text:
# Discussing the Spectrum of the Kalb-Ramond Field Coupled to 3D-Gravity

## 1  Introduction

The Abelian 2-form gauge potential, usually referred to as Kalb-Ramond field (K-R), exhibits a number of interesting features in four dimensional space-time (4D) ; special emphasis is given to the fact that it mixes up with the electromagnetic gauge potential so as to yield a massive spin-1 excitation based on a $`\left[U\left(1\right)\right]^2`$-symmetry, without the need for Higgs scalars . More recently, the coupling between the K-R and Maxwell fields has been reconsidered in connection with the issue of Dirac-like monopoles with massive photons . Also, interesting discussions on the possible non-Abelian extension of the K-R field are set in the works of Ref. .

Reassessing the K-R field in three dimensional space-time (3D) brings about some peculiarities that show up as a by-product of three dimensional space-time. For example, the Abelian gauge field dual to the K-R potential in 3D is subject to a particular gauge symmetry that selects its longitudinal component as the physical propagating mode, whereas its transverse part appears as a compensating mode, and so it can always be gauged away. Once the mass-shell condition is imposed, no physical propagating degree of freedom survives and we have the peculiarity that the K-R gauge field carries no on-shell degrees of freedom in $`3`$D . We understand that this is a consequence of setting its dynamics on a flat space-time. So, our propose is to set out this paper in order to illustrate how the coupling of the K-R field to the 3D counterpart of the Einstein-Hilbert gravity excites a massive scalar mode in the spectrum of the theory. This is a result that already emerges at classical level.

The main motivation of our work is to compute 1-loop corrections to the K-R field self-energy, so as to understand how these effects change the mass spectrum set up at tree-level. We pursue our investigation in the cases of ordinary (torsionless) gravity (Section 2) and, later on, we go over to the general case of gravity with torsion (Section 3) . We find some peculiarities at the end of our analysis and we shall comment on them in our Conclusive Comments (Section 4).

## 2 The Riemannian Case

The model we contemplate accounts for the non-minimal coupling of $`3`$D-gravity to the K-R field according to the Lagrangian density given below:

$$=_{EH}+_{gauge}+_{int},$$
(2.1)
where the first term is the usual Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian:

$$_{EH}=\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}\sqrt{g}R.$$
(2.2)
Notice the absence of the overall minus sign that appears in $`4`$D-gravity: in $`3`$D, this must be the choice in such a way to avoid that the graviton becomes a ghost.

The second term describes the Lagrangian for the antisymmetric gauge field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$,

$$_{gauge}=\frac{1}{6}\sqrt{g}G_{\mu \nu \lambda }G^{\mu \nu \lambda },$$
(2.3)
where $`G_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ is a $`3`$-form written in terms of the potential $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ as follows:

$$G_{\mu \nu \lambda }=_\mu B_{\nu \lambda }+_\lambda B_{\mu \nu }+_\nu B_{\lambda \mu }.$$
(2.4)
The last term accounts for the interaction between gravity and the gauge field:

$$_{int}=\xi \sqrt{g}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }_\mu B_{\nu \lambda }R,$$
(2.5)
with $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }=\frac{\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda }}{\sqrt{g}}`$, $`\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ being the totally antisymmetric symbol, while $`_\mu `$ denotes the covariant derivative. The coupling constant $`\xi `$ carries dimension of (mass)$`^{\frac{1}{2}}`$.

To analyse the espectrum of the model, we consider the linearised approximation of the full theory. This consists in the expansion of the metric field around the flat background as below:

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+\kappa h_{\mu \nu },$$
(2.6)
where $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is the perturbation associated to the graviton field.

As for the $`2`$-form gauge potential, it is more convenient to parametrise it in terms of its dual, $`B_\mu =\frac{1}{3!}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }B^{\nu \lambda }`$. Doing so, the gauge transformation for $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ can be rephrased as

$$\delta B_\lambda =ϵ_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }_{\mu }^{}\chi _\nu ,$$
(2.7)
where $`\chi _\mu `$ is the $`3`$-vector gauge parameter.

In order to invert the wave operator that mixes $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`B_\mu `$ in the bilinear piece of the action, we fix the De Donder gauge for $`h_{\mu \nu },`$

$$_{Donder}=\frac{1}{2\alpha }F_\mu F^\mu ,$$
(2.8)
where

$$F_\mu =_\lambda \left(h_\mu ^\lambda \frac{1}{2}\delta _\mu ^\lambda h\right).$$
(2.9)
On the other hand, the gauge transformations (2.7) for $`B_\mu `$ suggests the following gauge-fixing term for the Abelian symmetry associated to $`B_{\mu \nu }`$:

$$_{gf}=\beta \left(ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu B_\lambda \right)^2.$$
(2.10)
With these elements, the bilinear piece of the action can be cast under the form:

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha \beta }{}\varphi ^\alpha 𝒪_{\alpha \beta }\varphi ^\beta ,$$
(2.11)
where $`\varphi =(h^{\mu \nu },B^\mu )`$ and $`𝒪`$ is the differential wave operator to be inverted to give us the graviton and the gauge field propagators. This operator can be decomposed in four sectors, namely,

$$𝒪=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_{\mu \nu ,\kappa \lambda }& B_{\mu \nu ,\kappa }\\ C_{\mu ,\kappa \lambda }& D_{\mu ,\nu }\end{array}\right),$$
(2.12)
where

$`A_{\mu \nu ,\kappa \lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}P_{\mu \nu ,\kappa \lambda }^{\left(2\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\alpha }}P_{\mu \nu ,\kappa \lambda }^{\left(1\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\alpha +1\right)\mathrm{}}{2\alpha }}P_{\mu \nu ,\kappa \lambda }^{\left(0s\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4\alpha }}P_{\mu \nu ,\kappa \lambda }^{\left(0w\right)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}}{4\alpha }}\left(P_{\mu \nu ,\kappa \lambda }^{\left(0sw\right)}+P_{\mu \nu ,\kappa \lambda }^{\left(0ws\right)}\right),`$
$$B_{\mu \nu ,\kappa }=2\kappa \xi \mathrm{}\theta _{\mu \nu }_\kappa ,$$

$$C_{\mu ,\kappa \lambda }=2\kappa \xi \mathrm{}_\mu \theta _{\kappa \lambda },$$
(2.13)
$$D_{\mu ,\nu }=2\mathrm{}\left(\beta \theta _{\mu \nu }+\omega _{\mu \nu }\right),$$

where the $`P^{}`$s are the Barnes-Rivers projector operators for symmetric second-rank tensors in D=3 (see Ref.  for details), while $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$ are respectively the transverse and longitudinal operators for vectors.

The propagators are given by

$$0\left|T\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \left(x\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_\beta \left(y\right)\right]\right|0=i\left(𝒪^1\right)_{\alpha \beta }\delta ^3\left(xy\right),$$
(2.14)
where wave operator is inverted by using of the multiplicative relations satisfied by the projectors . In so doing, the propagators in momentum space read as follows:

$`hh`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{p^2}}\{P^{\left(2\right)}+\alpha P^{\left(1\right)}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\left[p^2m^2\left(\alpha +1\right)\right]}{\left(p^2m^2\right)}}P^{\left(0w\right)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\left(p^2m^2\right)}}[P^{\left(0s\right)}+\sqrt{2}(P^{\left(0sw\right)}+P^{\left(0ws\right)})]\},`$
$$h_{\mu \nu }B_\kappa =\frac{1}{4\kappa \xi p^2\left(p^2m^2\right)}\left(\theta _{\mu \nu }+2\omega _{\mu \nu }\right)p_\kappa ,$$
(2.15)
$$B_\mu B_\nu =\frac{i}{2\beta p^2}\theta _{\mu \nu }\frac{im^2}{2p^2\left(p^2m^2\right)}\omega _{\mu \nu },$$

where $`m^2=\frac{1}{8\kappa ^2\xi ^2}`$ and we have suppressed the indices in $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ and in the $`P_{\mu \nu ,\kappa \lambda }`$ projectors.

The above propagators display poles at $`p^2=0`$ and $`p^2=m^2>0`$, so that tachyons do not show up. The next step is a investigation of the possibility that negative-norm state might be present.

A necessary criterium for unitarity at tree-level is analysed by saturating the propagator with external currents $`J^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`J^\mu `$ (for the graviton and the gauge field, respectively), compatible with the gauge symmetries of the Lagrangian. Ghosts are absent in the model if the imaginary part of the residue of the current-current transition amplitude taken at the propagator poles is non-negative. For the graviton, this amplitude in momentum space is written as

$$𝒜J^{\mu \nu }\left(p\right)T\left[h_{\mu \nu }\left(p\right)h_{\kappa \lambda }\left(p\right)\right]J^{\kappa \lambda }\left(p\right),$$
(2.16)
where, by virtue of the transversality of $`J^{\mu \nu }\left(p\right)`$, only the spin projectors $`P^{\left(2\right)}`$ and $`P^{\left(0s\right)}`$ survive. This fact enable us to write the imaginary part of the residue of the transition amplitude at the pole $`p^2=0`$ as

$$Im(es𝒜)=2\left(\left|J^{\mu \nu }\right|^2\left|J_\nu ^\nu \right|^2\right).$$
(2.17)
Now, defining the following set of independent vectors in momentum space,

$$p^\mu (p^0,𝐩),\overline{p}^\mu (p_0,𝐩),ϵ^\mu (0,ϵ),$$
(2.18)
that satisfy the conditions:

$`\overline{p}.p`$ $`=`$ $`\left(p^0\right)^2+\left(𝐩\right)^2>0,`$ (2.19)
$`p.ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{p}.ϵ=0,`$
$`ϵ^\mu ϵ_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
the symmetric tensor current $`J^{\mu \nu }\left(p\right)`$can be decomposed according to:

$`J_{\mu \nu }\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`a\left(p\right)p_\mu p_\nu +b\left(p\right)p_{(\mu }\overline{p}_{\nu )}+c\left(p\right)p_{(\mu }ϵ_{\nu )}+`$ (2.20)
$`d\left(p\right)\overline{p}_\mu \overline{p}_\nu +e\left(p\right)\overline{p}_{(\mu }ϵ_{\nu )}+f\left(p\right)ϵ_{(\mu }ϵ_{\nu )}.`$
Substituting (2.20) into (2.17), and making use the relations (2.18) and (2.19), we find that $`Im(es𝒜)=0`$, showing that the massless pole does not propagate. For the pole at $`p^2=m^2`$, one obtains

$$Im(es𝒜)=\left|J_\mu ^\mu \right|^2,$$
(2.21)
that is always positive-definite. From this result, we find only one on-shell degree of freedom for the massive graviton.

For the vector field, the transition amplitude is given by

$$𝒜=J^\mu \left(p\right)T\left[B_\mu \left(p\right)B_\nu \left(p\right)\right]J^\nu \left(p\right).$$
(2.22)
Expanding the current $`J^\mu \left(p\right)`$ with respect to the basis (2.18),

$$J^\mu \left(p\right)=a\left(p\right)p^\mu +b\left(p\right)\overline{p}^\mu +c\left(p\right)\epsilon ^\mu ,$$
(2.23)
and by making use of its conservation law,

$$ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }p_\nu J_\lambda =0,$$
(2.24)
we can show that the massless pole is again non-dynamical, while the residue of the amplitude at the massive pole give us:

$$\frac{1}{2}\left|a\right|^2m^2,$$
(2.25)
which ensures one physical degree of freedom. Therefore, the non-minimal coupling of the K-R field to gravity results in a appearance of a dynamical massive pole in the longitudinal sector of $`B_{\mu \nu }`$.

We now turn into the calculation of the 1-loop mass correction for the gauge field propagator. The relevant vertices to our discussion are shown in figure 1, while all possible self-energy corrections are depicted in figure 2. The vertices of the figures 1.a and 1.b come from the Lagrangians (2.3) and (2.5) by expanding the metric up to order $`\kappa `$, while the one of figure 1.c is obtained from (2.3) up to order $`\kappa ^2`$.

From the Feynman rules displayed in figure 1, the contribution coming from the loop integrals can be evaluated. Due to algebraic complexity of the vertices and propagators, the explicit evaluation of these diagrams only was possible by means of the software FORM. Since we are concerned with the contribution to the vector field mass, and we checked that a Chern-Simons-like term is not generated, we can calculate the diagrams by setting all momenta appearing on the external legs to zero. One therefore, obtains the following contribution to the 1-loop shift in the gauge field mass:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|_{1loop}=\frac{3\pi ^2}{16\sqrt{2}\kappa \xi ^3}.$$
(2.26)
## 3 The Non-Riemannian Case

Now, following the same procedure as the one in the previous section, we propose to extend our analysis to the case where torsion is non-vanishing. In three-dimensional space-time, the torsion field can be covariantly split according to its SO(1,2) irreducible components:

$$T_{\mu \nu \lambda }=\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }\phi +\frac{1}{2}(\eta _{\nu \lambda }t_\mu \eta _{\mu \lambda }t_\nu )+\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha }X^\alpha {}_{\lambda }{}^{},$$
(3.27)
namely, a trace part $`t_\mu =T_{\mu \nu }`$ ν, a totally antisymmetric part $`\phi =\frac{1}{3!}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda }T_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ and a traceless rank-2 symmetric tensor $`X_{\mu \nu }`$ .

A possible gauge-invariant action may be so chosen that there is no coupling at all between the K-R field and torsion, i.e., the former “neither yields nor feels torsion”. Thus, let us consider the action

$$𝒮=d^3x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}R+\frac{1}{6}G_{\mu \nu \lambda }G^{\mu \nu \lambda }+2\xi R\stackrel{~}{}_\mu B^\mu \right),$$
(3.28)
where the tilde on $`_\mu `$ means that we are considering only the Riemaniann part of the covariant derivative. Varying the total action (3.28) with respect to the independent fields, we get the following result for the trace part of the torsion:

$$t^\mu =\frac{4\kappa ^2\xi \stackrel{~}{}^\mu \stackrel{~}{}_\nu B^\nu }{1+2\kappa ^2\xi \stackrel{~}{}_\nu B^\nu },$$
(3.29)
while the variations with respect to the fields $`\phi `$ and $`X_{\mu \nu }`$ give us

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\phi =0,\\ X_{\mu \nu }=0.\end{array}$$
(3.30)
The torsion irreducible components act as mere auxiliary fields and one can eliminate them by means of their respective algebraic field equations. Therefore, substituing this results back into the action, one obtain a Lagrangian expressed exclusively in terms of $`B_\mu `$ and $`h_{\mu \nu }`$:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}\sqrt{g}\stackrel{~}{R}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\sqrt{g}G_{\mu \nu \lambda }G^{\mu \nu \lambda }+2\xi \sqrt{g}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{}_\mu B^\mu `$
$`+8\kappa ^2\xi ^2\sqrt{g}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{}_\lambda \stackrel{~}{}_\mu B^\mu \stackrel{~}{}^\lambda \stackrel{~}{}_\nu B^\nu }{1+2\kappa ^2\xi \stackrel{~}{}_\mu B^\mu }}.`$
From the bilinear sector of the Lagrangian above supplemented by the gauge fixing terms (2.8) and (2.10), we obtain the following propagators:

$`hh`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{p^2}}\{P^{\left(2\right)}+\alpha P^{\left(1\right)}+2[(\alpha +1)+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m^2}}]P^{\left(0w\right)}`$ (3.32)
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m^2}})[P^{\left(0s\right)}+\sqrt{2}(P^{\left(0sw\right)}+P^{\left(0ws\right)})]\},`$
$$B_\mu B_\nu =\frac{i}{2p^2}\left(\frac{1}{\beta }\theta _{\mu \nu }+\omega _{\mu \nu }\right).$$

It is remarkable to notice now that the poles are located at $`p^2=0`$, contrary to the previous case, where torsion was not present. It is just the last term of the action (3) the responsible for the suppression of the massive pole. The mixing between $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`B_\mu `$ arising from the mentioned term appears with the right coefficient that eliminates the massive pole.

Proceeding analogously to what we did in the previous Section, the massless poles are shown to be non-dynamical for both fields. From this result, one concludes that the coupling of the K-R field to gravity with non-vanishing torsion may result in a theory without on-shell degrees of freedom at tree-level as long as the action (3) is concerned. Moreover, by computing the Feynman rules for this action and calculating the 1-loop self-energy graphs, we checked that no mass is dynamically generated by radiative corrections.

## 4 Concluding Remarks

As a final result, we can state that the coupling of the 3D K-R field with Einstein-Hilbert gravity excites a dynamical mode of the rank-2 gauge potential, whenever torsion is not considered. The inclusion of torsion as a non-dynamical field changes this result, as we checked in Section 3. However, had we considered non-minimal couplings with higher powers in the curvature, the situation would be completely changed, as torsion would become dynamical and its mixing with the graviton  would for sure trigger a dynamical mass for the gauge field on the basis of the results worked out in Section 2.

To conclude, we would like to mention that, if gravity were described by a pure Chern-Simons term, even in the torsionless case the K-R field would remain non-dynamical on-shell, since no mass would be generated neither at the classical nor at the 1-loop level.


format: text

text:
# The spin-1/2 𝐽₁-𝐽₂ model on the body-centered cubic lattice

## I Introduction

The properties of the two-dimensional (2d) $`J_1`$-$`J_2`$ model have attracted a great deal of interest during the last decade (see e.g. Refs. squa\_ref7 ; squa\_ref8 ; squa\_ref9 ; zfp93 ; squa\_ref9a ; squa\_ref10 ; squa\_ref11 ; squa\_ref12 ; Sushkov01 ; squa\_ref13 ; squa\_ref13a  and references therein). The Hamiltonian of the $`J_1`$-$`J_2`$ model is

$`H=J_1{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}𝐒_i𝐒_j+J_2{\displaystyle \underset{[i,j]}{}}𝐒_i𝐒_j,`$ (1)
where $`J_1=1`$ is the nearest-neighbor, and $`J_20`$ is the frustrating next-nearest-neighbor Heisenberg exchange. We are interested in the extreme quantum case, i.e. we consider the spin quantum number is $`s=1/2`$. For the square lattice it seems to be well-accepted that there is a quantum spin-liquid phase between $`J_2/J_10.38`$ and $`J_2/J_10.60`$ and that the corresponding quantum phase transitions from the Néel ordered state to the spin-liquid state at $`J_2/J_10.38`$ is of second order. The nature of the transition from the spin-liquid state to the collinear state at $`J_2/J_10.60`$ is still under discussion but there are indications that it might be of first order Sushkov01 . The Néel phase for small $`J_2`$ is characterized by an antiparallel alignment of nearest-neighbor spins with a corresponding magnetic wave vector $`𝐐_{N\stackrel{´}{e}el}=(\pi ,\pi )`$. The collinear state for large $`J_2`$ is twofold degenerated and the corresponding magnetic wave vectors are $`𝐐_{col}^1=(\pi ,0)`$ and $`𝐐_{col}^2=(0,\pi )`$. The two collinear states are characterized by a parallel spin orientation of nearest neighbors in vertical (horizontal) direction and an antiparallel spin orientation of nearest neighbors in horizontal (vertical) direction and exhibit therefore Néel order within the initial sublattices $`A`$ and $`B`$. The properties of the spin-liquid phase are a current field of active research. Even additional quantum phase transitions at $`(J_2/J_1)0.34`$ and $`(J_2/J_1)0.50`$ are discussed Sushkov01 .

The properties of quantum spin systems strongly depend on the dimensionality. So, contrary to the 2d model, the one-dimensional $`J_1J_2`$ model does not have a Néel ordered ground state, but exhibits a transition from a critical state to a dimer phase at $`J_2/J_1=0.241`$ (see e.g. 1d\_a ; 1d\_b ; 1d\_c ). Though the tendency to order is more pronounced in three-dimensional (3d) quantum spin systems than in low-dimensional ones a spin-liquid phase is also observed for frustrated 3d systems like the Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the pyrochlore lattice canals98 ; koga01 .

In this paper we consider the 3d version of the $`J_1J_2`$ model. To cover the possibility to have in a 3d model both Néel phases found for the 2d model we need a 3d bi-bipartite lattice, i.e. a lattice consisting of two interpenetrating bipartite sublattices. The bcc lattice consists of two interpenetrating, identical simple cubic sublattices. Each simple cubic sublattice consists of two interpenetrating, identical fcc lattices. Therefore the bcc lattice is a 3d bi-bipartite cubic lattice.

The classical ground state for the bcc lattice corresponds to that of the square lattice: For $`J_2/J_1<\alpha _c`$ it is a usual two-sublattice Néel state whereas for $`J_2/J_1>\alpha _c`$ an antiferromagnet with four sublattices is realized. The transition point $`\alpha _c`$ depends on the coordination numbers $`\alpha _c=z_1/(2z_2)`$, where $`z_1`$ is the number of nearest-neighbors ($`J_1`$ bonds) and $`z_2`$ of next-nearest-neighbors ($`J_2`$ bonds). Consequently we have $`\alpha _c=1/2`$ for the square lattice but $`\alpha _c=2/3`$ for the bcc lattice. Therefore we define as the appropriate parameter of frustration

$`p={\displaystyle \frac{J_2z_2}{J_1z_1}}`$ (2)
and we have $`p_c^{square}=p_c^{bcc}=1/2`$.

In what follows we use the exact diagonalization scheme and the linear spin wave theory to calculate the ground-state properties of the $`J_1J_2`$ model on the bcc lattice and compare the results with the corresponding ones for the square lattice. We will present the ground-state energy, the violation of the Marshall-Peierls sign rule, the sublattice magnetizations and the spin gap of finite lattices in section II. Properties of the infinite lattices will be given in section III, where the results of the extrapolation of the ground-state energy, the sublattice magnetizations (from ED data) and the corresponding results of the LSWT are shown.

## II Exact Diagonalization

### II.1 The generation of finite bcc lattices

The generation of finite 3d lattices with periodic boundary conditions is less transparent than for 2d lattices. As has been recently pointed out by Betts and coworkers stewart97 ; Betts\_Schulenburg98 ; Schulenburg\_Flynn01  the use of a triple of edge vectors in upper triangular lattice form (utlf) lyness  leads to a systematic generation of finite 3d lattices. In this paper we use the utlf edge vectors and follow strictly Refs. Betts\_Schulenburg98 ; Schulenburg\_Flynn01 . Finite parallelepipeds that build up the infinite bcc lattice can be defined by three edge vectors,

$`𝐋_\alpha ={\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{3}{}}}n_{\alpha \beta }𝐚_\beta ,`$ (3)
where $`n_{\alpha \beta }`$ with $`\beta =1,2,3`$ are integers and $`𝐚_1=(1,1,1)`$, $`𝐚_2=(1,1,1)`$, $`𝐚_3=(1,1,1)`$ are the basis vectors of the lattice connecting nearest neighbors. The lattice vectors connecting next nearest neighbors are $`𝐛_1=(\pm 2,0,0),𝐛_2=(\pm 0,2,0),𝐛_3=(0,0,\pm 2)`$.

There are altogether 10 finite bcc lattices with $`N36`$ listed in Table 1, which fulfill the following three conditions: (i) Every site $`i`$ of the bcc lattices should have 8 nearest and 6 next-nearest neighbors, which means that they have the full number of nearest and next-nearest neighbors. (ii) The finite lattices should be bi-bipartit in order to avoid frustration due to boundary conditions for $`p=0`$ and $`p\mathrm{}`$. (Notice, that finite bcc lattices may be not bi-bipartite even though the infinite bcc lattice is.) (iii) Furthermore they should be topologically distinct, i.e. the spin Hamiltonian (1) should exhibit different physical properties.

### II.2 Ground-state energy

The ground-state energy gives first insight in the nature of possible zero-temperature phase transitions. In the thermodynamic limit a kink in $`E_0(p)`$ (respectively a jump in the first derivative $`dE_0/dp`$) signals a first order transition, whereas a smooth $`dE_0/dp`$ is compatible with second order transitions. Furthermore the maximum in $`E_0(p)`$ indicates the point of maximal frustration. The ground-state energy for the classical model consists of two straight lines $`E_0^{clas}(p)=(p1)N`$ for $`p0.5`$ and $`E_0^{clas}(p)=pN`$ for $`p0.5`$ with a kink (maximum) at $`p=0.5`$.

The quantum ground state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is a singlet eigen state of total spin for all $`J_2`$. In analogy to the square lattice squa\_ref8  $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ of finite bcc lattices with $`Nmod8=0`$ has the same translational symmetry for small and large $`J_2`$ ($`𝐤_{gs}=(0,0,0)`$), whereas the translational symmetry of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ for lattices with $`Nmod4=0`$ but $`Nmod80`$ is different for small and large $`J_2`$. The change of symmetry from $`𝐤_{gs}=(0,0,0)`$ to $`𝐤_{gs}=(\pi ,\pi ,\pi )`$ appears slightly right from the maximum of the ground-state energy.

For the quantum model we show exact-diagonalization results of $`E_0/N`$ for three different values of frustration in Table 2. While $`J_2=0`$ and $`J_2=1.3333`$ correspond to zero or small frustration, $`J_2=0.7`$ is in the region of strong frustration.

For the sake of clearness we present in the figures only results of selected finite lattices. To illustrate the finite-size effects in the most of the subsequent figures we present data for the smallest (N=24) and the largest lattices we have calculated, where for $`N=32,36`$ we have chosen the lattices having highest symmetry. Note, that the curves for lattices of identical $`N`$ look very similar.

For comparison with the square lattice we have recalculated data of squa\_ref8  up to $`N=6\times 6=36`$. However, we think a square lattice with $`N=4\times 4=16`$ is comparable to a bcc lattice with $`N=36`$. This can be seen if one looks at the characteristic lengths $`L_{3d}N^{1/3}`$ and $`L_{2d}N^{1/2}`$. Further, we mention that the square lattice of $`N=16`$ contains 5 neighborhood shells, whereas some of the more dense finite bcc lattices with $`N=32`$ and $`N=36`$ contain even more.

In Fig. 1 one finds the ground-state energies of the bcc lattices 24C, 36C and for comparison the $`N=16`$ and the $`N=36`$ square lattices. To have comparable curves we scaled the ground-state energy of the square lattice with the factor $`7/4`$. Fig. 1 illustrates that, contrary to the 2d model, the ground-state energy of the 3d bcc lattice behaves very similarly to the classical model. As can be seen in Fig. 1 the kink in the ground-state energy is almost independent of the size of the bcc lattices. This can be interpreted as an indication that the kink survives in the thermodynamic limit.

### II.3 Ground-State Phase Relationships

The phase relationships of the Ising basis states $`|n`$ in the ground state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ of the bipartite Heisenberg antiferromagnet (i.e. $`J_2=0`$ in (1)) follow the Marshall-Peierls sign rule Marshall . This sign rule can be formulated as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\underset{n}{}c_n|n,c_n>0.$$
(4)
Here the Ising states $`|n`$ are defined by

$$|n(1)^{N/2M(X)}|m_1|m_2\mathrm{}|m_N,$$
(5)
where $`|m_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, are the eigenstates of the site spin operator $`S_i^z`$ (i.e. $`m_i=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$) and $`M(X)=_{iϵX}m_i`$. The standard Marshall-Peierls sign rule appropriate for the Néel phase at small $`p`$ is obtained for $`X=A`$, i.e. $`X`$ labels one of the two equivalent sublattices. For large values of $`p`$ we have antiferromagnetic order within the initial sublattices $`A`$ and $`B`$ and $`A`$ and $`B`$ resolve into 4 sublattices ($`AA_1`$, $`A_2`$ and $`BB_1`$, $`B_2`$). Then a modified sign rule holds with $`X=A_1B_1`$.

As pointed out in zfp93 ; squa\_ref9a  and very recently in squa\_ref13a  the sign rule may survive some frustration but is clearly violated for the square lattice in the strongly frustrated spin-liquid region. Hence we can use the violation of the Marshall-Peierls sign rule as an indication of the breakdown of the two-sublattice Néel state.

In Fig. 2 one finds the weight $`g(X)=_n^{}(c_n)^2`$ of the Ising states $`|n`$ fulfilling the Marshall-Peierls sign rule (i.e. the sum $`_n^{}`$ is restricted to the subset of states having $`c_n>0`$) for two finite bcc lattices and two square lattices. For the $`J_1J_2`$ model on the bcc lattice the rule (4) is violated almost discontinuously at that point where the ground-state energy has its maximum. This is a hint to a very drastic change of the ground state on the bcc lattice around $`p=0.52`$ which can be attributed to an abrupt breakdown of the two-sublattice Néel state. On the other hand for the $`J_1J_2`$ model on the square lattice the violation of the sign rule (4) starts smoothly and becomes significant near $`p=0.4`$ where the second-order transition to the spin-liquid state takes place. The modified sign rule with $`g(A_1B_1)`$ changes also discontinuously for the bcc lattice but smoothly for the square lattice. However, there is a violation of the modified rule also in the collinear phase, which can be attributed to the coupling between the both antiferromagnetic subsystems living on the initial sublattices $`A`$ and $`B`$. Only for large $`p1`$, where the ground state becomes a product state of both antiferromagnetic subsystems the modified rule is rigorously fulfilled.

### II.4 Sublattice magnetizations

Of course the most important parameter to study Néel ordering is the sublattice magnetization. In finite systems the conventional antiferromagnetic LRO, that is realized for small $`p`$, has to be described by the square of the sublattice magnetization of one spin component

$`m^2(𝐐)=[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i\mathrm{𝐐𝐑}_i}S_i^z]^2`$ (6)
with $`𝐐_{N\stackrel{´}{e}el}=(\pi ,\pi ,\pi )`$ for the bcc lattice (and $`𝐐_{N\stackrel{´}{e}el}=(\pi ,\pi )`$ for the square lattice). For large values of $`p`$ the magnetic wave vectors $`𝐐_{col}^{1,2}=(\pm \pi /2,\pm \pi /2,\pm \pi /2)`$ have to be used for the bcc lattice (and $`𝐐_{col}^1=(\pi ,0)`$ or $`𝐐_{col}^2=(0,\pi )`$ for the square lattice) to describe the collinear phase with antiferromagnetic order within the initial sublattices $`A`$ and $`B`$. We denote in the following the order parameter of the Néel phase calculated with $`𝐐_{N\stackrel{´}{e}el}`$ with $`m^2`$ and that of the collinear phase calculated with $`𝐐_{col}^1`$ or $`𝐐_{col}^2`$ with $`m_\alpha ^2`$. Notice, that $`m_\alpha ^2`$ is identical for $`𝐐_{col}^1`$ and $`𝐐_{col}^2`$. In Table 3 we give the order parameters of the ten finite bcc lattices for $`J_2=0`$ and $`J_2=1.3333`$. The behavior of $`m^2`$ and $`m_\alpha ^2`$ shown in Fig. 3 again illustrates, that the influence of the frustration on the ground-state properties is basically different for the square and bcc lattice and suggests a direct first-order transition between both Néel phases for the bcc lattice. A more detailed presentation of the transition region is given in Fig. 4. One finds that the position of the transition only slightly depends on size and symmetry of the finite lattices. Moreover, the width of transition region is getting smaller with growing $`N`$. Again we mention that the region of transition is related to the maximum of $`E_0`$ and the significant violation of the Marshall-Peierls sign rule.

### II.5 Spin gap

Another indication for a possible quantum disordered spin-liquid state is the spin gap, i.e. the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ST}`$ between the singlet ground state and the first triplet excitation. In Néel ordered systems we have Goldstone modes and no spin gap is observed in the thermodynamic limit. Contrary to this, quantum disorder is accompanied by the opening of a spin gap. We show the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ST}`$ of two finite bcc lattices in Fig. 5. The first triplet excitation relevant for the gap belongs to the translational symmetry $`𝐤_t=(\pi ,\pi ,\pi )`$ for small $`p`$ and $`𝐤_t=(\pi /2,\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ for large $`p`$. For comparison we show the gap for the square lattice of $`N=16`$ and $`N=32`$ sites. Of course, the gap of a finite lattice is finite. However, in the long-range ordered Néel and collinear phases the extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit yields a vanishing gap. Obviously there is no increase in the gap for the bcc lattices till about $`p0.52`$ where the transition from the two-sublattice Néel phase to the collinear phase takes place. In the collinear phase the relevant coupling parameter for excitations is $`J_2`$ instead of $`J_1`$ and consequently the gap increases linearly with $`p`$. Clearly we see that there is no special behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ST}`$ near the transition point $`p0.52`$. The gap for the square lattice shows a similar behavior for parameter regions where magnetic long-range order in the ground state is present, but around $`p=0.5`$ the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ST}`$ is in contrast to the bcc lattice. In this region a quantum disordered gapped phase for the square lattice is expected which is consistent with the significant increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ST}`$ near $`p=0.5`$.

We conclude from the examination of the spin gap that there are no indications for a quantum disordered gapped phase for the bcc lattice.

## III Infinite bcc lattices

### III.1 Finite-Size Extrapolation

To obtain properties of the infinite bcc lattice we extrapolate the ED data of all ten lattices listed in Table 1. The finite-size extrapolation is a well elaborated approximation scheme successfully applied to many 2d quantum spin systems like the $`J_1J_2`$ model on the square lattice squa\_ref8 . But even for 3d lattices this scheme may lead to precise data for the infinite lattice stewart97 ; Betts\_Schulenburg98 ; Schulenburg\_Flynn01 . The corresponding scaling laws are known from literature Hasenfratz\_ZPB ; Neuberger\_PRB ; Oitmaa\_PRB . The scaling equation for ground-state energy per site $`ϵ=E_0/N`$ of the bcc lattice is

$`ϵ(L)=ϵ(\mathrm{})+A_4L^4+\mathrm{}`$ (7)
and for the order parameter

$`m^2(L)=m^2(\mathrm{})+B_2L^2+\mathrm{}`$ (8)
with $`L=N^{1/3}`$.

The same relation is valid for $`m_\alpha ^2`$. The results are presented in Figs. 6 and 7. The discussion of the data is given below.

### III.2 Linear spin wave theory (LSWT)

#### III.2.1 LSWT for small $`J_2`$

Starting from the classical two-sublattice Néel state we choose a two-boson representation of the Hamiltonian (1). Rewriting the spin operators of the Hamiltonian in terms of bose operators by using the usual Holstein-Primakoff transformation and taking into account only quadratic terms in the bose operators, we obtain a bosonic Hamiltonian in Fourier transformed representation

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`s^2N(8+6p)+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\{A_𝐤(a_𝐤^+a_𝐤+b_𝐤^+b_𝐤)`$
$`+B_𝐤(a_𝐤b_𝐤+a_𝐤^+b_𝐤^+)\}`$
with the coefficients

$`A_𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`s(86p(1\gamma _{2𝐤}))`$ (10)
$`B_𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`8s\gamma _{1𝐤}.`$ (11)
The structure factors of nearest neighbors and next-nearest neighbors are given by

$`\gamma _{1𝐤}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y\mathrm{cos}k_z`$ (12)
$`\gamma _{2𝐤}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\mathrm{cos}2k_x+\mathrm{cos}2k_y+\mathrm{cos}2k_z).`$ (13)
The ground-state energy per site is then

$`E_0/N=s^2(8+6p)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}(\omega _𝐤A_𝐤)`$ (14)
with $`\omega _𝐤=\sqrt{A_𝐤^2B_𝐤^2}`$. The sublattice magnetization $`m=S_i^z`$ is

$`m=s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_𝐤}{2\omega _𝐤}}\right).`$ (15)
#### III.2.2 LSWT for large $`J_2`$

The classical ground state of the $`J_1J_2`$ model on the bcc lattice for large $`J_2`$ consists of two interpenetrating Néel states each living on the initial sublattices $`A`$ and $`B`$. The two Néel states are energetically decoupled, i.e. the angle $`\theta `$ between the staggered magnetization on $`A`$ and $`B`$ is arbitrary for classical spins. For the quantum model we start with arbitrary $`\theta `$ and use as quantization axis the local orientation of the spins in the classical ground state. The further procedure is the same as for small $`J_2`$ but the bosonic Hamiltonian now contains the angle $`\theta `$. By means of the Hellmann-Feynman theorem Feynman\_PR  $`H(\theta )/\theta =E(\theta )/\theta `$ it can be easily found that in the quantum model the collinear state ($`\theta =0`$ or $`\pi `$) has lowest energy. This lifting of the continuous degeneracy of the classical ground state by quantum fluctuations (’order from disorder effect ’) is also found for the square lattice Kubo\_JPSJ . For $`\theta =0`$ the bosonic Hamiltonian reads

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`6Nps^2+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\{A(a_𝐤^{}a_𝐤+b_𝐤^{}b_𝐤)`$
$`+`$ $`[C_𝐤(b_𝐤a_𝐤^+b_𝐤^+a_𝐤^+)B_𝐤(a_𝐤a_𝐤+b_𝐤b_𝐤)+h.c.]\}`$
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`6sp`$ (17)
$`B_𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`3sp\gamma _{2𝐤}`$ (18)
$`C_𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`4s(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y\mathrm{cos}k_z`$
$`+i\mathrm{sin}k_x\mathrm{sin}k_y\mathrm{sin}k_z).`$
Then the ground-state energy per site is

$`E_0/N=6s^2p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{1𝐤}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{2𝐤}}{2}}A\right)`$ (20)
with the modes

$`\omega _{1𝐤}=\sqrt{A^24B_𝐤^2+F_𝐤};\omega _{2𝐤}=\sqrt{A^24B_𝐤^2F_𝐤}`$ (21)
and the function

$`F_𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`\{(C_𝐤^2C_𝐤^2)^28AB_𝐤(C_𝐤^2+C_𝐤^2)`$
$`+4C_𝐤C_𝐤^{}(A^2+4B_𝐤^2)\}^{1/2}.`$
The sublattice magnetization is written as

$`m_\alpha =s`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{D(𝐤,\omega _{1𝐤})}{2\omega _{1𝐤}(\omega _{1𝐤}^2\omega _{2𝐤}^2)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{D(𝐤,\omega _{2𝐤})}{2\omega _{2𝐤}(\omega _{2𝐤}^2\omega _{1𝐤}^2)}}`$
with

$`D(𝐤,\omega _𝐤)=\omega _𝐤^3+A\omega _𝐤^2(4B_𝐤^2A^2)\omega _𝐤`$ (24)
$`+A(4B_𝐤^2+2C_𝐤C_𝐤^{})2B_𝐤(C_𝐤^2+C_𝐤^2)A^3.`$
The results of LSWT and the finite-size extrapolation are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. For the limits $`J_2=0`$ and $`J_1=0`$ our LSWT results are in agreement with data for the bcc and the sc lattice given in Oitmaa\_PRB . Both methods yield similar results. For the ground-state energy we have a good quantitative agreement. Being in the size of the data points, the standard deviation of extrapolated ground-state energy is not shown. For the order parameter the finite-size effects are stronger and the agreement is only qualitative. Both methods suggest a first-order transition for the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ $`J_1`$-$`J_2`$ model on the bcc lattice. The transition point obtained from the ED data is $`J_20.7J_1`$ (i.e. $`p0.52`$) while the LSWT becomes instable at the classical transition point.

## IV Conclusion

We have presented spin-wave and exact diagonalization results for the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ $`J_1`$-$`J_2`$ model on the bcc lattice and compare them with those for the square lattice. In general, we observe that the physics for the 3d quantum model is closer to classical behavior since quantum fluctuations and finite-size corrections become less important for higher coordination number and larger dimension.

We are not sure whether the increase of the magnetization $`m_\alpha `$ approaching the transition point from the right (shown in Fig. 7) is a real effect. A possible physical origin for an increase may be a stronger coupling of the Néel ordered subsystems A and B due to larger quantum fluctuations or finite-size effects that become more important in the region of strong frustration. From the data for the ground-state energy, the Marshall-Peierls sign rule, the sublattice magnetizations and the spin gap we conclude that the increase from dimension d=2 to d=3 changes the physical properties basically. The good agreement with the spin wave results support this conclusion. Contrary to the 2d model, where the quantum fluctuations and frustration lead to a second order transition from the two-sublattice Néel state to a disordered spin-liquid like phase, in the 3d model we find no indications for a disordered ground-state phase. The quantum $`J_1J_2`$ model on the bcc lattice shows one transition of first order induced by strong frustration from the two-sublattice Néel state directly to the collinear state, where the transition takes place at $`\alpha _c=(J_2/J_1)_c0.7`$.

Acknowledgements: We acknowledge support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Project No. Ri 615/7-1). Besides we also want to thank Dirk Schmalfuß for fruitful discussions.


text:
# Untitled Document

SOLUTION OF THE VACUUM KERR-SCHILD PROBLEM Research supported by OTKA fund no. 1826 László Á. Gergely and Zoltán Perjés KFKI Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics  H-1525 Budapest 114, P.O.Box 49, Hungary

ABSTRACT The complete solution of the vacuum Kerr-Schild equations in general relativity is presented, including the space-times with a curved background metric. The corresponding result for a flat background has been obtained by Kerr.

The Kerr-Schild pencils1 of metrics

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{ab}=g_{ab}+Vl_al_b$$
$`(1)`$
have been in the forefront of research in general relativity for some time. A classic example of these space-times is the Kerr metric. All the Kerr-Schild vacuum space-times with a flat parent metric $`g_{ab}`$ are given by beautiful geometrical relations2. The solution of the flat problem (known as Kerr’s theorem) reveals a close relationship with complex surfaces in three-dimensional homogeneous spaces. Kerr-Schild congruences in Minkowski space-time have extensively been studied3-6. Work on Kerr-Schild space-times in the generic case when $`g_{ab}`$ has a nonvanishing curvature, $`l`$ is a null vector and $`V`$ a function, has certainly been motivated by the prospects of extending Kerr’s complex analytic description to curved space-times7-10.

In this Letter we present the complete solution of the vacuum Kerr-Schild problem. The Kerr-Schild equations follow from (1) and the vacuum Einstein equations. They are:

$$Dl_a=0,$$
$`(2)`$
$$_b\left[_a\left(Vl_cl^b\right)+_c\left(Vl_al^b\right)^b\left(Vl_al_c\right)\right]=0$$
$`(3)`$
$$DDV+(^al_a)DV+2V(_bl_d)^{[b}l^{d]}=0.$$
$`(4)`$
Here $``$ is the covariant derivative annihilating $`g_{ab}`$. The vector

$$D=l^a_a=/r$$
$`(5)`$
is tangent to a null geodesic congruence8, with $`r`$ the affine parameter.

We rewrite these equations in a Newman-Penrose (NP) notation12, choosing $`l`$ a vector of the null tetrad. The geodesic condition (2) becomes $`\kappa =0`$. We adopt the gauge with $`ϵ=0,\pi =\alpha +\overline{\beta }`$, and integrate a closed subset of the ‘radial’ field equations12 for the affine parameter dependence:

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2r}(1+\mathrm{cos}\eta C),\sigma =\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{2rC}$$
$`(6)`$
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\eta }{4r^2}.$$
$`(7)`$
Here C is a complex phase factor

$$C=\frac{r^{\mathrm{cos}\eta }iB}{r^{\mathrm{cos}\eta }+iB}.$$
$`(8)`$
$`B`$ and $`\eta `$ are real integration functions. A further integration function has been eliminated by suitably fixing the origin of the affine parameter. The real potential can be written as

$$V=V_0\frac{r^{\mathrm{cos}\eta }}{r^{2\mathrm{cos}\eta }+B^2}.$$
$`(9)`$
The complex tetrad vector $`m`$ has the $`r`$ dependence

$$m=\frac{1}{2B}\left(1\frac{1}{C}\right)\left[iQ_1^jr^{\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta \mathrm{sin}\eta 1}{2}}Q_2^jr^{\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}{2}}\right]\frac{}{x^j}j=1,2,3$$
$`(10)`$
where $`V_0,Q_1^j`$ and $`Q_2^j`$ are real integration functions. With this choice, the tetrad has been uniquely fixed.

The real function $`B`$ controls the amount of divergence and rotation of the null congruence with tangent $`l`$, respectively. $`B`$ gives rise to the imaginary part of the spin coefficient $`\rho `$. When $`B=0`$, we have $`C=1`$, and the congruence is curl-free. Similarly, for large values of the affine parameter $`r`$, the phase factor $`C`$ approaches the unit value, and the rotation dies out. The parameter $`\eta `$ governs the shear. For $`\eta =0`$ or $`\eta =180^{}`$, the congruence is shear-free. When both $`B=0`$ and $`\eta =0`$, the rays are exactly spherical: $`\rho =1/r`$. For $`\eta =90^{}`$, the rays become cylindrical, $`\rho =1/2r`$. At $`\eta =180^{}`$, there is no expansion. Our Theorem below shows that the general shearing class does not contain the shear-free case as a smooth limit.

The field equations in the NP form may be grouped in three sets. The first set of equations is a coupled system of linear inhomogeneous equations for the affine parameter dependence of the quantities $`\tau ,\pi ,\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and for their complex conjugates:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T& HE\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Psi }_1\hfill \\ \hfill E& QS.\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill D\tau & =\rho (\tau +\overline{\pi })+\sigma (\overline{\tau }+\pi )+\mathrm{\Psi }_1\hfill \\ \hfill D\pi & =2\rho \pi +2\overline{\sigma }\overline{\pi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1\hfill \\ \hfill D\alpha & =\rho (\pi +\alpha )+\overline{\sigma }(\overline{\pi }\overline{\alpha })\hfill \\ \hfill D\beta & =\overline{\rho }\beta +\sigma (2\pi \overline{\beta })+\mathrm{\Psi }_1\hfill \\ \hfill D\mathrm{\Psi }_1& =4\rho \mathrm{\Psi }_1+(\overline{\delta }+\pi 4\alpha )\mathrm{\Psi }_0.\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}& (11a)\hfill \\ & (11b)\hfill \\ & (11c)\hfill \\ & (11d)\hfill \\ & (11e)\hfill \end{array}$$

The $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ equations are complemented by two equations, linear in the unknown functions:

$$\delta \left(\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{2\sigma }\right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{\sigma }\delta ln\varphi 2\sigma \overline{\delta }ln\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }_1=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{2\sigma }(\tau \overline{\alpha }\beta )2\sigma (\overline{\tau }\alpha \overline{\beta })+\overline{\tau }\sigma \tau \rho $$
$`(12)`$
$$\delta \rho \overline{\delta }\sigma =\rho \overline{\pi }+\sigma (\pi 4\alpha )+(\rho \overline{\rho })\tau \mathrm{\Psi }_1.$$
$`(13)`$
where $`\varphi =\sqrt{V}`$.

Theorem: For a generalized vacuum-vacuum Kerr-Schild pencil, either of the following conditions holds: The parameter $`\eta `$ assumes one of the special values given by

$$\mathrm{sin}\eta =0,_{}^+1,_{}^+2^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
$`(14)`$
or, alternatively, the spin coefficient quantities $`\rho ,\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ depend only on the affine parameter $`r`$.

The theorem can be proven11 by taking the $`D`$ derivative of Eq. (12), and eliminating the unknown spin coefficients by use of the NP commutators, Eq. (13) and the equations of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ system. This yields that $`\delta \eta =0`$ and, unless $`\eta `$ takes any of the exceptional values, the integration functions are restricted by $`\delta V_0=\delta B=0`$. In the generic case, $`\rho \overline{\rho }0`$, the commutator equations imply also $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0`$ for any real function $`\varphi `$ with $`D\varphi =\delta \varphi =0`$, Hence the integration functions $`B,\eta `$ and $`V_0`$ are constants. The curl-free fields, $`B=0`$, will be discussed in Ref. 11.

It follows that the Kerr solution with $`\eta =0`$ will not emerge as a smooth limiting case of the shearing Kerr-Schild metrics.

For fields of arbitrary deformation parameter, $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ may be expressed algebraically in terms of $`\pi ,\tau `$ and their complex conjugates, by the respective Eqs. (12) and (13). The $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ system becomes a quartet of coupled equations for the spin coefficients $`\tau ,\pi `$ and their complex conjugates:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& D\tau =(2\rho \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{2\sigma })\tau +\sigma (2\overline{\tau }\pi )+(\rho +\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{2\sigma })\overline{\pi }\hfill \\ & D\pi =(2\rho +\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{2\overline{\sigma }})\pi +\overline{\sigma }\tau +(\overline{\rho }\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{2\overline{\sigma }})\overline{\tau }\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(15)`$
along with the complex conjugate equations. The fundamental solution of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ set is given in Table 1. The general solution is a linear combination of the four fundamental solution vectors with real coefficients.

The radial component of the vector $`n`$ may be obtained by applying the commutator $`[\delta ,\overline{\delta }]`$ on r. Hence the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, when acting on any of the functions depending only on $`r`$, takes the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\overline{\mu }\mu }{\overline{\rho }\rho }D`$. The second set of field equations consists of the NP Eqs. (4.2l,p,q), as well as the fifth of NP (4.5) and of the Kerr-Schild equation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill [\frac{1}{2}& \frac{\overline{\rho }+\rho }{\overline{\rho }\rho }(\frac{1}{r}+\overline{\rho }+\rho )](\overline{\mu }\mu )+\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{\sigma }+\rho \overline{\rho })(\overline{\mu }+\mu )+\mathrm{\Psi }_2+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(\rho +\overline{\rho })(\gamma +\overline{\gamma })\hfill & \\ \hfill =& \delta (\overline{\tau }\pi )+\overline{\delta }(\tau \overline{\pi })6\pi \overline{\pi }+2\pi \overline{\alpha }+2\overline{\pi }\alpha 2\tau \overline{\tau }2\tau \alpha 2\overline{\tau }\overline{\alpha }+3\tau \pi +3\overline{\tau }\overline{\pi }.\hfill & (16)\hfill \end{array}$$

We obtain a lengthy relation from these, containing only functions the $`r`$-dependence of which is explicitly known. Collecting the coefficients of independent powers of $`r`$, one finds that nothing but the trivial solution of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ system satisfies this equation:

$$\alpha =\beta =\tau =\pi =\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0.$$
$`(17)`$
Thus the second system of equations is homogeneous and linear in $`\mu ,\lambda ,\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$. The determinant vanishes, and we get

$$\frac{\gamma }{\rho +1/2r}=\frac{\lambda }{\overline{\sigma }}=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_2\sigma }{\mathrm{\Psi }_0\rho }=\frac{\mu }{\rho }.$$
$`(18)`$
The remaining field equations constitute the third set. They further restrict the metric, leaving us with a three-parameter pencil for which the image of the Kerr-Schild map is the Kóta-Perjés13 metric (44):

$$ds^2=\frac{r^{\mathrm{cos}2\eta }+B^2}{r^{\mathrm{cos}\eta }}(dr^2+r^{1\mathrm{sin}\eta }dx^2+r^{1+\mathrm{sin}\eta }dy^2)+\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{r^{\mathrm{cos}\eta }}{r^{\mathrm{cos}2\eta }+B^2}(l_adx^a)^2.$$
$`(19)`$
Here $`l=/r`$ is tangent to the Kerr-Schild congruence and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the pencil parameter.

To complete our investigation of vacuum Kerr-Schild space-times, we consider now in turn the metrics with either of the values (14).

(a) When $`\mathrm{sin}\eta =0`$, both $`\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ vanish, and $`l`$ is a principal null vector of the curvature. By the Goldberg-Sachs theorem12, these parent space-times are algebraically special, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$. It then follows from Thompson’s Theorem 3.2 that also the ensuing space-time is algebraically special, with the Kerr-Schild congruence being a principal null congruence8. All the vacuum Kerr-Schild spacetimes generated from the flat space-time are in this class.

(b) The case with $`\mathrm{cos}\eta =0`$ maps Minkowski space-time to itself.

(c) Case $`\mathrm{sin}\eta =1/\sqrt{2}=k`$ contains the following Kóta-Perjés metrics:

$$ds^2=\frac{f^0}{f}(r^{1k}dx^2+r^{1+k}dy^2)+2dr(l_adx^a)+f(l_adx^a)^2$$
$`(20).`$
Metric (53) of Ref. 8 is given by

$$f=\mathrm{\Lambda }Re\left\{\frac{x+ir^ky}{r^k+iB}\right\},f^0=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x+By)$$
$`(21)`$
with $`B`$ a real constant. For metric (66), $`B=x/y`$ and

$$f=\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{x+by}{x^2r^k+y^2r^k},f^0=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x+by)/y^2.$$
$`(22)`$
Notice that we have enlisted above all the metrics in Ref. 8.

We thus find that all Kóta-Perjés metrics are explicit cases of Kerr-Schild space-times, either with a real deformation parameter or with $`\eta =1/\sqrt{2}`$.

In summary, the structure of our solution is as follows. The Kerr-Schild space-times are characterized by the real deformation parameter $`\eta `$. The deformation parameter vanishes for Kerr-Schild space-times the parent of which is Minkowski space-time. By our theorem, the field quantities are severely restricted unless the parameter $`\eta `$ assumes either of the exceptional values $`0,\pm 1,\pm \sqrt{2}/2`$. The metrics with arbitrary values of the deformation parameter are Kóta-Perjés metrics. For the exceptional values of $`\eta `$, (a) the class with $`\eta =0`$ is algebraically special, (b) the values $`\mathrm{sin}\eta =\pm 1`$ can occur only in automorphisms of the Minkowski space-time, and (c) the class with $`\mathrm{sin}\eta =\pm 1/\sqrt{2}`$ contains the remaining Kóta-Perjés metrics. While the Kerr-Schild congruences in a Minkowski space-time form a four-parameter family2, there is no corresponding structure on a curved background. Our results have the important implication that hopes are dashed for a complex-analytic description of space-time within the framework of Kerr-Schild theory.

REFERENCES

 Kerr, R. P. and Schild, A., Atti Del Convegno Sulla Relativit Generale: Problemi Dell’ Energia e Onde Gravitazionali (Anniversary Volume, Fourth Centenary of Galileo’s Birth), G. Barb ra, Ed. (Firenze, 1965), p. 173

 Debney, G. C., Kerr, R. P. and Schild, A., J. Math. Phys. 10, 1842 (1969)

 Boyer, R. H. and Lindquist. R. W., J. Math. Phys. 8, 256 (1967)

 G rses, M. and G rsey, F. J. Math. Phys. 16, 2385 (1975)

 Debever, R. , Bull. Acad. Roy. Belgique Cl. Sci. 60, 998 (1974)

 C. B.G.McIntosh: Kerr-Schild Spacetimes Revisited, in Conference on Mathematical Relativity, Ed. R. Bartnik, Proc. Centre for Mathematical Analysis, Australian National University, Canberra, 1988.

 D. Kramer et al.: Exact Solutions of Einstein Field Equations, Cambridge Univ. Press (1980)

 Thompson, A.H., Tensor 17, 92 (1966)

 Dozmorov, I.M., Izv. VUZ. Fiz.11, 68 (1971)

 E. Nahmad-Achar, J.Math.Phys. 29,1878 (1988)

 Gergely, L. Á. and Perjés, Z.: Kerr-Schild metrics revisited I.-II., submitted for publication

 Newman, E. and Penrose, R., J. Math. Phys. 3, 566 (1962)

 Kóta, J. and Perjés, Z., J. Math. Phys. 13, 1695 (1972)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \pi ^{(1)}=\frac{C+1}{r^{\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta +1}{2}}}& (C^3\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta }{\mathrm{sin}\eta +1}C^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{sin}\eta +1}C^1\hfill \\ & +\frac{5sin^2\eta 4\mathrm{sin}\eta +3}{\mathrm{cos}\eta (\mathrm{sin}\eta 3)}+\frac{3\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}{\mathrm{sin}\eta +1}\frac{2\mathrm{sin}\eta +3}{\mathrm{sin}\eta 3}C+2\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{cos}\eta }C^2)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \pi ^{(2)}=i\frac{C+1}{r^{\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta \mathrm{sin}\eta +1}{2}}}& (C^3+\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta }{\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}C^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}C^1\hfill \\ & +\frac{5cos^2\eta 4\mathrm{sin}\eta 8}{\mathrm{cos}\eta (\mathrm{sin}\eta +3)}+\frac{6cos^2\eta +7\mathrm{sin}\eta 3}{cos^2\eta 2\mathrm{sin}\eta +2}C2\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{cos}\eta }C^2)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \pi ^{(3)}=i\frac{C1}{r^{\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta +3}{2}}}& (C+1)^2\left(C^3\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta +1}{\mathrm{cos}\eta }C^2+\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}C^12\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{cos}\eta }\right)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \pi ^{(4)}=\frac{C1}{r^{\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta \mathrm{sin}\eta +3}{2}}}& (C+1)^2\left(C^3\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta }{\mathrm{sin}\eta +1}C^2\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\eta +1}C^1+2\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{cos}\eta }\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \tau ^{(1)}=\frac{C+1}{r^{\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta +1}{2}}}& (\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{cos}\eta }C^3\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{sin}\eta +1}C^2\frac{sin^2\eta +8\mathrm{sin}\eta +3}{\mathrm{cos}\eta (\mathrm{sin}\eta 3)}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}{\mathrm{sin}\eta +1}C^1\hfill \\ & 3\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{sin}\eta +1}+\frac{2\mathrm{sin}\eta 3}{\mathrm{cos}\eta }C+2C^2)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \tau ^{(2)}=i\frac{C+1}{r^{\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta \mathrm{sin}\eta +1}{2}}}& (\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{cos}\eta }C^3+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}C^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta cos^2\eta 7cos^2\eta +4\mathrm{sin}\eta +4}{\mathrm{cos}\eta (2\mathrm{sin}\eta 2cos^2\eta )}C^1\hfill \\ & +3\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}+\frac{2\mathrm{sin}\eta +3}{\mathrm{cos}\eta }C2C^2)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \tau ^{(3)}=i\frac{C1}{r^{\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta +3}{2}}}& (C+1)^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{cos}\eta }C^3+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}C^2\frac{2\mathrm{sin}\eta +1}{\mathrm{cos}\eta }C^12\right)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \tau ^{(4)}=\frac{C1}{r^{\frac{\mathrm{cos}\eta \mathrm{sin}\eta +3}{2}}}& (C+1)^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{cos}\eta }C^3\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\mathrm{sin}\eta +1}C^2\frac{2\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}{\mathrm{cos}\eta }C^1+2\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Table 1. The four solutions for $`\pi `$ and $`\tau `$