text:
# No-nonsense Casimir force

## Abstract

Two thin conducting, electrically neutral, parallel plates forming an isolated system in vacuum exert attracting force on each other, whose origin is the quantum electrodynamical interaction. This theoretical hypothesis, known as Casimir effect, has been also confirmed experimentally. Despite long history of the subject, no completely convincing theoretical analysis of this effect appears in the literature. Here we discuss the effect (for the scalar field) anew, on a revised physical and mathematical basis. Standard, but advanced methods of relativistic quantum theory are used. No anomalous features of the conventional approaches appear. The Casimir quantitative prediction for the force is shown to constitute the leading asymptotic term, for large separation of the plates, of the full, model-dependent expression.

One of the significant visualizations of a quantized field in the early development of the relativistic quantum theory has been that of an ensemble of oscillators (see e.g. ). One found a close mathematical relation between a quantum field and an infinite collection of quantum harmonic oscillators, each characterized by its characteristic frequency $`\omega _\alpha `$, and taking on one of the energy values $`E_{\alpha ,n_\alpha }=\mathrm{}\omega _\alpha (n_\alpha +\frac{1}{2})`$. The collection of the amplitudes of the oscillators reflects the strength of the field. The lowest energy state of the field, the vacuum state, is represented by all of the oscillators being in their respective ground states. The mean value of the field vanishes in this state, but the mean value of the field strength squared does not. This shows, one says, that vacuum fluctuates, the energy of these fluctuations being equal to $`(\mathrm{}/2)_\alpha \omega _\alpha `$ (the “zero-modes sum”, or “zero-point energy”, as it has been christened). This sum is infinite, but, as one is told, the energy differences is what counts experimentally, not the absolute value.

This early picture has been, of course, superseded by later developments in the quantum field theory (QFT). In particular, one of the earliest instances of renormalization, normal ordering of operators, eliminated the infinite energy of the vacuum state and renormalized it to zero. Fluctuations of the field strength simply reflect the fact that vacuum is not an eigenstate of the field (neither is any other state), but they are not dynamical, and cannot be a possible source of extractable energy. However, it is an astonishing fact that there does exist an isolated area, in which the “zero-modes” ideology has been in use to date. In a 1948 paper  Casimir considered situation in which two thin conducting, electrically neutral, parallel plates are placed in the vacuum. The presence of these plates creates boundary conditions for the electromagnetic field, which change the characteristic frequencies of field oscillators to $`\omega _\alpha (a)`$, depending on the separation of the plates $`a`$. The lowest state is now characterized by the energy $`(\mathrm{}/2)_\alpha \omega _\alpha (a)`$. This is again infinite, but Casimir regularized it so as to squeeze a finite result out of it. Minus derivative of this expression is supposed to give the force between the plates. His prediction for the force, as is well known, was $`(\pi ^2/240)\mathrm{}ca^4`$. The paper addressed an interesting and fundamental quantum phenomenon, and is deservedly regarded as a pioneering work. The method it used, however, reflects the relatively early stage of the development of QFT, and today it should not be taken as a serious base of further research in this field, as it still very often is (see review articles on the subject ; the Casimir reasoning is even reported, virtually unchanged, by some respectable textbooks on modern QFT, see e.g. Ref.). Other methods, based on the local energy expectation value, have been also used in the present context . However, these calculations ignore the algebraic difficulty which we are going to discuss below. We leave the discussion of local aspects to a more extensive future publication.

Consider the system investigated by Casimir, a quantum field plus plates, where for simplicity we take scalar field. Its most satisfactory description would be achieved, as usually in physics, by constructing a closed theory of both elements in mutual interaction. Here we leave this ambitious task aside, we would like to understand first the reasonable approximate idealization in which the plates are regarded infinitely heavy (hence, in particular, classical). We want to show that even for that restricted purpose the usual naive treatment of the concept of quantum field is not sufficient. Proper care has to be taken with respect to the algebraic structure of the theory, including the scope of quantum variables under consideration, their various representations, and the time evolution of the system. The algebraic aspects of quantum theory, already stressed by Dirac in his monograph on quantum mechanics, has been growing in importance, especially with the creation of the Haag–Kastler framework for local algebras in quantum physics (see the monograph ). Today the algebraic approach is the most general and flexible framework for considering fundamental questions in quantum physics. We start our analysis by sketching the theory of free scalar field in the initial conditions formulation, stressing the algebraic aspects. We use the units with $`\mathrm{}=1`$, $`c=1`$.

Let $`_0`$ denote the real vector space formed by pairs of functions on the $`3`$-space $`(v(\stackrel{}{x}),v_t(\stackrel{}{x}))`$, each of which is an element of the vector space $`𝒟_{}`$ of real, infinitely differentiable functions with compact support ($`_0`$ is the direct sum $`𝒟_{}𝒟_{}`$). The elements of $`_0`$ will be denoted by $`V(v,v_t)`$, and the vector arguments suppressed. $`_0`$ becomes a symplectic space with the introduction of the symplectic form

$$\sigma (V_1,V_2)=(v_2(\stackrel{}{x})v_1{}_{t}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{x})v_1(\stackrel{}{x})v_2{}_{t}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{x}))d^3x.$$
(1)
The real scalar quantized field is a set of elements $`\varphi (V)`$ generating an algebra by the relations

$$\varphi (V)^{}=\varphi (V),[\varphi (V_1),\varphi (V_2)]=i\sigma (V_1,V_2).$$
(2)
(More precise formulation expresses the above relations in terms of Weyl elements $`W(V)=\mathrm{exp}i\varphi (V)`$, in order to avoid domain problems.) The element $`\varphi ((0,v_t))`$ has the interpretation of the field operator “smeared” with the test function $`v_t(\stackrel{}{x})`$, and the element $`\varphi ((v,0))`$ – the interpretation of the canonical momentum “smeared” with the test function $`v(\stackrel{}{x})`$; the elements are localized in the support of their test functions. The free, massless evolution of the quantum field is obtained by a simple “quantization” of the classical linear evolution determined by the wave equation. Denote by $`h_0`$ the square root of the positive operator $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ acting on $`L^2(^3,d^3x)`$. Then the evolution of the initial conditions for this equation is given by the transformation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v_0(t)& =\mathrm{cos}(h_0t)v+\mathrm{sin}(h_0t)h_0^1v_t,\hfill \\ \hfill v_0{}_{t}{}^{}(t)& =\mathrm{sin}(h_0t)h_0v+\mathrm{cos}(h_0t)v_t\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
(implying $`v_0(0)=v`$, $`v_0{}_{t}{}^{}(0)=v_t`$). Note that $`v_0(t)`$ and $`v_0{}_{t}{}^{}(t)`$ are in $`𝒟_{}`$, so $`V_0(t)(v_0(t),v_0{}_{t}{}^{}(t))_0`$. The evolution is a symplectic transformation, that is,

$$\sigma (V_1{}_{0}{}^{}(t),V_2{}_{0}{}^{}(t))=\sigma (V_1,V_2).$$
(4)
The quantum field evolves according to automorphic map of the algebra

$$\alpha _{0t}\varphi (V)=\varphi (V_0(t)).$$
(5)
The next step is the construction of the vacuum representation – the unique representation in which the operator of energy has an eigenvector, and its spectrum is bounded from below. This is achieved, as is well known, by separating “positive frequencies” from “negative frequencies” in the evolution law of the field and interpreting the coefficients of this two parts as creation and annihilation operators respectively. More precisely, this amounts to the following. Take the Hilbert space $`𝒦L^2(^3,d^3x)`$ as the “one-particle space”. By taking multiple direct products of $`𝒦`$, and then forming the direct sum of these products, construct a standard Fock space $``$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ the distinguished normalized vector in $``$ (“Fock vacuum”), and by $`a(f)`$, $`a^{}(f)`$, for $`f𝒦`$, the usual annihilation and creation operators in $``$. The real-linear operator $`j_0:_0𝒦`$ defined by

$$j_0(V)=2^{1/2}\left(h_0^{1/2}vih_0^{1/2}v_t\right)$$
(6)
extracts the positive frequency part of the evolution:

$$j_0(V_0(t))=e^{ih_0t}j_0(V),$$
(7)
(note that $`j_0`$ is well defined, as $`𝒟_{}𝒟(h_0^{1/2})𝒟(h_0^{1/2})`$). The vacuum representation $`\pi _0\left(\varphi (V)\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_0(V)`$ is now defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0(V)=a(j_0(V))+a^{}(j_0(V)).$$
(8)
In this representation the evolution is implemented by the unitary operator $`U_0(t)=\mathrm{exp}iH_0t`$, with $`H_0`$ having the interpretation of the field energy operator, by

$$U_0(t)\mathrm{\Phi }_0(V)U_0(t)^1=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(V_0(t)).$$
(9)
If $`\{f_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is any (orthonormal) basis of $`𝒦`$ in the domain of $`h_0^{1/2}`$, then $`H_0`$ may be represented by

$$H_0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a^{}(h_0^{1/2}f_i)a(h_0^{1/2}f_i).$$
(10)
Hence, in particular, $`H_0`$ is positive, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is the physical vacuum: $`H_0\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0`$.

The theory is thus defined, but one should bear in mind three levels of specialization in the construction: Eqs. (12) define the algebra, Eqs. (35) the free evolution, and Eqs. (610) the vacuum representation. One should also point out that the choice of the basic vector space for the canonical relations ($`_0`$ above) is to certain extent flexible, as long as all consistency conditions are satisfied as above.

Now we can return to our task of investigating Casimir effect. In the first step one has to define a one-parameter family of time evolutions of our field algebra, enforced by the presence of the conducting plates at all possible (but fixed) distances $`a`$ (we place one of them in the $`x\text{-}y`$ plane ($`z=0`$), and another parallel at $`z=a`$). This should amount to imitating the steps embodied by Eqs. (35), with $`h_0`$ replaced by the square root $`h`$ of the positive operator $`h^2`$ in $`L^2(^3,d^3x)`$ defined uniquely as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with Dirichlet conditions on the plates. Here, however, one encounters a serious difficulty. The new classical evolution law, Eq. (3) with $`h`$ replacing $`h_0`$, implies that $`v`$ has to lie in $`𝒟(h)`$, the domain of $`h`$. Now, all functions in $`𝒟(h)`$ vanish on the plates ($`𝒟(h)`$ is equal to the direct sum of the three Sobolev spaces $`H_0^1`$ for each of the three closed regions into which the whole space is divided by the plates ). The new evolutions may not be defined on our algebra. Moreover, any other acceptable choice of the symplectic space will not solve the problem: with varying separation $`a`$ one sees that $`v`$ would have to vanish in the whole region of interest, making the theory trivial. Physically this means that the idealization of sharp Dirichlet conditions at variable positions is unphysical, at least in the approximation of heavy, classical plates. No traditional approach is able to clarify the source of this difficulty. Trying to ignore the difficulty, one is bound to encounter infinities of physical, and not only technical, origin.

The only possible solution is choosing some other model for the interaction with the plates, some “softened” version of the Dirichlet condition; this “softening” will affect the dynamics in the $`z`$-direction. Moreover, one should also expect difficulties coming from the infinite extension of the plates (they would not appear, e.g., for spherical shells). This is, however, not serious, as we are interested in quantities (e.g. force) per unit area of the plates, so we can approximate by large, but finite extension plates (taking limit at an appropriate point). What we propose, therefore, is the following. Put $`h_{}^2=_x^2_y^2`$ on $`L^2((L_x/2,+L_x/2)\times (L_y/2,+L_y/2),dxdy)`$ with Dirichlet conditions at $`x=\pm L_x/2`$, $`y=\pm L_y/2`$, with large, but finite $`L_x`$, $`L_y`$; denote $`h_{0z}^2=_z^2`$ on $`L^2(,dz)`$ and redefine $`h_0^2=h_{}^2+h_{0z}^2`$. Change the model for plates by changing the operator of $`z`$-motion from $`h_z`$, which ensures strict Dirichlet condition, to $`\stackrel{~}{h}_z`$. For the moment we only assume that $`\stackrel{~}{h}_zh_{0z}`$ is a bounded operator on $`L^2(,dz)`$, commuting with the complex conjugation. Finally, set $`\stackrel{~}{h}^2=h_{}^2+\stackrel{~}{h}_z^2`$.

With this constructions the operators $`h_0^1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}^1`$ are bounded, whereas the domains of $`h_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ are identical (the last statement follows from the equivalence of the norms on $`𝒟(h_0)`$: $`\left(\psi ^2+h_0\psi ^2\right)^{1/2}`$ and $`\left(\psi ^2+\stackrel{~}{h}\psi ^2\right)^{1/2}`$). We modify the choice of the field algebra by replacing the original space $`_0`$ by $`=𝒟_{}(h_0)L_{}^2((L_x/2,+L_x/2)\times (L_y/2,+L_y/2)\times ,d^3x)`$, where the subscript $``$ denotes the real part. The defining Eqs. (1,2) remain intact. It is now easy to show that both the free $`h_0`$-evolution as well as all new $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-evolutions are correctly defined on our new algebra by Eqs. (35) (for the $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-evolutions obvious changes of notation are to be understood: $`h_0\stackrel{~}{h}`$, $`V_0(t)\stackrel{~}{V}(t)`$, $`\alpha _{0t}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t`$). The $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-evolutions are interpreted as the evolutions of the field under the external conditions created by the influence of the plates.

The construction of the vacuum representation of the modified algebra remains unchanged, as outlined by Eqs. (610), except that now $`𝒦=L^2((L_x/2,+L_x/2)\times (L_y/2,+L_y/2)\times ,d^3x)`$, and $`j_0:𝒦`$ in (6). By similar method one constructs “minimal energy state” representations with respect to each of the $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-evolutions (“energy” means now the field energy together with interaction energy with fixed plates). The analog of Eq. (6) defines $`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}`$ (well defined, as $`𝒟(A)𝒟(A^{1/2})`$ for each positive $`A`$), and the analog of Eq. (7) shows its role. The new representations $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }(\varphi (V))\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(V)`$ are constructed in the same Fock space, and with the use of the same creation and annihilation operators, but with $`j_0`$ replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}`$ in the analog of (8). The $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-evolution is implemented in this representation as in (9) if we replace $`V_0(t)`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{V}(t)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and $`U_0(t)`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{U}(t)=\mathrm{exp}i\stackrel{~}{H}t`$. $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is given by (10), with $`h_0`$ replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$, but only up to a multiple of the unit operator. This ambiguity becomes nontrivial if one changes the position of the plates (and, consequently, $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$), and is the result of our not having the full interacting theory at our disposal. The vector state $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, however, with no ambiguity is the minimal $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$-energy state in this representation.

In the next step towards our goal one has to answer the question, whether various constructed representations are unitarily equivalent. If they are not, the situations to which they refer are physically non-comparable, and no quantities referring to the change of the distance between the plates may sensibly be determined. As the vacuum representation $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(V)`$ defines the energy of the field itself, we want to transform the other representations to this one. We ask therefore, whether there does exist for each $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ a unitary operator $`Q`$ such that $`Q\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(V)Q^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(V)`$ for all $`V`$. To answer the question one uses standard methods. One can show that $`j_0()=𝒟(h_0^{1/2})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}()=𝒟(\stackrel{~}{h}^{1/2})`$. Denote by $`K`$ the operator of complex conjugation on $`𝒦`$ and define operators $`T=2^1(j_0\stackrel{~}{ȷ}^1ij_0\stackrel{~}{ȷ}^1i)=2^1(h_0^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{h}^{1/2}+h_0^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{h}^{1/2})`$, $`S=2^1(j_0\stackrel{~}{ȷ}^1+ij_0\stackrel{~}{ȷ}^1i)=2^1(h_0^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{h}^{1/2}h_0^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{h}^{1/2})K`$ transforming $`𝒟(\stackrel{~}{h}^{1/2})`$ into $`𝒟(h_0^{1/2})`$. The morphism $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(V)\mathrm{\Phi }_0(V)`$ may be equivalently expressed as a Bogoliubov transformation $`a(f)b(f)a(Tf)+a^{}(Sf)`$, for all $`f𝒟(\stackrel{~}{h}^{1/2})`$. This transformation is unitarily implementable, $`b(f)=Qa(f)Q^{}`$, if, and only if, the operator $`S`$ is a Hilbert–Schmidt operator , i.e. the trace of $`S^{}S`$ is finite (hence, in particular, $`T`$ and $`S`$ are bounded). When calculating this trace, one shows that the summation over the degrees of freedom parallel to the plates may be explicitly carried out, and for large dimensions of the plates (large $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$) one obtains

$$\frac{\mathrm{Tr}S^{}S}{L_xL_y}\frac{\pi }{4}\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{h}_zh_{0z})^2,$$
(11)
where on the rhs the operators and the trace are regarded as operations on $`L^2(,dz)`$. Thus to satisfy our requirements we assume that $`\stackrel{~}{h}_zh_{0z}`$ is a Hilbert–Schmidt operator. We can describe, then, all situations of interest to the Casimir effect in the representation $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. In particular, the state minimizing the sum of field energy and the energy of interaction with external conditions (the sum given by the operator $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ in the representation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$), which was described by the vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ in the representation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, is given now by $`\mathrm{\Omega }=Q\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$.

Now we come to the determination of the Casimir force. In concord with the usual treatments we assume that the states $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (for varying position of the plates) transform adiabatically into each other. Contrary to implicit assumptions of most of the usual treatments, however, we think that for the purpose of calculating actual force one should compare the expectation value in these states of the energy of the field itself represented by the operator $`H_0`$, without including the interaction energy. We support this view by three arguments: (1) as pointed out above, $`H_0`$ is the only unambiguous energy operator in the problem, (2) in closed electrodynamics the interaction energy is absorbed by the pure (canonical) matter energy to form the full mechanical energy of the matter, (3) it is exactly the change in the classical analog of $`H_0`$ which is used for the calculation of the force exerted on a conductor in a classical electromagnetic field . The quantity to be calculated is, therefore, $`(\mathrm{\Omega },H_0\mathrm{\Omega })=(\mathrm{\Omega }_0,Q^{}H_0Q\mathrm{\Omega }_0)`$. Using (10) and $`Q^{}a(f)Q=a(T^{}f)a^{}(S^{}f)`$ one obtains $`(\mathrm{\Omega },H_0\mathrm{\Omega })=4^1\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{h}h_0)\stackrel{~}{h}^1(\stackrel{~}{h}h_0)`$. Summing the parallel degrees of freedom one gets for large $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$

$$\frac{(\mathrm{\Omega },H_0\mathrm{\Omega })}{L_xL_y}\frac{1}{24\pi }\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{~}{h}_zh_{0z})(\stackrel{~}{h}_z+2h_{0z})(\stackrel{~}{h}_zh_{0z}).$$
(12)
If this is finite, the states $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are energetically comparable, and the Casimir force may by determined.

Finally, we specify the “softened Dirichlet condition”. We guess that for the appearance of some universality in the Casimir effect, as incorporated by Casimir’s original prediction, the behaviour of $`\stackrel{~}{h}_zh_{0z}`$ at the lower end of the spectrum of both $`h_z`$ and $`h_{0z}`$ is decisive. We put, therefore $`\stackrel{~}{h}_zh_{0z}=f(h_z)f(h_{0z})`$, where $`f`$ is a real smooth function on $`_+`$, with $`f(u)=u`$ for small $`u`$, $`0f(u)u`$ for all $`u`$, and vanishing at least as $`u^2`$ for $`u\mathrm{}`$. This ensures finiteness of both (11) and (12). The resulting $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ will not guarantee the relativistic causality of the evolution, but for the quasi-static idealization this is not a serious objection. Denote the Casimir energy (12) for this model by $`(a)`$, and introduce the abbreviation $`\chi (\kappa ,p)=\kappa ^2(\kappa ^2p^2)^2(f(\kappa )f(p))^2(3pf(p)+f(\kappa ))`$. Then

$`(a)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{a}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p\chi ({\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{a}},p)\left(1+(1)^{k+1}\mathrm{cos}ap\right)`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\kappa {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p\chi (\kappa ,p).`$ (14)
A rather lengthy analysis of this expression shows that

$$(a)=(\mathrm{})\frac{\pi ^2}{1440}a^3+o(a^3),$$
(15)
$$\frac{d}{da}(a)=\frac{\pi ^2}{480}a^4+o(a^4).$$
(16)
One recognizes in these expressions the familiar Casimir terms – the leading asymptotic term in the force and the second leading term in the energy (which are one half of the corresponding terms for the electromagnetic Casimir quantities). They are here determined completely by the behaviour of the function $`f`$ in the neighborhood of zero (in fact, the property $`f^{}(0)=1`$ is all one needs). However, their meaning here is different, the force obeys this simple law only for sufficiently large separations of the plates. For every finite separation other ($`f`$-dependent) terms will dominate for $`f`$ approaching identity. It becomes evident from (13) that reaching this limit is both physically and mathematically meaningless – the energy becomes infinite and the force indeterminate. Observe, also, that here the energy $`(a)`$ is always positive, as it should be. The physical interpretation of the $`f`$-dependent limit $`(\mathrm{})`$ is the following: it equals twice the work which the external forces have to perform to create the configuration of the field surrounding a single plate (in this limit the plates and the configurations around them may be regarded as independent). One checks the consistency of this interpretation by repeating the calculation for the configuration with only one plate present in the whole space, and finding that the resulting energy is indeed one half of $`(\mathrm{})`$.

The calculation of the effect as performed here used a class of models determined by the function $`f`$. However, as mentioned above, the leading term in the force comes from the spectral area where $`\stackrel{~}{h}_z=h_z`$, so it is probably more universal. At the same time Eq. (12) gives the method for the construction of other models, and corrections to the leading terms.

Lessons to be drawn for experimental verification of the Casimir effect are as follows: first, the universality is to be searched for at large separation of the plates, and second, for smaller separations model-dependent aspects take over.

I am grateful to D. Buchholz for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Kähler–Einstein metrics on log del Pezzo surfaces in weighted projective 3–spaces

A log del Pezzo surface is a projective surface with quotient singularities such that its anticanonical class is ample. Such surfaces arise naturally in many different contexts, for instance in connection with affine surfaces \[Miyanishi81\], moduli of surfaces of general type \[Alexeev94\], 3 and 4 dimensional minimal model program \[Alexeev93\]. They also provide a natural testing ground for existence results of Kähler–Einstein metrics. The presence of quotient singularities forces us to work with orbifold metrics, but this is usually only a minor inconvenience. Log del Pezzo surfaces with a Kähler–Einstein metric also lead to Sasakian–Einstein 5–manifolds by \[Boyer–Galicki00\].

In connection with \[Demailly-Kollár99\], the authors ran a computer program to find examples of log del Pezzo surfaces in weighted projective spaces. The program examined weights up to a few hundred and produced 3 examples of log del Pezzo surfaces where the methods of \[Demailly-Kollár99, §6\] proved the existence of a Kähler–Einstein metric.

The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we determine the complete list of anticanonically embedded quasi smooth log del Pezzo surfaces in weighted projective 3-spaces. Second, we improve the methods of \[Demailly-Kollár99, 6.10\] to prove that many of these admit a Kähler–Einstein metric. The same method also proves that some of these examples do not have tigers (in the colorful terminology of \[Keel-McKernan99\]).

Higher dimensional versions of these results will be considered in a subsequent paper.

###### Definition 1.

For positive integers $`a_i`$ let $`(a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ denote the weighted projective $`3`$-space with weights $`a_0a_1a_2a_3`$. (See \[Dolgachev82\] or \[Fletcher89\] for the basic definitons and results.) We always assume that any 3 of the $`a_i`$ are relatively prime. We frequently write $``$ to denote a weighted projective $`3`$-space if the weights are irrelevant or clear from the context. We use $`x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3`$ to denote the corresponding weighted projective coordinates. We let $`(i,j,k,\mathrm{})`$ be an unspecified permutation of $`(0,1,2,3)`$. $`P_i(a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ denotes the point $`(x_j=x_k=x_{\mathrm{}}=0)`$. The affine chart where $`x_i0`$ can be written as

$`(\text{1}.1)`$
$$^3(y_j,y_k,y_{\mathrm{}})/_{a_i}(a_j,a_k,a_{\mathrm{}}).$$

This shorthand denotes the quotient of $`^3`$ by the action

$$(y_j,y_k,y_{\mathrm{}})(ϵ^{a_j}y_j,ϵ^{a_k}y_k,ϵ^a_{\mathrm{}}y_{\mathrm{}})$$

where $`ϵ`$ is a primitive $`a_i`$th root of unity. The identification is given by $`y_j^{a_i}=x_j^{a_i}/x_i^{a_j}`$. (1.1) are called the orbifold charts on $`(a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3)`$.

$`(a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ has an index $`a_i`$ quotient singularity at $`P_i`$ and an index $`(a_i,a_j)`$ quotient singularity along the line $`(x_k=x_{\mathrm{}}=0)`$.

For every $`m`$ there is a rank 1 sheaf $`𝒪_{}(m)`$ which is locally free only if $`a_i|m`$ for every $`i`$. A basis of the space of sections of $`𝒪_{}(m)`$ is given by all monomials in $`x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3`$ with weighted degree $`m`$. Thus $`𝒪_{}(m)`$ may have no sections for some $`m>0`$.

###### 2Anticanonically embedded quasi smooth surfaces.

Let $`X|𝒪_{}(m)|`$ be a surface of degree $`m`$. The adjunction formula

$$K_X𝒪_{}(K_{}+X)|_X𝒪_{}(m(a_0+a_1+a_2+a_3))|_X$$

holds iff $`X`$ does not contain any of the singular lines. If this condition holds then $`X`$ is a (singular) del Pezzo surface iff $`m<a_0+a_1+a_2+a_3`$. It is also well understood that from many points of view the most interesting cases are when $`m`$ is as large as possible. Thus we consider the case $`X_d|𝒪_{}(d)|`$ for $`d=a_0+a_1+a_2+a_31`$. We say that such an $`X`$ is anticanonically embedded.

Except for the classical cases

$$(a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3)=(1,1,1,1),(1,1,1,2)\text{or}(1,1,2,3),$$

$`X`$ is not smooth and it passes through some of the vertices $`P_i`$. Thus the best one can hope is that $`X`$ is smooth in the orbifold sense, called quasi smooth. At the vertex $`P_i`$ this means that the preimage of $`X`$ in the orbifold chart $`^3(y_j,y_k,y_{\mathrm{}})`$ is smooth. In terms of the equation of $`X`$ this is equivalent to saying that

$`(\text{2}.1)`$ For every $`i`$ there is a $`j`$ and a monomial $`x_i^{m_i}x_j`$ of degree $`d`$.
Here we allow $`j=i`$, corresponding to the case when the general $`X`$ does not pass through $`P_i`$. The condition that $`X`$ does not contain any of the singular lines is equivalent to

$`(\text{2}.2)`$ If $`(a_i,a_j)>1`$ then there is a monomial $`x_i^{b_i}x_j^{b_j}`$ of degree $`d`$.
Finally, if every member of $`|𝒪_{}(d)|`$ contains a coordinate axis $`(x_k=x_{\mathrm{}}=0)`$ then the general member should be smooth along it, except possibly at the vertices. That is

$`(\text{2}.3)`$
$$\begin{array}{c}\text{For every }i,j\text{, either there is a monomial }x_i^{b_i}x_j^{b_j}\text{ of degree }d\text{,}\hfill \\ \text{or there are monomials }x_i^{c_i}x_j^{c_j}x_k\text{ and }x_i^{d_i}x_j^{d_j}x_{\mathrm{}}\text{ of degree }d\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

The computer search done in connection with \[Demailly-Kollár99\] looked at values of $`a_i`$ in a certain range to find the $`a_i`$ satisfying the constraints (2.1-3). This approach starts with the $`a_i`$ and views (2.1-3) as linear equations in the unknowns $`m_i,b_i,c_i,d_i`$. In order to find all solutions, we change the point of view.

###### 3Description of the computer program.

We consider (2.1) to be the main constraint, the $`m_i`$ as coefficients and the $`a_i`$ as unknowns. The corresponding equations can then be written as a linear system

$`(\text{3}.1)`$
$$(M+J+U)(a_0a_1a_2a_3)^t=(1111)^t$$

where $`M=\mathrm{diag}(m_0,m_1,m_2,m_3)`$ is a diagonal matrix, $`J`$ is a matrix with all entries $`1`$ and $`U`$ is a matrix where each row has 3 entries $`=0`$ and one entry $`=1`$. It is still not easy to decide when such a system has positive integral solutions, but the main advantage is that some of the $`m_i`$ can be bounded a priori.

Consider for instance $`m_3`$. The relevant equation is

$$m_3a_3+a_j=a_0+a_1+a_2+a_31.$$

Since $`a_3`$ is the biggest, we get right away that $`1m_32`$. Arguing inductively with some case analysis we obtain that

1. either $`2m_24`$ and $`2m_310`$,
2. or the $`a_i`$ are in a series $`(1,a,b,b,)`$ with $`a|2b1`$. The latter satisfy (2.2) only for $`a=b=1`$.

Thus we have only finitely many possibilities for the matrix $`U`$ and the numbers $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$. Fixing these values, we obtain a linear system

$$(M+J+U)(a_0a_1a_2a_3)^t=(1111)^t,$$

where the only variable coefficient is the upper left corner of $`M`$. Solving these formally we obtain that

$$a_0=\frac{\gamma _0}{m_0\alpha +\beta }$$

where $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma _0`$ depend only on $`U`$ and $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$. $`a_0`$ is supposed to be a positive integer, thus if $`\alpha 0`$ then there are only finitely many possibilities for $`m_0`$. Once $`m_0`$ is also fixed, the whole system can be solved and we check if the $`a_i`$ are all positive integers. We get 1362 cases.

If $`\alpha =0`$ but $`\beta 0`$ then the general solution of the system has the form

$$a_0=\frac{\gamma _0}{\beta },a_i=\frac{m_0\delta _i+\gamma _i}{\beta }\text{for}i=1,2,3.$$

These generate the series of solutions, 405 of them. Finally, with some luck, the case $`\alpha =\beta =\gamma _0=0`$ never occurs, so we do not have to check further.

The resulting solutions need considerable cleaning up. Many solutions $`a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3`$ occur multiply and we also have to check the other conditions (2.2-3). At the end we get the complete list, given in (8).

The computer programs are available at

```
www.math.princeton.edu/~jmjohnso/LogDelPezzo

```

These log del Pezzo surfaces are quite interesting in their own right. Namely, it turns out that for many of them, members of the linear systems $`|mK_X|`$ can not be very singular at any point. First we recall the notions log canonical etc. (see, for instance, \[Kollár-Mori98, 2.3\] for a detailed introduction).

###### Definition 4.

Let $`X`$ be a surface and $`D`$ a $``$-divisor on $`X`$. Let $`g:YX`$ be any proper birational morphism, $`Y`$ smooth. Then there is a unique $``$-divisor $`D_Y=e_iE_i`$ on $`Y`$ such that

$$K_Y+D_Yg^{}(K_X+D)\text{and}g_{}D_Y=D.$$

We say that $`(X,D)`$ is canonical (resp. klt, resp. log canonical) if $`e_i0`$ (resp. $`e_i>1`$, resp. $`e_i1`$) for every $`g`$ and for every $`i`$.

###### Definition 5.

\[Keel-McKernan99\] Let $`X`$ be a normal surface. A tiger on $`X`$ is an effective $``$-divisor $`D`$ such that $`DK_X`$ and $`(X,D)`$ is not klt. As illustrated in \[Keel-McKernan99\], the tigers carry important information about birational transformations of log del Pezzo surfaces.

###### Remark 6.

By a result of Shokurov (cf. \[Keel-McKernan99, 22.2\]), if the log del Pezzo surface $`X`$ has Picard number 1 and it has a tiger then $`|𝒪_X(mK_X)|\mathrm{}`$ for some $`m=1,2,3,4,6`$. The log del Pezzo surfaces in (8) mostly have bigger Picard number. It is quite interesting though that the two results work for almost the same cases.

We use the following sufficient condition to obtain the existence of Kähler–Einstein metrics.

###### Theorem 7.

\[Nadel90, Demailly-Kollár99\] Let $`X`$ be an $`n`$ dimensional Fano variety (possibly with quotient singularities). Assume that there is an $`ϵ>0`$ such that

$$(X,\frac{n+ϵ}{n+1}D)\text{is klt}$$

for every effective $``$-divisor $`DK_X`$. Then $`X`$ has a Kähler–Einstein metric.∎

The main result of this note is the following.

###### Theorem 8.

There is an anticanonically embedded quasi smooth log del Pezzo surface $`X_d(a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ iff the $`a_i`$ and $`d`$ are among the following. The table below also gives our results on the nonexistence of tigers (5) and on the existence of Kähler–Einstein metrics. (Lower case $`y`$ means that the answer has been previously known.)

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill a_0& a_1& a_2& a_3& d& \text{tiger}& \text{KE metric}\\ & & & & & & \\ \hfill \text{Series:}2& 2k+1& 2k+1& 4k+1& 8k+4& Y& Y\\ & & & & & & \\ \hfill \text{Sporadic:}1& 1& 1& 1& 3& y& y\\ \hfill 1& 1& 1& 2& 4& y& y\\ \hfill 1& 1& 2& 3& 6& y& y\\ \hfill 1& 2& 3& 5& 10& y& \mathrm{?}\\ \hfill 1& 3& 5& 7& 15& y& \mathrm{?}\\ \hfill 1& 3& 5& 8& 16& y& \mathrm{?}\\ \hfill 2& 3& 5& 9& 18& \mathrm{?}& \mathrm{?}\\ \hfill 3& 3& 5& 5& 15& N& Y\\ \hfill 3& 5& 7& 11& 25& \mathrm{?}& Y\\ \hfill 3& 5& 7& 14& 28& \mathrm{?}& Y\\ \hfill 3& 5& 11& 18& 36& \mathrm{?}& Y\\ \hfill 5& 14& 17& 21& 56& N& Y\\ \hfill 5& 19& 27& 31& 81& N& Y\\ \hfill 5& 19& 27& 50& 100& N& Y\\ \hfill 7& 11& 27& 37& 81& N& Y\\ \hfill 7& 11& 27& 44& 88& N& Y\\ \hfill 9& 15& 17& 20& 60& N& y\\ \hfill 9& 15& 23& 23& 69& N& Y\\ \hfill 11& 29& 39& 49& 127& N& Y\\ \hfill 11& 49& 69& 128& 256& N& y\\ \hfill 13& 23& 35& 57& 127& N& Y\\ \hfill 13& 35& 81& 128& 256& N& y\end{array}$$

###### Remark 9.

The above results hold for every quasi smooth surface with the indicated numerical data.

Near the end of the list there are very few monomials of the given degree and in many cases there is only one such surface up to isomorphism. In some other cases, for instance for the series, there are moduli.

It is generally believed that the algebraic geometry of any given log del Pezzo surface can be understood quite well. There is every reason to believe that all of the remaining cases of (8) can be decided, though it may require a few pages of computation for each of them.

###### 10How to check if $`(X,D)`$ is klt or not?.

The definition (4) requires understanding all resolutions of singularities. Instead, we use the following multiplicity conditions to check that a given divisor is klt. These conditions are far from being necessary.

Let $`X`$ be a surface with quotient singularities. Let the singular points be $`P_iX`$ and we write these locally analytically as

$$p_i:(^2,Q_i)(^2/G_i,P_i)(X,P_i),$$

where $`G_iGL(2,)`$ is a finite subgroup. We may assume that the origin is an isolated fixed point of every nonidentity element of $`G_i`$ (cf. \[Brieskorn68\]). Let $`D`$ be an effective $``$-divisor on $`X`$. Then $`(X,D)`$ is klt if the following three conditions are satisfied.

1. (Non isolated non-klt points) $`D`$ does not contain an irreducible component with coefficient $`1`$.
2. (Canonical at smooth points) $`\mathrm{mult}_PD1`$ at every smooth point $`PX`$. This follows from \[Kollár-Mori98, 4.5\].
3. (Klt at singular points) $`\mathrm{mult}_{Q_i}D_i1`$ for every $`i`$ where $`D_i:=p_i^{}D`$. This follows from \[Kollár-Mori98, 5.20\] and the previous case.

In our applications we rely on the following estimate.

###### Proposition 11.

Let $`Z(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ be a $`d`$-dimensional subvariety of a weighted projective space. Assume that $`Z`$ is not contained in the singular locus and that $`a_0\mathrm{}a_n`$. Let $`Z_i𝔸^n`$ denote the preimage of $`Z`$ in the orbifold chart

$$𝔸^n𝔸^n/_{a_i}(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)(x_i=0).$$

Then for every $`i`$ and every $`pZ_i`$,

$$\mathrm{mult}_pZ_i(a_n\mathrm{}a_{nd})(Z𝒪(1)^d).$$

Moreover, if $`Z(x_0=\mathrm{}=x_{nd1}=0)`$ then we have a stronger inequality

$$\mathrm{mult}_pZ_i(a_n\mathrm{}a_{nd+1}a_{nd1})(Z𝒪(1)^d).$$

Proof. Let $`0C(Z)𝔸^{n+1}`$ denote the cone over $`Z`$ with vertex $`0`$. $`Z_i`$ can be identified with the hyperplane section $`C(Z)(x_i=1)`$. The multiplicty of a point is an upper semi continuous function on a variety, thus it is sufficient to prove that

$$\mathrm{mult}_0C(Z)(a_n\mathrm{}a_{nd})(Z𝒪(1)^d).$$

This is proved by induction on $`dimZ`$.

If $`C(Z)`$ is not contained in the coordinate hyperplane $`(x_i=0)`$, then write

$$Z(x_i=0)=\underset{j}{}m_jY_j(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n).$$

Next we claim that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}m_j(Y_j𝒪(1)^{d1})`$ $`=`$ $`a_i(Z𝒪(1)^d)\text{and}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}m_j\mathrm{mult}_0C(Y_j)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{mult}_0C(Z).`$
The first of these is the associativity of the intersection product, and the second is a consequence of the usual estimate for the intersection multiplicty (cf. \[Fulton84, 12.4\]) applied to $`C(Z),(x_i=0)`$ and $`d1`$ other general hyperplanes through the origin. (Note that in the first edition of \[Fulton84\] there is a misprint in (12.4). $`_{i=1}^re_P(V_i)`$ should be replaced by $`_{i=1}^re_P(V_i)`$.) By the inductive assumption $`\mathrm{mult}_0C(Y_j)(Y_j𝒪(1)^{d1})`$, hence $`\mathrm{mult}_0C(Z)(Z𝒪(1)^d)`$ as claimed.

In most cases, we can even choose $`i<nd`$. This is impossible only if $`Z(x_0=\mathrm{}=x_{nd1}=0)`$, but then equality holds.∎

###### Corollary 12.

Let $`X_d(a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ be a quasismooth surface of degree $`d=a_0+a_1+a_2+a_31`$. Then $`X`$ does not have a tiger if $`da_0a_1`$. If $`(x_0=x_1=0)X`$ then $`da_0a_2`$ is also sufficient.

Proof. Assume that $`DX_d`$ is a tiger. We can view $`D`$ as a 1–cycle in $`(a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ whose degree is

$$(D𝒪_X(1))=(𝒪_{}(d)𝒪_{}(1)𝒪_{}(1))=\frac{d}{a_0a_1a_2a_3}.$$

By (11), this implies that the multiplicity of $`D_i`$ (as in (10.3)) is bounded from above by $`\frac{d}{a_0a_1}`$ at any point. Thus $`(X,D)`$ is klt if $`da_0a_1`$.

If $`(x_0=x_1=0)X`$ then we can weaken this to $`da_0a_2`$, again by (11).∎

Using (7) and a similar argument we obtain the following.

###### Corollary 13.

Let $`X_d(a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ be a quasismooth surface of degree $`d=a_0+a_1+a_2+a_31`$. Then $`X`$ admits a Kähler–Einstein metric if $`d<\frac{3}{2}a_0a_1`$. If $`(x_0=x_1=0)X`$ then $`d<\frac{3}{2}a_0a_2`$ is also sufficient.∎

###### 14Proof of (8).

The nonexistence of tigers and the existence of a Kähler–Einstein metric in the sporadic examples follows from (12) and (13). There are 5 cases when we need to use that $`X`$ does not contain the line $`(x_0=x_1=0)`$. This is equivalent to claiming that the equation of $`X`$ contains a monomial involving $`x_2,x_3`$ only. In all 5 cases this is already forced by the condition (2.1).

Assume next that $`X`$ is one of the series $`(2,2k+1,2k+1,4k+1)`$. Its equation is a linear combination of terms

$$x_0^{4k+2},x_3^2x_0,x_3(x_1+x_2)x_0^{k+1},g_4(x_1,x_2),g_2(x_1,x_2)x_0^{2k+1}.$$

Moreover, the conditions (2.1–3) imply that the first 2 appear with nonzero coefficient and $`g_4`$ does not have multiple roots.

$`(x_0=0)`$ intersects $`X`$ in a curve $`C`$ whith equation

$$\begin{array}{c}(q_{8k+4}(x_1,x_2)=0)^2(2k+1,2k+1,4k+1),\text{ isomorphic to}\hfill \\ (q_4(x_1,x_2)=0)^2(1,1,4k+1).\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus $`C`$ has 4 irreducible components $`C_1+C_2+C_3+C_4`$ meeting at $`P_3=(0:0:0:1)`$. This shows that $`\frac{1}{2}C`$ is not klt at $`P_3`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}C`$ is a tiger on $`X`$.

Next we prove that $`(X,D)`$ is log canonical for every effective $``$-divisor $`DK_X`$. This is stronger than needed in order to apply (7).

Consider the linear system $`𝒪_{}(2(2k+1))`$. This is the pull back of $`𝒪(2(2k+1))`$ from the weighted projective plane $`(2,2k+1,2k+1)`$. The latter is isomorphic to $`(2,1,1)`$ which is the quadric cone in ordinary $`^3`$ and the linear system is the hyperplane sections, thus very ample. Hence for every smooth point $`PX`$ there is a divisor $`F|𝒪_X(2(2k+1))|`$ passing through $`P`$ and not containing any of the irreducible components of $`D`$. So

$$\mathrm{mult}_PD(DF)=\frac{2(2k+1)(8k+4)}{2(2k+1)^2(4k+1)}=\frac{4}{4k+1}<1.$$

We are left to deal with the singular points of $`X`$. These are at $`P_3=(0:0:0:1)`$ and at $`P_a=(0:a:1:0)`$ where $`a`$ is a root of $`g_4(x_1,1)`$.

$`P_3`$ is the most interesting. Let $`p_3:(S^2,Q_3)(X,P_3)`$ be a local orbifold chart. Intersecting $`p_3^{}D`$ with a general member of the linear system $`|x_0^{2k+1},x_1^2|`$ we obtain that

$$\mathrm{mult}_{Q_3}p_3^{}D\frac{4k+1}{2}(D𝒪(2(2k+1))=2.$$

This is too big to apply (10.3). Let $`\pi :S^{}S`$ be the blow up of the origin with exceptional divisor $`E`$. Then

$$K_S^{}+\alpha E+\pi _{}^1(p_3^{}D)\pi ^{}(K_S+p_3^{}D),$$

and $`\alpha 1`$. Using Shokurov’s inversion of adjunction (see, for instance \[Kollár-Mori98, 5.50\]) $`(X,D)`$ is log canonical at $`P_3`$ if $`\pi _{}^1(p_3^{}D)|_E`$ is a sum of points, all with coefficient $`1`$. In order to estimate these coefficients, we write $`D=D^{}+a_iC_i`$ where $`D^{}`$ does not contain any of the $`C_i`$.

We first compute that

$$(C_iC_j)=\frac{1}{4k+1}\text{if }ij\text{, and}(C_i𝒪(1))=\frac{1}{(2k+1)(4k+1)}.$$

From this we obtain that

$$(C_iC_i)=(C_i𝒪(1))\underset{ji}{}(C_iC_j)=\frac{(6k+1)}{(2k+1)(4k+1)}.$$

Thus

$$\frac{1}{(2k+1)(4k+1)}=(C_iD)=a_i(C_iC_i)+(_{ji}a_j)(C_iC_{i+1})+(C_iD^{})$$

Multiplying by $`(2k+1)(4k+1)`$ and using that $`a_i\mathrm{mult}_{Q_3}p_3^{}D2`$ and $`(C_iD^{})(DD)`$ this becomes

$$1(6k+1)a_i+(2a_i)(2k+1)+4\text{which gives}a_i\frac{1}{2}+\frac{2}{4k+1}.$$

Furthermore,

$$\mathrm{mult}_{Q_3}p_3^{}D^{}\frac{1}{4}(p_3^{}D^{}\underset{i}{}p_3^{}C_i)\frac{4k+1}{4}(D𝒪(2))=\frac{1}{2k+1}.$$

Thus we see that

$$\pi _{}^1(p_3^{}D)|_E=a_i\pi _{}^1(p_3^{}C_i)|_E+\pi _{}^1(p_3^{}D^{})|_E$$

is a sum of 4 distinct points with coefficient $`\frac{1}{2}+\frac{2}{4k+1}`$ and another sum of points where the sum of the coefficients is $`\frac{1}{2k+1}`$. Since $`\frac{1}{2}+\frac{2}{4k+1}+\frac{1}{2k+1}<1`$, we see that $`(X,D)`$ is log canonical at $`P_3`$.

The points $`P_a`$ are easier. Only one of the $`C_i`$ passes through each of them, and the multiplicity of the pull back of $`D^{}`$ is bounded by $`\frac{2k+1}{4}(D𝒪(2))=\frac{1}{4k+1}`$. This shows right away that $`(X,D)`$ is klt at these points.∎

###### Acknowledgments .

We thank Ch. Boyer, J.-P. Demailly and S. Keel for helpful comments and references. Partial financial support was provided by the NSF under grant number DMS-9970855.

Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544-1000

```
jmjohnso@math.princeton.edu

```

```
kollar@math.princeton.edu

```


text:
# Multiplicity of massive stars

## 1. Introduction

It is a well known fact that many, perhaps most stars in our galaxy are members of multiple systems. Although this paper is supposed to deal with massive stars $`(M_{}810M_{}`$), we will start with a brief look at the multiplicity of solar type stars, first because this is very well known, and second because it is important to compare the multiplicity of the massive stars to that of the solar type stars. The main characteristics of the multiplicity of solar type field stars can be summarized as follows (c.f. Duquennoy & Mayor 1991): The binary frequency (i.e. the probability that a given object is multiple; cf. Reipurth & Zinnecker 1993) is about 45%, and any primary star has about 0.5 companions on average. The ratio of single : double : triple : quadruple systems is 57 : 38 : 4 : 1. The distribution of orbital periods follows a log–normal relationship, and the mass ratio distribution decreases for q := M2/M1 $``$ 1 and seems to be consistent with random pairing from the field star initial mass function.

There are several reasons why the multiplicity of massive stars is less well known than for the low-mass stars. One of them is that massive stars are far less numerous than low-mass stars, and thus they are typically located at larger distances. Another problem is caused by the very high luminosities of massive stars, causing extreme brightness contrasts between the massive primary star and any low-mass companion, strongly hampering the detection of visual companions. However, since a good knowledge of the multiplicity of massive stars can yield very important constraints on high-mass stellar formation theories (see below), a study of the multiplicity of massive stars is highly desirable.

## 2. Formation of massive stars

The formation mechanism of massive stars is still not well understood (cf. Stahler et al. 1999). In contrast to low- and intermediate-mass stars, high-mass stars cannot form through gravitational collapse in molecular cloud cores and subsequent accretion, because, as soon as the stellar core reaches a mass of $`10M_{}`$, the radiation pressure on the infalling dust halts the accretion and thus limits the mass (Yorke & Krügel 1977; Yorke 1993).

An alternative model for the formation of massive stars is based on collisions and subsequent mergers of low- or intermediate-mass protostars in the dense centers of young clusters. At first sight, the typical conditions in star forming regions (stellar number densities of $`n_{}<10^5`$ stars pc-3 and velocity dispersions of $`\sigma _v`$ 2 km/sec) suggest extremely long collision time scales of $`t_{\mathrm{coll}}>10^{10}`$ years. This seems to indicate that such models are not very reasonable. However, in a very young cluster there are important peculiarities that can dramatically change the picture. One aspect is that very young stars are typically surrounded by circumstellar disks or envelopes, making their geometrical cross section much larger than the stellar cross section. Another aspect is that the cross section can be strongly enhanced in moderately slow encounters by the gravitational focusing effect. Furthermore, it is important to take into account that during gravitational interactions stars do not behave like solid bodies: close stellar encounters (pericenter $`<4`$ stellar radii) can induce huge tidal waves on the stars, dissipating kinetic energy into tidal heat; this eventually can lead to the formation of bound systems or even stellar mergers (cf. Mardling 1995).

Another crucial factor is that the forming star cluster not only contains young stars, but also an appreciable amount of dense gas, from which the forming stars accrete mass. Bonnell et al. (1998) have performed theoretical investigations and showed that the transfer of mass from diffuse gas to stars decreases the total energy of the cluster and also the stellar velocity dispersion. This leads to a strong shrinking of the cluster, which strongly boosts the stellar number density. Altogether these effects can cause the collision time scale to greatly decrease to values as low as $`t_{\mathrm{coll}}10^5`$ years, making the collision and subsequent merger of low- or intermediate-mass protostars an apparently viable way to form massive stars, especially in the center of dense clusters.

If this mechanism is indeed the way how the majority of massive stars form, one would expect multiple systems to be very common amongst the massive stars, because many of the collisions will not lead to stellar mergers but to the formation of multiple systems. Observational multiplicity studies in very young clusters thus can help to test this theory.

## 3. Observational results on OB star multiplicity

### 3.1. Summary of literature results

Many previous studies have investigated the multiplicity of massive stars. In the following short compilation, which is by no means meant to be complete, we summarize a few of the most important results.

Abt (1979) studied the multiplicity of early B-type (B2-B5) stars. By applying a correction for observational incompleteness he estimated that the true binary frequency among these stars might be as high as $``$ 65%. He also found that the distribution of orbital periods is similar to that of solar-type binaries, and concluded that the binary characteristics of normal stars do not depend sensitively upon primary mass.

In a review paper, Abt (1983) concluded that the spectroscopic binary frequency among B-type stars seems to be higher than among F- and G-type stars. In a further study, Abt et al. (1990) searched for spectroscopic binaries among 116 B2-B5 stars. This study indicated that the number of companions is rather high: assuming that the companion mass function is equal to the Salpeter IMF, the correction for observational incompleteness suggested that there are at least 0.8 (1.9) companions with $`M_22M_{}`$ ($`M_21M_{}`$) per primary star on average. This would be much higher than the mean number of 0.5 companions per solar type field star primary.

Morrell & Levato (1991) spectroscopically studied 96 OB stars in the Orion OB1 association and found that the percentage of spectroscopic binaries with periods of $`P<100`$ days is 32%, significantly more than among solar type field stars. Garmany et al. (1980) derived a spectroscopic binary frequency of 36% among a sample of 67 O stars. They found that 85% of the systems have mass ratios of $`q>0.4`$, i.e. most of the companions to these high-mass stars are again high-mass stars.

McAlister et al. (1993) performed speckle interferometric observations of a huge sample of 2088 OB stars, representing 23% of the members of the Bright Star Catalogue. Their observed binary frequency of B stars was 14%.

Mason et al. (1998) performed a speckle survey among a magnitude limited (V $`<`$ 8) sample of 227 O-type stars. They detected 15 binaries in the range of separations 0.035′′ $`<`$ $`\rho `$ $`<`$ 1.5′′. Taking into account the previously known visual and spectroscopic companions, their results demonstrated that at least $`60\%`$ of the O-type stars have companions. The distribution of mass ratios they derived is flat or decreasing for q $``$ 1, in a notable contrast to the result of Garmany et al. (1980).

### 3.2. General conclusions on OB star multiplicity

The above mentioned studies agree on the result that the multiplicity of OB stars is rather high, probably at least as high as for the solar-type field stars. The derived mass ratio distributions, however, differ strongly from study to study.

Many of the studies mentioned above share a serious disadvantage by being based on rather inhomogeneous samples of stars. Despite the advantage of allowing to investigate a large number of stars, any magnitude limited sample is a mixture of stars of different distances, different ages, and different origin. This will inevitably cause very serious and complicated selection effects.

Therefore, it was our goal to study a more homogeneous sample of massive stars. A very good way to do this is to study the population of massive members of a nearby star forming region. In such a sample, all the stars have a common distance, age, and origin. Another important factor is that a very young cluster is especially well suited for the detection of binary companions since any low- or intermediate mass companion will still be in its pre-main sequence phase and thus typically a factor of $`210`$ brighter than on the main sequence. This significantly decreases the enormous difference in brightness between the luminous primary star and its low-mass companion, which usually makes the observational detection of the companion very difficult or even impossible.

## 4. Multiplicity of the massive stars in the Orion Nebula Cluster

The Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC) is a very promising target for a study of the multiplicity of massive stars. It is nearby (450 pc), very young ($`<`$ 1 Myr), and its high central stellar density ($`n_{}5\times 10^4\mathrm{pc}^3`$) suggests that stellar collisions might actually be important. Also, it is very well investigated (e.g. Genzel & Stutzki 1989; Herbig & Terndrup 1986; McCaughrean & Stauffer 1994; Hillenbrand & Hartmann 1998) and the stellar population is well known (cf. Brown et al. 1994; Hillenbrand 1997). The compilation of Hillenbrand (1997) lists 27 O- and B-type stars as ONC members; these stars constitute a homogenous sample of very young massive stars.

Several multiplicity studies have been performed for the low-mass stars in the ONC (cf. Padgett et al. 1997; Petr et al. 1998; Simon et al. 1999). These studies seem to agree that the multiplicity of the low-mass stars in the ONC is consistent with that in the general field, i.e. there is no evidence for an overabundance of multiple systems as has been found for the low-mass pre-main sequence stars in the Taurus region (c.f. Leinert et al. 1993, 1997; Köhler & Leinert 1998; Ghez et al. 1997).

As far as the high-mass stars in the ONC are concerned, a number of searches for spectroscopic binaries have been performed (e.g. Abt et al. 1991; Morrell & Levato 1991). The Trapezium stars have been observed with near-infrared speckle holographic methods by Petr et al. (1998) and with adaptive optics methods by Simon et al. (1999). In order to get more complete information about the multiplicity of these stars, we have recently performed a bispectrum speckle interferometry (cf. Weigelt 1977) survey of 13 of the ONC O- and B-type stars at the SAO 6 m telescope (Weigelt et al. 1999; Preibisch et al. 1999). In combination with the information on the spectroscopic companions, this gives a comprehensive (though, of course, still not 100% complete) picture of the multiplicity of these stars.

### 4.1. Known companions to the 13 Orion OB stars

In our speckle images 8 visual companions have been found in total. Considering both, the visual and the spectroscopic companions of the 13 target stars, the total number of companions is at least 14. The properties of the known companions are summarized in Table 1.

With 14 known companions to the 13 target stars, the mean number of observed companions per primary star is 1.1. Although this clearly is a firm lower limit to the true number of companions, it is already 2 $`\times `$ more than the average number of companions among the low-mass field star primaries.

### 4.2. Estimation of the true number of companions

Obviously, the number of known companions is only a lower limit to the true number of companions, as any observational search for companions is subject to limited sensitivity. Preibisch et al. (1999) estimated the fraction of companions that might have been not detected in the speckle observations due to their being either too close to be resolved ($`\rho <35`$ mas) or too faint to be detected ($`\mathrm{\Delta }K>4`$ mag). The correction factor, i.e. the ratio of all companions to detected companions, was estimated to be between 2.5 and 6.7, depending on the assumptions about the underlying mass ratio distribution and the distribution of separations. Since the speckle observations revealed 8 visual companions to 13 target stars, the extrapolated number of companions is probably in the range $``$ \[20 … 50\]. This suggests that there are $``$ \[1.5 … 4\] companions per primary star on average, and this is at least 3 $`\times `$ more than for low-mass primaries.

### 4.3. Properties of the multiple systems

$``$ Distribution of mass ratios

While the mass ratio distribution for low-mass binaries is rather well known to be consistent with the field IMF, several very different distributions have been derived for the mass ratios in different samples of high-mass binary systems. The results range from distributions favoring low-mass companions (e.g. Mason et al. 1998), over flat distributions, to distributions which more or less strongly favor relatively massive companions (e.g. Abt & Levy 1978; Garmany et al. 1980). In our sample, all known companions are low- or intermediate mass stars and the distribution of mass ratios has a strong peak at moderately low values.

In Fig. 1 we compare our empirical mass ratio distribution with the following different models:

(a)  a mass ratio distribution given by random pairing of stars drawn from the Scalo (1998) field star IMF;

(b)  a flat distribution of mass ratios, i.e. $`f(q)=\mathrm{const}.`$ for $`[0q1]`$;

(c)  a distribution that slightly favors massive companions, $`f(q)q^{0.25}`$ for $`[0q1]`$, as derived by Abt & Levy (1978) for a sample of early B-type stars;

(d)  a distribution of mass ratios which strongly favors systems with (nearly) equal masses. Here we consider the findings of the binary survey among O-type stars performed by Garmany et al. (1980), which can be roughly approximated by a half Gaussian distribution with a peak at $`q=1`$ and a width of $`\sigma 0.45`$ for $`[0q1]`$;

It is rather obvious that our empirical distribution is not consistent with the models (c) and (d). Thus we conclude that any distribution favoring high mass ratios seems to be definitely excluded by our data. Furthermore, one has to keep in mind that most probably there are more, still undetected faint low-$`q`$ companions, which are missing in our empirical distribution. Even if we take into account that our estimates of the mass ratios are subject to significant uncertainties (see Preibisch et al. 1999 for a detailed discussion), it appears very likely that the true mass ratio distribution is significantly peaked towards moderately low mass ratios.

$``$ Number of components per system

Among the solar type field stars only 5% of the systems are triple or higher-order systems (Duquennoy & Mayor 1991). In our sample, however, 31% of the systems have at least 3 components. The numbers of systems with given order are compared to the corresponding numbers for solar type field stars in Table 2. One can clearly see that the fraction of higher-order multiple systems seems to be enhanced among the OB stars.

$``$ Multiplicity and primary spectral type

A remarkable trend for a higher degree of multiplicity among the stars of very early spectral type as compared to the later type stars is apparent in our sample. The average number of known (visual & spectroscopic) companions per primary is 2.3 times higher among the primaries with spectral type earlier than B3 (11 known companions to 8 primaries) than among the later type primaries (3 known companions to 5 primaries).

## 5. Conclusions

Our results show that the multiplicity of the massive stars in the Orion Nebula Cluster is very high. Even if we only consider the already known companions, there are on average at least 1.1 companions per high-mass primary star, about twice as many as found for low-mass primary stars in the general field as well as in the Orion Nebula Cluster. If we correct these numbers for observational incompleteness, i.e. for the still undetected companions, our data suggest that there should be \[1.5 …4\] companions per primary star on average, i.e. $``$ \[3 …8\] $`\times `$ more than for low-mass primaries. Another important difference between the massive stars in the Orion Nebula Cluster and the low-mass stars is the higher fraction of higher-order multiple systems (triples, quadruplets, …) among the OB stars. These findings strongly suggest a different formation mechanism for high-mass and low-mass multiple systems.

We also find a trend that O- and early B-type stars have more companions than later B-type stars. The nature of our results seems to support the idea that high-mass stars form through collisions of protostars. However, at least in its present state, this theory provides no detailed predictions of the properties of the multiple systems. If the merging objects would be just spherical stars, one would expect most of the multiple systems to have quite small separations, probably well below the resolution limit of the speckle observations ($`20`$ AU). However, the merging protostars are surrounded by extended disks and/or envelopes, and it is not yet clear how this changes the outcome of the collision and merging processes.

Furthermore, the dynamical evolution of a cluster will also affect the properties of the multiple systems. For example, wide binaries are readily destroyed by stellar encounters in the dense cluster (e.g. Bonnell 2000). Recent model calculation by Kroupa et al. (1999) indicate that, under certain circumstances, cluster dynamical evolution can noticeably change the properties of the multiple systems on time scales as short as $`<1`$ Myr. This suggests that even in the very young Orion Nebula Cluster the observed properties of the multiple systems might not necessarily be identical to the primordial multiplicity.

Clearly, further work is necessary for the theoretical as well as the observational side of the topic. As far as observations are concerned, we note that we have already performed speckle interferometric observations of the other 14 OB stars in the Orion nebula cluster. The data analysis will soon be completed and we should then be able to draw more firm conclusions on the basis of the full sample of all 27 OB stars in the Orion Nebula Cluster.

## References

Abt, H.A. 1983, ARAA 21, 343

Abt, H.A., Gomez, A.E., & Levy, S.G. 1990, ApJS 74, 551

Abt, H.A., Wang, R., & Cardona, O. 1991, ApJ 367, 155

Bonnell, I.A. 2000, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 198, Stellar Clusters and Associations: Convection, Rotation, and Dynamos, ed. R. Pallavicini, G. Micela, & S. Sciortino, (San Francisco: ASP), 161

Bonnell, I.A., Bate, M.R., & Zinnecker, H. 1998, MNRAS 298, 93

Bossi, M., Gaspani, A., Scardia, M., & Tadini, M. 1989, A&A 222, 117

Brown, A.G.A., de Geus, E.J., & de Zeeuw, P.T. 1994, A&A 289, 101

Duquennoy, A., & Mayor, M. 1991, A&A 248, 485

Fischer, D.A., & Marcy, G.W. 1992, ApJ 396, 178

Genzel, R., & Stutzki, J. 1989, ARA&A 27, 41

Ghez, A.M., McCarthy, D.W., Patience, & J.L., Beck, T.L. 1997, ApJ 481, 378

Herbig, G.H., & Terndrup, D.M. 1986, ApJ 307, 609

Hillenbrand, L.A. 1997, AJ 113, 1733

Hillenbrand, L.A., & Hartmann, L.W. 1998, ApJ 492, 540

Hillenbrand, L.A., Strom, S.E., et al. 1998, AJ 116, 1816

Kenyon, S.J., & Hartmann, L.W. 1995, ApJS 101, 117

Köhler, R., & Leinert, Ch. 1998, A&A, 331, 977

Kroupa, P., Petr, M.G., & Mc Caughrean, M.J. 1999, NewAstr 4, 495

Leinert, Ch., Zinnecker, H., Weitzel, N., et al. 1993, A&A, 278, 129

Leinert, Ch., Richichi, A., & Haas, M. 1997, A&A 318, 472

Levato, H., & Abt, H.A. 1976, PASP 88, 712

Mardling, R.A. 1995, ApJ 450, 732

Mason, B.D., Gies, D.R., Hartkopf, W.I., et al. 1998, AJ 115, 821

McCaughrean, M.J., & Stauffer, J.R. 1994, AJ 108, 1382

Morrell, N., & Levato, H. 1991, ApJS 75, 965

Padgett, D.L., Strom, S.E., & Ghez, A. 1997, AJ 477, 705

Petr, M.G., Du Foresto, V., & Beckwith, S.V.W. 1998, ApJ 500, 825

Preibisch, Th., Balega, Y., Hofmann, K.-H., Weigelt, G., & Zinnecker, H. 1999, NewAst 4, 531

Prosser, C.F., Stauffer, J.R., Hartmann, L., et al. 1994, ApJ 421, 517

Reipurth, B., & Zinnecker, H. 1993, A&A 278, 81

Scalo, J. 1998, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 142, The Stellar Initial Mass Function, ed. G. Gilmore & D. Howell, (San Francisco: ASP), 201

Schultz, A.S.B., Colgan, S.W.J., Erickson, E.F., et al. 1999 ApJ 511, 282

Simon, M., Close, L.M., & Beck, T.L. 1999, AJ 117, 1375

Stahler, S.W., Palla, F., & Ho, P.T.P. 1999, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A. Boss, & S. Russel, (University of Arizona Press), in press

Walter, F.M., Alcalá, J.M., Neuhäuser, R., Sterzik, M., & Wolk S.J. 1999, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A. Boss, & S. Russel, (University of Arizona Press), in press

Weigelt, G. 1977, Opt Commun. 21, 55

Weigelt, G., Balega, Y., Preibisch, Th., Schertl, D., Schöller, M., & Zinnecker, H. 1999, A&A 347, L15

Yorke, H.W. 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 35, Massive Stars, Their Lives in the Interstellar Medium, ed. J. Cassinelli, & E. Churchwell, (San Francisco: ASP), 45

Yorke, H.W., & Krügel, E. 1977, A&A 54, 183


text:
# Correspondence of consistent and inconsistent spin-3/2 couplings via the equivalence theorem

## Abstract

The Rarita-Schwinger theory of free massive spin-3/2 field obeys the physical degrees of freedom counting, and one can distinguish “consistent” couplings which maintain this property and “inconsistent” couplings which destroy it. We show how one can obtain consistent couplings from inconsistent ones by a redefinition of the spin-3/2 field. The field redefinition gives rise to additional “contact terms” which, via the equivalence theorem, can be associated with the contribution of the extra lower-spin degrees of freedom involved by the inconsistent coupling.

Relativistic description of hadrons and their dynamics often faces with the problem of higher-spin (HS) fields. A covariant HS field has more components than is necessary to describe the spin degrees of freedom (DOF) of the physical particle, and therefore in formulating the action certain symmetries must be imposed to reduce the number of DOF to the physical value. So any free massless HS action must be gauge symmetric , leaving only 2 spin DOF as is appropriate for a massless particle with spin. The mass term should (partially) break the gauge symmetries such that the number of DOF becomes $`2s+1`$.

Consequently, not every form of the interaction will be consistent with the free theory construction. The “inconsistent” interaction will violate the DOF counting by involving the redundant lower-spin sector of the HS field. This gives rise to the “lower-spin background” contributions in observables, and, in some cases, to the presence of negative norm states  and acausal modes . Many general forms of the interaction are ruled out due to exhibiting some of these pathologies (see e.g. ).

In recent work, focusing on the spin-3/2 field of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ isobar, we have argued  that the interactions with the same type of gauge-symmetry as the kinetic term of the spin-3/2 field do not change the DOF content of the free theory, hence are “consistent”; constructed gauge-symmetric $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings; and shown that they give rise to purely spin-3/2 contributions. On the other hand, during the past three decades, a vast number of studies has been done, see e.g. , using the conventional $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings which are inconsistent from the viewpoint of the DOF-counting. Contributions due to the spin-1/2 sector of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ field, so-called “spin-1/2 backgrounds”, play in these studies an important, sometimes crucial role while their physical significance is unclear.

In this Letter we find the correspondence between the “inconsistent” and the “consistent” (gauge-invariant) couplings. The two can be related by a redefinition of the spin-3/2 field. The redefinition gives also rise to some higher-order, in the coupling constant, interactions (“contact terms”). As the latter are taken into account, the two theories — the inconsistent and the corresponding consistent one — lead to the same $`S`$-matrix elements (observables) in accordance with the equivalence theorem .

Thus, on one hand, we can establish the connection between the studies based on gauge and conventional $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings. On the other hand, the spin-1/2 sector involved by the inconsistent coupling can be represented via certain contact interactions, and depending on the framework one might find a better physical interpretation of the “spin-1/2 backgrounds”. For instance, it is easy to understand how at the tree level the spin-1/2 sector of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange can be reabsorbed into some meson and spin-1/2 baryon exchange contributions , or into some of the “low-energy constants” of ChPT . Present equivalence theorem extends to any linear coupling of the spin-3/2 field and to any number of loops.

We begin with the Lagrangian of the free massive spin-3/2 Rarita-Schwinger (RS) field***Our conventions: metric tensor $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$; $`\gamma `$-matrices $`\gamma ^\mu `$, $`\gamma ^5=i\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3`$, $`\{\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu \}=2\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$; fully antisymmetrized products of $`\gamma `$-matrices $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]=\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \eta ^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu \alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\{\gamma ^{\mu \nu },\gamma ^\alpha \}=i\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\gamma _\beta \gamma _5`$, $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}[\gamma ^{\mu \nu \alpha },\gamma ^\beta ]=i\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\gamma _5`$; spinor indices are omitted. Other forms of the spin-3/2 Lagrangian, obtained from (1) by redefinition: $`\psi ^\mu (\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}[1+A]\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu )\psi _\nu `$, involving a parameter $`A`$, are often used in the literature: e.g. ; for $`A\frac{1}{2}`$ this redefinition leads to equivalent Lagrangians, and any of them could be adopted without affecting our results.

$$_{\mathrm{RS}}=\overline{\psi }_\mu (x)\Lambda ^{\mu \nu }(i)\psi _\nu (x),\Lambda ^{\mu \nu }(i)\gamma ^{\mu \nu \alpha }i_\alpha m\gamma ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(1)
Corresponding field equations are

$$\Lambda ^{\mu \nu }(i)\psi _\nu =0=\gamma _\mu \Lambda ^{\mu \nu }(i)\psi _\nu =_\mu \Lambda ^{\mu \nu }(i)\psi _\nu .$$
(2)
or, equivalently, $`(i\gamma m)\psi _\mu =0=\gamma \psi =\psi `$. The kinetic term is, up to a total derivative, invariant under the gauge transformation:

$$\psi _\mu (x)\psi _\mu (x)+_\mu ϵ(x),$$
(3)
where $`ϵ(x)`$ is a spinor.

The covariant propagator of the RS field in the momentum space takes the well-known form:

$$S^{\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{p/+m}{p^2m^2+i\epsilon }\left[\eta ^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{3}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu +\frac{1}{3m}(\gamma ^\mu p^\nu \gamma ^\nu p^\mu )+\frac{2}{3m^2}p^\mu p^\nu \right],$$
(4)
and satisfies

$$S^{\mu \alpha }(p)\Lambda ^{\beta \nu }(p)\eta _{\alpha \beta }=\Lambda ^{\mu \alpha }(p)S^{\beta \nu }(p)\eta _{\alpha \beta }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(5)
In considering the interactions, we will focus on the linear coupling of the spin-3/2 field, i.e.,

$$_{\mathrm{int}}=g\overline{\psi }_\mu j^\mu +g\overline{j}^\mu \psi _\mu ,$$
(6)
where $`j`$ can depend on fields other than $`\psi `$; $`g`$ is a coupling constant. Consistency with DOF-counting would impose a condition on $`j^\mu `$. For example, if the coupling is to be symmetric under the gauge transformation (3), then $`j`$ must be divergenceless: $`j=0`$. Suppose, however, that our $`j`$ does not obey any such condition and the coupling is inconsistent.

We can make a field redefinition:

$$\psi _\mu (x)\psi _\mu (x)+g\xi _\mu (x),$$
(7)
which gives rise to a new linear coupling $`_{\mathrm{int}}^{}`$ plus a quadratic (in the coupling constant) interaction $`_C`$:

$`_{\mathrm{RS}}+_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $``$ $`_{\mathrm{RS}}+_{\mathrm{int}}^{}+_C,`$ (8)
$`_{\mathrm{int}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`g\overline{\psi }(j+\Lambda \xi )+\text{H.c.}g\overline{\psi }j^{}+\text{H.c.,}`$ (9)
$`_C`$ $`=`$ $`g^2[\overline{\xi }\Lambda \xi +\overline{\xi }j+\overline{j}\xi ],`$ (10)
and find that field $`\xi _\mu `$ can always be chosen such that the new linear coupling is consistent. Namely, we take

$$\xi _\mu =(m\gamma ^{\mu \nu })^1j^\nu =\frac{1}{m}𝒪_{\mu \nu }^{(1/3)}j^\nu $$
(11)
where $`𝒪_{\mu \nu }^{(x)}\eta _{\mu \nu }+x\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu `$. Then

$$j_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }=\gamma ^{\mu \nu \alpha }i_\alpha \xi _\nu $$
(12)
and consistency condition $`j^{}=0`$ is explicitly obeyed.

Note that in this case $`\xi `$ and hence $`_C`$ are independent of $`\psi _\mu `$. Therefore, we state that (i) an inconsistent linear coupling of a massive spin-3/2 can in general be transformed, by a redefinition of the spin-3/2 field, into a consistent coupling plus an additional quadratic coupling that does not involve the spin-3/2 field. Furthermore, if both the Lagrangian and the field transformation satisfy the conditions of the equivalence theorem , then (ii) the description in terms of $`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ or $`_{\mathrm{int}}^{}+_C`$ are equivalent at the level of $`S`$-matrix.

Moving the second-order coupling $`_C`$ to the other side of the equation, we obtain a corollary of statements (i) and (ii): given any inconsistent linear coupling we can find the supplementary second-order interaction which will provide us with the description of observables identical to the one with the consistent coupling. The contact interaction $`_C`$ and the spin-1/2 sector raised by the inconsistent coupling can be put in a direct correspondence.

To demonstrate these statements we focus on the spin-3/2 coupling to a spin-0 and a spin-1/2 field. Such couplings are frequently used in describing the coupling of the decuplet baryons to the pion and nucleon. In particular, the conventional $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling reads :

$$_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}=g\overline{\psi }_\mu ^i(\eta ^{\mu \nu }+z\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu )T_{ik}^a\mathrm{\Psi }^k_\nu \varphi ^a+\text{H.c.},$$
(13)
where $`g`$ is a dimensionfull coupling constant, and $`z`$ is an “off-shell parameter”. Herein we have retained the isospin since it plays some role in what follows. The pseudo scalar fields $`\varphi ^a`$, correspond to the pion $`\pi ^a=(\pi ^+,\pi ^{},\pi ^0)`$; spinors $`\mathrm{\Psi }^k`$ correspond to the nucleon $`N^k=(p,n)`$; the RS fields $`\psi _\mu ^i`$ represent the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^i=(\mathrm{\Delta }^{++},\mathrm{\Delta }^+,\mathrm{\Delta }^0,\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$; $`T^a`$ denotes the isospin 1/2 to 3/2 transition matrices satisfying $`T^aT^b=\frac{2}{3}\delta ^{ab}\frac{1}{3}i\epsilon ^{abc}\tau ^c`$; $`\tau ^c`$ are the isospin Pauli matrices.

This is an “inconsistent” spin-3/2 coupling. It violates the DOF counting of the massive RS theory for any value of the off-shell parameter $`z`$. Only for the case of neutral particles (no isospin) and $`z=1`$ the DOF-counting is correct . In that case one finds merely the Johnson-Sudarshan and Velo-Zwanziger problems . However, these latter problems will not be addressed here since we use the “naive” Feynman rules (as is usually done!), hence ignoring the field-dependent determinants in the path-integral measure which arise in the constrained quantization procedure  and which contain the problem. In this usual “naive” interpretation, coupling (13) for neutral particles and $`z=1`$ is “consistent”.

To find a corresponding consistent coupling we make the field transformation (7) with

$$\xi _\mu =\frac{1}{m}𝒪_{\mu \varrho }^{(1/3)}𝒪^{(z)\varrho \nu }T^a\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu \varphi ^a$$
(14)
and thus obtain a gauge-invariant linear coupling (exactly the one found earlier in ):

$$_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}=\frac{ig}{2m}\overline{G}_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^{\mu \nu \lambda }T^a\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \varphi ^a+\text{H.c.},$$
(15)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \psi _\nu _\nu \psi _\mu `$, plus the second-order term:

$$_{\pi \pi NN}=\left(\frac{g}{m}\right)^2\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}𝒪_{\varrho \mu }^{(x)}(\gamma ^{\mu \nu \alpha }i_\alpha +m\gamma ^{\mu \nu })𝒪_{\nu \sigma }^{(x)}T^bT^c\mathrm{\Psi }(^\varrho \varphi ^b)(^\sigma \varphi ^c).$$
(16)
with $`x=\frac{1}{3}(1+z)`$. Thus, $`_{\mathrm{RS}}+_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{RS}}+_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}+_{\pi \pi NN}`$.

To check that the field transformation leaves the $`S`$-matrix invariant let us first consider some simplest matrix elements involving the two vertices:

$`\Gamma ^{\mu a}(k)\Gamma ^\mu (k)T^a,\Gamma ^\mu (k)=g(\eta ^{\mu \nu }+z\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu )k_\nu \text{(inconsistent)}`$ (17)
$`\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }^{\mu a}(k,p)\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }^\mu (k,p)T^a,\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }^\mu (k,p)=(g/m)\gamma ^{\mu \nu \alpha }k_\nu p_\alpha \text{(consistent)}.`$ (18)
The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ production amplitude is apparently the same for both vertices

$$\overline{u}(p^{})\Gamma ^{\mu a}(p^{}p)u_\mu (p)=\overline{u}(p^{})\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }^{\mu a}(p^{}p,p)u_\mu (p)=g\overline{u}(p^{})(p^{}p)^\mu u_\mu (p)T^a,$$
(19)
where $`u(p)`$ is the nucleon spinor, $`u_\mu (p)`$ is the free RS vector-spinor satisfying $`(p/m)u_\mu =0=pu=\gamma u`$, for $`p^2=m^2`$.

However for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-exchange amplitudes in pion-nucleon scattering, Fig. 1, the two vertices yield quite different results. The inconsistent coupling involves the spin-1/2 sector of the RS propagator, and therefore the exchange amplitude,

$$\Gamma ^\mu (k^{})S_{\mu \nu }(p+k)\Gamma ^\nu (k)\frac{g^2}{m(p+k)\gamma }P_{\mu \nu }^{3/2}(p+k)k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }k^\nu +\text{“spin-1/2 background”},$$
(20)
contains the controversial spin-1/2 background contributions, in addition to the spin-3/2 propagation represented by the spin-3/2 projection operator:

$$P_{\mu \nu }^{3/2}(p)=\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \frac{1}{3p^2}(p/\gamma _\mu p_\nu +p_\mu \gamma _\nu p/).$$
(21)
In contrast, the consistent coupling, because of the property $`p\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }(k,p)=0`$, gives rise to only the spin-3/2 propagation , namely

$$\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }^\mu (k^{},p_s)S_{\mu \nu }(p_s)\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }^\nu (k,p_s)=\frac{g^2}{mp/_s}\frac{p_s^2}{m^2}P_{\mu \nu }^{3/2}(p_s)k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }k^\nu .$$
(22)
where $`p_s=p+k=p^{}+k^{}`$.

Because the decomposition into the pure spin-3/2 and spin-1/2 sector is nonlocal (the projection operators are singular at $`p^2=0`$), it is not at all obvious that the difference between the amplitudes (20) and (22) can be compensated by the local contact term $`_{\pi \pi NN}`$. However it indeed happens, as can most easily be seen for the case $`z=1`$, when

$$\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }^\mu (k,p)\Gamma ^\mu (k)=(g/m)\Lambda ^{\mu \nu }(p)k_\nu .$$
(23)
Using this identity and Eq. (5) we find for the $`s`$-channel exchange the difference between the amplitudes (20) and (22) is

$`M_C^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`[\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }(k^{},p_s)S(p_s)\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }(k,p_s)\Gamma (k^{})S_{\mu \nu }(p_s)\Gamma (k)]T^aT^b`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\left[(g/m)(k^{}\Gamma (k)+\Gamma (k^{})k)+(g/m)^2k^{}\Lambda (p_s)k\right]T^aT^b.`$ (25)
A similar contribution comes from the u-channel graph such that the total difference sums up into

$$M_C^{(s)}+M_C^{(u)}=(g/m)^2(T^aT^bT^bT^a)[\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\mu \nu \alpha }(p+p^{})_\alpha +m\gamma ^{\mu \nu }]k_\mu ^{}k_\nu ,$$
(26)
which is exactly canceled by the contact interaction $`_{\pi \pi NN}`$.Notably, for the case of neutral pions, obtained by neglecting the isospin complications and taking the real scalar field in Eq. (13), the contact term $`_{\pi \pi NN}`$ vanishes. As we have already remarked, for this case, coupling (13) with $`z=1`$ is consistent with the DOF-counting , does not involve the spin-3/2 components, and hence needs no additional terms to match the corresponding gauge-invariant coupling.

Clearly, Green’s functions which do not represent observable quantities need not be the same. For instance, the one-loop $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ self-energy will be different for the two couplings. However, at the level of the $`S`$-matrix the equivalence is restored. That is, the amplitude containing the self-energy with the consistent coupling (l.h.s. in Fig. 2) is identical to the one-loop amplitude with the inconsistent coupling plus the contact term (r.h.s. in Fig. 2). It is easy to convince oneself that this equivalence will persist to any number of loops.

In the analysis of the $`\pi N`$ scattering we have recently noted numerically  that, once the $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ meson exchange are included, the gauge-invariant Eq. (15) and conventional Eq. (13) couplings, at the tree level, give the same prediction for the $`\pi N`$ threshold parameters provided some coupling constants are readjusted. This observation can now be understood as the very low-energy meson exchanges may take the role of the contact term $`_{\pi \pi NN}`$ needed to provide the equivalence between the couplings.

Another relevant statement with respect to the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling has been recently made by Tang and Ellis  from the point of view of Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT). They have shown that the contribution of the “off-shell parameter” to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-exchange amplitude can be absorbed into contact terms which are already present in the ChPT Lagrangian. Therefore, they argue, this parameter is redundant in ChPT. By using the field redefinition we can confirm their result and extend it to any linear spin-3/2 couplings, e.g. the $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ couplings.

It is further possible to argue that within the ChPT framework any linear spin-3/2 coupling is acceptable: in ChPT the additional $`_C`$ type of terms, which provide the equivalence of “inconsistent” and “consistent” couplings, are to be included anyway with arbitrary coefficients and in both situations. (Thus, the effective Lagrangian with an inconsistent coupling and a $`_C`$ term with arbitrary coefficient $`c_1`$, is equivalent to the Lagrangian with a consistent coupling and $`_C`$ term with a different but yet arbitrary coefficient $`c_2=c_2(c_1,g/m)`$. The spin-1/2 background will lead only to a change in the values of some coupling constants.)

Nevertheless, let us emphasize the use of the gauge-invariant couplings makes the calculations much easier and more transparent. In particular, the spin-1/2 sector can be entirely dropped from the RS propagator, while analyzing the spin-3/2 self-energy, one does not need to consider the ten scalar functions of the most general tensor structure , but only two of them , just as in the spin-1/2 case.

Besides the technical advantages, gauge-invariant couplings involve the physical highest-spin contributions only, and hence they are preferable in the analysis of separate contributions and effects due to spin-3/2 particles versus the rest. This is important when the properties of separate HS resonances are being extracted in a model-dependent way from experimental data. Here we in particular keep in mind the current programs at CEBAF and MAMI aimed to measure various electromagnetic properties of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) isobar.

Much of the said about the linear couplings is applicable to the quadratic, etc., couplings as well. Given any inconsistent coupling of a massive RS field $`\psi _\mu `$, we can obtain an on-shell equivalent consistent coupling by the replacement:

$$\psi _\mu \frac{i}{m}𝒪_{\mu \lambda }^{(1/3)}\gamma ^{\lambda \alpha \beta }_\alpha \psi _\beta .$$
(27)
It is then possible to work out the exact field transformation relating the couplings and the supplementary higher-order terms providing their equivalence at the $`S`$-matrix level. Working these out for any specific example is beyond the scope of this letter. Without going into details it is already clear that once the coupling involves several RS fields, the transformation must be nonlinear in the RS field and hence the number of supplementary terms is infinite.

In conclusion, we have shown that for any linear coupling of a massive spin-3/2 field all the possibly arising spin-1/2 contributions can be represented by a single interaction term independent of the spin-3/2 field itself. This is proven by showing that any “inconsistent” coupling involving the spin-1/2 components can be transformed by a field redefinition into a “consistent” gauge-invariant coupling that decouples the spin-1/2 sector. The additional interaction term arises in the course of field transformation and is needed to provide the equivalence of the two couplings at the level of $`S`$-matrix elements. We emphasize that consistent interactions have conceptual and technical advantages, making the calculations simpler and with more transparent interpretation.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am very thankful to Jambul Gegelia for many interesting discussions, and to Iraj Afnan, Stanley Deser, Thomas Hemmert, Justus Koch, Andrew Waldron for valuable remarks. The work is supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC).