format: text

text:
# Lagrangian versus Quantization

(December 27, 2002)

## Abstract

We discuss examples of systems which can be quantized consistently, although they do not admit a Lagrangian description.

Whether a given set of equations of motion admits or not a Lagrangian formulation has been an interesting issue for a long time. As early as 1887, Helmholtz formulated necessary and sufficient conditions for this to happen, and the problem has a rich history . More recently, motivated by some unpublished work of Feynman , a connection was made between the existence of a Lagrangian and the commutation relations satisfied by a given system . Ref.  concluded that under quite general conditions, including commutativity of the coordinates, $`[q_i,q_j]=0`$, the equations of motion of a point particle admit a Lagrangian formulation. The purpose of this note is to demonstrate the reverse, namely that noncommutativity of the coordinates forbids a Lagrangian formulation (therefore a Lagrangian implies commutativity). This happens in all but a few cases, which we all identify. On the other hand, an extended Hamiltonian formulation always remains available. It permits quantization of the system in any of the three usual formalisms: operatorial, wave-function, or path integral. Several examples will be used to illustrate the properties of such unusual systems.

We work in a (2+1)-dimensional space, although our considerations easily extend to higher dimensions, and assume that

$$[q_1,q_2]=i\theta 0.$$
(1)
For generality, we allow for a nonzero commutator between the momenta, $`[p_1,p_2]=i\sigma `$, in addition to the usual $`[q_i,p_j]=i\delta _{ij}`$ relations. The commutation relations of interest are thus

$$[x_a,x_b]=i\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab},x_{1,2,3,4}=q_1,q_2,p_1,p_2,$$
(2)
with the constant antisymmetric matrix $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab}=(\omega ^1)_{ab}`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& \hfill \theta & \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill \theta & \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill \sigma \\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill \sigma & \hfill 0\end{array}\right),\omega =\frac{1}{1\theta \sigma }\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& \hfill \sigma & \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill \sigma & \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill \theta \\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill \theta & \hfill 0\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
We have denoted the phase space variables $`q_1,q_2,p_1,p_2`$ by $`x_a`$, $`a=1,2,3,4`$. Eqs. (2,3), together with a given Hamiltonian $`H`$, completely determine the dynamics.

Classical dynamics: general

At the classical level, Eqs. (2,3) correspond to the following fundamental Poisson brackets

$$\{x_a,x_b\}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab}.$$
(4)
For two generic functions $`A`$ and $`B`$, $`\{A,B\}\frac{A}{x_a}\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab}\frac{B}{x_b}`$. We will first show that a dynamical system obeying (4) does not allow (in most cases) a Lagrangian formulation.

A classical system with Hamiltonian $`H(x_i)`$ and Poisson brackets (4) has the folowing equations of motion

$$\dot{x}_a=\{x_a,H\}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab}\frac{H}{x_b},a,b=1,2,3,4.$$
(5)
More explicitely,

$$\dot{q}_i=\frac{H}{p_i}+\theta ϵ_{ij}\frac{H}{q_j},\dot{p}_i=\frac{H}{q_i}+\sigma ϵ_{ij}\frac{H}{p_j},i,j=1,2.$$
(6)
Above, $`ϵ_{12}=ϵ_{21}=1`$. When $`\theta =\sigma =0`$, Eqs. (6) become the usual Hamilton equations.

We assume that $`H=\frac{1}{2m}(p_1^2+p_2^2)+V(q_1,q_2)`$. (for kinetic terms of the form $`(p_iA_i(q))^2`$, see .) The momenta are then given by

$$p_i=m\dot{q}_im\theta ϵ_{ij}\frac{V}{q_j}.$$
(7)
Eliminating them from (6), one obtains the coordinate equations of motion,

$$m\ddot{q}_i=(1\theta \sigma )\frac{V}{q_i}+\sigma ϵ_{ij}\dot{q}_j+m\theta ϵ_{ij}\frac{d}{dt}\frac{V}{q_j},i=1,2.$$
(8)
As previously noted , if $`\theta 0`$, equations (8) are not in general derivable from a Lagrangian. We will make this statement precise, through the use of the Helmholtz conditions. Those state  that a force $`F_i`$ is derivable from a Lagrangian, i.e. $`F_i=\frac{W}{q_i}+\frac{d}{dt}\frac{W}{\dot{q}_i}`$ where $`W(q_i,\dot{q}_i,t)`$, if and only if $`F_i`$ is at most a linear function of the accelerations $`\ddot{q}_i`$, and it satisfies:

$$\frac{F_i}{\ddot{q}_j}=\frac{F_j}{\ddot{q}_i},\frac{F_i}{\dot{q}_j}+\frac{F_j}{\dot{q}_i}=\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{F_i}{\ddot{q}_j}+\frac{F_j}{\ddot{q}_i}\right),$$
(9)
$$\frac{F_i}{q_j}\frac{F_j}{q_i}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{F_i}{\dot{q}_j}\frac{F_j}{\dot{q}_i}\right).$$
(10)
In our case the Helmholtz conditions reduce to

$$\frac{F_1}{\dot{q}_2}+\frac{F_2}{\dot{q}_1}=0,\frac{F_1}{\dot{q}_1}=\frac{F_2}{\dot{q}_2}=0,$$
(11)
$$\frac{F_1}{q_2}\frac{F_2}{q_1}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{F_1}{\dot{q}_2}\frac{F_2}{\dot{q}_1}\right).$$
(12)
Eqs. (11,12) constrain the potential $`V`$ in Eq. (8) to be of the form

$$V(q_1,q_2,t)=\frac{1}{2}a(q_1^2+q_2^2)+b(t)q_1+c(t)q_2.$$
(13)
For generality, we allowed explicit time dependence of $`V`$. This permits $`b(t),c(t)`$ to be arbitrary functions of time. The coefficient $`a`$ of the quadratic term is constrained by (12) to be constant. Thus the most general equations of motion engendered by (2), which do admit a Lagrangian description, are

$$m\ddot{q}_1=a(1\theta \sigma )q_1+(\sigma +\theta ma)\dot{q}_2+[\theta m\dot{c}(1\theta \sigma )b],$$
(14)
$$m\ddot{q}_2=a(1\theta \sigma )q_2(\sigma +\theta ma)\dot{q}_1[\theta m\dot{b}+(1\theta \sigma )c],$$
(15)
with $`a`$ constant and $`b(t),c(t)`$. The right hand side term contains three types of solvable forces: harmonic oscillator, magnetic field, and homogeneous (possibly time-dependent). The general solution of Eqs. (14,15) can be found by standard methods. We will discuss particular cases, which illustrate better their properties. Of course, when $`\theta =0`$, $`\sigma =0`$, one gets the usual behaviour one expects from the potential (13). Otherwise, some surprising effects appear. First, even when $`V=0`$, one has an effective magnetic field $`\sigma `$ acting on the whole 2D plane. All the particles are equally charged under it. Second, the external homogeneous force disappears not only if $`b=c=0`$, but also if $`b=\beta \mathrm{cos}\gamma t,c=\beta \mathrm{sin}\gamma t`$, and $`\omega =(1\theta \sigma )/\theta m`$. Thus, from a ”commutative” point of view, one applies oscillatory forces along the directions $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$, but no force is registerd due to noncommutativity (NC) of the coordinates! Third, if $`\sigma +\theta ma=0`$, the magnetic-like force disappears. Finally, if $`1=\theta \sigma `$, one has no Newton-like term at all. In this case the system undergoes a dimensional reduction. The system of differential equations (6) becomes degenerate and a first-order Lagrangian description exists .

A few remarks are in order. First, an interesting situation appears when $`0<|1\sigma \theta |<<1`$, and $`\sqrt{\sigma }`$ is big enough with respect to the momentum scales appearing in the potential $`V`$. Then, the dynamics in Eq. (8) is controled by the magnetic force $`ϵ_{ij}\sigma \dot{q}_j`$, and the potential $`V`$ can be treated as a small perturbation.

Second, cf. Eqs. (7,8,14,15), $`\sigma `$ and $`\theta `$ at least partially play the role of magnetic fields, in a way depending also on the potential $`V`$. ”Primordial magnetic fields”, which are of much interested nowadays, can thus be generated by simply assuming noncommutativity. Although those effective magnetic fields would be tiny, they would be coherent over large distances, contributing to large scale (e.g. cosmological) dynamics.

Third, a Lagrangiam formulation can still be constructed for noncommuting coordinates, at a certain price. One can mix the $`q`$’s and $`p`$’s through linear noncanonical transformations which block-diagonalize the symplectic form (3). This however transfers nonlinearity from the potential term to the kinetic term of the Hamiltonian, a highly undesirable feature. Another possibility  is to double the number of degrees of freedom, write a first-order Lagrangian in the extended space, then get rid of the unphysical degrees of freedom via constrained quantization. The first-order Lagrangian looks however very muck like a Hamiltonian, and the constraint analysis proceeds anyway in Hamiltonian form.

Classical dynamics: examples

We proceed with examples which do not admit a Lagrangian formulation, and display some of their features.

Consider first the anisotropic harmonic oscillator potential, $`V=\frac{1}{2}(a_1q_1^2+a_2q_2^2)`$, which gives the equations of motion

$$m\ddot{q}_1=(1\theta \sigma )a_1q_1+(\sigma +\theta ma_2)\dot{q}_2,$$
(16)
$$m\ddot{q}_2=(1\theta \sigma )a_2q_2(\sigma +\theta ma_1)\dot{q}_1.$$
(17)
If we chose $`\sigma +m\theta a_2=0`$, then $`\sigma +m\theta a_10`$, provided $`a_1a_2`$. $`q_1`$ becomes a harmonic oscillator, whereas $`q_2`$ is a harmonic oscillator driven by a periodic force $`m\theta (a_1a_2)\dot{q}_1`$. The solution for $`q_1`$ is the usual one, $`q_1(t)=q_1(0)\mathrm{cos}\omega _1t+(q_1^{}(0)/\omega _1)\mathrm{sin}\omega _1t`$, whereas for $`q_2`$ it reads

$$q_2(t)=q_2(0)\mathrm{cos}\omega _2t+\frac{q_2^{}(0)}{\omega _2}\mathrm{sin}\omega _2t+\theta m\frac{q_1^{}(0)\mathrm{cos}\omega _1t\omega _1q_1(0)\mathrm{sin}\omega _1t}{1\theta \sigma }.$$
(18)
Above, $`m\omega _i^2=(1\theta \sigma )a_i`$, $`i=1,2`$. If $`\theta `$ is small, the last term in Eq.(18) is a perturbation which produces oscillations around the commutative trajectory. The particle goes on a wiggly path, which averages to the commutative one. If $`\theta `$ is big, or if $`|1\theta \sigma |<<1`$, the ”perturbation” explodes and dominates the dynamics, which becomes completely different from the commutative one. One sees a qualitative difference between a NC isotropic oscillator (which admits a Lagrangian form) and a NC anisotropic one (no Lagrangian form).

As a second example consider, commutatively speaking, a constant force along $`q_2`$, and a harmonic one along $`q_1`$, $`V=\frac{1}{2}a_1q_1^2+bq_2`$. The equations of motion are

$$m\ddot{q}_1=(1\theta \sigma )a_1q_1+\sigma \dot{q}_2,$$
(19)
$$m\ddot{q}_2=(1\theta \sigma )b(\sigma +\theta ma_1)\dot{q}_1.$$
(20)
If $`\sigma =0`$, again $`q_1`$ is a harmonic oscillator, while $`q_2`$ is driven by a constant plus periodic force. The solution is the usual harmonic oscillator for $`q_1`$, while for $`q_2`$ one has

$$q_2(t)=q_2(0)+[q_2^{}(0)+q_1(0)\theta a_1]t\frac{bt^2}{2m}$$

$$\theta a_1\left[\frac{q_1(0)}{\omega _1}\mathrm{sin}\omega _1t\frac{q_1^{}(0)}{\omega _1^2}(1\mathrm{cos}\omega _1t)\right].$$
(21)
Again, the NC trajectory wiggles around the commutative one. On the other hand, if $`\sigma +\theta ma_1=0`$, $`q_2`$ feels a constant force, while the oscillator $`q_1`$ is driven by a linearly time-dependent force $`\sigma \dot{q}_2`$. One has the solution $`q_2(t)=q_2(0)+tq_2^{}(0)(1\theta \sigma )\frac{bt^2}{2m}`$, but

$$q_1(t)=q_1(0)\mathrm{cos}\omega _1t+\frac{q_1^{}(0)}{\omega _1}\mathrm{sin}\omega _1t+\frac{\sigma }{a_1}\left[\frac{q_2^{}(0)}{(1\theta \sigma )}\frac{b}{m}t\right]$$
(22)
A drastic change occurs: $`q_1`$ grows linearly with time (it is not bounded anymore), and oscillates around this path as a commutative oscillator.

As a third example, consider a potential which depends only on one coordinate, say $`V=V(q_1)`$. If $`\sigma =0`$ the equations of motion are

$$m\ddot{q}_1=_1V,m\ddot{q}_2=\theta m\frac{d}{dt}_1V=\theta m^2\frac{d^3q_1}{dt^3}.$$
(23)
If $`\theta 0`$, $`q_1`$ transfers nontrivial dynamics to $`q_2`$. More precisely, once $`q_1(t)`$ is known (its implicit form is $`t(q_1)=_0^{q_1}\frac{dq^{}}{\sqrt{V(0)V(q^{})}}`$), $`q_2`$ is fixed by the second equation in (23). To illustrate, consider the quartic potential $`V(q_1)=V(0)\frac{1}{2}m^2q_1^2+gq_1^4`$. One can not find simple expressions for $`q_1(t)`$ in a nonlinear problem in general. However, the classical solution satisfying $`q_1(t=\mathrm{})=0`$ and $`q_1(t=0)=\frac{m}{\sqrt{g}}=\lambda `$ is simple enough

$$q_1(t)=\frac{m}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{2\mathrm{e}^{mt}}{1+\mathrm{e}^{2mt}}.$$
(24)
Calculating $`q_2(t)`$ via (23) one obtains

$$q_2(t)=q_2(0)+q_2^{}(0)t\theta m\dot{q}_1(t),$$
(25)
radically different from the $`\theta =0`$ expression, $`q_2(t)=q_2(0)+q_2^{}(0)t`$.

Time-dependent backgrounds appearing ”out-of-nowhere” are thus possible in NC dynamics, see also Eqs. (14,15).

Quantization: formalism

We have shown that, except for isotropic quadratic terms and linear couplings (constant forces), no Lagrangian formulation is available on NC spaces. We discuss now the quantization of such systems.

Operatorial quantization is trivially implemented using Eqs (2,3):

$$\frac{d}{dt}\widehat{x}_a=i[\widehat{x}_a,H]=i[\widehat{x}_a,\widehat{x}_b]\frac{H}{\widehat{x}_b}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab}\frac{H}{\widehat{x}_b}.$$
(26)
The equations of motion (26) are an extension of the usual Heisenberg ones. They are the same as (5), with the coordinates becoming operators.

A phase space path integral for systems obeying the commutation relations (2) was constructed in . We do not repeat it here.

A Schrödinger (wave function) formulation can be constructed as follows. First, chose a basis in the Hilbert space on which the operators $`\widehat{x}_a`$ act, for instance $`|q_1,p_2>`$, i.e. the eigenstates of the operators $`\widehat{q}_1`$ and $`\widehat{p}_2`$. Second, for an arbitrary state $`|\psi >`$, define the wave function (half in coordinate space, half in momentum space)

$$\psi (q_1,p_2,t)<\psi (t)|q_1,p_2>.$$
(27)
The commutation relations (2) imply that the operators $`\widehat{q}_2`$ and $`\widehat{p}_1`$ have the following action on $`\psi `$:

$$\widehat{q}_2\psi =i(_{p_2}\theta _{q_1})\psi ,\widehat{p}_1\psi =i(_{q_1}+\sigma _{p_2})\psi .$$
(28)
If $`H=\frac{1}{2m}(\widehat{p}_1^2+\widehat{p}_2^2)+V(\widehat{q}_1,\widehat{q}_2)`$, (28) leads to the Schrödinger equation

$$i\frac{d}{dt}\psi =H\psi =\left[\frac{1}{2m}\left(p_2^2(_{q_1}\sigma _{p_2})^2\right)+V(q_1,i_{p_2}i\theta _{q_1})\right]\psi (q_1,p_2).$$
(29)
If $`\sigma =0`$, a momentum-space wave function $`\psi (p_1,p_2,t)`$ also exists; it will be discussed later.

Quantization: examples

For an harmonic potential, it can be shown by path integrals , or operatorially , that the only change induced by NC is an anisotropy of the oscillator. However, starting with an anisotropic oscillator, $`V=\frac{1}{2}(a_1q_1^2+a_2q_2^2)`$, $`a_1a_2`$, makes an important difference. The equations of motion are the same as in (16,17), with $`q_{1,2}`$ operators. For simplicity, assume $`\sigma +m\theta a_2=0`$; then $`\sigma +m\theta a_10`$. $`\widehat{q}_2`$ is driven by a periodic force and, being of the form (18), transitions between the states of the quantum system will appear.

Our second example, $`V=\frac{1}{2}a_1q_1^2+bq_2`$, also exhibits peculiar behaviour. If $`\sigma =0`$, the operator solutions of (19,20) again involve transitions which would be absent if $`\theta =0`$. If $`\sigma +\theta ma_1=0`$, changes are more dramatic. Eq. (22) shows that the particle is not bounded anymore along $`q_1`$, in contrast with the commutative case.

Third, consider the case in which the potential depends only on one coordinate, $`V=V(q_1)`$. If $`\sigma =0`$ an interesting phenomenon takes place. The commutation relations (2) admit a representation in the basis $`|p_1,p_2>`$, $`\psi (p_1,p_2,t)<\psi (t)|p_1,p_2>`$:

$$\widehat{q_1}\psi =(i_{p_1}+\theta \alpha p_2)\psi ,\widehat{q_2}\psi =(i_{p_2}+\theta (1+\alpha )p_1)\psi (p_1,p_2),$$
(30)
with $`\alpha `$ a parameter, and the Schrödinger equation becomes

$$i\frac{d}{dt}\psi =\left[\frac{1}{2m}\left(p_1^2+p_2^2\right)+V(i_{p_1}+\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }p_2,i_{p_2}+\theta (1+\mathrm{\Lambda })p_1)\right]\psi (p_1,p_2)$$
(31)
This equation is (gauge) invariant under shifts of $`\alpha `$ by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$,

$$\alpha \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(32)
combined with multiplications of the momentum-space wave-function by a phase $`e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }\theta p_1p_2}`$,

$$\psi (p_1,p_2)e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }\theta p_1p_2}\psi (p_1,p_2).$$
(33)
$`\theta `$ plays the role of a ”magnetic field” in momentum space.

In particular, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\alpha `$, $`\widehat{q}_1`$ becomes $`\theta `$-independent. Then, if $`V=V(q_1)`$, the Schrödinger equation is $`\theta `$-independent. It has consequently the same spectrum with the commutative problem, although classically the NC system does not even admit a Lagrangian formulation! For example, $`V(q_1,q_2)=V(q_1)=V(0)\frac{1}{2}m^2q_1^2+gq_1^4`$, on a NC space, gives rise to a nonlinear system without classical Lagrangian formulation, cf. (13), but which has the same spectrum as the corresponding commutative (Lagrangian) system.

If $`V=V(q_1,q_2)`$ the above gauge invariance persists, but does not eliminate $`\theta `$ from the wave equation.

We conclude (in opposition with the spirit of ) that non-Lagrangian systems can be consistently quantized. The formalism truly relevant for their quantization is the Hamiltonian one. The examples we used to illustrate this point appear to have an interesting, or at least intriguing, behaviour.

Acknowledgements

I thank Kostas Anagnostopoulos and Theodore Tomaras for useful discussions. This work was supported through a European Community Marie Curie fellowship, under Contract HPMF-CT-2000-1060.


text:
# Pseudo-Schwarzschild description of transonic spherical accretion onto compact objects

## 1 Introduction

Stationary, spherically symmetric and transonic hydrodynamic accretion of adiabatic fluid on to a gravitating astrophysical object at rest was studied in a seminal paper by Bondi (1952) using purely Newtonian Potential and by including the pressure effect of the accreting material. Later, Michel (1972) discussed fully general relativistic polytropic accretion on to a Schwarzschild black hole by formulating the governing equations for steady spherical flow of a perfect fluid in the Schwarzschild metric. Following Michel’s relativistic generalization of Bondi’s treatment, Begelman (1978) discussed some aspects of the critical (sonic) points of the flow for such an accretion. Using an unrelaxed mono-energetic particle distribution and assuming the fact that the relaxation time of such a particle distribution is very long compared to the typical flow time scale or dynamical time scale of steady accretion on to black holes, Blumenthal and Mathews (1976) developed a model where the connection between the nonrelativistic to the relativistic regime of the spherically accreting material could be established. Taking the fully ionized one-temperature ($`T_{electron}=T_{proton}`$) hydrogen gas (governed by an exact relativistic equation of state) to be the fundamental constituent of the accreting material, Brinkmann (1980) treated spherically symmetric stationary accretion in Schwarzschild space time and showed that the temperature of accreting material at the Schwarzschild radius is one order of magnitude smaller than the flow temperature obtained by using a simple polytropic equation of state. Recently, Malec (1999) provided the solution for general relativistic spherical accretion with and without back reaction and showed that relativistic effects enhance mass accretion when back reaction is neglected.
Meanwhile, the theory of the accretion disc found prior importance because of the fact that disc accretion describes more realistic astrophysical situations found in nature. The beginning of modern accretion disc physics is traditionally attributed to the two classical articles by Shakura & Sunyaev (1973) and Novikov & Thorne(1973) . While Shakura & Sunyaev (1973) calculated the disk structure and related phenomena using purely Newtonian potential, Novikov & Thorne provided a fully general relativistic description of accretion discs around black holes; later on, some aspects of which were modified by Riffert and Herold(1995). However, rigorous investigation of transonic disc structure was found to be extremely complicated in full general relativistic space time (Chakrabarti (1996) and references therein). At the same time it was understood that as relativistic effects play an important role in the regions close to the accreting black hole (where most of the gravitational potential energy is released), purely Newtonian gravitational potential (in the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Newton}=\frac{GM}{r}`$) cannot be a realistic choice to describe transonic black hole accretion in general. To compromise between the ease of handling of a Newtonian description of gravity and the realistic situations described by complicated general relativistic calculations, a series of ‘modified’ Newtonian potentials have been introduced to describe the general relativistic effects that are most important for accretion disk structure around Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes ( see Artemova et. al.(1996) for further discussion). Introduction of such potentials allows one to investigate the complicated physical processes taking place in disc accretion in a semi-Newtonian framework by avoiding pure general relativistic calculations that most of the features of spacetime around a compact object are retained and some crucial properties of the analogous relativistic solutions of disc structure could be reproduced with high accuracy. Hence, those potentials might be designated as ‘pseudo-Kerr’ or ‘pseudo- Schwarzschild’ potentials, depending on whether they are used to mimic the space time around a rapidly rotating or non rotating/ slowly rotating (Kerr parameter $`a0`$) black hole respectively.
It is important to note that although a number of such ‘pseudo’ potentials are available in the literature to study various aspects of disc accretion, no such potentials are available which had been solely derived to describe spherically symmetric accretion on to a Schwarzschild (or Kerr) black hole. In this paper, we will concentrate on some of the ‘pseudo-Schwarzschild’ disc potentials (potentials introduced to study accretion discs around a Schwarzschild black hole) to investigate whether those potentials could be used to study Spherical accretion, and if so, how ‘good’ the choice would be for various such potentials. Also, we would like to check which potential among those would be the ‘best-fit’ to approximate the full general relativistic description of transonic, spherically symmetric accretion on to a Schwarzschild black hole. In doing so, we solve the equations of motion of spherically accreting fluid in full Schwarzschild space-time as well as for motion under various ‘pseudo’-potentials, to study the variation of different dynamical and thermodynamic quantities (like Mach number of the flow, flow temperature etc.) with radial distance measured from the accreting black hole for the full general relativistic spherical flow (hereafter FGRSF) as well as for accretion using various ‘pseudo- Schwarzschild’ potentials. We then compare the results obtained using such potentials with the solutions of exact relativistic problems in a Schwarzschild metric. The plan of the paper is as follows: In next section, we will describe four ‘pseudo-Schwarzschild’ disc potentials available in the literature and some of their basic features. In §3, we will provide the basic equations governing spherically symmetric accretion in full relativistic as well as in various ‘pseudo’–relativistic spacetimes. In §4 we will discuss how to solve those equations to find various dynamical quantities which are to be mutually compared and we present our results. Finally in §5 we conclude by discussing the suitability of various ‘pseudo’ potentials in approximating the results obtained from exact relativistic calculations. For the rest of this paper, we will use the terms ‘modified- Newtonian potential’ and ‘pseudo (Schwarzschild) potentials’ synonymously.

## 2 Some basic features of various ‘pseudo-Schwarzschild’ potentials

From now, we will define the Schwarzschild radius $`r_g`$ as

$$r_g=\frac{2GM_{BH}}{c^2}$$

(where $`M_{BH}`$ is the mass of the black hole, $`G`$ is universal gravitational constant and $`c`$ is velocity of light in vacuum) so that the marginally bound circular orbit $`r_b`$ and the last stable circular orbit $`r_s`$ take the values $`2r_g`$ and $`3r_g`$ respectively for a typical Schwarzschild black hole. Also, total mechanical energy per unit mass on $`r_s`$ (sometimes called ‘efficiency’ $`e`$) may be computed as $`0.057`$ for this case. Also, we will use a simplified geometric unit throughout this paper where radial distance $`r`$ is be scaled in units of $`r_g`$, radial dynamical velocity $`u`$ and polytropic sound speed $`a`$ of the flow is scaled in units of $`c`$ (the velocity of light in vacuum), mass $`m`$ is scaled in units of $`M_{BH}`$ and all

other derived quantities would be scaled accordingly. Also, for simplicity,we will use $`G=c=M=1`$. Below we would like to briefly describe four different ‘pseudo- Schwarzschild’ potentials (expressed in the system of units discussed above) and to provide the ‘free fall’ acceleration obtained using such potentials in compact form.
Paczyński and Wiita (1980) introduced a ‘pseudo-schwarzschild’ potential of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\frac{1}{2(r1)}$$
$`(1a)`$
which accurately reproduces the positions of $`r_s`$ and $`r_b`$ and gives the value of efficiency to be $`0.0625`$. Also the Keplarian distribution of angular momentum obtained using this potential is exactly same as that obtained in pure Schwarzschild geometry. Although this potential (as well as the other ‘pseudo’ potentials available in the literature) does not satisfy the boundary condition exactly on the horizon, however, close to the horizon, accretion flows are supposed to be highly supersonic and the dynamical infall time scale becomes too small to allow significant radiation from infalling fluid. Even if there are significant amounts of radiation, it does not contribute too much to the overall radiation coming out from the disc, due to the fact that radiation emitted from the very close viscinity of the black hole is highly redshifted. Thus, errors in calculation close to the horizon may have very little impact on the emitted disc spectrum and for all practical purposes, the Paczyński and Wiita (1980) potential is considered to be the best approximation of pure Schwarzschild spacetime while treating the disc accretion (Artemova 1996) . It is worth mentioning here that this potential was first introduced to study a thick accretion disc with super Eddington Luminosity. Also, it is interesting to note that although it had been thought of in terms of disc accretion, it is spherically symmetric (with a scale shift of $`r_g`$). So in principle, it can definitely be used to study spherical accretion also on to a Schwarzschild black hole.
To analyse the normal modes of accoustic oscillations within a thin accretion disc around a compact object (slowly rotating black hole or weakly magnetized neutron star), Nowak and Wagoner (1991) approximated some of the dominant relativistic effects of the accreting black hole (slowly rotating or nonrotating) via a modified Newtonian potential of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\frac{1}{2r}\left[1\frac{3}{2r}+12\left(\frac{1}{2r}\right)^2\right]$$
$`(1b)`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ has correct form of $`r_s`$ as in the Schwarzschild case but is unable to reproduce the value of $`r_b`$. This potential has the correct general relativistic value of the angular velocity (as measured at infinity) at $`r_s`$. Also it reproduces the radial epicyclic frequency $`\kappa `$ (for $`r>r_s`$) close to its value obtained from general relativistic calculations. However, this potential gives the value of efficiency as $`0.064`$ which is larger than that produced by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, hence the disc spectrum computed using $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ would be more luminous compared to a disc structure studied using $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$.
Remembering that the free-fall acceleration plays a very crucial role in Newtonian gravity, Artemova et. al. (1996) proposed two different ‘pseudo’ potentials to study disc accretion around a non-rotating black hole. The first potential proposed by them produces exactly the same value of the free-fall acceleration of a test particle at a given value of $`r`$ as is obtained for a test particle at rest with respect to the Schwarzschild reference frame, and is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_3=1+\left(1\frac{1}{r}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
$`(1c)`$
The second one gives the value of the free fall acceleration that is equal to the value of the covariant component of the three dimensional free-fall acceleration vector of a test particle that is at rest in the Schwarzschild reference frame and is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_4=\frac{1}{2}ln\left(1\frac{1}{r}\right)$$
$`(1d)`$
Efficiencies produced by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$ are $`0.081`$ and $`0.078`$ respectively.The magnitude of efficiency produced by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ being maximum,calculation of disc structure using $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ will give the maximum amount of energy dissipation and the corresponding spectrum would be the most luminous one. However, as both $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$ stems from the consideration of free fall acceleration and calculates the dependence of free fall accleration on radial distance in the Schwarzschild metric (which describes a spherically symmetric gravitational field in vacuum), it appears to be quite justified to use those potentials to study spherically symmetric accretion.
From now we will refer to all these four potentials as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ in general where $`\left\{i=1,2,3,4\right\}`$ would correspond to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ (eqn. 1(a)), $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ (eqn. 1(b)), $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ (eqn. 1(c)) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$ (eqn. 1(d)) respectively. In Fig. 1, we plot various $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s as a function of the radial distance measured from the accreting black hole in units of $`r_g`$. Also in the same plot, purely Newtonian potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Newton}`$ is plotted. If we now define a quantity $`𝒮_i`$ to be the ‘relative stiffness’ of a potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ as:

$$𝒮_i=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_i}{r}$$

(that is, $`𝒮_i`$ is a measure of the numerical value of any $`i`$th potential at a radial distance $`r`$), we find that for $`r>2r_g`$:

$$𝒮_2<𝒮_{Newton}<𝒮_1<𝒮_3<𝒮_4$$

which indicates that while $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ is a ‘flatter’ potential compared to the pure Newtonian potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Newton}`$, all other ‘pseudo’ potentials are ‘steeper’ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Newton}`$ for $`r>2r_g`$.
One can write the modulus of free fall acceleration obtained from all ‘pseudo’ potentials except for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ in a compact form as

$$\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{^{}}{}_{i}{}^{}\right|=\frac{1}{2r^{2\delta _i}\left(r1\right)^{\delta _i}}$$
$`(2a)`$
where $`\delta _1=2`$, $`\delta _3=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\delta _4=1`$. $`\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{^{}}{}_{i}{}^{}\right|`$ denotes the absolute value of the space derivative of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, i.e.,

$$\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{^{}}{}_{i}{}^{}\right|=\left|\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_i}{dr}\right|$$

whereas acceleration produced by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ can be computed as,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}=\frac{1}{2r^2}\left(1\frac{3}{r}+\frac{9}{2r^2}\right)$$
$`(2b)`$
In the next section,we would like to describe how one can investigate transonic spherical accretion using these potentials. Also, we will discuss how to calculate various dynamical quantities for full general relativistic bondi flow in a Schwarzschild metric. One standard method to investigate classical transonic bondi flow is to formulate the basic conservation equations, i.e.,conservation of baryon number (obtained by integrating continuity equation) and conservation of specific energy (obtained by integrating Euler’s equation using a specific equation of state for accreting matter) and then to simultaneously solve these conservation equations to get critical (sonic) quantities as functions of various accretion parameters (like specific energy $``$, adiabatic index $`\gamma `$ or accretion rate $`\dot{M}_{in}`$ in the flow) and also to calculate the values of various dynamical and thermodynamic quantities (like Mach number $`M`$, of the flow, flow temperature, $`T`$, etc.) as functions of various accretion parameters (like $`,\gamma ,\dot{M}_{in}`$ etc.) or radial distance (measured from the central accretor in the unit of Schwarzschild radius $`r_g`$). Also a common practice is to study the variation of Mach number $`M`$ (ratio of the local dynamical velocity $`u`$ to the local sound velocity $`a`$; $`M=\frac{u}{a}`$) with radial distance $`r`$ (measured in units of $`r_g`$) to investigate the ‘transonicity’ of the flow for a fixed set of input parameters. We will perform the above mentioned calculations for accretion in pure Schwarzschild spacetime as well as for accretion in ‘pseudo-schwarzschild’ space time using $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s and compare the results obtained for various $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s with exact relativistic calculations. As accretion onto a black hole is necessarily transonic to satisfy the inner boundary condition at the event horizon, unlike Bondi’s (1952) original work, here we will concentrate only on transonic solutions, i.e., we will deal with accretion (wind) which is subsonic (supersonic) far away from the black hole and approaches (moves away from) the hole supersonically (subsonically) after crossing a sonic point (the location of which can be determined as a function of $``$ and $`\gamma `$, see §3) on its way towards (away from) the accretor.

## 3 Governing equations

### 3.1 Full General Relativistic Spherical Flow (FGRSF) in Schwarzschild space-time

For a schwarzschild metric of the form

$$ds^2=dt^2\left(1\frac{1}{r}\right)dr^2\left(1\frac{1}{r}\right)^1r^2\left(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)$$

the energy momentum tensor $`T^{\alpha \beta }`$ for a perfect fluid can be written as (Shapiro & Teukolsky 1983)

$$T^{\alpha \beta }=ϵu^\alpha u^\beta +p\left(u^\alpha u^\beta g^{\alpha \beta }\right)$$

where $`ϵ`$ and $`p`$ are proper energy density and pressure of the fluid (evaluated in the local inertial rest frame of the fluid) respectively and $`u^\alpha `$ is the four velocity commonly known as

$$u^\alpha =\frac{dx^\alpha }{ds}$$

Equations of motion which are to be solved for our purpose are,
1) Conservation of mass flux or baryon number conservation:

$$\left(\rho u_\alpha \right)_{;\alpha }=0$$
$`(3a)`$
and
2) Conservation of momentum or energy flux (the general relativistic Euler equation obtained by taking the four divergence of $`T^{\alpha \beta }`$):

$$\left(ϵ+p\right)u_{\alpha ;\beta }u^\beta =p_{,\alpha }u_\alpha p_{,\beta }u_,^\beta $$
$`(3b)`$
where the semicolons denote the covariant derivatives.
Following Michel (1972), one can rewrite eqn. 3(a) and eqn. 3(b) for spherical accretion as

$$4\pi \rho ur^2=\dot{M}_{in}$$
$`(4a)`$
and

$$\left(\frac{p+ϵ}{\rho }\right)^2\left(1\frac{1}{r}+u^2\right)=𝐂$$
$`(4b)`$
as two fundamental conservation equations for time independant hydrodynamical flow of matter on to a Schwarzschild black hole without back-reaction of the flow on to the metric itself. $`\dot{M}_{in}`$ is the mass accretion rate and $`𝐂`$ is a constant (related to the total enthalpy influx) to be evaluated for a specific equation of state.
For a polytropic equation of state i.e,

$$p=K\rho ^\gamma $$

and defining $`\dot{}=\dot{M}_{in}\gamma ^nK^n`$, where $`\dot{}`$ is a measure of the entropy of the flow ($`n`$ is a polytropic constant of the flow defined as $`n=\left(\gamma 1\right)^1`$) and is another conserved quantity of the flow, one can rewrite conservation equations 4(a) and 4(b) as (Chakrabarti (1996) and references therein):

$$=1+hu_t=1+\left(\frac{p+ϵ}{\rho }\right)\left(\frac{1\frac{1}{r}}{1u^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
$`(5a)`$
and

$$\dot{}=4\pi \left(\frac{a^2}{1na^2}\right)^nuu_tr^2$$
$`(5b)`$
Where $`,h,u_t`$ and $`a`$ are the conserved specific energy of the flow excluding its rest mass, specific enthalpy, specific binding energy and local adiabatic sound speed respectively. Eq. 5(b) may be considered as the outcome of the conservation of mass and entropy along the flow line. The expression for $`a`$ can be written as (Weinberg (1972), Frank et. al. (1992)):

$$a=\left(\frac{p}{\rho }\right)_{ConstantSpecificEntropy}^{\frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma p}{\rho }}=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma \kappa T}{\mu m_H}}$$
$`(6)`$
Where $`T`$ is the flow temperature, $`\mu `$ is the mean molecular weight and $`m_Hm_p`$ is the mass of the hydrogen atom.
One can now easily derive the expression for the velocity gradient $`\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)`$ (by differentiating eqn. 5(a) and 5(b)) as

$$\frac{du}{dr}=\frac{u\left(1u^2\right)\left\{a^2\left(4r3\right)1\right\}}{2r\left(r1\right)\left(u^2a^2\right)}$$
$`(7a)`$
Since the flow is assumed to be smooth everywhere, if the denominator of eqn. 7(a) vanishes at any radial distance $`r`$, the numerator must also vanish there to maintain the continuity of the flow. One therefore arrives at the so called ‘sonic point (alternately, the ‘critical point’ <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Hereafter, we will use ‘critical ponts’ and ‘sonic points’ synonymously.) conditions’ by simultaneously making the numerator and denominator of eqn. 7(a) equal zero. The sonic point conditions then can be expressed as follows

$$u_c=a_c=\frac{1}{4r_c3}$$
$`(7b)`$
For a specific value of $``$ and $`\gamma `$, location of the sonic point $`r_c^{gr}`$ can be obtained by solving the following equation algebraically

$$\frac{\left(\gamma 1\right)\left(4r_c3\right)}{4r_c\left(\gamma 1\right)\left(3\gamma +4\right)}\sqrt{1\frac{3}{4r_c}}+1=0$$
$`(7c)`$
The spherical surface of radius $`r=r_c^{gr}`$ can be defined as the ‘accoustic horizon’ because for $`r<r_c^{gr},u>a`$ and any accoustic disturbances created in this region are advected towards the black hole. Thus no accoustic disturbances created within this radius can cross the accoustic horizon and escape to the region $`r>r_c`$.
To determine the behaviour of the solution near the sonic point, one needs to evaluate the value of $`\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)`$ at that point (we denote it by $`\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_c`$) by applying L ’Hospitals’ rule to eqn. 7(a). It is easy to show that $`\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_c`$ can be obtained by solving the following quadratic equations algebraically:

$$\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_c^2+\frac{\left(\gamma 1\right)\left(16r_c^216r_c8\gamma r_c+6\gamma +3\right)}{3r_c\left(4r_c3\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_c$$

$$+\frac{\left(\gamma 1\right)\left(2r_c1\right)\left(24r_c^228r_c8r_c^2\gamma +4r_c\gamma +3\gamma +6\right)}{2r_c\left(4r_c3\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(4r_c3\right)\left(r_c1\right)}=0$$
$`(7d)`$
It is now quite straightforward to simultaneously solve eqn. 5(a) and eqn. 5(b) to get the integral curves of the flow for a fixed value of $``$ and $`\gamma `$. Detailed methodology for this purpose will be discussed in §4.

### 3.2 Spherical flow in various Pseudo-Schwarzschild space time

For any ‘pseudo-Schwarzschild’ potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, the equation of motion for spherically accreting material onto the accretor is given by

$$\frac{u}{t}+u\frac{u}{r}+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{P}{r}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}=0$$
$`(8a)`$
where symbols have their usual meaning. The first term of eqn. 8(a) is the Eulerian time derivative of the dynamical velocity at a given $`r`$, the second term is the ‘advective’ term, the third term is the momentum deposition due to pressure gradient and the final term is due to the gravitational acceleration for a particular $`i`$th potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$. The continuity equation can be written as

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{}{r}\left(\rho ur^2\right)=0$$
$`(8b)`$
For a polytropic equation of state, the steady state solution (apart from a geometric factor of $`4\pi `$) of eqn. 8(a) and eqn. 8(b) is
1) Conservation of specific energy $``$ of the flow:

$$=\frac{u^2}{2}+\frac{a^2}{\gamma 1}+\mathrm{\Phi }_i$$
$`(9a)`$
and
2) Conservation of Baryon number (or accretion rate $`\dot{M}_{in}`$):

$$\dot{M}_{in}=4\pi \rho ur^2$$
$`(9b)`$
Using $`\dot{}`$ as defined earlier ($`\dot{}=\dot{M}_{in}\gamma ^nK^n`$), eqn. 9(b) can be rewritten as

$$\dot{}=4\pi a^{2n}ur^2$$
$`(9c)`$
It is now quite straightforward to derive the space gradient of dynamical velocity $`\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_i`$ for flow in any particular $`i`$th potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ as

$$\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_i=\frac{\frac{2a^2}{r}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}}{u\frac{a^2}{u}}$$
$`(10a)`$
Using either eqn. 2(a) or eqn. 2(b), one can substitute the value of any specific $`i`$th $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ in eqn. 10(a) to get the value of $`\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_i`$ for motion under particular $`i`$th pseudo-Schwarzschild potential. One can also calculate the sonic point quantities (as described in §3.1) as

$$u_{}^{i}{}_{c}{}^{}=a_{}^{i}{}_{c}{}^{}=\sqrt{\frac{r_c^i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}|_c}$$
$`(10b)`$
where superscript $`i`$ denotes the specific value of sonic quantities for a particular $`i`$th potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{^{}}|_c`$ is the value of $`\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_i}{dr}\right)`$ evaluated at the corresponding sonic point $`r_c^i`$. The value of sonic point $`r_c^i`$ for any $`i`$th potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ can be obtained by algebraically solving the following equation

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\gamma +1}{\gamma 1}\right)r_c^i\mathrm{\Phi }_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}|_c\mathrm{\Phi }_i|_c=0$$
$`(10c)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i|_c`$ is the value of $`i`$th potential at the corresponding sonic point $`r_c^i`$. Similarly, the value of $`\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_i`$ for any $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ at its corresponding sonic point $`r_c^i`$ can be obtained by solving the following quadratic equation:

$$\left(1+\gamma \right)\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_{}^{2}{}_{c_,i}{}^{}+2.829\left(\gamma 1\right)\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}|_c}{r_c^i}}\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_{c_,i}+\left(2\gamma 1\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}|_c}{r_c^i}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}|_c=0$$
$`(10d)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}|_c`$ is the value of $`\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Phi }_i}{dr^2}`$ at the corresponding critical point $`r_c^i`$.
One can simultaneously solve eqn. 9(a) and eqn. 9(b) (alternatively, eqn. 9(a) and eqn. 9(c)) for any specific $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ for a fixed value of $``$ and $`\gamma `$ to obtain various dynamical and thermodynamic flow quantities. We discuss the detailed methodology in §4.

## 4 Solution procedure and results

### 4.1 Sonic points as a function of $``$ and $`\gamma `$

Solving eqn. 7(c) and eqn. 10(c) for a fixed value of $``$ and $`\gamma `$, the sonic point could be obtained for FGRSF and for flows in various pseudo-potentials respectively. We denote $`r_c^{gr}`$ to be the sonic point for FGRSF and $`r_c^i`$ to be the sonic point for flow in $`i`$th potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, and define $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^i`$ as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^i=\frac{r_c^ir_c^{gr}}{r_c^{gr}}$$
$`(11)`$
In Fig. 2., we plot various $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^i`$’s (along the $`z`$ axis) as a function of specific energy $``$ (along the $`x`$ axis) and adiabatic index $`\gamma `$ (along the $`y`$ axis) of the flow. The difference in the general profile of variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^i`$ for various $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s with $``$ and $`\gamma `$ is quite obvious from the figure. It is observed that when $`\gamma `$ is kept fixed at its minimum value ($`\gamma =\frac{4}{3}`$), $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^1`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c`$ for flows in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$) is always positive (which means $`r_c^1>r_c^{gr}`$ always) and is at a minimum for low energy and starts increasing nonlinearly with an increase of $``$. At a certain value of $``$, it produces a peak and starts falling, with further increase of $``$. The peak value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^1`$ is observed to be $`0.15`$. Unlike $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^2`$ falls very sharply with $``$ and shows a ‘dip’ at $`0.04`$, then starts increasing with $``$ monotonically and nonlinearly, keeping $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^2`$ negative for all values of $``$ which indicates that $`r_c^2<r_c^{gr}`$ for ultra-relativistic flow ($`\gamma =\frac{4}{3}`$), <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Hereafter, we will describe the flow to be ultra-relativistic for $`\gamma =\frac{4}{3}`$ and purely non-relativistic for $`\gamma =\frac{5}{3}`$ according to standard practice (Frank. et. al (1992)). for all values of $``$ we consider here. For $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$, we observe that $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^4`$ monotonically decreases with $``$ and also $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^4`$ are always negative e.g., $`r_c^3,r_c^4<r_c^{gr}`$ for all $``$ we consider here. It is observed that for ultra-relativistic flow, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ is the best approximation to study transonic spherically symmetric polytropic accretion to produce the sonic point closest to the sonic point formed for FGRSF in general, especially in high energy regime, i.e., for high value of $``$, while $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ is the worst approximation for studying the same phenomena for same set of boundary conditions. If we define a hypothetical quantity $`𝒢_{rc}^i`$ which is a measure of ‘goodness’ of a particular $`i`$th potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ regarding the closest approximation of sonic points obtained for FGRFS, we find that following sequence holds good for ultra-relativistic flow :

$$𝒢_{rc}^1>𝒢_{rc}^4>𝒢_{rc}^3>𝒢_{rc}^2$$
$`(12)`$
The situation starts changing as the value of $`\gamma `$ increases. The general profile of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^1`$ is unchanged but its peak starts shifting towards the lower $``$ values with increasing $`\gamma `$ and the overall deviation starts increasing. For purely nonrelativistic flow ($`\gamma =\frac{5}{3}`$), $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^1|_{max}`$ is found to be quite large. For all values of $`\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^1`$ is found to be positive, which means that $`r_c^1>r_c^{gr}`$ for all values of $`\gamma `$ and $``$.
However, the behaviour of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^2`$ starts changing drastically with an increase in $`\gamma `$. The ‘dip’ produced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^2`$ for low values of $`\gamma `$ starts smearing out with an increase in $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^2`$ becomes positive with higher $``$ for a fixed value of $`\gamma `$. For higher $`\gamma `$ it has been observed that if we study variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^2`$ with $``$ and $`\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^2`$ starts with a very high negative value at lower $``$ with $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^2\right|i_{max}`$ (where $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^2\right|_{max}`$ stands for the maximum value of the modulus of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^i`$), monotonically decreasing with $`\gamma `$, reaches zero and becomes positive and increases nonlinearly up to a maximum value (this time, a ‘peak’) and then starts falling again with an increase of $``$. So for high values of $`\gamma `$, smearing out of the ‘dip’ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^2`$ vs $``$ curve is compensated by the appearance of a ‘peak’ at some value of $``$. It is also observed that the peak starts shifting towards the higher value of $``$ as $`\gamma `$ is increased. It is also observed that as we go from ultra-relativistic flow towards purely non-relativistic flow, a zero appears in $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^2`$ vs $``$ curve, which indicates that at least one value of $``$ (for a fixed $`\gamma `$) is available where $`r_c^2`$ would be exactly equal to $`r_c^{gr}`$.
As $`\gamma `$ is increased, not much change is observed in the general profile of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^3`$ except that $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^3\right|_{max}`$ decreases with increase in $`\gamma `$. The change in profile of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^4`$ with increasing $`\gamma `$ is much more interesting. It is observed that with increasing $`\gamma `$, not only does a zero appear in $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^4`$ vs $``$ (for a fixed value of $`\gamma `$) curve (which means that for some values of $``$ and $`\gamma `$, $`r_c^4`$ can be exactly equal to $`r_c^{gr}`$), but also the value of $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^4\right|_{max}`$ decreases considerably with an increase in $`\gamma `$ and as the flow approaches its purely non-relativistic limit, we observe that the overall deviation produced by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$ in approximating $`r_c^{gr}`$ is quite small in general (percentage deviation produced by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$ is found to be within the limit of 10$`\%`$ for purely non-relativistic flow), which indicates that use of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$ is the best possible approximation of the Schwarzschild metric for nonrelativistic flow (flow with high $`\gamma `$ value), regarding reproduction of the sonic point for a flow with fixed $``$ and $`\gamma `$.

### 4.2 The integral curves of motion

We have mentioned earlier that study of the integral curves, i.e., the variation of Mach number of the flow $`M`$ with radial distance $`r`$ (measured from the accreting hole in units of $`r_g`$) is essential to investigate the ‘transonicity’ of the flow. Let us first consider FGRSF. From eqn. 7(c), one can obtain the sonic point $`r_c^{gr}`$ for a fixed value of $``$ and $`\gamma `$. The value of $`\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)`$ at $`r_c^{gr}`$ is then calculated using eqn. 7(d). One can numerically solve eqn. 5(a) and 5(b) simultaneously to obtain the value of the Mach number (and other dynamical quantities) as a function of radial distance for a fixed value of $``$ and $`\gamma `$. It is well known that for spherically symmetric accretion onto a Schwarzschild black hole, two solutions are obtained while solving the governing conservation equations, e.g., equation for conservation of specific energy and from baryon number (or specific entropy) conservation equation. One solution out of these two corresponds to the accretion process and the other is for the wind. Using eqn. 6, it is easy to calculate the flow temperature at all points of the flow (for accretion as well as for the wind branch).
For accretion in pseudo potentials $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s, the procedure is exactly the same. Sonic point $`r_c^i`$ is obtained by solving eqn. 10(c) for the $`i`$th potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ for a fixed value of $``$ and $`\gamma `$. $`\left(\frac{du}{dr}\right)_c`$ for that particular potential is then obtained by solving eqn. 10(d). Starting from $`r_c^i`$, eqn. 9(a) and eqn. 9(b) (alternatively, eqn. 9(a) and eqn. 9(c)) could be simultaneously solved (using eqn. 10(a)) to get the variation of Mach number of the flow (as well as of other dynamical quantities) as a function of radial distance measured in units of $`r_g`$. The solution for accretion as well as for wind branch can be obtained to investigate the ‘transonicity’ of the flow by plotting Mach number $`M`$ as a function of radial distance $`r`$. Temperature of the flow $`T^i`$ (for any $`i`$th potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$) can easily be obtained by solving eqn. 6 for $`a_i,p_i`$ and $`\rho _i`$ for a fixed value of $``$ and $`\gamma `$.
In Fig. 3, we plot the variation of Mach number as a function of the radial distance (in logarithmic scale) for FGRSF as well as for flows in all $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s. The energy of the flow (for FGRSF and for flows in all $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s) are kept constant at a value $`0.0123`$ and value of $`\gamma `$ is taken to be $`\frac{4}{3}`$.

It is observed that sonic points of FGRSF $`r_c^{gr}`$, as well as flows in other potentials $`r_c^i`$ are all different, which is normally expected (except for the very special value of $``$ for which either the $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^2`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_c^4`$ vanishes, see Fig. 2(b) and 2(d)). While the value of $`r_c^{gr}`$ is obtained as $`32.52r_g`$, values of $`r_c^1,r_c^2,r_c^3`$ and $`r_c^4`$ are obtained as $`33.67r_g,25.27r_g,31.32r_g`$ and $`32.12r_g`$ respectively. It is also to be noted that although the general profile of the integral curves are almost same (except for flows in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ where the change in curvature is slightly different to that of others, especially for the supersonic accretion branch), the curves do not overlap in general. The amount of deviation (from FGRSF) of integral curves drawn for various $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s is quite prominent for the supersonic branch of accretion and the derivation is observed to be not that significant (except for flows in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$) for corresponding subsonic branches of accretion, as well as for the supersonic branch of winds. The deviation maximises with the decrease of radial distance from the accretion black hole. This is quite obvious because close to the accretor, the general relativistic effects would be much more prominent thus the deviation would be higher. Also it is interesting to note that for the same energy $``$ (and even for a fixed sonic point common to both FGRSF and flows in all $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s which may be obtained by properly tunning the corresponding $``$’s), the maximum value of the Mach number $`M_{max}`$ of the flow in different $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s are very different. One can observe from the figure that there exists a particular value of $`r`$ (for a fixed $``$ and $`\gamma `$) where the ‘crossing-over’ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$ with FGRSF at the supersonic branch of the accretion is quite distinct, that is, the Mach number attained for flows in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$ at a particular point is exactly equal to the Mach number produced by FGRSF. Also, the general profile for the variation of Mach number of the flow in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$ is extremely close to the profile obtained in FGRSF almost throughout the flow except very close ($`r8r_g`$ in this case) to the black hole. However, no such mutual crossing over is observed in between flows in various $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s.
If $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{ke}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{th}`$ are the relative gain in the kinetic energy and thermal energy of the flow respectively, it is easy to show that the change in Mach number $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ could be approximated as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M\sqrt{\frac{2}{\gamma 1}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_{ke}}{\mathrm{\Delta }T_{th}}\right)}$$
$`(13)`$
for spherical accretion in all pseudo potentials discussed here. Also it is easy to understand that the Mach number profile as well as the rate of change of Mach number at a particular point should be related to the form of the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ used to study the flow (and in general to the metric used to describe the spacetime). Also $`M_{max}^i`$, the maximum value of $`M`$ which could be attended for a particular set of $``$ and $`\gamma `$ for flows in any $`i`$th potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ (for the range of $`r`$ shown here), should be related to the nature of the potential used to describe the flow. It is observed that for $`r>2r_g`$, $`M_{max}^i`$ anticorrelates with $`𝒮_i`$ (the ‘relative stiffness’ of the $`i`$th potential) for $`i=1,3,4`$ but correlates with $`𝒮_i`$ for $`i=2`$.
As change in the Mach number is a result of a mutual tug of war in between change in dynamical velocity and polytropic sound speed (alternatively, in between the mechanical and thermal energy of the flow, see eqn. 13), it might be interesting to investigate the variation of the slope of the Mach number (which might be considered as the measure of the degree of ‘transonicity’ of the flow) with radial distance $`r`$ for two different branches of solutions, namely, accretion and wind. In Fig. 4(a) and 4(b) we plot the absolute value of $`\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)`$ as a function of $`log10(r)`$ for accretion (Fig. 4(a)) and wind (Fig. 4(b)) for FGRSF as well as for flows in various $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$s. For accretion we see that $`\left|\frac{dM}{dr}\right|`$ increases nonlinearly and monotonically as the flow comes closer to the black hole, which indicates that for all flows, instantaneous changes in kinetic energy of the flow is always greater than the instantaneous change in thermal energy, .i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{ke}>\mathrm{\Delta }T_{th}`$ for all values of $`r`$, which is not the case for winds. For winds (see Fig. 4(b)), change of $`\left|\frac{dM}{dr}\right|`$ is not monotonic rather it always shows a peak in the subsonic branch for FGRSF as well as for flows in all $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s. The appearance of the peak for flows in pseudo potentials is due to the fact that from the close vicinity of the event horizon up to a certain distance $`r_p`$ ($`r_p^i<r_c^i`$ and $`r_p^{gr}<r_c^{gr}`$ always), the local gain in kinetic energy at any point is higher than the local thermal energy gain. So up to $`r_p,\mathrm{\Delta }T_{ke}>\mathrm{\Delta }T_{th}`$ but after $`r_p`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{ke}`$ decreases and $`\left|\frac{dM}{dr}\right|`$ starts falling as the wind approaches to the sonic point. It is easy to understand that as $``$ is kept constant throughout the flow (for accretion as well as for the wind branch), the bulk motion acceleration of the flow is a continuous process throughout the accretion towards the black hole but for winds the acceleration process dominates only up to $`r_p`$ and gets the major part of the outward acceleration in the region bounded in $`r_g>r>r_p^i`$, though the exact physical reason behind this is not clearly understood. However, it should be remembered that the above argument holds only for flows in pseudo potentials and not for FGRSF; because for FGRSF, the total energy term can not be decoupled into various counterparts with individual origin e.g., mechanical energy $`_{ke}=\frac{u^2}{2}`$ or thermal energy $`_{th}=\frac{a^2}{\gamma 1}`$ etc.
It is clear from the figure that the location of $`r_p^1`$ ($`r_p`$ for flows in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$) is located furthest away from the black hole and $`r_p^2`$ is located closest to the black hole with the following sequence:

$$r_p^1<r_p^3<r_p^{gr}<r_p^4<r_p^2$$
$`(14)`$
It is also observed that with increase of $`\gamma `$, the sequence in eqn. (14) is maintained but the location of all $`r_p`$s moves towards the black hole. Thus, the regions from where the wind (in various $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s) is accelerated, moves closer to the hole as the flow approaches to its non-relativistic limit. If we define $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^i`$ to be:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^i=\frac{\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^i\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^{gr}}{\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^{gr}}$$
$`(15)`$
then one can show that for a fixed value of $``$ and $`\gamma `$, the following sequence are maintained for various $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$s as:

$$\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^3\right|_{max}<\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^4\right|_{max}<\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^2\right|_{max}<\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^1\right|_{max}$$

for accretion where $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^i\right|_{max}`$ stands for the maximum value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^i`$. Whereas for wind it is observed that:

$$\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^4\right|_{max}<\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^3\right|_{max}<\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^1\right|_{max}<\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^2\right|_{max}$$

Also note that for the accretion branch all $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^i`$ change sign except $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dM}{dr}\right)^1`$.

### 4.3 Temperature profile of the flow

One can easily show that at any point of the flow, the flow temp $`T^i`$ for flow in any particular $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$s can be re-written as:

$$T^i=\frac{\mu m_p}{\gamma \kappa }\left\{\frac{\left(2\gamma 1\right)\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i\right)}{2+M^i\left(\gamma 1\right)}\right\}$$
$`(16)`$
where $`M^i`$ is the corresponding Mach number for the $`i`$th pseudo potential. As it has been stated that $`M^i`$ can be calculated at each point of the flow, one can compute $`T^i`$ from knowledge of $`M^i`$s using eqn. (16). After defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^i`$ to be:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T^i=\frac{T^iT^{gr}}{T^{gr}}$$
$`(17)`$
where $`T^{gr}`$ could be computed using eqn. 6, one can plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^i`$ as a function of radial distance (in units of $`r_g`$) to investigate which $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ produces the corresponding $`T^i`$ closest to $`T^{gr}`$ at a particular radial distance and for a fixed value of the $``$ and $`\gamma `$. In Fig. 5. we plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^i`$ vs $`log10(r)`$ to demonstrate the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^i`$ on radial distance. It is clear from the figure that except for $`T^1`$, all other $`T^i`$s are always higher than $`T^{gr}`$, which indicates that all $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$s except $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ produce hotter flow than FGRSF in general. For $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, very close to the hole the flow is cooler compared to FGRSF up to a certain distance, after which $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ also produces $`T^1`$ higher to $`T^{gr}`$. The point at which $`T^1`$ becomes equal to $`T^{gr}`$, gets shifted away from the black hole with increasing $`\gamma `$, keeping $``$ fixed. Also, it is observed that $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }T^i\right|_{max}`$ increases with increasing $`\gamma `$. From Fig. 5 it is clear that throughout its way from infinity to the event horizon, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$ produces very good approximation of FGRSF regarding calculation of flow temperature. However, after a certain point very close to the black hole (after the crossing the point where $`T^1=T^{gr}`$), $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ produces a sudden and sharp deviation of the flow temperature from FGRSF, physical reason for which is not clearly understood. More or less the same sort of profile in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^i`$ vs $`log10(r)`$ curve also is observed for wind branch.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper we have solved a set of algebraic and differential equations governing various dynamical and thermodynamic behaviouars of Bondi (1954) type accretion in a full Schwarzschild metric as well as for motion under a number of ‘pseudo-Schwarzschild’ potentials, to examine the suitability in application of those potentials in investigating spherically symmetric transonic accretion onto a non- rotating black hole. We have shown that though the potentials discussed here were originally proposed to mimic the relativistic effects manifested in the disc accretion, it is quite reasonable to use most of the potentials in studying various dynamical as well as thermodynamic quantities for spherical accretion. Also, we have shown that depending on the chosen regions of parameter space spanned by specific energy $``$ and adiabatic index $`\gamma `$ of the flow, one potential may be important than others and we could identify which potential is the best approximation for FGRSF for what values of $``$ and $`\gamma `$. We have restricted ourselves to the study of simple polytropic flows only. However, the validity of using all these $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$s discussed here can easily be examined for isothermal accretion and wind as well as for flows with other equations of state. Work in this direction is reported elsewhere (Sarkar & Das, 2001).
It is observed that among all pseudo potentials, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ (potential proposed by Paczyński and Wiita (1980)) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$ (one of the potentials proposed by Artemova et. al. (1996)) are in general the best in the sense that they provide very reasonable approximation to the full general relativistic solution. While $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ is the best approximation for ultra-relativistic flow, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$ happens to be the best approximation as the flow tends to be fully non relativistic, i.e, $`\gamma `$ tends to have the value $`\frac{5}{3}`$. Also we see that there are certain cases for which one or more of the pseudo potentials may give the exact match with FGRSF for a particular value of $``$ or $`\gamma `$ (for a fixed $`r`$) in finding some dynamical ($`r_c,M`$ etc.) or thermodynamic (flow temperature $`T`$, for example) quantity.
It is worth mentioning that as long as one is not interested in astrophysical processes extremely close (within $`12r_g`$) to a black hole horizon, one may safely use the ‘pseudo’ potentials discussed here to study spherically symmetric accretion on to a Schwarzschild black hole with the advantage that use of these potentials would simplify calculations by allowing one to use some basic features of flat geometry (additivity of energy or de-coupling of various energy components, i.e., thermal ($`\frac{a^2}{\gamma 1}`$) Kinetic ($`\frac{u^2}{2}`$) or gravitational ($`\mathrm{\Phi }`$) etc.) which is not possible for calculations in a purely Schawarzschild metric. Also, one can study more complex many body problems such as accretion from an ensemble of companions or overall effeciency of accretion onto an ensemble of black holes in a galaxy or for studying numerical hydrodynamic or magnetohydrodynamic flows around a black hole etc. as simply as can be done in a Newtonian framework, but with far better accuracy. However, one should be careful in using these potentials to study spherically symmetric accretion because of the fact that none of the potentials discussed here are ‘exact’ in a sense that they are not directly derivable from the Einstein equations. These potentials could only be used to obtain more accurate correction terms over and above the pure Newtonian results and any ‘radically’ new results obtained using these potentials should be cross-checked very carefully with the exact general relativistic theory.
Although the theory of disc accretion has priority over spherical accretion because of the fact that accretion discs describe more realistic situations found in nature, it is not unreasonable to concentrate on spherical accretion because for certain cases, that may be quite useful and use of these potentials makes a complicated problem simpler to study. For example, for a supermassive black hole immersed in intergalactic space in such a way that matter falling on to it has negligible intrinsic angular momentum, the accretion (at least close to the hole) is quasi spherical and transonic spherical accretion might be a good approximation to mimic the situation. Same sort of approximation is valid when an accreting black hole is embedded in a number of donor stars (or star clusters) where the angular momentum of the stars are randomly oriented in such a way that the vector sum of the intrinsic angular momentum carried by the accreting matter as a whole may be quite negligible, so as to make Bondi-type accretion a good approximation. In fact, a number of recent works (Coker & Markoff 2001 and references therein, Das, 1999, 2000, 2001a,b, Toropin, et. al, 1999, Kovalenko & Eremin 1998, Titarchuk, et. al. 1996, 1997, Wang & Sutherland 1997, Zampieri, et. al. 1996, Yim & Park 1995, Markovic 1995, Tsuribe, et. al. 1995, Kazhdan & Murzina 1994, Fortner 1993) still deal with spherical accretion to investigate some basic astrophysical processes the black holes and neutron stars. So we believe that work presented in this paper is relevant and will be useful in investigation of various aspects of accretion and wind around non-rotating and slowly rotating compact objects.

* We are grateful to Prof. P. J. Wiita and Prof. I. Novikov for useful discussions.


text:
# Clifford Geometrodynamics

## 1 Introduction

In most approaches to the classical and quantum dynamics of spinor fields the fields and their properties are postulated ad-hoc, without any geometric motivation as to why they should exist, but only the rationale that they are necessary to represent fermions. The desired mathematical structures, such as complex valued matrix columns and the necessity that the field components anti-commute, are put in by hand along with the equations of motion, without any geometric justification. It is the purpose of this paper to propose a new geometric foundation and justification for the existence and dynamics of spinor fields. In so doing, all the fields and dynamics of the standard model may be derived from pure geometry.

The key to this construction is to begin with the Clifford algebra bundle (or the associated matrix bundle) as the fundamental geometric framework. This fibre bundle has a connection and curvature, and a frame provides a bundle map to the cotangent bundle and gives the metric on the pseudo-Riemannian base manifold. The dynamics of the Clifford connection and frame is given by extremizing the total scalar Clifford bundle curvature, the gravitational action . The curvature is invariant under adjoint automorphisms of the Clifford bundle, and this gauge symmetry, when properly restricted using the BRST formulation , results in the appearance and familiar dynamics of a pair of anti-commuting, Clifford valued spinor fields. The result is the coupled system of gravitational and spinor fields. A Kaluza-Klein decomposition of the vielbein then provides the vector gauge fields, completing the picture.

## 2 Geometric framework

To describe the geometry of the physical universe, an $`n`$ dimensional, pseudo-Riemannian differential manifold is used as the base space for the Clifford algebra fibre bundle. The $`n`$ basis vector elements, $`\left\{\gamma ^\alpha \right\}`$, for the Clifford bundle provide a local trivialization, $`_i\gamma ^\alpha =\frac{}{x^i}\gamma ^\alpha =0`$, and satisfy, under the symmetric product,

$$\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\beta =\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\beta +\gamma ^\beta \gamma ^\alpha \right)=\eta ^{\alpha \beta }$$
(1)
The Clifford algebra, $`Cl`$, has a faithful representation in the complex matrices, $`GL(2^{[n/2]},C)`$, with the Clifford product isomorphic to matrix multiplication, and it is possible and sometimes helpful, although not necessary, to write and manipulate Clifford elements as matrices, using (Dirac) matrices for the basis.

The fundamental Clifford algebra equation (1) is invariant under the Clifford group, $`Cl^{}=\{SClS^1\}`$, adjoint automorphism (similarity transformation), $`\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=S\gamma ^\alpha S^1`$, which may well change the grade of the Clifford basis elements. Through this automorphism the $`Cl^{}`$ elements serve as the transition functions for the Clifford bundle. For infinitesimal transformations, $`S1+\frac{1}{2}C`$, $`CCl`$, this automorphism is

$$\gamma ^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=S\gamma ^\alpha S^1\gamma ^\alpha +C\times \gamma ^\alpha $$
(2)
with the anti-symmetric (cross) product defined as $`A\times B=[A,B]=\frac{1}{2}\left(ABBA\right)`$.

In general, the Clifford product may be written as $`AB=AB+A\times B`$ and, since $`\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\beta =\eta ^{\alpha \beta }+\gamma ^\alpha \times \gamma ^\beta `$, any Clifford element may be written out with real, anti-symmetric coefficients times anti-symmetric collections of the basis elements,

$$C=C_s+C_\alpha \gamma ^\alpha +C_{\alpha \beta }[\gamma ^\alpha ,\gamma ^\beta ]+C_{\alpha \beta \delta }[\gamma ^\alpha ,\gamma ^\beta ,\gamma ^\delta ]+\mathrm{}+C_p\gamma $$

where the anti-symmetric bracket operator is, for example,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill [A,B,C]& =& \frac{1}{3!}\left(ABC+BCA+CABACBCBABAC\right)\hfill \\ \hfill C_{\alpha \beta \delta }& =& C_{\left[\alpha \beta \delta \right]}=\frac{1}{3!}\left(C_{\alpha \beta \delta }+C_{\beta \delta \alpha }+C_{\delta \alpha \beta }C_{\alpha \delta \beta }C_{\delta \beta \alpha }C_{\beta \alpha \delta }\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that, since the basis elements can change grade under the adjoint automorphism, the grade of a Clifford element, except for the invariant scalar part (grade $`0`$ part, trace), is only a meaningful concept with respect to the local specification of the basis elements. The $``$ (dot) and $``$ (wedge) products familiar to disciples of Clifford algebra have grade dependent definitions and are therefore not used here, though they are equivalent to $``$ and $`\times `$ for vector elements and useful within the context of a local vector basis.

The connection for the $`Cl`$ bundle takes values in the Lie algebra of the transitions and is thus a Clifford element acting via the cross product, allowing the covariant derivative of the basis elements to be written as

$$_i\gamma ^\alpha =\mathrm{\Omega }_i\times \gamma ^\alpha $$

giving, for any Clifford element, $`_iC=_iC+\mathrm{\Omega }_i\times C`$. Under an adjoint automorphism (2) this connection transforms as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}=2S_iS^1+S\mathrm{\Omega }_iS^1=2S/_iS^1\mathrm{\Omega }_i_iC$$
(3)
in which the Dirac derivative operator is introduced as $`/_i=_i+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$.

The Clifford basis is related to the metric via the fundamental frame (frame, soldering form, bundle map),

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{e}& =& \gamma ^\alpha \left(e_\alpha \right)^i\stackrel{}{}_i=\gamma ^\alpha \widehat{e}_\alpha =\gamma ^i\stackrel{}{}_i\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{¯}{e}& =& \underset{}{dx^i}(e^1{}_{i}{}^{})^\alpha \gamma _\alpha \hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
which gives the metric through the relation for the orthonormal basis (vielbein, tetrad, ONB), $`g_{ij}=(e^1{}_{i}{}^{})^\alpha \eta _{\alpha \beta }(e^1{}_{j}{}^{})^\beta `$.

## 3 Dynamics

The curvature of the Clifford bundle, giving the parallel transport of Clifford elements around infinitesimal loops, is the $`Cl`$ valued $`2`$-form,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \underset{}{\underset{}{R}}& =& \underset{}{dx^i}\underset{}{dx^j}\frac{1}{2}R_{ij}=\underset{}{d}\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times \underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\underset{}{d}\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\underset{}{/}\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\hfill \\ \hfill R_{ij}& =& _i\mathrm{\Omega }_j_j\mathrm{\Omega }_i+\mathrm{\Omega }_i\times \mathrm{\Omega }_j\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
The scalar curvature of the Clifford bundle may be defined, using the frame (4), as

$$R=\underset{}{\underset{}{R}}\widehat{e}\widehat{e}=R_{ij}\left(e_\alpha \right)^i\left(e_\beta \right)^j\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\beta $$
(6)
with $`A`$ giving the scalar part (trace) of a Clifford element.

The action for the Clifford bundle is

$$S=\underset{}{d^nx}\left|e\right|R=\underset{}{d^nx}\left|e\right|2\left(_i\mathrm{\Omega }_j+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }_j\right)\left(e_\alpha \right)^i\left(e_\beta \right)^j\left(\gamma ^\alpha \times \gamma ^\beta \right)$$
(7)
with volume scale $`\left|e\right|=det(e^1{}_{i}{}^{})^\alpha `$. Varying the vielbein and requiring the variation of this action to vanish gives Einstein’s equation,

$$0=G_i{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=(_{[i}\mathrm{\Omega }_{j]}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{[i}\mathrm{\Omega }_{j]})\left(e_\beta \right)^j(\gamma ^\alpha \times \gamma ^\beta )+\frac{1}{2}(e^1{}_{i}{}^{})^\alpha R$$

and varying the Clifford connection gives a relationship with derivatives of the vielbein

$$\left[_i\left|e\right|\left(e_\alpha \right)^i\left(e_\beta \right)^j\right]\left(\gamma ^\alpha \times \gamma ^\beta \right)=\left|e\right|\left(e_\alpha \right)^i\left(e_\beta \right)^j\left(\gamma ^\alpha \times \gamma ^\beta \right)\times \mathrm{\Omega }_i$$

which holds if and only if the Clifford connection is equal to the torsionless spin connection bivector,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\mathrm{\Omega }_{i\alpha \beta }[\gamma ^\alpha ,\gamma ^\beta ],\mathrm{\Omega }_{i\alpha \beta }=\omega _{i\alpha \beta }$$

satisfying Cartan’s structure equation, $`\underset{}{d}\underset{¯}{e}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=\underset{}{\omega }{}_{\beta }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\underset{¯}{e}^\beta `$, equivalent to $`_{[i}(e^1{}_{j]}{}^{})^\alpha =\omega _{[i\beta }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }(e^1{}_{j]}{}^{})_{}^{\beta }`$.

## 4 BRST

The curvature scalar, and thus the action (7), is invariant under adjoint automorphisms of the frame,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{e}& & \widehat{e^{}}=S\widehat{e}S^1\widehat{e}+C\times \widehat{e}\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}& & \underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}=2S\underset{}{/}S^1\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\underset{}{}C\hfill \end{array}RR^{}=R$$

Via the BRST formulation, new “gauge ghost” fields, with real, anti-commuting coefficients (Grassmann number $`1`$, satisfying $`ab=ba`$ and $`\left(ab\right)^{}=b^{}a^{}=ba`$), are introduced to properly restrict and account for this symmetry. The new variables are the anti-commuting $`Cl`$ element fields, $`\{C,B\}`$, which have real coefficients with Grassmann number $`1`$, and another ghost field, $`A`$, with Grassmann number $`0`$. The infinitesimal BRST transformation corresponding to the Clifford group adjoint operation is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{e}& =& C\times \widehat{e}=\frac{1}{2}C\widehat{e}\frac{1}{2}\widehat{e}C\hfill \\ \hfill \delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}& =& \underset{}{}C=\underset{}{dx^i}\left(_iC+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_iC\frac{1}{2}C\mathrm{\Omega }_i\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }C& =& \frac{1}{2}C\times C=\frac{1}{2}CC\hfill \\ \hfill \delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }B& =& iA\hfill \\ \hfill \delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }A& =& 0\hfill \end{array}$$

The nilpotence of the BRST operator, $`\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, which has Grassmann number $`1`$, is confirmed by calculation,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{e}& =& \frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{2}CC\right]\widehat{e}\frac{1}{2}C\left[\frac{1}{2}C\widehat{e}\frac{1}{2}\widehat{e}C\right]\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{2}C\widehat{e}\frac{1}{2}\widehat{e}C\right]C\frac{1}{2}\widehat{e}\left[\frac{1}{2}CC\right]=0\hfill \\ \hfill \delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}& =& \underset{}{dx^i}\left(_i\left[\frac{1}{2}CC\right]\frac{1}{2}\left[_iC+\mathrm{\Omega }_i\times C\right]C+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_i\left[\frac{1}{2}CC\right]\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{2}CC\right]\mathrm{\Omega }_i\frac{1}{2}C\left[_iC+\mathrm{\Omega }_i\times C\right]\right)=0\hfill \\ \hfill \delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }C& =& \frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{2}CC\right]C\frac{1}{2}C\left[\frac{1}{2}CC\right]=0\hfill \end{array}$$

The dynamics of the gauge and ghost degrees of freedom are determined by the choice of a BRST potential; a good choice is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{}{d^nx}\left|e\right|B\widehat{e}\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}$$

which gives the new action,

$$S{}_{}{}^{}=Si\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{}{d^nx}\left|e\right|\{R[\widehat{e},\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}]+A\widehat{e}\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}iB[\gamma ^\alpha \left(e_\alpha \right)^i_iC+\left(\widehat{e}\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)\times C]\}$$

The ghost field $`A`$ appears in this action as a Lagrange multiplier, constraining the connection to satisfy $`\widehat{e}\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}=0`$. With this restricted connection the effective action for the remaining fields, $`\{\widehat{e},\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}},C,B\}`$, is

$$S_{eff}=\underset{}{d^nx}\left|e\right|\left\{R[\widehat{e},\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}]iB\gamma ^\alpha \left(e_\alpha \right)^i_iC\right\}$$
(8)
an Einstein-Weyl-like action for anti-commuting spinor field, anti-field, vielbein, and restricted connection. Note that the constraint on the connection, a result of the choice of BRST potential, insures that the connection vanishes from the Dirac operator.

The equations of motion from the new action, $`S^{}`$, or, after removing $`A`$ and restricting to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}`$, from $`S_{eff}`$, are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill G_i^{}^\alpha & =& \frac{i}{2}B\gamma ^\alpha _iC\frac{i}{2}(e^1{}_{i}{}^{})^\alpha B\gamma ^\beta \left(e_\beta \right)^j_jC=T_i^\alpha \hfill \\ \hfill A& =& 2\frac{\left(n2\right)}{\left(n1\right)}\left|e\right|\omega ^\beta {}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}\gamma _{}^{\alpha }4\left|e\right|\omega _{\left[\alpha \beta \delta \right]}[\gamma ^\alpha ,\gamma ^\beta ,\gamma ^\delta ]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Omega }_\delta ^{}& =& \left(e_\delta \right)^i\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta \alpha \beta }^{}[\gamma ^\alpha ,\gamma ^\beta ]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta \alpha \beta }^{}& =& \omega _{\delta \alpha \beta }\omega _{\left[\delta \alpha \beta \right]}+\frac{2}{\left(n1\right)}\eta _{\delta [\alpha }\omega ^\gamma _{\beta ]\gamma }\hfill \\ \hfill 0& =& \gamma ^\alpha _i\left|e\right|B\left(e_\alpha \right)^i\hfill \\ \hfill 0& =& \gamma ^\alpha \left(e_\alpha \right)^i_iC\hfill \end{array}$$

The restricted connection, satisfying $`\gamma ^\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^{}=0`$, is hence a Clifford bivector with gauge degrees of freedom removed–the coefficients constrained to have vanishing trace $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta \alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\delta }=0`$ and vanishing fully anti-symmetric part $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left[\delta \alpha \beta \right]}^{}=0`$. Note that if one begins with an arbitrary connection, the restricted connection may be obtained by applying an adjoint transformation (3) with an $`S`$ such that $`0=\widehat{e^{}}\underset{}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}=2S\gamma ^\alpha \left(e_\alpha \right)^i/_iS^1`$–so the geometric interpretation of a solution to the curved spacetime Weyl equation is that it provides a transformation to a restricted connection. The BRST formulation balances the gauge restriction with the $`C`$ and $`B`$ fields and their (Weyl) equations of motion and stress energy tensor. By using the equation for the restricted Clifford connection in terms of the spin connection it is also possible to write the Clifford scalar curvature (6), and hence a new effective action, purely in terms of derivatives of the vielbein,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill R^{}\left[\widehat{e}\right]& =& 2\left(_i\mathrm{\Omega }_j^{}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_j^{}\right)\left(e_\alpha \right)^i\left(e_\beta \right)^j\left(\gamma ^\alpha \times \gamma ^\beta \right)\hfill \\ & =& \frac{1}{3}\omega _{\beta \alpha \delta }\omega ^{\alpha \delta \beta }\frac{1}{3}\omega _{\beta \alpha \delta }\omega ^{\beta \alpha \delta }+\frac{1}{\left(n1\right)}\omega ^\delta {}_{\beta \delta }{}^{}\omega _{\gamma }^{}^{\beta \gamma }\hfill \\ & =& \frac{2}{3}F_{\delta \left(\beta \alpha \right)}F^{\delta \left(\beta \alpha \right)}+\frac{1}{\left(n1\right)}F^\delta {}_{\beta \delta }{}^{}F_{\gamma }^{}^{\beta \gamma }\hfill \end{array}$$

in which the field strength (anholonomy) for the vielbein is defined as $`F_{\beta \gamma }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=\left(e_\beta \right)^i\left(e_\gamma \right)^j2_{[i}(e^1{}_{j]}{}^{})^\alpha `$.

## 5 Conclusion

The existence and dynamics of anti-commuting spinor fields have been derived and given a firm geometric foundation by starting with the Clifford algebra fibre bundle and curvature and applying the BRST formulation to the adjoint automorphism gauge symmetry. The BRST construction was carried out in the relativistic Lagrangian framework, but may be carried through to a Hamiltonian formulation as well.

The ultimate goal is to obtain all the fields and dynamics of the standard model of particle physics from this geometric foundation. To do this, the methods of Kaluza-Klein theory may be employed by assuming the dimensions greater than the four of spacetime are wrapped up in a spatial, highly symmetric, compact manifold. By using a vielbein of the form

$$\left(e_\alpha \right)^i=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\left(e_\alpha ^S\right)^i& A_\alpha ^A\xi _A^i\\ 0& \frac{1}{\rho }\left(e_\alpha ^K\right)^i\end{array}\right]$$

in which $`\stackrel{}{\xi }_A`$ are Killing vector fields of the compact space, $`K`$, one obtains the Yang-Mills action and dynamics for the gauge fields, $`\underset{}{A}^A`$. By expanding these gauge and spinor fields in terms of resonant modes of the compact space one may get all the fields and dynamics of the standard model along with gravity. The details of how these higher dimensional, Clifford element spinor fields can be broken up into the familiar fermion multiplets is laid out in a beautiful exposition by Trayling . Note that the spinor fields derived here are not originally relegated to ideals of the algebra, but rather are “full” Clifford element (matrix) spinors–the ideals (matrix columns) emerge only in the fermion multiplet decomposition.

It is important to note that not all the gauge symmetries of the system have yet been addressed. The other two symmetries, transformations of the frame that leave the action invariant, are diffeomorphisms (coordinate changes) and local Lorentz rotations of the vielbein. These symmetries may also be handled via the BRST formulation, resulting in an effective action for a restricted vielbein. Used in conjunction with Kaluza-Klein theory, the BRST formulation for diffeomorphisms parallels and reproduces the BRST formulation for Yang-Mills gauge theory, with the relevant diffeomorphism, producing the familiar gauge field transformation, being $`x^ix^{}{}_{}{}^{i}=x^i+\xi _A^i\varphi ^A\left(x\right)`$.

The BRST formulation for Yang-Mills theory, and the appearance and utility of gauge ghosts, is familiar to researchers in quantum field theory, where the ghosts play a crucial role in facilitating quantization and renormalization. It is hoped that the spinor ghost fields and dynamics introduced here (8) may play a similar role in the quantization of gravity.

## 6 Acknowledgments

This research was made possible by a generous grant from the Hopgood Foundation. The typesetting was done using LYX222http://www.lyx.org, an excellent open source program. As he has been a bit of a recluse, the author would also like to acknowledge many long and fruitful conversations with himself. However, in the interest of the work, the author heartily welcomes any corrections and comments that may be forthcoming from those who wish to contribute them.