text:
# Tests of CPT invariance for neutral-flavoured-meson–antimeson mixing

## I Introduction

The usual phenomenology of the complex formed by the neutral flavoured meson $`M^0`$ ($`M^0=K^0`$, $`D^0`$, $`B_d^0`$, $`B_s^0`$) and its antiparticle $`\overline{M}^0`$ is based on the Weisskopf–Wigner approximation (WWA) which is incorporated into theories of the Lee–Oehme–Yang (LOY) type . This complex is investigated extensively for valuable studies like those of the discrete symmetries CP, T and CPT, and of physics beyond the Standard Model (for a review see Ref. ). So far, the only known CP and T non-invariances have arisen in measurements on the $`M^0\overline{M}^0`$ complex, while CPT conservation is at present consistent with all existing data . Therefore, testing CPT invariance at the phenomenological level is an important issue (see, e.g., Ref. ). The purpose of this paper is to consider some tests of CPT invariance in the mixing of $`M^0`$ and $`\overline{M}^0`$, at two levels  of the WWA. We will consider the following situations:

1. Transitions of single $`M^0`$ and $`\overline{M}^0`$ mesons into $`M^0`$ or $`\overline{M}^0`$; this would require flavour-tagging of the initial *and* final states;
2. Transitions of single $`M^0`$ and $`\overline{M}^0`$ mesons into decay channels (e.g., $`\pi \pi `$, $`\pi \mathrm{}\nu `$, $`\mathrm{}`$); here, only the initial states have to be tagged for flavour;
3. Transitions of the C-even and C-odd correlated $`|M^0\overline{M}^0`$ states into two flavoured mesons $`(M^0,\overline{M}^0)`$; this would require flavour-tagging of the final states;
4. Transitions of these correlated states into decay channels, without need for flavour-tagging.

We will demonstrate the importance of the C-even state —particularly for disentangling CPT violation from violation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ rule ($`F`$ means flavour and may be $`S`$ or $`C`$ or $`B`$) in semileptonic decays; both these violations could arise from physics beyond the Standard Model. One may note that it is important to allow new physics through violations of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ rule if one is looking for new physics through CPT violation, especially because of the similarity  of the effects of these two types of violations.

Let us briefly mention some tagging methods. For neutral kaons, the CPLEAR  reactions $`\overline{p}pK^+\pi ^{}\overline{K}^0/K^{}\pi ^+K^0`$ allow flavour-tagging of the initial kaon by utilizing the identity of the accompanying charged kaons and pions. This method is based only on strangeness conservation in strong interactions. Similarly, the reactions  $`K^0pK^+n`$, $`\overline{K}^0p\pi ^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (see also Ref. ) may be used for final-state tagging, also for decays of the correlated $`|K^0\overline{K}^0`$ states. For heavier flavours, one may also do final-state tagging by using the flavour-conserving strong interactions—e.g., the “jet charge method” (see, e.g., Ref. ) corresponding to the relevant flavoured quark. This procedure, used for B mesons, is a purely empirical procedure of the “calibrated” type, wherein, briefly speaking, one estimates the sign of the charge of the parent flavoured quark by performing suitable weighted averages over charges of the particle tracks in the jet produced by the flavoured quark; to make the analysis more reliable, the jets from the parent quark and the parent antiquark are simultaneously considered. Apart from its empirical nature, the procedure is general.

## II Outline and formalism

The WWA is characterized by the introduction of two independently propagating states $`|M_{H,L}`$ which are linear combinations of the flavour states:

$$\begin{array}{cc}|M_H=p_H|M^0+q_H|\overline{M}^0,\hfill & |p_H|^2+|q_H|^2=1,\hfill \\ |M_L=p_L|M^0q_L|\overline{M}^0,\hfill & |p_L|^2+|q_L|^2=1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`p_{H,L}`$ and $`q_{H,L}`$ are complex constants. Thus the time evolution is described by

$$|M_{H,L}\stackrel{t}{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{H,L}(t)|M_{H,L}\mathrm{with}\mathrm{\Theta }_{H,L}(0)=1,$$
(2)
where $`t`$ is the proper time and the $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{H,L}`$ are the propagation functions. By the same token, a crucial property of the WWA is the *lack of vacuum regeneration* (called LVR below), i.e, the absence of transitions $`|M_{H,L}|M_{L,H}`$ in the time evolution. Let us define the general probability amplitudes for the transitions $`|M^0|M^0`$, $`|M^0|\overline{M}^0`$, $`|\overline{M}^0|M^0`$ and $`|\overline{M}^0|\overline{M}^0`$, respectively, as $`a(t)`$, $`b(t)`$, $`\overline{b}(t)`$ and $`\overline{a}(t)`$. Then, LVR gives

$`\overline{b}(t)=\alpha b(t),`$ (3)
$`\overline{a}(t)a(t)=\beta b(t),`$ (4)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are complex constants determined in terms of $`p_{H,L}`$ and $`q_{H,L}`$:

$$\alpha =\frac{p_Hp_L}{q_Hq_L}\text{and}\beta =\frac{p_L}{q_L}\frac{p_H}{q_H}.$$
(5)
Eqs. (3) and (4) may qualitatively be visualized as follows. Using (i) Eq. (2), (ii) linearity of the transformation of Eq. (1) and its inverse, and (iii) the general constraints $`\overline{a}(0)=a(0)=1`$, $`b(0)=\overline{b}(0)=0`$, one must have $`b(t)`$, $`\overline{b}(t)`$ and $`\overline{a}(t)a(t)`$ all proportional to $`\mathrm{\Theta }_H(t)\mathrm{\Theta }_L(t)`$. While $`|\alpha |1`$ signifies T non-invariance, $`\beta 0`$ signifies CPT non-invariance. Using Eqs. (3) and (4), transition rates can be expressed as functions of only two amplitudes, say $`a`$ and $`b`$; therefore, in any theory using the LVR (e.g., the LOY theory) these equations are often useful in algebraic manipulations. The remaining part of the WWA can be expressed as

$`a+\overline{a}=\mathrm{\Theta }_H+\mathrm{\Theta }_L,`$ (6)
$`b=q_Hq_L(\mathrm{\Theta }_H\mathrm{\Theta }_L)/D,`$ (7)
with $`D=p_Hq_L+p_Lq_H`$.

It is useful to define

$$\theta =\frac{q_H/p_Hq_L/p_L}{q_H/p_H+q_L/p_L}\text{and}\frac{q}{p}=\sqrt{\frac{q_Hq_L}{p_Hp_L}},$$
(8)
where both the real and imaginary parts of the phase-convention-independent parameter $`\theta `$ are in principle measurable and violate both CP and CPT; the quantity $`|q/p|1`$ is a measure of CP and T violation in mixing. Then we can write

$$\alpha =\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)^2\text{and}\beta =2\frac{p}{q}\frac{\theta }{\sqrt{1\theta ^2}}.$$
(9)
With the parameters of Eq. (8), the description of the amplitudes $`a`$, $`b`$, $`\overline{a}`$, $`\overline{b}`$ in the full WWA is obtained as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}a(t)\hfill & =\hfill & g_+(t)\theta g_{}(t),\hfill \\ b(t)\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{q}{p}\sqrt{1\theta ^2}g_{}(t),\hfill \\ \overline{a}(t)\hfill & =\hfill & g_+(t)+\theta g_{}(t),\hfill \\ \overline{b}(t)\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{p}{q}\sqrt{1\theta ^2}g_{}(t),\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where the functions $`g_\pm `$ are given by

$$g_\pm (t)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_H(t)\pm \mathrm{\Theta }_L(t)\right).$$
(11)
So far, the functions $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{H,L}`$ have not been specified. The exponential decay law of the WWA gives $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{H,L}`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{H,L}(t)=\mathrm{exp}(it\lambda _{H,L})\text{with}\lambda _{H,L}=m_{H,L}\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H,L},$$
(12)
where, as usual, $`m_{H,L}`$ are the real masses and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H,L}`$ the real decay widths of $`|M_{H,L}`$. In the following we will also need the definitions $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_Hm_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$. We shall use the expression “full WWA” for Eqs. (10), (11) and (12).

It is worth remarking that for unknown $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, Eqs. (3) and (4) provide tests of the LVR property. T (and CP) invariance gives, in general,

$$|b|=|\overline{b}|,$$
(13)
and CPT (and CP) invariance requires, in general,

$$a=\overline{a}.$$
(14)
Then, within the LVR, Eq. (13) means $`|\alpha |=1`$ and Eq. (14) means $`\beta =0`$. If CPT invariance, viz. Eq. (14) holds, it is not possible to test the proportionality of $`(\overline{a}a)`$ to $`b`$, which is a characteristic of LVR. Thus, CPT invariance within the LVR means Eqs. (14) and (3); the characteristic LVR form of Eq. (4) is then not relevant.

In the following sections, we focus on two subjects: 1. tests of CPT invariance within the LVR, 2. explicit calculations using the full WWA, with the aim of determining $`\theta `$. In Section III, we consider the one-time transitions described by the four amplitudes $`a`$, $`b`$, $`\overline{a}`$, $`\overline{b}`$. In Section IV we summarize, for reference and comparison, decays of single $`M^0`$ and $`\overline{M}^0`$ mesons, which have been extensively investigated; see, e.g., Ref. . In Section V, the two-time transitions of the C-even and C-odd correlated $`M^0\overline{M}^0`$ states $`|\psi _\pm `$ to $`M^0M^0`$, $`\overline{M}^0\overline{M}^0`$, $`M^0\overline{M}^0`$ and $`\overline{M}^0M^0`$ final states are considered. Section VI is devoted to the two-time decays of the correlated states $`|\psi _\pm `$ into physical channels $`f`$ and $`g`$. Section VII deals with explicit calculations by choosing $`f`$ and $`g`$ as semileptonic channels—both like-sign and opposite-sign dilepton events. Finally, Section VIII gives a summary.

## III Transitions of single mesons $`M^0`$ or $`\overline{M}^0`$ to $`M^0`$, $`\overline{M}^0`$

Let us first consider transitions of single $`M^0`$ or $`\overline{M}^0`$ mesons to $`M^0`$, $`\overline{M}^0`$, in analogy to the corresponding T-invariance considerations of Refs. . It has been argued  that in order to avoid further assumptions (arising from the use of weak-interaction decays as substitutes for flavour tags) in the interpretation  of data , one should directly measure $`|a|`$, $`|b|`$, $`|\overline{a}|`$ and $`|\overline{b}|`$, and construct asymmetries out of these. In particular, the experimentally interesting asymmetries

$$K\frac{|\overline{b}|^2|b|^2}{|\overline{b}|^2+|b|^2}\mathrm{and}A\frac{|\overline{a}|^2|a|^2}{|\overline{a}|^2+|a|^2}$$
(15)
test T invariance and CPT invariance, respectively: $`K=0`$ and $`A=0`$. While the LVR relation (3) involving the time-reversal parameter $`\alpha `$ gives a clear prediction for $`K`$, namely

$$K=\frac{|\alpha |^21}{|\alpha |^2+1}=\mathrm{constant},$$
(16)
the corresponding LVR relation (4) involving the CPT parameter $`\beta `$ does not give a simple and testable prediction for $`A`$, because $`\beta `$ and $`b`$ are not rephasing-invariant  and the $`t`$-dependent rephasing-invariant product $`\beta b`$ is not easily accessible. However, the LVR relation (4) may be used to get the bound

$$|\beta |\frac{|\overline{a}||a|}{|b|}|\beta |.$$
(17)
Unfortunately, this bound is not a clean equality test, in contrast to Eq. (16).

If we use the full WWA, the appropriate CPT observable $`A`$ is obtained as

$$A=\frac{|\overline{a}|^2|a|^2}{|\overline{a}|^2+|a|^2}=2\mathrm{Re}\left[\theta \frac{g_{}(t)}{g_+(t)}\right]$$
(18)
to first order in the CPT-violating parameter $`\theta `$.

## IV Decays of single $`M^0`$, $`\overline{M}^0`$ mesons

We investigate now the decays $`|M^0(t)|f`$ and $`|\overline{M}^0(t)|f`$, where $`|M^0(0)=|M^0`$ and $`|\overline{M}^0(0)=|\overline{M}^0`$. These have the decay rates

$`R(f,t)=|f|T|M^0(t)|^2=\left|a(t)A_f+b(t)\overline{A}_f\right|^2,`$ (19)
$`\overline{R}(f,t)=|f|T|\overline{M}^0(t)|^2=\left|\overline{a}(t)\overline{A}_f+\overline{b}(t)A_f\right|^2,`$ (20)
where we have used the definitions

$$f|T|M^0=A_f,f|T|\overline{M}^0=\overline{A}_f.$$
(21)
These decays have been discussed previously in the light of CPT violation in mixing; see, e.g., Ref. . We review them here for comparison with our alternative method in Section VII.

In order to exploit the rates (19) and (20) for the determination of $`\theta `$, it is necessary to have information on the decay amplitudes $`A_f`$ and $`\overline{A}_f`$. Let us focus on semileptonic decays with final states $`X\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\overline{X}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`X`$ ($`\overline{X}`$) is a specific hadronic state. Allowing for transitions which violate the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ rule, we introduce the rephasing-invariant quantities

$$\lambda _+=\frac{q}{p}\frac{\overline{A}_+}{A_+}\text{and}\overline{\lambda }_{}=\frac{p}{q}\frac{A_{}}{\overline{A}_{}},$$
(22)
where $`A_+A_\mathrm{}^+`$, $`\overline{A}_{}\overline{A}_{\mathrm{}^{}}`$, and so on. For instance, the CPLEAR Collaboration in Ref.  considers semileptonic decays of tagged $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K}^0`$ with $`X=\pi ^{}`$. Using the convenient notation $`R_+(t)`$ for having $`M^0`$ at $`t=0`$ decaying semileptonically into $`\mathrm{}^+`$, etc., one obtains

$`R_+(t)`$ $`=`$ $`|A_+|^2\left|g_+(t)+g_{}(t)\left(\lambda _+\sqrt{1\theta ^2}\theta \right)\right|^2,`$ (23)
$`\overline{R}_{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{A}_{}|^2\left|g_+(t)+g_{}(t)\left(\overline{\lambda }_{}\sqrt{1\theta ^2}+\theta \right)\right|^2,`$ (24)
$`R_{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{A}_{}|^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}\right|^2\left|g_+(t)\overline{\lambda }_{}+g_{}(t)\left(\sqrt{1\theta ^2}\theta \overline{\lambda }_{}\right)\right|^2,`$ (25)
$`\overline{R}_+(t)`$ $`=`$ $`|A_+|^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}\right|^2\left|g_+(t)\lambda _++g_{}(t)\left(\sqrt{1\theta ^2}+\theta \lambda _+\right)\right|^2.`$ (26)
These four rates allow one to disentangle CPT violation in mixing from violations of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ rule .

In order to get a feeling for the experimental results of Ref. , it is useful to compare the rates (23), (24), (25), (26) with the corresponding ones in Eqs. (9a)–(9d) of Ref. , which were expressed there by using a particular rephasing non-invariant parameterization. One finds the correspondences $`\lambda _+x`$, $`\overline{\lambda }_{}\overline{x}^{}`$, $`\theta 2\delta `$, $`(1|q/p|)/2\mathrm{Re}\epsilon `$, $`(1|\overline{A}_{}/A_+|^2)/4\mathrm{Re}y`$; all these supposedly small parameters were retained up to only the first order. Note that the short-lived and long-lived kaons correspond, respectively, to our states $`|M_L`$ and $`|M_H`$. Among the three asymmetries constructed out of the four $`K_{e3}^0`$ decay rates in Ref. , the one relevant for the determination of $`\theta `$ is their $`A_\delta (t)`$, which involves also the complex parameter $`\overline{\lambda }_{}\lambda _+`$. The result of Ref.  is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{Re}\theta & =& (6.0\pm 6.6\pm 1.2)\times 10^4,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Im}\theta & =& (3.0\pm 4.6\pm 0.6)\times 10^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Re}(\overline{\lambda }_{}\lambda _+)& =& (0.4\pm 2.6\pm 0.6)\times 10^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Im}(\overline{\lambda }_{}\lambda _+)& =& (2.4\pm 4.4\pm 0.6)\times 10^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
where the first error is statistical and the second is systematic. Though the experimental results (27) are consistent with $`\theta =0`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_{}\lambda _+=0`$, the large errors in these results could be concealing sizeable violations of CPT invariance and of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ rule. For experimental reasons, the full information contained in the four rates $`\underset{\pm }{\overset{()}{R}}(t)`$ was not accessible, and it turns out that the two complex parameters $`\overline{\lambda }_{}`$ and $`\lambda _+`$ were not fully separated . Though the best ($`K^0,\overline{K}^0`$) data presently available allow one to determine $`\theta `$ (with sizeable errors), they are unable to determine separately the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ rule-violating parameters; therefore, heavy ($`M^0,\overline{M}^0`$) systems, wherein the clean CPLEAR method of flavour-tagging is not applicable, are likely to pose more severe problems. Consequently, it is interesting to have—for the purpose of obtaining the above three complex parameters separately—an alternative procedure which does not require flavour-tagging. We shall see in Section VII that semileptonic decays of C-even correlated states, in addition to those of the C-odd ones, may provide such an alternative.

## V States of two mesons ($`M^0`$, $`\overline{M}^0`$) arising from correlated states $`|M^0\overline{M}^0`$

Let us now consider the entangled states

$$|\psi _ϵ=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[|M^0(\stackrel{}{k})|\overline{M}^0(\stackrel{}{k})+ϵ|\overline{M}^0(\stackrel{}{k})|M^0(\stackrel{}{k})\right],$$
(28)
where $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ refers to the C-even and C-odd state, respectively. First we discuss probabilities for finding $`|M^0(\stackrel{}{k})`$ (the momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ pointing to the left-hand side) at time $`t_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`|M^0(\stackrel{}{k})`$ at time $`t_r`$ (on the right-hand side), etc. (see, e.g., Ref. ):

$`P_ϵ(M^0,t_{\mathrm{}};M^0,t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left|a_{\mathrm{}}\overline{b}_r+ϵ\overline{b}_{\mathrm{}}a_r\right|^2,`$ (29)
$`P_ϵ(\overline{M}^0,t_{\mathrm{}};\overline{M}^0,t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left|b_{\mathrm{}}\overline{a}_r+ϵ\overline{a}_{\mathrm{}}b_r\right|^2,`$ (30)
$`P_ϵ(M^0,t_{\mathrm{}};\overline{M}^0,t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left|a_{\mathrm{}}\overline{a}_r+ϵ\overline{b}_{\mathrm{}}b_r\right|^2,`$ (31)
$`P_ϵ(\overline{M}^0,t_{\mathrm{}};M^0,t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left|b_{\mathrm{}}\overline{b}_r+ϵ\overline{a}_{\mathrm{}}a_r\right|^2,`$ (32)
where $`\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{()}{a}}\stackrel{()}{a}(t_{\mathrm{}})`$ and $`\underset{r}{\overset{()}{a}}\stackrel{()}{a}(t_r)`$, etc. No assumption of any discrete symmetry or about the LOY theory and WWA is made.

One may define the asymmetries

$`Q_{1ϵ}(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_ϵ(M^0,t_{\mathrm{}};M^0,t_r)P_ϵ(\overline{M}^0,t_{\mathrm{}};\overline{M}^0,t_r)}{P_ϵ(M^0,t_{\mathrm{}};M^0,t_r)+P_ϵ(\overline{M}^0,t_{\mathrm{}};\overline{M}^0,t_r)}},`$ (33)
$`Q_{2ϵ}(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_ϵ(M^0,t_{\mathrm{}};\overline{M}^0,t_r)P_ϵ(\overline{M}^0,t_{\mathrm{}};M^0,t_r)}{P_ϵ(M^0,t_{\mathrm{}};\overline{M}^0,t_r)+P_ϵ(\overline{M}^0,t_{\mathrm{}};M^0,t_r)}}.`$ (34)
For $`ϵ=1`$, using LVR fully, i.e., Eqs. (3) and (4), one gets

$$Q_1(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)=\frac{|\alpha |^21}{|\alpha |^2+1}=\text{constant},$$
(35)
which equals the one-time asymmetry $`K`$ of Eq. (16), as previously noted ; neither CPT invariance nor T invariance has been assumed.

Using CPT invariance and the LVR property, the C-even case ($`ϵ=+1`$) also gives the result (35). Using LVR and then the WWA relations (10) for calculating $`Q_{1+}`$, we obtain

$`a_{\mathrm{}}b_r+b_{\mathrm{}}a_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}\sqrt{1\theta ^2}\left[g_{}(t_{\mathrm{}}+t_r)2\theta g_{}(t_{\mathrm{}})g_{}(t_r)\right],`$ (36)
$`a_{\mathrm{}}b_r+b_{\mathrm{}}a_r+2\beta b_{\mathrm{}}b_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}\sqrt{1\theta ^2}\left[g_{}(t_{\mathrm{}}+t_r)+2\theta g_{}(t_{\mathrm{}})g_{}(t_r)\right];`$ (37)
this gives, to first order in symmetry-violating parameters,

$$Q_{1+}\frac{|\alpha |^21}{|\alpha |^2+1}4\mathrm{Re}\left[\frac{\theta g_{}(t_{\mathrm{}})g_{}(t_r)}{g_{}(t_{\mathrm{}}+t_r)}\right].$$
(38)
The first term on the right-hand side is, of course, identical with $`Q_1`$. Therefore, it should be possible to extract $`\theta `$ from the time dependence of Eq. (38). In order to get a feeling for the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (38), we consider two limiting cases. For $`t_{\mathrm{}},t_r|2/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$, one gets

$$Q_{1+}Q_12\mathrm{Re}\theta \mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(39)
On the other hand, for small times $`t_{\mathrm{}},t_r1/\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2}`$, one can show that

$$Q_{1+}Q_12\mathrm{Re}\left[\theta \left(i\mathrm{\Delta }m+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)\right]\frac{t_{\mathrm{}}t_r}{t_{\mathrm{}}+t_r}.$$
(40)
Now we come to the asymmetry $`Q_{2ϵ}`$. Under the exchange $`t_{\mathrm{}}t_r`$, the probabilities (31) and (32) get exchanged, due to invariance under a $`180^{}`$ rotation. Using Eq. (3), one can see that $`Q_{2ϵ}`$ is non-zero only if CPT invariance does not hold, viz. $`a\overline{a}`$. This provides a test of CPT invariance within LVR, for both $`ϵ=\pm 1`$: in the probabilities (31) and (32), the part which is odd under $`t_{\mathrm{}}t_r`$ vanishes.

The LVR relations of Eqs. (3) and (4) give

$`P_ϵ(M^0,t_{\mathrm{}};\overline{M}^0,t_r)P_ϵ(\overline{M}^0,t_{\mathrm{}};M^0,t_r)=`$ (42)
$`\text{Re}\left\{\left(a_{\mathrm{}}a_r+ϵ\alpha b_{\mathrm{}}b_r+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a_{\mathrm{}}b_r+b_{\mathrm{}}a_r)\right)^{}(a_{\mathrm{}}b_rb_{\mathrm{}}a_r)\beta \right\}.`$
This difference (and also $`Q_{2ϵ}`$) is non-zero only for $`\beta 0`$. Invoking the full WWA gives the asymmetries $`Q_{2ϵ}`$, to first order in $`\theta `$, as

$`Q_22\mathrm{Re}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\theta G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)}{G_1(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)}}\right]=2\mathrm{Im}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\theta \mathrm{sin}(t_{}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda /2)}{\mathrm{cos}(t_{}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda /2)}}\right],`$ (43)
$`Q_{2+}2\mathrm{Re}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\theta G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)}{g_+(t_{\mathrm{}}+t_r)}}\right]=2\mathrm{Im}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\theta \mathrm{sin}(t_{}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda /2)}{\mathrm{cos}(t_+\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda /2)}}\right].`$ (44)
Here, we have defined the complex parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =\lambda _H\lambda _L=\mathrm{\Delta }mi\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$ and the real parameters $`t_\pm =t_{\mathrm{}}\pm t_r`$. Furthermore, $`G_1(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)`$ and $`G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)`$ are, respectively, even and odd under $`t_{\mathrm{}}t_r`$:

$$G_{\stackrel{1}{2}}(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)=g_+(t_{\mathrm{}})g_\pm (t_r)g_{}(t_{\mathrm{}})g_{}(t_r)=\frac{1}{2}\left[e^{i(\lambda _Lt_{\mathrm{}}+\lambda _Ht_r)}\pm e^{i(\lambda _Ht_{\mathrm{}}+\lambda _Lt_r)}\right].$$
(45)
Again, one can see that the real and imaginary parts of $`\theta `$ can be extracted from measurements of $`Q_2`$ or $`Q_{2+}`$.

## VI Decays of the correlated states into physical channels

We now come to the decays of $`|\psi _ϵ`$ into the physical channel $`f`$ detected at $`t_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the physical channel $`g`$ detected at $`t_r`$. Then the rate is (see, e.g., Ref. ), assuming the closed nature of the $`[(|M^0,|\overline{M}^0)(|M_H,|M_L)]`$ system,

$`R_ϵ(f,t_{\mathrm{}};g,t_r)=`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|(a_{\mathrm{}}\overline{b}_r+ϵ\overline{b}_{\mathrm{}}a_r)A_fA_g+(b_{\mathrm{}}\overline{a}_r+ϵ\overline{a}_{\mathrm{}}b_r)\overline{A}_f\overline{A}_g+`$
$`\left(a_{\mathrm{}}\overline{a}_r+b_{\mathrm{}}\overline{b}_r+ϵ(\overline{a}_{\mathrm{}}a_r+\overline{b}_{\mathrm{}}b_r)\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_f\overline{A}_g+\overline{A}_fA_g)+`$
$`(a_{\mathrm{}}\overline{a}_rb_{\mathrm{}}\overline{b}_rϵ(\overline{a}_{\mathrm{}}a_r\overline{b}_{\mathrm{}}b_r)){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_f\overline{A}_g\overline{A}_fA_g)|^2,`$
wherein the transition amplitudes of Eq. (21) are used.

As for $`P_ϵ(M^0,t_{\mathrm{}};\overline{M}^0,t_r)`$, we observe that, in $`R_+`$, the part which is odd under $`t_{\mathrm{}}t_r`$ vanishes if CPT invariance holds within LVR. Within the full WWA, this result has been noted earlier in an explicit calculation ; the present result is based on simpler and more general considerations. Taking into account both Eqs. (3) and (4), the rate $`R_+`$ is given by

$`R_+(f,t_{\mathrm{}};g,t_r)=`$ (53)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|(a_{\mathrm{}}b_r+b_{\mathrm{}}a_r)\left(\alpha A_fA_g+\overline{A}_f\overline{A}_g+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_f\overline{A}_g+\overline{A}_fA_g)\right)+`$
$`2b_{\mathrm{}}b_r\left(\beta \overline{A}_f\overline{A}_g+\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_f\overline{A}_g+\overline{A}_fA_g)\right)+`$
$`a_{\mathrm{}}a_r(A_f\overline{A}_g+\overline{A}_fA_g)+(a_{\mathrm{}}b_rb_{\mathrm{}}a_r)\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_f\overline{A}_g\overline{A}_fA_g)|^2.`$
This formula shows that, for $`\beta 0`$, $`R_+`$ contains a part odd under $`t_{\mathrm{}}t_r`$.

With the full WWA, the rates $`R_{}`$ assume the well known forms

$`R_{}(f,t_{\mathrm{}};g,t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\left[G_1(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)+\theta G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)\right]A_f\overline{A}_g\left[G_1(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)\theta G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)\right]\overline{A}_fA_g`$ (54)
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{1\theta ^2}G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)({\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}A_fA_g{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}\overline{A}_f\overline{A}_g)|^2`$ (55)
and

$`R_+(f,t_{\mathrm{}};g,t_r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\left[g_+(t_+)2\theta ^2g_{}\left(t_{\mathrm{}}\right)g_{}\left(t_r\right)\right]\left(A_f\overline{A}_g+\overline{A}_fA_g\right)`$ (56)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}\sqrt{1\theta ^2}\left[g_{}\left(t_+\right)2\theta g_{}\left(t_{\mathrm{}}\right)g_{}\left(t_r\right)\right]A_fA_g`$ (57)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}\sqrt{1\theta ^2}\left[g_{}\left(t_+\right)+2\theta g_{}\left(t_{\mathrm{}}\right)g_{}\left(t_r\right)\right]\overline{A}_f\overline{A}_g`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`\theta G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)(A_f\overline{A}_g\overline{A}_fA_g)|^2.`$ (59)
## VII Dilepton events from correlated decays

For explicit calculations, we first consider opposite-sign dilepton events , i.e., semileptonic decays with $`f=X\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`g=\overline{X}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$. For illustrating our point, we consider the same type of lepton on the two sides. The amplitudes $`A_+`$, etc. and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ rule-violating parameters $`\lambda _+`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_{}`$ are defined in Section IV. We assume that the quantities $`\theta `$, $`\lambda _+`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_{}`$, which describe “unexpected” physics, are small; we retain contributions up to only the first order in these quantities.

First, we want to show that, by observing the time dependence of decays into opposite-sign dilepton events of both $`|\psi _+`$ and $`|\psi _{}`$, it is possible to disentangle $`\theta `$, $`\lambda _+`$, and $`\overline{\lambda }_{}`$. This is easily seen by comparing

$$R_{}(\mathrm{}^+,t_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}^{},t_r)=\frac{1}{2}|A_+|^2|\overline{A}_{}|^2\left|G_1(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)+(\theta \lambda _++\overline{\lambda }_{})G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)\right|^2$$
(60)
with

$$R_+(\mathrm{}^+,t_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}^{},t_r)=\frac{1}{2}|A_+|^2|\overline{A}_{}|^2\left|g_+(t_+)+(\lambda _++\overline{\lambda }_{})g_{}(t_+)+\theta G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)\right|^2.$$
(61)
The part of the rate $`R_{}(\mathrm{}^+,t_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}^{},t_r)`$ which is odd under $`t_{\mathrm{}}t_r`$ determines the combination $`\theta \lambda _++\overline{\lambda }_{}`$, whereas in the case of $`R_+(\mathrm{}^+,t_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}^{},t_r)`$ the odd and even parts depend on $`\theta `$ and $`\lambda _++\overline{\lambda }_{}`$, respectively.

Considering like-sign dilepton events , “new physics” does not enter at first order for the C-odd state :

$$R_{}(\mathrm{}^+,t_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}^+,t_r)=\frac{1}{2}|A_+|^4\left|\frac{p}{q}\right|^2|G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)|^2$$
(62)
and

$$R_{}(\mathrm{}^{},t_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}^{},t_r)=\frac{1}{2}|\overline{A}_{}|^4\left|\frac{q}{p}\right|^2|G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)|^2.$$
(63)
However, correlated decays of the C-even state into like-sign dilepton events do contain “new physics” at first order:

$$R_+(\mathrm{}^+,t_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}^+,t_r)=\frac{1}{2}|A_+|^4\left|\frac{p}{q}\right|^2\left|g_{}(t_+)+2\lambda _+g_+(t_+)2\theta g_{}(t_{\mathrm{}})g_{}(t_r)\right|^2$$
(64)
and

$$R_+(\mathrm{}^{},t_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}^{},t_r)=\frac{1}{2}|\overline{A}_{}|^4\left|\frac{q}{p}\right|^2\left|g_{}(t_+)+2\overline{\lambda }_{}g_+(t_+)+2\theta g_{}(t_{\mathrm{}})g_{}(t_r)\right|^2.$$
(65)
From these two rates, which are obviously symmetric under $`t_{\mathrm{}}t_r`$, the quantities $`\theta `$, $`\lambda _+`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_{}`$ could be disentangled because the functions of $`t_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`t_r`$ with which they are associated are different.

A remark is now in order concerning the comparison of the formulas of this section with experiment. In general, the amplitudes $`A_\pm `$, $`\overline{A}_\pm `$ will depend on the detailed configuration of the final state $`X\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ or $`\overline{X}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$, i.e., on the particle content of $`X`$ ($`\overline{X}`$) and the momenta and polarizations of all particles in the final states. Let us denote the sum over various choices of $`X`$ ($`\overline{X}`$) and various configurations of spins and momenta detected on the left-hand side by $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the corresponding sum detected on the right-hand side by $`\mathrm{}_r`$. Consider, as an example, the rate $`R_{}(\mathrm{}^+,t_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}^+,t_r)`$. Taking into consideration the summation over the final configurations, we obtain (see also Refs. )

$`R_{}(\mathrm{}^+,t_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}^+,t_r)_{\mathrm{},r}=`$ (69)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{|G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)|^2|{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}|^2|A_+|^2_{\mathrm{}}|A_+|^2_r+`$
$`2\mathrm{Re}\left[G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)^{}G_1(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)\left({\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}\right)^{}(|A_+|^2_{\mathrm{}}A_+^{}\overline{A}_+_rA_+^{}\overline{A}_+_{\mathrm{}}|A_+|^2_r)\right]\}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}\right|^2|A_+|^2_{\mathrm{}}|A_+|^2_r\left|G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)+G_1(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)(\lambda _+^r\lambda _+^{\mathrm{}})\right|^2,`$
where at most the first order in the small parameters $`\theta `$ and

$$\lambda _+^r=\frac{q}{p}\frac{A_+^{}\overline{A}_+_r}{|A_+|^2_r},\lambda _+^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{q}{p}\frac{A_+^{}\overline{A}_+_{\mathrm{}}}{|A_+|^2_{\mathrm{}}}$$
(70)
has been retained. We similarly obtain

$$R_{}(\mathrm{}^{},t_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}^{},t_r)_{\mathrm{},r}=\frac{1}{2}\left|\frac{q}{p}\right|^2|\overline{A}_{}|^2_{\mathrm{}}|\overline{A}_{}|^2_r\left|G_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)+G_1(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)(\overline{\lambda }_{}^r\overline{\lambda }_{}^{\mathrm{}})\right|^2,$$
(71)
where

$$\overline{\lambda }_{}^r=\frac{p}{q}\frac{\overline{A}_{}^{}A_{}_r}{|\overline{A}_{}|^2_r},\overline{\lambda }_{}^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{p}{q}\frac{\overline{A}_{}^{}A_{}_{\mathrm{}}}{|\overline{A}_{}|^2_{\mathrm{}}}.$$
(72)
The ratio of the rates in Eqs. (69) and (71) has a constant value if the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ rule holds, in which case the lepton charge *is* the flavour tag; if, in addition, CPT invariance in the amplitudes holds and if for a given side (viz. left or right), the states and configurations summed over in Eqs. (69) and (71) are CPT-conjugates of each other, the constant value is just the time-reversal parameter $`|p/q|^4`$; see Ref.  for corresponding remarks if tagging of the final flavoured mesons is not replaced by their semileptonic decays. On the other hand, one now sees that, in $`R_{}(\mathrm{}^+,t_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}^+,t_r)_{\mathrm{},r}`$ and $`R_{}(\mathrm{}^{},t_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}^{},t_r)_{\mathrm{},r}`$, violations of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ rule cancel if left- and right-hand sides are summed over identical states and configurations. Implicitly, we have made this assumption of identical left and right summations in all our results in Eqs. (60)–(65), where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ rule-violating parameters $`\lambda _+`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_{}`$ should be perceived as the effective parameters of Eqs. (70) and (72), respectively (of course, now we have $`\lambda _+^r=\lambda _+^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_{}^r=\overline{\lambda }_{}^{\mathrm{}}`$). Eqs. (69) and (71) illustrate this point for Eqs. (62) and (63), respectively, and show the importance of identical left and right summations.

## VIII Conclusions

In this paper we have discussed two items. Firstly, we have proposed tests of CPT invariance within only the *lack-of-vacuum-regeneration* (LVR) property. This means testing $`a=\overline{a}`$ and $`\overline{b}b`$ together (see Eqs. (14) and (3)). The second item is the determination, by assuming the full WWA, of the parameter $`\theta `$ of Eq. (8), which is a measure of CPT violation in $`M^0\overline{M}^0`$ mixing. In the following, subscripts $``$ refer to the C-odd and C-even $`|M^0\overline{M}^0`$ states $`|\psi _{}`$ of Eq. (28), respectively.

As for the first point, we have noted the following qualitative tests:

1. The asymmetry $`Q_{1+}(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)`$ (see Eq. (33)) equals $`Q_1(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)`$ of Eq. (35); these are asymmetries for transitions into $`M^0M^0`$ and $`\overline{M}^0\overline{M}^0`$ final states.
2. The asymmetries $`Q_2(t_{\mathrm{}},t_r)`$ for $`M^0\overline{M}^0`$ and $`\overline{M}^0M^0`$ final states vanish. Correspondingly, the ($`t_{\mathrm{}}t_r`$)-odd parts of the probabilities (31) and (32) vanish.
3. The ($`t_{\mathrm{}}t_r`$)-odd part of the decay rate $`R_+(f,t_{\mathrm{}};g,t_r)`$ of Eq. (53) vanishes.

The second item of our paper, viz. methods for the determination of $`\theta `$, involves explicit computations of observables within the full WWA. These observables include the cases where $`\theta =0`$ would reproduce one of the above-mentioned tests, i.e., $`Q_{1+}`$ in Eq. (38), $`Q_2`$ in Eq. (43), $`Q_{2+}`$ in Eq. (44) and $`R_+`$ in Eq. (59). In addition, we have the rate $`R_{}`$ in Eq. (55) and, for one-time single meson transitions, the asymmetry $`A`$ in Eq. (18). Of these six observables which involve $`\theta `$, the decay rates $`R_\pm `$ involve also unknown decay amplitudes and, therefore, cannot be directly used for the determination of CPT violation in mixing.

In view of the previous difficulties  in achieving this last goal by using the decay rates $`R_\pm `$ for correlated decays of the C-even and C-odd $`|M^0\overline{M}^0`$ states, we have further investigated semileptonic decays in this context. We have shown in Section VII (see also Ref. ) that the three complex parameters $`\theta `$, $`\lambda _+`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_{}`$, where the latter two quantities parameterize violations of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ rule, may be separately determined either by comparing the time dependence of opposite-sign dilepton events from the state $`|\psi _{}`$ with that from $`|\psi _+`$, or by considering both possible charges in the like-sign dilepton events from $`|\psi _+`$ alone. Note that, if one wishes to determine $`\theta `$ alone, it is sufficient to consider the time dependence of only $`R_+(\mathrm{}^+,t_{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}^{},t_r)`$ . The disentanglement of the above-mentioned three parameters is—in principle—possible also by using semileptonic decays of single mesons $`M^0`$ and $`\overline{M}^0`$ (see Ref.  and Section IV); however, that requires initial-state tagging. As shown in Section IV, by considering the best presently available data , it is useful to have an alternative procedure which does not require flavour-tagging. Our proposal for considering dilepton events from the decays of $`|\psi _{}`$ *and* $`|\psi _+`$ may provide such an alternative.

Though some of the experiments proposed in this paper require difficult steps like flavour-tagging and a study of the decay of the C-even $`M^0\overline{M}^0`$ state $`|\psi _+`$ , the importance of testing the fundamental property of CPT invariance may make the effort worthwhile.


format: text

text:
# Accelerated Charge Kerr-Schild Metrics in 𝐷- Dimensions

## 1 Introduction

Radiation and hence energy loss due to the acceleration of an electron is a well known phenomenon in classical electromagnetism. An exact solution describing this phenomenon in General Relativity is due to Bonnor and Vaidya , where the metric is in Kerr-Schild form , , . An acceleration parameter has also been considered in Robinson-Trautman metrics -. The energy loss formula turns out to be exactly the same as the one obtained from classical electromagnetism. When the acceleration vanishes, Bonnor-Vaidya metrics reduce to the Reissner-Nordström (RN) metric.

In this work our main motivation is to generalize Bonnor-Vaidya and Photon Rocket solutions of $`D=4`$ General Relativity. For this purpose we consider the $`D`$-dimensional Kerr-Schild metric with an appropriate vector potential and a fluid velocity vector, and we derive a complete set of conditions for the Einstein Maxwell theory with a null perfect fluid. We find the expressions for the pressure and the mass density of the fluid. We classify our solutions under some certain assumptions. The field equations are highly complex and with some nontrivial equation of state it is quite difficult to solve the corresponding equations. To this end we assume vanishing pressure and cosmological constant. We give the complete solution for arbitrary dimension $`D`$. This generalizes the Bonnor-Vaidya solution. We obtain the energy flux formula depending on the dimension $`D`$.

Our conventions are similar to the conventions of Hawking-Ellis . This means that the Riemann tensor $`R_{\beta \mu \nu }^\alpha `$, Ricci tensor $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$, Ricci scalar $`R_s`$ and the Einstein tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ are defined by

$`R_{\beta \mu \nu }^\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \nu ,\mu }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \mu ,\nu }^\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \gamma }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \nu }^\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \gamma }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \mu }^\gamma ,`$ (1)
$`R_{\alpha \beta }=R_{\alpha \gamma \beta }^\gamma ,R_s=R_\alpha ^\alpha ,G_{\alpha \beta }=R_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\alpha \beta }R_s`$ (2)
Here $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the $`D`$ dimensional metric tensor with signature $`(,+,+,\mathrm{},+)`$. The source of the Einstein equations is composed of the electromagnetic field with the vector potential field $`A_\mu `$ and a perfect fluid with velocity vector field $`u^\mu `$, energy density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`p`$. Their energy momentum tensors are respectively given by

$`T_{\mu \nu }^e`$ $`=`$ $`F_\mu ^\alpha F_{\nu \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F^2g_{\mu \nu },F^2F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta },`$ (3)
$`T_{\mu \nu }^f`$ $`=`$ $`(p+\rho )u_\mu u_\nu +pg_{\mu \nu }`$ (4)
Then the Einstein equations are given by

$`G_{\mu \nu }=\kappa T_{\mu \nu }=\kappa (T_{\mu \nu }^e+T_{\mu \nu }^f)+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu },`$ (5)
$`(p+\rho )u^\nu u_{;\nu }^\mu =u^\nu (\rho u^\mu )_{;\nu }+p_{,\nu }(g^{\mu \nu }+u^\mu u^\nu )+F_\nu ^\mu J^\nu ,`$ (6)
$`F_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }=J^\mu `$ (7)
In the next section, we develop the kinematics of a curve $`C`$ in the $`D`$\- dimensional Minkowski manifold $`𝐌_𝐃`$. We construct solutions of the electromagnetic vector field due to the acceleration of charged particles in four and six dimensions. We then find the energy flux due to acceleration. In Section 3, we give a detailed study of Kerr-Schild Geometry under certain assumptions. In Section 4, we find the solution of the $`D`$\- dimensional Einstein Maxwell field equations with a null fluid. We also obtain the generalization of Bonnor-Vaidya metrics to $`D`$\- dimensions. We derive the energy flux formula depending on the dimension $`D`$ and discuss its finiteness in Section 5 and state our conclusion in Section 6. Finally , for convenience to the reader, in an Appendix we give some well-known formulae that are needed in the text.

## 2 Radiation due to Acceleration: Maxwell Theory

Let $`z^\mu (\tau )`$ describe a smooth curve $`C`$ defined by $`z:I𝐑𝐌_𝐃`$. Here $`\tau I`$, $`I`$ is an interval on the real line and $`𝐌_𝐃`$ is the $`D`$\- dimensional Minkowski manifold. From an arbitrary point $`x^\mu `$ outside the curve, there are two null lines intersecting the curve $`C`$. These points are called the retarded and advanced times. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the distance between the points $`x^\mu `$ and $`z^\mu (\tau )`$, so by definition it is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\eta _{\mu \nu }(x^\mu z^\mu (\tau ))(x^\nu z^\nu (\tau )),$$
(8)
Hence $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ for two values of $`\tau `$ for a non-space-like curve. Let us call these as, $`\tau _0`$ (retarded) and $`\tau _1`$ (advanced). We shall focus ourselves to the retarded case only. The main reason for this is that the Green’s function for the vector potential chooses this point on the curve $`C`$ (, ).

If we differentiate $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to $`x^\mu `$ and let $`\tau =\tau _0`$, then we get

$$\lambda _\mu \tau _{,\mu }=\frac{x_\mu z_\mu (\tau _0)}{R},$$
(9)
where $`\lambda _\mu `$ is a null vector and $`R`$ is the retarded distance defined by

$$R\dot{z^\mu }(\tau _0)(x_\mu z_\mu (\tau _0)).$$
(10)
Here a dot over a letter denotes differentiation with respect to $`\tau _0`$. We now list some properties of $`R`$ and $`\lambda _\mu `$.

$`\lambda _{\mu ,\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}[\eta _{\mu \nu }\dot{z}_\mu \lambda _\nu \dot{z}_\nu \lambda _\mu (Aϵ)\lambda _\mu \lambda _\nu ],`$ (11)
$`R_{,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`(Aϵ)\lambda _\mu +\dot{z}_\mu `$ (12)
where

$$A=\ddot{z}^\mu (x_\mu z_\mu ),\dot{z}^\mu \dot{z}_\mu =ϵ=0,\pm 1$$
(13)
Here $`ϵ=1`$ for time-like curves and vanishes for null curves. Furthermore we have

$$\lambda _\mu \dot{z}^\mu =1,\lambda ^\mu R_{,\mu }=1$$
(14)
Let $`a=\frac{A}{R}`$. Then it is easy to prove that

$$a_{,\mu }\lambda ^\mu =0$$
(15)
Similar to $`a`$, we have other scalars satisfying the same property (15) obeyed by $`a`$.

Lemma 1. Let

$$a_k=\lambda _\mu \frac{d^k\ddot{z^\mu }}{d\tau _0^k},k=1,2,\mathrm{},n$$
(16)
then

$$a_{k,\alpha }\lambda ^\alpha =0,$$
(17)
for all $`k`$. Furthermore if $`A_k=Ra_k`$ is constant for a fixed $`k`$ at all points then $`A_i=0`$ for all $`ik`$ and $`d^m\ddot{z}^\mu /d\tau _0^m=0`$ for all $`mk`$. Here $`n`$ is an arbitrary positive integer.

Proof. The proof of this Lemma depends on the following formula for the derivative of $`A_k`$

$$A_{k,\alpha }=\frac{d^k\ddot{z}_\alpha }{d\tau _0^k}+[A_{k+1}(d^k\ddot{z}^\beta /d\tau _0^k)\dot{z}_\beta ]\lambda _\alpha .$$
(18)
In the sequel, for the sake of simplicity, we shall use $`\tau `$ instead of $`\tau _0`$. First part of the Lemma can be proved by contracting the above formula (18) by $`\lambda ^\alpha `$. One obtains

$$\lambda ^\alpha A_{k,\alpha }=a_k.$$
(19)
This implies that $`\lambda ^\alpha a_{k,\alpha }=0`$. For the second part of the Lemma contracting the above formula (18) by $`\dot{z}^\alpha `$ one obtains

$$A_{k,\alpha }\dot{z}^\alpha =A_{k+1},$$
(20)
which implies that $`A_m=0`$ for $`m>k`$. From (19) we have also $`A_k=0`$. With these results (18) reduces to

$$\frac{d^k\ddot{z}_\alpha }{d\tau ^k}=\mu \lambda _\alpha ,\mu =(d^k\ddot{z}^\beta /d\tau ^k)\dot{z}_\beta .$$
(21)
Differentiating this equation with respect to $`x^\beta `$ and contracting the resulting equation by $`\lambda ^\beta `$ we get $`\mu =0`$. This completes the proof of the Lemma.

In (16) $`n`$ depends on the dimension $`D`$ of the manifold $`𝐌_𝐃`$. The scalars $`(a,a_k)`$, are related to the curvature scalars of the curve $`C`$ in $`𝐌_𝐃`$. The number of such scalars is $`D1`$ , . Hence we let $`n=D1`$.

Before moving on to the main subject of this work, i.e. examining the Einstein-Maxwell theory within the Kerr-Schild geometry, we briefly study the Maxwell theory in flat (even) $`D`$-dimensional Minkowski space. This should at least serve the reader as a reminder of the well-known basics regarding the usual $`D=4`$ Maxwell theory.

By using the above curve $`C`$ and its kinematics, we can construct divergence free (Lorentz gauge) vector fields $`A_\alpha `$ satisfying the wave equation $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu A_\alpha =0`$ outside the curve $`C`$ in any even dimension $`D`$. For instance in the cases $`D=4`$ and $`D=6`$ we have respectively ,

$$A_\mu =\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{e}{4\pi }\frac{\dot{z}_\mu }{R},\hfill & (D=4)\hfill \\ \frac{e}{4\pi ^2}[\frac{\ddot{z}_\mu a\dot{z}_\mu }{R^2}+ϵ\frac{\dot{z}_\mu }{R^3}]\hfill & (D=6)\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
These vector fields represent respectively the electromagnetic vector potentials of an accelerated charge in four and six dimensional Maxwell theory of electromagnetism. The flux of electromagnetic energy is then given by

$$dE=_S\dot{z}_\mu T^{\mu \nu }𝑑S_\nu $$
(23)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \alpha }F_\nu ^\alpha \frac{1}{4}F^2\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the Maxwell energy momentum tensor, $`F_{\mu \nu }=A_{\nu ,\mu }A_{\mu ,\nu }`$ is the electromagnetic field tensor and $`F^2=F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }`$. The surface element $`dS_\mu `$ on $`S`$ is given by

$$dS_\mu =n_\mu Rd\tau d\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(24)
where $`n_\nu `$ is orthogonal to the velocity vector field $`\dot{z}_\mu `$ which is defined through

$$\lambda _\mu =ϵ\dot{z}_\mu +ϵ_1\frac{n_\mu }{R},n^\mu n_\mu =ϵR^2$$
(25)
Here $`ϵ_1=\pm 1`$. For the remaining part of this section we shall assume $`ϵ=1`$ ($`C`$ is a time-like curve). One can consider $`S`$ in the rest frame as a sphere of radius $`R`$. Here $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle. Letting $`dE/d\tau =N_e`$ , then we have

$$N_e=_S\dot{z}_\mu T^{\mu \nu }n_\nu R𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(26)
At very large values of $`R`$ we get for $`D=4`$

$`N_e`$ $`=`$ $`(e/4\pi )^2ϵ_1{\displaystyle (\ddot{z}_\mu \ddot{z}^\mu +a^2)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_1(e/4\pi )^2(\ddot{z}^\mu \ddot{z}_\mu ){\displaystyle (1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi },`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_1(e^2/4\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\ddot{z}^\mu \ddot{z}_\mu )`$ (29)
and for $`D=6`$ at very large values of $`R`$ we have

$`N_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _S}\dot{z}_\mu T^{\mu \nu }n_\nu R^3𝑑\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{e}{4\pi ^2}})^2ϵ_1{\displaystyle \xi _\mu \xi ^\mu 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ (31)
where

$$\xi ^\mu =\frac{d^3z^\mu }{d\tau ^3}3a\frac{d^2z^\mu }{d\tau ^2}+(a_1+3a^2)\frac{dz^\mu }{d\tau }$$
(32)
so that $`\lambda _\mu \xi ^\mu =0`$. For a charge $`e`$ with acceleration $`|\ddot{z}_\mu |=\kappa _1`$ we have (for $`D=6`$ case)

$$N_e=(\frac{e}{4\pi ^2})^2\frac{32\pi ^2ϵ_1}{15}(\dot{\kappa }_1^2+\kappa _1^2\kappa _2^2+\frac{9}{7}\kappa _1^4)$$
(33)
Remark 1. To be compatible with the classical results ,  we take $`ϵ_1=1`$. We also conjecture that the sign of the energy flux will be the same for all even dimensions.

## 3 Accelerated Kerr-Schild Metrics in $`D`$ \- Dimensions

We now consider the Einstein-Maxwell field equations with a perfect fluid distribution in $`D`$-dimensions. Here we make some assumptions. First of all, we assume that the metric of the $`D`$-dimensional space-time is the Kerr-Schild metric. Furthermore, we take the null vector $`\lambda _\mu `$ in the metric as the same null vector defined in (9). With these assumptions the Ricci tensor takes a special form.

Proposition 2. Let $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }2V\lambda _\mu \lambda _\nu `$ and $`\lambda _\mu `$ be the null vector defined in (9) and let $`V`$ be a differentiable function, then the Ricci tensor and the Ricci scalar are given by

$`R_\beta ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\zeta _\beta \lambda ^\alpha +\zeta ^\alpha \lambda _\beta +r\delta _\beta ^\alpha +q\lambda _\beta \lambda ^\alpha ,`$ (34)
$`R_s`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda ^\alpha K_{,\alpha }4\theta K{\displaystyle \frac{2V}{R^2}}(D2)(D3),`$ (35)
where

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(D+3)V}{R^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2K}{R}},`$ (36)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{\alpha \beta }V_{,\alpha \beta }+ϵr+{\displaystyle \frac{2A}{R}}(K+\theta V){\displaystyle \frac{4}{R}}(\dot{z}^\mu V_{,\mu }+AKϵK),`$ (37)
$`\zeta _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`K_{,\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{D4}{R}}V_{,\alpha }+{\displaystyle \frac{2V}{R^2}}(D3)\dot{z}_\alpha ,`$ (38)
where $`K\lambda ^\alpha V_{,\alpha }`$ and $`\theta \lambda _{,\alpha }^\alpha =\frac{D2}{R}`$.

Let us further assume that the electromagnetic vector potential $`A_\mu `$ is given by $`A_\mu =H\lambda _\mu `$ where $`H`$ is a differentiable function. Let $`p`$ and $`\rho `$ be the pressure and the energy density of a perfect fluid distribution with the velocity vector field $`\lambda _\mu `$. Then the difference tensor $`𝒯_\nu ^\mu =G_\nu ^\mu \kappa T_\nu ^\mu `$ is given by the following proposition:

Proposition 3. Let $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }2V\lambda _\mu \lambda _\nu `$, $`A_\mu =H\lambda _\mu `$, where $`\lambda _\mu `$ is given in (9), $`V`$ and $`H`$ be differentiable functions. Let $`p`$ and $`\rho `$ be the pressure and energy density of a perfect fluid with velocity vector field $`\lambda _\mu `$. Then the difference tensor becomes

$$𝒯_\beta ^\alpha =\lambda ^\alpha W_\beta +\lambda _\beta W^\alpha +𝒫\delta _\beta ^\alpha +𝒬\lambda ^\alpha \lambda _\beta $$
(39)
where

$`𝒫`$ $`=`$ $`r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R_s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa (\lambda ^\mu H_{,\mu })^2(\kappa p+\mathrm{\Lambda }),`$ (40)
$`𝒬`$ $`=`$ $`q\kappa (p+\rho )\kappa (\eta ^{\alpha \beta }H_{,\alpha }H_{,\beta }),`$ (41)
$`W_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\zeta _\alpha +\kappa (\lambda ^\mu H_{,\mu })H_{,\alpha },`$ (42)
where $`\zeta _\alpha `$, $`r`$, $`R_s`$ and $`q`$ are given in (38), (36), (35) and (37) respectively.

The vanishing of the difference tensor $`𝒯_\beta ^\alpha `$ in Proposition 3 implies that $`𝒫=0`$ and $`W_\alpha =\frac{𝒬}{2}\lambda _\alpha `$. Hence the following Corollary gives a set of equations that are equivalent to the Einstein equations under the assumptions of Proposition 3.

Corollary 4. With the assumptions of Proposition 3 , the Einstein equations (5) imply that

$`\kappa p+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa (\lambda ^\alpha H_{,\alpha })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{R}}K+{\displaystyle \frac{(D2)(D3)}{R^2}}V,`$ (43)
$`\kappa (p+\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`q\kappa \eta ^{\alpha \beta }H_{,\alpha }H_{,\beta }+2w`$ (44)
$`W_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`w\lambda _\alpha `$ (45)
where $`w=W^\alpha \dot{z}_\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant. Here $`q`$ and $`W_\alpha `$ are respectively given in (37) and (42).

We shall now assume that the functions $`V`$ and $`H`$ depend on $`R`$ and on some $`R`$-independent functions $`c_i`$, ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{}`$) such that

$$c_{i,\alpha }\lambda ^\alpha =0,$$
(46)
for all $`i`$. It is clear that due to the property (15) and (17) of $`a_k`$’s, all of these functions ($`c_i`$) are functions of the scalars $`a`$ and $`a_k`$, $`(k=1,2,\mathrm{},D1)`$.

Notice that there are in fact $`D+2`$ equations contained in (43)-(45). In particular using the vector equation (45) we can produce other scalar equations by contracting it with the vectors $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ and $`\dot{z}^\alpha `$. We summarize the results in the following Proposition.

Proposition 5. Let $`V`$ and $`H`$ depend on $`R`$ and functions $`c_i`$ , $`(i=1,2,\mathrm{})`$ that satisfy (46), then the Einstein equations given in Proposition 4 reduce to the following set of equations

$`\kappa p+\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{3D8}{2R}}V^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{(D3)^2}{R^2}}V,`$ (47)
$`\kappa (H^{})^2=V^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{D4}{R}}V^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2V}{R^2}}(D3),`$ (48)
$`\kappa (p+\rho )=q\kappa \eta ^{\alpha \beta }H_{,\alpha }H_{,\beta }+`$
$`2[{\displaystyle \frac{2(Aϵ)(D3)V}{R^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{}}(w_ic_{i,\alpha }\dot{z}^\alpha )],`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{}}w_ic_{i,\alpha }=[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{}}(w_ic_{i,\beta }\dot{z}^\beta )]\lambda _\alpha ,`$ (50)
where

$$w_i=V_{,c_i}^{}+\frac{D4}{R}V_{,c_i}\kappa H^{}H_{,c_i},$$
(51)
and prime over a letter denotes partial differentiation with respect to $`R`$. Eq. (6) is satisfied identically with the electromagnetic current vector

$`J_\mu ={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}(4D)H_{,c_i}(H^{})_{,c_i}\right]c_{i,\mu }+[H^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}(2D)H^{}]\dot{z}_\mu `$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{}}\left(2(H^{})_{,c_i}(c_{i,\alpha }\dot{z}^\alpha )+H_{,c_i}(c_{i,\alpha }^{,\alpha }){\displaystyle \frac{2}{R}}H_{,c_i}(c_{i,\alpha }\dot{z}^\alpha )\right)+AH^{\prime \prime }\right]\lambda _\mu `$ (52)
Notice that (48) is obtained by contracting (45) with the vector $`\lambda ^\alpha `$. The above equations can be described as follows. The equations (47) and (49) define the pressure and mass density of the perfect fluid distribution with null velocity $`\lambda _\mu `$. Eq.(48) gives a relation between the electromagnetic and gravitational potentials $`H`$ and $`V`$. Since this relation is quite simple, given one of them one can easily solve the other one. Equation (50) implies that there are some functions $`c_i`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{}`$) where this equation is satisfied. The functions $`c_i`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{}`$) arise as integration constants (with respect to the variable $`R`$) while determining the $`R`$ dependence of the functions $`V`$ and $`H`$. Assuming the existence of such $`c_i`$’s the above equations give the most general solution of the Einstein-Maxwell field equations with a null perfect fluid distribution under the assumptions of Proposition 3.

## 4 Null-Dust Solutions in $`D`$-Dimensions

In this Section we give a class of new exact solutions in the Kerr-Schild geometry. Assuming that the null fluid has no pressure, the cosmological constant vanishes and using Proposition 5, we have the following result:

Theorem 6. Let $`p=\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. Then

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\kappa e^2(D3)}{2(D2)}R^{2D+6}+mR^{D+3}\hfill & (D4)\hfill \\ \frac{\kappa }{2}e^2lnR+m\hfill & (D=3)\hfill \end{array}`$ (55)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}c+ϵeR^{D+3}\hfill & (D4)\hfill \\ c+ϵelnR\hfill & (D=3)\hfill \end{array}`$ (58)
where for $`D>3`$

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`(c_{,\alpha }c^{,\alpha })ϵ(3D)eR^{3D}(c_{,\alpha }^{,\alpha })ϵ\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(3D)(2D)e(c_{,\alpha }\dot{z}^\alpha )R^{2D}`$ (59)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}a(2D)(1D)MR^{2D}+(2D)(3D)ae^2R^{52D}`$
$`ϵ(2D)(1D)(3D)aceR^{2D}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}\dot{M}(2D)R^{2D}`$
$`ϵ(3D)(2D)c\dot{e}R^{2D}+(3D)e\dot{e}R^{52D},`$
$`J_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}(4D)c_{,\mu }+[c_{,\alpha }^{,\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{2}{R}}(c_{,\alpha }\dot{z}^\alpha )`$ (60)
$`+ϵ(3D)\dot{e}R^{2D}+ϵ(3D)(2D)eaR^{2D}]\lambda _\mu `$
and for $`D=3`$

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`(c_{,\alpha }c^{,\alpha })ϵe(c_{,\alpha }^{,\alpha })+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{2e}{R}}(c_{,\alpha }\dot{z}^\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{ae^2}{2R}}`$ (61)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2Ma}{\kappa R}}{\displaystyle \frac{ae^2}{R}}\mathrm{ln}R{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{M}}{\kappa R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e\dot{e}}{R}}+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{c\dot{e}}{R}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e\dot{e}}{R}}\mathrm{ln}R2ϵec{\displaystyle \frac{a}{R}},`$
$`J_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}c_{,\mu }+[c_{,\alpha }^{,\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{2}{R}}(c_{,\alpha }\dot{z}^\alpha )+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{R}}\dot{e}ϵe{\displaystyle \frac{a}{R}}]\lambda _\mu `$ (62)
Here $`M=m+ϵ\kappa (3D)ec`$ for $`D4`$ and $`M=m+\frac{\kappa }{2}e^2+ϵ\kappa ec`$ for $`D=3`$. In all cases $`e`$ is assumed to be a function of $`\tau `$ only but the functions $`m`$ and $`c`$ which are related through the arbitrary function $`M(\tau )`$ (depends on $`\tau `$ only) do depend on the scalars $`a`$ and $`a_k`$, ($`k1`$).

Equation (47) with zero pressure and (48) determine the $`R`$ dependence of the potentials $`V`$ and $`H`$ completely. Using Proposition 5 we have chosen the integration constants ($`R`$ independent functions) as the functions $`c_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) so that $`c_1=m`$ , $`c_2=e`$ and $`c_3=c`$ and

$$c=c(\tau ,a,a_k),e=e(\tau ),$$

$$m=\{\begin{array}{cc}M(\tau )+ϵ\kappa (D3)ec\hfill & (D4)\hfill \\ M(\tau )\frac{\kappa }{2}e^2ϵ\kappa ec\hfill & (D=3)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`a_k`$’s are defined in Lemma 1.

Remark 2. The curve $`C`$ is a geodesic of the curved geometry with the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }2V\lambda _\mu \lambda _\nu `$ if and only if it is a straight line in $`𝐌_𝐃`$.

Remark 3. When $`D=4`$, we obtain the Bonnor-Vaidya solutions with one essential difference. In the Bonnor-Vaidya solutions the parameters $`m`$ and $`c`$ (which are related through (4)) depend upon $`\tau `$ and $`a`$ only. In our solution, these parameters depend not only on $`\tau `$ and $`a`$ but also on all other scalars $`a_k`$, ($`k1`$).

Remark 4. The electromagnetic vector potentials in the flat space (see Section 2) and in the curved space (see Section 3) are different. It is known that in four dimensions they are gauge equivalent . It is this equivalence that led Bonnor and Vaidya to choose the function $`c(\tau ,a,a_k)=ea`$. All other choices of $`c`$ do not have flat space limits. In higher dimensions ($`D>4`$) such an equivalence can not be established. As an example, let

$$A_f^\mu =\frac{\ddot{z}^\mu a\dot{z}^\mu }{R^2}+ϵ\frac{\dot{z}^\mu }{R^3}$$

be the vector potential (22) in 6-dimensional flat space. Let $`A_\mu =H\lambda _\mu =\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\mu }+A_{f\mu }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the gauge potential to be determined. Here $`A_\mu `$ is the vector potential (58) in 6-dimensional curved spacetime. Except for the static case, it is a simple calculation to show that there doesn’t exist any $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to establish such a gauge equivalence. Hence our higher dimensional solutions have no flat space counterparts. In the static case (the curve $`C`$ is a straight line) our solutions are, for all $`D`$, gauge equivalent to the Tangherlini  solutions (see also ). Because of this reason the energy flux expressions in 6-dimensions (see the next section) in flat and curved spacetimes are different. To obtain gauge equivalent solutions we conjecture that the Kerr-Schild ansatz has to be abandoned.

Remark 5. (a) It is easy to prove that $`\rho =0`$ only when the curve $`C`$ is a straight line in $`𝐌_𝐃`$ (static case). This means that there are no accelerated vacuum and electro-vacuum solutions.
(b) We can have pure fluid solutions when $`e=c=0`$. In this case we have

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`mR^{3D},`$
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2D}{\kappa }}[a(1D)M+\dot{M}]R^{2D}`$ (63)
for $`D4`$ and

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`m,`$
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2Ma\dot{M}}{\kappa R}}`$ (64)
for $`D=3`$. Such solutions are usually called as the Photon Rocket solutions -. We give here the D dimensional generalizations of this type of metrics as well.

## 5 Radiation due to Acceleration

In this Section we give a detailed analysis of the energy flux due to the acceleration of charged sources in the case of the solution given in Theorem 6. For the $`D>3`$ case, the solution described by the functions $`c`$, $`e`$, and $`M`$ give the energy density given in (59). Remember that at this point $`c=c(\tau ,a,a_k)`$ and arbitrary. Choosing $`e=`$ constant , $`c=ea`$ as was done by Bonnor and Vaidya , the expression for $`\rho `$ simplifies and one gets

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}(2D)\dot{M}R^{2D}+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\kappa }}(2D)(1D)MR^{2D}`$ (65)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{R^2}}(\ddot{z}^\alpha \ddot{z}_\alpha +ϵa^2)+(3D)(2D)e^2[ϵa_1R^{2D}`$
$`+aR^{52D}aR^{1D}ϵDa^2R^{2D}]`$
The flux of null fluid energy is then given by

$$N_f=_{S^{D2}}T_f^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}\dot{z}_{\alpha }^{}n^\beta R^{D3}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(66)
and since $`T_f^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}=\rho \lambda ^\alpha \lambda _\beta `$ for the special case $`p=\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ that we are examining, one finds that

$$N_f=ϵϵ_1_{S^{D2}}\rho R^{D2}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(67)
where $`\rho `$ is given in (65). The flux of electromagnetic energy is similarly given by

$$N_e=_{S^{D2}}T_e^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}\dot{z}_{\alpha }^{}n^\beta R^{D3}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(68)
and for the solution we are examining, one finds that

$`T_e^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}\dot{z}_{\alpha }^{}n^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_1ϵ(3D)e[(3D)e(Aϵ)R^{52D}`$ (69)
$`+\dot{e}R^{62D}+ϵ(c_{,\alpha }\dot{z}^\alpha )R^{3D}]+ϵϵ_1R(c_{,\alpha }c^{,\alpha })`$
$`+(3D)^2e^2(R_{,\alpha }n^\alpha )R^{42D}`$
$`+(3D)eR^{52D}\dot{e}(\lambda _\alpha n^\alpha )`$
$`+ϵ(3D)eR^{2D}(c_{,\alpha }n^\alpha )`$
for the case $`c=c(\tau ,a,a_k)`$ and arbitrary. Taking the special case $`e=`$ constant, $`c=ea`$ of Bonnor-Vaidya , this simplifies and hence (68) becomes

$$N_e=ϵ_1e^2_{S^{D2}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }[a^2+ϵ(\ddot{z}^\alpha \ddot{z}_\alpha )]R^{D4}.$$
(70)
The total energy flux is given by

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`N_e+N_f=ϵ_1{\displaystyle _{S^{D2}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(2D)ϵ}{\kappa }}\dot{M}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{\kappa }}a(2D)(1D)M`$ (71)
$`+(3D)(2D)e^2a_1D(2D)(3D)e^2a^2]`$
for $`R`$ large enough. For a charge with acceleration $`|\ddot{z}_\alpha |=\kappa _1`$, we have (see the Appendix)

$`N={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2D)\{\dot{M}ϵ+2(3D)e^2(\kappa _1)^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}`$
$`D(3D)e^2(\kappa _1)^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{D3}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2}})\gamma _D\}ϵ_1,`$ (72)
where

$$\gamma _D=\frac{2\sqrt{\pi }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D1}{2})}+2^D\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D+2}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D)}.$$

Notice that when $`D=4`$, this reduces to the result of Bonnor-Vaidya in Ref.. We also give the $`D=6`$ case as another example.

$$N=\{\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_1[ϵ\dot{M}\frac{8\pi }{3}e^2(\kappa _1)^2]\hfill & (D=4)\hfill \\ ϵ_1[2ϵ\dot{M}\frac{96\pi ^2}{15}e^2(\kappa _1)^2]\hfill & (D=6)\hfill \end{array}$$
(73)
Remark 6. To be consistent with Bonnor and Vaidya we take $`ϵ_1=1`$ which is also consistent with our Remark 1. Electromagnetic energy flux (70) is finite only when $`D=4`$, but the total energy flux (72) is finite, for all $`D`$ (due to the cancelation of divergent terms in $`N_e`$ and $`N_f`$).

Remark 7. The difference between the energy flux expressions in the $`D=4`$ flat space (29) with one obtained above (73) is due to the scaling factor ($`\frac{1}{4\pi }`$). Apart from this difference the energy flux expressions obtained from classical electromagnetism and general relativity are exactly the same for the special case $`c=ea`$ and $`M=`$ constant. For other choices we obtain different expressions for the energy flux. For $`D>4`$ since we do not have gauge equivalent solutions (see Remark 4) the energy flux expressions obtained from classical electromagnetism and general relativity are different.

For the $`D=3`$ case, substituting the special choice $`e=`$ constant, $`c=ea`$ of , the expression for $`\rho `$ given in (61) reduces to

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{M}}{\kappa R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2Ma}{\kappa R}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{R^2}}(\ddot{z}^\alpha \ddot{z}_\alpha )ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{e^2a_1}{R}}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{e^2a^2}{R^2}}`$ (74)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2a}{R}}\mathrm{ln}R+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2a}{R}}[3ϵa+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}].`$
Similarly the energy flux due to the fluid is found as

$$N_f=ϵϵ_1_0^{2\pi }\rho R𝑑\theta $$

where $`\rho `$ is given in (74). For the energy flux due to the electromagnetic field, one finds

$`T_e^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}\dot{z}_{\alpha }^{}n^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_1ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{R}}(Aϵ)+ϵϵ_1e\dot{e}\mathrm{ln}R+ϵ_1e(c_{,\alpha }\dot{z}^\alpha )`$ (75)
$`+ϵϵ_1R(c_{,\alpha }c^{,\alpha })+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{R^2}}(R_{,\alpha }n^\alpha )+{\displaystyle \frac{e\dot{e}}{R}}\mathrm{ln}R(\lambda _\alpha n^\alpha )`$
$`+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{e}{R}}(c_{,\alpha }n^{,\alpha })`$
Here $`c=c(\tau ,a,a_k)`$ is an arbitrary function of its arguments. For the special case $`e=`$ constant, $`c=ea`$ energy flux due to the electromagnetic field becomes

$$N_e=\frac{e^2}{R}ϵ_1_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta [a^2+ϵ(\ddot{z}^\alpha \ddot{z}_\alpha )]$$

The total energy loss is given by

$`N=N_e+N_f=ϵ_1{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\theta [{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\dot{M}}{\kappa }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2ϵMa}{\kappa }}e^2a_1ϵae^2\mathrm{ln}R`$
$`+3e^2a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{R}}e^2a{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}e^2a].`$ (76)
Assuming that the curve $`C`$ is time like ($`ϵ=1`$), performing the angular integration in (76), then taking $`R`$ large enough we get

$$N=[\frac{1}{2}\dot{M}+\pi e^2\kappa _1^2]ϵ_1$$

Remark 8. The sign of the energy flux expression in three dimensions is opposite to the one obtained in other dimensions ($`D>3`$).

## 6 Conclusion

We have found exact solutions of the $`D`$-dimensional Einstein Maxwell field equations with a null perfect fluid source. Physically these solutions describe the electromagnetic and gravitational fields of a charged particle moving on an arbitrary curve $`C`$ in a $`D`$\- dimensional manifold. The metric and the electromagnetic vector potential arbitrarily depend on a scalar, $`c(\tau _0,a,a_k)`$ which can be related to the curvatures of the curve $`C`$. In four dimensions with a special choice of this scalar, our solution matches with the Bonnor-Vaidya metric . For other choices we have different solutions. In higher dimensions our solutions given in Theorem 6, for all $`D`$, can be considered as the accelerated Tangherlini  solutions.

We have also studied the flux of electromagnetic energy due to the acceleration of charged particles. We observed that the energy flux formula, for all dimensions, depends on the choice of the scalar $`c`$ in terms of the functions $`a`$, $`a_k`$ (or the curvature scalars of the curve $`C`$). In dimensions $`D>4`$ electromagnetic and fluid energy fluxes diverge for large values of $`R`$ but the total energy flux is finite. We obtained the energy flux expression corresponding to a special choice, $`c=ea`$, for all dimensions.

We would like to thank the referees for their constructive criticisms. This work is partially supported by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey and by the Turkish Academy of Sciences.

## Appendix: Serret-Frenet Frames.

In this Appendix we shall give the Serret-Frenet frame in four dimensions which can be easily extended to any arbitrary dimension $`D`$. The curve $`C`$ described in Section 2 has the tangent vector $`T^\mu =\dot{z}^\mu `$. Starting from this tangent vector, by repeated differentiation with respect to the arclength parameter $`\tau _0`$, one can generate an orthonormal frame $`\{T^\mu ,N_1^\mu ,N_2^\mu ,N_3^\mu \}`$ ,the Serret-Frenet frame.

$`\dot{T}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _1N_1^\mu ,`$ (77)
$`\dot{N}_1^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _1T^\mu \kappa _2N_2^\mu ,`$ (78)
$`\dot{N}_2^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _2N_1^\mu \kappa _3N_3^\mu ,`$ (79)
$`\dot{N}_3^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _3N_2^\mu `$ (80)
Here $`\kappa _i,(i=1,2,3)`$ are the curvatures of the curve $`C`$ at the point $`z^\mu (\tau _0)`$. The normal vectors $`N_i,(i=1,2,3)`$ are space like unit vectors. Hence at the point $`z^\mu (\tau _0)`$ on the curve we have an orthonormal frame which can be used as a basis of the tangent space at this point. In Section 2 we have also defined some scalars

$$a_k=\frac{d^k\ddot{z}_\mu }{d\tau _0^k}\lambda ^\mu $$

where $`\lambda _\mu =ϵT^\mu +ϵ_1\frac{n^\mu }{R}`$. Here $`n^\mu `$ is a space like vector orthogonal to $`T^\mu `$. Hence we let

$$n^\mu =\alpha N_1^\mu +\beta N_2^\mu +\gamma N_3^\mu $$

with $`\alpha ^2+\beta ^2+\gamma ^2=R^2`$. One can choose the spherical angles $`\theta (0,\pi ),\varphi (0,2\pi )`$ such that

$$\alpha =R\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\beta =R\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\gamma =R\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi $$

Hence we can calculate the scalars $`a_k`$ in terms of the curvatures and the spherical coordinates $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ at the point $`z^\mu (\tau _0)`$. These expressions are quite useful in the energy flux formulas. As an example we give $`a`$ and $`a_1`$.

$$a=ϵϵ_1\kappa _1\mathrm{cos}\theta ,a_1=(\kappa _1)^2ϵϵ_1\dot{\kappa }_1\mathrm{cos}\theta +ϵϵ_1\kappa _1\kappa _2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi $$
(81)
All other $`a_k`$’s can be found similarly. Hence for all $`k`$, these scalars depend on the curvatures and the spherical angles.

In four dimensions the space like vector $`n`$ is given by (we shall omit the indices on the vectors)

$$n=R[N_1\mathrm{cos}\theta +N_2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi +N_3\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ]$$

where $`\theta (0,\pi )`$ and $`\varphi (0,2\pi )`$. The line element on $`S^2`$ is

$$ds^2=d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2$$

The solid angle integral is

$$_{S^2}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }=4\pi .$$

In six dimensions we have

$`n=R[N_1\mathrm{cos}\theta +N_2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi _1+N_3\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2`$
$`+N_4\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _3+N_5\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _3]`$ (82)
where $`\theta ,\varphi _1,\varphi _2(0,\pi )`$ and $`\varphi _3(0,2\pi )`$ and

$$ds^2=d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _1d\varphi _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _2d\varphi _3^2.$$

The solid angle integral is

$$_{S^4}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{8\pi ^2}{3}.$$

The solid angle integral in $`D`$-dimensions is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}_{S^{D2}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{(D1)\pi ^{(D1)/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D+1}{2})}.$$


text:
# Planet accretion and the abundances of lithium isotopes

## 1 Introduction

The accretion of planets or planetary material onto stars have been considered as a possible explanation of the high metallicity frequently found in planet host stars (Laughlin & Adams 1997; Gonzalez 1997, 1998, 2001; Sandquist et al. 1998; Laughlin 2000; Santos et al. 2000; Murray et al. 2001; Pinsonneault et al. 2001). The very recent detection of the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$isotope in the atmosphere of the solar-type star HD 82943 (Israelian et al. 2001), which hosts a planetary system (Mayor et al. 2001), has also been interpreted as evidence for accretion of planets. Jupiter-like planets are expected to preserve their original content of the lithium isotopes, while stars like HD 82943 with a mass $`1.1`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$destroy, via nuclear reactions with protons, all its $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$(and a small fraction of the more robust 7Li) during the pre-main sequence (PMS) evolution (see e.g. Proffitt and Michaud 1989). It has been argued that ingestion and dilution of planetary material in HD 82943 after its superficial convective zone receded to the main-sequence location allowed long-term preservation of the newly acquired abundances of lithium isotopes. In fact, according to standard models for this type of stars, the base of the convective zone does not reach the temperatures needed for $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$burning ($`T2.2\times 10^6`$ K and $`T2.6\times 10^6`$ K, respectively). The rate of destruction of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$by protons has a temperature dependence similar to that of 7Li, but on much shorter time scale (i.e. 100 times shorter at 1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$in the standard model).

In this letter, we examine in quantitative terms the possibility that the dilution of one or several Jupiter-like planets in the convective envelope of a main sequence star could appreciably change the observed abundance of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$. In the framework of the standard model we predict the evolution of these isotopic abundances in stars with masses ranging from 1.3 to 0.6 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. We also discuss the effect due to some transport processes which cause extra-mixing below the convective zone (see for review Michaud & Charbonneau 1991). We will show that there is a narrow range of mass (or $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$) where the accretion of planetary material could produce an observable increase of 6,7Li abundance during a significant fraction of the lifetime of the star.

## 2 Models

The stellar models have been computed with the updated version of the ATON2.0 code (Ventura et al. 1998). We constructed models with masses ranging from 0.6 to 1.3 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$with a step of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=0.05`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, and followed the evolution from the pre-main sequence to 7 Gyr. These models use a mixing length theory (MLT) description of convective transport with a parameter of mixing length $`\alpha =1.6`$, as given by the solar calibration (Ventura et al. 1998; Montesinos et al. 2001). Two different chemical compositions were adopted: a) initial solar helium abundance of $`Y_{}=0.28`$ and heavy-elements mass fraction of $`Z_{}=0.02`$ (\[Fe/H\]=0.0) (Montesinos et al. 2001), b) $`Z=0.04`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y/\mathrm{\Delta }Z=2`$, that is, \[Fe/H\]=+0.34.

The code used in our model computations allows to include gravitational settling of helium and thermal diffusion, but it does not consider the diffusion of metals. Diffusion generally produces a reduction of the convection zone, however, Turcotte et al. (1998) showed that the convective envelopes in models with metal diffusion are deeper than in models including only helium settling. Furthermore, their results indicate (see their Fig.4) that for the higher masses considered in this paper ($`M1.3\mathrm{M}_{}`$) the mass of the convective envelope of a non-diffusion model is actually closer to the full-diffusion one than to a model incorporating He settling only (in fact, the non-diffusion and full-diffusion curves overlap). Because of that, we decided to use stellar structures obtained without including diffusion. Notice also that, a proper treatment of diffusion (Turcotte et al. 1998) has no significant impact on the evolution of lithium abundance in stars with $`M1.3\mathrm{M}_{}`$. The nuclear burning rates of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$in the star’s convective envelope were computed for each temporal step in evolution using NACRE nuclear reaction tables (Angulo et al. 1999).

Masses for the engulfed sub-stellar companions ranged, from 1 $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$111Jupiter mass, M$`{}_{\mathrm{J}}{}^{}=9.55\times 10^4\mathrm{M}_{}`$ to 40 $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$. This upper mass limit was adopted to ensure the complete preservation of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$(Pozio 1991, Nelson et al. 1993), but, in practice, the maximum mass of the accreted planet was constrained to be less than the mass in the convective zone of the star under consideration.

The hypothesis and approximations adopted in our study are: i) planet accretion takes place just after the star arrived on the main sequence. The analysis presented here does not change if the planet is engulfed at any other moment during the main sequence lifetime. Such case can be dealt by taking into account that the temperature, mass of the convective envelope and the stellar surface lithium abundance will be different since they decrease as age increases. ii) The planet is completely dissolved in the stellar convective envelope. As shown by numerical simulations (Sandquist et al. 1998), the reliability of this assumption depends on the mass of the planet ($`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$) and on the mass of the convective envelope $`M_{\mathrm{CZ}}`$, and also strongly depends on the details of the internal structure of the planet. The smaller the $`M_{\mathrm{CZ}}`$, the lower the fraction of planet dissolved in the convective zone. That means that, at least for the higher planet masses under consideration, the quantity of lithium provided by the planet must be reduced in a factor equal to the fraction of the planet consumed in the star’s convective envelope. iii) The engulfment of a planet has no significant effect in the structure of the star. iv) The planet is instantly mixed in the convective zone of the star. Given that the diffusion coefficient in the convective zone is of the order of $`10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, the mixing time is lower than the temporal step in the evolution computation.

The stellar models were followed from the PMS, but we will not use the surface abundance of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$given by the models because it is well known that they overestimate PMS lithium destruction (D’Antona & Mazzitelli 1997). For masses lower than 1.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$it is expected that no $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$exists after the PMS (Proffitt & Michaud 1989). As regards surface $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$abundance we adopted the values observed in stars of the Pleiades Cluster (Soderblom et al. 1993). So the stellar surface abundances of lithium isotopes at the moment of the engulfment of the planet are: $`N(^6\mathrm{Li})/N(H)=0`$ and $`N(^7\mathrm{Li})/N(H)=F(T_{\mathrm{eff}})_{\mathrm{Pleiades}}`$. These abundances in the planets are assumed equal to the meteoritic values. That is: $`N(^7\mathrm{Li})_0/N(H)=2.10^9`$, and $`N(^7\mathrm{Li})_0/N(^6\mathrm{Li})_0=12.`$

Following Burrows & Sharp (1999) we assume an Anders & Grevesse (1989) solar chemical composition for both the planet and the star. In this case, the difference between the abundance of the isotope $`J`$ in the star’s convective zone before (s) and after (s+p) the dilution of the planet can be written as:

$$ϵ(J)_{\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{p}}ϵ(J)_\mathrm{s}=\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{x}{x+1}(1f)\right)\mathrm{log}f.$$
(1)
Where $`ϵ(J)=\mathrm{log}(N(J)/N(H))+12`$, $`x=M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/M_{\mathrm{CZ}}`$, and $`f`$ is the depletion factor of $`J`$ in the convective zone just before the absorption of the planet. So the change in the stellar surface abundance depends strongly on the factor $`f`$, and it is evident from Eq. (1) that the lithium abundance enhancement will be significant only if the mass fraction of the isotope $`J`$ in the planet is much higher than in the stellar convective envelope. If the engulfed planet has lost a significant part of its initial content of Hydrogen, the mass fraction of lithium in the planet is larger than in the solar chemical composition case. Therefore, also the enhancement of atmospheric lithium abundance will be larger, and the results presented here would be a lower limit.

## 3 Evolution of Li provided by planetary material

### 3.1 Standard model framework

The standard model assumes that no exchange of material occurs between the convective envelope and the stable radiative interior of the star. Therefore, the surface chemical composition reflects only the composition of the well mixed convective envelope. In this subsection we present the evolution of lithium in the stellar surface due to the nuclear burning taking place in the convective envelope.

Assuming solar chemical composition, a planet of 1 MJ supplies $`\mathrm{1.4\hspace{0.17em}10}^{44}`$ atoms of 6Li and $`\mathrm{1.7\hspace{0.17em}10}^{45}`$ atoms of 7Li. What is the evolution of these atoms during the main sequence lifetime of the star? The nuclear time scale, $`\tau _\mathrm{N}`$, is an estimation of how long these atoms could survive to the nuclear burning in the convective envelope. $`\tau _\mathrm{N}`$, is defined as the time needed to decrease the superficial abundance of the the isotope $`J`$ by a factor $`e`$, and it has been obtained from the nuclear reaction rates at each layer in the convective zone, and assuming instantaneous mixing. In Fig. 1 we plot $`\tau _\mathrm{N}`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$at 100 Myr as a function of effective temperature. We plot the curves corresponding to two different values of metallicity. We see that for $`\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}3.76`$ ($``$ 5700 K), a large fraction of the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$from the planet will survive for a long time in the convective envelope of the star. The value of $`\tau _\mathrm{N}`$ given in the plot is a minimum, since during the main sequence lifetime, the temperature at the bottom of the convective zone decreases, and so the nuclear time scale increases. The effect of increasing the metallicity is to reduce the nuclear time scale at a given $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. A factor 2 higher metallicity implies a factor 3 lower time scale at 5500 K, a factor 2 at 5700 K and only a reduction of 10% for $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$higher than 5800 K.

Fig. 2 presents the evolution (based on models and hypothesis described in Sect. 2) of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$abundance for several stellar masses, and for two values of metallicity: \[Fe/H\]=0.0 (left panel) and \[Fe/H\]=+0.34 (right panel). That temporal dependence is obtained computing the nuclear depletion of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$in the stellar convective envelope for each temporal step in the evolution and assuming instantaneous mixing. We plot only values of lithium abundances corresponding to times longer than the time of planet accretion, and lower than the drag-up of the convective envelope. In the upper panels, we plot the curves corresponding to the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$that result from the accretion of a planet with $``$ 1, 5, and 10 MJ in stars with masses between 0.9 and 1.2 M (for 1.25 and 1.3 M the enhancement of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$is slightly larger because the mass of the convective envelope is smaller, and the curves are parallel to those of 1.2 M). This preliminary and simple modelling provides strong support for the interpretation by Israelian et al. (2001) of the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$detection in HD 82943. According to our models, assuming a $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$`6000`$ K, age of 5 Gyr and metallicity \[Fe/H\]$`0.32`$ (Santos et al. 2000) this star has a mass of $`1.2`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. As can be seen in Fig 2 right panel, it should preserve any ingested $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$during all the main sequence lifetime.

The $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$abundances plotted in Fig. 2 were obtained assuming a complete dissolution of the planet in the stellar convective zone. For solar metallicity, the masses of the convective envelope in stars with 1.2, 1.1 and 1.0 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$are 0.006 M, 0.017 M and 0.034 M, respectively. Numerical simulations by Sandquist et al. (1998) indicate that as the mass of the convective envelope decreases, the fraction of planet that is dissolved is reduced. If only 0.3 of a Jupiter-like planet is dissolved in the convective zone of a 1.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$star, the corresponding curve of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$will only decrease in $`0.2`$ dex.

Fig. 2 shows that there is a mass range in which $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$could survive. In fact, for stars with masses larger than 1.1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$(for $`Z_{}`$, or 1.15 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$for $`Z=2Z_{}`$) the superficial abundance of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$does not change with age. The reason is that during their main sequence lifetime, the temperature at the base of the convective zone is not high enough to produce efficient burning of 6Li. As the stellar mass decreases, the depth of the convective zone increases, and then, even if a large quantity of planetary material is dissolved in the stellar envelope, $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$will be depleted in a short time scale ($`10^8`$ yr).

The lower panels of Fig. 2 presents the predictions for 7Li according to standard model. Note that, opposite to 6Li, the $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$isotope is depleted on the PMS only by a small factor, and that stars with masses larger than 0.9$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$will not deplete a significant amount during the main sequence lifetime. If these stars were able to dissolve 10 MJ in their convective envelope, the effect on the abundance would be to introduce only a small enhancement, 0.2 dex at most. The reason is shown in Eq. (1), where we see that the increase of abundance depends strongly on the depletion factor of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$in the convective envelope before the accretion of the planetary material.

### 3.2 Impact of non-standard transport processes

Observations of lithium in open clusters show that the atmospheric abundance decreases during the main sequence lifetime. In order to explain this main-sequence depletion different mixing processes are invoked (e.g. Michaud & Charbonneau 1991), and we should consider their effect on the evolution of $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$in the stellar mass range where standard models predict complete preservation. Among these processes are: a) microscopic diffusion, that consists roughly in the sink of heavy elements with respect to the light ones due to the gravitational potential; b) turbulent diffusion which causes mixing of material between the convective zone and the deep layers where the temperature is high enough to burn lithium.

Concerning the first one, the diffusion velocities are similar for $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$and 7Li, but effects of microscopic diffusion are negligible for the effective temperature and ages considered here (e.g. Richer & Michaud 1993). Turcotte et al. (1998) showed that for 1.3 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$star, the effect of microscopic diffusion on Li is at most a depletion by a factor 0.55, and only after 2 Gyr. In order to test the effect of turbulent mixing we have considered a diffusion coefficient produced by internal waves that fits the evolution of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$abundances between the Pleiades and M67 clusters quite well (Montalbán & Schatzman 2000): $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$would decrease only in 0.2 dex after 5 Gyr in a 1.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$star ($`Z_{}`$). However, in a 1.1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$($`Z_{}`$) star, $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$will decrease 0.6 dex in the first Gyr and 1.7 dex after 5 Gyr. Of course, these results depend strongly on the behaviour of the diffusion coefficient close to the base of the convective zone. We recall that the diffusion coefficient produced by internal waves has large amplitude at the CZ boundary, and then it decreases rapidly downwards. Therefore, the results are very sensitive to the distance between the base of the convective zone and the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$burning layer. We have also tested a parametric turbulent diffusion coefficient $`D_\mathrm{T}=D_0(\rho _{cz}/\rho )^3`$ as proposed by Proffitt & Michaud (1991) ($`\rho _{cz}`$ is the density at the base of convective zone). A value of $`D_0\mathrm{1.5\hspace{0.17em}10}^3\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ produces, after 5 Gyr, a $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$depletion of : 1.6 dex for 1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$($`5800`$ K), 0.2 dex for 1.1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$($`6000`$ K), and $`<0.1`$ dex for 1.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$($`6100`$ K) (these values are in good agreement with estimations by Pinsonneault et al. 2001 using mixing induced by rotation), and causes a $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$depletion of 0.9 dex at $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$``$6000 K, 0.05 dex at $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$``$6100 K, and a complete depletion after 1 Gyr for $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$``$5800 K.

From observations it is inferred that the efficiency of non-standard mixing decreases with the age in the main-sequence. So what happens if the accretion of the planetary material takes place in a $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$depleted star at a sufficently old age for extra-mixing to be inefficient? The stellar $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$abundance could be significanly enhanced for a long period of time. For instance, if a 1 $`M_\mathrm{J}`$ planet were dissolved in our Sun’s convective envelope would produce an enhancement of 0.3 dex, if 10 $`M_\mathrm{J}`$ were accreted the corresponding increase would be 0.9 dex.

## 4 Conclusions

The results presented here show that the accretion of planetary material by a solar-type star will produce an enhancement of the stellar surface abundance of lithium which could be observable during a large fraction of the main sequence lifetime. Within the framework of the standard model, the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$range where the ingested $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}`$could be detected is 5900-6400 K. The upper limit is imposed by observational evidence given by the Li-Gap in the Hyades (Boesgaard & Tripicco 1986). The lower limit is the result of direct convective mixing and should increase about 100 or 200 K when extra-mixing processes are considered. The $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$range where $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$would survive is larger. Therefore, a very valuable test for planetary migration/accretion scenarios can be provided by high-resolution spectroscopic observations of 6,7Li in planet host stars.