format: text

text:
# One Interesting New Sum Rule Extending Bjorken’s to order 𝟏/𝒎_𝑸

## I Introduction

It is well known  that quark-hadron duality is valid to a good accuracy in $`b`$-quark decay and particularly in semileptonic decay. A systematic study of the corrections to duality  using the powerful tools of Operator Product Expansion (OPE)  and Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET), in particular Luke’s theorem , has demonstrated that the first corrections to duality only appear at second order, namely $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m_Q^2)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is for the QCD scale and $`m_Q`$ is one of the heavy quark masses ($`m_b`$ or $`m_c`$). For simplicity we leave aside in this letter the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ radiative corrections notwithstanding their manifest practical relevance.

The OPE based proof is very elegant and circumvents the detailed calculation of the relevant channels. Precisely this feature has generated some doubts or at least some worries. First of all there is the experimental problem of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ life time which has not yet been understood within OPE framework. Second it has been asked if OPE could not miss some subtle kinematical effects related with the delay in the opening of different decay channels . We have shown  in a non-relativistic model that the latter effect does not affect the validity of duality.

A numerical calculation of the sum over exclusive channels in the ’t Hooft two dimensional QCD model  reported a presence of a duality-violating $`1/m_Q`$ correction in the total width . Later the summation was performed analytically in the case of the massless light quark . Agreement between the OPE and the exact result was found in this case through $`1/m_Q^4`$ order.

The “miraculous” conspiracy of exclusive decay channels to add up to the partonic result and its OPE corrections may be expressed in terms of sum rules which the hadronic matrix elements must satisfy in QCD . OPE was first explicitly used to derive Bjorken sum rule in .

To leading order in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b`$ Bjorken sum rule straightforwardly implies quark hadron duality for the semileptonic widths (the differential and the total widths). The suppression of the $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b)`$ corrections is not so direct. The authors of  have done a thorough study of the exclusive contributions of the ground state $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ mesons up to order $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m_b^2)`$. They have chosen the Shifman Voloshin (SV)  limit, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }m_bm_cm_b`$, which drastically simplifies the calculation, but did not consider the orbitally excited states, and therefore could not check the matching between the sum of exclusive channels and the OPE prediction to the order $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_bm_c)/m_b^2)`$.

Our first motivation was precisely to complete this part and add the $`L=1`$ excited states in the sum of exclusive channels. We will discuss in section III why we neglect other excitations.

While performing this task we had a surprise. We found that a new sum rule, eq. (12), was needed beyond Bjorken, Voloshin, and the known tower of higher moment sum rules  and we found that this new sum rule could be demonstrated from OPE.

We believe that other new sum rules can be derived along the same line. When the form factors are taken at leading order in $`1/m_b`$, OPE applied to different components of the hadronic tensor, or to different operators, always provides the unique series: Bjorken sum rule, Voloshin sum rule and higher moments. But when the next to leading contribution to the form factors is considered, no such unicity holds anymore. Changing the current operators in the OPE might lead to several other sum rules at order $`1/m_b`$.

In the following we will simplify our task as much as possible. We will neglect radiative corrections. We will also leave aside terms of order $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m_b^2)`$, which implies that operators with higher dimension than identity may be neglected in the OPE and consequently that the inclusive results may be computed only via the partonic contribution.

In the next section we will show how the equality of partonic and inclusive widths to the desired order demands for a new sum rule. In section III we will derive the latter sum rule from OPE applied to the T-product of currents. Finally in section IV we show interesting phenomenological consequences of the sum rule. We then conclude.

## II Inclusive semileptonic widths

We work in the SV limit , i.e. we assume the following hierarchy

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta mm_b$$
(1)
where $`\delta mm_bm_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is any energy scale stemming from QCD, for example the hadron-quark mass difference $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}m_Bm_b=m_Dm_c+O(1/m_b)`$ or the excitation energy.

From OPE  one expects quark-hadron duality to be valid up to $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m_b^2)`$ corrections, i.e. in terms of the double expansion in $`\delta m/m_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b`$, it should be valid to all orders $`(\delta m/m_b)^n`$ and $`(\delta m/m_b)^n\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b`$. In fact we will restrict ourselves to check duality up to order $`(\delta m/m_b)^2`$ and $`\delta m\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b^2`$. The terms of order $`\delta m\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b^2`$ will turn out to be the trickiest. Of course, in the preceding sentences we mean orders as compared to the leading contribution. For example the inclusive semileptonic width is of order $`(\delta m)^5`$, which implies that we will compute it up to order $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\delta m)^6/m_b^2`$. In this letter the symbol $``$ will always refer to neglecting higher orders than those just mentioned. From OPE the partonic semileptonic decay width should equate the explicit sum of the corresponding exclusive decay widths up to $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m_b^2)`$ terms, i.e. :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}X_cl\nu )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(bcl\nu )+O(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m_b^2)$$
(2)
with the semileptonic partonic width

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(bcl\nu )=32K(\delta m)^5\left[\frac{2}{5}\frac{3}{5}\frac{\delta m}{m_b}+\frac{9}{35}\frac{(\delta m)^2}{m_b^2}\right]$$
(3)
where

$$K=\frac{G_F^2}{192\pi ^3}|V_{cb}|^2$$
(4)
Using $`M_Bm_b+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\delta MM_BM_D\delta m`$ we get

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}X_cl\nu )32K(\delta M)^5\left[\frac{2}{5}\frac{3}{5}\frac{\delta M}{M_B}+\frac{9}{35}\frac{(\delta M)^2}{M_B^2}\frac{21}{35}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\delta M}{M_B^2}\right]$$
(5)
The ground state contribution is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}(D+D^{})l\nu )32K(\delta M)^5\left[\frac{2}{5}\frac{3}{5}\frac{\delta M}{M_B}+\frac{118\rho ^2}{35}\frac{(\delta M)^2}{M_B^2}\frac{1}{10}\frac{a_+^{(1)}\delta M}{M_B^2}\right]$$
(6)
Strictly speaking nothing compels $`a_+^{(1)}`$ to be real and we must read $`\mathrm{}[a_+^{(1)}]`$ everywhere in this letter instead of $`a_+^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{}[\xi _3]`$ instead of $`\xi _3`$. The contribution of the first orbitally excited states may be computed using results in . We get

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}(D_1+D_2^{})l\nu )32K|\tau _{3/2}(1)|^2\left[\frac{16}{35}\frac{(\delta M)^2}{M_B^2}\frac{56}{35}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2}\delta M}{M_B^2}\right]$$
(7)
for the states with total angular momentum of the light quanta $`j=3/2`$ and $`\tau _j(w)`$ are the infinite mass limit form factors $`BD^{}`$ as defined in . In all this letter we use for any state $`n`$ the notation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_n=M_nM_0,$$
(8)
where 0 refers to the ground state.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}(D_1^{}+D_0^{})l\nu )32K|\tau _{1/2}(1)|^2\left[\frac{8}{35}\frac{(\delta M)^2}{M_B^2}\frac{49}{35}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}\delta M}{M_B^2}\right]$$
(9)
for the lowest $`j=1/2`$ states.

To the order considered, quark-hadron duality of the semileptonic decay widths implies the equality of the r.h.s. of eq. (5) with the sum of the r.h.s’s of eqs (6), (7) and (9) to which we need to add the $`L=1`$ radially excited states. Their contributions are identical to eqs. (7) and (9) with the replacement $`\tau _j\tau _j^{(n)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j\mathrm{\Delta }_j^{(n)}`$. The terms proportional to $`(\delta M/M_B)^2`$ match thanks to Bjorken sum rule :

$$\rho ^2\frac{1}{4}=\underset{n}{}\left[|\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}|^2+2|\tau _{3/2}^{(n)}|^2\right]$$
(10)
From now on, unless specified, it is understood that the form factors are taken at $`w=1`$. Taking into account Voloshin sum rule

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\underset{n}{}\left[2\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}^{(n)}|\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}|^2+4\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2}^{(n)}|\tau _{3/2}^{(n)}|^2\right],$$
(11)
the matching of the terms of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta M/M_B^2`$ leads to the requirement

$$a_+^{(1)}=4\underset{n}{}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}^{(n)}|\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}|^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2}^{(n)}|\tau _{3/2}^{(n)}|^2\right]$$
(12)
The sum rule (12) is the main result of this paper. The preceding lines can be taken as a derivation of the sum rule, since we simply have made explicit the result from OPE, eq. (5). However, one might feel uncomfortable in view of the peculiarity of the SV kinematics, one might fear that some exception to OPE could happen there. Furthermore, as recalled in the introduction, OPE has been repeatedly submitted to various interrogations. Therefore, we will rederive in the next section the sum rule (12) in a less questionable manner.

Let us note that in the vector current case, we do not need the $`a_+`$ form factor. In that case, matching of the $`(\delta M/M_B)^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta M/M_B^2`$ terms occurs thanks to Bjorken and Voloshin sum rule only - or conversely we can invoke duality to demonstrate these sum rules. In particular, it gives a demonstration of Voloshin sum rule just from the same duality requirement invoked by Isgur and Wise to derive Bjorken sum rule: the Voloshin sum rule comes from the matching of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta M/M_B^2`$ terms.

It is in the axial case or in the $`VA`$ case (which corresponds to the sum of vector and axial contribution) that we need the new sum rule. More precisely, we can separate also the contributions with definite helicity of the lepton pair. In the transverse helicity case, there is still matching from just Bjorken and Voloshin sum rule. In fact the need for a new sum rule occurs in the axial current and for longitudinal helicity. We obtain indeed for the $`\lambda =0`$ helicity of the axial current:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(bcl\nu )_{A,\lambda =0}4K(\delta M)^5\left[\frac{4}{3}2\frac{\delta M}{M_B}+\frac{4}{5}\frac{(\delta M)^2}{M_B^2}2\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\delta M}{M_B^2}\right]$$
(13)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}D^{}l\nu )_{A,\lambda =0}4K(\delta M)^5`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta M}{M_B}}+(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}\rho ^2){\displaystyle \frac{(\delta M)^2}{M_B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_+^{(1)}\delta M}{M_B^2}}\right]`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}D^{}l\nu )_{A,\lambda =0}4K(\delta M)^5`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}[|\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}|^2+2|\tau _{3/2}^{(n)}|^2]{\displaystyle \frac{(\delta M)^2}{M_B^2}}`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{28}{5}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}^{(n)}|\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}|^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2}^{(n)}|\tau _{3/2}^{(n)}|^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\delta M}{M_B^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}[\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}^{(n)}|\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}|^2]{\displaystyle \frac{\delta M}{M_B^2}}]`$
whence we get the eq. (12) from the matching of $`\frac{\delta M}{M_B^2}`$ terms.

## III Derivation of the sum rule from OPE

The authors of  have derived corrections to Bjorken and Voloshin sum rules and to the resulting inequalities on $`\rho ^2`$. We will follow the same philosophy but including the orbitally excited states in order to derive $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b)`$ corrections, within our approximations, to the equalities resulting from the sum rules. We will use the differential semileptonic distributions .

Defining two currents which at present we take arbitrary:

$$J(x)\left(\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }c\right)(x),J^{}(y)\left(\overline{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}b\right)(y).$$
(18)
Their T product is

$$T(q)id^4xe^{iqx}<\overline{B}|T(J(x)J^{}(0))|\overline{B}>$$
(19)
where the states are normalised according to $`<p|p^{}>=(2\pi )^3\delta _3(\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{p})`$.

Neglecting heavy quarks in the “sea”, it is clear that $`x<0`$ receives contributions from intermediate states with one $`c`$ quark and light quanta, usually referred to as the direct channel, while $`x>0`$ receives contributions from intermediate states with $`b\overline{c}b`$ quarks plus light quanta. This will be referred to as the crossed channel, or $`Z`$ diagrams. Expanding the r.h.s of (19) on intermediate states $`X`$ in the $`B`$ rest frame,

$$T=(2\pi )^3\left[\underset{X}{}\delta _3(\stackrel{}{p}_X+\stackrel{}{q})\frac{<\overline{B}|J(0)|X><X|J^{}(0)|\overline{B}>}{M_Bq_0E_X}\underset{X^{}}{}\delta _3(\stackrel{}{p}_X^{}\stackrel{}{q})\frac{<\overline{B}\overline{X}^{}|J(0)|0><0|J^{}(0)|\overline{X}^{}\overline{B}>}{M_B+q_0(E_X^{}+2M_B)}\right]$$
(20)
where $`X,X^{}`$ are charmed states. Let us call $`𝒱`$ the typical virtuality of the direct channels, $`M_Bq_0E_X𝒱`$, we will take $`q_0`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒱M_B`$. While the direct channels ($`X`$) contribute like $`1/𝒱`$ to (20), the crossed channels ($`X^{}`$) contribute like $`1/(m_D+𝒱)`$. In both cases the denominator is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which allows to use the leading contribution to OPE:

$$T=id^4xe^{iqx}<\overline{B}|\overline{b}(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }S_c(x,0)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}b(0)|\overline{B}>+O(1/m_c^2)$$
(21)
where $`S_c(x,0)`$ is the free charmed quark propagator as long as $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections are neglected. Assuming as usual that the $`b`$ quark has a momentum $`p_b=m_bv+k`$ with $`k_\mu =O(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, the charmed quark propagator in (21) has two terms, the positive energy pole with a denominator $`m_bv_0+k_0q_0E_c𝒱`$ and the negative energy one with a denominator $`m_bv_0+k_0q_0+E_cm_c+𝒱`$. Varying $`𝒱`$ independently of $`m_bm_c`$ one can check that the direct channels sum up to the contribution of the positive energy pole of the charmed quark propagator.

As a result, considering now only resonances among the states $`X`$ and fixing $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ in the following, one gets equating the residues

$$\underset{n}{}<\overline{B}|J(0)|n><n|J^{}(0)|\overline{B}>=<\overline{B}|\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{/v_q^{}+1}{2v_0^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}b|\overline{B}>$$
(22)
where all the three-momenta are equal to $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ in the $`B`$ rest frame and

$$v_q^{}=\frac{1}{m_c}(\stackrel{}{q},\sqrt{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_c^2})$$
(23)
It is well known  that to leading order this leads to Bjorken sum rule. Considering successive moments, i.e. multiplying $`T`$ in (19) by $`(q_0E_0)^n`$ ($`E_0`$ being the ground state energy) leads to a tower of sum rules , Voloshin sum rule when $`n=1`$, etc.

In the following we will stick to the $`n=0`$ moment, but include the $`1/m_b`$ correction to the residues. Let us insist on this point. One may discover a tower of sum rules by keeping the form factors to leading order but considering successive moments . One may also discover new sum rules by sticking to the lowest moment but considering the higher orders in the form factors. This is not equivalent and leads to different sum rules, the first moment yields Voloshin sum rule eq (11), the second adds at least one new sum rule, (12), as we shall demonstrate now. The distinction is important since in practice both sum rules apply to the same order in $`1/m_b`$. A significant difference between the two types of subleading sum rules is the following: All the currents provide via OPE the same Voloshin sum rule because the form factors are all related by the heavy quark symmetry. On the contrary, when the form factors are taken at subleading order in $`1/m_b`$, different currents have different corrective terms depending on several independent form factors, and OPE should yield different subleading sum rules. In this letter we only consider eq. (12) for its physical relevance, leaving other sum rules for a forthcoming study.

We now apply eq. (22) with $`J,J^{}`$ substituted by the vector current $`V^\mu `$ and the axial one $`A^\mu `$. One may check that eq. (22) applied to currents projected perpendicularly to the $`v,v^{}`$ plane is trivially satisfied, including the $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b)`$ order, by Bjorken sum rule. Let us now consider the vector current projected on the $`B`$ meson four velocity: $`Vv`$. Among the orbitally excited states only the $`J=1`$ states contribute to the wanted order. Dividing both sides of eq (22) by $`(1+w)/(2v_0v_0^{})`$ one gets using the results of  and

$$\frac{1+w}{2}|\xi (w)|^2+\underset{n}{}(w1)\left\{2|\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}|^2\left[1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}^{(n)}}{m_b}\right]+(w+1)^2|\tau _{3/2}^{(n)}|^2\left[1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2}^{(n)}}{m_b}\right]\right\}1+(w1)\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_b}$$
(24)
where we have neglected higher powers of $`(w1)`$ and of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b`$ than the firstRemember that we take $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Delta }_j\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The l.h.s is found by a straightforward application of  for the ground state and of  for the excited ones. The r.h.s yields $`(1+w_q)/(1+w)`$ which has been transformed according to:

$$w_qv.v_q^{}w+\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\left[\frac{1}{2m_c^2}\frac{1}{2M_D^2}\right]w+\frac{(w^21)\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_b}.$$
(25)
The leading terms in eq. (24) simply reproduce Bjorken sum rule as expected , while the $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b)`$ terms provide Voloshin sum rule. This is another derivation of Voloshin sum rule which does not use higher momenta.

Analogously the axial current projected on the $`D`$ meson velocity $`v^{}`$, $`Av^{}`$ gives, inserted in eq. (22) and after dividing both sides by $`(w1)/(2v_0v_0^{})`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1+w}{2}}|\xi (w)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{m_b}}\xi _3(w)\xi (w)+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\{[2(w1){\displaystyle \frac{6(w+1)\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}^{(n)}}{m_b}}]|\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}|^2`$

$$+(w1)(w+1)^2|\tau _{3/2}^{(n)}|^2\}1(w+1)\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_b}$$
(26)
where $`\xi _3`$ in the notations of  is equal to $`a_+^{(1)}/2`$ used in . The matching of the $`1/m_b`$ terms in eq. (26) leads to the sum rule

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+a_+^{(1)}=L_4(1)=+6\underset{n}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}^{(n)}|\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}|^2$$
(27)
$`L_4`$ being defined according to . Eliminating $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ from eqs. (27) and (11) we are left with eq. (12).

We can check this result by using the method for sum rules developed earlier by Bigi and the Minnesota group , which relies on a systematic $`1/m_Q`$ expansion of the moments of the Lorentz invariants of the imaginary part of the hadronic tensor, $`w_i`$. From their equation (131), we read :

$$𝑑q^0w_2^{AA}(q^0,\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\frac{m_b}{E_c}$$
(28)
the terms left over being the power corrections due to higher dimension operators. Computing from  and  the hadronic contribution to the same integral at $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$ i.e. $`w=1`$, we get the equation (with $`r_0=M_D^{}/M_B`$, $`r_{1/2,3/2}=M_{D_{1/2,3/2}^{}}/M_B`$):

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑q^0w_2^{AA}(q^0,\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_0}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{4M_B^2r_0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1r_0)fa_+}{r_0}}\right\}`$ (29)
$`+\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1r_{3/2})^2}{r_{3/2}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_{A_1}^2}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_A^2}{4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r_{1/2}^2}}([(1+r_{1/2})g_+(1r_{1/2})g_{}]^2g_A^2)\right\}`$ (30)
with all form factors taken at $`w=1`$, and with notations for the $`L=1`$ form factors $`g_+,g_{},g_A,f_A,k_{A_1}`$ to be found in . A sum over the $`L=1`$ excitations is unedrstood. If we now work in the SV limit, we see that we need $`g_{},f_A,g_A,k_{A_1}`$ only in the HQET limit, i.e. $`\tau _{1/2,3/2}`$, except for some algebraic factors; as for $`g_+`$, it is subleading, but at $`w=1`$, it is expressible in terms of $`\tau _{1/2}`$ and we do not need to know any of the new subleading form factors. In the $`L=1`$ contributions, only the $`g_+g_{}`$ term remains. We finally end with the equation :

$$\frac{M_B}{M_D}\frac{\delta M}{M_B^2}a_+^{(1)}+6\frac{\delta M}{M_B^2}\underset{n}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}^{(n)}|\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}|^2\frac{m_b}{m_c}$$
(31)
which leads directly to eq. (27).

In the preceding calculations we have systematically neglected the contributions from higher orbital excitations or $`L=0`$ radial excitations. This can be justified as follows. The leading $`B`$ transition to radially excited $`L=0`$ final states or to $`L=2`$ final states are suppressed by a factor $`\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/m_b^2`$ due to three facts: first, the current operator is proportional at leading order to the identity operator or to $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_b`$<sup>§</sup><sup>§</sup>§ The heavy quark spin may be factorised out thanks to HQS., second, the orthogonality of the wave functions implies vanishing at $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$ in the $`B`$ rest frame and, third, parity implies an even power in $`\stackrel{}{q}`$. This suppression leads to the well known fact that these terms appear in the Bjorken sum rule or in the differential widths with a $`(w1)^2`$ factor as compared to the ground state contribution. On the contrary the $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b)`$ contributions to the axial form factors for the same type of transitions are not suppressed as compared to the ground state because the current operator is no more proportional to identity neither to $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_b`$. For example the transition to radially or orbitally excited $`J^P=1^{}`$ states other than the $`D^{}`$ are in principle of the same order of magnitude than the $`a_+^{(1)}`$ terms mentioned above. However, in this letter we have only considered the terms $`a_+^{(1)}`$ via crossed terms, i.e. via cross products of the leading order terms with the $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b)`$ ones, because we have neglected all $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m_b^2)`$ contributions. Hence we are left with a suppression of a factor $`\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/m_b^2`$ in the hadronic tensors or the differential widths, i.e. a factor $`(w1)`$ as compared to the corresponding ground state contribution and we can consequently neglect the $`L=0`$ radial excitations and the $`L=2`$ orbital ones. $`L=3`$ contributions are negligible simply because the total angular momentum $`J2`$ again leads to $`(w1)`$ factors resulting from angular momentum conservation (D-waves). All other operators which are already negligible for the ground state and the $`L=1`$ states are even more so for higher excitations.

Turning now to a comparison of our different demonstrations, we should note that it is not really unexpected that we find consistent results according to three approaches: imposing duality to the widths (section II), imposing duality to the tensors as in eqs. (24) and (26) and finally to the invariant tensors eqs. (28) and (30). Indeed, at fixed $`q^0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ there is a linear relation between the tensor components and the invariant tensors. It is as well true that the formula for the decay widths before integrating on the $`q^0`$ variable is, for fixed $`q^0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, linear in the tensor components.

We might worry about what happens when we apply duality to the sum of the residues. Integration over $`q^0`$ leads to a sum of residues multiplied by $`\delta `$ functions and the position of the poles is different for each term in the sum and still different for the quark contribution. As a consequence the projector which projects out $`w_2`$ from the tensor residues is different for each term since it depends on $`q^0`$. Still this difference does not lead to a collapse of the sum rule thanks to Voloshin sum rule and the tower of higher momenta sum rules: one can expand the difference between the intervening projectors in powers of $`q^0`$ and the resulting alteration to the sum rule vanishes. Exactly the same happens when one computes the decay widths with the real kinematics on each term.

## IV Phenomenological consequences

Eq. (27) is phenomenologically relevant as it expresses the dominant correction to the zero recoil differential $`BDl\nu `$ decay width as a function of leading form factors and level spacings. Indeed

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(BDl\nu )}{dw}(w^21)^{3/2}\left[12\left(\frac{1}{2m_b}+\frac{1}{2m_c}\right)\frac{M_BM_D}{M_B+M_D}L_4(1)\right].$$
(32)
On the other hand, we may combine our result with an independent estimate of the form factor $`\xi _3`$  from QCD sum rulesThe definitions of $`\xi _3`$ differ by a factor $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ in  and . We use the notations of .:

$$\frac{\xi _3(1)}{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=\frac{1}{3}+O(\alpha _s)=0.6\pm 0.2,\frac{a_+^{(1)}}{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=\frac{2}{3}O(\alpha _s)=1.2\pm 0.4.$$
(33)
The dispersion formulation of the constituent quark model  finds that $`\xi _3(1)`$ is 1/3 the average kinetic energy of the light quark. For a light constituent mass of $`m_u=0.25`$ GeV it gives

$$\xi _3(1)=0.17\mathrm{GeV},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.5\mathrm{GeV}$$
(34)
in perfect agreement with eq. (33) for $`\alpha _s=0`$.

Combining (11), (12) and (33), assuming $`\alpha _s=0`$ since we have neglected radiative corrections all along this letter, we get

$$\frac{\underset{n}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}^{(n)}|\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}|^2}{_n\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2}^{(n)}|\tau _{3/2}^{(n)}|^2}=\frac{1}{4},\mathrm{for}\alpha _s=0$$
(35)
and

$$\underset{n}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}^{(n)}|\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}|^2=\frac{1}{18}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\underset{n}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2}^{(n)}|\tau _{3/2}^{(n)}|^2=\frac{2}{9}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(36)
Notice that if we had, somehow inconsistently, taken $`\xi _3(1)/\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.6`$ the result would not be qualitatively different.

Since in all spectroscopic models the mass differences between the $`j=1/2`$ and $`j=3/2`$ states turn out to be not so large, we conclude that the $`_n|\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}|^2`$ are significantly smaller than the $`_n|\tau _{3/2}^{(n)}|^2`$ .

Interestingly enough, this hierarchy $`|\tau _{1/2}^{(0)}|^2<|\tau _{3/2}^{(0)}|^2`$ was a clear outcome of a class of covariant quark models . In  four different potentials had been used within the Bakamjian-Thomas covariant quark model framework. The potentials labeled ISGW, VD, CCCN, and GI potentials in  give respectively for the ratio $`|\tau _{1/2}^{(0)}|^2/|\tau _{3/2}^{(0)}|^2`$ the values 0.33, 0.09, 0.01 and 0.17. As a result these models predict a dominance of the $`BD_{j=3/2}l\nu `$ semileptonic decay widths by one order of magnitude over the $`BD_{j=1/2}l\nu `$. We will comment this prediction later. The same models  give for the l.h.s of eq. (35) 0.39, 0.166, 0.151 and 0.247 respectively for the ISGW, VD, CCCN, and GI potentials, in reasonable agreement with 1/4. It might not be mere luck if the GI model, which fits the spectrum in the most elaborate way, yields an almost too good agreement with the expectation (35) We should nevertheless remember that the potentials used in  contain a Coulombic part which implies that some part of the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections might be implicit in these models.. From eq. (33) we expect the r.h.s. of eq. (12) divided by that of eq. (11) to be close to $`2/3`$. We have tested this with the numerical calculations of . In all cases we find that the sums in the r.h.s of eqs. (11)-(12) saturate very fast to their symptotic values. At $`n=3`$ they are at less than 3% in all cases. For the ratios $`a_+^{(1)}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ computed from the r.h.s of eqs. (11)-(12) one finds -0.51, -0.77, -0.79, -0.67 respectively for the ISGW, VD, CCCN, and GI models. This agreement with (33) is quite striking, and again GI is embarrassingly good.

In more general terms, the prediction  that the $`B`$ meson decays dominantly into the narrow resonances $`j=3/2`$ was comforted by a study within a constituent quark-meson model  as well as by a semi-relativistic study . A QCD sum rule analysis  predicted rather a rough equality between these form factors contrarily to another one  which concluded to an overwhelming dominance of the $`j=3/2`$ semileptonic decay over the $`j=1/2`$.

It is fair to say that the general trend of theoretical models is to predict $`3/2`$ dominance and a total semileptonic branching ratio into the orbitally excited states exceeding hardly 1 %. It is well known that the $`j=3/2`$ are expected to be relatively narrow and are identified with the observed narrow resonances $`D_1(2422)`$ and $`D_2^{}(2459)`$. As far as the decay widths into the latter narrow resonances is considered, experimental results  are in rough agreement with  for the $`BD_1(2422)l\nu `$ and rather below  for $`BD_2^{}(2422)l\nu `$. In brief, experiment is rather below the theoretical models for $`BD_{3/2}l\nu `$. The $`j=1/2`$ states are not easy to isolate, being very broad. But thorough studies have been done of the channels $`BD^{()}\pi l\nu `$ and the resulting branching fraction is very large: $`3.4\pm 0.52\pm 0.32\%`$ by DELPHI  and $`2.26\pm 0.29\pm 0.33\%`$ by ALEPH.

These experimental results are both welcome and puzzling. Welcome because these $`BD^{()}\pi l\nu `$ fill the gap between the inclusive semileptonic decay branching fraction of 10 - 11 % and the sum $`B(D+D^{})l\nu 7\%`$. They are puzzling when one tries to understand which channels contribute to them. As we have just said, the $`j=3/2`$ channels provide no more than 1 %. The remaining 2 % can come from the $`j=1/2`$, from higher excitations or from a non-resonant continuum. Higher excitations are unlikely to contribute very much, being suppressed both by dynamics and phase space. In  the quoted $`bD^{}l\nu `$ branching fractions are very large, exceeding by far what is expected for example in .

The results presented in this letter are doubly relevant in the above discussion. First eq. (35) seems to confirm the models which find a dominance of the $`3/2`$ channels. Of course it is mathematically possible that that eq. (35) is satisfied while $`|\tau _{1/2}^{(0)}|>|\tau _{3/2}^{(0)}|`$, the higher excitations compensating for the sum rule. Admittedly such a situation would look rather queer, and as mentioned above , the models , which agree rather well with the new sum rule eq. (12), also yield $`|\tau _{1/2}^{(0)}|^2<0.35|\tau _{3/2}^{(0)}|^2`$.

It is then hard to understand how the $`bD^{}l\nu `$ branching fractions can be as large as quoted in  in view of the smallness of the experimental $`BD_{3/2}l\nu `$ branching fractions. However, the second lesson from our study is that $`1/m_c`$ corrections may play an important role, and a further study of their effect is wanted.

The most serious caveat to our present derivation of a narrow resonance dominance comes from the fact that we have neglected radiative corrections. A priori we expect radiative corrections to provide only corrections and our present estimate to yield the general trend. This is unhappily not always true. As a counterexample see the discussion which follows eq. (7.8) in . It is argued that some radiative corrections to the parameter $`K`$ are parametrically larger than the $`\alpha _s=0`$ estimate. A careful study of radiative corrections to our present sum rule and its consequences would be welcome.

It is not excluded that an important fraction of the $`BD^{()}\pi l\nu `$ decays observed at LEP are non-resonant. Unluckily theoretical works addressing non-resonant decays are rare,  find in the soft-pion domain a resonance dominance while Isgur  predicts that no more than 5 % of the semileptonic decay is non-resonant. Furthermore, if such a continuum contributes significantly, it should also be included in the sum rules  and we might fear that at the end of the day the paradox would still be there.

Finally another experimental result  seems to contradict our theoretical expectation: the branching ratio for $`BD_1(j=1/2)\pi ^{}`$ is found to be $`1.5`$ times larger than that of $`BD_1(2420)\pi ^{}`$. Of course the experimental error is still large, and the relation between nonleptonic decays and the semileptonic ones assumes factorisation.

But still there is a puzzle: on one side an increasing amount of theoretical evidence in favor of the narrow resonances dominance, and on the other side an increasing amount of experimental evidence in the opposite direction!

## V Conclusion and outlook

We have explicitly checked quark-hadron duality in the SV limit to order $`\delta m\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b^2`$ including ground state final hadrons and $`L=1`$ orbitally excited states. We have shown that this duality implied a new sum rule eq. (12) which we have also demonstrated from OPE applied to T-product of axial currents.

We have shown that this sum rule combined with some theoretical estimates of $`\xi _3`$ lead to the conclusion that very probably the $`B`$ decay into narrow $`L=1`$ resonances was dominant over the one into broad resonances. This remark seems to contradict recent experimental claims that the broad resonances dominate. We have discussed this situation which needs urgently further theoretical and experimental work.

Beyond understanding this experimental puzzle, further theoretical work is needed. For example we might wonder if some proof of the new sum rule along the line of  is possible. Some progress has been done in this direction. The effect of radiative corrections should also be studied.

Last but not least, other new sum rules derived along the same line with other currents or other components of the currents should be considered.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Patrick Roudeau for many stimulating discussions which have triggered this study.


text:
# Formation of a New Class of Random Fractals in Fragmentation with Mass Loss

## Abstract

We consider the fragmentation process with mass loss and discuss self-similar properties of the arising structure both in time and space focusing on dimensional analysis. This exhibits a spectrum of mass exponents $`\theta `$, whose exact numerical values are given for which $`x^\theta `$ or $`t^{\theta z}`$ has the dimension of particle size distribution function $`c(x,t)`$ where $`z`$ is the kinetic exponent. We also give explicit scaling solution for special case. Finally, we identify a new class of fractals ranging from random to non-random and show that the fractal dimension increases with increasing order and a transition to strictly self-similar pattern occurs when randomness is completely seized.

PACS number(s): 05.20.Dd,02.50.-r,05.40-y

The kinetics of irreversible and sequential breakup of particles occurs in a variety of physical processes and has important applications in science and technology. These include erosion , grinding and crushing of solids, polymer degradation and fiber length reduction , breakup of liquid droplets  etc. to name just a few. In recent years there has been an increasing interest in studying fragmentation allowing variations to increase the flexibility of the theory in matching the conditions of real phenomena such as extension to higher dimension , agglomerate erosion , mass loss , volume change , fragmentation-annihilation . The kinetic equation approach of fragmentation is linear in character which makes it analytically tractable for a large class of breakup kernels. This is contrary to the reverse process, describing the kinetics of coagulation whose mean field approach proposed by Smoluchowski is non-linear in character and solved for a limited choice of collision kernels. This may reflect the fact that breaking up of objects follows less constraints than its reverse process. Despite its apparent simplicity and the fact that the first work appeared more than a century ago, the fragmentation process is still producing nontrivial results. For example, only recently it has been observed that when particles are described by more than one dynamical quantity, such as size and shape, the system exhibits multiscaling as it obeys infinitely many conservation laws . Moreover, the resulting fragment distribution was shown to exhibit multifractality on a unique support when describing fragmentation and on one of infinitely many supports when describing stochastic Sierpinski gasket process . It has also been discovered that a shattering transition occurs as the subsequent generation of fragments has a shorter life time than the fragments of previous generation . McGrady and Ziff further showed in  that the shattering regime produces a fractal dust with dimension $`0<D_f<1`$ due to mass being lost to the phase of zero sized particles. In one dimension, there is only one phase boundary for shattering transition which is identified by the singularity of kinetic exponent whereas in more than one dimension there are multiple phase boundaries . Shattering transition is also shown to be accompanied by the absence of scaling and self-averaging .

If associating disorder with broken objects is the most natural thing to do, then searching for an order even in this disorder is the next natural thing. This forms part of our motivation of this work. In this letter, we consider the kinetics of fragmentation with continuous mass loss and look more at the geometric and scaling aspects of the process than merely trying to solve the equation. The scaling theory essentially provides solutions in the long-time and short-size limit when the particle size distribution function evolves to a simpler form as well as becomes independent of initial conditions . In reality, the most experimental system evolves to the point where this behaviour is reached. Our aim is to search for an order and quantify the arising geometry of the pattern. In fact, there are many physical processes that provide an intriguing connection between geometry and physics such as Percolation, Diffusion Limited Aggregation (DLA), Self-Organised Criticalitiy (SOC), etc. These processes evolve according to a random process obeying some conservation laws and creating simple geometrical structures that traditional Euclidean geometry cannot describe. Like many statistical physics problems, exact solutions for the distribution of masses of such ramified or stringy objects and their geometry vis-a-vis measuring their fractal dimension by complete analytical means, are still a challenge even in one dimension.

The evolution of particle size distribution function $`c(x,t)`$ for fragmentation with mass loss is

$$\frac{c(x,t)}{t}=c(x,t)_0^{\mathrm{}}F(y,xy)𝑑y+2_x^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yc(y,t)F(x,yx)+\frac{}{x}(m(x)c(x,t))$$

where $`F(x,y)`$ is the breakup kernel describing the rate at which a particle of size $`(x+y)`$ breaks into sizes $`x`$ and $`y`$. Fragmentation is a process whereby cuts are equivalent of seeds being sown on the fragmenting objects, thus producing two new segments. This immediately creates two more new ends belonging to the two different, newly-created fragments; in doing so, fragments start loosing their masses immediately (as if seeds were growing on either sides uniformly) until they encounter another seed or become dust-like thereby stopping loosing their masses. Therefore the model we consider can also mimic nucleation and growth of gap in one dimension which have some relevance in Kolmogorov-Avrami-Johnson-Mehl (KAJM) nucleation and growth processes and space covering by growing rays .

We consider the breakup kernel to be $`F(x,y)=(xy)^\beta (x+y)^{\lambda 1}`$, for which the breakup rate $`a(x)=_0^xF(y,xy)𝑑y=px^{2\beta +\lambda }`$, where $`p=\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta +1))^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\beta +2)}`$. The first term on the right hand side of the equation $`(1)`$ reveals that $`x^{(2\beta +\lambda )}`$ bears the dimension of time and this put a strong constraint on the mass loss term. So, the dimensional consistency requires $`m(x)=mx^{2\beta +\lambda +1}`$, with $`m`$ a positive real constant. This dimensional consistency has been ignored in all previous studies  and $`\gamma <2\beta +\lambda +1`$ was identified as the recession regime and $`\gamma >2\beta +\lambda +1`$ as the fragmentation regime assuming $`m(x)mx^\gamma `$. Since $`x`$ and $`t`$ are inextricably intertwined via the dimensional consistency, any of the two can be taken to be an independent parameter when the other one is expressible in terms of this. If $`x`$ is chosen to be the independent parameter then the spatial scaling ansatz is $`c(x,t)x^\theta \mathrm{\Phi }(t/t_0(x))`$, where $`t_0(x)=x^{(2\beta +\lambda )}`$. On the other hand, if $`t`$ is taken to be the independent parameter then the temporal scaling ansatz is $`c(x,t)t^{\theta z}\varphi (x/x_0(t))`$, with $`x_0(t)=t^{\frac{1}{2\beta +\lambda }}`$ and the kinetic exponent $`z=\frac{1}{2\beta +\lambda }`$. The parameters $`t/t_0(x)=\xi `$ and $`x/x_0(t)=\eta `$ are the dimensionless quantities and so are $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )`$ and $`\varphi (\eta )`$. Consequently, $`\theta `$ takes the value for which $`x^\theta `$ and $`t^{\theta z}`$ have the dimension of $`c(x,t)`$. Note that the spatial and temporal scaling solution are trivially connected via $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta ^\gamma )=\eta ^\theta \varphi (\eta )`$, where $`\eta =xt^{\frac{1}{\gamma }}`$. The mass exponent $`\theta `$ can only be found if the system follows some conservation laws. For example, for pure fragmentation ($`m=0`$) the mass or size of the system is a conserved quantity and gives $`\theta =2`$. Defining the $`n^{th}`$ moment $`M_n(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}x^nc(x,t)𝑑x`$ and combining it with the rate equation $`(1)`$ for the present choice of $`F(x,y)`$ and $`m(x)`$ yields

$$\frac{dM_n(t)}{dt}=[\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta +1))^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\beta +2)}\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta +1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\beta +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+2\beta +2)}+mn]M_{n+2\beta +\lambda }(t).$$
(1)
The interesting feature of the above equation is that for $`m>0`$, there are infinitely many $`n=D_f(\beta ,m)`$ values for which $`M_{D_f(\beta ,m)}(t)`$s are conserved quantities. However, for $`m=0`$, there is only one conserved quantity $`M_1(t)`$, i.e. size or mass of the system, and this does not depend on $`\beta `$. We can find the $`D_f(\beta ,m)`$ value by searching for the positive and real root of the equation

$$\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta +1))^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\beta +2)}\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta +1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\beta +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+2\beta +2)}+mn=0$$
(2)
which is polynomial in $`n`$ of degree determined by the $`\beta `$ value. Substituting the temporal scaling anstaz into the definition of $`M_n(t)`$ gives $`M_n(t)t^{(n(\theta 1))z}_0^{\mathrm{}}\eta ^n\varphi (\eta )𝑑\eta `$ and demanding $`M_{D_f}(\beta ,m)`$ be a conserved quantity immediately gives $`\theta =(1+D_f(\beta ,m))`$, which clearly depends on $`\beta `$ and $`m`$ only if $`m>0`$. Owing to the random nature of the process and due to the presence of mass loss term, it is clear that when the process continues ad infinitum, it creates a distribution of points (dust) along a line at an extreme late stage. This distribution of points will inevitably be different from any known set such as strictly self-similar Cantor set, Julia set, Koch curve , stochastic or random Cantor set . To measure the size of the set created in the long time limit, we define a line segment $`\delta =\frac{M_n(t)}{M_{n1}(t)}t^{\frac{1}{2\beta +\lambda }}`$. We can count the number of such segments needed to cover the set and in the limit $`\delta 0`$ (i.e.$`t\mathrm{}`$), the number $`N(\delta )`$ will simply measure the set and appear to scale as $`N(\delta )\delta ^{D_f(\beta ,m)}`$. The exponent $`D_f(\beta ,m)`$ is known as the Hausdorff-Basicovitch dimension of the set or as the fractal dimension which is simply the real positive root of the equation $`(3)`$.

To get a physical picture of the role played by $`m`$, we set $`\beta =0`$ for the time being for which the equation $`(3)`$ becomes quadratic in $`n`$ and the real positive root is $`D_f(m)=\frac{1}{2}(1+1/m)+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(1+1/m)^2+4/m}`$ when the second root is $`D=(D_f(m)+1+1/m)`$. Therefore, the exponent $`\theta `$ is also function of $`m`$. The expression for $`D_f(m)`$ reveals that as $`m`$ value increases, the fractal dimension decreases very sharply and in the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$, $`D_f(m)0`$. This means that as $`m`$ increases the size of the corresponding arising set decreases sharply due to fast disappearance of its member. Whereas, as $`m0`$, $`D_f(m)1`$, that is we recover the full set (pure fragmentation) that describes a line. On the other hand had we kept $`m`$ fixed and let $`p`$ decreases the effect would have been the same as we observed for increasing $`m`$ with $`p=1`$ (i.e. $`\beta =0`$). Thus, it is the ratio between $`m`$ and $`p`$ that matters rather than their individual increases or decreases. To give a physical picture of what these results mean we define mass length relation for the object as $`M_0\delta ^{D_f(m)}`$ and $`M_e\delta ^d`$ for the space where the object is being embedded, here $`d`$ describes the Euclidean space. The density of the property of the object $`\rho `$ then scales as

$$\rho \delta ^{D_f(m)d}.$$
(3)
Note that for $`m>0`$, $`D_f(m)`$ is always less than one. It is thus clear that for a given class of set created by a specific rule, when $`D_f(m)`$ decreases it means that it is increasingly moving away from $`d`$ and hence more and more members from the full set are removed. This in turn creates increasingly ramified or stringy objects since $`D_f(m)=d`$ describes the compact object with uniform density. So, we show that increasing $`m/p`$ ratio means that mass loss process gets stronger than the fragmentation process and vice versa.

We now attempt to find the spatial scaling solution for $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )`$. Note that the dimension of the arising pattern is independent of $`\lambda `$ and consequently independent of how fast or slow the system performs the process. So, we can set $`\lambda =1`$ without fear of missing any physics but it certainly simplifies our calculation. Substituting the spatial scaling ansatz into the rate equation $`(1)`$ for $`F(x,y)=1`$ and $`m(x)=mx^2`$ and differentiating it with respect to $`\xi `$, transforms the partial integro-differential equation into an ordinary differential equation ,

$$\xi (1m\xi )\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }(\xi )+[(1\theta )\xi (2m(2\theta )1]\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\xi )(m(2\theta )(1\theta )(3\theta ))\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )=0.$$
(4)
For $`m=1`$ this is hypergeometric differential equation  whose only physically acceptable linearly independent solutions are $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1,(1+2D_f);D_f;\xi )`$ and $`\xi ^{(1+D_f)}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(2+D_f,D_f;2+D_f;\xi )`$, where $`D_f=0.414213`$. From these exact solutions for spatial scaling function we can obtain the asymptotic temporal scaling function $`\varphi (\xi )e^{D_f\xi }`$ that satisfies the condition $`\varphi (\xi )0`$ as $`\xi \mathrm{}`$.

We now attempt to see the role of $`\beta `$ on the system. To judge its role, it is clear from the previous discussion that we ought to give equal weight to all the terms in the equation $`(1)`$ so that each of them can compete on an equal footing. This can be done if only we set $`m=p=\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta +1))^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\beta +2)}`$ so that the relative strength between fragmentation and mass loss process stays the same as $`\beta `$ value increases. This is a very crucial point to be emphasized. We can obtain the fractal dimension for different values of $`\beta `$, which is simply the real positive root of the equation $`(3)`$. A detailed survey reveals that the fractal dimension increases monotonically with increasing $`\beta `$. To find the fractal dimension in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, we can use the Stirling’s approximation in $`(3)`$ to obtain $`\mathrm{ln}[n+1]=(1n)\mathrm{ln}[2]`$ when $`n=0.4569997`$ solves this equation. In order to give a physical picture of the role of $`\beta `$ in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, we consider the following model $`F(x,y)=(x+y)^\gamma \delta (xy)`$. This model describes that cuts are only allowed to be in the middle in order to produce two fragments of equal size at each time event. This makes $`a(x)=\frac{1}{2}x^\gamma `$, so we need to choose $`m(x)=\frac{1}{2}x^{\gamma +1}`$, where $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$ gives the same weight as for the fragmentation process. Then the rate equation for $`M_n(t)`$ becomes

$$\frac{dM_n(t)}{dt}=[\frac{(n+1)}{2}2^n]M_{n+\gamma }(t).$$
(5)
As before we set the numerical factor of the right hand side of this equation equal to zero and then take natural log on both sides to obtain the $`n`$ value for which $`M_n(t)`$ is time independent. In doing so, we arrive at the same functional equation for $`n`$ as we found for $`\beta \mathrm{}`$. This shows that the kernel $`F(x,y)=(xy)^\beta (x+y)^{\lambda 1}`$ behaves exactly in the same fashion as for $`F(x,y)=(x+y)^\gamma \delta (xy)`$. We thus find that in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, the resulting distribution of points is a set with fractal dimension $`D_f=0.4569997`$ which is a strictly self-similar fractal as randomness is seized by dividing fragments into equal pieces. We are now in a position to give a physical picture of the role played by $`\beta `$. First of all, the process with $`\beta =0`$ describes the frequency curve of placing cuts about the size of the fragmenting particles is Poisson in nature. Consequently, the system enjoys the maximum randomness and the corresponding fractal dimension is $`D_f=0.414213`$. Whereas, for $`\beta >0`$, the frequency curve of placing cuts about the size of the fragmenting particles is Gaussian in nature meaning as $`\beta `$ value increases particles are increasingly more likely to break in the middle than on either end. That is, as $`\beta `$ increases, the variance decreases in such a manner that in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ the variance of the frequency curve becomes infinitely narrow meaning a delta function distribution for which fragments are broken into two equal pieces. This analysis also specify that the rules determining the location where to place the cut are determined by the details of breakup kernel $`F(x,y)`$ rather than the breakup rate $`a(x)`$. So, there is a spectrum of fractal dimensions between $`\beta 0`$ when $`D_f=0.414213`$ and $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ when $`D_f=0.4569997`$. A detailed numerical survey that we do not present here confirms that fractal dimension increases monotonically with $`\beta `$ and reaches to a constant value when $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ in a similar fashion as the variation of $`q`$ with $`t`$ during charging process in $`RC`$ circuit. According to equation $`(4)`$ increasing $`\beta `$ vis-a-vis increasing order also means that the system losses less and less mass from the system and this happens despite the fact that now $`\frac{m}{p}`$ ratio stays the same. Perhaps it is note worthy to mention that the present model with $`\beta =\lambda =0`$ and $`m=1`$ correspond to Yule-Furry processes for cosmic shower theory with collision loss , though there too dimensional consistency was ignored.

In summary, we have identified a new set with a wide range of subsets produced by tuning the degree of randomness only. The process starts with an initiator of unit interval $`[0.1]`$ and the generator divide the interval into two pieces and deleting some parts from either sides of both the pieces at each time step. The amount of the parts to be deleted is determined by the parameter that control the intensity of randomness. When this operation continues ad infinitum, what remains is an infinite number of dust scattered over the interval. We quantified the size of the arising set by fractal dimension and showed that the fractal dimension increases with increasing order and reaches its maximum value when the pattern described by the set is perfectly ordered, which is contrary to some recently found results . We have also shown that the increase of fractal dimension and the increase of mass exponent $`\theta `$ go hand in hand since they are intimately connected. To the best of our knowledge the exact numerical value of this mass exponent has never been reported. We have given a scaling description of the process both in time and space and obtained explicit scaling function for special case of interest. Finally we argue on the basis of our findings that fractal dimension, degree of order and the extent of ramifications of the arising pattern are interconnected.

The author is grateful to R. M. Ziff for sending valuable comments. The author also acknowledges inspiring correspondence with P. L. Krapivsky and support from the Ministry of Science and Technology of Bangladesh under Grant No. 1/98/112/1(7).


text:
# Gravitational conformal invariance and coupling constants in Kaluza-Klein theory

## 1 Introduction

The theory of conformal invariance has been playing a particularly important role in the investigation of gravitational models since Weyl, who introduced the notion of conformal rescaling of the metric tensor. Afterwards, it was promoted to the conformal transformations in scalar-tensor theories, in which another transformation on the scalar field was required to represent the conformal invariance in modern gravitational models. There is an open possibility that the gravitational coupling of matter may have its origin in an invariance breaking effect of this conformal invariance. In fact, since the ordinary coupling of matter to gravity is a dimensional coupling (mediated by the gravitational constant), the local conformal transformations which could change the strength of this dimensional coupling, by affecting the local standards of length and time, are expected to play a key role. In a system which includes matter, conformal invariance requires the vanishing of the trace of the stress tensor in the absence of dimensional parameters. However, in the presence of dimensional parameters, the conformal invariance can be also established for a large class of theories  if the dimensional parameters are conformally transformed according to their dimensions. One general feature of conformally invariant theories is, therefore, the presence of varying dimensional coupling constants. In particular, one can say that the introduction of a constant dimensional parameter into a conformally-invariant theory breaks the conformal invariance in the sense that a preferred conformal frame is singled out, namely that in which the dimensional parameters have the assumed (constant) configuration. The determination of the corresponding preferred conformal frame depends on the nature of the problem at hand. In a conformally-invariant gravitational model, the symmetry breaking may be considered as a cosmological effect. This means that one breaks the conformal symmetry by defining a preferred conformal frame in terms of the large-scale characteristics of cosmic matter distributed in a universe with finite scale factor $`R_0`$. In this way, the breakdown of conformal symmetry becomes a framework in which one can look for the origin of the gravitational coupling of matter, both classical  and quantum , at large cosmological scales.

The purpose of this paper is to show that one may look for the origins of both conformal invariance and its breakdown, leading to gravitational couplings, in a 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein type gravity theory . In this popular non-compactified approach to Kaluza-Klein gravity, the gravitational field is unified with its source through a new type of 5D manifold in which space and time are augmented by an extra non-compactified dimension which induces 4D matter. This theory basically involves writing the Einstein field equations with matter as a subset of the Kaluza-Klein field equations without matter , a procedure which is guaranteed by an old theorem of differential geometry due to Campbell .

We show that in the context of pure geometry theory, i.e. $`\widehat{R}_{AB}=0`$ in 5D, one may find a generalized conformally-invariant gravitational model. The well-known conformally-invariant model of Deser  in 4D is shown to be a special case when we drop the dependence of the 4D metric on the extra dimension. Moreover, we show that the breakdown of conformal invariance which was introduced in  by an ad hoc non-conformal invariant term inserted into the action naturally emerges here by $`i)`$ assuming a weak (cosmological) dependence of the 4D metric on the 5th dimension111This assumption is reasonable since 4D general relativity is known to be in a very good agreement with present observations. and $`ii)`$ approximating the scalar field with its cosmological background value using the well-known cosmological coincidence usually referred to Mach or Wheeler.

This geometric approach to the subject of conformal invariance and its breakdown in gravitational models accounts properly for coupling of the gravitational field with its source in 5D gravity. It also gives an explanation for the origin of a small cosmological constant emerging from non-compactified extra dimension. This subject is the most recent interest in theories with large extra dimensions .

The paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we briefly review the conformal invariant gravitational model and its breakdown in 4 dimensions due to Deser . In section 3, we introduce a generalized conformal invariant gravitational model in 5 dimensions. In section 4, we study the breakdown of conformal invariance in 5 dimensions and discuss on some relevant interpretations. The paper ends with a conclusion.

## 2 Breakdown of conformal invariance in 4D

In this section we briefly revisit the standard work in 4D conformal invariance due to Deser . Consider the action functional

$$S[\varphi ]=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}(g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi +\frac{1}{6}R\varphi ^2),$$
(1)
which describes a system consisting of a real scalar field $`\varphi `$ non-minimally coupled to gravity through the scalar curvature $`R`$. Variations with respect to $`\varphi `$ and $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ lead to the equations

$$(\mathrm{}\frac{1}{6}R)\varphi =0$$
(2)
$$G_{\alpha \beta }=6\varphi ^2\tau _{\alpha \beta }(\varphi ),$$
(3)
where $`G_{\alpha \beta }=R_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta }R`$ is the Einstein tensor and

$$\tau _{\alpha \beta }(\varphi )=[_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi \frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta }_\gamma \varphi ^\gamma \varphi ]\frac{1}{6}(g_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{}_\alpha _\beta )\varphi ^2,$$
(4)
with $`_\alpha `$ denoting the covariant derivative. Taking the trace of (3) gives

$$(\mathrm{}\frac{1}{6}R)\varphi =0,$$
(5)
which is consistent with equation (2). This is a consequence of the conformal symmetry of action (1) under the conformal transformations

$$\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(x)\varphi g_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(x)g_{\alpha \beta },$$
(6)
where the conformal factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ is an arbitrary, positive and smooth function of space-time. Adding a matter source $`S_m`$ independent of $`\varphi `$ to the action (1) in the form

$$S=S[\varphi ]+S_m,$$
(7)
yields the field equations

$$(\mathrm{}\frac{1}{6}R)\varphi =0$$
(8)
$$G_{\alpha \beta }=6\varphi ^2[\tau _{\alpha \beta }(\varphi )+T_{\alpha \beta }],$$
(9)
where $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the matter energy-momentum tensor. The following algebraic requirement

$$T=0,$$
(10)
then emerges as a consequence of comparing the trace of (9) with (8) which implies that only traceless matter can couple consistently to such gravity models.

We may break the conformal symmetry by adding a dimensional mass term -$`\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\mu ^2\varphi ^2`$, with $`\mu `$ being a constant mass parameter, to the action (7). This leads to the field equations

$$(\mathrm{}\frac{1}{6}R+\mu ^2)\varphi =0$$
(11)
$$G_{\alpha \beta }+3\mu ^2g_{\alpha \beta }=6\varphi ^2[\tau _{\alpha \beta }(\varphi )+T_{\alpha \beta }].$$
(12)
and we obtain as a result of comparing the trace of (12) with (11)

$$\mu ^2\varphi ^2=T.$$
(13)
Now, the basic input is to consider the invariance breaking as a cosmological effect. This would mean that one may take $`\mu ^1`$ as the length scale characterizing the typical size of the universe $`R_0`$ and $`T`$ as the average density of the large scale distribution of matter $`\overline{T}MR_0^3`$, where $`M`$ is the mass of the universe. This leads, as a consequence of (13) to the estimation of the constant background value of $`\varphi `$

$$\overline{\varphi }^2R_0^2(M/R_0^3)^1R_0/MG_N,$$
(14)
where the well-known empirical cosmological relation $`G_NM/R_01`$ (due to Mach or Wheeler) has been used. In order to well-justify the results we will approximate the correspondence $`\overline{\varphi }^2G_N`$ with $`\overline{\varphi }^2\frac{8\pi }{6}G_N`$. This estimation for the constant background value of the scalar field is usually considered in Brans-Dicke type scalar-tensor gravity theories. Inserting this background value of $`\varphi `$ into the field equations (12) leads to the following set of Einstein equations

$$G_{\alpha \beta }+3\mu ^2g_{\alpha \beta }=6\overline{\varphi }^2T_{\alpha \beta }8\pi G_NT_{\alpha \beta },$$
(15)
with a correct coupling constant $`8\pi G_N`$, and a term $`3\mu ^2`$ which is interpreted as the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the order of $`R_0^2`$. The field equation (11) for $`\overline{\varphi }`$ contains no new information. This is because it is not an independent equation, namely it is the trace of Einstein equations (15). One may easily check that using $`\mathrm{}\overline{\varphi }=0`$ and $`\overline{T}=\mu ^2\overline{\varphi }^2`$, equation (11) and the trace of equation (15) result in the same equation as $`\frac{1}{6}R+\mu ^2=0`$.

## 3 5D gravity and generalized conformal invariance

Consider the 5D metric given by

$$dS^2=\widehat{g}_{AB}dx^Adx^B=G\varphi ^2g_{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta +dl^2$$
(16)
where the 5D line interval is written as the sum of a 4D part relevant to scalar-tensor theory and an extra part due to the 5th dimension. The capital Latin indices $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ run over 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, Greek indices $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$ run over 0, 1, 2, 3, and five dimensional quantities are denoted by hats. A constant $`G`$ is also introduced to leave $`G\varphi ^2`$ dimensionless. We proceed keeping $`g_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }(x^\alpha ,l)`$ and $`\varphi =\varphi (x^\alpha )`$ as in modern Kaluza-Klein theory . The metric is general, since we have only used 4 of the available 5 coordinate degree of freedom to set the electromagnetic potentials, $`g_{4\alpha }`$ to zero.

The corresponding Christoffel symbols are obtained

$$\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha +\varphi ^1(\delta _\gamma ^\alpha _\beta \varphi +\delta _\beta ^\alpha _\gamma \varphi g_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha \varphi )\hfill & \\ & \\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\beta \alpha }^\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \alpha }^\alpha +4\varphi ^1_\beta \varphi \hfill & \\ & \\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\beta \gamma }^4=\frac{1}{2}_4\widehat{g}_{\beta \gamma }\hfill & \\ & \\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{4\alpha }^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\widehat{g}^{\alpha \beta }_4\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }\hfill & \\ & \\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\beta 4}^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\widehat{g}^{\alpha \delta }_4\widehat{g}_{\delta \beta }\hfill & \\ & \\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\alpha 4}^4=\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{44}^\alpha =\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{44}^4=0,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(17)
where $`\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }=G\varphi ^2g_{\alpha \beta }`$. The 5D Ricci tensor can be written in terms of the 4D one plus other terms

$$\widehat{R}_{\alpha \beta }=R_{\alpha \beta }2\varphi ^1_\alpha _\beta \varphi +4\varphi ^2_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi \varphi ^2[\varphi \mathrm{}\varphi +^\alpha \varphi _\alpha \varphi ]g_{\alpha \beta }$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}G\varphi ^2[g^{\gamma \delta }_4g_{\delta \alpha }_4g_{\beta \gamma }\frac{1}{2}g^{\lambda \delta }_4g_{\alpha \beta }_4g_{\lambda \delta }_4^2g_{\alpha \beta }].$$
(18)
The field equations $`\widehat{R}_{AB}=0`$ then give

$$R_{\alpha \beta }=2\varphi ^1_\alpha _\beta \varphi 4\varphi ^2_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi +\varphi ^2[\varphi \mathrm{}\varphi +^\alpha \varphi _\alpha \varphi ]g_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}G\varphi ^2[g^{\gamma \delta }\dot{g}_{\delta \alpha }\dot{g}_{\beta \gamma }\frac{1}{2}g^{\lambda \delta }\dot{g}_{\alpha \beta }\dot{g}_{\lambda \delta }\ddot{g}_{\alpha \beta }]$$
(19)
$$\widehat{R}_{4\alpha }=_\alpha (k_\beta ^\alpha \delta _\beta ^\alpha k)=0withk_\beta ^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\widehat{g}^{\alpha \delta }\dot{\widehat{g}}_{\delta \beta }=\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \delta }\dot{g}_{\delta \beta }$$
(20)
$$\widehat{R}_{44}=2(\dot{k}4k_\beta ^\alpha k_\alpha ^\beta )=0,$$
(21)
where an overdot denotes differentiation with respect to 5th coordinate $`l`$ ( see  ). Equation (19) may lead to a set of 10 Einstein equations. Equation (20) which have the form of conservation law may also lead to a set of 4 Gauss-Codazzi equations for the extrinsic curvature $`k_\beta ^\alpha `$ of a 4D hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_l`$ foliating in 5th dimension. Finally, equation (21) is one equation for the scalar combinations of the extrinsic curvature. The Ricci scalar for the space-time part is obtained by contracting equation (19) with the metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$

$$R=6\varphi ^1\mathrm{}\varphi \frac{1}{2}G\varphi ^2[g^{\alpha \beta }g^{\gamma \delta }\dot{g}_{\delta \alpha }\dot{g}_{\beta \gamma }\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }g^{\lambda \delta }\dot{g}_{\alpha \beta }\dot{g}_{\lambda \delta }g^{\alpha \beta }\ddot{g}_{\alpha \beta }].$$
(22)
Combining equations (19) and (22) we obtain the Einstein-like equations with Einstein tensor $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ in the left hand side and some terms of scalar field together with 4D metric and their covariant derivatives in the right hand side as follows

$$G_{\alpha \beta }=6\varphi ^2\tau _{\alpha \beta }(\varphi )+\frac{1}{2}G\varphi ^2[𝒯_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}𝒯g_{\alpha \beta }]$$
(23)
where

$$\tau _{\alpha \beta }(\varphi )=\frac{2}{3}_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi +\frac{1}{6}g_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma \varphi _\gamma \varphi \frac{1}{3}\varphi \mathrm{}\varphi g_{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{3}\varphi _\alpha _\beta \varphi $$
(24)
and

$$𝒯_{\alpha \beta }=g^{\gamma \delta }\dot{g}_{\delta \alpha }\dot{g}_{\beta \gamma }\frac{1}{2}g^{\lambda \delta }\dot{g}_{\alpha \beta }\dot{g}_{\lambda \delta }\ddot{g}_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(25)
It is easy to show that the tensor $`\tau _{\alpha \beta }`$ in equation (24) is exactly the same one in equation (4). The field equation for the scalar field may be obtained by contracting equation (23) with $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ or $`\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }`$ as

$$\left(\mathrm{}\frac{1}{6}R+\frac{1}{12}G\varphi ^2𝒯\right)\varphi =0.$$
(26)
We notice that equation (26) has a dynamical mass term $`\frac{1}{12}G\varphi ^2𝒯`$ with the dimension of $`(mass)^2`$. In the presence of dimensional parameters, the conformal invariance can be established for a large class of theories  if the dimensional parameters are conformally transformed according to their dimensions. In this regard, equation (26), although modified by the mass term compared to (5), but is still invariant under the generalized conformal transformations

$$\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(x,l)\varphi g_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(x,l)g_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(27)
This is simply because the 5D metric (16) is invariant under the above conformal transformations. Obviously, the following combination

$$\widehat{G}_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{R}_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}\widehat{g}^{\gamma \lambda }\widehat{R}_{\gamma \lambda }\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }=\widehat{R}_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}g^{\gamma \lambda }\widehat{R}_{\gamma \lambda }g_{\alpha \beta }$$

is invariant under (27) due to the invariance of the metric $`\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }`$. Therefore, equation (23) which arises as a result of $`\widehat{G}_{\alpha \beta }=\widehat{R}_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}g^{\gamma \lambda }\widehat{R}_{\gamma \lambda }g_{\alpha \beta }=0`$ is invariant under (27). And equation (26) as a consequence of $`\widehat{g}^{\alpha \beta }\widehat{G}_{\alpha \beta }=0`$ or $`g^{\alpha \beta }\widehat{G}_{\alpha \beta }=0`$ is invariant under (27) as well, regardless of which metric is used to contraction since the right hand side is zero. Note that although the initial $`l`$-independent scalar field $`\varphi `$ transforms to an $`l`$-dependent one $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, but the $`l`$-dependent function $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(x,l)`$ will not appear in the transformed scalar field equation because the metric also transforms in such a way that the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(x,l)`$ is factored out throughout the transformed equation rendering the initial scalar field equation. Therefore, by pure 5D approach we are able to introduce a generalized conformal invariant gravitational model defined by equations (23), (26) and (27) subject to the subsidiary equations (20) and (21).

## 4 Breakdown of conformal invariance in 5D

Now, we are in a position to compare equations (26), (23) with the corresponding equations (11), (12). By this comparison it turns out that we are able to revisit the breakdown of conformal invariance in 4D by a 5D approach since we have derived the field equations (26), (23) which can be identified with (11), (12) in the broken phase of the conformal invariance in 4D.

To this end, we take a dimensional analysis. The dimension of $`𝒯_{\alpha \beta }`$ or $`𝒯`$ will no doubt be $`(length)^2`$. Now, we assume the cosmological effect $`\dot{g}_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{R_0}`$ which fixes a very slow variation of $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ over the absolute cosmological scale $`R_0`$. This assumption leads to the breakdown of the conformal invariance since it means that we have fixed our standard of length by the scale of the universe and that (comparing equation (26) with (11) and using $`G\varphi ^21`$) $`𝒯`$ may be identified with 12$`\mu ^2`$ which is a constant mass term breaking the conformal invariance. Now, we put the above identification into the Einstein-like equation (23). We then have

$$G_{\alpha \beta }+3\mu ^2g_{\alpha \beta }=6\varphi ^2[\tau _{\alpha \beta }(\varphi )+\frac{1}{12}\varphi ^2𝒯_{\alpha \beta }],$$
(28)
which, comparing with equation (13), leads to the identification

$$T_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{12}\varphi ^2𝒯_{\alpha \beta },$$
(29)
which is the desired result in the context of induced matter theory since the matter energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ is dynamically induced by the scalar field $`\varphi `$ and higher dimension, namely $`𝒯_{\alpha \beta }`$. Taking the trace of (29) we find

$$T=\frac{1}{12}\varphi ^2𝒯,$$
(30)
and by taking $`𝒯=12\mu ^2`$ we obtain the equation (13). Now, according to (30) we may discuss on the background value $`\overline{\varphi }`$ corresponding to the absolute cosmological scale $`R_0`$. We have already fixed $`𝒯`$ (or $`\mu ^2`$) by cosmological considerations, namely $`𝒯R_0^2`$. This was achieved by the 5th coordinate degree of freedom through $`\dot{g}_{\alpha \beta }R_0^1`$. The 5th coordinate degree of freedom accounts for the scalar field in the general metric (16). Thus, (see Eq.(14) and the following discussion) we may take a background value $`\overline{\varphi }`$, using this coordinate degree of freedom, as

$$\overline{\varphi }^2\frac{8\pi }{6}G_N,$$
(31)
which identifies $`G`$ with $`\frac{8\pi }{6}G_N`$ such that $`G\overline{\varphi }^21`$. This condition reduces the general metric (16) to the canonical one . If we now insert this constant background value $`\overline{\varphi }^2`$ into equation (28) and use (29) we find

$$G_{\alpha \beta }+3\mu ^2g_{\alpha \beta }8\pi G_NT_{\alpha \beta },$$
(32)
in which

$$T_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{16\pi }G_N^1𝒯_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(33)
Equation (32) is the well-known Einstein equation in the broken phase of the conformal invariance with a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3\mu ^2`$ and a coupling of matter to gravity, $`G_N`$. The scalar field equation (26) is the trace of Einstein equations, so its information is already included in them (see the discussion in section 2).

Now, the relevance of 5D approach manifests. It relates the current upper bound value of the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }R_0^2`$ to a geometric phenomenon in which the cosmological constant is generated by the very slow variation of 4D metric with respect to 5th dimension222In a recent work of Arkani-Hamed et al , a small effective cosmological constant is emerged from a large extra dimension in a non-compactified approach to 5D Kaluza-Klein gravity. Also, in a compactified model of Kaluza-Klein cosmology , smallness of the cosmological constant is related to smallness of the compactified dimension. Therefore, it seems that the subject of cosmological constant in higher dimensional (at least in 5D) models is inevitably involved with extra dimension.. Moreover, it unifies the origins of the matter and the cosmological constant in that they appear as “two manifestations of higher dimensional geometry”.

The traditional Einstein equation (32) may alternatively be written in its pure geometric form

$$G_{\alpha \beta }+3\mu ^2g_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}𝒯_{\alpha \beta },$$
(34)
in which the coupling constant $`G_N`$ is removed from theory. To say, although the Einstein tensor $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ couples to the matter $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ by $`G_N`$ but the matter itself couples by $`G_N^1`$ to the geometry $`𝒯_{\alpha \beta }`$ (33) and so the coupling $`G_N`$ is removed. In this level, the appearance of $`G_N`$ in the traditional Einstein equation seems to be a mathematical tool only for dimensional consistency. However, in the physical level equations (32) and (33) exhibit an interesting phenomenon, with varying $`G_N`$, in that if $`G_N`$ decreases with time leading to a weakly coupling of gravity $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ to the matter $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ (32), the matter itself will then be coupled strongly to the hidden geometry $`𝒯_{\alpha \beta }`$ (33). Regarding the present small value of $`G_N`$ we find an strong coupling of matter $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ to the higher dimensional geometry $`𝒯_{\alpha \beta }`$. This strong coupling may account for non-observablity of the 5th dimension. In other words, the effects of the 5th dimension may be hidden behind this strong coupling and what we observe as the matter may be the manifestation of a weak effect of 5th dimension which is strengthened by a strong coupling $`G_N^1`$. This means that going back in time in $`G_N`$ varying scenarios we will encounter with an era $`G_N1`$ in which $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ may decouple from $`𝒯_{\alpha \beta }`$ leading to a naked geometry of 5th dimension without the concept of matter, as indicated in Eq.(34). In conclusion it may be said that two equations (32) and (33) define dual weak-strong regimes, in 5D approach to coupling constants, and that equation (33) defines a dual-Einstein equation coupling matter to higher dimension.

It is worth noting that the conformal invariance in 4D may be easily recovered in this 5D approach by restricting the 4D metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ to be independent of 5th dimension (simply by assuming Kaluza-Klein compactification condition for higher dimension). The relevant field equations in this choice are

$$R_{\alpha \beta }=2\varphi ^1_\alpha _\beta \varphi 4\varphi ^2_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi +\varphi ^2[\varphi \mathrm{}\varphi +^\alpha \varphi _\alpha \varphi ]g_{\alpha \beta },$$
(35)
where by taking the trace of (35) and combining it with (35) we obtain the conformal invariant equations (2) and (3). The origin of this conformal invariance in 4D turns out to be the invariance of the 4D part of 5D metric

$$\widehat{g}_{AB}(x^A)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G\varphi ^2(x^\alpha )g_{\alpha \beta }(x^\alpha )& 0\\ & \\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)_,$$
(36)
under the conformal transformations (6).

## Conclusion

A key feature of any fundamental theory consistent with a given symmetry is that its breakdown would lead to effects which can have various manifestations of physical importance. Therefore, in the case of conformal symmetry in gravitational models, one would expect that the corresponding cosmological invariance breaking would have important effects generating the gravitational coupling and the cosmological constant. In this paper we have introduced a generalized conformally-invariant gravitational model of 5D gravity theory $`\widehat{R}_{AB}=0`$, with 4D part that is dependent on the extra dimension. The conformal invariance in 4D then becomes a special case when we take the 4D metric to be independent of the extra dimension. Moreover, we have shown that the cosmological breakdown of conformal symmetry in a conformally-invariant gravitational model in 4D may be naturally derived in this context if we assume a weak (cosmological) dependence of the 4D metric on the higher dimension and use the cosmological coincidence due to Mach or Wheeler to approximate the scalar field by its cosmological background value. This approach to the issue of couplings and parameters in gravity leads to a geometric interpretation for the small cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Moreover, a dual coupling $`G_N^1`$ is introduced by which the matter couples strongly to the geometric effects of higher dimension through a dual Einstein equation, and non-observability of higher dimension is then justified.

We also mention to the generality of the 5D conformal invariance. In Deser’s model the conformal symmetry is broken once a constant mass term is introduced. However, in 5D approach a dynamical mass term is appeared without breaking the conformal symmetry. This generalized symmetry is broken when we take a preferred conformal frame by introducing an absolute length scale $`R_0`$ through $`\dot{g}_{\alpha \beta }R_0^1`$. In other words, what we call the conformal invariance in Deser’s model is not really a conformal invariance; it is just scale invariance which is a special case of conformal invariance. This is because the dimensional constant mass term could not transform conformally333The conformal invariance is more general than scale invariance which is used in Deser’s model. If scale invariance is characterized by vanishing of the trace of the energy-momentum tensor, conformal invariance implies scale invariance in the absence of dimensional parameters in the theory..

There is a natural question in the context of induced matter theory about its possible connection to quantum theory. This is because we can induce the matter geometrically from the 5th dimension whereas we know the matter has a underlying quantum structure. Therefore, it deserves to pay attention to this issue. First, it is well-known that the existence of a dimensional gravitational constant $`G_N`$ is the main source of non-renormalizablity of quantum gravity. On the other hand, the quantum theory approach to the traditional Einstein equation suffers from the problem that the left hand side is geometry and the right hand side is the matter. Equation (34), however, as a pure geometric Einstein equation is free of $`G_N`$. Moreover, both sides of this equation has the geometric structure. Perhaps, it is helpful to study the 4D quantum gravity in this pure geometric 5D approach. Second, in a study of 4D conformal invariance in QFT in , the following equation like our scalar field equation (26) is obtained

$$\left(\mathrm{}\frac{1}{6}+\varphi ^2𝒮_\alpha ^\alpha \{\omega \}\right)\varphi =0$$

in which $`𝒮_\alpha ^\alpha \{\omega \}`$ is the trace of the tensor $`𝒮_{\alpha \beta }\{\omega \}`$ describing the distribution of matter due to local quantum effects. It is therefore very appealing to think about how the higher dimensional effects in 5D may play the role of quantum effects in 4D.

## Acknowledgment

F. Darabi would like to thanks B. Mashhoon, W. N. Sajko and L. de Menezes for useful comments.


text:
# A Class of Einstein-Maxwell Fields Generalizing the Equilibrium Solutions

## 1 Introduction: Einstein-Maxwell fields of rotating stationary sources

A stationary Einstein-Maxwell field is characterized by the two complex Ernst potentials  $``$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, respectively. For the investigation of the internal symmetries of the system, it is more advantageous to use a pair of new potentials $`\xi `$ and $`q`$, defined by the relations

$$=\frac{\xi 1}{\xi +1}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{q}{\xi +1}.$$
(1)
In terms of the $`\xi `$ and $`q`$ potentials, the Lagrangian of the Einstein-Maxwell system takes the form

$$L=\theta ^2[_\mu \xi ^\mu \overline{\xi }_\mu q^\mu \overline{q}+(\xi _\mu qq_\mu \xi )(\overline{\xi }^\mu \overline{q}\overline{q}^\mu \overline{\xi })]$$
(2)
with

$$\theta =\xi \overline{\xi }+q\overline{q}1.$$

Here the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is that of the Euclidean 3-space in any suitable coordinate system. Hence the Euler-Lagrange equations follow:

$`\theta \mathrm{\Delta }\xi 2(\overline{\xi }\xi +\overline{q}q)\xi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (3)
$`\theta \mathrm{\Delta }q2(\overline{\xi }\xi +\overline{q}q)q`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
The global symmetries of this system form the $`SU(2,1)`$ group. In the next section, we shall briefly review the basic theory of conserved currents and their relation to global symmetries. We then compute the conserved currents of the Einstein-Maxwell system and find a highly symmetrical form of the field equations using the currents. We introduce the concept of the ’swirl vector’ $`\stackrel{}{C}`$ which is a group invariant. In the subsequent sections the fields satisfying the condition of vanishing swirl are investigated.

## 2 Symmetries and Currents

The action as a functional of the fields $`\varphi ^i`$ and $`_\mu \varphi ^i`$ is

$$S=d^nx(\varphi ^i,_\mu \varphi ^i).$$

Associated with a symmetry transformation

$$\varphi ^i\varphi ^i+\delta \varphi ^i,$$

such that the Lagrangian density is invariant, $`\delta =0,`$ and

$$\delta \varphi ^i=\epsilon _k^i\varphi ^k,$$
(4)
there exists a conserved  current

$$J^\mu =\frac{}{\left(_\mu \varphi ^i\right)}\epsilon _k^i\varphi ^k$$
(5)
(Noether current) satisfying

$$_\mu J^\mu =0.$$

We now proceed with the application of this general theory to the Einstein-Maxwell system. The Lagrangian $`\left(\text{2}\right)`$ possesses an $`SU(2,1)`$ global symmetry group . The potentials $`\alpha ,`$ $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ belonging to the fundamental representation of this group are given by

$$\xi =\frac{\alpha }{\beta }q=\frac{\gamma }{\beta }.$$
(6)
The global invariance transformations are

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \hfill \\ \beta \hfill \\ \gamma \hfill \end{array}\right)𝐔\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \hfill \\ \beta \hfill \\ \gamma \hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(7)
where $`𝐔SU(2,1)`$ is a constant matrix.

The defining representation of the global symmetry is given by the spinor potential $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A=(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ),`$ and its group adjoint $`\mathrm{\Psi }^A=(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\beta },\overline{\gamma })`$. Hence also the Ernst potentials are written

$$=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2}{\mathrm{\Psi }_1+\mathrm{\Psi }_2}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_3}{\mathrm{\Psi }_1+\mathrm{\Psi }_2}.$$

These spinors are determined up to an overall complex multiplying function; the equivalence classes are given by the relation

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_A^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }_A$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an arbitrary complex scalar.

The field equations $`\left(\text{3}\right)`$ will take the $`SU(2,1)`$ invariant form

$$[\mathrm{\Theta }^1(\mathrm{\Psi }_A\mathrm{\Psi }_B\mathrm{\Psi }_B\mathrm{\Psi }_A)]=2\mathrm{\Theta }^2\stackrel{}{C}(\mathrm{\Psi }_A\mathrm{\Psi }_B\mathrm{\Psi }_B\mathrm{\Psi }_A)$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the $`SU(2,1)`$ norm of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

We now turn our attention to the group invariant vector

$$\stackrel{}{C}=2i\mathrm{I}m\{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\}.$$

For static fields, all potentials are real, hence we have $`\stackrel{}{C}=0`$. We thus infer that the vector $`\stackrel{}{C}`$ is a concomittant of the rotation of the source, so that we will call $`\stackrel{}{C}`$ the swirl of the field. The form of the vector $`\stackrel{}{C}`$ depends on the gauge (8). In this paper, we consider Einstein-Maxwell fields for which it is possible to choose a gauge in which the swirl vanishes:

$$\stackrel{}{C}=0.$$
(10)
In addition to static metrics, this condition characterizes the equilibrium ($`|e|=m`$) class of fields.

The currents $`\left(\text{5}\right)`$ of the SU(2,1) symmetry can be expressed by use of the swirl $`\stackrel{}{C}`$ as follows:

$`J^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2(\alpha \overline{\alpha }+\beta \overline{\beta })\stackrel{}{C}+\mathrm{\Theta }^1(\overline{\alpha }\alpha \alpha \overline{\alpha }+\overline{\beta }\beta \beta \overline{\beta })`$
$`J^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2\alpha \overline{\beta }\stackrel{}{C}+\mathrm{\Theta }^1(\overline{\beta }\alpha \alpha \overline{\beta })`$
$`J^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2\beta \overline{\alpha }\stackrel{}{C}+\mathrm{\Theta }^1(\overline{\alpha }\beta \beta \overline{\alpha })`$
$`J^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2\alpha \overline{\gamma }\stackrel{}{C}+\mathrm{\Theta }^1(\overline{\gamma }\alpha \alpha \overline{\gamma })`$
$`J^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2\gamma \overline{\alpha }\stackrel{}{C}+\mathrm{\Theta }^1(\overline{\alpha }\gamma \gamma \overline{\alpha })`$ (11)
$`J^{(6)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2\beta \overline{\gamma }\stackrel{}{C}+\mathrm{\Theta }^1(\overline{\gamma }\beta \beta \overline{\gamma })`$
$`J^{(7)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2\gamma \overline{\beta }\stackrel{}{C}+\mathrm{\Theta }^1(\overline{\beta }\gamma \gamma \overline{\beta })`$
$`J^{(8)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2\gamma \overline{\gamma }\stackrel{}{C}+\mathrm{\Theta }^1(\overline{\gamma }\gamma \gamma \overline{\gamma }).`$
Here

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\alpha \overline{\alpha }\beta \overline{\beta }+\gamma \overline{\gamma }$$

and the swirl has the detailed form

$$\stackrel{}{C}=\alpha \overline{\alpha }\beta \overline{\beta }+\gamma \overline{\gamma }\overline{\alpha }\alpha +\overline{\beta }\beta \overline{\gamma }\gamma .$$

From $`J^{(1)}`$ and $`J^{(8)}`$ we get

$`J^{(1a)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2\alpha \overline{\alpha }\stackrel{}{C}\mathrm{\Theta }^1(\alpha \overline{\alpha }\overline{\alpha }\alpha )`$
$`J^{(1b)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2\beta \overline{\beta }\stackrel{}{C}\mathrm{\Theta }^1(\beta \overline{\beta }\overline{\beta }\beta ).`$
For fields satisfying the condition of vanishing swirl, $`\stackrel{}{C}=0,`$ the Einstein-Maxwell Eqs. (9) can be written in the simple form

$$[\mathrm{\Theta }^1(\mathrm{\Psi }_A\mathrm{\Psi }_B\mathrm{\Psi }_B\mathrm{\Psi }_A)]=0$$
(12)
From the equations (11) of current conservation we get the symmetrical set

$$[\mathrm{\Theta }^1(\mathrm{\Psi }^A\mathrm{\Psi }_B\mathrm{\Psi }_B\mathrm{\Psi }^A)]=0.$$
(13)
Equations (12) and (13) govern the class of Einstein-Maxwell fields characterized by a vanishing swirl.

## 3 Formulation using the vectors $`G`$ and $`H`$:

An Einstein-Maxwell system with one Killing vector may be fully characterized by the complex 3-vectors :

$$𝐆=\frac{+2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }}{2(\mathrm{R}e+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi })},𝐇=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{(\mathrm{R}e+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi })^{1/2}}.$$

In the notation referring to the metric of the three-space, the field equations can be written

$$R_{\mu \nu }=G_\mu \overline{G}_\nu \overline{G}_\mu G_\nu +H_\mu \overline{H}_\nu +\overline{H}_\mu H_\nu $$
(14)
$`(𝐆)𝐆`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{𝐇}𝐇\overline{𝐆}𝐆`$ (15)
$`(𝐆)\times 𝐆`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{𝐇}\times 𝐇\overline{𝐆}\times 𝐆`$ (16)
$`(𝐆)𝐇`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐆\overline{𝐆})𝐇`$ (17)
$`\times 𝐇`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐆+\overline{𝐆})\times 𝐇.`$ (18)
The vectors $`𝐆`$and $`𝐇`$ can be expressed in terms of the gradients of the complex potentials as follows,

$`\mathrm{\Theta }𝐆`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{\xi }+1q\overline{q}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\xi +1}}+\overline{q}q`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}𝐇`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\xi }+1}{\xi +1}}\right)^{1/2}\left(qq{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\xi +1}}\right).`$ (20)
Solving for the gradients, we have

$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }{\displaystyle \frac{\xi +1}{\overline{\xi }+1}}𝐆\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}\overline{q}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi +1}{\overline{\xi }+1}}\right)^{3/2}𝐇`$ (21)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{\xi }+1\right)^1q\mathrm{\Theta }𝐆+\left(\overline{\xi }+1q\overline{q}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}q\left(\xi +1\right)^{1/2}\left(\overline{\xi }+1\right)^{3/2}𝐇.`$
By use of the definitions $`\left(\text{6}\right)`$ and the vanishing of the vector $`\stackrel{}{C},`$ we get the relation

$$2i\mathrm{I}m\left(\frac{\xi \overline{\xi }+q\overline{q}}{\xi \overline{\xi }+q\overline{q}1}\right)=\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\overline{\beta }}{\beta }\right).$$

Inserting here the gradients $`\left(\text{21}\right),`$ we obtain the integrability conditions of $`\overline{\beta }/\beta `$ in the form:

$$𝐆\times \overline{G}=H\times \overline{H}.$$
(22)
These constraints are apparently milder than the equilibrium ($`R_{ij}=0`$) condition $`Re(𝐆\overline{G}H\overline{H})=0`$ characterizing the Einstein-Maxwell fields with balanced electromagnetic and gravitational forces.

With the help of the integrability condition (22), Eq. (16) takes the simple form

$$\times 𝐆=0.$$
(23)
Hence there exists a complex potential $`\psi `$ such that

$$𝐆=\mathrm{ln}\psi .$$

Using this in Eq. (18),

$$\times 𝐇=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{ln}\psi \overline{\psi })\times 𝐇.$$

Hence

$$𝐇=(\psi \overline{\psi })^{1/2}\chi $$
(24)
for some complex function $`\chi `$. Eq. (14) takes the form

$$R_{\mu \nu }=2\frac{\psi _{_{(,\mu }}\overline{\psi }_{,\nu )}\chi _{_{(,\mu }}\overline{\chi }_{,\nu )}}{\psi \overline{\psi }}.$$

The essential field equations can now be written down in terms of the complex potentials $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$ as follows,

$`[\psi ^2(\overline{\psi }\psi \overline{\chi }\chi )]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (25)
$`(\psi ^2\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (26)
$`\psi \times \overline{\psi }\chi \times \overline{\chi }`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (27)
These are two complex and one real equations for the two complex functions $`\chi `$ and $`\psi `$. Despite this apparent overdetermination of the system, at least two large classes of solutions exist. One of these consists of stationary fields that are $`SU(2,1)`$ rotations of a static state. This is due to the fact that the potentials are real for static fields and that the vector $`\stackrel{}{C}`$ is $`SU(2,1)`$ invariant. The other subset of solutions of these equations has the form $`\chi =\psi .`$ Field Eqs. (25)-(27) then reduce to the simple condition that $`\psi ^1`$ is a harmonic function. This is the equilibrium class characterized by a vanishing Ricci tensor.

## 4 Nonstatic fields

An example of the $`SU(2,1)`$ global transformations generating a nonstatic state from a given static electrovacuum is the Kramer-Neugebauer transformation , . This has the form

$$\alpha ^{}=(1z\overline{z})\alpha ,\beta ^{}=(1+z\overline{z})\beta 2\overline{z}\gamma ,\gamma ^{}=\left(\frac{\overline{z}}{z}\right)^{1/2}\left[(1+z\overline{z})\gamma 2z\beta \right]$$
(28)
where $`z`$ is a complex constant and $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ is the real triplet of potentials for a static solution. Choosing $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ to be the potentials of an asymptotically flat electrovacuum, the metric so obtained remains asymptotically flat.

There is a wide range of static electrovacuum space-times which is suitable to be chosen as the seed metric of global symmetry transformations. All vacuum Weyl metrics and their electrovacuum counterparts, characterized by the condition $`q=const.,`$ belong to these. A further simple case of an explicit static electrovacuum is the Bonnorized  Kerr metric in oblate spheroidal coordinates $`(x,y)`$:

$$\alpha =x^2+p^2q^2y^2,\beta =2px,\gamma =2pqy$$
(29)
where $`p^2+q^2=1.`$ This solution describes the gravitational and magnetic field of a dipole source. An infinite sequence of static solutions is given by the Bonnorized Tomimatsu-Sato metrics. A wealth of nonstationary solutions is readily available by the $`SU(2,1)`$ rotations of these metrics. Among these, the rotating solutions obtained by the Kramer-Neugebauer transformation (28) will possess controllable asymptotic properties.

## 5 Conclusions

The Einstein-Maxwell fields with no swirl comprise a large number of space-times, and among those ones with astrophysical significance. In addition to the equilibrium ($`|e|=m`$) electrovacua, all static fields as well as their stationary counterparts resulting from the global $`SU(2,1)`$ symmetry belong to this class. To be able to better assess the extent of generality of this class, it would be clearly be of much help to find the solution of the following open research problem:

Find an example which is neither an equilibrium solution nor an $`SU(2,1)`$ rotation of a static field.

Likewise, it would be of considerable interest to see if the Kinnersley group $`K^{}`$ has a subgroup leaving the condition of vanishing swirl invariant.

## 6 Acknowledgments

I thank Mária Süveges and Mátyás Vasúth for computing the $`SU(2,1)`$ currents and for discussions. This work has been supported by the OTKA grant T031724.