text:
# Gravitational Wave Propagation in Isotropic Cosmologies

## 1 Introduction

This paper is primarily concerned with investigating the influence of gravitational waves on the matter content of the universe. The gravitational waves are modelled as small perturbations of Friedmann–Lemaître cosmological models with a spatially homogeneous and isotropic Robertson–Walker (RW) geometry. We use the gauge– invariant and covariant perturbation approach of Ellis and Bruni . This technique has previously been used to study aspects of gravitational wave propagation in isotropic cosmologies which differ from those considered here (see, for example, , ).

We look for gravitational waves which carry arbitrary information and this motivates us to require the Ellis–Bruni gauge–invariant variables to have an arbitrary dependence on a function. Thus by “arbitrary information” in the perturbations we mean that they depend upon an arbitrary function. This in turn means that the profile of the waves described by the perturbations is unspecified. The idea of introducing arbitrary functions into solutions of Einstein’s equations describing gravitational waves goes back to pioneering work by Trautman . This point of view was initiated in the present context by Hogan and Ellis , but whereas in that work the perturbed matter distribution was a perfect fluid we here allow it to be completely general. The Ellis–Bruni approach does not involve working directly with Einstein’s field equations but instead the basic equations used are the Ricci identities, Bianchi identities and the matter equations of motion and energy conservation equation, with Einstein’s field equations incorporated in them. We work in the linear approximation in terms of the Ellis–Bruni variables and demonstrate that consistency of our assumptions with the basic equations necessarily leads to all perturbation variables vanishing except the perturbed shear of the matter world–lines and the anisotropic stress perturbation of the matter distribution. The consistency of the equations satisfied by these surviving variables is established. We then specialise our study to pure gravity wave perturbations for which the perturbed Weyl tensor is radiative (type N in the Petrov classification). We show that for such waves the histories of their wave–fronts in the background RW space–time can be shear–free null hypersurfaces. The various open and closed RW geometries admit, in a natural way, families of shear–free null hypersurfaces. We derive explicit solutions of the perturbation equations describing gravitational waves propagating through these isotropic universes for which the histories of their wave fronts are these naturally occuring families of shear–free null hypersurfaces. These solutions are analogous to the Bateman waves  in electromagnetic theory.

The paper is organised as follows: in section 2 we list the basic exact equations derived from the Ricci identities, Bianchi identities and the equations of motion and of energy conservation of the matter distribution. In section 3 we introduce the Ellis–Bruni gauge–invariant variables and show how for us they have an arbitrary dependence on a function. The consistency of these assumptions with the basic equations in the linear approximation is then systematically studied, and the mathematical consistency of the surviving equations is established. This is followed in section 4 by specialisation to pure gravity wave perturbations and the demonstration that their wave–front histories can be shear–free null hypersurfaces. In section 5 some explicit families of pure gravity wave perturbations are derived. The paper ends with a discussion in which we comment on the solutions obtained in section 5.

## 2 The Basic Exact Equations

To make the paper as self–contained as possible the basic equations required for our study are given in this section. We use the notation and sign conventions of  and all of the equations given here can be found in  with the exception that the Bianchi identities given in  apply to a perfect fluid matter distribution whereas we require the extension of these to a general matter distribution with energy–momentum–stress tensor given by (2.2) below. This covariant approach to cosmology began in a systematic way with the work of Schücking, Ehlers and Sachs \[see ,  for example\] while Hawking  gave the first description of cosmological perturbations in this context. We are concerned here with a four dimensional space–time manifold with metric tensor components $`g_{ab}`$, in a local coordinate system $`\{x^a\}`$, and a preferred congruence of world–lines tangent to the unit time–like vector field with components $`u^a`$ (with $`u^au_a=1`$). With respect to this 4–velocity field the Weyl tensor, with components $`C_{abcd}`$, is decomposed into an “electric part” and a “magnetic part” given respectively by

$$E_{ab}=C_{apbq}u^pu^q,H_{ab}={}_{}{}^{}C_{apbq}^{}u^pu^q.$$
(2.1)
Here $`{}_{}{}^{}C_{apbq}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\eta _{ap}{}_{}{}^{rs}C_{rsbq}^{}`$ is the dual of the Weyl tensor (the left and right duals being equal), $`\eta _{abcd}=\sqrt{g}ϵ_{abcd}`$ with $`g=\mathrm{det}(g_{ab})`$ and $`ϵ_{abcd}`$ is the Levi–Civita permutation symbol. The expression for the Weyl tensor in terms of $`E_{ab}`$ and $`H_{ab}`$ is given in . The symmetric energy–momentum–stress tensor $`T^{ab}`$ can be decomposed with respect to the 4–velocity field $`u^a`$ as

$$T^{ab}=\mu u^au^b+ph^{ab}+q^au^b+q^bu^a+\pi ^{ab},$$
(2.2)
where

$$h^{ab}=g^{ab}+u^au^b,$$
(2.3)
is the projection tensor and

$$q^au_a=0,\pi ^{ab}u_b=0,\pi ^a{}_{a}{}^{}=0,$$
(2.4)
with $`\pi ^{ab}=\pi ^{ba}`$. Here $`\mu `$ is interpreted as the matter energy density measured by the observer with 4–velocity $`u^a`$, $`p`$ is the isotropic pressure, $`q^a`$ is the energy flow (such as heat flow) measured by this observer and $`\pi ^{ab}`$ is the anisotropic stress (due, for example, to viscosity). We shall indicate covariant differentiation with a semi–colon, partial differentiation by a comma, covariant differentiation in the direction of $`u^a`$ by a dot and a definition by a colon followed by an equality sign. Thus the 4–acceleration of the time–like congruence is

$$\dot{u}^a:=u^a{}_{;b}{}^{}u_{}^{b},$$
(2.5)
and $`u_{a;b}`$ can be decomposed into

$$u_{a;b}=\omega _{ab}+\sigma _{ab}+\frac{1}{3}\theta h_{ab}\dot{u}_au_b,$$
(2.6)
with

$$\omega _{ab}:=u_{[a;b]}+\dot{u}_{[a}u_{b]},$$
(2.7)
the vorticity tensor of the congruence tangent to $`u^a`$. The square brackets denote skew–symmetrisation as usual. Also

$$\sigma _{ab}:=u_{(a;b)}+\dot{u}_{(a}u_{b)}\frac{1}{3}\theta h_{ab},$$
(2.8)
is the shear tensor of the congruence. The round brackets denote symmetrisation and

$$\theta :=u^a{}_{;a}{}^{},$$
(2.9)
is the expansion (or contraction) of the congruence.

The key equations we shall need are obtained by projections in the direction $`u^a`$ and orthogonal to $`u^a`$ (using the projection tensor $`h_{ab}`$) of the Ricci identities

$$u_{a;dc}u_{a;cd}=R_{abcd}u^b,$$
(2.10)
where $`R_{abcd}`$ is the Riemann curvature tensor, the equations of motion and the energy conservation equation contained in

$$T^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=0,$$
(2.11)
and the Bianchi identities written conveniently in the form

$$C^{abcd}{}_{;d}{}^{}=R^{c[a;b]}\frac{1}{6}g^{c[a}R^{;b]}.$$
(2.12)
Here $`R^{ca}:=R^{cba}_b`$ are the components of the Ricci tensor and $`R:=R^c_c`$ is the Ricci scalar. Einstein’s field equations, after absorbing the coupling constant into the energy–momentum–stress tensor, take the form

$$R_{ab}\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}R=T_{ab}.$$
(2.13)
The Ricci identities yield Raychaudhuri’s equation,

$$\dot{\theta }+\frac{1}{3}\theta ^2\dot{u}_{;a}^a+2(\sigma ^2\omega ^2)+\frac{1}{2}(\mu +3p)=0,$$
(2.14)
(here $`\sigma ^2:=\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{ab}\sigma ^{ab},\omega ^2:=\frac{1}{2}\omega _{ab}\omega ^{ab}`$) the vorticity propagation equation,

$$h_b^a\dot{\omega }^b+\frac{2}{3}\theta \omega ^a=\sigma ^a{}_{b}{}^{}\omega _{}^{b}+\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{abcd}u_b\dot{u}_{c;d},$$
(2.15)
(here $`\omega ^a:=\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{abcd}u_b\omega _{cd}`$ is the vorticity vector) the shear propagation equation,

$`h_a^fh_b^g(\dot{\sigma }_{fg}\dot{u}_{(f;g)})\dot{u}_a\dot{u}_b+\omega _a\omega _b+\sigma _{af}\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta \sigma _{ab}`$
$`+h_{ab}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\dot{u}_{;c}^c\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _{ab}+E_{ab}=0,`$ (2.16)
the $`(0,\nu )`$field equation (see  for the explanation of this terminology),

$$\frac{2}{3}h_b^a\theta ^{,b}h_b^a\sigma ^{bc}{}_{;d}{}^{}h_{c}^{d}\eta ^{acdf}u_c(\omega _{d;f}+2\omega _d\dot{u}_f)=q^a,$$
(2.17)
the divergence of vorticity equation,

$$\omega ^a{}_{;b}{}^{}h_{a}^{b}=\omega ^a\dot{u}_a,$$
(2.18)
and the magnetic part of the Weyl tensor,

$$H_{ab}=2\dot{u}_{(a}\omega _{b)}h_a^th_b^s(\omega _{(t}{}_{}{}^{g;c}+\sigma _{(t}{}_{}{}^{g;c})\eta _{s)fgc}u^f.$$
(2.19)
Next the equations (2.11) projected orthogonal to $`u^a`$ and along $`u^a`$ respectively give the equations of motion of matter,

$$(\mu +p)\dot{u}^a+h^{ac}(p_{,c}+\pi ^b{}_{c;b}{}^{}+\dot{q}_c)+(\omega ^{ab}+\sigma ^{ab}+\frac{4}{3}\theta h^{ab})q_b=0,$$
(2.20)
and the energy conservation equation,

$$\dot{\mu }+\theta (\mu +p)+\pi _{ab}\sigma ^{ab}+q^a{}_{;a}{}^{}+\dot{u}^aq_a=0.$$
(2.21)
Finally the various projections of the Bianchi identities (2.12) along and orthogonal to $`u^a`$ give analogous equations to Maxwell’s equations for $`E_{ab}`$ and $`H_{ab}`$ in (2.1). These consist of the div–$`E`$ equation,

$`h_g^bE^{gd}{}_{;f}{}^{}h_{d}^{f}+3\omega ^sH_s^b\eta ^{bapq}u_a\sigma ^d{}_{p}{}^{}H_{qd}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}h_c^b\mu ^{,c}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\pi ^{bd}{}_{;d}{}^{}+u^b\sigma _{cd}\pi ^{cd}3\omega ^{bd}q_d+\sigma ^{bd}q_d{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta q^b+\pi ^{bd}\dot{u}_d\},`$ (2.22)
the div–$`H`$ equation,

$`h_g^bH^{gd}{}_{;f}{}^{}h_{d}^{f}3\omega ^sE_s^b+\eta ^{bapq}u_a\sigma ^d{}_{p}{}^{}E_{qd}^{}=(\mu +p)\omega ^b`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^b{}_{qac}{}^{}u_{}^{q}q^{a;c}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^b{}_{qac}{}^{}u_{}^{q}(\omega ^{dc}+\sigma ^{dc})\pi ^a{}_{d}{}^{},`$ (2.23)
the $`\dot{E}`$–equation,

$`h_f^b\dot{E}^{fg}h_g^t+h_a^{(b}\eta ^{t)rsd}u_rH_{s;d}^a2H_s^{(b}\eta ^{t)drs}u_d\dot{u}_r`$
$`E_s^{(t}\omega ^{b)s}3E_s^{(t}\sigma ^{b)s}+h^{tb}E^{dp}\sigma _{dp}+\theta E^{bt}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mu +p)\sigma ^{tb}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}h^{tb}\{\dot{\mu }+\theta (\mu +p)\}q^{(b}\dot{u}^{t)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u^{(b}\dot{q}^{t)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q^{(t;b)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\omega ^{c(b}+\sigma ^{c(b}\}u^{t)}q_c+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\theta u^{(t}q^{b)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\pi }+\pi ^{c(b}u^{t)}\dot{u}_c`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\omega ^{c(b}+\sigma ^{c(b}\}\pi ^{t)}{}_{c}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\theta \pi ^{bt},`$ (2.24)
and the $`\dot{H}`$–equation,

$`h_f^b\dot{H}^{fg}h_g^th_a^{(b}\eta ^{t)rsd}u_rE_{s;d}^a+2E_s^{(b}\eta ^{t)drs}u_d\dot{u}_r`$
$`H_s^{(t}\omega ^{b)s}3H_s^{(t}\sigma ^{b)s}+h^{tb}H^{dp}\sigma _{dp}+\theta H^{bt}=q^{(t}\omega ^{b)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{(t}{}_{rad}{}^{}\{\omega ^{b)d}+\sigma ^{b)d}\}u^rq^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{(b}{}_{rad}{}^{}\pi _{}^{t)a;d}u_r`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{(b}{}_{rad}{}^{}u_{}^{t)}u^r\{\omega ^{cd}+\sigma ^{cd}\}\pi ^a{}_{c}{}^{}.`$ (2.25)
## 3 Perturbations of Isotropic Cosmologies

We shall now assume that the space–time in section 2 is a perturbed RW space–time. Thus the background metric tensor $`g_{ab}`$ is the Robertson–Walker metric, the background energy–momentum–stress tensor is (2.2) specialised to a perfect–fluid (by putting $`q^a=0=\pi ^{ab}`$) with fluid 4–velocity $`u^a`$ and the background Weyl tensor vanishes. The Ellis–Bruni  approach to perturbations of this background is to work with gauge–invariant small quantities rather than small perturbations of the background metric. Such gauge–invariant quantities have the important property that they vanish in the background space–time. Thus for an isotropic background the Ellis–Bruni variables, which will henceforth be considered small of first order, are $`E_{ab},H_{ab},\sigma _{ab},\dot{u}^a,\omega _{ab}`$ (or equivalently the vorticity vector $`\omega ^a`$), $`X_a=h_a^b\mu _{,b},Y_a=h_a^bp_{,b},Z_a=h_a^b\theta _{,b},\pi _{ab}`$ and $`q^a`$. The equations satisfied by these quantities are given by (2.15)–(2.20) and by (2)–(2) neglecting non–linear terms in these variables. Raychaudhuri’s equation (2.14) and the energy conservation equation (2.21) are not immediately useful because they are not expressed in terms of these gauge–invariant variables. We can however get useful equations from (2.14) and (2.21) by calculating the spatial gradients of these equations and then retaining only linear terms in the gauge–invariant variables. This results in the two equations

$$\dot{Z}^a+\theta Z^a\dot{\theta }\dot{u}^ah^{ab}(\dot{u}^a{}_{;a}{}^{})_{,b}+\frac{1}{2}X^a+\frac{3}{2}Y^a=0,$$
(3.1)
and

$$\dot{X}^a+\frac{4}{3}\theta X^a+(\mu +p)Z^a+\theta Y^a\dot{\mu }\dot{u}^a+h^{ab}(q^c{}_{;c}{}^{})_{,b}=0.$$
(3.2)
The background value of $`\dot{\theta }`$ to be substituted into (3.1) is given by

$$\dot{\theta }=\frac{1}{3}\theta ^2\frac{1}{2}(\mu +3p),$$
(3.3)
which is got by specialising Raychaudhuri’s equation (2.14) to the background. In (3.2) the background value of $`\dot{\mu }`$ is given by

$$\dot{\mu }=\theta (\mu +p),$$
(3.4)
which follows from (2.21) specialised to the background. We shall assume an equation of state of the form $`p=p(\mu )`$ so that the Ellis–Bruni variables $`X_a`$ and $`Y_a`$ are related by

$$Y_a=\frac{dp}{d\mu }X_a.$$
(3.5)
Finally we shall assume that in the background $`\mu +p0`$ so that we do indeed have a cosmological model in which the Einstein tensor determines a unique time–like 4–velocity of the matter.

We look for solutions $`\sigma _{ab},\dot{u}^a,\omega _{ab}(\omega ^a),X_a`$ (and thus $`Y_a`$ by (3.5)), $`Z^a,\pi ^{ab}`$ and $`q^a`$ of the linearised versions of the equations (2.15)–(2.20) and (2)–(2) along with (3.1) and (3.2) for which these variables depend upon an arbitrary function. This is because we expect that this dependence of perturbations will describe gravitational waves carrying arbitrary information. We note that $`E_{ab},H_{ab}`$ are derived variables. Specifically we assume that

$`\sigma _{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`s_{ab}F(\varphi ),\dot{u}^b=a^bF(\varphi ),\omega ^{ab}=w^{ab}F(\varphi )(\omega ^a=w^aF(\varphi )),`$
$`X^a`$ $`=`$ $`x^aF(\varphi ),Z^a=z^aF(\varphi ),\pi ^{ab}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}F(\varphi ),q^a=Q^aF(\varphi ).`$ (3.6)
where $`F`$ is an arbitrary real–valued function of its argument $`\varphi (x^a)`$. This form for the gauge–invariant variables was first introduced by Hogan and Ellis  where the perturbed matter distribution was taken to be a perfect fluid. As we mentioned in the introduction, the idea of introducing arbitrary functions into solutions of Einstein’s equations describing gravitational waves goes back to pioneering work by Trautman . We note that all of the quantities in (3) are orthogonal to $`u^a`$ and that $`s_{ab},\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$ are trace–free with respect to the background metric $`g_{ab}`$ (i.e. $`s^a{}_{a}{}^{}=0=\mathrm{\Pi }^a_a`$).

When (3) are substituted into the linearised versions of (2.15)– (2.20), (2)–(2) and (3.1), (3.2) the following extensive but surveyable list of equations emerges as indicated.

From the shear propagation equation:

$$E_{ab}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}+p_{ab}\right)F+m_{ab}F^{},$$
(3.7)
with $`F^{}=dF/d\varphi `$ and

$$p_{ab}=a_{(a;b)}+u_{(a}\dot{a}_{b)}\frac{1}{3}\theta u_{(a}a_{b)}\frac{1}{3}a^f{}_{;f}{}^{}h_{ab}^{}\dot{s}_{ab}\frac{2}{3}\theta s_{ab},$$
(3.8)
$$m_{ab}=a_{(a}\lambda _{b)}\frac{1}{3}\chi h_{ab}\dot{\varphi }s_{ab}.$$
(3.9)
Here and throughout $`\lambda _a=h_a^b\varphi _{,b},\chi =\varphi _{,f}a^f`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }=\varphi _{,a}u^a`$.

From the magnetic part of the Weyl tensor:

$$H_{ab}=q_{ab}F+l_{ab}F^{},$$
(3.10)
with

$$q_{ab}=w_{(a;b)}+\dot{w}_{(a}u_{b)}\frac{1}{3}\theta w_{(a}u_{b)}s_{(a}{}_{}{}^{p;c}\eta _{b)fpc}^{}u^fh_{ab}w^c{}_{;c}{}^{},$$
(3.11)
$$l_{ab}=w_{(a}\lambda _{b)}w_c\varphi ^{,c}h_{ab}s_{(a}{}_{}{}^{p}\eta _{b)fpc}^{}u^f\varphi ^{,c}.$$
(3.12)
From the div–E equation:

$$m^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0,$$
(3.13)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}\varphi _{,b}+p^{ab}\varphi _{,b}+m^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=0,$$
(3.14)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}+p^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=\frac{1}{3}x^a\frac{1}{3}\theta Q^a.$$
(3.15)
From the div–H equation:

$$l^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0,$$
(3.16)
$$q^{ab}\varphi _{,b}+l^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\eta ^a{}_{qbc}{}^{}u_{}^{q}Q^b\varphi ^{,c},$$
(3.17)
$$q^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}(\mu +p)w^a=\frac{1}{2}\eta ^a{}_{qbc}{}^{}u_{}^{q}Q^{b;c}.$$
(3.18)
From the $`\dot{E}`$–equation:

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{bt}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta \mathrm{\Pi }^{bt}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}h^{bt}Q^a{}_{;a}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u^{(t}\dot{Q}^{b)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q^{(t;b)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\theta u^{(t}Q^{b)}=`$
$`\dot{p}^{bt}u_rq^{(b}{}_{s;d}{}^{}\eta _{}^{t)rsd}\theta p^{bt}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mu +p)s^{bt},`$ (3.19)
$$\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{\Pi }^{bt}\frac{1}{6}h^{bt}Q^a\varphi _{,a}+\frac{1}{2}Q^{(t}\lambda ^{b)}=\dot{\varphi }p^{bt}\dot{m}^{bt}\theta m^{bt}u_r(q^{(b}{}_{s}{}^{}\varphi _{,d}^{}+l^{(b}{}_{s;d}{}^{})\eta ^{t)rsd},$$
(3.20)
$$\dot{\varphi }m^{bt}+l^{(b}{}_{s}{}^{}\eta _{}^{t)rsd}u_r\varphi _{,d}=0.$$
(3.21)
From the $`\dot{H}`$–equation:

$$\dot{q}^{bt}u_rp^{(b}{}_{s;d}{}^{}\eta _{}^{t)rsd}+\theta q^{bt}=0,$$
(3.22)
$$\dot{\varphi }q^{bt}+\dot{l}^{bt}+\theta l^{bt}u_r(p^{(b}{}_{s}{}^{}\varphi _{,d}^{}+m^{(b}{}_{s;d}{}^{})\eta ^{t)rsd}=0,$$
(3.23)
$$\dot{\varphi }l^{bt}m^{(b}{}_{s}{}^{}\eta _{}^{t)rsd}u_r\varphi _{,d}=0.$$
(3.24)
From the $`(0,\nu )`$–field equation:

$$s^{ab}\varphi _{,b}+\eta ^{acdf}u_cw_d\varphi _{,f}=0,$$
(3.25)
$$Q^a=\frac{2}{3}z^as^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}\eta ^{acdf}u_cw_{d;f}.$$
(3.26)
From the vorticity propagation equation:

$$\dot{w}^a+\frac{2}{3}\theta w^a=\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{acbd}u_ca_{b;d},$$
(3.27)
$$\dot{\varphi }w^a=\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{acbd}u_ca_b\varphi _{,d}.$$
(3.28)
From the divergence of vorticity equation:

$$w^a{}_{;a}{}^{}=0,$$
(3.29)
$$w^a\varphi _{,a}=0.$$
(3.30)
From the spatial gradient of Raychaudhuri’s equation:

$$\dot{z}^c+\theta z^c+\frac{1}{2}x^c+\frac{3}{2}y^c=h^{cb}(a^d{}_{;d}{}^{})_{,b}+\dot{\theta }a^c,$$
(3.31)
$$\dot{\varphi }z^c=a^d{}_{;d}{}^{}\lambda _{}^{c}+h^{cb}\left(a^d\varphi _{,d}\right)_{,b},$$
(3.32)
$$\left(a^d\varphi _{,d}\right)\lambda _c=0.$$
(3.33)
From the equations of motion of matter:

$$y^a+\dot{Q}^a=(\mu +p)a^a\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{},$$
(3.34)
$$\dot{\varphi }Q^a=\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}\varphi _{,b}.$$
(3.35)
From the spatial gradient of the energy conservation equation:

$$\dot{x}^c+\frac{4}{3}\theta x^c+\theta y^c+h^{cb}(Q^a{}_{;a}{}^{})_{,b}=(\mu +p)\theta a^c(\mu +p)z^c,$$
(3.36)
$$\dot{\varphi }x_c+Q^a{}_{;a}{}^{}\lambda _{c}^{}+h_c^b\left(Q^a\varphi _{,a}\right)_{,b}=0,$$
(3.37)
$$\left(Q^a\varphi _{,a}\right)\lambda _b=0.$$
(3.38)
On account of (3.5) the variable $`y^a`$ appearing in (3.31), (3.34) and (3.36) is related to $`x^a`$ by

$$y^a=\frac{dp}{d\mu }x^a.$$
(3.39)
We must now examine the internal consistency of these equations.

Our first enquiry parallels the work in . Putting

$$V^{bt}=m^{bt}+il^{bt},$$
(3.40)
we can write (3.21) and (3.24) as a single complex equation

$$2\dot{\varphi }V^{bt}=i\eta ^{trsd}u_rV^b{}_{s}{}^{}\varphi _{,d}^{}+i\eta ^{brsd}u_rV^t{}_{s}{}^{}\varphi _{,d}^{}.$$
(3.41)
From this we calculate that

$$\dot{\varphi }\eta _{bpql}V^{bt}u^p=2iV^t{}_{[q}{}^{}\lambda _{l]}^{}.$$
(3.42)
When this is substituted into each term on the right hand side of (3.41) we obtain

$$2\dot{\varphi }V^{bt}=2\dot{\varphi }V^{bt}+2\dot{\varphi }^1\varphi _{,d}\varphi ^{,d}V^{bt}.$$
(3.43)
Hence with $`\dot{\varphi }0`$ and $`V^{bt}0`$ we must have

$$\varphi _{,d}\varphi ^{,d}=0.$$
(3.44)
The hypersurfaces $`\varphi (x^a)=\mathrm{constant}`$ in the background isotropic cosmological model must be null (see section 4 below where the physical implications of (3.44) are discussed). Thus $`\lambda _a=h_a^b\varphi _{,b}=\varphi _{,a}+\dot{\varphi }u_a0`$ and so we now have, in addition to (3.44), the following vanishing scalar products:

$$w^a\varphi _{,a}=0,a^a\varphi _{,a}=0,Q^a\varphi _{,a}=0,$$
(3.45)
on account of (3.30), (3.33) and (3.38). The latter two simplify (3.32) and (3.37) respectively.

We will next show that for consistency of our equations we must have $`Q^a=0`$. Let us, for convenience, write (3.8) as

$$p^{ab}=A^{ab}\dot{s}^{ab}\frac{2}{3}\theta s^{ab},$$
(3.46)
with

$$A^{ab}=a^{(a;b)}+u^{(a}\dot{a}^{b)}\frac{1}{3}\theta u^{(a}a^{b)}\frac{1}{3}a^f{}_{;f}{}^{}h_{}^{ab}.$$
(3.47)
Using the fact that in the background $`\theta _{,a}=\dot{\theta }u_a`$ we have from (3.46),

$$p^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=A^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}\dot{s}^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}\frac{2}{3}\theta s^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}.$$
(3.48)
In the background $`u_{a;b}=\frac{1}{3}\theta h_{ab}`$ and so this equation can be written

$$p^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=A^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}s^{ab}{}_{;cb}{}^{}u_{}^{c}\theta s^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}.$$
(3.49)
The Ricci identities satisfied by $`s^{ab}`$ give

$$s^{ab}{}_{;cb}{}^{}u_{}^{c}=(s^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{})^.,$$
(3.50)
and so (3.49) becomes

$$p^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=A^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}(s^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{})^.\theta s^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}.$$
(3.51)
Now (3.26) is

$$s^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=Q^a+\frac{2}{3}z^a+𝒜^a,$$
(3.52)
with

$$𝒜^a=\eta ^{acdf}u_cw_{d;f}.$$
(3.53)
Putting (3.52) into (3.51) yields

$$p^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=A^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}+\dot{Q}^a+\theta Q^a\frac{2}{3}\dot{z}^a\frac{2}{3}\theta z^a\dot{𝒜}^a\theta 𝒜^a.$$
(3.54)
Alternatively from (3.15) and (3.34) we have

$$p^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=\frac{1}{3}x^a\frac{1}{3}\theta Q^a+y^a+\dot{Q}^a+(\mu +p)a^a.$$
(3.55)
Thus (3.54) and (3.55) are consistent provided

$$\frac{4}{3}\theta Q^a=\frac{2}{3}(\dot{z}^a+\theta z^a+\frac{1}{2}x^a+\frac{3}{2}y^a)+(\mu +p)a^a+\dot{𝒜}^a+\theta 𝒜A^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}.$$
(3.56)
Making use of (3.28) to write $`w^a`$ in terms of $`a^a`$ and using the propagation equation (3.27) for $`w^a`$ along $`u^a`$ it follows that

$`\dot{𝒜}^a+\theta 𝒜^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\ddot{a}^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta \dot{a}^a\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\mu p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\dot{\theta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\theta ^2\right\}a^a`$ (3.57)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^{ac}(a^b{}_{;b}{}^{})_{,c}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta a^b{}_{;b}{}^{}u_{}^{a}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a^{a;b}{}_{;b}{}^{}.`$
Direct calculation from (3.47) yields

$`A^{ab}_{;b}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\ddot{a}^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta \dot{a}^a+\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\mu p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\dot{\theta }{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\theta ^2\right\}a^a`$ (3.58)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}h^{ac}(a^b{}_{;b}{}^{})_{,c}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta a^b{}_{;b}{}^{}u_{}^{a}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a^{a;b}{}_{;b}{}^{}.`$
Putting (3.57) and (3.58) into (3.56) and using the background Raychaudhuri equation (3.3) gives

$$\frac{4}{3}\theta Q^a=\frac{2}{3}\{\dot{z}^a+\theta z^a+\frac{1}{2}x^a+\frac{3}{2}y^ah^{ac}(a^b{}_{;b}{}^{})_{,c}\dot{\theta }a^a\}.$$
(3.59)
It thus follows from (3.31) that

$$\theta Q^a=0.$$
(3.60)
Since $`\theta >0`$ we must have

$$Q^a=0.$$
(3.61)
It now follows from (3.37) and (3.38) that

$$x^a=0,$$
(3.62)
and so (3.39) yields

$$y^a=0.$$
(3.63)
Now (3.32)with (3.45) becomes

$$\dot{\varphi }z^c=a^d{}_{;d}{}^{}\lambda _{}^{c},$$
(3.64)
while (3.36) reduces to

$$(\mu +p)(z^c+\theta a^c)=0.$$
(3.65)
Contracting (3.64) with $`\varphi _{,c}`$ and using (3.44) results in

$$z^c\varphi _{,c}=\dot{\varphi }a^d{}_{;d}{}^{},$$
(3.66)
and, noting (3.45) again, contracting (3.65) with $`\varphi _{,c}`$ gives

$$\dot{\varphi }(\mu +p)a^d{}_{;d}{}^{}=0.$$
(3.67)
With $`\dot{\varphi }0,\mu +p0`$ we must have $`a^d{}_{;d}{}^{}=0`$ and so (3.64) becomes

$$z^c=0.$$
(3.68)
Now (3.65) with $`\theta >0`$ and $`\mu +p0`$ yields

$$a^c=0.$$
(3.69)
It now follows from (3.28) that

$$w^a=0.$$
(3.70)
At this stage the only surviving gauge–invariant small quantities from the list (3) are $`\sigma ^{ab}`$ and $`\pi ^{ab}`$ or equivalently $`s^{ab},\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$. We see that now (3.25) and (3.35) require

$$s^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0,\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0.$$
(3.71)
Also (3.26) and (3.34) require $`s^{ab},\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ to satisfy

$$s^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=0,\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=0.$$
(3.72)
We will write the remaining equations from (3.13)–(3.38), which have not reduced to $`0=0`$, in terms of $`s^{ab},\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$. We will then check that the equations we obtain for $`s^{ab},\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ (including (3.71) and (3.72)) are consistent. We begin with (3.20) with $`Q^a=0`$ and substitute into it $`p^{ab}`$ from (3.8) with $`a^a=0`$ and $`m^{ab}`$ from (3.9) with $`a^a=0`$ to obtain

$$\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{\Pi }^{bt}=2\dot{\varphi }\dot{s}^{bt}+\frac{5}{3}\theta \dot{\varphi }s^{bt}+\ddot{\varphi }s^{bt}u_r(q^{(b}{}_{s}{}^{}\varphi _{,d}^{}+l^{(b}{}_{s;d}{}^{})\eta ^{t)rsd}.$$
(3.73)
With $`q^{ab}`$ given by (3.11) with $`w^a=0`$ we calculate

$$\eta ^{brsd}q^t{}_{s}{}^{}u_{r}^{}\varphi _{,d}=\dot{s}^{tp}\varphi _{,p}u^b+s^{tb;p}\varphi _{,p}+\dot{\varphi }\dot{s}^{tb}s^{tp;b}\varphi _{,p}+\frac{1}{3}\theta \dot{\varphi }s^{tb}.$$
(3.74)
Next using $`l^{ab}`$ in (3.12) with $`w^a=0`$ we find

$$\eta ^{brsd}u_rl_{st}=\dot{\varphi }s^d{}_{t}{}^{}u_{}^{b}+s^b{}_{t}{}^{}\varphi _{}^{,d}+\dot{\varphi }s^b{}_{t}{}^{}u_{}^{d}s^d{}_{t}{}^{}\varphi _{}^{,b}.$$
(3.75)
The first of (3.72) and the background expression $`u^d{}_{;d}{}^{}=\theta `$ help us to deduce from (3.75) that

$`\eta ^{brsd}u_rl^t_{s;d}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\varphi }_{,d}s^{td}u^b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta \dot{\varphi }s^{tb}+s^{tb}{}_{;d}{}^{}\varphi _{}^{,d}+s^{tb}\varphi ^{,d}_{;d}`$ (3.76)
$`+\ddot{\varphi }s^{tb}+\dot{\varphi }\dot{s}^{tb}+\theta \dot{\varphi }s^{tb}\varphi ^{,b}{}_{;d}{}^{}s_{}^{td}.`$
Putting (3.74) and (3.76) together we get

$$\eta ^{brsd}u_r(q^t{}_{s}{}^{}\varphi _{,d}^{}+l^t{}_{s;d}{}^{})=2s^{tb;d}\varphi _{,d}+\varphi ^{,d}{}_{;d}{}^{}s_{}^{tb}+2\dot{\varphi }\dot{s}^{tb}+\ddot{\varphi }s^{tb}+\theta \dot{\varphi }s^{tb},$$
(3.77)
which is symmetric in $`(t,b)`$. Substituting this into (3.73) gives the equation

$$s_{tb}^{}+\left(\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^{,d}{}_{;d}{}^{}\frac{1}{3}\theta \dot{\varphi }\right)s_{tb}=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{\Pi }_{tb},$$
(3.78)
with $`s_{tb}^{}:=s_{tb;d}\varphi ^{,d}`$. This is a propagation equation for $`s_{tb}`$ along the null geodesics tangent to $`\varphi ^{,d}`$.

We now turn our attention to (3.23). Substituting for $`p^{ab},m^{ab}`$ from (3.8) and (3.9) with $`a^a=0`$ we see that

$$p^b{}_{s}{}^{}\varphi _{,d}^{}+m^b{}_{s;d}{}^{}=(\varphi _{,d}s^b{}_{s}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{.}\theta \varphi _{,d}s^b{}_{s}{}^{}\frac{1}{3}\theta \dot{\varphi }u_ds^b{}_{s}{}^{}\dot{\varphi }s^b{}_{s;d}{}^{}.$$
(3.79)
We notice in passing from this that now (3.14), which reads

$$p^{ab}\varphi _{,b}+m^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=0,$$
(3.80)
on account of the second of (3.71), is automatically satisfied because of the first equation in (3.71) and in (3.72). Writing out (3.23) with $`q^{ab}`$ substituted from (3.11) with $`w^a=0`$ we have

$$\dot{l}^{bt}+\theta l^{bt}u_r(\dot{\varphi }s^{(b}{}_{s;d}{}^{}+p^{(b}{}_{s}{}^{}\varphi _{,d}^{}+m^{(b}{}_{s;d}{}^{})\eta ^{t)rsd}=0.$$
(3.81)
Now using (3.79) we can write this as

$$\dot{l}^{bt}+\theta l^{bt}+u_r\{(\varphi _{,d}s^{(b}{}_{s}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{.}+\theta \varphi _{,d}s^{(b}{}_{s}{}^{}\}\eta ^{t)rsd}=0.$$
(3.82)
This can be re–arranged as

$$(l^{bt}+u_r\varphi _{,d}s^{(b}{}_{s}{}^{}\eta _{}^{t)rsd}){}_{}{}^{.}+\theta (l^{bt}+u_r\varphi _{,d}s^{(b}{}_{s}{}^{}\eta _{}^{t)rsd})=0.$$
(3.83)
With $`l^{bt}`$ given in (3.12) with $`w^a=0`$ we see that (3.83) is identically satisfied.

We next examine (3.22). It is identically satisfied and this can be seen as follows: with $`p^{ab}`$ in (3.8) and $`a^a=0`$, we find

$$p^b{}_{s;d}{}^{}=\dot{s}^b{}_{s;d}{}^{}+\frac{2}{3}\dot{\theta }u_ds^b{}_{s}{}^{}\frac{2}{3}\theta s^b{}_{s;d}{}^{}.$$
(3.84)
From the Ricci identities satisfied by $`s^{ab}`$ we have

$$\dot{s}^b{}_{s;d}{}^{}=(s^b{}_{s;d}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{.}+(\frac{1}{6}\mu +\frac{1}{2}p)(u^bs_{ds}+s^b{}_{d}{}^{}u_{s}^{})+\frac{1}{3}\theta (s^b{}_{s;d}{}^{}+\dot{s}^b{}_{s}{}^{}u_{d}^{}).$$
(3.85)
This allows us to write

$$\eta ^{trsd}u_rp^b{}_{s;d}{}^{}=(\eta ^{trsd}u_rs^b{}_{s;d}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{.}\theta \eta ^{trsd}u_rs^b{}_{s;d}{}^{}.$$
(3.86)
When this is entered into (3.22) the equation can be re–arranged as

$$(q^{bt}+u_rs^{(b}{}_{s;d}{}^{}\eta _{}^{t)rsd}){}_{}{}^{.}+\theta (q^{bt}+u_rs^{(b}{}_{s;d}{}^{}\eta _{}^{t)rsd})=0,$$
(3.87)
which is an identity on account of (3.11) with $`w^a=0`$.

We now consider (3) with $`Q^a=0`$. If we first substitute for $`p^{ab}`$ into it from (3.8) with $`a^a=0`$ we obtain

$$\ddot{s}^{bt}\frac{5}{3}\theta \dot{s}^{bt}\frac{2}{3}\dot{\theta }s^{bt}\frac{2}{3}\theta ^2s^{bt}+\frac{1}{2}(\mu +p)s^{bt}+u_rq^{(b}{}_{s;d}{}^{}\eta _{}^{t)rsd}=\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{bt}\frac{2}{3}\theta \mathrm{\Pi }^{bt}.$$
(3.88)
However using $`q^{ab}`$ in (3.11) with $`w^a=0`$ we find that

$$\eta ^{brsd}u_rq^t{}_{s}{}^{}=\frac{1}{3}\theta s^{td}u^b+\frac{1}{3}\theta s^{tb}u^d\dot{s}^{td}u^b+\dot{s}^{bt}u^ds^{td;b}+s^{tb;d},$$
(3.89)
and thus, using the first of (3.72),

$$\eta ^{brsd}u_rq^t{}_{s;d}{}^{}=\frac{2}{9}\theta ^2s^{tb}+\frac{1}{3}\dot{\theta }s^{tb}+\ddot{s}^{tb}+\theta \dot{s}^{tb}s^{td;b}{}_{;d}{}^{}+s^{tb;d}{}_{;d}{}^{}.$$
(3.90)
The second last term here can be simplified using the Ricci identities satisfied by $`s^{ab}`$ and the first of (3.72) to read

$$s^{td;b}{}_{;d}{}^{}=(\frac{5}{6}\mu \frac{1}{2}p)s^{tb}.$$
(3.91)
We see that now (3.90) is symmetric in $`(b,t)`$ and on substitution into (3.88) we arrive at a wave equation for $`s^{ab}`$, namely,

$$s^{ab;d}{}_{;d}{}^{}\frac{2}{3}\theta \dot{s}^{ab}(\frac{1}{3}\dot{\theta }+\frac{4}{9}\theta ^2)s^{ab}+(p\frac{1}{3}\mu )s^{ab}=\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{ab}\frac{2}{3}\theta \mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}.$$
(3.92)
With $`w^a=0=Q^a`$ we have from (3.18) that

$$q^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=0.$$
(3.93)
This equation is satisfied by $`q^{ab}`$ given by (3.11) with $`w^a=0`$. Substituting the latter expression for $`q^{ab}`$ into the left hand side of (3.93) and using (3.91) we have

$`q^{ab}_{;b}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(s^a{}_{p;cb}{}^{}s^a{}_{p;bc}{}^{})\eta ^{bcfp}u_f,`$ (3.94)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(R^a{}_{gcb}{}^{}s_{}^{g}{}_{p}{}^{}+R_{pgcb}s^{ag}\right)\eta ^{bcfp}u_f,`$
using the Bianchi identities. Here $`R^a_{gcb}`$ are the components of the Riemann tensor of the isotropic background. These components can be easily written in terms of the perfect–fluid energy–momentum–stress tensor of the background because the background, being isotropic, is conformally flat. When this is done it is found that each of the Riemann tensor terms in (3.94) separately vanishes and so (3.93) is satisfied.

With the second of (3.72) holding we have from (3.15)

$$p^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=0.$$
(3.95)
That this is satisfied by $`p^{ab}`$ given by (3.8) with $`a^a=0`$ is straightforward when one notes that $`\dot{s}^b{}_{s;b}{}^{}=(s^b{}_{;b}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{.}=0`$, which follows from (3.85) after summation over $`(b,d)`$ and the properties of $`s^{ab}`$.

Finally we must check (3.17) with $`Q^a=0`$. This reads

$$q^d{}_{b}{}^{}\varphi _{,d}^{}+l^d{}_{b;d}{}^{}=0.$$
(3.96)
To see that $`q^{ab}`$ and $`l^{ab}`$ satisfies this equation we start with (3.77) and multiply it by $`\eta _{bpqt}`$. Since the right hand side of (3.77) is symmetric in $`(t,b)`$ we obtain

$$(q^m{}_{p}{}^{}\varphi _{,m}^{}+l^m{}_{p;m}{}^{})u_q(q^m{}_{q}{}^{}\varphi _{,m}^{}+l^m{}_{q;m}{}^{})u_p=0.$$
(3.97)
If this is multiplied by $`u^p`$ then (3.96) results.

At this point all of the equations (3.13)–(3.38) are satisfied provided $`s^{ab},\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ satisfy the algebraic relations with $`\varphi _{,a}`$ in (3.71), are divergence–free as indicated in (3.72) and satisfy the propagation equation (3.78) for $`s^{ab}`$ along the integral curves of $`\varphi ^{,a}`$ in the background space–time and satisfy the wave equation (3.92) . These equations reduce to those obtained in  when $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}=0`$. We need to check that (3.71), (3.72), (3.78) and (3.92) are consistent.

Using the Bianchi identities we can show that

$`(s^{ab;d}{}_{;d}{}^{})_{;b}`$ $`=`$ $`(s^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{})^{;d}{}_{;d}{}^{}+({\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p)s^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{},`$ (3.98)
$`\dot{s}^{ab}_{;b}`$ $`=`$ $`(s^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{})^.+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta s^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{},`$ (3.99)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{ab}_{;b}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{})^.+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta \mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}.`$ (3.100)
With the help of these equations it is straightforward to see that the wave equation (3.92) is consistent with (3.72). Also using

$$s^{ab;d}{}_{;d}{}^{}u_{b}^{}=(s^{ab}u_b)^{;d}{}_{;d}{}^{}\frac{2}{3}\theta s^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{},$$
(3.101)
one can easily see that the wave equation (3.92) is consistent with $`s^{ab}u_b=0=\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}u_b`$. The wave equation (3.92) is also consistent with $`s^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0=\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}\varphi _{,b}`$. This follows from

$$s^{ab;d}{}_{;d}{}^{}\varphi _{,b}^{}=2(s^{ab;d}\varphi _{,d})_{;b}s^{ab}(\varphi ^{,d}{}_{;d}{}^{})_{,b},$$
(3.102)
which is obtained using the Bianchi identities satisfied by $`s^{ab}`$ and $`\varphi _{,a}`$. The propagation equation (3.78) allows us to write (3.102) as

$$s^{ab;d}{}_{;d}{}^{}\varphi _{,b}^{}=\frac{2}{3}\theta \dot{\varphi }_{,b}s^{ab}+\dot{\varphi }_{,b}\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}.$$
(3.103)
One can also derive this by multiplying the wave equation (3.92) by $`\varphi _{,b}`$ and using the fact that $`(\varphi _{,b})^.=\dot{\varphi }_{,b}\frac{1}{3}\theta \lambda _b`$ with, as always, $`\lambda _b=h_b^c\varphi _{,c}`$.

The propagation equation (3.78) is clearly consistent with (3.71) because the integral curves of $`\varphi ^{,a}`$ are geodesics. That (3.78) is also consistent with $`s^{ab}u_b=0=\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}u_b`$ follows from $`u_b^{}=u_{b;c}\varphi ^{,c}=\frac{1}{3}\theta \lambda _b`$. The consistency of (3.78) with (3.72) requires the wave equation (3.92). This is because on taking the divergence of (3.78) and using the Ricci identities one arrives at

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}+\frac{1}{2}\varphi _{,b}\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\varphi _{,b}s^{ab;d}{}_{;d}{}^{}+\frac{1}{3}\theta \dot{s}^{ab}\varphi _{,b}.$$
(3.104)
Substituting for $`s^{ab;d}_{;d}`$ here from the wave equation (3.92), this equation reduces to $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=0`$.

## 4 Pure Gravity Wave Perturbations

As a result of the calculations outlined in section 3 the perturbations of the Weyl tensor now have “electric” and “magnetic” parts given by

$`E_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}+p_{ab}\right)F+m_{ab}F^{},`$ (4.1)
$`H_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`q_{ab}F+l_{ab}F^{},`$ (4.2)
with

$`p_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{s}_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta s_{ab},m_{ab}=\dot{\varphi }s_{ab},`$ (4.3)
$`q_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`s_{(a}{}_{}{}^{p;c}\eta _{b)fpc}^{}u^f,l_{ab}=s_{(a}{}_{}{}^{p}\eta _{b)fpc}^{}u^f\varphi ^{,c}.`$ (4.4)
Also $`s^{ab},\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ satisfy the consistent equations (3.71), (3.72), (3.78) and (3.92) and $`\varphi ^{,a}`$ is a null vector field in the background RW space–time. From the first of (3.71) we see from (4.3) and (4.4) that

$$m^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0,l^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0,$$
(4.5)
verifying that (3.13) and (3.16) are satisfied. Thus the $`F^{}`$–parts of $`E_{ab},H_{ab}`$ above are type N in the Petrov classification with degenerate principal null direction $`\varphi ^{,a}`$. We therefore consider the $`F^{}`$–part of this perturbed field as describing gravitational waves having propagation direction $`\varphi ^{,a}`$ in the RW background and the histories of the wave–fronts are the null hypersurfaces $`\varphi (x^a)=\mathrm{constant}`$. This interpretation is based on the well–known analogy with electromagnetic radiation . The $`F`$–parts of $`E_{ab},H_{ab}`$ are not in general type N and so do not necessarily describe gravitational waves.

For the remainder of this paper we will consider pure type N perturbations (i.e. pure gravity wave perturbations) of the RW background. We could do this by requiring the $`F`$–parts of $`E_{ab},H_{ab}`$ in (4.1) and (4.2) to vanish. It is possible to exhibit solutions of our basic equations (3.71), (3.72), (3.78) and (3.92) having this property (see section 6 below) but it is less restrictive to require that the $`F`$–parts of $`E_{ab},H_{ab}`$ also be type N in the Petrov classification with $`\varphi ^{,a}`$ as degenerate principal null direction. This means that, in the light of the second of (3.71), we should require

$$p^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0,q^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0,$$
(4.6)
with $`p^{ab},q^{ab}`$ given above in (4.3) and (4.4). The first of these can be written

$$s^{ab}\varphi _{,b;c}u^c=0,$$
(4.7)
while the second gives us

$$s^{ab}\varphi _{,a}{}_{}{}^{;c}s^{ac}\varphi _{,a}{}_{}{}^{;b}=0.$$
(4.8)
To elucidate the meaning of (4.7) and (4.8) it is convenient to make use of a null tetrad in the background RW space–time. First we note that $`k_a=\dot{\varphi }^1\varphi _{,a}`$ and $`l_a=u_a\frac{1}{2}k_a`$ are two real covariant vector fields satisfying $`k_ak^a=0,l_al^a=0`$ and $`k_al^a=1`$. Let $`m_a,\overline{m}_a`$ be a complex covariant vector field and its complex conjugate (indicated by a bar) chosen so that they are null ($`m_am^a=0=\overline{m}_a\overline{m}^a`$), are orthogonal to $`k^a`$ and $`l^a`$ and satisfy $`m_a\overline{m}^a=1`$. Now $`k^a,l^a,m^a,\overline{m}^a`$ constitute a null tetrad with respect to which $`s^{ab}`$ can be written (because $`s^a{}_{a}{}^{}=0,s^{ab}u_b=0,s^{ab}k_b=0`$ and so $`s^{ab}l_b=0`$)

$$s^{ab}=\overline{s}m^am^b+s\overline{m}^a\overline{m}^b.$$
(4.9)
Thus $`|s|^2=\frac{1}{2}s^{ab}s_{ab}`$. Substituting (4.9) into (4.7) we easily see that (4.7) is equivalent to

$$s\varphi _{,b;c}\overline{m}^bl^c=0,$$
(4.10)
from which we conclude that provided $`s0(s^{ab}0`$) we must have

$$\varphi _{,b;c}\overline{m}^bl^c=0.$$
(4.11)
On using (4.9) in (4.8) we find that, in addition to (4.11),

$$\overline{s}\varphi _{,a;b}m^am^b=s\varphi _{,a;b}\overline{m}^a\overline{m}^b.$$
(4.12)
A simple way to satisfy this with $`s0`$ is to require the null hypersurfaces $`\varphi (x^a)=\mathrm{constant}`$ to satisfy

$$\varphi _{,a;b}m^am^b=0.$$
(4.13)
This means that the complex shear of the null geodesic congruence tangent to $`\varphi ^{,a}`$ in the background RW space–time vanishes. If we can find a family of null hypersurfaces $`\varphi (x^a)=\mathrm{constant}`$ in the background space–time satisfying (4.11) and (4.13) then (4.6) will be satisfied. The solutions we then obtain of the equations (3.71), (3.72), (3.78) and (3.92) will be analogous to the Bateman waves  of electromagnetic theory.

## 5 Explicit Examples

To exhibit explicit examples of pure type N perturbations of the RW space–times we first select in such space–times some naturally occuring shear–free null hypersurfaces $`\varphi (x^a)=\mathrm{constant}`$. We begin with the general Robertson–Walker line–element in standard form,

$$ds^2=R^2(t)\frac{[(dx^1)^2+(dx^2)^2+(dx^3)^2]}{\left(1+\frac{k}{4}r^2\right)^2}dt^2,$$
(5.1)
where $`R(t)`$ is the scale factor, $`r^2=(x^1)^2+(x^2)^2+(x^3)^2`$ and $`k=0,\pm 1`$ is the Gaussian curvature of the space–like hypersurfaces $`t=\mathrm{constant}`$. We can put these line–elements in the following interesting forms for our purposes :

$$ds^2=R^2(t)\{dx^2+p_0^2f^2(dy^2+dz^2)\}dt^2,$$
(5.2)
with $`p_0=1+\frac{K}{4}(y^2+z^2),K=\mathrm{constant},f=f(x)`$. The following cases arise: (i) if $`k=+1`$ then $`K=+1`$ and $`f(x)=\mathrm{sin}x`$; (ii) if $`k=0`$ then $`K=0,+1`$ with $`f(x)=1`$ when $`K=0`$ and $`f(x)=x`$ when $`K=+1`$; (iii) if $`k=1`$ then $`K=0,\pm 1`$ with $`f(x)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^x`$ when $`K=0`$, $`f(x)=\mathrm{sinh}x`$ when $`K=+1`$ and $`f(x)=\mathrm{cosh}x`$ when $`K=1`$.

Case (i) above arises because when $`k=+1`$ the closed model universe with line–element (5.1) has $`t=\mathrm{constant}`$ hypersurfaces with line–element which can be put in the form $`dl^2=R^2(t)ds_0^2`$ with

$$ds_0^2=dx^2+\mathrm{sin}^2x(d\vartheta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta d\phi ^2),$$
(5.3)
and we then use stereographic coordinates $`y,z`$ such that $`y+iz=2\mathrm{e}^{i\phi }\mathrm{cot}\frac{\vartheta }{2}`$ in place of the polar angles $`\vartheta ,\phi `$.

Case (ii) arises because when $`k=0`$ the open, spatially flat universe with line–element (5.1) has $`t=\mathrm{constant}`$ hypersurfaces with line–element $`dl^2=R^2(t)ds_0^2`$ where

$$ds_0^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2,$$
(5.4)
or

$$ds_0^2=dx^2+x^2(d\vartheta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta d\phi ^2),$$
(5.5)
and in the latter we introduce the stereographic coordinates $`y,z`$ again in place of $`\vartheta ,\phi `$.

Case (iii) is due to the fact that in (5.1) when $`k=1`$ the $`t=\mathrm{constant}`$ hypersurfaces can, modulo the factor $`R^2(t)`$, each be viewed as the future sheet of a unit time–like hypersphere $`_3`$ in four dimensional Minkowskian space–time $`_4`$. Thus if the line–element of $`_4`$ is written

$$ds_0^2=(dz^1)^2+(dz^2)^2+(dz^3)^2(dz^4)^2,$$
(5.6)
then $`_3`$ is given by

$$(z^1)^2+(z^2)^2+(z^3)^2(z^4)^2=1,z^4>0.$$
(5.7)
The different parts of case (iii) above are due to the different ways one can parametrise (5.7). One possibility is with

$`z^1+iz^2`$ $`=`$ $`(y+iz)p_0^1\mathrm{sinh}x,`$ (5.8)
$`z^3`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(y^2+z^2)1\right)p_0^1\mathrm{sinh}x,`$ (5.9)
$`z^4`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}x,`$ (5.10)
with $`p_0=1+\frac{1}{4}(y^2+z^2)`$. Substitution into (5.6) gives

$$ds_0^2=dx^2+p_0^2\mathrm{sinh}^2x(dy^2+dz^2).$$
(5.11)
The next possibility is

$`z^1+iz^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^x(y+iz),`$ (5.12)
$`z^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{e}^x(y^2+z^21)+\mathrm{e}^x,`$ (5.13)
$`z^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{e}^x(y^2+z^2+1)+\mathrm{e}^x,`$ (5.14)
and now (5.6) reads

$$ds_0^2=dx^2+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{e}^{2x}(dy^2+dz^2).$$
(5.15)
Finally we can take

$`z^1+iz^2`$ $`=`$ $`(y+iz)p_0^1\mathrm{cosh}x,`$ (5.16)
$`z^3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}x,`$ (5.17)
$`z^4`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(y^2+z^2)+1\right)p_0^1\mathrm{cosh}x,`$ (5.18)
with $`p_0=1\frac{1}{4}(y^2+z^2)`$. With this (5.6) takes the form

$$ds_0^2=dx^2+p_0^2\mathrm{cosh}^2x(dy^2+dz^2).$$
(5.19)
In the space–times with line–elements (5.2), with the special cases outlined following (5.2), the hypersurfaces

$$\varphi (x^a):=xT(t)=\mathrm{constant},$$
(5.20)
with $`dT/dt=R^1`$ are null hypersurfaces. They are generated by null geodesics having expansion

$$\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^{,a}{}_{;a}{}^{}=\frac{f^{}}{R^2f}+\frac{\dot{R}}{R^2}.$$
(5.21)
Here $`f^{}=df/dx,\dot{R}=dR/dt`$. The integral curves of the vector field $`/t`$ are the world–lines of the fluid particles. The components of this vector field are denoted by $`u^a`$ and using (5.20) we can show that

$$2\varphi _{,a;b}=\xi _a\varphi _{,b}+\xi _b\varphi _{,a}+\varphi _{,d}{}_{}{}^{;d}g_{ab}^{},$$
(5.22)
with

$$\xi _a=\frac{f^{}}{f}\varphi _{,a}+R\varphi _{,d}{}_{}{}^{;d}u_{a}^{}.$$
(5.23)
With $`s^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0=s^{ab}u_b`$ we see on substituting (5.22) that (4.7) and (4.8) are now satisfied. On account of (5.22) it follows that $`\varphi _{,a}`$ is shear–free . Alternatively we can easily verify (4.11) and (4.13) using the null tetrad described following (4.8) which is given via the 1–forms

$`k_adx^a`$ $`=`$ $`Rdxdt,l_adx^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(Rdx+dt),`$
$`m_adx^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}Rp_0^1f(dy+idz).`$ (5.24)
For convenience we have used the same coordinate labels $`\{x,y,z,t\}`$ for all of the special cases included in (5.2). Of course the ranges of some of these coordinates will be different in the different cases (for example, in case (ii) $`x(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$ if $`K=0`$ whereas $`x[0,+\mathrm{})`$ if $`K=+1`$). Similarly the shear–free null hypersurfaces (5.20) differ from case to case, and within cases (ii) and (iii), as can be seen by noting the intersections of these null hypersurfaces with the space–like hypersurfaces $`t=\mathrm{constant}`$. In case (i) the intersection is a 2–sphere. In case (ii) it is a 2–sphere if $`K=+1`$ and a 2–plane if $`K=0`$. Thus (5.20) describes two quite different families of shear–free null hypersurfaces that can arise in an open, spatially flat universe. In case (iii) the intersection of (5.20) with $`t=\mathrm{constant}`$ can be a 2–space of positive ($`K=+1`$), negative ($`K=1`$) or zero ($`K=0`$) curvature giving three different families of shear–free null hypersurfaces in a $`k=1`$ open universe. A geometrical explanation for these subcases is given in .

We begin with $`\varphi (x^a)`$ given by (5.20) and $`u^a/x^a=/t`$. Since $`s^{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ are orthogonal to $`u^a`$ and $`\varphi ^{,a}`$ and trace–free, with respect to the metric tensor given via the line–element (5.2), each have only two independent components. If the coordinates are labelled $`x^1=x,x^2=y,x^3=z,x^4=t`$ then the surviving components are $`s^{33}=s^{22}=\alpha (x,y,z,t),s^{23}=s^{32}=\beta (x,y,z,t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{33}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{22}=A(x,y,z,t),\mathrm{\Pi }^{23}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{32}=B(x,y,z,t)`$. We can conveniently express these on the null tetrad (5). We have $`s^{ab}`$ given by (4.9) with

$$\overline{s}=R^2p_0^2f^2(\alpha +i\beta ),$$
(5.25)
and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}=\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}m^am^b+\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{m}^a\overline{m}^b,$$
(5.26)
with

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}=R^2p_0^2f^2(A+iB).$$
(5.27)
Calculation of the first of (3.72) to be satisfied by $`s^{ab}`$ shows that $`\alpha ,\beta `$ must satisfy the Cauchy–Riemann equations

$$\frac{}{y}(p_0^4\alpha )\frac{}{z}(p_0^4\beta )=0,$$
(5.28)
$$\frac{}{y}(p_0^4\beta )+\frac{}{z}(p_0^4\alpha )=0.$$
(5.29)
In addition $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ and thus $`A,B`$ must satisfy the same equations,

$$\frac{}{y}(p_0^4A)\frac{}{z}(p_0^4B)=0,$$
(5.30)
$$\frac{}{y}(p_0^4B)+\frac{}{z}(p_0^4A)=0.$$
(5.31)
We shall find it convenient to work with $`\alpha _0,\beta _0`$ rather than $`\alpha ,\beta `$ where

$$\alpha _0=\alpha f^3R^3,\beta _0=\beta f^3R^3.$$
(5.32)
Since $`f=f(x),R=R(t)`$ we have (5.28) and (5.29) satisfied by $`\alpha _0`$ and $`\beta _0`$ and these equations can be written economically as

$$\frac{}{\overline{\zeta }}\{p_0^4(\alpha _0+i\beta _0)\}=0,$$
(5.33)
with $`\zeta =y+iz`$, giving

$$\alpha _0+i\beta _0=p_0^4𝒢(\zeta ,x,t).$$
(5.34)
where $`𝒢`$ is an analytic function of $`\zeta `$. Now (5.25) reads

$$\overline{s}=R^1p_0^2f^1𝒢(\zeta ,x,t).$$
(5.35)
The propagation equation (3.78) for $`s^{ab}`$ along the integral curves of $`\varphi ^{,a}`$ gives $`A,B`$ in terms of $`\alpha _0,\beta _0`$. Writing this in terms of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ given by (5.27) we find that

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}=2R^2p_0^2f^1(D𝒢+\dot{R}𝒢).$$
(5.36)
Here the operator $`D`$ is given by $`D=/x+R/t=/x+/T`$ with $`T(t)`$ introduced in (5.20). Also the dot indicates differentiation of $`R(t)`$. It follows from this and (5.27) that $`A+iB`$ is analytic in $`\zeta `$ and so (5.30) and (5.31) are automatically satisfied. The only remaining equation to satisfy is the wave equation (3.92). With $`s^{ab}`$ given by (4.9) and (5.35) and with $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ given by (5.26) and (5.36) we find, after a lengthy calculation, that (3.92) reduces to the remarkably simple wave equation

$$D^2𝒢+k𝒢=0,$$
(5.37)
with $`k=0,\pm 1`$ labelling the RW backgrounds with line–elements of the form (5.2). Thus we have for $`k=0`$,

$$𝒢(\zeta ,x,t)=a(\zeta ,xT)(x+T)+b(\zeta ,xT),$$
(5.38)
for $`k=+1`$,

$$𝒢(\zeta ,x,t)=a(\zeta ,xT)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{x+T}{2}\right)+b(\zeta ,xT)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{x+T}{2}\right),$$
(5.39)
and for $`k=1`$,

$$𝒢(\zeta ,x,t)=a(\zeta ,xT)\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{x+T}{2}\right)+b(\zeta ,xT)\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{x+T}{2}\right),$$
(5.40)
where in each case $`a(\zeta ,xT),b(\zeta ,xT)`$ are arbitrary functions. In deriving (5.37) we have made use of the equations

$$f^{\prime \prime }=kf,(f^{})^2+kf^2=K,$$
(5.41)
which are satisfied in the cases (i)–(iii) described following (5.2) above.

With $`s^{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ known we can calculate $`m^{ab},l^{ab},p^{ab}`$ and $`q^{ab}`$ in order to form the electric and magnetic parts of the perturbed Weyl tensor as indicated in (4.1) and (4.2). We can write the result compactly as

$$E^{ab}+iH^{ab}=2R^2p_0^2f^1\frac{}{x}(𝒢F)m^am^b.$$
(5.42)
We emphasise that $`𝒢`$ is given by (5.38)–(5.40) in the various cases and now $`F=F(xT)`$ so that $`F^{}=F/x`$. Also $`p_0=1+\frac{K}{4}(y^2+z^2),f=f(x)`$ described following (5.2), and $`R(t)`$ is the scale factor. It is immediately clear from (5.42) that the perturbations of the RW background which we have constructed here are pure gravity wave perturbations. We will discuss some of their properties in section 6.

## 6 Discussion

The propagation equation (3.78) for $`s^{ab}`$ along the null geodesics tangent to $`\varphi ^{,a}`$ shows that if $`s^{ab}=0`$ then $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}=0`$. An important converse property of the pure type N perturbations described in section 5 is that if $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}=0`$ then $`s^{ab}=0`$ provided $`\mu +p0`$. To see this we have from (5.36) that $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}=0`$ is equivalent to

$$D𝒢+\dot{R}𝒢=0.$$
(6.1)
Substituting this into the wave equation (5.37) results in

$$(\dot{R}^2R\ddot{R}+k)𝒢=0.$$
(6.2)
For the background RW space–time the fluid proper density $`\mu `$ and isotropic pressure $`p`$ satisfy

$$\frac{2}{R^2}(\dot{R}^2R\ddot{R}+k)=\mu +p,$$
(6.3)
as a consequence of Einstein’s field equations. Hence we can rewrite (6.2) simply as

$$(\mu +p)𝒢=0.$$
(6.4)
From this and (5.35) it follows that $`s^{ab}=0`$ provided $`\mu +p0`$.

The perturbed Weyl tensor given via (5.42) for the pure type N perturbations can be infinite where $`p_0(y,z)`$ is infinite (when $`y^2+z^2+\mathrm{}`$ if $`K0`$) and where $`f(x)`$ vanishes (when $`k=+1`$ at $`x=0`$, when $`k=1`$ at $`x\mathrm{}(K=0)`$ or at $`x=0(K=0)`$). There is one non–singular case corresponding to $`k=0,K=+1`$ for which $`p_0=1`$ and $`f=1`$. In this case the expansion of the history of the wave–fronts (5.21) is entirely due to the expansion of the universe. This case is as close as one can get to plane–waves in the present context and is analogous to plane Bateman waves in electromagnetic theory.

Had we wished to construct examples of type N perturbations for which the $`F`$–parts of (4.1) and (4.2) vanish we see from (5.42) that these would be given by (5.42) with $`𝒢/x=0`$. This condition would then be incorporated into the wave equation (5.37) and the appropriate solutions $`𝒢(\zeta ,t)`$ replacing (5.38)– (5.40) could easily be obtained.

We note that we have used the assumption $`\theta >0`$ in the background cosmological models to conclude from (3.60) that $`Q^a=0`$. If the background were an Einstein static universe then $`\theta =0`$ and we would have $`Q^a0`$. It is well–known (see, for example ) that the Einstein universe is unstable and it might be interesting to investigate how this instability manifests itself in the formalism we use in this paper.

There are exact cosmological solutions of Einstein’s field equations known which contain gravitational waves (see ,  and references therein). These solutions describe universes with a stiff equation of state so that the speed of sound is equal to the speed of light. Our perturbations describing gravitational waves propagating through isotropic cosmologies place no restriction on the equation of state of the isotropic background and thus we would not in general expect them to approximate to these known exact solutions.

## Acknowledgment

We thank Professor Englebert Schücking for suggesting that viscosity should play a role in the effect of gravity waves on the matter content of the universe. The important part played by anisotropic stress in this paper confirms this point of view. One of us (E.O’S) wishes to thank Enterprise Ireland for the award of a Postgraduate Scholarship.


format: text

text:
# Search of ¹𝑃₁ charmonium in 𝐵 decay

## I Introduction

A few measurements suggested the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ charmonium around mass 3526 MeV. In particular, the E760 Collaboration studied the resonant production of $`h_c`$ in $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation*** Although it is an odd naming, I call the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ charmonium as $`h_c`$ following the Particle Data tabulation. and quoted the $`h_c`$ mass at 3526.2 MeV. This value is almost exactly equal to the center of gravity (3525.17 MeV) of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ charmonia $`\chi _{cJ}`$ ($`J=0,1,2`$). However, the result has yet to be confirmed by the E835 Collaboration. No evidence has so far been seen for $`h_c`$ in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. From the theoretical viewpoint, there is no reason to expect that the $`h_c`$ mass should be so close to the center of gravity of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ masses, since such a relation based on the $`𝐋𝐒`$ coupling and the tensor force of one-gluon exchange would break down when general spin-dependent interactions are included. Experimentally, the $`\chi _{cJ}`$ mass splitting gives

$$R\frac{m_{\chi _{c2}}m_{\chi _{c1}}}{m_{\chi _{1c}}m_{\chi _{c0}}}0.476.$$
(1)
The right-hand side would be equal to 2 for the $`𝐋𝐒`$ coupling alone, 0.8 with all spin-dependent forces of one-gluon exchange, and $`0.8R1.4`$ after including the more general spin-spin interaction arising from the confining potential. Since our knowledge of the spin-dependent charmonium potential is incomplete, there is no accurate theoretical prediction of $`m_{h_c}`$ relative to $`m_{\chi _{cJ}}`$ even within the potential model. Furthermore, the E1 transition matrix elements for $`\chi _{cJ}\gamma J/\psi `$ deviate largely from the nonrelativistic values. When relativistic corrections are large for the motion of $`c`$ and $`\overline{c}`$, we should be cautious about accuracy of the potential model approach.

Review of Particle Physics has not yet listed $`h_c`$ among the confirmed particles. Undoubtedly, much effort will be devoted to pursuit of $`h_c`$ at upcoming charm factories overcoming the odds against it. Meanwhile, the recent progress in $`B`$ physics suggests a new opportunity to search for $`h_c`$. The purpose of this short note is to point out that we may be able to observe $`h_c`$ more easily at the B-factories than at future charm factories and in hadron reactions.

Recently the Belle Collaboration discovered that the factorization-forbidden decay $`B\chi _0K`$ occurs as vigorously as the factorization-allowed decays to other charmonia. On the basis of this finding, we expect that another factorization-forbidden decay $`Bh_cK`$ may also occur just as abundantly as $`B\chi _{c0}K`$. Since $`h_c\gamma \eta _c`$ is one of the two main decay modes of $`h_c`$, the decay $`Bh_cK`$ cascades down to the final state $`\gamma \eta _cK`$ about half of time. The only background for this process at the $`B`$-factories will be the process $`B\psi ^{}K\gamma \eta _cK`$. Since the branching fraction for $`\psi ^{}\gamma \eta _c`$ is minuscure, however, this background is two orders of magnitude smaller than the signal. If one can reconstruct $`\eta _c`$ from $`K\overline{K}\pi `$ or by $`\eta \pi \pi `$ with 50% efficiency, for instance, 10 million $`B`$’s translate to roughly 100 events of the signal. Therefore we have a very good chance to observe $`h_c`$ through $`B\gamma \eta _cK`$.

## II $`B`$ charmonium + $`K`$

The Belle Collaboration reported for the decay $`B\chi _{c0}K`$

$$\mathrm{B}(B^+\chi _{c0}K^+)=(8.0_{2.4}^{+2.7}\pm 1.0\pm 1.1)\times 10^4.$$
(2)
This number should be compared with the recent measurement by the BaBar Collaboration on the $`B`$ decay into other charmonia:

$`\mathrm{B}(B^+J/\psi K^+)`$ $`=`$ $`(10.1\pm 0.3\pm 0.5)\times 10^4,`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{B}(B^+\chi _{c1}K^+)`$ $`=`$ $`(7.5\pm 0.8\pm 0.8)\times 10^4,`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{B}(B^+\psi ^{}K^+)`$ $`=`$ $`(6.4\pm 0.5\pm 0.8)\times 10^4.`$ (5)
Added to these is an earlier measurement on the branching fraction for $`B\eta _cK`$ by CLEO:

$$B(B^+\eta _cK^+)=(6.9_{2.1}^{+2.6}\pm 0.8\pm 2.0)\times 10^4.$$
(6)
Most recently, however, BaBar gave a preliminary result for this decay as

$$B(B^+\eta _cK^+)=(15.0\pm 1.9\pm 1.5\pm 4.6)\times 10^4.$$
(7)
We should notice here that the decay $`B\chi _{c0}K`$ is forbidden by the factorization while $`BJ/\psi (\psi ^{})K`$, $`B\eta _cK`$, and $`B\chi _{c1}K`$ are all allowed. Nonetheless the branching fraction to $`\chi _{c0}K^+`$ is just as large as those into $`J/\psi (\psi ^{})K^+`$, $`\eta _cK^+`$, and $`\chi _{c1}K^+`$. Since no effective decay operators allows $`B\chi _{c0}K`$ in the factorization limit, its decay amplitude must arise from the loop corrections of the energy scale below $`m_b`$ to the tree-decay operators $`𝒪_{1,2}`$. The relevant $`\overline{c}c`$ operator for production of $`\chi _{c0}`$ is generated when the bilocal operator $`\overline{c}(x)c(y)`$ due to the loop correction is expanded in the series of local operators; $`\overline{c}(x)c(y)\overline{c}(x)c(x)+\overline{c}(x)(yx)_\mu ^\mu c(x)+\mathrm{}`$. If the relevant part of the loop energy is between $`m_b`$ and $`m_c`$, then $`|yx|1/m_b1/m_c`$ so that one may keep only the leading term of the expansion. In this case the QCD coupling $`\alpha _s/\pi `$ would suppress the $`B\chi _{c0}K^+`$ decay branching by $`(\alpha _s/\pi )^2`$ though the suppression relative to the factorization-allowed processes may be somewhat moderated by the color structure. The experimental fact that $`\mathrm{B}(B^+\chi _{c0}K^+)`$ is comparable with $`\mathrm{B}(B^+\chi _{c1}K^+)`$ indicates that the factorization, even improved with perturbative QCD corrections, is in serious doubt for the $`B`$ decay into charmonia. In terms of the local expansion of $`\overline{c}(x)c(y)`$, the magnitude of the relevant $`|yx|`$ is as large as $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ or, in the case of charmonia, could be the charmonium radius $`1/\alpha _sm_c`$. If so, we must include not only all terms of the local expansion but also all orders of $`\alpha _s`$ in computation of decay amplitudes. Then a quantitative calculation based on perturbative QCD is intractable.

The decay $`Bh_cK`$ is also forbidden by the factorization and has the same chiral structure ($`\overline{c}_Lc_R\pm \overline{c}_Rc_L`$) for charmonium as $`B\chi _{c0}K`$. The local operator of the lowest dimension leading to the decay $`Bh_cK`$ is $`\overline{c}\gamma _5\stackrel{}{^\mu }c`$. When the factorization and perturbative QCD fail as proven by the $`B\chi _{c0}K`$ decay rate, it is very likely that the decay $`Bh_cK`$ occurs as abundantly as $`B\chi _{c0}K`$ and the factorization-allowed $`B`$ decays into charmonia.

A comment is in order for another factorization-forbidden decay, $`B\chi _{c2}K`$. The decay $`B\chi _{c2}K`$ occurs with $`i\overline{c}\gamma _\mu \stackrel{}{^\nu }c`$. The Belle Collaboration did not see a signal of $`B\chi _{c2}K`$ with a statistical significance. However, since they searched $`\chi _{c0,c2}`$ by its $`\chi _{c0,c2}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^+K^{}`$ decay modes, their failure to see a clear signal for $`B\chi _{c2}K`$ may be due to the smaller branching fractions for $`\chi _{c2}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^+K^{}`$ as compared with $`\chi _{c0}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^+K^{}`$. On the other hand the CLEO Collaboration identified $`\chi _{c2}`$ by $`\chi _{c2}J/\psi \gamma `$ and concluded that $`B(B\chi _{c2}X)`$ is significantly less than $`B(B\chi _{c1}X)`$. But they focused on the inclusive decays and the uncertainties were large for the exclusive decays: $`0.04<B(B\chi _{c2}K/K^{})/B(B\chi _{c1}K/K^{})<0.58`$ with the 95% confidence level. (See the Sample B of Ref..) Very recently, however, the Belle Collaboration reported the branching fraction for inclusive $`\chi _{c2}`$ production,

$$B(B\chi _{c2}X)=(15.3_{2.8}^{+2.3}\pm 2.6)\times 10^4,$$
(8)
where the $`\chi _{c2}`$’s fed by $`\psi ^{}\gamma \chi _{c2}`$ have been subtracted out. This number is twice as large as the corresponding one of CLEO. In view of this latest Belle measurement, it is possible that $`B(B\chi _{c2}K)`$ will eventually turn out to be comparable with $`B(B\chi _{c0}K)`$.

With these observations in theory and experiment, we proceed for the moment with the assumption,

$$B(Bh_cK)B(B\chi _{c0}K)$$
(9)
to explore the opportunity to detect $`h_c`$. Once we assume Eq.(9), we are assuming the same relation with $`K`$ replaced with $`K^{}`$ or a higher strange meson. We emphasize that Eq.(9) is an assumption at present. However, the measurement we are duscussing will test its validity, as we discuss below, and determine or set an upper bound on $`B(Bh_cK)`$ with a good accuracy.

## III Decay of $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$

Numerous calculations were performed for the properties of charmonia in potential models. The decay property of $`\chi _{c1}`$ and $`h_c`$ was specifically studied by Bodwin et al. Production of $`h_c`$ through $`\psi ^{}h_c\pi ^0`$ in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation was also studied. However, all that we need for our purpose here can be obtained directly from the experimental numbers for other charmonia if we make the approximation to use a common orbital wave function for the spin singlet and triplet of the same principal quantum number. This approximation is justified for the $`c`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ in nonrelativistic motion, and the results are independent of specific bound-state wave functions. Although the nonrelativistic treatment of charmonia is often limited in precision, we do not need much more than that for our discussion below.

The main decay modes of $`h_c`$ are $`h_cggg`$ and $`h_c\gamma \eta _c`$. The former is given by perturbative QCD to the leading logarithm of the $`h_c`$ size. By equating the $`h_c`$ bound-state wave function at the origin to that of $`\chi _{c1}`$, we obtain with the experimental value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\chi _{c1}ggg)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\chi _{c1}hadrons)=640\pm 100`$ keV,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_cggg)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(\chi _{c1}ggg),`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`530\pm 80\mathrm{keV}.`$ (11)
This numerical value does not depend on the magnitude of the fuzzy cutoff variable in the leading logarithmic term nor on specific binding potentials.

The radiative decay $`h_c\gamma \eta _c`$ is an allowed E1 transition similar to $`\chi _{cJ}\gamma J/\psi `$. We can eliminate the E1 transition matrix element $`f|𝐫|i`$ between the $`1P`$ and the $`1S`$ state by relating $`h_c\gamma \eta _c`$ to $`\chi _{c1}\gamma J/\psi `$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_c\gamma \eta _c)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{|𝐩^{}|}}\right)^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\chi _{c1}\gamma J/\psi ),`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`520\pm 90\mathrm{keV}.`$ (13)
The central value of Eq.(13) is about 15% higher than the value computed by Bodwin et al, while the value $`530\pm 80`$ keV of Eq.(11) coincides with theirs. The rates for other modes such as $`h_cJ/\psi \pi ^0`$ and $`\gamma \chi _{c0}`$ are of $`O(1)`$ keV. Therefore we obtain from the $`ggg`$ and $`\gamma \eta _c`$ decay modes the $`h_c\gamma \eta _c`$ branching fraction;

$$B(h_c\gamma \eta _c)=0.50\pm 0.11.$$
(14)
In this estimate the uncertainty is entirely due to those of the measured values for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}(\chi _{c1})`$ and $`B(\chi _{c1}\gamma J/\psi )`$. The value of Eq.(14) is a firm number up to relativistic corrections and higher-order QCD corrections though the former corrections may turn out to be larger than we imagine.

Combining $`B(h_c\gamma \eta _c)`$ of Eq.(14) with Eqs.(2) and (9), we obtain the cascade branching fraction for $`Bh_cK\gamma \eta _cK`$;

$`B(B^+h_cK^+`$ $``$ $`\gamma \eta _cK^+)`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`(4.0_{1.5}^{+1.6}\pm 0.5\pm 0.6)\times 10^4.`$ (16)
It goes without saying that the number on the right-hand side is subject to the uncertainty of the assumed equality in Eq.(9). If $`\eta _c`$ is searched by $`K\overline{K}\pi `$ or $`\eta \pi \pi `$ (the branching fraction $`5\%`$ each), the cascade branching fraction is

$`B(B^+h_cK^+\gamma \eta _cK^+`$ $``$ $`\gamma (K\overline{K}\pi )K^+)`$ (17)
$``$ $`2\times 10^5.`$ (18)
When 10 millions of $`B`$ mesons are accumulated, there will be about 100 events of the $`\gamma \eta _cK^+`$ signal just from $`K\overline{K}\pi `$ or from $`\eta \pi \pi `$ alone in the case that the reconstruction efficiency of $`h_c`$ is 50% for these decay modes. One can increase statistics by including $`B^\pm h_cK^\pm `$ and by combining $`B^0/\overline{B}^0`$ with $`B^\pm `$. There will be a sufficient number of the cascade $`Bh_cX\gamma \eta _cX`$ events to search for $`h_c`$.

Let us compare Eq.(18) with the corresponding number in the $`h_c`$ search through $`\psi ^{}\gamma h_c`$ at charm factories. According to the calculation by Yan et al and more recently by Kuang who included $`S`$-$`D`$ mixing of $`\psi ^{}`$, the branching fraction for $`\psi ^{}h_c\pi ^0`$ is at the level of $`1\times 10^3`$ at most, for $`m_{h_c}=3526.2`$ MeV. Taking account of the low reconstruction efficiency of the soft $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$, Kuang estimates that detection of $`h_c`$ through $`\psi ^{}h_c\pi ^0`$ requires 30 million $`\psi ^{}`$’s at charm factories. While $`h_c`$ can be produced only through $`\psi ^{}h_c\pi ^0`$ at charm factories, the $`h_c`$ production occurs in the $`B`$ decay in conjunction with $`K^{}`$ or a higher strange meson as well as with $`K`$. Furthermore, the production in conjunction with $`K^{}`$ tends to be stronger than that with $`K`$ in the $`Bcharmonium`$ decay. By and large, the search of $`h_c`$ will be quite competitive with the search at charm factories, if not superior to it.

## IV Possible background events

The only decay mode that feeds $`\gamma \eta _cK`$ with the $`\gamma \eta _c`$ invariant mass close to $`m_{h_c}`$ is the cascade decay $`B\psi ^{}K\gamma \eta _cK`$. Since $`\psi ^{}\gamma \eta _c`$ is a hindered M1 transition with the branching fraction $`(2.8\pm 0.6)\times 10^3`$, this cascade branching fraction is tiny;

$$B(B\psi ^{}K^+\gamma \eta _cK^+)=(1.8\pm 0.4\pm 0.2)\times 10^6.$$
(19)
It is more than two orders of magnitude smaller than the signal of Eq.(16). We can therefore choose a wide bin for $`(p_\gamma +p_{\eta _c})^2`$ in reconstruction of $`h_c`$ without concern about the $`\psi ^{}`$ contamination in $`\gamma \eta _c`$. This is fortunate from the viewpoint of raising the precision in mass determination. Since there is no competing decay process, we may fix the invariant mass of $`K\overline{K}\pi `$ or $`\eta \pi \pi `$ to $`m_{\eta _c}`$ once we find a cluster of candidate events. Although we certainly do not expect to determine the $`h_c`$ mass to the accuracy anywhere close to its width ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h_c}1`$ MeV), it will be easy to notice if the $`h_c`$ mass is located substantially off the center of gravity of $`\chi _{cJ}`$.

It will be challenging to identify $`h_c`$ directly by its hadronic decay modes. Since $`h_c`$ is G-parity odd, the simplest decay mode is $`h_c\pi \pi \pi `$, then $`K\overline{K}\pi `$. The branching fractions to $`\pi \pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}\pi `$ are no larger than at the level of 1% if we make a guess by rescaling the corresponding decays for $`\psi ^{}`$. Then the cascade branching fraction is most likely of the order,

$$B(Bh_cK\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0K)=O(1)\times 10^5.$$
(20)
After multiplying it with the reconstruction efficiency of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$, it does not appear competitive with $`Bh_cK\gamma \eta _cK`$. Although one can distinguish $`h_c`$ from $`\chi _{c1}`$ by G-parity of the decay products, one can separate $`h_c`$ from $`\psi ^{}`$ only by the mass resolution when one searches $`h_c`$ by it hadron decays. There are clear advantages for studying the cascade decay $`Bh_cK\gamma \eta _cK`$.

## V Summary

Nobody disputes the presence of $`h_c`$. Our real interest is in the values of its parameters. For this purpose the cascade decay process $`Bh_cK/K^{}\gamma \eta _cK/K^{}`$ deserves a careful study at the B-factories. The search of $`h_c`$ through the $`B`$ decay is very competitive with the search at charm factories and presumably superior to it. It will either confirm the controversial $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ charmonium at the center of mass gravity of $`\chi _{cJ}`$ or discover it off the value suggested by $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation. We should keep in mind that theory does not require that the $`h_c`$ mass should be so close to the center of gravity of $`\chi _{cJ}`$.

We shall obtain the product of the branching fractions, $`B(Bh_cK)\times B(h_c\gamma \eta _cK)`$ from the proposed $`B`$ decay measurement. Since the value of $`B(h_c\gamma \eta _c)`$ given in Eq.(14) is a fairly firm number, measurement or nil measurement of the process $`Bh_cK\gamma \eta _cK`$ will provide us with a meaningful number or a tight upper bound for $`B(Bh_cK)`$. If we end up with a nil result for $`Bh_cK\gamma \eta _cK`$, it would mean that $`B(Bh_cK)`$ is for some reason much smaller than $`B(B\chi _{c0}K)`$. Whatever the experimental outcome will be, such information will provide us with an opportunity to examine all of $`Bcharmonium`$ decays together and will advance our understanding of how or if the factorization plays a role in the $`B`$ decay into charmonia.

## VI Acknowledgment

I am benefited from conversations with R.N. Cahn on the mass resolution in the BaBar data analysis. This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-0098840.