text:
# The Generalized Jacobi Equation

## 1 Introduction

The analysis of observations in Einstein’s general relativity theory is a rather complicated issue in contrast with the elegant simplicity of the geometric structure of the theory . Take, for instance, the excess perihelion precession of Mercury that was explained by Einstein in 1915 and provided the first major success of general relativity. This standard theoretical result follows from the solution of the geodesic equation in the post-Newtonian approximation. However, the relevant observational results are usually obtained by monitoring the motion of Mercury from the Earth via electromagnetic radiation that is reflected by Mercury and reaches astronomical telescopes on the Earth. In effect, one has to deal with the *relative* motion of one geodesic (“Mercury”) with respect to the other (“Earth”) . Ideally, the observer following the reference geodesic sets up in its neighborhood a laboratory, where the measuring devices are assumed to work as in inertial spacetime. This local inertial frame of the observer is represented by the Fermi coordinate system. To construct such a coordinate patch, an orthonormal set of ideal gyroscopes would be required to define the local spatial frame of the observer, while an ideal standard clock would measure the observer’s proper time. The reduced equation of geodesic motion of a nearby particle in such a system is the generalized Jacobi equation that will be studied in this paper. The results may be applied to high energy astrophysical phenomena as well as precision measurements in space involving the tidal field of the Earth or an incident gravitational wave.

In a congruence of timelike geodesics, neighboring curves have rates of separation that are usually negligible compared to the speed of light in vacuum $`c`$. In this case the geodesic deviation equation is the standard Jacobi equation . There are physical circumstances, however, where the worldlines of adjacent geodesics diverge rapidly. Consider, for instance, a congruence of test particles with a common initial velocity falling toward a black hole such that depending on their impact parameters, some particles would be captured by the black hole, while others would escape its gravitational pull. Though the geodesics are neighboring as they approach the black hole, the rate of separation between the particles that fall in and those that are merely deflected would no longer be small compared to $`c`$. This example makes it clear that the relevant equation of relative motion, i.e. the generalized Jacobi equation, has a limited domain of applicability, since rapidly diverging geodesics would no longer be adjacent after a period of time that is characteristic of the spacetime curvature—that is, $`\varrho /c`$, where $`\varrho `$ is the radius of curvature.

The investigation of the relative motion of neighboring observers following arbitrary timelike curves leads to the general deviation equation. The relativistic theory of tides is based on the general *geodesic* deviation equation. This is rather complicated when the rate of separation of geodesics could be close to the speed of light; therefore, we confine our detailed discussion here to a limited form of this equation that is valid to first order in the relative separation (i.e. the generalized Jacobi equation). On the other hand, in the (“nonrelativistic”) case where a smooth geodesic congruence is given, a general treatment of the geodesic deviation equation is available; in fact, a new derivation can be found in the recent work of Kerner, van Holten and Colistete  who also give a novel application: they use the geodesic deviation equation together with Poincaré’s perturbation method to approximate bounded (eccentric) geodesics in the Schwarzschild metric that are close to circular geodesics.

The generalized Jacobi equation is discussed in detail in Section 2; in particular, we are interested in the dynamical system represented by this nonlinear equation, where the nonlinearity is due to the existence of velocity-dependent terms in the system. Therefore, we present a detailed analysis of its Hamiltonian structure.

To illustrate certain general dynamical features of the generalized Jacobi equation, we consider the relative motion of neighboring test particles in the field of a plane gravitational wave in Section 3 and in the exterior field of a gravitating source in Section 4. We note that many compact astrophysical systems emit powerful oppositely-directed jets that are highly collimated. No basic theory of astrophysical jets is available at present, though many—especially magnetohydrodynamic—models have been proposed. In particular, the physical processes that determine the asymptotic speed of the bulk flow are not clear at this time. Of particular interest in this connection is the relevance of the relative radial motion described in Section 4 to the “terminal” bulk motion of a relativistic jet once such an outflow is beyond the active region around the source and the bulk motion is subject only to the gravitational attraction of the source. Taking only the relativistic tidal forces into account, we demonstrate in this case the presence of an “attractor” at a Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sqrt{2}`$, corresponding to $`V=c/\sqrt{2}0.7c`$, for the terminal bulk motion of a jet relative to the ambient medium.

Finally, Section 5 contains a discussion of our results. In the following sections, we use units such that $`c=1`$.

## 2 Generalized Jacobi equation

The generalized Jacobi equation in Fermi coordinates can be simply obtained by writing an alternative form of the geodesic equation, i.e. the *reduced* geodesic equation (2.5) below, in Fermi coordinates. However, to clarify the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian aspects of this equation, it is useful to proceed as in the following subsections.

### 2.1 Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formalisms

As is well-known, the geodesic equation in local coordinates $`x^\mu `$ on a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with metric

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu $$

is equivalent to the Euler-Lagrange equation for the Lagrangian

$$(x^\mu ,u^\nu )=\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }(x)u^\mu u^\nu ,$$

where

$$u^\mu :=\frac{dx^\mu }{d\lambda },$$

the canonical momentum is given by

$$p_\mu =\frac{}{u^\mu }=g_{\mu \nu }(x)u^\nu ,$$

and $`\lambda `$ is an arbitrary parameter (see ). In fact, the Euler-Lagrange equation for this system is equivalent to

$$\frac{d^2x^\mu }{d\lambda ^2}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu \frac{dx^\alpha }{d\lambda }\frac{dx^\beta }{d\lambda }=0,$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu =\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \gamma }(g_{\gamma \alpha ,\beta }+g_{\gamma \beta ,\alpha }g_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma })$$

are the Christoffel symbols. The corresponding Hamiltonian is

$$(x^\mu ,p_\nu )=p_\mu u^\mu (x^\mu ,u^\nu )=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }(x)p_\mu p_\nu ,$$

which is independent of the parameter $`\lambda `$; thus, $``$ is constant on geodesics. It follows that along a geodesic $`\lambda `$ is a linear function of $`s`$.

### 2.2 Isoenergetic reduction

Let us specialize to a four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold where we take an admissible coordinate chart and the sign convention $`(,+,+,+)`$ for the Lorentzian metric. We will also use the Einstein summation rules; Greek indices run from zero to three and Latin indices run from one to three. Moreover, round brackets around indices denote symmetrization, while square brackets denote antisymmetrization.

The timelike geodesics ($`(ds/d\lambda )^2<0`$) with energy $`=1/2`$ have $`\lambda =\tau `$, where $`\tau `$ is the proper time along the geodesic such that $`(ds/d\tau )^2=1`$. We will determine the isoenergetic reduction for the Hamiltonian system restricted to this manifold.

The Hamiltonian equations of motion (where we have assumed for simplicity that $`p^\mu =u^\mu `$; that is, the mass of the free test particle is normalized to unity) are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_\mu }}=g^{\mu \nu }p_\nu =p^\mu ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_\mu }{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{,\mu }^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha p_\beta .`$ (2.1)
Reduction is accomplished by first separating the pairs of canonically conjugate variables $`(x^\mu ,p_\nu )`$ into time and space variables; that is, we take $`(x^\mu ,p_\nu )=(t,p_0;x^i,p_j)`$ so that points in spacetime with energy $`1/2`$ satisfy the equation

$$(t,p_0;x^i,p_j)=\frac{1}{2}g^{00}p_0^2+g^{0i}p_0p_i+\frac{1}{2}g^{ij}p_ip_j=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(2.2)
Because the flow of time does not stop along the worldline of an observer, we have $`dt/d\tau 0`$. Hence, by Hamilton’s equations, the partial derivative $`/p_0`$ does not vanish. By the implicit function theorem, there is a function $`\alpha `$ such that

$$(t,\alpha (t,x^i,p_j),x^i,p_j)=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(2.3)
That is, the energy surface is (locally) the graph of $`\alpha `$. Of course, we can also solve explicitly for $`\alpha `$. Indeed, because $`g^{00}0`$ in an admissible chart we can complete the square with respect to $`p_0`$ in equation (2.2) to obtain

$$\left(p_0+\frac{g^{0i}p_i}{g^{00}}\right)^2=\frac{1+\stackrel{~}{g}^{ij}p_ip_j}{g^{00}},$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{ij}:=g^{ij}\frac{g^{0i}g^{0j}}{g^{00}}.$$

Hence,

$$\alpha (t,x^i,p_j)=\frac{g^{0i}}{g^{00}}p_i\pm \left(\frac{1+\stackrel{~}{g}^{ij}p_ip_j}{(g^{00})}\right)^{1/2}.$$

We note that $`(\stackrel{~}{g}^{ij})`$ is the inverse of the spatial metric $`(g_{ij})`$; that is, $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{ik}g_{kj}=\delta _j^i`$.

On the energy surface, the equation

$$\frac{dp_0}{d\tau }=\frac{}{t}(t,\alpha (t,x^i,p_j),x^i,p_j)$$

decouples from the system (2.2). By computing the partial derivatives with respect to $`x^i`$ and $`p_i`$ on both sides of equation (2.3), we obtain the identities

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{x^i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{p_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_i}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Using these relations, the Hamiltonian system (2.2) for the spatial variables can be expressed as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx^i}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_i}}={\displaystyle \frac{}{p_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{p_i}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_i}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}={\displaystyle \frac{}{p_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{x^i}},`$
where $`/p_0=dt/d\tau 0`$ since $`t`$ is the timelike variable. Hence, the remaining “spatial” equations in the Hamiltonian system (2.2) can be recast into the time-dependent Hamiltonian system (“the isoenergetic reduction”)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx^i}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{p_i}}(t,x^j,p_k),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_i}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{x^i}}(t,x^j,p_k),`$ (2.4)
with Hamiltonian $`\alpha `$.

The Hamiltonian isoenergetic reduction procedure is equivalent to a Lagrangian procedure. In fact, let us define the Lagrangian

$$L(t,x^i,v^j)=\left[(g_{00}(t,x)+2g_{0i}(t,x)v^i+g_{ij}(t,x)v^iv^j)\right]^{1/2},$$

where $`v^i:=dx^i/dt`$, the minus sign under the square root ensures that $`L`$ is real and the other minus sign is to conform with the sign convention used in the Hamiltonian system (2.2). We now have

$$p_i:=\frac{L}{v^i}=(g_{0i}+g_{ij}v^j)\left[(g_{00}+2g_{0i}v^i+g_{ij}v^iv^j)\right]^{1/2}$$

and the corresponding time-dependent Hamiltonian

$$H=H(t,x^i,p_j):=p_iv^iL(t,x^i,v^j)$$

is given by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`(g_{00}+g_{0i}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^i}{dt}}){\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\tau }}`$
$`=`$ $`(g_{00}p^0+g_{0i}p^i)=g_{0\alpha }p^\alpha =p_0,`$
where we have used the fact that the proper time $`\tau `$ along the geodesic worldline is such that $`L=d\tau /dt`$. Hence $`H=\alpha `$ in system (2.2).

This reduced system is equivalent to the second-order differential equation

$$\frac{d^2x^i}{dt^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^0\frac{dx^\alpha }{dt}\frac{dx^\beta }{dt})\frac{dx^i}{dt}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^i\frac{dx^\alpha }{dt}\frac{dx^\beta }{dt}=0,$$
(2.5)
which is the reduced geodesic equation. To prove this fact, note that the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian equations of motion are equivalent to the Euler-Lagrange equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left[(g_{0i}+g_{ij}v^j)[(g_{00}+2g_{0i}v^i+g_{ij}v^iv^j)]^{1/2}\right]`$ (2.6)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_{00,i}+2g_{0j,i}v^j+g_{kl,i}v^kv^{\mathrm{}})[(g_{00}+2g_{0i}v^i+g_{ij}v^iv^j)]^{1/2}.`$
Let us use the proper time $`\tau `$ to recast equation (2.6) in the form

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }(g_{i\alpha }u^\alpha )=\frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta ,i}u^\alpha u^\beta ,$$

where $`u^\mu =dx^\mu /d\tau `$. After computation of the derivative by the product rule, the equation can be rearranged to the equivalent form

$$g_{i\alpha }\frac{du^\alpha }{d\tau }+\frac{1}{2}(g_{i\alpha ,\beta }+g_{i\beta ,\alpha }g_{\alpha \beta ,i})u^\alpha u^\beta =0.$$

We multiply both sides of the last equation by $`g^{\mu i}`$ and use the identity $`g^{\mu i}g_{i\alpha }+g^{\mu 0}g_{0\alpha }=\delta _\alpha ^\mu `$ to show that

$$(\delta _\alpha ^\mu g^{\mu 0}g_{0\alpha })\frac{du^\alpha }{d\tau }+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu i}(g_{i\alpha ,\beta }+g_{i\beta ,\alpha }g_{\alpha \beta ,i})u^\alpha u^\beta =0.$$

Also, using the identity

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu =\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu i}(g_{i\alpha ,\beta }+g_{i\beta ,\alpha }g_{\alpha \beta ,i})+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu 0}(g_{0\alpha ,\beta }+g_{0\beta ,\alpha }g_{\alpha \beta ,0}),$$

we have the equation

$$\frac{du^\mu }{d\tau }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu u^\alpha u^\beta g^{\mu 0}g_{0\alpha }\frac{du^\alpha }{d\tau }\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu 0}(g_{0\alpha ,\beta }+g_{0\beta ,\alpha }g_{\alpha \beta ,0})u^\alpha u^\beta =0.$$
(2.7)
We claim that

$$u_\mu (\frac{du^\mu }{d\tau }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu u^\alpha u^\beta )=0.$$
(2.8)
To prove this identity, we replace $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$ by its defined value, multiply through by $`u_\mu `$ and then use the antisymmetry of the last two terms in the resulting expression to conclude that

$$u_\mu (\frac{du^\mu }{d\tau }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu u^\alpha u^\beta )=u_\mu \frac{du^\mu }{d\tau }+\frac{1}{2}u^\rho g_{\rho \alpha ,\beta }u^\alpha u^\beta .$$

A calculation shows that the right-hand side of this last equation is equal to

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{d\tau }(g_{\mu \nu }u^\mu u^\nu ),$$

and therefore it is equal to zero, since $`(ds/d\tau )^2=g_{\mu \nu }u^\mu u^\nu =1`$.

After multiplying equation (2.7) by $`u_\mu `$, we use equation (2.8) to see that

$$g_{0\alpha }\frac{du^\alpha }{d\tau }+\frac{1}{2}(g_{0\alpha ,\beta }+g_{0\beta ,\alpha }g_{\alpha \beta ,0})u^\alpha u^\beta =0,$$

since $`u_\mu g^{\mu 0}=u^0=dt/d\tau 0`$. By inserting this equality into equation (2.7), it follows that

$$\frac{du^\mu }{d\tau }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu u^\alpha u^\beta =0.$$

In particular, if $`\mu =0`$, then

$$\frac{d^2t}{d\tau ^2}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^0u^\alpha u^\beta =0;$$
(2.9)
and if $`\mu =i`$, then

$$\frac{d^2x^i}{d\tau ^2}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^iu^\alpha u^\beta =0.$$
(2.10)
Using the chain rule, we have that

$$\frac{d^2x^i}{d\tau ^2}=\left(\frac{dt}{d\tau }\right)^2\frac{d^2x^i}{dt^2}+\frac{d^2t}{d\tau ^2}\frac{dx^i}{dt}.$$

By inserting this identity into equation (2.10) and by replacing $`dx^\rho /d\tau `$ with $`(dx^\rho /dt)(dt/d\tau )`$, we obtain equation (2.5) with its left-hand side multiplied by the nonzero factor $`\left(dt/d\tau \right)^2`$. This proves the desired result.

### 2.3 Generalized Jacobi equation

The generalized Jacobi equation is the linearization of the reduced geodesic equation (2.5) in Fermi coordinates with respect to the space variables, but not their velocities. We will obtain the explicit expression for this equation in Fermi coordinates valid in a cylindrical spacetime region along the worldline of a reference observer, which is at rest at the spatial origin of the Fermi coordinates (see Appendix A). This is perhaps the most useful form of the generalized Jacobi equation.

For an arbitrary spacetime, when a reference observer (that follows a geodesic) in a coordinate chart $`(t,x^i)`$ is specified, we can always find a Fermi coordinate system $`(T,X^i)`$ in a neighborhood of the worldline of the fiducial observer so that the metric tensor is given by

$`g_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`1{}_{}{}^{F}R_{0i0j}^{}(T)X^iX^j+\mathrm{},`$
$`g_{0i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{}_{}{}^{F}R_{0jik}^{}(T)X^jX^k+\mathrm{},`$
$`g_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{}_{}{}^{F}R_{ikj\mathrm{}}^{}(T)X^kX^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{},`$ (2.11)
where

$${}_{}{}^{F}R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^{}=R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\lambda _{(\alpha )}^\mu \lambda _{(\beta )}^\nu \lambda _{(\gamma )}^\rho \lambda _{(\delta )}^\sigma ,$$

are the components of the Riemann tensor projected onto the orthonormal tetrad frame $`\lambda _{(\alpha )}^\mu (T)`$ that is parallel propagated along the worldline of the reference observer at rest at the spatial origin of the Fermi chart (cf. Appendix A). By expanding the coefficients of the reduced geodesic equation (2.5) for the metric expressed in the Fermi coordinates and retaining only the first-order terms in the spatial directions, we obtain the generalized Jacobi equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2X^i}{dT^2}}+{}_{}{}^{F}R_{0i0j}^{}X^j+2{}_{}{}^{F}R_{ikj0}^{}V^kX^j`$ (2.12)
$`+(2{}_{}{}^{F}R_{0kj0}^{}V^iV^k+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{}_{}{}^{F}R_{ikj\mathrm{}}^{}V^kV^{\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{}_{}{}^{F}R_{0kj\mathrm{}}^{}V^iV^kV^{\mathrm{}})X^j=0,`$
where $`V^i:=dX^i/dT`$. Alternatively, we could start from the Hamiltonian equations (2.2) and substitute in the Hamiltonian for $`g^{00}`$, $`g^{0i}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{ij}`$ expansions corresponding to equations (2.3) and recover equation (2.12) directly from Hamilton’s equations (2.2); this is done in Appendix B. The generalized Jacobi equation in arbitrary spacetime coordinates is given in Appendix C.

It is interesting to note a special scaling property of equation (2.12). To this end, we let $`\varrho `$ denote the radius of curvature; it is defined here so that $`1/\varrho ^2`$ is the supremum of the absolute magnitudes of the components of the Riemann tensor over the coordinate patch where the Fermi coordinates are defined. We will use the natural rescaling of the generalized Jacobi equation given by

$$X^i=\varrho \widehat{x}^i,T=\varrho \widehat{t}.$$
(2.13)
In fact, under this rescaling the generalized Jacobi equation maintains its form except that each component of the Riemann tensor is multiplied by $`\varrho ^2`$. The scaled equation is valid for $`|\widehat{x}^i|1`$ and for arbitrary velocities whose magnitudes do not exceed the speed of light $`c=1`$. The requirement that $`|\widehat{𝐱}|1`$ would naturally imply that in most cases the generalized Jacobi equation would hold for a limited interval of time $`\widehat{t}\widehat{t}_0`$ starting from some initial state at $`\widehat{t}=\widehat{t}_0`$ such that $`|\widehat{t}\widehat{t}_0|1`$.

The Hamiltonian dynamics of the generalized Jacobi equation will be explored in the following section for relative motion in the field of a plane gravitational wave. The dimensionless Fermi coordinates $`(\widehat{t},\widehat{𝐱})`$ introduced in equation (2.13) will only be employed in the latter part of Section 3 and should not be confused with the usual local coordinates that are used to express the spacetime metric of the plane wave below.

## 3 Generalized Jacobi equation for a plane gravitational wave

In this section we will determine the generalized Jacobi equation for a *plane* gravitational wave given by the metric

$$ds^2=dt^2+dx^2+U^2(e^{2h}dy^2+e^{2h}dz^2),$$

where $`U`$ and $`h`$ are functions of retarded time $`u=tx`$. This metric is a solution of Einstein’s field equations in vacuum ($`R_{\mu \nu }=0`$) provided that

$$U_{,uu}+(h_{,u})^2U=0.$$
(3.14)
Under this assumption, the gravitational field is of Petrov type $`N`$ (see ) and represents a plane wave propagating along the positive $`x`$-axis.

When $`|h|1`$ and $`U=1`$, the metric reduces to a linear plane gravitational wave in the $`T`$-$`T`$ gauge that is linearly polarized (“$``$”).

Any observer that remains at rest at spatial coordinates $`(x,y,z)`$ follows a geodesic of this spacetime. This is a consequence of a more general result discussed in Appendix D.

Let us consider the reference observer at rest at the spatial origin. We claim that the orthonormal tetrad frame of this observer

$`\lambda _{(0)}^\mu =(1,0,0,0),`$ $`\lambda _{(1)}^\mu =(0,1,0,0),`$
$`\lambda _{(2)}^\mu =(0,0,U^1e^h,0),`$ $`\lambda _{(3)}^\mu =(0,0,0,U^1e^h)`$ (3.15)
is parallel propagated along its worldline; that is,

$$\frac{d\lambda _{(\alpha )}^\mu }{dt}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma }^\mu \lambda _{(0)}^\rho \lambda _{(\alpha )}^\sigma =0.$$

It follows from Appendix D that the worldline of this observer lies on a geodesic (that is, the last equation holds for $`\alpha =0`$), so it suffices to show that the equation holds for $`\alpha =i`$. In fact, because the nonzero components of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0\alpha }^i`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{02}^2=\frac{1}{2}\frac{g_{22,0}}{g_{22}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{03}^3=\frac{1}{2}\frac{g_{33,0}}{g_{33}},$$

it is easy to see that $`\lambda _{(1)}^\mu `$ satisfies the equation. The desired result for $`\lambda _{(2)}^\mu `$ and $`\lambda _{(3)}^\mu `$ follows from the fact that $`U^1\mathrm{exp}(h)`$ and $`U^1\mathrm{exp}(h)`$ in equation (3) are respectively equal to $`(g_{22})^{1/2}`$ and $`(g_{33})^{1/2}`$ up to a sign factor.

To obtain the generalized Jacobi equation for the reference observer, we must compute the Fermi components of curvature along its worldline. Since the observer is at rest at the origin ($`x=y=z=0`$), these components will be functions of its proper time $`t=T`$ only. In fact, for

$$K(u):=h_{,uu}+2h_{,u}\frac{U_{,u}}{U}$$

we have that

$`{}_{}{}^{F}R_{1212}^{}={}_{}{}^{F}R_{1220}^{}={}_{}{}^{F}R_{2020}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`K(T),`$
$`{}_{}{}^{F}R_{1313}^{}={}_{}{}^{F}R_{1330}^{}={}_{}{}^{F}R_{3030}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`K(T)`$
are the only nonzero components except for the symmetries of the Riemann tensor. In the Fermi system, the spatial coordinates $`𝐗`$ are characterized invariantly with respect to the tetrad system as described in Appendix A.

By inserting the curvature components into the generalized Jacobi equation (2.12) with $`\dot{X}^i=dX^i/dT`$, we have the following system of second-order differential equations:

$`\ddot{X}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}K(T)(\dot{X}1)[X(\dot{Y}^2\dot{Z}^2)Y\dot{Y}(\dot{X}3)`$
$`+Z\dot{Z}(\dot{X}3)],`$
$`\ddot{Y}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}K(T)\{2X\dot{Y}(\dot{X}+\dot{Y}^2\dot{Z}^2)Y[3+2\dot{Y}^2(\dot{X}3)6\dot{X}+2\dot{X}^2]`$
$`+2Z\dot{Y}\dot{Z}(\dot{X}3)\},`$
$`\ddot{Z}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}K(T)\{2X\dot{Z}(\dot{X}\dot{Y}^2+\dot{Z}^2)+2Y\dot{Y}\dot{Z}(\dot{X}3)`$ (3.16)
$`Z[3+2\dot{Z}^2(\dot{X}3)6\dot{X}+2\dot{X}^2]\}.`$
We note that this system is invariant under the transformation $`XX`$, $`YZ`$, $`ZY`$ and $`KK`$. The generalized Jacobi system (3) with its velocity-dependent nonlinearities may conceivably have practical applications in the future for the case of space-based gravitational wave detectors such as LISA .

### 3.1 Dynamics

System (3) has a seven-dimensional extended state space such that the five-dimensional submanifolds

$`M_Y`$ $`:=`$ $`\{(X,Y,Z,\dot{X},\dot{Y},\dot{Z},T):Y=\dot{Y}=0\},`$
$`M_Z`$ $`:=`$ $`\{(X,Y,Z,\dot{X},\dot{Y},\dot{Z},T):Z=\dot{Z}=0\}`$
are invariant. The extended state space is simply the space of positions, velocities and time. On the three-dimensional invariant intersection of these manifolds, the flow is given by $`\ddot{X}=0`$ and $`\dot{T}=1`$. That is, equations (3) permit the uniform motion of a particle along the direction of wave propagation relative to the fiducial particle. This is due to the transverse character of the gravitational wave. Since the corresponding two-parameter family of solutions is $`X(T)=\dot{X}(0)T+X(0)`$, the relative motion is always unstable. That is, most members of this two-parameter family of geodesics diverge from the reference geodesic, which is the member of this family with $`X(0)=\dot{X}(0)=0`$.

In the small-$`h`$ approximation for a monochromatic wave with $`U=1`$, the curvature is given by $`K=h_{,uu}`$; hence, the assumption that $`h(u)=ϵ\mathrm{cos}(\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }u)`$ results in the curvature $`K(T)=ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{cos}(\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }T)`$, where $`ϵ1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the wave frequency and $`\varphi `$ is a constant phase. In this case, the radius of curvature is $`\varrho =1/(\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{ϵ})`$ and, using the scaled variables (2.13), system (3) maintains its form except that $`K(T)`$ is replaced by $`k(\widehat{t}):=\mathrm{cos}(\varphi +\widehat{t}/\mu )`$, where $`\mu :=\sqrt{ϵ}`$. It is convenient therefore to define a new temporal variable $`S:=\widehat{t}/\mu `$ and consider the equivalent first-order system with

$$\widehat{x}^{}=\mu \xi ,\widehat{y}^{}=\mu \eta ,\widehat{z}^{}=\mu \zeta ,$$

where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to the new “fast” time $`S`$. Each component of the vector field corresponding to the resulting first-order system has order $`\mu `$ and is $`2\pi `$-periodic. This system is therefore in the correct form for averaging with respect to the temporal variable.

By averaging to second-order in the small parameter $`\mu `$, we transform system (3) (by a near-identity nonautonomous change of variables) to a system that is autonomous to second-order in $`\mu `$. In fact, the second-order approximation of the averaged system is given by

$`\widehat{x}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \xi ,`$
$`\xi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\widehat{y}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \eta \mu ^2y\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$
$`\eta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2\eta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$
$`\widehat{z}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \zeta +\mu ^2z\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$
$`\zeta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2\zeta \mathrm{sin}\varphi .`$ (3.17)
This second-order approximation is not affected by the nonlinear terms in the generalized Jacobi equation; that is, the result would be the same for the corresponding Jacobi equation. The effect of the nonlinearities first appears in the third-order averaged system, i.e. at order $`ϵ^{3/2}`$.

Let us note that taking into account the first-order approximation in $`\mu `$ only, the approximation procedure suggests that on average $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ are not affected by the presence of the wave; that is, to first order in $`\mu `$, $`𝐗(T)=𝐗(0)+\dot{𝐗}(0)T`$. In case $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi 0`$, the first correction to this approximation—necessary only for $`Y(T)`$ and $`Z(T)`$—is obtained from the second-order approximation of the averaged system (3.1); in fact, we have that

$`Y(T)`$ $`=`$ $`Y(0)e^{ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }T\mathrm{sin}\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Y}(0)}{ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\varphi }}\mathrm{sinh}(ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }T\mathrm{sin}\varphi )`$
$`=`$ $`Y(0)+\dot{Y}(0)TϵY(0)\mathrm{\Omega }T\mathrm{sin}\varphi +O(ϵ^2),`$
$`Z(T)`$ $`=`$ $`Z(0)e^{ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }T\mathrm{sin}\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Z}(0)}{ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\varphi }}\mathrm{sinh}(ϵ\mathrm{\Omega }T\mathrm{sin}\varphi )`$ (3.18)
$`=`$ $`Z(0)+\dot{Z}(0)T+ϵZ(0)\mathrm{\Omega }T\mathrm{sin}\varphi +O(ϵ^2).`$
It follows from these results that for $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi =0`$, the motion is on average unaffected by the presence of the wave to first order in $`ϵ`$, as expected from the form of equation (3.1). Moreover, equations (3.1) ignore nonlinearities in the system (3) and are therefore valid for the Jacobi equation averaged to order $`ϵ`$. It should be noted that for the Jacobi equation the motions in $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ are stable as follows from an analysis of the corresponding Mathieu equations. This is not in conflict with equations (3.1) since to see this stability one has to average to higher orders than $`\mu ^2=ϵ`$.

### 3.2 Hamiltonian Chaos

The dynamical behavior of the generalized Jacobi system (3) is complicated by its high dimensionality and the velocity-dependent nonlinear terms. On the other hand, the system is Hamiltonian and if $`K`$ is periodic, we expect some dynamical effects associated with Hamiltonian chaos: resonance phenomena, stochastic regions and diffusion. While an investigation of these phenomena is beyond the scope of this paper, we illustrate the existence of Hamiltonian chaos in generalized Jacobi equations for the simpler system with $`1+1/2`$ degrees of freedom given by

$$\frac{d^2X}{dT^2}=K(T)(12V^2)X,$$
(3.19)
where $`V:=dX/dT`$ and $`K`$ is a periodic function. This equation of relative motion is obtained from the generalized Jacobi equation by limiting attention to a two-dimensional world, i.e. a surface $`(T,X)`$, where $`K`$ is the Gaussian curvature of the surface (cf. Section 4). According to the results of Appendix B, equation (3.19) can be obtained from a Hamiltonian

$$H(T,X,p)=(1+p^2)^{1/2}[1+\frac{1}{2}K(T)X^2],$$

once only terms linear in $`X`$ are retained in the equation of relative motion.

It is interesting to remark that the equivalent first-order system

$$\dot{X}=V,\dot{V}=K(T)(12V^2)X,$$
(3.20)
is Hamiltonian with respect to the symplectic form

$$\omega =(12V^2)^{1/2}dXdV,$$

in the region of the state space where $`V^21/2`$. Also, we note that the change of coordinates

$$x=X,v=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{2}V}{1\sqrt{2}V}\right),$$

for $`V^21/2`$, transforms system (3.20) to

$$\dot{x}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{exp}(2\sqrt{2}v)1}{\mathrm{exp}(2\sqrt{2}v)+1}\right),\dot{v}=K(T)x,$$

a system that is Hamiltonian with respect to the usual symplectic structure.

A few typical orbits with $`|V|<(1/2)^{1/2}`$ are illustrated in Figure 1 for a stroboscopic Poincaré map obtained by numerical integration of system (3.20) with $`K(T)=0.5\mathrm{cos}(T)`$; that is, we plot $`V`$ versus $`X`$ at times $`2n\pi `$ for nonnegative integer values of $`n`$. We note the presence of stochastic layers, resonant island chains and invariant closed curves. The proof of the existence of chaotic invariant sets even in this two-dimensional case is not simple since a straightforward application of the Melnikov method runs into standard difficulties; in particular, one has to deal with the problem of exponentially small splittings of homoclinic loops.

## 4 Generalized Jacobi equation for radial motion in black hole spacetimes

Imagine the relative motion of nearby free test particles along the axis of rotational symmetry of a Kerr source. For the reference geodesic, the equation of motion, using the standard Boyer-Lindquist radial coordinate $`r`$, is

$$\left(\frac{dr}{d\tau }\right)^2=\gamma ^21+\frac{2GMr}{r^2+a^2},$$
(4.21)
where $`G`$ is Newton’s gravitational constant, $`M`$ is the mass of the Kerr source and $`aM`$ is its angular momentum. Here $`\gamma `$ is a positive constant of integration and $`\gamma >1`$ has the interpretation of the Lorentz factor for the particle at infinity ($`r\mathrm{}`$).

For a neighboring geodesic, the generalized Jacobi equation describing motion along the axis relative to the fiducial observer is

$$\frac{d^2R}{dT^2}+k(T)\left[12\left(\frac{dR}{dT}\right)^2\right]R=0,$$
(4.22)
where $`𝐗=(R,0,0)`$, $`R`$ is the relative radial distance along the axis, $`T=\tau `$ along the reference geodesic and $`k(T)`$ is obtained  from the solution of equation (4.21) and

$$k=2\frac{GMr(r^23a^2)}{(r^2+a^2)^3}.$$
(4.23)
It is interesting to note that in this form $`k`$ is independent of boosts along the axis. This is a consequence of the fact that the Kerr solution is of Petrov type D and hence the Kerr symmetry axis provides two *special tidal directions* for ingoing and outgoing trajectories . For $`a=0`$, the problem reduces to purely radial relative motion in the exterior Schwarzschild spacetime.

More generally, starting from the generalized Jacobi equation and limiting our attention to a two-dimensional world as in Section 3.2, let us consider the equation of relative motion in the form

$$\frac{d^2X}{dT^2}+\kappa (12V^2)X=0,$$
(4.24)
where $`\kappa (T)`$, $`\kappa ={}_{}{}^{F}R_{0101}^{}`$, is the Gaussian curvature of the surface $`(X,T)`$ and $`V=dX/dT`$.

To investigate the main consequences of equation (4.24) beyond the original Jacobi equation for arbitrary curvature, we assume that $`|V|`$, $`1<V<1`$, is not negligibly small compared to unity. In particular, let us note that equation (4.24) has constant velocity solutions with $`V^2=1/2`$ regardless of the curvature of the surface, i.e. $`X_\pm =X_0\pm (1/2)^{1/2}(TT_0)`$, where $`T_0`$ is a constant initial time and $`X_0=X(T_0)`$. It is therefore interesting to investigate the general behavior of solutions of equation (4.24) near these constant velocity solutions. The asymptotic behavior of nearby solutions is determined by the curvature. Figures 2 and 3 depict the phase portraits of system (4.24) for *constant* curvature cases $`\kappa <0`$ and $`\kappa >0`$, respectively. We note that for constant $`\kappa `$, equation (4.24) is completely integrable. It would be interesting to investigate the behavior of the solutions of equation (4.24) near $`X_\pm `$ for arbitrary $`\kappa (T)`$. In the rest of this section we limit our attention to $`\kappa (T)<0`$, since it follows from equation (4.23) that this is the relevant case for motion away from a Kerr source ($`r^2>3a^2`$).

For the negative curvature case we consider the asymptotic stability of the invariant sets $`𝒳_\pm :=\{(X,V,T):V=\pm (1/2)^{1/2}\}`$ in the extended state space for equation (4.24). For example, we call $`𝒳_+`$ asymptotically stable if for every solution $`(X(T),V(T),T)`$ in the extended state space of equation (4.24) that starts near $`𝒳_+`$, its distance to $`𝒳_+`$ along the velocity direction decreases to zero as $`T`$ increases to infinity. It can be shown that asymptotic stability is essentially determined by the linearized first-order system along $`𝒳_+`$, i.e. the system involving the linear approximation $`W`$ of $`XX_+`$ and $`Q`$ of $`V(1/2)^{1/2}`$ that is given by

$$\frac{dW}{dT}=Q,\frac{dQ}{dT}=2\kappa (T)[\sqrt{2}X_0+(TT_0)]Q.$$
(4.25)
By integration of system (4.25), we find that the invariant set $`𝒳_+`$ of the equation (4.24) is positively asymptotically stable if for each real number $`C_0`$ we have

$$_{T_0}^{\mathrm{}}\kappa (T)(T+C_0)𝑑T=\mathrm{}.$$
(4.26)
This result has a useful corollary: if $`\kappa (T)`$ is asymptotic to a negative constant multiple of $`T^p`$ with $`p2`$ as $`T\mathrm{}`$, then $`𝒳_+`$ is asymptotically stable.

Let us note that if $`\gamma <1`$ in the differential equation (4.21), then there is a real solution only if the right-hand side of the differential equation is positive. In this case the real solutions with $`r>0`$ remain bounded between the two positive roots of the right-hand side. Under the additional assumption that the square of the smaller positive root exceeds $`3a^2`$, the curvature obtained from equation (4.23) is bounded below zero; therefore, the integral condition (4.26) is satisfied and $`𝒳_+`$ is positively asymptotically stable. For $`\gamma =1`$, by using an asymptotic analysis of equation (4.21) we find that $`r(T)`$ is asymptotic to a constant multiple of $`T^{2/3}`$ as $`T\mathrm{}`$ and $`\kappa (T)`$ is therefore asymptotic to a negative constant multiple of $`T^2`$. Thus, for $`\gamma =1`$ the invariant set $`𝒳_+`$ is again asymptotically stable; the rate of attraction, however, is slower than any exponential rate. For $`\gamma >1`$, the set $`𝒳_+`$ is no longer asymptotically stable. Although nearby solutions in this case move closer to $`𝒳_+`$ as $`T\mathrm{}`$, they are bounded away from this manifold. Let us note that the results of this analysis also apply to the behavior of solutions near $`𝒳_{}`$, since in this case the linearized system is identical with equation (4.25) except for $`X_0X_0`$.

The $`\kappa <0`$ case is particularly interesting in connection with the problem of “superluminal” jets in astrophysics . In fact, the Galactic “superluminal” jet sources GRS 1915$`+`$105 and GRO J1655$``$40 have speeds that may be near $`(1/2)^{1/2}0.7`$.

## 5 Discussion

The main dynamical features of the generalized Jacobi equation have been presented in this paper. In contrast to the standard Jacobi equation, the generalized Jacobi equation is nonlinear and therefore exhibits Hamiltonian chaos under certain circumstances. Two specific applications have been considered: relative test particle motion in the field of a plane gravitational wave and in the field of a rotating mass. The results may be relevant respectively to future space-based gravitational wave detectors and high-energy astrophysical phenomena associated with jets.

The bulk speed of Galactic “superluminal” jets appears to be constant and estimated to be around 90% of the speed of light, though many uncertainties are associated with this estimate . Jet motion is detected via the temporal evolution of the radiation intensity contours relative to the background, which would indicate the motion of blobs (electron clouds) in the jet relative to the ambient medium. This motion, under the influence of gravitation alone, is described by the generalized Jacobi equation as discussed in detail in the previous section. In this case, the generalized Jacobi equation exhibits an attractor with constant speed $`2^{1/2}`$, approximately equal to 70% of the speed of light.

Assuming that far from the source gravitational tidal forces are dominant, it follows from our results that the jet speed should approach $`2^{1/2}`$ from above and below over a certain characteristic timescale. This timescale can be calculated from the solution of equation (4.25) for $`Q`$. More explicitly, let us consider the jet along the axis of a Kerr black hole of mass $`M`$ and angular momentum $`JM^2`$ at a distance $`r_02GM`$; then, the characteristic timescale is $`\rho _0`$, where $`\rho _0`$ is the radius of curvature at $`r_0`$ given by $`\rho _0(r_0^3/2GM)^{1/2}`$. Simple estimates suggest that further refinements of the observational techniques  are required before it may be possible to test this prediction of the elementary theory of the asymptotic jet speed presented in this paper.

## Appendix A Fermi coordinate systems

Consider a reference observer following a curve $`C`$ in spacetime. Let $`\tau `$ be the proper time along $`C`$ and $`u^\mu =dx^\mu /d\tau `$ be its tangent vector. The fiducial observer carries a triad $`\lambda _{(i)}^\mu `$ representing three ideal gyroscope directions so that $`\lambda _{(i)}^\mu `$ are parallel transported and $`\lambda _{(\alpha )}^\mu `$ with $`\lambda _{(0)}^\mu =u^\mu `$ is an orthonormal tetrad frame. The Fermi system is a geodesic coordinate system valid in a cylindrical spacetime region around $`C`$ such that for any point $`P`$ with Fermi coordinates $`X^\alpha =(T,X^i)`$ there exists a *unique* spacelike geodesic orthogonal to $`C`$ that connects $`P`$ with a point $`P_0`$ on $`C`$.

Let $`\tau `$ be the proper time at $`P_0`$, $`\sigma `$ be the proper length of the spacelike geodesic starting from $`P_0`$ and $`\eta ^\mu =(dx^\mu /d\sigma )_{P_0}`$ be the vector tangent to the spacelike geodesic at $`P_0`$; then, $`\eta _\mu u^\mu =0`$ and the Fermi coordinates are defined by

$$T=\tau ,X^i=\delta ^{ij}\sigma \eta _\mu \lambda _{(j)}^\mu $$
(A.1)
(cf. Figure 3).

To determine the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ in Fermi coordinates, i.e. $`{}_{}{}^{F}g_{\mu \nu }^{}(X)`$, we expand $`{}_{}{}^{F}g_{\mu \nu }^{}(P)`$ in a Taylor series about $`{}_{}{}^{F}g_{\mu \nu }^{}(P_0)=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$. In this expansion, the required derivatives of $`{}_{}{}^{F}g_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ at $`P_0:(T,\mathrm{𝟎})`$ are calculated on the basis of the following considerations: The equations of motion of the tetrad frame carried by the observer along the fiducial geodesic $`C`$ in Fermi coordinates reduces to $`{}_{}{}^{F}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^{\mu }(T,\mathrm{𝟎})=0`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{F}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0i}^{\mu }(T,\mathrm{𝟎})=0`$. Moreover, the spacelike curve connecting $`P_0`$ to $`P`$ satisfies the geodesic equation, which in Fermi coordinates (A.1) reduces to $`{}_{}{}^{F}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{\mu }(T,𝐗)X^iX^j=0`$. Expanding $`{}_{}{}^{F}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{\mu }`$ in a Taylor series about $`P_0:(T,\mathrm{𝟎})`$, we find that

$${}_{}{}^{F}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{\mu }(T,\mathrm{𝟎})=0,{}_{}{}^{F}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(ij,k)}^{\mu }(T,\mathrm{𝟎})=0,{}_{}{}^{F}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(ij,k\mathrm{})}^{\mu }(T,\mathrm{𝟎})=0,\mathrm{}.$$
(A.2)
Using all these relations regarding the connection coefficients at $`P_0`$, the required derivatives of the metric tensor at $`P_0`$ can be calculated. The results can be expressed as

$`{}_{}{}^{F}g_{00}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1{}_{}{}^{F}R_{i0j0}^{}X^iX^j{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{}_{}{}^{F}_{i0j0k}^{}X^iX^jX^k+\mathrm{},`$ (A.3)
$`{}_{}{}^{F}g_{0i}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{}_{}{}^{F}R_{0jik}^{}X^jX^k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{F}_{0jki\mathrm{}}^{}X^jX^kX^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{},`$ (A.4)
$`{}_{}{}^{F}g_{ij}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{}_{}{}^{F}R_{ikj\mathrm{}}^{}X^kX^{\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{}_{}{}^{F}_{i\mathrm{}rjk}^{}X^kX^{\mathrm{}}X^r+\mathrm{},`$ (A.5)
where $`_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \omega }`$ is given in terms of covariant derivatives of the Riemann tensor by

$$_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \omega }=\frac{1}{2}(R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma ;\omega }+R_{\mu \rho \omega \nu ;\sigma }).$$
(A.6)
It is simple to show that the tensor $`_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \omega }`$ satisfies the following relations

$$_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \omega }=_{\mu \rho \nu \omega \sigma },_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \omega }_{\mu \rho \omega \nu \sigma }=R_{\rho \sigma \mu (\nu ;\omega )}.$$
(A.7)
The first covariant derivatives of the Riemann tensor are not completely specified by the tensor $`_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \omega }`$. Moreover, the next terms in equations (A.3)–(A.5) contain, among other terms, the tensor

$$𝒯_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \omega \pi }=\frac{1}{3}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \omega ;\pi }+\frac{2}{3}R_{\rho \omega \nu }^\xi R_{\mu \xi \pi \sigma },$$
(A.8)
etc. It follows from these results that the reduced geodesic equation (2.5) in Fermi coordinates becomes the *tidal equation*

$$\frac{d^2X^i}{dT^2}+K_j^iX^j+\frac{1}{2!}K_{jk}^iX^jX^k+\frac{1}{3!}K_{jk\mathrm{}}^iX^jX^kX^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}=0,$$
(A.9)
where the quantities $`K_{ij}`$, $`K_{ijk}`$, etc., characterize, respectively, the tidal acceleration terms of the first order, second order, etc. We find from equations (A.3)–(A.5) that

$`K_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{F}R_{0i0j}^{}2{}_{}{}^{F}R_{0jik}^{}\dot{X}^k2({}_{}{}^{F}R_{0j0k}^{}\dot{X}^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{}_{}{}^{F}R_{i\mathrm{}jk}^{}\dot{X}^{\mathrm{}})\dot{X}^k`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{}_{}{}^{F}R_{0\mathrm{}kj}^{}\dot{X}^i\dot{X}^{\mathrm{}}\dot{X}^k,`$
as in the generalized Jacobi equation and $`K_{ijk}=2K_{i(jk)}^{}`$, where

$`K_{ijk}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{F}_{i0j0k}^{}+2[{}_{}{}^{F}_{0j\mathrm{}ik}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}({}_{}{}^{F}_{ij\mathrm{}k0}^{}+{}_{}{}^{F}_{0ijk\mathrm{}}^{})]\dot{X}^{\mathrm{}}{}_{}{}^{F}_{0j0k0}^{}\dot{X}^i`$
$`+({}_{}{}^{F}_{j\mathrm{}ikr}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}{}_{}{}^{F}_{kri\mathrm{}j}^{})\dot{X}^{\mathrm{}}\dot{X}^r+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(2{}_{}{}^{F}_{0j\mathrm{}0k}^{}{}_{}{}^{F}_{j0k0\mathrm{}}^{})\dot{X}^i\dot{X}^{\mathrm{}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}({}_{}{}^{F}_{k\mathrm{}0jr}^{}5{}_{}{}^{F}_{\mathrm{}k0rj}^{})\dot{X}^i\dot{X}^{\mathrm{}}\dot{X}^r.`$
The Jacobi equation in spaces of arbitrary dimensions was first discussed by Levi-Civita  and Synge . These references contain a detailed and explicit exposition of the theorem of Fermi  involving the possibility of choosing a system of coordinates in a cylindrical region along an arbitrary open curve in spacetime such that all the connection coefficients vanish and $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ on the curve.

The generalized Jacobi equation was first discussed in  and developed further in . Later, this generalization was independently rediscovered by Ciufolini . Further discussions of the Jacobi equation can be found, e.g., in .

## Appendix B Hamiltonian equations of motion

Consider a coordinate system $`X^\alpha =(T,X^i)`$ in the region of interest in spacetime such that the metric tensor takes the form $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is a small perturbation on the Minkowski background. In particular, we are interested in Fermi normal coordinates (2.3). The isoenergetically reduced Hamiltonian system is given in these coordinates by

$$\frac{dX^i}{dT}=\frac{H}{p_i},\frac{dp_i}{dT}=\frac{H}{X^i},$$
(B.1)
where

$$H=\frac{g^{0i}}{g^{00}}p_i\left(\frac{1+\stackrel{~}{g}^{ij}p_ip_j}{g^{00}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(B.2)
To first order in $`h_{\mu \nu }`$, the Hamiltonian can be expressed as

$$H=\sqrt{1+p^2}(1\frac{1}{2}h_{00}\frac{1}{2}\frac{h^{ij}p_ip_j}{1+p^2})+h^{0i}p_i,$$
(B.3)
where $`p^2=\delta ^{ij}p_ip_j`$ and $`H`$ is a quadratic form in spatial Fermi coordinates $`𝐗`$. Using (B.3), the system of equations (B.1) can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dX^i}{dT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}}[(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{00}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{h^k\mathrm{}p_kp_{\mathrm{}}}{1+p^2}})\delta ^{ij}h^{ij}]+h^{0i},`$ (B.4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_i}{dT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{1+p^2}(h_{00,i}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_{,i}^k\mathrm{}p_kp_{\mathrm{}}}{1+p^2}})h_{,i}^{0j}p_j.`$ (B.5)
Letting $`p_i\widehat{p}_i`$ and defining

$$P_i:=\frac{\widehat{p}_i}{\sqrt{1+\widehat{p}^2}}$$
(B.6)
and $`P^i:=\delta ^{ij}P_j`$, we find that $`(1+\widehat{p}^2)(1P^2)=1`$ and $`\widehat{p}_i=P_i/\sqrt{1P^2}`$. In terms of $`𝐏`$, the Hamiltonian equations of motion (B.4)–(B.5) take the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dX^i}{dT}}`$ $`=`$ $`P^i(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{00}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^k\mathrm{}P_kP_{\mathrm{}})+h^{0i}`$
$`h^{ij}P_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^k\mathrm{}P_kP_{\mathrm{}}P^i,`$
$`\sqrt{1P^2}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dT}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{P_i}{\sqrt{1P^2}}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{00,i}h_{,i}^{0j}P_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{,i}^k\mathrm{}P_kP_{\mathrm{}}.`$ (B.8)
We are interested in the behavior of $`X^i=X^i(T)`$ to first order in $`\delta =|𝐗|/\varrho `$. To this end, we note from equation (B) that $`P^i=V^i+O(h_{\mu \nu })`$, where $`V^i=dX^i/dT`$. Thus equation (B) can be written to first order in $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ as

$$P_i:=(1+\frac{1}{2}h_{00}\frac{1}{2}h_k\mathrm{}V^kV^{\mathrm{}})V_i+h_{0i}+h_{ij}V^j.$$
(B.9)
Similarly, equation (B.8) can be written as

$$\frac{dP^i}{dT}+\frac{1}{1P^2}(𝐏\frac{d𝐏}{dT})P^i=\frac{1}{2}h_{00,i}+h_{0j,i}V^j+\frac{1}{2}h_{k\mathrm{},i}V^kV^{\mathrm{}}.$$
(B.10)
This relation, after multiplying by $`P_i`$ and summing over $`i`$, takes the form

$$\frac{1}{1P^2}(𝐏\frac{d𝐏}{dT})=\frac{1}{2}h_{00,i}V^i+h_{0j,i}V^iV^j+\frac{1}{2}h_{k\mathrm{},i}V^kV^{\mathrm{}}V^i.$$
(B.11)
Substituting equations (B.11) and (B.9) in equation (B.10) and noting that

$$dV^i/dT=O(\delta ),h_{\mu \nu ,0}=O(\delta ^2),$$

we finally obtain the desired equation of motion

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV^i}{dT}}+(h_{00,j}V^j+h_{0j,k}V^jV^k)V^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{00,i}`$ (B.12)
$`+(h_{0i,j}h_{0j,i})V^j+(h_{ij,k}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{jk,i})V^jV^k=0.`$
Taking due account of the approximations under consideration here, we note that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^0\frac{dX^\alpha }{dT}\frac{dX^\beta }{dT}=h_{00,j}V^j+h_{0j,k}V^jV^k$$

and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^i{\displaystyle \frac{dX^\alpha }{dT}}{\displaystyle \frac{dX^\beta }{dT}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^i+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0j}^iV^j+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^iV^jV^k`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{00,i}+(h_{0i,j}h_{0j,i})V^j+(h_{ij,k}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{jk,i})V^jV^k`$
in agreement with equation (2.5). Moreover, to first order in $`\delta `$

$`h_{00,i}`$ $`=`$ $`2R_{0i0j}X^j,`$
$`h_{0i,j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(R_{0jik}+R_{0kij})X^k,`$
$`h_{\mathrm{}m,i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(R_{\mathrm{}imk}+R_{mi\mathrm{}k})X^k,`$
in the Fermi system. Substituting these relations in equation (B.12) and using the symmetries of the Riemann tensor, such as $`R_{0[ijk]}=0`$, we obtain equation (2.12). This is the generalized Jacobi equation in Fermi coordinates; for arbitrary coordinates see Appendix C.

## Appendix C Generalized Jacobi equation in arbitrary coordinates

Consider a reference timelike geodesic $`C`$ as in Appendix A representing the worldline of an observer with proper time $`\tau `$. Let $`\xi ^\mu =\sigma \eta ^\mu `$; then, to first order in $`\sigma /\varrho `$, the generalized Jacobi equation  takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{D^2\xi ^\mu }{D\tau ^2}}+R_{\rho \nu \sigma }^\mu u^\rho \xi ^\nu u^\sigma +(u^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{D\xi ^\mu }{D\tau }})(2R_{\zeta \rho \nu \sigma }u^\zeta {\displaystyle \frac{D\xi ^\rho }{D\tau }}\xi ^\nu u^\sigma `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}R_{\zeta \rho \nu \sigma }u^\zeta {\displaystyle \frac{D\xi ^\rho }{D\tau }}\xi ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{D\xi ^\sigma }{D\tau }})+2R^\mu _{\rho \nu \sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{D\xi ^\rho }{D\tau }}\xi ^\nu u^\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}R^\mu _{\rho \nu \sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{D\xi ^\rho }{D\tau }}\xi ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{D\xi ^\sigma }{D\tau }}=0.`$
Here

$$\frac{D\xi ^\mu }{D\tau }=\xi _{;\nu }^\mu \frac{dx^\nu }{d\tau }=\xi _{;\nu }^\mu u^\nu $$

is the covariant derivative of $`\xi ^\mu `$ along the reference worldline. If we now use Fermi coordinates and set

$$\xi ^\mu =X^i\lambda _{(i)}^\mu ,\frac{D\xi ^\mu }{D\tau }=\frac{dX^i}{dT}\lambda _{(i)}^\mu ,\frac{D^2\xi ^\mu }{D\tau ^2}=\frac{d^2X^i}{dT^2}\lambda _{(i)}^\mu ,\mathrm{},$$

we recover equation (2.12). Here we have used the relation $`D\lambda _{(\alpha )}^\mu /D\tau =0`$; i.e. the tetrad is parallel transported along $`C`$.

## Appendix D Worldlines of observers at rest

Consider a spacetime metric of the form

$$ds^2=dt^2+g_{ij}(t,x^k)dx^idx^j.$$

If a particle is a rest at a point in the corresponding space, then its worldline follows a geodesic. Indeed, the four-velocity of the particle $`u^\mu =dx^\mu /d\tau `$ is given by $`u^0=1`$ and $`u^i=0`$. We must show that

$$\frac{du^\mu }{d\tau }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu u^\alpha u^\beta =0.$$

For $`\mu =0`$, it suffices to prove that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^0=0`$. Because of the block form of the metric, we have $`g^{00}=1`$ and $`g^{0i}=0`$; therefore,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^0=\frac{1}{2}g_{00,0}=0.$$

For $`\mu =i`$, it suffices to show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^i=0`$. In this case we have $`g_{0j}=0`$ and $`g_{00}=1`$. Hence,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^i=\frac{1}{2}g^{ij}(2g_{j0,0}g_{00,j})=0,$$

as required.


format: text

text:
# Charge Asymmetry in the Brane World and Formation of Charged Black Holes

\[

## Abstract

In theories with an infinite extra dimension, free particles localized on the brane can leak out to the extra space. We argue that if there were color confinement in the bulk, electrons would be more able to escape than quarks and than protons (which are composed states). Thus, this process generates an electric charge asymmetry on brane matter densities. A primordial charge asymmetry during Big Bang Nucleosynthesis era is predicted. We use current bounds on this and on electron disappearance to constrain the parameter space of these models. Although the generated asymmetry is generically small, it could be particularly enhanced on large densities as in astrophysical objects, like massive stars. We suggest the possibility that such accumulation of charge may be linked, upon supernova collapse, to the formation of a charged Black Hole and the generation of Gamma-Ray Bursts.

\]

Extra dimensions could exist in nature and yet remain hidden to current experiments. Motivated by the old ideas of Kaluza and Klein and the modern string theory one has usually believed that such extra dimensions should be compact. Recently, however, it has been suggested the possibility that such extra dimensions can be rather infinite  and still be hidden to our eyes. The explanation of why it is so comes from the concept of localization of particles  in a higher dimensional space (the bulk) around a fixed point that defines a four dimensional hypersurface (the brane). Thus, at low energy, observed particles would behave just as four dimensional fields. A simple realization of this scenario appears on five dimensional theories where the background space is given by the Randall-Sundrum (RS) metric

$$ds^2=e^{2k|y|}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu dy^2;$$
(1)
where the parameter $`k`$ relates the fundamental five dimensional gravity scale, $`M_{}`$, with the now effective Planck scale, $`M_P10^{19}`$ GeV, through $`M_{}^3=kM_P^2`$.

The above metric induces an effective potential for gravitons that has the form of a volcano barrier  around the brane (located at $`y=0`$). The corresponding spectrum of gravitational perturbations has a massless bound state localized at the brane and a continuum of bulk modes with suppressed couplings to brane fields. The bound state is the true graviton that mediates the standard four dimensional gravity interaction. Bulk modes exchange induces on the brane deviations from the four dimensional Newton’s law of gravity only at distances smaller than $`k^1`$. Recent experiments that have tested gravity down to millimeters  require that k

>

103

>

𝑘superscript103k\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-3} eV, which means M

>

108

>

subscript𝑀superscript108M_{*}\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{8} GeV.

Massless scalar fields on RS background have a similar spectrum, and so a bound state too . Localization of fermions also takes place provided one has a domain wall on the background . Finally, localization of gauge particles is also possible . Last, however, according to Ref.  that we will follow heron, needs the existence of more extra flat dimensions compactified to small radii, $`RM_{}^1`$. In such a setup there is a localized zero mode gauge boson, which alone satisfies the 4D Gauss law. Bulk modes introduce small corrections at short distances, though. The introduction of more compact dimensions, nevertheless, does not affect the model of localization of matter fields since all heavy modes, associated to the compact space, shall always be integrated out from the theory.

True localization, however, takes place only for massless fields . In the massive case the bound state becomes metastable and able to leak into the extra space. Such a process appears as an apparent source for the violation of conservation laws in the effective four dimensional world. The associated escape rate can be calculated in specific models for localization of free fields . Other interactions may also affect the escape rate by trying to keep the particles on the brane. So happens to quarks, provided there is confinement in color interactions along all dimensions .

As we argue along this letter, in such a scenario, the overall effect would be the generation of a tiny electric charge asymmetry, due to the escaping of electrons, which may be accumulated on large brane matter densities. For instance, out of the matter asymmetry on the early Universe. Current bounds on electron disappearance and on charge asymmetry at the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) era can then be used to constrain the parameters of the model. We suggest that this mechanism could account for the formation of charged Black Holes (BH’s), for instance after a supernova collapse. One possible implication of this would be the triggering of Gamma-Ray Bursts from vacuum polarization as proposed in Ref. .

Particle leakage and generation of charge asymmetry.– In the models under consideration massive fields are actually metastable states. This happens because the mass lifts the bound state on the spectrum, whereas the continuum of modes remains unaffected, and thus, our formerly localized mode turns out to be not longer the lightest state. Indeed, there would be a non zero probability for the escaping of brane fields into the bulk . One can check this by considering the localization mechanism of a massive fermion. We stress that the following arguments do not preclude the theory of having small extra compact dimensions. So, our results are consistent with the localization of gauge fields . To be clear, we open a parenthesis to remain the reader how the localization of the photon works. In presence of $`n`$ extra flat dimensions, with coordinates $`\theta _i`$, the action for a photon gauge field, truncated at the zero mode level of $`\theta `$, has the form:

$`S_\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4x𝑑ye^{kn|y|}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }}+(\text{heavy modes}).`$

Hence the truely $`y`$-independent zero mode is normalizable, and thus it is localized at the brane. For fermions the presence of $`\theta `$ dimensions only rescale the normalization of the zero mode, so we can safely treat the problem as effectively five dimensional. Following Ref. , we consider a massive fermion, $`\psi `$, coupled to a domain wall background described by a scalar field, which in the thin wall approximation has the form $`\varphi (y)=vsgn(y)`$. The $`\psi `$ coupling to $`\varphi `$ splits the chiral components of the four-component fermion such that only one of them gets localized around the wall. Thus, in order to give rise to a four dimensional mass term we are forced to introduce two five dimensional four-component fermions, $`\psi _1`$; $`\psi _2`$, which will develop left and right localized modes, respectively. For simplicity one accommodates those fields in an eight-component array of the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }=(\psi _1,\psi _2)`$. With this notation the respective action can be written as

$$S=d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{g}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(i\gamma ^a_a+\varphi \sigma _1+\mu \sigma _2\right)\mathrm{\Psi };$$
(2)
where $`_a`$ is the spinor covariant derivative with respect to the five dimensional metric $`g_{ab}`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ are the Pauli matrices acting on the $`\psi _1`$, $`\psi _2`$ space. The general form of the Dirac equation in terms of chiral components $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,R}`$ is then given by

$`e^{k|y|}\gamma ^\mu p_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{L,R}\pm _5\mathrm{\Psi }_{R,L}\left(\varphi (y)\sigma _1+\mu \sigma _2\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{R,L}=0.`$

This equation has a continuum of massive modes  that starts at $`m=0`$, for $`m^2=p_\mu p^\mu `$, and a localized massive mode (that has radiation boundary conditions at $`y\pm \mathrm{}`$) for which the mass eigenvalue is complex: $`m=m_0+i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where the physical mass $`m_0=(1k/2v)\mu `$. The imaginary part on $`m`$ reflects the metastable nature of the state. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is then interpreted as the ‘life time’ of the particle, from the brane point of view.

In the case where $`m_0k<v`$ the probability for escaping goes as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=m_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_0}{2k}}\right)^{2v/k1}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(v/k+\frac{1}{2})]^2}},`$ (3)
This case will probe to be the most interesting one on our discussion below. By taking $`km_e=5.1110^4`$ GeV, we state our interest to models where $`M_{}>10^{12}`$ GeV. The theory of escaping matter is thus described by three parameters: the mass of the particle, $`m_0`$; the vacuum parameter, $`v`$; and the fundamental scale, $`M_{}`$, encoded in the parameter $`k`$.

For charged particles, their lost into the bulk account for an apparent violation of the conservation of charge , say for instance through the process $`e^{}nothing`$. The picture is intrinsically a higher dimensional problem, and so, four dimensional Gauss law is not longer valid, though causality is conserved. In fact, a particle moving with a trajectory perpendicular to the brane follows the world line: $`y(t)=\mathrm{ln}(1+k^2t^2)/2k`$. It can be seen as a charged current which induces an electromagnetic field on the brane that dies away causally with time . Indeed, out of the light cone ($`|\stackrel{}{r}|>t`$) the Coulomb potential of the charge remains: $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{r})1/r`$, whereas deep in the light cone the electric field gradually disappears as $`Er/t^3`$. This problem has a gravitational analogous studied in Refs. .

While escaping away is certainly possible for fundamental particles, it is not so simple for composed states. These do not leak away from the brane as a whole so easily since this needs the simultaneous leakage of all components, which substantially reduces the escaping probability. For instance, for protons one naively gets a negligible escape rate: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Pm_PP_uP_uP_d\mathrm{}`$, with $`P_{u,d}`$ the escaping probability of quark components.

In hadrons, confinement of color interactions may prevent the escape of a single colored component . It is believed that due to confinement the color flux does not spread around as gravity and electromagnetism do. It rather forms flux tubes connecting quarks that act as an unidimensional strong attractive force that grows with distance, in spite of the orientation of quarks on space. It is then natural to expect that color will also be confined along the fifth dimension, thus, making the trapping on the brane even stronger. This also forbids processes that may induce proton decay, and the sudden creation of colored composed states from uncolored ones. This asymmetric nature between electrons and protons translates into the only disappearance of electrons from the brane, and induces an excess of charge (in the form of protons) in any actual brane matter density (otherwise neutral). Notice, however, that if color were not confined on the bulk, a charge asymmetry will be generated any way due to the different charge (mass) of electrons and quarks, but we will not discuss this case in here. Next, let us confront this result with some known current bounds that in turn will constrain the $`v`$-$`M_{}`$ space parameter.

Bounding the parameter space.– The first straightforward constraint comes from the bound on electron disappearance, which is about $`\tau _{enothing}>4.210^{24}`$ yr . This implies that escape rate of electron should be

Γ

<

Γexp1/τenothing=4.961057GeV.

<

ΓsubscriptΓ𝑒𝑥𝑝1subscript𝜏𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔4.96superscript1057GeV\Gamma\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}\Gamma_{exp}\equiv 1/\tau_{e\rightarrow nothing}=4.96\cdot 10^{-57}~{}{\rm GeV}. (4)
A second phenomenological constraint comes from the fact that the fundamental scale is supposed to be the largest scale on the theory, and thus $`vM_{}`$. In Fig. 1, we have plotted the curves that saturate both the bounds. The allowed region in the parameter space for any viable model lies between both the curves and well within the region where $`k<v`$. In fact, the lower border can be described by a (phenomenological) power law relationship between $`v`$ and $`M_{}`$ of the form: $`v(M_{}/M)^{1.91}M_{}>k`$. Hence, one concludes that all scenarios where $`kv`$ are excluded on the basis of current experimental bounds.

Future improvements on present limits on electron disappearance would lift the lower border on Fig. 1. The effect, however, may be very small even for substantial improvements. For instance, an increment of nine orders of magnitude on the bound, that would render $`\tau _{enothing}>10^{33}`$ yr, would hardly change the allowed region in parameter space as it is clear from Fig. 1, where the effect of this hypothetical bound is also depicted.

Charge asymmetry at BBN era.– On the early Universe, a primordial charge asymmetry can be induced out of the primordial matter-antimatter asymmetry. The point is that in a balanced Universe, where electrons and positrons are equal in number, no charge asymmetry can be induced, since the escape rate has no dependence on the sign of the charge. However, since there is in fact an initial matter to antimatter asymmetry per photon of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _m/\eta _\gamma 10^{10}`$, some deficit of charge can indeed be generated. Though the above asymmetry is originally in the form of baryons, some processes (as sphalerons) are expected to generate a similar lepton asymmetry. Thus, we would be looking into an initially neutral Universe where most of charged particles are equilibrated by an antiparticle, except by a very little amount of protons, as much as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _m`$, that are compensated only by electrons. Out of these initial $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _m`$ free electrons, some will leak out from the brane, such that at the BBN era the remaining $`\eta _{BBN}^e=\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _m\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau _{BBN})`$ electrons will not balance the charge equilibrium. The density of charged particles in excess per photon would be:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }q_{BBN}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _m}{\eta _\gamma }}\right)\left(1e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau _{BBN}}\right)10^{10}\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau _{BBN}.`$

A net charge density on early Universe would produce large scale relic electric fields. Certainly in a truly homogeneous space the presence of a uniform charge density $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_{BBN}`$ cannot give rise to any field. However, early Universe was not really homogeneous, otherwise not even structure formation could be possible. Indeed, there was a primordial inhomogeneity of order $`\delta \rho /\rho 10^5`$. Such fields, might be the seeds for the observed galactic and extragalactic magnetic fields, but we will not address this possibility here. These relic fields may also generate observable cosmic ray anisotropies. Current limits impose the bound  Δq

<

1039

<

Δ𝑞superscript1039\Delta q\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-39}. This gives, however, a weaker bound for the escape rate than the one already mentioned above. In fact one gets Γ

<

1054

<

Γsuperscript1054\Gamma\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-54} GeV (τe

>

1021

>

subscript𝜏𝑒superscript1021\tau_{e}\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{21} yrs). A stringent bound is obtained from the effect of a background charged Universe on primordial Helium production , which gives Δq

<

1043

<

Δ𝑞superscript1043\Delta q\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-43}. That implies

Γ

<

ΓBBN=6.581058GeV.

<

ΓsubscriptΓ𝐵𝐵𝑁6.58superscript1058GeV\Gamma\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}\Gamma_{BBN}=6.58\cdot 10^{-58}~{}{\rm GeV}~{}. (5)
This also means an enhancement on the electron disappearance bound by a factor of seven. The curve on the parameter space associated to the saturation of this last bound has been also plotted on Fig. 1, though it does not affect the previous picture at all.

Accumulation of charge on Stellar Objects.– Though the charge asymmetry induced by the leakage of charge might be too small as to be directly detected in terrestrial laboratories, it could be relevant in longevous astrophysical objects which contain a large number of particles. In order to estimate this asymmetry for dense media one has to consider the presence of internal forces that keep those systems all together in equilibrium in the empty interstellar space. The attractive interaction that compensates the internal pressure comes mainly from the self-gravitational interaction of the system. This attractive force will also tend to keep the particles on the brane, where the source is. From the five dimensional point of view the effect of these internal forces will be to locally lift the trapping barrier, thus, effectively reducing the escape rate. One can account for this effect by introducing a phenomenological function, $`x(\stackrel{}{r})`$, to locally measure the amount of time along which the particle behaves as effectively free, and able to escape. Thus, one can writes at zero order the particle density as $`\eta (\stackrel{}{r},t)\eta (\stackrel{}{r})e^{x(\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{\Gamma }t}`$. From this equation one notices that the quantity $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has the physical meaning of being the effective escape rate, as modified by the presence of interactions. So, $`x`$ plays the role of a structure factor that encodes the internal forces of the medium at which the particle is subjected. Now, as the total number of remaining electrons at any given time is given by $`N_e(t)=𝑑V\eta (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, and due to the smallness of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the induced charge asymmetry can be expressed in the form:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }q(t){\displaystyle \frac{N_pN_e(t)}{N_e(0)}}=1{\displaystyle \frac{N_e(t)}{N_e(0)}}\overline{x}\mathrm{\Gamma }t;`$ (6)
where $`\overline{x}`$ indicates the volume average of $`x`$ that becomes the actual phenomenological parameter, yet to be calculated for realistic cases. It is expected that for most (not so dense) media $`\overline{x}1`$, however, it may be important for tightly bound systems as neutron stars.

Let us now consider a typical star to estimate how much of asymmetry it can accumulate along its life, $`t_{}`$, which may be almost as large as the age of the universe. Thus, taking $`t_{}=10^{10}`$ yr into Eq. (6), combined with the bounds on Eqs. (4) and (5) we get

Δq(t)

<

1014,16.

<

Δ𝑞subscript𝑡superscript101416\Delta q(t_{*})\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-14,~{}-16}~{}. (7)
Charged Black Holes and Gamma-Ray Bursts– A tiny charge asymmetry would generate small electromagnetic fields which can be substantially magnified  by some astrophysical processes such as supernova core collapse. The presence of a non zero total charge on stars progenitor of supernovae could give rise to other fundamental phenomena like the ulterior formation of charged Black Holes. The origin of charged BH’s has been a long standing puzzle in relativistic astrophysics after the derivation of Reissner-Nordström solution of Einstein’s equations. Thence, this brane world inspired charge-leaking mechanism provides a natural explanation for their origin upon stellar evolution of massive stars, thus, solving such an enigma.

An interesting consequence of all this could be the generation of Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) as already suggested in Ref. . However, the open point is whether particle leakage can account for the required charge asymmetry to switch on such a process. The answer to this question appears to be on the positive. According to Ref. , vacuum polarization occurring during the formation phase of a Reissner-Nordström Black Hole may generate GRBs, provided that the net charge-to-mass ratio, $`\xi =Q/(M\sqrt{G})`$; be of the order $`0.01`$ to one. The limit $`\xi =1`$ corresponds to a critical charged Black Hole. Nevertheless, it is likely that even smaller values of $`\xi `$ could still render workable the quoted mechanism. In any case, the above condition translates into an effective charge asymmetry per nucleon in the collapsing matter: $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_{BH}\xi 10^{18}`$. This value is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the upper bound on Eq. (7), and thus, it can indeed be provided by the charge leakage. Moreover, for generating such an asymmetry, one concludes that the electron has to disappear from the brane on a time, $`\tau _e`$, within the range

4.21024yr

<

τe

<

2.08ξ11028yr.

<

4.2superscript1024yrsubscript𝜏𝑒

<

2.08superscript𝜉1superscript1028yr4.2\cdot 10^{24}~{}{\rm yr}\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}\tau_{e}\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}2.08~{}\xi^{-1}\cdot 10^{28}~{}{\rm yr}~{}. (8)
The allowed region in the parameter space that is consistent with these bounds is yet very narrow, thus, pointing towards a very specific class of models. Indeed, even for a $`\xi 10^5`$ that gives τe

<

1033

<

subscript𝜏𝑒superscript1033\tau_{e}\mathrel{\lower 4.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{33} yr; one gets the same narrow strip already depicted in Fig. 1 within current and hypothetical future limits.

Summarizing– In brane world models massive fundamental states become metastable with a non zero probability for escaping away into the bulk. Nevertheless, confinement of color interactions will prevent the leakage of quarks, while protons have a negligible scape rate. Therefore, only electrons would be effectively missed, and so, unbalancing the neutralness of brane matter densities. As a result modest charge asymmetries can be generated on the early Universe and in stellar objects, which may have observable effects. We confronted this result with current bounds on electron disappearance and relic electric charge at BBN era, and consequently constrained the parameters of the brane world model. We have suggested the possibility that supernova collapse of massive stars may indeed form charged Black Holes. We shown that the charge of such a Black Hole can be of the right order as to trigger GRBs via vacuum polarization. There is a non zero parameter space consistent with this picture that also points towards an electron disappearance rate non far from current experimental limits.

We thank A. Mazumdar for useful conversations. The work of APF was supported by a grant of Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, CNPq–Brasil. HJMC thanks Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) for a grant-in-aid.