format: text

text:
# References

I. INTRODUCTION

The investigation of radiative and dilepton weak decays of pseudoscalar charm mesons has been pursued rather vigorously in recent years, both theoretically and experimentally. To a certain extent, this activity has been fueled by the ongoing search for physics beyond the standard model, which might be of measurable consequence in certain charm radiative and dilepton decays \[1-4\]. To date, no radiative or dilepton weak decay of $`D`$ has been detected. However, upper bounds have been established for a sizable number of these decays. The radiative decays $`D^0\rho ^0,`$ $`\omega ^0,`$ $`\varphi ,`$ $`\overline{K}^0`$ $`+\gamma `$ were recently bounded  to branching ratios in the $`10^4`$ range, which is approaching the standard model expectations (see, e.g.  where additional previous works are mentioned). The dilepton decays $`DPl^+l^{}`$, $`DVl^+l^{}`$ are the subject of intensive searches at CLEO and Fermilab . Here again, with upper bounds of $`10^510^4`$ for branching ratios of the various modes one approaches the expectations of the standard model . The situation should improve in the future, due to new possibilities for observation of charm meson decays at BELLE, BABAR and Tevatron. Recently, upper limits in the $`10^510^4`$ range were established  also for $`D^0`$ dilepton decays with two nonresonant pseudoscalar mesons in the final state $`D^0(\pi ^+\pi ^{},K^{}\pi ^+,K^+K^{})`$ $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, though no comparable results are available yet for similar photonic decays.

In the present work, we undertake the study of the Cabibbo allowed radiative decays $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$, which we consider to be the most likely candidates for early detection. These decays are the charm sector counterpart of the $`K\pi \pi \gamma `$  decays, which have provided a wealth of information on meson dynamics. In the strange sector, the $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0\gamma `$ and $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ are singled out as the most suitable ones for the investigation of the radiative decay mechanism; this, since the relative suppresion of the corresponding $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ and $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ amplitudes leads to a situation where the direct radiative transition is not overwhelmed by the bremsstrahlung part.

In the $`K\pi \pi \gamma `$ decays, the long - distance contribution is dominant . In the charm radiative decays, the theoretical studies show that likewise, the long - distance is the dominant feature of the decays . The short - distance contribution realized by the penguin diagram $`cu\gamma `$  might play a role in certain Cabibbo suppressed decays, which are not discussed in the present paper.

In the charm sector, the nonleptonic D meson decays still provide a continuing theoretical challenge (see, e.g.  and references therein). The short distance effects are considered well understood but the perturbative techniques required for the evaluation of certain matrix elements are based on approximate models. Usually the factorization approximation is used (see, e.g. ), although the experimental data indicate the apparent need for the inclusion of nonfactorizable amplitudes in certain channels.

In this first treatment of $`DK\pi \gamma `$ decays we use the factorization approximation for the calculation of weak transition elements. We consider the use of this approach to be justified by the ”near” success of the approach for the nonleptonic amplitudes. This will involve its use in the $`D(D^{})K\pi `$ vertices as well as in $`D(D^{})V`$ and $`D(D^{})P`$ transitions, all of which required for the calculations of the $`DK\pi \gamma `$ amplitudes within our model. For the evaluation of the $`(D,D^{})(P,V)`$ transitions, we use the information obtained for these matrix elements from semileptonic decays (see, e.g. ). The general theoretical framework for our calculation is that of the heavy quark chiral Lagrangian . In the $`K\pi \pi \gamma `$ decays, it has been shown that intermediate light vector mesons play an important role in the decay amplitude . We shall investigate the role of intermediate light vector mesons also in the $`DK\pi \gamma `$ amplitude. In order to accomplish this, we use the extension of the formalism of  to include also the light vector mesons .

The present study of $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$ shows that the direct part of the radiative amplitude is not much smaller in strength than the bremsstrahlung part, rather similarly to the inhibited K decays mentioned above. If confirmed by experiments, it places these decays in the status of a most suitable ground for the investigation of the mechanisms involved in such nonleptonic D decays.

In Section II we present the theoretical framework for our calculation. In Section III we display the explicit expressions of all the calculated decay amplitudes. Section IV contains the discussion and the summary.

II. THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The nonradiative two-body D - decays, from which the bremsstrahlung part of the radiative decays originates, are $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+`$. The weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ transition leads to two independent isospin amplitudes in the final state, $`A_{1/2}`$ and $`A_{3/2}`$ and the relations to the physical decays is

$$A(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+)=A_{3/2};A(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)=\frac{2}{3}A_{1/2}+\frac{1}{3}A_{3/2}.$$
(1)
From the determined branching ratios  of $`BR(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+)=(2.89\pm 0.26)\%`$ and $`BR(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)=(3.83\pm 0.09)\%`$ one learns that the relative size of the absolute values of the amplitudes $`|A(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)|/|A(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+)|`$ is $`1.84`$. Using also the information from the third decay, $`A(D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0)`$ $`=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}A_{1/2}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}A_{3/2}`$, the isospin analysis shows that $`|A_{1/2}|/|A_{3/2}|2.7`$, and their relative phase is $`90^o`$ . Despite this knowledge, there is still no complete interpretation for the mechanisms leading to the decays , although it is clear that the situation is different from the $`K\pi \pi `$ channels, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ enhancement introduces a large disparity between the final state isospin amplitudes. The relevance of the above picture to the radiative decays will be discussed in the last Section.

Since our problem of describing the $`DK\pi \gamma `$ decays involves transitions between heavy mesons and light pseudoscalars, we adopt the effective Lagrangian  which contains both the heavy flavor and the $`SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$ chiral symmetry as the theoretical framework for our calculation. From the experience with $`K\pi \pi \gamma `$ decays, one knows  that the decay amplitude is largely determined by contributions from virtual vector mesons. Considering the possibilty that vector mesons would play a role in the $`DK\pi \gamma `$ decays as well (we remind the reader that we consider here nonresonant $`K\pi `$, the decays $`DK^{}\gamma `$ having been treated separately ), we should complement the Lagrangian by introducing light vector mesons. For this we choose the generalization of the original Lagrangian  by Casalbuoni et al  in which the original symmetry is broken spontaneously to diagonal $`SU(3)_V`$  with the introduction of the light vector mesons. We present here in some detail this formalism (for more details see ), which we use as the main tool of our calculation. We shall perform the calculations also without vector mesons in the Lagrangian in which case the original heavy quark chiral Lagrangian  is used, in order to clarify their role in these decays.

The light degrees of freedom are described by the 3$`\times `$3 Hermitian matrices

$`\mathrm{\Pi }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\eta _0}{\sqrt{3}}& \pi ^+& K^+\\ \pi ^{}& \frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\eta _0}{\sqrt{3}}& K^0\\ K^{}& \overline{K}^0& \frac{2\eta _8}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\eta _0}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right)`$ (2)
and

$`\rho _\mu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\rho _\mu ^0+\omega _\mu }{\sqrt{2}}& \rho _\mu ^+& K_\mu ^+\\ \rho _\mu ^{}& \frac{\rho _\mu ^0+\omega _\mu }{\sqrt{2}}& K_\mu ^0\\ K_\mu ^{}& \overline{K}_{}^{0}{}_{\mu }{}^{}& \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \end{array}\right)`$ (3)
for the pseudoscalar and vector mesons, respectively. They are usually expressed through the combinations

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Pi }}{f}}\right),`$ (4)
where $`ff_\pi =132`$ MeV is the pion pseudoscalar decay constant, and

$`\widehat{\rho }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{g_v}{\sqrt{2}}}\rho _\mu ,`$ (5)
where $`g_v=5.9`$ was fixed in the case of exact flavor symmetry . In the following we will also use the gauge field tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }(\widehat{\rho })`$

$`F_{\mu \nu }(\widehat{\rho })=_\mu \widehat{\rho }_\nu _\nu \widehat{\rho }_\mu +[\widehat{\rho }_\mu ,\widehat{\rho }_\nu ].`$ (6)
It is convenient to introduce two currents $`𝒱_\mu =\frac{1}{2}(u^{}D_\mu u+uD_\mu u^{})`$ and $`𝒜_\mu =\frac{1}{2}(u^{}D_\mu uuD_\mu u^{})`$. The covariant derivative of $`u`$ and $`u^{}`$ is defined as $`D_\mu u=(_\mu +\widehat{B}_\mu )u`$ and $`D_\mu u^{}=(_\mu +\widehat{B}_\mu )u^{}`$, with $`\widehat{B}_\mu =ieB_\mu Q`$, $`Q=diag(2/3,1/3,1/3)`$, $`B_\mu `$ being the photon field.

The light meson part of the strong Lagrangian can be written as

$`_{light}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{2}}\{tr(𝒜_\mu 𝒜^\mu )+atr[(𝒱_\mu \widehat{\rho }_\mu )^2]\}`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_v^2}}tr[F_{\mu \nu }(\widehat{\rho })F^{\mu \nu }(\widehat{\rho })].`$
The constant $`a`$ in (7) is in principle a free parameter. In the case of exact vector meson dominance (VDM) $`a=2`$ . However, the photo production and decays data indicate  that the $`SU(3)`$ breaking modifies the VDM in

$`_{V\gamma }=eg_vf^2B_\mu (\rho ^{0\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\omega ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu ).`$ (8)
Instead of the exact $`SU(3)`$ limit ($`g_v=m_V/f`$), we shall use the measured values, defining

$`<V(ϵ_V,q)|V_\mu |0>=iϵ_\mu ^{}(q)g_V(q^2).`$ (9)
The couplings $`g_V(m_V^2)`$ are obtained from the leptonic decays of these mesons. In our calculation we use $`g_\rho (m_\rho ^2)g_\rho (0)=0.17GeV^2`$, $`g_\omega (m_\omega ^2)g_\omega (0)=0.15GeV^2`$ and $`g_\mathrm{\Phi }(m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2)g_\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=0.24GeV^2`$.

Both the heavy pseudoscalar and the heavy vector mesons are incorporated in a $`4\times 4`$ matrix

$`H_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\overline{)}v)(P_{a\mu }^{}\gamma ^\mu P_a\gamma _5),`$ (10)
where $`a=1,2,3`$ is the $`SU(3)_V`$ index of the light flavors, and $`P_{a\mu }^{}`$, $`P_a`$, annihilate a spin $`1`$ and spin $`0`$ heavy meson $`Q\overline{q}_a`$ of velocity $`v`$, respectively. They have a mass dimension $`3/2`$ instead of the usual $`1`$, so that the Lagrangian is in the heavy quark limit $`m_Q\mathrm{}`$ explicitly mass independent. Defining moreover

$`\overline{H}_a`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^0H_a^{}\gamma ^0=(P_{a\mu }^{}\gamma ^\mu +P_a^{}\gamma _5){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\overline{)}v),`$ (11)
we can write the strong Lagrangian as

$`_{even}`$ $`=`$ $`_{light}+iTr(H_av_\mu D^\mu \overline{H}_a)`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`igTr[H_b\gamma _\mu \gamma _5(𝒜^\mu )_{ba}\overline{H}_a]+i\stackrel{~}{\beta }Tr[H_bv_\mu (𝒱^\mu \widehat{\rho }_\mu )_{ba}\overline{H}_a],`$
where $`D^\mu \overline{H}_a=(_\mu +𝒱_\mu ieQ^{}B_\mu )\overline{H}_a`$, with $`Q^{}=2/3`$ for c quark.

The coupling $`g`$ can be fixed  by using the data  on $`D^{}D\pi `$ decay width. These data give $`g=0.59`$. The plus sign is taken to be in agreement with the quark model studies. The parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ is less known, but it seems that it can be safely neglected .

The electromagnetic field can couple to the mesons also through the anomalous interaction; i.e., through the odd parity Lagrangian. The contributions to this Lagrangian arise from terms of the Wess - Zumino - Witten kind, given by

$`_{odd}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{C_{VV\mathrm{\Pi }}}{f}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }Tr(_\mu \rho _\nu _\alpha \rho _\beta \mathrm{\Pi }).`$ (13)
The coupling $`C_{VV\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ can be determined in the case of the exact $`SU(3)`$ flavor symmetry following the hidden symmetry approach of  and it is found to be $`C_{VV\mathrm{\Pi }}=3g_v^2/32\pi ^2=0.33`$. In the actual calculation, we allowed for $`SU(3)`$ symmetry breaking and we used the $`VP\gamma `$ coupling as determined from experiment . We will also need the odd - parity Lagrangian in the heavy sector. Such terms are required by the $`D^{}D\gamma `$ transition, which cannot be generated from (12). There are two contributions  in it, characterized by coupling strengths $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$. The first is given by

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`i\lambda Tr[H_a\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }(\widehat{\rho })_{ab}\overline{H}_b].`$ (14)
In this term the interactions of light vector mesons with heavy pseudoscalar or heavy vector mesons is described. The light vector meson can then couple to the photon by the standard VDM prescription. This term is of the order $`1/\lambda _\chi `$ with $`\lambda _\chi `$ being the chiral perturbation theory scale .

The second term gives the direct heavy quark - photon interaction and is generated by the Lagrangian

$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{}Tr[H_a\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }(B)\overline{H}_a].`$ (15)
The parameter $`\lambda ^{}`$ is given in heavy quark symmetry limit by $`\lambda ^{}1/(6m_c)`$  and it should be considered as a higher order term in $`1/m_Q`$ expansion .

In order to gain information on these couplings one has to use the existing data on $`D^0D^0\gamma `$, $`D^+D^+\gamma `$ and $`D_s^+D_s^+\gamma `$ decays. Experimentally, the ratios $`R_\gamma ^0=\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^0D^0\gamma )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^0D^0\pi ^0)`$ and $`R_\gamma ^+=\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^+D^+\gamma )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^+D^+\pi ^0)`$ are known . These data determine two possibilities . One of them is $`|\lambda /g|=0.839`$ $`GeV^1`$, $`|\lambda ^{}/g|=0.175`$ $`GeV^1`$. The second one does not agree with present data. With $`g=0.59`$ we obtain $`\lambda =\pm 0.49`$ $`GeV^1`$ and $`\lambda ^{}=\pm 0.102`$ $`GeV^1`$.

The $`\lambda ^{}1/(6m_c)`$ would give with the mass of charm quark $`m_c=1.4`$ $`GeV`$ that $`\lambda ^{}=0.12`$ $`GeV^1`$, in good agreement with the above value. The simple quark model analysis indicates that $`\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\lambda `$ are both negative . In our numerical calculations we give the results using these parameters. In the literature (e.g. ) instead of $`\lambda `$ the $`\beta `$ parameter is often used. The value $`\beta =2.3`$ $`GeV^1`$ corresponds to $`\lambda =0.49`$ $`GeV^1`$, since $`2\lambda \frac{g_v}{\sqrt{2}}`$ $`(g_\rho /m_\rho ^2+g_\omega /(3m_\omega ^2))=(2/3)\beta `$.

In addition to strong and electromagnetic interactions, we have to specify the weak one. The nonleptonic weak Lagrangian on the quark level for the Cabibbo allowed decays can be written as usual

$`_{NL}^{eff}(\mathrm{\Delta }c=\mathrm{\Delta }s=1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ud}V_{cs}^{}[a_1O_1+a_2O_2],`$ (16)
where $`O_1=(\overline{u}d)_{VA}^\mu (\overline{s}c)_{VA,\mu }`$ and $`O_2=(\overline{u}c)_{VA,\mu }(\overline{s}d)_{VA}^\mu `$, $`V_{ij}`$ are the CKM matrix elements, $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant and $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2)^\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma ^5)\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$. In our calculation we use $`a_1=1.26`$ and $`a_2=0.55`$ as found in .

At the hadronic level, the weak current transforms as $`(\overline{3}_L,1_R)`$ under chiral $`SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$, is linear in the heavy meson fields $`D^a`$ and $`D_\mu ^a`$ and is taken as

$`J_{Q}^{}{}_{a}{}^{\mu }=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`i\alpha Tr[\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)H_bu_{ba}^{}]`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`\alpha _1Tr[\gamma _5H_b(\widehat{\rho }^\mu 𝒱^\mu )_{bc}u_{ca}^{}]`$
$`+`$ $`\alpha _2Tr[\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5H_bv_\alpha (\widehat{\rho }^\alpha 𝒱^\alpha )_{bc}u_{ca}^{}]+\mathrm{},`$
where $`\alpha =f_H\sqrt{m_H}`$ , $`\alpha _1`$ was first introduced by Casalbuoni et al. , while $`\alpha _2`$ was introduced in . It has to be included, since it is of the same order in the $`1/m_Q`$ and chiral expansion as the term proportional to $`\alpha _1`$ .
The relevant matrix element is parametrized usually in $`DVl\nu _l`$ semileptonic decay as

$`<V(p_V,ϵ_V)|(VA)^\mu |D(p)>={\displaystyle \frac{2V(q^2)}{m_D+m_V}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ_{V\nu }^{}p_\alpha p_{V}^{}{}_{\beta }{}^{}`$
$`+iϵ_V^{}.q{\displaystyle \frac{2m_V}{q^2}}q_\mu (A_3(q^2)A_0(q^2))+i(m_D+m_V)[ϵ_{V\mu }^{}A_1(q^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_V^{}.q}{m_D+m_V}}((p+p_V)_\mu A_2(q^2)],`$ (18)
where $`q=pp_V`$. In order that these matrix elements should be finite at $`q^2=0`$, the form factors satisfy the relation

$$A_3(q^2)\frac{m_H+m_V}{2m_V}A_1(q^2)+\frac{m_Hm_V}{2m_V}A_2(q^2)=0,$$
(19)
and $`A_3(0)=A_0(0)`$. We take the following expressions for the form factors at $`q_{max}^2`$

$$V(q_{max}^2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda g_vf_D\frac{M+m}{M+\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(20)
$$A_1(q_{max}^2)=\frac{\sqrt{2}\alpha _1g_v\sqrt{M}}{M+m},$$
(21)
and

$$A_2(q_{max}^2)=\frac{2g_v}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{M+m}{M^{3/2}}\alpha _2,$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ stands for the $`D^{}`$ and $`D`$ mass difference. Assuming the pole dominance one can connect the value of form factors at $`q_{max}^2`$ and $`0`$ momentum transfer by $`F(0)=F(q_{max})\left(1(Mm)^2/M_p^2\right)`$, where $`F`$ stands for $`V`$, $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$, $`M`$ is the D meson mass and $`m`$ is the light vector meson mass. Using the experimental data  $`|V^{DK^{}}(0)|=1.02\pm 0.12`$, $`|A_1^{DK^{}}(0)|=0.55\pm 0.03`$ and $`|A_2^{DK^{}}(0)|=0.40\pm 0.07`$, we find for the couplings $`\lambda =0.56`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}^1`$, $`|\alpha _1|=0.156`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}^{1/2}`$, $`|\alpha _2|=0.052`$$`\mathrm{GeV}^{1/2}`$. The value of $`\lambda `$ is in good agreement with results obtained from $`D^{}D\gamma `$ data.

The light weak current is derived to be

$$J_{ij}^\mu =if^2\{u[𝒜^\mu a(𝒱^\mu \widehat{\rho }^\mu ]u^{}\}_{ji}.$$
(23)
The photon emission is obtained by gauging the weak sector too. The important consequence of this procedure is that thereby the gauge invariance of the whole amplitude is achieved. This turns out to be equivalent to the usual procedure of achieving gauge invariance in bremsstrahlung processes with a momentum dependent strong vertex, as pointed out  for the somewhat similar process $`VPP^{}\gamma `$. Actually by gauging the weak sector we produce the same graphs, which were necessary to induce to satisfy the gauge invariance .

III. THE DECAY AMPLITUDES

The general Lorentz decomposition of the $`D(P)K(p)\pi (q)\gamma (k,ϵ)`$ decay amplitude is given by

$$=\frac{G_f}{\sqrt{2}}V_{cs}V_{du}^{}\left(\overline{F}_1\left[\frac{q\epsilon }{qk}\frac{p\epsilon }{pk}\right]+F_2\epsilon ^{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }\epsilon _\mu v_\alpha k_\beta q_\gamma \right).$$
(24)
The part of the amplitude containing the $`\overline{F}_1`$ form factor is parity violating, while the one with $`F_2`$ is parity conserving. Both of them are functions of scalar products of momenta as $`kp`$, $`kq`$. Note that $`\overline{F}_1`$ contains contributions which arise from bremsstrahlung part of the amplitude as well as a direct electric transition. On the other hand, $`F_2`$ corresponds to the magnetic transition.

In order to determine $`\overline{F}_1`$, $`F_2`$ we use the model described in the previous Section. The diagrams contributing to these form factors are given in Figures 1-4. In Figures 1 and 2 are given Feynman diagrams contributing to the $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ decay amplitude while the contributions to the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$ decay amplitude are presented in Figures 3 and 4. Note that we denote heavy mesons by one full line, light pseudoscalar mesons by dashed lines, light vector mesons by two full lines and photons by wavy lines. The weak vertex is denoted by square box.

Before proceeding to the actual calculation, we note the following complication. As well known, the leading terms of the expansion of the radiative amplitude in the photon momentum $`(k)`$ are determined  by the original amplitude ($`DK\pi `$ in our case). However, the nonleptonic $`DK\pi `$ amplitude cannot be calculated accurately in the factorization approximation from the diagrams provided by our model. Such a calculation gives a rather good result for the $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+`$ channel but is less successful for the $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ decay. In order to overcome this defficiency and to be able to present accurately the bremsstrahlung component of the radiative transition, we shall use an alternative approach for its derivation. This approach then is to use the values of the experimental amplitudes $`DK\pi `$, assumed to have no internal structure, for the calculation of the bremsstrahlung component. In order to accomodate this we rewrite the decay amplitude (24) as

$$=\frac{G_f}{\sqrt{2}}V_{cs}V_{du}^{}\left(F_0\left[\frac{q\epsilon }{qk}\frac{p\epsilon }{pk}\right]+F_1\left[(q\epsilon )(pk)(p\epsilon )(qk)\right]+F_2\epsilon ^{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }\epsilon _\mu v_\alpha k_\beta q_\gamma \right),$$

where $`F_0`$ is the experimentally determined $`DK\pi `$ amplitude and $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$ are the form factors of the electric and magnetic direct transitions which we calculate with our model. When intermediate states appear to be on the mass shell, we use Breit Wigner formula. However, we remark at this point that since we are interested in the $`D(K\pi )_{nonres}\gamma `$ transitions, we delete the region of the $`K^{}`$ resonance appearing in diagram $`D_{1,2}^0`$ and we retain only the region in $`(p+q)^2`$ which is beyond $`m_K^{}\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}`$.

In Appendix A we present explicitly expressions for the form factors for the decay $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ using the notations $`A_i^+`$, $`B_i^+`$, etc. . The amplitude $`A_i^+`$, $`B_i^+`$, etc. is obtained as a sum of the amplitudes presented by the corresponding diagrams in the $`i`$-th row in Figures 1-4. Each $`A_i^+`$ (or $`B_i^+`$, etc) is gauge invariant. For the electric parity - violating transition, we define both the total amplitude provided by the model $`\overline{F}_1`$, as well as the direct part only, $`F_1`$, obtained after deleting the bremsstrahlung diagrams. Then the amplitudes for $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ are

$$\overline{F}_1(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}(A_i^++C_i^+),$$
(25)
$$F_1(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma )=\frac{1}{(pk)(qk)}\underset{i=3}{\overset{4}{}}(A_i^++C_i^+),$$
(26)
$$F_2(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(B_i^++D_i^+).$$
(27)
In the case of $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$ we have

$$\overline{F}_1(D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}(A_i^0+C_i^0),$$
(28)
$$F_1(D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma )=\frac{1}{(pk)(qk)}\underset{i=3}{\overset{4}{}}A_i^0,$$
(29)
$$F_2(D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(B_i^0+D_i^0),$$
(30)
where $`A_i^0`$, $`B_i^0`$ etc. are gauge invariant sums of the amplitudes arising from the graphs in the $`i`$-th row. In Appendix B we present the form factors for the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$ decay. We denoted by $`A_i^{+,0}`$, $`B_i^{+,0}`$ contributions which are created by $`O_1`$ operator and by $`C_i^{+,0}`$, $`D_i^{+,0}`$ contributions caused by $`O_2`$.

As we mentioned, in the calculation we used the experimental value of $`A(DK\pi )`$ to calculate the bremsstrahlung part; $`F_1`$ is then calculated by subtracting the bremsstrahlung component from $`\overline{F}_1`$.

The differential cross section of the decays is given by

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{32M^3}||^2dm_{12}^2dm_{23}^2,$$
(31)
where $``$ is the decay amplitude, given by Eqs. (24) or (S0.Ex7), $`m_{12}^2=(Pk)^2`$, and $`m_{23}^2=(Pp)^2`$, where $`P`$, $`k`$, $`p`$ are respective four - momenta of D- meson, photon and K meson. The total decay width is a sum of the parity conserving expressed by $`F_2`$ and the parity violating contributions expressed by $`F_0`$, $`F_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{PC}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{PV}`$ (the PC and PV amplitudes do not interfere in the total width). Before giving numerical results, we make a few comments.

The expressions for the amplitudes given in the Appendices contain several constants. A few are well determined (we use values given in ) and require no further explanation; as to the rest, for $`f_D`$ we use the lattice result, $`f_D=207`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$  and for $`f_D^{}=1.13f_D`$. The couplings $`g`$, $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$ are determined as previously explained and we use $`g=0.59`$, $`\lambda =0.49`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}^1`$ and $`\lambda ^{}=0.102`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}^1`$.

Some of the amplitudes, like $`A_{2,1}^0`$, $`A_{2,4}^0`$, $`A_{2,5}^0`$, all $`A_{3,i}^0`$ etc., contain the weak transition $`D^{}`$ to $`\pi `$. This requires the $`\pi `$ to have very large momentum, which means that such graphs, which vanish in the heavy quark limit, give very small contributions.

Turning now to the presentation of the results we have to start with a discussion of the bremsstrahlung contribution (IB). In our model IB is given by diagrams $`(IB)^o=_i(A_{1,i}^0+A_{2,i}^0+C_{1,i}^0)`$ for the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$ decay (the first two rows and the fourth row of Fig.3) and by diagrams $`(IB)^+=_j(A_{1,j}^++A_{2,j}^++C_{1,j}^++C_{2,j}^+)`$, i.e. the first two rows and rows 5 and 6 of Fig. 1 for the $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ decay. Now, in the limit of vanishing photon energy, the first two terms in the expansion of the IB amplitude in terms of the photon energy, obey the Low theorem . Although this is fulfilled theoretically, the question arises wheather the $`DK\pi `$ amplitude, as derived from our model, describes correctly the observed $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+`$, $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ decays. We calculated the amplitudes of these decays using our model and we find that the branching ratios obtained with factorization approximation are $`4.1\%`$ and $`17\%`$ respectively, compared with observed branching ratios of $`2.9\%`$ and $`3.9\%`$ . It appears that although the model is reasonable for $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+`$ (the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ amplitude), it misses the amplitude of $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ by a factor of 2. On the one hand, this gives us a certain reassurance on the suitabilty of the model we use for calculating the radiative amplitudes. On the other hand, we shall perform also an alternative calculation, whereby the bremsstrahlung amplitudes of the model are deleted from the total radiative amplitude and replaced by the ”experimental amplitude”. This procedure is undertaken in order to enforce the fulfilment of the Low theorem for our radiative amplitudes. Thus, we assume constant $`DK\pi `$ amplitude of correct magnitude to reproduce the observed rates of $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+`$ and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$, from which we calculate the bremsstrahlung (IB) amplitudes. These have the form of the first term in (S0.Ex7) with constant $`F_0`$. To this we add the $`F_2`$ terms of the magnetic transition, which is not affected by this procedure, as well as the parity-violating $`F_1`$ terms not belonging to $`(IB)^0`$ and $`(IB)^+`$ diagrams. These $`F_1`$ terms then represent the direct electric transition of the radiative amplitude. We present results for both these alternative procedures. Although, the procedure based on the experimental $`DK\pi `$ amplitudes is apparently more reliable, we consider the ”model” calculation to be of intrinsic value, setting out the ground for future calculations.

There is one more item to be explained. We are interested in the role played by the vector mesons in these decays; obviously not in the direct $`K\pi `$ channel, which belongs to $`D^0\overline{K}^0\gamma `$ and was treated separately , rather as they appear as intermediate particles in VDM (e.g. diagrams $`A_{3,4}^+`$, $`C_{3,4}^+`$, $`D_{2,3}^+`$, $`A_{3,3}^+`$ and others) or in the crossed channels (e.g. diagrams $`A_{4,1}^+`$, $`D_{3,1}^+`$, $`D_{3,2}^+`$ $`C_{1,3}^0`$, $`B_{3,2}^+`$, and others). This is the main reason for our using an effective Lagrangian which contains the light vector mesons . However, we calculate the radiative transitions also without including vector mesons in the Lagrangian, i.e. we drop all diagrams containing a double line in Figs 1-4 (gauge invariance is maintained), which allows to elucidate their role in these decays.

For the parity conserving part of the decays, representing the magnetic transition, we obtain

$$BR(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma )_{PC}=2.0\times 10^5,$$
(32)
$$BR(D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma )_{PC}=1.4\times 10^4.$$
(33)
If we disregard the contribution of vector mesons, the rates are reduced to $`BR(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma )_{PC}^{noVM}=`$ $`3.0\times 10^6`$ and $`BR(D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma )_{PC}^{noVM}=`$ $`6.6\times 10^7`$. The decrease is sharper for the $`D^0`$ decay, since in this case the light vector mesons gave the dominant contribution to the rate, this is not the case for $`D^+`$ where such a contribution is doubly Cabibbo suppressed. The differential distribution for these transitions, as a function of $`m_{12}^2=(Pk)^2`$, is given as the dashed line distribution in Fig. 5a, 5b, for these two decays. The distribution is mainly symmetrical, with the peak occuring at $`k400`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. Thus, this is the region in which the effect of the direct transition has best chance for detection.

Turning to the parity - violating transitions we start with the procedure whereby we enforce the Low theorem by using Eq. (25). Here we face the question of unknown phase between $`F_0`$ and $`F_1`$. We give therfore the results in terms of a range, limited by minimal and maximal interference between $`F_0`$ and $`F_1`$.

Thus, we get for the branching ratios of the electric transitions, with $`|F_0|`$ determined experimentally,

$$BR(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma )_{PV,ex}^{k>50MeV}=(3.63.8)\times 10^4,$$
(34)
$$BR(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma )_{PV,ex}^{k>100MeV}=(2.32.5)\times 10^4.$$
(35)
For the $`D^0`$ radiative decay we get

$$BR(D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma )_{PV,ex}^{k>50MeV}=(5.015)\times 10^4,$$
(36)
$$BR(D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma )_{PV,ex}^{k>100MeV}=(2.611)\times 10^4.$$
(37)
The uncertainty in the $`F_0/F_1`$ phase is less of a problem in $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ than in $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$. If we take the bremsstrahlung amplitude alone as determined from the knowledge of $`|F_0|`$, disregarding the direct electric $`F_1`$ term, the above numbers are replaced by $`3.6\times 10^4`$ and $`2.3\times 10^4`$ for $`D^+`$ decay and $`8.6\times 10^4`$ and $`5.5\times 10^4`$ for the $`D^0`$ decay. In Fig. 6 we also show the dependence of the branching ratio of the bremsstrahlung amplitude on the lower energy bound, for both decays. The contribution of the direct parity violating term (putting $`F_0=0`$ ), is $`BR(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma )_{dir,PV}`$ $`=1.0\times 10^5`$ and $`BR(D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma )_{dir,PV}`$ $`=1.64\times 10^4`$.

We checked also for the PV-transition the effect of the vector mesons. Using the Lagrangian of Refs.  we found that in the PV-transition the effect of vector mesons is rather negligible; there is practically no change in (34), (35) and only a a narrowing of the range in (36) and (37), to bring it essentially to the values of pure bremsstrahlung we indicated after Eq. (37).

We have calculated the decay rates also by using our model, for the whole radiative amplitudes i.e. using all graphs of Figs. 1-4. Comparing these results with those of Eq. (34) - (37) gives an indication of the possible uncertainty of our model. We obtain

$$BR(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma )_{PV,model}^{k>50MeV}=3.0\times 10^4,$$
(38)
$$BR(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma )_{PV,model}^{k>100MeV}=2.5\times 10^4.$$
(39)
For the $`D^0`$ radiative decay we get

$$BR(D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma )_{PV,model}^{k>50MeV}=2.3\times 10^3,$$
(40)
$$BR(D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma )_{PV,model}^{k>100MeV}=1.5\times 10^3.$$
(41)
In Fig. 5c, 5d, we compare the rate of the decays $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }=d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{PC}+d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{PV}`$ for the two alternative calculations concerning the PV part. In Fig. 5e, 5f we compare the rate of decay, $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }=d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{PC}+d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{PV}`$ calculated from (S0.Ex7) to the bremsstrahlung rate, to emphasize the feasibilty of detecting the direct emission. Finally, in Fig. 7 we present Dalitz plots for these decays.

IV. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

The calculation we presented is the first attempt to formulate a theoretical framework for decays of type $`DK\pi \gamma `$, with nonresonant $`K\pi `$. The calculational framework is the strong Lagrangian (12)-(15) used in the tree approximation, and factorization for the weak matrix elements. In the present article we treat the Cabibbo allowed decays and among these, only channels which have both inner bremsstrahlung and direct radiation components, $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$, i.e. those which are the most likely ones for early detection. There is a third channel in this class, $`D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0\gamma `$, which has only a direct component in the radiative decay and will be discussed separately.

Our results show that the relative expected strengths of the direct and bremsstrahlung components are of a magnitude which would permit the experimental determination of both, in next generation of experiments. This is important, since the direct amplitude provides information on the decay mechanism. In the radiative decay of $`D^+`$, the magnetic direct component amounts to about $`6\%`$ of the total rate (see Eqs. (33), (35)) and together with direct electric component which is of comparable magnitude (see Fig. 5a), dominate the decay spectrum in the region of high photon energies, say above $`k250`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ (see Fig. 5f). A similar situation occurs in the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$ transition, where the direct radiative decay containing both electric and magnetic parts which are of nearly equal magnitude, amounts to over $`30\%`$ of the total radiative decay rate (see Eqs. (34) and (37)). The numbers we mentioned are for $`k>50`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$, but as we stressed the region of high photon momenta beyond $`200`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ is where the direct transition even dominates.

The above large relative rates of direct/IB are somewhat similar to the occurences in $`K_2^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0\gamma `$, although in the D decays there is no apparant suppression of the original decays. This is most probably related to the mechanism of the decay provided by the heavy quark Lagrangian and the coupling constants involved, e.g. the rather large value of $`|g|=0.59`$ as recently determined.

We have checked the sensitivity of our results to various parameters we used. The uncertainty in the strong coupling $`g=0.59\pm 0.07`$, may change our results for direct branching ratios by at most $`15\%`$. On the other hand, the uncertainty in $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$, and changing of sign of $`\alpha _{1,2}`$ is comparably negligible. As to the values of $`f_D`$, if we vary it by a reasonable amount we can induce changes in the direct amplitudes by a few tens of percent. Althogeter, we feel that with the assumed calculational framework, the calculated direct amplitudes do not have uncertainties of more than $`50\%`$. Another feature which we neglect is the role of possible axial and scalar resonances, where the experimental situation is rather unsettled.

As we explained in the text, the results (35) -(38) are obtained by using the experimental $`DK\pi `$ amplitudes to calculate the inner bremsstrahlung. If we use the model for doing it, we get the result exhibited in (39)- (42), which do not differ from (35), (36), i.e. the $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ decay, but are larger by a factor of about 2 in the amplitude in the case of $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$ decay. This is apparently related to the known difficulty of calculating the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ amplitude in the factorization approximation; therefore, we consider the results given in (37), (38) to be on a safer ground.

If we disregard the contribution of vector mesons to the direct part of the radiative decays, the parity-conserving part of the amplitude is considerably decreased, by one order of magnitude in the rate in $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ decay and by two orders of magnitude in $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$. On the other hand, their contribution is not felt in a significant way in in the parity - violating part of the amplitudes. In any case, the detection of the direct part of these decays at the predicted rates, will constitute a proof of the important role of the light vector mesons. The contribution of the vector mesons in the crossed channels is evident in the Dalitz plots of Fig.7. We point out that the contribution of the vector mesons in $`F_1`$, as evidenced from the relevant graphs, is wholy determined by the $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$ couplings.

Figs. 5a, 5b give the expected spectra for the direct component, which would be detectable in the region of high photon energioes. For the $`D^+`$ decay, the direct electric and magnetic transitions are of comparable strength. This prediction of the model should be testable, as it shiffts the peak of the spectrum to $`E_\gamma =480`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$, while if the magnetic transition is dominant it should peak $`E_\gamma =400`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. In the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$ decay the magnetic and electric components are likewise of nearly equal size, again testable in the spectrum. It is worthwhile to point out that the relative values of the parity - conserving amplitudes is rather large $`|A(D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma )|^2/|A(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma )|^2`$ $`7`$. The main reason for it are certain contributions (like $`D_{1,1}^0`$), which appear in $`D^0`$ decay but are doubly Cabibbo forbidded in the $`D^+`$ decay. Also, as we pointed out, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ amplitude is larger than the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ one in the $`DK\pi `$ channels.

Finally, we wish to emphasize a most interesting implication of our calculation. When one compares the results obtained here for the radiative decays to nonresonant $`K\pi `$, with those previously obtained for the $`DK^{}\gamma `$ , it emerges that the nonresonant channel is the more frequent one. Thus, while one expects for $`D^+K^+\gamma `$ a branching ratio (BR) of about $`10^6`$ (this decay being doubly Cabibbo suppressed), the direct decay $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$ is expected to have a BR of $`3\times 10^5`$ in our model. To this one should add the IB component, which brings its BR to about $`4\times 10^4`$ for $`k>50`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. The radiative decay $`D^0\overline{K}^0\gamma `$ is expected with BR of $`0.5\times 10^4`$. The nonresonant direct $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$ decay we investigated here, has a BR of $`3\times 10^4`$ and including the IB component will occur with a rate $`8\times 10^4`$ for $`k>50`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. The experimental verification of this systematics will provide a check for the suitabilty of the theoretical methods employed. We should remark,however, at this point that we did not address the possibility of the decays $`DR+\gamma `$ , where R is a higher $`K\pi `$ or $`K\pi \pi `$ resonance. To our knowledge, there is no calculation available on this topic. Our expectation is that such modes are at most comparable in strength to the $`D\overline{K}^{}\gamma `$ decay; preliminary data from BELLE  indicate that this is the case in B decays.

There is another feature of interest which we mention. Since there is interference between the direct electric and the bremsstrahlung component of the amplitude, these decays can also be used to test CP - violating effects in the amplitudes.

We conclude by expressing the hope that the interesting features which these decays provide and were analyzed in this paper, will bring to an experimental search in the near future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank our colleagues Y. Rosen, S. Tarem and P. Križan for stimulating discussions on experimental aspects of this investigation.

The research of S.F. and A.P. was supported in part by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia. The research of P.S. was supported in part by Fund for Promotion of Research at the Technion.

APPENDIX A: THE DECAY AMPLITUDES FOR $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+\gamma `$

Here we give the expressions for the sum of amplitudes in each row presented in Fig 1. The contributions which arise due to $`O_1`$ operator are:

$$A_1^+=ie\frac{f_Df_\pi }{f_K}\frac{(vq+vk)pk}{vk},$$

$$A_2^+=ie\sqrt{\frac{M_s}{M}}\frac{f_{Ds}f_\pi }{f_K}g\frac{pq(vq)(vp)+vk(Mvp)}{vp+\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{pk}{vk},$$

$$A_3^+=ieg\sqrt{\frac{M_s}{M}}\frac{f_{Ds}f_\pi }{f_K}\frac{(vk)(qk)(pk)}{vk+vp+\mathrm{\Delta }}$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{vk+\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(2\lambda ^{^{}}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\lambda g_v\left(\frac{q_\omega }{3m_\omega ^2}\frac{q_\rho }{m_\rho ^2}\right)\right)+\frac{1}{vp+\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(2\lambda ^{^{}}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\lambda g_v\frac{q_\varphi }{m_\varphi ^2}\right)\right),$$

$$A_4^+=i\sqrt{2}f_{Ds}f_\pi g_{\overline{K}^0\overline{K}^0\gamma }g_v\lambda e\sqrt{M_sM}\frac{(vk)(qk)^2}{(v(p+k)+\mathrm{\Delta })((p+k)^2m_K^{}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}m_K^{})}.$$

The contributions coming from $`O_2`$ operator are:

$$C_1^+=ie\frac{f_Df_K}{f_\pi }\frac{(vp)(pk)}{vk}^{}$$

$$C_2^+=ie\frac{f_Df_K}{f_\pi }g\frac{pq(vp)(vq)+vk(Mvp)}{vq+vk+\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{pk}{vk},$$

$$C_3^+=ieg\frac{f_Df_K}{f_\pi }\frac{(vk)(qk)}{pk(vk+vq+\mathrm{\Delta })}$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{vk+\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(2\lambda ^{^{}}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\lambda g_v\left(\frac{q_\omega }{3m_\omega ^2}\frac{q_\rho }{m_\rho ^2}\right)\right)\frac{1}{vq+\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\lambda g_v\left(\frac{q_\omega }{3m_\omega ^2}+\frac{q_\rho }{m_\rho ^2}\right)\right),$$

$$C_4^+=i\sqrt{2}f_Df_Kg_{\rho \pi \gamma }g_v\lambda eM\frac{(vk)(pk)^2}{(v(q+k)+\mathrm{\Delta })((q+k)^2m_\rho ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho m_\rho )}.$$

Next we give the expressions for the sum of amplitudes in each row presented in Fig 2. The contributions arising from the $`O_1`$ operator:

$$B_1^+=2eM\frac{f_Df_\pi }{f_K}\lambda ^,\left(\frac{1}{vk+\mathrm{\Delta }}+g\frac{f_{Ds}\sqrt{M_s}}{f_D\sqrt{M}}\frac{vq}{vp+vk}\left(\frac{1}{vk+\mathrm{\Delta }}+\frac{1}{vp+\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\right),$$

$$B_2^+=\sqrt{2M}eg_vg_{\overline{K}^0\overline{K}^0\gamma }f_\pi \frac{\alpha _1M\alpha _2vq}{(p+k)^2m_K^2i\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}m_K^{}}$$

$$+eg_{\rho \pi \gamma }g_\rho \frac{f_D}{f_K}\sqrt{M}\frac{\sqrt{M}+\frac{f_{Ds}}{f_D}\sqrt{M_s}g\frac{Mvp}{vp+\mathrm{\Delta }}}{(k+q)^2m\rho ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho m_\rho },$$

$$B_3^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e\frac{f_\pi }{f_K}\lambda g_v\left(\frac{q_\omega }{3m_\omega ^2}\frac{q_\rho }{m_\rho ^2}\right)\frac{1}{(vk+\mathrm{\Delta })}\left(Mf_D+\sqrt{MM_s}f_{Ds}\frac{vq}{vk+vp}\right)$$

$$+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\sqrt{MM_s}e\frac{f_{Ds}f_\pi }{f_K}g\lambda g_v\frac{q_\varphi }{m_\varphi ^2}\frac{vq}{(vp+\mathrm{\Delta })(vk+vp)}.$$

The operator $`O_2`$ gives the following contributions:

$$D_1^+=2eM\frac{f_Df_K}{f_\pi }\lambda ^,\left(\frac{1}{vk+\mathrm{\Delta }}+g\frac{vp}{(vq+vk)(vk+\mathrm{\Delta })}\right),$$

$$D_2^+=\sqrt{2M}eg_vg_{\rho \pi \gamma }f_K\frac{\alpha _1M\alpha _2vp}{(q+k)^2m_\rho ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho m_\rho }$$

$$eg_{\overline{K}^0\overline{K}^0\gamma }g_K^{}\frac{f_D}{f_\pi }M\frac{1+g\frac{Mvq}{vq+\mathrm{\Delta }}}{(vq)((k+p)^2m_K^{}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}m_K^{})},$$

$$D_3^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}Me\frac{f_Df_K}{f_\pi }\lambda g_v\left(\frac{q_\omega }{3m_\omega ^2}\frac{q_\rho }{m_\rho ^2}\right)\frac{1}{(vk+\mathrm{\Delta })}\left(1+g\frac{vp}{vk+vq}\right)$$

$$+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}Me\frac{f_Df_K}{f_\pi }g\lambda g_v\frac{vp}{(vq+\mathrm{\Delta })(vk+vq)}\left(\frac{q_\omega }{3m_\omega ^2}+\frac{q_\rho }{m_\rho ^2}\right).$$

APPENDIX B: THE DECAY AMPLITUDES FOR $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\gamma `$

The expressions for the sum of amplitudes (the $`O_1`$ operator) in each row exhibited in Fig 3. are:

$$A_1^0=iMe\frac{f_Df_\pi }{f_K}(vq+vk),$$

$$A_2^0=ie\sqrt{MM_s}\frac{f_{Ds}f_\pi }{f_K}g(\frac{pk(vpM)}{M(vp+\mathrm{\Delta })}\frac{pk(pq(vp)(vq))}{M(vp+\mathrm{\Delta })(vp+vk+\mathrm{\Delta })}$$

$$+\frac{MqkMpq+M(vq)(vp)(vq)(qk)}{M(vp+vk+\mathrm{\Delta })}),$$

$$A_3^0=ie\sqrt{M_s/M}\frac{f_{Ds}f_\pi }{f_K}g\frac{(vk)(pk)(qk)}{(vk+vp+\mathrm{\Delta })}\left(\frac{2\lambda ^{^{}}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\lambda g_v\frac{q_\varphi }{m_\varphi ^2}}{(vp+\mathrm{\Delta })}+\frac{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\lambda g_v\left(\frac{q_\omega }{3m_\omega ^2}+\frac{q_\rho }{m_\rho ^2}\right)}{vk+\mathrm{\Delta }}\right),$$

$$A_4^0=i\sqrt{2}f_{Ds}f_\pi g_{K^{}K\gamma }g_v\lambda e\sqrt{M_sM}\frac{(vk)(qk)^2}{(v(p+k)+\mathrm{\Delta })((p+k)^2m_K^{}^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}m_K^{})}.$$

The sum of amplitudes coming from operator $`O_2`$, shown in Fig. 3 as $`C_1^0`$, is vanishing.

Next we present the expressions for the sums of amplitudes in each row shown in Fig. 4. The results for the operator $`O_1`$ are:

$$B_1^0=e\sqrt{MM_s}\frac{f_{Ds}f_\pi }{f_K}\frac{g(vq)}{(vp+\mathrm{\Delta })(vk+vp)}\left(2\lambda ^{^{}}+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\lambda g_v\frac{q_\varphi }{m_\varphi ^2}\right)$$

$$+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}Me\frac{f_\pi }{f_K}\lambda g_v\frac{1}{(vk+\mathrm{\Delta })}\left(f_D\left(\frac{q_\omega }{3m_\omega ^2}+\frac{q_\rho }{m_\rho ^2}\right)+f_{Ds}\sqrt{\frac{M_s}{M}}\left(\frac{q_\omega }{3m_\omega ^2}\frac{q_\rho }{m_\rho ^2}\right)\frac{gvq}{(vk+vp)}\right),$$

$$B_2^0=\sqrt{2M}eg_vg_{\overline{K}^{}\overline{K}^\gamma }f_\pi \frac{\alpha _1M\alpha _2vq}{(p+k)^2m_K^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}m_K^{}}$$

$$+eg_{\rho \pi \gamma }g_\rho \frac{f_D}{f_K}\frac{M+\frac{f_{Ds}}{f_D}\sqrt{M_sM}g\frac{Mvp}{vp+\mathrm{\Delta }}}{(k+q)^2m_\rho ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho m_\rho }.$$

Finally, the sums of amplitudes in each row due to the operator $`O_2`$:

$$D_1^0=\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}}e\lambda g_vf_D\left(\frac{q_\omega }{3m_\omega ^2}+\frac{q_\rho }{m_\rho ^2}\right)\frac{1}{vk+\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(1+\frac{m_{\overline{K}^0}^2}{(p+q)^2m_{\overline{K}^0}^2}\right),$$

$$D_2^0=Me\frac{f_D}{f_\pi }g_Kg_{KK^{}\gamma }\frac{1}{(p+k)^2m_K^{}^2+im_K^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{}}+Me\frac{f_D}{f_K}g_\rho g_{\rho \pi \gamma }\frac{1}{(q+k)^2m_\rho ^2+im_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho },$$

$$D_3^0=\frac{e}{2}f_Df_K\frac{m_K^{}^2}{g_K^{}}\frac{M^3}{(M^2m_{\overline{K}^0}^2)}\left(\frac{g_{K^{}K\gamma }}{(p+k)^2m_K^{}^2+im_K^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{})}+\frac{g_{\rho \pi \gamma }}{(q+k)^2m_\rho ^2+im_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho )}\right).$$


text:
# MULTIPLY WARPED PRODUCTS WITH NON-SMOOTH METRICS

## Abstract.

In this article we study manifolds with $`C^0`$-metrics and properties of Lorentzian multiply warped products. We represent the interior Schwarzschild space-time as a multiply warped product space-time with warping functions and we also investigate the curvature of a multiply warped product with $`C^0`$-warping functions. We given the Ricci curvature in terms of $`f_1`$, $`f_2`$ for the multiply warped products of the form $`M=(0,2m)\times _{f_1}R^1\times _{f_2}S^2`$.

I. INTRODUCTION The concept of a warped product manifold was introduced by Bishop and O’Neill1, where it served to provide a class of complete Riemannian manifolds with everywhere negative curvature. The connection with general relativity was first made by Beem, Ehrich, and Powell2,3, who pointed out that several of the well-known exact solutions to Einstein’s field equations are pseudo-Riemannian warped products. Beem and Ehrich4 further explored the extent to which certain causal and completeness properties of a space-time maybe determined by the presence of a warped product structure. O’Neill’s book on Semi-Riemannian geometry5 took this line of development to a natural conclusion by elevating warped products to a central role. After first developing the general theory of warped products to spaces, O’Neill then applied the theory to discuss, in turn, the special cases of Robertson-Walker, Friedmann, static and Schwarzshild space-time. The role of warped products in the study of exact solutions to Einstein’s equations is now firmly established, and it appears that these structures are generating interest in other areas of geometry.We study manifolds with $`C^0`$-metrics and properties of Lorentzian multiply warped products. Many authors6,7,8,9 have dealt with Lorentzian manifolds with non-smooth metric tensors from various view points. Of particular interest are space-times which have a metric tensor which is fails to be $`C^1`$ across a hypersurface, and is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ off the hypersurface. A space-time which, in an admissible coordinate system, the metric tensor is continuous but has a jump in its first and second derivatives across a submanifold will have a curvature tensor containing a Dirac delta function10,11. The support of this distribution may be of three, two, or one dimensional or may even consist of a single event. Lichnerowicz’s formalism12 for dealing with such tensors is modified so as to obtain a formalism in which the Riemannian curvature tensor and Ricci curvature tensor exist in the sense of distributions. We note that Smoller and Temple13 have presented a general theory for matching two solutions of the Einstein field equations at arbitrary shock-wave interface across which the metric $`g`$ is $`C^0`$-Lorentzian, i.e., smooth surface across which the first derivatives of the metric suffer at worst a jump discontinuity. A multiply warped products space-time with base $`(B,dt^2)`$, fibers $`(F_i,g_i)`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and warping functions $`f_i>0`$ is the product manifold $`(B\times F_1\times \mathrm{}\times F_n,g)`$ endowed with the Lorentzian metric: $`g=\pi _B^{}dt^2+_{i=1}^n(f_i\pi _B)^2\pi _i^{}g_idt^2+_{i=1}^nf_i^2g_i`$ where $`\pi _B`$, $`\pi _i`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ are the natural projections of $`B\times F_1\times \mathrm{}\times F_n`$ onto $`B`$ and $`F_1`$,…,$`F_n`$, respectively. Thus, warped product spaces are extended to a richer class of spaces involving multiply products. Multiply warped product spaces were studied by Flores, J, L. and M. Sánchez14.

The conditions of spacelike boundaries in the multiply warped product spacetimes were studied by Steven G. Harris15. From a physical point of view, these space-time are interesting, first, because they include classical examples of space-time: when $`n=1`$ they are Generalized Robertson-Walker space-times, standard models of cosmology; when $`n=2`$, the intermediate zone of Reissner-Norsdström space-time and interior of Schwarzschild space-time appear as particular cases16. The conditions of spacelike boundaries in the multiply warped product spacetimes were studied by Steven G. Harris. The Kasner metric was studied as a cosmological model by Schücking and Heckmann17(1958) The Schwarzschild solution is interpreted as describing the gravitational field of a point particle with mass $`m`$. Generally, this metric is taken to represent the outside metric for a star with $`r>r_0`$ where $`r_0`$ gives the boundary of the star. The metric inside $`r<r_0`$ is a different interior metric determined by the matter distribution $`T_{ij}`$ inside the star and is matched at the boundary $`r=r_0`$ with the metric. We represent the interior Schwarzschild space-time as a multiply warped product space-time with warping functions and we also investigate the curvature of a multiply warped product with $`C^0`$-warping functions. We given the Ricci curvature in terms of $`f_1`$, $`f_2`$ for the multiply warped products of the form $`M=(0,2m)\times _{f_1}R^1\times _{f_2}S^2`$.

II. MULTIPLY WARPED PRODUCTS MANIFOLDS
WITH NON-SMOOTH METRIC TENSOR

In this section, we state some definitions and standard results2,5 which will be needed below. A Lorentzian manifold $`(M,g)`$ is a connected smooth manifold of dimension $`2`$ with a countable basis together with a Lorentzian metric $`g`$ of signature $`(,+,+,\mathrm{},+)`$. Let $`(F_i,g_i)`$ be Riemannian manifolds, and let $`(B,g_B)`$ be either a spacetime, or let $`B`$ be $`R^1`$ with $`g_B=dt^2`$. Let $`f_i>0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ be smooth functions on $`B`$. A multiply warped products space-time with base $`(B,g_B)`$, fibers $`(F_i,g_i)`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and warping functions $`f_i>0`$ is the product manifold $`(B\times F_1\times \mathrm{}\times F_n,g)`$ endowed with the Lorentzian metric:

$`(2.1)`$
$$g=\pi _B^{}g_B+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(f_i\pi _B)^2\pi _i^{}g_idt^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}f_i^2g_i$$

where $`\pi _B`$, $`\pi _i`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ are the natural projections of $`B\times F_1\times \mathrm{}\times F_n`$ onto $`B`$ and $`F_1`$,…,$`F_n`$, respectively.Definition 2.1 Suppose $`M=B\times _{f_1}F_1\times \mathrm{}\times _{f_n}F_n`$ is a multiply warped product of semi-Riemannian manifolds. For any $`(p,q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)M`$, the submanifold $`B\times q_1\times \mathrm{}\times q_n`$ is a leaf of $`M`$. The submanifolds $`p\times F_1\times \mathrm{}\times q_n`$ is called type 1 fibers and $`p\times q_1\times \mathrm{}\times F_n`$ is called type n fibers, respectively. As in the case of warped products, a multiply warped metric satisfies:

(1) For each $`q_iF_i`$, $`\pi _B|_{(B\times q_1\times \mathrm{}\times q_n)}`$ is an isometry onto $`B`$

(2) For each $`pB`$ and $`q_jF_j`$, $`\sigma _i|_{(p\times q_1\times \mathrm{}\times F_i\times \mathrm{}\times q_n)}`$ is homothety onto $`F_i`$, with scale factor $`1/f_i(p)`$.

(3) For each $`(p,q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)M`$, the set $`B\times q_1\times \mathrm{}\times q_n`$ and the $`i`$-th type fiber, $`p\times q_1\times \mathrm{}\times F_i\times \mathrm{}\times q_n`$ are mutually orthogonal at $`(p,q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)`$.

Let $`M`$ be a smooth manifold of dimension $`n`$. Then subset $`S`$ of $`M`$ is a regularly embedded hypersurface of $`M`$ if for all $`pS`$, there exists a coordinate neighborhood $`U(p)`$ with coordinates $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ such that $`SU=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)Ux_n=p\}`$. For convenience, we say that such a neighborhood $`U`$ is partitioned by $`S`$. We denote $`\{xUx_n>p\}`$ and $`\{xUx_n<p\}`$ by $`U_p^+`$ and $`U_p^{},`$ respectively. Now let $`M`$ be a smooth manifold with a regularly embedded hypersurface $`S`$. Let $`S^c`$ denote the complement of $`S`$. We define the concept of a $`C^0`$-Lorentzian metric on $`M`$

Definition 2.2 A $`C^0`$-Lorentzian metric on $`M`$ is a nondegenerate (0,2) tensor of Lorentzian signature such that:

(1) $`gC^0`$ on $`S`$

(2) $`gC^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`MS^c`$

(3) For all $`pS`$, and $`U(p)`$ partitioned by $`S`$, $`g_{U_p^+}`$ and $`g_{U_p^{}}`$ have smooth extensions to $`U`$.We call $`S`$ a $`C^0`$-singular hypersurface of $`(M,g)`$.

III. MULTIPLY WARPED PRODUCTS MANIFOLDS WITH $`C^0`$ WARPING FUNCTIONLet $`M=B\times _{f_1}F_1\times \mathrm{}\times _{f_n}F_n`$ be a multiply warped products with $`g_B=dt^2`$. Let $`f_i>0`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ smooth functions on $`B=(a,b)`$. Recall $`f_iC^{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`tt_0`$ if $`f_iC^0`$ at $`t=p`$. When $`fC^0`$ at a single point $`pR^1`$ and $`S=\{p\}\times _{f_1}F_1\times \mathrm{}\times _{f_n}F_n`$, we use the notation $`fC^0(S)`$.

Proposition 3.1 Let $`M=B\times _{f_1}F_1\times \mathrm{}\times _{f_n}F_n`$ be a multiply warped products with Riemannian curvature tensor $`R`$. If $`X`$, $`Y𝔏(B)`$, $`V_i`$, $`W_i𝔏(F_i)`$ where $`1in`$, $`f_iC^0(S)`$, then

(1) $`_XY𝔏(B)`$ is the lift of $`_XY`$ on $`𝔏(B)`$,

(2) $`_XV_i=_{V_i}X=(Xf_i/f_i)V_i=\left\{X^1\left(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}u(tp)+f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}u(pt)\right)/f_i\right\}V_i`$.

(3) $`_{V_i}V_j=_{V_j}V_i=0`$ if $`ij`$

(4) nor$`_{V_i}W_i`$= $`II^i(V_i,W_i)`$= $``$ $`(<V_i,W_i>/f_i)\text{grad}f_i`$

= $`(<V_i,W_i>/f_i)(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}u(tp)+f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}u(pt))\frac{}{t}`$.

(5) tan$`_{V_i}W_i𝔏(F_i)`$ is the lift of $`_{V_i}W_i`$ on $`F`$. Proof

Refer to O’Neill5 results and similar arguments yield the (1), (3), (5).

Clearly, it is only necessary to establish (2) and (4)

(2) Since $`X(f_i)=X^1\left(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}u(tp)+f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}u(pt)\right)/f_i`$ where $`X=X^1\frac{}{t}`$

we have $`(Xf_i/f_i)V_i=\left\{X^1\left(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}u(tp)+f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}u(pt)\right)/f_i\right\}V_i`$.

(4) Since $`\text{grad}f_i=_{k=1}^ng^{kj}\frac{f_i}{x^k}\frac{}{x^j}=\frac{f_i}{t}\frac{}{t}`$

$`=\left(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}u(tp)+f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}u(pt)\right)\frac{}{t}`$

$`\text{nor}_{V_i}W_i`$= $`II^i(V_i,W_i)`$

= $``$ $`(<V_i,W_i>/f_i)\text{grad}f_i`$

=$`(<V_i,W_i>/f_i)(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}u(tp)+f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}u(pt))\frac{}{t}`$. ∎

Proposition 3.2 Let $`M=B\times _{f_1}F_1\times \mathrm{}\times _{f_n}F_n`$ be a multiply warped products with Riemannian curvature tensor $`R`$. If $`X`$, $`Y𝔏(B)`$, $`U_i`$, $`V_i`$, $`W_i𝔏(F_i)`$ where $`1in`$, $`f_iC^0(S)`$, then

(1) $`R_{XY}Z𝔏(B)`$ is the lift of $`{}_{}{}^{B}R_{XY}^{}Z(=0)`$ on $`𝔏(B)`$,

(2) $`R_{XU_i}U_j=R_{U_iU_j}X=R_{U_jX}U_i=0`$ for $`ij`$,

(3) $`R_{U_iX}Y=(H^{f_i}(X,Y)/f_i)U_i`$

=$`\left\{\left\{X^1Y^1\left(f_i^{\prime \prime }(t)+\delta _p(t)(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\right)\right\}/f_i\right\}U_i`$,

where $`H_i^f`$ is the Hessian of $`f_i`$.

(3) $`R_{XU_i}U_j=R_{U_iU_j}X=R_{U_jX}U_i=0`$ for $`ij`$,

(4) $`R_{XY}U_i=0`$ for each $`i=1,..,n`$,

(5) $`R_{U_iV_i}U_j=0`$ for $`ij`$,

(6) $`R_{U_iU_j}V_j=\frac{<U_j,V_j>}{f_if_j}\left(f_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}+f_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)\left(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}+f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)U_i`$ for $`ij`$,

(7) $`R_{U_iV_i}W_i`$

=$`{}_{}{}^{F_i}R_{U_iV_i}^{}W_i(<\text{grad}f_i,\text{grad}f_i>/f_i^2)(<U_i,W_i>V_i<V_i,W_i>U_i)`$

=$`{}_{}{}^{F_i}R_{U_iV_i}^{}W_i+((f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}u(tp)+f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}u(pt))/f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(<U_i,W_i>V_i<V_i,W_i>U_i).`$

Proof

We will establish (3) and (7)

For $`X=X^1\frac{}{t}`$$`Y=Y^1\frac{}{t}`$

since $`_X\text{grad}f_i`$=$`_X()\frac{f_i}{t}\frac{}{t}`$=$`\left(\frac{f_i}{t}X^1_\frac{}{t}^\frac{}{t}+X^1\frac{}{t}\left(\frac{f_i}{t}\right)\frac{}{t}\right)`$

=$`X^1\left(f_i^{\prime \prime }(t)+\delta _p(t)\left(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)\right)\frac{}{t}`$

(3) $`H^{f_i}(X,Y)=_X\text{grad}f_i,Y`$

=$`X^1(f_i^{\prime \prime }(t)+\delta _p(t)(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}))\frac{}{t},Y^1\frac{}{t}`$

=$`X^1Y^1\left(f_i^{\prime \prime }(t)+\delta _p(t)\left(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)\right)`$

$`R_{U_iX}Y=(H^{f_i}(X,Y)/f_i)U_i=\left\{\left\{X^1Y^1\left(f_i^{\prime \prime }(t)+\delta _p(t)\left(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)\right)\right\}/f_i\right\}V`$

(7) $`R_{U_iV_i}W_i={}_{}{}^{F}R_{U_iV_i}^{}W_i(<\text{grad}f_i,\text{grad}f_i>/f_i^2)(<U_i,W_i>V_i`$

$`<V_i,W_i>U_i)`$

=$`{}_{}{}^{F}R_{U_iV_i}^{}W_i+((f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}u(tp)+f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}u(pt))/f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(<U_i,W_i>V_i`$

$`<V_i,W_i>U_i).`$

Corollary 3.3 Let $`M=B\times _{f_1}F_1\times \mathrm{}\times _{f_n}F_n`$ be a multiply warped products with Riemannian curvature tensor $`R`$. If $`X`$, $`Y𝔏(B)`$, $`U_i`$, $`V_i𝔏(F_i)`$ where $`1in`$, $`d_i=\text{dim}F_i`$ $`f_iC^0(S)`$, then

(1) $`\text{Ric}(X,Y)`$=$`_{i=1}^n(d_i/f_i)H^{f_i}(X,Y)`$

=$`_{i=1}^n(d_i/f_i)X^1Y^1\left(f_i^{\prime \prime }(t)+\delta _p(t)\left(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}(p)f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(p)\right)\right)`$

(2) $`\text{Ric}(X,U_i)`$=0

(3) $`\text{Ric}(U_i,V_i)`$=$`{}_{}{}^{F_i}\text{Ric}(U_i,V_i)`$

$`+<U_i,V_i>\{(f_i^{\prime \prime }(t)+\delta _p(t)(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}))/f_i`$

$`+(d_i1)(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{})/f_i^2+_{ji}d_j\frac{<f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{},f_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}f_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}>}{f_if_j}\}`$

(4) $`\text{Ric}(U_i,U_j)=0`$ for $`ij`$,

Proof

We will establish (1) and (3)

(1) $`\text{Ric}(X,Y)`$=$`_M\epsilon _m<R_{XE_m}Y,E_m>`$

=$`_{F_i}\epsilon _m<R_{XE_m}Y,E_m>`$

=$`_{F_i}\epsilon _m<\frac{H^{f_i}(X,Y)}{f_i}E_m,E_m>`$

=$`_{F_i}\frac{H^{f_i}(X,Y)}{f_i}\epsilon _m<E_m,E_m>`$

=$`_{F_i}\frac{H^{f_i}(X,Y)}{f_i}\epsilon _m^2`$

=$`_{i=1}^n\frac{d_i}{f_i}H^{f_i}(X,Y)`$

=$`_{i=1}^n(d_i/f_i)X^1Y^1\left(f_i^{\prime \prime }(t)+\delta _p(t)\left(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}(p)f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(p)\right)\right)`$

(3) Since $`\mathrm{}f_i`$ = $`\text{div(grad}f_i)=\{f_i^{\prime \prime }(t)+\delta _p(t)(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}(p)f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(p))\},`$

$`f_i^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\mathrm{}f_i}{f_i}+(d_i1)\frac{<\text{grad}f_i,\text{grad}f_i>}{f_i^2}`$

$`=\left\{f_i^{\prime \prime }(t)+\delta _p(t)\left(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}(p)f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(p)\right)\right\}/f_i`$

$`(d_i1)\left\{f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}u(tp)/f_i+f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}u(pt)/f_i\right\}^2`$

therefore

$`\text{Ric}(U_i,V_i)`$=$`{}_{}{}^{F_i}\text{Ric}(U_i,V_i)`$

$`+<U_i,V_i>\{(f_i^{\prime \prime }(t)+\delta _p(t)(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}))/f_i`$

$`+(d_i1)(f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{})/f_i^2+_{ji}d_j\frac{<f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}f_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{},f_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}f_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}>}{f_if_j}\}`$

Now consider the multiply warped products, $`M=R^1\times _{f_1}F_1\times \mathrm{}\times _{f_n}F_n`$ with the warping function $`f_i`$ on the spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1})|x_1\text{ is constant}\}`$. If $`M`$ has a metric $`g=dt^2+_{i=1}^nf_i^2g_i`$, metric of $`F_i`$ ( $`\text{dim}F_i=d_i`$ ), is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ and symmetric.

Proposition 3.4 Let $`M=B\times _{f_1}F_1\times \mathrm{}\times _{f_n}F_n`$ be the multiply warped product space of dimension $`d=1+_{i=1}^nd_i`$ with the warping functions $`f_i`$ on the spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{p\}\times F_1\times \mathrm{}\times F_n`$. The metric components of $`g=g^Lg^R`$ are $`C^1`$ functions of the coordinate variables ie, $`f_iC^1`$ if and only if $`[L_\eta ]=(L_\eta ^RL_\eta ^L)=0`$ at each point on the spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Here $`\eta =\frac{}{t}`$ Proof

We can get the second fundamental form as follow. For $`M=B\times _{f_1}F_1\times \mathrm{}\times _{f_n}F_n`$, consider the basis of $`T_pM`$.

$$\{\frac{}{x_1},\frac{}{\mu _{\mathrm{1\; 1}}},\mathrm{},\frac{}{\mu _{1d_1}},\mathrm{},\frac{}{\nu _{n1}},\mathrm{},\frac{}{\nu _{nd_n}}\}=\{\frac{}{x_1},\frac{}{x_2},\mathrm{},\frac{}{x_d}\}$$

For $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`X_p=a_2\frac{}{x_2}+a_3\frac{}{x_3}+,\mathrm{},+a_d\frac{}{x_d}T_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, choose normal vector $`\eta _p=\frac{}{x_1}`$ such that $`g(X_p,\eta _p)=0`$ for non-degenerate $`g`$ where $`p=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{d+1})`$ and the $`a_i`$ are smooth.

Since

$$L_\eta X=_X\eta =\underset{i=2}{\overset{d+1}{}}\frac{a_i}{f_i}\frac{f_i}{x_1}\frac{}{x_i}$$

therefore, we have

$$\left[L_\eta \right]=\underset{i=2}{\overset{d+1}{}}\frac{a_i}{f_i}\left[\frac{f_i}{x_1}\right]\frac{}{x_i}$$

$$\left[L_\eta \right]=0\left[\frac{f_i}{x_1}\right]=0f_iC^1(\mathrm{\Sigma })\mathit{}$$

IV. SCHWARZSCHILD SPACE-TIME AS A MULTIPLY WARPED PRODUCT In this section we will briefly discuss the interior Schwarzschild solution. We show how the interior solution can be written as a multiply warped product.

A Schwarzschild black hole for the region $`r<2m`$ have the metric.

$`(4.1)`$
$$ds^2=\left(\frac{2m}{r}1\right)^1dr^2+\left(\frac{2m}{r}1\right)dt^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

Replacing $`r`$ with $`\nu `$ and $`t`$ with $`\mu `$, we have $`0<\nu <2m`$ and

$`(4.2)`$
$$ds^2=\left(\frac{2m}{\nu }1\right)^1d\nu ^2+\left(\frac{2m}{\nu }1\right)d\mu ^2+\nu ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

Put

$`(4.3)`$
$$d\mu ^2=\left(\frac{2m}{\nu }1\right)^1d\nu ^2$$

Integrating

$$d\mu =\sqrt{\frac{\nu }{2m\nu }}d\nu $$

we obtain

$`(4.4)`$
$$\mu =2m\text{cos}^1\left(\sqrt{\frac{2m\nu }{2m}}\right)\sqrt{\nu (2m\nu )}+C=F(\nu )+C.$$

Setting $`C=0`$ we obtain $`F(\nu )=2m\text{cos}^1\left(\sqrt{\frac{2m\nu }{2m}}\right)\sqrt{\nu (2m\nu )}`$

This yields

$$\underset{\nu 2m}{lim}F(\nu )=m\pi ,\underset{\nu 0}{lim}F(\nu )=0$$

Notice $`\frac{d\nu }{d\mu }>0`$ implies $`F^1`$ is a well-defined function.

By using (4.4) we rewrite (4.2) as

$`(4.5)`$
$$ds^2=d\mu ^2+\left(\frac{2m}{F^1(\mu )}1\right)d\nu ^2+F^1(\mu )^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

Therefore we can write Schwarzschild space-time as a multiply warped products

$`(4.6)`$
$$ds^2=d\mu ^2+f_1^2(\mu )d\nu ^2+f_2^2(\mu )d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

where

$$f_1(\mu )=\sqrt{\left(\frac{2m}{F^1(\mu )}1\right)}$$

and

$$f_2(\mu )=F^1(\mu )$$

Clearly one may investigate the curvature of the interior metric(4.6) of Schwarzschild space-time as a multiply warped product. Furthermore, we have the following Ricci curvature on the multiply warped products.

Corollary 4.1 Let $`M`$ be a multiply warped product $`M=R^1\times _{f_1}R^1\times _{f_2}S^2`$ with metric $`ds^2=d\mu ^2+f_1^2(\mu )d\nu ^2+f_2^2(\mu )d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$(where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta ^2+\text{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$) for warping functions $`f_1`$, $`f_2`$.

Then we have Ricci curvature

(1) $`\text{Ric}(\frac{}{\mu },\frac{}{\mu })`$=$`\text{R}_{\mu \mu }`$=$`\text{R}_{11}`$=$`\frac{f_1^{\prime \prime }}{f_1}\frac{2f_2^{\prime \prime }}{f_2}`$

(2) $`\text{Ric}(\frac{}{\nu },\frac{}{\nu })`$=$`\text{R}_{\nu \nu }`$=$`\text{R}_{22}`$=$`f_1f_1^{\prime \prime }+\frac{2f_1f_1^{}f_2^{}}{f_2}`$

(3) $`\text{Ric}(\frac{}{\theta },\frac{}{\theta })`$=$`\text{R}_{\theta \theta }`$=$`\text{R}_{33}`$=$`\frac{f_1^{}f_2f_2^{}}{f_1}+f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+f_2f_2^{\prime \prime }+1`$

(4) $`\text{Ric}(\frac{}{\varphi },\frac{}{\varphi })`$=$`\text{R}_{\varphi \varphi }`$=$`\text{R}_{44}`$=$`\left(\frac{f_1^{}f_2f_2^{}}{f_1}+f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+f_2f_2^{\prime \prime }+1\right)\text{sin }\theta `$

(5) $`\text{R}_{\text{mn}}=0`$ for $`\text{m}\text{n}`$

Remark Let $`M=(0,2m)\times _{f_1}R^1\times _{f_2}S^2`$ be given the metric $`ds^2=d\mu ^2+f_1^2(\mu )d\nu ^2+f_2^2(\mu )d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$. Then $`M`$ is the Ricci flat with interior Schwarzschild metric if $`lim_{\mu 0}(f_2^{}(\mu )^2+1)f_2(\mu )=2m`$ and $`lim_{\mu 0}f_1(\mu )=lim_{\mu 0}f_2^{}(\mu )`$

Proof

From corollary 4.1 we have $`\frac{f_1^{\prime \prime }}{f_1}=\frac{2f_2^{\prime \prime }}{f_2}`$ and $`\frac{f_1^{\prime \prime }}{f_1}=\frac{2f_2^{}}{f_2}`$ from $`\text{R}_{11}=0`$, $`\text{R}_{22}=0`$ respectively.

Substitute $`\frac{f_1^{}}{f_1}=\frac{\frac{f_1^{\prime \prime }}{f_1}}{\frac{f_1^{\prime \prime }}{f_1^{}}}=\frac{f_2^{\prime \prime }}{f_2^{}}`$ to $`\frac{1}{f_2}\times \text{R}_{33}=0`$, then we have $`\frac{f_1^{}f_2^{}}{f_1}+\frac{f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+1}{f_2}+f_2^{\prime \prime }=0`$

so $`2f_2^{\prime \prime }+\frac{f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+1}{f_2}=0`$ thus $`\frac{2f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}f_2^{\prime \prime }}{f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+1}+\frac{f_2^{}}{f_2}=0`$. After integrating from $`0`$ to $`\mu `$

we have $`\text{ln}(f_2^{}(\mu )^2+1)f_2(\mu )=lim_{\mu 0}\text{ln}(f_2^{}(\mu )^2+1)f_2(\mu )`$.

Put $`lim_{\mu 0}(f_2^{}(\mu )^2+1)f_2(\mu )=C`$, $`f_2^{}(\mu )^2+1=\frac{C}{f_2(\mu )}`$ so $`f_2^{}(\mu )=\sqrt{\left(\frac{C}{f_2(\mu )}1\right)}`$.

From $`\frac{f_1^{}}{f_1}=\frac{f_2^{\prime \prime }}{f_2^{}}`$ we have $`f_1(\mu )=\frac{f_(\mu )}{f_2^{}(\mu )}f_2^{}(\mu )=f_2^{}(\mu )`$ with initial condition

$`lim_{\mu 0}\frac{f_(\mu )}{f_2^{}(\mu )}=1`$ that is, $`f_1(\mu )=\sqrt{\left(\frac{C}{f_2(\mu )}1\right)}`$ therfore $`f_1(\mu )=\sqrt{\left(\frac{2m}{f_2(\mu )}1\right)}`$ if $`C=2m`$.

Since $`f_2(\mu )=F^1(\mu )=\nu `$ and $`f_1(\mu )=\sqrt{\left(\frac{2m}{F^1(\mu )}1\right)}=\frac{d\nu }{d\mu }`$ we have (4.3) ∎

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank to John K. Beem for his invaluable guidence, encouragement and help.

1 Bishop, R. L. and B. O’Neill Manifolds of negative curvature Trans. A.M.S.

145, 1 (1969) 2 Beem, J. K., P. E. Ehrlich and K. Easley Global Lorentzian Geometry, Second

edition Marcel Dekker Pure and Applied Mathematics, New York, 1996 3 Beem, J. K., P. E. Ehrlich and T. G. Powell Warped product manifolds in

relativity, in selected studies : A Volume Dedicated to the Memory of Allbert

Einstein (T. M. Rassias and G. M. Rassias, eds) North-Holland, Amsterdam,

41 (1982) 4 Beem, J. K. and P. E. Ehrlich Singularities, incompleteness, and the Lorentzian

distance function Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 85, 161 (1979) 5 O’Neill, B. Semi-Riemannian Geometry with Applications to Relativity

Academic Press Pure and Applied Mathematics, 1983 6 Choquet-Bruhat. Y Espaces-temps einsteiniens généraux, chocs gravitationels

Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré 8, 327 (1968) 7 Powell, T. G. Lorentzian manifolds with non-smooth metrics and warped

products Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia 1982 8 Taub, A. H. Singular hypersufaces in general relativity J. Math. 1, 370 (1965) 9 Taub, A. H. Space-times with distribution valued curvature tensor J. Math.

Phys. 21, 1423 (1980) 10 Hoskins, R. F. Generalized Functions Ellis Horwood limited, Oxford,

1979 11 Kanwal, R. P.  Generalized Functions Theory and Technique(2nd ed.) Birkhäuser,

1997 12 Lichnerowicz, A. Theoréoríes relativistes de la gravitation et de l’électromagéticame

Masson et Cie, Paris, 1955 13 Smoller, J. and B. Temple Shock waves near the Schwarzchild radius and

stability limits for stars Physical Review D 55(12), 7518 (1997) 14 Flores, J, L. and M. Sánchez Geodesic connectedness of multiwarped

spacetimes preprint 1999 15 Steven G. Harris. Topology of the future chronological boundary: Universality

for spacelike boundaries Preprint 1999 16 Hawking, S. W. and F. R. Ellis The Large Scale Structure of Space-times

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973 17 Misner, C. W., K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler Gravitation W. H. Freeman

and Company New York, 1970


text:
# Demixing of colloid-polymer mixtures in poor solvents

## I Introduction

Solvents play a crucial role in the thermodynamic behavior of macromolecular solutions. Over the past half-century, effects of solvent quality on the physical properties of polymer solutions have been extensively studied Flory (1969); de Gennes (1979). Polymer-solvent and solvent-solvent interactions were first incorporated into the classic Flory-Huggins mean-field theory of polymer solutions Flory (1971). Subsequently, excluded-volume interactions between polymer segments were identified as the key determinants of solvent quality. Polymer segments sterically repel one another in a good solvent, attract in a poor solvent, and behave as though ideal (noninteracting) in a theta-solvent. Interactions between polymer segments strongly influence chain conformations and, in turn, phase separation and other macroscopic phenomena.

Compared to solvent effects in pure polymer solutions, much less is known about the role of solvent quality in colloid-polymer mixtures. The simplest and most widely-studied theoretical model of colloid-polymer mixtures is the Asakura-Oosawa (AO) model Asakura and Oosawa (1954); Vrij (1976). This treats the colloids as hard spheres and the polymers as effective spheres that are mutually noninteracting but have hard interactions with the colloids. The thermodynamic phase diagram of the AO model has been mapped out by thermodynamic perturbation theory Gast et al. (1983), free volume theory Lekkerkerker et al. (1992), density functional (DF) theory Schmidt et al. (2000), and Monte Carlo simulation Dijkstra et al. (1999). By assuming ideal polymers, however, the AO model is implicitly limited to theta-solvents. Recently, by incorporating polymer-polymer repulsion into the AO model, the influence of a good solvent on phase behavior has been explored via perturbation theory Warren et al. (1995) and DF theory Schmidt et al. (2002a). All of these studies assume an effective penetrable-sphere model for the polymer coils, which is supported by explicit Monte Carlo simulations of interacting segmented-chain polymers Louis et al. (2000); P. G. Bolhuis, A. A. Louis, J. P. Hansen, and E. J. Meijer (2001); P. G. Bolhuis, A. A. Louis, and J. P. Hansen (2001). An alternative, more microscopic, theoretical approach is the PRISM integral-equation theory Ramakrishnan et al. (2002), which models polymers on the segment level.

The purpose of the present paper is to investigate the effect of a poor solvent on the bulk phase behavior of colloid-polymer mixtures. To this end, we consider a variation of the AO model that explicitly includes the solvent as a distinct component. Specifically, the solvent is treated as a binary mixture of a primary solvent, which alone acts as a theta-solvent for the polymer, and a cosolvent, which acts as a poor solvent for the polymer. The primary solvent is regarded as a homogeneous background that freely penetrates the polymer, but is excluded by the colloids. The cosolvent is modelled simply as an ideal gas of point-like particles that penetrate neither colloids nor polymers.

In the absence of colloids, the polymer-cosolvent subsystem is the Widom-Rowlinson (WR) model of a binary mixture Widom and Rowlinson (1970); Rowlinson and Widom (1982), in which particles of unlike species interact with hard cores and particles of like species are noninteracting. The WR model can be shown to be equivalent to a one-component system of penetrable spheres that interact via a many-body interaction potential, proportional to the cosolvent pressure and the volume covered by the spheres (with overlapping portions counted only once). Hence, in the polymer-cosolvent subsystem, the volume occupied by the polymer spheres costs interaction energy, inducing an effective attraction between polymers reminiscent of that caused by a poor solvent. By varying cosolvent concentration, the solvent quality can be tuned. Here we investigate whether and how added hard colloidal spheres mix with such effectively interacting polymers.

In Sec. II, we define more explicitly the model colloid-polymer-cosolvent mixture. In Sec. III, we develop a general geometry-based DF theory, which may be applied to both homogeneous and inhomogeneous states of the model system. The general theory provides the foundation for an application to bulk phase behavior in Sec. IV. Readers who are interested only in bulk properties may wish to skip Sec. III and turn directly to Sec. IV. We finish with concluding remarks in Sec. V.

## II The Model

We consider a ternary mixture of colloidal hard spheres (species $`C`$) of radius $`R_C`$, globular polymers (species $`P`$) of radius $`R_P`$, and point-like cosolvent particles (species $`S`$), as illustrated in Fig. 1. The respective number densities are $`\rho _C(𝐫)`$, $`\rho _P(𝐫)`$, and $`\rho _S(𝐫)`$, where $`𝐫`$ is the spatial coordinate. The primary solvent is regarded as a homogeneous background for the polymer and is not explicitly included. All particles experience only pairwise interactions, $`V_{ij}(r)`$, $`i,j=C,P,S`$, where $`r`$ is the separation distance between particle centers. Colloids behave as hard spheres: $`V_{CC}(r)=\mathrm{}`$, if $`r<2R_C`$, and zero otherwise. Colloids and polymers interact as hard bodies via $`V_{CP}(r)=\mathrm{}`$, if $`r<R_C+R_P`$, and zero otherwise, and both exclude cosolvent particles: $`V_{CS}(r)=\mathrm{}`$, if $`r<R_C`$, $`V_{PS}(r)=\mathrm{}`$, if $`r<R_P`$, and zero otherwise. The polymers and cosolvent particles behave as ideal gases: $`V_{PP}(r)=0`$, $`V_{SS}(r)=0`$, for all $`r`$. In essence, this is the AO model with additional point particles that cannot penetrate either colloids or polymers.

We denote the sphere diameters by $`\sigma _C=2R_C`$ and $`\sigma _P=2R_P`$, the bulk packing fractions by $`\eta _C=4\pi R_C^3\rho _C/3`$ and $`\eta _P=4\pi R_P^3\rho _P/3`$, and define a dimensionless solvent bulk density $`\rho _S^{}=\rho _S\sigma _P^3.`$ The polymer-colloid size ratio, $`q=\sigma _P/\sigma _C`$, is regarded as a control parameter.

## III Density functional theory

We develop a geometry-based DF theory for the excess Helmholtz free energy of the model system, expressed as an integral over an excess free energy density,

$$F_{\mathrm{exc}}[\rho _C,\rho _P,\rho _S]=k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{d}^3x\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\{n_\nu ^i\}\right),$$
(1)
where $`k_\mathrm{B}`$ is Boltzmann’s constant, $`T`$ is absolute temperature, and the (local) reduced excess free energy density, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, is a simple function (not a functional) of weighted densities, $`n_\nu ^i`$. The weighted densities are smoothed averages of the possibly highly inhomogeneous density profiles, $`\rho _i(𝐫)`$, expressed as convolutions,

$$n_\nu ^i(𝐫)=\rho _i(𝐫)w_\nu ^i(𝐫)=d𝐫^{}\rho _i(𝐫^{})w_\nu ^i(𝐫𝐫^{}),$$
(2)
with respect to weight functions, $`w_\nu ^i(𝐫)`$, where $`i=C,P,S`$ and $`\nu =`$0,1,2,3,v1,v2,m2. The usual weight functions Rosenfeld (1989); Tarazona (2000) are

$$w_2^i(𝐫)=\delta (R_ir),w_3^i(𝐫)=\theta (R_ir),$$
(3)
$$𝐰_{\mathrm{v2}}^i(𝐫)=w_2^i(𝐫)\frac{𝐫}{r},\widehat{𝐰}_{\mathrm{m2}}^i(𝐫)=w_2^i(𝐫)\left(\frac{\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}}{r^2}\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{3}\right),$$
(4)
where $`r=|𝐫|`$, $`\delta (r)`$ is the Dirac distribution, $`\theta (r)`$ is the step function, and $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ is the identity matrix. Further linearly dependent weight functions are $`w_1^i(𝐫)=w_2^i(𝐫)/(4\pi R),𝐰_{\mathrm{v1}}^i(𝐫)=𝐰_{\mathrm{v2}}^i(𝐫)/(4\pi R)`$, and $`w_0^i(𝐫)=w_1^i(𝐫)/R`$. The weight functions for $`\nu =3,2,1,0`$ represent geometrical measures of the particles in terms of volume, surface area, integral mean curvature, and Euler characteristic, respectively Rosenfeld (1989). Note that the weight functions differ in tensorial rank: $`w_0^i`$, $`w_1^i`$, $`w_2^i`$, and $`w_3^i`$ are scalars, $`𝐰_{\mathrm{v1}}^i`$ and $`𝐰_{\mathrm{v2}}^i`$ are vectors, and $`\widehat{𝐰}_{\mathrm{m2}}^i`$ is a (traceless) matrix.

The excess free energy density can be expressed in the general form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_C+\mathrm{\Phi }_{CP}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{CS}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{CPS},$$
(5)
where the four contributions have forms motivated by consideration of the appropriate exact zero-dimensional limits. The colloid contribution, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_C`$, is the same as that for the pure hard-sphere (HS) system Rosenfeld (1989); Tarazona (2000):

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_C`$ $`=`$ $`n_0^C\mathrm{ln}(1n_3^C)+{\displaystyle \frac{n_1^Cn_2^C𝐧_{\mathrm{v1}}^C𝐧_{\mathrm{v2}}^C}{1n_3^C}}`$ (6)
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(n_2^C\right)^3n_2^C\left(𝐧_{\mathrm{v2}}^C\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(𝐧_{\mathrm{v2}}^C\widehat{𝐧}_{\mathrm{m2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{C}𝐧_{\mathrm{v2}}^C`$
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}det\widehat{𝐧}_{\mathrm{m2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{C})]/[8\pi (1n_3^C)^2].`$
The colloid-polymer interaction contribution, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{CP}`$, is the same as in the pure AO case Schmidt et al. (2000),

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{CP}=\underset{\nu }{}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_C}{n_\nu ^C}n_\nu ^P,$$
(7)
while the colloid-solvent interaction contribution Schmidt (2001) is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{CS}=n_0^S\mathrm{ln}(1n_3^C).$$
(8)
Finally, in order to model the WR-type interaction between polymers and cosolvent particles in the presence of the colloidal spheres, we assume

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{CPS}=\frac{n_0^Sn_3^P}{1n_3^C},$$
(9)
which takes into account the volume excluded to the polymer and cosolvent by the colloids.

It is instructive to compare the current theory to geometry-based DF theories previously formulated for two related ternary model systems. One starting point is a ternary AO model that combines a binary HS mixture and one polymer species Schmidt et al. (2002b). Letting the radius of the smaller HS component go to zero, one obtains the cosolvent species. The other starting point is a recently-introduced model Schmidt and Denton (2002) for a ternary mixture of colloids, polymers and hard vanishingly thin needles of length $`L`$, where the needles are ideal amongst themselves but cannot penetrate the polymers (hard-core interaction). In the limit $`L0`$, the needles become identical to the cosolvent particles. We have explicitly checked that the DF theories for both systems reduce to the theory described above, demonstrating the internal consistency of the geometry-based approach.

## IV Results and Discussion

### IV.1 Bulk Limit

For bulk fluid phases the density profiles are homogeneous: $`\rho _i(𝐫)=`$ const. In this case, the integrations in Eq. (2) are trivial, and simple expressions for the weighted densities can be obtained. Inserting these expressions into the excess free energy density \[Eqs. (6)-(9)\] yields the bulk excess free energy in analytic form. The HS contribution, which is equal to the Percus-Yevick compressibility (and scaled-particle) result, is given as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_C=\frac{3\eta _C[3\eta _C(2\eta _C)2(1\eta _C)^2\mathrm{ln}(1\eta _C)]}{8\pi R_C^3(1\eta _C)^2}.$$
(10)
The colloid-polymer contribution is equal to that predicted by free volume theory Lekkerkerker et al. (1992), and subsequently rederived by DFT Schmidt et al. (2000):

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{CP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _P/(8\pi R_P^3)}{(1\eta _C)^3}}\{3q\eta _C[6(1\eta _C)^2`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`3q(2\eta _C\eta _C^2)+2q^2(1+\eta _C+\eta _C^2)]`$
$``$ $`6(1\eta _C)^3\mathrm{ln}(1\eta _C)\}.`$
This contribution is linear in the polymer density and has a form that arises, as in the original free volume theory Lekkerkerker et al. (1992), from treating the polymers as an ideal gas occupying the free volume between the colloids. The colloid-cosolvent contribution is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{CS}=\rho _S\mathrm{ln}(1\eta _C).$$
(12)
This contribution can be similarly interpreted as the free energy of an ideal gas in the free volume of the colloids. In this case, however, the ideal gas consists of point-like cosolvent particles, considerably simplifying the analytical form of the free volume. In fact, by letting $`q0`$ in Eq. (11), and identifying species $`P`$ and $`S`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{CP}`$ reduces to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{CS}`$. The remaining contribution couples the densities of all three species, and is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{CPS}=\frac{\rho _S\eta _P}{1\eta _C}.$$
(13)
In the absence of colloids ($`\eta _C=0`$), this is equivalent to the mean-field free energy of the WR-model. Eq. (13) is a non-trivial generalization thereof to the case of non-vanishing $`\eta _C`$. For completeness, the reduced ideal-gas free energy is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{id}}=\underset{i=C,P,S}{}\rho _i[\mathrm{ln}(\rho _i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^3)1],$$
(14)
where the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ are (irrelevant) thermal wavelengths of species $`i`$. This puts us in a position to obtain the reduced total free energy density, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{tot}}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{id}}+\mathrm{\Phi }`$, of any given fluid state characterized by the bulk densities of the three components and the size ratio $`q`$.

### IV.2 Phase Diagrams

The conditions for phase coexistence are equality of the total pressures, $`p_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, and of the chemical potentials, $`\mu _i`$, in the coexisting phases. For phase equilibrium between phases I and II, $`p_{\mathrm{tot}}^\mathrm{I}=p_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\mathrm{II}}`$ and $`\mu _i^\mathrm{I}=\mu _i^{\mathrm{II}},i=C,P,S`$, yielding four equations for six unknowns (two state-points, each characterized by three densities). In our case, a set of analytical expressions is obtained from

$$\frac{p_{\mathrm{tot}}}{k_BT}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{tot}}+\underset{i=C,P,S}{}\rho _i\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\rho _i}$$
(15)
and

$$\mu _i=k_BT\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\rho _i},$$
(16)
the numerical solution of which is straightforward.

In order to graphically represent the ternary phase diagrams, we choose the system reduced densities, $`\eta _C,\eta _P`$, and $`\rho _S^{}`$ as basic variables. For given $`q`$, these span a three-dimensional (3d) phase space. Each point in this space corresponds to a possible bulk state. Two-phase coexistence is indicated by a pair of points joined by a straight tie-line. We imagine controlling the system directly with $`\eta _C`$ and $`\eta _P`$, but indirectly via coupling to a cosolvent reservoir, whose chemical potential, $`\mu _S`$, tunes the solvent quality. Note that, because the cosolvent is treated as an ideal gas, the reservoir’s density is simply proportional to its activity. Thus, the reduced density, $`\rho _S^r=\mathrm{exp}(\mu _S/k_BT)`$, may be equivalently taken as a control parameter, which is equal in coexisting phases. To make contact with Flory-Huggins theory, we are implicitly considering here the case in which the Flory interaction parameter, $`\chi `$, falls in the range $`0.5<\chi <1`$, corresponding to a negative excluded-volume parameter, $`v(12\chi )`$.

We initially consider colloids and polymers of equal size ($`\sigma _C=\sigma _P`$). For this case, Fig. 2 shows projections of constant-$`\rho _S^r`$ surfaces onto the three sides of the coordinate system, namely the $`\eta _C\rho _S^{}`$, $`\eta _C\eta _P`$, and $`\eta _P\rho _S^{}`$ planes, as well as a perspective 3d view. For reference, the phase diagram without cosolvent is shown in Fig. 2a. This is identical to the common free volume demixing curve of the AO model Lekkerkerker et al. (1992); Schmidt et al. (2000). For $`\rho _S^r=0`$, in which case $`\rho _S^{}=0`$, the $`\eta _C\rho _S^{}`$ and $`\eta _P\rho _S^{}`$ planes are inaccessible, i.e., all accessible states lie completely within the $`\eta _C\eta _P`$ plane. Upon increasing the cosolvent reservoir density to $`\rho _S^r=0.5`$, and thus worsening the solvent quality, the demixed region grows, as seen in Fig. 2b. The critical point shifts towards lower $`\eta _C`$ and higher $`\eta _P`$, the tie lines become steeper, and the area beneath the colloid-polymer binodal in the $`\eta _C\eta _P`$ plane (a measure of miscibility) decreases.

As a physical interpretation of the results, one can imagine the polymer spheres as tending to merge (overlap) to avoid contact with the solvent. The resulting polymer “dimers,” “trimers,” etc., act as larger depleting agents, increasing the range of the effective depletion potential between colloids. At the same time, the lower effective concentration of depletants reduces the osmotic pressure and thus the depth of the potential. Comparing the phase diagrams for different cosolvent reservoir densities, we can conclude that the net effect of merging polymers is to increase the integrated strength of the depletion potential and thus to promote demixing.

Eventually, at $`\rho _S^r=0.64894`$, the colloid-polymer critical point meets the $`\eta _P\rho _S^{}`$ plane (where $`\eta _C=0`$), as seen in Figs. 2c and (on a larger scale) 2d. Polymers and cosolvent here begin to demix already in the absence of colloids (the critical point of the WR model). For still higher cosolvent reservoir densities (beyond the WR critical point), the critical point vanishes from the phase diagram and a polymer-cosolvent miscibility gap opens up at $`\eta _C=0`$. It is tempting to interpret this demixing as aggregation of the polymer spheres, although it must be emphasized that the WR model can only crudely describe polymer aggregation.

Another intriguing prediction is the reentrant colloid-polymer mixing evident in Fig. 2d. For sufficiently low colloid concentrations and high cosolvent reservoir densities (poor solvent), colloids and polymers initially demix with increasing $`\eta _P`$. Upon increasing $`\eta _P`$ further, miscibility returns over a small range before demixing again occurs at higher $`\eta _P`$. Such a phenomenon could conceivably result from the complex interplay between range and depth of the depletion potential arising from solvent-induced overlap of polymers.

For smaller polymer-to-colloid size ratios, the above scenario persists. Figure 3 shows qualitatively similar results for $`q=0.5`$ and cosolvent reservoir densities $`\rho _S^r=0`$ (Fig. 3a) and 0.5 (Fig. 3b).

## V Conclusions

In summary, we have investigated the bulk fluid demixing behavior of model mixtures of colloids and nonadsorbing polymers in poor solvents. Our model combines the Asakura-Oosawa model of hard-sphere colloids plus ideal penetrable-sphere polymers with a binary solvent model. The solvent comprises a primary theta-solvent and a cosolvent of point particles that are excluded from both colloids and polymers. Cosolvent exclusion energetically favors overlapping configurations of polymers. Although somewhat idealized, the model exhibits the essential feature of solvent-induced effective attraction between polymers, mimicking the effect of a poor solvent.

To study the equilibrium phase behavior of this model, we have derived a geometry-based density functional theory that combines elements of previous theories for the AO and Widom-Rowlinson models. Applying the theory to bulk fluid phases, we have calculated phase diagrams for cosolvent densities spanning a range from theta-solvent to poor solvent. With increasing cosolvent concentration (worsening solvent quality), the predicted colloid-polymer binodal shifts to lower colloid concentrations, destabilizing the mixed phase. Beyond a threshold cosolvent concentration, a reentrant colloid-polymer demixing transition is predicted at low colloid concentrations.

Predictions of the theory could be tested by comparison with simulations of the model. Qualitative comparison with experiment also may be possible, but would require a relation between the cosolvent concentration (as a measure of solvent quality) and the Flory interaction parameter. In principle, such a relation could be established by calculating the effective second virial coefficient of the polymer in the polymer-cosolvent subsystem.

Although here we have approximated the polymers as mutually noninteracting, their effective attractions being driven only by cosolvent exclusion, future work should include non-ideality between polymers, arising fundamentally from excluded-volume repulsion between polymer segments. For this purpose, a reasonable model is an effective-sphere description based on a repulsive, penetrable pair interaction (finite at the origin), e.g., of step-function or Gaussian shape Louis et al. (2000). The competition between such intrinsic repulsion and the solvent-induced attraction considered in this work is likely to produce rich phase behavior. As a further outlook, our approach also could be applied to effects of solvent quality on polymer brushes adsorbed onto surfaces of colloidal particles.