format: text

text:
# Big, Fast Vortices in the d-RVB theory of high temperature superconductivity

## I
Introduction

High-$`T_c`$ superconductors are created by doping an antiferromagnetic ’Mott insulating’ parent material, and the effect of proximity to the Mott phase on their superconducting properties remains a crucial and still incompletely understood issue Orenstein00 . One expects on general grounds that the suppression of current response near a Mott insulator leads to ’type II’ behavior, so a fundamental issue is the physics associated with vortices in the superconducting order parameter. An isolated vortex involves a quantized flux ($`hc/2e`$ in conventional superconductors), a circulating supercurrent pattern and a ’core region’ in which the quasiparticle excitation spectrum differs from that observed far from the vortex. The possibility (apparently not realized in known superconductors) that proximity to the Mott phase could induce an unconventional value of the flux quantum has been discussed Sachdev92 ; Moler01 . An extensive literature exists on quasiparticle properties (including the possibility of interesting discrete core states quasiparticlerefs , and whether an antiferromagnetic Arovas97 ; Han00  or other Kishine01  state is induced in or near the vortex core). However, apart from the pioneering phenomenological work of Lee and Wen Lee97  and an analysis of the resistive transition in overdoped $`Tl`$-based materials Geshkenbein98 , little theoeretical attention has been paid to the superflow properties even though these in fact control many physically important quantities including $`H_{c2}`$ and the size of the ’critical regime’ in which superconducting fluctuation properties may be observed in the conductivity.

Theoretical analysis of vortex properties requires a model. Conventional models of superconductivity in interacting electron systems are based on Landau’s fermi liquid theory, but as we show in the Appendix, analysis of the changes occurring as the Mott phase is approached requires a model which goes beyond Fermi liquid theory, at minimum by including effects corresponding to a scale dependence of a Landau parameter and perhaps more fundamentally by allowing for superconductivity to emerge from a fundamentally non-fermi-liquid state or regime. One widely studied theoretical model of a doped Mott insulator is the $`U(1)`$ gauge theory implementation Ioffe89  of the RVB ideas of P. W. Anderson Anderson87 . This theory and its variants have been extensively studied as an approximation to the low energy physics of the $`tJ`$ model believed Orenstein00  to capture the essential aspects of the low energy physics of high-Tc materials. It exhibits (at least in a large-N limit) a non-fermi-liquid regime Ioffe89 ; Nagaosa90  involving exotic excitations (’spinons’ and ’holons’ coupled by a gauge field) and a fermi liquid regime in which the spinon and holon are bound together into a conventional electron and the gauge field a effects produce a nontrivial doping dependence of the Landau parameter $`F_{1S}`$ Grilli90 ; Millis96 . The model also possesses a d-wave superconducting state Kotliar88  which may emerge either from the fermi-liquid or non-fermi-liquid regimes. Quasiparticle properties (including a possible antiferromagnetic Han00  or staggered flux Kishine01  state in the core of the vortex) have been studied and the model has been shown to admit $`h/2e`$ vortices Lee00 , but superfluid properties such as the supercurrent distribution in the vortex state and the dissipation occurring when a vortex moves have been less well studied.

As discussed at length elsewhere Lee97 ; Millis96 ; Ioffe01a  this theory disagrees with experiment in a number of ways. Most problematically, the model predicts a strong doping dependence to the leading low-T correction to the London penetration depth ($`d\lambda ^2/dT(doping)^2`$) which is not observed. We therefore do not believe the theory is a realistic representation of high temperature superconductors; however it is a very useful model system. We stress that although as usually formulated the model involves exotic excitations such as holons and spinons, for the properties we discuss these can be completely eliminated: as shown in the text and Appendix, the model can be viewed simply as a method of calculating the behavior of a fermi-liquid based system at length scales short enough that scale dependence of the Landau parameters becomes important.

The importance of the model is that it provides an explicit realization of a situation (which, we believe, is generically realized in lightly doped Mott insulators) where the supercurrent-defined and quasiparticle-defined length scales are parametrically different. We show in this paper that the longer length scale is in fact the one relevant to the conventional superfluid properties such as $`T_c(H)`$ and the size of the ’fluctuation regime’ in which the model exhibits (for example) a nontrivial paraconductivity.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II reviews necessary aspects of the $`U(1)`$ gauge theory formalism. Section III discusses in detail the current distribution around a vortex. Section IV calculates the dissipation induced when a vortex moves and uses this information to estimate the size of the ’critical regime’ in which superconducting fluctuation effects are visible in the conductivity. Section V considers the low temperature limit of the upper critical field. Section VI is a conclusion, summarizing the results and their implications. An Appendix explicates the relation between the results presented here and the conventional fermi liquid analysis.

## II Formalism

This subsection reviews results obtained in the early days of the gauge theory Ioffe89 ; Kotliar88 ; Nagaosa90 ; Lee00 , in order to establish notation and introduce important concepts.

In the gauge theory one writes the electron $`c_{i\alpha }`$ in terms of a charge-e boson $`b`$ (representing a hole) and a fermionic ’spinon’ representing a spin degree of freedom, thus $`c_{i\sigma }^+=b_if_{i\sigma }^+`$. The superconducting state is described by a d-wave BCS pairing of spinons Kotliar88  (involving a d-symmetry pairing gap with maximum value $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) and a condensation of the bosons. The low energy, long-wavelength physics is controlled by the Hamiltonian

$`H_{gauge}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _B(\varphi _BaA)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _F({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi _Fa)^2+`$
$`+H_D+H_{mix}+\mathrm{}`$
Here $`a`$ is an internal gauge field which enforces the constraint, arising because the physical fermion $`c_i=f_ib_i^+,`$ that a longitudinal spinon current must cause an equal and opposite boson current. (It is possible to have transverse currents of spinons with no holon motion but these are not relevant here). $`\varphi _B`$ is the phase of the boson field and $`\rho _B`$ is the $`T=0`$ boson superfluid stiffness, $`\varphi _F`$ is the phase of the spinon (fermion) pairing amplitude and $`\rho _F`$ is the corresponding $`T=0`$ spinon ’superfluid’ stiffness. $`H_D`$ is the usual (normal-ordered) dirac Hamiltonian describing the quasiparticle part of the spinon degrees of freedom and the ellipsis expresses terms irrelevant to the present discussion.

$`H_D`$ has eigenvalues $`E_p=\sqrt{v^2p_1^2+v_2p_2^2}`$ with $`v_1`$ the spinon fermi velocity and $`v_2`$ related to the d-wave gap in the usual way. The spinons are coupled to the gauge field and thus to the ’holons’ via the term

$$H_{mix}=\underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}\left(i\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi _Fea_\mu \right)\stackrel{}{v}_1c_{\alpha \sigma }^+c_{\alpha \sigma }$$
(2)
We begin our analysis of $`H_{gauge}`$ by considering length and energy scales. The fermionic part of the Hamiltonian involves the length scale

$$\xi _F=\frac{v_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(3)
and two energy scales: $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and

$$\rho _Fv_1p_F$$
(4)
$`\xi _F`$ is relatively short and does not diverge as the Mott phase is approached, and $`\rho _F`$ is relatively large (of order $`J`$ in the $`tJ`$ model) and does not vanish as the Mott phase is approached.

The boson stiffness $`\rho _B`$ has dimension of energy (in two spatial dimensions) and is proportional to the doping $`x`$ and to the basic electronic hopping parameter $`t`$. $`\rho _B`$ is expected to vary Popov  on the length scale $`x^{1/2}`$ which is the distance between charge carriers. We shall be interested primarily in the limit $`x^{1/2}>\xi _F`$. We note that as the doping is increased, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ decreases Kotliar88  and eventually becomes smaller than an energy of order $`x^{1/2}J`$ so the inequality is reversed. For larger dopings the theory becomes essentially the familiar $`BCS`$ one, with only one important length scale, $`\xi _F`$.

The currents carried by boson and fermion degrees of freedom are, respectively

$`j_B`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _B(\varphi _BaA)`$ (5)
$`j_F`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _F({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi _Fa)`$ (6)
Here the $``$ denotes convolution and is to remind the reader that $`\rho _B`$ is scale dependent on scales relevant to the subsequent discussion.

The physical current $`j_{phys}=j_B`$ and the constraint enforced by the gauge field $`a`$ is $`j_B+j_F=0`$, i.e.

$$\rho _B(\varphi _BaA)+\rho _F(\frac{1}{2}\varphi _Fa)=0$$
(7)
This implies

$$a=\left(\rho _B+\rho _F\right)^1\left(\rho _B(\varphi _BA)+\rho _F\varphi _F\right)$$
(8)
In the long wavelength limit the non-locality of $`\rho _B`$ may be neglected. As $`T0`$ and assuming no fermions are excited, elimination of $`a`$ leads to Ioffe89 ; Lee00

$$H_{phase}=\frac{\rho _B\rho _F}{\rho _B+\rho _F}\left(\varphi _B\frac{1}{2}\varphi _FA\right)^2$$
(9)
The meaning of this equation is that in a state with paired spinons and condensed bosons at long wavelengths only the combination $`\varphi _B\frac{1}{2}\varphi _F`$ couples to an external vector potential or is relevant to the energy, and the physical superfluid stiffness $`\rho _S=\frac{\rho _B\rho _F}{\rho _B+\rho _F}`$. Similarly one finds

$$H_{mix}=\underset{\alpha ,\sigma }{}\frac{\rho _B}{\rho _B+\rho _F}\left(\varphi _B\frac{1}{2}\varphi _FA\right)\stackrel{}{v}_1c_{\alpha \sigma }^+c_{\alpha \sigma }$$
(10)
Because the gauge field has been eliminated, the fermionic degrees of freedom should be regarded not as spinons but as Bogoliubov quasiparticles of the superfluid (or near superfluid) state. They couple only to the combination $`\varphi _B\frac{1}{2}\varphi _F`$ and the coupling is via an effective charge $`Z^e=\frac{\rho _B}{\rho _B+\rho _F}`$ which is negative (hole-like) and vanishes as the Mott insulator is approached.

Eqs 9,10 constitute a derivation, from the $`U(1)`$ gauge theory, of phenomenological equations discussed in Ioffe01a . The derivation makes it clear that deviations from phenomenological theory occur at length scales shorter than that specified by the scale dependence of the physical superfluid stiffness, i.e. than the shorter of $`\xi _F`$ and $`x^{1/2}`$. The derivation also makes it manifest that the phenomenological action, discussed in Millis96  on the basis of fermi liquid theory, is more general, and may apply also to situations in which the normal state is not described by fermi liquid theory.

## III Vortex solution–static case

Consider a vortex. Far from the vortex core the fields are found by minimizing $`H_{phase}`$ (Eq 9) which implies that $`^2\left(\varphi _B\frac{1}{2}\varphi _FA\right)=0`$. Single-valuedness of the wave function implies that both $`\varphi _B`$ and $`\varphi _F`$ must have circulation which is an integer multiple of $`2\pi `$ so that in a mean field approximation one would write

$`\varphi _B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m\widehat{\theta }}{r}}`$ (11)
$`\varphi _F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n\widehat{\theta }}{r}}`$ (12)
The energy associated with a vortex is thus, approximately,

$$E_V=E_{core}(n,m)+\frac{1}{2}\rho _S\left(m\frac{1}{2}nA\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{R}{\xi }\right)$$
(13)
where $`\rho _S`$ is the physical superfluid stiffness defined below Eq 9, $`R`$ is of the order of the inter-vortex separation and $`\xi `$ is the length scale below which the supercurrent magnitude deviates from $`1/r`$ and will be discussed more fully below. $`E_{core}`$ is the core energy of the vortex, i.e. the contribution to the energy arising from scales less than $`\xi `$.

The superflow contribution is clearly minimized by the choice $`m=0`$, $`n=1`$, corresponding to a conventional $`h/2e`$ vortex. The core energy term requires more discussion. If $`n=1`$ then a singularity in the fermion pairing amplitude is required. In a clean conventional superconductor one would estimate the energy cost of this singularity as the product of the condensation energy per unit area ($`N_0\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ with $`N_0`$ the density of states) and the area of the core ($`\xi _F^2=v_F^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$) leading to $`E_{core}v_F^2N_0`$. In the present problem this implies an $`E_{core}`$ of the order of the effective fermi energy $`J`$. On the other hand, if $`n=0`$ and $`m=1`$ then no singularity is required in the fermion field and a calculation very similar to that given in Eqs 19 then shows that the core energy is of the order of the boson or superflow energy $`xt`$, and can be absorbed into the definition of $`\xi `$. These considerations suggest that in the gauge theory the vortex energy may be estimated by

$$E_VC_{core}J\left(1\delta _{n,0}\right)+C_{sf}xt\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{R}{\xi }\right)\left(m\frac{1}{2}nA\right)^2$$
(14)
with $`C_{core,sf}`$ constants. This estimate (proposed and presented in more sophisticated form by Sachdev Sachdev92 ) suggests that when the superflow energy is dominant (low vortex density or high doping) one has conventional $`h/2e`$ vortices but that as $`x`$ is reduced or $`R`$ is decreased a transition to doubly quantized vortices may occur.

This argument, however, is vitiated by recent work on the structure of the vortex core. From different points of view the authors of Arovas97 ; Han00 ; Kishine01  show that (within certain reasonable assumptions) some other ordered state, also characterized by an electronic gap of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, is very nearby in energy and indeed becomes favored as $`x0`$. The consequence is that $`C_{core}`$ in Eq 14 decreases rapidly as $`x0`$ and indeed may even become negative, implying that conventional ($`h/2e`$) vortices are always favored. In more physical terms, within the classes of models (including the gauge model) considered by Arovas97 ; Han00 ; Kishine01  the reason that the ground state has superconducting rather than some other sort of order is the gain in energy associated with establishing superfluid phase coherence, so it is natural that even the vortex core energy is set by the phase stiffness. The conventional nature of vortices in this theory was stressed in Lee00  which however did not consider the core energy explicitly. We note however that even if not favored in the superfluid state, doubly quantized $`(h/e)`$ vortices may be easily excited thermally once the long-ranged superfluid order is disrupted.

We now study the structure of the vortex at shorter length scales. We consider the case of very weak applied field, so we may choose a gauge in which $`A=0`$. We assume $`\rho _B<<\rho _F`$ and expand in powers of $`\rho _B`$. We find from Eqs 8, 11

$$a=\frac{1}{2}\varphi _F\frac{1}{4\rho _F}\rho _B\varphi _F+\mathrm{}$$
(15)
where the ellipsis denotes both terms higher order in $`\rho _B/\rho _F`$ and fluctuations about the mean field solution for $`\varphi _{F,B}`$.

We must now determine the behavior of the boson field and the fermion pairing amplitude. The fermion pairing amplitude varies on the scale $`\xi _F`$ which by assumption remains finite as the Mott phase is approached, whereas one expects the bose amplitude to vary on the scale set by the spacing between carriers, which diverges as the Mott phase is approached. We therefore focus on the bose field. In a lightly doped Mott insulator the density of bosons is low. In the limit of dilute bosons one expects Popov  that the bose amplitude is described by the two-dimensional Hamiltonian density

$$H_{bose}=\frac{1}{2m_B}\left(\left(aA\right)\psi \right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\mu \psi ^2+\frac{1}{4}U\psi ^4$$
(16)
In the dilute limit, the parameters $`\mu `$ and $`U`$ are universal, given in terms of the boson density $`x`$ and mass $`m_B`$ by

$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`Ux`$ (17)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{m_B\mathrm{ln}(1/x)}}`$ (18)
We expect that $`m_B1/tb^2`$ with $`b`$ the underlying lattice constant. Also, the dilute limit means that a mean field approximation for the boson field is reliable.

We must however consider the mean field approximation for the gauge field in more detail. In the d-wave $`RVB`$ state, fluctuations in $`a`$ are controlled by the stiffness corresponding to fermion pairing. This stiffness is large at length scales longer than $`\xi _F`$ or energy scales less than the fermion pairing amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ so a mean field approximation is expected to be reliable at long length and low energy scales. However, if $`\xi _F,\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$ are shorter than the relevant bosonic length scale $`x^{1/2}`$ and time scale $`\left(xt\right)^1`$ then fluctuations in $`a`$ may appreciably renormalize the parameters in $`L_{bose}`$. Because the decay with $`q`$ of the fermionic stiffness is slow ($`\left(\xi _Fq\right)^1`$) we focus here on the energy scale. As carriers are added to a lightly doped Mott insulator, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ decreases and $`xt`$ increases. When $`\mathrm{\Delta }/xt`$ becomes less than unity we expect that fluctuation corrections to the various parameters become large. We thus distinguish two regimes: a ”super-dilute regime” in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }>xt`$ and $`\gamma 1`$ and a ”dilute boson regime” in which $`x<<1`$ but $`\mathrm{\Delta }<xt`$ and $`\gamma <<1`$.

In the limit of interest $`\xi _F<x^{1/2}`$ the boson ground state in the presence of a vector potential is given by the solution of

$$\frac{1}{2m}\left(+a+A\right)^2\psi +U\psi ^3=\mu \psi $$
(19)
Eqs 19,12,15 imply that in radial coordinates we have (up to terms of relative order $`x`$)

$$\frac{1}{2m}\left(_r^2+\frac{1}{r}_r+\frac{1}{4r^2}\right)\psi +U\psi ^3=\mu \psi $$
(20)
Defining

$$\psi =x^{1/2}f(r/\xi )$$
(21)
with

$$\xi ^2=2m\mu $$
(22)
leads to the solution shown in Fig 1. In particular, at large distance $`f1`$ while at small distance

$$f=\sqrt{r}f_0$$
(23)
with $`f_0=0.886`$. In other words, as the core of the vortex is approached, the bose amplitude decreases as the square root of the distance from the vortex core.

The supercurrent is given from Eqs 5,16 as

$$j(r)=\frac{\left|\psi (r)\right|^2}{m_B}a$$
(24)
so in particular at small distances, in physical units

$$j=\frac{f_0}{2\xi }\rho _B(\mathrm{})$$
(25)
The resulting current profile is also shown in Fig 1; we see that the supercurrent varies as $`1/r`$ for $`r>x^{1/2}`$ and is constant for smaller $`r`$, justifiying the qualitative statements made in Lee00 .

The fermion spectrum retains its long-distance value down to a length $`\xi _F=v_1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which is parametrically less than $`\xi `$ as $`x0`$; below this length a variety of interesting physical effects Han00 ; Kishine01  may occur. The physical electron spectrum, observable (in principle) via tunnelling, is calculated in the $`U(1)`$ gauge theory as a convolution of a holon and a spinon Anderson87 , and so is relatively broad in the non-superconducting phase of the model. In the superconducting state the $`q=0`$ boson amplitude develops an expectation value and so the electron spectral function acquires a sharp ’quasiparticle pole’ feature. In the limit $`x0`$ the short length scales of the spinon spectrum control the convolution so the coherent part of the spectrum at distance $`r`$ from the vortex core is proportional to the boson amplitude at distance $`r`$. In other words, in this theory the strength of the quasiparticle peak measured at a distance $`r`$ from the vortex core should begin to decrease for as $`r`$ is reduced below $`\xi `$. This effect is not visible in published tunnelling data Pan00 .

To summarize, in the $`U(1)`$ gauge theory of a lightly doped Mott insulator, a vortex is characterized by two length scales: $`\xi x^{1/2}`$, below which the supercurrent ceases to vary as $`1/r`$ (and in fact becomes essentially $`r`$-independent) and the scale $`\xi _F`$ which does not diverge as the Mott phase is approached and which controls the quasiparticle properties. The core energy is small (of order the superfluid stiffness); however the state in the core possesses a gap very similar to the superconducting gap. This behavior should be contrasted with that of a conventional (BCS) superconductor, in which the length defined by the supercurrent is essentially the same as the length defined by the quasiparticle properties and the core energy is large (of the order of the fermi energy) and the core is gapless apart from the ’finite size effects’ which lead to the Caroli-Matricon states.

## IV Moving vortex

We consider a slowly moving vortex with center position $`\stackrel{}{X}_v(t)`$, so that time derivatives of fields may be replaced by the dot product of a field gradient and the vortex velocity; for example $`_t\psi (r,t)=_t\stackrel{}{X}_v(t)\stackrel{}{}\psi `$. The contribution to the action from vortex motion has two terms: a non-dissipative term corresponding to motion in an effective magnetic field $`B_{eff}`$ and a dissipative term arising because vortex motion excites fermionic excitations. These terms imply a classical equation of motion

$$B_{eff}\widehat{z}\times _tX_V+\eta _tX_V=F_V$$
(26)
where $`F_V`$ represents the forces acting on the vortex (arising for example from an imposed current and from vortex-vortex interactions). Eq 26 applies only for frequencies less than a cutoff frequency which is the minimum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the boson frequency scale $`xt`$.

$`B_{eff}`$ may be obtained by considering the action arising from moving a vortex around a closed loop. For orientation we first consider the related purely bosonic problem of a vortex in a two boson condensate. The standard bosonic Lagrangian density Popov  includes a ’non-dissipative time derivative’ term $`i\gamma _B\psi ^{}_t\psi `$ with coefficient $`\gamma _B=1.`$ A superfluid state is described by a condensate amplitude $`n_s=\left|<\psi >\right|^2`$ and condensate phase $`\varphi ,`$ leading to a term $`in_S_\tau \varphi `$ in the action . This term ensures that dragging a long straight vortex in the boson condensate around a loop enclosing an area $`s`$ leads to a contribution to the action of $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2\pi n_Ss.`$ This contribution is just the action appropriate to a particle in a magnetic field of strength $`h_{eff}=2\pi n_S`$. For particles on a lattice, a magnetic flux of $`2\pi `$ per unit cell has no dynamical consequences, so that one measures $`n_S`$ modulo 1 per lattice site. Finally, we consider the relation between the condesate density $`n_S`$ and the total boson density $`n_B`$. Gauge invariance means that $`i_t\varphi `$ is a chemical potential, and therefore couples to the total particle density, $`n_B`$. In simple boson problems, at $`T=0`$ the only gapless excitation is the phase mode of the superfluid state and therefore $`n_S=n_B`$. As $`T`$ is increased from $`T=0`$ gapless ’normal fluid’ excitations occur. The presence or absence of Galilean invariance then becomes crucial. One may interpret the $`_t\varphi `$ term in the vortex action in terms of the acceleration of a vortex in a given force. In a Galilean invariant situation one expects that if a vortex is accelerated it will drag all particles in the system with it, so that the coefficient of $`_t\varphi `$ is simply the total particle density in the system. However, in a non-Galilean invariant system the superfluid component may accelerate independently of the normal component and $`n_Sn_B`$.

We next consider a superconducting condensate made of paired electrons. The important different here is that ’two-fluid’ effects may be important even at very low $`T`$ for example because of impurity-induced pairbreaking or of vortices. The conventional result is that if a Landau expansion may be constructed about a non-superconducting state (for example, very near to $`T_c`$ or in the presence of strong pair breaking) then one has

$`S_{sc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑td^dxN_0T_0^2}`$
$`\left[\gamma _F{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^+_t\mathrm{\Delta }}{T_0^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _0^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^2}{T_0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{TT_c}{T_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{T_0^2}}+u{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^4}{T_0^4}}\right]`$
Here $`N_0`$ is the electronic density of states, $`T_0`$ is an energy scale of of the order of the transition temperature or the pairbreaking scattering rate $`u`$ is a coefficient of the order of unity and the coefficient $`\gamma _F`$ of the time derivative term has both real and imaginary parts, $`\gamma _F=\gamma _F^{}+i\gamma _F^{\prime \prime }`$. In a usual superconductor the dissipative (real) part of $`\gamma _F`$ is of the order of unity (the conventional result is $`\gamma _F^{\prime \prime }=\pi /8`$). Because a time dependent phase is a contribution to the chemical potential we may identify the imaginary part $`\gamma _F^{\prime \prime }`$ with $`T_c/\mu `$. In conventional superconductors this is very small (of order $`T_c/E_F`$) so the total coefficient of the dissipationless time derivative, $`N_0T_0\gamma _F^{\prime \prime }\left(T_c/E_F\right)^2`$ is extremely small and for most purposes may be neglected (for exceptions see e.g Geshkenbein96 ; Dorsey91 ). Of course in a conventional superconductor with weak pairbreaking, a Landau expansion only applies for temperatures very near to $`T_c`$ and as $`T0`$ one expects $`\gamma _F^{}0`$ while the dissipationless term $`N_0T_0\gamma _F^{\prime \prime }`$ must approach the total fermion density $`n`$. For a type-II superconductor in a magnetic field one similarly expects that $`N_0T_0\gamma _F^{\prime \prime }n`$ only for temperatures of the order of the core state level spacing $`T_c^2/E_F`$ and only in the ’super-clean’ limit. To summarize, known results from simple fermion and boson problems imply that the dissipationless time derivative term in the superfluid action involves a non-universal coefficient which depends on the interplay between the superfluid and non-superfluid components of the system, and is in general quite small for fermion-based superfluids and is of the order of the particle density for boson-based systems.

We now turn to the boson-fermion-gauge-field problem of interest here. The discussion above shows that there is no simple, generally valid expression for the coefficient, except in the $`T0`$ no-pairbreaking limit, in which the coefficient is the total particle density. Nevertheless a few remarks can be made and limits can be estimated. At high dopings ($`xt>J`$) the bosons condense (or quasi-condense) at temperatures well above $`T_c`$ so in this limit superconductivity arises out of a more or less fermi-liquid like state, so near $`T_c`$ one expects the resulting superfluid state to be described by a non-dissipative coefficient $`\gamma `$ which is of a fermionic order of magnitude and thus much less than unity. We note, though, that in the present model the spinon fermi energy is of order $`J`$ and the pairing amplitude varies from a (not too small) fraction of $`J`$ at low doping to a very small value at high doping Kotliar88  so $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu `$ is not particularly small; the main smallness is provided by the factor $`N_0T_0T_c/J`$. On the other hand, as doping is reduced the physics changes. The fermions pair at a higher scale and the superconducting transition is set by the condensation scale of the bosons. An upper bound on the non-dissipative coefficient is then set by the total particle density (modulo $`1`$) i.e. $`\gamma <x`$. In this limit one expects that by temperatures of the order of $`T_c`$ the fermions are mostly paired, so that a Landau expansion is not appropriate and the coefficient is set by bosonic physics; i.e. $`\gamma `$ is not that different from its $`T=0`$ no-pairbreaking value. We therefore propose the following approximate interpolation formula for the efffecitve magnetic field $`B_{eff}`$ implied by the non-dissipative terms in the action of our problem:

$$B_{eff}\frac{1}{(\pi x)^1+(\mathrm{\Delta }/J)^1}$$
(28)
We turn next to the dissipative term. In the gauge model, the dissipation arises from the continuum of spinon excitations, and we assume that the temperature, magnetic field or impurity density is large enough that an appreciable number of these exist, and may be characterized by a spinon conductivity $`\sigma _{sp}`$ which we take to be local on the scales of interest. The ’electric field’ felt by the spinons is $`_t\left(\frac{1}{2}\varphi a\right)`$ so that the dissipative contribution to the action is

$`S_{diss}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{sp}}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2r𝑑t𝑑t^{}}`$
$`_t\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi a\right)_tK(tt^{})_t\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi a\right)_t^{}`$
with $`K`$ the fourier transform of $`1/\left|\omega \right|`$. In a slowly moving vortex with center position $`\stackrel{}{X}_v(t)`$, $`\frac{1}{2}\varphi a`$ is a function $`\stackrel{~}{a}(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{X}_v(t))`$ Substitution into Eq IV and some rearrangement leads to the standard form for a particle moving in a dissipative medium, namely

$$S_{diss}=\frac{\eta }{2}𝑑t𝑑t^{}\left(_t\stackrel{}{X}_v(t)\right)K(tt^{})\left(_t^{}\stackrel{}{X}_v(t^{})\right)$$
(30)
with viscosity $`\eta `$ given by

$$\eta =\frac{\sigma _{sp}}{2}d^2r\underset{ij}{}\left(\frac{\left(\frac{1}{2}\varphi a\right)_i}{r_j}\right)^2$$
(31)
Use of Eq 5 shows that $`\rho _F\left(\frac{1}{2}\varphi a\right)`$ is just the physical current $`\stackrel{}{j}_{phys}=\rho _Bf^2(r/\xi )\widehat{\theta }/r`$. Substitution of our result for $`f`$ leads to (Note that the logarithm comes from the angular derivative ($`\frac{1}{r}_\theta )`$)

$$\eta =\frac{\pi \sigma _{sp}}{\xi ^2}f_0^2\left(\frac{\rho _B}{\rho _F}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}(\xi /\xi _F)$$
(32)
We see that as the insulator is approached, the vortex viscosity vanishes very rapidly, indeed as $`x^3`$. One factor of $`x`$ comes from the large size of the vortex (proportional to $`\xi ^2`$); the other two factors $`\left(\frac{\rho _B}{\rho _S}\right)^2`$ come from the decreased coupling of the vortex motion to the spinons; we interpret this as a signature of the vanishing of the quasiparticle charge in this theory (for a discussion of other signatures see Millis96 ; Ioffe01a ).

It is instructive to view this result in a slightly different way. The ’internal electric field’ $`e`$ felt by the spinons is $`_t\left(a\frac{1}{2}\varphi _F\right)=\frac{1}{e\rho _F}_t\left(j_{phys}(r)\right)`$. Application of the usual composition rules of the gauge theory Ioffe89  shows that the physical electric field $`E=e\rho _F/\rho _B`$ (in the limit $`\rho _F>>\rho _B`$) so that the physical electric field $`E`$ generated by a moving vortex is

$`E(r)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e\rho _B}}_t\left(j_{phys}(r)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`_t\left(\stackrel{}{X}_v(t)\right)\stackrel{}{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^2(\frac{rX_V}{\xi })\widehat{\theta }}{rX_V}}\right)`$ (33)
This shows that a moving vortex generates an electric field which varies on the length scale set by the physical current. $`E(r)`$ varies as $`1/r^2`$ far from the vortex, and as $`1/r`$ for $`\xi _F<r<x^{1/2}`$. A standard argument Tinkham90  says that the dissipative contribution may be estimated by multiplying the square of the electric field by the physical conductivity, which from Eq 10 is of order $`\left(\rho _B/\rho _F\right)^2`$, leading again to Eq 32 for $`\eta `$.

The result for $`\eta `$, along with the estimates of the core energy, has implications for the width of the resistive superconducting transition in this model. In a two dimensional superconductor, the resistive transition is of the Kosterlitz-Thouless vortex unbinding type. Near to the transition point, but in the normal state, one has a dilute gas of vortices and antivortices. The physical conductivity is the sum of the conductivity due to the moving vortices and the conductivity due to the quasiparticles. Use of Eq 10 and Eq 32 leads to

$$\sigma _{phys}=\left(\frac{\rho _B}{\rho _F}\right)^2\sigma _{sp}\left(1+\frac{\pi f_0^2\mathrm{ln}(\xi _B/\xi _F)}{n_V\xi ^2}\right)$$
(34)
This, in this model the conductivity is dominated by proximity to the superconducting phase only if vortices are dilute on the length scale set by the supercurrent pattern. However, even when vortices overlap from the ’current’ point of view, they may still be dilute on the scale set by the ’quasiparticle core size’ $`\xi _F`$, so we would therefore expect the gap in the fermionic excitation spectrum to persist to much higher temperatures than does the ’superfluid’ contribution to the conductivity.

The density (and nature) of thermally excited vortices bears further discussion. The factors influencing the density of vortices may be understood from simple mean field free energy arguments. For conventional $`(h/2e)`$ vortices the mean-field free energy as a function of conventional vortex density $`n_1`$ is (note that the position of the conventional vortex may be defined to within $`\xi _F`$ but the logarithm from the superfluid stiffness is cut off by $`\xi `$)

$$E_{n=1,m=0}=E_{core}n_1\rho _Sn_1ln(n_1\xi ^2)Tn_1ln(n_1\xi _F^2)$$
(35)
Away from the K-T fluctuation regime, $`\rho _S`$ becomes less than $`T`$ and we have, approximately,

$$n_1\xi ^2=\frac{\xi ^2}{\xi _F^2}e^{E_{core}/T}$$
(36)
The factor $`=\frac{\xi ^2}{\xi _F^2}`$ makes it easier than one might guess to obtain a reasonable density of conventional vortices; of course the small value of the core energy, arising as discussed above from the proximity in energy of other gapped states within the d-RVB theory, is also important.

It is also of interest to consider the density $`n_2`$ of doubly quantized vortices, (i.e. vortices in the boson field only), because their motion leads to dissipation too. As noted above, in this case the core energy is entirely determined by the superfluid stiffness so we have ($`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a scaling function which is exponentially small at large argument and becomes of order unity when its argument becomes of order unity and the factor of 4 comes from the doubly quantized nature of the vortex)

$$n_2\xi ^2=\mathrm{\Phi }(4\rho _S/T)$$
(37)
Therefore, even if the core energy of a conventional vortex is very high, (which, in the d-RVB theory it is not) above a temperature scale set by $`\rho _S`$ double quantized vortices will proliferate and will suppress the superfluid contribution to the conductivity.

## V Quantal fluctuations and the melting of the vortex lattice.

We now consider the physics at low temperature in an applied magnetic field. An applied field induces a vortex lattice and, ultimately, a non-superconducting state. In a conventional (BCS) superconductor the transition is driven by the collapse of the superconducting gap. In the present model the important physics involves quantal fluctuations in the positions of the vortices, leading via a first order transition to a ’quantal vortex liquid’ state. In particular, although an applied field leads to pairbreaking, and thus to a non-vanishing density of quasiparticles and to a reduction of the superfluid stiffness and gap amplitude, in the gauge model of interest here these effects are small (order $`x^2`$) Ioffe01a  so we neglect them.

We estimate the magnitude of the quantal fluctuations of the vortices by considering the fluctuation in position of one vortex about its ideal Abrikosov lattice position.To do this we note that in in a vortex lattice the force term in Eq 26 may be written for small amplitude displacements as $`F_V=K_{latt}X_V`$ where $`K_{latt}`$ is the coefficient of the quadratic term in the restoring potential acting on the vortex and arising from the other vortices in the vortex lattice (plus any pinning forces which may exist, and which we do not treat) . Eq 26 applies only for frequencies less than a cutoff frequency which is the minimum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the boson frequency scale $`xt`$. $`K_{latt}`$ is of the order of the physical superfluid stiffness $`\rho _B`$ divided by the square of the intervortex spacing, i.e. $`K_{latt}=K_0n_V\rho _B`$. The long range (logarithmic) form of the intervortex potential means that $`K_0<<1`$.We may now quantize Eq 26 and thereby estimate the zero point fluctuations of a vortex as ($`\omega _n`$ is a Matusbara frequency and $`\sigma ^y`$ is a Pauli matrix)

$$<X_V^2>=Tr\underset{n}{}\left[\eta \left|\omega _n\right|+\sigma ^yB_{eff}\omega _n+K\right]^1$$
(38)
We estimate that the vortex lattice melts when the mean square vortex displacement divided by the square of the intervortex distance $`b`$, i.e. $`<X_V^2>/b^2,`$ becomes of the order of the square of the Lindemann number $`c_L^2`$. The value of the Lindemann number depends on the physical situation and varies from $`c_L^2=0.01`$ to $`c_L^2=0.1`$ Lindemann . The estimate of $`<X_v^2>`$ depends on the values of $`\eta `$ and $`B_{eff}`$ and in particular on whether the system is in the super-dilute regime ($`B_{eff}\pi n_B`$ and $`\eta 0`$) or the dilute regime ($`B_{eff}`$ unimportant; $`\eta `$ dominant). In the super-dilute regime we neglect the $`\eta `$ and find (the numerical factors give the relation between $`b^2`$ and $`n_V`$ for a triangular vortex lattice)

$$\frac{<X_V^2>}{b^2}=\frac{3\sqrt{3}n_V}{8B_{eff}}$$
(39)
In fact, if dissipation is negligible then we may look at the problem in a different way. The vortices move in an effective field which is large, leading to Landau level quantization. If the density of vortices is much less than the density of bosons, $`n_V<<n_B`$ then only the lowest Landau level is populated and we may use known results for the melting of the Wigner crystal in a high magnetic field to argue that lattice melting occurs when $`n_V/n_B1/10`$ corresponding to a Lindemann number $`c_L^20.01`$ reasonably consistent with known results for two dimensional triangular lattices Lindemann .

In the dilute regime, the frequency cutoff is needed. If $`\rho _B>\mathrm{\Delta }`$ then this scale is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and we obtain

$$\frac{<X_V^2>}{b^2}=\frac{3\sqrt{3}n_V}{4\pi \eta }\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }{K}\right]$$
(40)
Use of Eq 32 and our estimate for $`K`$ shows that the important dimensionless parameter is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }{K}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\rho _B}\left(\frac{\xi _V^2}{\xi _B^2}\right)\frac{\pi \sigma _{sp}}{K_0}\left(\frac{\rho _B}{\rho _F}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\xi _B}{\xi _F}\right)$$
(41)
This parameter may be larger or smaller than unity, because $`\rho _B/\rho _Sx`$ while $`K_0<<1`$ and $`\sigma _{sp}`$ must by consistency be of order $`1/x`$ (because we have written clean-limit formulae which require that $`\sigma _{sp}=p_Fl_F/2\pi >p_F\xi _F/2\pi >\rho _S/\rho _B1/x`$. However, as one goes more deeply into the small $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ regime the parameter shrinks and we obtain

$$\frac{<X_V^2>}{b^2}=\frac{3\sqrt{3}\mathrm{\Delta }}{4\pi K_0\rho _B}\left(\frac{\xi _V^2}{\xi _B^2}\right)$$
(42)
Thus in the dilute limit the lattice still melts when the flux per boson is of the order of the square of the Lindemann number , up to a factor of order $`\rho _B/\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The melted phase is an interesting example of a ’non-fermi-liquid’: the vortex motion is damped (albeit weakly) so the model is characterized by a non-vanishing $`\sigma _{xx}`$ and $`\sigma _{xy}`$, as in a normal metal, (although the $`\sigma _{xy}`$ value is rather large) but also by a ’non-Luttinger’ fermi surface with a gap over large regions of the nominal fermi surface.

## VI Conclusion

One of the most interesting aspects of high temperature superconductivity is the ’pseudogap’ regime of underdoped materials. This regime is characterized by a gap (of approximately d-wave form) in the quasiparticle spectrum but neither long ranged superconducting order nor particularly noticeable superconducting fluctuations. One possibility is that this regime involves electron pairing (as in a conventional superconductor) but with long ranged superconducting order disrupted by strong phase fluctuations, arising physically from the strong suppression of charge response expected mear a Mott insulator. A difficulty with this idea is the absence of noticeable ’paraconductivity’: transport measurements indicate a critical regime of order $`10K`$ at most Ong93 ; Corson98 .

In this paper we studied one theoretical implementation of the ’phase fluctuation’ scenario for the pseudogap, namely the d-RVB regime of the $`U(1)`$ gauge theory of lightly doped Mott insulators. In this approach the spin degrees of freedom are mostly paired into a d-wave pairing state and the low $`T`$ charge response is essentially that of a superfluid, but with properties strongly affected by proximity to the Mott transition. One important feature of the model is that the vortex excitations are characterized by two length scales: the ’quasiparticle coherence length’ $`\xi _F=v/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which controls the distance over which the excitation spectrum differs from that far from a vortex, and the ’current coherence length’ $`\xi `$ which varies as the square root of the doping and cuts off the familiar $`1/r`$ divergence of the supercurrent near a vortex. We studied the charge transport properties (many of which are dominated by vortices) and showed in particular that the electric field created by a moving vortex, the dissipation due to moving vortex, the value of $`H_{c2}`$ and the size of the fluctuation regime near the resistive transition are all controlled by $`\xi `$ which diverges near the Mott transition, rather than by the ’quasiparticle length $`\xi _F`$ which does not.

As noted elsewhere Lee97 ; Millis96 ; Ioffe01a  the theory disagrees in a number of ways with experiments; the most significant difficulty is the small value and strong doping dependence of the ’quasiparticle charge’ defined in Eq 10. Further, our calculation has a number of phenomenological aspects. For example, we assumed a finite ’spinon conductivity’ which could reasonably be expected to arise from the ’gapless fermi arcs’ induced by a non-vanishing temperature or applied magnetic field, but we did not attempt to calculated this from first principles, nor did we investigate the subtle quantum mechanics of fermions in the presence of conventional vortices. However, we believe the results presented here are useful because they provide an explicit demonstration in a well-defined model that if the supercurrent-defined correlation length is parametrically larger than the quasiparticle-defined length, then the resistive properties are controlled by the length scale over which the supercurrent varies.

Other workers have observed that the theory admits doubly quantized vortices. We have noted that they proliferate above a scale defined by the physical superfluid stiffness and (if the core energy of conventional vortices were large, which it is not in this model) would suppress the superconducting fluctuation contribution to the conductivity. We also showed how, in this model, the ’non-dissipative time derivative’, whose importance was stressed in Geshkenbein96 , is important for the estimation of the upper critical field, and argued that it crosses over from the ’fermionic’ value $`T_c/E_F`$ to the ’bosonic’ value proportional to the density of charges $`x`$. A subsequent paper will apply these ideas to a different model of high-Tc superconductivity.

Acknowlegdgement: This work was supported by NSF-DMR-00081075 and the Institute for Theoretical Physics at Santa Barbara. AJM thanks N. P. Ong, Y. B. Kim, D. T. Son, M. P. A. Fisher and especially P.A. Lee for helpful conversations.

## VII Appendix: Fermi-liquid-based approaches to doped Mott insulators

This Appendix treats the case of superconductivity developing out of a state which is well described by the usual fermi liquid theory. The necessary formalism was developed by Larkin and Leggett , and some of the results were sketched elsewhere Landaurefs . A fermi-liquid state is characterized by a quasiparticle velocity $`v^{}(\theta )`$ which may depend on position ($`\theta `$) on the fermi surface, a characteristic energy scale $`E^{}`$ and a Landau interaction function $`T(\theta ,\theta ^{})`$. In order for fermi liquid theory to be applicable, the maximum superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ must be less than $`E^{}`$. Transcription of the standard results to the langauge of the section above leads to

$`\rho _{s0}`$ $`=`$ $`<v^{}(\theta )\left(1T\right)_{\theta ,\theta ^{}}^1v^{}(\theta ^{})>`$ (43)
$`v_F`$ $`=`$ $`v^{}`$ (44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _S}{dT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{<v^{}(\theta )\left(1T\right)_{\theta ,\theta _1}^1L(\theta _1)\left(1T\right)_{\theta _1,\theta ^{}}^1v^{}(\theta ^{})>}{<v^{}(\theta )^2>}}`$ (45)
where the angle backet means multiplication by density of states and average over the fermi line and $`L(\theta )=\frac{d\omega d\theta }{2\pi ^2}\frac{\omega }{2T^2\mathrm{coth}(\frac{\omega }{2T})}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )^2}{\left(\omega ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )^2\right)^{3/2}}.`$

Comparison of the these results with those presented in section $`II`$ shows that the $`U(1)`$ theory corresponds to a fermi liquid with a weakly angle-dependent Landau interaction function whose ’current-channel’ value is of order $`1/x`$ Landaurefs .

We now consider the situation in more detail by calculating the low-T current-current correlation function for a superconducting fermi liquid, making the usual assumption that the Landau interaction function may be decomposed into angular channels in the conventional way, and that the maximum value of the superconducting gap is small compared to the characteristic quasiparticle energy scale $`E^{}`$ so that quasiparticle damping effects may be neglected. The gauge-invariant current-current correlation function is then Landaurefs

$$\chi _{jj}(q,\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{\chi _{qp}(q,\mathrm{\Delta })}{1+I_1\chi _{qp}(q,\mathrm{\Delta })}$$
(46)
with $`I_1`$ the current-channel Landau interaction parameter (so that the Landau parameter $`F_{1s}=2I_1\chi _{qp}(0,\mathrm{\Delta })`$) and

$`\chi _{qp}(q,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{\left(2\pi \right)^2v^{}(\theta )}v_x^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )^2}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )^2+\omega ^2}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(\omega ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )^2+\left(v^{}q\mathrm{cos}(\theta \theta _q)\right)^2/4\right)}}`$
(Note that the result depends on the angle $`\theta _q`$ between the direction of $`q`$ and the nodes in the gap).

Standard calculations AGD  show that at $`vq>>\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, $`\chi _{qp}\mathrm{\Delta }_0/vq`$ so that we expect an appreciable change in $`\chi _{jj}`$ when $`vq\mathrm{\Delta }_0/x`$. In other words, a naive application of fermi liquid theory would predict a very short characteristic length scale of order $`xv/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ . However, from the usual physical picture of the doped Mott insulator as a dilute collection of holes one might expect the interparticle spacing $`x^{1/2}`$ to be an important scale. The discrepancy is resolved by noting that the Landau parameter presumably varies on the scale $`x^{1/2}`$. This effect is beyond the scope of Landau theory but is captured in the $`U(1)`$ approach.


text:
# References

On the moment problem of closed semi-algebraic sets

Konrad Schmüdgen

Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik
Universität Leipzig, Augustusplatz 10, 04109 Leipzig, Germany
E-mail: schmuedg@mathematik.uni-leipzig.de

1. Introduction and main result

The moment problem for compact semi-algebraic sets has been solved in \[S1\] (see \[PD\], Section 6.4, for a refinement of the result). In the terminology explained below, this means that each defining sequence $`f`$ of a compact semi-algebraic set $`K_f`$ has property $`(SMP)`$. On the other hand, for many non-compact semi-algebraic sets (for instance, sets containing a cone of dimension two \[KM\], \[PS\]) the moment problem is not solvable. Only very few non-compact semi-algebraic sets (classes of real algebraic curves \[So\], \[KM\], \[PS\] and cylinder sets \[Mc\]) are known to have a positive solution of the moment problem.

In this paper we study semi-algebraic sets $`K_f`$ such that there exist polynomials $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_n`$ which are bounded on the set $`K_f`$. Our main result (Theorem 1) reduces the moment problem for the set $`K_f`$ to the moment problem for the “fiber sets” $`K_fC_\lambda `$, where $`C_\lambda `$ is real algebraic variety $`\{x^d:h_1(x)=\lambda _1,\mathrm{},h_n(x)=\lambda _n\}`$. From this theorem new classes of non-compact closed semi-algebraic sets are obtained for which the moment problem has an affirmative solution. Combined with a result of V. Powers and C. Scheiderer \[PS\], it follows that tube sets around certain real algebraic curves have property $`(SMP)`$ (see Theorem 9).

Let $`f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_k)`$ be a finite set of polynomials $`f_j[x][x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ and let $`KK_f`$ be the associated closed semi-algebraic subset defined by

$$K_f=\{x^d:f_1(x)0,\mathrm{},f_k(x)0\}.$$

Let $`T_f`$ denote the corresponding preorder, that is, $`T_f`$ is the set of all finite sums of elements $`f_1^{\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}f_k^{\epsilon _k}g^2`$, where $`g[x]`$ and $`\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _k\{0,1\}`$. We abbreviate $`[x]=[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$.

In this paper we investigate the following properties $`(MP)`$ and $`(SMP)`$ of the sequence $`f`$:
$`(MP)`$: For each linear functional $`L`$ on $`[x]`$ such that $`L(T_f)0`$ there is
a positive Borel measure $`\mu `$ on $`^d`$ such that

$$L(p)=p(\lambda )𝑑\mu (\lambda )forallp[x].$$
(1)
$`(SMP)`$:For each linear functional $`L`$ on $`[x]`$ such that $`L(T_f)0`$ there exists
a positive Borel measure $`\mu `$ on $`^d`$ such that $`\mathrm{supp}\mu K_f`$ and (1)
holds.
By Theorem 1 in \[S1\], each defining sequence $`f`$ of a compact semi-algebraic set $`K_f`$ has property $`(SMP)`$. However, for non-compact semi-algebraic sets $`K_f`$ property $`(SMP)`$ depends in general on the defining sequence (see Example 5 below). Nevertheless, there are also classes of non-compact semi-algebraic sets $`K_f`$ (see Corollary 9 and Example 4) such that property $`(SMP)`$ holds for each defining sequence $`f`$.

We now state the main result of this paper. Suppose that $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_n[x]`$ are polynomials which are bounded on the set $`K_f`$. Let

$`m_j:=inf\{h_j(x);xK_f\},M_j:=sup\{h_j(x);xK_f\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }:=[m_1,M_1]\times \mathrm{}\times [m_n,M_n]^n.`$
For $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, let $`f(\lambda )`$ be the sequence of polynomials given by

$$f(\lambda ):=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_k,h_1\lambda _1,(h_1\lambda _1),\mathrm{},h_n\lambda _n,(h_n\lambda _n)).$$

Clearly, the corresponding semi-algebraic set $`K_{f(\lambda )}`$ is the intersection of $`K_f`$ with the algebraic variety

$$C_\lambda =\{x^d:h_1(x)=\lambda _1,\mathrm{},h_n(x)=\lambda _n\}.$$

Theorem 1. Retain the preceding assumptions and notations. Suppose that for all $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the sequence $`f(\lambda )`$ has property $`(MP)`$ (resp. $`(SMP)`$. Then the sequence $`f`$ has property $`(MP)`$ (resp. $`(SMP)`$).

The proof of Theorem 1 will be completed at the end of Section 3. The technical ingredients of the proof might be of interest in themselves. Let $`L`$ be a linear functional on the algebra $`[x]`$ such that $`L(T_f)0`$ and let $`\pi _L`$ be the corresponding $`GNS`$-representation. In Section 2 we show that the operator $`\pi _L(p)`$ is bounded if the polynomial $`p[x]`$ is bounded on the set $`K_f`$. In Section 3 we decompose the closure of the representation $`\pi _L`$ into a direct integral of representations $`\pi _\lambda ,\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, such that $`\pi _\lambda (h_j)=\lambda _jI`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ almost everywhere. Section 4 contains some applications and examples. As a by-product, we construct a simple explicit example of a positive linear functional on $`[x_1,x_2]`$ which is not a moment functional.

Let us recall the definition of a $``$-representation (see \[S2\] for more details). Let $`𝒜`$ be a complex unital $``$-algebra and let $`𝒟`$ be a pre-Hilbert space with scalar product $`,`$. A $``$-representation of $`𝒜`$ on $`𝒟`$ is an algebra homomorphism $`\pi `$ of $`𝒜`$ into the algebra $`L(𝒟)`$ of linear operators mapping $`𝒟`$ into itself such that $`\pi (1)=I`$ and $`\pi (a)\phi ,\psi =\phi ,\pi (a^{})\psi `$ for all $`a𝒜`$ and $`\phi ,\psi 𝒟`$. Here 1 is the unit element of $`𝒜`$ and $`I`$ denotes the identity map of $`𝒟`$. The closure of a closable Hilbert space operator $`A`$ is denoted by $`\overline{A}`$. If $`T`$ is a subset of $`[x]`$ and $`L`$ is a functional on $`[x]`$, we write $`L(T)0`$ if $`L(t)0`$ for all $`tT`$. As usual, $`𝔹()`$ is the $`C^{}`$-algebra of bounded linear operators on the Hilbert space $``$.

Acknowledgement. I would like to thank C. Scheiderer for valuable and inspiring correspondence concerning his results.

2. Bounded polynomials on semi-algebraic sets

We denote by $`(K_f)`$ the set of all polynomials in $`[x]`$ which are bounded on the semi-algebraic set $`K_f`$. Clearly, $`(K_f)`$ is a $``$-algebra with involution $`p(x)\overline{p(x)}.`$

For $`p(K_f)`$ we define $`p_K=sup\{|p(\lambda )|;\lambda K_f\}`$. Obviously $`𝒩_f:=\{p:p_K=0\}`$ is a $``$-ideal of $`(K_f)`$ and $`p+𝒩_f:=p_K,p(K_f)`$, defines a norm on the quotient $``$-algebra $`(K_f)/𝒩_f`$. Let $`𝒞(K_f)`$ denote the completion of $`(K_f)/𝒩_f`$ with respect to this norm. Then $`𝒞(K_f)`$ is an abelian $`C^{}`$-algebra which contains $`(K_f)/𝒩_f`$ as a dense $``$-subalgebra. If the set $`K_f`$ is compact, then $`(K_f)=[x]`$ and $`𝒞(K_f)`$ is the $`C^{}`$-algebra of all continuous functions on $`K_f`$. At the other extreme, if $`K_f=^d`$, then $`(K_p)=I`$ and so $`𝒞(K_f)=I`$.

Throughout this paper we suppose that $`L`$ is a linear functional on$`[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ such that $`L(T_f)0`$.

Since $`p\overline{p}T_f`$ and hence $`L(p\overline{p})0`$ for $`p[x]`$, $`L`$ is a positive linear functional on the $``$-algebra $`[x]`$ and the GNS-construction applies. To fix the notation, we briefly repeat this construction. The set $`𝒩=\{p[x]:L(p\overline{p})=0\}`$ is an ideal of the algebra $`[x]`$. Hence there is a scalar product $`,`$ on the quotient space $`𝒟_L:=[x]/𝒩`$ and a linear mapping $`\pi _L(p):𝒟_L𝒟_L`$ for $`p[x]`$ defined by $`p_1+𝒩,p_2+𝒩=L(p_1\overline{p_2})`$ and $`\pi _L(p)(q+𝒩)=(pq+𝒩)`$ for $`p,p_1,p_2,q[x]`$. For notational simplicity we shall write $`p`$ instead of $`p+𝒩`$. The map $`p\pi _L(p)`$ is a $``$-representation of the $``$-algebra $`[x]`$ on the domain $`𝒟_L`$ such that

$$\pi _L(p)q_1,q_2=L(pq_1\overline{q_2}),p,q_1,q_2[x].$$
(2)
Let $`_L`$ denote the Hilbert space completion of the pre-Hilbert space $`𝒟_L`$.

The next proposition is crucial in what follows.

Proposition 2. If $`p(K_f)`$, then the operator $`\pi _L(p)`$ is bounded on $`𝒟_L`$ and $`\pi _L(p)p_K`$.

Proof. The proof essentially repeats arguments used in the proof of Theorem 1 in \[S1\]. First we note that it suffices to prove the assertion for real polynomial $`p(K_f)`$, because $`\pi _L(q)^2=\pi _L(q\overline{q})q\overline{q}_K=q_K^2`$. Fix $`\epsilon >0`$ and put $`\rho =p_K+\epsilon `$. Then the polynomial $`\rho ^2p^2`$ is positive on the set $`K_f`$. Therefore, by G. Stengle’s Positivstellensatz (\[Sg\], see also \[PD\]), there exist polynomials $`h,gT_f`$ such that $`(\rho ^2p^2)g=1+h`$.

Let $`q[x]`$. Since the preorder $`T_f`$ is closed under multiplication, $`p^{2n2}(1+h)q\overline{q}T_f`$ and hence $`L(p^{2n2}(1+h)q\overline{q})0`$ for $`n`$. Therefore,

$`L(p^{2n}gq\overline{q})`$ $`=`$ $`L(p^{2n2}(\rho ^2g1h)q\overline{q})`$
$`=`$ $`\rho ^2L(p^{2n2}gq\overline{q})L(p^{2n2}(1+h)q\overline{q})\rho ^2L(p^{2n2}gq\overline{q})`$
and so

$`L(p^{2n}gq\overline{q})\rho ^{2n}L(gq\overline{q}),n.`$ (3)
As in \[S1\], we now use the Hamburger moment problem. Define a linear functional $`L_1`$ on the polynomial algebra $`[t]`$ by $`L_1(t^n)=L(p^nq\overline{q}),n_0`$. Since $`L_1(r(t)\overline{r}(t))=L(r(p)\overline{r}(p)q\overline{q})0`$ for $`r[t]`$, there exists a positive Borel measure $`\nu `$ on the real line such that $`L_1(t^n)=t^n𝑑\nu (t),n_0`$. For $`\lambda >0`$, let $`\chi _\lambda `$ be the characteric function of the set $`\{t:|t|>\lambda \}`$. Using the fact that $`L(p^{2n}(h+p^2g)q\overline{q})0`$ and inequality (3) we get

$`\lambda ^{2n}{\displaystyle \chi _\lambda 𝑑\nu }{\displaystyle t^{2n}𝑑\nu (t)}=L_1(t^{2n})=L(p^{2n}q\overline{q})`$
$`L(p^{2n}(1+h+p^2g)q\overline{q})=L(p^{2n}(\rho ^2g)q\overline{q})\rho ^{2n+2}L(gq\overline{q})`$
for all $`n`$. If $`\lambda >\rho `$, the latter implies that $`\chi _\lambda 𝑑\nu =0`$, so we have $`\mathrm{supp}\nu [\rho ,\rho ]`$. Hence, by (2),

$$\pi _L(p)q^2=L(p^2q\overline{q})=t^2𝑑\nu \rho ^2𝑑\nu =\rho ^2L(q\overline{q})=\rho ^2q^2,$$

that is, $`\pi _L(p)`$ is bounded and $`\pi _L(p)\rho =p_K+\epsilon `$. Letting $`\epsilon 0`$, the assertion follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 3. Let $`a,b`$ and $`p[x]`$. If $`apb`$ on the set $`K_f`$, then $`aI\pi _L(p)bI`$ on the Hilbert space $`_L`$.

Proof. Putting $`q=p\frac{a+b}{2}`$, we have $`q_K\frac{ba}{2}`$ and hence $`\pi _L(p)\frac{ba}{2}`$ by Proposition 2 which implies the assertion. $`\mathrm{}`$

Each operator $`\pi _L(p),p(K_f)`$, extends by continuity to a bounded linear operator, denoted again by $`\pi _L(p)`$, on the Hilbert space $`_L`$. Since $`\pi _L(p)p_K`$, the map $`(K_f)p\pi _L(p)𝔹(_L)`$ passes to a continuous $``$-homomorphism of the quotient $``$-algebra $`(K_f)/𝒩_f`$ into $`𝔹(_L)`$. Hence it extends by continuity to a $``$-homomorphism of the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒞(K_f)`$ into $`𝔹(_L)`$.

Corollary 4. Let $`p[x]`$. If $`p=0`$ on $`K_f`$, then $`L(p)=0`$ and $`L(p\overline{p})=0`$, that is, $`p𝒩`$.

Proof. By Proposition 2, $`\pi _L(p)=0`$. Hence, by (2), $`L(p)=\pi _L(p)1,1=0`$ and $`L(p\overline{p})=\pi _L(p)1,p=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 4 follows also directly from the real Nullstellensatz combined with the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.

3. A direct integral decomposition of the GNS representation

In this section we need some more notions on unbounded representations and on direct integrals. For the former we refer to the monograph \[S2\]. Especially, we use the closure $`\overline{\pi _L}`$ of a $``$-representation $`\pi _L`$ (see \[S2\], 8.1) and direct integrals of measurable family $`\lambda \pi _\lambda `$ of $``$-representations (\[S2\], 12.3). Our main reference on direct integrals is \[D\], Chapter II.

Let $`h_j,m_j,M_j,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, and $`K_f,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be as in Section 1. Since the polynomial $`h_j`$ is bounded on $`K_f`$, the operator $`\pi _L(h_j)`$ is bounded by Proposition 2. Let $`H_j:=\overline{\pi _L(h_j)}`$. Then $`H:=(H_1,\mathrm{},H_n)`$ is an $`n`$-tuple of commuting bounded self-adjoint operators on the Hilbert space $`_L`$. Let $`𝒞`$ denote the abelian unital $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by the operators $`H_1,\mathrm{}H_n`$ and $`I`$. Because a character $`\chi `$ of $`𝒞`$ is determined by its values on $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_n`$, the map $`\chi (\chi (H_1),\mathrm{},\chi (H_n))`$ is a homomorphism of the Gelfand spectrum of $`𝒞`$ on a compact subset, denoted by $`\sigma (H)`$, of $`^n`$. Since $`m_jIH_jM_jI`$ by Corollary 3, we have $`\sigma (H)\mathrm{\Lambda }=[m_1,M_1]\times \mathrm{}\times [m_n,M_n]`$. The bicommutant $`𝒞^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`𝒞`$ is the von Neumann algebra generated by $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_n,I`$. The next proposition gives a direct integral decomposition of the closure $`\overline{\pi _L}`$ of the $``$-representation $`\pi _L`$ of the $``$-algebra $`[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$.

Proposition 5. There exist a regular positive Borel measure $`\nu `$ on the compact set $`\sigma (H)`$, a measurable field $`\lambda _\lambda `$ of non-zero Hilbert spaces $`_\lambda `$, a measurable field $`\lambda \pi _\lambda `$ of closed $``$-representations of $`[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ and an isometry $`U`$ of $`_L`$ on the Hilbert space $`=^{}_\lambda 𝑑\nu (\lambda )`$ such that:
(i) $`U𝒞^{\prime \prime }U^1`$ is the algebra of bounded diagonalizable operators on $``$.
(ii) $`U\overline{\pi _L}U^1=^{}\pi _\lambda 𝑑\nu (\lambda )`$.
(iii) $`\pi _\lambda (h_j)=\lambda _jI,j=1,\mathrm{},n,\nu a.e.`$ on $`\sigma (H)`$.

Proof. First we note that Hilbert space $`_L`$ is separable, because the linear span of vectors $`\pi _L(x^n)1,n_0^d`$, is dense in $`_L`$. Now we apply Theorems 1 and 2 on pages 217 and 220, respectively, in \[D\] to the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒴=𝒞`$ and the von Neumann algebra $`𝒵=𝒞^{\prime \prime }`$. We identify the Gelfand spectrum of $`𝒞`$ with the compact set $`\sigma (H)`$. Then, by these theorems, there is a positive regular Borel measure $`\nu `$ on $`\sigma (H)`$, a measurable family $`\lambda _\lambda `$ of non-zero Hilbert spaces and an isometry $`𝒰`$ of $`_L`$ on $`=^{}_\lambda 𝑑\nu (\lambda )`$ such that (i) holds. Then, by construction, $`H_j=\overline{\pi _L(h_j)}=^{}\lambda _jI𝑑\nu (\lambda )`$ which yields (iii).

Let $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. For $`p[x]`$ and $`\phi 𝒟_L`$, we have $`H_j\pi _L(p)\phi =\pi _L(h_j)\pi _L(p)\phi =\pi _L(p)\pi _L(h_j)\phi =\pi _L(p)H_j\phi `$ and hence $`H_j\overline{\pi _L(p)}\overline{\pi _L(p)}H_j`$. The latter means that $`H_j`$ belongs to the symmetrized strong commutant $`\pi _L([x])_{ss}^{}`$ (see \[S2\], Definition 7.2.7). Since $`\pi _L([x])_{ss}^{}`$ is a von Neumann algebra, $`𝒞^{\prime \prime }\pi _L([x])_{ss}^{}`$. Therefore, we can continue as in the proofs of Theorems 12.3.1 and 12.3.5 in \[S2\] (note that condition (HS) theorem is satisfied by remark 2 on p. 343) and obtain a direct integral decomposition as in (ii). $`\mathrm{}`$

For notational simplicity we identify $`_L`$ and $``$ via the isometry $`𝒰`$. Let $`𝒟_\lambda `$ be the domain of the representation $`\pi _\lambda `$ and let $`\lambda 1_\lambda `$ be the vector field of $``$ corresponding to the unit element $`1𝒟_L`$. By Proposition 5, there is a $`\nu `$-null set $`N\sigma (H)`$ such that $`1_\lambda 𝒟_\lambda `$ and $`\pi _\lambda (h_j)=\lambda _jI,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, for all $`\lambda \sigma (h)\backslash N`$. For $`\lambda \sigma (H)/N`$ we define a linear functional $`L_\lambda `$ on $`[x]`$ by $`L_\lambda (p)=\pi _\lambda (p)1_\lambda ,1_\lambda ,p[x]`$. For $`\lambda N`$ set $`L_\lambda 0`$.

Lemma 6. (i) $`L(q(h)p)=_{\sigma (H)}q(\lambda )L_\lambda (p)𝑑\nu (\lambda )`$ for $`p,q[x]`$.
(ii) There is a $`\nu `$-null set $`N^{}N`$ of $`\sigma (H)`$ such that $`L_\lambda (T_f)0`$ and
$`L_\lambda ((h_j\lambda _j)p)=0`$ for $`\lambda \sigma (H)/N^{}`$, $`p[x],j=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

Proof. (i): Since $`\overline{\pi _L}=^{}\pi _\lambda 𝑑\nu (\lambda )`$, from (2) that

$`L(q(h)p)=\overline{\pi _L}(q(h)p)1,1={\displaystyle \pi _\lambda (q(h)p)1_\lambda ,1_\lambda 𝑑\nu (\lambda )}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \pi _\lambda (q(\lambda )p)1_\lambda ,1_\lambda 𝑑\nu (\lambda )}={\displaystyle _{\sigma (H)}}q(\lambda )L_\lambda (p)𝑑\nu (\lambda ).`$
(ii): Let $`pT_f`$. For $`q[x]`$ we have $`\overline{q}(h)q(h)pT_f`$ and hence

$$L(\overline{q}(h)q(h)p)=_{\sigma (H)}|q(\lambda )|^2L_\lambda (p)𝑑\nu (\lambda )0$$

by (i). From the Weierstrass approximation theorem we therefore conclude that $`L_\lambda (p)0\nu a.e.`$ Let $`T`$ be a countable subset of $`T_f`$ which is dense in $`T_f`$ with respect to the finest locally convex topology on $`[x]`$ (for instance, one may take polynomials $`g`$ in the definition of $`T_f`$ with rational coefficients). For each $`tT`$ there is $`\nu `$-null subset $`N_tN`$ of $`\sigma (H)`$ such that $`L_\lambda (t)0`$ for $`\lambda \sigma (H)/N_t`$. Setting $`N^{}:=_tN_t`$, we have $`L_\lambda (T)0`$ and hence $`L_\lambda (T_f)0`$ for all $`\lambda \sigma (H)/N^{}.`$ The relation $`L_\lambda ((h_j\lambda _j)p)=0`$ for $`\lambda \sigma (H)/N`$ is obvious by the definition of $`L_\lambda `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

In the proof of Theorem 1 we use Haviland’s theorem \[H\] which is stated as

Lemma 7. Let $`M`$ be a closed subset of $`^d`$ and let $`F`$ be a linear functional on $`[x]`$ such that $`F(p)0`$ whenever $`p[x]`$ and $`p0`$ on $`M`$. Then there exists a positive Borel measure $`\mu `$ on $`M`$ such that $`F(p)=_Mp𝑑\mu `$ for all $`p[x]`$.

Proof of Theorem 1: Let $`L`$ be a linear functional on $`[x]`$ such that $`L(T_f)0`$. Suppose that for all $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the set $`K_fC_\lambda `$ has property $`(SMP)`$. Fix a polynomial $`p[x]`$ such that $`p0`$ on $`K_f`$. Let $`\lambda \sigma (H)/N^{}`$. Then, $`L_\lambda (T_{f(\lambda )})0`$ by Lemma 6(ii). Since the set $`K_fC_\lambda `$ has property $`(SMP)`$, the functional $`L_\lambda `$ comes from a positive Borel measure on $`K_fC_\lambda `$. Therefore, since $`p0`$ on $`K_f`$, we have $`L_\lambda (p)0`$. From Lemma 6(i) we obtain $`L(p)0`$. Thus, by Haviland’s theorem (Lemma 7) applied to $`M=K_f`$, there is a positive Borel measure $`\mu `$ on $`K_f`$ such that $`L(p)=p𝑑\mu `$ for $`p[x]`$. This proves that $`K_f`$ has property $`(SMP)`$.

The proof for property $`(MP)`$ is given by a slight modification of the above reasoning. One takes a non-negative polynomial $`p`$ on $`^d`$ and applies Haviland’s theorem to $`M=^d`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. The preceding proof shows a slightly stronger assertion. It suffices to assume the properties $`(SMP)`$ and $`(MP)`$ for $`\lambda `$ in $`\sigma (H)`$ rather than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Also, it is sufficient that the functional $`L_\lambda `$ comes from a measure supported on $`K_f`$ rather than $`K_fC_\lambda `$.

4. Applications

The following simple fact is used below.

Lemma 8. Let $`K_f`$ be a semi-algebraic set in $`^d`$. If $`K_f`$ is a real line (resp. a subset of a real line), then $`f`$ has property $`(SMP)`$ (resp. $`(MP)`$).

Proof. Applying an affine transformation if necessary, we can assume that the line is $`x_1`$. By Corollary 4 applied to $`p=x_j,j=2,\mathrm{},n`$, we have $`L(p(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d))=L(p(x_1,0,\mathrm{},0))`$ for $`p[x]`$. Hence the assertion follows from Hamburger’s theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

In order to apply Theorem 1 one has to look for sequences $`f`$ and bounded polynomials $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_n`$ on the semi-algebraic set $`K_f`$ such that for each $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the sequence $`f(\lambda )`$ of the “fiber set” $`K_fC_\lambda `$ has property $`(SMP)`$ or $`(MP)`$. In particular, $`f`$ has property $`(SMP)`$ if for each $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the set $`K_{f(\lambda )}=K_fC_\lambda `$ is either compact (by \[S1\]) or a real line (by Lemma 8). If $`K_f`$ is a half-line, then $`f`$ does not have property $`(SMP)`$ in general (see Example 5 below). Clearly, the sequence $`f`$ has property $`(MP)`$ if $`K_\lambda C_\lambda `$ is compact or a subset of a real line for all $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Combined with the results of \[S\], Theorem 1 yields a large class of sequences having properties $`(SMP)`$ resp. $`(MP)`$.

Theorem 9. Let $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_n,n`$, be polynomials of $`[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ and let $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_n,M_1,\mathrm{}`$, $`M_n`$ be such that $`m_1M_1,\mathrm{},m_nM_n`$. Let $`f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_{2n})`$ be the sequence given by $`f_{2j1}=h_jm_j,f_{2j}=M_jh_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Suppose that for each $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }[m_1,M_1]\times \mathrm{}\times [m_n,M_n]`$ the set $`C_\lambda :=\{x^d:h_j(x)=\lambda _j,j=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ is empty or an irreducible smooth affine real curve which is rational or has at least one non-real point at infinity.

Then the defining sequence $`f`$ of the semi-algebraic set $`K_f=\{x^d:m_jh_j(x)`$ $`M_j,j=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ has property $`(SMP)`$.

Proof. From Corollary 4 it follows that each linear functional $`L`$ on $`[x]`$ such that $`L(T_{f(\lambda )})0`$ annihilates the vanishing ideal of the real algebraic variety $`K_{f(\lambda )}=C_\lambda ,\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Therefore, by Theorems 3.11 and 3.12 in \[PS\] (which are essentially based on the results in \[S\]), the assumptions on $`C_\lambda `$ imply that the sequence $`f(\lambda )`$ has property $`(SMP)`$ for any $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Hence $`f`$ has property $`(SMP)`$ by Theorem 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

Perhaps the simplest tube sets $`K_f`$ in Theorem 9 are cylinders with compact base sets.

Corollary 10. Let $`K`$ be a compact semi-algebraic set in $`^d`$. Let $`f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_k)`$ be a sequence of polynomials $`f_j[x_1\mathrm{},x_{d+1}]`$. If the semi-algebraic set $`K_f`$ in $`R^{d+1}`$ is equal to $`K\times `$, then $`f`$ has property $`(SMP)`$. If $`K_f`$ is contained in $`K\times `$, then $`f`$ has property $`(MP)`$.

Proof. Let $`K=K_h`$, where $`h=(h_1,\mathrm{},h_n)`$ and $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_n[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$. Since $`K`$ is compact, the polynomials $`h_j`$ are bounded on $`K_f`$. Since the fiber set $`K_fC_\lambda `$ is a subset of a real line, the assertion follows at once from Lemma 8 and Theorem 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

For the natural choice of generators of $`K_f=K_h\times `$ the first assertion of Corollary 10 was also proved in \[KM\]. The very special case where $`K`$ is a ball was obtained in \[Mc\].

We illustrate our results by some examples.

Examples. 1.) Let $`m,M,c`$ be such that $`c0`$ and $`0<mM`$. Let $`f=((x_1c)x_2m,M(x_1c)x_2)`$. Then $`h:=(x_1c)x_2`$ is bounded on the set $`K_f=\{x^2:mh(x)M\}`$. For $`\lambda [m,M]`$ the sequence $`f(\lambda )`$ of the fiber set $`K_{f(\lambda )}=K_fC_\lambda =\{x:(x_1c)x_2=\lambda \}`$ has property $`(SMP)`$. The latter follows at once from Example 3.7 in \[KM\] or from Theorem 3.12 in \[PS\]. Hence, by Theorem 1, $`f`$ has property $`(SMP)`$.
2.) The sets in this example and the next are subsets of the strip $`[0,1]\times `$. Let $`f=(x_1x_2,1x_1x_2,x_1,1x_1)`$. Then the algebra $`(K_f)`$ consists of all polynomials $`q(x_1,x_1x_2)`$, where $`q[x_1,x_2]`$. Let $`h_1=x_1x_2`$ and $`h_2=x_1`$. Theorem 1 can be applied to $`h_1`$ or to $`h_2`$ or to $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$. In all three cases we conclude that the sequence $`f`$ has property $`(SMP)`$. In the third case the fiber set $`K_fC_\lambda `$ is a point if $`\lambda _10`$ and the $`x_2`$-axis if $`\lambda _1=0`$.
3.) Let $`f=(x_1x_21,2x_1x_2,x_1,1x_1)`$. Applying Theorem 1 to $`h_1=x_1x_2,`$$`h_2=x_1`$, all fiber sets are points , so $`f`$ has property $`(SMP)`$.
4.) Theorem 1 can be also used to solve the moment problem on curves. Let $`f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_k)`$ be a sequence of polynomials $`f_j[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ such that $`K_f`$ is an irreducible real algebraic curve in $`^d`$. Suppose that there exists a non-zero $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_d)^d`$ such that the linear polynomial $`h(x):=a_1x_1+\mathrm{}+a_dx_d`$ is bounded on $`K_f`$. Then each fiber set $`K_f\{x^d:h(x)=\lambda \}`$ is empty or compact. Therefore, by Theorem 1, the sequence $`f`$ has property $`(SMP)`$. Examples of such curves in $`^2`$ are $`x_1^3+x_2^3=1`$ with $`h(x)=x_1+x_2`$ and $`x_2^2(1x_1)=x_1^3`$ with $`h(x)=x_1.`$
5.) This example is mainly taken from \[BM\]. Let $`d=1,f(x)=x^3`$, so $`K_f=[0,+\mathrm{})`$. Since each linear functional $`L`$ on $`[x]`$ such that $`L(T_f)0`$ is non-negative on squares, by Hamburger’s theorem it can be given by a positive measure on $``$. That is, $`f`$ has property $`(MP)`$. We show that $`K_f`$ does not obey property $`(SMP)`$.
Let $`\mu `$ be an $`N`$-extremal measure on $``$ such that $`\mu `$ represents an indeterminate Stieltjes moment sequence, $`\mathrm{supp}\mu (\delta ,\delta )=\mathrm{}`$ for some $`\delta >0`$ and $`\mathrm{supp}\mu (\mathrm{},0)\mathrm{}`$. (The existence of such a measure follows easily from the existence of indetermiante Stieltjes moment sequences (cf. \[ST\], p. 22) combined with basic properties of Nevanlinna’s extremal measures as collected in Theorem 2.13 in \[ST\].) Define $`L(p)=px^2𝑑\mu ,p[x]`$. Since $`\mu `$ gives a Stieltjes moment sequence, $`L(T_f)0`$. Since $`\mu `$ is $`N`$-extremal, $`[x)`$ is dense in $`L^2(\mu )`$ (\[A\], Theorem 2.3.3). Therefore, $`(x\pm i)[x]`$ is dense in $`L^2(x^2\mu )`$ and hence the measure $`x^2d\mu `$ is determinate. Since this measure is not supported on $`K_f=[0,+\mathrm{})`$, $`L`$ cannot be represented by a positive measure on $``$, that is, $`f`$ does not have property $`(SMP)`$. Note that there is a polynomial $`p_0[x]`$ such that $`L(xp_0\overline{p_0})<0`$. (Otherwise, by Stieltjes theorem $`L`$ could be given by a positive measure on $`(0,+\mathrm{})`$.)

Let $`\stackrel{~}{f}(x)=x`$. Then $`K_{\stackrel{~}{f}}=K_f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ has property $`(SMP)`$. This shows that, in contrast to the compact case \[S1\], property $`(SMP)`$ depends in general on the defining polynomials $`f`$ rather than the set $`K_f`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is well-known that there exists a linear functional $`L`$ on $`[x_1,x_2]`$ such that $`L(p\overline{p})0`$ for $`p[x_1,x_2]`$ which is not a moment functional (that is, $`L`$ cannot be represented by a positive Borel measure on $`^2`$). An explicit example can be found in \[F\]; it is reproduced in \[S2\], p. 62. We close this paper by constructing a much simpler explicit example which is even tractable for computations. It is based on the fact that no defining sequence of the curve $`x_1^3=x_2^2`$ in $`^2`$ has property $`(SMP)`$.

Example 6.) Suppose that $`L`$ is a linear functional on $`[x]`$ such that
(i) $`L(p\overline{p}+x^3q\overline{q})0`$ for $`p,q[x]`$.
(ii) There is a polynomial $`p_0[x]`$ such that $`L(xp_0\overline{p_0})<0`$.

An explicit example of such a functional $`L`$ was derived in Example 5. By some slight modifications of the construction therein one can have that $`L(x)<0`$. The existence of such a functional follows also from the Hahn-Banach separation theorem of convex sets: Since the preorder $`T_f=\{p\overline{p}+x^3q\overline{q};p,q[x]\}`$ is closed in the finest locally convex toplogy on $`[x]`$ and $`xT_f`$ as easily shown, there is a linear functional $`L`$ on $`[x]`$ such that $`L(T_f)0`$ and $`L(x)<0`$.

Define linear functionals $`L_1`$ on $`[x]`$ and $`L_2`$ on $`[x_1,x_2]`$ by $`L_1(x^{2n})=L(x^n),L_1(x^{2n+1})=0`$ for $`n_0`$ and $`L_2(p(x_1,x_2))=L_1(p(x^2,x^3))`$ for $`p[x_1,x_2]`$. Using the fact that $`L(T_f)0`$ one verifies that $`L_2(p\overline{p})0`$ for all $`p[x_1,x_2].`$ But $`L_2`$ is not a moment functional. Assume to the contrary that $`L_2`$ is given by a positive Borel measure $`\mu `$ on $`^2`$. By the definition of $`L_2`$ the support of $`\mu `$ is contained in the curve $`x_1^3=x_2^2`$. Since $`x_10`$ on this curve and $`L_2(x_1p_0(x_1)\overline{p_0(x_1)}))=L_1(x^2p_0(x^2)\overline{p_0(x^2)})=L(xp_0(x)\overline{p_0(x)})<0`$, we get a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remarks. The results of this paper have shown how the existence of “sufficiently many” bounded polynomials on a closed semi-algebraic set $`K_f`$ can be used for the study of the moment problem on $`K_f`$. One might try to use such an assumption also for other problems such as the strict Positivstellensatz. Consider the following property of a sequence $`f`$:
(SPS): For each $`p[x]`$ such that $`p0`$ on $`K_f`$ there exists $`qT_f`$ such that
$`p+\epsilon qT_f`$ for all $`\epsilon >0`$.
Clearly, $`(SPS)`$ implies $`(SMP)`$. As shown in \[KM\], $`(SPS)`$ holds for the natural choice of generators of a cylinder $`K_h\times `$ with compact base set $`K_h`$. We conclude this paper by stating the following question: Does the assertion of Theorem 1 remain valid if property $`(SMP)`$ is replaced by $`(SPS)`$?


text:
# Linear Einstein equations and Kerr-Schild maps

## 1 Introduction

In 1978 Xanthopoulos has proved a remarkable theorem , establishing the linearity of the Einstein equations for an important class of vacuum metrics. According to his result, given an exact solution $`g`$ of the vacuum Einstein equation $`R_{ac}[g]=0`$ and a null vector field $`l^a`$, any solution of the linearized vacuum Einstein equation $`dR_{ac}[g(\lambda )]/d\lambda _{\lambda =0}=0`$ of the form $`dg_{ac}(\lambda )/d\lambda _{\lambda =0}=l_al_c`$ corresponds to the exact vacuum solution $`g_{ac}+\lambda l_al_c`$ ($`\lambda `$ arbitrary, not necessarily small). Such solutions are of Kerr-Schild (KS) type 111 Kerr-Schild metrics are frequently considered in the form $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ab}=g_{ab}+V\widehat{l}_a\widehat{l}_b`$, with $`V`$ an arbitrary function. Then a geodesic curve with tangent $`\widehat{l}^a`$ can be affinely parametrized such that $`\widehat{l}^b_b\widehat{l}^a=0`$ and the curve is actually a geodesic. We prefer to reparametrize the curve so that $`l_al_b`$ absorbes the potential $`V`$, modulo an arbitrary constant $`\lambda `$. The price to pay is that affine parametrization cannot be required for geodesic curves, therefore we call the tangents to geodesic curves autoparallel vector fields which obey $`l^b_bl^a=fl^a`$. , initially introduced to find exact solutions starting from a flat seed metric $`g_{ac}`$ . The theorem proved by Xanthopoulos assures that exact KS type vacuum solutions can be found by solving the linearized vacuum Einstein equation.

A systematic study of this linearized equation for vacuum-vacuum KS maps in a Newman-Penrose framework revealed  that the generic case with the congruence $`l^a`$ shearing does not contain the shear-free case as a smooth limit. For flat seed space-time the solution of the KS problem is contained in the Kerr theorem , which gives all shear-free geodesic null congruences $`l^a`$ explicitly. The same theorem provides valuable help in the search of KS space-times with conformally flat seed space-times -. The generic shearing case for vacuum was solved both for twisting  and nontwisting null congruences .

An other result relating the linearity of the Einstein equation to KS maps was established by Gürses and Gürsey . They have shown the linearity of the mixed form of Einstein equations for generic KS metrics with flat seed space-time and geodesic KS congruence. Their proof is based on the remark that for KS space-times with flat seed metric a Lorentz-covariant coordinate system can be chosen for which both the Einstein and Landau energy-momentum pseudotensors vanish. Their result is in a sense more restrictive (flat seed metric, geodesic KS congruence), in other sense more general (the KS metric not necessarily vacuum) than the Xanthopoulos theorem. The linearity proved by Gürses and Gürsey however holds only for the mixed form of the Einstein equation.

The natural question arises whether these two results can be generalized? In this paper first we find a theorem similar to the one proved by Xanthopoulos holding in the presence of matter. Basically we establish the set of conditions to impose on the difference of the seed and KS energy-momentum tensors which assure the linearity of the Einstein equation 222 Our approach differs from previous generalizations allowing the same seed and KS energy-momentum tensors which rely on imposition of matter-specific constraints on the null KS vector -. . For this purpose, in section 2 we derive the KS equations, which split into a homogeneous and an inhomogeneous subsystem. With the matter source of the seed metric left arbitrary we seek the KS energy-momentum tensor in the form of a sum of the seed energy-momentum tensor and a polynomial in $`\lambda `$. In the vacuum-vacuum subcase the result of Xanthopoulos is easily recovered.

In section 3 we solve the homogeneous equations, then we turn to the analysis of the inhomogeneous subsystem, composed of the third, second and first order equations in $`\lambda `$. Then we replace the third and second order equations with appropiate conditions on the energy-momentum tensor. These prove our Theorem 1.

Section 4 deals with the particular case of autoparallel congruences. The main result of the paper is announced as Theorem 2. Then some consequences of the linear equation are exploited in order to further simplify the KS energy-momentum tensor.

Finally in section 5 we study the mixed form of the Einstein equation for KS metrics. In case of generic congruences we find that the Einstein equation is quadratic. A sufficient condition assuring linearity is the autoparallelism of the congruence. The result of Gürses and Gürsey arises therefore as a special case. We establish and generalize their result in a covariant manner. Their restriction to flat seed space-time is unnecesary.

## 2 Generalized KS maps

Two connections $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ annihilating the metrics $`g_{ac}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ac}`$ are related  as:

$$\stackrel{~}{}_a\omega _b_a\omega _b=C_{ab}^c\omega _c$$
(1)
where $`\omega _a`$ is any one-form and $`C_{ab}^c`$ is given by

$$C_{ab}^c=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{g}^{cd}(_a\stackrel{~}{g}_{bd}+_b\stackrel{~}{g}_{ad}_d\stackrel{~}{g}_{ab}).$$
(2)
The relation between the Ricci tensors is straightforward:

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{ac}=R_{ac}2_{[a}C_{b]c}^b+2C_{c[a}^eC_{b]e}^b.$$
(3)
When the two metrics are the seed metric and the KS metric of the KS map, defined as

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{ac}=g_{ac}+\lambda l_al_c,\stackrel{~}{g}^{ac}=g^{ac}\lambda l^al^c,l_al^a=0,$$
(4)
($`\lambda `$ arbitrary parameter), Eq. (3) takes the detailed form:

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{ac}=R_{ac}+\lambda R_{ac}^{(1)}+\lambda ^2R_{ac}^{(2)}+\lambda ^3R_{ac}^{(3)}$$
(5)
with the coefficients $`R_{ac}^{(i)}`$ given by

$`R_{ac}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`_b[_{(a}(l_{c)}l^b){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^b(l_al_c)],`$ (6)
$`R_{ac}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`_bl^bl_{(a}Dl_{c)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Dl_aDl_c+l_{(a}DDl_{c)}`$ (7)
$`+l_al_c_bl_d^{[b}l^{d]}Dl^b_bl_{(a}l_{c)},`$
$`R_{ac}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}l_al_cDl^bDl_b.`$ (8)
(We have denoted $`D=l^b_b`$. Round and square brackets on index pairs denote symmetrization and antisymmetrization, respectively.) For later convenience we enlist the relations:

$`R_{ac}^{(1)}g^{ac}`$ $`=`$ $`(_bD+D_b)l^b+(_bl^b)^2,`$ (9)
$`R_{ac}^{(1)}l^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[Dl^b_al_b+_bl^bDl_a+DDl_a`$ (10)
$`+l_a(2_bl_d^{[b}l^{d]}+_bDl^b)],`$
$`R_{ac}^{(1)}l^al^c`$ $`=`$ $`Dl^bDl_b,`$ (11)
$`R_{ac}^{(2)}g^{ac}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Dl^bDl_b,`$ (12)
$`R_{ac}^{(2)}l^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}l_aDl^bDl_b,`$ (13)
$`R_{ac}^{(3)}l^c`$ $`=`$ $`0=R_{ac}^{(3)}g^{ac}.`$ (14)
The Einstein equations for the seed and KS space-times

$$R_{ac}=k(T_{ac}\frac{1}{2}g_{ac}T),\stackrel{~}{R}_{ac}=k(\stackrel{~}{T}_{ac}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{g}_{ac}\stackrel{~}{T})$$
(15)
(where $`T=T_{bd}g^{bd}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}=\stackrel{~}{T}_{bd}\stackrel{~}{g}^{bd}`$), inserted into Eq. (5) give the KS equation

$$k(\stackrel{~}{T}_{ac}T_{ac})\frac{k}{2}g_{ac}(\stackrel{~}{T}T)\frac{k}{2}\lambda l_al_c\stackrel{~}{T}=\lambda R_{ac}^{(1)}+\lambda ^2R_{ac}^{(2)}+\lambda ^3R_{ac}^{(3)}.$$
(16)
We search for the difference of the seed and KS energy-momentum tensors in the form of a polynomial in $`\lambda `$

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{ac}=T_{ac}+\lambda 𝒯_{ac}+\lambda ^2\sigma _{ac}+\lambda ^3\pi _{ac}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{p}{}}\lambda ^{3+n}\pi _{ac}^{(n)}.$$
(17)
(The limit $`p\mathrm{}`$ is allowed.) The parameter $`\lambda `$ being arbitrary, the KS equation (16) decouples in several equations corresponding to different powers of $`\lambda `$. They form a homogeneous

$`(\lambda ^{5+p}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}l_al_c):`$ $`\pi _{bd}^{(p)}l^bl^d=0,`$ (18)
$`(\lambda ^{4+p}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}):`$ $`g_{ac}(\pi _{bd}^{(p)}l^bl^d)+l_al_c(\pi _{bd}^{(p1)}l^bl^d\pi ^{(p)})=0,`$ (19)
$`(\lambda ^{3+n}k,n=\overline{1,p}):`$ $`\pi _{ac}^{(n)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ac}(\pi _{bd}^{(n1)}l^bl^d\pi ^{(n)})`$ (20)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}l_al_c(\pi _{bd}^{(n2)}l^bl^d\pi ^{(n1)})=0,`$
and an inhomogeneous system

$`(\lambda ^3)`$ $`:`$ $`k\left[\pi _{ac}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ac}(\sigma _{bd}l^bl^d\pi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}l_al_c(𝒯_{bd}l^bl^d\sigma )\right]=R_{ac}^{(3)},`$ (21)
$`(\lambda ^2)`$ $`:`$ $`k\left[\sigma _{ac}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ac}(𝒯_{bd}l^bl^d\sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}l_al_c(T_{bd}l^bl^d𝒯)\right]=R_{ac}^{(2)},`$ (22)
$`(\lambda )`$ $`:`$ $`k\left[𝒯_{ac}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ac}(T_{bd}l^bl^d𝒯){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}l_al_cT\right]=R_{ac}^{(1)}.`$ (23)
The brackets preceeding each equation contain the corresponding powers of $`\lambda `$ together with the nonessential multiplying factors, which were dropped. In Eq. (20) $`\pi _{ac}^{(0)}=\pi _{ac}`$ and $`\pi _{ac}^{(1)}=\sigma _{ac}`$. The traces $`\tau ,\sigma ,\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{(n)}`$ are formed with the metric $`g`$.

Eq. (23) is obviously the linearized Einstein equation. It can be obtained independently by the standard linearization procedure, seeking for approximate solutions $`g_{ac}(\lambda )=g_{ac}+\lambda l_al_c`$ in the presence of the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{ac}(\lambda )=T_{ac}+\lambda 𝒯_{ac}`$ (with $`\lambda `$ small). Our aim is to show under what circumstances Eq. (23) implies the rest of the KS equations (18 )-(22).

Vacuum subcase For vacuum-vacuum KS maps all coefficients in the expansion (17) vanish, thus Eqs. (18)-(20) are trivial and Eqs. (21)-(23) reduce to $`R_{ac}^{(i)}=0,i=\overline{1,3}.`$ The twice contracted equation $`R_{ac}^{(1)}l^al^c=0`$ by virtue of Eq. (11) carries the same information as $`R_{ac}^{(3)}=0`$, namely $`Dl^b=fl^b`$. Inserting the condition of autoparallelism in $`R_{ac}^{(i)}=0,i=1,2`$ by virtue of Eq. (10) we find

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`R_{ac}^{(2)}=l_al_c\left[Df+{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{2}}+f_bl^b+_bl_d^{[b}l^{d]}\right],`$ (24)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`R_{ac}^{(1)}l^c=l_a\left[Df+{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{2}}+f_bl^b+_bl_d^{[b}l^{d]}\right].`$ (25)
Thus $`R_{ac}^{(2)}=0`$ is consequence of $`R_{ac}^{(1)}=0`$ and all the information is encoded in the latter equation. Recalling that $`R_{ac}^{(1)}=0`$ is the linearized Einstein equation, we have recovered the result of Xanthopoulos.

## 3 Solution of the nonlinear KS equations

Next we study the generic system (18)-(23).

The Homogenous Subsystem The contraction of Eq. (20) with $`l^al^c`$ gives $`\pi _{ac}^{(n)}l^al^c=0`$. Then from the trace of Eq. ( 20) we find $`\pi ^{(1)}=2\pi _{bd}l^bl^d`$ and $`\pi ^{(m)}=0,m=\overline{2,p}`$. Thus Eq. (20) gives the following solution:

$`\pi _{ac}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ac}(\pi _{bd}l^bl^d){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}l_al_c(\sigma _{bd}l^bl^d\pi )`$ (26)
$`\pi _{ac}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}l_al_c(\pi _{bd}l^bl^d)`$ (27)
$`\pi _{ac}^{(k)}`$ $`=`$ $`0,k=\overline{3,p}`$ (28)
Eq. (28) solves the rest of the homogeneous subsystem, Eqs. (18 ) and (19) too.

The Inhomogeneous Subsystem The contraction of Eq. (23) with $`l^al^c`$ gives

$$k𝒯_{ac}l^al^c=Dl^bDl_b.$$
(29)
Then the trace and the $`l^c`$ projection of Eq. (22) imply

$$k\sigma =(3/2)Dl^bDl_b,k\sigma _{ac}l^c=(3/4)l_aDl^bDl_b.$$
(30)
Inserting these into the third order equation (21), we find:

$$k\pi _{ac}=\frac{3}{4}l_al_cDl^bDl_b.$$
(31)
As a by-product we find $`\pi _{ac}^{(1)}=0=\pi _{ac}^{(2)}`$. Therefore whenever the KS energy-momentum tensor has the form

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{ac}=T_{ac}+\lambda 𝒯_{ac}+\lambda ^2\sigma _{ac}\frac{3}{4k}\lambda ^3l_al_cDl^bDl_b,$$
(32)
only the first and second order KS equations are independent.

Next we remark that the $`l^c`$ projection of the first order equation (23):

$$k\left[𝒯_{ab}l^b+\frac{1}{2}l_a(T_{bd}l^bl^d𝒯)\right]=R_{ab}^{(1)}l^b$$
(33)
simplifies the second order KS equation (22). We obtain:

$$k\sigma _{ac}=kl_{(a}𝒯_{c)b}l^b\frac{1}{4}g_{ac}Dl^bDl_b+P_{(ac)}^{(2)},$$
(34)
where

$$P_{ac}^{(2)}=R_{ac}^{(2)}l_cR_{ab}^{(1)}l^b.$$
(35)
From Eqs. (7) and (10) we find:

$`2P_{ac}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`_bl^bl_aDl_c+Dl_aDl_c+l_aDDl_c`$ (36)
$`+Dl^b\left(l_c_al_b2l_{(a}_bl_{c)}\right)l_al_c_bDl^b.`$
Thus Eq. (34), expressing $`\sigma _{ac}`$ in terms of $`𝒯_{ac},g_{ac}`$ and $`l^a`$ is a substitute for the second order equation ( 22). Whenever the KS energy-momentum tensor has the expression (32) and Eqs. (34) and (36) hold, the only independent KS equation is the linear one. We have proved:

###### Theorem 1

Let $`g_{ac}`$ be a solution of the Einstein equations for the matter field $`T_{ac}`$ and $`l^a`$ a null vector field. Any solution $`(l_al_c,𝒯_{ac})`$ of the linearized Einstein equation on the background $`(g_{ac},T_{ac})`$ corresponds to an exact solution of Kerr-Schild type $`g_{ac}+\lambda l_al_c`$ (with $`\lambda `$ arbitrary) of the Einstein equation with the energy-momentum tensor given by Eqs. (32 ), (34) and (36).

## 4 Autoparallel Congruences

A more elegant result holds for autoparallel congruences ($`Dl^b=fl^b`$). A simple check shows

$$P_{ac}^{(2)}=0,$$
(37)
and the content of Eqs. (32) and (34) reduces to

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{ac}=T_{ac}+\lambda 𝒯_{ac}+\lambda ^2l_{(a}𝒯_{c)b}l^b.$$
(38)
We announce

###### Theorem 2

Let $`g_{ac}`$ be a solution of the Einstein equations for the matter field $`T_{ac}`$ and $`l^a`$ an autoparallel null vector field. Any solution $`(l_al_c,𝒯_{ac})`$ of the linearized Einstein equation on the background $`(g_{ac},T_{ac})`$ corresponds to an exact solution of Kerr-Schild type $`g_{ac}+\lambda l_al_c`$ (with $`\lambda `$ arbitrary) of the Einstein equation with the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{ac}+\lambda 𝒯_{ac}+\lambda ^2l_{(a}𝒯_{c)b}l^b`$.

Some consequences of the remaining linear equation Eq. (23) are immediate when the congruence is autoparallel.

###### Theorem 3

The null vector of the KS metric is autoparallel if and only if either of the following conditions hold:

$$𝒯_{ac}l^al^c=0(\stackrel{~}{T}_{ac}T_{ac})l^al^c=0.$$
(39)
Proof.  The first statement is obvious from Eq. (29). Then $`Dl^b=fl^b`$ and (38) give the second statement.

Conversely, Eqs. (38) and (39) imply the autoparallelism of the null congruence. Our Theorem 3 generalizes Theorem 28.1 of Kramer et al. , given there for flat seed space-time.

###### Theorem 4

The autoparallel null vector of the KS metric is an eigenvector of the difference of KS and seed energy-momentum tensors.

$$𝒯_{ac}l^c=\alpha l_a(\stackrel{~}{T}_{ac}T_{ac})l^c=\alpha l_a.$$
(40)
Proof.  For autoparallel KS congruence the $`l^c`$ projection of the linear equation, Eq. (33) becomes

$$k\left[𝒯_{ac}l^c+\frac{1}{2}l_a(T_{bd}l^bl^d𝒯)\right]=l_a\left(Df+\frac{f^2}{2}+f_bl^b+_bl_d^{[b}l^{d]}\right),$$
(41)
which implies the first statement. Then the second statement is consequence of Eq. (38)

Eq. (40), first derived by Martin and Senovilla  was exploited in the search of KS type perfect fluid solutions -. The restriction of Theorem 4 to flat seed metric is Theorem 28.2 of Kramer et al. , interpreted as a constitutive constraint for elastic solid type KS solutions . Due to Eq. (40) the energy-momentum tensor (38) becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{ac}=T_{ac}+\lambda 𝒯_{ac}+\lambda ^2\alpha l_al_c.$$
(42)
As consequence, the mixed form of the KS energy-momentum tensor is linear in $`\lambda `$:

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_a^b=\stackrel{~}{T}_{ac}\stackrel{~}{g}^{cb}`$ $`=`$ $`(g^{cb}\lambda l^cl^b)(T_{ac}+\lambda 𝒯_{ac}+\lambda ^2\alpha l_al_c)`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`T_a^b+\lambda (𝒯_a^bl^bT_{ac}l^c).`$
We compute the undetermined coefficient $`\alpha `$ as follows. Eqs. (41 ) and (40) imply

$$k\alpha =Df+\frac{f^2}{2}+f_bl^b+_bl_d^{[b}l^{d]}\frac{k}{2}(T_{bd}l^bl^d𝒯).$$
(44)
The trace of the linear KS equation (23) gives

$$k(3T_{bd}l^bl^d𝒯)=2Df+2f_bl^b_bl_d^dl^b+(_bl^b)^2.$$
(45)
In the derivation of Eq. (45) we have employed the identity

$$D_bl^b=_bDl^b_bl_d^dl^bR_{bd}l^bl^d,$$
(46)
the autoparallelism of $`l^c`$ and the Einstein equations (15). By combining Eqs. (44) and (45) we express $`\alpha `$ in terms of $`f,T_{ac},g_{ac}`$ and $`l^a`$:

$$2k\alpha =f^2+_bl_d^bl^d(_bl^b)^2+2kT_{bd}l^bl^d.$$
(47)
Then in the announcement of Theorem 2 one can replace the expression (38) with the set (42) and (47).

## 5 The linearity of the Einstein equations in the mixed form

We would like to see, how the previous results relate to the theorem of Gürses and Gürsey, according to which for flat seed space-time the mixed form of the Einstein equation is linear in $`\lambda `$.

We study generic KS congruences. From the KS condition on the metric (4) we find $`\stackrel{~}{g}_a^b=g_a^b=\delta _a^b`$. From Eq. (3) the following relation between the mixed forms of the Ricci tensors emerges

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_a^b=R_a^b+\lambda P_a^{(1)b}+\lambda ^2P_a^{(2)b}+\lambda ^3P_a^{(3)b}+\lambda ^4P_a^{(4)b},$$
(48)
with the coefficients $`P_a^{(i)b}`$ on the right hand side given by

$`P_a^{(1)b}`$ $`=`$ $`R_a^{(1)b}l^bR_{ac}l^c,`$ (49)
$`P_a^{(2)b}`$ $`=`$ $`R_a^{(2)b}l^bR_{ac}^{(1)}l^c,`$ (50)
$`P_a^{(3)b}`$ $`=`$ $`R_a^{(3)b}l^bR_{ac}^{(2)}l^c,`$ (51)
$`P_a^{(4)b}`$ $`=`$ $`l^bR_{ac}^{(3)}l^c.`$ (52)
We have denoted $`R_a^{(i)b}=R_{ac}^{(i)}g^{cb}`$. From Eqs. (8), (13) and (14) we see immediately that $`P_a^{(3)b}=P_a^{(4)b}=0`$, therefore $`\stackrel{~}{R}_a^b`$ is only quadratic in $`\lambda .`$ By inserting the mixed form of the Einstein equations (15) into Eq. (48), we obtain the mixed form of the KS equation:

$$k(\stackrel{~}{T}_a^bT_a^b)\frac{k}{2}\delta _a^b(\stackrel{~}{T}T)=\lambda P_a^{(1)b}+\lambda ^2P_a^{(2)b},$$
(53)
or after the elimination of traces

$$k(\stackrel{~}{T}_a^bT_a^b)=\lambda \left[P_a^{(1)b}\frac{1}{2}\delta _a^bP^{(1)}\right]+\lambda ^2\left[P_a^{(2)b}\frac{1}{2}\delta _a^bP^{(2)}\right].$$
(54)
It is obvious that the difference of the mixed forms of the seed and KS energy-momentum tensors is quadratic in $`\lambda .`$ Let us denote then

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_a^b=T_a^b+\lambda 𝒮_a^b+\lambda ^2𝒮_a^{(2)b}.$$
(55)
Decomposition of Eq. (53) with respect to powers of $`\lambda `$ gives:

$`k\left(𝒮_a^b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _a^b𝒮\right)`$ $`=`$ $`P_a^{(1)b}.`$ (56)
$`k\left(𝒮_a^{(2)b}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _a^b𝒮^{(2)}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`P_a^{(2)b}.`$ (57)
As before, the contraction of Eq. (56) with $`l_b`$ results in an equation with the same r.h.s. as Eq. (57):

$$R_a^{(2)b}k\left(l^b𝒮_a^cl_c\frac{1}{2}l_al^b𝒮\right)=P_a^{(2)b}.$$
(58)
Comparison gives the condition, under which the second order equation is consequence of the first order one:

$$k\left(𝒮_a^{(2)b}\frac{1}{2}\delta _a^b𝒮^{(2)}\right)=R_a^{(2)b}k\left(l^b𝒮_a^cl_c\frac{1}{2}l_al^b𝒮\right).$$
(59)
Thus we have the following

###### Corollary 5

Let $`g_{ac}`$ be a solution of the Einstein equations for the matter field $`T_{ac}`$ and $`l^a`$ a null vector field. Any solution $`(l_al^b,𝒮_a^b)`$ of the linearized Einstein equation (in mixed form) on the given background corresponds to an exact solution $`\delta _a^b+\lambda l_al^b`$ (with $`\lambda `$ arbitrary) of the (mixed form) Einstein equation with the energy-momentum tensor given by Eqs (55) and (59).

For autoparallel null congruences $`P_a^{(2)b}=P_{ac}^{(2)}g^{cb}`$ vanishes by virtue of Eq. (37). Therefore the mixed form of the Einstein equation Eq. (53) becomes linear in $`\lambda `$.

###### Corollary 6

Let $`g_{ac}`$ be a solution of the Einstein equations for the matter field $`T_{ac}`$ and $`l^a`$ an autoparallel null vector field. Then the mixed form of the Einstein equation for the KS metric $`\delta _a^b+\lambda l_al^b`$ and energy-momentum tensor $`\stackrel{~}{T}_a^b=T_a^b+\lambda 𝒮_a^b`$ is linear in $`\lambda `$.

Here $`𝒮_a^b=𝒯_a^bl^bT_{ac}l^c`$, cf. Eq. (43). The result of Gürses and Gürsey, established for flat seed metric, is contained as a special case.

## 6 Concluding Remarks

The main result of the paper is the generalization of the Xanthopoulos theorem. We have found the form of the KS energy-momentum tensor for which the Einstein equations are linear, regardless of the seed energy-momentum tensor. The importance of both versions of our theorem is given by the expectation that solving the linearized Einstein equation is easier (although not trivial at all, as shown by previous analysis of the vacuum case , and ). Still, in the case of autoparallel null congruences the simplicity of the KS energy-momentum tensor linearizing the Einstein equation is promising.

The second Corollary generalizes the result of Gürses and Gürsey  for non-flat seed metrics. Our result relies only on the autoparallelism of the KS congruence. The equivalent condition on the energy-momentum tensors is given by Eq. (39).

Finally we remark that additional constraints on the energy-momentum tensors possibly emerge, when in order to assure that the local energy density measured by any local observer is positive, we impose the weak energy condition on both energy-momentum tensors $`T_{ac}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ac}`$:

$$T_{ac}t^at^b0,\stackrel{~}{T}_{ac}\stackrel{~}{t}^a\stackrel{~}{t}^b0.$$
(60)
Here $`t^a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}^a`$ are arbitrary time-like vector fields in the metrics $`g_{ac}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ac}`$, respectively. These conditions are not immediately exploitable in the general case. In the particular case of algebraically special vacuum seed space-time and autoparallel null congruence for instance Nahmad-Achar  has obtained from Eq. (60) a (first order differential) inequality on the spin coefficients.

This work has been completed under the support of the Zoltán Magyary Fellowship. The author is grateful for the financial support of the organizers of the 9th Canadian Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, Edmonton, 2001, where a preliminary version of this work was presented.

## References