text:
# MOND mass-to-light ratios for galaxy groups

## 1 introduction

It is important to test MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) on systems other then disc galaxies, for which it arguably performs well (see, e.g., Sanders (1996); de Blok $`\&`$ McGaugh (1998); Sanders $`\&`$ Verheijen (1998), and, for a recent review on MOND, Sanders $`\&`$ McGaugh (2002)). And, it has been pointed out that MOND does not fully explain away the mass discrepancy in the inner parts of x-ray galaxy clusters (The $`\&`$ White (1988); Gerbal et al. (1992); Aguirre Schaye $`\&`$ Quataert (2001)). Loose galaxy groups have masses similar to those of galaxies (or somewhat larger) and sizes comparable with those of the inner regions of galaxy clusters (mean projected radii of several hundred kpc); we thus note, in the context of MOND, that galaxy groups probe rather smaller accelerations than either galaxies or clusters: The typical accelerations in such groups are an order of magnitude smaller than those reached in LSB galaxies, or in the outskirts of HSB galaxies.

MOND analysis of groups has so far been applied only to mean properties of whole group catalogues. Based on published mean values of luminosities and velocity dispersions, Milgrom (1998) estimated MOND mean-mass-to-mean-luminosity values for four group catalogues. Values of a few solar units were found, instead of 100-200 solar units found in a Newtonian analysis.

Tully et al. (2002) have recently published data and analysis for nine individual, nearby groups. These, with the group parameters listed by them, lend themselves to MOND analysis.

This small new sample is particularly interesting in the present context because it lists separately groups that contain luminous galaxies and those comprising only dwarf galaxies, and because Tully et al. (2002) find that the latter have $`M/L`$values of $`3001200`$ solar units, significantly larger than those of the former, with $`10150`$ solar units. In MOND, large mass discrepancies are supposed to bespeak low accelerations; so, this dichotomy should follow from a disparity in the characteristic accelerations in these two types of groups. Inasmuch as the $`M/L`$values for individual groups are still rather uncertain, this affords an interesting statistical test, intermediate between testing individual groups and testing mean values for the whole sample.

## 2 METHOD

I use two MOND mass estimators for the groups

$$M\frac{81}{4}\sigma _{los}^4(Ga_0)^1,$$
(1)
and

$$M\frac{81}{4}\sigma _{los}^4(Ga_0)^1(1N^{1/2})^2,$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _{los}`$ is the line-of-sight velocity dispersion, $`N`$ is the number of galaxies listed for the group, and $`a_0`$ is the MOND acceleration constant taken to be $`a_0=1.2\times 10^8`$cm s-2, as deduced from the rotation-curve analysis of Begeman Broeils $`\&`$ Sanders (1991). These estimators can be derived as approximations to the relation

$$(𝐯𝐯_{com})^2_t=\frac{2}{3}(MGa_0)^{1/2}[1\underset{i}{}(m_i/M)^{3/2}],$$
(3)
where $`𝐯`$ is the 3-D velocity, $`𝐯_{com}`$ is the center-of-mass velocity, $``$ is the mass-weighted average over the constituents, whose masses are $`m_i`$, $`_t`$ is the long-time average, and $`M`$ is the total mass.

Relation(3) (Milgrom (1994, 1997)) is exact for a bound system of point masses in the formulation of MOND as modified gravity (Bekenstein $`\&`$ Milgrom (1984)) in the deep-MOND limit: accelerations much smaller than $`a_0`$. It is also assumed that the system is isolated in the MOND sense, i.e., is not subject to an external field. (Interestingly, the fact that the time-average rms velocity dispersion depends solely on the constituent masses–and not, e.g., on system size–follows from the conformal invariance of this limit of the theory, as shown by Milgrom (1997).) All groups in the Tully et al. (2002) sample are, indeed, deep in the MOND regime.

The assumptions and approximations leading from relation (3) to the simplified relations (1) and (2) are discussed in more detail in Milgrom (1998). Briefly, (i) I drop the long-time average, and (ii) replace the 3-D quantity $`(𝐯𝐯_{com})^2`$ by the line-of-sight, statistical substitute $`3(vv_{com})_{los}^2`$. These assumptions are also, effectively, made in the Newtonian analysis. Also, (iii) Tully et al. (2002) give not the mass-weighted velocity dispersion as needed in eq.(3), but the unweighted line-of-sight dispersion $`\sigma _v`$, which I use instead. And, (iv) in eq.(1) I approximate the right-hand side of eq.(3) by $`\frac{2}{3}(MGa_0)^{1/2}`$, which is valid in the limit of large number of constituents, $`N`$, each having a mass $`M/NM`$. In eq.(2) which gives a higher estimate, I don’t assume that $`N`$ is very large. I use eq.(1) as a useful value beside estimator (2), because the latter is too large when the masses are not equal, and because $`N`$ given in Tully et al. (2002) is not the full number of galaxies in the group, which should be used in the estimator. For example, in the case of one very dominant galaxy, with all the rest being of equal and negligible masses, even the smaller estimate (1) is too large and has to be reduced by a factor $`4/9`$.

As explained in Milgrom (1998), the possible breakdown of these assumptions introduces, typically, ‘factor-of-a-few’ errors. Furthermore, it is hardly ever certain, for an individual group candidate, that the assumptions underlying eq.(3) itself hold. The questions of contamination by interlopers, boundedness of the group, and virial equilibrium always loom, and can introduce large errors. In MOND, there is an additional worry having to do with the external-field effect (EFE): If the group is falling in the field of an external structure with an acceleration, $`a_{ex}`$, larger than its internal accelerations, $`a_{in}`$, then eqs.(1)-(3) do not apply. These expressions then underestimate the mass, and $`M/L`$value, of the group by roughly $`a_{in}/a_{ex}<1`$.

The issue of virialization is particularly worrisome in light of the large dynamical times for some of the groups in the sample. However, our estimators are useful even if the dynamical time is comparable with the Hubble time, provided it is also comparable with the lifetime of the group. This is because, by MOND, the typical acceleration with which the system is collapsing is $`g(MGa_0/R^2)^{1/2}`$ ($`R`$ a characteristic radius of the group). And, if the collapse time can be approximated by $`\tau R/v`$, with $`v`$ the representative three-D velocity, then $`vgt(MGa_0)^{1/2}/v`$, from which eq.(1)(2) follow as order-of-magnitude approximations.

## 3 Results and discussion

The MOND $`M/L`$estimates for the nine groups are presented in the last two columns of Table 1 together with the Newtonian values (column 7) and other pertinent group parameters from Tully et al. (2002): group designation (c. 1), number of galaxies included (c. 2), mean projected radius $`R_p`$ (c. 3), velocity dispersion $`\sigma _v`$(c. 4), $`\tau =R_p/\sigma _v`$ as some measure of the dynamical time (c. 5), and total luminosity (c. 6). The last four lines are for dwarfs-only groups.

We see that the MOND $`M/L`$estimates fall around a few solar units. The group 14+13 is the only one with an unacceptably small MOND $`M/L`$value (see below).

We also see no systematic difference between the dwarf-only groups and those containing luminous galaxies. The large disparity in their Newtonian $`M/L`$values is traced back to the significantly smaller acceleration in the dwarf-only groups. These have similar radii to those of the luminous groups but rather smaller velocity dispersions.

Some of the groups have $`\tau `$ values of order, and even exceeding, the Hubble time. The group 14+13 has a particularly long dynamical time, which perhaps explains the too low value of $`M/L`$in MOND. Its listed velocity dispersion (12 km s-1) is exceptionally small compared with the other non-dwarf groups (between 50 and 100 km s-1) and may be far below the virial velocity, not yet achieved. (To get a MOND $`M/L`$value of 1 solar unit with estimator (2) the virial velocity dispersion has to be 35 km s-1.) Alternatively, we may be seeing a virialized, quasi-planar, low-inclination system; in which case, again, the observed line-of-sight dispersion is much below the value that should go into the mass estimator. A possible involvement of the EFE may also have to be reckoned with (see below).

It is difficult to estimate the external field in which individual groups in the study are falling–due, say, to large-scale structure–and so to assess the importance of the EFE. But, values of order $`0.01a_0`$ are not unreasonable. For example, this is, roughly, the MOND acceleration 130 Mpc away from a galaxy cluster with an asymptotic, isotropic, line-of-sight velocity dispersion of 1000 km s-1 (30 Mpc for 500 km s-1). Since the groups under study are within 5 Mpc of us, even the Coma and Virgo clusters, were they each the only attractor present, could contribute accelerations of this magnitude. (Remember that when there is more then one attractor the MOND acceleration is not the sum of contributions.) The physics of the EFE implies that for an external acceleration of $`\eta a_0`$ the MOND-to-Newtonian mass ratio cannot be smaller than roughly $`\eta `$. The MOND-to-Newtonian mass ratios that I find for some of the groups \[especially with estimator (1)\] are comparable to, or smaller than $`1/100`$. This means that in some of the groups, the MOND mass estimates in Table 1 may be too small because they ignore the EFE.

Note also that the $`M/L`$values in the table are not the stellar values, but the total (baryonic) ones. Because in some of these groups the gas fraction is considerable, the $`M/L`$values have to be corrected down to yield the stellar ones. For the 14+13 group, the MOND mass estimate using eq.(2), of $`10^8M_{}`$, is totally unacceptable, because it is smaller than even the gas mass alone, deduced to be about $`5\times 10^9M_{}`$.

Clearly then, the individual MOND $`M/L`$values for the groups are highly uncertain. All we can say is that MOND does correct the huge Newtonian $`M/L`$values down to proportions compatible with baryonic mass alone, and with no systematic differences apparent between the two classes of groups.

I thank the referee for very helpful suggestions.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a famous paper, van Dam and Veltman  (see also Zakharov ) studied a massive spin-2 field that couples to matter as the graviton, namely as $`h^{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }`$ ($`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the conserved stress-energy tensor). They showed that, at distances much smaller than the Compton wavelength of the massive graviton, one recovers Newton’s law by an appropriate choice of the spin-2 coupling constant. On the other hand, in the small-mass limit, the bending angle of light by a massive body approaches $`3/4`$ of the Einstein result. This is the vDVZ discontinuity. A physical explanation of this phenomenon is that a massive spin-2 field carries 5 polarizations, whereas a massless one carries only two. In the limit $`m0`$, therefore, a massive spin-2 field decomposes into massless fields of spin 2, 1, and 0. The spin-0 field couples to the trace of the stress-energy tensor, so that in the limit $`m0`$ one does not recover Einstein’s gravity but rather a scalar-tensor theory.

This result seems to rule out any modification of Einstein’s gravity in which the principle of equivalence still holds, but the graviton acquires a mass, no matter how tiny.

In the presence of a negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, on an Anti de Sitter background, the one-graviton amplitude between conserved sources is continuous in the limit $`m^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ , so that one cannot rule a massive graviton with a Compton wavelength of the order of the Hubble scale. In refs. , it was shown from various viewpoints that the AdS graviton may indeed become massive, when standard gravity is coupled to conformal matter.

On a de Sitter background, a massive spin-2 field is unitary only if $`m^22\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$ .

All of this makes perfect sense, yet, the very fact that experiments at a scale of roughly an astronomical unit can tell that the mass of the graviton is smaller than the inverse Hubble radius is baffling to some. After all, the latter scale is $`10^{16}`$ times smaller than the former!

In fact, several old  and recent  papers have claimed or argued that the vDVZ discontinuity is an artifact of the Pauli-Fierz Lagrangian, i.e. of the linearization of the true, covariant, non-linear equations of massive gravity.

Most of the renewed attempts to go beyond the linear approximation to massive gravity have exploited the DGP model , which has both a massive-graviton spectrum and four-dimensional general covariance.

In this letter, we would like to study the existence of a general covariant vDVZ discontinuity from two points of view.

First of all, in Section 2, we exhibit explicitly covariant, fully nonlinear equations of motion for a massive spin-2 field coupled to matter that, after linearization, reduce to the Pauli-Fierz system studied in . We show that the discontinuity found in the linearized equations persists at the non-linear, fully covariant level by finding a covariant constraint not present in standard, massless gravity. This definitely settles in the affirmative the question of whether a general-covariant extension of the vDVZ result exists.

In Section 3, we study the DGP model, for two reasons. The first is that it is a promising candidate for a brane-world realization of gravity, which may even shed light on the cosmological constant problem. The second is that the covariantization studied in the first part of the paper is far from being unquestionable. Besides being somewhat arbitrary, so that it does not rule out the possibility of other discontinuity-free covariantizations, it is also non-local. Non-locality signals the presence of other light, possibly unphysical degrees of freedom coupled to ordinary matter (negative-norm ghosts, for instance). The DGP model, instead, is a consistent model that exhibits a vDVZ discontinuity at linear order. We show that there, as argued in , the discontinuity does indeed disappear when the DGP is studied beyond its linear approximation. To prove that, we relate the breakdown of the linear approximation to the fact that the brane can bend in the fifth dimension, so that its induced curvature may be large even when the source on the brane is weak.

## 2 Covariantization of the Pauli-Fierz Action

A long time ago, Pauli and Fierz  found a local, covariant action describing a free, massive spin-2 field. The action is unique up to field redefinitions and it reads

$$S=S_L[h_{\mu \nu }]+d^4x\left[\frac{M^2}{64\pi G}(h_{\mu \nu }^2h^2)\frac{1}{2}h_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }\right].$$
(1)
Here, $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is an external source, that we assume to be conserved and identify with the stress-energy tensor of matter. $`S_L[h_{\mu \nu }]`$ is the Einstein action expanded to quadratic order in the metric fluctuations around flat space:

$`S_L[h_{\mu \nu }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi G}}{\displaystyle d^4xh^{\mu \nu }L_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }h^{\rho \sigma }},`$
$`S_E[\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{det(\eta +h)}R(\eta +h)}=S_L[h_{\mu \nu }]+O(h^3).`$ (2)
At $`M=0`$, the action in Eq. (1) is obviously invariant under linearized diffeomorphisms

$$h_{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }+_\mu \xi _\nu +_\nu \xi _\mu ,$$
(3)
but the mass term explicitly breaks this invariance. A gauge-invariant form of the Pauli-Fierz action is achieved by using the Stückelberg mechanism, i.e. by adding a vector field that transforms linearly under local diffeomorphisms:

$$A_\mu A_\mu \xi _\mu .$$
(4)
Substituting $`h_{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }+2_{(\mu }A_{\nu )}`$ in Eq. (1) we find the manifestly gauge-invariant “Stückelberg-Pauli-Fierz” (SPF) action

$$S_{SPF}[h]=S_L[h]+d^4x\left\{\frac{M^2}{64\pi G}[(h_{\mu \nu }+2_{(\mu }A_{\nu )})^2(h+2A)^2]\frac{1}{2}h_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }\right\}.$$
(5)
The gauge-invariant equations of motion are

$`L_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }h^{\rho \sigma }+M^2[h_{\mu \nu }+2_{(\mu }A_{\nu )}\eta _{\mu \nu }(h+2A)]`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi GT_{\mu \nu },`$ (6)
$`^\nu F_{\nu \mu }+J_\mu =0,J_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`^\nu h_{\mu \nu }_\mu h.`$ (7)
Of course, $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$. Notice that the Pauli-Fierz mass term is precisely the combination that gives a gauge-invariant equation of motion for $`A_\mu `$. Equation (7) is easily solved by

$$A_\mu =\mathrm{}^1J_\mu +_\mu \varphi .$$
(8)
$`\varphi `$ is an arbitrary function since Eq. (7) is invariant under the gauge transformation $`A_\mu A_\mu +_\mu \chi `$. We can then select a particular solution to Eq. (7) by choosing $`\varphi =\mathrm{}^1h`$:

$$A_\mu =\mathrm{}^1I_\mu ,I=^\nu h_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}_\mu h.$$
(9)
Substituting this $`A_\mu `$ into Eq. (6) we arrive at a particularly interesting form of the equations of motion:

$$L_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }h^{\rho \sigma }+M^2[h_{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }+2_{(\mu }\mathrm{}^1I_{\nu )}\eta _{\mu \nu }(h2\mathrm{}^1I)]=16\pi GT_{\mu \nu }.$$
(10)
Recalling the definition of $`I_\mu `$, and noticing that $`L_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }h^{\rho \sigma }`$ is by construction proportional to the linearized Einstein tensor, $`L_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }h^{\rho \sigma }=2G_{\mu \nu }^L=2R_{\mu \nu }^L\eta _{\mu \nu }R^L`$, we can be recast Eq. (10) into the suggestive form

$$G_{\mu \nu }^LM^2\mathrm{}^1(R_{\mu \nu }^L\eta _{\mu \nu }R^L)=8\pi GT_{\mu \nu }.$$
(11)
It is now obvious how to promote the Pauli-Fierz equations into a fully covariant form. First, we notice that any symmetric tensor $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ can be decomposed as $`S_{\mu \nu }=S_{\mu \nu }^T+D_{(\mu }S_{\nu )}`$, $`D^\mu S_{\mu \nu }^T=0`$. Then, we replace all linearized tensors in Eq. (11) with their exact form

$$G_{\mu \nu }M^2\left(\mathrm{}^1G_{\mu \nu }\right)^T+\frac{1}{2}M^2g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}^1R=8\pi GT_{\mu \nu },$$
(12)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ obeys the covariant conservation equation $`D^\mu T_{\mu \nu }=0`$. We can also find the covariant form of the vDVZ discontinuity. By taking the double divergence of Eq. (12), we get a new constraint on the metric, not present in Einstein’s gravity:

$$D^\mu D^\nu \left[G_{\mu \nu }M^2\left(\mathrm{}^1G_{\mu \nu }\right)^T+\frac{1}{2}M^2g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}^1R\right]=\frac{M^2}{2}R=0.$$
(13)
Clearly this constraint, implying that the scalar curvature is zero everywhere, cannot be satisfied by a metric obeying Einstein’s equations up to a small deformation $`o(M)`$. Notice also that we would have missed the existence of the discontinuity if we only studied the Einstein vacuum equations, $`R_{\mu \nu }=0`$. In the covariantization studied here, the discontinuity appears only when comparing Eq. (13) with the Einstein equations in matter, where $`R=8\pi GT0`$.

Eq. (12) is fully covariant and it reduces to the PFS equations to linear order, but it is far from satisfactory. The first problem is that it is by no means the only covariantization of Eq. (11), so that we cannot exclude a priori that other covariantizations exist, in which the vDVZ discontinuity disappears. Secondly, Eq. (12) cannot be derived from a covariant action, since if that were the case its covariant divergence would automatically vanish, instead of giving the constraint Eq. (13). One could hope that a “good” covariantization, where the divergence of the equations of motions vanishes identically, may also cure the discontinuity.

A third, more serious problem, is that Eq. (12) is nonlocal and it may, therefore, describe the propagation of other light, possibly unphysical degrees of freedom.

We address the first and third problems in the next Section, when discussing a consistent embedding of massive gravity into a ghost-free theory: the DGP model.

The second problem is addressed here, by showing that another covariantization of Eq. (11) exists, with the desired property that the covariant divergence vanishes identically, but in which the vDVZ discontinuity is still present.

First of all, recall that Eq. (8) depends on an arbitrary scalar function. We can then write, generically,

$$A_\mu =\mathrm{}^1I_\mu +_\mu \phi .$$
(14)
We can also introduce another scalar, $`\psi `$, and redefine the linearized metric as

$$h_{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }+\eta _{\mu \nu }\psi .$$
(15)
This redefinition changes the (linearized) Einstein tensor and the scalar curvature as follows

$$G_{\mu \nu }^LG_{\mu \nu }^L+\eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\psi _\mu _\nu \psi ,R^LR^L3\mathrm{}\psi .$$
(16)
Thanks to Eqs. (14,16) we can re-write the PFS equations as

$`G_{\mu \nu }^LM^2\mathrm{}^1\left[G_{\mu \nu }^L{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\left(R^L3\mathrm{}\psi \right)\right]+`$
$`(1M^2\mathrm{}^1)(\eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\psi _\mu _\nu \psi )M^2(\eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\phi _\mu _\nu \phi )`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi GT_{\mu \nu }.`$ (17)
This equation can be simplified by setting $`3\mathrm{}\psi =R^L`$, and $`(1M^2\mathrm{}^1)\psi =M^2\phi `$:

$$(1M^2\mathrm{}^1)G_{\mu \nu }^L=8\pi GT_{\mu \nu }.$$
(18)
By taking the trace of Eq. (18), we find $`(M^2\mathrm{}^11)R^L=8\pi GT`$, so that we can re-write the equation that defines $`\psi `$ in a more instructive form

$$(\mathrm{}M^2)\psi =\frac{8\pi }{3}GT.$$
(19)
The covariantization of Eqs. (18,19) is now obvious

$$G_{\mu \nu }M^2\left(\mathrm{}^1G_{\mu \nu }\right)^T=8\pi GT_{\mu \nu },(\mathrm{}M^2)\psi =\frac{8\pi }{3}GT.$$
(20)
Notice that the divergence of the tensor equation is automatically zero thanks to the covariant conservation of the stress-energy tensor and a standard Bianchi identity of general relativity. Notice also that the vDVZ discontinuity is still present, as Eqs. (20) describe a scalar-tensor theory, in which the massive scalar $`\psi `$ couples with gravitational strength to the trace of the stress-energy tensor.

## 3 Absence of vDVZ Discontinuity in the DGP Model

The results of the previous Section seem to indicate that even a consistent theory of massive gravity may suffer from a vDVZ discontinuity besides the linear order. Nevertheless, we will show that this is not the case in the DGP model, as already argued in  (see also ).

The DGP model describes a 4-d brane moving in a 5-d space with vanishing cosmological constant. In five dimensions, the Einstein action is

$$S_5=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^5x\frac{1}{16\pi \widehat{G}}\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\widehat{R}(\widehat{g})+S_{GH}.$$
(21)
Here, hatted quantities are five-dimensional, while un-hatted ones are four-dimensional. The integral is performed over a space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that is, topologically, the direct product of the real half-line $`R^+`$ and the 4-d Minkowski space $`M_4`$. We parametrize this space with four-dimensional coordinates $`x^\mu `$, $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$ and a fifth coordinate $`yx^4`$. $`S_{GH}`$ is the Gibbons-Hawking boundary term , whose explicit form we will not need.

The model is specified by the Einstein equations inside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and by boundary conditions at the brane’s position, i.e. at the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=M_4`$:

$$\frac{1}{16\pi \widehat{G}}K_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta S_5[g]}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\left(R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R\right)\frac{1}{2}T_{\mu \nu }.$$
(22)
As evident from this equation, the brane has a 4-d nonzero Newton’s constant $`G`$. $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the stress-energy tensor of the matter living on the brane. The 4-d cosmological constant is assumed to be negligible. This corresponds to a limit in which the brane is almost tensionless, and possesses only a bending energy, proportional to the extrinsic curvature $`K_{\mu \nu }`$. It is convenient to work in Gaussian coordinates where the brane is located at $`y=0`$, and where

$$g_{\mu 4}(x,y)|_{y=0}=0.$$
(23)
In these coordinates,

$$K_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g_{44}}(\dot{g}_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }g^{\alpha \beta }\dot{g}_{\alpha \beta }).$$
(24)
The dot denotes the derivative w.r.t. $`y`$. The linearization of Eq. (22) has been given in . It is most conveniently performed in the 5-d harmonic gauge:

$$_ah_b^a\frac{1}{2}_bh=0,\widehat{g}_{ab}=\eta _{ab}+h_{ab},a,b=0,..,4.$$
(25)
This gauge choice is compatible with Eqs. (23); indeed, it is compatible with setting $`g_{\mu 4}=0`$ everywhere in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. After this last gauge choice, the linearized equations assume the simple form

$`\mathrm{}h_{ab}(z)+\ddot{h}_{ab}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`0,h_{\mu 4}(z)=0,z\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}[\dot{h}_{\mu \nu }(x)\eta _{\mu \nu }\dot{h}(x)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}h_{\mu \nu }(x)_\mu _\nu h(x)+16\pi GT_{\mu \nu }(x),x\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ (27)
The ratio $`L\widehat{G}/G`$ plays a fundamental role in the DGP model, since it is the transition length beyond which 4-d gravity turns into 5-d gravity.

Eqs. (26,27) are easily solved by Fourier transforming the 4-d coordinates $`x^\mu `$

$`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{h}}_{\mu \nu }(p)+p_\mu p_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{16\pi GL}{p^3+p^2/L}}\stackrel{~}{T}(p)\mathrm{exp}(py),`$ (28)
$`\stackrel{~}{\overline{h}}_{\mu \nu }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G}{p^2+p/L}}\left[\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }(p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{T}(p)\right]\mathrm{exp}(py).`$ (29)
These equations contain a term proportional to $`L`$, that diverges in the decoupling limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. To linear order, this divergence is an artifact of our gauge choice, in which the brane lies at $`y=0`$. It can be canceled by transforming into new coordinates, $`\overline{y}`$, $`\overline{x}^\mu `$, in which the brane lies at $`\overline{y}=ϵ_4(x,0)`$.

$`\overline{x}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`x^\mu +ϵ^\mu (x,y),\overline{y}=y+ϵ_4(x,y),`$ (30)
$`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_4(p,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi GL}{p^2+p/L}}\stackrel{~}{T}(p)\mathrm{exp}(py),\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\mu (p,y)=i{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu }{p}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_4(p,y).`$ (31)
The new coordinate system still obeys $`\overline{h}_{\mu 4}=0`$ everywhere in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, since $`ϵ_\mu `$ obeys

$$_\mu ϵ_4+\dot{ϵ}_\mu =0.$$
(32)
The metric fluctuation in the new coordinate system is given by Eq. (29); it is finite in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, $`\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ is linear in the source $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, and small everywhere in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, if the energy density of the source is well below the black-hole limit. This is in prefect analogy with standard Einstein’s gravity.

The story does not end here, though, as it can be seen by closer inspection of Eqs. (30,31).

Consider for simplicity a static, spherically-symmetric distribution of matter on the brane, with total mass $`M`$. Outside matter, in the region $`GMr|\stackrel{}{x}|L`$, the position of the brane in the new coordinate system is 111To linear order $`r=|\stackrel{}{\overline{x}}|`$.

$$ϵ_4(r,0)=\frac{2GML}{r}.$$
(33)
This function can be large even in the region $`rGM`$, so that the limit of validity of the linear approximation must be re-examined. Recall that the metric transforms as follows under the reparametrization $`\overline{x}^\mu =x^\mu +ϵ^\mu (x,y)`$, $`\overline{y}=y+ϵ_4(x,y)`$:

$$g_{\mu \nu }(x,y)=\frac{\overline{z}^a}{x^\mu }\frac{\overline{z}^b}{x^\nu }\overline{g}_{ab}(\overline{z}),\overline{z}^a=\overline{x}^\mu ,\overline{y}.$$
(34)
If we expand to linear order in $`\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }`$, and to quadratic order in $`ϵ_a`$, we find, at $`y=0`$,

$$h_{\mu \nu }(x,0)=\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }(x)+_\mu ϵ_\nu (x,0)+_\nu ϵ_\mu (x,0)+_\mu ϵ^\alpha (x,0)_\nu ϵ_\alpha (x,0)+_\mu ϵ^4(x,0)_\nu ϵ_4(x,0).$$
(35)
Notice that the last term in this expansion is not a 4-d reparametization and that when $`ϵ_4`$ is given by Eq. (33) it is $`O(G^2M^2L^2/r^4)`$.

Clearly, when we assume that matter is so diluted that $`|\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }|1`$ everywhere on the brane, the linear approximation for $`\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ is justified by assumption, but the linear approximation for $`ϵ_a`$ breaks down when $`_\mu ϵ^4_\nu ϵ_4\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }`$. This happens when $`G^2M^2L^2/r^4GM/r`$, i.e. when

$$r^3GML^2.$$
(36)
This is exactly the condition found in ref. .

The breakdown of the linear approximation for $`ϵ_a`$ means that, in the region $`r(GML^2)^{1/3}`$, the position of the brane is still $`\overline{y}=ϵ^4(x,0)`$, but $`ϵ^4(x,0)`$ is no longer given by Eq. (33). To study the brane inside that region, we choose $`ϵ^4`$ and $`ϵ^\mu `$ by demanding only that $`g_{\mu 5}=0`$ and that $`ϵ^4`$ is still given by Eq. (33) at large distances:

$$ϵ_4(r,0)\frac{2GML}{r},\text{for }r(GML^2)^{1/3}.$$
(37)
We can always set $`ϵ^\mu (x,0)=0`$ with a 4-d coordinate transformation. The metric fluctuation is then

$$h_{\mu \nu }(x,0)=\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }(x)+_\mu ϵ^4(x,0)_\nu ϵ_4(x,0).$$
(38)
To find the metric on the brane, we begin by making the following ansatz:

$$\overline{h}_{00}(r)=\frac{2F(r)M}{r},\overline{h}_{ii}(r)=\frac{F(r)M}{r}.$$
(39)
The asymptotic behavior ot the function $`F(r)`$ is:

$$F(r)=G\text{ for }r(GML^2)^{1/3},F(r)=\frac{4}{3}G\text{ for }r(GML^2)^{1/3};$$
(40)
otherwise, $`F(r)`$ is arbitrary.

The linearized scalar curvature of the ansatz vanishes identically everywhere. At large distances, $`r(GML^2)^{1/3}`$, it approximates the metric of the linearized DGP equations  \[see also Eq. (29)\].

Suppose now that a 5-d diffeomorphism $`ϵ_4`$ exists, such that a) it obeys Eq. (37), b) the metric $`h_{\mu \nu }`$, given by Eq. (38), solves the linearized 4-d Einstein equations in the region $`r(GML^2)^{1/3}`$. With these assumptions, we can write the solution to Eq. (22) as

$$g_{\mu \nu }(x,0)=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }(x,0)+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }(x,0),$$
(41)
with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }(x,0)||h_{\mu \nu }(x,0)|`$ everywhere on the brane 222We have assumed again that matter is diluted, i.e. that $`|h_{\mu \nu }|1`$ everywhere on the brane. This assumption has been made for clarity’s sake and can be relaxed.. The last statement can be proven by approximating Eq. (22) as

$`L_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }\mathrm{\Delta }^{\rho \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`J_{\mu \nu },`$ (42)
$`J_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{L}}K_{\mu \nu }+16\pi GT_{\mu \nu }L_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }h^{\rho \sigma }.`$ (43)
The source $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ is conserved, and everywhere smaller than $`L_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }h^{\rho \sigma }`$, because $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ solves by assumption the Einstein equations, for $`r^3GML^2`$, and, for $`r^3GML^2`$, it solves by construction the linearized DGP equations.

Conservation of the source ensures that Eq. (42) can be solved, while $`|J_{\mu \nu }||L_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }h^{\rho \sigma }|`$ guarantees that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }(x,0)||h_{\mu \nu }(x,0)|`$. Extending $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }`$ to the interior of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is straightforward because $`h_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }`$ obeys Eq. (26).

At this point, we are left only with the task of finding a shift $`ϵ^4`$ which satisfies our assumption. In the spherically symmetric case, we notice that the Schwarzshild metric at $`rGM`$ is $`h_{00}(r)=2GM/r`$, $`h_{ii}=2GM/r`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, so that the diffeomorphism we need is

$$ϵ_4(r,0)=2\sqrt{GMr}.$$
(44)
Let us conclude with a few remarks.

* The limit of validity of Eq. (44) can be found by demanding that the contribution to the extrinsic curvature due to the brane bending in Eq. (44) is smaller than that given by Eq. (33). Since the curvature due to bending is $`|d^2ϵ_4/dr^2|`$ we find $`r(GML^2)^{1/3}`$. Therefore, the domain of validity of Eq. (44) is complementary to that of Eq. (33).
* The fact that quadratic corrections to the linear approximation cure the vDVZ discontinuity is at the hart of Refs. . In this paper, we spelled out that it is the linear approximation for the fluctuations of the brane that fails at $`r(GML^2)^{1/3}`$, not the linearization of the 5-d metric (see also ).
* The previous observation makes the breakdown of linearity at such large distances more palatable, since the brane is almost tensionless, and can, therefore, bend significantly even over macroscopic (astronomical) distances.
* When the position of the brane is given by Eq. (44), the sub-leading correction to the induced metric, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }`$, is proportional to $`\sqrt{GM}`$ \[see Eqs. (42,43)\]. It is tantalizing to conjecture that this correction may give rise to interesting modifications of Newtonian dynamics at some macroscopic length scale.
* Absence of a vDVZ discontinuity is only a qualified good news for the DGP theory. Indeed, the very breakdown of the linear approximation at the macroscopic lenght scale $`r=(GML^2)^{1/3}`$ may signal that the 4-d scalar $`ϵ_4(x,0)`$ interacts strongly with the stress-energy tensor at the quadratic level –for instance through an interaction term $`L\sqrt{G}(ϵ_4)^2T`$.

### Acknowledgments

We should like to thank G. Dvali, A. Lue, and C. Deffayet for interesting comments. This work is supported in part by NSF grant PHY-0070787.


text:
# Untitled Document

KERR-SCHILD METRICS REVISITED II.  THE COMPLETE VACUUM SOLUTION Research supported by OTKA fund no. 1826 László Á. Gergely  Present address: Research Group on Laser Physics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H-6720 Szeged, Dóm tér 9, Hungary and Zoltán Perjés Central Research Institute for Physics  H-1525 Budapest 114, P.O.Box 49, Hungary  ABSTRACT The complete solution of Einstein’s gravitational equations with a vacuum-vacuum Kerr-Schild pencil of metrics $`g_{ab}+Vl_al_b`$ is obtained. Our result generalizes the solution of the Kerr-Schild problem with a flat metric $`g_{ab}`$ (represented by the Kerr theorem) to the case when $`g_{ab}`$ is the metric of a curved space-time.

PACS classification: 04.20Jb

1. INTRODUCTION The Kerr-Schild pencil of metrics in general relativity has the form1

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{ab}=g_{ab}+Vl_al_b$$
$`(1.1)`$
where the metrics $`g_{ab}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ab}`$ are both Lorentzian, the vector $`l`$ is null with respect to both metrics, and $`V`$ is a scalar function.

In part I of this series2, we have established some generic properties of the Kerr-Schild pencil for which both the parent $`g_{ab}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ab}`$ are vacuum metrics. The vector $`l`$ is then tangent to a null geodesic congruence.

In this paper we present the complete solution of the vacuum Kerr-Schild problem. The structure of our solution is as follows. A Kerr-Schild space-time is characterized by a real deformation parameter $`\eta `$. The deformation parameter vanishes for Kerr-Schild

space-times the parent of which is a Minkowski space-time. By our theorem in I, the field quantities are severely restricted unless the $`sin\eta `$ assumes either of the exceptional values $`0,\pm 1,\pm \sqrt{2}/2`$. Here, we obtain all the metrics with arbitrary values of the deformation parameter. These turn out to be Kóta-Perjés metrics. For the exceptional values of $`\eta `$, we establish that (a) the class with $`\eta =0`$ is algebraically special, (b) the values $`sin\eta =\pm 1`$ can occur only in automorphisms of Minkowski space-time, and (c) the class with $`sin\eta =\pm 1/\sqrt{2}`$ contains the remaining Kóta-Perjés metrics. Our results, as an important implication, dash the hopes for a complex-analytic description of space-time within the framework of Kerr-Schild theory.

In I, the vacuum Kerr-Schild equations have been written down in a Newman-Penrose (NP) form3, choosing $`l`$ a vector of the null tetrad. The geodesic condition reads:

$$\kappa =0.$$
$`(1.2)`$
Following I, we adopt the gauge with

$$ϵ=0,\pi =\alpha +\overline{\beta }.$$
$`(1.3)`$
We have been able to integrate a closed subset of the ‘radial’ field equations3 containing derivatives in the direction of the affine parameter $`r`$:

$$D=l^a_a=/r.$$
$`(1.4)`$
This has yielded the spin coefficient quantities

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2r}(1+cos\eta C),\sigma =\frac{sin\eta }{2rC}$$
$`(1.5)`$
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\frac{sin2\eta }{4r^2}.$$
$`(1.6)`$
Here we introduce the complex phase factor

$$C=\frac{r^{cos\eta }iB}{r^{cos\eta }+iB}$$
$`(1.7)`$
with the properties

$$\overline{C}=\frac{1}{C},DC=\frac{cos\eta }{2r}(1C^2).$$
$`(1.8)`$
The real integration functions $`B`$ and $`\eta `$ may depend on the coordinates $`(x^1,x^2,x^3)`$. A further integration function has been eliminated from $`\rho `$ by the appropriate choice of the origin of the affine parameter. When $`r0`$, the real potential can be written in the form

$$V=V_0\frac{r^{cos\eta }}{r^{2cos\eta }+B^2}.$$
$`(1.9)`$
The complex tetrad vector $`m`$ has the $`r`$ dependence

$$m=\frac{1}{2B}\left(1\frac{1}{C}\right)\left[iQ_1^jr^{\frac{cos\eta \mathrm{sin}\eta 1}{2}}Q_2^jr^{\frac{cos\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}{2}}\right]\frac{}{x^j}j=1,2,3$$
$`(1.10)`$
where $`V_0,Q_1^j`$ and $`Q_2^j`$ are real integration functions. With this choice of the tetrad, the spacelike and null rotations have been completely used up (cf. I).

The real parameters $`\eta `$ and $`B`$ tune the amount of divergence and rotation of the null congruence with tangent $`l`$, respectively. $`B`$ occurs in the phase factor $`C`$, giving rise to the imaginary part of the spin coefficient $`\rho `$. When $`B=0`$, we have $`C=1`$, and the congruence is curl-free. Similarly, for large values of the affine parameter $`r`$, $`C`$ approaches the unit value, and the rotation dies out. The parameter $`\eta `$ regulates the shear. For $`\eta =0`$ or $`\eta =180^{}`$, the congruence is shear-free. When both $`B=0`$ and $`\eta =0`$, the rays are exactly spherical: $`\rho =1/r`$. The rays become cylindrical, $`\rho =1/2r`$, for $`\eta =90^{}`$. When $`\eta =180^{}`$, there is no expansion. We have shewn in I that the general shearing class does not contain the shear-free case as a smooth limit. In what follows, we shall consider the generic case.

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

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T& HE\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Psi }_1\hfill \\ \hfill E& QS.\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill D\tau & =\rho (\tau +\overline{\pi })+\sigma (\overline{\tau }+\pi )+\mathrm{\Psi }_1\hfill \\ \hfill D\pi & =2\rho \pi +2\overline{\sigma }\overline{\pi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1\hfill \\ \hfill D\alpha & =\rho (\pi +\alpha )+\overline{\sigma }(\overline{\pi }\overline{\alpha })\hfill \\ \hfill D\beta & =\overline{\rho }\beta +\sigma (2\pi \overline{\beta })+\mathrm{\Psi }_1\hfill \\ \hfill D\mathrm{\Psi }_1& =4\rho \mathrm{\Psi }_1+(\pi 4\alpha )\mathrm{\Psi }_0.\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}& (1.11a)\hfill \\ & (1.11b)\hfill \\ & (1.11c)\hfill \\ & (1.11d)\hfill \\ & (1.11e)\hfill \end{array}$$

This set, to be called the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ equations, can be obtained by using (I 3.13) in (NP 4.2.c), (NP 4.2.d), (NP 4.2.e), and the first Bianchi equation (NP 4.5). It is complemented by two algebraic equations, linear in the unknown functions. The latter conditions will be employed in Sec. 2 to get a quartet of coupled equations for the spin coefficients $`\tau ,\pi `$ and their complex conjugates. The general solution of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ set is given in Sec. 2.

The second system of the field equations, for the affine parameter dependence of the fields $`\lambda ,\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, is linear and inhomogeneous:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T& HE\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Psi }_2\hfill \\ \hfill E& QS.\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}& D\lambda =\rho \lambda +\overline{\sigma }\mu +\left(\overline{\delta }\pi +2\alpha \pi \right)\hfill \\ & D\mu =\overline{\rho }\mu +\sigma \lambda +\mathrm{\Psi }_2+\left(\delta \pi +2\beta \pi \right)\hfill \\ & D\mathrm{\Psi }_2=3\rho \mathrm{\Psi }_2\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }_0+\left(\overline{\delta }\mathrm{\Psi }_1+2\overline{\beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_1\right).\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}& (1.12a)\hfill \\ & (1.12b)\hfill \\ & (1.12c)\hfill \end{array}$$

This set will be named the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ equations. The complex conjugate fields $`\overline{\lambda }`$, $`\overline{\mu }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2`$ are decoupled here, and the source terms in the brackets are provided nonlinearly by the solution of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ system. In Sec. 3 we find the general solution of the homogeneous part of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ system.

Thus the affine-parameter dependence of the field quantities is essentially governed by the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ equations. The third (‘nonradial’3) set of equations yields some constraints and also the integrals of the remaining field quantities $`\gamma ,\nu ,\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$. In Section 4, we obtain the metrics with the trivial solution of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ system and with the general solution of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ system. We get a three-parameter pencil for which both the parent metric and the image of the Kerr-Schild map are Kóta-Perjés metrics.

In Sec. 5 we prove that there are no other metrics in the class with arbitrary values of $`\eta `$ than those given in Section 4. The exceptional values of the parameter $`\eta `$ are considered in Section 6. We find that all Kóta-Perjés metrics7 are explicit cases of Kerr-Schild space-times, either with a real deformation parameter or with $`\mathrm{sin}\eta =1/\sqrt{2}`$. This paper is an expanded version of our preprint on the homogeneous integrals4.

2. THE $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ EQUATIONS The $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ set of field equations \[Eqs.(1.11)\] is linear and homogeneous for the quantities $`\tau ,\pi ,\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and their complex conjugates. Two linear algebraic relations among these quantities follow from the adopted gauge, $`\pi \alpha \overline{\beta }=0`$, and from the Kerr-Schild condition (I 4.1);

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\rho \overline{\pi }+\sigma (\pi 4\alpha )+(\rho \overline{\rho })\tau $$
$`(2.1)`$
and Eq. (I 4.4) yields the second algebraic constraint:

$$4\sigma \alpha =\sigma (3\pi \overline{\tau })+\left(\rho \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{2\sigma }\right)\overline{\pi }+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{2\sigma }\overline{\rho }\right)\tau .$$
$`(2.2)`$
Using the Kerr-Schild constraint (2.1) for eliminating $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ in (1.11a) and (1.11b), we get the four coupled equations for $`\pi ,\tau `$;

$$\begin{array}{cc}& D\tau =(2\rho \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{2\sigma })\tau +\sigma (2\overline{\tau }\pi )+(\rho +\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{2\sigma })\overline{\pi }\hfill \\ & D\pi =(2\rho +\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{2\overline{\sigma }})\pi +\overline{\sigma }\tau +(\overline{\rho }\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{2\overline{\sigma }})\overline{\tau }\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.3)`$
with their complex conjugates. Eqs. (1.11c), (1.11d) and (1.11e) are a consequence of the algebraic relations and Eqs. (2.3). The solution of Eqs. (2.3) determines the solution of the complete system (1.11), (2.1) and (2.2).

We solve Eqs. (2.3) by separating an overall power of $`r`$ from the unknown functions:

$$\pi =\frac{1}{r^{p/2}}\pi ^o,\tau =\frac{1}{r^{p/2}}\tau ^o.$$
$`(2.4)`$
Here we consider $`\pi ^o`$ and $`\tau ^o`$ to be functions of the complex phase factor $`C`$ as the new independent variable. Thus the functions $`\pi ^o`$ and $`\tau ^o`$ satisfy the equations

$$\begin{array}{cc}& cos\eta (C^21)\dot{\tau }^o=(2p+3cos\eta C)\tau ^o+2\frac{sin\eta }{C}\overline{\tau }^o\frac{sin\eta }{C}\pi ^o+\overline{\pi }^o\hfill \\ & cos\eta (C^21)\dot{\overline{\pi }}^o=(1+2cos\eta C)\tau ^o+\frac{sin\eta }{C}\overline{\tau }^o+(2p+2\frac{cos\eta }{C}cos\eta C)\overline{\pi }^o\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.5)`$
and the equations for the complex conjugates. We denote the derivative with respect to $`C`$ by a dot.

We seek the solution in the form of the finite series in $`C`$:

$$\pi ^o=\underset{n}{\overset{n}{}}P_kC^k,\tau ^o=\underset{n}{\overset{n}{}}T_kC^k.$$
$`(2.6)`$
Substituting in (2.5) and collecting the like powers of $`C`$, we obtain a set of homogeneous algebraic equations for the coefficients $`P_k`$ and $`T_k`$. Solutions exist when the determinant of the algebraic equations vanishes. For $`n=3`$, the determinant is

$$\frac{𝒟}{9cos^2\eta sin^2\eta (p4)^2}$$
$`(2.7)`$
where $`𝒟`$, a $`12^{th}`$ order polynomial in $`p`$, can be factorized in the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒟=& (p^26cos\eta p6p+10cos^2\eta +18cos\eta +8)\times \hfill \\ & (p^2+6cos\eta p6p+10cos^2\eta 18cos\eta +8)\times \hfill \\ & (p^22cos\eta p6p+2cos^2\eta +6cos\eta +8)\times \hfill \\ & (p^2+2cos\eta p6p+2cos^2\eta 6cos\eta +8)\times \hfill \\ & (p^22cos\eta p2p+2cos^2\eta +2cos\eta )\times \hfill \\ & (p^2+2cos\eta p2p+2cos^2\eta 2cos\eta ).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.8)`$
Thus solutions exist in the twelve cases

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill p& =\pm 3cos\eta \pm sin\eta +3\hfill \\ \hfill p& =\pm cos\eta \pm sin\eta +3\hfill \\ \hfill p& =\pm cos\eta \pm sin\eta +1.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.9)`$
In each case, the coefficient equations are satisfied by choosing the overall factor of the solution $`P_3`$ either real or pure imaginary. The correct choice of $`P_3`$ can be found in Table 1. The explicit forms of the solutions $`P_k`$ and $`T_k`$ are given in Tables 2 and 3. In each case the solution is a rational expression in $`cos\eta `$ and $`sin\eta `$ which, however, is elaborate for some values of $`k`$. The functions $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ may be given in a similar representation: $`\alpha =\frac{1}{r^{p/2}}_3^3A_kC^k,\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\frac{1}{r^{p/2+1}}_2^4\psi _kC^k.`$ The coefficients $`A_k`$ and $`\psi _k`$ are determined by the linear algebraic equations (2.1) and (2.2).

Returning to the affine parameter $`r`$ as the independent variable, the solutions for $`\tau `$ and $`\pi `$ with $`p=\pm 3cos\eta \pm sin\eta +3`$ and with $`p=\pm cos\eta \pm sin\eta +3`$ respectively turn out to be pairwise equal up to a constant factor. Similarly, solutions with the opposite signs of $`cos\eta `$ in $`p`$ will pairwise coincide. Thus, in accordance with the general theory of linear differential equations6, we are left with the fundamental solution consisting of the four linearly independent cases

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill p^{(1)}& =cos\eta +sin\eta +1\hfill \\ \hfill p^{(2)}& =cos\eta sin\eta +1\hfill \\ \hfill p^{(3)}& =cos\eta +sin\eta +3\hfill \\ \hfill p^{(4)}& =cos\eta sin\eta +3.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.10)`$
The four fundamental solutions for $`\pi `$ and $`\tau `$ are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \pi ^{(1)}=\frac{C+1}{r^{\frac{cos\eta +sin\eta +1}{2}}}& (C^3\frac{cos\eta }{sin\eta +1}C^2\frac{sin\eta }{sin\eta +1}C^1\hfill \\ & +\frac{5sin^2\eta 4sin\eta +3}{cos\eta (sin\eta 3)}+\frac{3sin\eta 1}{sin\eta +1}\frac{2sin\eta +3}{sin\eta 3}C+2\frac{sin\eta }{cos\eta }C^2)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \pi ^{(2)}=i\frac{C+1}{r^{\frac{cos\eta sin\eta +1}{2}}}& (C^3+\frac{cos\eta }{sin\eta 1}C^2\frac{sin\eta }{sin\eta 1}C^1\hfill \\ & +\frac{5cos^2\eta 4sin\eta 8}{cos\eta (sin\eta +3)}+\frac{6cos^2\eta +7sin\eta 3}{cos^2\eta 2sin\eta +2}C2\frac{sin\eta }{cos\eta }C^2)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \pi ^{(3)}=i\frac{C1}{r^{\frac{cos\eta +sin\eta +3}{2}}}& (C+1)^2\left(C^3\frac{sin\eta +1}{cos\eta }C^2+\frac{1}{sin\eta 1}C^12\frac{sin\eta }{cos\eta }\right)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \pi ^{(4)}=\frac{C1}{r^{\frac{cos\eta sin\eta +3}{2}}}& (C+1)^2\left(C^3\frac{cos\eta }{sin\eta +1}C^2\frac{1}{sin\eta +1}C^1+2\frac{sin\eta }{cos\eta }\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.11)`$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \tau ^{(1)}=\frac{C+1}{r^{\frac{cos\eta +sin\eta +1}{2}}}& (\frac{sin\eta }{cos\eta }C^3\frac{sin\eta }{sin\eta +1}C^2\frac{sin^2\eta +8sin\eta +3}{cos\eta (sin\eta 3)}\frac{sin\eta 1}{sin\eta +1}C^1\hfill \\ & 3\frac{sin\eta }{sin\eta +1}+\frac{2sin\eta 3}{cos\eta }C+2C^2)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \tau ^{(2)}=i\frac{C+1}{r^{\frac{cos\eta sin\eta +1}{2}}}& (\frac{sin\eta }{cos\eta }C^3+\frac{sin\eta }{sin\eta 1}C^2\frac{sin\eta cos^2\eta 7cos^2\eta +4sin\eta +4}{cos\eta (2sin\eta 2cos^2\eta )}C^1\hfill \\ & +3\frac{sin\eta }{sin\eta 1}+\frac{2sin\eta +3}{cos\eta }C2C^2)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \tau ^{(3)}=i\frac{C1}{r^{\frac{cos\eta +sin\eta +3}{2}}}& (C+1)^2\left(\frac{sin\eta }{cos\eta }C^3+\frac{sin\eta }{sin\eta 1}C^2\frac{2sin\eta +1}{cos\eta }C^12\right)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \tau ^{(4)}=\frac{C1}{r^{\frac{cos\eta sin\eta +3}{2}}}& (C+1)^2\left(\frac{sin\eta }{cos\eta }C^3\frac{sin\eta }{sin\eta +1}C^2\frac{2sin\eta 1}{cos\eta }C^1+2\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.12)`$
Hence we get the fundamental solutions for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Psi }_1^{(1)}=\frac{C+1}{2r^{\frac{cos\eta +sin\eta +3}{2}}}(sin& \eta C^2+(sin\eta 5)\frac{sin\eta }{cos\eta }C^1+\frac{16sin^2\eta 15sin\eta +9}{sin\eta 3}\hfill \\ & \frac{2sin^2\eta 3sin\eta 3}{cos\eta }C3(sin\eta 1)C^23cos\eta C^3)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Psi }_1^{(2)}=i\frac{C+1}{2r^{\frac{cos\eta sin\eta +3}{2}}}(sin& \eta C^2(sin\eta +5)\frac{sin\eta }{cos\eta }C^1+\frac{16sin^2\eta +15sin\eta +9}{sin\eta +3}\hfill \\ & +\frac{2sin^2\eta +3sin\eta 3}{cos\eta }C3(sin\eta +1)C^2+3cos\eta C^3)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Psi }_1^{(3)}=i\frac{(C1)(C+1)^2}{2r^{\frac{cos\eta +sin\eta +5}{2}}}& \left(3cos\eta C+3(sin\eta +1)(sin\eta 3)\frac{sin\eta }{cos\eta }C^1sin\eta C^2\right)\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Psi }_1^{(4)}=\frac{(C1)(C+1)^2}{2r^{\frac{cos\eta sin\eta +5}{2}}}& \left(3cos\eta C+3(sin\eta 1)+(sin\eta +3)\frac{sin\eta }{cos\eta }C^1sin\eta C^2\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.13)`$
The cases labeled (3) and (4) are found to satisfy the relation $`\tau =2\beta `$.

The general solution of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ system is given by constant linear combinations with $`real`$ coefficients of the four fundamental solution vectors. This is not to say, though, that the general solution will satisfy the complete set of Einstein’s vacuum equations. In fact, one can exclude some of the linear combinations, without solving the rest of the vacuum equations, merely by looking at the limit $`\eta 0`$. When $`\eta =0`$, the parent metric is algebraically special. Certainly, the trivial solution of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ system is well-behaved in this limit. However, it is easy to see that none of the four fundamental solutions (2.13) for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ vanishes in the limit considered. One can take linear combinations proportional to $`sin\eta `$, but these solutions of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ system are trivial for $`\eta =0`$. Nontrivial solutions can also be constructed. Remembering the relation (1.7) between the variables $`C`$ and $`r`$, one finds that the four solution vectors pairwise coincide in the limit $`\eta 0`$. The solutions with $`p=cos\eta \pm sin\eta +1`$ coincide, up to a constant multiplier, with the solutions with $`p=3cos\eta \pm sin\eta +3`$. Thus one can form the two linear combinations

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{(+)}=B\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{(3)}\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{(1)},$$
$`(2.14)`$
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{()}=B\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{(4)}\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{(2)}$$
$`(2.15)`$
with the correct limiting behavior.

3. THE $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ EQUATIONS

The $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ system (1.12) is a first-order linear and inhomogeneous set of equations for the field quantities $`\lambda ,\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$. The source terms are supplied by derivatives and quadratic algebraic expressions of the solutions of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ equations. Let us solve first the linear homogeneous system

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& D\lambda =\rho \lambda +\overline{\sigma }\mu \hfill & (3.1a)\hfill \\ & D\mu =\overline{\rho }\mu +\sigma \lambda +\mathrm{\Psi }_2\hfill & (3.1b)\hfill \\ & D\mathrm{\Psi }_2=3\rho \mathrm{\Psi }_2\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }_0\hfill & (3.1c)\hfill \end{array}$$

which amounts to taking the trivial solution of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ Eqs.,

$$\tau =\pi =\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\alpha =\beta =0.$$
$`(3.2)`$
We can decouple equation (3.1c) for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ from the rest by considering first the homogeneous equation

$$D\mathrm{\Psi }_2=3\rho \mathrm{\Psi }_2.$$
$`(3.3)`$
The solution is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\mathrm{\Psi }_2^o\left[\frac{r^{\frac{cos\eta 1}{2}}}{r^{cos\eta }+iB}\right]^3$$
$`(3.4)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^o`$ is a constant of integration. We now turn to the method of variation of constants, and allow for the possibility that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^o`$ depends on $`r`$. Introducing the new functions $`\lambda ^o`$ and $`\mu ^o`$ by putting

$$\lambda =\lambda ^o\frac{r^{\frac{3cos\eta +1}{2}}}{(r^{cos\eta }+iB)^3},\mu =\mu ^o\frac{r^{\frac{3cos\eta +3}{2}}}{(r^{cos\eta }+iB)^2(r^{cos\eta }iB)},$$
$`(3.5)`$
we can write the system (3.1) as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill D\lambda ^o& =\frac{1}{r}(cos\eta C1)\lambda ^o\frac{1}{2}sin\eta \mu ^o\hfill & (3.6.a)\hfill \\ \hfill D\mu ^o& =\frac{1}{r}Ccos\eta x\frac{1}{2r^2}(4r\mu ^o+sin\eta \lambda ^o)\hfill & (3.6.b)\hfill \\ \hfill D\mathrm{\Psi }_2^o& =\frac{1}{2}sin\eta cos\eta \lambda ^o\hfill & (3.6.c)\hfill \end{array}$$

where we denote

$$x=\mu ^o+\frac{1}{cos\eta }\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_2^o}{r^2}.$$
$`(3.7)`$
Comparing Eqs. (3.6.b) and (3.6.c), we find that the function $`x`$ satisfies the uncoupled equation

$$Dx=\frac{2}{r}x+\frac{cos\eta }{r}Cx.$$
$`(3.8)`$
This has the solution

$$x=x^o\frac{(r^{cos\eta }+iB)^2}{r^{cos\eta +2}}$$
$`(3.9)`$
where $`x^o`$ is a function of integration. Thus Eqs. (3.6.a) and (3.6.b) become a pair of coupled inhomogeneous linear equations for $`\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ with the driving term $`\frac{1}{r}Ccos\eta x`$.

Let us introduce the functions $`L`$ and $`N`$ of the variable $`C`$ by

$$\lambda ^{}=\frac{1}{1C^2}\frac{L}{r},\mu ^{}=\frac{1}{1C^2}\frac{N}{r^2}.$$
$`(3.10)`$
$`L`$ and $`N`$ satisfy the inhomogeneous equations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill N& =\frac{C^21}{tan\eta }\dot{L}\hfill & (3.11)\hfill \\ \hfill \ddot{L}\left(\frac{tan\eta }{C^21}\right)^2L& =A_0tan^3\eta \frac{C}{(C^21)^2}\hfill & (3.12)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`A_0=\frac{8iB}{tan^2\eta }x^o`$. The homogeneous part of Eq. (3.12) can be transformed to a Riccati equation by the substitution $`L=L_oe^{{\scriptscriptstyle y𝑑C}}`$ where $`L_o`$ is a constant. A particular solution for $`y`$ is given by

$$y_1=\frac{1}{2cos\eta }\left(\frac{1+cos\eta }{1+C}+\frac{1cos\eta }{1C}\right).$$
$`(3.13)`$
Substituting next $`y=y_1+z`$, the Riccati equation becomes a Bernoulli equation for $`z`$ with the general solution

$$z=\frac{2}{cos\eta (1C^2)(1+L_1r)}.$$
$`(3.14)`$
Here $`L_1`$ is a constant of integration. Thus the solution of the homogeneous part of Eq. (3.12) is

$$L_{hom}=L_o(C^21)^{\frac{cos\eta 1}{2cos\eta }}[(C1)^{\frac{1}{cos\eta }}+(iB)^{\frac{1}{cos\eta }}L_1(C+1)^{\frac{1}{cos\eta }}]$$
$`(3.15)`$
and the solution of the inhomogeneous equation is6:

$$L=A_0tan\eta C+(1C^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}[A_1r^{\frac{1}{2}}+A_2r^{\frac{1}{2}}]$$
$`(3.16)`$
where $`L_o`$, $`A_0,A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are real functions of integration.

Hence we get the solution of the homogeneous $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ system:

$$\lambda =sin\eta \frac{C1}{8cos\eta B}\left\{2icos\eta (C+1)\left(A_1+\frac{A_2}{r}\right)A_0r^{\frac{cos\eta 1}{2}}\frac{C}{B}\right\}$$
$`(3.17)`$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mu =i\frac{C1}{8B^2C}\{2B(C+1)[& cos\eta C(A_1+\frac{A_2}{r})(A_1\frac{A_2}{r})]A_0\frac{(C1)^2}{B}r^{\frac{3cos\eta 1}{2}}\}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.18)`$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Psi }_2=\frac{C1}{4cos\eta B^2}& \{\frac{1}{4}A_0r^{\frac{cos\eta 3}{2}}(2cos^2\eta C^2cos^2\eta 1)\hfill \\ & +iA_1\frac{cos^2\eta }{r}B(cos\eta C1)(C+1)\hfill \\ & +iA_2\frac{cos^2\eta }{r^2}B(cos\eta C+1)(C+1)\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.19)`$
4. THE HOMOGENEOUS METRICS

In this section we carry through the solution procedure of the field equations for the general solution (3.17)-(3.19) of the homogeneous $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ system.

From the equation (NP 4.2.l)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\mu \rho \lambda \sigma +\gamma (\rho \overline{\rho })$$
$`(4.1)`$
we obtain $`\gamma `$ algebraically:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \gamma =\frac{1}{4B}& \{\frac{r^{\frac{cos\eta 1}{2}}}{2Bcos\eta }A_0(1cos\eta C)(1C)\hfill \\ & iA_1\frac{1}{cos\eta }[sin^2\eta +(1cos\eta C)^2]iA_2\frac{cos\eta }{r}(C^21)\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.2)`$
We now find the $`r`$ dependence of the tetrad vector $`n`$. This can be done by applying the commutator $`[\mathrm{\Delta },\delta ]`$ to the each of coordinates $`r`$ and $`x^j`$:

$$n=n^0/r+n^j/x^j$$
$`(4.3)`$
where $`n^j`$ are functions independent of $`r`$ and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill n^0=2Re\{& A_0\frac{i}{2Bcos\eta }\frac{r^{\frac{cos\eta +1}{2}}}{r^{cos\eta }+iB}\hfill & \\ & +A_1\frac{ir}{2Bcos\eta }(1cos\eta +\frac{2iBcos\eta }{r^{cos\eta }+iB})A_2\frac{1}{r^{cos\eta }+iB}\}G.\hfill & (4.4)\hfill \end{array}$$

The real integration function $`G`$ is determined by the action of the commutator $`[\overline{\delta },\delta ]`$ on the coordinate $`r`$ :

$$G=\frac{cos\eta +1}{2Bcos\eta }ImA_2$$
$`(4.5)`$
The integration functions are severely restricted by the NP equations involving the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ derivative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (NP4.5)\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }_0=(4\gamma \mu )\mathrm{\Psi }_0+3\sigma \mathrm{\Psi }_2& A_0=ReA_1=ImA_2=\mathrm{\Delta }cos\eta =0\hfill & \\ \hfill (NP4.2.p)\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =\mu \sigma +\overline{\lambda }\rho (3\gamma \overline{\gamma })\sigma & ImA_1=\mathrm{\Delta }B=0.\hfill & (4.6)\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence $`B`$ and $`\eta `$ are constants. The commutator $`[\delta ,\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ applied to the coordinate $`r`$, together with (NP 4.2.o),

$$\delta \gamma =\sigma \nu $$

yields

$$\delta A_2=\nu =0.$$
$`(4.7a)`$
Furthermore,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (NP4.2.i)D\nu =\mathrm{\Psi }_3& \mathrm{\Psi }_3=0\hfill & \\ \hfill (NP4.2.n)\delta \nu \mathrm{\Delta }\mu =\mu ^2+\lambda \overline{\lambda }+(\gamma +\overline{\gamma })\mu & \mathrm{\Delta }A_2=0.\hfill & (4.7.b)\hfill \end{array}$$

Finally from the last Kerr-Schild equation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \delta (\overline{\tau }& \pi )+\overline{\delta }(\tau \overline{\pi })+\frac{1}{2}(\rho +\overline{\rho })\mathrm{\Delta }(lnV)=2Re\mathrm{\Psi }_2\hfill & \\ & (\gamma +\overline{\gamma })(\rho +\overline{\rho })+\frac{1}{2}(\mu +\overline{\mu })(\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{\sigma }+\rho \overline{\rho })(\mu \overline{\mu })(\rho \overline{\rho })\hfill & \\ & +\tau (\overline{\tau }+2\alpha 3\pi )+\overline{\tau }(\tau +2\overline{\alpha }3\overline{\pi })+4\pi \overline{\pi }\pi (2\overline{\alpha }\overline{\pi })\overline{\pi }(2\alpha \pi )\hfill & (4.8)\hfill \end{array}$$

we get $`n^j(lnV_0)/x^j=0`$. As a consequence, we have:

$$A_0=A_1=\mathrm{\Psi }_3=\nu =0\eta ,B,V_0,A_2arerealnumbers$$
$`(4.9)`$
Let us denote $`A_2=M`$.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$ can be determined algebraically from

$$(NP4.2.j)\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda \overline{\delta }\mu =(\rho \overline{\rho })\nu \mathrm{\Psi }_4\mathrm{\Psi }_4=M^2sin2\eta \left[\frac{r^{cos\eta 1}}{(r^{cos\eta }+iB)^2}\right]^2$$
$`(4.10)`$
The rest of Eqs. (NP 4.2) and (NP 4.5) are identities.

The commutators $`[\delta ,\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ and $`[\overline{\delta },\delta ]`$ when applied to $`x^j`$ give the relations:

$$[N,Q_1]=[N,Q_2]=0[Q_1,Q_2]=Bcos\eta N$$
$`(4.11)`$
where the three-vector $`N`$ is defined $`N=\{n^j\}`$. By Eqs. (4.11), we can adapt the coordinates $`x`$ and $`y`$ to the vectors $`N`$ and $`Q_1`$ as follows,

$$N=/xQ_1=/yQ_2=Bcos\eta y/x+/z.$$
$`(4.12)`$
We now employ the completeness relation $`g^{ab}=2l^{(a}n^{b)}2m^{(a}\overline{m}^{b)}`$ to assemble the inverse metric:

$$g^{ab}=\frac{1}{H}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}4M& H& 0& 0\\ H& 2B^2cos^2\eta y^2r^{sin\eta 1}& 0& 2Bcos\eta yr^{sin\eta 1}\\ 0& 0& 2r^{sin\eta 1}& 0\\ 0& 2Bcos\eta yr^{sin\eta 1}& 0& 2r^{sin\eta 1}\end{array}\right).$$
$`(4.13)`$
Here $`H=r^{cos\eta }+B^2r^{cos\eta }`$.

Notice that (4.13) is just the Kóta-Perjés7 metric (44). The metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}`$ differs from $`g^{ab}`$ only by the value of the parameter $`4\stackrel{~}{M}=4MV_0`$. The curvature components are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Psi }_0& =\frac{sin2\eta }{4r^2}\hfill & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Psi }_1& =\mathrm{\Psi }_3=0\hfill & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Psi }_2& =Mcos\eta r^{cos\eta 2}\frac{cos\eta (r^{cos\eta }iB)+(r^{cos\eta }+iB)}{(r^{cos\eta }+iB)^3}\hfill & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Psi }_4& =M^2sin2\eta \left[\frac{r^{cos\eta 1}}{(r^{cos\eta }+iB)^2}\right]^2,\hfill & (4.14)\hfill \end{array}$$

These expressions are well-behaved in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$, and singular only in the limit $`r0`$. The space-time is Type I in the Petrov classification.

To summarize, the Kerr-Schild map in I generates a Kóta-Perjés metric from a type N vacuum metric. The image of the map becomes here the parent space-time for the second Kerr-Schild map to a Kóta-Perjés space-time with another value of the parameter $`M`$.

5. THE VANISHING OF THE INHOMOGENEOUS TERMS

In this section we show that the presence of source terms in the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ equations is incompatible with the nonradial field equations. To this effect, we prove that $`\alpha =\beta =\tau =\pi =\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$. Our procedure consists in proving the following lemmas:

(i) In the generic case, $`\rho \overline{\rho }0`$, for any real function $`\varphi `$ with $`D\varphi =\delta \varphi =0`$, it follows also $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0`$.

(ii) The integration functions $`B,\eta `$ and $`V_0`$ are constants.

(iii) The vector $`n`$ has the radial component $`n^0=(\mu \overline{\mu })/(\rho \overline{\rho })`$.

(iv) The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ operator, when it acts on any of the quantities $`\rho ,\sigma `$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, can be written as $`\mathrm{\Delta }=n^0D`$.

(v) There exists a linear equation among the source terms of the nonradial equations which cannot be satisfied unless all source terms vanish.

We can establish (i) easily by use of the last commutator (NP 4.4):

$$(\overline{\delta }\delta \delta \overline{\delta })\varphi =[(\overline{\mu }\mu )D+(\overline{\rho }\rho )\mathrm{\Delta }(\overline{\alpha }\beta )\overline{\delta }(\overline{\beta }\alpha )\delta ]\varphi .$$
$`(5.1)`$
When $`B=0`$, the vector $`l`$ is curl-free. These fields will be separately discussed at the end of the section. The main Theorem in I has already yielded that the $`\delta `$ derivatives of the functions $`B,\eta `$ and $`V_0`$ vanish. Hence and from (i) it follows that $`B,\eta `$ and $`V_0`$ are constant. Thus we have proven (ii) and that $`\rho ,\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ depend only on the affine parameter $`r`$.

Choosing $`\varphi =r`$ in the commutator (5.1), together with the form (4.3) of the vector $`n`$, (iii) follows at once. Next, (iv) is a straightforward consequence of the fact seen \[under (ii)\] that the functions $`\rho ,\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ depend only on $`r`$. With $`n^0`$ given in (iii), we may substitute

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{\mu \overline{\mu }}{\rho \overline{\rho }}D$$

when acting either on $`\rho ,\sigma `$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ or any of their complex conjugate functions.

Turning to (v), we observe that the real Kerr-Schild Eq. (4.8), the complex Ricci Eqs. (NP 4.2 l,p,q) and the fifth Bianchi identity (NP 4.5), form a set of linear inhomogeneous algebraic equations for the spin coefficient quantities $`\lambda ,\mu ,\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \rho \mu \sigma \lambda \mathrm{\Psi }_2+(\rho \overline{\rho })\gamma & =a_1\hfill & (5.2a)\hfill \\ \hfill \sigma \mu \frac{D\sigma }{\overline{\rho }\rho }(\overline{\mu }\mu )+\rho \overline{\lambda }\sigma (3\gamma \overline{\gamma })& =a_2\hfill & (5.2b)\hfill \\ \hfill \rho \overline{\mu }\frac{D\rho }{\overline{\rho }\rho }(\overline{\mu }\mu )+\sigma \lambda +\mathrm{\Psi }_2\rho (\gamma +\overline{\gamma })& =a_3\hfill & (5.2c)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Psi }_0\mu \frac{D\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{\overline{\rho }\rho }(\overline{\mu }\mu )3\sigma \mathrm{\Psi }_24\mathrm{\Psi }_0\gamma & =a_4\hfill & (5.2d)\hfill \\ \hfill \left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{\overline{\rho }+\rho }{\overline{\rho }\rho }\left(\frac{1}{r}+\overline{\rho }+\rho \right)\right](\overline{\mu }\mu )+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{\sigma }+\rho \overline{\rho }\right)(\overline{\mu }+\mu )& & \\ \hfill +\mathrm{\Psi }_2+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(\rho +\overline{\rho })(\gamma +\overline{\gamma })& =a_5\hfill & (5.2e)\hfill \end{array}$$

The source terms on the right-hand sides are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_1& =\delta \alpha \overline{\delta }\beta \alpha \overline{\alpha }\beta \overline{\beta }+2\alpha \beta \hfill \\ \hfill a_2& =\delta \tau \tau (\tau +\beta \overline{\alpha })\hfill \\ \hfill a_3& =\overline{\delta }\tau +\tau (\overline{\beta }\alpha \overline{\tau })\hfill \\ \hfill a_4& =\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_1(4\tau +2\beta )\mathrm{\Psi }_1\hfill \\ \hfill a_5& =\delta (\overline{\tau }\pi )+\overline{\delta }(\tau \overline{\pi })6\pi \overline{\pi }+2\pi \overline{\alpha }+2\overline{\pi }\alpha 2\tau \overline{\tau }2\tau \alpha 2\overline{\tau }\overline{\alpha }+3\tau \pi +3\overline{\tau }\overline{\pi }.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.3)`$
These and the complex conjugate equations are nine real conditions on eight real unknown functions. Therefore, there exists a linear combination of the nine equations such that the left hand sides cancel. This is just the sought-for condition on the source terms:

$$a_1+\frac{\sigma }{\overline{\rho }}\overline{a}_2\frac{a_4}{3\sigma }+\left(\frac{\rho \overline{\rho }+\sigma \overline{\sigma }}{\overline{\rho }}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{3\sigma }\right)b_1+\left(\overline{\rho }\rho \frac{4\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{3\sigma }\frac{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}{\overline{\rho }}\right)b_2+\frac{3\sigma \overline{\sigma }}{\overline{\rho }}\overline{b}_2=0$$
$`(5.4)`$
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b_1& =\frac{a_1+a_3\overline{a}_1\overline{a}_3}{2(\overline{\rho }\rho )}\hfill \\ \hfill b_2& =\frac{1}{\overline{\rho }^2\rho ^2}\{\rho \frac{\rho \overline{\rho }}{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}(a_5+a_3+\overline{a}_3)+(3\rho \overline{\rho })(a_1+a_3)\frac{\rho ^2}{\overline{\sigma }}\overline{a}_2\frac{\rho \overline{\rho }}{\sigma }a_2\hfill \\ & +\rho [\frac{\rho \overline{\rho }}{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}(\frac{1}{r}+2\rho +2\overline{\rho })+5\rho 3\overline{\rho }]b_1\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.5)`$
All the spin coefficient quantities may be expressed, by use of Eqs. (2.1) and (2.2), in terms of the general solution

$$\pi =\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}c_k\pi ^{(k)}\tau =\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}c_k\tau ^{(k)}$$
$`(5.6)`$
and the corresponding complex conjugate quantities. We can take out the fractional multipliers of the fundamental solutions:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \pi ^{(1)}& =r^{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}{2}}\pi _1\pi ^{(2)}=r^{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}{2}}\pi _2\pi ^{(3)}=r^{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta 3}{2}}\pi _3\pi ^{(4)}=r^{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta 3}{2}}\pi _4\hfill \\ \hfill \tau ^{(1)}& =r^{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}{2}}\tau _1\tau ^{(2)}=r^{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta 1}{2}}\tau _2\tau ^{(3)}=r^{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta 3}{2}}\tau _3\tau ^{(4)}=r^{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\eta 3}{2}}\tau _4.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.7)`$
Thus the affine-parameter dependence of the entries in Eq. (5.4) is explicitly known, but the detailed form is extremely lengthy. Since the value of $`\eta `$ is arbitrary, one can simplify these computations by choosing some Pythagorean values, e.g., $`\mathrm{sin}\eta =3/5`$.

We may break up Eq. (5.4) by noting that each coefficient of the linearly independent functions of $`r`$ must vanish. There are two kinds of terms in (5.4); the derivative terms are linear in $`\pi ,\tau `$ and the complex conjugates and the algebraic terms are quadratic. By inspection of (5.7) and the form (1.10) of the $`\delta `$ operator, we find that the independent powers of $`r`$ occurring in the derivative terms are: $`\pm sin\eta 2,\pm sin\eta 1,2`$ and $`1`$ . The algebraic terms may have the following powers: $`\pm sin\eta 3,\pm sin\eta 2,\pm sin\eta 1,3,2`$ and $`1`$ . The powers $`r^{sin\eta 3}`$ occur only multiplied with the factor $`c_4^2`$. Thus, when collecting these terms in (5.4), we can put $`c_1=c_2=c_3=0`$. This yields $`c_4=0`$. Next, the terms with $`r^{sin\eta 3}`$, arising with a factor $`c_3^2`$, can be computed in a similar fashion, with the result that $`c_3=0`$. The surviving terms in (5.4) contain the factors $`\pm sin\eta 1`$ and $`1`$, with derivative and the algebraic terms mixed. The terms with $`sin\eta 1`$ do not contain any $`c_1`$ factor, hence we can put for these $`c_1=0`$. As expected, we get $`c_2=0`$. Finally, from the terms $`sin\eta 1`$ we find $`c_1=0`$.

We have thus shown that only the trivial solution (Sec. 4) of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ equations satisfies Eq. (5.4).

The curl-free fields with $`B=0`$ need to be considered separately. The computations follow the pattern of the generic case, and once again only the trivial solution of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ system survives. In the class with arbitrary values of $`\eta `$, we obtain the Kasner metric9 for $`V_0<0`$, and a sign-flipped version of the Kasner metric as described by McIntosh10, for $`V_0>0`$. Both are special cases of the Kóta-Perjés metric (I 5.11) for $`B=0`$.

6. THE SPACE-TIMES WITH SPECIAL VALUES OF $`\eta `$

By our main theorem of I on the vacuum Kerr-Schild space-times, there exist such exceptional values of the deformation parameter $`\eta `$ for which no restriction follows from Eq. (I.4.7) for the $`\delta `$ derivatives. To complete our investigation of vacuum Kerr-Schild space-times, we now consider in turn the metrics with either of the values $`sin\eta =0,\pm 1,\pm 1/\sqrt{2}`$.

(a) When $`sin\eta =0`$, both $`\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ vanish, and $`l`$ is a principal null vector of the curvature. By the Goldberg-Sachs theorem3, these parent space-times are algebraically special, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$. It then follows from Thompson’s Theorem 3.2 that the ensuing space-time is also algebraically special, with the Kerr-Schild congruence a principal null congruence5. All the vacuum Kerr-Schild spacetimes generated from the flat space-time are in this class.

(b) The case with $`cos\eta =0`$ contains automorphisms of the Minkowski space-time. With a spatial rotation of the vector $`m`$, the $`r`$-independent phase factor in $`\sigma `$ can be removed: $`\rho =\sigma =1/2r`$. Using these and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ equations of I we get $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=0`$. Then we get from the Bianchi identities $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\mathrm{\Psi }_3=\mathrm{\Psi }_4=0`$. Calculation shows that the ensuing space-time is also flat, as expected from the Goldberg-Sachs theorem for $`\sigma 0`$.

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

$$ds^2=\frac{f^0}{f}(r^{1k}dx^2+r^{1+k}dy^2)+2dr(l_adx^a)+f(l_adx^a)^2$$
$`(6.1)`$
with $`l=/r`$ tangent to the Kerr-Schild congruence. Metric (53) of Ref. 8 is given by

$$f=\mathrm{\Lambda }Re\left\{\frac{x+ir^ky}{r^k+iB}\right\},f^0=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x+By)$$
$`(6.2)`$
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the pencil parameter and $`B`$ a real constant. For metric (66), $`B=x/y`$ and

$$f=\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{x+by}{x^2r^k+y^2r^k},f^0=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x+by)/y^2.$$
$`(6.3)`$
Though metric (6.3) is of the Kerr-Schild type, it is not a solution of the vacuum Einstein equations8, and the contrary claim in Ref. 7 is invalid.

Notice that above we have enlisted all the metrics of Ref. 7.

Corollary: The Kóta-Perjés metrics all belong to the Kerr-Schild class.

7. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Our solution of the vacuum Kerr-Schild problem has been made possible by integration of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ system. However, these lengthy integrals do not satisfy all the field equations.

The vacuum Kerr-Schild pencils generated from a flat space-time are associated with complex surfaces in three-dimensional homogeneous spaces. This relationship follows from the Kerr theorem11. It has been known for some time that shear-free null geodesic congruences do not coexist with the Weyl curvature. Our main theorem in I has already indicated what we find in this paper that the variety of shearing Kerr-Schild congruences is too small to allow for the complex-analytic structures of the Kerr theorem.

REFERENCES

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

 Gergely, L. Á. and Perjés, Z.: Kerr-Schild metrics revisited I. The ground state (Paper I)

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

 Gergely, L. Á. and Perjés, Z.: Kerr-Schild metrics revisited II. The homogeneous integrals, KFKI-1993-09/B preprint

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

 Kamke, E.: Differentialgleichungen I., Sec. 8.2. Teubner, Stuttgart, 1977

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

 Evans, B., Perjés, Z. and Scott, S., in preparation

 Kasner, E., Amer. J. Math. 43, 217 (1921)

 McIntosh, C. B. G., in Relativity Today, Z. Perjés, Ed., Nova Science Publishers, New York (1992), p. 147

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

| p |  | $`P_3`$ | p | $`P_3`$ | p | $`P_3`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`cos\eta +sin\eta +1`$ |  | 1 | $`cos\eta +sin\eta +3`$ | i | $`3cos\eta +sin\eta +3`$ | 1 |
| $`cos\eta sin\eta +1`$ |  | i | $`cos\eta sin\eta +3`$ | 1 | $`3cos\eta sin\eta +3`$ | i |
| $`cos\eta +sin\eta +1`$ |  | i | $`cos\eta +sin\eta +3`$ | 1 | $`3cos\eta +sin\eta +3`$ | i |
| $`cos\eta sin\eta +1`$ |  | 1 | $`cos\eta sin\eta +3`$ | i | $`3cos\eta sin\eta +3`$ | 1 |

Table 1. The twelve solutions for $`\tau ^o`$ and $`\pi ^o`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_3=& P,P_2=\frac{p2}{cos\eta }P,P_1=\frac{p^24p2cos^2\eta +4}{2cos^2\eta }P,P_0=\frac{sin\eta }{2cos^2\eta }R\overline{P}\hfill \\ \hfill +& \frac{p^3+(2p^312p^2+32p94)cos^2\eta 6p^28pcos^4\eta +44cos^4\eta +32}{2cos\eta (p^2cos^2\eta p^28pcos^2\eta +8p+25cos^2\eta 16)}P,\hfill \\ \hfill P_1=& \frac{3}{4cos^2\eta }(p2)RP+\frac{sin\eta }{4cos^3\eta (p^2cos^2\eta p^28pcos^2\eta +8p+25cos\eta ^216)}\hfill \\ & \times (p^616p^56p^4cos^2\eta +100p^4+42p^3cos^2\eta 304p^3+12p^2cos^4\eta \hfill \\ & 72p^2cos^2\eta +448p^284pcos^4\eta 48pcos^2\eta 256p36cos\eta ^4+192cos^2\eta )\overline{P},\hfill \\ \hfill P_2=& \frac{3}{4cos\eta }RP+\frac{sin\eta }{4cos^2\eta (p^2cos^2\eta p^28pcos^2\eta +8p+25cos\eta ^216)}\hfill \\ & \times (p^514p^42p^3cos^2\eta +68p^310p^2cos^2\eta 120p^2+24pcos^4\eta \hfill \\ & +140pcos^2\eta 132cos^4\eta 200cos^2\eta +128)\overline{P},\hfill \\ \hfill P_3=& 2\frac{sin\eta }{cos\eta }\overline{P}\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill R=& \frac{p^412p^3+52p^296p+64+(2p^326p^2+84)cos^2\eta +(4p+8)cos^4\eta }{(8p)sin^2\eta p+25cos^2\eta 16}\hfill \end{array}$$

Table 2. The universal coefficients of $`\pi `$. The fundamental solution is given by the four independent values $`p=cos\eta \pm sin\eta +1`$ and $`p=cos\eta \pm sin\eta +3`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T_3=& \frac{sin\eta }{cos\eta }P,T_2=\frac{sin\eta (p2)}{cos^2\eta }P,T_1=\frac{sin\eta (p4)P+3\overline{P}}{cos^2\eta }R,\hfill \\ \hfill T_0=& \frac{sin\eta }{4cos^2\eta }RP+\frac{1}{4cos^3\eta (p^2cos^2\eta p^28pcos^2\eta +8p+25cos^2\eta 16)}\hfill \\ & \times (p^5cos^2\eta p^516p^4cos^2\eta +16p^46p^3cos^4\eta +118p^3cos^2\eta \hfill \\ & 100p^3+74p^2cos^4\eta 468p^2cos^2\eta +304p^28pcos^6\eta 344pcos^4\eta \hfill \\ & +932pcos^2\eta 448p+44cos^6\eta +456cos^4\eta 720cos^2\eta +256)\overline{P},\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill T_1=& \frac{p^25p3cos^2\eta +6}{cos^2\eta }\overline{P},T_2=\frac{2p5}{cos\eta }\overline{P},T_3=2\overline{P}\hfill \end{array}$$

Table 3. The universal coefficients of $`\tau `$