text:
# Qualitative study of a robot arm as a hamiltonian system

## I Introduction

The problem of the stability of motion and equilibrium of manipulators is essential to their applicability in industry. In this work, we analyze the stability of one class of such manipulators, namely, planar manipulators with two links and two rotational driven joints (see Fig.1), modelled by a double pendulum subject to two constant external torques $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$(see Fig.2). Each pendulum has lenght $`L`$ and has a particle of mass $`m`$ attached to its end.

For any given configuration $`(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ where $`0\theta _12\pi `$ and $`0\theta _12\pi `$, and conjugate momenta $`p_1=p_2=0`$, the torques $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ can be adjusted so that this configuration become stationary. In this work we will study the dynamics of this system in the linear neighborhod of stationary configurations under constant external torques.

As indicated in Fig.2, the model consists of a combination of two simple pendula with equal length $`L`$, where the two drivers are represented by external torques $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ applied at points $`A`$ and $`B`$, respectively. For the sake of simplicity, we shall consider the mass $`m`$ of the object held by the end-effector $`C`$ as being equal to the mass of the driver in $`B`$.

We apply qualitative analysis techniquesahmed ; hagedorn ; meirovitch  suitable to non-linear systems, using the hamiltonian formalism.

## II Dynamics of the model

The system depicted in Fig.2 can be represented by the following hamiltonian function with two degrees of freedom:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{mL^2\left(1+sen^2\left(\theta _1\theta _2\right)\right)}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{2}}+p_2^2cos\left(\theta _1\theta _2\right)p_1p_2\right\}+`$ (1)
$`mgL\left(\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)+2\mathrm{cos}(\theta _2)\right)\theta _1T_1(t)\theta _2T_2(t),`$
where $`g`$ is the acceleration of gravity and $`(p_1,p_2)`$ are the conjugate momenta to the angular variables $`(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$, respectively. The functions $`T_1(t)`$ and $`T_2(t)`$ stand for arbitrary external torques on the system. The hamiltonian equations of motion yield the non-integrable, non-linear dynamical system

$`\dot{\theta _1}={\displaystyle \frac{H}{p_1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_1\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1\theta _2)p_2}{mL^2\left(1+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1\theta _2)\right)}}`$ (2)
$`\dot{p_1}={\displaystyle \frac{H}{\theta _1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(p_1^2+2p_2^22\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1\theta _2)p_1p_2\right)\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1\theta _2)\mathrm{sin}(\theta _1\theta _2)}{mL^2\left(1+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1\theta _2)\right)^2}}+`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\theta _1\theta _2)p_1p_2}{mL^2(1+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1\theta _2))}}2mgL\mathrm{sin}(\theta _1)+T_1(t)`$
$`\dot{\theta _2}={\displaystyle \frac{H}{p_2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2p_2\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1\theta _2)p_1}{mL^2\left(1+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1\theta _2)\right)}}`$ (4)
$`\dot{p_2}={\displaystyle \frac{H}{\theta _2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(p_1^2+2p_2^22\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1\theta _2)p_1p_2\right)\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1\theta _2)\mathrm{sin}(\theta _1\theta _2)}{mL^2\left(1+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1\theta _2)\right)^2}}+`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\theta _1\theta _2)p_1p_2}{mL^2\left(1+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1\theta _2)\right)}}mgL\mathrm{sin}(\theta _2)+T_2(t).`$
We will search for fixed points in phase space. At first, we will let $`T_1=T_2=0`$ and discuss the case of null external torques; afterwards, we shall treat the case of non-null constant external torques.

## III The robot arm with null external torques

Hamilton equations (2) and (5) have four fixed points. Namely,

𝒫1=(0000),𝒫2=(00π0),𝒫3=(
π000),𝒫4=(π0π0).formulae-sequencesubscript𝒫10000formulae-sequencesubscript𝒫200𝜋0formulae-sequencesubscript𝒫3
π000subscript𝒫4𝜋0𝜋0{\cal P}_{1}=\left(\begin{tabular}[]{c}0\\
0\\
0\\
0\end{tabular}\right),\ \ {\cal P}_{2}=\left(\begin{tabular}[]{c}0\\
0\\
$\pi$\\
0\end{tabular}\right),\ \ {\cal P}_{3}=\left(\begin{tabular}[]{c}$\pi$\\
0\\
0\\
0\end{tabular}\right),\ \ {\cal P}_{4}=\left(\begin{tabular}[]{c}$\pi$\\
0\\
$\pi$\\
0\end{tabular}\right). (6)
where the matrix lines are ordered from top to bottom according to the coordinates $`(\theta _1,p_1,\theta _2,p_2)`$, respectively. The total energies associated to each fixed point are

$$E_1=3mgL\text{ , }E_2=mgL\text{ , }E_3=+mgL\text{ , }E_4=+3mgL.$$
(7)
Upon linearization of the system of Hamilton equations, we obtain

$$\dot{X}_i=J_iX_i,$$
(8)
where $`i=1,2,3,4`$ labels the fixed points. The vector $`X_i`$ has the general form $`\stackrel{~}{X}_i=(\theta _1,p_1,\theta _2,p_2)`$, and the jacobian matrices $`J_i`$ are

$$J_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \frac{1}{mL^2}& 0& \frac{1}{mL^2}\\ 2mgL& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{mL^2}& 0& \frac{2}{mL^2}\\ 0& 0& mgL& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
$$J_2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \frac{1}{mL^2}& 0& \frac{1}{mL^2}\\ 2mgL& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{mL^2}& 0& \frac{2}{mL^2}\\ 0& 0& mgL& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(10)
$$J_3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \frac{1}{mL^2}& 0& \frac{1}{mL^2}\\ 2mgL& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{mL^2}& 0& \frac{2}{mL^2}\\ 0& 0& mgL& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
$$J_4=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \frac{1}{mL^2}& 0& \frac{1}{mL^2}\\ 2mgL& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{mL^2}& 0& \frac{2}{mL^2}\\ 0& 0& mgL& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(12)
The general solution to the linearized system (8) around a fixed point is a superposition of four independent solutions,

$$X_i(t)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{4}{}}c_m^{(i)}e^{\lambda _n^{(i)}t}A_m^{(i)},$$
(13)
where $`A_m^{(i)}`$ are the eigenvectors associated to the eigenvalues $`\lambda _n^{(i)}`$ of $`J_i`$, and the coefficients $`c_n^{(i)}`$ are integration constants that depend on the initial conditions. The eigenvalues associated to the $`J_i`$ matrices are, respectively,

$`J_1:`$ $`\lambda _{1,2}^{(1)}=\pm i\omega _0\sqrt{2\sqrt{2}}\text{ and }\lambda _{3,4}^{(1)}=\pm i\omega _0\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2}};`$ (14)
$`J_2:`$ $`\lambda _{1,2}^{(2)}=\pm \omega _0\sqrt[4]{2}\text{ and }\lambda _{3,4}^{(2)}=\pm i\omega _0\sqrt[4]{2};`$ (15)
$`J_3:`$ $`\lambda _{1,2}^{(3)}=\pm \omega _0\sqrt[4]{2}\text{ and }\lambda _{3,4}^{(3)}=\pm i\omega _0\sqrt[4]{2};`$ (16)
$`J_4:`$ $`\lambda _{1,2}^{(4)}=\pm \omega _0\sqrt{2\sqrt{2}}\text{ and }\lambda _{3,4}^{(4)}=\pm \omega _0\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2}}.`$ (17)
where $`\omega _0=\sqrt{g/L}`$ is the natural oscillation frequency of as simple pendulum for small amplitudes. In view of eqs.(14) to (17), we may classifystuchi ; monerat  the four existing fixed points: $`𝒫_1`$ is a pure center; $`𝒫_2`$ and $`𝒫_3`$ are saddle-centers and $`𝒫_4`$ is a pure saddle.

### III.1 The invariant manifolds: case of null torques

An important characteristic of this system when the torques are null is the presence of two similar invariant manifolds, each one of them associated to a saddle-center fixed point. Those manifolds are

$`_1`$ $`:`$ $`\left(\theta _2=0,p_2={\displaystyle \frac{p_1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\right)`$ (18)
$`_2`$ $`:`$ $`\left(\theta _2=\pi ,p_2={\displaystyle \frac{p_1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\right).`$ (19)
In view of the resemblance of the two invariant manifolds, our discussion will focus on $`_1`$, but can be straighforwardly extended to $`_2`$. The phase portrait upon $`_1`$ is shown in Fig.3. The resulting phase portrait is equivalent to that of a mathematical pendulum with arbitrary amplitude of oscillation.

Dynamics upon $`_1`$ is governed by the two-dimensional system of equations

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\dot{\theta }_1=\hfill & \frac{H}{p_1}=\frac{p_1}{2mL^2}\hfill & \\ & & \\ \dot{p}_1=\hfill & \frac{H}{q_1}=2mgL\mathrm{sin}(\theta _1).\hfill & \end{array}$$
(20)
In Fig.3 each orbit has a definite total energy. The point I corresponds to the solution $`(\theta _1=0,p_1=0)`$, a pure center upon the invariant manifold. That indicates that the robot arms is standing still in the vertical position. Another saddle-center fixed point upon $`_1`$ is $`(\theta _1=\pi ,p_1=0)`$. They correspond to the case where the $`AB`$ link of the robot arm (cf.Figs.1 and 2) remains in the vertical position (downwards and upwards, respectively), and only the $`BC`$ link is free to move.

### III.2 The normal form of the Hamiltonian

The hamiltonian describing the dynamics in the linear neighborhood of a saddle-center can always be rewritten as the sum of a rotational energy term and a hyperbolic energy term. This is a consequence of Moser’s theorem moser , which establishes that in a sufficiently small neighborhood of any saddle-center point, there is a set of canonically conjugate variables so that the hamiltonian in that neighboorhood is separable into a purely rotational term, and a purely hyperbolic term. We will apply the method of normal forms to find this set of coordinates.

The method of normal formsosorio  consists basically in applying Taylor series expansion to the velocity field around a fixed point. When such point is a saddle-center point, we may write the expanded hamiltonian in its quadratic (or normal) form. A canonical transformation is carried out so that we have vanishing off-diagonal termslandau . The transformation for the linear neighborhood of $`𝒫_2`$ is

$`\theta _1`$ $`=`$ $`x+y;`$ (21)
$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(5+\sqrt{17}\right)}{17+5\sqrt{17}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p_x}{5+\sqrt{17}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(5+\sqrt{17}\right)p_y}{4}}\right);`$ (22)
$`\theta _2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(5+\sqrt{17}\right)}{4}}x+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5+\sqrt{17}}}y+\pi ;`$ (23)
$`p_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(5+\sqrt{17}\right)}{17+5\sqrt{17}}}\left(p_xp_y\right).`$ (24)
In the new coordinates $`(x,p_x,y,p_y)`$, this fixed point is described by

$$\overline{𝒫_2}:(x=0,p_x=0,y=0,p_y=0).$$
(25)
Substituting (21)–(24) into the hamiltonian (1) and linearizing it in the neighborhood of $`\overline{𝒫_2}`$, it can be finally cast in its normal form

$$H=E_{hyp}+E_{rot}+ϵ,$$
(26)
where

$$ϵ=mgL$$
(27)
fixates the energy surface upon which the motion of the robot arm will take place. The energies

$$\{\begin{array}{ccccc}E_{hyp}=\hfill & \frac{\alpha _1}{2mL^2}p_x^2\frac{mgL}{2}\alpha _3x^2,\hfill & & & \\ & & & & \\ E_{rot}=\hfill & \frac{\alpha _2}{2mL^2}p_x^2+\frac{mgL}{2}\alpha _4\left(y\pi \right)^2,\hfill & & & \end{array}$$
(28)
correspond to the hyperbolic and rotational energies, respectively. The $`\alpha _l^{}`$s are numerical positive coefficients originated from the canonical tranformation (21). Those coefficients can be found in appendix B. In the new coordinates, according to the hamiltonian (26), the linearized solutions around $`\overline{𝒫_2}`$ are

$$\{\begin{array}{cccccc}x(t)\hfill & \frac{\sqrt{2\left(3+\sqrt{17}\right)gL}\left(5+\sqrt{17}\right)}{68mgL^2}\left(c_1\mathrm{exp}(wt)c_2\mathrm{exp}(wt)\right)\hfill & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ p_x(t)\hfill & c_1\mathrm{exp}(wt)c_2\mathrm{exp}(wt)\hfill & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ y(t)\hfill & \frac{D_2\sqrt{2\left(\sqrt{17}3\right)gL}\left(1+5\sqrt{17}\right)}{34mgL^2}\text{sen}\left(wt+\sigma \right)\hfill & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ p_y(t)\hfill & D_2\mathrm{cos}\left(wt+\sigma \right)\hfill & & & & \end{array}$$
(29)
Notice that in this linear neighborhood the rotational and hyperbolic motions are totally uncoupled.In (29), $`c_1,c_2,D_2`$ and $`\sigma `$ are arbitray constants of integration, depending on the initial conditions. The frequency $`w`$ is related to the frequency $`w_0`$ by

$$w=\frac{\sqrt{2\left(\sqrt{17}3\right)}}{2}w_0.$$
(30)
Similar results are found for the remaining saddle-center fixed point $`𝒫_3`$, and we shall omit such discussion here. As to the pure center fixed point, it will be described in the new coordinates as $`\overline{𝒫_1}:x=\frac{2\pi \left(5+\sqrt{17}\right)}{17+5\sqrt{17}},p_x=0,y=\frac{2\pi \left(5+\sqrt{17}\right)}{17+5\sqrt{17}},p_y=0`$.

The linearized solutions in the neighborhood of the pure center are

$$\{\begin{array}{cccccc}x(t)\hfill & \frac{2D_1\sqrt{2\left(5+\sqrt{17}\right)gL}\left(17+5\sqrt{17}\right)}{17mgL^2}\text{sen}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_1t+\theta \right)+\hfill & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ +\hfill & D_2\sqrt{2\left(5\sqrt{17}\right)gL}\left(5\sqrt{17}17\right)\text{sen}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_2t+\sigma \right)\hfill & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ p_x(t)\hfill & 8D_1\left(4+\sqrt{17}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_1t+\theta \right)+\frac{D_2\left(4+\sqrt{17}\right)}{2}\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_2t+\sigma \right)\hfill & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ y(t)\hfill & D_1\sqrt{2\left(5+\sqrt{17}\right)gL}\left(153+37\sqrt{17}\right)\text{sen}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_1t+\theta \right)+\hfill & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ +\hfill & D_2\frac{\sqrt{2\left(5\sqrt{17}\right)gL}}{34mgL^2}\left(153+37\sqrt{17}\right)\text{sen}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_2t+\sigma \right)\hfill & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ p_y(t)\hfill & 2D_1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1t+\theta )+2D_2\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }_2t+\sigma )\hfill & & & & \end{array}$$
(31)
where the frequencies

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\frac{\sqrt{2(5+\sqrt{17})}}{2}w_0;\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\frac{\sqrt{2(5\sqrt{17})}}{2}w_0,$$

are also related to the frequencies $`w_0`$.

As to the dynamics in the neighborhood of the pure-saddle fixed point $`𝒫_4`$, the solutions are linear combinations of real exponential functions. We shall restrict our discussion to the saddle-center fixed points, due to it rich topology.

### III.3 Topology of the linear neighborhood of saddle-center

Let us now analyze all possible motions in the linear neighborhood of the saddle-center point. As we have seen, dynamics in this neighborhood is governed by the hamiltonian (26). Thus, there are three possibilities: (a) $`E_{rot}0;E_{hyp}=0`$; (b) $`E_{rot}=0;E_{hyp}0`$ and (c) $`E_{rot}0;E_{hyp}0`$. We will discuss each case separately.

(a) For $`E_{rot}0,E_{hip}=0`$, there are two possibilities:

1. If $`(p_x=0,x=0)`$, we have unstable periodic orbits $`\tau `$ upon the $`(y,p_y)`$ plane, and their projection upon the $`(x,p_x)`$ plane is the $`(x=0,p_x=0)`$ point. Such orbits depend continuously on the parameter $`ϵ`$, so that

$$E_{rot}=mgL.$$
(32)
2. If $`p_x=\pm mL\sqrt{\frac{\alpha _3g}{\alpha _1}}x`$, the onedimensional linear manifolds $`V_S`$(stable) and $`V_i`$(unstable) (cf. Fig.4 and Fig.5) tangent the saddle-center are defined. The separatrices $`S`$ are non-linear extensions of $`V_S`$ and $`V_i`$. The general motion is the direct product of periodic orbits $`\tau `$ with the manifolds $`V_S`$ and $`V_i`$, generating the structures of cylinders $`(\tau \times V_S)`$(stable) and $`(\tau \times V_i)`$(unstable). Orbits on such cylinders have the periodic orbits $`\tau `$ as their assymptotic limit $`(t\mathrm{})`$. Notice that those cylinders have the same energy as that of the unstable periodic orbits $`\tau `$.

(b) If $`E_{rot}=0`$ and $`E_{hip}0`$, the motion is upon the invariant manifold $``$ defined by (18) or (19).

The resulting motion of the system consists in hyperbolic orbits on the $`(x,p_x)`$ plane, as the projection of orbits on the $`(y,p_y)`$ plane is reduced to a single point defined by (LABEL:xxc).

(c) If $`E_{rot}0`$ and $`E_{hip}0`$, the resultant motion is the direct product of hyperbolae related to the I, I, II and II regions of Fig.5, with the periodic orbits on the $`(y,p_y)`$ plane in the linear neigborhood of the saddle-center fixed point.

## IV The robot arm with constant external torques

We will analyze now the case of non-null constant external torques. There are still four fixed points, namely,

$$𝒫_1^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\beta _1}{\sqrt{\beta _1^2+4m^2g^2L^2}}\right)\\ \text{0}\\ \mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\beta _2}{\sqrt{\beta _2^2+m^2g^2L^2}}\right)\\ \text{0}\end{array}\right),𝒫_2^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\beta _1}{\sqrt{\beta _1^2+4m^2g^2L^2}}\right)\\ \text{0}\\ \mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\beta _2}{\sqrt{\beta _2^2+m^2g^2L^2}}\right)\\ \text{0}\end{array}\right),$$
(33)
$$𝒫_3^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\beta _1}{\sqrt{\beta _1^2+4m^2g^2L^2}}\right)\\ \text{0}\\ \mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\beta _2}{\sqrt{\beta _2^2+m^2g^2L^2}}\right)\\ \text{0}\end{array}\right),𝒫_4^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\beta _1}{\sqrt{\beta _1^2+4m^2g^2L^2}}\right)\\ \text{0}\\ \mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\beta _2}{sqrt\beta _2^2+m^2g^2L^2}\right)\\ \text{0}\end{array}\right).$$
(34)
where $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ stand for the constant external torques. Coordinates, from top to bottom, are ordered according to $`(\theta _1,p_1,\theta _2,p_2)`$. The coordinates of those fixed points must be real; hence, their existence is subject to the two simultaneous conditions:

$`|\beta _1|`$ $``$ $`2mgL,`$ (35)
$`|\beta _2|`$ $``$ $`mgL.`$ (36)
If those conditions are satisfied, there will be four fixed points, as in the null-torque case. The same procedure used previously to analyze the nature of such fixed points can be applied, and their nature determined. It turns out that for

$`|\beta _1|`$ $`<`$ $`2mgL`$ (37)
$`|\beta _2|`$ $`<`$ $`mgL,`$ (38)
The nature of fixed points is the same for that in which the torques are null. In other words, $`𝒫_1^{}`$ is a pure center, with corresponding energy

$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\left(\beta _2^2+m^2g^2L^2\right)}\sqrt{\beta _1^2+4m^2g^2L^2}+`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\sqrt{\beta _1^2+4m^2g^2L^2}}}\right)\beta _1\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{\sqrt{\beta _2^2+m^2g^2L^2}}}\right)\beta _2`$
In their turn, $`𝒫_2^{}`$ and $`𝒫_3^{}`$ are saddle-center points, with corresponding energy

$`E_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\beta _2^2+m^2g^2L^2}+\sqrt{\beta _1^2+4m^2g^2L^2}+`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\sqrt{\beta _1^2+4m^2g^2L^2}}}\right)\beta _1\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{\sqrt{\beta _2^2+m^2g^2L^2}}}\right)\beta _2`$
and

$`E_3`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\beta _2^2+m^2g^2L^2}\sqrt{\beta _1^2+4m^2g^2L^2}+`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\sqrt{\beta _1^2+4m^2g^2L^2}}}\right)\beta _1\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{\sqrt{\beta _2^2+m^2g^2L^2}}}\right)\beta _2`$
respectively. The fourth fixed point $`𝒫_4^{}`$ is a pure saddle, with energy

$`E_4`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\beta _2^2+m^2g^2L^2}+\sqrt{\beta _1^2+4m^2g^2L^2}+`$ (42)
$`\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{\sqrt{\beta _1^2+4m^2g^2L^2}}}\right)\beta _1\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{\sqrt{\beta _2^2+m^2g^2L^2}}}\right)\beta _2.`$
If $`\beta _1=\beta _2=0`$, we fall into the null torques case, and the classification of those points is the same. In the special case

$$|\beta _2|=mgL\text{ and }|\beta _1|=2mgL$$
(43)
it can be shown that all fixed points are degenerate, i.e., the jacobian matrices of the linearized system in the neighborhood of those fixed points have all vanishing eigenvalues. In this case, a new procedure must be taken, so that at first this degenerescence is raised, and then the points are classifiedbogo . We will not approach the degenerate case here.

From what has been seen above, the topology of orbits in the linear neighborhood of fixed points is the same for both the null-torques and non-null constant torques cases.

By the introduction of constant external torques, their intensity can be adjusted so that the robot arm be held any desired configuration in equilibrium. The majority of those equilibrium points are unstable, though: any fluctuation on the initial conditions can take the system out of equilibrium. In the case of the saddle-center points, the choice of certain branches of the saddle can lead to stable equilibrium, even in the presence of fluctuations.

## V Conclusions and final remarks

We have proposed that the planar manipulator with two links and two rotational joins, a system with two degrees of freedom, be described by the hamiltonian of a double pendulum subject to two external torques. In its phase space, four fixed points (stationary solutions) can be found; a pure center, a pure saddle, and two saddle-centers, which can be used as a clue to the structure of orbits in in all phase space. We have also observed that there are two similar invariant manifolds, each one of them associated to a saddle-center points. The phase portrait of the system upon those manifolds resembles that of a mathematical pendulum of arbitrary amplitude. Dynamics upon such manifolds is governed by a unidimensional autonomous system, thus being totally integrable. For any set of initial conditions placed on one such manifold, the orbits will be confined to that manifold. We should keep in mind, however, that those manifolds are embedded into a four-dimensional phase space, so that the system in general in non-integrable.

An important result is that for constant external torques, the phase space topology in the linear neighborhood of the fixed points is the same as that of the null-torques case, if certain conditions involving the torques and parameters of the system are satisfied. With a proper choice of torque intensities, then, we may define any point in configuration space as a fixed point, without altering its nature, in relation to the null-torques case. In particular, the topology of orbits in the linear neighborhood of the saddle-center points is the same, as the existence of the corresponding invariant manifolds.

A possible continuation of this work involves the analysis of the non-linear neighborhood of fixed points. Strong indications of chaotic behavior are expected, due to the non-integrability of the system.

## Acknowledgment

G. A Monerat & E. V. Corrêa Silva thank the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brazil, for finantial support.


format: text

text:
# Oxidation = group theory

## 1 Introduction

If one takes the idea of extra dimensions seriously, as is usually done in Kaluza-Klein-, string- and M-theory, the immediate question one faces is to guess the higher dimensional theory and geometry from a lower dimensional one. The process of constructing the higher dimensional theory from the lower dimensional one is called “oxidation”. An interesting aspect of oxidation is that it is not unique; there may be multiple theories giving rise to the same low dimensional theory. This is the phenomenon of duality: Different higher dimensional theories lead to the same low energy physics, and we should not discriminate between the various higher dimensional formulations.

In this paper we discuss classical field theories only, and their dimensional reduction (toroidal compactification and subsequent truncation to the massless sector). For theories involving (super-)gravity, this scheme leads to theories with scalar sectors formulated as sigma models on symmetric spaces $`G/H`$, with $`G`$ a non-compact group, and $`G`$ its maximal compact subgroup. Reducing to 2+1 dimensions, all bosonic degrees of freedom are scalars (or can be dualized to scalars). We suppose that these live on a coset space $`G/H`$, and ask the question: Which higher dimensional theories lead to these theories, upon dimensional reduction ?

Earlier studies of this question focussed on oxidation to 4 dimensions , or to all dimensions, but restricted to cosets for which $`G`$ is split . One approach is to postulate the higher dimensional theory, and then derive that it indeed results in the wanted low dimensional theory. This is slightly unsatisfactory in view of the non-uniqueness of the oxidation process. A more systematic approach is presented in : Building on developments from  and suggestive conjectures from  they developed a geometric scheme based on Del Pezzo-surfaces. A drawback is however that at present, this method only applies to groups that are split, and sub-groups of $`E_{8(8)}`$.

In  we presented a scheme that allows one to attack the problem for so-called split forms; the extension to generic non-compact groups is discussed in . The method is based on decomposition of $`G`$ into subgroups; due to its mathematical nature it allows an exhaustive analysis. As a bonus we recover all equations (equations of motion and Bianchi identities) for all theories in the oxidation chain, and are able to furnish proofs of some observations in the literature. As the method concentrates on equations rather than actions, we have no difficulty in handling theories with (anti-)self-dual tensors.

## 2 The idea

An important reference for the ideas expressed in this section is . For an extended discussion, and more references we refer the reader to .

In theories of gravity the concept of a vielbein is an important one, and generalizations of the concept play an important role in coset theories. A vielbein represents an element of $`GL(D)/SO(1,D1)`$. The quotient factor is the Lorentz group. It is standard lore that upon dimensional reduction, the number of (massless) degrees of freedom stays constant; these massless degrees organize in representations of the helicity group $`SO(D2)`$. Motivated by this, we turn to the cosets $`SL(D2)/SO(D2)`$. We might consider $`GL(D2)`$ instead of $`SL(D2)`$, but the determinant of the $`GL(D)`$ element represents a scale factor that plays no role in the following. In 3 dimensions all degrees of freedom can be represented by scalars (after appropriate dualizations), and indeed, the dimensional reduction of general relativity in $`D`$ dimensions to $`3`$ dimensions gives rise to a sigma model on $`SL(D2)/SO(D2)`$ .

We now consider 3 dimensional sigma models on coset spaces of the form $`G/H`$, with $`G`$ a non-compact group, and $`H`$ its maximal compact subgroup. A famous example is the 3-d coset on $`E_{8(8)}/SO(16)`$, resulting from reducing the bosonic sector of a maximal supergravity to 3 dimensions. This example immediately suggests the inverse problem: Given the coset $`G/H`$ can this be interpreted as a dimensional reduction of a higher dimensional theory and if so, which one(s)? The result that general relativity gives rise to a $`SL(D2)/SO(D2)`$ coset suggests that if the answer is affirmative, we should be able to identify an $`SL(D2)`$ subgroup in $`G`$. Suppose we have such a subgroup, then we should decompose $`G`$ in $`SL(D2)`$ irreducible representations (irreps). Applying the “vielbein” we can convert $`SL(D2)`$ irreps into $`SO(D2)`$ irreps, which in view of the previous discussion, we would like to interpret as matter fields.

The group $`G`$ is represented by its adjoint representation, which is a self-conjugate irrep, and decomposition will lead to self-conjugate representations. These come in two kinds: pairs of conjugate irreps; and self-conjugate irreps. We want to interpret these as massless fields, i.e. one graviton, forms and scalar fields. The pairs of conjugate irreps represent forms and their duals; self-conjugate irreps are the adjoint of $`SL(D2)`$, representing the graviton, singlets (scalars), or self-conjugate forms. The latter are important in theories with (anti)self-dual tensors.

The centralizer of $`SL(D2)`$ in $`G`$ acts as a symmetry group on the $`SL(D2)`$ representations. We call the centralizer the *U-duality group*, even though most cosets do not have a direct relation with string theory.

We have assumed thus far that upon decomposition of $`G`$ into $`SL(D2)`$ irreps, we find irreps that can be interpreted as one (and no more) graviton, and some forms and scalars. In other words, we want only one adjoint irrep in the decomposition, and the rest must be anti-symmetric tensors and singlets. Requiring this is equivalent to a constraint on the $`SL(D2)`$-subgroup in question; it has to be an *index 1* subgroup of $`G`$ (see  for a derivation of this fact).

Index 1 subgroups are special. They must be *regular*, which means that that the root lattice of the subgroup can be chosen to be a sublattice of the lattice of the original group. All regular subalgebra’s of a given (complexified) algebra can be found by a procedure described by Dynkin . One still has to verify that the algebra describes the real form that we want, $`SL(D2,)`$. This can be guaranteed by choosing a particular realization of the real form, and some technology described in .

If the group is simply laced, all regular embeddings have index 1. If the group is non-simply laced, then regular subgroups involving only short roots are possible. Such subgroups have an index bigger than one, and hence are excluded.

The conclusion is that regular $`SL(D2,)`$ subgroups of long roots are the appropriate mathematical structure for encoding the graviton in the theories under study. Regularity of subgroups is a criterion that has been observed before , and is implicit in many discussions on algebraic aspects of compactified gravity.

## 3 Coset sigma models

We use a basis for the Lie algebra of $`G`$ consisting of Cartan subalgebra generators $`H_i`$ and ladder operators $`E_\alpha `$ (labelled by the roots of $`G`$), obeying:

$$[H_i,H_j]=0;[H_i,E_\alpha ]=\alpha ^iE_\alpha ;[E_\alpha ,E_\alpha ]=\alpha ^iH_i;[E_\alpha ,E_\beta ]=N_{\alpha ,\beta }E_{\alpha +\beta }.$$
(1)
Our discussion of sigma models is based on the action ($`𝒱G`$)

$$L_{G/H}=e\text{tr}\left((𝒱)𝒱^1\frac{1}{2}(1+T)(𝒱)𝒱^1\right).$$
(2)
Here $`T`$ is an operator that encodes the action of the Cartan involution on the algebra. As $`T`$ represents an involution, $`\frac{1}{2}(1+T)`$ is a projection operator, projecting out the generators of the compact subgroup $`H`$. Although the analysis can be done for any Cartan involution , we follow , and restrict to $`G`$’s that are so called split real forms. These are generated by linear combinations of the $`H_i`$’s and $`E_\alpha `$’s with *real* coefficients.

The 1-form $`(\mathrm{d}𝒱)𝒱^1`$ is an element of the algebra of $`G`$. It can be expanded as

$$(\mathrm{d}𝒱)𝒱^1=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\mathrm{d}\varphi ^iH^i+\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+}{}e^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha ,\varphi }F_{(1)\alpha }E_\alpha .$$
(3)
The second sum runs only over the set of positive roots of $`G`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, and $`r`$ denotes the (real) rank. This expansion assumes a particular choice of gauge, the so-called positive root gauge, that is possible by virtue of the Iwasawa decomposition.

The $`F_{(1)\alpha }`$ are one forms. To get more detail on these, we take the derivative $`\mathrm{d}((\mathrm{d}𝒱)𝒱^1)=((\mathrm{d}𝒱)𝒱^1)((\mathrm{d}𝒱)𝒱^1)`$ which translates into

$$\mathrm{d}F_{(1)\gamma }=\frac{1}{2}\underset{}{}N_{\alpha ,\beta }F_{(1)\alpha }F_{(1)\beta }=\{\begin{array}{c}\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }^+\hfill \\ \alpha +\beta =\gamma \hfill \end{array}.$$
(4)
Note the appearance of the structure constants $`N_{\alpha ,\beta }`$. The structure becomes even nicer when also considering the equations of motion for the scalar coset. We recover these by regarding the $`F_{(1)\alpha }`$ as independent fields, and enforcing (4) by Lagrange multipliers (which will be ($`D2`$)-forms). Therefore we add to the Lagrangian

$$L_{Bianchi}=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+}{}\left(\mathrm{d}F_{(1)\alpha }\underset{\alpha =\beta +\gamma }{}N_{\beta ,\gamma }F_{(1)\beta }F_{(1)\gamma }\right)A_{(D2)\alpha }.$$
(5)
The labels $`\alpha `$ appearing on the $`(D2)`$-forms turn out meaningful. Varying with respect to $`F_{(1)\gamma }`$ we find the equations

$$F_{(D1)\gamma }e^{\gamma ,\varphi }F_{(1)\gamma }=\mathrm{d}A_{(D2)\gamma }\underset{\beta \alpha =\gamma }{}N_{\beta ,\alpha }F_{(1)\beta }A_{(D2)\alpha }.$$
(6)
We defined $`F_{(D1)\alpha }`$, and used a group theoretical identity for the structure constants. We are not interested in the dual potential $`A_{(D2)\alpha }`$, but in the field strengths $`F_{(D1)\alpha }`$. Taking the derivatives of these (note that in general $`\mathrm{d}F_{(1)\beta }0`$ !), one finds

$$\mathrm{d}F_{(D1)\gamma }=\underset{}{}N_{\alpha ,\beta }F_{(1)\alpha }F_{(D1)\beta }=\{\begin{array}{c}\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }^+\hfill \\ \alpha \beta =\gamma \hfill \end{array}.$$
(7)
In terms of $`F_{(D1)\alpha }`$, the Lagrangian can be rewritten to

$$L_{G/H}=\mathrm{d}\varphi ,\mathrm{d}\varphi \frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+}{}F_{(D1)\alpha }F_{(1)\alpha },$$
(8)
from which one finds the equation of motion for $`\varphi `$

$$2\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{d}\varphi ^i)=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+}{}\alpha ^iF_{(D1)\alpha }F_{(1)\alpha }.$$
(9)
Note that also the $`\alpha ^i`$ are structure constants of the algebra.

With (4),(7) and (9) we have established a one-to-one relation between the conventional basis of the Lie-algebra of $`G`$, and the equations relevant to the coset sigma model. For every $`E_\alpha `$ where $`\alpha `$ is a positive root, we have a Bianchi identity from (4), when $`\alpha `$ is a negative root we have an equation of motion from (7), while the Cartan subalgebra corresponds to equations (9) for $`\varphi `$. The Cartan subalgebra gives only $`\text{rank }G`$ equations, because the “Bianchi identity” for the potential for $`\varphi `$, $`\mathrm{d}^2\varphi =0`$ is trivial.

Coupling to other forms $`F_{(n)}`$ can be done by adding quadratic terms to the action. If the $`F_{(n)}`$ form a non-trivial representation of U-duality, we contract on an internal “metric” to render the action U-duality invariant. This schematically takes the form

$$L_m=\frac{1}{2}F_{(n)}F_{(n)},$$
(10)
with $``$ in an appropriate representation. The possibility of Chern-Simons terms will turn up naturally later.

The equation of motion, and Bianchi identity for $`F_{(n)}`$ can be “covariantized” to reflect the local $`H`$-invariance, and then become

$`\left(\mathrm{d}+T(\mathrm{d}𝒱𝒱^1)\right)𝒱F_{(n)}=0`$ $`\text{(equation of motion)};`$ (11)
$`\left(\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{d}𝒱𝒱^1)\right)𝒱F_{(n)}=0`$ $`\text{(Bianchi identity)}.`$ (12)
If the fields $`F_{(n)}`$ and $`F_{(n)}`$ represent the same degrees of freedom, we cannot allow them to transform differently. Hence, only local transformations $`𝒱(x)U(x)𝒱(x)`$ for which $`\frac{1}{2}(1+T)(\mathrm{d}UU^1)=0`$ are allowed, but this is precisely the restriction to the compact subgroup that was imposed already.

Both $`𝒱F_{(n)}`$ and $`𝒱F_{(n)}`$ represent a full $`G`$ multiplet of fields. The components of a multiplet can be labelled by their weights, and we decompose by writing

$$𝒱F_{(n)}\underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}e^{\frac{1}{2}\lambda ,\varphi }F_{(n)\lambda },𝒱F_{(n)}\underset{\lambda \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{}e^{\frac{1}{2}\lambda ,\varphi }F_{(Dn)\lambda }.$$
(13)
The sum runs over the weights $`\lambda `$ ($`\lambda `$) on the weight lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) of the representation. $`𝒱F_{(n)}`$ transforms in the representation conjugate that of $`𝒱F_{(n)}`$, and the weights differ by a minus sign. The forms of degree $`Dn`$ are *not* the duals to $`F_{(n)\lambda }`$. Rather,

$$e^{\frac{1}{2}\lambda ,\varphi }F_{(Dn)\lambda }=e^{\frac{1}{2}\lambda ,\varphi }F_{(n)\lambda }.$$
(14)
Inserting $`(\mathrm{d}𝒱)𝒱^1`$ from (3) in the Bianchi identity (12), one obtains

$$\mathrm{d}F_{(n)\lambda ^{}}=\underset{}{}N_{\alpha ,\lambda }F_{(1)\alpha }F_{(n)\lambda }=\{\begin{array}{c}\lambda ,\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill \\ \alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+\hfill \\ \alpha +\lambda =\lambda ^{}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(15)
The constants $`N_{\alpha ,\lambda }`$ can be computed but we will not need them explicitly; when finding expressions like (15) in the future, the constants are determined in the derivation.

The equation of motion (11) can be rewritten similarly, and becomes

$$\mathrm{d}F_{(Dn)\lambda ^{}}=\underset{}{}N_{\alpha ,\lambda }F_{(1)\alpha }F_{(Dn)\lambda }=\{\begin{array}{c}\lambda ,\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill \\ \alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+\hfill \\ \alpha \lambda =\lambda ^{}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(16)
It can happen that form and dual form transform in a self-conjugate representation; in theories with self-dual tensors they *must* be in such a representation. In that case the equation of motion (16) and Bianchi identity (15) are essentially the same equation, and we can consistently impose self-duality.

The Lagrangian (10) for coupled matter becomes

$$L_m=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}F_{(Dn)\lambda }F_{(n)\lambda }.$$
(17)
The sum over $`\lambda `$ indicates a sum over the weights of the representation. Note that again there is one equation for every weight.

With extra matter, the equation of motion for the dilatonic scalars (9) becomes

$$2\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{d}\varphi ^i)=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+}{}\alpha ^iF_{(D1)\alpha }F_{(1)\alpha }+\underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\lambda ^iF_{(Dn)\lambda }F_{(n)\lambda },$$
(18)
while (7) is not modified. Note that singlet representations of U-duality do not couple to $`\varphi `$ (as for these, $`\lambda =0`$).

For the non-dilatonic fields we have used roots and weights as labels. In equations we find that left and right hand side have the same degrees, and their labels sum up to the same vector. The rule on addition of forms is implied by Lorentz symmetry in the non-compact directions. The additivity of the vector and weight labels follows from the U-duality group. The theory is invariant under $`𝒱U𝒱`$, with $`U`$ a constant element of $`G`$. Most of these symmetries were eliminated by gauge fixing, but when $`U`$ is an element obtained by exponentiating an element of the Cartan subalgebra, we have

$$\varphi \varphi +\zeta ;F_{(n)\xi }e^{\frac{1}{2}\xi ,\zeta }F_{(n)\xi }.$$
(19)
regardless of whether $`\xi `$ is a weight or a root. Covariance of the equations of motion and Bianchi identities requires the labels of various terms to add up on both sides. The exponential factors included in the definitions of fields labelled by negative roots (6) and conjugate weights (14) ensure the transformation behavior implied by their labels.

## 4 Oxidation

The equations governing the axions (4) (7), and form fields (15) (16) have a very similar common structure. Together with the considerations on the group structure, they suggest the following “oxidation recipe”:

* We start from a 3 dimensional sigma model on $`G/H`$.
* To oxidize to $`D`$ dimensions, decompose $`G`$ into $`SL(D2)\times U_D`$ irreps, with $`U_D`$ the U-duality group, and $`SL(D2)`$ an index 1 subgroup. Of course, in the absence of such a group, we cannot oxidize. The irreps of $`SL(D2)`$ are $`n`$-forms, singlets and one adjoint. The conjugate irrep of an $`n`$-form is a $`(D2n)`$-form.
* Separate the roots of $`G`$ in $`SL(D2)`$-weights (by projecting onto the subspace containing the $`SL(D2)`$ lattice), and assign to each complete set of weights for a form representation a field $`F_{(n+1)\alpha ^{}}`$, with $`n`$ the degree of the form, and $`\alpha ^{}`$ the projection of the root $`\alpha `$ onto the subspace orthogonal to the $`SL(D2)`$ sublattice.
* Some of the $`SL(D2)`$ singlets are labelled by the roots of $`U_D`$ (these correspond to axions). Make a positive root decomposition for these, and assign a form $`F_{(1)\alpha }`$ to positive roots, and $`F_{(D1)\alpha }`$ for negative roots.
* *All* (!) equations for the forms, and axions in the oxidized theories are given by

$$\mathrm{d}F_{(n)\alpha ^{}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{}{}\eta _{l,\beta ;m,\gamma }N_{\beta ,\gamma }F_{(l)\beta ^{}}F_{(m)\gamma ^{}}=\{\begin{array}{c}l+m=n+1\hfill \\ \alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}=\gamma ^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
The $`N_{\beta ,\gamma }`$ are structure constants inherited from $`G`$. We have included sign factors $`\eta _{l,\beta ;m,\gamma }=\pm 1`$, because the structure constants are antisymmetric, but the product of two forms is not necessarily, and the sign factors prevent terms from vanishing pairwise. The computation of $`\eta _{l,\beta ;m,\gamma }`$ is straightforward, and there is freedom in the choice of signs . For many purposes it is not necessary to know them explicitly.
* The remaining equations are the dilaton equation (18), and the Einstein equation. The terms on the right hand side of (18) and the matter fields to which the Einstein tensor couples are governed by the decomposition of $`G`$ in $`SL(D2)`$ irreps.

It can be demonstrated  that this elegant and simple procedure, is exactly the inverse to the systematic dimensional reduction procedure as developed in . Note that, whereas the equations (4),(7),(15) and (16) always involve a 1 form in the terms on the right side, we have made no such restriction in (20). Such terms are known to arise due to modified Bianchi identities, and Chern-Simons terms in the action.

## 5 Examples

Maximal supergravity in 3 dimensions gives rise to a sigma model on $`E_{8(8)}/SO(16)`$. The group $`E_{8(8)}`$ has an index 1 subgroup $`SL(9)`$, under which the 248-dimensional adjoint decomposes into the adjoint of $`SL(9)`$, a 3-form, and a 6-form. The oxidation recipe gives rise to an 11 dimensional theory, with equations:

$`\mathrm{d}F_{(7)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{(4)}F_{(4)}\mathrm{d}F_{(4)}=0`$ (21)
The first equation is a consequence of the Chern-Simons term of 11-d supergravity.

There are two non-equivalent embeddings of $`SL(8)`$ into $`E_{8(8)}`$; one results in an $`SL(8)\times `$ subgroup, and leads to the bosonic sector of IIA supergravity; the other decomposition is $`SL(8)\times SL(2)`$, giving the bosonic sector of IIB supergravity. All $`SL(7)`$ embeddings are equivalent, and can be embedded in the $`SL(8)`$ of IIA theory or the one for IIB theory; this is the statement of T-duality of IIA and IIB theory.

Decomposing $`E_{8(8)}`$ into $`SL(8)\times SL(2)`$ we find the adjoints of $`SL(8)`$ and $`SL(2)`$ (giving the graviton and a sigma model), an $`SL(2)`$-doublet of $`SL(8)`$ 2-tensors, and an $`SL(8)`$ 4-tensor, invariant under $`SL(2)`$. Equation (6) and (20) result in

$$F_{(5)0}=F_{(5)0}\mathrm{d}F_{(5)0}=F_{(3)\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2}}F_{(3)\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2}}$$
(22)
demonstrating that the formalism easily deals with self-dual tensors.

Our formalism covers a wealth of other theories, among which many that allow a supersymmetric extension. More examples, and a discussion on how the graphical language of Dynkin and Satake diagrams facilitates the analysis can be found in .

I thank Niels Obers, Pierre Henry-Labordere and Louis Paulot, and especially Bernard Julia for discussions. The author is supported in part by the “FWO-Vlaanderen” through project G.0034.02, in part by the Federal office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs trough the Interuniversity Attraction Pole P5/27 and in part by the European Commision RTN programme HPRN-CT-2000-00131, in which the author is associated to the University of Leuven.


text:
# DESY 02-157 hep-ph/0212099 Electroweak instantons/sphalerons at VLHC?

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank F. Schrempp for many fruitful discussions and a careful reading of the manuscript. Furthermore, I would like to thank the organizers of the 26th Johns Hopkins Workshop on Current Problems in Particle Theory, Heidelberg, August 1-3, 2002, in particular O. Nachtmann, for inspiration and encouragement of the present work.


text:
# The extended, relativistic hyperon star model.

## I Introduction

Compact stars which are known from observations can be classified into two distinctive groups. The first one is exemplified by white dwarfs and the second by neutron stars. Neutron stars themselves are identify with pulsars and compact X-ray sources weber . At the core of a neutron star the density of matter ranges from a few times of the density of normal nuclear matter to about an order of magnitude higher. Thus various exotic forms of matter such as hyperons or quark-hadron mix phase are expected to emerge in the interior of a neutron star weber . The appearance of these additional degrees of freedom and their impact not only on neutron stars but on proto-neutron stars structure and evolution as well has been the subject of extensive studies glen . Properties of matter at such extreme densities are of particular importance in determining forms of equations of state relevant for neutron stars and in examining their global parameters bema . Theoretical description of hadronic systems should be performed with the use of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) as it is the fundamental theory of strong interactions. However, at the hadronic energy scale where the observed experimentally degrees of freedom are not quarks but hadrons the direct description of nuclei in terms of QCD become inadequate. Other alternative approach has to be formulated one of which is quantum hadrodynamics (QHD) walecka  giving quantitative description of the nuclear many body problem. QHD is a relativistic quantum field theory in which nuclear matter description in terms of baryons and mesons is provided. The original model (QHD-I) contains nucleons interacting through the exchange of simulating medium range attraction $`\sigma `$ meson and $`\omega `$ meson responsible for short range repulsion. Extension (QHD-II) of this theory bog77 ; bodmer ; gmuca  includes also the isovector meson $`\rho `$. Nonlinear terms in the scalar and vector fields were added in order to get the correct value of the compressibility of nuclear matter and the proper density dependence in the vector self-energy. The variation of nucleon properties in nuclear medium is the key problem in nuclear physics. In order to incorporate quark degrees of freedom in the analysis of nuclear many-body system Guichon qmc1  provides a quark-meson coupling model (QMC). The extension of the QMC theory namely the quark mean field model (QMF), describing a nucleon with the use of the constituent quark model, has been successfully applied to study the properties of both nuclear matter and finite nuclei. The model considered in this paper is an alternative version of the Walecka approach with enlarged meson sector. In the interior of neutron stars the density of matter could exceed normal nuclear matter density up to a few times, in such high density regime nucleon Fermi energies exceed the value of hyperon masses and thus the new hadronic degrees of freedom are expected to emerge. The higher the density the more various hadronic species are expected to populate. The onset of hyperon formation depends on the hyperon-nucleon and hyperon-hyperon interactions. Hyperons can be formed both in leptonic and baryonic processes. Several relevant strong interaction processes proceed and establish the hyperon population in the neutron star matter. Neutron star models are constructed at different levels of complexity starting from the most elementary one which assumes that neutrons are the only component. The more sophisticated version is formulated under the assumption that the neutron star matter has to obey the constrains of charge neutrality and $`\beta `$ equilibrium. Thus the model considered describes high isospin asymmetric matter and it has to be extended by the inclusion of isovector-scalar meson $`a_0(980)`$ ($`\delta `$ meson)delta . For the sake of completness additional nonlinear vector meson interactions are included. When strange hadrons are taken into account uncertainties which are present in the description of nuclear matter are intensified due to the incompleteness of the available experimental data. The standard approach does not reproduce the strongly attractive hyperon-hyperon interaction seen in double $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei. In order to construct a proper model which do include hyperons the effects of hyperon-hyperon interactions have to be taken into account. These interactions are simulated via (hidden) strange meson exchange: scalar meson $`f_0(975)`$ ($`\sigma ^{}`$ meson) and vector meson $`\varphi (1020)`$ ($`\varphi `$ meson) and influence the form of the equation of state and neutron stars properties.
The solution of the presented model is gained with the mean field approximation in which meson fields are replaced by their expectation values. The parameters used are adjusted in the limiting density range around saturation density $`\rho _0`$ and in this density range give very good description in finite nuclei. However, incorporation of this theory to higher density require an extrapolation which in turn leads to some uncertainties and suffers of several shortcomings. The standard TM1 parameter set for high density range reveals an instability of neutron star matter which is connected with the appearance of negative nucleon effective mass due to the presence of hyperons. The Zimanyi-Moszkowski (ZM) zima  model in which the Yukawa type interaction $`g_{sN}\phi `$ is replaced by the derivative one $`(g_{sN}\phi /M_N)\overline{\psi }_N\gamma _\nu ^\nu \psi `$ exemplifies an alternative version of the Walecka model which improves the behaviour of the nucleon effective masses. It also influences the value of the incompressibility $`K`$ of neutron star matter. The derivative coupling effectively introduces the density dependence of the scalar and vector coupling constants. Knowing the form of the equation of state (EOS) is the decisive factor in determining properties of neutron stars such as: central density, mass-radius relation, crust extent or the moment of inertia.
The essential goal of this paper is to obtain within the described above model the equation of state for the neutron star matter on the basis of calculations carried out for asymmetric nuclear matter in the relativistic mean field approach (RMF) and to compare the obtained results with ones that are relevant for high density calculations - namely with a quark star. The inclusion of $`\delta `$ meson affects the neutron stars chemical composition changing the proton fraction which in turn affects the cooling mechanism. If the proton fraction is higher than the critical value of about $`Y_p0.11`$ lat  the direct URCA processes can proceed and this enhances the rate of neutron star cooling. Whether the proton fraction can exceed the critical value and at what density it occurs depends on the model. The proton fraction is almost entirely determined by the isospin-dependent part of the EOS thus the inclusion of $`\delta `$ meson and nonlinear vector meson interactions influence the neutron star structure and properties.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines the extended model with derivative coupling including hyperons and additional mesons, together with the collected equations of motions. Their solutions enable the construction of the equation of state . In section 3 the equilibrium conditions leading to the relevant hyperon star composition are presented together with the chosen values of parameters. Section 4 contains numerical results and the discussion of their influence on neutron stars properties.

## II The model

For the description of properties of the infinite nuclear matter with nonzero strangeness the relevant parts of the SU(3) structure have been involved. Due to the parity conservation the appearance of pseudoscalar mesons is forbidden. The Lagrangian function for the system can be written as a sum of a baryonic part including the full octet of baryons together with baryon-meson interaction terms, a mesonic part containing additional interactions between mesons which mathematically express themselves as supplementary, nonlinear terms in the Lagrangian function, and a free leptonic part

$$=_{BM}+_M+_L.$$
(1)
The interacting baryons are described by the Lagrangian function $`_{BM}`$ which is given by

$$_{BM}=\underset{B}{}(1+\frac{g_{sB}\sigma +g_{\sigma ^{}B}\sigma ^{}+I_{3B}g_{\delta B}\tau ^a\delta ^a}{M_B})\overline{\psi }_Bi\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \psi _B\underset{B}{}\overline{\psi }_BM_B\psi _B.$$
(2)
where the spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }_B^T=(\psi _N,\psi _\mathrm{\Lambda },\psi _\mathrm{\Sigma },\psi _\mathrm{\Xi })`$ is composed of the following isomultiplets glen ,len :

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Psi }_N=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\psi _p}{\psi _n}\right),& \mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\psi _\mathrm{\Lambda },\\ & \\ \mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}\\ \psi _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}\\ \psi _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\end{array}\right),& \mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Xi }=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\psi _{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}}{\psi _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}\right).\end{array}$$

The covariant derivative $`D_\mu `$ is defined as

$$D_\mu =_\mu +ig_{\omega B}\omega _\mu +ig_{\varphi B}\varphi _\mu +ig_{\rho B}I_{3B}\tau ^ab_\mu ^a.$$
(3)
The model considered represents an alternative version of the Walecka model in which the Yukawa interaction term is replaced by the derivative coupling one. This Zimanyi-Moszkowski zima  method allows to solve the problem of too low effective nucleon masses achieved in the original approach. Rescaling the baryon field in a way proposed by Zimanyi and Moszkowski zima  the modified Lagrange function for interacting baryons is obtained

$$_B=\underset{B}{}\overline{\psi }_Bi\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \psi \underset{B}{}\left(1+\frac{g_{sB}\sigma +g_{\sigma ^{}B}\sigma ^{}+I_{3B}g_{\delta B}\tau ^a\delta ^a}{M_B}\right)^1\overline{\psi }_BM_B\psi _B.$$
(4)
The mesonic part of the Lagrangian function (1) is given by

$`_M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \sigma ^\mu \sigma U(\sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \sigma ^{}^\mu \sigma ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^{}^2\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \delta ^a^\mu \delta ^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\delta ^2\delta ^a\delta ^a`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\varphi ^2\varphi _\mu \varphi ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\varphi _{\mu \nu }\varphi ^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\omega ^2\omega _\mu \omega ^\mu +(g_\rho g_\omega )^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_vb_\mu ^ab^{a\mu }\omega _\mu \omega ^\mu `$
$`+(g_\rho g_s)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_4b_\mu ^ab^{a\mu }\phi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R_{\mu \nu }^aR^{a\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\rho ^2b_\mu ^ab^{a\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}c_3(\omega _\mu \omega ^\mu )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\zeta (b_\mu ^ab^{a\mu })^2.`$
The field tensors $`R_{\mu \nu }^a`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }`$, $`\varphi _{\mu \nu }`$ are defined as

$$R_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu b_\nu ^a_\nu b_\mu ^a+g_\rho \epsilon _{abc}b_\mu ^bb_\nu ^c,$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \omega _\nu _\nu \omega _\mu ,\varphi _{\mu \nu }=_\mu \varphi _\nu _\nu \varphi _\mu .$$
(7)
The potential function $`U(\sigma )`$ possesses the well-known polynomial form introduced by Boguta and Bodmer bodmer

$$U(\sigma )=\frac{1}{2}m_s^2\sigma ^2+\frac{1}{3}g_3\sigma ^3+\frac{1}{4}g_4\sigma ^4.$$
(8)
The baryon mass is denoted by $`M_B`$ whereas $`m_i`$ $`(i=\sigma ,\omega ,\rho ,\sigma ^{},\varphi ,\delta )`$ are masses assigned to the meson fields and they are taken at their physical values. The parameters entering the Lagrangian function are the coupling constants $`g_{\omega B}`$, $`g_{\rho B}`$, $`g_{sB}`$, $`g_{\delta B}`$, $`g_{\sigma ^{}B}`$, $`g_{\varphi B}`$ for meson fields and the self-interacting coupling constants $`g_3`$, $`g_4`$, $`c_3`$, $`\zeta `$. These parameters are adjusted to reproduce the bulk properties of the symmetric nuclear matter at equilibrium. They are collected in Table 2. As the $`\delta `$ meson field and nonlinear vector meson interactions carry isospin they contribute to the symmetry energy $`E_s`$ of the system. This imposes constrains on $`g_\rho `$ and $`g_\delta `$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_v`$ and $`\zeta `$ parameters. They are adjusted to get the experimental value of the symmetry energy $`E_s`$ which is equal $`32\pm 4`$ MeV . Thus the parameter $`g_\rho `$ has been redefined by comparison with the one in the original TM1 parameter set.
The presence of hyperons demands additional coupling constants (they are collected in Table 3) which have been established with the use of experimental data and theoretical analysis.
The inclusion of hyperons improve our understanding of neutron stars at higher densities. There is common belief that at suitable densities a quark star is more stable than the neutron one. Thus it is interesting to compare the properties of hyperon stars with those obtained in the framework of QMF model for a quark star rmib . Now the Lagrangian function possesses the following form

$`_{QMF}=\overline{q}(i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu m_c)q+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \phi _a^\mu \phi _a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_s^2\phi _a\phi _a`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a,\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_v^2V_\mu ^aV^{a\mu }`$ (10)
where $`q`$ denotes a quark field with three flavors, $`u`$, $`d`$ and $`s`$, and three colors. The construction of the model mimics the relativistic mean field theory, where the scalar $`\sigma `$ and the vector meson $`\omega `$ fields do not couple with nucleons but directly with quarks. The quark mass has to change from its bare current mass due to the coupling to the $`\sigma `$ meson. In the framework of QMF model with the use of the TM1 parameter set quarks constituent masses are $`m_{c,u}=m_{c,d}=367.61`$ MeV and $`m_{c,s}=504.1`$ MeV whereas the bag constant is chosen at the level of $`B^{1/4}=154.5`$ MeV. There are no significant differences between the presented above Lagrangian function (10) and the Lagrangian function (5). They differ in the baryonic sectors whereas the mesonic sectors for both models are nearly the same. There are only differences in coupling constants: $`g_{\sigma q}=g_{\sigma B}/3,g_{\omega q}=g_{\omega B}/3,g_{\rho q}=g_{\rho B},g_{\delta q}=g_{\delta B}`$. We restrict ourselves to the isospin SU(2) unbroken symmetric case, $`m_c^u=m_c^d`$, so

$$m_c=m_{c,f}\delta _{f,f^{}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{c,u}& & \\ & m_{c,d}& \\ & & m_{c,s}\end{array}\right)$$
(11)
Generators of the U(3) algebra $`\lambda ^a=\{\lambda ^0=\sqrt{2/3}I,\lambda ^i\}`$ (where $`I`$ is an identity matrix, $`\lambda ^i`$are Gell-Mann matrices SU(3) algebra) obeying $`Tr(\lambda ^a\lambda ^b)=2\delta _{ab}`$. Restricting only to $`U(2)\times U(1)`$ subalgebra ($`a=\{0,1,2,3,8\}`$) case the simplest version of the QMF theory can be obtained. Defining the new base with $`\tau ^a,a=\{0,1,2,3,4\}`$ as

$$\tau ^0=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\tau ^i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma ^i& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)fori=\{1,2,3\},\tau ^4=\sqrt{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(12)
the meson fields may be decomposed as follows

$$\phi =\phi _a\tau ^a=\sigma \tau ^0+\delta _i\tau ^i+\sigma ^{}\tau ^4$$

and

$$V_\mu =V_\mu ^a\lambda ^a=\omega _\mu \tau ^0+\varphi _\mu \tau ^4+b_i\tau ^i$$

Here the QMF model is enlarged by the inclusion of the isovector $`\delta `$ meson. Similarly to nucleons it splits $`u`$ and $`d`$ masses. Both $`\delta `$ and $`\rho `$ mesons may be neglected in the case of the symmetric nuclear matter.

Baryon and meson parameters

| Particle | m \[MeV\] | J | I | S | Y | $`I_3`$ | Q |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| n | 939.566 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 0 | 1 | -1/2 | 0 |
| p | 938.272 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 0 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | 1115.63 | 1/2 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ | 1197.43 | 1/2 | 1 | -1 | 0 | -1 | -1 |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ | 1192.55 | 1/2 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ | 1189.37 | 1/2 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ | 1314.9 | 1/2 | 1/2 | -2 | -1 | 1/2 | 0 |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ | 1321.3 | 1/2 | 1/2 | -2 | -1 | -1/2 | -1 |
| $`\sigma `$ | 550 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| $`\omega `$ | 783 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| $`\rho `$ | 770 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1,0,1 | -1,0,1 |
| $`\delta `$ | 980 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1,0,1 | -1,0,1 |
| $`\sigma ^{}`$ | 975 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| $`\varphi `$ | 1020 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

Table 2

Parameter sets used in this paper

| Parameter | TM1 | ZM | ZM + $`\delta `$ | ZM + $`\delta `$ \+ nonlinear terms |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M | 938 MeV | 938 MeV | 938 MeV | 938 MeV |
| $`c_3`$ | 71.3075 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| $`g_3`$ | 7.23 $`fm^1`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| $`g_4`$ | 0.6183 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| $`g_{\omega N}`$ | 12.6239 | 6.671 | 6.671 | 6.671 |
| $`g_{\sigma N}`$ | 10.0289 | 7.8449 | 7.8449 | 7.8449 |
| $`g_{\rho N}`$ | 9.2644 | 8.9 | 9.5 | 9.5 |
| $`g_{\delta N}`$ | 0 | 0 | 3.1 | 3.1 |
| $`g_{\sigma ^{}N}`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| $`g_{\varphi N}`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\text{v}`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.008 |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.001 |
| $`\zeta `$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 |

Table 3

Hyperon-meson couplings

| Parameter | Value | Parameter | Value |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma }`$ | 0.5207 $`g_{\sigma N}`$ | $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma ^{}}`$ | 0.5815 $`g_{\sigma N}`$ |
| $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho }`$ | 0 | $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta }`$ | 0 |
| $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega }`$ | $`\frac{2}{3}`$ $`g_{\omega N}`$ | $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi }`$ | -$`\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}`$ $`g_{\omega N}`$ |
| $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\sigma }`$ | 0.1565 $`g_{\sigma N}`$ | $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\sigma ^{}}`$ | 0 |
| $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho }`$ | 2 $`g_{\rho N}`$ | $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\delta }`$ | 2 $`g_{\delta N}`$ |
| $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\omega }`$ | $`\frac{2}{3}`$ $`g_{\omega N}`$ | $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\varphi }`$ | -$`\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}`$ $`g_{\omega N}`$ |
| $`g_{\mathrm{\Xi }\sigma }`$ | 0.2786 $`g_{\sigma N}`$ | $`g_{\mathrm{\Xi }\sigma ^{}}`$ | 0.5815 $`g_{\sigma N}`$ |
| $`g_{\mathrm{\Xi }\rho }`$ | $`g_{\rho N}`$ | $`g_{\mathrm{\Xi }\delta }`$ | $`g_{\delta N}`$ |
| $`g_{\mathrm{\Xi }\omega }`$ | $`\frac{1}{3}`$ $`g_{\omega N}`$ | $`g_{\mathrm{\Xi }\varphi }`$ | -$`\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}`$ $`g_{\omega N}`$ |

As it is usually assumed in quantum hadrodynamics the mean field approximation is adopted and for the ground state of homogeneous infinite matter quantum fields operators are replaced by their classical expectation values. Thus one can separated mesonic fields into classical mean field values and quantum fluctuations which are not included in the ground state:

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\sigma }+s`$ (13)
$`\sigma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\sigma }^{}+s^{}`$
$`\delta ^a`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\delta }^a+d\delta ^{3a}`$
$`\varphi _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\varphi }_\mu +f_0\delta _{\mu 0}`$
$`\omega _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\omega }_\mu +w_0\delta _{\mu 0}`$
$`b_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{b}_\mu ^a+r_0\delta _{\mu 0}\delta ^{3a}`$
The derivative terms are neglected and if one assume homogenous and isotropic infinite matter only time-like components of the vector mesons will survive. The field equations derived from the Lagrange function at the mean field level are

$$m_s^2s+g_3s^2+g_4s^22(g_{\rho B}g_{sB})^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_4r_0^2s=\underset{B}{}g_{sB}M_{eff,k_F}^2S(M_{eff,B},k_{F,B})$$
(14)
$$m_\omega ^2w_0+c_3w_0^3+2(g_{\rho B}g_{\omega B})^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_vr_0^2w_0=\underset{B}{}g_{\omega B}n_B$$
(15)
$$m_\rho ^2r_0+2(g_{\rho B}g_{sB})^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_4r_0s^2+2(g_{\rho B}g_{\omega B})^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_vr_0w_0^2=\underset{B}{}g_{\rho B}I_{3B}n_B$$
(16)
$$m_\delta ^2d^3=\underset{B}{}g_{\delta B}I_{3B}S(M_{eff,B},k_{F,B})$$
(17)
$$m_\sigma ^2s^{}=\underset{B}{}g_{\sigma ^{}B}M_{eff,k_F}^2S(M_{eff,B},k_{F,B})$$
(18)
$$m_\varphi ^2f_0=\underset{B}{}g_{\varphi B}n_B.$$
(19)
The function $`S(M_{eff,B},k_{F,B})`$ is expressed with the use of an integral

$$S(M_{eff,B},k_{F,B})=\frac{2J_B+1}{2\pi ^2}_0^{k_{FB}}\frac{M_{B,eff}}{\sqrt{k^2+M_{B,eff}}}k^2𝑑k$$
(20)
where $`J_B`$ and $`I_{3B}`$ are the spin and isospin projection of baryon $`B`$, $`k_{F,B}`$ is the Fermi momentum of species $`B`$, $`n_B`$ denote the baryon number density. The Dirac equation for baryons that is obtained from the Lagrangian function has the following form

$$(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu M_{B,eff}g_{\omega B}\gamma ^0\omega _0g_{\varphi B}\gamma ^0f_0\frac{1}{2}g_{\rho B}\gamma ^0\tau ^3r_0)\psi =0$$
(21)
with $`M_{B,eff}`$ being the effective nucleon mass generated by the nucleon and scalar fields interactions and is defined as

$$M_{B,eff}=\frac{M_B}{1+(g_{sB}s+g_{\sigma ^{}B}s^{}+I_{3B}g_{\delta _B}d)/M_B}$$
(22)
## III The equilibrium conditions and composition of matter

In the high density regime in neutron star interiors when the Fermi energy of nucleons exceeds the hyperon masses additional hadronic states are produced. The onset of hyperon formation depends on the attractive hyperon-nucleon interaction. The higher the density the more various hadronic species are expected to populate. They can be formed both in leptonic and baryonic processes. In the last one the strong interaction process such as

$$n+nn+\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(23)
proceeds. There are other relevant strong reactions that establish the hadron population in neutron star matter e.g.:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }+n\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+p\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }^{}+p$$
(24)
The comparison of weak interaction time scales ($`10^{10}`$ s) and the time scale connected with the lifetime of a relevant star indicate that there is a difference between the matter in high energy collisions which is constrained by the isospin symmetry and the strangeness conservation whereas neutron star matter by the charge neutrality and the generalized $`\beta `$-equilibrium. Thus realistic neutron star models describe electrically neutral high density matter with no strangeness conservation being in $`\beta `$ equilibrium. The last condition implies the presence of leptons. Mathematically it is expressed by adding the Lagrangian of free leptons to the lagrangian function (1)

$$_L=\underset{l=e,\mu }{}\overline{\psi }_l(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu m_l)\psi _l.$$
(25)
Neutrinos are neglected here since they leak out from a neutron star, whose energy diminishes at the same time. After electron chemical potential $`\mu _e`$ reaches the value equal to the muon mass, muons start to appear. Equilibrium with respect to the reaction

$$e^{}\mu ^{}+\nu _e+\overline{\nu }_\mu $$
(26)
is assured when $`\mu _\mu =\mu _e`$ (setting $`\mu _{\nu _e}=\mu _{\overline{\nu }_\mu }=0`$). The appearance of muons reduces number of electrons and affects also the proton fraction. The introduction of the asymmetry parameter $`f_a`$ which describes the relative neutron excess defined as

$$f_a=\frac{n_nn_p}{n_N}$$
(27)
allows to study the symmetry properties of the system. The equilibrium conditions between baryonic and leptonic species which are present in the neutron star matter lead to the following relations between their chemical potentials and constrain the species fraction in the star interior

$`\mu _p=\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}=\mu _n\mu _e\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}=\mu _{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}=\mu _n`$ (28)
$`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}=\mu _n+\mu _e\mu _\mu =\mu _e`$
where the baryonic chemical potential is given by the relation

$$\mu _i=\sqrt{k_{F,B}^2+M_{B,eff}^2}+g_{\omega B}\omega _0+g_{\varphi B}f_0+I_{3B}g_{\rho B}r_0$$
(29)
Similarly to the asymmetry parameter $`f_a`$ a parameter $`f_s`$ which specify the strangeness content in the system and is strictly connected with the appearance of particular hyperon species in the model has been introduced.

$$f_s=\frac{n_\mathrm{\Lambda }+n_\mathrm{\Sigma }+2n_\mathrm{\Xi }}{n_\mathrm{\Lambda }+n_\mathrm{\Sigma }+n_\mathrm{\Xi }+n_N}.$$
(30)
The RMF theory as an effective one requires the knowledge of coupling constants. There are several selected parameterizations of the theory strictly connected with the assumption that the exchange of scalar, isoscalar-vector, vector mesons and two hidden-strangeness scalar and vector mesons are responsible for interactions between specific constituents of the matter. Particular sets of coupling constants are associated with the description of nucleon-nucleon, hyperon-nucleon and hyperon-hyperon interactions and are indispensable for the the construction of the equation of state which in turn is applied for determining a neutron star properties. The enlarged Walecka model uses the TM1 parameter set (Table 2)tm1 . More realistic description of a neutron star requires taking into consideration not only the interior region of a neutron star but also remaining layers, namely the inner and outer crust and surface layers. The composite EOS constructed by adding Bonn bonn  and Negele-Vautherin (NV) nv  equations of state (describing the inner crust) to the TM1 one allows to calculate the neutron star structure for the entire neutron star density span. The parameters describing the nucleon-nucleon interactions are created in order to reproduced the properties of the symmetric nuclear matter at saturation such as the binding energy, symmetry energy and the incompressibility. Other parameters are related to the hyperon-nucleon interactions. The scalar meson coupling to hyperons can be calculated from the potential depth of the hyperon in the saturated nuclear matter

$$U_Y^N(\rho _0)=g_{sY}\phi +g_{\omega Y}\omega .$$
(31)
The vector coupling constants for hyperons are determined from $`SU(3)`$ symmetry as lamsig

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }}=g_{\omega \mathrm{\Xi }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_{\omega N}`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\rho \mathrm{\Sigma }}=g_{\rho \mathrm{\Xi }}=g_{\rho N};g_{\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$
$`2g_{\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }}=2g_{\varphi \mathrm{\Sigma }}=g_{\varphi \mathrm{\Xi }}={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}g_{\omega N}.`$
The single $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potential in nuclear matter is well determined as (ksi ) $`U_\mathrm{\Lambda }^N(\rho _0)=2728`$ MeV. Recent analysis of atomic data bart ; gal2  indicate for repulsive $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ potential in the interior of nuclei $`U_\mathrm{\Sigma }^N(\rho _0)=30`$ MeV thus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons do not appear in the bulk matter calculations. The interpretation of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ hyperons data gives the value of the potential well depth $`U_\mathrm{\Xi }^N(\rho _0)=18`$ MeV. The experimental data concerning hyperon-hyperon dhsf ; mdg  interactions are extremely scare. Analysis of events which can be interpreted as the creation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei allows to determine the well depths of hyperon in hyperon matter

$$U_h(\rho _0)=40MeV$$
(33)
Having specified parameters of the model the equation of state can be calculated. This has been done with the use of the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ defined as

$$T_{\mu \nu }=2\frac{}{g^{\mu \nu }}g_{\mu \nu }.$$
(34)
It allows to calculate the pressure $`P`$ and energy density $`\epsilon `$ of the system. The pressure $`P`$ is related to the statistical average of the trace of the spatial component $`T_{ij}`$ of the energy-momentum tensor $`P=\frac{1}{3}<T_{ii}>`$, whereas the energy density $`\epsilon `$ equals $`<T_{00}>`$. Thus the complete form of the equation of state includes contributions coming from meson, fermion and baryon fields and finally one can get the following equations for the energy density $`\epsilon `$ and pressure $`P`$

$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\rho ^2(r_0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\delta d^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\varphi f_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^{}(s^{})^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\omega ^2w_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}c_3w_0^4+U(s)+3\mathrm{\Lambda }_vg_\omega ^2g_\rho ^2r_0^2w_0^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_4g_\sigma ^2g_\rho ^2r_0^2\phi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\zeta g_\rho ^4r_0^4+ϵ_B+ϵ_L`$
with $`\epsilon _B`$ and $`\epsilon _L`$ given by

$$\epsilon _B=\underset{B}{}\frac{1}{3\pi ^2}_0^{k_{F,B}}k^2𝑑k\sqrt{k^2+M_{eff,B}^2}$$
(36)
$$\epsilon _L=\underset{l}{}\frac{1}{3\pi ^2}_0^{k_{F,l}}k^2𝑑k\sqrt{k^2+m_l^2}$$
(37)
$`P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\rho r_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\omega w_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}c_3w_0^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\delta d^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\varphi f_0^2+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^{}(s^{})^2U(s)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_vg_\omega ^2g_\rho ^2r_0^2\omega _0^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_4g_\sigma ^2g_\rho ^2r_0^2\phi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\zeta g_\rho ^4r_0^4+P_B+P_L`$
$$P_B=\underset{B}{}\frac{1}{3\pi ^2}_0^{k_{F,B}}\frac{k^4dk}{\sqrt{k^2+M_{eff,B}^2}}$$
(39)
$$P_L=\underset{l}{}\frac{1}{3\pi ^2}_0^{k_{F,l}}\frac{k^4dk}{\sqrt{k^2+m_l^2}}$$
(40)
## IV Neutron star parameters

Besides other properties of neutron stars the value of their masses and radii are very sensitive to the chosen model of strong interactions which in turn lead to the significant constrains on the form of the equation of state of the neutron star matter. In this paper three different groups of parameters have been applied in order to examined neutron star properties. In all of them the nucleon-hyperon $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ interaction is assumed to be repulsive. The first case marked as set I does not contain $`\delta `$ meson, the second one (set II) do include $`\delta `$ meson, in the third both $`\delta `$ meson and nonlinear vector meson interactions are taken into account (set III). As the neutron star matter is of sizable asymmetry the last case seems to be the most adequate for the complete description of the asymmetric neutron star matter. The main effect of such an extension of the theory becomes evident studying properties of the neutron star matter especially baryon masses splitting and the form of the equation of state. Fig.1 depicts the effective baryon masses obtained for the three mentioned above cases as functions of the baryon number density $`n_B`$. For the second and third cases there are noticeable in-medium baryon masses splitting for each isomultiplet. This effect reaches the maximum value for the third group of parameters, for the density span of $`(34)\rho _0`$ and depends on the considered baryonic masses. Depending on the sign of the third component of particular baryon isospin the $`\delta `$ meson interaction increases the proton and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ effective masses and decreases masses of neutron, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$. Contrary to this situation, for parameters marked as the set I, the baryonic masses for the given isomultiplet remain degenerate as it is shown in the left panel of Fig.1(a). Having obtained the effective baryonic masses one can compare them with those obtained in the Walecka model. In the original Walecka approach the nucleon effective mass rapidly diminishes its value passing through zero and even become negative for higher densities.

Throughout the effective baryonic masses the asymmetry of the system alters baryon chemical potentials what realizes in characteristic modification of the appearance, abundance and distributions of the individual flavors. This is evident comparing the results obtained for the three mentioned above parameter sets.

Fig.2 presents fractions of particular baryon species $`Y_B`$ as functions of baryon number density $`n_B`$. Starting the analysis of these graphs from low and moderate densities it is evident that at very low density neutrons are the most abundant baryon and a star resembles the pure neutron one. For higher densities protons and electrons and then muons emerge. Fig.2 points that the first strange baryon that appears at $`\rho =2.5\times \rho _0`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, it is followed by $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$. In the presence of $`\delta `$ meson and in the case when nonlinear vector meson interactions are included the sequence of appearance of hyperons is the same as in the first case, however shifted towards higher densities. Due to the repulsive potential of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons their onset points are possible at very high densities which are not relevant for neutron stars. Taking into account results obtained when the attractive nucleon-hyperon $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ potential is assumed $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ appear as the first strange baryon and than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$. $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ emerge at the density above $`7\rho _0`$, whereas other hyperons at even higher densities.
The appearance of charged hyperons permits the lower lepton contents and thus charge neutrality tends to be guaranteed without lepton contribution. This kind of deleptonization in the case of the set II and III parameterizations similarly to the baryon distributions takes place at higher densities. Larger effective baryon masses cause the shift of the given hyperon onset point especially for the charged ones towards higher densities. The emergence of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ hyperons through the condition of charge neutrality affects the lepton fraction and causes a drop in their contents. The proton fraction $`Y_p`$ has a crucial role in neutron stars cooling history. At a certain critical value of $`Y_p`$ the direct URCA processes for neutrino emissions are allowed. The condition which has to be satisfied for the URCA process is given by the relation between Fermi momenta of nucleons and electrons

$$k_{Fp}+k_{Fe}k_{Fn}$$
(41)
The threshold proton fraction for this process is about 0.11 in the case when the neutron star matter consists only of nucleons and electrons. Inclusion of muons increases $`Y_p`$ to the value $`0.14`$. The proton fractions which are obtained for the presented parameter groups are shown in Fig.3. The third parameter set gives the lower value of $`Y_p`$. Baryon distributions are strictly connected with the behavior of meson fields. The values of scalar and vector meson fields influence the onset points of individual hyperon species. Fig. 4 shows meson fields as functions of the baryon number density.

The calculated form of the equation of state (EOS) determines the physical state and composition of matter at high densities and is presented in Fig.5. The relative hadron-lepton composition calculated for all parameter groups can be analyzed through the density dependence of the asymmetry parameter $`f_a`$ and the parameter $`f_s`$ which is connected with the strangeness contents. Fig.6 presents both parameters as functions of the baryon number density $`n_B`$. As the density increases the asymmetry parameter decreases. The third parameter group gives the higher value of the asymmetry parameter. For parameter sets I and II the asymmetry is comparable. The strangeness contents increases with the density. The inclusion of $`\delta `$ meson and nonlinear vector meson interactions results in the lowest hyperon contents.

The obtained form of the equation of state serves as an input to the Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations and determines the structure of spherically symmetric stars.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP(r)}{dr}}={\displaystyle \frac{Gm(r)\rho (r)}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{P(r)}{\rho (r)})(1+\frac{4\pi r^3P(r)}{m(r)})}{1\frac{2Gm(r)}{r}}},`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dm(r)}{dr}}=4\pi r^2\rho (r).`$
Numerical solutions of these equations allow to construct the mass-radius relations. These relations for the chosen form of the equations of state are presented in Fig.7. Arrows represent points at which hyperons emerge whereas asterisks the configurations for which URCA processes start to proceed. For the parameter set III these two marks are in the same position. This figure also shows that $`\delta `$ meson itself and the additional nonlinear vector meson interactions change the maximal mass but not in a significant way. However, there are visible differences in the maximal radius configurations. For comparison, the mass-radius relation for a quark star is enclosed.

In Fig.8 the obtained neutron star masses as functions of central densities are presented.

White dwarfs and neutron stars are purely gravitationally bound compact stars. The gravitational binding energy of a relativistic star is defined as a difference between its gravitational and baryon masses.

$$E_{b,g}=(M_pm(R))c^2$$
(43)
where

$$M_p=4\pi _0^R𝑑rr^2(1\frac{2Gm(r)}{c^2r})^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho (r)$$
(44)
Of considerable relevance is the numerical solution of the above equation for the selected EOS. Results are shown in Fig. 9.

For the sake of completeness calculations have been done not only for the presented parameter sets but also for the original TM1 parameter set and for a quark star. From this figure it is evident that at moderate densities the standard neutron star model calculated with the use of the TM1 parameter set is the most energetically favorable configuration. At higher densities this standard RMF approach become unsatisfactory. There is room for the improvement of this theory by the introduction of other degrees of freedom. The comparison of the models which contain hyperons with the Walecka one is performed. At high densities the models with hyperons are more favorable than the model calculated with the use of the TM1 parameter set. This is directly connected with the value of effective baryon masses, obtained with the use of the TM1 parameters, which diminish considerably their values which after passing through zero can take even the negative value. This can be interpreted as a break down of the theory and has its confirmation in the form of the gravitational binding energy. Fig.9 depicts the gravitational binding energies as functions of the density. From this figure it is evident that the models without hyperons are energetically favorable at the density range relevant for neutron stars. The situation changes for higher densities and now models with hyperons become energetically favorable. There are theoretical suggestions about the existence of a quark star but Fig.9 exhibits that a quark star configuration should appear at very high densities.
The gained solutions of the structure equations allows as to carry out a similar analysis of the onset point, abundance and distributions of the individual hadron and lepton species but now as functions of the star radius $`R`$. Comparing results obtained for the three presented above cases (parameter set I, II and III) one can come to the conclusion that in all the cases the assumption of the repulsive $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ interaction shifts the onset point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons to very high densities and they do not appear in neutron star interiors calculated in this model. Two characteristic configurations have been considered. Namely the one connected with the maximum mass configuration and the second with that of the maximum radius. The very compact hyperon core which emerges in the interior of the maximum mass configuration consist of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons only for the second parameter set. The hyperon population is reduced to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ for the parameter sets I and III. This can be seen in Fig.10 and confirm by the behavior of meson fields in the neutron star. Especially by the hidden strange $`\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\varphi `$ mesons which appear in the vicinity of the neutron star center (Fig.12 and Fig.13). For the maximum radius configuration for all groups of parameters hyperons do not emerge in the interior of neutron stars.

## V Summary and conclusions

In this paper the complete form of the equation of state of hyperon matter has been obtained with the use of the derivative coupling model in the framework of an extended RMF theory which besides hyperons and leptons includes the extended meson sector with additional $`\delta `$ meson and hidden strange mesons $`\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\varphi `$. The model considered is also supplemented with nonlinear vector meson interactions. This enlargement alters the symmetry properties of neutron star matter and through this neutron stars parameters. The value of baryon effective masses depend on the scalar meson condensates and at high densities when hyperon species appear the possibility of negative nucleon masses emerges. The derivative coupling model allows to avoid this difficulty reproducing reasonable value of baryon effective masses for densities relevant for neutron stars. The inclusion of $`\delta `$ meson and nonlinear vector meson interactions influences the chemical composition of a neutron star. This is especially evident comparing the effective baryon masses in the density span $`(34)\times \rho _0`$ and equilibrium compositions of the star. For the third group of parameters the higher value of asymmetry has been obtained. This changes the properties of a neutron star diminishing the hyperon core extent. The asymmetry of the system also influence the star radius, for the third group of parameters the one can obtain the lower value of the star radius. There is also possible a configuration representing a star with lower densities (a maximum radius configuration) which excluded the existence of a hyperon core. The model considered excludes a large hyperon fraction which can be connected with thermal properties of a hot neutron star. As the most populated strange baryon is the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon it does not reduce significantly number of leptons in the star interior and thus the models calculated with the use of the parameter set I and II do not exclude rapid cooling rate of the star. This is even more evident analyzing the proton fractions obtained for all parameter groups. The equilibrium proton fraction is also determined by the nuclear symmetry energy. The parameter sets I and II permit higher values of proton fraction which is indispensable for URCA processes to proceed. However, the equilibrium proton fraction $`Y_p`$ is significantly reduced for the third group of parameter.
Analyzing the gravitational binding energy one can come to the conclusion that configurations with hyperons are energetically favorable than the one obtained with the use of TM1 parameter set for higher densities.
All assumption which have been made namely: the derivative coupling model being connected with the higher effective baryon masses, the inclusion of $`\delta `$ meson and nonlinear vector meson interactions, and the repulsive nucleon-hyperon $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ interaction lead to the neutron star model with the value of maximum mass close to $`1.5M_{}`$ with the reduced value of proton fraction and very compact hyperon core. The calculation of the quark matter equation of state. allows to construct the mass-radius relation for the quark star. Comparing gravitational binding energies one can come to the conclusion that the addition of hyperons to the model shifts the stable hyperon matter configuration towards higher densities even to the density range which is relevant for a quark star and at the same time makes the existence of a pure quark star more problematic.