text:
# Equilibration within a semiclassical off-shell transport approach11footnote 1supported by GSI Darmstadt

## 1 Introduction

The dynamical description of strongly interacting systems out of equilibrium nowadays is dominantly based on transport theories and efficient numerical recipies have been set up for the solution of the coupled channel transport equations  (and Refs. therein). These transport approaches have been derived either from the Kadanoff-Baym equations  in Refs.  or from the hierarchy of connected equal-time Green functions  in Refs.  by applying a Wigner transformation and restricting to first order in the derivatives of the phase-space variables ($`X,P`$). Whereas theoretical formulations of off-shell quantum transport have been limited to the formal level for a couple of years  only recently a tractable semiclassic form has been derived for testparticles in the eight dimensional phase space of a particle .

Whereas in Refs.  we have investigated the off-shell transport approach with respect to nucleus-nucleus collisions at GANIL, SIS and AGS energies, we here concentrate on equilibration phenomena relative to the on-shell dynamics by imposing periodic boundary conditions for the system confined to a box of size $`V=L^3`$, where $`L`$ denotes the length of the cubic box. We, furthermore, compare the equilibrium nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ distribution functions ($`t\mathrm{}`$) to the statistical model (SM) employing the same spectral functions as in the transport approach. For related studies at higher bombarding energies or energy densities within on-shell transport approaches we refer the reader to Refs. .

## 2 Extended semiclassical transport equations

We briefly recall the basic equations for Green functions and particle self energies that are exploited in the derivation of off-shell transport equations in the semiclassical limit.

The general starting point for the derivation of a transport equation for particles with a finite and dynamical width are the Dyson-Schwinger equations for the retarded and advanced Green functions $`S^{ret}`$, $`S^{adv}`$ and for the non-ordered Green functions $`S^<`$ and $`S^>`$ . In the case of scalar bosons – which is considered in the following for simplicity – these Green functions are defined by

$`iS_{xy}^<`$ $`:=`$ $`<\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(y)\mathrm{\Phi }(x)>,iS_{xy}^>:=<\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(y)>,`$
$`iS_{xy}^{ret}`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0y_0)<[\mathrm{\Phi }(x),\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(y)]>,`$
$`iS_{xy}^{adv}`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(y_0x_0)<[\mathrm{\Phi }(x),\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(y)]>.`$ (1)
They depend on the space-time coordinates $`x,y`$ as indicated by the indices $`_{xy}`$. The Green functions are determined via Dyson-Schwinger equations by the retarded and advanced self energies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ret},\mathrm{\Sigma }^{adv}`$ and the collisional self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^<`$:

$`\widehat{S}_{0x}^1S_{xy}^{ret}=\delta _{xy}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{xz}^{ret}S_{zy}^{ret},`$ (2)
$`\widehat{S}_{0x}^1S_{xy}^{adv}=\delta _{xy}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{xz}^{adv}S_{zy}^{adv},`$ (3)
$`\widehat{S}_{0x}^1S_{xy}^<=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{xz}^{ret}S_{zy}^<+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{xz}^<S_{zy}^{adv},`$ (4)
where Eq. (4) is the well-known Kadanoff-Baym equation. Here $`\widehat{S}_{0x}^1`$ denotes the (negative) Klein-Gordon differential operator which is given for bosonic field quanta of (bare) mass $`M_0`$ by $`\widehat{S}_{0x}^1=(_x^\mu _\mu ^x+M_0^2)`$; $`\delta _{xy}`$ represents the four-dimensional $`\delta `$-distribution $`\delta _{xy}\delta ^{(4)}(xy)`$ and the symbol $``$ indicates an integration (from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$) as well as a summation over all discrete intermediate variables (cf. ).

### 2.1 The semiclassical limit

For the derivation of a semiclassical transport equation one now changes from a pure space-time formulation into the Wigner-representation. The theory is then formulated in terms of the center-of-mass variable $`X=(x+y)/2`$ and the momentum $`P`$, which is introduced by Fourier-transformation with respect to the relative space-time coordinate $`(xy)`$. In any semiclassical transport theory one, furthermore, keeps only contributions up to the first order in the space-time gradients. After carrying-out these two steps the Dyson-Schwinger equations (2)-(4) become

$`\left[P^2M_0^2+iP^\mu _\mu ^X\right]S_{XP}^{ret}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}i\mathrm{})\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret}\}\{S_{XP}^{ret}\},`$ (5)
$`\left[P^2M_0^2+iP^\mu _\mu ^X\right]S_{XP}^{adv}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}i\mathrm{})\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{adv}\}\{S_{XP}^{adv}\},`$ (6)
$`\left[P^2M_0^2+iP^\mu _\mu ^X\right]S_{XP}^<=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}i\mathrm{})\left[\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret}\}\{S_{XP}^<\}+\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^<\}\{S_{XP}^{adv}\}\right],`$ (7)
where the operator $`\mathrm{}`$ is defined as

$`\mathrm{}\{F_1\}\{F_2\}:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F_1}{X^\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{F_2}{P_\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{F_1}{P_\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{F_2}{X^\mu }}\right).`$ (8)
It is a four-dimensional generalization of the well-known Poisson-bracket. Starting from (5) and (6) one obtains algebraic relations between the real and the imaginary part of the retarded Green functions. On the other hand eq. (7) leads to a ’transport equation’ for the Green function $`S^<`$ .

To this aim one separates all retarded and advanced quantities – Green functions and self energies – into real and imaginary parts,

$`S_{XP}^{ret,adv}=ReS_{XP}^{ret}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}A_{XP},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret,adv}=Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}.`$ (9)
The imaginary part of the retarded propagator is given (up to a factor 2) by the normalized spectral function

$`A_{XP}=i\left[S_{XP}^{ret}S_{XP}^{adv}\right]=2ImS_{XP}^{ret},{\displaystyle \frac{dP_0^2}{4\pi }A_{XP}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},`$ (10)
while the imaginary part of the self energy corresponds to half the particle width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}`$. By separating the complex equations (5) and (6) into their real and imaginary contributions we obtain an algebraic equation between the real and the imaginary part of $`S^{ret}`$,

$`ReS_{XP}^{ret}={\displaystyle \frac{P^2M_0^2Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}}}A_{XP}.`$ (11)
In addition we gain an algebraic solution for the spectral function as

$`A_{XP}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}}{(P^2M_0^2Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret})^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}^2/4}},`$ (12)
while the real part of the retarded propagator is given by

$`ReS_{XP}^{ret}={\displaystyle \frac{P^2M_0^2Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret}}{(P^2M_0^2Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret})^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}^2/4}}.`$ (13)
Furthermore, the (Wigner-transformed) Kadanoff-Baym equation (7) allows for the construction of a transport equation for the Green function $`S^<`$. When separating the real and the imaginary contribution of this equation we find i) a generalized transport equation,

$`\mathrm{}\{P^2`$ $``$ $`M_0^2Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret}\}\{S_{XP}^<\}\mathrm{}\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^<\}\{ReS_{XP}^{ret}\}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^>S_{XP}^<\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^<S_{XP}^>\right],`$
and ii) a generalized mass-shell constraint

$`[P^2`$ $``$ $`M_0^2Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret}]S^<_{XP}\mathrm{\Sigma }^<_{XP}ReS^{ret}_{XP}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^<\}\{A_{XP}\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}\}\{S_{XP}^<\}.`$
Besides the drift term (i.e. $`\mathrm{}\{P^2M_0^2\}\{S^<\}=P^\mu _\mu ^XS^<)`$ and the Vlasov term (i.e. $`\mathrm{}\{Re\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ret}\}\{S^<\}`$) a third contribution appears on the l.h.s. of (14) (i.e. $`\mathrm{}\{\mathrm{\Sigma }^<\}\{ReS^{ret}\}`$), which vanishes in the quasiparticle limit and incorporates – as shown in  – the off-shell behaviour in the particle propagation which has been neglected so far in transport studies222This also holds true for the recent numerical off-shell simulations in Refs. . The r.h.s. of (14) consists of a collision term with its characteristic gain ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^<S^>`$) and loss ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^>S^<`$) structure, where scattering and decay processes of particles are described.

Within the specific term ($`\mathrm{}\{\mathrm{\Sigma }^<\}\{ReS^{ret}\}`$) a further modification is necessary. According to Botermans and Malfliet  the collisional self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^<`$ should be replaced by $`S^<\mathrm{\Gamma }/A`$ to gain a consistent first order gradient expansion scheme. The replacement is allowed since the difference between these two expressions $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^<S^<\mathrm{\Gamma }/A)`$ can be shown to be of first order in the space-time gradients itself . Furthermore, this substitution is required to get rid of the inequivalence between the general transport equation (14) and the general mass shell constraint (15) .

Finally, the general transport equation (in first order gradient expansion) reads

$`A_{XP}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}`$ $`\left[\mathrm{}\{P^2M_0^2Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret}\}\{S_{XP}^<\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}}}\mathrm{}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}\}\{(P^2M_0^2Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret})S_{XP}^<\}\right]`$ (16)
$`=i\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^>S_{XP}^<\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^<S_{XP}^>\right].`$
Its formal structure is fixed by the approximations applied, however, its physical contents is fully determined by the different self energies, i.e. $`Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^<`$ that have to be specified in addition.

In order to obtain an approximate solution to the transport equation (16) a testparticle ansatz is used for the Green function $`S^<`$, more specifically for the real and positive semidefinite quantity $`F_{XP}=A_{XP}N_{XP}=iS_{XP}^<`$,

$`F_{XP}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{X}\stackrel{}{X}_i(t))\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{P}_i(t))\delta (P_0ϵ_i(t)).`$ (17)
In the most general case (where the self energies depend on four-momentum $`P`$, time $`t=X_0`$ and the spatial coordinates $`\stackrel{}{X}`$) the equations of motion for the testparticles read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{X}_i}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1C_{(i)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ_i}}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\stackrel{}{P}_i+\stackrel{}{}_{P_i}Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(i)}^{ret}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i^2\stackrel{}{P}_i^2M_0^2Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(i)}^{ret}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(i)}}}\stackrel{}{}_{P_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(i)}\right],`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{P}_i}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1C_{(i)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ_i}}\left[\stackrel{}{}_{X_i}Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{ret}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i^2\stackrel{}{P}_i^2M_0^2Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(i)}^{ret}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(i)}}}\stackrel{}{}_{X_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(i)}\right],`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ_i}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1C_{(i)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ_i}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(i)}^{ret}}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i^2\stackrel{}{P}_i^2M_0^2Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(i)}^{ret}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(i)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(i)}}{t}}\right],`$ (20)
where the notation $`F_{(i)}`$ implies that the function is taken at the coordinates of the testparticle, i.e. $`F_{(i)}F(t,\stackrel{}{X}_i(t),\stackrel{}{P}_i(t),ϵ_i(t))`$.

In (18-20) a common multiplication factor $`(1C_{(i)})^1`$ appears, which contains the energy derivatives of the retarded self energy

$`C_{(i)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ_i}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{ϵ_i}}Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(i)}^{ret}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i^2\stackrel{}{P}_i^2M_0^2Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(i)}^{ret}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(i)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{ϵ_i}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(i)}\right],`$ (21)
which yields a shift of the system time $`t`$ to the ’eigentime’ of particle $`i`$ defined by $`\stackrel{~}{t}_i=t/(1C_{(i)})`$. The derivatives with respect to the ’eigentime’, i.e. $`d\stackrel{}{X}_i/d\stackrel{~}{t}_i`$, $`d\stackrel{}{P}_i/d\stackrel{~}{t}_i`$ and $`dϵ_i/d\stackrel{~}{t}_i`$ then emerge without this renormalization factor for each testparticle $`i`$ when neglecting the explicit time dependence of $`C_{(i)}`$ in line with the semiclassical approximation scheme. The role and the importance of this correction factors have been studied in Ref.  for a four-momentum-dependent ’trial’ potential and we refer the reader to the latter analysis for more details.

Following Ref.  we take $`M^2=P^2Re\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ret}`$ as an independent variable instead of the energy $`P_0`$. Eq. (20) then turns to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dM_i^2}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{M_i^2M_0^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(i)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(i)}}{dt}}`$ (22)
for the time evolution of the test-particle $`i`$ in the invariant mass squared as derived in Refs. . We mention that corresponding equations of motion have been derived by Leupold in the nonrelativistic limit .

### 2.2 Generalized collision terms for bosons and fermions

The collision term of the Kadanoff-Baym equation can only be worked out in more detail by giving explicit approximations for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^<`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^>`$. We recall the formulation and result from Ref.  that is based on Dirac-Brueckner theory, i.e.

$$I_{coll}(X,\stackrel{}{P},M^2)=Tr_2Tr_3Tr_4A(X,\stackrel{}{P},M^2)A(X,\stackrel{}{P}_2,M_2^2)A(X,\stackrel{}{P}_3,M_3^2)A(X,\stackrel{}{P}_4,M_4^2)$$

$$|T((\stackrel{}{P},M^2)+(\stackrel{}{P}_2,M_2^2)(\stackrel{}{P}_3,M_3^2)+(\stackrel{}{P}_4,M_4^2))|_{𝒜,𝒮}^2\delta ^{(4)}(P+P_2P_3P_4)$$

$$[N_{X\stackrel{}{P}_3M_3^2}N_{X\stackrel{}{P}_4M_4^2}\overline{f}_{X\stackrel{}{P}M^2}\overline{f}_{X\stackrel{}{P}_2M_2^2}N_{X\stackrel{}{P}M^2}N_{X\stackrel{}{P}_2M_2^2}\overline{f}_{X\stackrel{}{P}_3M_3^2}\overline{f}_{X\stackrel{}{P}_4M_4^2}]$$
(23)
with

$$\overline{f}_{X\stackrel{}{P}M^2}=1+\eta N_{X\stackrel{}{P}M^2}$$
(24)
and $`\eta =\pm 1`$ for bosons/fermions, respectively. The indices $`𝒜,𝒮`$ stand for the antisymmetric/symmetric matrix element of the in-medium off-shell scattering amplitude $`T`$ in case of fermions/bosons. In Eq. (23) the trace over particles 2,3,4 reads explicitly for fermions

$$Tr_2=\underset{\sigma _2,\tau _2}{}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}d^3P_2\frac{dM_2^2}{2\sqrt{\stackrel{}{P}_2^2+M_2^2}},$$
(25)
where $`\sigma _2,\tau _2`$ denote the spin and isospin of particle 2. In case of bosons we have instead

$$Tr_2=\underset{\sigma _2,\tau _2}{}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}d^3P_2\frac{dP_{0,2}^2}{2},$$
(26)
since here the spectral function $`A_B`$ is normalized as

$$\frac{dP_0^2}{4\pi }A_B(X,P)=1$$
(27)
whereas for fermions we have

$$\frac{dP_0}{2\pi }A_F(X,P)=1.$$
(28)
We mention that the spectral function $`A_F`$ in case of fermions in (23) is obtained by considering only particles of positive energy and assuming the spectral function to be identical for spin ’up’ and ’down’ states (cf. Ref. ).

Neglecting the ’gain-term’ in Eq. (23) one recognizes that the collisional width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}`$ of the particle in the rest frame is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}(X,\stackrel{}{P},M^2)=Tr_2Tr_3Tr_4|T((\stackrel{}{P},M^2)+(\stackrel{}{P}_2,M_2^2)(\stackrel{}{P}_3,M_3^2)+(\stackrel{}{P}_4,M_4^2))|_{𝒜,𝒮}^2$$
(29)
$$A(X,\stackrel{}{P}_2,M_2^2)A(X,\stackrel{}{P}_3,M_3^2)A(X,\stackrel{}{P}_4,M_4^2)\delta ^4(P+P_2P_3P_4)N_{X\stackrel{}{P}_2M_2^2}\overline{f}_{X\stackrel{}{P}_3M_3^2}\overline{f}_{X\stackrel{}{P}_4M_4^2},$$

where as in Eq. (23) local off-shell transition amplitudes enter for the transitions $`P+P_2P_3+P_4`$. We note that the extension of Eq. (23) to inelastic scattering processes (e.g. $`NNN\mathrm{\Delta }`$) or ($`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ etc.) is straightforward when exchanging the elastic transition amplitude $`T`$ by the corresponding inelastic one and taking care of Pauli-blocking or Bose-enhancement for the particles in the final state. The relation of the quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}`$ to the collisional width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}=2P_0(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{decay}(XP)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}(XP))`$, where the particle decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{decay}`$ in the medium might also be different compared to the vacuum.

Thus the transport approach determines the particle spectral function dynamically via (29) – with respect to the collisional width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}`$ – for all hadrons if the in-medium transition amplitudes $`T`$ are known in their full off-shell dependence. Since this information is not available for configurations of hot and dense matter, a couple of assumptions and numerical approximation schemes have to be invoked in actual applications so far.

As in Refs.  the following dynamical calculations are based on the conventional HSD transport approach  – in which $`Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret}`$ is specified for the hadrons – however, the equations of motion for the testparticles are extended to (18,19,22). For further details on the elastic and inelastic transition rates we refer the reader to Ref. .

### 2.3 Comment on particle number conservation

In previous derivations of the off-shell transport equations one has started from a formulation of the non-equilibrium theory in space-time representation $`(x,x^{})`$ and then changed into a phase-space representation via Fourier transformation with respect to $`(xx^{})`$ . The semiclassical limit then has been introduced by assuming gradients in $`X=(x+x^{})/2`$ to be small  for $`Re\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret}`$ and $`S_{XP}^<`$. Here we argue that for reasons of symmetry in phase-space also the four-momentum derivatives in $`P`$ have to be small to achieve a proper semiclassical limit as inherent in the formulation of the transport equation (16) in terms of the generalized Poisson-bracket (8).

We briefly demonstrate in the following lines that instead of a coordinate-space representation one may formulate the theory equivalently in momentum-space and then transform to phase space: The momentum-dependent (two-point) functions are given as

$`F_{p_1p_1^{}}={\displaystyle d^4x_1d^4x_1^{}e^{i(p_1x_1p_1^{}x_1^{})}F_{x_1x_1^{}}}.`$ (30)
The evolution of the retarded and advanced Green functions $`S^{ret},S^{adv}`$ and the Green function $`S^<`$ turns to

$`\widehat{S}_{0p_1}^1S_{p_1p_1^{}}^{ret,adv}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^4\delta ^{(4)}(p_1p_1^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p_2}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p_1p_2}^{ret,adv}S_{p_2p_1^{}}^{ret,adv}},`$ (31)
$`\widehat{S}_{0p_1}^1S_{p_1p_1^{}}^<`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p_2}{(2\pi )^4}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p_1p_2}^{ret}S_{p_2p_1^{}}^<+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p_1p_2}^<S_{p_2p_1^{}}^{adv}\right]},`$ (32)
with the ’kinetic’ operator in momentum-space $`\widehat{S}_{0p_1}^1=(p_1^2M_0^2)`$ in the case of relativistic scalar bosons with (bare) mass $`M_0`$. Obviously, the equations in momentum-space are formally equivalent to the equations in coordinate-space, i.e. the convolution integrals in the coordinate $`x_2`$ are replaced by convolution integrals in the momentum $`p_2`$. When transforming from momentum- to phase-space via a Fourier-transformation with respect to the four-momentum coordinate $`(p_1p_1^{})`$

$`F_{XP}={\displaystyle \frac{d^4(p_1p_1^{})}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iX(p_1p_1^{})}F_{p_1p_1^{}}}`$ (33)
(with $`P=(p_1+p_1^{})/2`$) we gain again the familiar equations in Wigner-representation:

$`\widehat{S}_{0XP}^1S_{XP}^{ret,adv}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+e^i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret,adv}S_{XP}^{ret,adv}`$ (34)
$`\widehat{S}_{0XP}^1S_{XP}^<`$ $`=`$ $`e^i\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret}S_{XP}^<+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^<S_{XP}^{adv}\right],`$ (35)
with the ’kinetic’ operator in phase-space $`\widehat{S}_{0XP}^1=(P^2+iP^\mu _\mu ^X\frac{1}{4}_\mu ^X_X^\mu M_0^2)`$. Here we have used the following relation for the convolution integrals in momentum-space

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4(p_1p_1^{})}{(2\pi )^4}e^{iX(p_1p_1^{})}\frac{d^4p_2}{(2\pi )^4}F_{1,p_1p_2}F_{2,p_2p_1^{}}}=e^i\mathrm{}F_{1,PX}F_{2,PX},`$ (36)
with the Poisson-operator $`\mathrm{}`$ defined in (8).

The semiclassical limit – along the conventional line of arguments – now is achieved by assuming gradients of the self energies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ret,adv}`$ in $`P`$ to be small. This assumption is especially well taken for systems with dominantly short range interactions since the different self energies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ret,adv}(p,p^{})`$ become smooth functions in momentum-space such that a restriction to first order gradients in the momentum $`P=(p+p^{})/2`$ can be more easily justified. Note again that the four-dimensional Poisson-bracket (8) is symmetric in the space-time and the four-momentum derivatives. Thus a phase-space gradient expansion requires all gradients to be small contrary to the assumptions made in Ref. .

As a consequence mixed gradients of second order as $`^2/(tp_0)`$ have to be neglected in a consistent truncation scheme of first order. As shown by Botermans and Malfliet in the review  the particle number conservation then holds strictly. Only when keeping special terms of second order $`(^2/(tp_0)`$ unphysical pecularities may appear, that lead to a violation of particle number conservation in contradiction to the full theory (2)-(4).

## 3 Infinite nuclear matter problems

In case of infinite nuclear matter problems the solution of the transport equations simplifies since all spatial gradients (with respect to $`\stackrel{}{X}`$) vanish. This implies that the momentum coordinates of the testparticles $`\stackrel{}{P}_i`$ are constant according to (19) in between collisions.

The initial conditions of the problem then are fully specified by an initial bombarding energy per nucleon, that defines the relative shift in momentum of two Fermi spheres with a Fermi momentum $`P_F`$ = 260 MeV/c, the number of nucleons $`N`$ and the total volume of the box $`V=L^3`$. Alternatively, one can also characterize the system by an average density $`\rho =N/V`$ and energy density $`ϵ`$ (cf. Ref. ). We use $`L=10`$ fm and assume an equal number of neutrons and protons.

In general (for $`t\mathrm{}`$) the stationary solution of Eq. (23) for a fermion $`h`$ is given by

$$F_h(\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{P},M^2)=\frac{A_h(\stackrel{}{X},\stackrel{}{P},M^2)}{\mathrm{exp}((E\mu _h)/T)\eta }$$
(37)
with $`E=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{P}^2+M^2}`$ and $`\eta =\pm 1`$ for bosons/fermions, respectively, while $`A_h`$ denotes the spectral function (12), $`T`$ the temperature of the system and $`\mu _h`$ the chemical potential for the hadron. This situation corresponds to the grand canonical ensemble of quantum statistical mechanics. In case of infinite nuclear matter problems the dependence on $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ vanishes additionally.

### 3.1 Numerical results

As an example for equilibration phenomena we show in Fig. 1 the time evolution of the quadrupole moment (involving all baryons $`B`$)

$$Q_2(t)=\underset{B}{}\frac{g_B}{(2\pi )^4}d^3Xd^3P\frac{dM^2}{2\sqrt{\stackrel{}{P}^2+M^2}}(2P_z^2P_x^2P_y^2)F_B(\stackrel{}{X},t,\stackrel{}{P},M^2),$$
(38)
for $`\rho =\rho _0`$ and initial bombarding energies of 0.1 A GeV and 1 A GeV, respectively. In (38) the degeneracy factor is $`g_B=4`$ for nucleons and $`g_B`$= 16 for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonances. The solid lines result from the off-shell calculation while the dashed lines result from the on-shell limit. As can be seen from Fig. 1 the off-shell results are practically identical to the on-shell limits except for the very long time behaviour, where the off-shell limit needs some more time to achieve equilibrium. However, when defining an equilibration time $`\tau `$ by a drop of the observable by the factor $`e^1`$ we find no sizeable effect from the off-shell propagation on $`\tau `$.

The equilibrium distributions in the nucleon transverse mass $`M_t=\sqrt{p_t^2+M^2}`$ are shown in Fig. 2 for initial bombarding energies of 0.1 A GeV (upper part) and 1 A GeV (lower part). Again the solid lines denote the off-shell results from the transport calculations while the on-shell spectra are displayed in terms of dashed lines. Both limits (within the statistics) give the same temperature $`T`$ 97 MeV for 1.0 A GeV and $`T`$ 26 MeV for 0.1 A GeV as can be extracted from the high energy tail of the transverse mass spectra. Differences can only be found for $`m_TM_0`$ since the finite width in the nucleon spectral function only can show up in the off-shell case. This component is quite small at 0.1 A GeV since the collisional width of nucleons at density $`\rho _0`$ and temperature $`T`$ 26 MeV is about 8 MeV.

Without explicit display we mention that the time evolution of the nucleon spectral function in the invariant mass $`M`$ becomes broad in the initial nonequilibrium phase of the reaction and approaches the equilibrium distribution (37) roughly within the equilibration times from Fig. 1. Since the width of the nucleon spectral function in equilibrium at 0.1 A GeV (GANIL energy) is rather small ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ 8 MeV) we concentrate on the energy of 1 A GeV (SIS energy) in the following, where the nucleon collisional width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}`$ at a temperature of 97 MeV is about 40 MeV and roughly 20% of the baryons are excited $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances333Note, that in collisions of finite systems at this bombarding energy the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-abundancy is slightly lower due to a rapid expansion of the system and the additional compressional energy stored in the system in the high density phase..

As demonstrated above, for the equilibrated system we can extract a temperature $`T`$ by fitting the particle spectra with the Bolzmann distribution

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3N_i}{dp^3}}\mathrm{exp}(E_i/T),`$ (39)
where $`E_i=\sqrt{p_i^2+m_i^2}`$ is the energy of particle $`i`$. We note that at the temperatures of interest here, the Bose and Fermi distributions are practically identical to a Boltzmann distribution. We find that in equilibrium the spectra of all particles (nucleons, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s and pions) can be characterized by a single temperature $`T`$ (cf. e.g. Ref. ).

### 3.2 Comparison to the statistical model

In order to investigate the equilibrium behaviour of hadron matter we compare our transport (box) calculations with a simple Statistical Model (SM) for an Ideal Hadron Gas where the system is described by a grand canonical ensemble of non-interacting fermions and bosons in equilibrium at temperature $`T`$. All baryon and meson species considered in the transport model ($`N,\mathrm{\Delta },\pi `$) also are included in the statistical model.

We recall that in the SM particle multiplicities $`n_i`$ and energy densities $`\epsilon _i`$ for particles with spectral functions $`A_i`$ are given by

$`n_i={\displaystyle \frac{g_i}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{dM}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{A_i(M)/4\pi p^2dp}{\mathrm{exp}\left[(E_iB_i\mu _BS_i\mu _S)/T\right]\eta }},`$ (40)
$`\epsilon _i={\displaystyle \frac{g_i}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{dM}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{A_i(M)4\pi E_ip^2dp}{\mathrm{exp}\left[(E_iB_i\mu _BS_i\mu _S)/T\right]\eta }},`$ (41)
where $`E_i=\sqrt{p^2+M^2}`$ is the energy of particle $`i`$, $`B_i`$ is the baryon charge, $`S_i`$ is the strangeness, and $`g_i`$ is the spin-isospin degeneracy factor, while $`\eta =\pm 1`$ for bosons/fermions, respectively. In Eqs. (40),(41) $`\mu _B`$ and $`\mu _S`$ are the baryon and strangeness chemical potentials. The energy density $`\epsilon `$, baryon density $`\rho `$ and strange particle density of the whole system in equilibrium then is given as

$`\epsilon ={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\epsilon _i(T,\mu _B,\mu _S)`$ (42)
$`\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}B_in_i(T,\mu _B,\mu _S)`$ (43)
$`\rho _S={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}S_in_i(T,\mu _B,\mu _S)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.`$ (44)
As ’input’ for the SM we use the same $`\epsilon ,\rho `$ and $`\rho _S`$ as in the box calculations and we obtain the thermodynamical parameters – $`T,\mu _B,\mu _S`$ – by solving the system of nonlinear equations (42),(43) and (44).

We now turn to a comparison of the equilibrium distributions in mass for nucleons and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s, i.e. $`dN_N/dM`$ and $`dN_\mathrm{\Delta }/dM`$, from the box calculations with those from the SM, which are obtained by integration (summation) over momentum. We first discuss the on-shell limit where the nucleon spectral function is represented by a $`\delta `$-function around the bare mass while the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ spectral function – as implemented in the transport approach – is given by (in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ rest frame)

$$A_\mathrm{\Delta }(M)=\frac{2M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi N}(M)}{(M^2M_{\mathrm{\Delta }0}^2)^2+M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi N}^2(M)}$$
(45)
with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi N}(M)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(\frac{q}{q_R})^3(\frac{q_R^2+\delta ^2}{q^2+\delta ^2})^3,$$
(46)
where $`q_R`$ denotes the pion momentum in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ rest frame of the resonance and $`q`$ is the corresponding pion three-momentum at invariant mass $`M`$, i.e.

$$q^2=\frac{(M^2(M_N+M_\pi )^2)(M^2(M_NM_\pi )^2)}{4M^2}.$$
(47)
The quantity $`\delta `$ in (46) is fixed by

$$\delta ^2=(MM_NM_\pi )^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2}{4}$$
(48)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=120`$ MeV to achieve a good description for the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ reaction in vacuum. Recall that in this case we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}/(2M)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{decay}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi N}`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ rest frame, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}`$ = 0.

In the upper part of Fig. 3 we compare the asymptotic ($`t\mathrm{}`$) distributions for nucleons ($`N`$) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s in the on-shell limit from the transport (box) calculation (solid histograms) with the result from the SM at a temperature $`T`$ = 97 MeV employing the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ spectral function (45). Since the differences are hardly visible, we conclude that the transport calculation reproduces the result from the SM, where the thermodynamical parameters are determined by energy and baryon number conservation. We mention that we have discarded strangeness in this comparison, since kaons and hyperons are very scarce at this energy and have been switched off in both models. Since the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ width (46) is zero below the $`\pi N`$ threshold, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mass distribution only can extend above $`M_\pi +M_N`$.

In case of the off-shell calculation we obtain somewhat different mass distributions for nucleons and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s from the box calculation, which are given in terms of the solid histograms in the lower part of Fig. 3. Here the nucleon spectral function becomes very broad and also the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ distribution extends below the $`\pi N`$ threshold in vacuum. The nucleon spectral function is broadened due to the elastic ($`NNNN`$) and inelastic ($`NNN\mathrm{\Delta }`$) scattering processes, which can roughly be described by a collisional width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}`$ of 40 MeV in the nucleon spectral function

$$A_N(M)=\frac{2M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}}{(M^2M_{N0}^2)^2+M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}^2},$$
(49)
as shown by the left dashed line in the lower part of Fig. 3. The collisional width in case of nucleons is related to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}`$ as $`2P_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}`$ which reduces in the rest system of the particle to $`2M\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}`$.

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mass spectrum in this case is more difficult to interprete. This is due to the fact that in the decay $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi N^{}`$ the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ may decay to a pion and an off-shell nucleon $`N^{}`$ according to the nucleon equilibrium spectral function $`A_N(M)`$, which essentially shifts the $`\pi N^{}`$ threshold accordingly. However, taking into account this change in width due to the in-medium $`\pi N^{}`$ decay, only, the low mass part of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ distribution is underestimated considerably. Here the ’collisional’ channels $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }NNN`$ are much more important. We mention that the latter reaction is described by the extended detailed balance relation of Ref.  while the elastic differential cross section is taken the same as for $`NN`$ scattering (as a function of the momentum transfer). Since especially the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ absorption reaction depends on mass $`M`$ and momentum $`p`$ of the baryons explicitly, it is not straightforward to present analytical formulas since final state Pauli blocking for the nucleons leads to a highly nonlinear problem. We thus have extracted the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ collisional width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}^\mathrm{\Delta }(p,M)`$ from the transport calculation explicitly by calculating the number of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ unblocked collisions per unit time as a function of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ momentum $`p`$ and mass $`M`$. Using ($`p=|\stackrel{}{P}|`$)

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}}{2P_0}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}(p,M)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi N^{}}(M)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}^\mathrm{\Delta }(p,M),$$
(50)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi N^{}}`$ denotes the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in-medium $`\pi N^{}`$ width averaged over the nucleon equilibrium distribution function (cf. lower part of Fig. 3) and integrating over momentum with the appropriate Fermi function (for $`T`$ = 97 MeV) we obtain the right dashed line in the lower part of Fig. 3 that describes the box $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\- distribution rather well. Thus the transport calculation at finite density $`\rho _0`$ and temperature $`T`$ is consistent with the SM when employing the same physical baryon spectral functions. One might have expected this equivalence in equilibrium due to energy and baryon number conservation, however, the actual numerical result then may be regarded as a consistency test of the numerical implementation schemes for the various elastic and inelastic reaction channel in the medium for off-shell particle propagation.

The mass integrated number of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s in the off-shell case is larger by a few % as compared to the on-shell case in equilibrium due to the low mass tail of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ distribution, however, the high mass tails of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s are identical within the statistics achieved as demonstrated in Fig. 4. On the other hand, the number of pions is practically identical in both cases since the low mass tail of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s is dominantly due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ reactions and only to a lower extent to the $`\pi N^{}`$ decay as discussed above.

## 4 Summary

In this work we have employed the semiclassical off-shell approach from Refs.  to study equilibration phenomena in intermediate and high energy nucleus-nucleus collisions in a finite box with periodic boundary conditions. The semiclassical off-shell transport approach describes the virtual propagation of particles in the invariant mass squared $`M^2`$ besides the conventional propagation in the mean-field potential given by the real part of the self energy. The imaginary part of the retarded self energy $`Im\mathrm{\Sigma }_{XP}^{ret}=1/2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{XP}=P_0(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}(XP)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{decay}(XP))`$ – apart from decay contributions to the width – is determined by the collision integrals themselves and ’evaluated’ within the transport approach dynamically.

Our explicit calculations demonstrate that the off-shell propagation of nucleons has practically no sizeable effect on equilibration times especially at lower bombarding energies; more importantly, the off-shell dynamics even lead to a slight increase of the equilibration time for kinetic equilibrium as noticed early by Danielewicz  (cf. also Ref. ). Furthermore, we have demonstrated that the off-shell HSD approach reproduces the ’proper’ spectral functions with respect to the statistical model (in case of a grand canonical ensemble) for nucleons and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s that in equilibrium are given analytically once the collisional width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{coll}(\stackrel{}{P},M)`$ is known as a function of the 3-momentum $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ and invariant mass $`M`$.

The authors like to acknowledge stimulating discussions with E.L. Bratkovskaya, C. Greiner and S. Leupold throughout this study.


format: text

text:
# Fermat-holonomic congruences

## 1 Introduction

The relevance of rigid motions in Newtonian mechanics basically stems from the following facts: (i) they model the motions of ideal rigid bodies, and also the behaviour of real rigid bodies at the first approximation level, (ii) they provide a definition of strains which, in elasticity theory, determine stresses, and (iii) they describe the relative motion of two Newtonian reference frames, i.e., those frames where Newton’s laws of mechanics hold, provided that inertial forces are taken into account.

A common feature of Newtonian rigid motions is that each one is unambiguously determined by the giving of the trajectory of one point together with the motion’s vorticity along that line (that is, the angular velocity).

The relativistic generalization of rigid motions needs to be formulated in terms of a spacetime manifold ($`𝒱_4`$, g). A motion is then defined by a 3-parameter congruence of timelike worldlines, $`𝒞`$,

$$x^\alpha (t)=\phi ^\alpha (t,y^1,y^2,y^3)$$
(1)
where $`y^1,y^2,y^3`$ are the parameters. In its turn, the congruence $`𝒞`$ is determined by its unit timelike velocity field

$$u^\alpha (x),\text{ with}g_{\mu \nu }u^\mu u^\nu =1$$
(2)
The stationary space $`_3`$ for the congruence is the quotient space, where cosets are worldlines in $`𝒞`$. The Fermat tensor

$$\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }:=g_{\alpha \beta }+u_\alpha u_\beta $$
(3)
yields the infinitesimal radar distance

$$d\widehat{l}_R^2=\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu $$
(4)
between two neighbour worldlines. This quantity is not usually constant along a worldline in $`𝒞`$. Hence, it does not define an infinitesimal distance on $`_3`$.

Only in case that the Born-rigidity condition

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }=(u)\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }=0$$
(5)
holds, $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ defines a Riemannian metric on $`_3`$.

The above condition (5) consists of six independent first order partial differential equations with three independent unknowns, namely, $`u^i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ (since $`u^4`$ can be obtained from (2)), just like in the Newtonian case.

The class of Born-rigid motions would generalize Newtonian rigid motions also because some spatial distance between points in space is conserved. Unfortunately, the Herglotz-Noether theorem  states that, even in Minkowski spacetime, the class of Born-rigid motions is narrower than sought. Indeed, motions combining arbitrary acceleration and rotation are excluded from this class.

Nevertheless, this shortness should not be surprising. Indeed, six first order partial differential equations for only three unknown functions unavoidably entail integrability conditions, which yield additional equations. The latter will lead to new integrability conditions, and so on. The process of completing the partial differential system (5) ends up with a set of equations which is too restrictive for our expectations (namely, six degrees of freedom or six arbitrary functions of time).

In a recent work  by one of us, 2-parameter congruences in a (2+1)-dimensional spacetime, $`𝒱_3`$, were considered as a simplification where the condition (5) is still too restrictive (three partial differential equations for two unknowns: $`u^1(x)`$ and $`u^2(x)`$). Then, the vanishing of shear:

$$\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^\mu \widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta };\alpha ,\beta =0,1,2.$$
(6)
was advanced as a candidate to substitute the condition of Born-rigidity.

The condition of vanishing shear (or, equivalently, conformal rigidity) reads:

$$\sigma _{\alpha \beta }=0\alpha ,\beta =0,1,2$$
(7)
and yields two independent partial differential equations. Indeed, the six equations (7) are constrained by four relations:

$$g^{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }=0\mathrm{and}\sigma _{\alpha \mu }u^\mu =0,\alpha =0,1,2.$$

Since the number of unknown functions is also two, the condition (7) can be dealt by standard methods of solution of partial differential systems. Namely, a non-characteristic surface $`𝒮_2𝒱_3`$ and Cauchy data on it must be given so that a unique solution of (7) in a neighbourhood of $`𝒮_2`$ is determined. The surface $`𝒮_2`$ could be, for instance, a 1-parameter subcongruence.

In general, the amount of Cauchy data is much larger than our desideratum, namely, one worldline and the vorticity of the congruence in that line. We have however derived a way of getting a congruence out of a part of it.

In the particular case that one of the worldlines in the congruence is a geodesic, and the (2+1)-spacetime is flat, reference  goes a little further: given the congruence’s vorticity on the geodesic and assuming that strain vanishes on that worldline111This condition has been introduced in reference  as an enhancement of Einstein’s equivalence principle and named geodesic equivalence principle ., the conformal rigidity condition (7) then determines a unique 2-parameter congruence. The latter would be useful to model a disk whose center is at rest (or in uniform motion), that spins at an arbitrary angular speed, and that remains as rigid as possible.

Another remarkable result in  is that it exists a flat, rigid, spatial metric, $`\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta }`$, which is conformal to the Fermat tensor, $`\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }`$.

The fact that the class of conformally rigid congruences in a (2+1)-spacetime is “wide enough” recalls the well know Gauss theorem :

> Any Riemannian 2-dimensional space can be conformally mapped into a flat space

This suggests us a way to extend the results derived in (2+1)-spacetimes to (3+1)-spacetimes, namely, to inspire the formulation of “meta”-rigidity222The word “meta”-rigidity was coined in  to generically refer to any relativistic extension of the notion of rigidity conditions in some extension of Gauss theorem to Riemannian 3-manifolds. One instance of the latter is , where Walberer’s theorem  is taken as the starting point. In the present paper we shall consider the following

###### Theorem 1

(Riemann)  Let (M, g) be a Riemannian 3-manifold. They exist local charts of mutually orthogonal coordinates. Moreover, this can be done in a number of ways.

This means that six functions, namely, three coordinates $`y^i`$ and three factors $`f_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ can be locally found such that the metric coefficients in this local coordinates are

$$g_{ij}(y)=f_i^2(y)\delta _{ij}$$
(8)
that is, the Riemannian metric locally admits an orthogonal basis which is holonomic.

This result suggests us the following

###### Definition 1

A congruence is said to be Fermat-holonomic iff its Fermat tensor $`\widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }`$ admits an orthogonal basis which is holonomic.

That is, six functions exist: $`y^i(x),`$ $`f_i(x),`$ $`i=1,2,3`$ such that :

$$\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu =f_i^2(x)\delta _{ij}dy^idy^j$$
(9)
the summation convention is understood throughout the paper unless the contrary is explicitly indicated (if one of the repeated indices is in brackets, the convention is suspended in that formula). Greek indices run from 1 to 4 and lattin indices from 1 to 3.

Section 2 is devoted to develop some geometrical properties of Fermat-holonomic congruences, and in section 3 the existence of these congruence is discussed and posed as a Cauchy problem for a partial differential system. The method is somewhat similar to that used in proving the existence of orthogonal triples of coordinates in a Riemannian 3-manifold (it has been specially inspiring the reading of reference ). In section 4 a given 2-congruence is used as the Cauchy hypersurface for the aforementioned partial differential system, and the problem of getting a Fermat-holonomic congruence out of one of its parts (namely, a 2-parameter subcongruence) is studied. The kinematical meaning of the Cauchy data is also analysed. We must finally insist in the purely local validity of the results here derived. No global aspect of spacetimes has been considered.

## 2 Fermat-holonomic congruences

Let $`𝒞`$ be a Fermat-holonomic 3-parameter congruence and let $`u(x)`$ be the unit tangent vector. According to Definition 1, the Fermat tensor, $`\widehat{g}`$, can be written as in equation (9). Consider the differential 1-forms:

$$\omega ^i=f_{(i)}dy^i$$
(10)
We thus have:

$$\widehat{g}=\delta _{ij}\omega ^i\omega ^j$$
(11)
Moreover, since $`\widehat{g}`$ is orthogonal to $`u`$, we have that

$$i(u)\omega ^l=0$$
(12)
As a consequence, the functions $`y^i`$ are constant along any worldline in the congruence:

$$u(y^i)=0$$

Let us now introduce the differential 1-form:

$$\omega ^4g(u,\mathrm{\_})=u_\alpha (x)dx^\alpha .$$

From (3) and (11) it follows that

$$g=\widehat{g}\omega ^4\omega ^4\eta _{\alpha \beta }\omega ^\alpha \omega ^\beta $$
(13)
By definition \[equation (10)\] the 1-forms $`\omega ^i`$ must be integrable or, equivalently, they must satisfy:

$$d\omega ^i\omega ^i=0$$
(14)
As a result we have thus proved the following

###### Theorem 2

Let ($`𝒱_4`$, g) be a spacetime, $`𝒞`$ a Fermat-holonomic 3-parameter congruence and $`u`$ the unit velocity vector. There exist three integrable 1-forms $`\omega ^i`$, i = 1, 2, 3 such that completed with $`\omega ^4g(u,\mathrm{\_})`$, yield a $`g`$-orthonormal basis.

The converse theorem can be easily proved too.

###### Theorem 3

If {$`\omega ^\alpha `$}α=1..4 is a $`g`$-orthonormal thetrad such that $`\omega ^i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ are spacelike and integrable, then the integral curves of $`u`$, the vector that results from raising the index in $`\omega ^4`$, form a 3-parameter Fermat-holonomic congruence.

We shall now present some geometric properties of Fermat-holonomic congruences.

###### Proposition 1

Let $`\omega ^l\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(𝒱_4)`$, $`l=1,2,3`$, be the orthonormal set fulfilling conditions (12), (13) and (14) above. Then

$$(u)\omega ^l\omega ^l=0$$
(15)
Proof: Using (12) and (14) we can write:

$`(u)\omega ^l\omega ^l=[i(u)d\omega ^l+d(i(u)\omega ^l)]\omega ^l=i(u)d\omega ^l\omega ^l`$
$`=i(u)[d\omega ^l\omega ^l]d\omega ^li(u)\omega ^l=0`$ (16)
###### Proposition 2

The strain rate tensor $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(u)\widehat{g}`$ has $`\omega ^i,`$ $`i=1,2,3`$ as principal directions. Furthermore, the same holds for any of its Lie derivatives along the congruence: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n)}(u)^n\mathrm{\Sigma }=(u)^{n+1}\widehat{g}`$

Proof: As a consequence of proposition 1, they exist three functions $`\varphi _l,`$ $`l=1,2,3`$ such that $`(u)\omega ^l=\varphi _{(l)}\omega ^l`$. Hence

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(u)\widehat{g}=2\varphi _i\delta _{ij}\omega ^i\omega ^j.$$

The second statement, concerning $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n)}`$, is easily shown by induction. $`\mathrm{}`$

A sort of converse result is the following

###### Proposition 3

If $`(u)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ diagonalize in the same $`g`$-orthonormal basis, then it exists an orthonormal set $`\omega ^l\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(𝒱_4)`$, such that

$$(u)\omega ^l\omega ^l=0$$
(17)
Proof: According to the hypothesis there exist three 1-forms $`\rho ^i,i=1,2,3`$ such that

$`\widehat{g}=\delta _{ij}\rho ^i\rho ^j,`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=2\varphi _i\delta _{ij}\rho ^i\rho ^j`$ (18)
$`(u)\mathrm{\Sigma }=2\psi _i\delta _{ij}\rho ^i\rho ^j`$ (19)
These $`\rho ^i`$’s are orthogonal to $`u`$, and the same holds for $`(u)\rho ^l`$, hence:

$$(u)\rho ^j=A_k^j\rho ^k$$
(20)
The latter can be used to calculate the Lie derivatives of (18):

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(u)\widehat{g}=(A_i^r\delta _{rj}+A_j^r\delta _{ri})\rho ^i\rho ^j`$
$`(u)\mathrm{\Sigma }=2(\dot{\varphi }_i\delta _{ij}+\varphi _i\delta _{ir}A_j^r+\varphi _j\delta _{jr}A_i^r)\rho ^i\rho ^j`$
which compared with (18) and (19) yield:

$`(A_i^j+A_j^i)=2\varphi _{(i)}\delta _{ij}`$ (21)
$`\dot{\varphi }_{(i)}\delta _{ij}+\varphi _{(i)}A_j^i+\varphi _{(j)}A_i^j)=\psi _{(i)}\delta _{ij}`$ (22)
From (21) we have that:

$$A_i^i=\varphi _i,A_i^j=A_j^i,ij$$
(23)
which substituted in equation (22) yields:

$`\text{for }i=j:`$ $`\dot{\varphi _i}+2\varphi _i^2=\psi _i`$
$`\text{for }ij:`$ $`(\varphi _{(i)}\varphi _{(j)})A_i^j=0`$ (24)
Now three cases must be considered according to the degeneracy of the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

* In the case $`\varphi _1\varphi _2\varphi _3`$ the set $`\{\rho ^i\}`$ is unambiguously defined. Eq.(24) implies $`A_i^j=0,ij.`$ Then taking (23) and (20) into account we obtain $`(u)\rho ^i=\varphi _{(i)}\rho ^i`$ and equation (17) follows for $`\omega ^i=\rho ^i`$.
* In the case $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2\varphi _3`$ from (23) and (24), we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{cc}A_i^i=\varphi _i,\hfill & i=1,2,3;\hfill \\ A_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}^1=A_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}}^2\hfill & A_a^3=A_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}}^a=0,a=1,2\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(25)
which introduced in (20) yield:

$$(u)\rho ^3=\varphi _{(3)}\rho ^3;(u)\rho ^a=A_b^a\rho ^ba,b=1,2$$
(26)
In the present case, however, the set

$$\omega ^3=\rho ^3\text{and }\omega ^a=R_b^a\rho ^ba,b=1,2$$

with $`(R_b^a)O(2)`$ is also a set of eigenvectors for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Now, an orthogonal matrix $`(R_b^a)`$ can be found such that $`(u)\omega ^a=\varphi \omega ^a`$, with $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2=\varphi `$. Indeed, since

$$(u)\omega ^a=[(u)R_b^a(R^1)_c^b+(RAR^1)_c^a]\omega ^c$$

it is enough to require

$$(u)R_b^a=R_c^a(A_b^c+\varphi \delta _b^c)$$

which has many solutions $`(R_b^a)O(2)`$ because, by equation (25), $`A_b^c+\varphi \delta _b^c`$ is skewsymmetric.
* The completely degenerate case $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2=\varphi _3`$ can be handled in a similar way as case (b). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 4

$`(u)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ diagonalize in a common $`g`$-orthonormal basis if, and only if, three functions $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$, exist such that

$$(u)\mathrm{\Sigma }=A\widehat{g}+B\mathrm{\Sigma }+C\mathrm{\Sigma }^2$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \mu }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\beta ^\mu `$. Moreover if two among the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are equal, then $`C=0`$ can be taken, and in the completely degenerate case, $`B=C=0`$ can be taken.

Proof:
$`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}`$: Since $`u`$ is orthogonal to both $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`(u)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we shall have that $`\omega ^4g(u,\mathrm{\_})`$ is in the common orthogonal basis $`\{\omega ^\alpha \}`$. Thus, expressions similar to (18) and (19) hold. Hence to prove (27) amounts to solve the linear system:

$$A+2\varphi _iB+4\varphi _i^2C=2\psi _i$$
(28)
for the unknowns $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$. The determinant is:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=8(\varphi _2\varphi _1)(\varphi _2\varphi _3)(\varphi _3\varphi _1).$$

In the non-degenerate case $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ and (28) has a unique solution.

If $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2\varphi _3`$, only the equations for $`l=2`$ and $`3`$ in (28) are independent, there are infinitely many solutions and $`C`$ can be arbitrarily chosen. In particular, $`C=0`$.

Finally, in the completely degenerate case, (28) has rank 1, hence it admits infinitely many solutions, and $`B`$ and $`C`$ are arbitrary.

$`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}`$: Assume that (27) holds. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ diagonalize in a $`g`$-orthonormal basis, we substitute (18) in (27) and it follows immediately that $`(u)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ diagonalize in the same $`g`$-orthonormal basis.

###### Theorem 5

If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`(u)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`(u)^2\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ diagonalize in a common $`g`$-orthonormal basis, then $`\widehat{g}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`(u)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`(u)^2\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are linearly dependent. (Hence, the congruence is non-generic .)

Proof: By theorem 4, they exist $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ such that (27) holds. taking the Lie derivative on both sides, using that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(u)\widehat{g}`$ and equation (27) itself, and taking into account that the minimal polynomial for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\beta ^\alpha `$ has at most degree 3, we arrive at:

$$(u)^2\mathrm{\Sigma }=A^{}\widehat{g}+B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }+C^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^2$$
(29)
where $`A^{}`$, $`B^{}`$ and $`C^{}`$ are some suitable functions.

If $`C=0`$, then (27) already proves the theorem.

If, on the contrary $`C0`$, we can derive $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ from (27) and substitute it into (29), so arriving at:

$$(u)^2\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left(A^{}\frac{A}{C}\right)\widehat{g}+\left(B^{}\frac{B}{C}\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }+\frac{C^{}}{C}(u)\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

which ends the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Existence of Fermat-holonomic congruences

According to the theorems 2 and 3 in section 2, proving the existence of Fermat-holonomic congruences is equivalent to prove the existence of a $`g`$-orthonormal basis $`\{\omega ^\alpha \}`$ such that:

* $`\omega ^i`$ is spacelike, and
* $`d\omega ^i\omega ^i=0`$ (14)

The dual thetrad will be denoted $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ and the commutation relations:

$$[e_\alpha ,e_\beta ]=C_{\alpha \beta }^\mu e_\mu d\omega ^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}C_{\mu \nu }^\alpha \omega ^\mu \omega ^\nu $$
(30)
using the latter, (14) can be written as:

$$\frac{1}{2}C_{\mu \nu }^i\omega ^\mu \omega ^\nu \omega ^i=0i=1,2,3$$
(31)
which in turn is equivalent to:

$$\begin{array}{cc}C_{jk}^i=0\hfill & ijk\hfill \\ C_{4j}^i=0\hfill & ij\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(32)
Taking into account the relationship between $`C_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$ and the Riemannian connexion coefficients in an orthonormal frame , equations (32) are equivalent to:

$`\gamma _{jk}^i=0`$ $`ijk`$ (33)
$`C_{4j}^i=\gamma _{4j}^i\gamma _{j4}^i=0`$ $`ij`$ (34)
For a Riemannian connexion in an orthonormal frame, it holds:

$$\gamma _{\alpha k}^i=\gamma _{\alpha i}^k,\gamma _{\alpha k}^4=\gamma _{\alpha 4}^k\alpha =1\mathrm{}4,i,k=1,2,3$$

where the signature $`(+++)`$ has been used. Hence, at most three among the equations (33) are independent.

Since

$$\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\gamma =(\omega ^\gamma ,e_\alpha ^{}e_\beta )=\eta ^{\gamma \nu }g(e_\nu ,e_\alpha ^{}e_\beta )$$
(35)
equations (33) and (34) yield a first-order partial differential system of nine equations where the unknown is the orthonormal frame $`\{e_\alpha \}`$.

### 3.1 The Cauchy problem

Given a hypersurface $`𝒮_0`$, consider a 1-parameter family of hypersurfaces, $`𝒮_\lambda `$, containing it. Let $`n`$ be the unit orthogonal vector field which, by construction, is hypersurface orthogonal, i. e., $`\nu =g(n,\mathrm{\_})`$ is an integrable 1-form.

Relatively to $`n`$, each vector $`e_\alpha `$ of the sought frame can be decomposed in an orthogonal part $`e_\alpha ^{}`$ (which is tangent to the hypersurfaces $`𝒮_\lambda `$) and a parallel part, namely:

$$e_\alpha =e_\alpha ^{}+n_\alpha n$$
(36)
where $`n_\alpha g(e_\alpha ,n)`$.

Substituting this decomposition in (33) and (34), taking into account equation (35) and the fact that the connexion is Riemannian, we respectively arrive at:

$`\gamma _{jk}^i=n_jW_{ik}+g(e_i,e_j^{}e_k)=0`$ $`ijk`$ (37)
$`C_{4k}^i=n_4W_{ik}n_kW_{i4}+H_{ik}=0`$ $`ik`$ (38)
where

$$W_{\alpha \beta }g(e_\alpha ,n^{}e_\beta )$$
(39)
is skewsymmetric, and

$$H_{ik}g(e_i,[e_4^{},e_k^{}])+n_i\left(e_4^{}(n_k)e_k^{}(n_4)\right)+n_kg(e_i,e_4^{}n)n_4g(e_i,e_k^{}n)$$
(40)
only depends on the unknowns and their derivatives along directions that are tangential to $`𝒮_\lambda `$.

If, and only if, $`n_j0`$, the nine equations (37) and (38) can be solved for the six independent components of $`W_{\alpha \beta }`$. A straight manipulation yields:

$`W_{ik}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_j}}g(e_i,e_j^{}e_k)`$ $`ijk`$ (41)
$`W_{i4}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_k}}H_{ik}{\displaystyle \frac{n_4}{n_kn_j}}g(e_i,e_j^{}e_k)`$ $`ijk`$ (42)
Notice that for each value of $`i=1,2,3`$ there are two ways of choosing $`jk`$ in equation (42). This comes from the fact that the system (37)–(38) is overdetermined. Hence, three subsidiary conditions follow:

$$S_i\frac{1}{n_k}H_{ik}\frac{1}{n_j}H_{ij}\frac{n_4}{n_kn_j}g(e_i,e_j^{}e_ke_k^{}e_j)=0ijk$$
(43)
these conditions only depend on “tangential derivatives” of the unknowns.

###### Lemma 1

Given an orthonormal thetrad $`\{\overline{e}_\alpha \}`$ on $`𝒮_0`$, such that $`g(n,\overline{e}_i)0`$, it exists a neighbourhood $`𝒰`$ of $`𝒮_0`$ and an orthonormal thetrad $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ which is a solution of

$$\begin{array}{c}W_{ik}=\frac{1}{n_j}g(e_i,e_j^{}e_k)\hfill \\ W_{i4}=\frac{1}{n_k}H_{ik}\frac{n_4}{n_kn_j}g(e_i,e_j^{}e_k)\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(44)
\[where $`(ikj)`$ is a cyclic permutation of $`(123)`$\] and such that $`e_\alpha =\overline{e}_\alpha `$ on $`𝒮_0`$.

Proof: Let $`\{\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha \}`$ be a given orthonormal frame. In terms of it the unknown frame $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ can be written as:

$$e_\alpha =L_\alpha ^\mu \stackrel{~}{e}_\mu $$

where $`(L_\alpha ^\beta )`$ is a Lorentz matrix valued function.

Substituting the latter into equation (39) we have:

$$W_{\alpha \beta }=L_\alpha ^\mu g(\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ,n^{}(L_\beta ^\nu \stackrel{~}{e}_\nu )).$$

Then, after a straightforward calculation, we arrive at:

$$nL_\alpha ^\beta =L_{}^{\beta \mu }W_{\mu \alpha }\eta ^{\beta \mu }L_\alpha ^\rho g(\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ,n^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_\rho )$$
(45)
where indices are raised by contraction with $`\eta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`nL_\alpha ^beta`$ is the directional derivative along $`n`$.

The second term in the right hand side is known and, since $`g(n,\stackrel{~}{e}_i)0`$ on $`𝒮_0`$, equation (44) yield $`W_{\alpha \beta }`$ on $`𝒮_0`$ as a function of $`e_\alpha `$ and their “tangential” derivatives (i. e. L$`{}_{}{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}`$ and their “tangential” derivatives). Hence, the Cauchy-Kowalevski theorem  can be invoked to end the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 2

Let $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ be an orthonormal thetrad, which is a solution of (44) and fulfills the subsidiary conditions (43) on $`𝒮_0`$. Then (43) holds in the neighbourhood $`𝒰`$ of $`𝒮_0`$ where $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ is defined.

Proof: Since $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ is a solution of (44),

$$C_{jk}^i=0,C_{4k}^i=0C_{4j}^i=n_jS_i$$
(46)
where $`(ikj)`$ is a cyclic permutation of $`(123)`$ and $`S_i`$ is defined in (43).

The commutation coefficients $`C_{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$ satisfy the Jacobi like identity:

$$\eta ^{\alpha \rho \mu \nu }(e_\rho C_{\mu \nu }^\beta C_{\sigma \rho }^\beta C_{\mu \nu }^\sigma )=0$$
(47)
Taking $`\alpha =\beta =i`$ in (47) and using (46) we arrive at:

$$e_kC_{4j}^i+C_{4j}^i(C_{k(j)}^{(j)}+C_{k4}^4C_{k(i)}^{(i)})=0,\epsilon _{ikj}=1$$

and taking the decomposition (36) into account, and the fact that $`n_k0`$ we have

$$n\left(C_{4j}^i\right)+\frac{1}{n_k}[e_k^{}C_{4j}^i+A_kC_{4j}^i]=0,$$
(48)
with $`A_k=C_{k(j)}^{(j)}+C_{k4}^4C_{k(i)}^{(i)}`$.

The latter can be considered as a partial differential system on $`C_{4j}^i`$. In case that $`n_k0`$, the hypersurface $`𝒮_0`$ is non-characteristic, and the Cauchy-Kowalevski theorem states that (48) has a unique solution, which for $`S_i=0`$ on $`𝒮_0`$, ensures that $`C_{4j}^i=0`$ in a neighbourhood of $`𝒮_0`$ and, equivalently, $`S_i=0`$ in a neighbourhood of $`𝒮_0`$.

Summarizing, we have shown the following

###### Theorem 6

Given an orthonormal thetrad $`\{\overline{e}_\alpha \}`$ on $`𝒮_0`$, such that:

* $`g(n,\overline{e}_i)0`$ and
* $`S_i=0`$ on $`𝒮_0`$

it exists an orthonormal frame $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ in a neighbourhood $`𝒰`$ of $`𝒮_0`$, such that:

* it is a solution of (44) and (43), and
* $`e_\alpha =\overline{e}_\alpha `$ on $`𝒮_0`$

Thus, the congruence generated by $`u=e_4`$ is Fermat-holonomic.

The proof is straightforward from lemmas 1 and 2. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Getting a Fermat-holonomic 3-congruence out of a given 2-congruence

Let $`𝒮_0`$be the hypersurface spanned by a given 2-congruence of worldlines and let $`\overline{u}`$ be the unit velocity vector. (Hereafter, a bar over a symbol indicates that we are only considering the values of that object on $`𝒮_0`$.)

### 4.1 Are the subsidiary conditions consistent?

We are interested in completing an orthonormal thetrad $`\{\overline{e}_\alpha \}`$ on $`𝒮_0`$, such that: $`\overline{e}_4=\overline{u}`$, $`\overline{n}_ig(\overline{e}_i,\overline{n})0`$, and that $`S_i=0`$ on $`𝒮_0`$, where $`\overline{n}`$ is the unit vector orthogonal to $`𝒮_0.`$

For each $`\overline{e}_i`$, we consider the decomposition (36):

$$\overline{e}_i=\overline{e}_i^{}+\overline{n}_i\overline{n}$$

and take the unit vector

$$\widehat{a}_i\frac{\overline{e}_i^{}}{\left|\overline{e}_i^{}\right|}$$
(49)
Furthermore, we can consider the combinations:

$$\overline{b}_i=ϵ_i^{jk}\overline{n}_j\overline{e}_ki=1,2,3$$
(50)
and define the unit vector $`\widehat{b}_i\overline{b}_i/|\overline{b_i}|`$. It is straightforward to see that $`\{\overline{u},\overline{n},\widehat{b}_i,\widehat{a}_i\}`$ is an orthonormal thetrad at any point in $`𝒮_0`$.

We also have that

$$g(\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_j)=\frac{1}{\left|\overline{e}_i^{}\right|\left|\overline{e}_j^{}\right|}g(\overline{e}_i^{},\overline{e}_j^{})=\frac{1}{\left|\overline{e}_i^{}\right|\left|\overline{e}_j^{}\right|}(\delta _{ij}\overline{n}_i\overline{n}_j)$$

Now, since $`\overline{n}_i0`$, then $`\left|\overline{n}_j\right|<1`$ and it follows that:

$$ij\left|g(\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_j)\right|<1\mathrm{and}g(\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_j)0$$
(51)
Thus, for any triad $`\{\overline{e}_1,\overline{e}_2,\overline{e}_3\}`$ in $`T_x𝒱_4`$, $`x𝒮_0`$, such that: $`g(\overline{e}_i,\overline{u})=0`$, and $`g(\overline{e}_i,\overline{n})=\overline{n}_i0`$, we can obtain a triad $`\widehat{a}_i`$ $`T_x𝒮_0`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, such that $`g(\widehat{a}_i,\overline{u})=0`$ and that (51) holds.

The converse result is the following

###### Theorem 7

Given a triad $`\widehat{a}_i`$ $`T_x𝒮_0`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, such that $`g(\widehat{a}_i,\overline{u})=0`$ and fulfills (51), a triad $`\{\overline{e}_i\}`$ can be obtained such that $`g(\overline{e}_i,\overline{n})0`$ and that $`\{\overline{e}_1,\overline{e}_2,\overline{e}_3,\overline{e}_4=\overline{u}\}`$ is an orthonormal frame.

Proof: We must find $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$ such that

$$\overline{e}_i=A_i\widehat{a}_i+B_i\overline{n}$$

since $`\widehat{a}_i`$, and $`\overline{n}`$ are $`u`$-orthogonal, so will be $`\overline{e}_i`$.

Now, the condition $`g(\overline{e}_i,\overline{e}_j)=\delta _{ij}`$ implies:

$$A_i^2+B_i^2=1$$
(52)
$$A_iA_jg(\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_j)+B_iB_j=0ij$$
(53)
From which we easily obtain:

$$B_i=A_i\sqrt{\frac{g(\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_j)\dot{g}(\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_k)}{g(\widehat{a}_j,\widehat{a}_k)}}ijk$$
(54)
and

$$A_i=\sqrt{\frac{g(\widehat{a}_j,\widehat{a}_k)}{g(\widehat{a}_j,\widehat{a}_k)g(\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_j)g(\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_k)}}ijk$$
(55)
The right hand side of (54) is well defined because, by the hypothesis, the inequalities (51) hold.

The denominator in (55) neither vanishes, as a consequence of (51) too. Indeed, denoting by $`\phi _{ij}`$ the angle between $`\widehat{a}_i`$ and $`\widehat{a}_j`$, and taking into account that $`\left|\phi _{ij}\right|+\left|\phi _{jk}\right|+\left|\phi _{ki}\right|=2\pi `$, $`ijk`$ this denominator reads:

$$\mathrm{cos}(\phi _{jk})\mathrm{cos}(\phi _{ij})\mathrm{cos}(\phi _{ik})=\mathrm{sin}(\phi _{ij})\mathrm{sin}(\phi _{ik})ijk$$

which does not vanish because $`\left|g(\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_j)\right|=\left|\mathrm{cos}(\phi _{ij})\right|<1,ij`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We shall attempt to find $`\widehat{a}_1,\widehat{a}_2,\widehat{a}_3`$ such that the triad $`\{\overline{e}_i\}`$ so reconstructed fulfill the subsidiary condition (43). It is easily seen that $`S_i`$ can be written as:

$$S_i\frac{1}{n_j}g(e_i,[e_4,e_j])\frac{1}{n_k}g(e_i,[e_4,e_k])=\frac{1}{n_jn_k}g(e_i,[e_4,b_i])$$

(wher $`(ikj)`$ is a cyclic permutation of $`(123)`$) on the hypersurface $`𝒮_0`$, that is:

$$\overline{S}_i=\frac{1}{\overline{n}_j\overline{n}_k}g(\overline{e}_i,[\overline{u},\overline{b}_i])$$

Taking now into account that $`\overline{u}`$and $`\overline{b}_i`$ are tangent to $`𝒮_0`$, (hence, $`[\overline{u},\overline{b}_i]`$ is tangent too), we can write:

$$\overline{n}_j\overline{n}_k\overline{S}_i=g(\overline{e}_i^{},[\overline{u},\overline{b}_i])=\left|\overline{e}_i^{}\right|\left|\overline{b}_i\right|g(\widehat{a}_i,[\overline{u},\widehat{b}_i])$$

so that the subsidiary conditions $`\overline{S}_i=0`$ are equivalent to

$$g(\widehat{a}_i,[\overline{u},\widehat{b}_i])=0$$
(56)
Let $`\overline{v}`$ and $`\overline{m}`$ be two unit vector fields such that $`\{\overline{u},\overline{m},\overline{v}\}`$ is an orthonormal basis on the tangent space of $`𝒮_0`$. In terms of this basis, we can write:

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{b}_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i\overline{m}+\mathrm{sin}\theta _i\overline{v}\hfill \\ \widehat{a}_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _i\overline{m}+\mathrm{cos}\theta _i\overline{v}\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(57)
and the conditions (56) lead to:

$$\dot{\theta }+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _i(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{vv}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{mm})+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{mv}+\frac{1}{2}\left(g(\overline{v},[\overline{u},\overline{m}])g(\overline{m},[\overline{u},\overline{v}])\right)=0$$
(58)
which is an ordinary differential equation for each $`\theta _i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, and has a solution for every initial data $`\theta _i^0`$ given in a submanifold $`𝒮_0`$, such that it is nowhere tangent to $`\overline{u}`$.

Summarizing, we have thus proved that given a 2-congruence, it spans a hypersurface $`𝒮_0`$ on which Cauchy data $`\{\overline{e}_1,\overline{e}_2,\overline{e}_3,\overline{e}_4=\overline{u}\}`$ can be found fulfilling the subsidiary conditions (43). Moreover, this can be done in an infinite number of ways.

### 4.2 The kinematical meaning of the Cauchy data

In the particular case considered in this section, where the Cauchy hypersurface $`𝒮_0`$ is spanned by a 2-congruence, we shall analyse the kinematical significance of the Cauchy data $`\{\overline{e}_i\}_{i=1,2,3}`$.

According to Proposition 2, the latter is a principal basis for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ (i. e., the values of the strain rate of the Fermat-holonomic 3-congruence. We shall see how $`\{\overline{e}_i\}_{i=1,2,3}`$ determine $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$.

Indeed, let $`\overline{n}`$ be the unit vector normal to $`𝒮_0`$ and $`\overline{\nu }g(\overline{n},\mathrm{\_})`$. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ can be written as:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0+\overline{\pi }\overline{\nu }+\overline{\nu }\overline{\pi }+\overline{s}\overline{\nu }\overline{\nu }$$
(59)
where:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0(\overline{n},\mathrm{\_})=\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0(\mathrm{\_},\overline{n})=0\mathrm{and}\overline{\pi },\overline{n}=0.$$

The condition that $`\overline{e}_i`$ is a principal vector then reads:

$$\lambda _i\text{such that}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\overline{e}_i,\mathrm{\_})=\lambda _i\overline{\omega }^i$$

which, using (59) and considering the parallel and orthogonal parts, respectively yields:

$`\overline{\pi },\overline{e}_i+\overline{s}\overline{n}_i=\lambda _i\overline{n}_i`$ (60)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0(\overline{e}_i^{},\mathrm{\_})+\overline{n}_i\overline{\pi }=\lambda _i\widehat{g}(\overline{e}_i^{},\mathrm{\_})`$ (61)
Now, taking into account (36) and expressions like

$$\overline{n}^l\overline{e}_l=\overline{n}\text{and}\underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}(\overline{n}^l)^2=1,$$

after a short calculation, we arrive at:

$`\overline{p}={\displaystyle \underset{jl}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{n}_j}}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0(\overline{e}_j^{},\overline{e}_l^{})\overline{e}_l^{},`$ $`\text{where}\overline{\pi }=\widehat{g}(\overline{p},\mathrm{\_})`$ (62)
$`\overline{s}=2\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0(\overline{e}_j^{},\overline{e}_l^{})\delta ^{lj}+{\displaystyle \underset{j<l}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{n}_j\overline{n}_l}}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0(\overline{e}_j^{},\overline{e}_l^{})`$ (63)
$`\lambda _i=\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0(\overline{e}_h^{},\overline{e}_l^{})\delta ^{lh}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{n}_j\overline{n}_k}}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0(\overline{e}_j^{},\overline{e}_k^{})`$ (64)
Let us now see what does $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ mean. Given any couple of vector fields, $`\overline{v}`$ and $`\overline{w}`$, that are tangent to $`𝒮_0`$, we have that:

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0(\overline{v},\overline{w})=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\overline{v},\overline{w})=(u)\widehat{g}(\overline{v},\overline{w})`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{u}\left(\widehat{g}(\overline{v},\overline{w})\right)(\widehat{g}([\overline{u},\overline{v}],\overline{w})(\widehat{g}(\overline{v},[\overline{u},\overline{w}])`$
Now, since $`𝒮_0`$ is a submanifold, $`[\overline{u},\overline{v}]`$ and $`[\overline{u},\overline{w}]`$ are also tangent to $`𝒮_0`$. Hence, the Fermat tensor $`\widehat{g}`$ on the right hand side can be replaced by its restriction to $`𝒮_0`$, namely, $`\widehat{g}^0`$. So that,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0=(\overline{u})\widehat{g}^0$$

Thus, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ is the strain rate of the given 2-congruence, $`𝒞_2`$ in the Riemannian submanifold $`(𝒮_0,\widehat{g}^0)`$.

We have so far shown the following

###### Proposition 4

The Cauchy data $`(𝒮_0,\overline{e}_1,\overline{e}_2,\overline{e}_3,\overline{e}_4=\overline{u})`$ determine $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, i. e., the values on $`𝒮_0`$ of the strain rate of the Fermat-holonomic congruence obtained as a solution of the partial differential system (37)–(38).

The converse is true only if all the eigenvalues of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ restricted to spacelike vectors have multiplicity 1. Indeed, if some eigenvalue of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ has multiplicity greater than 1, then the eigenvectors are determined up to a rotation.

### 4.3 Uniqueness

From Proposition 4 it seems to follow that, given the 2-congruence $`𝒞_2`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, there is a unique Fermat-holonomic 3-congruence that includes $`𝒞_2`$ and its strain rate takes the values $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ on the submanifold $`𝒮_0`$. We shall now see that, although this is the generic case, it is not allways true.

Once $`𝒞_2`$ is given, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is no more arbitrary. Indeed, the first block $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ in the decomposition (59) is already determined by $`𝒞_2`$. Hence, it is enough to give the 1-form $`\overline{\pi }`$ and the scalar $`\overline{s}`$ on $`𝒮_0`$, and use (59) to determine $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. Then, a basis $`\{\overline{e}_1,\overline{e}_2,\overline{e}_3\}`$ of spacelike eigenvectors of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ can be chosen.

In order that $`(𝒮_0,\overline{e}_1,\overline{e}_2,\overline{e}_3,\overline{e}_4=\overline{u})`$ is a suitable set of Cauchy data for the partial differential system (37)–(38) it is necessary that $`\overline{n}_i0`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. This is equivalent to require that no $`\overline{e}_l`$ is tangent to $`𝒮_0`$.

Now, for $`\overline{e}_l`$ to be tangent to $`𝒮_0`$ we should have that:

$$\overline{\pi },\overline{e}_l=0\text{and}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0(\overline{e}_l,\mathrm{\_})=\lambda _l\widehat{g}^0(\overline{e}_l,\mathrm{\_}),$$

where (60) and (61) have been used. That is, $`\overline{e}_l`$ is a principal vector of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ and $`\overline{\pi }`$ is orthogonal to $`\overline{e}_l`$. Hence, $`\overline{p}`$ itself should be an eigenvector of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$.

Thus, avoiding to choose $`\overline{p}`$ among the eigenvectors of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ guarantees that $`\overline{n}_i0`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. Of course, this is not possible when $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$ is a multiple of $`\widehat{g}^0`$.

So that, several possibilities occur:

* Either $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ has three simple eigenvalues and therefore the eigenvectors $`\{\overline{e}_i\}_{i=1,2,3}`$ are uniquely determined, in which case:

+ either $`\overline{n}_i0`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, and $`(𝒮_0,\overline{e}_1,\overline{e}_2,\overline{e}_3,\overline{e}_4=\overline{u})`$ is a suitable set of Cauchy data,
    + or some $`\overline{n}_l=0`$, and $`𝒮_0`$ is characteristic.
* Or some eigenvalue of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is not simple. Then, the basis of eigenvectors is determined up to a rotation.

Therefore, only in the case (A.1) $`𝒞_2`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ determine a unique Fermat-holonomic 3-congruence.

## 5 Conclusion and outlook

Looking for a less restrictive substitute for Born’s relativistic definition of rigid motion, we have suggested the definition of Fermat-holonomic motion, namely, a 3-parameter congruence of timelike worldlines which admits an adapted system of coordinates $`(t,y^1,y^2,y^3)`$, such that the hypersurfaces $`y^i=`$constant, $`i=1,2,3`$, are mutually orthogonal (i.e., the Fermat tensor is diagonal: $`\widehat{g}_{ij}(t,y)=0`$ whenever $`ij`$).

We have expressed this condition as a partial differential system and analysed the Cauchy problem. We have proved —theorem 6— that, given a 2-parameter congruence $`𝒞_2`$ and a triad of spatial vectors $`\{\overline{e}_i\}_{i=1,2,3}`$ on $`𝒮_0`$ (the track of $`𝒞_2`$), there is a unique Fermat-holonomic 3-congruence, $`𝒞_3`$, containing $`𝒞_2`$ and admitting an adapted coordinate system such that the spatial coordinate curves are tangent to $`\overline{e}_i`$ on $`𝒮_0`$.

Moreover, the given directions $`\{\overline{e}_i\}`$ are related to the eigenvectors of the strain rate tensor $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and, except in the case that the shear of $`𝒞_3`$ vanishes on $`𝒮_0`$, we have shown that $`𝒞_2`$ together with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ determine $`𝒞_3`$ in a neigbourhood of $`𝒮_0`$. Hence, a Fermat-holonomic congruence is determined by “a part of it”.

The definition of Fermat-holonomic congruences has been devised as an extension to a (3+1)-spacetime of the shear-free congruences studied in reference  in a similar context, for the simplified problem of a (2+1)-spacetime. There, we went further and, adding symmetry arguments and the so called geodesic equivalence principle , , a unique shear-free congruence was obtained out of a worldline and the angular velocity on it, just like in the case of Newtonian rigid motions. In a forthcoming paper we shall try to supplement in a similar way (symmetries plus geodesic equivalence principle) the general results that have been derived here, to model an arbitrary rotational motion with a fixed point.

## 6 Acknowledgments

One of us is indebted to M. A. Garcia Bonilla for helpful suggestions and comments. This work is partly supported by DIGICyT, contract no.PPB96-0384 and by Institut d’Estudis Catalans (S.C.F.).