text:
# Improved Variational Analysis of Deconfinement in 𝑆𝑈(𝑁) Gauge Theory

## 1 Introduction

In a recent paper , a variational method is used to study the deconfinement transition in the pure $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory at finite temperature. The method mimics the Rayleigh-Ritz variational method in the Schrödinger formulation of quantum mechanics. There, the standard procedure is to take a physically motivated ansatz for the ground state wavefunction, parameterized by some free parameters, and to minimise the expectation value of the Hamiltonian with respect to those parameters. This provides an upper bound for the ground state (vacuum) energy. The method at finite temperature is analogous: in the canonical ensemble formulation of quantum statistical mechanics, one forms an ansatz for the density matrix, with free parameters, and minimises the expectation value of the Helmholtz free energy. This provides an upper bound for the free energy at a given temperature.

In section 2, we begin with a préçis of the approach followed in . The calculation generalises the variational analysis at zero temperature performed in ; an additional kernel $`H`$ in the ansatz corresponds to the effect of thermal disorder in the system. This kernel is taken to be small, and only the leading order correction to the entropy of order $`H\mathrm{log}H`$ is considered. In this approximation a deconfining phase transition is found to occur at a temperature of 450 MeV.

In section 3, we consider higher order corrections in $`H`$ to the entropy. It is shown that (within approximations already present in the Kogan–Kovner model at zero temperature) one can calculate the entropy to all orders in $`H`$ in the high temperature phase. In this extended analysis, the transition temperature is shifted to 470 MeV, which is high compared to lattice estimates . However, this value depends on a mean-field estimate of the critical coupling in a sigma model which arises in the analysis, and is therefore only approximate. The ratio of the transition temperature to the lightest glueball mass in the model, which is independent of this mean field estimate, is 0.18. This is in agreement with the lattice estimate for $`SU(3)`$ to two significant figures.

We conclude in section 4 by discussing our results, and suggesting further improvements.

## 2 The order $`H\mathrm{log}H`$ analysis

The ansatz is constructed by considering density matrices which in the field basis have gaussian matrix elements, and where gauge invariance is explicitly imposed by projection onto the gauge-invariant sector of the Hilbert space. It reads

$$\rho [A,A^{^{}}]=DU\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[AG^1A+A^{}_{}{}^{}UG^1A^{}_{}{}^{}U2AHA^{}_{}{}^{}U\right]\right\},$$
(1)
where, under an $`SU(N)`$ gauge transformation $`U`$, $`AA^U`$ and $`DU`$ is the $`SU(N)`$ group-invariant measure. In the above we employ a matrix notation, with e.g.

$$AGHA=𝑑x𝑑y𝑑zA_i^a(x)G_{ij}^{ab}(xy)H_{jk}^{bc}(yz)A_k^c(z).$$
(2)
Here, indices $`i,j,k,\mathrm{}ϵ\{1,2,3\}`$ and $`a,b,c,\mathrm{}ϵ\{1,2,\mathrm{},N^21\}`$ denote the spatial Lorentz components and colour components of the gauge field respectively. Explicitly, the gauge transformations are

$$A_i^a(x)A_i^{Ua}(x)=S^{ab}(x)A_i^b(x)+\lambda _i^a(x),$$
(3)
with $`S^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}(\tau ^aU^{}\tau ^bU)`$, $`\lambda _i^a=\frac{i}{g}\mathrm{tr}(\tau ^aU^{}_iU)`$, and $`\frac{\tau ^a}{2}`$ form an $`N\times N`$ Hermitian representation of $`SU(N)`$: $`[\frac{\tau ^a}{2},\frac{\tau ^b}{2}]=if^{abc}\frac{\tau ^c}{2}`$ with normalisation $`\mathrm{tr}(\tau ^a\tau ^b)=2\delta ^{ab}`$.

The kernels $`G^1`$ and $`H`$ are arbitrary variational functions. To facilitate the calculation, they are restricted to be isotropic in colour and space indices. Furthermore, one splits the momenta into high and low modes with $`kM`$ and restricts the kernels to the one parameter momentum space forms

$$G^1(k)=\{\begin{array}{c}M,k<M\\ k,k>M\end{array},H(k)=\{\begin{array}{c}H,k<M\\ 0,k>M\end{array}.$$
(4)
The form for $`G^1`$ is motivated by the propagator for a massive scalar field, *viz.* $`(k^2+M^2)^{1/2}`$; the form for $`H`$ assumes that only the low modes are thermally excited at the temperatures of interest.111 Non-zero $`H`$ in (1) corresponds to thermal disordering, since $`H=0`$ corresponds to a pure state. With the above restrictions on the kernels, only two variational parameters, $`M`$ and $`H`$, remain.

Before discussing the variational analysis at finite temperature, let us recall the analysis at zero temperature. The former will turn out to be a straightforward generalisation of the latter. At $`T=0`$, $`H=0`$ and the analysis reduces to the minimisation of the energy, that is of the expectation value of the Hamiltonian, $`U=\mathrm{tr}\rho /\mathrm{tr}\rho `$, where

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left[E^2+B^2\right],$$
(5)
with $`E_i^a=\delta /\delta A_i^a`$ and $`B_i^a=ϵ_{ijk}(_jA_k^a+gf^{abc}A_j^bA_k^c/2)`$. This is equivalent to the analysis originally performed by Kogan and Kovner in . Firstly, one performs the Gaussian integrals over the gauge fields $`A`$. This leaves integrals over the gauge transformations $`U`$, evaluated with respect to a sigma model ‘action’ which is both non-local and non-polynomial in $`U`$. To simplify the action, the gauge transformations $`U`$ are split into parts dependent on high and low momentum modes, with $`kM`$ as above. The effect of integrating out the high modes is to effect a renormalisation group transformation: the coupling $`g^2`$ of the low mode sigma model is replaced by the renormalised coupling $`g^2(M)`$. So $`M`$ acts as a UV cut-off for the low mode theory. Furthermore, the theory is asymptotically free . Provided $`M`$ is sufficiently large (and $`g^2(M)`$ sufficiently small) one can then consider the low mode theory to leading order in $`g^2(M)`$. The relevant Euclidean actions are

$$S[A]=\left(A+\frac{\lambda }{2}\right)G^1\left(A+\frac{\lambda }{2}\right)+\frac{1}{4}\lambda G^1\lambda ,$$
(6)
for the $`A`$ fields and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[U]=\frac{M}{2g^2(M)}\mathrm{tr}_{\mathrm{𝑆𝑈}(N)}d^3x_iU^{}(x)_iU(x),$$
(7)
for the low mode $`U`$ fields, where the trace is performed over $`SU(N)`$ matrices $`U`$. The high modes do contribute to the energy at zero temperature. However, they do not yield any additional contribution at finite temperature, since $`H`$, which parameterizes the thermal disorder in the theory, is zero for $`k>M`$.

Next consider this low mode sigma model as a statistical mechanical system at ‘temperature’ $`g^2(M)`$. The system undergoes a phase transition with spontaneous symmetry breaking from a disordered state at small $`M`$ (large $`g^2(M)`$) to an ordered state at large $`M`$. Calculations in the disordered phase are performed in the mean field approximation: the $`U`$ are treated as $`N^2`$ free fields obeying the unitarity constraint $`U^{}U=1`$. In the ordered phase the sigma model is treated in leading order perturbation theory, writing $`U=e^{ig\phi ^a\tau ^a/2}`$ and expanding the exponential. In the disordered phase, the energy222Here and throughout, extensive quantities are written per unit volume. is minimised close to the phase transition with $`MM_c`$,

$$U=\frac{N^2M_c^4}{30\pi ^2}$$
(8)
and $`g^2(M_c)=\pi ^2/N`$. In the ordered phase, one obtains

$$U=\frac{N^2M^4}{120\pi ^2},$$
(9)
so that the energy is indeed minimised at $`MM_c`$, on the disordered side of the sigma model phase transition.

The extension to finite temperature was discussed in . At finite temperatures, the energy minimisation argument is modified: one must consider the balance between energy $`U`$ and entropy $`S`$, minimising the free energy $`F=UTS`$. Since the parameter $`H`$ corresponds to thermal disordering, one expects generically that $`S`$ will vanish for vanishing $`H`$. In the $`SU(N)`$ theory at moderate temperatures, the degrees of freedom correspond to glueballs. Since these are heavy, the excitations (disordering), and consequently the entropy, will be small. One can thus attempt to calculate the entropy as some expansion in the small parameter $`H`$.

The leading order contribution in $`H`$ is  a term of the form $`H\mathrm{log}H`$, multiplied by a coefficient which is an $`SU(N)_LSU(N)_R`$ symmetric correlator of $`U`$ fields. In the disordered (symmetric) phase of the sigma model, this expectation value vanishes. Furthermore, since the leading order contribution in $`H`$ to the energy is positive definite, one finds that the free energy is minimised with $`H=0`$ at the minimum of the *energy*.

Thus, in the disordered phase of the sigma model, the minimum of the free energy is at $`MM_c`$ with, from (8),

$$F=\frac{N^2M_c^4}{30\pi ^2}.$$
(10)
In the ordered phase of the sigma model, the leading contribution to the entropy at small $`H`$ is

$$S=\frac{N^2M^3}{6\pi ^2}H\mathrm{log}H.$$
(11)
Then, from (9),

$$F=\frac{N^2M^4}{120\pi ^2}+T\frac{N^2M^3}{6\pi ^2}H\mathrm{log}H.$$
(12)
Minimising with respect to $`H`$ and $`M`$, one finds that $`F`$ is minimised in the sigma model disordered phase (with $`U=0`$) from $`T=0`$ up to $`T=T_c0.33M_c`$, beyond which $`F`$ is minimised with $`M`$ in the ordered phase of the sigma model (with $`U0`$). Since $`U`$ plays the same role as the Polyakov loop variable at finite temperature, this corresponds to a deconfinement phase transition in the pure $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory.

As a result of the minimisation procedure one finds that the dimensionless quantity $`H/M`$ is equal to $`e^1`$. This raises the question of whether neglected terms of $`O(H)`$, which have the same magnitude as the retained terms of $`O(H\mathrm{log}H)`$, could considerably affect the calculation. It would, therefore, be desirable to extend the calculation to higher order in $`H`$. This we do in the remainder of this paper.

## 3 Extended analysis

We wish to extend the previous calculation to include terms beyond the leading order in the kernel corresponding to thermal disorder $`H`$. Although it is not at all clear a priori how one might do this in general, we shall, by providing an alternative procedure to that underlying the results of  outlined above, show that an extended analysis is indeed possible within the context and inherent approximations of the Kogan–Kovner model. It should be recalled that the stumbling block to any improvement is the calculation of the entropy, $`S=\mathrm{tr}\rho \mathrm{log}\rho `$.

Let us try the following gambit. Instead of restricting ab initio the density matrix to the form (1), imagine that we take some arbitrary gauge-invariant density matrix ansatz depending on the $`A`$ fields and integrated over the $`U`$ fields. We allow this new ansatz (and whatever kernels it may contain) to remain arbitrary until we have no choice but to restrict it. Now we integrate out the A fields to obtain a partition function of $`U`$ fields with respect to some action.

Next we introduce a separation of momenta into high and low modes with $`kM`$ and integrate out the high mode $`U`$ fields as before. This effects a renormalisation group transformation on the low modes, replacing the bare coupling $`g^2`$ — which is not arbitrary, since it is defined by the gauge transformations (3) — by the running coupling $`g^2(M)`$. Now provided our ansatz is sufficiently close to the correct density matrix for $`SU(N)`$, the theory will be asymptotically free. We are thus left with an action for the low modes which is again some complicated sigma model, with a renormalised coupling $`g^2(M)`$ which we expect to be small provided $`M`$ is large and vice versa.

Now consider this model as a statistical mechanical model at ‘temperature’ $`g^2(M)`$. We make the plausible assumption that this sigma model will, as $`M`$ is varied, undergo a symmetry-breaking transition at ‘temperature’ $`g^2(M_c)`$ from a ‘thermally disordered’ (symmetric) phase at large $`g^2(M_c)`$ to an ordered phase at small $`g^2(M_c)`$. Further, it is clear — since the Polyakov loop $`U`$ is zero in the former phase and non-zero in the latter — that this sigma model phase transition corresponds directly to the deconfinement transition in the $`SU(N)`$ theory.

This argument is quite general; on review, it is clear that our only assumptions are that the ansatz is sufficiently close to $`SU(N)`$ and that the low mode sigma model undergoes a symmetry-breaking phase transition. In particular, let the ansatz, which is arbitrary and need not be Gaussian, be the *correct* density matrix for $`SU(N)`$. The first assumption is certainly true. If the second assumption is also true, then we have constructed an exact argument that the deconfinement transition in $`SU(N)`$ corresponds to the phase transition in the low mode sigma model.

Thus, in order to study deconfinement in $`SU(N)`$, our aim should be to model the physics of each sigma model phase as accurately as possible and calculate the transition scale $`M_c`$. We then calculate the free energy of $`SU(N)`$ in each phase, including any possible contribution from the high modes, at temperature $`T`$ and extract the minimal free energy. The deconfinement transition occurs at the temperature for which the free energies calculated in the ordered and disordered phases of the low mode sigma model coincide.

Although we will take (1) as the ansatz for the density matrix, we shall keep the kernels $`G^1`$ and $`H`$ arbitrary until we have no choice but to restrict them.

In the disordered phase no progress seems possible without restricting the arbitrary kernels. Following , we adopt the forms (4) as before and the analysis is identical. The Boltzmann factor is $`e^{M_g/T}`$ in this case where $`M_g`$ is the lightest glueball mass, so we expand the small entropy to leading order and get zero as before. The resulting minimal free energy is thus independent of the temperature and we find

$$F=\frac{N^2M_c^4}{30\pi ^2},$$
(13)
where $`M_c1.33\mathrm{GeV}`$ is the sigma model transition scale predicted by the mean field calculation of .

In the leading order perturbation theory approximation to the ordered phase of the sigma model, however, minimisation with respect to arbitrary kernels $`G^1`$ and $`H`$ for both high and low modes is possible. Further, the analysis can, as desired, be carried out to all orders in the thermal disorder kernel $`H`$.

In this approximation, the $`U`$ matrices can be parameterised in the standard exponential form and expanded in the coupling $`g`$

$$U=\mathrm{exp}\left\{ig\phi ^a\frac{\tau ^a}{2}\right\}=1+ig\phi ^a\frac{\tau ^a}{2}+\mathrm{}$$
(14)
Hence at leading order one can take

$`U`$ $`1,`$
$`_iU`$ $`ig_i\phi ^a{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^a}{2}}.`$ (15)
Thus, the gauge transformations (3) reduce to

$$A_i^aA_i^a_i\phi ^a$$
(16)
and the Hamiltonian (5) reduces to

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left[E_i^{a2}+(ϵ_{ijk}_jA_k^a)^2\right].$$
(17)
But these last two equations describe the theory $`U(1)^{N^21}`$: in the leading order of sigma model perturbation theory, the $`SU(N)`$ Yang–Mills theory reduces to the $`U(1)^{N^21}`$ free theory. Moreover, the density matrix (1) becomes Gaussian again, because the gauge transformations are linear. One has

$$\rho [A,A^{^{}}]=D\phi \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[AG^1A+(A^{}\phi )G^1(A^{}\phi )2AH(A^{}\phi )\right]\right\}.$$
(18)
Now the theory of $`N^21`$ $`U(1)`$ free fields in $`3+1`$ dimensions is completely tractable; the variational analysis for the $`U(1)`$ theory (with Gaussian ansatz (18)) was discussed in . The free energy in momentum space in terms of the arbitrary kernels $`G^1`$ and $`H`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}F=\frac{N^21}{2}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}[G^1(1+GH)+p^2G(1GH)^1\hfill \\ \hfill 4T(\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{GH}{(1(GH)^2)^{1/2}(1GH)}\right]\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{1(1(GH)^2)^{1/2}}{GH}\right]\left(\frac{1(1(GH)^2)^{1/2}}{(1(GH)^2)^{1/2}(1GH)}\right))].\end{array}$$
(19)
The kernels which minimise the free energy are

$`G^1`$ $`=p\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+e^{\frac{2p}{T}}}{1e^{\frac{2p}{T}}}}\right),`$
$`H`$ $`=2p\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{p}{T}}}{1e^{\frac{2p}{T}}}}\right)`$ (20)
and the minimal value of the free energy at temperature $`T`$ is

$`F`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}p^2𝑑p\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}+T\mathrm{log}(1e^{p/T})\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(N^21)T^4}{3\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^3}{e^x1}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2(N^21)T^4}{45}},`$ (21)
where the zero-point term has been discarded. All of this is of course consistent with the standard analysis of photon gases in statistical mechanics.

The minimal free energy of $`SU(N)`$ in the ordered phase of the sigma model at temperature $`T`$ is, from (3) and dropping sub-leading contributions of $`O(N^0)`$,

$$F=\frac{\pi ^2N^2T^4}{45}.$$
(22)
So we see that the free energy of $`SU(N)`$ is minimised with $`M=M_c`$ in the disordered phase of the sigma model for temperatures from zero up to a temperature $`T_c`$ where

$$F=\frac{N^2M_c^4}{30\pi ^2}=\frac{\pi ^2N^2T_c^4}{45},$$
(23)
which in turn implies

$$T_c=\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{1/4}\frac{M_c}{\pi }470\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}.$$
(24)
We note that the transition temperature is shifted by only a very small amount compared to the result $`T_c450\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ obtained in . The calculation is improved in the sense that, in the high temperature phase of $`SU(N)`$, which corresponds to the ordered phase of the sigma model, we have been able to extend the original analysis to include all orders of the thermal disorder kernel. This is desirable because at high $`T`$ this kernel, which corresponds to the Boltzmann factor, is of order unity. The calculation is also improved in that the minimal kernels in the high $`T`$ phase, approximated as free gluons, are the exact ones. If we had performed the calculation with the kernels (4), we would not have been able to obtain the true minimum of the free energy. As in , we find that the deconfinement phase transition is strongly first order with latent heat $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\frac{4\pi ^2N^2}{45}T_c^4`$.

Finally, it will also be of interest to calculate the ratio of the transition temperature to the lightest glueball mass in the model, which is $`2M_c`$ . One obtains

$$\frac{T_c}{2M_c}=\frac{1}{2\pi }(\frac{3}{2})^{1/4}0.18.$$
(25)
## 4 Discussion

In this extended variational analysis, we have identified a phase transition (within the approximations made) at 470 MeV. This seems rather high in comparison with numerical simulations performed on the lattice, which give around 280 MeV for $`SU(3)`$ . However, the estimate obtained for the transition temperature is only expected to be approximate since it is sensitive to the value of the critical scale $`M_c`$, which is calculated in the mean field approximation of the sigma model.This sensitivity can be removed by computing the *ratio* of the transition temperature to the lightest glueball mass in the model (25). One then obtains a value of 0.18, which agrees with the lattice result for $`SU(3)`$ to two significant figures.

There are other reasons why we expect the calculation to be only approximate. The most important point to be aware of is that in the original zero temperature analysis, the $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory was hived into two parts (the high and low modes) for the purpose of tractability. The former corresponds approximately to the perturbative gauge theory, which is well understood (and which we have treated in the zeroth order) and the latter to the low energy sector, which is less well understood and is treated in the mean field approximation. In considering the theory at finite temperature, the phase transition corresponds to a jump between the two sectors. So in doing the analysis, we are really asking the question: at what temperature does the free $`U(1)^{N^21}`$ gauge theory become thermodynamically more favourable than the low energy theory calculated in the mean field approximation?

Whilst this is a perfectly sensible question, to which we have obtained a sensible answer, one must ask whether this means anything for the full $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory. One is interpolating between a low energy theory, which is already only approximate, and a high energy theory which is only correct in the ultra-violet limit. This is, to say the least, rather crude. However, we believe that the *principle* of the method is rather powerful, in that there is scope to improve upon the calculation. The simplest way in which this can be done is to include perturbative corrections to the free energy coming from the high modes. The finite-temperature corrections should be added to (3). In contrast, only the zero-temperature corrections should be added to (13), since there are no thermal contributions in this sector by assumption.

The second way in which improvements can be made is to improve corrections to the low mode sector. We believe that the crudest approximation here is in taking the leading order of perturbation theory in the ordered phase of the sigma model. Clearly this is not appropriate close to the sigma model phase transition, which corresponds also to the $`SU(N)`$ phase transition in this model. So if there are large shifts in the sigma model behaviour near the transition, we would expect the transition temperature to be significantly shifted. An improved treatment of the sigma model near the phase transition necessarily calls for a higher order or non-perturbative calculation to be performed. But then one has to calculate the entropy for a non-free theory. Such a task is beyond our present calculational abilities. However, we are encouraged by the fact that the all orders in $`H`$ result for the free energy in the ordered phase obtained in this paper differs only very slightly near the phase transition from the one obtained in  where only the leading $`H\mathrm{log}H`$ contribution was taken into account. This is, of course, why the transition temperature is not significantly shifted by the improved analysis. Now a non-perturbative calculation of the entropy to order $`H\mathrm{log}H`$ does seem to be possible, and is currently under way .

## 5 Acknowledgments

We thank I. Kogan and A. Kovner for their contribution during the early stages of this work.


format: text

text:
# High NH2D/NH3 ratios in protostellar cores

## 1 Introduction

There are two main ways of producing molecular D/H enhancements in molecular clouds over the $`10^5`$ ratio of $`[\mathrm{HD}]/[\mathrm{H}_2]`$. Firstly, grain surface chemistry may enhance molecular D/H ratios (Brown & Millar 1989a ,1989b ; Charnley et al. charnley97 (1997)). Secondly, some key gas phase reactions involving destruction of deuterated species run slower at low temperatures than the equivalent reactions with hydrogen, and this leads to molecular D/H enhancements where a cold gas phase chemistry has been active. Furthermore, in colder gas, depletion of heavy molecules such as CO results in an increase of \[H2D+\]/\[H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{3}{}^{}`$\] and molecular D/H ratios (Brown & Millar 1989a ; Roberts & Millar 2000a ,2000b ; Rodgers & Charnley rcnd2h (2001)).

Depletion of heavy molecules during freezeout in cold molecular clouds can result in molecular D/H ratios above 10% (Roberts & Millar 2000), and can explain many of the high ratios observed in cold, dark clouds: DCO+ fractionation in L1544 and L134N (Caselli et al. caselli99 (1999); Tiné et al. tine00 (2000)) and ND2H in L134N (Roueff et al. roueff00 (2000)).

Young protostars should show the effect of freezeout as well as cold dark clouds, though grain mantle release may also influence the ratios, as in IRAS 16293$``$2422 (van Dishoeck et al. vandishoeck95 (1995)). A few studies have looked at molecular D/H ratios in low mass protostars: HDCO and DCN (Roberts et al. roberts02 (2002)); NH2D (Shah & Wootten sw01 (2001); Saito et al. saito (2000)); DCO+ (Williams et al. williams98 (1998)). However, the $`70\text{}90^{\prime \prime }`$ beam size of most of these studies is a severe limitation as the largest D/H enhancements are expected on small scales, where densities are high. In L1544, heavy depletion occurs in a region 13000 AU across – only $`90^{\prime \prime }`$ diameter in nearby Taurus (Caselli et al. caselli99 (1999)). In order to prove a general link between accretion and high D/H ratios, observations are needed of molecular D/H ratios in a sample of protostars with high enough resolution to probe the depletion regions.

I present the results of such a survey of \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios towards 11 protostars in Perseus, Taurus and Orion, observing NH2D with the IRAM 30m at $`28^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution (maximally 11000 AU at the distance of Orion) and centering the observations on the protostellar dust peaks where the strongest depletion is likely to be found.

## 2 Observations

NH2D observations were made at the IRAM 30m on Pico Veleta in May 2000 and June 2002 towards 11 protostellar objects in Perseus, Taurus and Orion (Table 1). I observed the 85.93 GHz 1(1,1)-1(0,1) ortho transitions (6 hyperfine lines)(see. Olberg et al. 1985). The 1(1,1) state lies 20.7 K above ground. Integration times were 10 minutes (position switched) and 20 minutes for the two Orion sources; system temperatures were 165–190 K with typical summer conditions of 4mm PWV (precipitable water vapour). Observations of the two NGC 1333 sources in June 2002 were made under 7mm PWV (T$`{}_{\mathrm{sys}}{}^{}=`$ 260–290 K). Noise levels were 50–90 mK on 40 kHz channels. Spectra were corrected for the beam efficiency $`B_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.73`$.

The main NH2D line was detected in all 11 sources. In the seven Perseus sources, the four outlying hyperfine transitions were also detected with peak brightness above 5$`\sigma `$. In L1551IRS5, the hyperfine transitions were above 3$`\sigma `$. In the other Taurus and Orion sources, only the main hyperfine line was detected. Spectra are shown in Fig. 1.

NH3 observations at 24 GHz were made at the Effelsberg 100m in May 2002 using the 8192-channel spectrometer, which allows observation of the $`(J,K)=(1,1)\text{}(4,4)`$ metastable transitions simultaneously. System temperatures were 40–50 K. Calibration was checked on W3(OH) and spectra were converted to Kelvin. The Effelsberg beamsize at 24 GHz is $`37^{\prime \prime }`$. NH$`{}_{3}{}^{}(1,1)`$ was detected in all sources; the NH$`{}_{3}{}^{}(1,1)`$ hyperfines and the (2,2) main line were detected in all sources except the two Orion sources (RNO43 and HH111). The upper state energies for the (1,1) and (2,2) lines are 23.8 and 65.0 K respectively. The (3,3) and (4,4) lines were not detected.

## 3 Analysis and results

NH2D observations for the Perseus sources with well-detected hyperfines were reduced using CLASS method HFS to fit the six hyperfine lines (see Tiné et al. (2000) for frequencies and line strengths) and derive optical depths and linewidths (Table 2). Where not all the hyperfines were detected, or the HFS fit gave too great an uncertainty in the optical depth, the main line was fitted with a single Gaussian (L1527, L1551IRS5, RNO43, HH111).

NH$`{}_{3}{}^{}(1,1)`$ observations were reduced using CLASS method NH3(1,1) to fit the hyperfine structure and derive optical depths and linewidths (Table 2). Excitation temperatures in the (1,1) line were 5–10 K assuming unity filling factor, but as the filling factor is uncertain these temperature estimates are of limited value. More usefully, I derived the rotation temperature $`T_{12}`$ using the method of Bachiller et al. (bachiller87 (1987)), fitting the (2,2) main line with a single Gaussian. These temperatures are independent of filling factor and calibration. Rotation temperatures were $`T_{12}=1114`$ K in the Taurus and Perseus sources. At these low temperatures, the rotational temperature is a good approximation to the kinetic temperature $`T_{12}T_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ (Walmsley & Ungerechts walmsleyungerechts83 (1983)). For RNO43 in Orion, $`T_{12}=14.6K`$. The NH$`{}_{3}{}^{}(2,2)`$ line in the other Orion source, HH111, was too weak for an estimate of $`T_{12}`$.

For the Perseus sources, optical depths were available from hyperfine fits, and column densities and \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios were derived assuming LTE at $`T_{\mathrm{kin}}=T_{12}`$. The resulting \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios are 0.17–0.33 (Table 3).

For the Taurus sources L1527 and L1551 IRS5, optical depths were available for NH3 but not for NH2D. NH2D beam-averaged column densities were derived from the main hyperfine integrated intensities at $`T_{\mathrm{kin}}=T_{12}`$. The low \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios, 0.04–0.05, likely reflect the fact that the NH2D column densities are beam-averaged whereas the NH3 optical depths refer to higher column density material on smaller scales, so the ratios are lower limits.

For the Orion sources RNO43 and HH111, NH$`3(1,1)`$ optical depths were much less than one and very uncertain, so the NH3 beam averaged column density was calculated from the integrated intensity of the main hyperfine line. NH2D and NH3 column densities were calculated at 14.6 K (the measured $`T_{12}`$ in RNO43). The ratios are additionally divided by the ratio of the beam areas to give \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios of 11-22%. This assumes that the source is centrally condensed and N(NH3) is higher on the NH2D beam scales. The correction is conservative, and the \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios for the Orion sources could be a factor of 1.75 higher if the NH2D is extended, or 19–39%.

When calculated without optical depth information the ratios are less certain, as the absolute calibration uncertainty at each frequency is $`30\%`$. In contrast, where optical depths are measured the \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratio does not depend on the absolute calibration. All the column density determinations are of course limited by the lack of information about source structure from single spectra. Foreground self-absorption and multiple components (which particularly affect NGC1333) and the beam size difference between Effelsberg and the 30m cannot be fully accounted for with the present data.

## 4 Discussion

In the Perseus sources where the ratios are best determined, \[NH2D\]/\[NH3$`=`$ 17–33%. The highest ratios derived by Shah & Wootten (sw01 (2001)) and Saito et al. (saito (2000)) are 13% for sources also on this sourcelist. Differences in excitation assumptions may also have an effect, but the lower ratios derived by Shah & Wootten (sw01 (2001)) can easily be explained if the fractionation is enhanced on small scales, towards the protostellar cores, as their beam is larger (80–90′′ compared to $`27^{\prime \prime }`$). Saito et al. (saito (2000))’s $`18^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution observation towards B1 is $`15^{\prime \prime }`$ away from the dust peak (Matthews & Wilson matthews02 (2002)) and shows a lower ratio, which also supports the idea that \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] reduces away from the cores. (No conclusion can be drawn from their uncertain NH2D column in L1448). The ratios for protostars are also higher than those towards L134N, presumably because the protostars are denser and more depleted (\[NH2D\]/\[NH3\]$`=0.1`$; Tiné et al. tine00 (2000)).

Why should \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] be higher close to the protostars? Is cold gas-phase chemistry in the presence of freezeout enhancing ratios in the cores, or are highly fractionated grain ices evaporating near the young stars?

Chemical models indicate that \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios of 30% can be produced by ion-molecule chemistry if heavy molecules are depleted (see Fig. 3 of Roberts & Millar 2000b ; Fig. 2 of Rodgers & Charnley rcnd2h (2001)). The ratios can be even higher if branching ratios for dissociative recombination favour deuterium retention (Lis et al. 2002). The corresponding fractionation required in molecular ions is similar or less than that already measured in L134N (Rodgers & Charnley rcnd2h (2001); N2D+ observations by Tiné et al. tine00 (2000)). Gas-phase chemistry with freezeout and depletion can therefore relatively easily explain the high \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios.

An alternative hypothesis is that removal of highly fractionated grain mantles enhances ratios. Infrared observations suggest that NH3 may be present in ices, though the level is still uncertain (Lacy et al. lacy98 (1998); Gibb et al. gibb00 (2000); Dartois & D’Hendecourt dartois01 (2001)), but NH3 ice alone evaporates at 60–70 K; in a water matrix temperatures greater than 90 K are required. The temperatures of our sources, which are mostly Class 0 protostars, rule out much thermal ice evaporation. Only B5IRS1 and L1551 have bolometric (dust) temperatures above 60 K. The source with the highest \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratio, HH211, is probably extremely young (Gueth & Guilloteau guethguilloteau99 (1999)) and has a bolometric temperature of only 30 K. Kinetic temperature estimates for the NH3 are all less than 15 K.

The possibility remains that highly fractionated grain mantles are being removed by non-thermal evaporation, ie. slow, non-dissociative shocks. \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios are around 10% in regions where grain evaporation is known to be occuring (hot cores and IRAS 16293; van Dishoeck et al. vandishoeck95 (1995)), and may originate in the ices, as may high \[D2CO\]/\[H2CO\] ratios (Ceccarelli et al. 1998,2002). Enhancements of another molecule, CH3OH, in a similar sample of cores, are also attributed to non-thermal ice evaporation (Buckle & Fuller bucklefuller02 (2002)). Two conditions must be satisfied if a non-thermal removal mechanism operates. Firstly, it must reproduce the low linewidths of the NH3 ($`<1`$ km s-1) and NH2D (linewidths the same or lower), which suggest that NH2D is tracing quiescent rather than shocked material. Secondly, if the release of ice material is to explain all the NH2D observed, the \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratio in the ices must be as high or higher than that measured in the gas phase, because of dilution by low \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios in regions of the core without ice evaporation.

Observations suggest that, in these sources, ices can only be released in a small fraction of the core, otherwise CH3OH enhancements of several hundred percent would be expected, as seen in outflows and hot cores, rather than the moderate 10% observed (Buckle & Fuller bucklefuller02 (2002)), and column densities of NH3 would be enhanced by orders of magnitude over the surrounding molecular clouds, which is not the case (Bachiller et al. bachiller87 (1987), bachiller91 (1991), bachiller93 (1993); Benson & Myers bensonmyers89 (1989); Anglada et al. anglada89 (1989)).

To obtain the observed ratios even without dilution, the statistical treatment of Rodgers & Charnley (rcnd2h (2001)) following Brown & Millar (1989a ;1989b ) requires an atomic D/H ratio in the gas phase at the time of freezeout of 0.8–1.6. This is at the limit of what either steady-state or depletion models predict, as these cannot produce atomic D/H $`>0.1`$ (Roberts & Millar 2000a ; Roberts, priv. comm.).

With dilution, therefore, current theories of grain mantle chemistry cannot explain the NH2D enhancement, but would require either higher \[D\]/\[H\] ratios during freezeout or preferential formation of deuterated molecules in the ice.

The \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios of $`0.2`$ in NGC1333 is consistent with ND3 column densities (van der Tak et al. vdt02 (2002); Lis et al. lis02 (2002)), using the models of Rodgers & Charnley (rcnd2h (2001)). This is in contrast to earlier \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios of $`10\%`$ which predicted \[ND3\]/\[NH3\] an order of magnitude lower than measured. As the theory predicts \[ND3\]/\[NH3\]$``$\[NH2D\]/\[NH3\]3, ND3 predictions are very sensitive to \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios, and more observations of both isotopomers are needed to say if the theories for multiple deuteration are correct. Measurements of ND2H in the same sources would provide a further test: \[ND2H\]/\[NH$`{}_{3}{}^{}]0.03`$ is expected from the models, for the given \[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios. Detailed maps of individual sources would also test the relationship between high deuteration and CO depletion.

## 5 Summary and conclusion

\[NH2D\]/\[NH3\] ratios in low mass protostellar cores on 10,000 AU scales can reach 30% percent. Such high ratios can be simply explained by recent models of cold gas-phase chemistry with depletion due to freezeout (Roberts & Millar 2000a , 2000b ). Current models of ice formation even under conditions of high depletion have difficulty explaining the high fractionation observed.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank Malcolm Walmsley, Floris van der Tak and Helen Roberts for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB 494.


text:
# Conformal Einstein equations and Cartan conformal connection

## Abstract

Necessary and sufficient conditions for a space-time to be conformal to an Einstein space-time are interpreted in terms of curvature restrictions for the corresponding Cartan conformal connection.

In Ref. we gave necessary and sufficient conditions for a 4-dimensional metric to be conformal to an Einstein metric. One of these conditions, the vanishing of the Bach tensor of the metric, has been discussed by many authors . In particular, it was interpreted as being equivalent to the vanishing of the Yang-Mills current of the corresponding Cartan conformal connection. The other condition, which is given in terms of rather complicated equation on the Weyl tensor of the metric has not been analyzed from the point of view of the corresponding Cartan conformal connection. The purpose of this letter is to fill this gap.

Let $`M`$ be a 4-dimensional manifold equipped with the conformal class of metrics $`[g]`$. Here we will be assuming that $`g`$ has Lorentzian signature, but our results are also valid in the other two signatures.

Given a conformal class $`[g]`$ on $`M`$ we choose a representative $`g`$ for the metric. Let $`\theta ^\mu `$, $`\mu =1,2,3,4`$, be a null (or orthonormal) coframe for $`g`$ on $`M`$. This, in particular, means that $`g=\eta _{\mu \nu }\theta ^\mu \theta ^\nu `$, with all the coefficients $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ being constants. We define $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ by $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }\eta _{\nu \rho }=\delta _\rho ^\mu `$ and we will use $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ to rise and lower the Greek indices, respectively. The metric

$$g^{}=\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }g$$
(1)
conformally related to $`g`$ will be represented by a coframe

$$\theta ^\mu =\mathrm{e}^\varphi \theta ^\mu $$
(2)
so that

$$g^{}=\eta _{\mu \nu }\theta ^\mu \theta ^\nu $$
(3)
with the same $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ as in the expression (1). Given $`g`$ and $`\theta ^\mu `$ we consider the 1-forms $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^\mu `$ uniquely determined on $`M`$ by the equations

$`\mathrm{d}\theta ^\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^\mu \theta ^\nu =0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\mu \nu ]},\mathrm{where}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^\rho .`$ (4)
Using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^\mu `$ we calculate the Riemann tensor 2-forms

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ^\mu =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\nu \rho \sigma }^\mu \theta ^\rho \theta ^\sigma =\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^\rho ,$$
(5)
and the Ricci part of the Riemann tensor

$$K_{\nu \sigma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\nu \mu \sigma }^\mu ,K=\eta ^{\nu \sigma }K_{\nu \sigma }\mathrm{and}S_{\nu \sigma }=K_{\nu \sigma }\frac{1}{4}K\eta _{\nu \sigma }.$$
(6)
We recall that the metric $`g`$ is called Einstein iff

$$S_{\mu \nu }=0$$
(7)
and that it is called conformal to Einstein iff there exists $`\varphi `$ such that the metric $`g^{}=\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }g`$ is Einstein.

In the following we will also need 1-forms

$$\tau _\nu =\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}S_{\nu \rho }\frac{1}{24}K\eta _{\nu \rho }\end{array}\right)\theta ^\rho $$
(8)
and 2-forms

$$C_\nu ^\mu =\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^\mu +\theta ^\mu \tau _\nu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^\rho +\tau ^\mu \theta _\nu ,\tau ^\mu =\eta ^{\mu \nu }\tau _\nu .$$
(9)
It follows that the 2-forms

$$C_\nu ^\mu =\frac{1}{2}C_{\nu \rho \sigma }^\mu \theta ^\rho \theta ^\sigma $$
(10)
are the Weyl 2-forms associated with the Weyl tensor $`C_{\nu \rho \sigma }^\mu `$ of the metric $`g`$. It is known that the Weyl tensor obeys the following identity

$$C_{\alpha \mu \nu \rho }C^{\beta \mu \nu \rho }=\frac{1}{4}C^2\delta _\alpha ^\beta ,$$
(11)
where

$$C^2=C_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }C^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }.$$
(12)
Using the Bianchi identities one shows that the tensor $`\tau _{\mu \nu \rho }`$ defined on $`M`$ via

$$D\tau _\mu =\frac{1}{2}\tau _{\mu \nu \rho }\theta ^\nu \theta ^\rho =\mathrm{d}\tau _\mu +\tau _\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^\nu $$
(13)
is

$$\tau _{\nu \rho \sigma }=_\mu C_{\nu \rho \sigma }^\mu ,$$
(14)
where $`_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative operator associated with $`D`$.

In the following we will also need the Bach tensor

$$B_{\mu \nu }=^\rho ^\sigma C_{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }+\frac{1}{2}C_{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }K^{\rho \sigma }$$
(15)
and a tensor

$$N_{\nu \rho \sigma }=(_\alpha C_{\beta \gamma \delta }^\alpha )C^{\mu \beta \gamma \delta }C_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\frac{1}{4}C^2_\mu C_{\nu \rho \sigma }^\mu .$$
(16)
It is known that the vanishing of the Bach tensor is a conformally invariant property. If $`C^20`$ the vanishing of $`N_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ is also conformally invariant. The relevance of both these tensors in the context of this letter is given by the following theorem .

###### Theorem 1

Assume that the metric $`g`$ satisfies the generiticity condition

$$C^20$$

on $`M`$. Then the metric is locally conformally equivalent to the Einstein metric if and only if

$$(\mathrm{i})B_{\mu \nu }=0\mathrm{and}(\mathrm{ii})N_{\nu \rho \sigma }=0$$
(17)
on $`M`$.

Remarks

* Conditions (i) and (ii) are independent. In particular, metrics with vanishing Bach tensor and not conformal to Einstein metrics are known .
* If $`C^2=0`$ the condition (ii) must be replaced by another condition for the above theorem to be true. This another condition depends on the algebraic type of the Weyl tensor and is given in .
* Baston and Mason  gave another version of the above theorem in which condition (ii) was replaced by the vanishing of a different tensor than $`N_{\nu \rho \sigma }`$. Unlike $`N_{\nu \rho \sigma }`$, which is cubic in the Weyl tensor, the Baston-Mason tensor $`E_{\nu \rho \sigma }`$, is only quadratic in $`C_{\nu \rho \sigma }^\mu `$.
* Merkulov  interpreted condition (ii) as the vanishing of the Yang-Mills current of the Cartan normal conformal connection $`\omega `$ associated with the metric $`g`$. Following him, Baston and Mason  interpreted the condition $`E_{\nu \rho \sigma }=0`$ in terms of curvature condition for $`\omega `$.

Although in the context of Theorem 1 conditions (ii) and $`E_{\nu \rho \sigma }=0`$ are equivalent, the tensors $`N_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ and $`E_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ are quite different. In addition to cubic versus quadratic dependence on the Weyl tensor, one can mention the fact that it is quite easy to express tensor $`E_{\nu \rho \sigma }`$ in the spinorial language and quite complicated in the tensorial language. Totally oposite situation occurs for the tensor $`N_{\nu \rho \sigma }`$. One of the motivation for the present letter is the existence of the normal conformal connection interpretation for the condition $`E_{\nu \rho \sigma }=0`$. As far as we know such interpretation of $`N_{\nu \rho \sigma }=0`$ has not been discussed. To fill this gap we first give the formal definition of the Cartan normal conformal connection. In order to do this we first, introduce the $`6\times 6`$ matrix

$$Q_{AB}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& \eta _{\mu \nu }& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(18)
and then define the $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐨}(2,4)`$-valued 1-form $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ on $`M`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \tau _\mu & 0\\ \theta ^\nu & \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^\nu & \eta ^{\nu \rho }\tau _\rho \\ 0& \eta _{\mu \rho }\theta ^\rho & 0\end{array}\right).$$
(19)
Then, we use a Lie subgroup $`𝐇`$ of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2,4)`$, generated by the $`6\times 6`$ matrices of the form

$$b=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{e}^\varphi & \mathrm{e}^\varphi \xi _\mu & \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^\varphi \xi _\mu \xi _\nu \eta ^{\mu \nu }\\ & & \\ 0& \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu & \mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^\nu \eta ^{\rho \sigma }\xi _\sigma \\ & & \\ 0& 0& \mathrm{e}^\varphi \end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma ^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\rho \sigma },$$
(20)
to lift the form $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ to an $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐨}(2,4)`$-valued 1-form $`\omega `$ on $`M\times H`$. Explicitely, if $`b`$ is a generic element of $`𝐇`$, we put

$$\omega =b^1\stackrel{~}{\omega }b+b^1\mathrm{d}b,$$

so that

$`\omega =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}A& \tau _\mu ^{}& 0\\ & & \\ \theta ^\nu & \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^\nu & \eta ^{\nu \sigma }\tau _\sigma ^{}\\ & & \\ 0& \theta ^\sigma \eta _{\sigma \mu }& \frac{1}{2}A\end{array}\right),`$
with

$`\theta ^\nu =\mathrm{e}^\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{1\nu }\theta ^\rho ,`$ (22)
$`A=2\xi _\mu \theta ^\mu +2\mathrm{d}\varphi ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^\nu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{1\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\sigma +\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{1\nu }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\rho +\theta ^\nu \xi _\mu \xi ^\nu \eta _{\mu \rho }\theta ^\rho ,`$
$`\tau _\mu ^{}=\mathrm{e}^\varphi \tau _\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu \xi _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{1\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^\varphi \eta ^{\alpha \beta }\xi _\alpha \xi _\beta \tau _\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi _\mu A+\mathrm{d}\xi _\mu \xi _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{1\alpha }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\rho `$
The so defined form $`\omega `$ is the Cartan normal conformal connection associated with the conformal class $`[g]`$ written in a particular trivialization of an approppriately defined $`H`$-bundle over $`M`$. It can be viewed as a useful tool for encoding conformal properties of the metrics on manifolds. Indeed, if given $`g`$ on $`M`$ one calculates the quantities $`\theta ^\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^\mu ,\tau _\mu `$, then the corresponding quantities for the conformally rescaled metric $`g^{}=\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }g`$ are given by (Conformal Einstein equations and Cartan conformal connection  ) with $`A=0`$.111Note that $`A=0`$ means that $`\xi _\mu =_\mu ^{}\varphi `$, where $`_\mu ^{}=e^\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu _\nu `$. Admitting $`\xi _\mu `$ which are not gradients in the definition of $`𝐇`$ allows for transformations between different Weyl geometries $`[(g,A)]`$

The curvature of $`\omega `$ is

$$R=\mathrm{d}\omega +\omega \omega $$

and has the rather simple form

$`R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& (D\tau _\mu )^{}& 0\\ & & \\ 0& C_\mu ^\nu & g^{\nu \mu }(D\tau _\mu )^{}\\ & & \\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (23)
with the 2-forms $`C_\mu ^\nu `$ and $`(D\tau _\mu )^{}`$ defined by

$`C_\mu ^\nu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{1\nu }C_\sigma ^\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\sigma `$ (24)
$`(D\tau _\mu )^{}=\mathrm{e}^\varphi \mathrm{D}\tau _\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu \xi _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{1\alpha }𝐂_\nu ^\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu .`$
Similarly to the properties of $`\omega `$, the curvature $`R`$ can be used to extract the transformations of $`D\tau _\mu `$ and $`C_\mu ^\nu `$ under the conformal rescaling of the metrics. If $`gg^{}=\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }g`$ these transformations are given by (24) with $`\xi _\mu =_\mu ^{}\varphi `$. In particular, if we freeze the Lorentz transformations of the tetrad, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu =\delta _\nu ^\mu `$, then we see that the Weyl 2-forms $`C_\mu ^\nu `$ constitute the conformal invariant.

The curvature $`R`$ of the Cartan normal connection $`\omega `$ is horizontal which, in other words, means that it has only $`\theta ^\mu \theta ^\nu `$ terms in the decomposition onto the basis of forms $`(\theta ^\mu ,\mathrm{d}\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^{1\mu }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^\nu ,\mathrm{d}\xi _\mu )`$. Thus, the Hodge $``$ operator associated with $`g`$ on $`M`$ is well defined acting on $`R`$ and in consequence the Yang-Mills equations for $`R`$ can be written

$$DR=\mathrm{d}RR\omega +\omega R=0.$$
(25)
The following theorem is well known (see e.g. ).

###### Theorem 2

The metric $`g`$ on a 4-dimansional manifold $`M`$ satisfies the Bach equations $`B_{\mu \nu }=0`$ if and only if it satisfies the Yang-Mills equations $`DR=0`$ for the Cartan normal conformal connection associated with $`g`$.

In view of this theorem it is natural to ask about the normal conformal connection interpretation of $`N_{\mu \nu \rho }=0`$, which together with $`B_{\mu \nu }=0`$ are sufficient for $`g`$ to be conformal to Einstein. To answer this question we introduce indices $`A,B,C,\mathrm{}`$ which run from 0 to 5 and attach them to any $`6\times 6`$ matrix. In this way the elements of matrix $`R`$ are 2-forms

$$R_B^A=\frac{1}{2}R_{B\mu \nu }^A\theta ^\mu \theta ^\nu .$$
(26)
We define the $`6\times 6`$ matrix of 2-forms $`\widehat{R}^3`$, which is the appropriately contracted triple product of $`R`$, with matrix elements

$$\widehat{R}_{AF}^3=\frac{1}{2}Q_{AE}R_{B\alpha \beta }^ER_{C\gamma \delta }^BR_{F\mu \nu }^C\eta ^{\alpha \gamma }\eta ^{\beta \delta }\theta ^\mu \theta ^\nu .$$
(27)
The symmetric part of this matrix $`(\widehat{R}^3)^T+\widehat{R}^3`$ is of the form

$$(\widehat{R}^3)^T+\widehat{R}^3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ & & \\ 0& 0& P_\mu \\ & & \\ 0& P_\mu & P\end{array}\right)$$
(28)
where $`P_\mu `$ and $`P`$ are appropriate 2-forms on $`M\times H`$. It follows that under the assumption that

$$C^20$$
(29)
this matrix has particularly simple form

$$(\widehat{R}^3)^T+\widehat{R}^3=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{6\varphi }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ & & \\ 0& 0& \mathrm{e}^\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma ^\alpha N_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\theta ^\beta \theta ^\gamma \\ & & \\ 0& \mathrm{e}^\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma ^\alpha N_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\theta ^\beta \theta ^\gamma & V^\alpha N_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\theta ^\beta \theta ^\gamma \end{array}\right)$$
(30)
where

$$V^\alpha =\frac{4}{C^2}(_\rho C_{\lambda \tau \sigma }^\rho )C^{\alpha \lambda \tau \sigma }\mathrm{e}^\varphi \xi _\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_\lambda ^{1\rho }\eta ^{\lambda \alpha }$$
(31)
and $`N_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is given by (16). The proof of this fact consists of a straightforward but lengthy calculation which uses the identities (11) and (14). This enables us to formulate the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3

Assume that the metric $`g`$ satisfies

$$C^20$$

on $`M`$. Let $`\omega `$ be its Cartan normal conformal connection with curvature $`R`$ and the matrix $`\widehat{R}^3`$ as above. Then the metric is locally conformally equivalent to the Einstein metric if and only if the

$$(\mathrm{i})DR=0\mathrm{and}(\mathrm{ii})(\widehat{R}^3)^T+\widehat{R}^3=0.$$
(32)
The above condition (ii) can now be compared to the Baston-Mason conformal connection interpretation of the condition $`E_{\mu \nu \rho }=0`$. According to them, this condition is

$$(\mathrm{ii}^{})[R_{\mu \nu }^+,R_{\rho \sigma }^{}]=0,$$
(33)
where $`R^+=\frac{1}{2}R_{\mu \nu }^+\theta ^\mu \theta ^\nu `$ and $`R^{}=\frac{1}{2}R_{\mu \nu }^{}\theta ^\mu \theta ^\nu `$ denote, respectively, the self-dual and anti-self-dual parts of the curvature $`R`$, i.e. $`R^\pm =\pm iR^\pm `$, and $`R=R^+R^{}`$.

Acknowledgments
We acknowledge support from NSF Grant No PHY-0088951 and the Polish KBN Grant No 2 P03B 12724.