)=im_D^2\gamma k_0\frac{v^\rho }{vK}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐯^{}}{4\pi }\frac{v^\mu }{v^{}K}I(𝐯,𝐯^{})A_\mu ,$$
(30)
here we apply integral (6). The physical current can be obtained by integral over angle

$$J_{(1)}^\rho =\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐯}{4\pi }𝒥_{(1)}^\rho (K,v)=im_D^2\gamma k_0\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐯}{4\pi }\frac{v^\rho }{vK}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐯^{}}{4\pi }\frac{v^\mu }{v^{}K}I(𝐯,𝐯^{})A_\mu .$$
(31)
Compared this with the definition

$$J^\mu =\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }A_\nu ,$$
(32)
a polarization tensor is arrived at

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{(1)}^{\mu \nu }(K)=im_D^2\gamma k_0\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐯}{4\pi }\frac{v^\rho }{vK}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐯^{}}{4\pi }\frac{v^\mu }{v^{}K}I(𝐯,𝐯^{}).$$
(33)
This result evidently coincides with the $`\mathrm{\Pi }^(LA)`$ formulated in (5).

Continuous iteration, the higher currents are easily express in powers of $`\frac{\gamma }{vK}`$

$$J_{(n)}^\rho =im_D^2k_0\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐯_j}}{4\pi }\frac{\gamma }{v_jK}I(𝐯_{j+1},𝐯_j)\right]v_n^\rho v_1^\mu A_\mu .$$
(34)
## 4 Summary and Discussion

The link between the temperature field theory and the kinetic theory for QCD plasma is one of the probing subjects. Ones have realized that the field theory is identical with the classical kinetic theory at level of HTL’s approximation. Recently, ones found respectively effective dynamics of soft fields or mean field dynamics from the diagrammatic approach and the kinetic theory. However the self-energy beyond HTL is given from the field theory but not from the kinetic theory.

Here we firstly compare the field theory with the kinetic theory method and find the calculations of polarization tensor in classical kinetic theory is simpler than the field theory. Secondly, we re-analyze the mean field dynamics from the kinetic theory based on the understanding of our simplified version. We follow the Litim-Manuel’s philosophy to expand the effective Boltzmann equation and slightly proceed to derive the polarization tensor containing the logarithmic factor $`\mathrm{log}\frac{gT}{\mu }`$. Our result fully coincides with the diagrammtic approach based on the full field theory. Remarkably, successively integrating out the hard and semi-hard(or called soft) degrees of freedom must be adopted in both calculations to obtain the dynamics of ultra-soft fields, but the advantage in the kinetic theory is able to directly extract the polarization tensor while much complicated treatments have to be done in the diagrammatic approach.