text:
# References

FZJ–IKP–TH–2001–23

Complete next-to-leading order calculation for pion production in nucleon-nucleon collisions at threshold

C. Hanhart a and N. Kaiser b

a: Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institut für Kernphysik (Theorie)
D-52425 Jülich, Germany
b: Institut für Theoretische Physik, Physik–Department T39,
Technische Universität München, D–85747 Garching, Germany

## Abstract

Based on a counting scheme that explicitly takes into account the large momentum $`\sqrt{Mm_\pi }`$ characteristic for pion production in nucleon-nucleon collisions we calculate all diagrams for the reaction $`NNNN\pi `$ at threshold up to next-to-leading order. At this order there are no free parameters and the size of the next-to-leading order contributions is in line with the expectation from power counting. The sum of loop corrections at that order vanishes for the process $`pppp\pi ^0`$ at threshold. The total contribution at next-to-leading order from loop diagrams that include the delta degree of freedom vanishes at threshold in both reaction channels $`pppp\pi ^0,pn\pi ^+`$.

The high precision data for the processes $`pppp\pi ^0`$, $`pppn\pi ^+`$ and $`ppd\pi ^+`$ in the threshold region  have spurred a flurry of theoretical investigations. The first data on neutral pion production were a big surprise because the experimental cross sections turned out to be a factor of five larger than the theoretical predictions based on direct pion production and neutral pion rescattering fixed from on-shell $`\pi N`$ data . Subsequently, it was argued that heavy-meson exchanges might be able to remove this discrepancy . On the other hand, it was found  that the (model-dependent) off-shell behavior of the full $`\pi N`$ T-matrix can also enhance the cross sections near threshold considerably.

Due to their nature as pseudo-Goldstone bosons the dynamics of pions is largely constrained by chiral symmetry. Thus one might hope that effective field theory studies which incorporate these constraints strictly will help to resolve the so far confusing situation. In the literature there are several calculations carried out in the framework of tree-level chiral perturbation theory including the dimension two (single-nucleon) operators for neutral pion production  as well as for charged pion production . A common feature of these calculations is that the contributions from the isoscalar pion rescattering interfere destructively with the direct production amplitude, thus leading to an even more severe discrepancy between experiment and theory. It should be noted that such an interference pattern is in contradiction to the one found in phenomenological approaches . Furthermore, within the Weinberg scheme, where all momenta are considered of the order of $`m_\pi `$, one loop calculations have been performed for neutral pion production $`pppp\pi ^0`$ . According to some of these works the loop corrections are larger by at least a factor of two compared to the tree level diagrams, that according to the counting scheme applied appear one order down. This feature (if correct) would seriously question the convergence of the chiral expansion for pion production in NN-collisions. On the other hand, according to ref. the chiral expansion seems to show convergence in the case of p-wave pion production.

The purpose of the present work is to present a complete next-to-leading order calculation of the reaction $`NNNN\pi `$ at threshold. In particular, we evaluate all one-loop diagrams at next-to-leading order employing a counting scheme that takes into account the large momentum $`\sqrt{Mm_\pi }`$ characteristic for pion production in NN-collisions, as suggested in refs. . We consider also the contributions from explicit delta-isobars at tree level and at one-loop order. To the order we are working there are no free parameters and we demonstrate that the size of the individual next-to-leading order contributions is in line with the expectations from power counting.

Let us begin with writing down the general form of the threshold T-matrix for the pion production reaction $`N_1(\stackrel{}{p})+N_2(\stackrel{}{p})N+N+\pi `$ in the center-of-mass frame, which reads :

$`T_{th}^{cm}(NNNN\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜}{2}}(i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\times \stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{\tau }_1+\stackrel{}{\tau }_2)\stackrel{}{\varphi }^{}`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{}{2}}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)\stackrel{}{p}(i\stackrel{}{\tau }_1i\stackrel{}{\tau }_2+\stackrel{}{\tau }_1\times \stackrel{}{\tau }_2)\stackrel{}{\varphi }^{},`$
with $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{1,2}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\tau }_{1,2}`$ the spin and isospin operators of the two nucleons. $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ denotes the three-component isospin wave function of the final state pion produced in an s-wave state, e.g. $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=(0,0,1)`$ for $`\pi ^0`$-production and $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=(1,i,0)/\sqrt{2}`$ for $`\pi ^+`$-production. The complex amplitudes $`𝒜`$ and $``$ belong to the transitions $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}^1S_0`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}^3S_1`$ in the two-nucleon system, respectively. In fact the selection rules which follow from the conservation of parity, angular momentum and isospin allow only for these two transitions for the reaction $`NNNN\pi `$ at threshold. In the case of neutral pion production $`pppp\pi ^0`$ the threshold amplitude $`𝒜`$ is the only relevant one whereas in charged pion production $`pppn\pi ^+`$ both threshold amplitudes $`𝒜`$ and $``$ can contribute. Note that the threshold T-matrix written in eq.(1) incorporates the Pauli exclusion principle since combined left multiplication with the spin-exchange operator $`(1+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)/2`$ and the isospin exchange operator $`(1+\stackrel{}{\tau }_1\stackrel{}{\tau }_2)/2`$ reproduces $`T_{th}^{cm}(NNNN\pi )`$ up to an important minus sign. The magnitude of the nucleon center-of-mass momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ necessary to produce a pion at rest is given by:

$$|\stackrel{}{p}|=\sqrt{m_\pi (M+m_\pi /4)},$$
(2)
with $`M=939`$MeV and $`m_\pi =139.6`$MeV denoting the nucleon and pion mass, respectively. Eq.(2) exhibits the important feature of the reaction $`NNNN\pi `$, namely the large momentum mismatch between the initial and the final nucleon-nucleon state. This leads to a large invariant (squared) momentum transfer $`t=Mm_\pi `$ between in- and outgoing nucleons. The appearance of the large momentum scale $`\sqrt{Mm_\pi }`$ in pion production demands for a change in the chiral power counting rules, as pointed out already in ref.. In addition, it seems compulsory to include the delta-isobar as an explicit degree of freedom, since the delta-nucleon mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }=293`$MeV is comparable to the external momentum $`p\sqrt{Mm_\pi }=362`$MeV. The hierarchy of scales

$$Mp\mathrm{\Delta }m_\pi ,$$
(3)
suggested by this feature is in line with findings within meson exchange models where the delta-isobar gives significant contributions even close to the threshold .

Let us now state our counting rules. The external momentum $`p\sqrt{Mm_\pi }`$ sets the overall scale relevant for the process $`NNNN\pi `$. This momentum scale $`p`$ enters the internal lines of tree and loop diagrams. Therefore we count all four-momenta#1#1#1Baryon energies are residual energies with the nucleon mass $`M`$ subtracted. $`l_\mu `$ inside loops generically as order $`p`$ and the loop integration measure $`d^4l`$ as order $`p^4`$. A pion propagator is counted as order $`1/p^2`$. The delta-propagator of the form $`1/(energy\mathrm{\Delta })`$ counts as order $`1/p`$, since we made the choice $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$. For the nucleon propagator of the form $`1/energy`$ one has to distinguish whether it occurs outside or inside a loop. The associated residual energy counts as order $`m_\pi `$ outside a loop and as order $`p\sqrt{Mm_\pi }`$ inside a loop. Furthermore, external pion energies are counted as order $`m_\pi `$.

According to these counting rules one-loop diagrams contribute at order $`p^2`$ in the expansion of the T-matrix and thus generate threshold amplitudes of the form $`𝒜,p\sqrt{Mm_\pi }`$. The new counting rules demand also for a reordering of the terms in the interaction Lagrangian, since ”relativistic corrections” proportional to nucleon kinetic energies $`p^2/M`$ are now of the same order as ”leading order contributions” proportional to residual nucleon energies. Several examples of this effect will be encountered here.

In Fig. 1, we display tree-level diagrams which according to the abovementioned counting rules contribute at leading order, next-to-leading order and next-to-next-to-leading order. Diagrams for which the role of both nucleons is interchanged and diagrams with crossed outgoing nucleon lines are not shown. Subsets of four diagrams obtained by these operations map properly onto the crossing antisymmetric threshold T-matrix eq.(1). Diagram a) involving the (isovector) Weinberg-Tomozawa $`\pi \pi NN`$-contact vertex gives a leading-order contribution of the form:

$$𝒜^{(WT)}=0,^{(WT)}=\frac{g_A}{2Mf_\pi ^3},$$
(4)
with $`g_A1.3`$ the nucleon axial vector coupling and $`f_\pi =92.4`$MeV the pion decay constant. It is important to note that the Weinberg-Tomozawa vertex generates here a proportionality factor $`m_\pi `$ at ”leading order” in the chiral $`\pi N`$-Lagrangian via the pion and nucleon (residual) energies as well as through a ”relativistic correction” of the form $`p^2/M`$. This factor of $`m_\pi `$ gets finally canceled by the pion propagator $`[m_\pi (M+m_\pi )]^1`$. Obviously, the isovector Weinberg-Tomozawa vertex cannot contribute to the neutral pion production threshold amplitude $`𝒜`$. From the one-pion exchange diagram b) one finds:

$$𝒜^{(1\pi )}=\frac{g_A^3}{8Mf_\pi ^3},^{(1\pi )}=\frac{3g_A^3}{8Mf_\pi ^3}.$$
(5)
This result stems from the recoil correction to the $`\pi NN`$-vertex proportional to $`(m_\pi /M)\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{p}`$ with the $`m_\pi `$-factor getting now canceled by the intermediate nucleon propagator. Furthermore, the product of the two vertices on the left nucleon line $`(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{p})^2=Mm_\pi `$ is canceled by the pion propagator. The ratio $`^{(1\pi )}/𝒜^{(1\pi )}=3`$ has its origin in the isospin factor of diagram b). From the analogous diagram d) with one virtual delta-isobar excitation one finds:

$$𝒜^{(\mathrm{\Delta })}=\frac{g_A^3m_\pi }{4Mf_\pi ^3\mathrm{\Delta }},^{(\mathrm{\Delta })}=0,$$
(6)
where we have used the empirically well satisfied relation $`h_A=3g_A/\sqrt{2}`$ for the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$-coupling constant. The spin and isospin transition operators entering the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$-vertex $`(h_A/2f_\pi )\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{p}T_a`$ satisfy the usual relations $`S_iS_j^{}=(2\delta _{ij}iϵ_{ijk}\sigma _k)/3`$ and $`T_aT_b^{}=(2\delta _{ab}iϵ_{abc}\tau _c)/3`$. The latter isospin relation is the reason behind the vanishing of $`^{(\mathrm{\Delta })}`$. According to our counting of the mass-splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the term $`𝒜^{(\mathrm{\Delta })}`$ in eq.(6) is a next-to-leading order contribution, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ (c.f. relation (3)). Diagram f) involves the second order chiral $`\pi \pi NN`$-contact vertex proportional to the low-energy constants $`c_{1,2,3,4}`$ . We find the following contributions to the threshold amplitudes at next-to-next-to-leading order:

$$𝒜^{(c_i)}=\frac{g_Am_\pi }{2Mf_\pi ^3}(c_3+2c_24c_1),^{(c_i)}=\frac{g_Am_\pi }{2Mf_\pi ^3}(c_4+c_3+2c_24c_1).$$
(7)
In a previous calculation in ref. (see eq.(32) therein) the $`c_2`$-term has been found with a relative factor 1/2 smaller. The reason for this discrepancy is again that ”relativistic corrections” from the $`c_2`$-vertex are of the same order as its ”static” contribution, since $`p^2/M=m_\pi `$. We also note that our results eqs.(4-7) agree up to the respective order with those of the fully relativistic calculation in ref. where no approximations to the threshold kinematics have been made. We do not specify here the contributions from diagrams c), e) and g) in Fig. 1 which are proportional to the (a priori unknown) strengths of four-nucleon contact-vertices etc. It is important to note that already at leading order long-range effects from pion-exchange and short-range contributions appear simultaneously.

Let us now turn to the non-vanishing one-loop diagrams at threshold. Not every loop diagram appearing formally at next-to-leading order truly contributes at that order. In case of the diagrams b) and c) in Fig. 2 the (spin-independent) one-loop $`\pi N`$-scattering subdiagrams are proportional to $`m_\pi ^3`$, and this pushes their contributions to the threshold T-matrix eq.(1) beyond next-to-leading order. A closer inspection of diagrams a) in Fig. 2 reveals that they contribute in the form $`m_\pi \mathrm{ln}m_\pi `$ to the threshold amplitudes $`𝒜`$ and $``$, i.e. beyond next-to-leading order. The specific vertex structures of diagrams d) and e) in Fig. 2 make also their next-to-leading order contributions vanishing. Therefore we have to focus only on the diagrams shown in Figs. 3 and 4.

We evaluate only the genuine next-to-leading order pieces of the loop integrals emerging from the diagrams in Figs. 3 and 4. For instance, in the integrands we can systematically drop terms of order $`m_\pi `$ compared to $`l_0`$ (and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$). Straightforward but tedious evaluation leads to the following next-to-leading order contributions of the one-loop diagrams in Fig. 3 with nucleons only:

$$𝒜^{(Nloop)}=\frac{g_A^3\sqrt{Mm_\pi }}{256f_\pi ^5}(21+3),^{(Nloop)}=\frac{g_A^3\sqrt{Mm_\pi }}{256f_\pi ^5}(2+0+3).$$
(8)
Here, the numerical entries correspond to the diagrams a), b) and c), in that order. Interestingly, the total next-to-leading order loop contribution vanishes identically for neutral pion production $`𝒜^{(Nloop)}=0`$. Diagrams a) and c) in Fig. 3 have been calculated fully relativistically (i.e. without any approximation to the threshold kinematics) for $`pppp\pi ^0`$ in ref.. It is an important check for our calculation that the non-analytical piece proportional to $`\sqrt{Mm_\pi }`$ agrees with the one derived by expanding eq.(16) in ref.. In addition, after correcting a sign error in ref. and extracting at threshold the truly next-to-leading order pieces from that work our results agree with theirs .

Numerically, the loop correction in eq.(8) gives $`^{(Nloop)}=g_A^3\sqrt{Mm_\pi }/256f_\pi ^50.70\mathrm{fm}^4`$. This is about 50% of the leading order one-pion exchange contributions $`|^{(WT)}|1.33\mathrm{fm}^4`$ or $`^{(1\pi )}1.69\mathrm{fm}^4`$. Indeed from chiral power counting one expects a similar suppression factor $`p/M=\sqrt{m_\pi /M}0.4`$.

According to our counting of the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{Mm_\pi }`$ loop diagrams with explicit delta-isobars are of the same order as those with nucleons only, namely of order $`p^2`$. The relevant one-loop diagrams which generate truly next-to-leading order contributions are shown in Fig. 4. Straightforward but tedious evaluation leads to the following result:

$$𝒜^{(\mathrm{\Delta }loop)}=\frac{g_A^3K(\mathrm{\Delta })}{32f_\pi ^5}(812+1+3),^{(\mathrm{\Delta }loop)}=\frac{g_A^3K(\mathrm{\Delta })}{32f_\pi ^5}(812+3+1)$$
(9)
with the numerical entries corresponding to the subclasses a), b), c) and d), in that order. The relevant combination of loop functions reads:

$$K(\mathrm{\Delta })=2J_0(\mathrm{\Delta })2\mathrm{\Delta }I_0(Mm_\pi )+(2\mathrm{\Delta }^2Mm_\pi )\gamma _0(\mathrm{\Delta },Mm_\pi ),$$
(10)
with the following loop integrals  truncated at lowest order according to our counting scheme:

$$J_0(\mathrm{\Delta })=4\mathrm{\Delta }L(\lambda )+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{4\pi ^2}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }}{\lambda }\frac{1}{2}\right)𝒪(p),$$
(11)
$$I_0(Mm_\pi )=2L(\lambda )\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left(1+\mathrm{ln}\frac{Mm_\pi }{\lambda ^2}\right)𝒪(p^0),$$
(12)
$$\gamma _0(\mathrm{\Delta },Mm_\pi )=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2\sqrt{Mm_\pi }}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{1+x^2}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{x\sqrt{Mm_\pi }}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}𝒪(p^1).$$
(13)
The (scale dependent) quantity:

$$L(\lambda )=\frac{\lambda ^{d4}}{16\pi ^2}\left[\frac{1}{d4}+\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _E1\mathrm{ln}4\pi )\right],$$
(14)
denotes for the standard divergent piece in dimensional regularization. The reason for grouping together the three specific diagrams into subclass b) is that this way the (in the chiral limit) singular term $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2J_0(\mathrm{\Delta })/Mm_\pi `$ does not appear explicitly. Evidently, the formal limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ corresponds to loops diagrams with nucleons only, and therefore $`K(0)=\sqrt{Mm_\pi }/16`$ enters eq.(8). Note, however, that for planar box diagrams this limit becomes inconsistent with the counting scheme employed.

One concludes that the contributions stemming from loop diagrams with delta-excitation vanish identically for both threshold amplitudes $`𝒜`$ and $``$, respectively for both reaction channels $`pppp\pi ^0,pn\pi ^+`$. The complete cancellations in eq.(9) are actually important consistency checks for our power counting scheme $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$. The combination of loop functions $`K(\mathrm{\Delta })p`$ in eq.(10) is divergent, but at next-to-leading order there is no local counter term to absorb divergences.

In summary, we have performed here a complete next-to-leading order calculation of the reaction $`NNNN\pi `$ at threshold. We have employed the counting scheme developed in refs. , that explicitly accounts for the large momentum $`p\sqrt{Mm_\pi }`$ characteristic for this process. We find that the total next-to-leading order loop corrections either vanish or are in accordance with the expectation from power counting. At this stage we conclude, that the chiral expansion seems to converge also in the s-wave. Note, however, that at next-to-next-to-leading order a large number of loops enters, that have not yet been evaluated completely.

In order to compare our results directly to pion production data the emerging chiral operators have to be folded with (realistic) NN-wave functions. This convolution has been carried out in ref. in a way that the symmetries are preserved. However, in that work the traditional Weinberg counting has been used. Consequently the results presented in ref. do not allow any firm conclusion about the convergence of the chiral series, since contributions of different orders are mixed and the next-to-next-to-leading order is incomplete. Based on our counting scheme a complete next-to-next-to-leading order calculation is within reach and should be performed. Another direction should be the calculation of loop corrections to the higher partial waves amplitudes.


format: text

text:
# The Newtonian limit of spacetimes describing uniformly accelerated particles

## 1 Introduction

Boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes can be thought of as describing uniformly accelerated particles. The uniform acceleration can in some cases be interpreted as due to an external field, and in other cases as the outcome of self-accelerations produced by the presence of positive an negative masses, or even as the effect of a strut connecting pairs of particles. Precisely these last two types of models comprise the only known classes of exact solutions to the Einstein field equations which are locally asymptotically flat, in the sense that they possess sections of null infinity which are spherical, but null infinity is not complete because some of its generators are not complete.

Boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes possess two (hypersurface orthogonal commuting) Killing vectors. One of them is an axial Killing vector. The other one leaves invariant the light cone through the origin, and can be regarded as the curved spacetime generalisation of the boost Killing vectors of Minkowski spacetime. The boost symmetry has a special status, being the only other symmetry a radiative axially symmetric spacetime can have .

Historically, these spacetimes were of outmost importance for it was a solution of this kind  that became the first explicit non-stationary solution describing gravitational radiation according to Bondi’s description and Penrose’s treatment of asymptotic flatness ——.

A procedure to construct systematically boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes both in the case describing freely falling particles , and in the case describing self-accelerated particles  has been given. Bičák & Schmidt  have provided a unified discussion of those boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes which are as “asymptotically flat as possible”. There, it was shown that in order to obtain all the spacetimes in the class, one has to start by solving an inhomogeneous wave equation in flat space with sources moving along the orbits of the boost rotation Killing vector. These solutions to the inhomogeneous wave equation were then used as “seeds” for the boost-rotation space-times.

The boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes have been considered extensively in the literature. For a discussion of their role in the understanding of the theory of General Relativity see . Some more specific studies can be found in . However, the discussion of their Newtonian limit has been only carried out from the weak field approximation perspective, and so the question of the validity of the obtained results has so far remained open in the lack of a more rigorous treatment. It is the purpose of the present article to address this very issue.

The study of the relationship between Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of gravitation, which are respectively predecessor and successor of one another, has lead to attempts to relate them under certain limiting conditions. Despite the fact the formulation of these two theories was grounded on very different concepts, the existence of a common description setup allows one to recognize Newton’s theory as a degenerate limit of that of Einstein. By working in this common framework it would in principle be possible to exploit some structural similarities and generalize theoretical results from the old theory to the new one.

Perhaps the main motivation for carrying out this sort of investigations is the fact that the observational consequences of General Relativity strongly rely on post-Newtonian approximations, or in other words, that the experimental refutations of General Relativity are usually reported in the language of Newton’s theory. Summarizing, the predecessor theory is an invaluable tool for devising approximation schemes allowing to establish links between the two theories.

As discussed above, one of the fundamental steps towards a well grounded link between the two theories is to give a precise definition of the relevant approximations. Nowadays, the vinculum between the equations of General Relativity and Newton’s theory is well understood. Yet the link between solutions to the equations remains not completely clear. The difficulty lies in the difference between the geometric notions used in the Newtonian setup and in the General Relativity theory. Several schemes have been devised to write both theories in a common language —see for example  and references therein— so that the transition from the relativistic theory to that of Newton can be taken in a conceptually consistent way. Among them, Ehlers’ theory is of particular interest due to its covariant nature; this approach has been further developed by Lottermoser —see for example  for full references—. We will use this particular framework in our study of the Newtonian limit of the boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes.

This article is structured as follows: in section 2 we begin by describing briefly Ehlers’ frame theory. In particular we focus on some technical results that will be used in our investigation of the Newtonian limit. In section 3 we proceed to a general discussion of boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes in a way which is suited for our later discussion. In section 4 the discussion of the Newtonian limit of boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes is actually carried out. A couple of propositions regarding the conditions needed to have such limit are here stated and proved. The role of asymptotic flatness in the existence of the Newtonian limit is discussed. Finally, we address some interpretational issues, in particular those of the determination of the proper Newtonian potential and Newtonian sources. In section 5 we analyse some examples: the Curzon-Chazy particle solution, the generalized Bonnor-Swaminarayan, and the C metric. Finally, an appendix containing an adaptation of the axioms of the frame theory as given by J. Ehlers —which are not so readily available in the literature— is included.

## 2 Ehlers’ frame theory

First, we proceed to overview briefly the concepts, ideas and results of Ehlers’ frame theory in the form given by J. Ehlers —see e.g. — that will be used in our investigation. For completeness, and as a quick reference, an adapted version of the axioms of the frame theory is given in the appendix to this article. The required propositions and theorems will be stated without proof. For a thorough discussion and the full details of the proof we remit the reader to .

Ehlers’ frame theory considers a 4-dimensional differentiable manifold $`M`$ endowed with a torsion free connection (not necessarily metric) on which the two symmetric rank 2 tensors $`t_{ij}`$ (temporal metric) and $`s^{ij}`$ (spatial metric) are defined. The temporal metric and the spatial metric are related to each other via

$$t_{ij}s^{jk}=\lambda \delta _i^k,$$
(1)
where $`\lambda 0`$ is a constant known as the *causality constant*. Throughout this work all Latin indices will range from $`0`$ to $`3`$, except for $`a`$, that will range from $`1`$ to $`3`$. The summation convention is assumed. If $`\lambda 0`$, then the causality constant can be identified with $`1/c^2`$, $`c`$ being the speed of light. The temporal metric and the spatial metric are compatible with the connection in the sense that

$$_kt_{ij}=0,_ks^{ij}=0.$$
(2)
The spacetime manifold $`M`$ can be thought of as being parameterised by the causality constant $`\lambda `$, so that in fact $`M=M(\lambda )`$ describes a family of spacetime manifolds. For $`\lambda 0`$ a change in the value of $`\lambda `$ can be regarded as a change of the units in which the speed of light is measured. Intuitively, one would wish to identify the Newtonian limit of the family $`M(\lambda )`$ with $`\lambda =0`$. This limit will be of a degenerate nature as can be seen from considering relation (1). Following Ehlers, we make the following definition:

###### Definition 2.1

(Newtonian limit of a spacetime). The family $`\mathrm{M}=\mathrm{M}(\mathrm{\lambda })`$ of spacetime manifolds is said to have a *Newtonian limit* if:

* the connection, the spatial metric, the temporal metric, and the Riemann tensor constructed from the connection have a limit for $`\lambda 0`$;
* the limiting value of the connection, the Riemann tensor, the spatial metric and the temporal metric as $`\lambda 0`$ satisfy the axioms of the frame theory.

One can easily understand that the spatial metric and the temporal metric are required to have a Newtonian limit by simply recalling that they are the fundamental objects of our theory. Similarly, the same must hold for the connection, which in the limit $`\lambda 0`$ should (intuitively) yield the gravitational potential. The equivalent requirement on the Riemann tensor is not so clear though, the rationale behind it being that the Riemann tensor describes the effects of non-homogeneous gravitational fields: the tidal forces. From this point of view, it is natural to demand the Newtonian limits of spacetimes to have well defined tidal forces.

For $`\lambda 0`$, it is not difficult to relate the temporal metric and the spatial metric to the metric tensor of General Relativity and its inverse. For $`\lambda =0`$, this ceases being the case and the spacetime acquires a degenerate metric structure. In order to study the behaviour of the connection under these circumstances, it is convenient to perform a 1+3 decomposition of it. This decomposition requires the introduction of a timelike congruence $`u^i`$ (four-velocity field of an observer) which on passing to the Newtonian limit will give rise to the Galilean simultaneity surfaces. Note that contrary to the case of (globally) stationary spacetimes, where a canonical choice for such an observer field exists (the flow lines of the timelike Killing vector), in radiative spacetimes such a canonical choice does not exist *a priori*.

The choice of a (normalized) observer field $`u^i`$ induces in a natural way the projection tensor $`\pi _j^i=\delta _j^iu^i\omega _j`$, where we have defined $`\omega _i=u_i^{}=t_{ij}u^j`$. Here, and in what follows, the bullet  indicates that the corresponding tensorial object has been constructed by lowering indices using the temporal metric $`t_{ij}`$. One can also define the tensors

$`\gamma _{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}(u_i^{}u_j^{}t_{ij}),`$ (3)
$`\kappa ^{ij}=s^{ij}+\lambda u^iu^j.`$ (4)
A “hydrodynamic”decomposition of the derivative of the covariant derivative $`u^i`$ arises naturally:

$$u_{;j}^i=\kappa ^{ik}\left(E_k\omega _j+\sigma _{kj}+\frac{1}{3}\vartheta \gamma _{kj}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{kj}\right),$$
(5)
where $`E_i`$ is the 3-acceleration, $`\sigma _{ij}`$ the shear, $`\vartheta `$ the expansion and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}`$ the vorticity of the observer field. It can be shown that if $`_u\gamma _{ij}=0`$, where $`_u`$ denotes the Lie derivative along $`u^i`$ then $`u_{;j}^i=\kappa ^{ik}(E_k\omega _j+\mathrm{\Omega }_{kj})`$. This type of observers will be called *rigid*. The field $`u^i`$ induces, as well, a certain decomposition on the connection. In particular, one has the following result:

###### Theorem 2.2

Let $`u^i`$ be a normalized observer (timelike) field. Let us define

$$F_{ij}=\frac{1}{\lambda }u_{[j,i]}^{}\text{ (i.e. }F=\frac{1}{\lambda }\text{d}u^{}.)$$
(6)
If $`\lambda =0`$, $`_u\gamma _{ij}=0`$, and the Newtonian limit of $`M(\lambda )`$ exits then,

* locally there exists a scalar function $`\eta `$ (absolute time) such that,

$$\omega _i=\eta _{,i};$$
(7)
* the connection can be written as,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^i+2\delta ^{ia}F_{a(j}\eta _{,k)}`$
$`=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^i+\delta ^{ia}\left(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{a(j}\eta _{,k)}+E_a\eta _{,j}\eta _{,k}\right)`$ (8)
where,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^i=\frac{1}{2}s^{il}\pi _j^m\pi _k^n(\gamma _{lm,n}+\gamma _{nl,m}\gamma _{mn,l})$$
(9)
and $`E^i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}`$ are defined via the hydrodynamic decomposition (5).

Moreover, one has the following corollary, which indicates which parts of the limit of the tensor $`F_{ij}`$ correspond to the (Newtonian) gravitational potential ($`E_a`$), and which to a Coriolis field ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}`$). This corollary will be our main interpretational tool.

###### Corollary 2.3

Choosing a Cartesian coordinate system, then (in the $`\lambda =0`$ case) the geodesics satisfy

$$\ddot{\stackrel{}{x}}=\stackrel{}{g}+2\dot{\stackrel{}{x}}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(10)
where

$$\stackrel{}{g}=(E_1,E_2,E_3)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=(\mathrm{\Omega }_{23},\mathrm{\Omega }_{31},\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}).$$
(11)
There are several equivalent ways of verifying that a given family of spacetimes $`M=M(\lambda )`$ possess a Newtonian limit. The procedure that will be used in the present work is summarized in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.4

Let $`M(\lambda )`$ be a family of spacetimes parameterised by $`\lambda 0`$. Then if

* (Newtonian limit of the metrics)

+ the limit of $`s^{ij}`$ as $`\lambda 0`$ exists and is of rank 3;
    + $`lim_{\lambda 0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}dets^{ij}`$ exists;
* (Newtonian limit of the connection) given an observer field $`u^i=u^i(\lambda )`$ in $`M(\lambda )`$ such that $`lim_{\lambda 0}u^i`$ exists and

$$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}u_{,j}^i=(\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}u^i)_{,j},$$
(12)
one has

+ $$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}t_{ij,k}=(\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}t_{ij})_{,k},\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}s_{}^{ij}{}_{,k}{}^{}=(\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}s^{ij})_{,k},$$
    (13)
    + $$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}\frac{1}{\lambda }t_{[i|j|}u_{}^{j}{}_{,k]}{}^{}=\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}F_{ik};$$
    (14)
* (Newtonian limit of the Riemann tensor)

$$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}\frac{1}{\lambda }F_{ij,k}=(\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}F_{ij})_{,k};$$
(15)

then the family of spacetimes $`M(\lambda )`$ has a Newtonian limit.

In this theorem the symbol $`=`$ should be understood as meaning “exists and is equal to”. A final notational remark: given a quantity $`x`$ (scalar, tensor) such that its limit as $`\lambda 0`$ exists, we will often write $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ for $`lim_{\lambda 0}x`$.

## 3 Boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes

Let us recall the customary interpretation of boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes as describing uniformly accelerated particles. As is well known, in General Relativity the causes of the motion are included in the theory. In our case, the acceleration can be either due to an uniform external field or the effect of repulsion between particles with positive and negative masses 444For a discussion of the concept of negative mass in General Relativity, the reader is remitted to the classical article by Bondi .. Conical singularities could also be the cause of the accelerations. Boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes contain generally (naked) strut singularities. This feature makes them in a way not very physical 555See however , in which it is argued that conical singularities arising in, for example, the C metric can be considered as a limit of real strings.. However, those containing what can be described as repelling pairs of positive and negative masses constitute the only explicit examples (in the realm of exact solutions) of locally asymptotically flat radiative spacetimes in the sense of Penrose . The particles in the spacetime undergo uniform acceleration. Thus, they approach the speed of light asymptotically. Now, the smoothness of the spacetime requires that it possesses reflection symmetry. All this implies that null infinity has at least two singular points. Therefore, some of the generators of null infinity are not complete. This seems to be the best that can ever been achieved by means of exact radiative solutions.

As we said, boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes have two commuting hypersurface orthogonal Killing vector fields. One of them is an axial Killing vector ($`\eta ^i`$), and the other is the generalization of the boost Killing vector of Minkowski spacetime ($`\xi ^i`$), see figure 1. The Killing vector $`\xi ^i`$ leaves invariant the light cone through the origin. As is the case in the Minkowski spacetime, there are regions where the boost Killing vector is timelike ($`\xi _i\xi ^i>0`$), null ($`\xi _i\xi ^i=0`$), and spacelike ($`\xi _i\xi ^i<0`$). The set for which $`\xi ^i`$ is null will be known as the *roof* —see e.g. —. Boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes are time symmetric, thus we will only consider in our discussion the region for which $`t0`$, as depicted in figure 1. The region of the spacetime for which $`t0`$ and $`\xi ^i`$ is timelike will be known as *below the roof*, whereas the portion for which $`\xi ^i`$ is spacelike will be denoted as *above the roof*. As will be seen later, our discussion of the Newtonian limit of the boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes will naturally deal with above the roof region of the spacetime.

In the region below the roof, the boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes can be locally put into the Weyl form, whereas above the roof, the spacetime can be put locally in the form of an Einstein-Rosen wave. The difference between the Weyl and Einstein-Rosen spacetimes and the boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes arises when we consider their global structure. Above the roof, the line element of a boost-rotation symmetric spacetime can be written in the following form:

$$\text{d}s^2=\frac{1}{c^2t^2z^2}\{(e^\nu z^2e^\mu c^2t^2)\text{d}z^2+c^2[2zt(e^\mu e^\nu )\text{d}z\text{d}t+(c^2e^\nu t^2e^\mu z^2)\text{d}t^2]\}e^\nu \text{d}\rho ^2\rho ^2e^\mu \text{d}\phi ^2,$$
(16)
the functions $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ 666In this article the function $`\nu `$ will correspond to the function $`\lambda `$ of Bičák & Schmidt  and most of the classical references on the subject. This is because $`\lambda `$ will be reserved for the causality constant. The reader has been warned! have the following functional dependence:

$`\mu =\mu (\rho ^2,t^2z^2/c^2),`$ (17)
$`\nu =\nu (\rho ^2,t^2z^2/c^2).`$ (18)
In the $`(t,\rho ,\phi ,z)`$ coordinates the region above the roof corresponds to $`c^2t^2>z^2`$. If (16) corresponds to a vacuum solution of Einstein equations then the function $`\mu `$ satisfies the wave equation

$$\mathrm{}\mu =0,$$
(19)
while $`\nu `$ can be found by quadratures once $`\mu `$ has been obtained.

Note now that coordinates $`\rho `$ and $`z`$ ($`[\rho ]=[z]=L`$) from line element (16) have dimensions of length, while $`t`$ has dimensions of time ($`[t]=T`$). In order to ease our discussion of the Newtonian limit, it will be convenient to make use of dimensionless coordinates. To this end, we assume that our system possesses a characteristic length $`\alpha `$ and a characteristic time $`\tau `$. The introduction of a characteristic time in the relativistic regime of the frame theory is superfluous because from a given length one can always construct a time just dividing by the speed of light. However, in the Newtonian limit such canonical choice of speed does not longer exist. This small redundancy is a price one has to pay in order to write the two theories in a common language. Dimensionless coordinates are then given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\alpha ^1\rho ,`$ (20)
$`\stackrel{~}{z}=\alpha ^1z,`$ (21)
$`\stackrel{~}{t}=\tau ^1t,`$ (22)
$`\alpha `$ and $`\tau `$ being constants such that $`[\alpha ]=L`$ and $`[\tau ]=T`$.

In the sequel, it will be convenient to use above the roof coordinates $`(\stackrel{~}{b},\stackrel{~}{\rho },\phi ,\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$, which diagonalize the line element of the spacetime :

$$\text{d}s^2=\frac{\tau ^2}{\lambda }e^\nu \text{d}\stackrel{~}{b}^2\alpha ^2\left(e^\nu \text{d}\stackrel{~}{\rho }^2\stackrel{~}{\rho }^2e^\mu \text{d}\phi ^2\stackrel{~}{b}^2e^\mu \text{d}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^2\right),$$
(23)
where now, $`\mu =\mu (\stackrel{~}{\rho }^2,\stackrel{~}{b}^2)`$, $`\nu =\nu (\stackrel{~}{\rho }^2,\stackrel{~}{b}^2)`$. Note, by the way, that $`[\mu ]=[\nu ]=1`$. The coordinate transformation relating the line elements (16) and (23) is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{b}^2=\stackrel{~}{t}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}}\right)\stackrel{~}{z}^2,`$ (24)
$`\text{tanh}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \sqrt{\lambda }}{\tau }}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{z}^2}{\stackrel{~}{t}^2}}.`$ (25)
In the rest of this work only dimensionless coordinates will be used, therefore in order to simplify the notation we drop the tilde $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ from the coordinates $`(\stackrel{~}{t},\stackrel{~}{\rho },\phi ,\stackrel{~}{z})`$, and $`(\stackrel{~}{b},\stackrel{~}{\rho },\phi ,\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$.

In terms of the $`(b,\rho ,\phi ,\chi )`$ coordinates the field equations take the form,

$`\mu _{,\rho \rho }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}}\right)\mu _{,bb}+\rho ^1\mu _{,\rho }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}}\right)b^1\mu _{,b}=0,`$ (26)
$`\left(b^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}}\right)\rho ^2\right)\nu _{,\rho }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho b^2\left(\mu _{,\rho }^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}}\right)\mu _{,b}^2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}}\right)\rho ^2b\mu _{,\rho }\mu _{,b}`$
$`\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}}\right)\rho ^2+b^2\right)\mu _{,\rho }+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}}\right)\rho b\mu _{,b},`$ (27)
$`\left(b^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}}\right)\rho ^2\right)\nu _{,b}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho ^2b\left(\mu _{,\rho }^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}}\right)\mu _{,b}^2\right)+\rho b^2\mu _{,\rho }\mu _{,b}`$
$`\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}}\right)\rho ^2+b^2\right)\mu _{,b}+2\rho b\mu _{,\rho }.`$ (28)
Equation (26) corresponds to the wave equation (19), and is the integrability condition for (27) and (28). These field equations suggest considering boost-rotation symmetric solutions of the wave equation (19) as seeds to construct boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes. In fact, one can construct an infinite number of spacetimes of that kind which are regular everywhere but blow up at infinity. These “seeds” lead to spacetimes describing uniformly accelerated particles under the action of an external field. Bičák & Schmidt  have shown that the only boost-rotation symmetric solution to (19) which decays to zero at null infinity is $`\mu =0`$. Therefore, in order to construct (non-trivial) boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes which are as asymptotically flat as possible, one has to consider “seeds” $`\mu `$ which satisfy the wave equation with sources moving along boost-rotation symmetric orbits, i.e.:

$$\mathrm{}\mu =8\pi \sigma ,$$
(29)
with $`\sigma =\sigma (\rho ^2,b^2)=\sigma (\rho ^2,t^2\left(\alpha ^2\lambda /\tau ^2\right)z^2)`$, $`[\sigma ]=1`$. This strategy will yield spacetimes which will be singular at least along the world lines of the uniformly accelerated particles. Bičák and Schmidt ) have briefly discussed tachyonic boost-rotation symmetric sources. Here, only sources moving with speed inferior to that of light ($`t^2\left(\alpha ^2\lambda /\tau ^2\right)z^2<0`$) will be considered. Hence, the trajectories of the sources will remain always below the roof. This fact will acquire relevance later, when we try to identify the sources of the gravitational field of the Newtonian limits.

Bičák & Schmidt analysed the fall-off conditions that $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ have to satisfy for the spacetime to have at least a local null infinity. Moreover, they showed that for metric functions $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ satisfying the aforementioned asymptotic flatness conditions, it is possible to add suitable constants to both $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ so that the resulting spacetime has a global null infinity, in the sense that it admits smooth spherical sections. Finally, they also showed that for a $`\mu `$ satisfying the fall off conditions and vanishing at the origin ($`\mu (0,0)=0`$), it is possible to construct a spacetime where null infinity is regular except for four points: the “good luck case”. These are the points where the particles enter and leave the spacetime.

As will be shown later —and perhaps not so surprisingly— asymptotic flatness will appear to be a crucial ingredient for the existence of the Newtonian limit of the spacetimes under consideration. Remarkably, non-asymptotically flat solutions (i.e. those describing accelerated particles in uniform fields) can be intuitively constructed from asymptotically flat solutions by sending one of the particles to infinity and at the same time increasing its corresponding mass parameter .

The temporal metric and spatial metric of Ehlers’ theory can be constructed from the line element (16) by performing the replacement $`c1/\sqrt{\lambda }`$ everywhere in (16), where $`\lambda `$ is the so-called causality constant. Then, the required temporal $`t_{ij}`$ will be obtained by multiplying the corresponding metric tensor $`g_{ij}`$ by $`\lambda `$. In terms of the $`(t,z,\rho ,\chi `$) variables, and up to the two first orders in $`\lambda `$, these two tensors read

$$t_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\tau ^2e^\nu \lambda \alpha ^2z^2t^2\left(e^\mu e^\nu \right)& 0& 0& \lambda \alpha ^2zt^1\left(e^\mu e^\nu \right)\\ 0& \lambda \alpha ^2e^\nu & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \alpha ^2\lambda \rho ^2e^\mu & 0\\ \lambda \alpha ^2zt^1\left(e^\mu e^\nu \right)& 0& 0& \lambda \alpha ^2e^\mu \end{array}\right)$$
(30)
$$s^{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\lambda \tau ^2e^\nu & 0& 0& \lambda \tau ^2zt^1\left(e^\mu e^\nu \right)\\ 0& \alpha ^2e^\nu & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \alpha ^2\rho ^2e^\mu & 0\\ \lambda \tau ^2zt^1\left(e^\mu e^\nu \right)& 0& 0& \alpha ^2e^\mu +\lambda \tau ^2z^2t^2\left(e^\mu e^\nu \right)\end{array}\right).$$
(31)
It can be checked that $`[t_{ij}]=T^2`$, and $`[s^{ij}]=L^2`$.

## 4 The Newtonian limit of boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes

The natural arena for the discussion of the Newtonian limit of boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes is the region above the roof, i.e. $`t^2>\left(\alpha ^2\lambda /\tau ^2\right)z^2`$, where the spacetime is radiative. The reason for this is that as one makes $`\lambda 0`$, the region below the roof ($`t^2<\left(\alpha ^2\lambda /\tau ^2\right)z^2`$) gets squeezed by the roof. That is, the region below the roof disappears in the limit, while the roof becomes the set $`\{t=0\}`$ —see figure 2—.

### 4.1 Necessary conditions for existence and consequences

The conditions under which the hypothesis of theorem 2.4 are satisfied for the boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes described by either (16) or (23) are summarized in the following proposition.

###### Proposition 4.1

(Necessary conditions for the existence). Consider the observer field $`\mathrm{u}^\mathrm{i}=(\mathrm{\tau }^1\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\nu }/2},0,0,0)`$. Necessary conditions for the existence of the Newtonian limit of the family $`(\mathrm{M}(\mathrm{\lambda }),\mathrm{g}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}(\mathrm{\lambda }))`$ of boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes are

* $`\nu =𝒪(\lambda ^0)`$, $`\mu =𝒪(\lambda ^0)`$, $`\mu _{,\rho }=𝒪(\lambda )`$, $`\mu _{,b}=𝒪(\lambda )`$
* $`\nu _{,\rho }=𝒪(\lambda )`$, $`\nu _{,b}=𝒪(\lambda ^0)`$
* $`\nu _{,\rho \rho }=𝒪(\lambda )`$, $`\nu _{,\rho b}=𝒪(\lambda )`$, $`\nu _{,bb}=𝒪(\lambda ^0)`$.

Proof. This follows from using theorem 2.4 and direct inspection. Condition (i) arises from imposing hypothesis (a1) and (a2) of theorem 2.4. In particular, it is important to note that

$$\frac{1}{\lambda }dets^{ij}=\frac{1}{\tau ^2\alpha ^6}\left(\frac{1}{\rho ^2}e^{2\nu }\right).$$
(32)
So, the limit $`\lambda 0`$ may not exist if $`\rho =0`$. This peculiarity can be easily understood by recalling that the boost-rotation symmetric spaces contain struts or conical singularities on the axis $`\rho =0`$. These singularities represent the particles undergoing uniform acceleration.

Along the same lines, condition (ii) of lemma 4.1 arises from imposing hypothesis (b1) and (b2) of theorem 2.4. In particular, the condition $`\nu _{,\rho }=𝒪(\lambda )`$ and $`\nu _{,b}=𝒪(\lambda ^0)`$ appears from assuming that the limit

$$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}F=\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}\frac{1}{\lambda }\text{d}u^{}$$
(33)
exists. This is because

$$u^{}=t_{ij}u^i\text{d}x^j=\tau e^{\nu /2}\text{d}b=\tau e^{\nu /2}\text{d}t+𝒪(\lambda ),$$
(34)
where we have used the relation $`b=t+𝒪(\lambda )`$. So, at the end of the day one has

$$F=\frac{\tau }{2\lambda }e^{\nu /2}\left(\nu _{,\rho }\text{d}t\text{d}\rho +\nu _{,z}\text{d}t\text{d}z+𝒪(\lambda )\right),$$
(35)
and hence the need of $`\nu _{,\rho }=𝒪(\lambda )`$ and $`\nu _{,b}=𝒪(\lambda ^0)`$ for the limit to exist. In the remainder, we will show that this condition has something to do with asymptotic flatness. Most boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes which are not at least locally asymptotically flat will not satisfy it.

Finally, condition (ii) stems from requiring the existence of the limit as $`\lambda 0`$ of the Riemann tensor. $`\mathrm{}`$

Using the field equations (26)-(28) it is not hard to draw some immediate consequences of proposition 4.1.

###### Proposition 4.2

(Consequences of the necessary conditions). Assume that the hypothesis of proposition 4.1 hold. Then,

* $$\mu _{,\rho }=𝒪(\lambda ),\mu _{,\rho \rho }=𝒪(\lambda );$$
(36)
* $`\mu =\stackrel{}{\mu }(b^2)+\lambda \mathrm{\Xi }(\rho ^2,b^2),`$ (37)
$`\nu =\stackrel{}{\nu }(b^2)+\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }(\rho ^2,b^2),`$ (38)
where $`\mathrm{\Xi }=𝒪(\lambda ^0)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=𝒪(\lambda ^0)`$, and according to the field equations $`\stackrel{}{\nu }_{,b}=\stackrel{}{\mu }_{,b}`$;
* $$\sigma =\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }(\rho ^2,b^2),$$
(39)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=𝒪(\lambda ^0)`$.

Proof. The $`\lambda `$-dependencies given in (i) come directly from taking the limit $`\lambda 0`$ in the field equation (27) and using the result in (26). Consequence (ii) follows from the last discussion and from (ii) in proposition 4.1. Finally, (iii) comes from using (i) and (ii) in the wave equation with sources,

$$\mu _{,\rho \rho }+\rho ^1\mu _{,\rho }\left(\frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}\right)\mu _{,bb}\left(\frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}\right)b^1\mu _{,b}=8\pi \sigma .$$
(40)
$`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.2 The role of asymptotic flatness

So far, asymptotic flatness of the boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes (or the lack of it) has not entered our analysis. Ehlers argued that the notion of asymptotic flatness should play a crucial role in the existence of Newtonian limits . This observation suggests the possibility that spacetimes describing accelerated particles in uniform (gravitational) fields may not possess a Newtonian limit proper.

Following reference , we will consider that a given metric function $`\mu `$ —satisfying a non-homogeneous wave equation— is said to be *compatible with asymptotic flatness* if $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mu `$ is smooth on null infinity, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a suitable conformal factor defining null infinity. This means that it should have (at least) the following asymptotic behaviour:

$$\mu =\mu _1\mathrm{\Omega }+𝒪(\mathrm{\Omega }^2).$$
(41)
Consider for example the conformal factor,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{\left(\tau ^2/\alpha ^2\lambda \right)t^2\rho ^2z^2},$$
(42)
which is valid for the region $`\left(\tau ^2/\alpha ^2\lambda \right)t^2>\rho ^2z^2`$. Now, consider a metric function $`\mu ^{}`$ not compatible with asymptotic flatness. For example,

$`\mu ^{}=\mu _1\mathrm{\Omega }^1+\mu _0+\mu _1\mathrm{\Omega }+𝒪(\mathrm{\Omega }^2),`$ (43)
$`=\mu _1\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2}{\alpha ^2\lambda }}\right)t^2\rho ^2z^2\right)+𝒪(\mathrm{\Omega }^0),`$ (44)
where $`\mu _1=𝒪(\lambda ^0)`$. Whence,

$`\mu _{,\rho }^{}=2\rho \mu _1+\mathrm{},`$ (45)
so that $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_{,\rho }^{}0`$, and accordingly $`\stackrel{}{\nu }_{,\rho }^{}0`$. That is, condition (ii) of proposition 4.1 is not satisfied, and thus the boost-rotation symmetric spacetime to be obtained from the seed function $`\mu ^{}`$ does not have a properly defined Newtonian limit. This last result shows that, in fact, asymptotic flatness is a prerequisite for the existence of a Newtonian limit. This should not be a surprise because Newton’s theory, as pointed out by Ehlers, is actually a theory of isolated bodies. Several ways to impose it have been suggested in the literature —see in particular —. Note, however, that a decay of the form

$$\mu =\mu _0+\mu _1\mathrm{\Omega }+𝒪(\mathrm{\Omega }^2),$$
(46)
is still compatible with condition (ii) of proposition 4.1. This particular class of boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes could still have a Newtonian limit.

As should be expected, the asymptotic flatness of the general relativistic solution leaves an imprint on the asymptotic behaviour of its Newtonian limit. We have the following result.

###### Proposition 4.3

(Consequences of asymptotic flatness). Let $`\mathrm{\mu }`$ be a solution of the wave equation with sources (29) compatible with asymptotic flatness. Then it follows that

* $$\stackrel{}{\nu }_{,b}=\stackrel{}{\mu }_{,b}=0;$$
(47)
* similarly, for fixed $`t`$ and $`z`$ one has,

$$\mathrm{\Xi }\frac{C}{\rho ^2},\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{C}{\rho ^2},$$
(48)
for large $`\rho `$, where $`C`$ is a constant.

Proof. Consider the conformal factor given in (42). It is not hard to see that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{t^2}\left(\frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}\right)+\frac{\rho ^2+z^2}{t^4}\left(\frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}\right)^2+O(\lambda ^3).$$
(49)
As mentioned before, a function $`\mu `$ compatible with asymptotic flatness will be of the form

$$\mu =\mu _1\mathrm{\Omega }=𝒪(\mathrm{\Omega }^2),$$
(50)
where $`\mu _1=𝒪(\lambda ^0)`$, and $`_\mathrm{\Omega }\mu _1=0`$. Hence one has

$$\mu =\frac{\mu _1}{t^2}\left(\frac{\alpha ^2\lambda }{\tau ^2}\right)+O(\lambda ^2).$$
(51)
Accordingly $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_{,b}=0`$ —cfr. (ii) in proposition 4.2—. Thus, from (ii) in (4.2) one has $`\stackrel{}{\nu }_{,b}=\stackrel{}{\nu }_{,t}=0`$. In order to prove (iii), let us consider the conformal factor

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\frac{1}{\rho ^2+z^2\left(\tau ^2/\alpha ^2\lambda \right)t^2},$$
(52)
in the domain in which it is positive. Then, asymptotically one has $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}1/\rho ^2`$, from which (ii) follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.3 Interpretation and sources

We are now in the position of discussing the Newtonian (gravitational) potential of those boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes possessing a Newtonian limit and describing the sources that give rise to them. Because of proposition (4.2) one has that the connection form —see equation (35)— is given by

$$F=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\rho }(e^{\nu /2})\text{d}t\text{d}\rho \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,z}(e^{\nu /2})\text{d}t\text{d}z+𝒪(\lambda ),$$
(53)
and because of (i) in lemma 4.1 then $`e^{\nu /2}=𝒪(\lambda ^0)`$ and therefore

$$\stackrel{}{F}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\rho }\text{d}b\text{d}\rho \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,z}\text{d}b\text{d}z$$
(54)
The last result, along with theorem 2.2 and corollary 2.3, indicates that $`\mathrm{\Phi }/2`$ is the Newtonian potential as measured by the rigid observers $`u^i`$. In reference  it was argued that because of equation (29) and since “$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$” in the $`\lambda 0`$ limit, it is suggestive to interpret $`\mu /2`$ as a (Newtonian) gravitational potential. It was also noticed that in the weak field approximation (i.e. weak sources) and for $`t0`$ one has

$$g_{00}=e^\mu 1+\mu ,$$
(55)
which brings further support to their point of view. Here we want to make the point that this is only true if one enforces the requirement of asymptotic flatness. To see this, divide field equation (27) by $`\tau ^2\lambda `$ and take the limit as $`\lambda 0`$. Recalling that $`bt`$ as $`\lambda 0`$ one obtains

$$\tau ^2t^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\rho }=\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^2\rho t^2(\stackrel{}{\mu }_{,t})^2\tau ^2t^2\mathrm{\Xi }_{,\rho }+2\alpha ^2\rho t\stackrel{}{\mu }_{,t}.$$
(56)
Thus, only if the boost-rotation symmetric spacetime is asymptotically flat one will have that $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_{,t}=0`$ and accordingly $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{,\rho }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\rho }`$. In addition to this, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{,z}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{,z}`$ follows from an analogous discussion involving equation (28). For the Newtonian limit of the non-asymptotically flat spacetimes described in §4.2, whose metric seed function $`\mu `$ is of the form $`\mu =\mu _0+𝒪(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the interpretation of $`\mu /2`$ as a potential is not valid. This example illustrates the subtle —but crucial— differences between the notions of weak field approximation and Newtonian limit. The weak limit approximation is still a curved spacetime theory valid for sources which in some sense are moving slowly. Recall that the boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes are time symmetric, so that the uniformly accelerated particles start moving from rest at $`t=0`$. Thus, in our case, this weak field approximation should only be correct for $`t0`$, where they will still be moving slowly. On the other hand, in the Newtonian theory there is no restriction to the speed an object can attain, as long as it remains bounded for finite times. Accordingly, it is valid for all times. Finally observe that if one constructs a function $`\mu `$ such that $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_{,b}=0`$ then one would indeed have $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{,\rho }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\rho }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{,z}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{,z}`$.

Given a boost-rotation symmetric source $`\sigma =\sigma (\rho ^2,t^2\lambda \alpha ^2z^2/\tau ^2)`$, then by means of Kirchoff integrals its is possible to construct retarded $`(\mu _+)`$ and advanced $`(\mu _{})`$ fields of the form

$$\mu _\pm =\frac{1}{8\pi }_\text{}^4\frac{\sigma (\rho ^2,t^2(\alpha ^2\lambda /\tau ^2)z^2)}{\sqrt{(\rho \rho ^{})^2+(zz^{})^2}}\delta \left(\frac{\alpha }{\tau }\sqrt{\lambda }\sqrt{(\rho \rho ^{})^2+(zz^{})^2}(tt^{})\right)\text{d}^4x^{},$$
(57)
where the integral is evaluated over the whole Minkowski spacetime. We note that the boost-rotation symmetric source can be very complicated and posses all sorts of multipole structures —represented by derivatives of the $`\delta `$-function—. The relevance of these advanced and retarded solutions for our purposes is that by considering linear combinations of the functions $`\mu _\pm `$, one can construct  a metric function $`\mu `$ that is an *analytic* function of $`\rho ^2`$ and $`t^2\lambda z^2`$ outside the sources, and which is asymptotically regular at the fixed points of the boost-symmetry on null infinity, namely

$$\mu =a\mu _++(1a)\mu _{},$$
(58)
where $`a`$ is suitable constant. Recalling that $`\sigma =\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=𝒪(\lambda ^0)`$ is analytic in $`\lambda `$ so that $`lim_0\mathrm{\Sigma }(\rho ^2,t^2\lambda \alpha ^2z^2/\tau ^2)`$ does not depend on $`z`$, one has that

$`\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\lambda }}={\displaystyle \frac{a}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle _\text{}^4}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\delta (tt^{})}{\sqrt{(\rho \rho ^{})^2+(zz^{})^2}}}\text{d}^4x^{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1a)}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle _\text{}^4}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\delta (tt^{})}{\sqrt{(\rho \rho ^{})^2+(zz^{})^2}}}\text{d}^4x^{},`$ (59)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle _\text{}^3}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}|_t}{\sqrt{(\rho \rho ^{})^2+(zz^{})^2}}}\text{d}^3x^{}.`$ (60)
Thus, for an boost-rotation symmetric spacetime arising from an asymptotically flat seed $`\mu `$ one gets that —cfr. equation (56)—,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{8\pi }_\text{}^3\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\rho ^2,t^2)}{\sqrt{(\rho \rho ^{})^2+(zz^{})^2}}\text{d}^3x^{}.$$
(61)
Consequently, the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfies the Poisson equation with moving sources:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }/2)=4\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }(\rho ^2,t^2).$$
(62)
Note, in particular, the minus sign in the source term. In the Newtonian limit, the boost-rotation symmetric source has been replaced by a moving cylindrically symmetric source analytic in $`\rho ^2`$ and $`t^2`$. We finish this discussion by recalling that the boost-rotation symmetric source $`\sigma `$ is such that the amount of negative masses balances exactly the amount of positive masses. That is,

$$_\text{}^3\sigma (\rho ^2,t^2\left(\alpha ^2\lambda /\tau ^2\right)z^2)\text{d}^3x^{}=0.$$
(63)
It then follows that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\rho ^2,t^2)`$ will inherit this property. Indeed,

$$_\text{}^3\mathrm{\Sigma }(\rho ^2,t^2)\text{d}^3x^{}=0.$$
(64)
## 5 Examples

We now proceed to briefly discuss the Newtonian limits of some examples of boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes. As noted in the introductory sections, the first problem one has to face in order to proceed with this discussion is how to transcribe the exact general relativistic solutions —which almost always are expressed in terms of “natural” units for which $`c=1`$— into the language of the theory of frames. There is no canonical/unique way to do this. Indeed, one could for example, introduce the causality constant $`\lambda `$ in such a way into the Schwarzschild solution so that instead of the expected Newtonian limit of the potential due to a point mass one obtains a vanishing potential. Thus, the criteria for choosing a particular transcription rule is that it provides an interesting Newtonian limit. In our particular case, consistent with the discussion of section 3, we put forward the transition rules

$`\rho _{BHS}\alpha \rho ,`$ (65)
$`z_{BHS}\alpha z,`$ (66)
$`t_{BHS}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{\alpha \sqrt{\lambda }}}t,`$ (67)
where $`\rho _{BHS}`$, $`z_{BHS}`$, $`t_{BHS}`$ are the $`\rho `$, $`z`$, $`\tau `$ coordinates used by Bičák, Hoenselaers and Schmidt  (Bonnor  labels them $`\eta `$, $`\zeta `$, $`\tau `$), and $`\rho `$, $`z`$ and $`t`$ are the dimensionless coordinates used throughout most of this article. In order to write the expressions in a more compact fashion, we define the dimensionless quantity

$$\zeta =\left(\rho ^2+z^2\frac{\tau ^2}{\alpha ^2\lambda }t^2\right).$$
(68)
### 5.1 The two monopoles solution

In , Bičák & Schmidt have constructed what is arguably the simplest non-trivial example of a boost-rotation symmetric “potential” $`\mu `$: that obtained from the superposition of retarded and advanced potentials due to two uniformly accelerated point particles, one with a positive mass, and the other with a negative one. The function $`\mu `$ thus obtained is by construction compatible with asymptotic flatness. Therefore, the boost-rotation symmetric spacetime arising from it will also be asymptotically flat modulo the usual problems at the intersection of the light cone through the origin with null infinity. Because of its asymptotic flatness, the Newtonian limit is expected to exist, and therefore it can be determined by simply looking at $`\mu `$ (cfr. §4.2). In terms of the dimensionless coordinates $`(t,\rho ,\chi ,z)`$ one has that

$$\mu =\frac{4mG\lambda }{\alpha \sqrt{(\zeta 1)^2+4\rho ^2}},$$
(69)
where the constant $`m`$ has dimensions of mass and $`\zeta `$ given by (68). As explained previously, a non-trivial Newtonian limit for boost-rotation spacetimes will only exist, strictly speaking, for $`t=0`$ —the sources of the wave equation (29) and of the associated limiting Poisson equation vanish “above the roof”—. Thus, the direct naive evaluation of the limit $`lim_{\lambda 0}\mu /\lambda `$ yields zero. In order to extract a non-trivial limit out of (69) we expand around $`t=0`$, so that

$$\mu =\frac{4mG\lambda }{\alpha \sqrt{4\rho ^2+(\rho ^2+z^21)^2}}+𝒪(t^2).$$
(70)
Thus, one could say that the Newtonian potential corresponding to the relativistic two-monopole boost-rotation symmetric spacetime is, for $`t0`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{2mG}{\alpha \sqrt{4\rho ^2+(\rho ^2+z^21)^2}}.$$
(71)
The latter inherits the axial symmetry from the relativistic solution. Furthermore, it is singular at two points lying on the $`z`$-axis, $`(\rho _{sing},\phi _{sing},z_{sing})=(0,0,1)`$ —see figure 3—. These singularities are naturally identified with the presence of two point-particles. Note that the potential is —by construction— time independent. Thus, the Newtonian limit for early times is a strictly static Newtonian potential in which the sources are not moving. Another remarkable feature of the solution is that, as can readily be checked, the masses of the two point particles giving rise to the Newtonian field have the same (positive) sign.

### 5.2 The Curzon-Chazy $`(01)`$-pole particles solution.

This example of boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes was first given in . It was constructed from the classical Bonnor-Swaminarayan solution  by considering an appropriate limiting procedure. This solution is interpreted as the superposition of a monopole particle and a dipole particle. Again, by construction, the “seed” function is compatible with asymptotic flatness so that a Newtonian limit is bound to exist. In this case one has

$$\mu =\frac{DG\lambda }{\alpha ^2}\frac{\zeta (\zeta 1)+2\rho ^2}{\left((\zeta 1)^2+4\rho ^2\right)^{3/2}},$$
(72)
where $`D`$ a constant of dipolar nature ($`[D]=ML`$), and $`\zeta `$ as in (68). Again, expanding $`\mu `$ around $`t=0`$ one finds that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{DG}{\alpha ^2}\left(\frac{(\rho ^2+z^2)(\rho ^2+z^21)+2\rho ^2}{(4\rho ^2+(\rho ^2z^21)^2)^{(3/2)}}\right).$$
(73)
The Newtonian potential is again singular at $`(\rho _{sing},\phi _{sing},z_{sing})=(0,0,\pm \sqrt{t^2+1})`$. Looking at the level curves of the potential (73) one can perceive the fingerprints of the “dipole structure” of the point particles.

### 5.3 The Generalized Bonnor-Swaminarayan solution

This solution was obtained in  by using Ernst’s regularization procedure . It describes two identical particles symmetrically located with respect to the plane $`z=0`$ and uniformly accelerated along the axis $`\rho =0`$. The interest of this example for our purposes lies in the known fact that this spacetimes is not asymptotically flat. In this case one has

$$\mu =\frac{DG\lambda }{\alpha ^2}\left(1\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\zeta 1)^2+4\rho ^2}}\right)+\left(2\rho ^2\zeta \right),$$
(74)
where again $`[D]=ML`$, and $`\zeta `$ given by (68). It can be readily seen that $`\mu _{,\rho }=𝒪(\lambda ^0)`$, and thus, by propositions 4.1 and 4.2, it does not possess a proper Newtonian limit.

### 5.4 The C metric.

We conclude our discussion of examples by considering the epitome of the boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes: the C metric. Bonnor  was the first to cast it in the form which exhibits its boost-rotation symmetric nature. The metric function $`\mu `$ arises from solutions to the wave equation with sources which are uniformly accelerated rods moving along the $`z`$ direction. In terms of our dimensionless coordinates one has

$$\mu =\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{4\omega ^2}\frac{\sqrt{(\zeta \beta )^2+4\beta \rho ^2}+(\zeta 2\rho ^2)\beta }{\sqrt{(\zeta 1)^2+4\rho ^2}+(\zeta 2\rho ^2)1}\right).$$
(75)
The classical parameters $`m`$ and $`A`$ are related to the parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\omega `$ via,

$$\alpha ^2=2(z_2z_1),\alpha ^2\beta =2(z_2z_3),$$
(76)
where $`z_1`$, $`z_2`$, $`z_3`$ are solutions of

$$2A^4z^3A^2z^2+m^2=0.$$
(77)
It is assumed that the parameters $`m`$ and $`A`$ are such that the latter has 3 real solutions, and that $`z_2`$ is the biggest root. Finally,

$$\omega ^2=4m^2A^6\alpha ^8(\beta 1)^2.$$
(78)
The points where $`\mu `$ is singular can be identified with sources. A simple calculation shows then that this happens at $`(0,0,z_{sing})`$ with $`z_{sing}(\sqrt{\beta },1)(1,\sqrt{\beta })`$ if $`\beta >1`$ or $`z_{sing}(1,\sqrt{\beta })(\sqrt{\beta },1)`$ if $`\beta <1`$. If $`\beta =1`$, then no singular points occur, and the C metric is in fact Minkowski spacetime, that is, there are no sources. This seems to indicate that the geometry is induced by the presence two rods of finite length symmetrically located along the $`z`$-axis. This agrees with the description given by Bičák and Schmidt  on how to construct the C-metric from a “seed”.

Now, a direct evaluation shows that the conditions $`\mu _{,\rho }=𝒪(\lambda )`$ and $`\mu _{,z}=𝒪(\lambda )`$ needed for the existence of a Newtonian limit of the C-metric do not hold unless

$$\beta =1+\beta _1\lambda +𝒪(\lambda ).$$
(79)
Assuming the latter one finds

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{\beta _1}{2\sqrt{4\rho ^2+(\rho ^2+z^21)^2}},$$
(80)
at $`t0`$. That is, one recovers the potential of the two monopoles solution. This is in agreement with the results by Bonnor, who concluded that in the weak field limit the C metric describes two accelerated monopoles .

## 6 Conclusions

We have discussed the Newtonian limit of boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes. It has been shown that the existence, or not, of a Newtonian limit depends on the asymptotic flatness of the relativistic spacetime. As discussed in the main text, boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes posses two Killing vectors: an axial one which is inherited by the Newtonian limit, and a boost Killing vector. The boost Killing vector field is not inherited in any clear way by the Newtonian limit as this symmetry is of relativistic nature.

In order to construct “seed” fields $`\mu `$ which are analytical, one has to resort to suitable combinations of advanced and retarded fields due to boost-rotation symmetric sources for which the total amount of mass is zero. That is, one has to allow for the presence of negative masses. The presence of regions of space containing negative mass is preserved in the Newtonian limit in such a way that the total amounts of positive and negative masses cancel exactly each other.

The standard interpretation of the boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes regards them as models of uniformly accelerated particles. As has been shown with the examples, the Newtonian limits are well defined for all times, however the interpretation of particles moving in an uniformly accelerated fashion is only valid for early times $`t0`$. The time dependence of Newtonian potential can be traced back to the fact that the sources in the relativistic regime carry their own source of motion: the struts or conical singularities joining them. In other words, the motion of the Newtonian sources is the Newtonian consequence of the singularities in the relativistic boost-rotation symmetric spacetimes. Summarizing, the Newtonian limits obtained exhibit several unphysical features; however, all of them can be traced back to problems already existing in the general relativistic solutions. Whether the struts and strings appearing in the general relativistic solutions here considered are “terribly” unphysical or not, is nevertheless a matter of taste.

Finally, in §4.3 it has been shown that the potential suggested by a weak field analysis coincides, in the case where asymptotic flatness is required, with the Newtonian potential obtained through our analysis. There has been some discussion in the literature —cfr. — in what regards writing the potentials as a combination of advanced and retarded fields. This discussion lies beyond the realm of our analysis, because in a purely Newtonian theory information travels with infinite speed. In order to look at these effects one would have to look at the post-Newtonian expansions of the solutions.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Profs. J.M.M. Aguirregabiria, W.B. Bonnor, L. Bel, J. Bičák, Dr. B. Coll and Profs. J.B. Griffiths, J.M.M. Senovilla and B. Schmidt for their interest in this work and for enrichening discussions and remarks in previous versions of this article. J.A.V.K. wishes to thank the Dept. of Theoretical Physics of the University of the Basque Country for their hospitality during the completion of part of this work. R. L.’s work is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology jointly with FEDER funds through research grant BFM2001-0988, the University of the Basque Country through research grant UPV172.310G02/99, and the Basque Government through fellowship BFI01.412. J. A. V. K. is currently a Lise Meitner fellow of the Austrian FWF (M690-N09).

## Appendix: the axioms of Ehlers’ theory

The axioms of Ehlers’ frame theory and their consequences are discussed extensively for example in . However, this reference is not so readily available. Therefore, for the sake of completeness we present them here. The axioms shown here are an adapted version of those appearing in Lottermoser’s thesis. The first set of axioms deals with the objects that the frame theory will attempt to describe.

###### Axiom 6.1

(On the objects described by the frame theory). The mathematical objects of the theory are collections $`(\mathrm{M},\mathrm{t}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}},\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{k}}^\mathrm{i},\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}},\mathrm{\lambda },\mathrm{G})`$ for which the following holds:

* $`M`$ is a 4-dimensional Hausdorff manifold endowed with a connection,
* $`t_{ij}`$, $`s^{ij}`$ and $`T^{ij}`$ are symmetric tensor fields on $`M`$ (temporal metric, spatial metric, matter tensor),
* $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$ is a torsion-free linear connection on $`M`$ (gravitational field),
* $`\lambda `$ and $`G`$ are real numbers (causality and gravitational constant).

The axioms require some minimal differentiability conditions. Thus, $`t_{ij}`$, $`s^{ij}`$, $`T^{ij}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$ should at least be $`C^1`$ and $`M`$ at least a $`C^3`$ manifold.

The next set of axioms describes, by means of observable quantities, how the objects of the frame theory ought to be interpreted.

###### Axiom 6.2

(Physical interpretation)

* Observers move along timelike curves, that is, curves such that their tangent vector $`u^i`$ satisfies $`t_{ij}u^iu^j>0`$ everywhere. The space directions of an observer are the tangent vectors $`v^i0`$ along the curves which are orthogonal to $`u^i`$ with respect to $`t_{ij}`$: $`t_{ij}u^iv^j=0`$.
* Time intervals are defined along timelike curves. Let $`s`$ be the curve parameter. Then for the infinitesimal time interval the following holds:

$$dt=\sqrt{t_{ij}u^iu^j}ds.$$
(81)
* Space intervals are defined along spacelike curves, i.e. curves such that for their tangent vector $`v^i`$ there exists a 1-form $`\omega _i`$ which satisfies

$$v^i=\omega _{}^i,$$
(82)
and $`s^{ij}\omega _i\omega _j>0`$. If $`s`$ is again the curve parameter, then the spatial interval is given by

$$dl=\sqrt{s^{ij}\omega _i\omega _j}ds.$$
(83)

The following 2 axioms establish the conditions a mathematical model should satisfy in order to be called a “solution of the frame theory”.

###### Axiom 6.3

(Metric axioms)

* At each point of the spacetime, there exists at least one timelike vector,

$$pMu^iT_pM:t_{ij}u^iu^j>0.$$
(84)
* At each point of the spacetime, the temporal metric is positive definite at each observer orthogonal subspace of the cotangent space. That is,

$$pM,u^iT_pM,t_{ij}u^iu^j>0$$
(85)
$`s^{ij}`$ is positive definite in the set $`H^+(u^i)=\{\omega T_p^{}M|\omega _iv^j=0\}`$.
* the temporal and spatial metrics are related to each other via,

$$t_{ij}s^{jk}=\lambda \delta _i^k.$$
(86)

###### Axiom 6.4

(Connection axioms)

* The connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$ is compatible with the temporal and spatial metrics metrics, i.e.

$$t_{ij;k}=0,s_{;k}^{ij}=0$$
(87)
* the curvature tensor $`R_{jkl}^i=2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j[l,k]}^i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m[k}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l]j}^m)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$ possesses the property,

$$R_{jl}^{ik}=R_{lj}^{ki}.$$
(88)


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Black holes (BH) are one of the most intriguing features of General Relativity. Although they are defined by geometrical concepts222see  for a pedagogical introduction to General Relativity and black holes., they possess remarkable thermodynamical properties, according to the results of Hawking . These properties arise due to quantum effects of matter in a curved spacetime (Hawking radiation), providing strong identification between the laws of thermodynamics and the classical energy formula in General Relativity (see ), which had been regarded only as a mathematical relationship.

In principle, the BH thermodynamics is not described by some statistical formalism, as in the case of standard thermodynamics, but it is derived from geometrical degrees of freedom. For example, the BH temperature is usually given by the surface gravity (which is a geometrical object) for any reasonable matter content. However, it is not clear how the BH termodynamics can be affected if one considers a gravity theory with additional degrees of freedom, besides the metric. One can consider, for example, the Poincaré Gauge Theory of Gravity (PGTG) , which includes torsion in the physical description. For a review concerning theories with torsion, see .

There are many possible approaches to this investigation. One could consider theories with algebraic torsion (non-dynamical torsion). In this case, torsion is trivial in the absence of spin fields. Thus, given a BH vacuum solution, all the consequent thermodynamics is exactly the same as in General Relativity. On the other hand, one can consider more interesting models, with dynamical torsion. One can find spherically symmetric BH solutions with dynamical torsion in the four dimensional $`R^2`$-Gravity framework, in the teleparallel limit  as well as in the more general cases . In Ref.  one can find a stationary BH solution in the quadratic Poincaré Gravity.

In this paper we consider three dimensional gravity coupled to scalar field, with special attention on black holes configurations. The first black hole solution in three dimensions was discovered by Bañados, Teitelboim and Zanelli . Among many interesting properties of the BTZ black holes (see the review ), one can mention that it is a string solution in the low energy regime . In addition, the BTZ black hole is achieved as the final state of the spacetime with collapsing matter , where one can find equilibrium conditions for stable stars with matching conditions with the exterior BTZ solution . See  for collapsing solution with scalar field without the BTZ solution as the final state. In the papers of Refs.  the generalization to charged stationary solutions is investigated. One can find also the magnetic counterpart of the BTZ static solution, as well as its rotating solution . The paper in Ref.  extends the rotating electrically charged BTZ solution to include Brans-Dicke theory. Solutions for minimally coupled massless scalar field with non-trivial cosmological constant can be found in Ref. , without black holes. There are two classes of solutions: one with naked singularity and other which is geodesically complete. In addition, one can find a one-parameter family of charged black holes for the 3D-dilaton gravity , as well as its uncharged rotating version , where the black hole is specified by the mass, angular momentum and the dilaton coupling parameters. A non-trivial black hole solution was found for a minimally coupling scalar field and a class of potentials . Recently, Garcia et al have developed a three-dimensional Poincaré Gauge Theory of Gravity including the Chern-Simons term . Maluf and Sousa  considered the restricted teleparallel version (with a Lagrangian quadratic in the torsion tensor) to describe a black hole solution following the Hamiltonian fomalism.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the general action for gravity minimally coupled to a massive scalar field, consider some special cases avaiable in the literature, and present the field equations for a particular action, with vanishing cosmological constant. We show also a possible interpretation for the action in the Appendix. In Section 3, we find a solution by numerical integration, which has a naked singularity. We show that BH solutions are absent (what is related to the no-hair theorems ). Finally, in Section 4, we give our conclusions.

## 2 Action and field equations

Let us introduce the general action with a scalar field (minimally coupled to gravity) which has the following form:

$`S={\displaystyle d^3x\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{1}{\kappa }R_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi M^2\varphi ^2\frac{1}{4}e^{a\varphi }F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+V[\varphi ]\right\}},`$ (1)
where $`\kappa `$ is a coupling constant333Here, $`\kappa `$ has dimensions of mass(-1), and, in principle, it is not related to Newton’s constant, due to the lack of Newtonian limit in 3D-Einstein’s theory .. This action describes a wide class of possible theories, and a complete study is still not avaiable. Many authors have investigated some sectors of the action (1). For instance, Chan and Mann  considered circularly symmetric static solutions in the massless case, $`M=0`$, and they found a class of charged black hole configurations, with $`V[\varphi ]=2e^{b\varphi }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The rotating black holes were also discovered in the uncharged case . If we let $`b=0`$, $`M=0`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }=0`$, the resulting action is the one considered by Clément and Fabbri , and their solutions can not be achieved continuously from the dilaton solution  by the procedure $`b0`$. We are going to investigate the uncharged version of (1), with $`V[\varphi ]=0`$ and $`M0`$:

$`S={\displaystyle d^3x\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{1}{\kappa }R_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi M^2\varphi ^2\right\}}.`$ (2)
Note that the massive case are not convenient for searching a black hole solution by the virtue of the non-scalar hair theorem . Surprisingly, no one has so far investigated the solutions for the theory (2), which is relatively simple in contrast to the more complicated cases already known in the literature. Let us remark that one should not expect to cover other known solutions by taking $`M0`$ (e.g. Ref.  with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$).

One should mention that the motivations for studying theories with scalar field varies from the Standard Model to Cosmology, as well as some aspects of the low energy regime of string theory. In the Appendix, we give a possible physical interpretation of the scalar field in the action (2).

### 2.1 Field equations

We are looking for circularly symmetric static solutions of theory (2), thus there are two Killing fields, $`/t`$ and $`/\theta `$ and the metric is given by

$`ds^2=f(r)dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g(r)}{f(r)}}dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2.`$ (3)
The Killing field $`/t`$ is hypersurface orthogonal, because the metric is static. Otherwise, the line element (3) would have crossing terms of the type $`h(r)dtd\theta `$.

Varying the action (2) with respect to the field variables ($`g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`\varphi `$), one can find the field equations

$`R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R=\kappa T_{\mu \nu }`$ (4)
and

$`\mathrm{}\varphi M^2\varphi =0,`$ (5)
where the momentum-energy tensor is given by

$`T_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(g_{\mu \nu }_\alpha \varphi ^\alpha \varphi +M^2g_{\mu \nu }\varphi ^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (6)
and the operator $`\mathrm{}`$ stands for $`g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha _\beta `$. Here we introduced, for the sake of generality, the cosmological constant through the procedure $`e^{b\varphi }1/\kappa `$ in (1).

After some calculations, one can achieve the following independent field equations (assuming $`\varphi =\varphi (r)`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{^{}}}{2fr}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{^{}}}{2gr}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa (\varphi ^{^{}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{g}{f}}M^2\varphi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{g}{f}}\mathrm{\Lambda };`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{^{}}}{2fr}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa (\varphi ^{^{}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{g}{f}}M^2\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{f}}\mathrm{\Lambda };`$ (8)
$`\varphi ^{^{\prime \prime }}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^{^{}}}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{^{}}}{2g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)\varphi ^{^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{f}}M^2\varphi =0,`$ (9)
where $`f^{^{}}`$ means $`df/dr`$. After some manipulations, we obtain the equivalent set of field equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^{^{}}}{2gr}}=\kappa (\varphi ^{^{}})^2;`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{^{}}}{2fr}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa (\varphi ^{^{}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{g}{f}}M^2\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{f}}\mathrm{\Lambda };`$ (11)
$`\varphi ^{^{\prime \prime }}\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{g}{f}}M^2\varphi ^2\varphi ^{^{}}r2{\displaystyle \frac{g}{f}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi ^{^{}}r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\varphi ^{^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{f}}M^2\varphi =0.`$ (12)
Notice that by (10) and (12), solutions of the type $`g(r)=\mathrm{const}.`$ are possible only if the field $`\varphi (r)`$ is trivial, producing thus the well known static BTZ black hole solution  (See  for a review on the classical and quantum properties of the BTZ black hole).

## 3 Numerical integration

Before considering general solutions, let us investigate some particular cases to achieve more insight in the search for the general solution. In the case $`M=\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, equation (12) reads

$`\varphi ^{^{\prime \prime }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\varphi ^{^{}}=0,`$ (13)
which has the solution

$`\varphi (r)=Q\text{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}},`$ (14)
where $`Q`$ and $`r_0`$ are integration constants, with canonical dimensions $`+1/2`$ and $`1`$ respectively. Other equations can be integrated, resulting in the following solution:

$`g(r)=\gamma r^{2\alpha },\mathrm{with}\alpha :=\kappa Q^2\mathrm{and}`$ (15)
$`f(r)=\delta r^\alpha ,`$ (16)
where $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ are integration constants with canonical dimensions $`2\alpha `$ and $`\alpha `$. In this solution, the diverging scalar field provides diverging metric functions $`f(r)`$ and $`g(r)`$, far away from the origin, $`r>>1`$, with no horizon formation. In the flat background, $`\varphi `$ has the same solution (14). Now consider the Minkowski spacetime with $`M0`$. In four dimensions, the solution is the well known meson field, $`\varphi =Q\mathrm{exp}(Mr)`$. In our case, the equation for $`\varphi `$ is a Bessel equation, with the modified Bessel function of the second kind as a suitable solution,

$`\varphi (r)=QK_0(Mr),`$ (17)
with similar asymptotic behaviour to the meson solution in four dimensions.

We cannot find analytical solutions for the general case with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. Thus we integrate numerically using the software MAPLE444The reader can obtain useful information about the numerical integration applied to General Relativity in several papers, say, for example, in papers of Ref. . (See, for instance, the book ). We first guess suitable initial values for the fields at infinity and then integrate from that point to the origin. As the mass is non-trivial, one can suppose that the scalar field decays with $`r`$. At infinity, we assume that the metric is approximately free from the influences of the scalar field, thus the metric at infinity can be regarded as the vacuum solution of the Einstein’s equations. The appropriate ansatz for the metric at infinity is (see )

$`ds^2=dt^2+bdr^2+r^2d\theta ^2`$ (18)
which describes a flat spacetime with conical singularity at the origin ($`b=`$ constant). To make this supposition, we assume that the solution is asymptotically flat. The field equation for $`\varphi (r)`$ in this background has solution $`\varphi (r)=QK_0(M\sqrt{b}r)`$. Let us remark that this ansatz is valid only in the asymptotic region; thus, despite this function is singular at the origin, this feature may not be true for the actual solution satisfying $`\varphi (r)K_0(M\sqrt{b}r)`$ far from the origin. We choose $`r=30`$ as the infinity and set $`Q=2`$, $`M=0.1`$, $`b=1.1`$, $`f(30)=1`$, $`g(30)=b`$, $`\varphi (30)=QK_0(30M\sqrt{b})`$ and $`\varphi ^{^{}}(30)=d\varphi /dr|_{r=30}`$. The numerical integration carried out is described by the plotting on Figure 1. As we increase the parameter $`M`$, the deviations of functions $`f(r)`$ and $`g(r)`$ from the vacuum solution, near origin, are decreased even more. These deviations are continuously increased if the scalar ”charge”, $`Q`$, is increased (as far as the value $`r=30`$ can be regarded as infinity with a negligible error). There is no black hole, as shown by Figure 1.

One can also integrate from the origin, starting from a suitable initial conditions. To find them, one has to guess an approximate solution near $`r=0`$. If we assume regularity in the origin, we suppose a power series in $`r`$ for the variables:

$`ff_0+f_1r+f_2r^2+\mathrm{};gg_0+g_1r+g_2r^2+\mathrm{};`$
$`\varphi \varphi _0+\varphi _1r+\varphi _2r^2+\mathrm{}`$ (19)
Notice that this guess has a limited importance, specially if some black hole solution is supposed to be found. However, it is a possible procedure of numeric integration from the origin.

One can verify that these solutions satisfy the field equations up to $`O(r^2)`$, if some constraints between the constant parameters are taken into account. After that, we find the following approximate solution for small values of $`r`$:

$`f(r)=a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}bq^2r^2;g(r)=b;\varphi (r)=q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{bq}{a}}r^2,`$ (20)
where $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`q`$ are constant parameters. Thus, there is a three-parameter family of possible solutions near the origin. As the asymptotic solution at infinity has two parameters, only a sub-family of the tree-parameter family would produce (in principle) a convergent solution which coincides with the solution at infinity. However, we shall show that this three-parameter family is incompatible with the asymptotic flatness, so both families are actually distinct. Now, let us consider an approximate solution near an hypothetic horizon. One can write the following ansatz (assuming regularity of all functions at the horizon, $`r_h`$)

$`f`$ $``$ $`f_0(rr_h)+f_1(rr_h)^2+\mathrm{};`$
$`g`$ $``$ $`g_0+g_1(rr_h)+g_2(rr_h)^2+\mathrm{};`$ (21)
$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`\varphi _0+\varphi _1(rr_h)+\varphi _2(rr_h)^2+\mathrm{}`$
Again, one substitute these expressions into the field equations and demand that they must be satisfied up to the second order in $`(rr_h)`$. We can achieve the following solution:

$`f=a(rr_h)^2;g=b+c(rr_h)^2;\varphi =\varphi ^{^{}}=0.`$ (22)
Actually this solution corresponds to the trivial scalar field case, and should not be considered. Now we shall show that no black holes are possible if the spacetime is asymptotically flat555The author is grateful to Professor Don Page for explaining this point., unless the scalar field is trivial.

### 3.1 No massive scalar hair

Consider the static circularly symmetric line element, in some appropriate coordinate system,

$`ds^2=U^2(x)dt^2+dx^2+R^2(x)d\theta ^2.`$ (23)
The minimally coupled scalar field, $`\varphi (x)`$, is a solution of (5):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{UR}}(UR\varphi ^{^{}})^{^{}}=M^2\varphi ,`$ (24)
where the prime means derivative with respect to $`x`$. Let us assume regularity of $`\varphi `$ at the horizon ($`U=0`$) or at the origin ($`R=0`$). Thus, we must have $`\varphi ^{^{}}=0`$ there. Without loss of generality, one can make $`\varphi >0`$ there, but not $`\varphi =0`$ (in this case, $`\varphi `$ is zero everywhere). Then the quantity $`(UR\varphi ^{^{}})^{^{}}`$ is positive as we move outside the horizon or the origin. One can write

$`UR\varphi ^{^{}}|_{x_0}^x={\displaystyle _{x_0}^x}𝑑x(M^2UR\varphi ).`$ (25)
where the lower limit $`x_0`$ represents the horizon or the origin. As $`\varphi ^{^{}}`$ is positive (according to the previous equation), we obtain

$`UR\varphi ^{^{}}|_{x_0}^x>\varphi (x_0){\displaystyle _{x_0}^x}𝑑x(M^2UR).`$ (26)
If the spacetime is asymptotically flat, then $`U1`$ and $`Rx`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$. So we can consider the dominant contribution to (26) for large $`x`$, as follows:

$`x\varphi ^{^{}}>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2x^2\varphi (x_0).`$ (27)
Consequently, we have $`\varphi ^{^{}}>(1/2)M^2x\varphi (x_0)`$, which means that the scalar field grows too fast, so it will prevent the spacetime from being asymptotically flat by the back reaction. Thus, there is no static circularly symmetric asymptotically flat solution for the non-trivial massive scalar field minimally coupled with Einstein gravity (if the scalar field is regular everywhere). Also, the same result is valid for the asymptotically De Sitter and anti-De Sitter cases. The asymptotically anti-De Sitter spacetime is particularly interesting because it can be regarded as some asymptotic solution (e.g., static BTZ solution) for a black hole solution with massive scalar field and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$.

This result implies that both the ansatz (19) and (21) are incompatible with the solution assumed at the infinity, which is asymptotically flat, because they are approximate solutions with regular scalar field at the origin and at the horizon, respectively. Thus the integration carried out from infinity should correspond to a solution with non-regular scalar field at the origin. In this case, there is a naked singularity.

## 4 Conclusions

We have investigated circularly symmetric static solutions of gravity minimally coupled to massive scalar field in three dimensions, and then we presented a numerical solution containing a naked singularity and consistent with the no-hair theorems and no-black hole theorem (see ) in three dimensions.

By the results of subsection §3.1, the unique possibility to find a non-trivial black hole solution is to consider the cases with non-regular scalar field at the origin. Among these cases, there are two classes of solutions:

(i) Asymptotically flat solutions;

(ii) Solutions which are not asymptotically flat.

The first group are covered by the numerical integration procedure described in the preceding section. The second group (ii) was not considered in this paper. Notice that in principle one can not guess suitable initial conditions in any region.

Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Professor V.P. Frolov for invaluable discussions and to University of Alberta for warm hospitality and support. I also acknowledge Professor J.A. Helayël-Neto and Professor D. Page for useful discussions. This work was done with support from CNPq, a Brazilian Government institution that promotes development in science and technology.

## Appendix

### Gravity with dynamical torsion in three dimensions

Let us consider Dirac fermions in the Riemann-Cartan three-dimensional spacetime, which can be described by the action ($`\mathrm{}=c=1`$)

$`S_\psi ={\displaystyle d^3x\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{1}{\kappa }\stackrel{~}{R}+\frac{i}{2}(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{}_\mu \psi \stackrel{~}{}_\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi )m\overline{\psi }\psi \right\}},`$ (28)
where the objects with tilde are constructed with non-trivial torsion ($`R`$ is the Ricci scalar and $`_\mu `$ is the Riemannian covariant derivative),

$$T^\mu _{\alpha \beta }:=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu _{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu _{\beta \alpha }.$$

We adopt $`R^\mu _{\nu \alpha \beta }:=_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _{\nu \beta }\mathrm{}`$. The covariant gamma matrices are defined in the usual way, $`\gamma ^\mu :=e^\mu _a\gamma ^a`$ ($`e^\mu _a`$ are the dreibeins). By the procedure $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{}_\mu `$, we consider minimal coupling between torsion and fermions. Straightforward calculations enable us to write666See  for detailed calculations, and  for the Minkowski background case in three dimensions.

$`S_\psi ={\displaystyle d^3x\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{1}{\kappa }\stackrel{~}{R}+\frac{i}{2}(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi _\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi )m\overline{\psi }\psi +\frac{i}{8}T_{\mu \nu \alpha }\overline{\psi }\gamma ^{[\mu }\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^{\alpha ]}\psi \right\}}.`$ (29)
Here the brackets mean total antisymmetrization. We can choose the following gamma matrices basis, $`\gamma ^a`$, in terms of the Pauli matrices, $`\sigma ^i`$,

$`\gamma ^0:=i\sigma ^3;\gamma ^1:=\sigma ^1;\gamma ^2:=\sigma ^2.`$ (30)
They satisfy

$`\{\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu \}=2g^{\mu \nu }\widehat{1}`$ (31)
where $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ has signature $`+1`$. After some algebra, one can achieve

$`\gamma ^{[\mu }\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^{\alpha ]}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha },`$ (32)
where $`\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha }`$ is the antisymmetrization symbol ($`\epsilon ^{012}:=+1`$). Thus, taking into account that the totally antisymmetric part of the torsion in three dimensions is related to the pseudo-scalar $`\chi :=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha }T_{\mu \nu \alpha }`$ (which has weight $`1`$), we can write the interacting action as

$`S_I={\displaystyle d^3x\sqrt{g}\frac{i}{8}T_{\mu \nu \alpha }\overline{\psi }\gamma ^{[\mu }\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^{\alpha ]}\psi }={\displaystyle d^3x\sqrt{g}\frac{i}{8}\overline{\psi }\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\chi \psi },`$ (33)
where $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\chi `$ is a scalar. Thus, in three dimensions, the minimal coupling between fermions and torsion gives a Yukawa coupling, and the torsion component which couples with fermions is described by the pseudo-scalar $`\chi (x)`$ .

Now we consider only the $`\chi `$-component of torsion in the description of gravity with dynamical torsion. We choose the action

$`S={\displaystyle d^3x\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{1}{\kappa }R_\mu \chi ^\mu \stackrel{~}{\chi }M^2\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }\right\}},`$ (34)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is the dual of $`\chi `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }:=\frac{1}{g}\chi `$, such that the action is a scalar. After the variable change

$`\chi (x)\varphi (x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}\chi (x),`$ (35)
the action can be written as a scalar-metric action (2). Notice that the conventional theories with dynamical torsion are usually described by an action in a different way. For instance, one considers the Lagrangian quadratic in torsion and total curvature, which are the field strength of tetrads and spin connection, respectively (see ). After some manipulation, it is possible to write the usual Lagrangian in terms of the metric and the torsion, such that the Lagrangian is written as a torsion component plus a purely Riemannian one. In the theory (2) the dynamical term for the torsion was introduced by hand, and not in the natural way from to the total curvature squared. For theories of dynamical torsion in this scenario, see, for example, the papers in the Refs. .

\***

Figure caption: Numerical integration from infinity, assuming the asymptotically flat ansatz. The curves $`G`$, $`F`$ and $`U`$ correspond to the functions $`g(r)`$, $`f(r)`$ and $`\varphi (r)`$, respectively.