text:
# “No–Scalar–Hair” Theorems for Nonminimally Coupled Fields with Quartic Self–Interaction

## I Introduction

Black holes have no “hair” is the classical statement which summarizes the physics behind stationary configurations describing the final state of highly massive matter under gravitational collapse. The “no–hair” conjecture stresses the fact that short–range interactions decaying fast enough at infinity (“hair”), so that they have no contribution to Gauss–like conserved charges, are not allowed in the exterior of a stationary black hole. Hence, the black–hole classical degrees of freedom are restricted to those related to its conserved charges.

The accuracy of this conjecture was challenged in the last decade when several “hairy” black hole solutions were discovered (see Ref. Bizon94  for a review and for the latest results see Ref. Galtsov01  and references therein). All these black holes shared together the feature of having nonlinear matter fields with no associated conserved charges.

It is believed that the conjecture remains true without reserve for other nonlinear fields. For example, a particular case of the conjecture concerning merely scalar fields has been formulated by Bekenstein and investigated by him and many other authors. The “no–scalar–hair” conjecture Bekens96  asserts that for neutral scalar fields, nonminimally coupled to gravity, and with self–interaction potentials nontrivial black hole solutions are forbidden, i.e., any stationary black hole solution of the system must has a trivial scalar field (zero or constant) and consequently the solution must be given by one of the well–known vacuum black holes (Schwarzschild or Kerr). The aim of this work is to settle this conjecture for quartic self–interactions, i.e., to exclude static black hole hairs in the framework of nonminimally coupled to gravity quartic self–interacting scalar fields.

Scalar fields with minimal coupling and a quartic self–interaction were earlier studied on the background of Schwarzschild solution, exhibiting that only nonregular field configurations are allowed Sawyer77 ; Brum78 . Indeed, the present understanding of the topic excludes the existence of self–gravitating spherical scalar hairs with a general nonnegative self–interaction potential under minimal coupling HeuslerStrau92 ; Heusler92 ; Sudarsky95 ; Heusler95 ; Bekens95 .

Comprising nonminimal couplings and nonnegative self–interactions, hairy spherical black holes are inadmissible for nonminimal coupling parameters in the ranges $`\zeta <0`$ and $`\zeta 1/2`$ MayoBeke96 ; Bekens96 . Other restrictions on the nonminimal couplings have been established also in $`n>3`$ dimensions SaaPRD96 , and even for $`(2+1)`$–gravity AyonGMP00 . More recently, numerical evidence against the existence of nontrivial black hole solutions for each value of the nonminimal coupling spectrum under consideration has been presented in Ref. PenaSudarsky01 .

In this work we analyze nonminimally coupled to gravity scalar fields with quartic self–interactions. The motivation for choosing a quartic self–interaction rests on the following: for massless scalar fields, several works on the subject XanZan91 ; XanDia92 ; Klimcik93 ; Zannias95  reinforce the idea on the uniqueness of the nontrivial conformal Bekenstein black hole BBM70 ; Bekens74 . Independently of a recent controversial debate on the existence of this black hole as a conventional exact solution to Einstein equations SudaZann98 ; Bekens98 , our view is that the oddities concerned with this solution may be due to the conformal invariance of the related model—actually, this solution was originally generated by a conformal transformation Bekens74 . On the other hand, it is known that in four dimensions the relevant model remains conformally invariant under the inclusion of a quartic self–interaction. Hence, we decide to explore if conformal invariance also implies in this new case a nontrivial behavior in the presence of static black holes. Self–gravitation of these systems, including not only conformal coupling, is described by the action

$$S=\frac{1}{2}𝑑v\left(\frac{1}{\kappa }R_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{2}\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4\zeta R\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right),$$
(1)
where $`R`$ stands for the scalar curvature, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the scalar field, $`\zeta `$ is a parameter describing the nonminimal coupling between gravity and the scalar field, and $`\lambda `$ is a self–coupling parameter characterizing the quartic self–interaction of the scalar field. We shall consider all the real values of the nonminimal coupling parameter $`\zeta `$, on the other side the parameter $`\lambda `$ is taken positive in order to the potential be nonnegative; a required condition for ruled out scalar hairs in the minimal model ($`\zeta =0`$Heusler95 .

The “no–scalar–hair” theorem we attempt to establish in this work consists in demonstrating that for all values of the nonminimal coupling parameter $`\zeta `$, including the conformal one ($`\zeta =1/6`$), any nontrivial behavior of the scalar field in presence of static asymptotically flat black holes is completely forbidden. That is, we shall study the scalar equation

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^3\zeta R\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(2)
together with the Einstein equations

$$\left(1\kappa \zeta \mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)R_\nu ^\mu =\kappa \left[_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{1}{2}\delta _\nu ^\mu \left(\frac{1}{2}\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4\zeta \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)\zeta _\nu ^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^2\right],$$
(3)
arising both from action (1), not only in the case of the conformal coupling but for all the couplings permitted by the values of $`\zeta `$, and we shall show that a scalar field fulfilling the above equations must vanish in the domain of outer communications of a static black hole.

In a static black hole, the stationary Killing field $`𝒌`$ coincides with the null generator of the event horizon $`\mathrm{H}^+`$ in addition to being timelike and hypersurface orthogonal in all the domain of outer communications $`\mathrm{I}`$ (see Ref. Ayon01  for sufficient conditions allowing that a stationary spacetime containing the above matter can be static). The simply connectedness of $`\mathrm{I}`$ ChrWald95 ; Galloway95 , together with the above features, implies the existence of a global coordinate system, $`(t,x^i)`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, in $`\mathrm{I}`$ Carter87  where $`𝒌=\mathbf{}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{}𝒕`$ and the metric can be expressed by

$$𝒈=V𝒅𝒕^2+\gamma _{ij}𝒅𝒙^i𝒅𝒙^j,$$
(4)
where $`V`$ and $`𝜸`$ are $`t`$–independent, $`𝜸`$ is positive definite in all of $`\mathrm{I}`$, and $`V`$ is a positive function tending to zero on $`\mathrm{H}^+`$.

In the following section, it is shown that, in the domain of outer communications of a static asymptotically flat black hole, self–gravitating scalar fields with quartic self–interaction and nonminimally coupled to gravity, with nonminimal coupling parameter satisfying $`\zeta <0`$ or $`\zeta >1/6`$ vanish. Section III is devoted to establishing the result for $`\zeta =0`$ and $`\zeta =1/6`$, i.e., the minimal and conformal couplings respectively. In Sec. IV a similar result is established for the remaining values of the nonminimal coupling parameter within the interval $`0<\zeta <1/6`$. Finally, we provide some conclusions in the last Sec. V.

## II “No–Scalar–Hair” Theorem for $`\zeta <0`$ and $`\zeta >1/6`$ Couplings

In this section we analyze simultaneously the nonminimal couplings with $`\zeta <0`$ as well as $`\zeta >1/6`$; in both cases, it is possible to make the following redefinition for the scalar field $`\phi \left[6\kappa \zeta \left(\zeta 1/6\right)\right]^{1/2}\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Upon contracting the Einstein equations (3) and inserting the scalar field equation (2) in the result, the following expression for the scalar curvature, in terms of the redefined scalar field, arises

$$\zeta R=\frac{_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi }{1+\phi ^2}+\lambda b^2\frac{\phi ^4}{1+\phi ^2},$$
(5)
where $`b\left[6\kappa \zeta \left(\zeta 1/6\right)\right]^{1/2}`$. The right–hand side of this expression contains nonnegative terms. In particular, the kinetic term can be written as $`_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi =\gamma _{ij}^i\phi ^j\phi `$ in the coordinates used in (4), where $`𝜸`$ is positive definite. Two facts follow from this consideration, first, by asymptotic flatness ($`R=0`$) the scalar field vanishes asymptotically due to vanishing of the second term at the right–hand side of (5). Second, since the domain of outer communications and the event horizon are regular regions, the left–hand side of (5) is bounded everywhere, and hence, from the bounded behavior of the second term on the right–hand side of (5), the scalar field is also bounded everywhere.

Inserting now the expression for $`R`$ (5) in the scalar equation (2), in terms of $`\phi `$, one arrives at

$$\mathrm{}\phi =\frac{1}{1+\phi ^2}\left(\phi _\mu \phi ^\mu \phi +\lambda b^2\phi ^3\right).$$
(6)
By means of the above equation, we shall show that $`\phi `$ vanishes in all of $`\mathrm{I}`$, for a static asymptotically flat black hole.

Let $`\mathrm{V}\mathrm{I}`$ be the open region bounded by the spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, and the corresponding portions of the horizon $`\mathrm{H}^+`$ and the spatial infinity $`i^o`$; where the spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is obtained by shifting each point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by a unit value of the parameter along the integral curves of the stationary Killing field $`𝒌`$.

Multiplying the scalar equation (6) by $`\phi `$, integrating by parts over $`\mathrm{V}`$, and using the Gauss theorem, one arrives at the following integral identity,

$$\left[_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }+_{\mathrm{H}^+\overline{\mathrm{V}}}+_{i^o\overline{\mathrm{V}}}\right]\phi ^\mu \phi d\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu =V\left(\frac{_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi }{1+\phi ^2}+\lambda b^2\frac{\phi ^4}{1+\phi ^2}\right)𝑑v,$$
(7)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{V}}`$ stands for the closure of the set $`\mathrm{V}`$. On the left–hand side of (7) the boundary integral over the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ cancels out that over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are isometric surfaces having inverted normals.

By asymptotic flatness ($`R=0`$) the boundary integral over $`i^o\overline{\mathrm{V}}`$ vanishes, since $`\phi `$ approaches asymptotically the zero value, see expression (5). In fact, for a stationary asymptotically flat spacetime scalar curvature behaves at infinity as $`R=O(1/r^3)`$, where $`r^2_{i=1}^3(x^i)^2`$ is the radial coordinate related to asymptotically Euclidean coordinates at infinity. From relation (5) between the scalar curvature and the scalar field it follows that $`\phi =O(1/r^{3/4})`$ at infinity in order that the existence of the scalar field is consequent with asymptotic flatness. Hence, the boundary integrand behaves as $`\phi _\mu \phi =O(1/r^{5/2})`$ and since the surface element goes as $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mu =O(r^2)`$, it can be concluded that the boundary integral vanishes appropriately at infinity.

We now shall prove that the boundary integral over the portion of the horizon $`\mathrm{H}^+\overline{\mathrm{V}}`$ also vanishes. To this end, we select the most natural volume 3–form at the horizon which is given by $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟑}=𝒏`$, where, if $`𝒍`$ is the null generator of the horizon, $`𝒏`$ is the other future–directed null vector ($`n_\mu l^\mu =1`$) orthogonal to the spacelike cross sections of the horizon, and the star $``$ stands for the Hodge dual operator. It can be shown that with this volume 3–form the measure of integration on $`\mathrm{H}^+`$ is the standard one in this region Zannias95 ; Zannias98 ; Ayon02a

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu =2n_{[\mu }l_{\nu ]}l^\nu d\sigma ,$$

where $`d\sigma `$ is the surface element. With the above measure, the integrand at the horizon is written as

$$\phi ^\mu \phi d\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu =\phi \left[l_\mu ^\mu \phi +\left(l_\nu l^\nu \right)n_\mu ^\mu \phi \right]d\sigma .$$
(8)
The stationary Killing field $`𝒌`$ of a static black hole coincides at the horizon with its null generator $`𝒍`$, hence, $`l_\mu ^\mu \phi =\mathbf{\pounds }_𝒌\phi =0`$ by the staticity of the scalar field $`\phi `$. Then, using also the bounded behavior of $`\phi `$ (5), the first term of the integrand (8), $`\phi l_\mu ^\mu \phi `$, must vanish at the horizon. To show the vanishing at the horizon of the second term of the integrand (8), $`\phi \left(l_\nu l^\nu \right)n_\mu ^\mu \phi `$, we shall introduce a null tetrad basis at the horizon (see also the approach of Zannias95 ; Zannias98  on this subject). This tetrad is composed by the null fields $`𝒍`$ and $`𝒏`$, together with two linearly independent spacelike fields tangent to the spacelike cross sections of the horizon. Using this tetrad the metric is written at the horizon as

$$𝒈=𝒍𝒏𝒏𝒍+𝒈^{},$$
(9)
where $`𝒈^{}`$ stands for the metric projection on the spacelike cross sections of the horizon, which are orthogonal by definition to the null vectors $`𝒍`$ and $`𝒏`$. Expanding the gradient of the scalar field $`\mathbf{}\phi `$ in the above base at the horizon, we obtain

$$\mathbf{}\phi =\left(n_\mu ^\mu \phi \right)\left[𝒍+\left(l_\nu l^\nu \right)𝒏\right]+\mathbf{}^{}\phi ,$$
(10)
where orthogonality of the scalar gradient to the null generator of the horizon has been used, $`l_\mu ^\mu \phi =0`$. Here again the notation $`\mathbf{}^{}`$ represents the projection of the gradient on the spacelike cross sections of the horizon, being orthogonal to $`𝒍`$ and $`𝒏`$. Special attention must be given to the term involving the norm of the null generator; one has to keep it in the expansion, since there is no evidence *a priori* that this term vanishes. Using the expansion (10), we write the square of the scalar field gradient as

$$_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi =\left(l_\nu l^\nu \right)\left(n_\mu ^\mu \phi \right)^2+_\mu ^{}\phi ^\mu \phi .$$
(11)
Inserting directly the expression of the metric in the given tetrad (9) within the square of the scalar field gradient, a different representation for this kinetic term can be obtained, i.e.,

$`_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi `$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }^\mu \phi ^\nu \phi `$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\left(l_\mu n_\nu n_\mu l_\nu +g_{\mu \nu }^{}\right)^\mu \phi ^\nu \phi `$
$`=`$ $`2\left(l_\nu ^\nu \phi \right)\left(n_\mu ^\mu \phi \right)+_\mu ^{}\phi ^\mu \phi .`$
Subtracting the expressions for the square of the gradient (11) and (12), one obtains

$$\left[\left(l_\nu l^\nu \right)\left(n_\mu ^\mu \phi \right)2\left(l_\mu ^\mu \phi \right)\right]\left(n_\mu ^\mu \phi \right)=0.$$
(13)
The case in which $`n_\mu ^\mu \phi =0`$ is trivial, since the product of this term times the norm of the null generator, $`\left(l_\nu l^\nu \right)n_\mu ^\mu \phi `$, automatically vanishes as well. The interesting case occurs when $`n_\mu ^\mu \phi 0`$, under this circumstance the term within the brackets in (13) must vanish, which in turn implies, from the staticity of the scalar field $`l_\mu ^\mu \phi =\mathbf{\pounds }_𝒌\phi =0`$, that the term $`\left(l_\nu l^\nu \right)n_\mu ^\mu \phi `$ is vanishing. From these properties, using the bounded behavior of the scalar field (5), it follows that the second term of the integrand (8), $`\phi \left(l_\nu l^\nu \right)n_\mu ^\mu \phi `$, also vanishes at the horizon.

With vanishing of the boundary integral at the portion of the horizon $`\mathrm{H}^+\overline{\mathrm{V}}`$, there remain no contributions on the left–hand side of (7), thus

$$V\left(\frac{\gamma _{ij}^i\phi ^j\phi }{1+\phi ^2}+\lambda b^2\frac{\phi ^4}{1+\phi ^2}\right)𝑑v=0,$$
(14)
using the coordinates of (4). Since $`𝜸`$ is positive definite, the integrand above is non–negative, hence (14) implies vanishing of each term of this integrand in $`\mathrm{V}`$, from which it follows finally that $`\phi `$ vanishes in $`\mathrm{V}`$, and therefore in all of $`\mathrm{I}`$ by staticity.

In this way, the “no–scalar–hair” theorem has been proven for a field with a quartic self–interaction with $`\zeta <0`$ or $`\zeta >1/6`$ nonminimal couplings to the gravity of a static asymptotically flat black hole.

## III “No–Scalar–Hair” Theorem for $`\zeta =0`$ and $`\zeta =1/6`$ Couplings

This section deals with the minimal, $`\zeta =0`$, and conformal, $`\zeta =1/6`$, couplings. For the minimal case the results of references HeuslerStrau92 ; Heusler92 ; Sudarsky95 ; Heusler95 ; Bekens95  are known, which apply to any non–negative self–interaction. For the conformal case there are still no results in the literature on the subject using self–interactions, except those of Ref. AyonPerez01  for massive fields.

The reason for dealing with both couplings in the same fashion is that the corresponding scalar equation is the same in both cases. Actually, for the minimal coupling $`\zeta =0`$ the scalar equation (2) reduces to

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^3=0.$$
(15)
The same equation also describes the conformal coupling $`\zeta =1/6`$, due to the fact that the conformal symmetry implies $`R=0`$; this can be noted from the contraction of the Einstein equations (3) for $`\zeta =1/6`$, and the insertion of the scalar equation (2) into the result.

The only constant solution to equation (15) is the trivial one: $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$; hence, it is the only correct asymptotic solution in an asymptotically flat spacetime. We shall show for both couplings $`\zeta =0`$ and $`\zeta =1/6`$ that if the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ vanishes asymptotically, it must vanish in all of $`\mathrm{I}`$.

Multiplying equation (15) by $`\mathrm{tanh}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and integrating by parts over the previously defined region $`\mathrm{V}`$ gives, after using the Gauss theorem,

$`\left[{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{H}^+\overline{\mathrm{V}}}}+{\displaystyle _{i^o\overline{\mathrm{V}}}}\right]\mathrm{tanh}\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }d\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu `$
$`={\displaystyle V\left(\mathrm{sech}^2\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^3\mathrm{tanh}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)𝑑v}.`$ (16)
On the left–hand side of (16), the integrals over the hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mutually cancel out again by isometry between both hypersurfaces, and by the opposite direction of its normals in the boundary integration. The integral over $`i^o\overline{\mathrm{V}}`$ is zero because the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ must vanish asymptotically (see the discussion in Zannias98  on the fall–off rates for the scalar field following from the left–hand side of the Einstein equations in Bondi coordinates, such arguments are independent of if there exists a self–interaction potential or not). The remaining boundary integral over the portion of the horizon $`\mathrm{H}^+\overline{\mathrm{V}}`$ has again a vanishing integrand; using the same arguments as in the previous section it can be shown that the term $`^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }d\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu `$ of the integrand vanishes at the horizon and since $`\mathrm{tanh}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is ever bounded, independent of the value of the scalar field at the horizon, the product of both terms, $`\mathrm{tanh}\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }d\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu `$, vanishes at the horizon.

Therefore, the boundary integral in (16) vanishes and, in the coordinates of (4), we obtain

$$V\left(\mathrm{sech}^2\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma _{ij}^i\mathrm{\Phi }^j\mathrm{\Phi }+\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^3\mathrm{tanh}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)𝑑v=0.$$
(17)
The above integral identity, together with the non–negativeness of the associated integrand terms within it, imply vanishing of the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in $`\mathrm{V}`$, and hence in all the domain of outer communications $`\mathrm{I}`$.

## IV “No–Scalar–Hair” Theorem for $`0<\zeta <1/6`$ Couplings

At last, we shall concentrate on this section in the remaining interval, $`0<\zeta <1/6`$, of nonminimal couplings to gravity. The procedure is similar to that used in Sec. II, but demands a more careful treatment of these couplings. In this case it will be also useful to redefine the scalar field, $`\phi \left[6\kappa \zeta \left(1/6\zeta \right)\right]^{1/2}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (notice the difference with the notation used in Sec. II).

The scalar curvature in the above interval of nonminimal couplings, obtained by substitution of the scalar equation (2) into the contracted Einstein equations (3), and with the above redefinition of the scalar field, is expressed by

$$\zeta R=\frac{_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi }{1\phi ^2}+\lambda b^2\frac{\phi ^4}{1\phi ^2},$$
(18)
now $`b\left[6\kappa \zeta \left(1/6\zeta \right)\right]^{1/2}`$. Each term on the right–hand side of this expression has the same sign again. Since the left–hand side of the above relation is bounded everywhere, this implies that each term at the right–hand side of (18) is bounded as well. In particular, the bounded character of the second term on the right–hand side of (18) guarantees that $`\phi ^21`$. On the one hand, the domain of outer communications $`\mathrm{I}`$ is a connected set, hence, its image under the continuous function $`\phi `$ is also a connected set, which implies we have only one of the following two cases: or $`\phi ^2<1`$ in the whole of $`\mathrm{I}`$, or inversely $`\phi ^2>1`$ in all of $`\mathrm{I}`$. On the other hand, asymptotic flatness ($`R=0`$ at infinity) demands that each term at the right–hand side of (18) vanishes asymptotically, in particular, vanishing of the second term implies that $`\phi `$ approaches the zero value at infinity, i.e., only the range

$$\phi ^2<1,$$
(19)
is allowed for the scalar field in the domain of outer communications $`\mathrm{I}`$ of a static asymptotically flat black hole.

Substituting the scalar curvature from (18) into the scalar equation (2), one obtains

$$\mathrm{}\phi =\frac{\phi }{1\phi ^2}\left(_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi +\lambda b^2\phi ^2\right).$$
(20)
The rest of the proof of vanishing of the scalar field $`\phi `$ in all of $`\mathrm{I}`$ resembles the proof previously accomplished in Sec. II. Multiplying the scalar equation (20) by $`\phi `$, and integrating by parts in the volume $`\mathrm{V}`$ using the Gauss theorem yields this time the integral identity

$$\left[_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }+_{\mathrm{H}^+\overline{\mathrm{V}}}+_{i^o\overline{\mathrm{V}}}\right]\phi ^\mu \phi d\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu =V\left(\frac{_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi }{1\phi ^2}+\lambda b^2\frac{\phi ^4}{1\phi ^2}\right)𝑑v.$$
(21)
The boundary integral in (21) is identical to the one appearing in Sec. II, and $`\phi `$ satisfies similar properties to those satisfied by the redefined scalar field of the just mentioned section, i.e., $`\phi `$ vanishes asymptotically with suitable fall–off, and it is a bounded function at the horizon (19). All of the above implies that there are no nonzero contributions in the boundary integral on the left–hand side of (21), from which one concludes that

$$V\left(\frac{\gamma _{ij}^i\phi ^j\phi }{1\phi ^2}+\lambda b^2\frac{\phi ^4}{1\phi ^2}\right)𝑑v=0,$$
(22)
in the coordinates of (4). Due to the condition (19) and since $`𝜸`$ is positive definite, each term in the integrand above is non–negative. Hence, vanishing of the volume integral implies vanishing of each one of these terms, and in particular, vanishing of the scalar field $`\phi `$ in the volume $`\mathrm{V}`$, result which can be extended to the rest of the domain of outer communications $`\mathrm{I}`$ by the staticity of the scalar field.

## V Conclusions

We have shown the following “no–scalar–hair” theorem: for any value of the nonminimal coupling parameter $`\zeta `$, a self–gravitating scalar field with quartic self–interaction and nonminimally coupled to gravity unavoidably vanishes in the domain of outer communications of a static asymptotically flat black hole. In particular, for the conformal coupling $`\zeta =1/6`$ the conformal invariance of the system has no relevance in the existence of nontrivial black hole solutions, as it would be the case in the absence of self–interaction. The established results completely settle the Bekenstein “no–scalar–hair” conjecture Bekens96 , on the behavior of scalar systems in presence of black holes, for quartic self–interactions and any value of the nonminimal coupling parameter. With a vanishing scalar field the right–hand side of the Einstein equations (3) is zero, and the black hole associated to the system is necessarily the Schwarzschild one.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thanks Alberto García for helpful discussions and support, and the staff of the Physics Department at CINVESTAV also for support. This research was partially supported by the CONACyT Grants 38495E and 34222E, together with the CONICYT Grant FONDECYT-1010485, and the CONICYT/CONACyT Grant 2001-5-02-159. The author thanks Isabel Negrete for typing the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Energy spectrum of the equal spin-spin interactions Hamiltonian

## 1 Introduction. Many-body problem of spin-spin interactions

Thorough attention of researches to the properties of the Hamiltonian of spin-spin interactions is kept during some decades. It is due to the fact that this Hamiltonian determines fine peculiarities of dynamics and kinetics of the electron and nuclei spins of paramagnet spin-systems. The Hamiltonian of a paramagnet (electronic and nuclear) has the following form

$$=_z+_d+_{dd},$$
(1)
$$_z=\mathrm{}\omega _0\underset{j}{}S_j^z,_d=\mathrm{}\underset{fj}{}\mathrm{A}_{fj}S_j^zS_f^z,_{dd}=\mathrm{}\underset{fj}{}\mathrm{B}_{fj}(S_j^{}S_f^++S_j^+S_f^{}),$$

$$S^\pm =S^x\pm iS^y,\mathrm{A}_{fj}=A_{fj}+J_{fj},A_{fj}=(\mathrm{}\gamma ^2/2R_{fj}^3)(13\mathrm{cos}\theta _{fj}),$$

$$\mathrm{B}_{fj}=(1/4)A_{fj}+(1/2)J_{fj},$$

where $`S_j^a`$ is the $`a`$-th spin component of a spin $`S_j`$ ($`a=x,y,z`$), located in the point $`𝐣`$, ($`R_{fj},\theta _{fj},\phi _{fj}`$) define the spherical coordinates of a vector connecting the points $`f`$ and $`j`$ in the laboratory frame which $`OZ`$ axes is parallel to the applied constant magnetic field $`H_0`$, $`\gamma `$ is a gyromagnetic ratio, $`\omega _0=\gamma H_0`$ is Zeeman frequency, the value $`J_{fj}`$ defines an exchange integral. Only the secular (diagonal) part of the dipole-dipole Hamiltonian is given by expression (1). This part determines the most essential contribution to dynamics and kinetics of spins in comparison with off-diagonal parts . The Hamiltonian (1) represents a typical example of many-body interactions and so it is no needless to say about exact diagonalization of (1) if number of interacting spins $`n10`$. Even if the numerical calculation of the corresponding eigenvalues will be obtained, the analysis of this information becomes difficult because the number of states $`N=2^n`$ is growing exponentially with the increasing of $`n`$. So in existing theories only macroscopic characteristics as spin-spin relaxation times, the second and the fourth moments of resonance lines were taken into account .

Recently in investigation of the NMR on protons in a nematic liquid crystal  a principal new NMR spectrum has been demonstrated. It consists of a set of well-resolved resonance lines instead of one usual unresolved resonance line broadened by spin-spin interactions. In recent time the authors brought the number of resonance lines up to the value 1024 . This result opens new possibilities in studying of dynamics and kinetics of dipole-dipole connected spins in the mesoscopic systems and gives a new perspective physical medium for quantum information science.

In such a way, the theoretical description of quantum-statistical properties of dipole-dipole coupled spin-systems becomes a very interesting problem.

A liquid crystal where the spin-spin multiplet resolved spectrum with narrow lines was observed , includes partly oriented molecules, each molecule contains $`n=19`$ interacting protons and intermolecular spin-spin interaction is negligible. It implies to find about a half-million of eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian (1) that is the useless problem for exact solution. We want to stress that at certain values of orientation angles $`\theta _{fj}`$ the dipole-dipole interaction between close disposed spins can be less in comparison with remote spins. It is necessary to take also into account that orientation of spins in the space is not fixed precisely and true interaction constants are effectively replaced by their parts non-averaged by heat motion. This averaging of the spin-spin interaction of protons, located in the different part of the molecule is not equivalent: the effect of averaging is greater in the more mobile fragments. So, the further progress is possible with using a simplified theoretical model, which keeps nevertheless the main features of the basic Hamiltonian (1). In our opinion such theoretical model can be presented by the *equal spin-spin interactions* (ESSI). The Hamiltonian of the ESSI has the form:

$$^{}=_z+_d^{}+_{dd}^{},$$
(2)
$$_z=\mathrm{}\omega _0\underset{j}{}S_j^z,_d^{}=\mathrm{}A\underset{fj}{}S_j^zS_f^z,_{dd}^{}=\mathrm{}B\underset{fj}{}(S_j^{}S_f^++S_j^+S_f^{}),$$

where $`A`$ and $`B`$ defines the average values of parameters $`\mathrm{A}_{fj}`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_{fj}`$ for separate molecule. The Hamiltonian of such type was considered in paper related to multiple nonergodic quantum dynamics . It seems that the range of applicability of this Hamiltonian is much wider *viz.*, it can be applicable for consideration the sets of spins in mesoscopic magneto-active clusters.

The averaged constants $`\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{B}`$ take into account the interaction of the chosen spin with all others, keeping the difference between the longitudinal ($`A`$) and transverse ($`B`$) spin components. These constants can be obtained from real interaction potential as

$$\mathrm{A}=(1/n)\underset{fj}{}\mathrm{A}_{fj},\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{A}=[(1/n)\underset{fj}{}(\mathrm{A}_{fj}\mathrm{A})^2]^{1/2},\mathrm{A}=\mathrm{A}\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{A},$$

and the same for constant $`\mathrm{B}`$.

In the next section the energy spectrum of the Hamiltonian (2) will be found.

## 2 The matrix structure of the ESSI model

The operators $`_z`$ and $`_d^{}`$ commute with each other and with a longitudinal component $`S_j^z`$ of a separate spin. So the eigenvalues

$$E_{np}=\mathrm{}\omega _0(2pn)/2+\mathrm{}A(3p^23np+n^2n)/4$$
(3)
of the operator $`_z+_d^{}`$ are expressed by means of eigenvalues ($`\pm 1/2`$) of the operator $`S_j^z`$, where $`n`$ defines the total number of spins and $`p`$ is a number of spins oriented positively along the applied magnetic field. Eigenfunctions of the operator $`_z+_d^{}`$

$$\begin{array}{c}|\chi _{\alpha =1}(n,p)=\hfill \\ \hfill =|m_1=1/2,m_2=1/2,\mathrm{},m_p=1/2,\\ \hfill m_{p+1}=1/2,\mathrm{},m_{n1}=1/2,m_n=1/2\\ \hfill |+,+,\mathrm{},+,,\mathrm{},,\end{array}$$
(4)
are also constructed as products of $`n`$ eigenfunctions $`|m_j`$ of operators $`S_j^z`$. The state (3) is degenerated $`z(n,p)=C_n^p`$ times at the given $`n`$ and $`p`$. All set of eigenfunctions $`|\chi _\alpha (n,p)`$, belonging to the given $`E_{np}`$ is obtained from the function $`|\chi _{\alpha =1}(n,p)`$ by permutation of its initial arguments running over all combinations from $`n`$ over $`p`$, i.e. $`\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},z(n,p)`$.

Due to the structure of the operators $`S_j^{}S_f^++S_j^+S_f^{}`$, the Hamiltonian $`_{dd}^{}`$ does not have nonzero matrix elements between states with unequal number of positively oriented spins. So its matrix has blocked-diagonal form, where the sizes of blocks is determined as $`C_n^p\times C_n^p`$. Diagonal elements of the operator $`_z+_d^{}`$ inside blocks are the same and determined by expression (3). In such a way the problem of diagonalization of the Hamiltonian (2) is reduced to the finding of eigenvalues of the operator $`_{dd}^{}`$ in basis of states (4) with eigenvalues belonging to (3).

## 3 Eigenvalues of the operator $`_{dd}^{}`$

For diagonalization of the operator $`_{dd}^{}`$ a special numerical program was written. It helps to find the desired matrices in basis (4) inside ($`n,p`$)-blocks and includes subsequent calculation of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of corresponding matrices. The spectrum of eigenvalues together with their degeneration multiplicity $`g`$ of the operator $`_{dd}^{}`$ has been found for all $`n`$ and $`p`$ satisfying to condition $`n8`$. Analyzing these results we established that in each ($`n,p`$)-block:

1. the number of different eigenvalues is defined as

$$r(n,p)=r(n,np)=p+1,$$
(5)
2. the unequal eigenvalues of the operator $`_{dd}^{}`$ are determined as

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\epsilon _k(n,p)=\mathrm{}\epsilon _k(n,np)=\mathrm{}B[p+k(n2p+1)+k^2],\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
3. the energy degeneration of the level $`\epsilon _k(n,p)`$ is

$$g_k(n,p)=g_k(n,np)=C_n^{pk}C_n^{pk1},$$
(7)

where $`0pp^{},0kp,p^{}=[n/2]`$ is the integer part of $`n/2`$ and $`k`$ numbers the operator $`_{dd}^{}`$ unequal eigenvalues.

In further the correctness of these formulae was confirmed by direct numerical calculations for all possible values of $`n`$ and $`p`$ up to $`n=11`$, $`p=4`$. These calculations give us a ground to consider that formulae (3), (5) and (6) are exact expressions for the spectrum of the Hamiltonian (2) describing ESSI-model.

The eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian $`_{dd}^{}`$ were also calculated

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta (n,p)=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{z}{}}C_{\alpha \beta }(n,p)|\chi _\alpha (n,p),1\beta z(n,p),$$
(8)
by determination the sets of coefficients

$$(C_{1\beta }(n,p),C_{2\beta }(n,p),C_{3\beta }(n,p),\mathrm{},C_{z\beta }(n,p)).$$

Unfortunately, the compact expressions for coefficients $`C_{\alpha \beta }(n,p)`$ were not found. Expressions for $`C_{\alpha \beta }(n,p)`$ were obtained numerically for all cases, where the energy spectrum has been determined. These expressions are rather cumbersome and so, for example, in the Table 1 the coefficients $`C_{\alpha \beta }(n,p)`$ were given only for $`n=5`$.

Taking into account the fact that the function $`|\chi _\alpha (n,p)`$ belongs to the same eigenvalue (3), one can conclude that any their linear combination, in particular combination (8), also belongs to this eigenvalue. Due to this property the eigenvalues of the ESSI Hamiltonian (2) can be presented in the form of simple sum of energies (3) and (6)

$$_k(n,p)=E_{np}+\mathrm{}\epsilon _k(n,p),$$
(9)
To each set of the three indices $`n,p,k`$ corresponds $`g_k(n,p)`$ eigenfunction (8).

In conclusion we would like to note that exact expressions (3), (5)-(7) found for the quantum model ESSI are not exact solution but has the *anzatz* status. The found solution was guessed and then checked on large number of cases including block ($`n=11,p=4`$), which consists of 330 states.

##

One of us (A.R.K) expresses his deep acknowledgements to Prof. B.M. Fang for an opportunity to know the results of experiments of his group before publication.

This work was supported by REC-007 and fond NIOKR RT, 06-6.1-158.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the recent articles  there was suggested a string theory which is described by the following action:

$$S=mL=\frac{m}{\pi }d^2\zeta \sqrt{h}\sqrt{K_a^{ia}K_b^{ib}},$$
(1)
here $`m`$ has dimension of mass, $`h_{ab}`$ is the induced metric and $`K_{ab}^i`$ is the second fundamental form (extrinsic curvature) 444This action is essentially different in its geometrical meaning from the action considered in previous studies  where it is proportional to the spherical angle and has dimensionless coupling constant.. Instead of being proportional to the area of the surfaces, as it is the case in the standard string theory, the action (1) is proportional to the length of the surface $`L`$ . Due to the last property the model has two essentially new properties, first of all, when the surface degenerates into a single world line, the action (1) becomes proportional to the length of the world line

$$S=mA_{xy}m_X^Y𝑑s$$
(2)
and the functional integral over surfaces naturally transforms into the Feynman path integral for a point-like relativistic particle, thus naturally extending it to relativistic strings and, secondly, the action is equal to the perimeter of the Wilson loop $`S=m(R+T)`$, where R is space distance between quarks, therefore at the classical level string tension is equal to zero. Quantization of this system and its massless spectrum have been derived in . In this string theory all particles, with arbitrary large integer spin, are massless. This pure massless spectrum is consistent with the tensionless character of the model and it was conjectured in  that it may describe unbroken phase of standard string theory when $`\alpha ^{^{}}\mathrm{}`$ and all masses tend to zero $`M_n^2=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{^{}}}(n1)0`$  .

Our aim now is to introduce fermions and to suggest supersymmetric extension of this model using world-sheet superfields . The action(1) can be written in the equivalent from

$$S=\frac{m}{\pi }d^2\zeta \sqrt{h}\sqrt{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(h)X_\mu \right)^2},$$
(3)
here $`h_{ab}=_aX_\mu _bX_\mu `$ is the induced metric, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(h)=1/\sqrt{h}_a\sqrt{h}h^{ab}_b`$ is Laplace operator, 555The equivalence follows from the relation: $`K_a^{ia}K_b^{ib}=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(h)X_\mu \right)^2,i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},D2`$ $`a,b=1,2;\mu =0,1,2,\mathrm{},D1`$. We shall fix the conformal gauge $`h_{ab}=\rho \eta _{ab}`$ using the reparametrization invariance of the action (3) and represent it in two equivalent forms

$$S=\frac{m}{\pi }d^2\zeta \sqrt{\left(^2X\right)^2}\stackrel{´}{S}=\frac{1}{\pi }d^2\zeta \{\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu ^2X^\mu 2\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Pi }^2m^2)\},$$
(4)
where the independent field $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu `$ and the Lagrange multiplier $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ have been introduced. The system of equations which follows from $`\stackrel{´}{S}`$

$`^2\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =0,^2X^\mu 2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =0,\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_\mu =m^2`$ (5)
is equivalent to the original equation for $`X^\mu `$ and the $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu `$ field takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =m\frac{^2X^\mu }{\sqrt{\left(^2X\right)^2}}.$$

Both forms of the action (4) can be extended to the supersymmetric case as follows.

## 2 N=1 World-sheet Supersymmetry

For the basic fields $`(X,\mathrm{\Pi },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ in (4) we shall introduce the corresponding superfields

$`\widehat{X}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`X^\mu +\overline{\vartheta }\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\vartheta }\vartheta F^\mu `$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu +\overline{\vartheta }\eta ^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\vartheta }\vartheta \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu `$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega +\overline{\vartheta }\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\vartheta }\vartheta \mathrm{\Omega },`$ (6)
where $`\vartheta `$ is an anti-commuting variable and shall define the supersymmetric action simply exchanging basic fields $`(X,\mathrm{\Pi },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ in (4) by corresponding superfields as follows

$$S=\frac{i}{2\pi }d^2\zeta d^2\theta \{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\mu \overline{D}D\widehat{X}^\mu 2\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^2m^2)\},$$
(7)
where

$$D_A=\frac{}{\overline{\vartheta }^A}i(\rho ^a\vartheta )_A_a,\mathrm{\Psi }_A^\mu (\zeta )\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu (\zeta )\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_+^\mu (\zeta )\end{array}\right),\eta _A^\mu (\zeta )\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta _{}^\mu (\zeta )\\ \eta _+^\mu (\zeta )\end{array}\right),\xi _A(\zeta )\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi _{}(\zeta )\\ \xi _+(\zeta )\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
$`\mu `$ is a space-time vector index, $`A=1,2`$ is a two-dimensional spinor index. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu =\mathrm{\Psi }^{+\mu }\rho ^0=\mathrm{\Psi }^{T\mu }\rho ^0`$ and $`\rho ^\alpha `$ are two-dimensional Dirac matrices

$$\{\rho ^a,\rho ^b\}=2\eta ^{ab}.$$
(9)
In Majorana basis the $`\rho ^{}s`$ are given by

$$\rho ^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),\rho ^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
and $`i\rho ^\alpha _\alpha `$ is a real operator. The two-dimensional chiral fields are defined as $`\rho ^3\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm ^\mu =\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm ^\mu ,`$ where $`\rho ^3=\rho ^0\rho ^1`$. We should compute different expressions involved in the action,

$`\overline{D}^AD_A\widehat{X}^\mu =2F^\mu +2i\overline{\vartheta }\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu \overline{\vartheta }\vartheta ^2X^\mu ,`$
thus

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\mu \overline{D}D\widehat{X}^\mu =(\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu +\overline{\vartheta }\eta ^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\vartheta }\vartheta \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu )(2F^\mu +2i\overline{\vartheta }\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu \overline{\vartheta }\vartheta ^2X^\mu )`$
and the quadratic part in $`\vartheta `$ is equal to

$`\overline{\vartheta }\vartheta \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu ^2X^\mu +\overline{\vartheta }\vartheta F^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu +2i\overline{\vartheta }\eta ^\mu \overline{\vartheta }\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu .`$
The integral over Grassmann variables is defined as $`d^2\theta \overline{\vartheta }\vartheta =2i`$, therefore

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\theta \{\overline{\vartheta }\vartheta \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu ^2X^\mu +\overline{\vartheta }\vartheta F^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu +2i\overline{\vartheta }\eta ^\mu \overline{\vartheta }\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu \}}`$
$`=\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu ^2X^\mu +i\overline{\eta ^\mu }\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu F^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu ,`$
where we have used the relation

$$2i\overline{\vartheta }\eta ^\mu \overline{\vartheta }\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu =i\overline{\vartheta }\vartheta \overline{\eta ^\mu }\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu .$$

Now we have to compute also the second term in the Lagrangian

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^2m^2)=\omega (\mathrm{\Pi }^2m^2)+2\omega \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \overline{\vartheta }\eta ^\mu +\omega (\overline{\vartheta }\eta ^\mu \overline{\vartheta }\eta ^\mu +\overline{\vartheta }\vartheta \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu )`$
$`+\overline{\vartheta }\xi (\mathrm{\Pi }^2m^2)+2\overline{\vartheta }\xi \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \overline{\vartheta }\eta ^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\vartheta }\vartheta \mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Pi }^2m^2)`$
and to integrate it over Grassmann variables

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\theta \{2\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^2m^2)\}}=\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Pi }^2m^2)+\omega (2\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu +\overline{\eta ^\mu }\eta ^\mu )+2\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \overline{\eta ^\mu }\xi .`$
The full action is now equal to the following expression

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle }d^2\zeta \{\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu ^2X^\mu +i\overline{\eta ^\mu }\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu F^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu `$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Pi }^2m^2)\omega (2\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu +\overline{\eta ^\mu }\eta ^\mu )2\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \overline{\eta ^\mu }\xi \}.`$ (11)
The equations of motion are:

$`(I)\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu =0`$
$`^2\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =0`$
$`i\rho ^a_a\eta ^\mu =0`$
$`2\omega \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu +F^\mu =0`$
$`^2X^\mu 2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu 2\omega \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu 2\overline{\eta ^\mu }\xi =0`$
$`i\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu 2\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \xi 2\omega \eta ^\mu =0,`$ (12)
and the variation over Lagrange multipliers gives constraints

$`(II)\mathrm{\Pi }^2m^2=0`$
$`2\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu +\overline{\eta ^\mu }\eta ^\mu =0`$
$`2\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \eta ^\mu =0.`$ (13)
The SUSY transformation is:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\delta X^\mu =\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu ,\hfill & & \\ \delta \mathrm{\Psi }^\mu =i\rho ^a_aX^\mu ϵ+F^\mu ϵ,\hfill & & \\ \delta F^\mu =i\overline{ϵ}\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu ,\hfill & & \end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}\delta \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =\overline{ϵ}\eta ^\mu ,\hfill & & \\ \delta \eta ^\mu =i\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu ϵ+\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu ϵ,\hfill & & \\ \delta \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu =i\overline{ϵ}\rho ^a_a\eta ^\mu ,\hfill & & \end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}\delta \omega =\overline{ϵ}\xi ,\hfill & & \\ \delta \xi ^\mu =i\rho ^a_a\omega ϵ+\mathrm{\Omega }ϵ,\hfill & & \\ \delta \mathrm{\Omega }=i\overline{ϵ}\rho ^a_a\xi ,\hfill & & \end{array}`$ (23)
where the anti-commuting parameter $`ϵ`$ is a two-dimensional spinor

$`ϵ\left(\begin{array}{c}ϵ_{}\\ ϵ_+\end{array}\right).`$ (26)
The action (2), equations (2) and the constraints (2) completely define the system which exhibits the supersymmetry (23).

## 3 Fermionic BRST-like symmetry

As we shall see bellow the action (2) possesses surprisingly new global fermionic symmetry which is similar in many ways to the BRST symmetry. This can be seen in the light-cone coordinates. In the light-cone coordinates the action takes the form

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle }d^2\zeta \{2\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu _+_{}X^\mu +i\eta _+^\mu _{}\psi _+^\mu +i\eta _{}^\mu _+\psi _{}^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Pi }^2m^2)\omega (\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu +i\eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\mu )i\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \eta _+^\mu \xi _{}+i\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \eta _{}^\mu \xi _+\}.`$ (27)
As one can check in addition to the SUSY transformation (23) this system is invariant under fermion transformation laws $`\delta `$ and $`\overline{\delta }`$:

$`\begin{array}{cccccc}\delta X^\mu =0,\hfill & & & & & \\ \delta \mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu =2ϵ_+_{}X^\mu ,\hfill & & & & & \\ \delta \mathrm{\Psi }_+^\mu =0,\hfill & & & & & \\ \delta F^\mu =2iϵ_+_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^\mu ,\hfill & & & & & \\ \delta \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =iϵ_+\eta _{}^\mu ,\hfill & & & & & \\ \delta \eta _{}^\mu =0,\hfill & & & & & \\ \delta \eta _+^\mu =ϵ_+\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu ,\hfill & & & & & \\ \delta \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu =0,\hfill & & & & & \end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\delta }X^\mu =0,\hfill & & \\ \overline{\delta }\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu =0,\hfill & & \\ \overline{\delta }\mathrm{\Psi }_+^\mu =2ϵ_{}_+X^\mu ,\hfill & & \\ \overline{\delta }F^\mu =2iϵ_{}_+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu ,\hfill & & \\ \overline{\delta }\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =iϵ_{}\eta _+^\mu ,\hfill & & \\ \overline{\delta }\eta _{}^\mu =ϵ_{}\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu ,\hfill & & \\ \overline{\delta }\eta _+^\mu =0,\hfill & & \\ \overline{\delta }\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu =0,\hfill & & \end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}\delta \omega =iϵ_+\xi _{},\hfill & & \\ \delta \xi _{}=0,\hfill & & \\ \delta \xi _+=ϵ_+\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill & & \\ \delta \mathrm{\Omega }=0,\hfill & & \\ \overline{\delta }\omega =iϵ_{}\xi _+,\hfill & & \\ \overline{\delta }\xi _{}=ϵ_{}\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill & & \\ \overline{\delta }\xi _+=0,\hfill & & \\ \overline{\delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=0,\hfill & & \end{array}`$ (52)
The algebra obeyed by the fermionic symmetries is nilpotent and is very similar to BRST transformations

$$\delta _ϵ\delta _{\stackrel{´}{ϵ}}(H)=\overline{\delta }_ϵ\overline{\delta }_{\stackrel{´}{ϵ}}(H)=0,(\delta _ϵ\overline{\delta }_{\stackrel{´}{ϵ}}\overline{\delta }_{\stackrel{´}{ϵ}}\delta _ϵ)(H)=0.$$
(53)
where H is any of the fields $`(X,\mathrm{\Psi },F,\mathrm{\Pi },\eta ,\mathrm{\Phi },\omega ,\xi ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$. The important fact now is that the Lagrangian is a variation of the super-potentials $`W`$ and $`\overline{W}`$

$$W=\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu _+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu +\frac{1}{2}\eta _+^\mu F^\mu ,\overline{W}=\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu _{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^\mu \frac{1}{2}\eta _{}^\mu F^\mu ,$$
(54)
so that

$$\delta W=ϵ_+,\overline{\delta }\overline{W}=ϵ_{}.$$
(55)
It is also true that there exists a potential $`V`$ such that

$`\delta V=iϵ_+\overline{W},\overline{\delta }V=iϵ_{}W,V={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu F^\mu ,`$ (56)
thus

$$i\delta \overline{\delta }V=ϵ_+ϵ_{},i\overline{\delta }\delta V=ϵ_+ϵ_{}.$$

The constrains (II) can also be represented by the $`\overline{\delta }\delta `$ transformation and therefore the full Lagrangian in (3) can be represented as

$$2ϵ_+ϵ_{}_{tot}=i\overline{\delta }\delta \left(\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu F^\mu +\omega (\mathrm{\Pi }^2m^2)\right).$$
(57)
From (53) is follows that the action is invariant under fermionic symmetries (52) and can be represented as BRST commutator $`=\{Q,W\}=\{\overline{Q},\overline{W}\}`$ where $`\delta =ϵ_+Q,\overline{\delta }=ϵ_{}\overline{Q}`$, as it takes place in topological field theories .

## 4 SUSY Solution

As one can see the SUSY solution of equations (2) is:

$$i)\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega =\xi =0$$

and the rest of the equations (I) reduce to the following form

$`(I)^2\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =0,i\rho ^a_a\eta ^\mu =0,^2X^\mu =0,i\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu =0,F^\mu =\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu =0`$ (58)
and should be accompanied by the constraints

$`(II)\mathrm{\Pi }^2m^2=0,\overline{\eta ^\mu }\eta ^\mu =0,\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \eta ^\mu =0.`$ (59)
In the light-cone coordinates these equations are easy to solve since they take the from

$`_+_{}\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =0,_\pm \eta _{}^\mu =0,_+_{}X^\mu =0,_\pm \psi _{}^\mu =0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^2m^2=0,\eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\mu \eta _{}^\mu \eta _+^\mu =0\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \eta _\pm ^\mu =0.`$ (60)
The mass-shell supersymmetry transformation of the action

$`\stackrel{´}{S}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2\zeta \{2\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu _+_{}X^\mu +i\eta _+^\mu _{}\psi _+^\mu +i\eta _{}^\mu _+\psi _{}^\mu \}}`$ (61)
is:

$`\begin{array}{cc}(III)\delta X^\mu =iϵ_+\psi _{}^\mu iϵ_{}\psi _+^\mu ,\hfill & \\ \delta \psi _{}^\mu =2ϵ_+_{}X^\mu \hfill & \\ \delta \psi _+^\mu =2ϵ_{}_+X^\mu \hfill & \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}\delta \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =iϵ_+\eta _{}^\mu iϵ_{}\eta _+^\mu ,\hfill & \\ \delta \eta _{}^\mu =2ϵ_+_{}\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \hfill & \\ \delta \eta _+^\mu =2ϵ_{}_+\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu .\hfill & \end{array}`$ (68)
The solution of fermionic fields can be represented in the form of mode expansion

$`\eta _+^\mu ={\displaystyle c_n^\mu e^{in\zeta ^+}},\psi _+^\mu ={\displaystyle d_n^\mu e^{in\zeta ^+}}`$
$`\eta _{}^\mu ={\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{c}_n^\mu e^{in\zeta ^{}}},\psi _{}^\mu ={\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{d}_n^\mu e^{in\zeta ^{}}}`$ (69)
and the basic anti-commutators should be defined as:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\{\eta _\pm ^\mu (\zeta ),\psi _\pm ^\nu (\zeta ^{^{}})\}=2\pi \eta ^{\mu \nu }\delta (\zeta \zeta ^{^{}}),\hfill & & \end{array}`$ (71)
with all others equal to zero $`\{\eta _\pm ^\mu (\zeta ),\eta _\pm ^\nu (\zeta ^{^{}})\}=0,\{\psi _\pm ^\mu (\zeta ),\psi _\pm ^\nu (\zeta ^{^{}})\}=0`$. Substituting the mode expansion into the anti-commutators requires following relations between modes

$`\{c_n^\mu ,d_k^\nu \}=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\delta _{n+k,0},\{c_n^\mu ,c_k^\nu \}=0,\{d_n^\mu ,d_k^\nu \}=0,`$ (72)
and similar ones for $`\stackrel{~}{c}_n^\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}_n^\mu `$. The commutation relations for bosonic coordinates $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ remain the same as in .

Our aim now is to describe the ground state sector. Let us consider for that the fermion zero mode sector

$`\{c_0^\mu ,d_0^\nu \}=\eta ^{\mu \nu },\{c_0^\mu ,c_0^\nu \}=0,\{d_0^\mu ,d_0^\nu \}=0,`$ (73)
$`\{\stackrel{~}{c}_0^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{d}_0^\mu \}=\eta ^{\mu \nu },\{\stackrel{~}{c}_0^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{c}_0^\nu \}=0,\{\stackrel{~}{d}_0^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{d}_0^\nu \}=0`$ (74)
together with the constraint $`\eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\mu \eta _{}^\mu \eta _+^\mu =0`$, which for the ground state takes the form $`c_0^\mu \stackrel{~}{c}_0^\mu \stackrel{~}{c}_0^\mu c_0^\mu =0`$. The nontrivial solution of the last equations is:

$`2c_0^\mu `$ $`=i\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{`}{\gamma }^{D+1}+\stackrel{`}{\gamma }^\mu ,2d_0^\mu =`$ $`i\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{`}{\gamma }^{D+1}\stackrel{`}{\gamma }^\mu ,`$ (75)
$`2\stackrel{~}{c}_0^\mu `$ $`=\gamma ^\mu +i\gamma ^{D+1}\stackrel{`}{\gamma }^\mu ,2\stackrel{~}{d}_0^\mu =`$ $`\gamma ^\mu +i\gamma ^{D+1}\stackrel{`}{\gamma }^\mu ,`$ (76)
where $`[\gamma ^\mu ,\stackrel{`}{\gamma }^\nu ]=0`$. The matrix $`\gamma ^{D+1}\stackrel{`}{\gamma }^{D+1}`$ anticommutes with all these matrices and therefore the nonzero modes should be multiplied by this matrix to fulfill anticommutation relations between zero modes and nonzero modes. Thus we have the solution for boson  and fermion fields in the form

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`me^\mu +k^\mu \tau +\mathrm{\Pi }_{oscil}^\mu ,X^\mu =x^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\pi ^\mu \tau +X_{oscil}^\mu ,`$ (77)
$`\eta _+^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`c_0^\mu +\eta _{+oscil}^\mu ,\eta _{}^\mu =\stackrel{~}{c}_0^\mu +\eta _{oscil}^\mu ,`$ (78)
where $`[e^\mu ,\pi ^\nu ]=[x^\mu ,k^\nu ]=i\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is a pair of conjugate variables describing bosonic zero mode sector. The important difference between the standard string theory and the present one is the appearance of conjugate variables $`e`$ and $`\pi `$, where $`e^\mu `$ is a polarization vector orthogonal to the momentum vector $`k^\mu `$ ( $`e^\mu k^\mu =0`$ . It is convenient to denote the ground state wave function as $`|k,e,0>`$, so that the constraint $`L_0\mathrm{\Psi }_{phys}=\{k\pi +oscillators\mathrm{}.\}\mathrm{\Psi }_{phys}=0`$, which take place in this theory ( see for details ), take the form

$$k\pi |k,e,0>=k_e|k,e,0>=0.$$
(79)
The new constraints $`\mathrm{\Pi }\eta _\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{phys}=0`$, which appear now in supersymmetric case, on the ground state wave function $`|k,e,0>`$ will take the form

$`\begin{array}{cc}(i\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{`}{\gamma }^{D+1}+\stackrel{`}{\gamma }^\mu )k^\mu |k,e,0>=0\hfill & \\ (i\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{`}{\gamma }^{D+1}+\stackrel{`}{\gamma }^\mu )e^\mu |k,e,0>=0\hfill & \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}(\gamma ^\mu +i\gamma ^{D+1}\stackrel{`}{\gamma }^\mu )k^\mu |k,e,0>=0\hfill & \\ (\gamma ^\mu +i\gamma ^{D+1}\stackrel{`}{\gamma }^\mu )e^\mu |k,e,0>=0.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (84)
Expanding the ground wave function in $`e^\mu `$ series

$$|k,e,0>=\psi +e^\mu \psi ^\mu +e^{\mu _1}e^{\mu _2}\psi ^{\mu _1\mu _2}+\mathrm{}$$
(85)
we shall get Dirac equations on the spin tensor $`\psi ^{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _J}`$

$`(1+\gamma ^{D+1}\stackrel{`}{\gamma }^{D+1})\gamma ^\mu k^\mu \psi ^{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _J}=0`$
$`(1+\gamma ^{D+1}\stackrel{`}{\gamma }^{D+1})\stackrel{`}{\gamma }^\mu k^\mu \psi ^{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _J}=0`$ (86)
together with the constraint (79)

$`k^{\mu _1}\psi ^{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _J}=0,`$ (87)
thus describing massless particles of half-integer spin $`J+1/2=1/2,3/2,\mathrm{}..`$. One should study in great details full Hilbert space of exited states in order to learn more about complete spin content of the theory and to prove the absence of the negative norm states. The details will be given elsewhere.

## 5 Second Order Formulation

In this section we shall return back to the original action (4) with its unique variable $`X^\mu `$. Using superfield formalism one can extend this form of the action to supersymmetric case as well. We need just one superfield $`\widehat{X}^\mu =X^\mu +\overline{\vartheta }\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu +\frac{1}{2}\overline{\vartheta }\vartheta F^\mu .`$ The worldsheet supersymmecric action can be written in the form

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{im}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2\zeta d^2\theta \sqrt{(\overline{D}D\widehat{X}^\mu )^2}}.`$ (88)
Let us demonstrate now that classically it defines a model which is equivalent to (7). Indeed the superfield equations which follow from (7) are:

$`\overline{D}D\widehat{X}^\mu 4\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\mu =0`$
$`\overline{D}D\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\mu =0`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^2m^2=0`$ (89)
and one can see that

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}}}\overline{D}D\widehat{X}^\mu .`$
From the last equation it follows that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}}}={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\sqrt{(\overline{D}D\widehat{X}^\mu )^2}}}`$
and field equations take the form

$`\overline{D}D\{m{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{D}D\widehat{X}^\mu }{\sqrt{(\overline{D}D\widehat{X}^\mu )^2}}}\}=0.`$ (90)
The last equation simply follows from (88) by direct variation over $`\widehat{X}`$, thus these models are indeed classically equivalent.

In this formulation we have

$`(\overline{D}D\widehat{X}^\mu )^2=4(F^\mu F^\mu +2iF^\mu \overline{\vartheta }\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu \overline{\vartheta }\vartheta F^\mu ^2X^\mu \overline{\vartheta }\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu \overline{\vartheta }\rho ^b_b\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu )`$
so that

$`\sqrt{(\overline{D}D\widehat{X}^\mu )^2}=2\sqrt{F^\mu F^\mu }\{1\overline{\vartheta }\vartheta F^\mu ^2X^\mu /2F^2(\overline{\vartheta }\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu )^2/2F^2+`$
$`i\overline{\vartheta }\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu F^\mu /F^2(1/8)(2i\overline{\vartheta }\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu F^\mu /F^2)^2\}`$
and

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2\zeta \frac{1}{\sqrt{F^2}}\{F^\mu ^2X^\mu +\frac{1}{2}_a\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu \rho ^aK^{\mu \nu }\rho ^b_b\mathrm{\Psi }^\nu \}},K^{\mu \nu }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{F^\mu F^\nu }{F^2}}.`$ (91)
The supersymmetry transformation is:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\delta X^\mu =\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu ,\hfill & \\ \delta \mathrm{\Psi }^\mu =i\rho ^a_aX^\mu ϵ+F^\mu ϵ,\hfill & \\ \delta F^\mu =i\overline{ϵ}\rho ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu .\hfill & \end{array}`$ (95)
We can write the action in terms of components in the following form

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2\zeta \frac{1}{\sqrt{F^2}}\left\{2F^\mu _+_{}X^\mu +i\left[_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^\mu _+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\nu _+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu _{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^\nu \right]K^{\mu \nu }\right\}}`$ (96)
with the following equations of motion for $`F^\mu ,\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm ^\mu `$ and $`X^\mu `$:

$`K^{\mu \nu }_+_{}X^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left[_+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\nu _{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^\lambda _{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^\nu _+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\lambda \right]{\displaystyle \frac{F_{\{\mu }K_{\nu \lambda \}}}{F^2}}=0,`$ (97)
$`_\pm \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{F^2}}}K_{\mu \nu }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm ^\nu \right]=0,`$ (98)
$`^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{F^\mu }{\sqrt{F^2}}}\right)=0,`$ (99)
where $`\{\mu \nu \lambda \}=\mu \nu \lambda +\mathrm{cycl}.\mathrm{perm}.`$. Solving Eq. (98) and using (97) we shall get the following solution and constraints for fermions

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_+^\mu (\zeta ^+,\zeta ^{})=\psi _+^\mu (\zeta ^+)+{\displaystyle _0^\zeta ^{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\eta _{}^\mu (\stackrel{~}{\zeta ^{}})\mathrm{\Lambda }(\zeta ^+\stackrel{~}{\zeta ^{}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu (\zeta ^+\stackrel{~}{\zeta ^+})\xi _{}(\zeta ^+\stackrel{~}{\zeta ^{}})\right)`$ (100)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu (\zeta ^+,\zeta ^{})=\psi _{}^\mu (\zeta ^{})+{\displaystyle _0^{\zeta ^+}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\eta _+^\mu (\stackrel{~}{\zeta ^+})\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{~}{\zeta ^+}\zeta ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu (\stackrel{~}{\zeta ^+}zeta^+)\xi _+(\stackrel{~}{\zeta ^+}\zeta ^{})\right)`$ (101)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \eta _\pm ^\mu =0,\eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\mu \eta _{}^\mu \eta _+^\mu =0`$ (102)
where we have introduced instead of vector $`F^\mu `$ the normalized variable $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =m\frac{F^\mu }{\sqrt{F^2}}`$ and scalar variable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\sqrt{F^2}`$ corresponding to the length of $`F^\mu `$. The remaining equations in the bosonic sector are the same as in the “first” order formalism described in the previous sections

$`_+_{}\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =0,\mathrm{\Pi }^2m^2=0,`$ (103)
$`_+_{}X^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\eta _+^\mu \xi _{}\eta _{}\xi _+\right)=0.`$ (104)
From the action (96) we can derive the canonical momenta for fermionic fields

$`P_\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\delta }L}{\delta _0\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\pi \sqrt{F^2}}}K_{\mu \nu }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ (105)
$`P_{\mathrm{\Psi }_+}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\delta }L}{\delta _0\mathrm{\Psi }_+^\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\pi \sqrt{F^2}}}K_{\mu \nu }_+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ (106)
Using solutions (100) and (102) we can see that these momenta are equal to $`\eta _\pm ^\mu `$, and anti-commutators between $`\eta `$ and $`\psi `$ coincide with anti-commutation relations (72) of the previous section.

The advantage of the last formalism is that it has less fields and therefore some hidden symmetries of the model are much easier to detect. In particular, it is much easier to observe a surprising property of the action (96), that it is BRST exact and might be related to the topological nature of this supersymmetric extension. More precisely we can define the following set of nilpotent Grassmann odd symmetries related with some part of supersymmetry transformations

$`𝐒\mathrm{\Psi }_+^\mu =_+X^\mu ,𝐒X^\mu =0,`$
$`𝐒F^\mu =i_+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu ,𝐒\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu =0,`$
$`𝐒^2=0`$ (107)
or the similar in left moving sector

$`\overline{𝐒}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu =_{}X^\mu ,\overline{𝐒}X^\mu =0,`$
$`\overline{𝐒}F^\mu =i_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^\mu ,\overline{𝐒}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^\mu =0,`$
$`\overline{𝐒}^2=0`$ (108)
The action (96) can be expressed in the BRST exact form

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{4m}{\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2\zeta 𝐒W}={\displaystyle \frac{4m}{\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2\zeta \overline{𝐒}\overline{W}},`$ (109)
where we have introduced so called gauge fermions

$`W=_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{F^\mu }{\sqrt{F^2}}},\overline{W}=_+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{F^\mu }{\sqrt{F^2}}}.`$ (110)
Then we can observe that these two nilpotent symmetries anticomute

$`\{𝐒,\overline{𝐒}\}=0`$ (111)
and we can express our two gauge fermions in term of one gauge boson and generators of the second symmetry

$`W=\overline{𝐒}\sqrt{F^2},\overline{W}=𝐒\sqrt{F^2},`$ (112)
$`S={\displaystyle \frac{4m}{\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2\zeta 𝐒\overline{𝐒}\sqrt{F^2}}.`$ (113)
So we can deduce that the action (96) is BRST and anti-BRST exact and somehow is equivalent to the sum of gauge fixing term and Faddeev-Popov determinant for some gauge transformation of our fields (may be in this case nonlocal).

One can formally express the partition function in terms of singular determinant, if for a moment ignor its zero modes. Indeed, integrating in Z

$`Z={\displaystyle \mathrm{exp}\left[iS\right]DF^\mu D\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu D\mathrm{\Psi }_+^\mu D\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^\mu }`$ (114)
over $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm ^\mu `$ and $`X^\mu `$ we shall get the following expression

$`Z={\displaystyle det\left[_{}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu }{\delta F^\mu }_+\right]\delta \left(_+_{}\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \right)DF^\mu },`$ (115)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =\frac{F^\mu }{\sqrt{F^2}}`$ and $`\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu }{\delta F^\nu }=\frac{K^{\mu \nu }}{\sqrt{F^2}}`$. It is clear that if one changes the integration variable $`F^\mu `$ to a unit length function $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu `$ then two determinants will cancel each other and the partition function Z will be equal to one. But we have to notice that this transformation is degenerate because the corresponding Jacobian $`\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu }{\delta F^\mu }`$ is proportional to the projector $`K^{\mu \nu }`$ and therefore one should properly account its zero modes.

As usually in the case of BRST exact actions , we can construct observables. For any form $`A=A\left(F\right)_{\mu _1\mathrm{}.\mu _n}dF^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}.dF^{\mu _n}`$ we can define the corresponding operator $`𝒪_A`$ replacing $`dF^{\mu _i}`$ by the BRST exact operator $`_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{\mu _i}`$

$`𝒪_A=A\left(F\right)_{\mu _1\mathrm{}.\mu _n}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{\mu _n}.`$ (116)
From (5) it follows that

$`i\overline{S}𝒪_A={\displaystyle \frac{A_{\mu _1\mathrm{}.\mu _n}}{F^{\mu _0}}}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{\mu _0}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_+^{\mu _n}`$ (117)
$`i\overline{S}𝒪_A=𝒪_{dA}`$ (118)
where $`dA`$ is the exterior derivative of A. Thus closed forms $`dA=0`$ induce BRST invariant operators $`𝒪_A`$ and de Rham cohomology classes of forms transform to the BRST cohomology classes, and we have at our disposal a set of nontrivial invariant observables .


text:
# An Intrinsic Baldwin Effect in the H𝜷 Broad Emission Line in the Spectrum of NGC 5548

## 1 Introduction

Correlations between the continuum and emission-line properties of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) afford potentially important probes of the structure and physical conditions of the broad-line region (BLR) and of the unobservable ionizing continuum in these sources. Probably the best-established correlation between continuum and emission-line properties is the “Baldwin Effect” (Baldwin 1977), an inverse, non-linear correlation between the equivalent width of the broad UV emission lines, most notably C iv$`\lambda 1549`$, and the luminosity of the underlying continuum (e.g., Osmer, Porter, & Green 1994). The Baldwin relationship can be parameterized as a simple power law of the form

$$F_{\mathrm{line}}F_{\mathrm{cont}}^\alpha ,$$
(1)
with index $`\alpha \stackrel{<}{}1`$.

Kinney, Rivolo, & Koratkar (1990) and Pogge & Peterson (1992) investigated the effect of variability on this relationship in C iv and Ly$`\alpha `$. The results can be summarized as follows:

1. There is a global or object-to-object relationship with slope $`\alpha 0.83`$ for C iv and $`\alpha 0.88`$ for Ly$`\alpha `$.
2. There is a rather flatter intrinsic relationship with $`\alpha 0.4`$ that describes how the line and continuum relationship changes due to variability. At least some of the scatter in the global relationship is attributable to variability and the flatter slope of the intrinsic relationship. Moreover, the scatter in this intrinsic relationship is largely attributable to light-travel time effects within the BLR (i.e., changes in the line flux follow those in the continuum flux with some measureable time delay).

While the Baldwin Effect is well-established in most of the strong UV lines, any global Baldwin Effect in the Balmer lines seems to be quite weak (e.g., Dietrich et al. 2002). However, to the best of our knowledge, the question of whether or not there is an intrinsic relationship in the Balmer lines has not been specifically addressed. Our goal in this paper is to remedy this. We adopt an approach similar to that of Pogge & Peterson (1992) in attempting to remove light travel-time effects when determining the slope of the relationship. We will make use of numerous well-sampled optical spectra of NGC 5548 obtained by the International AGN Watch in this analysis to show that an intrinsic Baldwin Effect is present in H$`\beta `$.

## 2 Data Analysis

### 2.1 The Data

For this investigation, we used ten years of spectra from the International AGN Watch collaboration (Peterson et al. 2002 and references therein). These data are fairly inhomogeneous, with differences in spectral resolution, quality, and amounts of contaminating light from the host galaxy. In order to minimize the effects of these problems, we restricted our analysis to the high-quality homogeneous data obtained with the Ohio State CCD spectrograph on the Perkins 1.8-m telescope at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, between 1988 and 1998. The optical continuum and H$`\beta `$ emission-line fluxes for this subset are shown in Fig. 1. The continuum flux was measured in a 10 Å wide bin at a wavelength of 5100 Å in the rest frame of the galaxy, which has a redshift of $`z=0.017`$. The continuum underneath the H$`\beta `$ line was modeled by linear interpolation between two windows on either side of the H$`\beta `$ line, at wavelengths of 4710 Å and 5100 Å in the rest frame of the galaxy. The H$`\beta `$ flux was then measured by integrating over the flux above this continuum. The measurement uncertainties in these spectral measurements were estimated by examining the differences in fluxes measured on very short time scales (i.e. less than or equal to 2 days). We assumed that flux differences on such short timescales are stochastic errors rather than real differences. We estimated the fractional error in the integrated continuum and line fluxes to be 2.5%, consistent with previous estimates of the error in these types of calculations (e.g., Peterson et al. 2002).

### 2.2 Light Travel-Time Effects

In this investigation, it is important to take into account the effects of light-travel time. Continuum radiation emitted by the central continuum source (presumably an accretion disk) is absorbed and reprocessed into emission-line radiation by diffuse BLR gas. Due to light travel-time effects within the BLR, we observe a time delay of order days to weeks between variations in the continuum and the response of the emission lines. A simple linear model (Blandford & McKee 1982) to describe the emission-line response to continuum variations can be written as

$$L(t)=\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau )C(t\tau )𝑑\tau ,$$
(2)
where $`C(t)`$ and $`L(t)`$ are the continuum and emission-line light curves, respectively, and $`\tau `$ is the time delay, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau )`$ is the transfer function. The transfer function depends on the size, geometry, and structure of the BLR. Under typical conditions, the centroid of the transfer function is essentially the mean response time of an emission line to changes in the continuum. The mean response time, or lag, for an emission line can be found by cross-correlation of the light curves.

In the case of NGC 5548, multiple years of monitoring optical continuum and emission-line variability has shown that the H$`\beta `$ time lag changes over time. More precisely, the lag varies with the mean continuum level in a fashion that clearly suggests that the response is dominated by gas in which physical conditions are optimal for the H$`\beta `$ line. Thus, the mean response time for a given line is a dynamic quantity and eq. (2) is an overly simplistic model of the line response. However, it seems to be sufficient to account for time-dependent changes in the lag by taking yearly averages (Peterson et al. 2002).

We characterize the time delay by the value of the centroid of the optical continuum/H$`\beta `$ emission-line cross-correlation functions for each year. The cross-correlation centroids are taken from Table 8 of Peterson et al. (2002); values range from a low of 11.37 days in 1992 to a high of 26.44 days in 1998. For each point in the H$`\beta `$ light curve, a corresponding lag-corrected continuum point was determined. The lag was subtracted from the time of each H$`\beta `$ measurement to identify the time at which the optical continuum was best-correlated with the H$`\beta `$ emission-line flux. The continuum flux at this time was determined by linear interpolation between the actual observations immediately preceding and following this time. Errors on interpolated continuum points were estimated by adding the errors of the preceding and following continuum points in quadrature, which probably slightly overestimates the actual uncertainty.

### 2.3 Fitting Procedure and Results

In Fig. 2, we show the total H$`\beta `$ flux as a function of optical continuum flux, corrected for time delay as described in the previous section. The relationship is clearly non-linear. However, we have not yet accounted for constant spectral contaminants that have to be removed from the observed optical continuum and emission-line fluxes. The two major contaminants to the spectrum of importance to our investigation are (a) the contribution of the host galaxy to the optical continuum and (b) the H$`\beta `$ narrow-line contribution to the total H$`\beta `$ flux. Assuming that these are the only two necessary corrections, we can write eq. (1) in terms of the observables, namely the total continuum flux $`F_\lambda (5100\mathrm{\AA })`$ (i.e., AGN plus host galaxy) and the total H$`\beta `$ flux $`F(\mathrm{H}\beta _{\mathrm{total}})`$ (i.e., broad component plus narrow component) as

$$F(\mathrm{H}\beta _{\mathrm{broad}})=F(\mathrm{H}\beta _{\mathrm{total}})F(\mathrm{H}\beta _{\mathrm{narrow}})=A(F_\lambda (5100\mathrm{\AA })F_{\mathrm{galaxy}})^\alpha .$$
(3)
We can approach eq. (3) in two ways, first by a complete non-linear least squares treatment, and second by fixing the host galaxy and narrow-component fluxes, which are well-constrained by independent analyses, which reduces the problem to a linear least-squares exercise. We consider both of these in turn.

#### Non-Linear Least Squares Fit.

We employed a Marquardt algorithm as described by Press et al. (1989) to determine the constant components $`F(\mathrm{H}\beta _{\mathrm{narrow}})`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{galaxy}}`$, the scaling factor $`A`$, and the Baldwin Effect index $`\alpha `$, all as defined in eq. (3). The values of these parameters are shown in Table 1, along with uncertainties estimated by bootstrap resampling. The best-fit locus is shown in Fig. 2.

#### Simple Power-Law Fit.

We made use of the fact that two of the parameters in eq. (3) can be accurately determined by independent means. The host galaxy flux at 5100 Å is estimated to be $`F_{\mathrm{galaxy}}=(3.37\pm 0.54)\times 10^{15}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2 Å-1 (Romanishin et al. 1995) by using a model of the host-galaxy surface brightness distribution obtained by careful deconvolution of the nuclear point source and the host galaxy.

We used a value for the narrow H$`\beta `$ line component of $`F(\mathrm{H}\beta _{\mathrm{narrow}})=6.7\times 10^{14}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2 which was estimated by trial-and-error scaling of the \[O iii\] $`\lambda 5007`$ emission-line profile and subtracting the scaled profile at the position of the H$`\beta `$ narrow line. This works best on high-quality data obtained during a low-flux state when the narrow component of H$`\beta `$ is relatively prominent. A plausible narrow-H$`\beta `$ model was found by scaling the \[O iii\] $`\lambda 5007`$ emission line by 0.12 ($`\pm 0.01`$), as shown in Fig. 3. After subtraction of these constant components, eq. (3) reduces to a simple linear least squares problem

$$\mathrm{log}F(\mathrm{H}\beta _{\mathrm{broad}})=\mathrm{log}A+\alpha \mathrm{log}\left[F_\lambda (5100\mathrm{\AA })F_{\mathrm{galaxy}}\right].$$
(4)
The linear regression was performed using the BCES (bivariate correlated errors and intrinsic scatter) program described by Akritas & Bershady (1996). This technique accounts for measurement errors in both parameters. The results for BCES(Y$``$X) regression are given in Table 1, again with uncertainties in the fitted parameters determined by bootstrap resampling. The best fit function is shown in Fig. 4.

## 3 Discussion

Both methods of fitting show a clear Baldwin Effect, with $`\alpha 0.65`$ for the simple linearized fit and $`\alpha 0.53`$ for the non-linear least-squares fit, in both cases rather steeper than the values found by Pogge & Peterson (1992) for C iv and Ly$`\alpha `$. The fit shown in Fig. 4 raises concern about either the parameterization of the relationship or the estimate of the background components (narrow-line H$`\beta `$ and host-galaxy); in other words, if the independent estimates of the background components are correct, then as shown in Fig. 4, most of the low-flux points fall below the best-fit line, indicating that the slope of the relationship must be different in this regime. While the non-linear least-squares fit (Fig. 2) does not have this problem at the low-flux end, the background estimates from the fit are in both cases much too high, although certainly the constraint on the host-galaxy flux is less stringent than that on the H$`\beta `$ narrow component. To pursue this, if we adjust upwards from the Romanishin et al. (1995) estimate of the host-galaxy flux, we find the best overall fit (as measured by $`\chi ^2`$) is achieved for a value of $`4.6\times 10^{15}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2 Å-1(yielding $`\alpha 0.52`$), which is, not surprisingly, close to the host-galaxy estimate we obtained (Table 1) by the non-linear least-squares fit to eq. (3), the only difference being whether or not the narrow-line contribution is a free parameter or held fixed. A galaxy contribution of $`4.6\times 10^{15}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2 Å-1 exceeds the Romanishin et al. (1995) estimate by $`2\sigma `$, but it is still (although only slightly) below the minimum published optical continuum flux (Peterson et al. 2002). However, during the 2002 observing season, NGC 5548 went into the lowest-flux state recorded over the last 30 years, reaching a minimum 5100 Å flux of $`(3.94\pm 0.10)\times 10^{15}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2 Å-1 on JD2452471 (Sergeev 2002, private communication). Given this result, we doubt that the estimate of Romanishin et al. (1995) significantly underestimates the host-galaxy contribution; it seems more likely that our parameterization is oversimplified.

While Fig. 4 suggests that the relationship between the continuum and the H$`\beta `$ emission line changes at low flux levels, it is also possible that the relationship simply varies somewhat with time. As all of the low-flux points below the best-fit lines are from a single epoch (the fourth year of this monitoring program, during the period JD 2448713 – 2448848), we are unable to discriminate between flux dependence and time dependence. A complete analysis of the most recent faint-state data should clarify this.

Finally, we as show in Fig. 3, our best estimate of the H$`\beta `$ narrow component, based on a profile decomposition, is $`6.7\times 10^{14}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2. This is much lower than the non-linear least-squares result of $`1.8\times 10^{13}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2 (Table 1; also see Fig. 2). It is very unlikely that the H$`\beta `$ narrow component based on profile decomposition is underestimated. However, the non-linear least-squares result may include other less-variable contaminants to the broad H$`\beta `$ profile, and this is under investigation.

Depending on how we account for the constant components, we find possible power-law indices (eq. 3) in the range $`0.52<\alpha <0.65`$. In any case, we see clear evidence for an intrinsic Baldwin Effect in H$`\beta `$, i.e., the line flux does not increase linearly with the continuum flux. To explore the physical nature of this relationship, however, we need to relate the H$`\beta `$ flux to the ionizing continuum flux rather than the optical continuum flux, since the former actually drives the emission-line variations. While the ionizing flux ($`\lambda <912`$ Å) is not directly observable, measurements closer to the ionizing continuum, at 1350 Å, are available from the International Ultraviolet Explorer archive. Assuming a relationship of the form

$$F_{\mathrm{opt}}F_{\mathrm{UV}}^\beta ,$$
(5)
Peterson et al. (2002) find $`\beta 0.56`$, based on contemporaneous pairs of 1350 Å ($`F_{\mathrm{UV}}`$) and 5100 Å ($`F_{\mathrm{opt}}`$) continuum fluxes. However, by using the BCES regression, we found a slightly steeper slope, $`\beta =0.67`$, which we will use in this discussion. We also note that in the case of NGC 5548, Galactic extinction is a small enough effect that it makes no difference in the slope $`\beta `$ of eq. (5).

Our analysis thus far has been based only on optical data, and we have assumed specifically that $`F(\mathrm{H}\beta )F_{\mathrm{opt}}^\alpha `$. Combining this with eq. (5). we can write the relationship between the H$`\beta `$ emission line flux and the UV ionizing continuum as $`F(\mathrm{H}\beta )F_{\mathrm{UV}}^{\alpha \beta }`$, so that $`0.35\stackrel{<}{}\alpha \beta \stackrel{<}{}0.44`$.

## 4 The Effect of Geometric Dilution

The emission-line light curve is a convolution of the continuum light curve with a transfer function, as shown in eq. (2). The effect of the transfer function is to shift and broaden the emission-line light curve in time relative to the continuum curve; the effect of making the BLR larger is not only to shift the cross-correlation lag to larger values, but also to smear out the response in time, reducing the apparent amplitude of the response at any given time. We therefore consider here how important an effect this geometrical dilution of the line response might be in this particular case. We attempt to estimate this by convolving the real optical continuum light curve with a transfer function for a thin spherical shell, since this is a rectangular function that will have a relatively large dilution of the line response through time-smearing effects, and repeating the analysis described above.

The effect of geometric dilution on the amplitude of variability of emission lines was explored by convolving the NGC 5548 continuum with thin-shell transfer functions of radius between 1 and 10 light days. We then used the original continuum data and the simulated H$`\beta `$ emission to calculate the slope of the Baldwin Effect as discussed above. We found that the slope does decrease slightly with increasing geometric dilution; however, it does so at a very small rate. The difference in $`\alpha `$ is found to be only about 0.05 for rectangular transfer functions of half width 1 and 10 days. We tested transfer functions for other geometries, and found that, as expected, the effects of smearing were even smaller for narrower profile transfer functions.

## 5 Comparison with Theoretical Predictions

We can compare our empirical results on the intrinsic Baldwin Effect in H$`\beta `$ with the theoretical predictions made in a series of photoionization calculations by Korista et al. (1997; see their Fig. 3g). The quantity $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{H})`$ is defined as the number of ionizing photons arriving at the inner face of a BLR cloud per square cm per sec. If the shape of the ionizing continuum is fixed, the emission-line spectrum will be a function of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{H})`$, which is proportional to the photoionization rate, and of the particle density $`n`$ (cm-3), which is proportional to the recombination rate, as well as chemical abundances and cloud column density. Korista et al. show the strength of various emission lines normalized by the continnum flux (i.e., the line equivalent widths) for various values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{H})`$ and $`n`$ for different column densities and standard assumptions about elemental abundances. For NGC 5548, $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{H})=20`$ at a distance of 12.6 light days from the central source (Korista & Goad 2001). The equivalent width used by Korista et al. is defined as the ratio of the H$`\beta `$ flux to the continuum flux at 1215 Å. Using the above relationships, the equivalent width should be

$$W=\frac{F(\mathrm{H}\beta )}{F_{\mathrm{UV}}}F_{\mathrm{UV}}^{\alpha \beta 1}.$$
(6)
Using our values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, we find that we expect the equivalent width to be proportional to the UV flux to the $`0.56`$ or $`0.65`$ power, depending how we account for the constant components. In other words, an order of magnitude change in $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{H})`$ should change the equivalent width by around $`0.60`$ dex. From Fig. 3g of Korista et al. (1997), one can see that for $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{H})20`$ and for hydrogen particle densities $`n`$(H)(cm-3) in the range $`11\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{log}n(\mathrm{H})\stackrel{<}{}13`$, the slope of the $`\mathrm{log}W/\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{H})`$ relationship is consistent with our results. The grids111The photoionization grids calculated by Korista et al. (1997) can be found on the web at http://www.pa.uky.edu/$``$korista/grids/grids.html. were investigated to find the slope of the relationship for varying values of column density and continuum shape with solar metallicity. Since the value of $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{H})19.6`$ at a radius of 20 light days, where typically the H$`\beta `$ response is maximized in NGC 5548, we determined the slope of the grid for varying values of the hydrogen particle density by linear interpolation along the grid. We found that regardless of the model, the slope of the $`\mathrm{log}W/\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{H})`$ relationship reaches a maximum in the range $`0.57`$ to $`0.60`$ when the value of the hydrogen particle density is in the range $`12\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{log}n(\mathrm{H})\stackrel{<}{}12.5`$.

## 6 Conclusions

We have investigated the relationship between the variable H$`\beta `$ emission line and optical continuum of NGC 5548. We discovered that an intrinsic Baldwin Effect does exist; after for correcting for light travel-time effects, we find that the amplitude of broad H$`\beta `$ variation is less than the amplitude of variation of the underlying optical continuum. By combining these results with the relationship between the amplitudes of variability of the optical and UV continuum, we determine the relationship between the H$`\beta `$ emission-line flux and the UV continuum flux, and find that our result is in good agreement with the predictions of photoionization calculations, even accounting for smearing of the line response by light travel-time effects within the H$`\beta `$-emitting region. We suggest that similar analysis of multiple lines have potential as diagnostics of the physical nature of the BLR.

We are grateful for support of this work through NASA grant NAG5-8397. We thank Sergey Sergeev of Crimean Astrophysical Observatory for data on the recent faint state of NGC 5548. We are grateful to an anonymous referee whose comments led to an improved presentation.