text:
# Superweakly Interacting Massive Particles

(February 2003)

## Abstract

We investigate a new class of dark matter: superweakly-interacting massive particles (superWIMPs). As with conventional WIMPs, superWIMPs appear in well-motivated particle theories with naturally the correct relic density. In contrast to WIMPs, however, superWIMPs are impossible to detect in all conventional dark matter searches. We consider the concrete examples of gravitino and graviton cold dark matter in models with supersymmetry and universal extra dimensions, respectively, and show that superWIMP dark matter satisfies stringent constraints from Big Bang nucleosynthesis and the cosmic microwave background.

preprint: UCI-TR-2003-6

There is ample evidence that luminous matter makes up only a small fraction of all matter in the universe. Results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, combined with other data, constrain the non-baryonic dark matter density to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{DM}}=0.23\pm 0.04`$ Spergel:2003cb , far in excess of the luminous matter density. We therefore live in interesting times: while the amount of dark matter is becoming precisely known, its identity remains a mystery.

WIMPs, weakly-interacting massive particles with weak-scale masses, are particularly attractive dark matter candidates. WIMPs have several virtues. First, their appearance in particle physics theories is independently motivated by the problem of electroweak symmetry breaking. Second, given standard cosmological assumptions, their thermal relic abundance is naturally that required for dark matter. Third, the requirement that WIMPs annihilate efficiently enough to give the desired relic density generically implies that WIMP-matter interactions are strong enough for dark matter to be discovered in current or near future experiments.

Here we consider a new class of non-baryonic cold dark matter: superweakly-interacting massive particles (superWIMPs or SWIMPs). As with WIMPs, superWIMPs appear in well-motivated theoretical frameworks, such as supersymmetry and extra dimensions, and their (non-thermal) relic density is also naturally in the desired range. In contrast to conventional WIMPs, however, they interact superweakly and so evade all direct and indirect dark matter detection experiments proposed to date.

For concreteness, we consider two specific superWIMPs: gravitinos in supersymmetric theories, and Kaluza-Klein (KK) gravitons in theories with extra dimensions. Gravitino and graviton superWIMPs share many features, and we investigate them in parallel.

For gravitino superWIMPs, we consider supergravity, where the gravitino $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and all standard model (SM) superpartners have weak-scale masses. Assuming $`R`$-parity conservation, the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is stable. In supergravity, the LSP is usually assumed to be a SM superpartner. Neutralino LSPs are excellent WIMP candidates, giving the desired thermal relic density for masses of $`50\text{GeV}`$ to $`2\text{TeV}`$, depending on Higgsino content. In contrast, here we assume a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ LSP. The gravitinos considered here couple gravitationally and form cold dark matter, in contrast to the case in low-scale supersymmetry breaking models where light gravitinos couple more strongly and form warm dark matter.

We consider also the possibility of graviton dark matter in universal extra dimensions (UED), in which gravity and all SM fields propagate Appelquist:2000nn . We focus on $`D=5`$ spacetime dimensions with coordinates $`x^M=(x^\mu ,y)`$. The fifth dimension is compactified on the orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$, where $`S^1`$ is a circle of radius $`R`$, and $`Z_2`$ corresponds to $`yy`$. Unwanted massless fields are removed by requiring suitable transformations under $`yy`$. For example, the 5D gauge field $`V_M(x,y)`$ transforms as $`V_\mu (x,y)V_\mu (x,y)`$ and $`V_5(x,y)V_5(x,y)`$ under $`yy`$, which preserves $`V_\mu ^0(x)`$ and removes $`V_5^0(x)`$. Similar choices remove half of the fermionic degrees of freedom, producing chiral 4D fermions, and preserve the 4D graviton $`h_{\mu \nu }^0(x)`$ while removing $`h_{\mu 5}^0(x)`$ and $`h_{5\nu }^0(x)`$. The gravi-scalar $`h_{55}^0(x)`$ remains; we assume that some other physics stabilizes this mode and generates a mass for it.

The orbifold compactification breaks KK number conservation, but preserves KK-parity. KK particles must therefore be produced in pairs, and current bounds require only $`R^1200\text{GeV}`$ Appelquist:2000nn ; Appelquist:2002wb . KK-parity conservation also makes the lightest KK particle (LKP) stable and a dark matter candidate. For $`R^1\text{TeV}`$, weakly-interacting KK particles have thermal relic densities consistent with observations Servant:2002aq . In particular, $`B^1`$, the first KK partner of the U(1) gauge boson, has been shown to be a viable WIMP dark matter candidate, with promising prospects for direct detection Cheng:2002ej ; Servant:2002hb  and also indirect detection in anti-matter searches Cheng:2002ej , neutrino telescopes Cheng:2002ej ; Hooper:2002gs ; Bertone:2002ms , and gamma ray detectors Cheng:2002ej ; Bertone:2002ms .

As in the case of supersymmetry, however, the lightest partner need not be a SM partner. In UED, the LKP could be $`G^1`$, the first KK partner of the graviton. $`G^1`$ is, in fact, perhaps the most natural LKP candidate — radiative contributions to KK masses, typically positive Cheng:2002iz , are negligible for $`G^1`$. $`G^1`$ couplings are also gravitational, and so highly suppressed.

Gravitinos and gravitons therefore naturally emerge as superWIMP candidates: stable massive particles with superweak interactions. Their weak gravitational interactions imply that they play no role in the thermal history of the early universe. (We assume inflation followed by reheating to a temperature low enough to avoid regenerating large numbers of superWIMPs.) Thus, if the next lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP) or next lightest KK particle (NLKP) is weakly-interacting, it freezes out with a relic density of the desired magnitude. Much later, however, these WIMPs then decay to superWIMPs; as the WIMP and superWIMP masses are similar, the superWIMP then inherits the desired relic density.

Unlike WIMPs, however, superWIMPs are impossible to discover directly, and their annihilation rate is so suppressed that they also escape all indirect detection experiments. At the same time, unlike superheavy dark matter candidates with only gravitational interactions Chung:2001cb , superWIMPs inherit the desired relic density from a thermal abundance and arise from accessible electroweak physics. At colliders, WIMP decays to superWIMPs will occur long after the WIMP leaves the detector. If the NLSP or NLKP is neutral, its metastability will have no observable consequences. The discovery of a seemingly stable but charged NLSP or NLKP may, however, provide a strong hint for superWIMP dark matter.

We now investigate constraints on and alternative signals of superWIMP dark matter scenarios. The observable consequences of superWIMPs must rely on the decays of WIMPs to superWIMPs on cosmological time scales Ellis:1984er . The NLSP or NLKP may be any SM partner. In supergravity, the lightest SM superpartner is often the Bino $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, the superpartner of the hypercharge gauge boson. In the minimal UED scenario Appelquist:2000nn ; Cheng:2002iz , the lightest SM KK mode is often $`B^1`$. Motivated by these results, we now consider specific scenarios in which decays to superWIMPs are typically accompanied by photons, and we consider the impact of electromagnetic cascades.

In the supersymmetric photon superWIMP scenario, NLSP decay is governed by the coupling $`\frac{i}{8M_{}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{G}}_\mu [\gamma ^\nu ,\gamma ^\rho ]\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{B}F_{\nu \rho }`$, where $`F`$ is the U(1) field strength, and $`M_{}=(8\pi G_N)^{1/2}2.4\times 10^{18}\text{GeV}`$ is the reduced Planck scale. The NLSP decay width is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{G}\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}{48\pi M_{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{B}}^5}{m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}^2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{B}}^2}}\right]^3\left[1+3{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{B}}^2}}\right].`$ (1)
In models with low-scale supersymmetry breaking, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}m_{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$, and the gravitino couples dominantly through its $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ spin components. In the high-scale supersymmetry breaking scenarios considered here, however, the couplings of the $`\pm \frac{3}{2}`$ spin polarizations are of the same order and must be kept in deriving Eq. (1).

The properties of gravitons in UED scenarios may be determined straightforwardly; details will be presented elsewhere inprep . Graviton superWIMPs couple to $`B^1`$ through $`\frac{\sqrt{2}}{M_{}}G_{\mu \nu }^1(F^{0\mu \rho }F^{1\nu }{}_{\rho }{}^{}+\frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }^0F^{1\rho \sigma })`$, where $`F_{\mu \nu }^n_\mu B_\nu ^n_\nu B_\mu ^n`$. The $`G^1B^1B^0`$ vertex is identical to the $`G^0B^0B^0`$ vertex, and the longitudinal component of the massive $`B^1`$ plays no role. The NLKP decay width is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^1G^1\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}{72\pi M_{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{B^1}^7}{m_{G^1}^4}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{G^1}^2}{m_{B^1}^2}}\right]^3`$ (2)
$`\times \left[1+3{\displaystyle \frac{m_{G^1}^2}{m_{B^1}^2}}+6{\displaystyle \frac{m_{G^1}^4}{m_{B^1}^4}}\right].`$
The $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and $`B^1`$ lifetimes are given in Fig. 1. In both cases, in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }mm_{\text{WIMP}}m_{\text{SWIMP}}m_{\text{SWIMP}}`$, the WIMP lifetime is proportional to $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m)^3`$ and is independent of the overall mass scale.

As we will see, the most relevant bounds constrain the total energy released in photons in WIMP decay, or more precisely, $`\epsilon _\gamma Y_\gamma `$, where $`\epsilon _\gamma `$ is the energy of the photons when created and $`Y_\gamma =n_\gamma /n_\gamma ^{\text{BG}}`$ is the number density of photons from WIMP decay normalized to the number density of background photons $`n_\gamma ^{\text{BG}}=2\zeta (3)T^3/\pi ^2`$, where $`T`$ is the temperature during WIMP decay. In the superWIMP scenario, WIMPs decay essentially at rest, and so $`\epsilon _\gamma =(m_{\text{WIMP}}^2m_{\text{SWIMP}}^2)/(2m_{\text{WIMP}})`$. Since a superWIMP is produced in association with each photon, $`Y_\gamma =Y_{\text{SWIMP}}`$, and the photon abundance is given by

$$Y_{\text{SWIMP}}3.0\times 10^{12}\left[\frac{\text{TeV}}{m_{\text{SWIMP}}}\right]\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{SWIMP}}}{0.23}\right].$$
(3)
Predicted values for $`\epsilon _\gamma Y_{\text{SWIMP}}`$ are shown in Fig. 2.

As evident in Fig. 1, WIMP decays occur long after Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), and so may, in principle, destroy the successful BBN predictions for light element abundances. The energy of photons produced in late decays is rapidly redistributed through scattering off background photons, $`\gamma \gamma _{\text{BG}}e^+e^{}`$, and inverse Compton scattering Kawasaki:1994sc ; Cyburt:2002uv . As a result, the constraints of BBN are, to an excellent approximation, independent of the initial energy distribution of injected photons, and constrain only the total energy release.

Detailed analysis Cyburt:2002uv , demanding consistent predictions for deuterium, 3He, 4He, 6Li, and 7Li, excludes the region of parameter space shown in Fig. 2. The BBN constraint is weak for early decays: at early times, the universe is hot and the initial photon spectrum is rapidly softened, leaving few high energy photons above threshold to modify the light element abundances. We find that BBN excludes some of the relevant parameter region, but not all. In particular, for relatively short-lived WIMPs with $`\tau 10^7\text{s}`$ and weak-scale masses, the requirement that superWIMPs form all of the dark matter is consistent with the constraints from BBN.

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) also imposes constraints Hu:gc ; Fixsen:1996nj . The injection of energy in the form of photons may distort the CMB from the observed black-body spectrum. Before redshifts of $`z10^7`$, elastic Compton scattering, bremsstrahlung $`eXeX\gamma `$ (with $`X`$ an ion), and double Compton scattering $`e^{}\gamma e^{}\gamma \gamma `$ effectively thermalize injected energy. After $`z10^7`$, however, the photon number-changing interactions become ineffective, and the photon spectrum relaxes only to a Bose-Einstein distribution with chemical potential $`\mu `$. After $`z10^5`$, even Compton scattering becomes ineffective, and deviations from the black-body spectrum may be parametrized by the Sunyaev-Zeldovich $`y`$ parameter.

As with the BBN constraints, bounds from the CMB are largely independent of the injected energy spectrum, depending primarily on the total energy release. The bounds on $`\epsilon _\gamma Y_{\text{SWIMP}}`$ scale linearly with the bounds on $`\mu `$ and $`y`$. We update the analysis of Ref. Hu:gc  to include the latest results $`|\mu |<9\times 10^5`$ and $`|y|<1.2\times 10^5`$ Hagiwara:fs , with baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^20.022`$ Spergel:2003cb , where $`h0.71`$ is the normalized Hubble expansion rate. These bounds exclude energy releases above the CMB contours in Fig. 2. Remarkably, the CMB constraints are now so precise that they supersede BBN constraints for decay times $`\tau 10^7\text{s}`$ and $`\tau 10^{10}\text{s}`$. Nevertheless, regions of superWIMP parameter space, including regions with weak-scale masses and mass splittings, remain viable.

Finally, for highly degenerate WIMP-SWIMP pairs, WIMPs decay very late to soft photons. The photon spectrum is not thermalized and may produce observable peaks in the diffuse photon spectrum. The present differential flux of photons from WIMP decay is

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dE_\gamma }=\frac{c}{4\pi }_0^{t_0}\frac{dt}{\tau _{\text{WIMP}}}\frac{N_{\text{WIMP}}(t)}{V_0}\delta \left(E_\gamma \frac{\epsilon _\gamma }{1+z}\right),$$
(4)
where $`t_013.7\text{Gyr}`$ is the age of the universe Spergel:2003cb , $`N_{\text{WIMP}}(t)=N_{\text{WIMP}}^{\text{in}}e^{t/\tau _{\text{WIMP}}}`$, where $`N_{\text{WIMP}}^{\text{in}}`$ is the number of WIMPs at freeze-out, and $`V_0`$ is the present volume of the universe. The diffuse photon flux is a sensitive probe only when WIMPs decay in the matter-dominated era. We may then take $`1+z=(t_0/t)^{2/3}`$, and

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dE_\gamma }\frac{3c}{8\pi }\frac{N_{\text{WIMP}}^{\text{in}}}{V_0\epsilon _\gamma }\left[\frac{t_0}{\tau _{\text{WIMP}}}\right]^{\frac{2}{3}}F(a)\mathrm{\Theta }(\epsilon _\gamma E_\gamma ),$$
(5)
where $`F(a)=a^{1/2}e^{a^{3/2}}`$, $`a=(E_\gamma /\epsilon _\gamma )(t_0/\tau _{\text{WIMP}})^{2/3}`$. $`F(a)`$ is maximal at $`a=3^{2/3}`$, and so, for $`\tau _{\text{WIMP}}<t_0`$, the differential photon flux reaches its maximal value at

$$E_\gamma ^{\text{max}}=\epsilon _\gamma \left[\frac{\tau _{\text{WIMP}}}{3t_0}\right]^{\frac{2}{3}}=680\text{keV}\left[\frac{\text{GeV}}{\mathrm{\Delta }m}\right]$$
(6)
for gravitinos, and an energy 1.4 times smaller for gravitons. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ dependence follows from the redshifting of photons created with energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ by $`1+z\tau _{\text{WIMP}}^{2/3}(\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2`$. For high degeneracies,

$$\frac{N_{\text{WIMP}}^{\text{in}}}{V_0}=1.2\times 10^9\text{cm}^3\left[\frac{\text{TeV}}{m_{\text{SWIMP}}}\right]\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{SWIMP}}}{0.23}\right],$$
(7)
and so the maximal flux is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dE_\gamma }}(E_\gamma ^{\text{max}})`$ $`=`$ $`1.5\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1\text{sr}^1\text{MeV}^1`$ (8)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\text{TeV}}{m_{\text{SWIMP}}}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{\text{GeV}}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{SWIMP}}}{0.23}}\right]`$
for gravitinos, and a factor of 1.4 larger for gravitons.

Representative photon energy spectra are shown in Fig. 3. Also shown are the measured diffuse fluxes from the observatories HEAO, OSSE, and COMPTEL HEAO , determined from observed fluxes by subtracting known point sources. The observed spectra fall rapidly with energy and so severely constrain the relatively hard photon spectra predicted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m10\text{GeV}`$. Note that we have not included photon interactions which soften the photon spectrum for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ few GeV Asaka:1998ju ; such effects can only enlarge the allowed parameter space discussed below.

In Fig. 4, we compile the constraints discussed above and show the allowed regions of the $`(m_{\text{SWIMP}},\mathrm{\Delta }m)`$ plane for the photon gravitino and graviton superWIMP dark matter scenarios. The BBN and CMB constraints are as discussed above. An additional region is excluded by the requirement that the diffuse photon flux never exceed the observed flux by $`2\sigma `$ for any energy. Although these data exclude some of the parameter space, the most well-motivated region with $`m_{\text{SWIMP}},\mathrm{\Delta }m100\text{GeV}`$ to $`1\text{TeV}`$ remains an outstanding possibility.

In conclusion, we find that superWIMPs provide a qualitatively novel possibility for particle dark matter. Such particles appear in the form of gravitinos and gravitons in theories with supersymmetry and extra dimensions, and they naturally inherit the desired relic density from late-decaying weakly-interacting NLSPs or NLKPs.

SuperWIMPs satisfy existing constraints from BBN and CMB and evade all conventional dark matter experiments. On the surface, we have apparently committed Pauli’s “ultimate sin” by proposing a solution to the dark matter problem that has no observable consequences. However, improvements in the measurements discussed above may uncover anomalies. For example, a detailed study of the $`15\text{keV}`$ to $`10\text{MeV}`$ diffuse photon flux by INTEGRAL is currently underway INTEGRAL . A pronounced bump in this spectrum could provide a striking signal of superWIMP dark matter. Finally, we note that neutrino, charged lepton, weak gauge boson, and Higgs boson NLSPs and NLKPs are all viable from the point of view of preserving the naturalness of the desired relic density. Some of these scenarios may be severely constrained by bounds on hadronic showers, but the remaining scenarios will have qualitatively different, and possibly very interesting, observational consequences.

We thank J. Cohn, T. Han, T. Moroi, and M. White for enlightening conversations.


format: text

text:
# Uniqueness Theorem of Static Degenerate and Non-degenerate Charged Black Holes in Higher Dimensions

## I Introduction

The pioneering investigations of mathematical topics related to the the black hole equilibrium states were attributed to Israel , Müller zum Hagen et al.  and Robinson . Bunting and Masood-ul-Alam  proposed the alternative proof of the uniqueness of black hole solutions. Then, the method was strengthened to the Einstein-Maxwell (EM) black holes . Heusler  comprised the magnetically charged Reissner-Nordström (RN) solution and static Einstein-$`\sigma `$-model case . The classification of static of vacuum black holes was finished in , where the condition of non-degeneracy of the event horizon was removed and it was shown that Schwarzschild black hole exhausted the family of all appropriately regular black hole spacetimes. In Ref. it was revealed that RN solution comprised the family of regular black hole spacetimes under the restrictive condition that all degenerate components of black hole horizon carried a charge of the same sign.

The problem of stationary and axisymmetric black hole spacetimes being the solution of vacuum Einstein equations was considered in Refs., while the systematic way of obtaining the desire results in electromagnetic case was provided by Mazur  and Bunting . For a review of the uniqueness of black hole solutions story see  and references therein.

In the recent years there was a considerable resurgence of mathematical works concerning black hole equilibrium state in the low-energy string theory. The uniqueness of the black hole solutions in dilaton gravity was proved in works , while the uniqueness of the static dilaton $`U(1)^2`$ black holes being the solution of $`N=4,d=4`$ supergravity was provided in . The extension of the proof to the theory to allow for the inclusion of $`U(1)^N`$ static dilaton black holes was established in Ref..

The latest development of string theory as well as the possibility that the weak scale is the fundamental scale of nature and the Planck scale is to be derived from it  trigger the interests in higher dimensional black hole solutions. The so-called TeV gravity attracts attention to higher dimensional black hole which may be produced in high energy experiments . It was revealed that the five-dimensional stationary vacuum black hole are not unique. Myers-Perry  solution generalized the Kerr solution to arbitrary dimension, while Emparan et al.  revealed a counterexample showing that a five-dimensional rotating black hole ring solution with the same angular momentum and mass but the horizon of which was homeomorphic to $`S^2\times S^1`$. The uniqueness theorem for $`n`$-dimensional Schwarzschild-Tangherlini black hole was provided by Gibbons et al.  and for asymptotically flat static $`n`$-dimensional charged (dilaton) black holes was presented in Ref.. The uniqueness theorem for self-gravitating nonlinear $`\sigma `$-models in higher dimensional spacetime was obtained in . As far as the stationary $`n`$-dimensional black hole uniqueness theorem is concerned, the proof for $`N=1,d=5`$ supersymmetric black holes was given in .

In this issue our strategy will be to modify the considerations of Ruback  and Chruściel  in order to comprise the problem of the uniqueness of the charged $`n`$-dimensional static black hole solutions containing an asymptotically flat spacelike hypersurface with compact interior and with both degenerate and non-degenerate components of the event horizons. In the attitude proposed by Ruback  the metric induced on the hypersurface orthogonal to the asymptotically timelike Killing vector field was considered. In our case we shall consider the orbit space metric  (defined below) on the spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The key considerations will be held near both degenerate and non-degenerate components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Our key result will be the proof that a static higher dimensional charged black hole spacetime containing an asymptotically flat spacelike hypersurface with compact interior and with both degenerate and non-degenerate components of the event horizon exists, subject to the additional assumption that all degenerate components of the horizon should have charges of the same signs.

## II Higher dimensional Einstein-Maxwell system

We shall consider the $`n`$-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell system described by the following action:

$$I=d^nx\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left[{}_{}{}^{(n)}RF_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right],$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{g}_{ij}`$ is $`n`$-dimensional metric tensor, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Maxwell field. The metric of $`n`$-dimensional static spacetime with asymptotically timelike Killing vector field $`k_\alpha =\left(\frac{}{t}\right)_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}^2=k_\mu k^\mu `$ has the following form:

$$ds^2=\stackrel{~}{V}^2dt^2+h_{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ and $`h_{ij}`$ are independent of the $`t`$-coordinate as the quantities of the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of constant $`t`$. The hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a connected and simply connected spacelike hypersurface, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ denotes the closure of it. The topological boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\backslash \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a nonempty topological manifold with $`h_{ij}k^ik^j=0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. For the static metric the electromagnetic potential will be of the form $`A_0=\varphi dt`$.

We treat first the problem of the orbit space. Namely, as in Ref. we shall consider a point $`p`$ of the manifold such that $`h_{ij}k^ik^j0`$ and perform a decomposition

$$T_pM=𝒦(k_\mu )𝒦^{},$$
(3)
where $`𝒦(k_\mu )`$ is the vector space spanned by the Killing vector field $`k_\mu (p)`$ and $`𝒦^{}`$ is the space orthogonal to the vector space spanned by $`k_\mu `$. We define the orbit space metric $`g_{ij}(p)`$ in the form

$$g(X,Z)=h(X_{},Z_{}).$$
(4)
The metric $`g_{ij}`$ should not be identified with the metric on the space of orbits because one is not assuming any regularity properties of that space (in particular we do not even assume that the space of orbits is a differentiable manifold). One has then

$$Y_{}=Y\frac{h(X,Y)}{h(X,X)}X,$$
(5)
so we arrive at the following expression for the metric tensor $`g_{ij}`$

$$g(Y,Z)=h(Y,Z)\frac{h(X,Y)h(X,Z)}{h(X,X)}.$$
(6)
As was proved in Ref. (lemma 5.1) if one had to do with the static spacetime and if we supposed that $`(h_{ij},\stackrel{~}{V})`$ satisfied the same coordinate independent system of equations, then the orbit space metric $`g_{ij}`$ with the function $`V`$ (where $`V^2`$ was the square of the norm of $`k_\mu `$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) satisfied the same system of equations. This theorem enables us to write the equations of motion in the following form:

$`{}_{}{}^{(g)}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{(g)}_{}^{i}V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{V}}{}_{}{}^{(g)}_{i}^{}\varphi {}_{}{}^{(g)}_{}^{i}\varphi ,`$ (7)
$`{}_{}{}^{(g)}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{(g)}_{}^{i}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{}_{}{}^{(g)}_{i}^{}\varphi {}_{}{}^{(g)}_{}^{i}V,`$ (8)
$`{}_{}{}^{(n1)}R_{ij}^{}(g){\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{}_{}{}^{(g)}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{(g)}_{j}^{}V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{V^2}}{}_{}{}^{(g)}_{i}^{}\varphi {}_{}{}^{(g)}_{j}^{}\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{2{}_{}{}^{(g)}_{i}^{}\varphi {}_{}{}^{(g)}_{}^{i}\varphi }{(n2)V^2}}g_{ij},`$ (9)
where we have denoted by $`C^2=2(n3)/(n2)`$, while $`\varphi `$ is the electrostatic potential. The covariant derivative with respect to $`g_{ij}`$ is denoted by $`{}_{}{}^{(g)}`$, while $`{}_{}{}^{(n1)}R_{ij}^{}(g)`$ is the Ricci tensor defined on the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.
Let us assume further that we take into account the asymptotically flat spacetime, i.e, the spacetime contains a data set $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{end},g_{ij},K_{ij})`$ with gauge fields such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{end}`$ is diffeomorphic to $`𝐑^3`$ minus a ball and the following asymptotic conditions are fulfilled:

$`|g_{ij}\delta _{ij}|+r|_ag_{ij}|+\mathrm{}+r^k|_{a_1\mathrm{}a_k}g_{ij}|+r|K_{ij}|+\mathrm{}+r^k|_{a_1\mathrm{}a_k}K_{ij}|𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right),`$ (10)
$`|F_{\alpha \beta }|+r|_aF_{\alpha \beta }|+\mathrm{}+r^k|_{a_1\mathrm{}a_k}F_{\alpha \beta }|𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\right).`$ (11)
Consequently, under the above assumptions, there is a standard coordinates system in which we have the usual asymptotic expansion

$$V=1\frac{\mu }{r^{n3}}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^{n2}}\right),$$
(12)
and accordingly for the metric tensor

$$g_{ij}=\left(1+\frac{2}{(n3)}\frac{\mu }{r^{n3}}\right)\delta _{ij}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^{n2}}\right),$$
(13)
and for the electrostatic potential

$$\varphi =\frac{Q/C}{r^{n3}}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^{n2}}\right),$$
(14)
where $`\mu `$ is the ADM mass seen by the observer from the infinity, $`Q`$ is the electric charge while $`r^2=x_ix^i`$.

Our next step will be the analysis of the behaviour of $`g_{ij}`$ and $`\varphi `$ near $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By the theorems derived by Vishweshwara  and Carter  one obtains that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has to be a subset of a Killing horizon. On the other hand, the Killing horizon is a smooth manifold. As it is well known $`\varphi `$ is constant on any connected components of the Killing horizon and it implies its constancy on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In what follows, we shall call a connected $`S`$ component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ degenerate and non-degenerate when $`S`$ intersects a degenerate or non-degenerate Killing horizon, respectively. If necessary we can deform slightly the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in spacetime and we ensure that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a smooth submanifold both of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and of $`M`$ near degenerate horizons. As far as the non-degenerate horizon is concerned, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will not be a smooth submanifold of $`M`$. It is caused by the existence of points on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at which the Killing vector field $`k_\mu `$ vanishes. As was proved in Ref. one could equip $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ with a differentiable structure so that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ was a smooth submanifold of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. The boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with the differentiable structure is a totally geodesic boundary of $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g_{ij})`$ across which $`g_{ij}`$ and the electric potential $`\varphi `$ can be smoothly extented across $`S`$ when a doubling of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ across $`S`$ is done.
Based on the observation presented by Ruback  let us consider now the function

$$F_\pm =V^2\left(1\pm C\varphi \right)^2.$$
(15)
Having in mind equation of motion, by the direct calculations one can show that $`F_\pm `$ is harmonic in the metric $`V^2g_{ij}`$. $`F_\pm `$ tend to zero as one approaches the asymptotically flat regions. On the other hand, on every components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ one obtains $`F_\pm 0`$.

First, let us suppose that $`F_{}=0`$ on all components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Next by means of the maximum principle one has that $`F_\pm 0`$ on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. In the case for which $`F_+`$ and $`F_{}`$ are negative somewhere on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, from maximum principle we get that $`F_\pm <0`$, provided that

$$V^2<\left(1C\varphi \right)^2,V^2<\left(1+C\varphi \right)^2,$$
(16)
on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By hypothesis $`V`$ has no zeros on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and having in mind (16) it shows that $`\left(1C\varphi \right)`$ and $`\left(1+C\varphi \right)`$ have no zeros there. Both $`(1C\varphi )`$ and $`(1+C\varphi )`$ tends to $`1`$ at infinity which in turn implies that $`1<C\varphi <1`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The above equations implies that $`0<V<\mathrm{min}(1+C\varphi ;1C\varphi )=1C\varphi `$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and we reach to the conclusion that

$$0V+C\varphi 1.$$
(17)
The inequalities are strict except when the metric is locally Majumdar-Papapetrou (MP) . The right inequality is strict on non-degenerate horizons.

If $`\mu =Q`$ we have that $`F_+=𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right)`$ and $`F_+0`$ follows from the harmonicity of $`F_+`$ in the metric $`V^2g_{ij}`$ and the asymptotic strong maximum principle. Then, using the above arguments (as in proving Eq.(17)) one reaches to the conclusion that the metric is locally MP. The case $`\mu =Q`$ follows by providing the similar arguments as in the case of $`F_+`$.

Now we shall consider the case for which $`\mu Q`$. In this stage of the proof we shall produce a data set to which one can apply considerations proposed by Rubback  and Chruściel . Namely, we take into account two copies of the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ and define metric and the electric field $`\widehat{E}_{\alpha \pm }`$ on them

$$\widehat{E}_{\alpha \pm }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\left(1+C\varphi \pm V\right)}[\sqrt{2}{}_{}{}^{(g)}_{\alpha }^{}\varphi (1+C\varphi )\sqrt{\frac{n2}{n3}}V{}_{}{}^{(g)}_{\alpha }^{}V],$$
(18)
$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij\pm }=\left(\frac{1+C\varphi \pm V}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{n3}}g_{ij}.$$
(19)
By $`_{nodeg}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we shall denote all these components of the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which correspond to non-degenerate components of the event horizons of the black hole.
If $`_{nodeg}\mathrm{\Sigma }0`$ we can paste $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_+=\mathrm{\Sigma }_+_{nodeg}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}_{nodeg}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by indentifying $`_{nodeg}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_+`$ with $`_{nodeg}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{}`$ using the identity map. Then, we obtain $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_+\mathrm{\Sigma }_+_{nodeg}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The metric defined on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ can be extended by continuity to smooth metric on $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, similarly this can be done with the electric field. Thus, we set that

$$\widehat{g}_{ij}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_+}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij+}\widehat{g}_{ij}_\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}.$$
(20)
and consequently

$$\widehat{E}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_+}=\widehat{E}_+,\widehat{E}_\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}=\widehat{E}_{}.$$
(21)
In the case of $`_{nodeg}\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$, one has that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$$`\widehat{g}_{ij}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}`$ and $`\widehat{E}=\widehat{E}_+`$.

A tedious but simple calculations can envisage the following fact:

$`{}_{}{}^{(n1)}\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}^{}(\stackrel{~}{g})=2\widehat{E}_\alpha \widehat{E}^\alpha ,`$ (22)
$`{}_{}{}^{(\stackrel{~}{g})}_{\alpha }^{}\widehat{E}^\alpha =0,`$ (23)
where $`{}_{}{}^{(\stackrel{~}{g})}_{\alpha }^{}`$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}`$. Eqs.(22) and (23) consist (as was observed for the first time in Ref.) the constraint relations for a time symmetric problem.

Using the asymptotical behaviour of $`V`$ and $`\varphi `$ it could be observed that as if we approach $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ the line element $`ds_+^2`$ could be expressed as

$$ds_+^2=\left(1+\frac{\mu +Q}{(n3)r^{n1}}\right)dx_idx^i+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^{n2}}\right).$$
(24)
From Eq.(24) it follows in particular that, the ADM mass is equal to $`M_{ADM}=\frac{\mu +Q}{2}`$. It can be verified that, the electric field is given by

$$\widehat{E}_\alpha =\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\left[\sqrt{(n3)(n2)}\left(\frac{\mu +Q}{r^{n2}}\right)\right]+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^{n2}}\right).$$
(25)
On $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ the metric is as follows:

$$ds_{}^2=\frac{1}{2^{2\beta }}\left[\frac{\mu +Q}{r^{n3}}\right]^{2\beta }dx_idx^i+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^{n2}}\right),$$
(26)
where $`\beta =\frac{1}{n3}`$.
Further on, one can introduce the coordinates $`x_I`$, where $`I=1,\mathrm{},N2`$, so that the metric tensor $`g_{ij}`$ can be rewritten in the form

$$g_{ij}=\frac{1}{W^2}dV^2+\gamma _{IJ}dx_Idx^J.$$
(27)
From the exact form of $`\widehat{E}_{\alpha \pm }`$ Eq.(18) and having in mind Eqs.(22) and (23) satisfied by them one can deduce that the gauge potential is a function of $`V`$, namely $`\varphi (V)`$. This fact in turn enables us to rewrite equations of motion as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{V}}={\displaystyle \frac{V}{W\sqrt{\gamma }}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{V}}\left(W\sqrt{\gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{V}}\right),`$ (28)
$`C^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{V}}\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{V}{W\sqrt{\gamma }}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{V}}\left(W\sqrt{\gamma }\right),`$ (29)
where $`\gamma =det\gamma _{ij}`$.
Accordingly to Eqs.(28) and (29) we obtain

$$\frac{\varphi }{V}C^2\left(\frac{\varphi }{V}\right)^3=V\frac{^2\varphi }{V^2}.$$
(30)
From the above relation it follows in particular that

$$\frac{\varphi }{V}=\frac{aV}{\sqrt{1+a^2C^2V^2}},$$
(31)
where $`a`$ is an integration constant. Using the asymptotic behaviour of $`V`$ we get the following expression:

$$\underset{V1}{lim}\frac{\varphi }{V}=\frac{(n3)Q}{\mu }.$$
(32)
Integrating Eq.(31) and taking the limit $`\underset{V1}{lim}\varphi =0`$ we arrive at the following expression for $`\varphi (V)`$:

$$\varphi (V)=\frac{\mu \sqrt{\mu ^2+Q^2(n3)^2(V^21)}}{(n3)CQ}.$$
(33)
By virtue of Eq. (22) one can see that the Ricci tensor $`{}_{}{}^{(n1)}\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}^{}(\stackrel{~}{g})`$ on the hypersurface is manifestly non-negative. Furthermore the asymptotic behavoiur of the metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij+}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij+}=\delta _{ij}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^{n2}}\right).$$
(34)
While on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ it reduces to

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}=\left[\left(\frac{\mu +Q}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{n3}}\frac{1}{r}\right]\delta _{ij}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right).$$
(35)
It follows directly from Eq.(34) that the total mass on $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ vanishes. Thus, as a consequence of the positive mass theorem , the manifold $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is isometric to flat manifold. One can rewrite $`g_{ij}`$ in a conformally flat form

$$g_{ij}=𝒰^{\frac{1}{n3}}\delta _{ij},$$
(36)
where we have defined a smooth function on $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }},\delta _{ij})`$, namely $`𝒰=\frac{2}{1+V+C\varphi }`$. One can show that the Einstein-Maxwell equations of motion reduces to the Laplace equation on the $`(n1)`$ Euclidean manifold $`_i^i𝒰=0,`$ where $``$ is the connection on a flat manifold. Having in mind the above we can adopt for the metric $`\delta _{ij}`$ in the flat base space the following metric:

$$\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j=\stackrel{~}{\rho }^2d𝒰^2+\stackrel{~}{h}_{AB}dx^adx^B.$$
(37)
First we shall consider the case of the single horizon. The event horizon is located at $`𝒰=2`$ and one can show that the embedding of $``$ into the Euclidean $`(n1)`$ space is totally umbilical . This embedding must be hyperspherical, i.e., each of the connected components of the horizon $``$ is a geometric sphere with a certain radius determined by the value of $`\rho _{}`$, where $`\rho `$ is the coordinate which can be introduced on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as follows:

$$g_{ij}dx^idx^j=\rho ^2dV^2+h_{AB}dx^Adx^B.$$

One can always locate one connected component of the horizon at $`r=r_0`$ surface without loss of generality. Thus, we have to do with a boundary value problem for the Laplace equation on the base space $`\mathrm{\Omega }=E^{n1}/B^{n1}`$ with the Dirichlet boundary condition $`𝒰_{}=2`$ and the asymptotic decay condition $`𝒰=1+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^{n3}}\right)`$. Suppose further that $`𝒰_1`$ and $`𝒰_2`$ be two solutions of the boundary value problem. By means of the Green identity and integration over the volume element we reach to the following expression:

$$\left(_r\mathrm{}_{}\right)\left(𝒰_1𝒰_2\right)\frac{}{r}\left(𝒰_1𝒰_2\right)dS=_\mathrm{\Omega }\left(𝒰_1𝒰_2\right)^2𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(38)
Because of the boundary condition the left-hand side vanishes, and we draw a conclusion that two solutions must be identical.

The case of not single horizon can be treated as in Ref.. Namely, one should consider the evolution level surface in Euclidean space. From the Gauss equation in Euclidean space we shall obtain the evolution equation for shear $`\sigma _{AB}`$. Making use of the harmonicity of $`𝒰`$, i.e., $`^2𝒰=0`$, we can draw a conclusion that

$$\sigma _{AB}=0,\widehat{𝒟}_A\rho =0,\widehat{𝒟}_Ak=0,$$
(39)
where $`\widehat{𝒟}_A`$ denotes the covariant derivative on each level set of $`V`$, $`k_{AB}`$ is the second fundamental form of the level set. This implies in turn that each level surface of $`𝒰`$ is totally umbilic and hence spherically symmetric.

As was mentioned in Ref. this is the local result, since one consider only the region without saddle points of the harmonic function $`𝒰`$. In order to achieve the global result one should take into account the assumption about analyticity.

Now we turn to the problem of a charge of the connected components of black hole event horizon and its generalization to the non-connected case. In four-dimensions Heusler  showed that if all horizons were degenerate and $`Q_iQ_j0`$, where $`Q_i`$ was the charge of the adequate connected component of black hole, then the black hole was a standard MP black hole. One should has in mind that a standard connected MP black hole is an extreme RN one .

First, if we suppose that $`S_a`$, where $`a=1,2`$, is a connected components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that the electrical potentials of the horizons $`\varphi _a=\varphi _{S_a}`$ imply

$$\varphi _1=\underset{\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}{inf}<0,\varphi _2=\underset{\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}{sup}>0.$$
(40)
Then as was shown in  $`Q_a`$ of the $`S_a`$ are non-vanishing and have the opposite signs. It can be verified by writing out the expression for the charge $`Q_a`$

$$Q_a=\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}_{S_{a,i}}\frac{C^i\varphi }{V}𝑑S_i.$$
(41)
and using the divergence theorem and maximum principle (see  for the details).

By exactly similar arguments as presented in work  we can treat the case of a non-connected $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Finally, the above considerations enable us to formulate the main conclusion of our work.
Theorem:
Let us consider a static solution to the $`n`$-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell equations of motion with an asymptotically timelike Killing vector field $`k_\mu `$. Suppose further that the manifold under consideration consists of a connected and simply connected spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to which $`k_\mu `$ is orthogonal. The topological boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a nonempty topological manifold with $`h_{ij}k^ik^j=0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then, one arrives at the following conclusions:

1. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is connected, then there exist a neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which is diffeomorphic to an open subset of $`n`$-dimensional Reissner-Nordström spacetime (extreme or non-extreme).
2. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is not connected ad moreover we have fulfilled the following inequality:

$$_{i,j}Q_iQ_j0,$$
(42)
where $`Q_i`$ is the charge of the adequate component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, that intersects the degenerate horizon, then there is an open neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which is diffeomorphic to $`n`$-dimensional Majumdar-Papapetrou spacetime.

Acknowledgements:
MR was supported in part by KBN grant 2 P03B 124 24.


text:
# The hodograph method applicability in the problem of long-scale nonlinear dynamics of a thin vortex filament near a flat boundary

## I Introduction

It is a well known fact that solutions of equations determining the motion of a homogeneous inviscid fluid possess a remarkable property — the lines of the vorticity field are frozen-in LL6 ; Arnold ; Saffman ; Chorin . Mathematical reason for this is the so called relabeling symmetry of fluids that provides necessary conditions for the Noether theorem applicability and results in infinite number of the conservation laws ZK97 ; Salmon ; PadMor ; IL ; R99 ; R2000PRD ; R2001PRE  . Due to this basic property, in the framework of ideal hydrodynamics such flows are possible where during sufficiently long time interval the vorticity is concentrated in quasi-one-dimensional structures, vortex filaments, that fill a small part of entire bulk of the fluid. The motion of vortex filaments is very interesting problem both from theoretical and practical viewpoints and is a classical subject of hydrodynamics (see, for instance, Saffman ; Chorin ; R2000PRD ; RP2001PRD ; R2001PRE ; RPR2001PRE ; Lough ; HongZhou ; Wang ; Zakharov99  and references therein for various analytical and numerical approaches to this problem). In general case analytical study in this field is highly complicated because of several reasons, the main of them being non-locality and nonlinearity of governing equations of motion. A less significant trouble seems to be the necessity of some regularization procedure for the Hamiltonian functional (the total energy) of the system in the limit of “infinitely thin” vortex filaments, since a logarithmic divergency takes place in some observable physical quantities (for instance, in the velocity of displacement of curved pieces of the filament) as the thickness decreases. However, in few limit cases the dynamics of a single vortex filament can turn out to be effectively integrable. A known and very interesting example of such integrable system is a slender non-stretched vortex filament (in the boundless three-dimensional (3D) space filled by an ideal fluid) in the so called localized induction approximation (LIA), when in the energy of the filament only logarithmically large contributions from interaction of adjacent pieces are taken into account. In this approximation the Hamiltonian is simply proportional to the length of the filament, resulting in conservation this quantity, thus application of the so called Hasimoto transformation Hasimoto ; NSW1992  is appropriate and reduces the problem to (1+1)-dimensional nonlinear Schroedinger equation that is known to be integrable by the inverse scattering method InScTr .

In present work another integrable case in vortex dynamics is recognized, the long-scale motion of a thin vortex filament near a flat fixed boundary. Mathematically the problem of a single filament in a half-space is equivalent to the problem of two symmetric filaments in the boundless space, that allows us simplify some further calculations. Our immediate purpose will be to consider the configurations of the vortex filament that satisfy the following conditions:

a) the angle is everywhere small between the tangent vector on the curve determining the shape of the filament and the boundary plane;

b) the distance from an arbitrary point of the curve to the plane is small comparatively to the curvature radius at the given point but large in comparison with the thickness of the filament;

c) the filament projection on the boundary plane does not have self-intersections or closely approaching one-to-another different pieces.

In these conditions the system dynamics is known to be unstable (the so called Crow instability Crow ), with the instability increment directly proportional to the wave number of (some small) long-scale perturbation of the filament shape. It is a well known fact that such dependence of the increment is usual for a class of local $`(2\times 2)`$ partial differential systems that can be exactly linearized by so called hodograph transformation LL6  exchanging dependent and independent variables. This observation has served as a weighty reason to look for a natural local nonlinear approximation in description of the long-scale dynamics of a vortex filament near a flat boundary and to examine that approximation for the hodograph method applicability. As the result, a consistent derivation of the corresponding local approximate equations of motion has been performed, and also the fact has been demonstrated that the nonlinear partial differential system for two functions $`\rho `$ and $`\vartheta `$ determining the shape of the filament and depending on the time moment $`t`$ and on the Cartesian coordinate $`x`$ is reduced by hodograph transformation to a linear equation. Moreover, it is possible to choose the pair of new independent variables in such a manner that in the linear partial differential equation for the function $`t(\rho ,\vartheta )`$ the coefficients will not depend on $`\vartheta `$-variable. For this purpose it is convenient to define $`\rho `$-variable as double distance from a filament point to the boundary plane $`y=0`$, while $`\vartheta `$-variable will be the angle between $`x`$-direction and the tangent to the filament projection on $`(x,z)`$-plane. Obviously, an explicit dependence of the coefficients on $`\vartheta `$ will be absent due to the symmetry of the system with respect to rotations in $`(x,z)`$-plane. Therefore separation of the variables will be possible and most simple solutions will have the form

$$t_\lambda (\rho ,\vartheta )=\text{Re}\left\{T_\lambda (\rho )\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )\right\},$$
(1)
where $`\lambda `$ is an arbitrary complex parameter, and the complex function $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )`$ satisfies the simple equation

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda ^{\prime \prime }(\vartheta )=\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta ).$$
(2)
To find the complex function $`T_\lambda (\rho )`$, it will be necessary to solve some ordinary linear differential equation of the second order with variable coefficients that will be considered in appropriate section of this paper. The corresponding geometrical configurations of the vortex filament strongly depend on $`\lambda `$. In particular, it will be shown the solutions (1) with real $`\lambda <1`$ describe such a shape of the (moving) vortex filament that its projection on $`(x,z)`$-plane has two asymptotes with the angle between them $`\mathrm{\Delta }\vartheta =\pi (11/\sqrt{\lambda })`$, while in the case $`\lambda >0`$ the projection has the shape of a two-branch spiral (see the figures).

This article is organized as follows. In section II a necessary brief review is given concerning the Hamiltonian formalism adopted to the problem of frozen-in vorticity, since this approach is the most clear and compact way to treat ideal flows. Then approximate local equations of motion for a vortex filament near a flat boundary are derived. In section III we demonstrate applicability of the hodograph method and introduce variables that are most convenient for the particular problem. Section IV is devoted to investigation of simple solutions obtained by the variables separation in the governing linear equation.

## II Long-scale local approximation

Existence itself of the ideal-hydrodynamic solutions in the form of quasi-one-dimensional vortex structures (vortex filaments) filling just a small part of the total fluid bulk is closely connected with the freezing-in property of the vortex lines LL6 ; Arnold ; Saffman ; Chorin ; ZK97 ; R2001PRE ; RPR2001PRE ; Salmon ; PadMor ; IL ; R99 ; R2000PRD ; RP2001PRD . Mathematically this property is expressed by the special form of the equation of motion for the divergence-free vorticity field $`𝛀(𝒓,t)=\text{curl }𝒗(𝒓,t)`$,

$$𝛀_t=\text{curl }[𝒗\times 𝛀],$$
(3)
where $`𝒗(𝒓,t)`$ is the velocity field. Since in this article we consider incompressible flows, we may write

$$𝒗=\text{curl }^1𝛀=\text{curl }(\mathrm{\Delta })^1𝛀,$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the 3D Laplace operator. As it is known, the action of the inverse nonlocal operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$ on an arbitrary function $`f(𝒓)`$ is given by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^1f(𝒓)=G(|𝒓𝒓_1|)f(𝒓_1)𝑑𝒓_1,$$
(5)
where

$$G(r)=\frac{1}{4\pi r}$$

is the Green function of the $`(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ operator in the boundless space. Hamiltonian noncanonical structure ZK97  of the equations of ideal incompressible hydrodynamics is based on the relation

$$𝒗=\text{curl }\left(\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝛀}\right),$$
(6)
where the Hamiltonian functional $`\{𝛀\}`$ is the kinetic energy of a homogeneous incompressible fluid (with unit density) expressed through the vorticity,

$$\{𝛀\}=\frac{1}{2}𝛀(\mathrm{\Delta })^1𝛀𝑑𝒓.$$
(7)
Our approach to investigation of the vortex filament motion is based on representation of the ideal homogeneous fluid flows in terms of the frozen-in vortex lines, as described, for instance, in R2000PRD ; R2001PRE ; RP2001PRD ; RPR2001PRE . The special form (3) of the equation of motion allows us express the vorticity field $`𝛀(𝒓,t)`$ in a self-consistent manner through the shape of the vortex lines (the so called formalism of vortex lines),

$$𝛀(𝒓,t)=_𝒩d^2\nu \delta (𝒓𝑹(\nu ,\xi ,t))𝑹_\xi (\nu ,\xi ,t)𝑑\xi ,$$
(8)
where $`\delta (\mathrm{})`$ is the 3D delta-function, $`𝒩`$ is some 2D manifold of labels enumerating the vortex lines ($`𝒩`$ is determined by topological properties of a particular flow), $`\nu 𝒩`$ is a label of an individual vortex line, $`\xi `$ is an arbitrary longitudinal parameter along the line. What is important, the dynamics of the line shape $`𝑹(\nu ,\xi ,t)=(X(\nu ,\xi ,t),Y(\nu ,\xi ,t),Z(\nu ,\xi ,t))`$ is determined by the variational principle

$$\delta \left[𝑑t\right]/\delta 𝑹(\nu ,\xi ,t)=0,$$

with the Lagrangian of the form

$$=_𝒩d^2\nu ([𝑹_\xi \times 𝑹_t]𝑫(𝑹))𝑑\xi \{𝛀\{𝑹\}\},$$
(9)
where the vector function $`𝑫(𝑹)`$ in the case of incompressible flows must satisfy the condition

$$(_𝑹𝑫(𝑹))=1.$$
(10)
Below we choose $`𝑫(𝑹)=(0,Y,0)`$.

Since we are going to deal with a very thin vortex filament, we will neglect the $`\nu `$-dependence of the shapes of individual vortex lines constituting the filament. By doing this step we exclude from further consideration all effects related to finite variable cross-section and longitudinal flows inside the filament. Thus, we consider an “infinitely narrow” vortex string with a shape $`𝑹(\xi ,t)`$ and with a finite circulation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_𝒩d^2\nu `$. However, the Hamiltonian of such singular filament diverges logarithmically,

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }\{𝑹(\xi )\}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{8\pi }\frac{𝑹^{}(\xi _1)𝑹^{}(\xi _2)d\xi _1d\xi _2}{|𝑹(\xi _1)𝑹(\xi _2)|}\mathrm{}$$
(11)
In order to regularize this double integral, it is possible, as a variant, to modify the Green function RPR2001PRE . For example, instead of the singular function $`G1/r`$ one can use a smooth function like $`G_a1/\sqrt{r^2+a^2}`$ or some other appropriate expression depending on a parameter $`a`$. It should be emphasized that relation $`𝛀=\text{curl }𝒗`$ is exactly satisfied only in the original non-regularized system, but in the case of a finite $`a`$ it is not valid on distances of order $`a`$ from the singular vortex string. Thus, the meaning of vorticity in regularized models is not so simple, but nevertheless, relation (6) remains valid in any case. Relatively small parameter $`a`$ in regularized models serves to imitate a finite width of vortex filament in the usual (non-regularized) hydrodynamics. The energy of the string turns out to be logarithmically large,

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }\{𝑹(\xi )\}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4\pi }|𝑹^{}(\xi )|\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝑹(\xi ))}{a}\right)𝑑\xi ,$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝑹)`$ is a typical scale depending on a given problem (in particular, the usual LIA uses $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ const $`a`$). In our case we consider two symmetric vortex filaments in the long-scale limit, when direction of the tangent vector varies weakly on a length of order $`Y`$. For such configurations, the energy concentrated in the half-space $`y>0`$ is approximately equal to the following expression

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4\pi }\sqrt{X^2+Y^2+Z^2}\mathrm{log}(2Y/a)𝑑\xi .$$
(13)
This local Hamiltonian is able to provide qualitatively correct dynamics of the filament down to longitudinal scales of order $`Y`$ where perturbations become stable and where non-locality comes to play. Unfortunately, we do not have a simple method to treat the Hamiltonian (13) analytically, that is why we will consider only very large scales ($`LY`$) and thus suppose the slope of the tangent vector to the boundary plane to be negligibly small (this means $`Y^2X^2+Z^2`$). Then, choosing as a longitudinal parameter $`\xi `$ simply the Cartesian coordinate $`x`$, we have the following approximate Lagrangian:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left\{Y\dot{Z}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{4\pi }\sqrt{1+Z^2}\mathrm{log}\left(2Y/a\right)\right\}𝑑x,$$
(14)
where the functions $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ depend on $`x`$ and $`t`$, $`\dot{Z}_tZ`$, $`Z^{}_xZ`$. Having neglected the term $`Y^2`$ under the square root, we sacrifice correct behaviour of perturbations with wave-lengths of order $`Y`$, but instead we obtain exactly solvable system, as it will be shown below.

Let us say a few words about geometrical meaning of the second term in r.h.s. of the expression (14). Since we study the very long-scale limit, locally the flow under consideration looks almost like a two-dimensional flow with a small vortex at the distance $`Y`$ from the straight boundary, and the expression $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }/4\pi )\mathrm{log}(2Y/a)`$ is just the energy of such 2D flow per unit length in the third (longitudinal) direction, while the multiplier $`\sqrt{1+Z^2}dx`$ gives the arc-length element in the longitudinal direction.

Now for simplicity we take new time and length scales to satisfy $`a=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\pi =1`$. After that we introduce new quantities $`\rho (x,t)=2Y(x,t)`$ and $`\mu (x,t)=_xZ(x,t)`$, and also the function $`H(\rho ,\mu )`$,

$$H(\rho ,\mu )=F(\rho )\sqrt{1+\mu ^2},$$
(15)
where

$$F(\rho )=\mathrm{log}\rho .$$
(16)
The corresponding equations of motion then can be written in the following remarkable general form:

$`\mu =_xZ,`$ (17)
$`_t\rho +_xH_\mu (\rho ,\mu )=0,`$ (18)
$`_tZ+H_\rho (\rho ,\mu )=0.`$ (19)
More explicitly, the last two equations are

$`\rho _t+{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F(\rho )Z_x}{\sqrt{1+Z_x^2}}}\right]=0,`$ (20)
$`_tZ+F^{}(\rho )\sqrt{1+Z_x^2}=0.`$ (21)
These equations have a simple geometrical treatment. Indeed, Eq.(21) means if we consider the dynamics of the filament projection on $`(x,z)`$-plane, then we see an element of the projection moving in the normal to the projection tangent direction with the velocity depending only on $`\rho `$ and equal to $`F^{}(\rho )`$. Simultaneously, in $`y`$-direction the element of the filament moves with the velocity proportional to the $`(x,z)`$-projection curvature multiplied by the function $`F(\rho )`$, as Eq.(20) shows.

It is interesting to note that an analogous consideration can give us also long-scale Hamiltonian equations of motion for a thin vortex filament in a slab of an ideal fluid between two parallel fixed boundaries at $`y=d/2`$ and $`y=+d/2`$. One has just to define the $`\rho `$-variable by the formula $`\rho =(\pi /d)y`$ and make in Eq.(15) substitution $`F(\rho )F^{(ϵ)}(\rho )`$ where

$$F^{(ϵ)}(\rho )=\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\rho }{ϵ}\right),$$
(22)
with a small dimensionless parameter $`ϵ`$.

## III Hodograph method

It is known that any nonlinear system of the form (17)-(19) can be locally reduced to a linear equation if we take $`\rho `$ and $`\mu `$ as new independent variables (this is the so called hodograph method; see, for instance, LL6  where a particular case is discussed, the 1D gas dynamics, with $`H(\rho ,\mu )=\rho \mu ^2/2+\epsilon (\rho )`$, where $`\rho `$, $`\mu `$, $`\epsilon (\rho )`$ are the gas density, gas velocity, and the internal energy density respectively). Indeed, as from equations (17) and (19) we see the relation

$$dZ=\mu dxH_\rho dt,$$

it is convenient to introduce the auxiliary function $`\chi (\rho ,\mu )`$,

$$\chi =Zx\mu +tH_\rho $$
(23)
in order to obtain

$$d\chi =xd\mu +tH_{\rho \rho }d\rho +tH_{\rho \mu }d\mu .$$

From the above expression we easily derive

$$t=\frac{\chi _\rho }{H_{\rho \rho }},x=H_{\rho \mu }\frac{\chi _\rho }{H_{\rho \rho }}\chi _\mu .$$
(24)
After that we rewrite Eq.(18) in the form

$$\frac{(\rho ,x)}{(t,x)}H_{\mu \rho }\frac{(\rho ,t)}{(t,x)}H_{\mu \mu }\frac{(\mu ,t)}{(t,x)}=0$$

and multiply it by the Jacobian $`(t,x)/(\rho ,\mu )`$,

$$\frac{(\rho ,x)}{(\rho ,\mu )}H_{\mu \rho }\frac{(\rho ,t)}{(\rho ,\mu )}H_{\mu \mu }\frac{(\mu ,t)}{(\rho ,\mu )}=0.$$

Thus, now we have

$$x_\mu =H_{\mu \rho }t_\mu H_{\mu \mu }t_\rho .$$
(25)
Substitution of the relations (24) into this equation and subsequent simplification give us the linear partial differential equation of the second order for the function $`\chi (\rho ,\mu )`$,

$$(H_{\mu \mu }\chi _\rho /H_{\rho \rho })_\rho \chi _{\mu \mu }=0.$$
(26)
As the function $`H(\rho ,\mu )`$ has the special form (15), it is convenient to change variables,

$$\mu =\mathrm{tan}\vartheta ,\chi (\rho ,\vartheta )=\frac{u(\rho ,\vartheta )}{\mathrm{cos}\vartheta },$$
(27)
where $`\vartheta `$ is the angle in $`(x,z)`$-plane between $`x`$-direction and the tangent to the corresponding projection of the vortex filament. As the result, the relations (23) and (24) will be rewritten in the form

$`t={\displaystyle \frac{u_\rho }{F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )}}`$ (29)
$`x=u_\vartheta \mathrm{cos}\vartheta +\left(u{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}(\rho )}{F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )}}u_\rho \right)\mathrm{sin}\vartheta ,`$
$`Z=u_\vartheta \mathrm{sin}\vartheta \left(u{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}(\rho )}{F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )}}u_\rho \right)\mathrm{cos}\vartheta ,`$ (30)
and the coefficients of the linear equation for the function $`u(\rho ,\vartheta )`$ will not depend on $`\vartheta `$-variable,

$$\frac{}{\rho }\left(\frac{F(\rho )}{F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )}u_\rho \right)(u_{\vartheta \vartheta }+u)=0.$$
(31)
The same is true for the coefficients of the equation determining the function $`t(\rho ,\vartheta )=u_\rho (\rho ,\vartheta )/F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )`$,

$$F(\rho )t_{\rho \rho }+2F^{}(\rho )t_\rho F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )t_{\vartheta \vartheta }=0.$$
(32)
Once some particular solution of Eq.(31) is known, then further procedure consists in the following two steps:

i) find in terms of some parameter $`\xi `$ the curves of constant values of the function $`t=u_\rho (\rho ,\vartheta )/F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )`$. It is this point where nonlinearity comes to play, since we need to solve nonlinear equation;

ii) substitute the obtained expressions $`\rho =\rho (\xi ,t)`$ and $`\vartheta =\vartheta (\xi ,t)`$ into Eqs.(29-30) and get complete description of the filament motion, $`X=X(\xi ,t)`$, $`Z=Z(\xi ,t)`$, $`Y=(1/2)\rho (\xi ,t)`$.

Thus, the long-scale local approximation (14) turns out to be integrable in the sense it is reduced to the linear equation (31). However, the function $`u(\rho ,\vartheta )`$ is multi-valued in the general case. Therefore statement of the Cauchy problem becomes much more complicated. Besides, the functions $`F(\rho )`$ and $`F^{(ϵ)}(\rho )`$ determined by expressions (16) and (22) result in elliptic linear equations as against the usual 1D gas dynamics where the corresponding equations were hyperbolic. Generally speaking, the ellipticity makes the Cauchy problem ill-posed in the mathematical sense if initial data are not very smooth. However, in this article we will not discuss these questions, instead in the following section we will present simple particular solutions that during some time interval satisfy the applicability conditions for the long-scale approximation.

## IV Particular solutions

### IV.1 Separation of the variables

We are going to consider the simplest particular solutions of Eq.(31) obtainable by separation of the variables

$$u_\lambda (\rho ,\vartheta )=\text{Re}\left\{U_\lambda (\rho )\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )\right\},$$
(33)
where $`\lambda `$ is an arbitrary complex spectral parameter,

$$\lambda =(\varkappa +ik)^2,k0,$$
(34)
and the function $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )`$ contains two arbitrary complex constants $`C_\lambda ^+`$ and $`C_\lambda ^{}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )=C_\lambda ^+\mathrm{exp}[(\varkappa +ik)\vartheta ]+C_\lambda ^{}\mathrm{exp}[(\varkappa +ik)\vartheta ].$$
(35)
The motion of the vortex filament will be described by the formulas

$`t_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{U_\lambda ^{}(\rho )}{F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )}}\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )\right\},`$ (36)
$`x_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}\{U_\lambda (\rho )\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda ^{}(\vartheta )\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$ (37)
$`+(U_\lambda (\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{F^{}(\rho )}{F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )}}U_\lambda ^{}(\rho ))\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \},`$
$`Z_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}\{U_\lambda (\rho )\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda ^{}(\vartheta )\mathrm{sin}\vartheta `$ (38)
$`(U_\lambda (\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{F^{}(\rho )}{F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )}}U_\lambda ^{}(\rho ))\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \}.`$
The function $`U_\lambda (\rho )`$ must satisfy the ordinary differential equation of the second order

$$\frac{d}{d\rho }\left(\frac{F(\rho )}{F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )}U_\lambda ^{}(\rho )\right)(\lambda +1)U_\lambda (\rho )=0.$$
(39)
Let us turn a bit of attention to the special value $`\lambda =1`$ of the spectral parameter, when the solution of Eq.(39) can be explicitly written for any function $`F(\rho )`$,

$$U_1(\rho )=A_1^\rho \frac{F^{\prime \prime }(\rho _1)d\rho _1}{F(\rho _1)}+B_1,$$
(40)
where $`A_1`$ and $`B_1`$ are arbitrary complex constants.

At $`\lambda 1`$ it can be convenient to deal with the function

$$T_\lambda (\rho )=\frac{U_\lambda ^{}(\rho )}{F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )},$$
(41)
that satisfies the equation

$$F(\rho )T_\lambda ^{\prime \prime }(\rho )+2F^{}(\rho )T_\lambda ^{}(\rho )\lambda F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )T_\lambda (\rho )=0.$$
(42)
In particular, Eq.(42) is simply solvable at $`\lambda =0`$ (this solution describes the motion of a perfect vortex ring),

$$T_0(\rho )=A_0^\rho \frac{d\rho _1}{F^2(\rho _1)}+B_0.$$
(43)
Simple manipulations with formulas (36-39) allow us rewrite the solutions in the form

$`t_\lambda =\text{Re}\left\{T_\lambda (\rho )\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )\right\},`$ (45)
$`x_\lambda =\text{Re}\{(\lambda +1)^1\{[F(\rho )T_\lambda (\rho )]^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda ^{}(\vartheta )\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$
$`+[\lambda F^{}(\rho )T_\lambda (\rho )F(\rho )T_\lambda ^{}(\rho )]\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \}\},`$
$`Z_\lambda =\text{Re}\{(\lambda +1)^1\{[F(\rho )T_\lambda (\rho )]^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda ^{}(\vartheta )\mathrm{sin}\vartheta `$ (46)
$`[\lambda F^{}(\rho )T_\lambda (\rho )F(\rho )T_\lambda ^{}(\rho )]\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \}\}.`$
### IV.2 Real $`\lambda `$

Let us first consider real values of the spectral parameter, $`\lambda `$, and the corresponding real functions $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )`$ and $`U_\lambda (\rho )`$. Since $`F(\rho )>0`$, $`F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )<0`$, we may expect the solutions $`U_\lambda (\rho )`$ with $`\lambda 1`$ to have a number of oscillations, the more, the more $`\lambda `$ is. In the opposite case, when $`\lambda <1`$, the solutions will be a linear combination of two functions, one of them being increasing, and other decreasing. It is sufficient to know these general properties to get an impression concerning geometrical configurations of the vortex filament described by the formulas (45-46). Let us take $`\lambda =k^2`$ with $`k>1`$ and suppose the explicit dependence $`T_{k^2}(\rho )`$ to be known and increasing at large $`\rho `$. For simplicity we take $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{k^2}(\vartheta )=\mathrm{cos}(k\vartheta )`$ and after that resolve the relation (45) with respect to $`\vartheta `$,

$$\vartheta =\pm \frac{1}{k}\mathrm{arccos}\left[\frac{t}{T_{k^2}(\rho )}\right].$$
(47)
Substitution of this expression into formulas (45-46) gives us final form of the solutions as dependences $`X_{k^2}(\rho ,t)`$ and $`Z_{k^2}(\rho ,t)`$,

$`X_{k^2}(\rho ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{k^2F^{}(\rho )T_{k^2}(\rho )+F(\rho )T_{k^2}^{}(\rho )}{k^21}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t}{T_{k^2}(\rho )}}\right]\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\mathrm{arccos}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t}{T_{k^2}(\rho )}}\right]\right)`$ (48)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{k[F(\rho )T_{k^2}(\rho )]^{}}{k^21}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{T_{k^2}^2(\rho )}}\right]^{1/2}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\mathrm{arccos}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t}{T_{k^2}(\rho )}}\right]\right),`$
$`Z_{k^2}(\rho ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2F^{}(\rho )T_{k^2}(\rho )+F(\rho )T_{k^2}^{}(\rho )}{k^21}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t}{T_{k^2}(\rho )}}\right]\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\mathrm{arccos}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t}{T_{k^2}(\rho )}}\right]\right)`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{k[F(\rho )T_{k^2}(\rho )]^{}}{k^21}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{T_{k^2}^2(\rho )}}\right]^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\mathrm{arccos}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t}{T_{k^2}(\rho )}}\right]\right).`$
The $`\rho `$-variable in the above expressions varies in the limits from $`\rho _{min}(t)`$ such that $`t=T_{k^2}(\rho _{min})`$, to $`+\mathrm{}`$. The corresponding curve in $`(x,z)`$-plane is a smoothed angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\vartheta =\pi (11/k)`$ \[see Figs.(1-2) where for the case $`F(\rho )=\mathrm{log}\rho `$ the filament shape is shown at several time moments, $`t_{n+1}t_n=`$ const\].

Completely different form is obtained at $`\lambda =\varkappa ^2`$, two-branch spirals \[see Fig.(3)\]. Let us take $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\varkappa ^2}(\vartheta )=\mathrm{exp}(\varkappa \vartheta )`$. Then

$$\vartheta =\frac{1}{\varkappa }\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{t}{T_{\varkappa ^2}(\rho )}\right],$$
(50)
$`X_{\varkappa ^2}(\rho ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{T_{\varkappa ^2}(\rho )}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\varkappa ^2F^{}(\rho )T_{\varkappa ^2}(\rho )F(\rho )T_{\varkappa ^2}^{}(\rho )}{\varkappa ^2+1}}\mathrm{sin}\right({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varkappa }}\mathrm{log}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t}{T_{\varkappa ^2}(\rho )}}\right])`$ (51)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varkappa [F(\rho )T_{\varkappa ^2}(\rho )]^{}}{\varkappa ^2+1}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varkappa }}\mathrm{log}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t}{T_{\varkappa ^2}(\rho )}}\right]\right)\},`$
$`Z_{\varkappa ^2}(\rho ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{T_{\varkappa ^2}(\rho )}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\varkappa ^2F^{}(\rho )T_{\varkappa ^2}(\rho )F(\rho )T_{\varkappa ^2}^{}(\rho )}{\varkappa ^2+1}}\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varkappa }}\mathrm{log}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t}{T_{\varkappa ^2}(\rho )}}\right])`$ (52)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varkappa [F(\rho )T_{\varkappa ^2}(\rho )]^{}}{\varkappa ^2+1}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varkappa }}\mathrm{log}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t}{T_{\varkappa ^2}(\rho )}}\right]\right)\}.`$
The variable $`\rho `$ runs here between two neighbour zeros of the function $`T_{\varkappa ^2}(\rho )`$ and approaches these values at two logarithmic branches of the spiral, $`\rho _j^{(\varkappa )}<\rho <\rho _{j+1}^{(\varkappa )}`$.

### IV.3 The case $`F(\rho )=\mathrm{log}\rho `$

For further investigation let us substitute $`F(\rho )=\mathrm{log}\rho `$ into the equations (36-39) and change the variable

$$q=\mathrm{log}\rho .$$

As the result, we will obtain

$`t_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}\{e^qU_\lambda ^{}(q)\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )\},`$ (53)
$`x_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}\{U_\lambda (q)\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda ^{}(\vartheta )\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$ (54)
$`+[U_\lambda (q)+U_\lambda ^{}(q)]\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \},`$
$`Z_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}\{U_\lambda (q)\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda ^{}(\vartheta )\mathrm{sin}\vartheta `$ (55)
$`[U_\lambda (q)+U_\lambda ^{}(q)]\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\vartheta )\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \}.`$
$$qU_\lambda ^{\prime \prime }(q)+(1+q)U_\lambda ^{}(q)+(1+\lambda )U_\lambda (q)=0.$$
(56)
General solution of Eq.(56) is representable by the Laplace method LL3  as arbitrary linear combination $`A_\lambda I_\lambda ^𝒜(q)+B_\lambda I_\lambda ^{}(q)`$ of two contour integrals in a complex plane,

$`U_\lambda (q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_\lambda }{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _𝒜}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p}{p+1}}\right)^{\lambda +1}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{pq}dp}{p}}`$ (57)
$`+B_\lambda {\displaystyle _{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p}{p+1}}\right)^{\lambda +1}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{pq}dp}{p}}.`$
Here the first closed contour $`𝒜`$ goes around the points $`p_0=0`$ and $`p_1=1`$. The second contour $``$ is not closed, at positive $`q`$ it starts at $`\text{Re }p=\mathrm{}`$. If $`\text{Re }\lambda <0`$, then $``$ ends at $`p_1`$, but if $`\text{Re }\lambda 0`$, then its end point is $`p_0`$. In both cases at the end point of the contour $``$ the integrand multiplied by $`p(p+1)`$ tends to zero.

It is interesting to note that at the integer values of the parameter $`\lambda `$ the integral $`I_\lambda ^𝒜(q)`$ can be expressed in terms of polynomials:

$`I_\lambda ^𝒜(q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _𝒜}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p}{p+1}}\right)^{\lambda +1}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{pq}dp}{p}}`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{c}\hfill \left(1+\frac{d}{dq}\right)^{|\lambda |1}\frac{q^{|\lambda |1}}{(|\lambda |1)!},\lambda =1,2,..;\\ \hfill e^q\left(\frac{d}{dq}1\right)^\lambda \frac{q^\lambda }{\lambda !},\lambda =0,1,2,\mathrm{}\end{array}`$ (60)
These expressions have been used to prepare Figs.(1)-(3) where the vortex filament shape corresponding to $`U_\lambda (q)=I_\lambda ^𝒜(q)`$ is drawn for several moments of time. It is easily to see, at sufficiently large times the spirals satisfy the conditions a), b), c) that have been formulated in the Introduction. As to the angle-shaped configurations, the condition $`Y^2X^2+Z^2`$, generally speaking, is not satisfied at $`qk^2`$, since at very large $`q`$ (on the asymptotes of the angle) the growth of $`Y\mathrm{exp}(q)`$ is faster than growth of $`X,ZU_{k^2}(q)q^{k^21}`$. Therefore, if we take a particular solution $`u=U_{k^2}(q)\mathrm{cos}(k\vartheta )`$ separately, not as a term in a more complex linear combination, then we have to deal only with large $`k`$, and consider only the pieces of the filament where $`\mathrm{2..3}qk^2`$.

### IV.4 The case $`F(\rho )=\rho ^\alpha /\alpha `$

In Ref.RPR2001PRE  we investigated another regularization of the Hamiltonian functional that corresponds to $`F(\rho )=\rho ^\alpha /\alpha `$, with some small positive parameter $`\alpha `$. That time we did not see applicability of the hodograph method and therefore we were able to find only few particular solutions. Now it has been clear that in this case a simple substitution exists that reduces the problem to 2D equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2f+f=0`$. Thus, it becomes possible to present a very wide class of solutions of the equation

$$\rho ^2t_{\rho \rho }+2\alpha \rho t_\rho +\alpha (1\alpha )t_{\vartheta \vartheta }=0$$
(61)
as linear combinations of singular fundamental solutions (that are expressed through the McDonald function $`K_0`$) and regular exponential or polynomial solutions. Indeed, by the substitutions

$$\rho =e^q,\vartheta =\varphi \sqrt{\alpha (1\alpha )},t=e^{(1/2\alpha )q}f(q,\varphi )$$
(62)
Eq.(61) is reduced to the equation with constant coefficients,

$$f_{qq}+f_{\varphi \varphi }(1/2\alpha )^2f=0.$$
(63)
As it is well known, the fundamental solutions of this equation have the form

$$f(q,\varphi ;q_0,\varphi _0)=K_0\left(\left|\frac{1}{2}\alpha \right|\sqrt{(qq_0)^2+(\varphi \varphi _0)^2}\right),$$
(64)
where $`q_0`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ are arbitrary parameters. Therefore Eq.(61) has particular solutions

$$t=\rho ^{1/2\alpha }K_0\left(\left|\frac{1}{2}\alpha \right|\sqrt{\left[\mathrm{log}\frac{\rho }{\rho _0}\right]^2+\frac{(\vartheta \vartheta _0)^2}{\alpha (1\alpha )}}\right).$$
(65)
It is interesting to note that at $`\alpha =1/2`$ the system possesses conformal symmetry. A deep reason of this symmetry is not clear yet.

As concerning separation of the variables, the function $`T_\lambda (\rho )`$ in Eqs.(45)-(46) is given by the expression

$$T_\lambda (\rho )=A_\lambda ^+\rho ^{s_+(\lambda )}+A_\lambda ^{}\rho ^{s_{}(\lambda )},$$
(66)
where $`A_\lambda ^\pm `$ are arbitrary constants. The complex exponents $`s_\pm (\lambda )`$ are the roots of the quadratic equation

$$s(s1)+2\alpha s+\alpha (1\alpha )\lambda =0.$$
(67)
Thus,

$$s_\pm (\lambda )=1/2\alpha \pm \sqrt{\left(1/2\alpha \right)^2\alpha (1\alpha )\lambda }.$$
(68)
It should be mentioned the solutions presented in RPR2001PRE  correspond to the particular case $`\alpha +s=2`$.

## V Conclusions

In this article an approximate exactly solvable nonlinear model has been derived to describe unstable locally-quasi-2D ideal flows with a thin vortex filament near a flat boundary. The hodograph method has been applied and some particular solutions have been analytically found by variables separation in the governing linear partial differential equation for auxiliary function $`u`$. More general solutions $`u(\rho ,\vartheta )`$ can be obtained as linear combinations of the terms (33) with different $`\lambda `$, but only in few cases it will be possible to resolve analytically the dependence $`t=u_\rho (\rho ,\vartheta )/F^{\prime \prime }(\rho )`$. However, this procedure can be performed numerically.

Though we derived the exactly solvable model under several restrictive simplifications, the solutions obtained in this work promise benefit in many aspects. For instance, they may serve as basic approximations in future more advanced analytical studies that will take into account effects of non-locality and/or finite variable cross-section of the filament, as well as surface waves in the case of free boundary.

### Acknowledgments

These investigations were supported by INTAS (grant No. 00-00292), by RFBR , by the Russian State Program of Support of the Leading Scientific Schools, and by the Science Support Foundation, Russia.