text:
# 1 𝐹(𝜃)=𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃

I. Introduction

General covariance and the notion of absolute parallelism of vector fields in space-time are the two major geometrical concepts of teleparallel theories of gravity. Møller was probably the first to make use of the concept of absolute parallelism to put forward an alternative geometrical framework for general relativity that could satisfactorily address the problem of the definition of the gravitational energy.

The idea of absolute parallelism can be established by considering a space-time vector field $`V^\mu (x)`$ and a set of orthonormal tetrad fields $`e_\mu ^a(x)`$. At the space-time point $`x^\lambda `$ the tetrad components of the vector field are given by $`V^a(x)=e_\mu ^a(x)V^\mu (x)`$, and at $`x^\lambda +dx^\lambda `$ by $`V^a(x+dx)=e_\mu ^a(x+dx)V^\mu (x+dx)=V^a(x)+DV^a(x)`$, where $`DV^a(x)=e_\mu ^a(_\lambda V^\mu )dx^\lambda `$. The covariant derivative $``$ is constructed out of the connection

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda =e^{a\lambda }_\mu e_{a\nu }.$$
$`(1)`$
The vector field $`V^\mu (x)`$ is said to be autoparallel if its tetrad components at distant points coincide. Thus $`V^\mu (x)`$ is autoparallel if $`_\lambda V^\mu `$ vanishes. Therefore connection (1) defines a condition for absolute parallelism, or teleparallelism, in space-time. Such connection only makes sense if the tetrad field transforms under the global SO(3,1) group.

A gravity theory based on (1) obviously depart from the Riemannian geometry because the curvature tensor constructed out of it vanishes identically. Inspite of this fact, there does exist a theory based on (1) that describes the dynamics of the gravitational field in agreement with Einstein’s general relativity. Møller called such theory the “tetrad theory of gravity”, but for a long time it has been known as the teleparallel equivalent of general relativity (TEGR). The Lagrangian density for this alternative description of general relativity is constructed by means of a quadratic combination of the torsion tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu e_\nu ^a_\nu e_\mu ^a`$, which is related to the antisymmetric part of connection (1).

It is possible to establish a theory for the gravitational field directly from (1). However, in order to make contact with more recent analysis, it is instructive to approach the TEGR firstly considering it with a local SO(3,1) symmetry in the Lagrangian context. Eventually we will return to the geometrical framework determined by (1).

Although not extensively investigated in the literature, the TEGR in Lagrangian form has been considered as a viable formulation of the gravitational dynamics inspite of troubles that may spoil the initial value problem. Such problems take place if the Lagrangian density of the TEGR is formulated with a local SO(3,1) symmetry, in which case the torsion tensor is defined by $`T_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu e_\nu ^a_\nu e_\mu ^a+\omega _\mu ^a{}_{b}{}^{}e_{\nu }^{b}\omega _\nu ^a{}_{b}{}^{}e_{\mu }^{b}`$. The spin connection $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$ is totally independent of $`e_\mu ^a`$ and satisfies the condition of vanishing curvature: $`R_{b\mu \nu }^a(\omega )0`$.

In order to solve problems with respect to the initial value problem, the Hamiltonian formulation of the TEGR with the local SO(3,1) symmetry was considered. By working out the constraint algebra one ultimately concludes that in order to formulate consistently the theory in terms of first class constraints it is mandatory to break the local SO(3) symmetry of the action in Hamiltonian form. Therefore a consistent Hamiltonian formulation of the theory displays invariance under the global SO(3) group that acts on triads restricted to three-dimensional spacelike hypersurfaces.

The major feature of the Hamiltonian formulation of the TEGR is that the integral form of the Hamiltonian constraint equation can be written as an energy equation of the type $`C=HE=0`$. The reason for this follows from the fact that the Hamiltonian constraint contains a scalar density in the form of a total divergence, whose integral over the whole three-dimensional hypersurface yields the ADM energy. As we will argue, the integral of this scalar density over finite volumes of the three-dimensional hypersurface yields a natural definition for the gravitational field energy. Therefore in the TEGR one can make definite statements about the localizability of the gravitational energy, inspite of claims according to which the latter is not localizable. In fact the very concept of a black hole lends support to the idea that the gravitational energy is localizable, since there is no process by means of which the gravitational mass inside a black hole can be made to vanish. A remarkable application of the energy expression of the TEGR has been made in the evaluation of the irreducible mass of a rotating black hole.

The TEGR exhibits two specific properties: the emergence of a possible definition for the gravitational field energy and the global SO(3) symmetry of the theory. We believe that these two features are intimately related. Since the symmetry of the theory is global, triads related by a local SO(3) transformation are inequivalent and a priori we have no means to select the one that actually describes the spacelike hypersurface. We conjecture that the requirement of a minimum gravitational energy for a given space volume is one condition that singles out uniquely the correct set of triads. In this paper we investigate this conjecture in the realistic context of Bondi’s radiating metric. This conjecture was already put forward in a previous investigation of Bondi’s energy in the framework of the TEGR. An additional, essential requirement for a consistent expression of the gravitational energy is the boundary conditions on the triads. It was noted that the ADM energy is obtained from the energy expression of the TEGR if the asymptotic behaviour of the triads at spacelike infinity is given by

$$e_{(i)j}\eta _{ij}+\frac{1}{2}h_{ij}(\frac{1}{r}),$$
$`(2)`$
irrespective of any symmetry of the tensor $`h_{ij}`$.

A second possible, independent condition for assigning a set of triads to a given three-dimensional metric tensor amounts to requiring a symmetric tensor $`h_{ij}=h_{ji}`$ in the asymptotic expansion of $`e_{(i)j}`$. We will prove that this symmetry condition uniquely associates $`e_{(i)j}`$ to the metric tensor of the spacelike hypersurface of Bondi’s metric. The unique character of such triads strongly supports this second conjecture.

The two conjectures above are not mutually excluding. In this paper we argue that the set of triads that yield the minimum gravitational energy within a space volume containing the radiating source is the one whose asymptotic behaviour is determined by the symmetry condition $`h_{ij}=h_{ji}`$. We will show that this fact is indeed verified by analyzing several configurations for the triads. Unfortunately we have not found it possible to prove on general grounds that the “symmetrized” triad yields the minimum energy.

In order to obtain numerical values for the gravitational energy for a finite three-dimensional volume of Bondi’s space-time we need an explicit expression of the news function. However the existing expressions in the literature are not suitable for our purposes. In particular, the expression of the news function given by Hobill (to be presented ahead) is very intricate to the extent of not allowing a computer evaluation of numerical values of the gravitational energy. Therefore we have obtained an original and simpler expression for the news function that: (i) satisfies all necessary regularity conditions related to the axial symmetry of the system, (ii) makes the initial and final states (space-times) described by Bondi’s metric to be nonradiative and (iii) yields an expression for the energy density that can be numerically integrated.

In Section II we describe the TEGR in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations, show the emergence of the definition of the gravitional energy and further discuss the troubles that arise in the initial value problem of the theory if it is constructed with a local SO(3,1) symmetry. In section III we present Bondi’s radiating metric and three expressions for triads restricted to the three-dimensional spacelike hypersurface. In this section we also prove that the symmetry condition $`h_{ij}=h_{ji}`$ uniquely associates a set of triads (whose asymptotic behaviour is given by (2)) with the metric tensor for the spacelike section of asymptotically flat space-times. The news function and the related mass aspect that will be needed for the calculations of the gravitational energy are obtained in section IV. In section V we carry out several calculations that lead to the main conclusion regarding the selection of triads.

Notation: spacetime indices $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ and local Lorentz indices $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ run from 0 to 3. In the 3+1 decomposition latin indices from the middle of the alphabet indicate space indices according to $`\mu =0,i,a=(0),(i)`$. The tetrad field $`e_\mu ^a`$ and the spin connection $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$ yield the usual definitions of the torsion and curvature tensors: $`R_{b\mu \nu }^a=_\mu \omega _\nu ^a{}_{b}{}^{}+\omega _\mu ^a{}_{c}{}^{}\omega _{\nu }^{c}{}_{b}{}^{}\mathrm{}`$, $`T_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu e_\nu ^a+\omega _\mu ^a{}_{b}{}^{}e_{\nu }^{b}\mathrm{}`$. The flat space-time metric is fixed by $`\eta _{(0)(0)}=1`$.

II. The Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of the TEGR

The Lagrangian density of the TEGR in empty space-time, displaying a local SO(3,1) symmetry, is given by

$$L(e,\omega ,\lambda )=ke(\frac{1}{4}T^{abc}T_{abc}+\frac{1}{2}T^{abc}T_{bac}T^aT_a)+e\lambda ^{ab\mu \nu }R_{ab\mu \nu }(\omega ).$$
$`(3)`$
where $`k=\frac{1}{16\pi G}`$, $`G`$ is the gravitational constant; $`e=det(e_\mu ^a)`$, $`\lambda ^{ab\mu \nu }`$ are Lagrange multipliers and $`T_a`$ is the trace of the torsion tensor defined by $`T_a=T_{ba}^b`$. The tetrad field $`e_{a\mu }`$ and the spin connection $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$ are completely independent field variables. The latter is enforced to satisfy the condition of zero curvature. Therefore this Lagrangian formulation is in no way similar to the usual Palatini formulation, in which the spin connection is related to the tetrad field via field equations. Later on we will introduce the tensor $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{abc}`$ defined by

$$\frac{1}{4}T^{abc}T_{abc}+\frac{1}{2}T^{abc}T_{bac}T^aT_aT^{abc}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{abc}.$$

The equivalence of the TEGR with Einstein’s general relativity is based on the identity

$$eR(e,\omega )=eR(e)+e(\frac{1}{4}T^{abc}T_{abc}+\frac{1}{2}T^{abc}T_{bac}T^aT_a)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_\mu (eT^\mu ),$$

which is obtained by just substituting the arbitrary spin connection $`\omega _{\mu ab}=^o\omega _{\mu ab}(e)+K_{\mu ab}`$ in the scalar curvature tensor $`R(e,\omega )`$ in the left hand side; $`{}_{}{}^{o}\omega _{\mu ab}^{}(e)`$ is the Levi-Civita connection and $`K_{\mu ab}=\frac{1}{2}e_a^\lambda e_b^\nu (T_{\lambda \mu \nu }+T_{\nu \lambda \mu }T_{\mu \nu \lambda })`$ is the contorsion tensor. The vanishing of $`R_{b\mu \nu }^a(\omega )`$, which is one of the field equations derived from (3), implies the equivalence of the scalar curvature $`R(e)`$, constructed out of $`e_\mu ^a`$ only, and the quadratic combination of the torsion tensor. It also ensures that the field equation arising from the variation of $`L`$ with respect to $`e_\mu ^a`$ is strictly equivalent to Einstein’s equations in tetrad form. Let $`\frac{\delta L}{\delta e^{a\mu }}=0`$ denote the field equations satisfied by $`e^{a\mu }`$. It can be shown by explicit calculations that

$$\frac{\delta L}{\delta e^{a\mu }}=\frac{1}{2}e\{R_{a\mu }(e)\frac{1}{2}e_{a\mu }R(e)\}.$$
$`(4)`$
We refer the reader to Ref.  for additional details.

Throughout this section we will be interested in asymptoticaly flat space-times. The Hamiltonian formulation of the TEGR can be successfully implemented if we fix the gauge $`\omega _{0ab}=0`$ from the outset, since in this case the constraints (to be shown below) constitute a first class set. The condition $`\omega _{0ab}=0`$ is achieved by breaking the local Lorentz symmetry of (3). We still make use of the residual time independent gauge symmetry to fix the usual time gauge condition $`e_{(k)}^0=e_{(0)i}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Because of $`\omega _{0ab}=0`$, $`H`$ does not depend on $`P^{kab}`$, the momentum canonically conjugated to $`\omega _{kab}`$. Therefore arbitrary variations of $`L=p\dot{q}H`$ with respect to $`P^{kab}`$ yields $`\dot{\omega }_{kab}=0`$. Thus in view of $`\omega _{0ab}=0`$, $`\omega _{kab}`$ drops out from our considerations.

As a consequence of the above gauge fixing the canonical action integral obtained from (3) becomes

$$A_{TL}=d^4x\{\mathrm{\Pi }^{(j)k}\dot{e}_{(j)k}H\},$$
$`(5)`$
$$H=NC+N^iC_i+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{mn}\mathrm{\Pi }^{mn}+\frac{1}{8\pi G}_k(NeT^k)+_k(\mathrm{\Pi }^{jk}N_j).$$
$`(6)`$
$`N`$ and $`N^i`$ are the lapse and shift functions, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{mn}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{nm}`$ are Lagrange multipliers. The constraints are defined by

$$C=_j(2keT^j)ke\mathrm{\Sigma }^{kij}T_{kij}\frac{1}{4ke}(\mathrm{\Pi }^{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ji}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^2),$$
$`(7a)`$
$$C_k=e_{(j)k}_i\mathrm{\Pi }^{(j)i}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(j)i}T_{(j)ik},$$
$`(7b)`$
where $`e=det(e_{(j)k})`$, $`T^i=g^{ik}e^{(j)l}T_{(j)lk}`$, $`T_{(i)jk}=_je_{(i)k}_ke_{(i)j}`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ijk}=\frac{1}{4}(T^{ijk}+T^{jik}T^{kij})+\frac{1}{2}(\eta ^{ik}T^j\eta ^{ij}T^k).$$

We remark that (5) and (6) are now invariant under global SO(3) and general coordinate transformations. Therefore the torsion tensor restricted to the three-dimensional spacelike hypersurface is ultimately related to the antisymmetric part of the spatial components of (1). Had we dispensed with the connection $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$ from the outset we would have arrived at precisely the canonical formulation determined by (5), (6) and (7). Such connection has been considered in previous investigations of teleparallel theories, but in fact it is eventually unnecessary for the establishment of the theory.

If we assume the asymptotic behaviour

$$e_{(j)k}\eta _{jk}+\frac{1}{2}h_{jk}(\frac{1}{r})$$
$`(2)`$
for $`r\mathrm{}`$, then in view of the relation

$$\frac{1}{8\pi G}d^3x_j(eT^j)=\frac{1}{16\pi G}_S𝑑S_k(_ih_{ik}_kh_{ii})E_{ADM}$$
$`(8a)`$
where the surface integral is evaluated for $`r\mathrm{}`$, the integral form of the Hamiltonian constraint $`C=0`$ may be rewritten as

$$d^3x\left\{ke\mathrm{\Sigma }^{kij}T_{kij}+\frac{1}{4ke}(\mathrm{\Pi }^{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ji}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^2)\right\}=E_{ADM}.$$
$`(8b)`$
The integration is over the whole three-dimensional space. Given that $`_j(eT^j)`$ is a scalar density, from (8a,b) we define the gravitational energy density enclosed by a volume V of the space as

$$E=\frac{1}{8\pi G}_Vd^3x_j(eT^j).$$
$`(9)`$
It must be noted that $`E`$ depends only on the triads $`e_{(k)i}`$ restricted to a three-dimensional spacelike hypersurface; the inverse quantities $`e^{(k)i}`$ can be written in terms of $`e_{(k)i}`$. From the right hand side of equation (4) we observe that the dynamics of the triads does not depend on $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$. Therefore $`E`$ given above does not depend on the fixation of any gauge for $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$. The reference space which defines the zero of gravitational energy has been defined in ref.. We briefly remark that the differences between (9) and Møller’s expression for the gravitational energy have been thoroughly discussed in ref..

We make now the important assumption that the general form of the canonical structure of the TEGR is the same for any class of space-times, irrespective of the peculiarities of the latter (for the de Sitter space, for example, there is an additional term in the Hamiltonian constraint $`C`$). Therefore we assert that the integral form of the Hamiltonian constraint equation can be written as $`C=HE=0`$ for any space-time, and that (9) represents the gravitational energy for arbitrary space-times with any topology.

We recall finally that Müller-Hoissen and Nitsch and Kopczyński have shown that in general the theory defined by (3) faces difficulties with respect to the Cauchy problem. They have shown that in general six components of the torsion tensor are not determined from the evolution of the initial data. On the other hand, the constraints of the theory constitute a first class set provided we fix the six quantities $`\omega _{0ab}=0`$ before varying the action. This condition is mandatory and does not merely represent one particular gauge fixing of the theory. Since the fixing of $`\omega _{0ab}`$ yields a well defined theory with first class constraints, we cannot assert that the field configurations of the latter are gauge equivalent to configurations whose time evolution is not precisely determined. The requirement of local SO(3,1) symmetry plus the addition of $`\lambda ^{ab\mu \nu }R_{ab\mu \nu }(\omega )`$ in (3) has the ultimate effect of discarding the connection.

Constant rotations constitute a basic feature of the teleparallel geometry. According to Møller, in the framework of the abolute parallelism tetrad fields, together with the boundary conditions, uniquely determine a tetrad lattice, apart from an arbitrary constant rotation of the tetrads in the lattice.

III. Bondi’s radiating metric and the associated triads.

Bondi’s metric describes the asymptotic form of a radiating solution of Einstein’s equations. It is not an exact solution; it holds only in the asymptotic region. In terms of radiation coordinates $`(u,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$, where $`u`$ is the retarded time and $`r`$ is the luminosity distance, Bondi’s metric is written as

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{V}{r}e^{2\beta }U^2r^2e^{2\gamma }\right)du^22e^{2\beta }dudr2Ur^2e^{2\gamma }dud\theta $$

$$+r^2\left(e^{2\gamma }d\theta ^2+e^{2\gamma }sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right).$$
$`(10)`$
This metric tensor displays axial symmetry and reflection invariance. By requiring $`u=constant`$, (10) describes null hypersurfaces. Each null radial (light) ray is labelled by particular values of $`u,\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$. At spacelike infinity $`u`$ takes the standard form $`u=tr`$. The four quantities appearing in (10), $`V,U,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are functions of $`u,r`$ and $`\theta `$. A more general form of this metric has been given by Sachs, who showed that the most general metric tensor describing asymptotically flat gravitational waves depends on six functions of the coordinates.

The functions in (10) have the following asymptotic behaviour:

$$\beta =\frac{c^2}{4r^2}+\mathrm{}$$

$$\gamma =\frac{c}{r}+O(\frac{1}{r^3})+\mathrm{}$$

$$\frac{V}{r}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\frac{2M}{r}\frac{1}{r^2}\left[\frac{d}{\theta }+dcot\theta \left(\frac{c}{\theta }\right)^24c\left(\frac{c}{\theta }\right)cot\theta \frac{1}{2}c^2\left(1+8cot^2\theta \right)\right]+\mathrm{}$$

$$U=\frac{1}{r^2}\left(\frac{c}{\theta }+2ccot\theta \right)+\frac{1}{r^3}\left(2d+3c\frac{c}{\theta }+4c^2cot\theta \right)+\mathrm{}$$

where $`M=M(u,\theta )`$ and $`d=d(u,\theta )`$ are the mass aspect and the dipole aspect, respectively. From the function $`c(u,\theta )`$ we define the news function $`\frac{c(u,\theta )}{u}`$.

The functions $`U,V,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ must satisfy regularity conditions along the $`z`$ axis ($`\theta =0,\pi `$). We must require

$$V,\beta ,\frac{U}{sin\theta },\frac{\gamma }{sin^2\theta }$$

to be regular functions of $`cos\theta `$ for $`\theta =0,\pi `$. The regularity conditions will be necessary for the construction of the news function, in section IV.

The application of (9) to Bondi’s metric requires transforming it to spherical coordinates ($`t,r,\theta ,\varphi `$) for which $`t=constant`$ defines a space-like hypersurface. Therefore we carry out a coordinate transformation such that the new timelike coordinate is given by $`t=u+r`$. We arrive at

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{V}{r}e^{2\beta }U^2r^2e^{2\gamma }\right)dt^22Ur^2e^{2\gamma }dtd\theta $$

$$+2\left[e^{2\beta }\left(\frac{V}{r}1\right)U^2r^2e^{2\gamma }\right]drdt$$

$$+\left[e^{2\beta }\left(2\frac{V}{r}\right)+U^2r^2e^{2\gamma }\right]dr^2+2Ur^2e^{2\gamma }drd\theta +r^2\left(e^{2\gamma }d\theta ^2+e^{2\gamma }sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right).$$
$`(11)`$
Therefore the metric restricted to a three-dimensional spacelike hypersurface is given by

$$ds^2=\left[e^{2\beta }\left(2\frac{V}{r}\right)+U^2r^2e^{2\gamma }\right]dr^2+2Ur^2e^{2\gamma }drd\theta $$

$$+r^2\left(e^{2\gamma }d\theta ^2+e^{2\gamma }sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right).$$
$`(12)`$
We recall that Goldberg and Papapetrou have already considered Bondi’s metric in cartesian coordinates.

The crucial point of the present investigation is the determination, in the framework of the TEGR, of the correct set of triads that lead to (12). If the metric tensor has only diagonal components, such as the metric tensor restricted to the three-dimensional spacelike section of Kerr’s space-time, then the simplest construction has proven to be the correct one. However, for metric tensors that contain off-diagonal terms, the determination of the unique triad is by no means a trivial procedure. In fact there is an infinity of triads that satisfy the boundary conditions determined by (2) and lead to (12). In Ref.  two sets of triads that comply with (2) are presented. They are given by

$$e_{(k)i}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}Asin\theta cos\varphi +Bcos\theta cos\varphi & rCcos\theta cos\varphi & rDsin\theta sin\varphi \\ Asin\theta sin\varphi +Bcos\theta sin\varphi & rCcos\theta sin\varphi & rDsin\theta cos\varphi \\ Acos\theta Bsin\theta & rCsin\theta & 0\end{array}\right),$$
$`(13)`$
where

$$A=e^\beta \sqrt{2\frac{V}{r}},$$
$`(14a)`$
$$B=rUe^\gamma ,$$
$`(14b)`$
$$C=e^\gamma ,$$
$`(14c)`$
$$D=e^\gamma ,$$
$`(14d)`$
and

$$e_{(k)i}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A^{}sin\theta cos\varphi & rB^{}cos\theta cos\varphi +rC^{}sin\theta cos\varphi & rD^{}sin\theta sin\varphi \\ A^{}sin\theta sin\varphi & rB^{}cos\theta sin\varphi +rC^{}sin\theta sin\varphi & rD^{}sin\theta cos\varphi \\ A^{}cos\theta & rB^{}sin\theta +rC^{}cos\theta & 0\end{array}\right),$$
$`(15)`$
where

$$A^{}=\left[e^{2\beta }\left(2\frac{V}{r}\right)+U^2r^2e^{2\gamma }\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
$`(16a)`$
$$B^{}=\frac{1}{A^{}}e^{\beta +\gamma }\sqrt{2\frac{V}{r}},$$
$`(16b)`$
$$C^{}=\frac{1}{A^{}}Ure^{2\gamma },$$
$`(16c)`$
$$D^{}=e^\gamma .$$
$`(16d)`$
It is easy to see that both (13) and (15) yield the metric tensor (12) through the relation $`e_{(i)j}e_{(i)k}=g_{jk}`$. They are related by a local SO(3) transformation.

We have presented (13) and (15) because they are the simplest constructions that satisfy two basic requirements: (i) the triads must have the asymptotic behaviour given by (2); (ii) by making the physical parameters of the metric vanish we must have $`T_{(k)ij}=0`$ everywhere. In the present case if we make $`M=d=c=0`$ both (13) and (15) acquire the form

$$e_{(k)i}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}sin\theta cos\varphi & rcos\theta cos\varphi & rsin\theta sin\varphi \\ sin\theta sin\varphi & rcos\theta sin\varphi & rsin\theta cos\varphi \\ cos\theta & rsin\theta & 0\end{array}\right).$$
$`(17)`$
In cartesian coordinates the expression above can be reduced to the diagonal form $`e_{(k)i}(x,y,z)=\delta _{ik}`$. The requirement (ii) above is essentialy equivalent to the establishment of reference space triads, as discussed in . A proper definition of gravitational energy requires the notion of reference space triads, which in the present case are given by (17). Note that by a suitable choice of a local SO(3) rotation we can make the flat space triads (17) satisfy the requirement (i), but not (ii).

We proceed now to obtain the triads whose aymptotic expansion is given by (2) with the symmetry condition $`h_{ij}=h_{ji}`$. The procedure is the following. We consider, for instance, triads (13) and transform it to cartesian coordiates. Then we perform a local, asymptotic transformation

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{(k)i}(t,x,y,z)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}^{(j)}e_{(j)i}(t,x,y,z),$$
$`(18)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}^{(j)}`$ satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}^{(j)}\delta _{(k)}^{(j)}+\omega _{(k)}^{(j)},$$
$`(19a)`$
$$\omega _{(j)(k)}=\omega _{(k)(j)},$$
$`(19b)`$
and $`\omega _{(j)(k)}O(\frac{1}{r})`$ for $`r\mathrm{}`$ ($`r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}`$). Transformation (19) preserves the asymptotic behaviour of the triads. By substituting (19) in (18) we find

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{(k)i}=e_{(k)i}+\omega _{(k)i},$$

from what follows

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{ki}=h_{ki}+2\omega _{ki},$$
$`(20)`$
where $`h_{ki}`$ is given by the asymptotic expansion of (13) in cartesian coordinates. By requiring

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{ki}=\stackrel{~}{h}_{ik},$$
$`(21)`$
and making use of (19b) we find that

$$\omega _{ki}=\frac{1}{4}(h_{ki}h_{ik}).$$
$`(22)`$
Substituting now (22) in (20) we arrive at

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{ki}=\frac{1}{2}(h_{ki}+h_{ik})h_{(ki)}.$$
$`(23)`$
Thus we ultimately obtain the symmetrized triads in cartesian coordinates:

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{(k)i}\eta _{ki}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{h}_{ki}.$$
$`(24)`$
It must be noted that we arrive at a symmetrized triad irrespective of the triads we consider initially. The only requirement is that the unrotated triad must satisfy the asymptotic behaviour (2). Had we considered (15) we would arrive at the same result. In particular, from (22) we observe that if the initial triad is already symmetrized, then no local, asymptotic rotation is necessary.

By transforming (24) into spherical coordinates $`t,r,\theta ,\varphi `$ (in which case the triads are no longer symmetrized), we finally arrive at

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{(1)1}(1+\frac{M}{r})sin\theta cos\varphi \frac{f}{2r}cos\theta cos\varphi ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{(2)1}(1+\frac{M}{r})sin\theta sin\varphi \frac{f}{2r}cos\theta sin\varphi ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{(3)1}(1+\frac{M}{r})cos\theta +\frac{f}{2r}sin\theta ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{(1)2}r(1+\frac{c}{r})cos\theta cos\varphi \frac{f}{2}sin\theta cos\varphi ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{(2)2}r(1+\frac{c}{r})cos\theta sin\varphi \frac{f}{2}sin\theta sin\varphi ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{(3)2}r(1+\frac{c}{r})sin\theta \frac{f}{2}cos\theta ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{(1)3}r(1\frac{c}{r})sin\theta sin\varphi ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{(2)3}r(1\frac{c}{r})sin\theta cos\varphi ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{(3)3}0,$$
$`(25)`$
where $`f`$ is given by

$$f=\frac{c}{\theta }+2ccotg\theta .$$

We observe that by making $`M=c=0`$ triads (25) reduce to (17). We also note that (25), as well as (13) and (15), only make sense in the asymptotic region where Bondi’s metric is valid.

In view of (23) and (24) it is now easy to prove the uniqueness of the symmetrized triad. Suppose that the asymptotic behaviour of the metric tensor is given by

$$g_{ij}\eta _{ij}+h_{ij}^{}(\frac{1}{r}).$$
$`(26)`$
On the other hand by making use of (2) it follows from the relation $`g_{ij}=e_i^{(k)}e_{(k)j}`$ and from (23) that

$$g_{ij}\eta _{ij}+\frac{1}{2}(h_{ij}+h_{ji})=\eta _{ij}+h_{(ij)}.$$
$`(27)`$
Since $`h_{ij}^{}`$ is unique, by comparing (26) and (27) we are led to conclude that there exists a unique symmetrized triad associated to the spatial section of an asymptotically flat metric tensor.

IV. Construction of the news function and of the mass aspect

In order to establish explicit expressions for the functions $`c(u,\theta )`$ and $`M(u,\theta )`$, the suplementary field equations $`R_{00}=R_{02}=0`$ for Bondi’s metric are considered. In simplified form they are given by

$$\frac{M}{u}=\left(\frac{c}{u}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{u}\left[\frac{^2c}{\theta ^2}+3\frac{c}{\theta }cotg\theta 2c\right],$$
$`(28)`$
$$3\frac{d}{u}=\frac{M}{\theta }+3c\frac{^2c}{\theta u}+4c\frac{c}{u}cotg\theta +\frac{c}{\theta }\frac{c}{u}.$$
$`(29)`$
From (28) we observe that if $`\frac{c}{u}=0`$, the mass aspect $`M`$ does not depend on $`u`$.

For a family of null hypersurfaces Bondi’s mass is defined by

$$m(u)=\frac{1}{2}_0^\pi M(u,\theta )sin\theta 𝑑\theta .$$
$`(30)`$
It represents the mass of the system at the retarded time $`u`$. Multiplying both sides of (28) by $`sin\theta `$, integrating in $`\theta `$ and making use of the regularity conditions on the $`z`$ axis stated in section III, we arrive at

$$\frac{dm}{du}=\frac{1}{2}_0^\pi \left(\frac{c}{u}\right)^2sin\theta 𝑑\theta ,$$
$`(31)`$
which expresses the loss of mass. This equation was first obtained by Bondi et. al.. Therefore if the news function is nonvanishing, the mass of the system decreases in time. We remark that not only $`c(u,\theta )`$, but also the news function must be a regular function on the $`z`$ axis.

The function $`c(u,\theta )`$ determines not only the loss of mass, but in fact it determines the whole structure of Bondi’s metric, since via (28) and (29) it also determines the functions $`M`$, $`d`$, and all other functions that arise in the process of integration of the field equations. Therefore its construction deserves special attention.

The news function proposed by Bondi et. al. is given by

$$\frac{c}{u}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_n(u)P_n(\mu ),$$

where $`\mu =cos\theta `$. $`P_n(\mu )`$ are the Legendre polynomials and $`f_n(u)`$ are functions to be determined. These functions become more and more intricate for increasing $`n`$, and eventually the above expression cannot be manipulated analytically.

Bonnor and Rotenberg, Papapetrou and Hallidy and Janis have attempted at establishing an expression for $`c(u,\theta )`$, but none of these proposals worked out satisfactorily, either because of the complexity of the structure of $`c(u,\theta )`$, or because the loss of mass does not occur for for a finite number of terms in the expansion in $`n`$. Bonnor and Rotenberg’s expression describes a radiative period between an initial nonradiative, static state and a final nonradiative, nonstatic state. The other approaches mentioned above describe a radiative period between static initial and final states.

Hobill has provided an expression for $`c(u,\theta )`$ that describes a radiative period between initial and final static states, and that leads to a loss of mass that is exactly equal to the total variation of the mass aspect during the period. Again the expression is not simple. It is given by

$$c(u,\mu )=\frac{[m_bf(\mu )e^{\eta u}+m_a(1\mu ^2)](1+\eta \mu ^2)(1\mu ^2)}{f^2(\mu )e^{2\eta u}+(n1)\mu ^2n\mu ^4+1},$$
$`(32)`$
where $`n`$ and $`\eta `$ are constants and $`m_a`$ is identified as one fourth of the total mass loss. It relates to the other constants according to

$$\frac{18n}{n+1}=\eta m_a,$$

$$m_b=\pm \sqrt{\frac{2}{n}}m_a.$$

$`f(\mu )`$ is an arbitrary function that must be everywhere regular and positive definite in the interval $`1\mu 1`$. We note that $`c`$ vanishes over the symmetry axis $`(\mu =\pm 1)`$. The news function obtained from (32) reads

$$\frac{c}{u}=\frac{\eta f(\mu )e^{\eta u}(1\mu ^2)}{[e^{2\eta u}f^2(\mu )(1+n\mu ^2)^1+(1\mu ^2)]^2}\{\frac{m_bf^2(\mu )e^{2\eta u}}{1+n\mu ^2}$$

$$\frac{2m_a(1\mu ^2)f(\mu )e^{\eta u}}{1+n\mu ^2}+m_b(1\mu ^2)\}.$$
$`(33)`$
Expressions (32) and (33) lead, via integration of equation (28), to an extremely complicated expression for the mass aspect:

$$M(u,\mu )=M(\mathrm{})4m_a$$

$$+\left[\frac{f^2(\mu )e^{2\eta u}}{1+n\mu ^2}+(1\mu ^2)\right]^3\left[4m_a(1\mu ^2)^3+\underset{l=1}{\overset{5}{}}H_l(\mu )e^{l\eta u}\right].$$
$`(34)`$
The intricate expressions for $`H_l(\mu )`$ are given in the Appendix of Ref. . The problem with (32), (33) and (34) is that they are too complicated to yield numerical values for integrals (to be considered in the next section) that contain these expressions, even by means of computer calculations.

Therefore we attempted at obtaining a simpler expression for $`c(u,\mu )`$. We damanded two conditions on $`c(u,\mu )`$. First, it must satisfy the regularity conditions on the $`z`$ axis, which guarantees that the system is permanently isolated and leads to a well defined loss of mass. Second, that the initial and final states are nonradiative. However, as we will show, our expression leads to a nonstatic final state. It is given by

$$c(u,\mu )=\frac{ae^{nu}(1\mu ^2)F(\mu )}{e^{2nu}+1},$$
$`(35)`$
where $`n`$ and $`a`$ are constants ($`n^1`$ and $`a`$ have dimension of length) and $`F(\mu )`$ is a function that must be choosen such that $`c(1\mu ^2)^1=c(sin\theta )^2`$ is a regular function. Note that (35) vanishes for $`\mu \pm 1`$. The news function associated to (35) is given by

$$\frac{c}{u}=\frac{na(1\mu ^2)F(\mu )e^{nu}}{e^{2nu}+1}\left[1\frac{2e^{2nu}}{e^{2nu}+1}\right].$$
$`(36)`$
In the limit $`u\pm \mathrm{}`$ we have

$$\underset{u\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}c=\underset{u\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{c}{u}=0,$$
$`(37)`$
for any nonvanishing value of $`n`$. The property above is a necessary but not sufficient condition for having a static final state. Equation (37) does not determine whether the mass aspect $`M`$ depends on $`\theta `$, and so from (29) there is the possibility that $`d`$ depends on $`u`$. The initial state is assumed to be of the Schwarzschild type.

Integrating equation (28) from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`u`$, considering $`c(u,\mu )`$ given by (35), we obtain

$$M(u,\mu )=M(\mathrm{})n^2a^2(1\mu ^2)^2F^2(\mu )_{\mathrm{}}^u\left[\frac{e^{nu}}{e^{2nu}+1}\frac{2e^{3nu}}{(e^{2nu}+1)^2}\right]^2𝑑u$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\frac{ae^{nu}}{(e^{2nu}+1)}\left[(1\mu ^2)^2F^{\prime \prime }8\mu (1\mu ^2)F^{}+4(3\mu ^21)F(\mu )\right]+\lambda (\mu ),$$
$`(38)`$
where $`F^{}=\frac{dF}{d\mu }`$, $`F^{\prime \prime }=\frac{d^2F}{d\mu ^2}`$ and $`\lambda (\mu )`$ is an integrating function that depends only on $`\mu `$.

The integral in (38) depends on the sign of $`n`$. For $`n<0`$ we have

$$M(u,\mu )=M(\mathrm{})+\frac{1}{6}na^2(1\mu ^2)^2F^2(\mu )\left[\frac{3e^{4nu}+1}{(e^{2nu}+1)^3}\right]$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\frac{ae^{nu}}{(e^{2nu}+1)}\left[(1\mu ^2)^2F^{\prime \prime }8\mu (1\mu ^2)F^{}+4(3\mu ^21)F(\mu )\right]+\lambda (\mu ),$$
$`(39)`$
and for $`n>0`$,

$$M(u,\mu )=M(\mathrm{})+na^2(1\mu ^2)^2F^2(\mu )\left[\frac{1}{6}\frac{3e^{4nu}+1}{(e^{2nu}+1)^3}+\frac{23}{48}\right]$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\frac{ae^{nu}}{(e^{2nu}+1)}\left[(1\mu ^2)^2F^{\prime \prime }8\mu (1\mu ^2)F^{}+4(3\mu ^21)F(\mu )\right]+\lambda (\mu ).$$
$`(40)`$
By requiring the inital state to be static, expressions (39) and (40) must satisfy

$$\underset{u\mathrm{}}{lim}M=M(\mathrm{})M_0.$$
$`(41)`$
Applying the condition above to (39) we find that the function $`\lambda (\mu )`$ vanishes, and therefore

$$M(u,\mu )=M_0+\frac{1}{6}na^2(1\mu ^2)^2F^2(\mu )\left[\frac{3e^{4nu}+1}{(e^{2nu}+1)^3}\right]$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\frac{ae^{nu}}{(e^{2nu}+1)}\left[(1\mu ^2)^2F^{\prime \prime }8\mu (1\mu ^2)F^{}+4(3\mu ^21)F(\mu )\right],$$
$`(42)`$
for $`n<0`$. Similarly, applying (41) to expression (40) we find that the integration function $`\lambda (\mu )`$ is given by

$$\lambda (\mu )=\left(\frac{1}{6}+\frac{23}{48}\right)na^2(1\mu ^2)F^2(\mu ).$$

Substituting it back in (40) for $`n>0`$ we arrive at

$$M(u,\mu )=M_0+\frac{1}{6}na^2(1\mu ^2)^2F^2(\mu )\left[\frac{3e^{4nu}+1}{(e^{2nu}+1)^3}1\right]$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\frac{ae^{nu}}{(e^{2nu}+1)}\left[(1\mu ^2)^2F^{\prime \prime }8\mu (1\mu ^2)F^{}+4(3\mu ^21)F(\mu )\right].$$
$`(43)`$
Let us now check the limiting value of (42) and (43) for $`u\mathrm{}`$. Considering first (42) we obtain

$$\underset{u\mathrm{}}{lim}M=M_0+\frac{1}{6}na^2(1\mu ^2)^2F^2(\mu ),$$

where $`n<0`$. It follows from the expression above that the total variation of the mass aspect $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_T`$ associated with (42) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_T=\frac{1}{6}na^2(1\mu ^2)^2F^2(\mu ).$$
$`(44)`$
The mass aspect $`M(u,\mu )`$ given by (43), for which $`n>0`$, leads to a similar expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_T`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_T=\frac{1}{6}na^2(1\mu ^2)^2F^2(\mu ).$$
$`(45)`$
Hobill obtained a result analogous to (44). However his expression, in the limit $`u\mathrm{}`$, does not depend on $`\mu `$. Consequently the final state in his approach is static. In the present case, the mass aspect will still depend on $`\mu `$ in the limit $`u\mathrm{}`$. In view of (29) this fact implies a final nonradiative, nonstatic state, which according to Hobill may describe a even more realistic situation. In any event expressions (35) and (36) describe an isolated physical system whose initial and final states are nonradiative, and whose loss of mass is precisely determined.

V. Evaluation of the gravitational energy

In this section we obtain numerical values for the gravitational energy given by expression (9). The relevance of such expression is that we can apply it to finite spacelike volumes. In the present case we will calculate the gravitational energy inside a large but finite surface of constant radius $`r_0`$, centered at the radiating source. Expression (9) will be evaluated as a surface integral in the asymptotic region where the components of Bondi’s metric are precisely determined. It reduces to just one integral given by

$$E=\frac{1}{8\pi }_S𝑑\theta 𝑑\varphi eT^1,$$
$`(46)`$
where $`S`$ is a surface of fixed radius $`r_0`$, assumed to be large as compared with the dimension of the source, and the determinant $`e`$ is given by $`e=r^2Asin\theta `$.

We will consider triads (13), (15) and (25), for which the functions $`c(u,\theta )`$ and $`M(u,\theta )`$ are given by (35) and (42), respectively. Thus we take the mass aspect determined by the condition $`n<0`$, only. Moreover we will consider four possibilities for the function $`F(\mu )`$. Therefore we are effectively analyzing twelve distinct sets of triads.

We will follow here the steps of section V of . The energy expression that results from (13) and (15) have already been evaluated. They are given by

$$E_1=\frac{r_0}{4}_0^\pi 𝑑\theta \left\{sin\theta \left[e^\gamma +e^\gamma \frac{2}{A}\right]+\frac{1}{A}\frac{}{\theta }(Ursin\theta )\right\},$$
$`(47)`$
and

$$E_2=\frac{r_0}{4}_0^\pi d\theta \frac{1}{A}\{sin\theta [e^\gamma A^{}+e^{2\gamma }A^{}B^{}2+e^{2\gamma }\frac{A^{}}{\theta }C^{}BC^{}Be^\gamma \frac{\gamma }{\theta }]$$

$$Bcos\theta [B^{}e^\gamma ]\},$$
$`(48)`$
together with definitions (14) and (16). $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ correspond to (13) and (15), respectively. Unfortunately the sign of the first term in the expansion of the function $`U(u,r,\theta )`$ of the metric tensor (10), in Ref. , is changed. Therefore expressions $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ given in the latter reference must be corrected. Minor modifications (such as the modification of some numerical coefficients) are necessary. The correct expressions of $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ in terms of $`c(u,\theta )`$ and $`M(u,\theta )`$ are given by

$$E_1=\frac{1}{2}_0^\pi 𝑑\theta sin\theta M\frac{1}{4r_0}_0^\pi 𝑑\theta sin\theta \left[\left(\frac{c}{\theta }\right)^2+4c\left(\frac{c}{\theta }\right)cot\theta +4c^2cot^2\theta \right]$$

$$+\frac{1}{4r_0}_0^\pi 𝑑\theta M\frac{}{\theta }\left[sin\theta \left(\frac{c}{\theta }+2ccot\theta \right)\right],$$
$`(49)`$
$$E_2=\frac{1}{2}_0^\pi d\theta Msin\theta \frac{1}{4r_0}_0^\pi d\theta sin\theta [M^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{c}{\theta }\right)^2+4c\left(\frac{c}{\theta }\right)cot\theta $$

$$+6c^2cot^2\theta +\left(\frac{M}{\theta }\right)(\frac{c}{\theta }+2ccot\theta )]+\frac{1}{4r_0}_0^\pi d\theta cos\theta [2c\left(\frac{c}{\theta }\right)+4c^2cot\theta ].$$
$`(50)`$
It is clear that the total gravitational energy given by both (49) and (50), in the limit $`r_0\mathrm{}`$, which corresponds to the limit $`u\mathrm{}`$, yield the same value, i.e., the total mass:

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}E_1=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}E_2=M(\mathrm{})M_0.$$
$`(51)`$
In fact it is proven in  that the total gravitational energies calculated out of triads related by a local SO(3) transformation, and that have the asymptotic behaviour given by (2), are the same.

We consider next triads given by (25). The components of the torsion tensor are given by

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{(1)12}=\left(\frac{c}{r}\frac{M}{r}+r_1(\frac{c}{r})+\frac{1}{2r}_2f\right)cos\theta cos\varphi \left(\frac{1}{2}_1f+\frac{1}{2r}f+\frac{1}{r}_2M\right)sin\theta cos\varphi ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{(1)13}=\left(\frac{c}{r}+\frac{M}{r}+r_1(\frac{c}{r})\right)sin\theta sin\varphi \frac{1}{2r}fcos\theta sin\varphi ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{(1)23}=2ccos\theta sin\varphi +(_2c\frac{1}{2}f)sin\theta sin\varphi ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{(2)12}=\left(\frac{c}{r}\frac{M}{r}+r_1(\frac{c}{r})+\frac{1}{2r}_2f\right)cos\theta sin\varphi \left(\frac{1}{2}_1f+\frac{1}{2}\frac{f}{r}+\frac{1}{r}_2M\right)sin\theta sin\varphi ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{(2)13}=\left(\frac{c}{r}+\frac{M}{r}+r_1(\frac{c}{r})\right)sin\theta cos\varphi +\frac{1}{2r}fcos\theta cos\varphi ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{(2)23}=2ccos\theta cos\varphi (_2c\frac{1}{2}f)sin\theta cos\varphi ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{(3)12}=\left(\frac{M}{r}\frac{c}{r}r_1(\frac{c}{r})\frac{1}{2r}_2f\right)sin\theta \left(\frac{1}{2}_1f+\frac{1}{2r}f+\frac{1}{r}_2M\right)cos\theta ,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{(3)13}=\stackrel{~}{T}_{(3)23}=0,$$
$`(52)`$
where $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ denote partial derivatives with respect to $`r`$ and $`\theta `$, respectively.

The calculation of (46) out of the components above does not pose any particular problem, except that the calculation is very long. Denoting by $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ the gravitational energy that follows from (25) and (52), we have

$$\stackrel{~}{E}=E_1\frac{1}{2r}[_0^\pi d\theta M^2sin\theta \frac{1}{4}_0^\pi d\theta (\frac{c}{\theta }+2ccotg\theta )\frac{c}{\theta }sin\theta $$

$$\frac{1}{2}_0^\pi 𝑑\theta (\frac{c}{\theta }+2ccotg\theta )ccos\theta $$

$$+\frac{1}{8}_0^\pi d\theta (\frac{c}{\theta }+2ccotg\theta )^2sin\theta (3cos^2\theta 1)].$$
$`(53)`$
In the calculation above we have made use of the regularity condition $`c(u,\theta )=0`$ for $`\theta =0,\pi `$. As expected, (53) also satisfies (51).

The comparison of (49), (50) and (53) is crucial for the selection of triads. We are now in a position of obtaining numerical values for these expressions. With this purpose we make use of data based on the work of Saenz and Shapiro for assigning values to $`M_0`$ and $`u`$. In the latter reference it is discussed a model for stellar colapse of white-dwarves, with or without axial symmetry, rotating or nonrotating. In this model gravitational waves are produced during a burst of $`10^3s`$. Thus $`u`$ may be taken to vary from $`10^{10}s`$ to $`10^4s`$. Based on the work of Saenz and Shapiro we consider a white-dwarf whose total mass is $`M_0=1.4M_{}`$, where $`M_{}`$ is the solar mass. It is believed that the maximum value for a white-dwarf is $`1.4M_{}`$. We will use geometrical unities (G=c=1) for the evaluation of the energies. The value of $`M_{}`$ in these unities is $`M_{}=1.47664\times 10^5cm`$. The distance $`r`$ will be taken to vary from $`10^{18}cm`$ to $`10^{13}cm`$. Finally, the parameters $`a`$ and $`n`$ assume the values $`100`$ and $`0.5`$, respectively, in proper unities.

We have used the MAPLE V computer package to obtain $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$. For the function $`F(\mu )`$, which we now denote $`F(\theta )`$, we take $`sin\theta `$, $`sin^2\theta `$, $`cos\theta `$ and $`cos^2\theta `$. The resulting values are listed in tables 1-4 for the particular value $`u=10^4s`$. The numerical values were obtained with a precision of 20 digits.

We have verified that for all these functions, for all distances considered, $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is always the minimum energy:

$$\stackrel{~}{E}<E_2<E_1.$$

Note that since $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ are calculated at constant $`u=tr`$, the radial dependence of these expression is given just by the $`\frac{1}{r_0}`$ coefficient in (49), (50) and (53). Thus for constant $`u`$ the intricacy of these expressions reside in the angular dependence. We have further verified numerically that the result above is also obtained for any value of $`u`$ between $`10^{10}s`$ and $`10^4s`$. The constants $`a`$ and $`n`$ must be chosen such that the absolute values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_T`$ given by expressions (44) and (45) are not greater than $`M_0`$, otherwise the total gravitational energy will be negative. In any case, at present we do not know enough about axially-symmetric, nonrotating isolated sources in order to provide realistic values for these constants.

VI. Discussion

The result of the previous section constitutes a strong indication that the set of triads with asymptotic behaviour given by equation (2), and that satisfies the symmetry condition $`h_{ij}=h_{ji}`$, yields the minimum value for the gravitational energy that is computed from expression (9). In addition to the fact that the symmetrized triads are unique (namely, there does not exist a second set of triads that satisfy (2) and the symmetry condition), the present analysis indicates that the correct description of the gravitational field in terms of orthonormal triads, in the realm of the TEGR, is given by (24). The results described above amount to an interesting interplay between the energy properties of the space-time and its tetrad description.

As long as we are interested in the dynamics of the gravitational field only, as described by the metric tensor, it is irrelevant which configuration of triads we adopt. However, if we consider the dynamics of spinor fields, such as the Dirac field, then the correct choice of triads is crucial. Recall that the theory defined by (5) and (6) was established under the asumption of the time gauge condition. The latter, together with (25), establishes the complete set of tetrad fields. And finally, if the detection of the emission of gravitational energy carried by gravitational waves is experimentally feasible, then the whole scheme developed here will play a relevant role.

Bondi’s radiating metric is valid only in the asymptotic region. Therefore we can do no better than determining the asymptotic behaviour of the triads. However in the more general case where the metric tensor is valid everywhere, except for singularities, we still have a prescription for assigning a unique set of triads to a given metric tensor restricted to the spacelike section. Such prescription is due to Møller, who called it “supplementary conditions”. Although he established these conditions by still requiring de Donder relations for the metric tensor, we can dispense with the latter relations and ascribe generality to his proposal. Møller suggested as supplementary conditions for the space-time tetrad field the weak field condition

$$e_{a\mu }\eta _{a\mu }+\frac{1}{2}h_{a\mu },$$
$`(54)`$
with $`h_{a\mu }`$ satisfying the symmetry condition $`h_{a\mu }=h_{\mu a}`$. It differs from (2), which is restricted to spacelike sections only, in that the symmetry condition must be verified everywhere. Thus (54) is stronger than (2). Nevertheless we can require the set of triads to satisfy (54) in the general case. Every metric tensor for the spacelike section of a space-time admits a unique set of triads that satisfy a relation similar to (54), which is no longer a boundary condition and therefore it can be applied to space-times with arbitrary topology. We finally mention that the set of triads presented in ref. , in the analysis of the irreducible mass of a rotating black hole, satisfies a relation similar to (54), but in the three-dimensional spacelike hypersurface.

Acknowledgements

K. H. C. B. is supported by CAPES, Brazil.


format: text

text:
# Glassy Dynamics in a Frustrated Spin System: Role of Defects

## 1 Introduction

In recent years, there has been considerable interest in spin models without quenched-in disorder which, however, exhibit glassy dynamics. The model discussed in this paper belongs to this category. Frustration is a key concept in theories of structural glasses such as the curved-space pictures of metallic glass. The two concepts taken together, glassy dynamics in non-random spin systems and frustration as a key to glassy behavior, suggest that frustrated spin systems could play a role in understanding the nature of structural glasses.

The compressible, triangular-lattice, Ising antiferromagnet is an interesting example of a system where the frustration is removed by elastic distortions. The phase transition from a disordered, paramagnetic phase to an ordered striped phase has been studied in detail, and in the last couple of years, interest has shifted to studying the dynamics of the supercooled state. Monte Carlo simulations of the model have shown that following an instantaneous quench from an initial temperature $`T_i>>T_F`$ (the first-order transition temperature), to a final temperature $`T_f<T_F`$, the dynamics of the system changes character as $`T_f`$ is lowered below a temperature $`T^{}`$. The observed changes are consistent with a glass transition occurring at $`T^{}`$. As $`T^{}`$ is approached from above, the characteristic relaxation time increases dramatically, and the spin autocorrelation function develops a plateau at intermediate times (Fig. 1). Analysis of the fluctuation metric and the energy metric shows that the system becomes non-ergodic below $`T^{}`$. Although, the dynamics in this non-ergodic phase is reminiscent of “coarsening”, the relaxation towards equilibrium is unusual and is characterized by long-time periods of quiescent behavior interrupted by rare jump events. The distribution of jump-intervals obeys a power law which suggests that the model belongs to the category of weak-ergodicity breaking.

In this paper, the approach to the “glass transition” at $`T^{}`$ is analyzed through a study of the spin-spin autocorrelation functions and the behavior of defects which arise naturally when the spin system is mapped onto a solid-on-solid model (SOS). In the simulations, $`T^{}`$ is operationally defined as the temperature below which the system fails to reach equilibrium within the simulation time.

## 2 Model

The compressible Ising antiferromagnet is described by a nearest-neighbor spin-spin interaction which depends linearly on the distance between the spins. The lattice distortions are described by a homogeneous, three component strain field which describes the change in the three nearest-neighbor bond lengths. In the model studied in this paper, no fluctuations of these strain fields are allowed. This implies that the strain fields are being treated within a mean-field approximation but the spins are being treated exactly. It has been shown that, in this approximation, there is a first order transition to a striped phase in which there are rows of aligned spins alternating in sign. The ferromagnetic bonds are elongated and the anti-ferromagnetic bonds are shortened. It has also been shown that, in this mean-field model, there is an instability to this lattice distortion at a temperature below the first-order transition temperature.

The strain fields which remove the degeneracy in the compressible model play a role that is similar to the anisotropy of interactions or a staggered field which is conjugate to one of the degenerate ground-states. The crucial difference between the models is that the strain fields are annealed variables whereas the anisotropy and the staggered field are quenched variables. The dynamics that we observe in the compressible model as the glass transition is approached can, however, be rationalized on the basis of known results for the models with the quenched variables.

Monte Carlo simulations were used to study the dynamics following instantaneous quenches from a high-temperature disordered phase to a range of temperatures below the ordering transition (which was strongly first-order) at $`T_F`$. Standard spin-exchange dynamics was extended to include moves which attempt global changes of the shape and size of the box. These global changes were attempted after a complete sweep of all the spins in the lattice. This dynamics was adopted because the homogeneous (global) strain fields are expected to respond only to extensive changes of the nearest neighbor spin correlations. There is an “effective” spin model that the compressible Ising antiferromagnet can be mapped onto. This model involves long-range four-spin interactions. This mapping shows the connection between the current model and the p-spin models and the Bernasconi model. The dynamical model, as defined in this work, however, does not correspond to the dynamics of this four-spin model but instead keeps the strain field and the spins explicitly.

## 3 Spin-Spin autocorrelation functions and non-linear dynamic susceptibility

As mentioned in the introduction, the system is in equilibrium above $`T^{}`$ but falls out of equilibrium at $`T^{}`$. The behavior of the spin-spin autocorrelation function, as $`T^{}`$ is approached from above, is shown in Fig. 1. These correlation functions show clear non-exponential relaxations. The best stretched exponential fits ($`\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau )^\beta `$) are also shown in Fig. 1. The stretching parameter $`\beta 0.3`$ with a small dependence on temperature. There are indications of a plateau developing at long times, however, data over much longer times and larger systems will be needed to bear this out. In addition to the correlation functions, Fig. 1 also shows dynamic susceptibility associated with the fluctuations of the spin-spin correlation function. This susceptibility, associated with the time-dependent overlap, shows the same features similar to that observed in a Lennard-Jones binary mixture. These results suggest that the ergodicity-breaking transition at $`T^{}`$ is akin to a structural glass transition even though the system being studied is a spin system. The hope then is that the study of this simple spin model could provide some insight into the structural glass transition. It has already been shown that a trapping model, based on the observations in this spin system, can provide a qualitatively correct description of the observed frequency-dependent susceptibility in structural glasses. The SOS mapping provides an elegant way of analyzing the structures which develop in this spin model as the glass transition is approached. In the following, this mapping will be used to probe the nature of the glass transition.

## 4 Defects and Strings

The ground-state of the triangular-lattice Ising antiferromagnet is a critical state and can be mapped onto the rough phase of an SOS model. In this representation, a line is drawn between two spins which are connected by an anti-ferromagnetic bond. At zero temperature, this defines a tiling of the plane by three different types of rhombi (blue, red and green in Fig. 2). At finite temperatures, defects appear which correspond to elementary triangles with three spins of the same sign and correspond to screw dislocations in the SOS surface. Fig. 2 shows this representation for a configuration generated in the compressible Ising model after a quench above $`T^{}`$. A convenient way of representing the SOS surface is by strings running in the “vertical” direction. Choosing one of the nearest-neighbor directions in the triangular lattice as “horizontal”, these strings are defined by drawing lines connecting the middles of horizontal edges of the rhombi. In Fig. 2, the blue and red rhombi have horizontal edges but the green do not. These strings can end at the defects which change the number of strings by two. The ground-state of the pure triangular lattice antiferromagnet corresponds to a rough SOS surface with no average tilt and is characterized by the number of strings $`N_s=2L/3`$ where $`L`$ is the linear dimension of a finite lattice with periodic boundary conditions. The strings and defects (dislocations) provide an useful way of visualizing the transition at $`T^{}`$. To understand what could be happening at $`T^{}`$, we need to briefly discuss the properties of the compressible Ising antiferromagnet and its ground-state.

The ground-state of the compressible model is the “striped phase”. In the SOS picture this corresponds to a surface with a tilt and no “vertical” strings. There are, obviously, three ways of defining vertical strings in the triangular lattice (corresponding to the three nearest neighbor directions) and the striped phase is three-fold degenerate. These states have only one variety of the rhombi.

In terms of the SOS picture, the first-order transition at $`T_F`$ corresponds to a discontinuous change in the number of strings. Strings can end only at the defects (two strings end at a defect) and therefore the kinetics of this transition is dominated by the interplay between defects and strings. Similarly, one expects that the dynamics of the supercooled phase is dictated by the dynamics of defects and strings. The time evolution of the number of strings is shown in Fig. 3 for a temperature above $`T^{}`$ and a temperature below $`T^{}`$. Above $`T^{}`$, but close to it, the string density fluctuates around $`N_s=2L/3`$ but below $`T^{}`$ the string density is evolving towards zero in a step-wise fashion. The temperature $`T^{}`$ seems to correspond to an instability of the system towards the disappearance of strings. It however does not seem to correspond to a simple spinodal since the system stays in states with a fixed number of strings for very long times before hopping to a state with a fewer number of strings. This dynamics suggests a free-energy surface in this string-number space which has multiple minima with a distribution of barrier heights and a bias, below $`T^{}`$, towards smaller number of strings. This is exactly the type of picture that was used to construct the simple Langevin model of the frequency-dependent response in glasses. The order parameter in that model corresponds to the average number of strings in the SOS model.

Before analyzing the dynamics of the defects and strings, it is useful to look at some static quantities above $`T^{}`$ (where the system is in equilibrium and static averages can be defined. Fig. 4 shows the histogram characterizing the probability distribution of the average number of strings in a particular vertical direction. As the temperature is lowered, the distribution develops a pronounced tail and secondary maxima. At the same time, the distribution of defects changes from a nearly Gaussian distribution to a nearly exponential one with a peak close to zero. The combination of these two features gives a clue to the origin of the slow dynamics. The instability at $`T^{}`$ implies a tendency of the system to have fewer strings than that characterizing the ideal supercooled state with $`N_s=2L/3`$. To achieve this it needs to create fluctuations which have a large amplitude and last for long times. These string fluctuations can be created only via correlated defect events. The type of defect events that change the number of strings by a large number are the appearance of more than one pair of defects (defects always get created in pairs in the dynamics that is being used in the simulations). These events are extremely rare and can lead to long correlation times.

The correlation between defect and string histories is shown in Fig. 5. To change the average number of strings in the system by two or more, a pair of strings running the length of the system has to be created or destroyed. The history shown in Fig. 5 indicates that this is not accomplished by one pair of defects running through the system and creating or destroying strings in a “zipper” type action. Instead, the strings are created or destroyed through the creation of more than one defect pair in succession. As the temperature approaches $`T^{}`$, these events get rarer and the structures with significantly more (or less) strings than the ideal supercooled state get frozen in for longer and longer times. The glass transition, in this frustrated spin system, seems to be pinned by an underlying instability (true instability in mean-field) towards a deformation of the lattice or the spontaneous disappearance of strings. The dynamics approaching this transition is dictated by rare events which involve correlated defects.

## 5 Conclusion

In this preliminary study of correlation between defects and glassy dynamics in a frustrated spin model, the observations suggest that defects are crucial to understanding the glass transition. The dynamics approaching the transition is anomalous because of correlations between defects and strings. The defects (dislocations) are local and owe their origin to the frustration in the system. The strings run the length of the system and define the global characteristics of the SOS surface and hence the ordering in the compressible model. In the mean-field model, there is a true instability towards the disappearance of these strings. In a non-mean-field model one expects to see a pseudo instability. To understand the slowing down of the dynamics as the temperature approaches $`T^{}`$, the instability temperature, it is useful to analyze the nature of this instability a little further. The results from the models with the quenched frustration-removing fields prove to be useful in understanding the instability at $`T^{}`$.

The ground-states of the triangular lattice antiferromagnet can be classified into sectors characterized by the string density. In the zero-defect sector, the free energy of the quenched models can be calculated as a function of the string-density and the field strength. This free energy is minimized by a particular value of the string density for a given value of the staggered field or the strength of the anisotropy. The analysis of Chen and Kardar can be repeated using the language of the strings (at least within the zero-defect sector) and indeed one finds that the “effective” free energy expressed as a function of the strain fields exhibits an instability as the temperature is lowered. The curvature of the effective free energy goes to zero at the instability temperature $`T^{}`$. Above this temperature there is a well-defined free-energy valley centered at zero strain field and a string density of $`2/3`$. As this state loses its stability the system becomes free to explore regions with finite strain. At each realization of the strain field there is, however, a well-defined minimum at a definite string -density different from $`2/3`$. The instability temperature marks the point where the system starts to see the multivalleyed nature of the free-energy surface. The exploration of this phase space can take place only through activated processes which take the system from one string sector to another. The process is activated since the number of strings can change only through the creation of defects. This picture provides a qualitative understanding of the dynamics observed in our simulations.

In continuing studies of this system, we are exploring the spatial correlations of defects. The spatio-temporal correlations which develop in this system as $`T^{}`$ is approached would be crucial in understanding the detailed nature of the long-lived structures and their similarity to the ones observed in structural glass.

This work has been supported in part by the DOE grant DE-FG02-ER45495.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Some time ago it was proposed by Beneke, Buchalla and Dunietz  to study mixing induced CP violation in $`B`$ mesons by using asymmetries of inclusive decay rates. This method although theoretically clean suffers from an experimental difficulty since it supposes a completely inclusive measurement. In order to solve this problem, we propose to study CP asymmetries of one-particle inclusive decays. In this paper, we shall consider CP asymmetries in the $`B_s^0`$ system. This can also be done in the $`B_d`$ system . We shall study time integrated and time dependent CP asymmetries of one-particle inclusive $`B_s^0D_sX`$ decays. The technique involved is nevertheless theoretically not as clean as the one used in  for inclusive decays. Nevertheless, the measurement of CP asymmetries of one-particle inclusive decay widths would be clean.

We shall not neglect the decay width difference in the $`B_s^0`$ system, since it is sizable although recent calculations  show that the decay width difference in that system could be smaller than previously expected. A method  was recently proposed to calculate the decay rates appearing in these asymmetries. The predicted decay rates are compatible with current experimental knowledge and we can therefore be confident that the results we obtain for the CP asymmetries will be meaningful.

We shall concentrate on asymmetries involving one-particle inclusive decays of a $`B_s^0`$ meson. We start by introducing our notations, in section 3 we shall develop the formalism needed for time dependent CP asymmetries in one-particle CP asymmetries. We then present and discuss our results and conclude.

## 2 Definitions

In this section we shall introduce our notations. We basically use notations similar to those introduced in . The proper time evolution of an initial pure $`B_s^0`$ or $`\overline{B}_s^0`$ reads

$`B_{sphys}^0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`g_+(t)B_s^0{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}g_{}(t)\overline{B}_s^0`$ (1)
$`\overline{B}_{sphys}^0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}g_{}(t)B_s^0+g_+(t)\overline{B}_s^0,`$
where the time dependent functions

$`g_+(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iMt\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\left[\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }t}{4}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Mt}{2}}+i\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }t}{4}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Mt}{2}}\right]`$ (2)
and

$`g_{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iMt\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\left[\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }t}{4}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Mt}{2}}+i\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }t}{4}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Mt}{2}}\right]`$ (3)
describe the particle anti-particle mixing. The mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ and the width difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ between the neutral $`B_s^0`$ mesons are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ $`=`$ $`M_HM_L`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\mathrm{\Gamma }_L.`$
The off diagonal term of the mass-mixing matrix is given by $`M_{12}+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$. We define the quantity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Mi/2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\left(M_{12}i/2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}\right)}}={\displaystyle \frac{M_{12}^{}}{|M_{12}|}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a\right),a=\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}{M_{12}}}.`$ (5)
The second expression for $`q/p`$ in equation (5) is valid to first order in the small quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}/M_{12}=𝒪(m_b^2/m_t^2)`$.

## 3 CP asymmetries in one-particle inclusive decays

In this section, we shall consider CP asymmetries of rates of one-particle inclusive $`B_s^0D_sX`$ decays. The time dependent CP asymmetry is defined by

$`𝒜_{CP}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_sX)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)\overline{D}_s\overline{X})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_sX)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)\overline{D}_s\overline{X})}}.`$ (6)
In the following, we shall neglect all effects due to direct CP violation. The time dependent decay widths therefore read

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_sX)=|g_+(t)|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_sX)+|{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}g_{}(t)|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0\overline{D}_sX)`$ (7)
$`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left(g_+^{}(t){\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}g_{}(t)T_{D_s}^{B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0}\right)`$
and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)\overline{D}_s\overline{X})=|g_+(t)|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_sX)+|{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}g_{}(t)|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0\overline{D}_sX)`$ (8)
$`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left(g_+^{}(t){\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}g_{}(t)T_{\overline{D}_s}^{\overline{B}_s^0B_s^0}\right).`$
The decay widths appearing in these formulas were calculated in . It remains to compute the transition matrix elements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_s^0=2`$ given by

$`T_{D_s}^{B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_{B_s^0}}}{\displaystyle d^4x𝑑\varphi _{D_s}\underset{X}{}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(P_{B_s^0}P_{D_s}P_X)}`$
$`B_s^0|H_{eff}(x)|D_sXD_sX|H_{eff}^{}(0)|\overline{B}_s^0`$
and

$`T_{\overline{D}_s}^{\overline{B}_s^0B_{}^{0}{}_{s}{}^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_{B_s^0}}}{\displaystyle d^4x𝑑\varphi _{\overline{D}_s}\underset{\overline{X}}{}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(P_{B_s^0}P_{\overline{D}_s}P_{\overline{X}})}`$
$`\overline{B}_s^0|H_{eff}(x)|\overline{D}_s\overline{X}\overline{D}_s\overline{X}|H_{eff}^{}(0)|B_s^0,`$
where $`d\varphi _{D_s}`$ is the phase space of the $`D_s`$ meson. The part of the effective Hamiltonian which is relevant for this work is given by

$`H_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}\left(C_1(\overline{b}c)_{VA}(\overline{c}s)_{VA}+C_2(\overline{b}T^ac)_{VA}(\overline{c}T^as)_{VA}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}^{}V_{us}\left(C_1(\overline{b}c)_{VA}(\overline{u}s)_{VA}+C_2(\overline{b}T^ac)_{VA}(\overline{u}T^as)_{VA}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}^{}V_{cs}\left(C_1(\overline{b}u)_{VA}(\overline{c}s)_{VA}+C_2(\overline{b}T^au)_{VA}(\overline{c}T^as)_{VA}\right)`$
where $`(\overline{q}_1q_2)_{VA}`$ stands for $`(\overline{q}_1\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)q_2)`$, the $`T^a`$ matrices are the $`SU(3)_C`$ Gell-Mann matrices and $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are the Wilson coefficients. The matrix elements $`T_{D_s}^{B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0}`$ and $`T_{\overline{D}_s}^{\overline{B}_s^0B_{}^{0}{}_{s}{}^{}}`$ can be parametrized in the same way as the wrong charm decay in . Applying the Fierz transformation we can rewrite the operators into the following form $`(\overline{b}s)_{VA}(\overline{c}c)_{VA}`$, $`(\overline{b}s)_{VA}(\overline{u}c)_{VA}`$ and $`(\overline{b}s)_{VA}(\overline{c}u)_{VA}`$. Using the large $`N_C`$ limit, we can factorize $`T_{\overline{D}_s}^{\overline{B}_s^0B_s^0}`$

$`T_{\overline{D}_s}^{B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0}(M^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_{B_s^0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{2}}|C_1|^2V_{cb}^{}V_{qs}V_{qb}^{}V_{cs}`$
$`{\displaystyle d^4QK^{\mu \nu }(p_{B_s^0},M,Q)𝑑\varphi _{D_s}P_{\mu \nu }^{(q)}(Q)}`$
with

$`K_{\mu \nu }(p_{B_s^0},M,Q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_{B_s^0}p_XQ)`$
$`\overline{B}_s^0(p_{B_s^0})|(\overline{b}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)s)|XX|(\overline{b}\gamma _\nu (1\gamma _5)s)|B_s^0(p_{B_s^0})`$
and

$`P_{\mu \nu }^{(q)}(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{X^{}}{}}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(Qp_{D_s}p_X^{})`$
$`0|(\overline{c}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)q)|\overline{D}_s(p_{\overline{D}_s})X^{}\overline{D}_s(p_{\overline{D}_s})X^{}|(\overline{q}\gamma _\nu (1\gamma _5)c)|0.`$
We get a similar expression for $`T_{D_s}^{B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0}(M^2)`$. The nature of the quark $`q`$ depends on the operator under consideration. The tensor $`K_{\mu \nu }(p_{B_s^0},M,Q)`$ is fully inclusive and can be parametrized using the decay constant $`f_{B_s^0}`$ of the $`B_s^0`$ meson and $`P_{\mu \nu }^{(q)}(Q)`$ is very similar to the expression we had encountered in the calculation of the wrong charm decay width . It involves a projection on a state containing a $`D_s`$ meson. A priori we do not know how to calculate that kind of matrix element, a solution is to contract the spinor indices as in the parton calculation and to multiply this tensor by a channel dependent form factor $`f_q`$ which has to be fitted. We obtain

$$P_{\mu \nu }^{(q)}(p_D,Q)=2\pi \delta ((Qp_D)^2m_q^2)\mathrm{Tr}\{\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ p\hfill \end{array}_D\gamma {}_{\mu }{}^{}(\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ Q\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ p\hfill \end{array}_D)\gamma {}_{\nu }{}^{}\}f_q.$$
(15)
We can reproduce the inclusive case by setting $`f_q=1`$.

### 3.1 CP asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_s^+X)`$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)D_s^{}\overline{X})`$

The CP asymmetry reads

$`𝒜(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_s^+X)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)D_s^{}\overline{X})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_s^+X)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)D_s^{}\overline{X})}}.`$ (16)
We have two quark transitions contributing to $`T_{D_s^+}^{B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0}`$, namely $`bc\overline{c}s`$ interfering with itself and $`bu\overline{c}s`$ interfering with $`bc\overline{u}s`$. These matrix elements can be modeled in the same way as it was proposed in . It corresponds to a rescaling of the parton calculation. The complication due to isospin symmetry which led to the introduction of strong phases in  is not present in the $`B_s^0`$ system. We can use the same parameterization for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_s^0=2`$ as the one we have used for the wrong charm decay widths . The parton calculation was performed in . We obtain

$`T_{D_s^+}^{B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2m_b^2}{24\pi M_{B_s^0}}}f_{B_s^0}^2M_{B_s^0}^2V_{cb}V_{us}^{}V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}(1z)^2`$
$`\left(C_1^2(1z)B+C_1^2(1+2z){\displaystyle \frac{M_{B_s^0}^2}{m_b^2}}2B_S^0\right)𝒢`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2m_b^2f_{B_s^0}^2}{24\pi M_{B_s^0}}}M_{B_s^0}^2(V_{cs}^{}V_{cb})^2\sqrt{14z}`$
$`\left[(14z)C_1^2B+(1+2z)C_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_{B_s^0}^2}{m_b^2}}2B_S\right],`$
in the leading order of the short distance expansion and where $``$ and $`𝒢`$ are decay channel dependent non-perturbative form factors. We shall define $``$ and $`𝒢`$ later. The parameters $`B`$ and $`B_S`$ are the bag factors and $`z`$ is defined by

$`z={\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{m_b^2}}.`$ (18)
We have neglected the penguin operators. We also have two operators contributing to $`T_{D_s^{}}^{\overline{B}_s^0B_{}^{0}{}_{s}{}^{}}`$, as in the previous case $`bc\overline{c}s`$ interfering with itself and $`bc\overline{u}s`$ interfering with $`bu\overline{c}s`$. In the leading order of the short distance expansion we then have

$`T_{D_s^{}}^{\overline{B}_s^0B_s^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2m_b^2}{24\pi M_{B_s^0}}}f_{B_s^0}^2M_{B_s^0}^2V_{cb}^{}V_{us}V_{ub}^{}V_{cs}(1z)^2`$
$`\left(C_1^2(1z)B+C_1^2(1+2z){\displaystyle \frac{M_{B_s^0}^2}{m_b^2}}2B_S\right)𝒢`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2m_b^2f_{B_s^0}^2}{24\pi M_{B_s^0}}}M_{B_s^0}^2(V_{cb}^{}V_{cs})^2\sqrt{14z}`$
$`\left[(14z)C_1^2B+(1+2z)C_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_{B_s^0}^2}{m_b^2}}2B_S\right],`$
where $``$ and $`𝒢`$ are decay channel dependent non-perturbative form factors. The function $``$ was given in . We had

$`^{B_s^0D_s^+}=^{B_s^0D_s^{}}=4f,`$ (20)
where $`f=0.121`$ was fitted in . The value of this parameter could be slightly different in the $`B_s^0`$ case and will eventually have to be extracted from experiment. It can be extracted easily from the decay channel $`B_s^0D_s^+X`$. For the decays involving a $`D_s^{}`$ we have

$`^{B_s^0D_s^+}=^{B_s^0D_s^{}}=3f.`$ (21)
We shall make the very same assumptions to model $`𝒢`$ as we made to model $``$. To do so we have to consider the contribution of $`bu\overline{c}s`$ to the decay rates of the form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_sX)`$ which we shall denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_sX)^{bu\overline{c}s}`$. Using the same model as the one we used for the wrong charm case in , we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^+X)^{bu\overline{c}s}=3\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^+X)_{dir}^{bu\overline{c}s},`$ (22)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^+X)_{dir}^{bu\overline{c}s}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dir}^{bu\overline{c}s}`$ is the direct contribution to this decay over the current $`bu\overline{c}s`$. If we take into account the contribution from the decay over a $`D_s^+`$, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^+X)^{bu\overline{c}s}`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dir}^{bu\overline{c}s}`$ (23)
since a $`D_s^+`$ always decays into a $`D_s^+`$. We assume that the direct contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dir}^{bu\overline{c}s}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^+X)^{bu\overline{c}s}`$ is equal to the direct contribution to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0D^+X)^{bu\overline{c}s}`$ which is certainly the case in the limit of the heavy quark symmetry. We assume that every $`c`$ quark eventually hadronizes into a $`D`$ meson. Spin counting and isospin symmetry in the decays $`BD^{}X`$ and $`BD_{dir}X`$ through the transition $`bu\overline{c}s`$ allow us to deduce easily that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dir}`$ is equal to $`1/8`$ times the result of the parton calculation. We then obtain the following non-perturbative form factors

$`𝒢^{B_s^0D_s^+}=𝒢^{B_s^0D_s^{}}=1/2`$ (24)
and

$`𝒢^{B_s^0D_s^+}=𝒢^{B_s^0D_s^{}}=3/8.`$ (25)
In the $`B_s^0`$ system, we can use the following approximations

$`a=0\mathrm{and}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{12}^{}}{|M_{12}|}}={\displaystyle \frac{M_{12}}{|M_{12}|}}=1.`$ (26)
These are very good approximations, theory predicts $`a<10^3`$, we then neglect the weak phase in $`\frac{M_{12}^{}}{|M_{12}|}`$. We see that the only weak phases appearing are $`e^{i\gamma }`$ in equation (3.1) and $`e^{i\gamma }`$ in equation (3.1). We can therefore rewrite $`T_{D_s}^{B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0}`$ and $`T_{\overline{D}_s}^{\overline{B}^0B^0}`$ as

$`T_{D_s^+}^{B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0}=n_1+e^{i\gamma }n_2`$ (27)
and

$`T_{D_s^{}}^{\overline{B}_s^0B_s^0}=n_1+e^{i\gamma }n_2,`$ (28)
where $`n_1`$ corresponds to the contribution from $`bc\overline{c}s`$ interfering with it-self and $`e^{i\gamma }n_2`$ corresponds to the contribution from $`bc\overline{u}s`$ interfering with $`bu\overline{c}s`$. Inserting the formulas for the time dependent decay rates in the definition for the CP asymmetry, we obtain

$`𝒜_{CP}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{2n_2\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }Mt\right)\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )}{M_1(t)2\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^+X)+M_2(t)2\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^{}X)+M_3(t)}},`$ (29)
where $`M_1(t),M_2(t)`$ and $`M_3(t)`$ are given by

$`M_1(t)=\mathrm{cos}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Mt}{2}}\right)+\mathrm{sinh}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }t}{4}}\right),`$ (30)
$`M_2(t)=\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Mt}{2}}\right)+\mathrm{sinh}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }t}{4}}\right)`$ (31)
and

$`M_3(t)=(2n_1+2n_2)\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }t}{2}}\right).`$ (32)
The time integrated CP asymmetry is the given by

$`𝒜_{CP}={\displaystyle \frac{2n_2\frac{x}{1+x^2}\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )}{N_1(x,y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^+X)+N_2(x,y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^{}X)+N_3(x,y)}},`$ (33)
where $`N_1(x,y)`$, $`N_2(x,y)`$ and $`N_3(x,y)`$ are given by

$`N_1(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{2+x^2}{1+x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{4y^2}},`$ (34)
$`N_2(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{(1+x^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{(4y^2)}}`$ (35)
and

$`N_3(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{2y}{4y^2}}\left(2n_1+2n_2\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )\right),`$ (36)
where we have introduced the parameters $`x=\mathrm{\Delta }M/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`y=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which can be measured. At the present time, there is only a lower bound for the parameter $`x`$ in the $`B_s^0`$ system namely $`|x|>14`$ . For numerical calculations, we shall use $`|x|=20`$ . It is also not clear what the actual value of $`y`$ is, for numerical calculations, we shall use the value computed in , $`|y|=0.054`$. We set $`B_S=B=1`$, $`m_b=4.8\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{B_s^0}=5.3693\mathrm{GeV}`$ , $`m_c=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{D_s}=1.9685\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`f_{B_s^0}=210\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`C_1=1`$. We obtain numerically

$`n_1=4.931\%,`$ (37)
$`n_2=\mathrm{9.526\; 10}^2\%,`$
where $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ are normalized to the decay width of the $`B_s^0`$ meson, using $`\tau _{B_s^0}=\mathrm{1.54\; 10}^{12}\mathrm{s}`$. The decay width needed were computed in , we had

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^+X)=3.3\%`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^{}X)=64.9\%.`$
The time integrated CP asymmetry is then given by

$`𝒜_{CP}=\mathrm{1.4\; 10}^4\mathrm{sin}(\gamma ),`$ (39)
neglecting the term proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )`$ in the denominator.

### 3.2 CP asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_s^{}X)`$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)D_s^+\overline{X})`$

In this case the CP asymmetry reads

$`𝒜(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_s^{}X)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)D_s^+\overline{X})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_s^{}X)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)D_s^+\overline{X})}}.`$ (40)
We need to parameterize $`T_{D_s^{}}^{B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0}`$ and $`T_{D_s^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0B_s^0}`$. They are given by

$`T_{D_s^{}}^{B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(T_{D_s^{}}^{\overline{B}_s^0B_s^0}\right)^{}=n_1+e^{i\gamma }n_2`$ (41)
$`T_{D_s^+}^{\overline{B}_s^0B_s^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(T_{D_s^+}^{B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0}\right)^{}=n_1+e^{i\gamma }n_2.`$
The form factors appearing in the transition matrix element were given previously. The time dependent CP asymmetry then reads

$`𝒜_{CP}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{2n_2\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }Mt\right)\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )}{M_1(t)2\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^{}X)+M_2(t)2\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^+X)+M_3(t)}},`$ (42)
where $`M_1(t)`$, $`M_2(t)`$ and $`M_3(t)`$ were defined in equations (30), (31) and (32). The time integrated CP asymmetry is then given by

$`𝒜_{CP}={\displaystyle \frac{2n_2\frac{x}{1+x^2}\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )}{N_1(x,y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^{}X)+N_2(x,y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^+X)+N_3(x,y)}},`$
where $`N_1(x,y)`$, $`N_2(x,y)`$ and $`N_3(x,y)`$ are given in equations (34), (35) and (36). The time integrated CP asymmetry is numerically given by

$`𝒜_{CP}=\mathrm{1.4\; 10}^4\mathrm{sin}(\gamma ),`$ (44)
neglecting the term proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )`$ in the denominator.

### 3.3 CP asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_s^{}X)`$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)\overline{D}_s^{}\overline{X})`$

We can without any difficulty deduce from the preceding sections the formulas for the CP asymmetries in the one-particle inclusive decays of the form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_s^{}X)`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)\overline{D}_s^{}\overline{X})`$. We have

$`n_1=3.698\%`$ (45)
$`n_2=\mathrm{7.145\; 10}^2\%,`$
which are normalized to the decay width of the $`B_s^0`$ meson. The decay widths needed were computed in , we had

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^+X)=2.5\%`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0D_s^{}X)=49.6\%.`$
The next CP asymmetry we shall consider is defined by

$`𝒜(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_s^{}X)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)D_s^+\overline{X})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_s^{}X)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)D_s^+\overline{X})}}.`$ (47)
The time integrated CP asymmetry is then given by

$`𝒜_{CP}=\mathrm{1.4\; 10}^4\mathrm{sin}(\gamma ),`$ (48)
neglecting the term proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )`$ in the denominator. For the asymmetry defined by

$`𝒜(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_s^{}X)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)D_s^+\overline{X})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_s^{}X)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)D_s^+\overline{X})}},`$ (49)
we obtain

$`𝒜_{CP}=\mathrm{1.4\; 10}^4\mathrm{sin}(\gamma ),`$ (50)
neglecting the term proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )`$ in the denominator.

## 4 Discussion of the results

We see that in principle we can extract information on $`\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )`$ from the asymmetries calculated in the previous section. But they are small, nevertheless the decay widths involved are sizable. It has been proposed to extract information on $`\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )`$ from exclusive decays (see e.g. ) but the decay widths involved are very small, typically of the order $`10^4`$ and one would have to deal with strong phases which would make the extraction of $`\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )`$ even more difficult. It could therefore be worth to try to extract $`\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )`$ from one-particle inclusive decays in the $`B_s^0`$ system. If the present method is chosen to extract $`\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )`$, it would be interesting to test its precision. This could be done by comparing the results obtained for $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ in one-particle inclusive CP asymmetries in the $`B_d`$ system  with some more conventional extraction technique like the “gold-plated” $`BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }K_S`$, although one-particle inclusive CP asymmetries in the $`B_d`$ system are theoretically not as clean as the ones in the $`B_s^0`$ system due to the presence of strong phases .

We still have some large uncertainties, some of them due to the method. The corrections to the decay widths could be fairly large, in the worth case of the order of $`30\%`$. But remember that the decay widths calculated in  are compatible with current experimental knowledge. On the other hand, we have large experimental uncertainties in the values of $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`f_{B_s^0}`$.

Time dependent CP asymmetries could also allow to extract $`\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )`$, but it is not yet clear if the oscillations can be resolved. Predictions depend on the decay width difference in the $`B_s^0`$ system and it has not yet been possible to measure this quantity.

A way to improve the magnitude of the CP asymmetries would be to do an anti-lepton tagging. The decay widths in the denominator are partially responsible for the low magnitude of the asymmetries, this is particularly true for the CP asymmetries in the $`B_d^0`$ system considered in . Thus, doing an anti-lepton tagging, would slightly improve their magnitude. We would then consider asymmetries of the type

$`𝒜(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_sX)_{\mathrm{NL}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)\overline{D}_s\overline{X})_{\mathrm{NL}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_s^0(t)D_sX)_{\mathrm{NL}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s^0(t)\overline{D}_s\overline{X})_{\mathrm{NL}}}},`$ (51)
where $`\mathrm{NL}`$ stands for non-leptonic. In the $`B_s^0`$ system, we would have time integrated CP asymmetries of the order $`\mathrm{2\; 10}^4\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )`$. The factor $`x=20`$ is responsible for the low magnitude of the asymmetries. In the $`B_d`$ system, this effect would obviously be larger.

## 5 Conclusion

We have discussed CP asymmetries in one-particle inclusive $`B_s^0D_sX`$ decays. The asymmetries are small but would allow to extract $`\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )`$ which is known to be difficult. So any new method is probably welcome. It has the advantage, in comparison to CP asymmetries of exclusive decays, to have some large decay widths and in comparison to CP asymmetries of inclusive decays, of being experimentally clean.

## Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Z.Z. Xing for long discussions on $`B_s^0`$ physics and CP violation in that system and for his critical reading of this manuscript. He would also like to thank A. Leike for his useful comments.