text:
# Third Order Perturbation Analysis of Pairing Symmetry in Two-dimensional Hubbard Model

## 1 Introduction

The superconductivity originating from the electron correlation has been investigated in a quasi-two-dimensional system. As a simple model describing the system, a Hubbard model is used in many studies1-8) for a pairing instability. The instability is often studied with a second-order effective interaction with respect to the Coulomb interaction. By these previous studies, it is well known that the dominant state is a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing state near a half-filling (the density per spin $`n`$=0.5). The result is similar to that of the cuprate superconductors.

The pairing instability has been analyzed also for the electron density lower than the half-filling. Several different consequences are suggested in some analyses. Kondo $`^\text{?}`$ and Chubukov $`etal.^{4,5)}`$ studied about the pairing instability with the second-order effective interaction. They investigated the Hubbard model based on the weak coupling theory at the zero temperature. They indicated the advantage of a $`d_{xy}`$\- and $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing symmetry. Hlubina $`^\text{?}`$ reported that a $`p`$-wave pairing state is possible in the low density at finite temperatures. He indicated that the $`p`$-, $`d_{xy}`$\- and $`g`$-wave pairing states are located in the lower density.

On the other hand, Chubukov$`^\text{?}`$ considered an influence of the third-order interaction on the $`p`$-wave pairing at the zero temperature. They studied the problem on the basis of the Fermi gas model. Their results of the two-dimensional system are different from those obtained by the second-order interaction, especially for the $`p`$-wave pairing. They concluded that the $`p`$-wave pairing is induced only by the third-order interaction, and the $`p`$-wave pairing is not encouraged by the second-order interaction possessing a very weak dependence on the wave number.

Nomura and Yamada$`^\text{?}`$ made also an analysis for the $`p`$-wave pairing with the third-order perturbation theory (TOPT).11-14) They investigated a two-dimensional Hubbard model at finite temperatures for the density higher than the half-filling. Their conclusion is similar to the result which Chubukov$`^{\text{?)}}`$ obtained about the Fermi gas. They concluded that the important factor for $`p`$-wave pairing is the wave number dependence of the third-order effective interaction, where the third-order interaction for triplet pairing arises from the vertex correction.

From these results, we consider that the third-order interaction plays an important role for the $`p`$-wave pairing far from the half-filling in contrast with the analysis based on the second-order interaction. We study the pairing instability at finite temperatures for the density lower than the half-filling. In this paper, we investigate the problem for the two-dimensional Hubbard model on the basis of TOPT. We obtain a phase diagram where the parameters are the hopping integral and the electron density. The phase diagram is compared with Hlubina’s$`^{\text{?)}}`$ and Chubukov $`etal`$.’$`\mathrm{s}^{4,5)}`$ ones. We analyze the role of the third-order interaction together with that of the second-order interaction. Moreover, we actually solve the Éliashberg equation to obtain the transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ of the superconductivity.

Before starting our study, we should discuss the magnetic instability. In quasi-two-dimensional systems, the magnetic instability is considered to be much reduced. Actually there exist superconducting ground states in the quasi-two-dimensional systems such as cuprates, $`\kappa `$-type BEDT-TTF and Sr2RuO4. Moreover we can expect that the superconducting fluctuations also suppress the magnetic instability. However, it is difficult to determine the actual ground state by using theoretical calculations, since we cannot avoid using different approximations for magnetic and superconducting states, respectively. In this paper, we confine ourselves to the superconducting states in the discussion on the dominant phases.

## 2 Formulation

The two-dimensional repulsive Hubbard Hamiltonian for a square lattice is given by

$$=t_1\underset{,\sigma }{}c_{i,\sigma }^{}c_{j,\sigma }+t_2\underset{,\sigma }{}c_{i,\sigma }^{}c_{k,\sigma }+U\underset{i}{}n_{i,}n_{i,},$$
(2.1)
where $`\sigma `$ is the spin index, $`<i,j>`$ indicates taking summation over the nearest-neighbor sites and $`<i,k>`$ over the next-nearest-neighbor sites. We obtain the energy dispersion from the non-interacting part in eq. (2.1);

$$E_k=2t_1(\text{cos}k_x+\text{cos}k_y)+4t_2\text{cos}(k_x)\text{cos}(k_y),$$
(2.2)
where we take $`t_1`$=1.0 and $`0.5<t_2<0.5`$. By using the above dispersion, we obtain the bare Green’s function given by $`G_0(k,ϵ_n)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}ϵ_n(E_k\mu )}`$, where $`ϵ_n=\pi T(2n+1)`$ is the Matsubara frequency and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. The particle number (density) per spin $`n`$ is given by $`n=\frac{T}{N}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k,n}G_0(k,ϵ_n)`$.

An effective pairing interaction in this study is given by the perturbation expansion up to the third-order term with respect to the on-site Coulomb interaction. We calculate the effective interactions for the singlet and the triplet states, respectively. The effective interaction is divided into two parts,

$$V_{\mathrm{TOPT}}(q,k)=V_{\mathrm{RPA}}(q,k)+V_{\mathrm{Vertex}}(q,k).$$
(2.3)
The RPA-like term $`V_{\mathrm{RPA}}`$ includes the term given by the Random Phase Approximation (RPA) and $`V_{\mathrm{Vertex}}`$ is the vertex correction. The RPA-like term reflects the nature of spin fluctuations. The vertex correction term originates from the electron correlation $`U`$ other than the spin fluctuations. For the singlet pairing, the RPA-part and the vertex correction part are given, respectively, by

$$V_{\mathrm{RPA}}^{\mathrm{Singlet}}(q,k)=U+U^2\chi _0(qk)+2U^3\chi _0^2(qk),$$
(2.4)
$$V_{\mathrm{Vertex}}^{\mathrm{Singlet}}(q,k)=2\frac{T}{N}U^3[\underset{k^{}}{}G_0(qk+k^{})\times (\chi _0(q+k^{})\varphi _0(q+k^{}))G_0(k^{})],$$
(2.5)
where $`k`$ indicates $`k`$ ($`𝒌`$, $`\omega _n`$). The bare susceptibility $`\chi _0(q)`$ and $`\varphi _0(q)`$ are defined respectively by

$$\chi _0(q)=\frac{T}{N}\underset{k}{}G_0(k)G_0(q+k),$$
(2.6)
$$\varphi _0(q)=\frac{T}{N}\underset{k}{}G_0(k)G_0(qk).$$
(2.7)
For the singlet pairing, the Coulomb interaction $`U`$ connects only the electrons which have the opposite spins. The diagrams for the pairing interaction is shown in Fig. 1. The two external lines have the opposite spins.

For the triplet pairing, the RPA-like term and the vertex correction correspond to the second-order and the third-order terms, respectively.

$$V_{\mathrm{RPA}}^{\mathrm{Triplet}}(q,k)=U^2\chi _0(qk),$$
(2.8)
$$V_{\mathrm{Vertex}}^{\mathrm{Triplet}}(q,k)=2\frac{T}{N}U^3[\underset{k^{}}{}G_0(qk+k^{})\times (\chi _0(q+k^{})+\varphi _0(q+k^{}))G_0(k^{})].$$
(2.9)
As an effective interaction for the triplet pairing, the diagrams are shown in Fig. 2. The two external lines have the parallel spins.

An anomalous self-energy is written by the effective interaction $`V(q,k)`$ and an anomalous Green function $`F(k)`$, as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_A(q)=\frac{T}{N}\mathrm{\Sigma }_kF(k)V(q,k)`$. At the transition temperature $`T=T_\mathrm{c}`$, the value of the anomalous self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_A`$ is small and we linearize the Éliashberg equation with respect to $`F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_A`$, as $`F(k)^{}=|G_0(k)|^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_A(k)^{}`$. From these formulae, we obtain the following equation for the anomalous self-energy;

$$\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }_A^{}(q)=\frac{T}{N}\underset{k}{}V(q,k)|G_0(k)|^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_A^{}(k).$$
(2.10)
This equation is the linearized Éliashberg equation which is an eigenvalue equation with an eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ and an eigenvector $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_A^{}`$. $`V(q,k)`$ is given by (2.3), (2.4), (2.5), (2.8) and (2.9). We solve the linearized Éliashberg equation on the assumption that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_A^{}`$ has the pairing symmetry represented by

$`p`$-wave; $`\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{y})`$,

$`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave; $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{x})\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{y})`$,

$`d_{xy}`$-wave; $`\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{x})\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{y})`$,

$`g`$-wave; $`\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{x})\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{y})(\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{x})\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{y}))`$.

When the eigenvalue calculated from eq. (2.10) reaches unity, the superconducting state is realized. The most dominant pairing symmetry has the largest value of the eigenvalues among different symmetries. We solve the equation to obtain the dominant state and determine $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ at which the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ equals unity.

Here, we add a comment on neglecting the normal self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{n}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$ in our calculation. When we calculate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{n}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$ with TOPT, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{n}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$ changes rather drastically for the density far from the half-filling. The change is due to the large asymmetry with respect to electron-hole properties. In the low density case where the numbers of electron and hole are very different, the real part of the normal self-energy $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{n}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$ does not show the smooth Fermi liquid behavior. The wrong behavior of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{n}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$ is due to the fact that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{n}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$ is confined to a finite order. The behavior oscillates with respect to the order of $`U`$, owing to a weak convergence.

To avoid the difficulty due to the weak convergence, we use the following method treating the mass renormalization $`z`$. The method is discussed in the theory of heavy fermions.$`^\text{?}`$ By this method, we treat separately the frequency and the momentum dependencies of $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{n}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$. The frequency dependence of $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{n}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$ is included by $`z`$ in the starting Hamiltonian, where $`z`$ is determined so as to give a correct effective mass enhanced by $`z^1`$. Then, the momentum dependence is included in the perturbation calculation.

The detail of the method is the following. The bandwidth $`W`$ of quasi-particles is renormalized by $`z`$. The interaction between the quasi-particles $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is renormalized as $`z\mathrm{\Gamma }z=zU`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is enhanced as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=U/z`$. As a result, $`W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are renormalized by multiplying $`z`$. Therefore, the Hamiltonian (2.1) can be rewritten with $`t_1`$, $`t_2`$ and $`U`$ including the renormalization factor $`z`$. (We don’t exhibit the rewritten Hamiltonian explicitly here.) Thus, we can include the frequency dependence of $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{n}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$ in the starting Hamiltonian. In the procedure for the frequency dependence, we neglect the momentum dependence of $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{n}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$. On the other hand, the momentum dependence of the effective interaction is essential in realizing the anisotropic superconductivity. The momentum dependence is included by solving the Éliashberg equation obtained by the perturbation calculation with respect to $`U`$, as shown in this paper. The separation between frequency and momentum dependencies does not change the essential physics and the procedure of mass renormalization becomes easy.

## 3 Numerical Calculation and Results

We divide the first-Brillouin-zone into 256$`\times `$256 momentum meshes and take $`N_\mathrm{f}`$ = 1024 for Matsubara frequency. To make a reliable calculation, the region of Matubara frequency $`\omega _n`$ should cover the bandwidth $`W`$=8. The region is covered with the condition; $`|\omega _\mathrm{n}|<W`$. To meet the condition, our calculation is confined to the temperature region $`T>0.002`$. In addition to the condition, the value of $`U`$ is confined to $`U<W`$.

### 3.1 Superconductiong phase diagram and $`\chi _0(\stackrel{}{q},\omega _n=0)`$

In Fig. 3, we show the phase diagram for the dominant pairing state in the plane of the second-nearest-neighbor hopping integral $`t_2`$ and the electron density $`n`$. The regions of parameters are given by $`0.075<n<0.4`$ and $`0.5<t_2<0.5`$. The temperature $`T`$ equals 0.008 and the Coulomb interaction is $`U=`$6.0. In Fig. 4, the dependence of the bare susceptibility $`\chi _0(\stackrel{}{q},\omega _n`$ = 0) on $`n`$ is shown for a quarter first-Brillouin-zone.

For the high density ($`n>0.3`$) near half-filling in the phase diagram, the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing state is dominant due to antiferromagnetic fluctuations which have a peak of susceptibility $`\chi _0`$ at ($`\pi ,\pi `$) in the momentum space. The situation is the same as that of cuprates corresponding to a nearly half-filled system. The $`p`$-wave pairing state is realized for the density from $`n=0.075`$ to $`0.303`$. The stable $`p`$-wave pairing state spreads from low to intermediate density ($`0.075<n<0.3`$).

### 3.2 Dependence of $`\lambda `$ and $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ on $`n`$

We show the dependence of the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ on $`n`$ in Fig. 5. We solve eq. (2.10) with $`T`$=0.008, $`t_2`$=0.25 and $`U`$=6.4. The region of $`n`$ is given by $`0.03<n<0.375`$. The most dominant pairing state has the largest value of $`\lambda `$ among various symmetries.

Fig. 5-(a) shows the eigenvalue for eq. (2.10) with $`V_{\mathrm{TOPT}}`$ for all terms which are given by TOPT. The $`p`$-wave pairing state is dominant over the other states from low to intermediate density ($`0.075<n<0.3`$). For the high density ($`n>0.3`$) near the half-filling, the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing state is realized. The eigenvalues for the other singlet states (the $`d_{xy}`$\- and the $`g`$-wave pairing) never reach unity which gives the transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$.

Fig. 5-(b) shows that $`\lambda `$ obtained from eq. (2.10) with $`V_{\mathrm{RPA}}`$ given by the RPA-like term, which includes the RPA-like term reflecting the spin fluctuations. The $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing state is realized for the high density and the $`d_{xy}`$-wave pairing state is advantageous from intermediate to low density, respectively. In the case of the $`p`$-wave pairing state, $`\lambda `$ given by RPA-like term is smaller than one given by TOPT. (The RPA-like term for the triplet includes only the second-order term.) For the singlet pairings, $`\lambda `$ obtained from the RPA-like term are larger than one of TOPT. From a unity line of $`\lambda `$ in Fig. 5-(a) for TOPT, we find $`T_\mathrm{c}`$=0.008 for the $`p`$-wave pairing state at $`n`$=0.075 and for the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing at $`n`$=0.289.

In Fig. 6, we discuss the detail of the eigenvalue calculation and make clear each role of the RPA-like term $`V_{\mathrm{RPA}}`$, the vertex correction $`V_{\mathrm{Vertex}}`$ and TOPT $`V_{\mathrm{TOPT}}`$. The $`p`$-wave pairing state has the largest eigenvalue for the case possessing only the vertex correction in Fig. 6-(a). (The vertex correction for the triplet includes only the third-order term.) The eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ for the RPA-like term is the smallest. The eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ given by TOPT became smaller than one given by the vertex correction. The large eigenvalue obtained from the vertex term is suppressed by the RPA-like term. This is because that a scattering amplitude of $`V_{\mathrm{Vertex}}^{\mathrm{Triplet}}`$ has an opposite phase to that of $`V_{\mathrm{RPA}}^{\mathrm{Triplet}}`$. About the singlet states in Fig. 6-(b), (c) and (d), the RPA-like term promotes the $`d`$\- and $`g`$-wave pairing. Thus, these singlet states are encouraged by the spin fluctuations. For example, the antiferromagnetic fluctuations are the main origin for an attractive force of the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing. In contrast to the RPA-like term, the vertex correction suppresses the eigenvalue and lowers the transition temperature.

### 3.3 Transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$

We show the superconducting transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ in Fig. 7. In Fig. 7-(a), we show $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ which is calculated with TOPT. The unit of energy is the hopping transfer $`t_1`$. $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ for the $`p`$-wave pairing state is lower than $`T_\mathrm{c}=0.07`$. $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ for the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing state is higher than $`T_\mathrm{c}=0.03`$ for the high density ($`n>0.3`$) near the half-filling. In Fig. 7-(b), we compare $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ which are obtained by TOPT, the RPA-like term and the vertex term, respectively. For the $`p`$-wave pairing symmetry, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ obtained by only the vertex term is higher than that of TOPT by 0.03. On the other hand, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ given by the RPA-like term for the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing symmetry is higher than that of TOPT by 0.2. These fact means that the $`p`$-wave pairing is induced by the vertex correction and $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing is induced by the RPA-term.

### 3.4 Dependence of $`\lambda `$ on $`U`$

In Fig. 8, 9 and 10, we show $`\lambda `$ at $`U`$= 2.0 and 4.0 to study a dependence of $`\lambda `$ on $`U`$. The hopping integrals are fixed as $`t_2`$=0.25 and 0.4. Fig.8 exhibits $`\lambda `$ obtained by TOPT for the $`p`$\- and $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing. About the result for $`t_2`$=0.25, the dominant state at $`U=6.4`$ is the $`p`$-wave pairing for about $`n<0.3`$ and the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing in the high density ($`n>0.3`$) in Fig. 5-(a). The situation does not vary when the value of $`U`$ changes to 2.0 and 4.0 in Fig. 8-(a). For $`t_2`$=0.4 (Fig. 8-(b)), the situation does not also vary for the value of $`U`$. Thus, the value of $`U`$ does not change the dominant state for the various density in the calculation for TOPT.

Fig.9 shows $`\lambda `$ obtained by RPA-like term. At $`U`$=2.0 and 4.0 for both $`t_2`$=0.25 and 0.4, the advantageous pairing state is the $`d_{xy}`$-pairing state from low to intermediate density ($`0.075<n<0.3`$) and the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-pairing state in the high density. However, the $`p`$-wave pairing is dominant for the very low density ($`n<0.075`$) in the case of $`t_2`$=0.25 for $`U`$=2.0 and 4.0. For $`U`$=6.4 in Fig. 5-(b), the $`d_{xy}`$-pairing is dominant for $`n<0.275`$. The $`p`$-wave pairing is not advantageous for the very low density. When $`U`$ decreases from 4.0 to 2.0, the density for the $`p`$-wave pairing extends from 0.03 to 0.075. In the very low density for small $`U`$, we think that the $`p`$-wave pairing becomes dominant owing to the effect of the ferromagnetic spin fluctuation (paramagnon) or too small eigenvalue for the comparison.

Fig. 10 exhibits the $`U`$-dependence of the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ obtained by including the all (TOPT), vertex and RPA-like terms for the $`p`$-wave pairing state. Similarly to Fig. 6-(a) for $`U`$=6.4, the results in Fig. 10 show that the vertex correction mainly promotes the $`p`$-wave pairing state. The RPA-like effective interaction suppresses $`\lambda `$ for the $`p`$-wave pairing. This situation does not change, when $`U`$ equals 2.0 and 4.0 in the cases of both $`t_2`$=0.25 and 0.4.

The results of Figs .8, 9 and 10 indicate that the situation of the dominant pairing state does not change for the value of $`U`$, except for the very low density in the case where $`U`$ is smaller than the half of the bandwidth.

### 3.5 Wave number dependence of $`V`$

The wave number dependence of the effective interaction $`V`$ in the momentum space is shown in Fig. 11. The wave number dependence brings an electron scattering near the Fermi surface. The scattering causes the attractive force between electrons on the Fermi surface to realize the pairing state. The point $`k=k_F`$ on the Fermi surface and $`q`$ denote the initial state and final state of the scattering, respectively. The lighter color shows a region of the stronger effective interaction which gives the frequent scattering from $`k_F`$.

When the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing state is advantageous, the singlet effective interaction is shown in Fig. 11-(a). The RPA-like interaction $`V_{\mathrm{RPA}}^{\mathrm{Singlet}}`$ reflects the antiferromagnetic fluctuations and gives the scattering leading to the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing state near the Fermi surface. The vertex correction $`V_{\mathrm{Vertex}}^{\mathrm{Singlet}}`$ makes the scattering weak for the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing. When the $`p`$-wave pairing state is dominant, the triplet effective interaction is shown in Fig. 11-(b). The vertex correction $`V_{\mathrm{Vertex}}^{\mathrm{Triplet}}`$ induces the scattering leading to the $`p`$-wave pairing near the Fermi surface. The RPA-like interaction $`V_{\mathrm{RPA}}^{\mathrm{Triplet}}`$ make the scattering weak. Thus, the RPA-like interaction never gives the strong scattering enough to lead the triplet pairing.

## 4 Summary and Conclusions

We have used the third-order perturbation theory for the two-dimensional Hubbard model and studied the dominant pairing state for the superconductivity. We compare our result with the previous one that includes only the second-order effective interaction.

In contrast with the case including only the second-order interaction, the region of the $`p`$-wave pairing state is extended broadly from low to intermediate density($`0.075<n<0.303`$). Thus, the introduction of the third-order terms gives the important influence on the $`p`$-wave pairing. The $`d_{xy}`$\- and $`g`$-wave pairing has been suggested in Hlubina’s paper$`^{\text{?)}}`$ based on only the second-order calculation. However, these singlet states do not appear as the advantageous state in our result by TOPT.

We discuss more detailed consequences in the followings. In the triplet state, the vertex correction brings mainly the advantage for the $`p`$-wave pairing. The vertex correction has the wave number dependence. The wave number dependence causes the scattering near the Fermi surface, which induces the attractive force for the $`p`$-wave pairing. On the other hand, the RPA-like term suppresses the $`p`$-wave pairing. The spin fluctuations lower the eigenvalue of the $`p`$-wave pairing. Thus, the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations do not play a role in realizing the $`p`$-wave pairing. The situation from low to intermediate density is different from that in the very low density for small $`U`$. In the very low density, the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations (parramagnon) encourage the $`p`$-wave pairing. However, the eigenvalue for the paramagnon mechanism is less than that for the vertex correction.

In the case of the singlet state, the vertex correction discourages the singlet pairing. Thus, the vertex correction lowers the transition temperature. The singlet state becomes dominant by the RPA-like terms reflecting the spin fluctuations, which has been shown by many previous studies.

Our result might interpret the origin of a quasi-two-dimensional superfluidity of 3He8,9,16). We indicate that the $`p`$-wave pairing becomes dominant owing to the paramagnon in the very low density case. The results agree with the consequence about a two-dimensional superfluidity of 3He obtained by previous studies.$`^\text{?}`$ However, the density corresponding to the realistic two-dimensional 3He-superfluidity is not the very low density. For example, the density of a realistic three-dimensional 3He-superfluidity is the quarter-filling near the intermediate density. Therefore, we think that the density of the two-dimensional 3He-superfluidity is the intermediate density. Thus, the vertex mechanism might give the important effect on the superfluidity rather than that due to the paramagnon. Our results might suggest that the vertex correction plays the important role for the superfluidity of 3He as well as the ruthenate superconductor. In order to make clear the origin of the 3He-superfluidity, it is necessary to consider not only the paramagnon but also the wave number dependence of the vertex correction.

In addition to this, we mention the effect of the lattice for the intermediate density. The influence of the square lattice is weak in the very low density, because the Fermi surface in the very low density is similar to that of the Fermi gas. On the other hand, the effect of the lattice can not be neglected in the case where the density is not very low. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the results obtained for various lattices on the basis of TOPT.

Our result might suggest the reconsideration concerning the origin of not only two-dimensional 3He superfluidity but also the three-dimensional one.$`^\text{?}`$ A part of this paper is to be published in proceedings of ISSP meeting.$`^\text{?}`$

## Acknowledgment

The authors thank T. Nomura for the valuable discussion on TOPT and the numerical calculation. The authors are also grateful to Dr. H. Ikeda for the discussion concerning the mass renomarization. H. F thanks Dr. A. Tsuruta for the valuable comments. The numerical computation in this work was carried out at Yukawa Institute Facility.


format: text

text:
# Collapsing and Expanding Cylindrically Symmetric Fields with Ligh-tlike Wave-Fronts in General Relativity

## I Introduction

Gravitational collapse of a realistic body has been one of the most thorny and important problems in Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. Particularly, in 1991 Shapiro and Teukolsky  studied numerically the problem of a dust spheroid, and found that only the spheroid is compact enough, a black hole can be formed. Otherwise, the collapse most likely ends with a naked singularity in violation of Penrose’s cosmic censorship conjecture . Later, by studying the collapse of a cylindrical shell that is free of both gravitational and matter radiation and is made of counter-rotating particles, Apostolatos and Thorne (AT)  showed analytically that the centrifugal forces associated with an arbitrarily small amount of rotation, by themselves, without the aid of any pressure, can halt the collapse at some non-zero, minimum radius, and the shell will then oscillate until it settles down at some final, finite radius, whereby a spacetime singularity is prevented from forming on the symmetry axis. Soon after AT’s work, Shapiro and Teukolsky  studied numerically the gravitational collapse of rotating spheroids, and found that the rotation indeed significantly modifies the evolution when it is sufficiently large. But, for small enough angular momentum, their simulations showed that spindle singularities appeared to arise without apparent horizons, too. Hence, it is still possible that even spheroids with some angular momentum naked singularities may be formed. However, it should be noted that the possibility of the formation of a horizon at late times cannot be excluded in the ST simulations, since their numerical calculations always terminate right at the formation of the spacetime singularities.

Quite recently, we have studied analytically the problem of a collapsing cylindrical shell that radiates gravitational waves and massless particles when it is collapsing, and found two physically distinguishable final states . In one case, after the shell collapses to a minimal non-zero radius, it starts to expand, that is, the angular momentum of the dust particles is strong enough to halt the collapse, so that a spacetime singularity is prevented from forming on the symmetry axis. However, in the other case the rotation is not strong enough to halt the collapse at a finite non-zero radius, and, as a result, a spacetime singularity is finally formed on the symmetry axis.

As shown numerically in , during the late stages of the collapse, the spheroid tends to fall at nearly the speed of light. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the collapsing body as consisting of null fluid at its late stages of collapse. In this paper, we shall generalize our previous studies  to the gravitational collapse of a cylinder with a light-like wave-front. Specifically, the paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we consider the general matching of two cylindrically symmetric regions across a null hypersurface, using the Barrabés-Israel (BI) method , with the possibility that on the null hypersurface a null dust shell may appear. It should be noted that the same problem was also studied in  but in double null coordinates. As we shall see below, the method used there is much simpler than the BI one to be used in this paper, but the advantage of the latter is that it allows the independent choice of coordinates in both sides of the hypersurface, and that the use of the radial coordinate in the BI method makes physical interpretations of the problem more transparent. In Sec. III we apply the general formulae to the case where inside the null hypersurface the spacetime is Minkowskian, while outside the shell the spacetime satisfies the condition $`R_{AB}g^{AB}=0,(A,B=z,\phi )`$. In Sec. IV, we apply the general formulae further to the collapse of cylindrically symmetric purely gravitational waves, while in Sec. V our main conclusions are presented.

## II Dynamics of Cylindrical Null Shells Without Rotation

Both static  and dynamic  cylindrically symmetric and timelike thin shells with zero total angular momentum have been studied previously. In this section, we shall give a general treatment for cylindrically symmetric null shells, which connects two cylindrical, otherwise, arbitrary regions. In some cases the null shell can be made disappear, and the corresponding null hypersurface becomes a boundary surface . In the following we shall consider the latter as a particular case of the former and study them all together.

Assume that the shell, located on the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, divides the whole spacetime into two regions, $`V^\pm `$. Let $`V^+`$ denote the region outside the shell, and $`V^{}`$ denote the region inside the shell. In $`V^+`$, the metric takes the form

$`ds_+^2`$ $`=`$ $`f^+(T,R)dT^2g^+(T,R)dR^2h^+(T,R)dz^2`$ (2.2)
$`l^+(T,R)d\phi ^2,\left(RR_0(T)\right),`$
where $`\{x^{+\mu }\}=\{T,R,z,\phi \}`$ with $`\mathrm{}<T,z<+\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\phi 2\pi `$, and $`R=R_0(T)`$ is the location of the shell in the coordinates $`x^{+\mu }`$. If the sources are confined within a finite region in the radial direction, then the spacetime should be asymptotically flat in the radial direction as $`\mathrm{}`$, where $``$ denotes the proper radial distance.

In $`V^{}`$, the metric takes the form

$`ds_{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`f^{}(t,r)dt^2g^{}(t,r)dr^2h^{}(t,r)dz^2`$ (2.4)
$`l^{}(t,r)d\phi ^2,\left(rr_0(t)\right),`$
where $`\{x^\mu \}=\{t,r,z,\phi \}`$ are the usual cylindrical coordinates chosen in the region $`V^{}`$. In this region we shall choose the radial coordinate $`r`$ such that $`r=0`$ represents the symmetry axis. The hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in this region is described by $`r=r_0(t)`$. To have the cylindrical symmetry be well defined, the spacetime in this region has to satisfy several conditions :

(i) The existence of an axially symmetric axis: The spacetime that has an axially symmetric axis is assured by the condition,

$$_\phi =|g_{\phi \phi }|O(r^2),$$
(2.5)
as $`r0^+`$.

(ii) The elementary flatness on the axis: This condition requires that the spacetime be locally flat on the axis, which in the present case can be expressed as

$$\frac{X_{,\alpha }X_{,\beta }g^{\alpha \beta }}{4X}1,$$
(2.6)
as $`r0^+`$, where $`X`$ is given by $`X=_\phi =|g_{\phi \phi }|`$.

Since the trajectory of the shell is null, we have

$`R^{}{}_{0}{}^{}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^+}{g^+}}\right)^{1/2}|_{R=R_0(T)},`$ (2.7)
$`r^{}{}_{0}{}^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{g^{}}}\right)^{1/2}|_{r=r_0(t)},`$ (2.8)
where a prime denotes the ordinary differentiation with respect to the indicated argument, and $`ϵ=\pm 1`$, with the sign “+” corresponding to expanding shells, and the sign “$``$” to collapsing shells. On the shell, the intrinsic coordinates will be chosen as $`\{\xi ^a\}=\{w,z,\phi \},(a=1,2,3)`$, where $`w`$ denotes a null coordinate, which will be defined explicitly below. In terms of $`\xi ^a`$, the metric on the shell takes the form

$$ds^2|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=g_{ab}d\xi ^ad\xi ^b=h(w)dz^2l(w)d\phi ^2,$$
(2.9)
where $`g_{ab}`$ denotes the induced metric on the hypersurface. The first junction condition that the metrics in both sides of the shell reduce to the same metric (2.9) on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ requires that

$`h(w)`$ $``$ $`h^+(T,R_0(T))=h^{}(t,r_0(t)),`$ (2.10)
$`l(w)`$ $``$ $`l^+(T,R_0(T))=l^{}(t,r_0(t)),`$ (2.11)
where on the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we have $`T=T(w)`$ and $`t=t(w)`$. The normal vector to the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is given in $`V^+`$ and $`V^{}`$, respectively, by

$`n_\mu ^+`$ $`=`$ $`\{R^{}{}_{0}{}^{}(T),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\},`$ (2.12)
$`n_\mu ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\{r^{}{}_{0}{}^{}(t),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\}.`$ (2.13)
Following Barrabés and Israel (BI) , let us introduce the vectors $`N_\mu ^\pm `$ via the relations,

$$N^{\pm \lambda }N_\lambda ^\pm =0,N^{\pm \lambda }n_\lambda ^\pm =1,$$
(2.14)
we find that in the present case they take the form,

$`N^{+\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^+}{f^+}}\right)^{1/2}\delta _T^\mu +\delta _R^\mu \right\},`$ (2.15)
$`N^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{f^{}}}\right)^{1/2}\delta _t^\mu +\delta _r^\mu \right\}.`$ (2.16)
Defining the quantities, $`e_{(a)}^{\pm \mu }`$ by $`e_{(a)}^{\pm \mu }x^{\pm \mu }/\xi ^a`$, we obtain

$`e_{(1)}^{+\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dT}{dw}}\{\delta _T^\mu +R^{}{}_{0}{}^{}(T)\delta _R^\mu \},`$ (2.17)
$`e_{(2)}^{+\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _z^\mu ,e_{(3)}^{+\mu }=\delta _\phi ^\mu ,`$ (2.18)
$`e_{(1)}^{+\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dw}}\{\delta _t^\mu +r^{}{}_{0}{}^{}(t)\delta _r^\mu \},`$ (2.19)
$`e_{(2)}^{+\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _z^\mu ,e_{(3)}^{+\mu }=\delta _\phi ^\mu .`$ (2.20)
To make sure that $`N_\mu ^\pm `$, defined on the two faces of the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, do represent the same vector $`N^\mu `$, we impose the conditions

$$N_\lambda ^+e_{(a)}^{+\lambda }|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}=N_\lambda ^{}e_{(a)}^\lambda |_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},(a=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}).$$
(2.21)
In the present case, it can be shown that the above conditions reduce to

$$\left(f^+g^+\right)^{1/2}\frac{dT}{dw}|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}=\left(f^{}g^{}\right)^{1/2}\frac{dt}{dw}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}.$$
(2.22)
The above equation can be also considered as defining the relation between $`T`$ and $`t`$ on the hypersurface. Following BI , we define the extrinsic curvature of the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as,

$`_{ab}`$ $``$ $`N_\lambda e_{(b)}^\nu \left(_\nu e_{(a)}^\lambda \right)`$ (2.23)
$`=`$ $`N_\lambda e_{(b)}^\nu \left\{e_{(a),\nu }^\lambda +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu }^\lambda e_{(a)}^\mu \right\},`$ (2.24)
which in the present case has the following non-vanishing components,

$`_{ww}^+`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\left(f^+g^+\right)^{1/2}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{d^2T}{dw^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dT}{dw}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{,T}^+}{f^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{,T}^+}{g^+}}\right)\right\}`$ (2.26)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{dT}{dw}}\right)^2f_{,R}^+,`$
$`_{zz}^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^+}{g^+}}\right)^{1/2}h_{,T}^+h_{,R}^+\right\},`$ (2.27)
$`_{\phi \phi }^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^+}{g^+}}\right)^{1/2}l_{,T}^+l_{,R}^+\right\},`$ (2.28)
where $`f_{,T}^+f^+(T,R)/T`$ etc., and $`_{ab}^{}`$ can be obtained from the above expressions by the replacement

$`f^+,`$ $`g^+,h^+,l^+,R_0(T),T,R`$ (2.30)
$`f^{},g^{},h^{},l^{},r_0(t),t,r.`$
Introducing the null vector $`l^a`$ along the direction $`dw`$ by $`l^a=\delta _w^a`$, it can be shown that the surface energy-momentum tensor $`\tau _{ab}`$ is given by ,

$`\tau ^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}\{g_{}^{ac}l^bl^d+g_{}^{bd}l^al^c`$ (2.32)
$`g_{}^{ab}l^cl^dg_{}^{cd}l^al^b\}\gamma _{cd},`$
where $`\kappa 8\pi G/c^4`$,

$$\gamma _{ab}2\left(_{ab}^+_{ab}^{}\right),$$
(2.33)
and

$`\left[g_{ab}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& h(w)& 0\\ 0& 0& l(w)\end{array}\right],`$ (2.34)
$`\left[g_{}^{ab}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& h^1(w)& 0\\ 0& 0& l^1(w)\end{array}\right].`$ (2.35)
Inserting Eqs.(2.22), (2.26) and the corresponding expressions for $`_{ab}^{}`$ into the above equations, we find that $`\tau ^{ab}`$ can be written in the form

$$\tau ^{ab}=\rho l^al^b+p(z^az^b+\phi ^a\phi ^b),(a,b=w,z,\phi ),$$
(2.36)
where

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{zz}}{h(w)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{\phi \phi }}{l(w)}}\right]`$ (2.37)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\kappa }}\{ϵ[\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^+}{f^+}}\right)^{1/2}({\displaystyle \frac{h_{,T}^+}{h^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l_{,T}^+}{l^+}})`$ (2.40)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{f^{}}}\right)^{1/2}({\displaystyle \frac{h_{,t}^{}}{h^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l_{,t}^{}}{l^{}}})]`$
$`[({\displaystyle \frac{h_{,R}^+}{h^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l_{,R}^+}{l^+}})({\displaystyle \frac{h_{,r}^{}}{h^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l_{,r}^{}}{l^{}}})]\},`$
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{ww}}{2\kappa }}`$ (2.41)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dT}{dw}}\right)^2\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^+}}(g^+f_{,R}^+f^+g_{,R}^+)`$ (2.43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f^+g^+}{g^{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{f_{,r}^{}}{f^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{,r}^{}}{g^{}}})\},`$
and

$$z_a=h^{1/2}(w)\delta _a^z,\phi _a=h^{1/2}(w)\delta _a^\phi .$$
(2.44)
Clearly, the surface energy-momentum tensor given by Eq.(2.36) represents a Type II null fluid in the classifications of Hawking and Ellis , where the null fluid is moving along the lines defined by the tangential vector $`l^a`$ with its isotropic pressure $`p`$ in the $`dz`$ and $`d\phi `$ directions. It is interesting to note that when $`f^+=g^+`$ and $`f^{}=g^{}`$, we have $`p=0`$.

## III Gravitational Collapse of Matter Fields Satisfying $`R_{AB}g^{AB}=0`$

As an application of the formulae developed above, let us consider some specific models that represent gravitational collapse. Therefore, from now on we shall consider only the case where $`ϵ=1`$. The wave front of a collapsing cylinder is given by $`R=R_0(T)`$ in the $`x^{+\mu }`$ coordinates and $`r=r_0(t)`$ in the $`x^\mu `$ coordinates. Before the wave arrives, we assume that the spacetime is flat, that is,

$$ds_{}^2=dt^2dr^2dz^2r^2d\phi ^2,\left(rr_0(t)\right).$$
(3.1)
Clearly, in the present case the cylindrical symmetry of the spacetime is well defined, and the axis $`r=0`$ is free of any kind of spacetime singularities \[cf. Fig. 1(a)\].

Then, the condition (2.7) yields,

$$r_0(t)=(tt_0),$$
(3.2)
where $`t_0`$ is a constant. By a translation transformation in $`t`$, we can always set $`t_0=0`$. In the following, we shall always assume that this is the case. Since $`r_0(t)0`$, we must have $`t0`$ on the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then, we can see that the history of this hypersurface in the ($`t,r`$)-plane is represented by the part of the light cone $`t+r=0,t0`$, as shown by Fig. 1(b).

In the region $`RR_0(T)`$, where collapsing cylinder is present, the metric, without loss of generality, can be cost in the form

$`ds_+^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^M\left(dT^2dR^2\right)`$ (3.4)
$`e^U\left(e^Vdz^2+e^Vd\phi ^2\right),`$
where $`M,U`$ and $`V`$ are functions of $`T`$ and $`R`$ only. Then, Eqs.(2.7), (2.10) and (2.22) yield

$`R_0(T)`$ $`=`$ $`T0,V(T,R_0(T))=U(T,R_0(T)),`$ (3.5)
$`r_0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{U(T,R_0(T))},dt=e^{M(T,R_0(T))}dT.`$ (3.6)
Inserting the above equations into Eq.(2.37), we find that

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2\kappa }\left\{U_{,T}+U_{,R}+e^U\right\}|_{R=T},p=0.$$
(3.7)
To further study the problems, in the following we shall consider only the case where the cylinder is made of matter that satisfies the condition

$$R_{AB}g^{AB}=0,(A,B=z,\phi ),$$
(3.8)
where $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the Ricci tensor. It can be shown that several matter fields, such as, null dust fluid, massless scalar field, and electromagnetic field, satisfy the above condition . For the metric given by (3.4), Eq.(3.8) yields

$$U_{,TT}U_{,T}^2U_{,RR}+U_{,R}^2=0,$$
(3.9)
which has the general solution

$$U=\mathrm{ln}\left[a(T+R)+b(TR)\right],$$
(3.10)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are arbitrary functions of their indicated arguments, subject to

$$a+b0.$$
(3.11)
Inserting the above expressions into Eq.(3.7), we find that

$$\rho =\frac{2a^{}1}{2\kappa (a+b)}|_{R=T},p=0.$$
(3.12)
According to

$`a)`$ $`a^{}b^{}<0,b)a^{}b^{}>0,`$ (3.13)
$`c)`$ $`a^{}=0,b^{}0,`$ (3.14)
$`d)`$ $`a^{}0,b^{}=0,`$ (3.15)
the solutions will have physically different interpretations, thus, in the following let us consider them separately.

Case a) $`a^{}b^{}<0`$: In this case the normal vector to the hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Phi }e^U=Const.`$ is spacelike. As a matter of fact, it is easy to show that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\alpha }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\beta }g^{\alpha \beta }=4a^{}b^{}e^M<0.$$
(3.16)
Without loss of generality, now we can choose

$$a=\frac{1}{2}(T+R),b=\frac{1}{2}(TR).$$
(3.17)
In fact, introducing two new coordinates $`\overline{T}`$ and $`\overline{R}`$ via the relations,

$$\overline{R}=a+b,\overline{T}=ab,$$
(3.18)
we find that the corresponding metric takes the form,

$$ds_+^2=e^{\overline{M}}\left(d\overline{T}^2d\overline{R}^2\right)\overline{R}\left(e^Vdz^2+e^Vd\phi ^2\right),$$
(3.19)
where $`e^{\overline{M}}e^M/(4a^{}b^{})`$, and $`\overline{M}`$ and $`V`$ now are functions of $`\overline{T}`$ and $`\overline{R}`$ only. Clearly, the above form of metric is the same as that given by Eqs.(3.4) with the choice of Eq.(3.17), from which we find that

$$e^U=a+b=R.$$
(3.20)
Combining Eqs.(3.2) and (3.5), we find that the first junction condition now requires

$`r_0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`R_0(T)=t=T0,`$ (3.21)
$`V(T,R_0(T))`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left[R_0(T)\right],M(T,R_0(T))=0.`$ (3.22)
Substituting Eq.(3.17) into Eq.(3.12), on the other hand, we find that

$$\rho =0=p.$$
(3.23)
That is, in this case the matching across the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is always smooth, and no matter shell appears on the hypersurface. Using the $`𝒞`$-energy defined by Thorne ,

$$𝒞_E\frac{1}{8}\left(1\frac{e^{MV}}{R}\right),$$
(3.24)
we find from Eq.(3.21) that on the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we have

$$𝒞_E(T,R_0(T))=0.$$
(3.25)
That is, the total $`𝒞`$-energy inside the cylinder $`R=R_0(T)`$ is zero. This is what one would expect, as the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ now is free of matter shells and the spacetime, before the wave front arrives, is flat.

Case b) $`a^{}b^{}>0`$: In this case it can be shown that the normal vector to the hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Phi }e^U=Const.`$ is timelike. Following a similar argument as that given in the last case, one can show that now we can choose

$$a=\frac{1}{2}(T+R),b=\frac{1}{2}(TR),$$
(3.26)
so that

$$e^U=a+b=T0.$$
(3.27)
Inserting Eq.(3.26) into Eq.(3.12), we find

$$\rho =\frac{1}{\kappa (T)},p=0.$$
(3.28)
Since on the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we have $`T0`$, from the above we can see that the energy density $`\rho `$ is always negative. This is not physical and we shall not consider this case further in the following discussions.

Case c) $`a^{}=0,b^{}0`$: In this case, without loss of generality, we can set $`a=0`$. Then, it can be shown that the hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Phi }e^U=b(TR)=Const.`$ now become null, and the function $`b`$ is positive and otherwise arbitrary. Hence, from Eq.(3.12) we find

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2\kappa b(2R)},p=0,$$
(3.29)
from which we can see that the energy density $`\rho `$ is always negative, too, and this case should be also discarded in the following discussions.

Case d) $`a^{}0,b^{}=0`$: Similar to the last case, it can be shown that now the hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Phi }e^U=Const.`$ are also null, and the function $`a`$ is arbitrary, subject to $`a0`$, with the choice $`b=0`$. Then, the corresponding surface energy density is given by

$$\rho =\frac{2a^{}(0)1}{2\kappa a(0)}.$$
(3.30)
On the other hand, from Eq.(3.5) we find that

$$r_0(t)=e^{U(T,R_0(T))}=a(0),$$
(3.31)
which is not consistent with Eq.(3.2). Thus, this case has to be discarded as representing gravitational collapse, too.

It is interesting to note that in the last two cases the only possible matter field is a null dust fluid with the energy-momentum tensor (EMT) being given by

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\rho k_\mu k_\nu ,$$
(3.32)
where $`k_\mu `$ is a null vector. In the last case it is given by $`k_\mu =\delta _\mu ^T+\delta _\mu ^R`$, and the corresponding EMT represents an ingoing null dust fluid moving along the hypersurfaces $`T+R=Const.`$, while in Case c), it is given by $`k_\mu =\delta _\mu ^T\delta _\mu ^R`$, and the corresponding EMT represents an outgoing null dust fluid moving along the hypersurfaces $`TR=Const.`$ In both of the two cases, an, ingoing in the last case, and outgoing in Case c), purely gravitational cylindrical wave is present, except for the case where $`V=Const.`$

In review of all the above, we find that the gravitational collapse in the last three cases in an otherwise flat and cylindrical spacetime background cannot be realized. The only case that is relevant to gravitational collapse is Case a). This result is a little bit of surprise, and mainly due to the requirement that, before the wave front arrives, the spacetime be flat and take the cylindrical form Eq.(3.1). Although Birkhoff’s theorem for the spherically symmetric case is not applicable to the cylindrically symmetric case , from the physical point of view this requirement seems quite reasonable.

To further study the problem, let us now turn to consider gravitational collapse of cylindrical purely gravitational waves.

## IV Gravitational Collapse of Purely Gravitational Waves

As shown in the last section, the only case that is relevant to gravitational collapse in an otherwise flat background is Case a), in which the null hypersurface $`r=r_0(t)`$ \[ or $`R=R_0(T)`$\] is free of matter, $`\tau _{ab}=0`$, and the function $`U(T,R)`$ is chosen as

$$U=\mathrm{ln}R.$$
(4.1)
For this gauge, it can be shown that only three of the vacuum Einstein field equations $`R_{\mu \nu }=0`$ are independent and can be written in the form

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{,R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{2}}\left(V_{,T}^2+V_{,R}^2\right),`$ (4.2)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{,T}`$ $`=`$ $`RV_{,T}V_{,R},`$ (4.3)
$`V_{,RR}`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}V_{,R}V_{,TT}=0,`$ (4.4)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T,R)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}RM(T,R).$$
(4.5)
Thus, once the solution of Eq.(4.4) is known, the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be obtained by the quadrature from Eqs.(4.2) and (4.3). The general solution of Eq.(4.4) is given by

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left[A(\omega )\mathrm{sin}(\omega T)+B(\omega )\mathrm{cos}(\omega T)\right]J_0\left(\omega R\right)𝑑\omega `$ (4.6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left[C(\omega )\mathrm{sin}(\omega T)+D(\omega )\mathrm{cos}(\omega T)\right]N_0\left(\omega R\right)𝑑\omega `$ (4.7)
$`+`$ $`\alpha T+\beta \mathrm{ln}R+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}h_k\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _k}{R}}\right),`$ (4.8)
where

$$\mu _kT_kT\pm \left[\left(T_kT\right)^2R^2\right]^{1/2},$$
(4.9)
$`\alpha ,\beta ,A(\omega ),B(\omega ),C(\omega ),D(\omega ),\omega ,h_k`$ and $`T_k`$ are arbitrary constants, and $`N`$ is an integer. The functions $`J_0\left(\omega R\right)`$ and $`N_0\left(\omega R\right)`$ denote the Bessel and Neumann functions of zero order, respectively. The integration constants $`T_i`$ can be real or complex, and in general takes the form

$$T_k=T_k^0+iw_k,(k=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{},N),$$
(4.10)
where $`T_k^0`$’s and $`w_k`$’s are real. If one starts with a complex term, say, $`\mu _j`$, then its complex conjugate $`\mu _j^{}`$ should be also included, in order to make the metric coefficients to be real. Note that when $`T_k`$ is real, the solution is defined only in the regions $`(T_kT)^2R^2`$ \[cf. Fig. 2\].

On the light cone $`(T_kT)^2=R^2`$, we have $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu _k/R)=0`$. Then, from Eq.(4.6) we can see that $`V(T,R)`$ matches continuously to the solution that does not include $`\mu _k`$ in the region $`(T_kT)^2R^2`$. Belinskii and Francaviglia interpreted this as gravitational shock-wave solutions , but later Gleiser showed that in general the light cone also support a null dust fluid . Yet, Curir et al. found that sometimes the solutions have curvature singularities on the light cone . In any case, since here we are mainly concerned with gravitational collapse of gravitational waves only, we shall not consider this possibility any more, and simply assume that all the $`\mu _k`$’s are complex, as in the latter case there are no such restrictions and the solutions are valid in the whole spacetime. The term related to $`\mu _k`$ is usually referred to as generalized soliton solutions .

On the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ where $`T=R`$, the first junction condition Eq.(3.21) requires

$$V(R,R)=\mathrm{ln}R,M(R,R)=0.$$
(4.11)
Since for the general solution of Eq.(4.6), the function $`M(T,R)`$ is not known, in the following let us consider the above condition only in the two limits: $`R0`$ and $`R\mathrm{}`$. When $`R0`$, we have

$`J_0(\omega R)`$ $``$ $`1,`$ (4.12)
$`N_0(\omega R)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega R}{2}}\right),`$ (4.13)
$`\mu _k^+`$ $``$ $`2T_k,`$ (4.14)
$`\mu _k^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2T_k}}.`$ (4.15)
We assume, without loss of generality, that in Eq.(4.6) the first $`n`$ $`\mu _k`$’s take the values of $`\mu _k^{}`$ and the rest $`(Nn)`$ $`\mu _k`$’s take the values of $`\mu _k^+`$. Then we find that

$$V(R,R)(\beta +h^{}+d)\mathrm{ln}R,$$
(4.16)
as $`R0`$, where

$$h^{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}h_k^{},d\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}D(\omega )𝑑\omega .$$
(4.17)
The junction condition Eq.(4.16) requires

$$\beta +h^{}+d=1.$$
(4.18)
When $`R\mathrm{}`$, we have

$`J_0(\omega R)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi \omega R}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega R{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\right),`$ (4.19)
$`N_0(\omega R)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi \omega R}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}\left(\omega R{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\right),`$ (4.20)
$`\mu _k^\pm `$ $``$ $`R,`$ (4.21)
from which we find that

$$V(R,R)\alpha R+\beta \mathrm{ln}R.$$
(4.22)
Thus, the first junction condition Eq.(4.11) in this limit requires that

$$\alpha =0,\beta =1.$$
(4.23)
Combining Eqs.(4.18) and (4.23) we find that

$$\alpha =0,\beta =1,d+h^{}=0.$$
(4.24)
To further study the problem, now let us turn to study the spacetime outside the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, i.e., region $`V^+`$. In particular, following , we shall concentrate ourselves in the four different regions: (i) The spacelike infinity, $`|T|R\mathrm{}`$; (ii) the future null infinity, $`RT\mathrm{}`$; (iii) the timelike future infinity, $`RT\mathrm{}`$; and (iv) the focusing region, $`RT0^+`$ \[cf. Fig. 3\].

(i) The spacelike infinity, $`|T|R\mathrm{}`$: In this limit, let us first consider the first two terms in Eq.(4.6), which will be denoted by $`V_{FB}(T,R)`$. Using Eq.(4.19), we find that

$`V_{FB}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi R}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\{E^+(\omega )\mathrm{cos}[\omega (RT)+\varphi ^+(\omega )]`$ (4.26)
$`+E^{}(\omega )\mathrm{cos}[\omega (R+T)+\varphi ^{}(\omega )]\}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\omega ^{1/2}}},`$
where

$`E^\pm (\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{[A(\omega )\pm D(\omega )]^2+[C(\omega )B(\omega )]^2\right\}^{1/2},`$ (4.27)
$`\varphi ^\pm (\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{C(\omega )B(\omega )}{A(\omega )\pm D(\omega )}}\right].`$ (4.28)
It is clear that, as $`R\mathrm{}`$, these two terms represent a superposition of two traveling gravitational waves along the radial direction, one is ingoing represented by the term $`E^{}(\omega )`$ and the other is outgoing represented by the term $`E^+(\omega )`$. When the waves have only a single wavelength, say, $`\lambda _0`$, it can be shown that the corresponding function $`M(T,R)`$ takes the form ,

$`M_{FB}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}R{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _0}{\pi }}[(A_0^2+B_0^2+C_0^2+D_0^2)R`$ (4.29)
$`+`$ $`2(B_0C_0A_0D_0)T]`$ (4.30)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\{E_0^{}\mathrm{cos}[2\omega _0(T+R)\theta _0^{}]`$ (4.31)
$`+`$ $`E_0^+\mathrm{cos}[2\omega _0(RT)\theta _0^+]\},`$ (4.32)
where $`\omega _0=2\pi /\lambda _0`$,

$$\theta _0^\pm \mathrm{tan}^1\left[\frac{2(A_0\pm D_0)(C_0B_0)}{(A_0\pm D_0)^2(C_0B_0)^2}\right].$$
(4.33)
and $`A_0A(\omega _0)`$, etc. It can be shown that the spacetime is singular in this limit. Since we are considering gravitational collapse, the more interesting case would be that the spacetime is asymptotically flat in the radial direction, and it is possibly singular only at $`R=0`$ for $`T>0`$. Then, we are sure that such singularities are indeed formed by the collapse. Therefore, in the following we shall assume that these two terms vanish identically,

$$A(\omega )=B(\omega )=C(\omega )=D(\omega )=0.$$
(4.34)
Hence, from Eq.(4.17) we find that $`d=0`$. Substituting it into Eq.(4.24) we obtain

$$h^{}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}h_k^{}=0.$$
(4.35)
The third term in Eq.(4.6) vanishes too, because of the first junction condition (4.24). Thus, in the following let us concentrate ourselves only on the fourth and last (soliton) terms with $`\beta =1`$. When the soliton term vanishes, the spacetime becomes Minkowskian.

As we mentioned previously, in this paper we consider only the case where $`T_k`$ is complex. For the complex $`T_k`$ it is found convenient to introduce the following quantities ,

$$\mu _k^+=R\sigma _k^{1/2}e^{i\gamma _k},\mu _k^{}=\frac{R^2}{\mu _k^+}=R\sigma _k^{1/2}e^{i\gamma _k},$$
(4.36)
where

$`\sigma _k`$ $`=`$ $`L_k+(L_k^21)^{1/2},`$ (4.37)
$`L_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L_+^0}{R^2}}+\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{2L_{}^0}{R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(L_+^0\right)^2}{R^4}}\right]^{1/2},`$ (4.38)
$`L_\pm ^0`$ $``$ $`T_k^2\pm w_k^2,T_kT_k^0T,`$ (4.39)
$`\gamma _k`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma _k^{1/2}T_k}{R(1+\sigma _k)}}\right].`$ (4.40)
If we further assume that

$`h_{k+n/2}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(h_k^{}\right)^{}=\alpha _k^{}i\beta _k^{},`$ (4.41)
$`h_{k+(N+n)/2}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\left(h_{k+n}^+\right)^{}=\alpha _k^+i\beta _k^+,`$ (4.42)
where $`\alpha ^\pm `$’s and $`\beta ^\pm `$’s are real constants, we find that

$`V_{soliton}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}R+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}h_k\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _k}{R}}\right)`$ (4.43)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}R+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{s}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_k}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\sigma _k+f_k\gamma _k\right),`$ (4.44)
where $`sN/2`$, and

$`g_k`$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}2\alpha _k^{},\hfill & 1kn/2\hfill \\ 2\alpha _{k+n/2}^+,\hfill & n/2+1kN/2\hfill \end{array},`$ (4.45)
$`f_k`$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}2\beta _k^{},\hfill & 1kn/2\hfill \\ 2\beta _{k+n/2}^+,\hfill & n/2+1kN/2\hfill \end{array}.`$ (4.46)
In terms of $`\alpha _k^{}`$’s, Eq.(4.35) takes the form

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n/2}{}}\alpha _k^{}=0.$$
(4.47)
The general solution (4.43) was studied in details in , thus in the following we shall only summarize its main properties, and for the details, we refer readers to . In particular, it can be shown that

$`\sigma _k`$ $``$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2w_k}{R}}+O(R^2),`$ (4.48)
$`\gamma _k`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_k}{R}}+O(R^3),`$ (4.49)
as $`R\mathrm{}`$. Thus, from the above we can see that the terms that are proportional to $`\sigma _k`$ are negligible, while the terms that proportional to $`\gamma _k`$ have the following distributions to the metric coefficients,

$`V_{soliton}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{ln}R+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{s}{}}}f_k\gamma _k,`$ (4.50)
$`M_{soliton}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{2}}\mathrm{ln}R,`$ (4.51)
where

$$f\underset{k=1}{\overset{s}{}}f_k=2\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n/2}{}}\beta _k^{}+\underset{k=(n+2)/2}{\overset{(N+n)/2}{}}\beta _k^+\right).$$
(4.52)
Thus, in this limit the solution is singular unless $`f=0`$. With the same reason as that given following Eq.(4.33), in the following we shall assume that

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n/2}{}}\beta _k^{}+\underset{k=(n+2)/2}{\overset{(N+n)/2}{}}\beta _k^+=0,(f=0).$$
(4.53)
Then, we can see that the solution will represent the gravitational collapse of purely gravitational cylindrical waves with lightlike wave-front, on which no dust shell appears. The spacetime is asymptotically flat in the radial direction and locally flat near the symmetry axis.

(ii) The future null infinity, $`RT\mathrm{}`$: In this limit, it can be shown that

$`\sigma _k`$ $``$ $`1+O\left(R^{1/2}\right),`$ (4.54)
$`\gamma _k`$ $``$ $`\pi +O\left(R^{1/2}\right),`$ (4.55)
and that the metric coefficients behave like

$`V(T,R)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{ln}R+O\left(R^{1/2}\right),`$ (4.56)
$`M(T,R)`$ $``$ $`O\left(R^{1/2}\right).`$ (4.57)
Thus, in this region the spacetime is asymptotically Minkowskian, too. A detailed study of the Riemann tensor showed that the spacetime in this region is Petrov type N and represents an outgoing gravitational wave along the light cone .

(iii) The timelike future infinity, $`RT\mathrm{}`$: The study of the solutions in this region will give us some information about the final state of the collapse. It can be shown that

$`\sigma _k`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4T^2}{R^2}},`$ (4.58)
$`\gamma _k`$ $``$ $`\pi +O\left({\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{4T^2}}\right),`$ (4.59)
and

$`V_{soliton}`$ $``$ $`(1+g^+)\mathrm{ln}R+g^+\mathrm{ln}T,`$ (4.60)
$`M_{soliton}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^+(2+g^+)\mathrm{ln}R`$ (4.62)
$`+g^+(1+g^+)\mathrm{ln}T,`$
where

$$g^+2\underset{k=1+n/2}{\overset{(N+n)/2}{}}\alpha _k^+.$$
(4.63)
Then, we find that the spacetime in this region is always singular, except for the cases

$$(i)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}g^+1,\text{or }(ii)g^+=2.$$
(4.64)
When $`g^+=0`$, we can see that the collapsing gravitational waves are reflected completely from the symmetry axis to spacelike infinity along the future light cone, and nothing is left behind, so that the final state of the spacetime is Minkowskian.

(iv) The focusing region, $`RT0^+`$: This is the region where the collapsing gravitational waves just arrive at the axis, and start to accumulate there. It can be shown that

$`\sigma _k`$ $``$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{\left(T_k^0\right)^2+w_k^2}{R^2}},`$ (4.65)
$`\gamma _k`$ $``$ $`\gamma _k^0,`$ (4.66)
and

$`V_{soliton}`$ $``$ $`(1+g^+)\mathrm{ln}R,`$ (4.67)
$`M_{soliton}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^+(2+g^+)\mathrm{ln}R,`$ (4.68)
where $`\gamma _k^0`$ is a constant. Thus, the spacetime in this region is singular, unless the conditions given by Eq.(4.64) hold.

In review of all the above, we have the following: The only solutions that represent gravitational collapse of purely gravitational cylindrical waves in an otherwise flat spacetime background are given by Eq.(4.43) subjected to the conditions of Eqs.(4.47) and (4.53). After the waves arrive at the symmetry axis, part of them is reflected to spacelike infinity along the light cone $`RT\mathrm{}`$, and part of them is focused to form spacetime singularity on the axis, except for the cases defined by Eq.(4.64). The corresponding Penrose diagram is given by Fig. 3.

## V Conclusions

In this paper, the general matching of two cylindrically symmetric regions across a null hypersurface is studied using the Barrabés-Israel method. It is shown that in general the hypersurface supports a null dust shell. As an application of these formulae, we study the collapse of a matter field that satisfies the condition $`R_{AB}g^{AB}=0,(A,B=z,\phi )`$, in an otherwise flat spacetime background. It is found that the only case that represents gravitational collapse is that where the normal vector to the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Phi }=Const.`$ is space-like, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(g_{zz}g_{\phi \phi })^{1/2}`$. As a result, the gravitational collapse of a purely gravitational cylindrical wave or a pure null dust fluid cannot be realized in a flat spacetime background.

The general formulae are further applied to the collapse of purely gravitational cylindrical waves in a flat spacetime background and the general conditions for such collapse are found. It is shown that after the waves arrive at the axis, part of them is reflected to spacelike infinity along the future light cone, and part of it is focused to form spacetime singularities on the symmetry axis. The only cases where no spacetime singularity is formed are these given by Eq.(4.64).

## Acknowledgment

The financial assistance from CNPq (AZW) is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Isospin violation in 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻→𝐵𝐵̄

(August 2002)

## Abstract

The ratio of the $`B^+B^{}`$ and $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ production rates in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation is computed as a function of the $`B`$ meson velocity and $`BB^{}\pi `$ coupling constant, using a non-relativistic effective field theory.

The dominant production mechanism for $`B`$ mesons at CLEO, BaBar and Belle is via the $`P`$-wave decay of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ state, $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B\overline{B}`$. The final state can contain either charged ($`B^+B^{}`$) or neutral ($`B^0\overline{B}^0`$) mesons, and the ratio of charged to neutral $`B`$ mesons produced enters many $`B`$ decay analyses, including studies of CP violation. We will define the ratio

$`R^{+/0}=1+\delta R^{+/0}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B^+B^{}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B^0\overline{B}^0\right)}},`$ (1)
which is unity in the absence of isospin violation. The experimental value measured by the BaBar Collaboration is $`R^{+/0}=1.10\pm 0.06\pm 0.05`$ babar , and by the CLEO collaboration is $`1.04\pm 0.07\pm 0.04`$ CLEO1  and $`1.058\pm 0.084\pm 0.136`$ CLEO2 .

Isospin violation is due to electromagnetic interactions, and due to the mass difference of the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks. In most cases, isospin violation is at the level of a few percent. However, it is possible that there can be significant isospin violation in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ decay atwood ; lepage ; byers . The $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ is barely above $`B\overline{B}`$ threshold; the $`B`$ mesons are produced with a momentum $`p_B338`$ MeV and velocity $`v/c=0.064`$ \[using $`M_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)}=10.58`$ GeV, $`M_B=5.2792`$ GeV\], so that the final state is non-relativistic. The electromagnetic contribution to $`R^{+/0}`$ is a function of $`v`$ and the fine-structure constant $`\alpha `$. In the non-relativistic limit, there are $`1/v`$ enhancements, and the leading contribution is a function of $`\alpha /v`$,

$`R^{+/0}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha /v}{1e^{\pi \alpha /v}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{4v^2}}\right)=1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha }{2v}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{v^2}}\right),`$ (2)
and can be obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation in a Coulomb potential for a $`P`$-wave final state schiff . Corrections to this result are suppressed by powers of $`\alpha `$ without any $`1/v`$ enhancements. For $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decay, this gives $`R^{+/0}=1.19`$, a significant enhancement of the charged/neutral ratio atwood ; lepage ; byers .

Lepage lepage  computed corrections to Eq. (2) by assuming a form-factor at the meson-photon vertex, and found that $`\delta R^{+/0}`$ could be significantly reduced from $`0.19`$, or even change sign. Recent advances in the study of heavy quark systems and non-relativistic bound states allow us to improve on this estimate of $`\delta R^{+/0}`$. Since the final state $`B`$ mesons are non-relativistic, and have low momentum, the final state interactions of the $`B`$ meson can be treated using non-relativistic field theory combined with chiral perturbation theory luke . At momentum transfers smaller than the scale of chiral symmetry breaking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi 1`$ GeV amhg , the photon vertex can be treated as pointlike. The $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ states have a mass splitting of $`45.78\pm 0.35`$ MeV, which is small compared with the momentum $`p_B`$ of the $`B`$ meson, so the $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ must both be included in the effective theory. Since $`p_B`$ is much smaller than the mass of the $`b`$-quark, heavy quark spin symmetry holds falk ; Bc , and one can treat the $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ as one multiplet described by the $`H^{(b)}`$ field of HQET book . Similarly, the $`\overline{B}`$ and $`\overline{B}^{}`$ can be combined into a $`H^{(\overline{b})}`$ field, whose properties are related to those of $`H^{(b)}`$ by charge conjugation gjmsw . At low velocities, the dominant isospin violation is that enhanced by factors of $`1/v`$, which is obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation with the $`H^{(b)}H^{(\overline{b})}`$ interaction potential. The NRQCD counting rules bbl  show that $`B\overline{B}`$ annnihilation is suppressed, and can be neglected. At low momentum transfer, the $`H^{(b)}H^{(\overline{b})}`$ potential is dominated by single-pion exchange. Isospin violation in the potential arises from Coulomb photon exchange, and from isospin violation in the pion sector due to the $`\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ mass difference and $`\eta \pi ^0`$ mixing.

In perturbation theory, the first contribution to $`\delta R^{+/0}`$ is from the graphs in Fig. 1.

The one-loop photon graph gives the $`\pi \alpha /2v`$ term in Eq. (2). It is enhanced by $`\pi ^2/v`$ compared with a typical relativistic radiative correction, which is of order $`\alpha /\pi `$, because of the non-relativistic nature of the integral. The one-loop pion graph is similarly enhanced by $`\pi ^2/v150`$ compared with a typical chiral loop correction. As a result, the correction from Fig. 1(b) is not small, and cannot be treated in perturbation theory. However, it is possible to sum the multiple pion exchanges by solving the Schrödinger equation using the one-pion plus one-photon exchange potential. This sums the series of graphs shown in Fig. 2.

Additional corrections, such as vertex corrections, are not included in the Schrödinger equation. However, these corrections are not enhanced by $`\pi ^2/v`$, and so are subleading compared with the terms we have retained.

The $`H^{(b)}H^{(\overline{b})}`$ interaction potential is the same as the $`H^{(b)}H^{(b)}`$ potential (by charge conjugation symmetry), and was computed in Ref. exotic  which studied $`bbqq`$ exotic states. The potential depends on the $`B^{}B\pi `$ coupling constant $`g`$ which is not known. Heavy quark symmetry implies that $`g`$ is the same as the $`D^{}D\pi `$ coupling. The $`D^{}`$ can decay into $`D\pi `$ (via the coupling $`g`$) or $`D\gamma `$ (via electromagnetic interactions), and the decay rates can be used to obtain $`g`$ amundson ; cho . A fit to the experimental data gives two possible solutions, $`g=0.27_{0.02}^{+0.04}_{0.02}^{+0.05}`$ or $`g=0.76_{0.03}^{+0.03}_{0.1}^{+0.2}`$ is , with the smaller value being preferred. A recent measurement of the $`D^+`$ width by the CLEO collaboration gives $`g=0.59\pm 0.01\pm 0.07`$ gCLEO . We will give our results as a function of $`g`$.

The $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ is a $`1^{}`$ state, and can decay into five possible channels, (i) $`B\overline{B}`$ with $`S=0`$, $`\mathrm{}=1`$, (ii) $`B^{}\overline{B}^{}`$ with $`S=0`$, $`\mathrm{}=1`$, (iii) $`B^{}\overline{B}^{}`$ with $`S=2`$, $`\mathrm{}=1`$, (iv) $`B^{}\overline{B}^{}`$ with $`S=2`$, $`\mathrm{}=3`$ and (v) $`B\overline{B}^{}+B^{}\overline{B}`$ with $`S=1`$, $`\mathrm{}=1`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the orbital angular momentum and $`S`$ is the total spin. Since the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ is below $`BB^{}`$ and $`B^{}B^{}`$ threshold, only the first state is allowed as a final state, but all five states need to be included as intermediate states in the calculation. \[The actual number of states is double this, since one has both charged and neutral channels.\] Let $`\eta ,\beta =15`$ denote one of the five possible $`\mathrm{}S`$ states and $`a,b=1,2`$ denote the charged and neutral sectors, respectively, so that a given channel is labeled by the index pairs $`\eta a`$ or $`\beta b`$. The radial Schrödinger equation has the potential

$`V_{\eta a,\beta b}^\pi (r)+V_{\eta a,\beta b}^\gamma (r)+V_{\eta a,\beta b}^{\mathrm{}}(r)+M_\eta \delta _{\eta \beta }\delta _{a,b}`$ (3)
where $`V^\pi `$ is the pion potential, $`V^\gamma `$ is the Coulomb potential, $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the angular momentum potential, and $`M_\eta `$ is the contribution due to the $`B^{}B`$ mass difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$,

$`M_1=0,M_5=\mathrm{\Delta }m,`$
$`M_2=M_3=M_4=2\mathrm{\Delta }m.`$ (4)
The $`B^0B^+`$ mass difference is $`0.33\pm 0.28`$ MeV pdg , and will be neglected in our analysis. Note that a $`B^0B^+`$ mass difference of $`0.33`$ MeV contributes about $`0.05`$ to $`\delta R^{+/0}`$ from the $`p^3`$ dependence of the phase space of the $`P`$-wave decay.

The angular momentum potential is

$`V_{\eta a,\beta b}^{\mathrm{}}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_\eta (\mathrm{}_\eta +1)}{m_Br^2}}\delta _{a,b}\delta _{\eta \beta }`$ (5)
where $`\mathrm{}_\eta =(1,1,1,3,1)`$ are the angular momenta of the various channels. The denominator is $`m_B`$ since $`m_B/2`$ is the reduced mass of the $`B\overline{B}`$. The Coulomb potential is

$`V_{\eta a,\beta b}^\gamma (r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r}}\delta _{\eta \beta }\delta _{a1}\delta _{b1},`$ (6)
where $`\alpha `$ is the fine-structure constant. It only contributes to the charged sector $`a=b=1`$, and does not mix different $`\mathrm{}S`$ states.

The pion potential can be computed using the techniques given in Ref. exotic ; largen ; ej :

$`V_{\eta a,\beta b}^\pi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}h_+^2U_{\eta \beta }(m_{\pi ^0},r)& 2U_{\eta \beta }(m_{\pi ^+},r)\\ 2U_{\eta \beta }(m_{\pi ^+},r)& h_0^2U_{\eta \beta }(m_{\pi ^0},r)\end{array}\right]_{ab}`$ (9)
where $`h_+^2=1.01`$, $`h_0^2=0.99`$ ej . The structure of the potential is easy to understand. The off-diagonal elements are transition amplitudes between the charged and neutral sectors due to $`\pi ^+`$ exchange, and depend on the charged pion mass $`m_{\pi ^+}`$ and coupling constant $`g`$, which is included in the definition of $`U`$. The diagonal matrix elements are due to $`\pi ^0`$ exchange, and depend on $`m_{\pi ^0}`$. In the absence of $`\eta \pi ^0`$ mixing, the $`\pi ^+`$ coupling constant is $`\sqrt{2}`$ time the $`\pi ^0`$ coupling which gives the $`2:1`$ ratio of the off-diagonal to diagonal elements. The values of $`h_+`$ and $`h_0`$ differ from unity due to $`\eta \pi ^0`$ mixing ej .

The computation of the matrix $`U_{\eta \beta }(m_\pi ,r)`$ is non-trivial. The answer is that

$`U(m,r)=T\stackrel{~}{U}(m,r)T^t`$ (10)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{U}(m,r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2m^2e^{mr}}{8\pi f^2r}}\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& u_1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& u_2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& u_2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& u_1\end{array}\right],`$ (16)
$`u_1(m,r)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{mr}}\right)^2,`$
$`u_2(m,r)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{mr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m^2r^2}}\right),`$ (17)
$`f132`$ MeV is the pion decay constant and

$`T=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& 0\\ 0& \frac{2}{\sqrt{15}}& \sqrt{\frac{3}{10}}& \sqrt{\frac{2}{15}}& \sqrt{\frac{3}{10}}\\ 0& \sqrt{\frac{2}{5}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),`$ (23)
and $`T^t`$ is the transpose of $`T`$.

Equation (9) is the leading contribution to the long distance part of the potential. As argued in Ref. exotic , Eq. (9) will dominate the potential until $`r1/(2m_\pi )`$ at which point two-pion exchange begins to contribute. We introduce a cutoff $`r_{\text{min}}=1/(2m_\pi )`$, and use Eq. (9) for $`rr_{\text{min}}`$, and set $`V^\pi =0`$ for $`r<r_{\text{min}}`$. The short distance part of the potential can be included into a renormalization of the production vertex. The Coulomb potential will be allowed to act until $`r=0`$.

The $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ is produced by the space component of the electromagnetic current $`\overline{b}\gamma ^ib`$. Heavy quark spin symmetry holds in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ system falk ; Bc , so the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decays into $`H^{(b)}H^{(\overline{b})}`$ such that the spins of the heavy quarks in the final mesons are combined to form the spin of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$, i.e. the polarization of the virtual photon. The orbital angular momentum and spin of the light degrees of freedom are combined to form total angular momentum zero. A little Clebsch-Gordan algebra shows that the amplitude for the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ to decay into the five channels is falk

$`A_{\eta a}=c_a({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}},{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{3}},0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}})_\eta .`$ (24)
The amplitude for decay to the $`\mathrm{}=3`$ channel is zero to this order in the velocity expansion. The coefficients $`c_a,a=1,2`$ are unknown, but the absolute values of $`c_a`$ are irrelevant for the computation of $`R^{+/0}`$; all that is needed is the ratio $`c_1/c_2`$ of the charged to neutral production amplitudes. The dominant production of the $`B`$ mesons is via the isosinglet $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ state, in which case $`c_1=c_2`$. Isospin violating effects, including direct production of $`B`$’s not via the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ lead to a deviation of $`c_1/c_2`$ from unity. As discussed above, cutoff effects in the potential can be absorbed into the production amplitudes $`c_a`$. One expects short-distance corrections to introduce isospin violation in the ratio $`c_1/c_2`$ of a few percent, the typical size of other isospin violating effects in hadron physics. We will define $`\delta c`$ by $`c_1/c_2=1+\delta c`$. The value of $`\delta c`$ is related to the value of $`r_{\text{min}}`$, since changes in the cutoff induce changes in the Lagrangian coefficients. Since $`\delta c`$ is unknown, our computation of $`R^{+/0}`$ is uncertain at the 5% level; however the uncertainity is much smaller than the expectation that $`\delta R^{+/0}`$ is 19% from Coulomb interactions alone. Cutting off the Coulomb potential at short distances reduces the value of $`\delta R^{+/0}`$. Since the Coulomb potential is the dominant source of isospin violation, one expects that $`\delta c`$ will be negative.

The method of computation is as follows. One solves the Schrödinger equation with potential Eq. (9). The boundary condition on the wavefunction as $`r\mathrm{}`$ is that one has a plane wave plus an outgoing scattered wave. \[One can see this directly from the sum of graphs in Fig. 2.\] Only the $`B^+B^{}`$ and $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ states exist as propagating modes as $`r\mathrm{}`$; the other channels have exponentially decaying wavefunctions. The plane wave state is chosen to be in the $`B^+B^{}`$ or $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ channels to compute the charged or neutral meson production rates, respectively. The overlap of the computed wavefunction as $`r0`$ with the production amplitude Eq. (24) gives the final production amplitude, the absolute square of which gives the production rate. \[Note that the wavefunction near $`r=0`$ can have all five channels.\] The answer for $`R^{+/0}`$ depends on $`\delta c`$, $`g`$ and the velocity $`v`$ of the outgoing $`B`$ meson. Provided the dominant production mechanism is via the photon coupling to the heavy quark, the result for $`R^{+/0}`$ holds even away from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance since it depends only on the quarks being non-relativistic. The value of $`c_a`$ will depend strongly on the beam energy, and peak at the resonance, but $`\delta c`$, the isospin violation in the production amplitude should be a smooth function of energy.

In Fig. 3 we have plotted $`R^{+/0}`$ as a function of $`g`$ for $`\delta c`$ and $`v=0.064`$, the value in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decay.

$`R^{+/0}`$ is approximately constant and equal to its value from only Coulomb corrections, Eq. (9), until $`g>0.6`$, at which point $`R^{+/0}`$ starts to decrease. $`R^{+/0}`$ is approximately constant for small $`g`$ even though the shifts in the production amplitudes are large. The one-loop pion graph in Fig. 1 is about three times the tree-level graph. Summing the pion graphs in Fig. 2 gives about a 20% (for $`g0.6`$) shift in the charged and neutral production rates. The rates into the charged and neutral channels vary by about a factor of two for the range of Yukawa couplings in Fig. 3, but their ratio $`R^{+/0}`$ varies by about 10%. For larger values of $`g`$ than those shown, $`R^{+/0}`$ has rapid $`v`$ dependence due to the formation of meson bound states, because the pion-exchange potential is sufficiently attractive. For our choice of parameters, this occurs for $`g1.3`$, well outside the allowed range is ; gCLEO .

In Fig. 4 and 5, we have plotted $`R^{+/0}`$ as a function of velocity for different values of $`\delta c`$ for two illustrative choices $`g=0.3`$ and $`g=0.8`$ consistent with the two solutions for $`g`$ found in Ref. is . The vertical line is the velocity at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$.

At the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ peak, for $`g=0.8`$, $`R^{+/0}`$ varies from $`1.17`$ to about $`1.09`$, whereas for $`g=0.3`$, $`R^{+/0}`$ varies between about $`1.25`$ and $`1.1`$.

In Figs. 6 and 7, we have plotted $`R^{+/0}`$ as a function of $`v`$ for $`g=0.3`$ and $`g=0.8`$, respectively, for different values of the cutoff from $`r_{\text{min}}=1/(2m_\pi )`$ to $`1/m_\pi `$. For small values of $`g`$, the variation of the cutoff does not change $`R^{+/0}`$. For larger values of $`g`$, the cutoff variation is consistent with expectations from naive dimensional analysis amhg . A factor of two variation in the cutoff introduces a $`4\%`$ variation in $`R^{+/0}`$.

The absolute value of $`R^{+/0}`$ depends on the value of $`\delta c`$, and the cutoff $`r_{\text{min}}`$. If $`g`$ is small ($`0.3`$, the preferred value in Ref. is ), then for values of $`\delta c`$ consistent with expectations from dimensional analysis, one expects $`\delta R^{+/0}0.1`$. The Yukawa corrections do not significantly change $`R^{+/0}`$ from the Coulomb value. We note, however, that this is due to a cancellation in $`R^{+/0}`$ after summing the graphs in Fig. 2; the one loop pion correction from Fig. 1 is about three, and is not small. If $`g`$ is close to the larger value $`g=0.8`$, then $`\delta R^{+/0}`$ at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ is smaller, but still around $`0.1`$. In this case, there is some cutoff dependence, so $`R^{+/0}`$ is more uncertain.

The dependence of $`R^{+/0}`$ on $`v`$ (or equivalently, $`\sqrt{s}`$) is calculable. One can see that the curves in Fig. 4 have a different shape from those in Fig. 5, so measuring $`R^{+/0}`$ as a function of $`v`$ can provide information on the $`B^{}B\pi `$ and $`D^{}D\pi `$ coupling $`g`$, which is needed for many calculations, such as the ratio of the $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ to $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing amplitudes gjmsw .

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank S. Fleming and V. Sharma for discussions. This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under grants DOE-FG03-97ER40546, DE-FG02-96ER40945 and DE-AC05-84ER40150. RK was supported by Schweizerischer Nationalfonds.