text:
# Nonequilibrium tube length fluctuations of entangled polymers

## Abstract

We investigate the nonequilibrium tube length fluctuations during the relaxation of an initially stretched, entangled polymer chain. The time-dependent variance $`\sigma ^2`$ of the tube length follows in the early-time regime a simple universal power law $`\sigma ^2=A\sqrt{t}`$ originating in the diffusive motion of the polymer segments. The amplitude $`A`$ is calculated analytically both from standard reptation theory and from an exactly solvable lattice gas model for reptation and its dependence on the initial and equilibrium tube length respectively is discussed. The non-universality suggests the measurement of the fluctuations (e.g. using flourescence microscopy) as a test for reptation models.

The most successful framework for the theoretical understanding of systems of entangled polymers is the reptation theory developed by de Gennes, Edwards and Doi . One imagines the large-scale motion of an entangled flexible polymer as being confined to a tube which, loosely speaking, is the sequence of pores occupied by the polymer chain within the entanglement “network”, made up by the surrounding polymer chains. The motion of the polymer transverse to the tube direction is strongly suppressed due to the topological constraints imposed by the surrounding polymers. However, mass transport along the tube is possible by diffusion of “defects”, i.e., folded polymer segments stored within the pores. The result of these dynamics is a snakelike random motion where polymer segments may retract into the existing tube at its ends (hence effectively shortening it) and subsequently diffuse into a new neighboring pore (hence stretching the tube and changing the tube contour at the end), while the bulk of the tube does not change its shape. Because of the defects the fluctuating equilibrium tube length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ is less than the actual polymer length $`M`$ of a fully stretched chain.

The basic notions of this picture have been verified experimentally, see  for the measurement of the entanglement distance $`\delta `$ implied in the tube concept, and  for the role of the surrounding chains as topological constraints. Also extensive molecular dynamics simulations confirm the reptation model . The theoretical status of some dynamical consequences, however, remains rather unsatisfactory, a well-known example being the scaling behavior of the viscosity $`\eta M^\kappa `$ for long flexible chains. Doi has suggested that the discrepancy between the empirical dependence $`\kappa 3.4`$ and the reptation result $`\kappa =3.0`$ be due to equilibrium tube length fluctuations , but this explanation has not remained unchallenged . To this one may add that also the mass dependence of the effective exponent $`\kappa `$ obtained by Doi appears to be rather severe . Since within the Doi picture such fluctuations alter also other observable quantities through a modification of relaxation times (in particular, the tube renewal time) we wish to address the question to which extent standard reptation theory with underlying Rouse dynamics for individual polymer segments provides a proper description of tube length fluctuations. Inspired by the fact that with present experimental techniques it is possible to observe and measure the nonequilibrium tube relaxation process for single entangled polymer chains , we go beyond the older equilibrium analysis of Refs.  and calculate here the time-dependent variance of the tube length under far-from-equilibrium initial conditions mimicking those prepared experimentally.

The direct observation of the reptation dynamics was achieved in a series of remarkable experiments by Perkins et al. who have studied entanglement effects in a dense solution of long $`\lambda `$-phage DNA strands using flourescence microscopy . Attaching a polystyrene bead to one end of flourescence-marked DNA molecule (entangled in a background of unmarked DNA) and pulling the bead with optical tweezers the DNA was brought into a nonequilibrium conformation with an elongated contour directly visible under a microscope. Since this contour describes the coarse-grained path of the polymer chain it may be identified with the tube. After stopping the bead the contour started to contract along its own path (i.e., the tube) as predicted by the reptation model. Since the bead was larger than the estimated entanglement distance it could not move and the contraction occured only at the opposite free end of the DNA chain. Since the DNA chain used in the experiment was very long (about 160 times its Kuhn length) it may be regarded as sufficiently flexible to use reptation theory as an approximation to study its tube dynamics. In  we showed that within an universal initial time regime (but after a very short transient relaxation process) the measured tube length contraction is in agreement with the predictions from both standard reptation theory and an exactly solvable lattice gas model for reptation, related to the Verdier-Stockmeyer model  and the repton model of Rubinstein .

In order to calculate fluctuations of the tube length from reptation theory we recall that within the underlying Rouse theory a polymer chain with bond length $`b`$ is assumed to consist of $`N=M/b`$ frictional units, called Rouse segments, which are connected by harmonic springs with mean square separation $`b^2`$. By not considering the actual position of the polymer in the network but focussing only on the contour length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the tube the reptation dynamics may be cast in a Langevin equation

$$\zeta \frac{}{t}s(x,t)=\frac{3k_BT}{b^2}\frac{^2}{x^2}s(x,t)+f(x,t)$$
(1)
for the position $`s(x,t)`$ of the Rouse segments in the tube. Here $`\zeta `$ is the friction constant of the Rouse segments and $`T`$ is the temperature. Randomness is accounted for by a delta-correlated Gaussian random force $`f(x,t)`$ with zero mean and $`f(x,t)f(x^{},t^{})=2\zeta kT\delta (xx^{})\delta (tt^{})`$. By definition the mean tube length is given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=s(N,t)s(0,t)`$. In the experimental set-up considered above the position of one end is kept fixed. Hence we have to solve (1) with boundary conditions $`s(0,t)=0`$ and the entropic tensile force $`s^{}(x,t)=f_e`$ at $`x=N`$ for all time $`t>0`$. The entanglement distance $`\delta `$ enters only indirectly in so far as $`M\delta b`$ is assumed. In the absence of noise (1) has the equilibrium solution $`s^{}(x)=xf_e`$. This yields the mean equilibrium tube length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=Nf_e`$.

In order to study the tube length dynamics it is convenient to consider $`\stackrel{~}{s}(x,t)=s(x,t)s^{}(x)`$ and to introduce the inverse time scale $`w=3k_BT/(\zeta b^2)`$. Solving first for the homogeneous equation with $`f=0`$ and then incorporating the special solution of the inhomogemeous equation we obtain the full solution of the initial value problem

$`\stackrel{~}{s}(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{e}^{wp_n^2t}\mathrm{sin}p_nx\times `$ (3)
$`\left[\stackrel{~}{u}_n(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta }}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau g_n(\tau )\text{e}^{ap_n^2\tau }\right]`$
with the Rouse “momenta” $`p_n=\pi (2n+1)/(2N)`$, the sine transform $`\stackrel{~}{u}_n(0)=1/N_0^N𝑑y\mathrm{sin}(p_ny)\stackrel{~}{s}(y,0)`$ of the initial data and the sine transform $`g_n(\tau )`$ of the noise term $`f(x,\tau )`$. For homogeneous initial stretching with initial tube length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ one has $`\stackrel{~}{s}(y,0)=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})y/N`$ and obtains the mean non-equilibrium tube length

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})\frac{8}{\pi ^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\text{e}^{(2n+1)^2t/(4\tau _R)}}{(2n+1)^2}.$$
(4)
with the Rouse time $`\tau _R=N^2/(w\pi ^2)`$. At early times $`t\tau _R`$ one finds a universal power law behavior $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_02(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})/\pi ^{3/2}\sqrt{t/\tau _R}`$ . The origin of the scaling exponent 1/2 is the diffusive motion of the polymer segments. The reduced relaxation function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(t)=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }(t))/(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})`$ depends only on time.

The tube length fluctuations are determined by the noise term in (3). Specifically for the variance $`\sigma ^2(t)=s^2(N,t)s(N,t)^2`$ one finds

$$\sigma ^2(t)=\frac{Nb^2}{3}\left(1\frac{8}{\pi ^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\text{e}^{(2n+1)^2t/(2\tau _R)}}{(2n+1)^2}\right).$$
(5)
In the prefactor one recognizes the well-known reptation result $`\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=Nb^2/3`$ in equilibrium . We point out that the amplitude depends neither on the initial stretching, i.e. on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, nor on the equilibrium tube length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. The term in the brackets yields the growth of fluctuations due to the randomness of the time evolution. At early times

$$\sigma ^2(t)=\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\pi ^{3/2}}\sqrt{\frac{t}{\tau _R}}$$
(6)
which - not surprisingly - exhibits the same universal power law dependence as the tube length relaxation. Defining in analogy to the reduced relaxation function the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2(t)=\sigma ^2(t)/\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ we note the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2(t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_1(2t)`$ and, for early times, the simple relaxation ratio

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_2(t)/\mathrm{\Delta }_1(t)=\sqrt{2}$$
(7)
which does not contain any parameters of the Rouse-based reptation theory. This feature is characteristic for universal amplitude ratios not uncommon in scaling theory, but - as shown below - here it is an artefact of the reptation model.

The result (4) for the tube length relaxation has been recovered within a lattice gas approach in which the reptation dynamics are described by the center of mass motion of $`L=M/\delta `$ individual polymer segments (reptons) of unit length $`\delta `$ which we take as the experimentally accessible mean entanglement distance in the melt or dense solution . The continuous diffusive motion within the tube is modelled by a random hopping of these segments between consecutive pores with an exponential waiting time distribution with mean $`\tau _0`$. This elementary time scale is the mean first passage time of the motion of one repton to a neighboring pore of the tube. To describe the interaction of the polymer with the network and with itself we impose the constraint that the consecutively labeled reptons may not pass each other within the tube. End reptons may move freely to new pores but are of course not allowed to detach from the polymer.

We assign the label ‘particle’ to a repton that connects two neighboring pores and the label ‘hole’ to a repton that is fully contained in a pore, i.e., to a “defect” in the language of de Gennes (Fig. 1). The diffusion of the defects then corresponds to particle-hole exchange with rate $`1/(2\tau _0)`$, i.e. to particle hopping along the chain with hard-core on-site repulsion. The end-point dynamics of the tube correspond to injection and absorption of particles at the boundaries. These dynamics are equivalent to the well-known one-dimensional symmetric exclusion process with open boundaries . In contrast to Verdier/Stockmeyer  and Rubinstein resp.  we treat one boundary of the particle system (representing the free end of the polymer chain) as connected to a reservoir of fixed density $`\rho ^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}/M`$ from which particles are injected with rate $`\alpha =\rho ^{}/(2\tau _0)`$ and absorbed with rate $`\gamma =(1\rho ^{})/(2\tau _0)`$. The fixed end is described by a reflecting boundary with no particle exchange. We stress that the treatment of noise in this approach is rather different from the assumptions inherent in the Langevin description (1). In particular, because of particle interactions in the lattice gas the noise depends of the local hole (“defect”) density and hence implicitly on $`\rho ^{}`$ which determines the equilibrium particle density.

In this mapping the mean tube length is given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\delta N`$ where $`N=_kn_k`$ is the total number of particles on the lattice and $`n_k=0,1`$ is the particle number on site $`k`$. Correspondingly, $`\sigma ^2=\delta ^2(N^2N^2)`$ where averages are taken over many realizations of the stochastic dynamics, starting from some given nonequilibrium initial distribution of tube lengths. An initially fully stretched polymer chain corresponds to an initially fully occupied lattice. The Markov generator of this stochastic lattice gas is known as the quantum Hamiltonian of the spin-1/2 ferromagnetic Heisenberg chain with boundary field. This is an integrable model which can be fully solved by a dynamical matrix product ansatz , similar in spirit to the algebraic Bethe ansatz. The defect diffusion as described by the exclusion process is the classical analog of the quantum spin waves in the Heisenberg ferromagnet and one obtains expressions for expectation values $`n_{k_1}(t)\mathrm{}n_{k_r}(t)`$ in terms of sums over Bethe wave functions . Since we are interested in the early time regime $`t\tau _R`$ during which the bulk conformation remains unchanged we may treat both boundaries separately. The tethered end of the chain (caught up in the entanglement) does not contribute to the dynamics and the particle number fluctuations induced by the free end can be calculated by taking the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. The Bethe sums then turn into integrals over pseudomomenta (the analogues of the Rouse modes).

The calculation of the local density $`\rho _k(t)=n_k(t)`$ and hence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ reduces to the solution of a relatively simple random walk problem  and one finds $`\rho _k(t)=1(1\rho ^{})[1_{m=1}^{2k}\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _0)I_{km}(t/\tau _0)]`$. Here $`I_k(x)`$ are the modified Bessel functions. By identifying $`w=1/(2\tau _0)`$ one recovers the Rouse result (4) in the regime $`\tau _0t\tau _R`$.

The calculation of the variance requires the knowledge of the two-point correlation function $`C_{k,l}(t)=n_k(t)n_l(t)n_k(t)n_l(t)`$ from which one obtains $`\sigma ^2=\delta ^2[_k\rho _k(t)(1\rho _k(t))+2_k_{l>k}C_{k,l}(t)]`$. Computing the correlation function from the Bethe wave function yields after some manipulations the exact expression

$`C_{k,l}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{k+l1,kl}(t/\tau _0)+F_{k+l,kl+1}(t/\tau _0)`$ (9)
$`F_{kl1,k+l}(t/\tau _0)F_{kl,k+l+1}(t/\tau _0)`$
with

$`F_{m,n}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(1\rho ^{})^2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}d\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle _0^x}dv\text{e}^{2v\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\times `$ (11)
$`\text{e}^{2x}I_m(2(xv)\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{cos}[v\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )+n\theta ].`$
Taking the Laplace transform of this expression, summing over the lattice indices and expressing the result in terms of elliptic integrals finally yields the asymptotic law ($`\tau _0t\tau _R`$)

$$\sigma ^2(t)=\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{2g(\rho ^{})}{\pi ^{3/2}}\sqrt{\frac{t}{\tau _R}}$$
(12)
with the equilibrium variance $`\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\delta ^2L\rho ^{}(1\rho ^{})`$ of the lattice gas model and $`g(\rho ^{})=1+(1\rho ^{})(32\sqrt{2})/\rho ^{}`$. The details of the rather lengthy calculation will be presented elsewhere . From (12) we recover the expected scaling exponent of the growth of fluctuations in time. However, considering a different initial conformation  reveals that unlike in the standard reptation approach the amplitude depends not only on equilibrium quantities, but also on the initial tube length. Furthermore, the relaxation ratio of the fully stretched chain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_2(t)/\mathrm{\Delta }_1(t)=g(\rho ^{})$$
(13)
turns out to be a non-universal function depending on the equilibrium defect density $`1\rho ^{}=1\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}/M`$ (Fig. 2).

Our main results are the establishment of the universality of the tube length relaxation exponent, the proof of nonuniversality of the relaxation ratio $`g`$, and the unexpected lack of dependence on initial conditions of the amplitude of the variance $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ in standard reptation theory. While the lattice gas is a phenomenological model as is standard reptation theory, it is somewhat more microscopic in nature. Unlike the bead-spring model underlying (1) it incorporates the impossibility of stretching the polymer chain and therefore lacks the physically problematic parameter $`b`$. Hence we believe the master equation describing the lattice gas dynamics to be more trustworthy than its coarse-grained Langevin counterpart. This view is confirmed by the amplitude of the tube length fluctuations which vanish in the lattice gas description for vanishing equilibrium defect density $`1\rho ^{}`$ as they must for a chain without defects (whose motion at the boundaries is responsible for the tube length fluctuations). In standard reptation theory the amplitude turns out to be unrelated to the defect density which points to a conceptual flaw in the treatment of the fluctuations. We conclude that the earlier notion that a significant modification of the equilibrium fluctuation theory is required extends to non-equilibrium dynamics, in particular, to the treatment of noise. Our lattice gas approach suggests that one should incorporate the entropic tensile force in the noise amplitude (via multiplicative noise) in order to capture the effect of chain connectivity.

We remark that the experimental data of Ref.  are not suitable for a quantitative comparison with our results. On a qualitative level, however, they lend support to the small magnitude of the theoretical expression (12). In similar experiments specifically designed for the purpose of measuring tube length fluctuations, the model dependence of this quantity may serve as a test for the reliability of reptation models.

J. E. S. would like to thank the EU in the framework of the Contract ERB-FMBI-CT 97-2816 and the DFG in the framework of the Sonderforschungsbereich SFB 413/TP C6 for financial support during the different stages of this work. He would also like to thank the Institut für Festkörperforschung at FZ Jülich for kind hospitality.

Figure captions:
Fig. 1: Reptation dynamics in terms of the symmetric exclusion process. The polymer conformation in the tube (of diameter $`d\delta `$) is divided into twelve segments of length $`\delta `$ occupying six pores corresponding to the particle configuration $`A0A00AA000A0`$ (from left to right).
Fig. 2: Exact relaxation ratio $`g(\rho ^{})`$ calculated from the symmetric exclusion process. The constant at $`g=\sqrt{2}`$ is the standard reptation result.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2


format: text

text:
# Geometric classification of the torsion tensor of space-time

## 1  Introduction

The issue to enlarge the classical scheme of General Relativity is felt strongly today since several questions strictly depend on the fact if the spacetime connection is symmetric or not. General Relativity is essentially a classical theory which does not take into account quantum effects. These ones must be considered in any theory which deals with gravity on a fundamental level. Passing from V4 to U4 manifolds, is the first straightforward generalization which tries to include the spin fields of matter into the same geometrical scheme of General Relativity. The Einstein–Cartan–Sciama–Kibble (ECSK) theory is one of the most serious attempts in this direction . However, this mere inclusion of spin matter fields does not exhaust the role of torsion which seems to give important contributions in any fundamental theory.

For example, a torsion field appears in (super)string theory if we consider the fundamental string modes; we need, at least, a scalar mode and two tensor modes: a symmetric and an antisymmetric one. The latter one, in the low energy limit for the effective string action, gives the effects of a torsion field .

Furthermore, several attempts of unification between gravity and electromagnetism have to take into account torsion in four and in higher–dimensional theories such as Kaluza-Klein ones .

Any theory of gravity considering twistors needs the inclusion of torsion  while supergravity is the natural arena in which torsion, curvature and matter fields are treated in an analogous way .

Besides, several people agree with the line of thinking that torsion could have played some specific role in the dynamics of the early universe and, by the way, it could have yielded macroscopically observable effects today. In fact, the presence of torsion naturally gives repulsive contributions to the energy-momentum tensor so that cosmological models become singularity-free . This feature, essentially, depends on spin alignments of primordial particles which can be considered as the source of torsion . If the universe undergoes one or several phase transitions, torsion could give rise to topological defects (e.g. torsion walls ) which today can act as intrinsic angular momenta for cosmic structures as galaxies. Furthermore, the presence of torsion in an effective energy-momentum tensor alters the spectrum of cosmological perturbations giving characteristic lengths for large scale structures .

All these arguments, and several more, do not allow to neglect torsion in any comprehensive theory of gravity which takes into account the non gravitational counterpart of the fundamental interactions.

However, in most articles, a clear distinction is not made among the different kinds of torsion. Usually torsion is related with the spin density of matter, but very often there are examples where it cannot be derived from it and assumes meanings quite different from the models with spinning fluids and particles. It can be shown that there are many independent torsion tensors with different properties.

In order to clarify these points, we have found two classification schemes of torsion tensors based on the geometrical properties of vectors and bivectors that can be used to decompose them. The first classification found is based on the possibility to construct the torsion tensors as the tensor product of a simple covariant bivector and a contravariant vector. Such objects are well understood in General Relativity and they can be easily classified . Then classifying all the possible combinations, we find 24 independent tensors. We call these tensors elementary torsions.

The second classification follows from the decomposition at one point of a U4 space-time of the torsion tensors into three irreducible tensors with respect to the Lorentz group. Again we could use vectors and bivectors to identify their geometrical properties. It follows that the elements of the second classification are generally expressed as a combination of “elementary torsion tensors”, while the “elementary torsion tensors” are generally non-irreducible.

One of the main results of our classifications is that in many theories, such as the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory, torsion is related to its sources by an algebraic equation; it follows that these two classifications clarify the nature of the sources too. This feature leads to recognize which tensors can be generated by the spin and which not and which do not even have a physical origin.

To our knowledge, two other classifications have been already proposed. The first one was given in  and it is based on the properties of the Riemann and Ricci tensors as defined in a U4 spacetime compared with the Weyl and Ricci tensors as defined in a V4 spacetime. The second, given in , deals with the algebraic classification of spacetimes with torsion following from the application of the BRST operator.

The classifications of the torsion tensors show of how the different sources of torsion can influence the physical phenomena. It is well known that the ECSK theory can be recast in a nonminimal coupling version of ordinary General Relativity, where the energy-momentum tensor is modified by the torsion sources. This contributions are calculated and discussed for all types found in the classification.

From a phenomenological point of view, the torsion theories may be relevant in cosmology. This because the kinematical quantities, shear, vorticity, acceleration, expansion and their evolution equations are modified by the presence of torsion.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.2, we give general notations and definitions following  and references therein.

In Sec.3, we give the first classification through the elementary torsion tensors and in 4 we specify the elements of the second classification. In Sec.5, without any pretence of completeness, we review some relevant torsion models that have been used in literature. As a result it is shown that just three of them can be related to the usual spin sources generally treated in literature ; while the other kinds have sources of a physically different origin or even, to our knowledge, their possible sources have not a clear physical interpretation.

In Secs.6 and 7, some applications are given. In the former, the contributions to the energy-momentum tensor in the ECSK theory are calculated. In the latter, the contributions of torsion to the different components of the gradient of the $`4`$-velocity $`U_a`$ are obtained. This discussion is completed finding the most general expression of the Raychaudhuri equation. General discussion and conclusions are given in Sec.8.

## 2  General remarks

In this section, we give general definitions of torsion and associated quantities which, below, will be specified in the particular U4 spacetimes. We shall use, essentially, the notation in .

### 2.1 Definitions

The torsion tensor $`S_{ab}^c`$ it the antisymmetric part of the affine connection coefficients $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^c`$, that is

$$S_{ab}^c=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^c\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ba}^c\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[ab]}^c,$$
(1)
where $`a,b,c=0,\mathrm{}3`$.

In General Relativity it is postulated that $`S_{ab}^c=0`$. It is a general convention to call U4 a $`4`$-dimensional space-time manifold endowed with metric and torsion. The manifolds with metric and without torsion are labeled as V4 (see ).

Often in the calculations, torsion occurs in linear combinations as in the contortion tensor, defined as

$$K_{ab}^c=S_{ab}^cS_{ab}^c+S_{ba}^c=K_{ab}^c,$$
(2)
and in the modified torsion tensor

$$T_{ab}^c=S_{ab}^c+2\delta _{[a}^cS_{b]}$$
(3)
where $`S_aS_{ab}^b`$.

According to these definitions, it follows that the affine connection can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^c=\{{}_{ab}{}^{c}\}K_{ab}^c,$$
(4)
where $`\{{}_{ab}{}^{c}\}`$ are the usual Christoffel symbols of the symmetric connection. The presence of torsion in the affine connection implies that the covariant derivatives of a scalar field $`\varphi `$ do not commute, that is

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{[a}\stackrel{~}{}_{b]}\varphi =S_{ab}^c\stackrel{~}{}_c\varphi ;$$
(5)
and for a vector $`v^a`$ and a covector $`w_a`$, one has the following relations

$$(\stackrel{~}{}_a\stackrel{~}{}_b\stackrel{~}{}_b\stackrel{~}{}_a)v^c=R_{abd}^cv^d2S_{ab}^d\stackrel{~}{}_dv^c,$$
(6)
and

$$(\stackrel{~}{}_a\stackrel{~}{}_b\stackrel{~}{}_b\stackrel{~}{}_a)w_d=R_{abc}^dw_d2S_{ab}^d\stackrel{~}{}_dw_c$$
(7)
where the Riemann tensor is defined as

$$R_{abc}^d=_a\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^d_b\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ac}^d+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ae}^d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^e\mathrm{\Gamma }_{be}^d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ac}^e.$$
(8)
The contribution to the Riemann tensor of torsion can be explicitly given by

$$R_{abc}^d=R_{abc}^d(\{\})_aK_{bc}^d+_bK_{ac}^d+K_{ae}^dK_{bc}^eK_{be}^dK_{ac}^e$$
(9)
where $`R_{abc}^d(\{\})`$ is the tensor generated by the Christoffel symbols. The symbols $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $``$ have been used to indicate the covariant derivative with and without torsion respectively.

From Eq.(9), the expressions for the Ricci tensor and the curvature scalar are

$$R_{ab}=R_{ab}(\{\})2_aS_c+_bK_{ac}^b+K_{ae}^bK_{bc}^e2S_eK_{ac}^e$$
(10)
and

$$R=R(\{\})4_aS^a+K_{ceb}K^{bce}4S_aS^a.$$
(11)
### 2.2 Tetrads and bivectors

In the following, we will use the tetrad fields. They are defined at each point of the manifold as a base of orthonormal vectors $`e_A^a`$, where $`A,B,C\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3`$ label the tetrad vectors and $`a,b,c,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3`$ are the component indices; $`e_0^a`$ is a time-like vector and $`e_I^a`$ is space-like.

Correspondingly, a cotetrad $`e_a^A`$ is defined such that

$$e_A^ae_b^A=\delta _b^a,$$
(12)
$$e_A^ae_a^B=\delta _A^B.$$
(13)
The tetrad metric is

$$\eta _{AB}=\eta ^{AB}=diag(1,1,1,1),$$
(14)
then the space-time metric can be reconstructed in the following way

$$g_{ab}=\eta _{AB}e_a^Ae_b^B.$$
(15)
In the construction of the torsion tensors, it will be useful to consider expression of the simple bivectors. These are given by the skew-symmetric tensor product of two vectors. Generally a bivector $`B^{ab}`$ is simple, if and only if it satisfies the equation

$$B^{[ab}B^{c]d}=0.$$
(16)
By the tetrad vectors in a $`N`$-dimensional manifold, one can construct the $`N(N1)/2`$ simple bivectors

$$F_{AB}^{ab}=e_A^{[a}e_B^{b]}$$
(17)
and any bivector $`B^{ab}`$ is expressed as

$$B^{ab}=B^{AB}e_A^ae_B^b$$
(18)
with $`B^{AB}=B^{BA}`$.

### 2.3 Decomposition of torsion and its properties in U4

An important property of torsion is that it can be decomposed with respect to the Lorentz group into three irreducible tensors, i.e. it can be written as

$$S_{ab}^c={}_{}{}^{T}S_{ab}^{c}+{}_{}{}^{A}S_{ab}^{c}+{}_{}{}^{V}S_{ab}^{c}.$$
(19)
Torsion has $`24`$ components, of which $`{}_{}{}^{T}S_{ab}^{}`$ has $`16`$ components, $`{}_{}{}^{A}S_{ab}^{}`$ has $`4`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{V}S_{ab}^{}`$ has the remaining $`4`$ components ,,.

One has

$${}_{}{}^{V}S_{ab}^{c}=\frac{1}{3}(S_a\delta _b^cS_b\delta _a^c),$$
(20)
where $`S_a=S_{ab}^b`$,

$${}_{}{}^{A}S_{ab}^{c}=g^{cd}S_{[abd]}$$
(21)
which is called the axial (or totally anti-symmetric) torsion, and

$${}_{}{}^{T}S_{ab}^{c}=S_{ab}^c{}_{}{}^{A}S_{ab}^{c}{}_{}{}^{V}S_{ab}^{c}$$
(22)
which is the traceless non totally anti-symmetric part of torsion.

For the sake of brevity, in the following, we will refer respectively to the tensor (20) as a V-torsion, to the tensor (21) as an A-torsion and to the tensor (22) as a T-torsion.

The dual operation (see ,) defined as

$${}_{}{}^{+}S_{ab}^{c}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ab}^{de}S_{de}^c$$
(23)
has the relevant property, that it associates an A-torsion tensor to a V-torsion tensor and vice versa. Then it associates a T-torsion to a T-torsion.

### 2.4 The Einstein-Cartan equations

The introduction of torsion as an extension of the gravitational field theories has some relevant consequences.

The closest theory to General Relativity is the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble (ECSK) theory. It is described by

$$L=\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{R}{2k}+_m\right),$$
(24)
which is the lagrangian density of General Relativity depending on the metric tensor $`g_{ab}`$ and on the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^c`$, where $`R`$ is the curvature scalar (11) and $`_m`$ the Lagrangian function of matter fields, which yields

$$\text{t}^{ab}=\frac{\delta _m}{\delta g_{ab}},$$
(25)
which is the symmetric stress–energy tensor while

$$\tau _c^{ba}=\frac{\delta _m}{\delta K_{ab}^c},$$
(26)
is the source of torsion. In many instances, it can be identified with a spin density. But, as will be clear from the following sections, there are many cases in which the source of the torsion field (26) is not spin.

From the variation of (24) and introducing the canonical energy-momentum tensor

$$𝚺^{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}=𝐭^{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}+{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{}_{c}^{}(\tau ^{abc}\tau ^{bca}+\tau ^{cab}),$$
(27)
where we used the abridged notation $`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{}_{c}^{}:=\stackrel{~}{}_c+2S_{cd}^d`$, the following field equations are derived

$$G^{ab}=k𝚺^{ab},$$
(28)
and

$$T_{ab}^c=k\tau _{ab}^c,$$
(29)
where $`k=8\pi G,c=1`$.

Equation (28) is the generalizes the Einstein equations in a $`U_4`$.

Unlike Eq.(28), Eq.(29) is algebraic so that it is always possible to cast Eq.(28) in a pure Einstein one, by substituting the torsion terms with their sources. It results in defining an effective energy–momentum tensor as the source of the Riemannian part of the Einstein tensor . In doing so, one obtains

$$G^{ab}(\{\})=k\stackrel{~}{\text{t}}^{ab},$$
(30)
where $`G^{ab}(\{\})`$ is the Riemannian part of the Einstein tensor. The effective energy–momentum tensor is

$`\stackrel{~}{\text{t}}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{t}^{ab}+k[4\tau _{[d}^{ac}\tau _{c]}^{bd}2\tau ^{acd}\tau _{cd}^b+\tau ^{cda}\tau _{cd}^b`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{ab}(4\tau _{e[d}^c\tau _{c]}^{ed}+\tau ^{ecd}\tau _{ecd})].`$
The tensor $`𝐭^{ab}`$ can be of the form

$$\text{t}^{ab}=(p+\rho )u^au^bpg^{ab},$$
(32)
if standard perfect–fluid matter is considered. But when spin fluids are considered, one has to define a different stress–energy tensor in which the spin contributions are taken into account as in ,,, .

## 3  Elementary torsion tensors: a first classification

It can be observed that a tensor with all properties of torsion can be constructed as the tensor product of a bivector $`F_{ab}`$ with a vector $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^c`$.

It is well known that any generic bivector in a four dimensional manifold can be always reduced into the sum of two simple bivectors with a particular choice of the coordinates (see e.g. ). In analogy with the electromagnetic case, we can call the bivector with the timelike vector, the electric term and the one with two spacelike vectors, the magnetic term and label them respectively with $`E_{ab}`$ and $`B_{ab}`$. Then we can introduce the concept of elementary torsion tensor given as the tensor product of a simple bivector with a vector.

We say that a bivector $`A_{ab}`$ and a vector $`V^c`$ are orthogonal if $`V^aA_{ab}=0`$.

We consider only the cases where any four-vector $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^c`$ is either orthogonal to a simple bivector or is one of its components. All the other possible cases are combinations of these two cases.

Then the $`24`$ elementary torsion tensors can be classified according to the space-time properties of their bivectors and the corresponding vectors.

At this point an important remark is necessary. Any generic torsion tensor can be decomposed in terms of these elementary parts. Let us practically construct the elementary torsion tensors by the vectors of a tetrad. In general, we have

$$S_{ABCab}^{(el)c}=e_{[a}^Ae_{b]}^Be_C^c,$$
(33)
and then any torsion tensor can be expressed as

$$S_{ab}^c=S_{AB}^Ce_{[a}^Ae_{b]}^Be_C^c,$$
(34)
where the coefficients have to be

$$S_{AB}^C=S_{ab}^ce_A^{[a}e_B^{b]}e_c^C.$$
(35)
The classification of elementary torsion tensors in which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^a`$ does not lie on the plane defined by the bivector is then the following:

a) if $`E_{ab}`$ is a bivector obtained from the antisymmetric tensor product of a timelike covector and a spacelike covector, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^a`$ must be any spacelike vector orthogonal to $`E_{ab}`$. The pure electric case is represented just by one family of tensors. It will be labeled with the symbol $`Es`$;

b) in the pure magnetic case, one has that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^a`$ can be either a spacelike vector, a timelike vector or a null vector, leading to three family of tensors. These three families will be labeled respectively as $`Bs`$, $`Bt`$ and $`Bn`$;

c) In the null case, it turns out that there are two possibilities for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^a`$, i.e. it can be either a null vector or a spacelike vector. The labels will be $`Nn`$ and $`Ns`$ respectively.

Regarding the case in which the vector $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^a`$ lies on the plane described by the bivector, it can be noted that, if $`BC`$ in (33), we have V-torsions.

Finally, let us note that the previous discussion changes if a null tetrad, defined by $`l^a=e_0^ae_1^a`$, $`n^a=e_0^a+e_1^a`$, $`m^a=e_2^aie_3^a`$ and $`m_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=e_2^a+ie_3^a`$, is considered.

In this case, it follows that the elementary torsions like

$$S_{ab}^c=m_{[a}l_{b]}l^c$$
(36)
bear all properties of a T-torsion.

## 4  Classification in terms of irreducible tensors in four dimensions

To classify the torsion tensors, according to their irreducible properties, let us first consider the V-torsion. It follows, from Eq.(20), that the V-torsion is characterized by a covector

$$S_a=S_{ab}^b.$$
(37)
$`S_a`$ can be either time-like, space-like or light-like. So we have three different possible types of V-torsion, which can be labeled respectively by the symbols $`Vt`$, $`Vs`$ and $`V\mathrm{}`$.

It can be noted that the V-torsion is expressed as a combination of elementary torsion tensors.

From Eqs.(20) and (12), it follows that

$${}_{}{}^{V}S_{ab}^{c}=\frac{2}{3}S_{[a}e_{b]}^Ae_A^c$$
(38)
The A-torsion can be expressed by the equation

$${}_{}{}^{A}S_{abc}^{}=ϵ_{abcd}\sigma ^d.$$
(39)
Its properties can be characterized by the space-time properties of the vector $`\sigma ^d`$. As for the V-torsion, we label the A-torsion with $`At`$, $`As`$ or $`A\mathrm{}`$ depending on whether the vector $`\sigma ^a`$ is time-like, space-like or light-like.

The statement given in §2.3 can be proved here by direct calculation. In fact, we have

$$ϵ_{ab}^{de}S_{[d}\delta _{e]}^c=ϵ_{ab}^{dc}S_d,$$
(40)
which is an A-torsion, on the other hand

$$ϵ_{ab}^{ef}ϵ_{def}^cS^d=S_{[a}\delta _{b]}^c,$$
(41)
which is a V-torsion.

Finally, the T-torsion tensors can be constructed through a combination of elementary torsion tensors of the forms

$${}_{}{}^{T}S_{ab}^{c}=V_{[a}e_{b]}^AC_A^Be_B^c,$$
(42)
and

$${}_{}{}^{T}S_{ab}^{c}=ϵ_{ab}^{ef}V_{[e}e_{f]}^AC_A^Be_B^c,$$
(43)
where $`C_A^B`$ is an arbitrary matrix. By the null–trace conditions

$$V_{[a}e_{b]}^AC_A^Be_B^b=0,$$
(44)
and

$$ϵ_{ab}^{ef}V_{[e}e_{f]}^AC_A^Be_B^b=0,$$
(45)
on (42) and (43), we obtain 7 constraints on the matrix $`C_A^B`$, by fixing $`V_a`$. As a consequence, $`C_A^B`$ has 9 independent components. In order to get the 16 components of the T-torsion from the expressions (42) and (43), we have to impose a further condition. If $`V^2V^aV_a0`$, we can impose that

$$C_A^Be_a^Ae_B^bV^aV_b=0.$$
(46)
which reduces one of the constraints following from (44) to

$$C_A^A=0,$$
(47)
If $`V`$ is a null vector, the constraint (46) follows from (44) and the equation (47) has to be imposed as a supplementary constraint on the matrix $`C_A^B`$.

From the previous discussion, it follows that the T-torsion tensors can be classified according to the nature of the vector $`V_a`$ which can be time-like, space-like, or null. We label the T-torsion with $`Tt`$, $`Ts`$ or $`T\mathrm{}`$ depending on whether the $`4`$-vector $`V^a`$ is time-like, space-like or light-like.

## 5  Examples

In a first group of examples, we show how some torsion tensors frequently found in literature, can be classified according to the irreducible tensors classification given above.

1. Scalar fields $`\varphi `$ produce torsion only in nonminimally coupled theories with a $`\xi \varphi ^2R`$ term in the Lagrangian density or in a $`R^2`$ theory in a U4 (where the Ricci scalar is $`R`$ coupled to itself). As a result, the torsion is related to the gradient of the field. For example, in homogeneous cosmologies, one obtains a $`Vt`$ tensor. In a Schwarzchild solution one deals with a $`Vs`$ tensor. See for example ,,,.
2. According to  and , it turns out that the only torsion tensors compatible with a Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker universe are of class $`Vt`$ and $`At`$. A cosmological solution with a torsion tensor of class $`At`$ is discussed also in .
3. Examples of torsion of class $`V\mathrm{}`$ and $`A\mathrm{}`$ are found in  to describe null electromagnetic plane waves.
4. $`As`$ and $`Vs`$ tensors introduce anisotropies in a spacetime, since the spacelike vector yields a privileged direction.
5. The spin of classical Dirac particles is the source of an $`As`$ torsion for massive particles and of an $`An`$ torsion for a massless neutrino . The $`At`$ torsion is generated by tachyon Dirac particles.
6. An example of T-torsion tensors can be found in simple supergravity where torsion is given in terms of the Rarita–Schwinger spinors (see, for example, ). They contribute also to torsion in the Weyssenhoff spin fluids (see below and discussion in ).
7. The Lanczos tensor was considered in  as a candidate of torsion in a non-ECSK theory. It is a sort of Weyl tensor potential and it bears all the characteristics of a traceless torsion tensor. Then its properties depend on the symmetries of spacetime.
8. The influence of an $`At`$ torsion on cosmological perturbations is discussed in .
9. The helicity flip of fermions can be induced by a $`Al`$ torsion .
10. The same kind of torsion can induce a geometrical contribution to the Berry phase of Dirac particles .

The next group of examples is related to elementary torsion tensors found in literature.
11. The torsion tensors related to spin, usually found in the literature, are generated by the Weyssenhoff spinning particle and the classical Dirac particle. In the first case, the torsion tensor is a $`Bs`$ tensor, in the second case, one has a $`As`$ tensor. Spin fluids à la Weyssenhoff can be found in , ,,, ,, and have been discussed by many other authors.
12. Cosmological models with a $`Bs`$ torsion have been studied in .

## 6  Contributions to the energy-momentum tensor

After straightforward calculation, one obtains that the contribution of the antisymmetric and vector parts of torsion to the energy-momentum tensor are respectively proportional to the following expressions

$${}_{}{}^{A}𝐭_{a}^{b}=2\sigma ^b\sigma _a+\delta _a^b\sigma ^c\sigma _c,$$
(48)
and

$${}_{}{}^{V}𝐭_{a}^{b}=\frac{8}{3}S^bS_a\frac{4}{3}\delta _a^bS^cS_c.$$
(49)
The contribution of the T-torsion, when expressed from (42) is

$${}_{}{}^{T_1}𝐭_{}^{ab}=C^{cd}C_{(cd)}V^aV^bV^cC_{cd}V^{(a}C^{b)d}+\frac{1}{2}V^cV_c(C_f^aC^{fb}C_f^aC^{bf})$$

$$\frac{1}{2}V^cV^dC_c^aC_d^b+\frac{1}{2}g^{ab}(C^{cd}C_{(cd)}V^fV_f\frac{1}{2}V^cC_{cd}V^fC_f^d),$$
(50)
otherwise when the T-torsion is expressed by (43)

$${}_{}{}^{T_2}𝐭_{}^{ab}=C^{cd}C_{cd}V^aV^b+V^dV_d(C_f^aC^{fb}+C_f^aC^{bf})V^cV^dC_c^aC_d^b$$

$$V^fC_{fd}(V^aC^{bd}+V^bC^{ad})+\frac{1}{2}(V^cV^dC_{cf}C_d^fV^fV_fC^{cd}C_{cd}).$$
(51)
In (50) and in (51) we have used the expression $`C_a^b=C_A^Be_a^Ae_B^b`$. The presence of contributions of distinct irreducible tensors does not lead to interaction terms except when the two classes of T-torsion are present.

An elementary torsion tensor, $`S_{ij}^k=F_{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }^k`$, contributes to the energy-momentum tensor with a symmetric tensor proportional to

$${}_{}{}^{e}𝐭_{a}^{b}=2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2F^{bc}F_{ac}+F^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^b\mathrm{\Sigma }_a\frac{1}{2}F^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\delta _a^b,$$
(52)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_a\mathrm{\Sigma }^a`$ and $`F^2=F^{ab}F_{ab}`$.

Expression (31), through Eqs.(3) and (29), is the final result involving also ordinary perfect–fluid matter.

## 7  Contributions of torsion to shear, expansion, vorticity and acceleration

It has often been pointed out in the literature how torsion can modify the behaviour of fluids. In  it was shown that the presence of a torsion generated by a Weyssenhoff fluid generalizes the Bernoulli theorem, through an extension of the definition of the vorticity. In the same way such a modification of the vorticity has led some authors to argue about the possibility of having cosmological models with torsion which could avert the initial singularity . An extended analysis of this problem has been made by restating the Raychaudhuri equation in the presence of torsion for a Weyssenhoff fluid .

In  it was considered an inflationary Bianchi I universe in the ECSK theory. In this paper it was shown how torsion could contribute to an isotropic expansion universe even in anisotropic universes, if the energy density of spin was sufficiently large to counterbalance the anisotropic terms. As a result it followed that this model supplies a rapid isotropization mechanism of the universe during the inflationary stage.

The previous considerations suggest considering how the kinematical quantities are modified by each of the irreducible components of torsion.

In  a gauge invariant and covariant formalism for cosmological perturbations was formulated. In this derivation an important rôle is attributed to the Raychaudhuri equation. Such formulation has been extended recently in () for the ECSK theory. It follows that important tests for torsion in the primordial universe through its effects on the spectrum of perturbations. A complete study of perturbations for all the irreducible torsion tensors can be useful to extend this program.

### 7.1 The kinematical quantities

One of the consequences of introducing torsion in a space-time is that the definition of some quantities can be modified. This is the case of the kinematical quantities, defined from the following decomposition of the covariant derivative of the four velocity $`U_a`$

$$\stackrel{~}{}_aU_b=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ab}+\frac{1}{3}h_{ab}\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ab}U_a\stackrel{~}{a}_b$$
(53)
where $`h_{ab}=g_{ab}+U_aU_b`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\stackrel{~}{}_aU^a=\theta 2S^cU_c,$$
(54)
$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ab}=h_a^ch_b^d\stackrel{~}{}_{(c}U_{d)}=\sigma _{ab}+2h_a^ch_b^dK_{(cd)}^eU_e,$$
(55)
$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ab}=h_a^ch_b^d\stackrel{~}{}_{[c}U_{d]}=\omega _{ab}+2h_a^ch_b^dK_{[cd]}^eU_e,$$
(56)
and the acceleration

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_c=U^a\stackrel{~}{}_aU_c=a_c+U^aK_{ac}^dU_d.$$
(57)
The quantities without the tilde are those usually defined in General Relativity.

We will summarize in Tables I and II the contributions to this objects given by the irreducible torsion tensors.

|  | $`{}_{}{}^{V}S_{ab}^{c}`$ | $`{}_{}{}^{A}S_{ab}^{c}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=`$ | $`\theta 2S^cU_c`$ | $`\theta `$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{a}_b=`$ | $`a_bS_bS_aU^aU_b`$ | $`a_b`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ab}=`$ | $`\omega _{ab}`$ | $`\omega _{ab}ϵ_{abcd}\sigma ^dU^c`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ab}=`$ | $`\sigma _{ab}`$ | $`\sigma _{ab}`$ |

Table I: Contributions of V-torsion and A-torsion to the kinematical quantities.

|  | $`{}_{}{}^{T_1}S_{ab}^{c}`$ | $`{}_{}{}^{T_2}S_{ab}^{c}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=`$ | $`\theta `$ | $`\theta `$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{a}_b=`$ | $`a_b+2V_{[b}C_{a]c}U^cU^a`$ | $`a_b2ϵ_{efhb}V^eC_{fc}U^hU^a`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ab}=`$ | $`\omega _{ab}+h_a^ch_b^dV_{[c}C_{d]}^eU_e`$ | $`\omega _{ab}+h_a^ch_b^dϵ_{efcd}V^eC^{fg}U_g`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ab}=`$ | $`\sigma _{ab}2h_a^ch_b^d(V_eC_{(cd)}C_{e(c}V_{d)})U^e`$ | $`\sigma _{ab}2h_a^ch_b^dϵ_{efg(a}V^eC_{d)}^fU^g`$ |

Table II: Contributions of the two T-torsions to the kinematical quantities.

### 7.2 The Raychaudhuri equation

Given the four-velocity $`U_a`$ ($`U_aU^a=1`$), bearing in mind the identity

$$U^b\stackrel{~}{}_c\stackrel{~}{}_bU_a=\stackrel{~}{}_c(U^b\stackrel{~}{}_bU_a)\stackrel{~}{}_cU^b\stackrel{~}{}_bU_a$$
(58)
and from Eq.(8)

$$U^b\stackrel{~}{}_c\stackrel{~}{}_bU_a=U^b\stackrel{~}{}_b\stackrel{~}{}_cU_a+R_{cba}^dU_dU^b2U^bS_{ab}^c\stackrel{~}{}_dU_c$$
(59)
we find the equation

$$\frac{1}{3}h_{ca}\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ca}+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ca}U_c\stackrel{~}{a}_a=\stackrel{~}{}_c\stackrel{~}{a}_a$$

$$(\frac{1}{9}h_{ca}\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ca}+\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ca}+2\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_c^b\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ba}$$

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_c^b\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ba}+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_c^b\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ba}\frac{1}{3}U_c\stackrel{~}{\theta }\stackrel{~}{a}_aU_c\stackrel{~}{a}^b\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ba}U_c\stackrel{~}{a}^b\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ba})$$

$$R_{cba}^dU_dU^d2U^bS_{ab}^c\left(\frac{1}{3}h_{dc}\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{dc}+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{dc}U_d\stackrel{~}{a}_c\right).$$
(60)
Contracting the indices in Eq.(60), one obtains immediately the most general expression for the Raychaudhuri equation, i.e.

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}=\stackrel{~}{}_c\stackrel{~}{a}^c\frac{1}{3}\theta ^2\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{ab}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ab}+\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{ab}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ab}R_{ab}U^aU^b2U^bS_{ab}^d\left(\frac{1}{3}h_d^a\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_d^a+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_d^aU_d\stackrel{~}{a}^a\right).$$
(61)
This is the Raychaudhuri equation in its most general form in presence of torsion. Simpler versions of this equation have already been discussed in , ,  and in .

## 8  Conclusions

As we discussed in Sec.5there are several ways to build a torsion tensor. In this paper, we deal with the problem of finding a geometrical classification of torsion tensors. A decomposition of torsion into irreducible tensors has been already given (see e.g. ,, and, for a systematic account, ). Essentially, one has three classes of tensors: traceless, vector and totally antisymmetric ones. However, we propose to add a classification scheme to this decomposition. Our proposal is based on the space-time properties of 4-vectors and bivectors which can be used to construct these torsion tensors. According to this classification, we have shown that it is possible to construct two tensors of the same irreducible class, with distinct properties, due to the fact that one can use space-like, time-like, or null 4-vectors.

As a byproduct, we found also a second decomposition and classification scheme based on elementary torsions. These elementary tensors are given by the tensor product of simple bivectors and vectors. As a consequence, the classification of these tensors is based on the space-time properties of the simple bivectors (which we distinguished in electric and magnetic bivectors), and on those of the vectors.

These two classifications, in our opinion, can help to distinguish the physical situations associated to different torsion tensors.

As an application, we have provided a general scheme for the modification induced by torsion tensors on kinematical quantities (such as shear, vorticity, expansion and acceleration). Moreover, we discussed a general form of the Raychaudhuri equation which can be physically relevant for the study of many issues such as the cosmological perturbations (e.g. see ).

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the referee and Prof. Friedrich Wilhelm Hehl for useful comments and criticisms which led to a substantial improvement the paper, and Dr. Giampiero Esposito for a careful reading of the manuscript and useful comments.

References

1. F.W. Hehl, P. von der Heyde, G.D. Kerlick and J.M. Nester, Rev. Mod. Phys. 48 (1976) 393.
2. M.B. Green, J.H. Schwarz, E. Witten, Superstring Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987). R. Hammond, Il Nuovo Cimento 109B (1994) 319; Gen. Relativ. Grav. 28 (1986) 419; V. De Sabbata, Ann. der Physik 7 (1991) 419. V. de Sabbata, Torsion, string tension and quantum gravity, in “Erice 1992”, Proceedings, String Quantum Gravity and Physics at the Planck Energy Scale, p. 528. Y. Murase, Prog. Theor. Phys. 89 (1993) 1331.
3. Yu A. Kubyshin, J. Math. Phys. 35 (1994) 310; G. German, A. Macias, O. Obregon, Class. Quantum Grav. 10 (1993) 1045; C.H. Oh, K. Singh, Class. Quantum Grav. 6 (1989) 1053.
4. P.S. Howe, A. Opfermann, G. Papadopoulos, Twistor spaces for QKT manifold, hep-th/9710072; P.S. Howe, G. Papadopoulos, Phys. Lett. 379B (1996) 80; V. de Sabbata, C. Sivaram, Il Nuovo Cimento 109A 1996) 377.
5. G. Papadopoulos, P.K. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. B444 (1995) 245; C.M. Hull, G. Papadopoulos, P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. 316B (1993) 291.
6. V. De Sabbata, C. Sivaram, Astr. and Space Sci. 176 (1991) 141.
H. Goenner and F. Müller-Hoissen, Class. Quantum Grav. 1 (1984) 651.
P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. 173B (1986) 247.
R. de Ritis, P. Scudellaro and C. Stornaiolo, Phys. Lett. 126A (1988) 389.
M.J. Assad, P.S. Letellier, Phys. Lett. A145 (1990) 74.
A. Canale, R. de Ritis and C. Tarantino, Phys. Lett. 100A (1984) 178.
A.J. Fennelly and L.L. Smalley, Phys. Lett. 129A (1988) 195.
I.L. Buchbinder, S.D. Odintsov and I.L. Shapiro, Phys. Lett. 162B (1985) 92.
C. Wolf, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 27 (1995) 1031.
P. Chatterjee, B. Bhattacharya, Mod. Phys. Lett. A8 (1993) 2249.
7. A. Dobato and A. L. Maroto, Leptogenesis from torsion through the axial anomaly, hep-ph/9705434.
8. B.D.B. Figueiredo, I. Damiao Soares and J. Tiomno, Class. Quantum Grav. 9(1992) 1593; L.C. Garcia de Andrade, Mod. Phys. Lett. 12A (1997) 2005; O. Chandia, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 7580; P.S. Letelier, Class. Quantum Grav. 12 (1995) 471; S. Patricio, S. Letelier, Class. Quantum Grav. 12 (1995) 2221; R.W. Kühne, Mod. Phys. Lett. A12 (1997) 2473; D.K. Ross, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 28 (1989) 1333.
9. W. M. Baker, W. K. Atkins, W. R. Davis, Nuovo Cim. B 44 (1978) 1; W. M. Baker, W. K. Atkins, W. R. Davis, Nuovo Cim. B 44 (1978) 17; W. M. Baker, W. K. Atkins, W. R. Davis, Nuovo Cim. B 44 (1978) 23.
10. O. Moritsch, M. Schweda, and S.P. Sorella, Class. Quantum Grav. 11 (1994) 1225.
11. J.A. Schouten Ricci Calculus (Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1954)
12. C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973).
13. J. Dermott McCrea, Class. Quantum Grav. 9 (1992) 553.
14. M. Tsamparlis Phys. Rev. D 24 (1981) 1451; M. Tsamparlis Phys. Lett. A 75 (1979) 27.
15. F.W. Hehl, J.D. McCrea, E.W. Mielke, Y. Ne’eman, Phys. Rep. 258 (1995), 1.
16. H. Goenner and F. Müller-Hoissen, Class. Quantum Grav. 1 (1984) 651.
17. P. Baekler, E.W. Mielke, F.W. Hehl, Il Nuovo Cimento 107B (1992) 91.
18. A. Trautman Nature (Phys. Sci.) 242 (1973) 7.
19. R. de Ritis, M. Lavorgna, G. Platania, C. Stornaiolo Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 713; R. de Ritis, M. Lavorgna, G. Platania, C. Stornaiolo Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 1854.
20. R. de Ritis, M. Lavorgna, C. Stornaiolo Phys.Lett. 95A(1983) 425.
21. J.R Ray and L. Smalley Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 1383; J.R Ray and L. Smalley Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 1059.
22. Yu. N. Obukhov and V.A, Korotky Class. Quantum Grav. 4 (1987), 1633.
23. S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis, The large scale structure of space-time, Cambridge Univ. Press 1973, Cambridge.
24. V. de Sabbata and C. Sivaram, Astr. and Space Sci. 165 (1990) 51; V. de Sabbata and C. Sivaram, Astr. and Space Sci. 176 (1991) 141; V. de Sabbata, Nuovo Cim. A 107 (1994) 363.
25. P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B 173 (1986) 247.
26. H. Soleng, Class. Quan. Grav. 5 (1988) 1489.
27. G. German, Phys. Rev. D32 (1985) 3307.
28. C. Stornaiolo, La cosmologia nella teoria ECSK, PhD thesis, Università di Napoli “Federico II” (1987) Napoli.
29. G.A Bäuerle and C.J. Haneveld, Physica 121A (1983) 121.
30. D.Z. Freedman, P. van Nieuwenhuizen, S. Ferrara, Phys. Rev. D13 (1976) 3214; D.Z. Freedman, P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. D14 (1976) 912.
31. S. Capozziello and C. Stornaiolo, Il Nuovo Cimento B 113 (1998) 879.
32. S. Capozziello, G. Iovane, G. Lambiase, and C. Stornaiolo, Europhys. Lett. 46 (1999) 710.
R.T. Hammond, Class. Quantum Grav. 13 (1996) 1691.
33. S. Capozziello, G. Lambiase, and C. Stornaiolo, Europhys. Lett. 48 (1999) 482.
34. J. Tafel, Acta Physica Polonica B6 (1975) 537.
35. J. Stewart and P. Hajicek Nature (Phys. Sci.)244 (1973) 96.
36. J. Tafel Phys. Lett. 45A (1973) 341.
37. A.K. Raychaudhuri “Theoretical Cosmology” (1979) Clarendon Press, Oxford U.K.
38. G. Esposito, Fortschritte der Physik 40 (1992) 1.
39. M. Demianski, R. De Ritis,G. Platania, P. Scudellaro and C. Stornaiolo, Phys. Rev. D35 (1987) 1181.
40. G. F. Ellis and M. Bruni, Phys. Rev. D40 (1989) 1804; G. F. Ellis, J. Hwang and M. Bruni, Phys. Rev. D40, 1819 (1989); G. F. Ellis, M. Bruni and J. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D42 (1990) 1035.
41. D. Palle Nuovo Cim. B114 (1999) 853.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There has been considerable interest in the production of $`J/\psi `$ at various colliders ever since the large discrepancy between the measured rate of $`J/\psi `$ production and the (much smaller) prediction of the colour singlet (CS) model was first observed at the $`p\overline{p}`$ collider Tevatron . An analysis of the data  using the NRQCD factorisation approach by Bodwin, Braaten and Lepage  yielded colour octet (CO) contributions which seemed almost an order of magnitude larger than the CS term. However, later data from the $`ep`$ collider HERA  did not see the anticipated excess, especially at large $`z`$ values (where $`z`$ is the inelasticity variable). Analyses of both fusion  and fragmentation  contributions to both direct and resolved photon contributions to $`J/\psi `$ production at the HERA $`ep`$ collider have been performed. In fact, the zero $`p_T`$ result has also been evaluated to NLO .

The measurement of the $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ polarisation at the Tevatron  also did not show the expected large polarisation with increasing $`p_T`$ as predicted by NRQCD with a dominant colour octet contribution .

This may be attributed to the larger uncertainty of the nonperturbative colour octet matrix elements $`0|𝒪^{J/\psi }[n]|0`$, that contribute in the large-$`z`$ region. More recently, it has been proposed  that inclusion of the nonvanishing transverse momenta of the colliding partons may drastically change the cross-section, especially at large transverse momenta. In particular, calculations in NRQCD are usually based on collinear factorisation. On including the $`k_{}`$ effects, it is possible to fit the octet matrix element $`O^{J/\psi }[8,{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}]`$ to a much smaller value  than that from NRQCD in the collinear limit. This term contributed most substantially to the $`J/\psi `$ polarisation; hence this may resolve the problem of the observed $`J/\psi `$ polarisation at the Tevatron . However, the discrepancy between the CO fits to the hadroproduction (Tevatron) and leptoproduction (HERA) data remains. It is therefore interesting to estimate the CO as well as CS contributions to $`J/\psi `$ production in various other processes.

Here, we examine the dependence of CO $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction on the various NRQCD matrix elements in $`e^+e^{}`$ and photon-photon colliders. (Prompt production at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders has been studied in Ref. ). Apart from the direct contribution, there are contributions from diagrams where either one or both of the photons is resolved, so that the underlying parton structure is probed. We are concerned here with these resolved photon contributions, the direct contribution being small, as has already been observed for the case of $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders .

In particular, there are both colour singlet (CS) and colour octet (CO) contributions to each of these processes. The CS cross section is well known ; in fact, it has long since been established that the once resolved (1-res) photon contribution dominates the twice resolved (2-res) photon contribution in the CS case; this was in fact used to estimate the gluon content of the photon . The 1-res case is similar to leptoproduction while the 2-res case is analogous to hadroproduction in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions; hence it will be possible to examine both kinds of processes in a single experiment. Also, effects of intrinsic $`k_{}`$ should be different in $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering as compared to $`ep`$ or $`p\overline{p}`$ processes. In the context of the currently discussed $`k_{}`$ factorisation as the solution to the observed $`J/\psi `$ polarisation at the TeVatron, it would therefore be interesting to study $`J/\psi `$ production in these $`\gamma \gamma `$ processes.

These resolved processes have a very different topology from that of the direct processes; hence they can be easily identified. For instance, resolved photon processes have an extra (spectator) jet occurring when a coloured parton of the photon interacts directly in the hard scattering rather than the colour singlet photon itself. Usually this jet is in the same direction as the parent photon (or electron); indeed, it is analogous to the forward jet of remnants produced from deep inelastic scattering off a hadron target. A twice-resolved process, where both the photons are resolved into their parton components will thus have two such jets. Hence direct, 1-res and 2-res processes can be separated event by event, based on the observed topology.

The matrix elements in the CO case, with $`n=[8,{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}],[8,{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}]`$, and $`[8,{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}],J=0,1,2`$, are not as well established as the CS ones and have been obtained from $`J/\psi `$ production at the Tevatron . Though these are estimated to be about two orders of magnitude smaller than the CS matrix element, the CO contributions are not expected to be small since they correspond to diagrams of lower order in the strong coupling $`\alpha _s`$, or are enhanced by $`t`$-channel gluon exchange, forbidden in the leading-order colour singlet cross section.

We shall therefore compute the CS and CO contributions to the $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction cross-section at photon-photon colliders, using certain reasonable estimates for the corresponding matrix elements. In the next section, we will define the choice of kinematics and list the various subprocesses that contribute to $`J/\psi `$ production at an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider. Numerical results for the cross-section at LEP2 as well as a future possible linear collider at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses the contrasting ressults obtained for a photon linear collider, where high intensity photon beams can be obtained by scattering laser beams off electron beans. Numerical results here are presented for the case $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, along with some discussions.

## 2 $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction in $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders

### 2.1 Kinematics and cross-sections

$`J/\psi `$ can be produced via direct $`\gamma \gamma `$ interaction, or when either or both of the photons are resolved into their partonic constituents. We will refer to the direct interaction, and the once- and twice- resolved photon processes as Direct, 1-res and 2-res processes respectively. Both colour singlet (CS) and colour octet (CO) subprocesses contribute to $`J/\psi `$ production in these three channels. Also, $`22`$ as well as $`21`$ subprocesses contribute. Specifically, they are

Direct:

$`\gamma \gamma `$ $``$ $`(c\overline{c})\gamma \text{ (CS)},`$
$`\gamma \gamma `$ $``$ $`(c\overline{c})g\text{ (CO)}.`$ (1)
1-res:

$`\gamma g_\gamma `$ $``$ $`(c\overline{c})\text{ (CO)},`$
$`\gamma g_\gamma `$ $``$ $`(c\overline{c})g\text{ (CS, CO)},`$
$`\gamma q_\gamma `$ $``$ $`(c\overline{c})q\text{ (CO)}.`$ (2)
2-res:

$`g_\gamma g_\gamma `$ $``$ $`(c\overline{c})\text{ (CO)},`$
$`q_\gamma \overline{q}_\gamma `$ $``$ $`(c\overline{c})\text{ (CO)},`$
$`g_\gamma g_\gamma `$ $``$ $`(c\overline{c})g\text{ (CS, CO)},`$
$`g_\gamma q_\gamma `$ $``$ $`(c\overline{c})g\text{ (CO)},`$
$`q_\gamma \overline{q}_\gamma `$ $``$ $`(c\overline{c})g\text{ (CO)}.`$ (3)
Note that the zero $`p_T`$ $`21`$ contributions are purely CO. The 1-res processes are analogous to those contributing to the $`ep`$ or $`\gamma p`$ $`J/\psi `$ production processes at HERA, while the 2-res ones are analogous to either the resolved $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction processes at HERA or to $`J/\psi `$ production at the Tevatron. In both cases, the parton densities in the proton are replaced by parton densities in the photon for the case of interest. Hence modulo the difference in parton densities, the production rate in the 1-res channel should reflect that seen at HERA and the 2-res channel that at Tevatron. The $`J/\psi `$ production data from $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions can therefore provide a corroboration of the behaviour seen at $`ep`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ colliders, and establish whether there is indeed a dominant CO contribution in $`J/\psi `$ production at colliders.

The cross-section in the CM frame for the process $`e^+e^{}J/\psi X`$ is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^3\sigma }{\mathrm{d}x_1\mathrm{d}x_2\mathrm{d}\widehat{t}}=p_1(x_1)p_2(x_2)\frac{\mathrm{d}\widehat{\sigma }}{\mathrm{d}\widehat{t}}+(x_1x_2),$$

where 1 and 2 refer to the $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ respectively. Here $`p_e(x)`$ corresponds to $`\gamma _e(x)`$ for the case of the unresolved photon and equals the convolution,

$$p_e(x)=_x^1\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{y}\gamma _e(y)p_\gamma \left(x/y\right),$$

in terms of the parton density $`p_\gamma (x),p=q,g`$, in the resolved photon. We use the Weizäcker-Williams approximation (WWa) for the bremsstrahlung photon distribution from an electron:

$$f_{\gamma _e}(z)=\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}{2\pi }\left(\frac{1+(1z)^2}{z}\mathrm{log}(q_{\mathrm{max}}^2/q_{\mathrm{min}}^2)+2m_e^2z\left(\frac{1}{q_{\mathrm{max}}^2}\frac{1}{q_{\mathrm{min}}^2}\right)\right),$$
(4)
where $`q_{\mathrm{min}}^2=m_e^2z^2/(1z)`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{max}}^2=(E\theta )^2(1z)+q_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$. Here $`z=E_\gamma /E_e`$, $`\theta `$ is the angular cut that ensures the photon is real, and $`E=E_e=\sqrt{s}/2`$. We use a typical value of $`\theta =0.03`$ in our analysis. for $`\sqrt{s}=175`$ GeV.

## 3 Numerical results

We recast the cross-section in terms of the hadronic variables, $`y_1`$, $`y_2`$ and $`p_T`$ and compute the $`p_T`$ dependence of the cross-section:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}p_T}(e^+e^{}e^+e^{}J/\psi X).$$

We use a common renormalisation and factorisation scale, $`q^2=(m_c^2+p_T^2)`$ with $`m_c=1.5`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^4=200`$ MeV. We use the GRV leading order (LO) parametrisation  for the parton densities inside the photon. Similar results are obtained on using the WHIT parametrisation  instead.

We shall use the following reasonable choices for the matrix elements which are consistent with the allowed values: $`O^{J/\psi }[1,{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}]=1.16`$ GeV3, $`O^{J/\psi }[8,{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}]=10^2`$ GeV3, $`O^{J/\psi }[8,{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}]=10^2`$ GeV3, $`O^{J/\psi }[8,{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}]/m_c^2=10^2`$ GeV3, where the remaining $`J`$ values are fixed from symmetry: $`O^{J/\psi }[8,{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}]=(2J+1)O^{J/\psi }[8,{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}]`$.

We compute the $`p_T`$ dependence of the cross-section for the direct $`\gamma \gamma `$, the 1-res photon and the 2-res photon cases. The CS and CO cross-sections, $`\mathrm{d}\widehat{\sigma }/\mathrm{d}\widehat{t}`$, for all the processes listed in eqs. (1-3) are known . The results for the direct case are shown in Fig. 1, where the differential cross-section for the direct $`\gamma \gamma `$ interaction  is plotted as a function of $`p_T`$. The $`[8,{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}]`$ octet matrix element that occurs here does not contribute dominantly to this cross-section.

For the 1-res case, there are contributions from the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ octet matrix elements apart from the singlet $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ term . The $`\gamma g`$ interaction term is expected to dominate this cross-section. These are shown as dashed lines in Fig. 2, where the individual contributions are shown. The slope ($`p_T`$ dependence) of the octet $`[8,{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}]`$ and $`[8,{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}]`$ terms is very similar with the ratio of the two contributions ranging from about 0.15 near $`p_T=1`$ GeV to about 0.32 near $`p_T=15`$ GeV for $`m_c=1.5`$ GeV. The slopes of the singlet and octet $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ terms are very different from these. Hence it may be possible to separate the contribution involving the combination of matrix elements $`(O^{J/\psi }[8,{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}]+7O^{J/\psi }[8,{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}]/m_c^2)`$ from that of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ terms, at small $`p_T`$. (At larger $`p_T`$, the cross-section drops off rapidly).

A note about the cross-section as $`p_T0`$. While the direct cross-section remains finite for $`p_T0`$, only the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ singlet and octet terms are finite for the 1-res case. The $`22`$ processes involving the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ terms diverge in the small-$`p_T`$ limit. However, precisely these processes have a finite CO contribution from the $`21`$ zero $`p_T`$ processes; in fact, these $`22`$ $`\gamma g(c\overline{c})g`$ processes at $`p_T0`$ are just these $`21`$ processes with a soft gluon emission. The apparent divergence of the $`22`$ cross-section at $`p_T0`$ can be resummed into a finite correction to the $`21`$ lower order process ($`K`$-factor) . Hence the $`p_T=0`$ cross-section for the $`[8,{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}]`$ and $`[8,{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}]`$ processes is within a $`K`$-factor of the corresponding $`21`$ cross-section111The $`21`$ cross-sections shown in Fig. 2 of Ref.  should have been multiplied by the corresponding matrix elements, that is, by a factor of $`10^2`$. Hence the conclusion drawn in that article about a substantial $`21`$ contribution at zero $`p_T`$ is wrong. which is indicated by the arrows marked in Fig. 2.

Finally, the effect of including the $`\gamma q`$ terms is shown by the solid lines in Fig. 2. The quark contribution increases with $`p_T`$ and is small. The one exception is the $`[8,{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}]`$ contribution which is significantly enhanced by inclusion of the quark diagrams; however, this may still not be large enough to be observable. The $`\gamma q`$ cross-section also diverges at small $`p_T`$. Here there is no corresponding $`21`$ lower order process. However, the $`J/\psi `$ here is produced by fragmentation of a gluon; the soft divergence at $`p_T=0`$ must therefore be absorbed into the fragmentation function in this case.

The subprocess cross-sections for 2-res processes are the same as those for $`p`$-$`\overline{p}`$ collisions  since the parton content of both photons is resolved in this case. Contributions are from $`gg`$, $`gq`$ and $`q\overline{q}`$ subprocesses. Here it turns out that the octet $`[8,{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}]`$ term dominates at large $`p_T`$ as can be seen from Fig. 3. The $`[8,{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}]`$ and the $`[8,{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}]`$ terms dominate at low $`p_T`$ and contribute in the same ratio as in the 1-res case. Notice that the $`(O^{J/\psi }[8,{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}]+7O^{J/\psi }[8,{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}]/m_c^2)`$ contribution is much larger than the CS term, unlike in the 1-res case. Hence, even if the octet matrix elements are overestimated by a factor of 10, the CO contribution is still substantial in the 2-res case. Note also that, while the 2-res cross-section is only a few percent of the 1-res one, it can be kinematically easily distinguished from the 1-res case and can be analysed for its CO content. Hence it may be possible to determine these CO matrix elements accurately through the 2-res channel. As in the 1-res case, the arrows in Fig. 3 at $`p_T=0`$ indicate the $`21`$ contribution from the octet $`[8,{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}]`$, $`[8,{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}]`$ and $`[8,{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}]`$ terms. The actual $`p_T=0`$ cross-section will be within a $`K`$-factor of this (from the soft limit of the corresponding $`22`$ diagrams). The CS term is finite as $`p_T0`$, as in the 1-res case. At a collider, it may be possible to observe the zero $`p_T`$ $`J/\psi `$’s by reconstructing the leptonic decay mode.

There exists substantial amount of data from LEP at $`\sqrt{s}=189`$ GeV as well; the results in this case are very similar to what is obtained at the slightly smaller value of $`\sqrt{s}`$ used here. The variation of the cross-section with the CM energy is shown in the next two figures. The total 1-res cross-section (integrated from $`p_{T,\mathrm{min}}=1`$ GeV to a kinematical maximum of $`p_{T,\mathrm{max}}=\sqrt{s}/2`$) is shown in Fig. 4 as a function of the centre of mass energy, $`\sqrt{s}`$. The cross-section is small at lower energies, as are available at colliders such as tristan but increases with $`\sqrt{s}`$. The cross-section at an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV is $`\sigma (P_{T,min}=1\text{ GeV})=68`$ pb. The number of $`J/\psi `$s seen will depend on the luminosity, and the branching fraction of the cleanest decay mode, $`J/\psi l^+l^{}`$, which is 6%. However the ratio of the octet $`[8,{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}]`$ to $`[8,{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}]`$ terms is a fairly steady 0.15 over a large range of $`\sqrt{s}`$. Hence it is possible that a combination of 1-res and 2-res processes at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders can help determine the universal CO matrix elements occurring in $`J/\psi `$ production.

The corresponding total cross-section for the 2-res case is plotted in Fig. 5. In general, the inclusion of CO terms does not affect the result that the 1-res dominates the 2-res contributions. Also, we find that the CO contribution is much larger than the CS one; this may also reflect the fact that we have used octet matrix elements from the Tevatron fits which may overestimate $`J/\psi `$ production at HERA. However, independently of this, the 1-res contribution dominates. This is in contrast to the $`e`$-$`p`$ case, for example, at HERA, where the resolved photon contribution (corresponding to the 2-res term in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions) is an appreciable fraction of the direct one (corresponding to the 1-res term of $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions) .

Realistic acceptance cuts on the lepton angle and $`p_T`$ should reduce the event rates at tristan by approximately a factor two but only by about 10% in the case of LEP2. Accurate estimates will be presented in a future work.

In the case of larger $`p_T`$ events, the situation is not so promising, since the production rate falls very rapidly with $`p_T`$. What may be interesting to examine is whether rapidity cuts will enhance the colour octet contribution or else distinguish in some way the CO from the CS part. We leave this question to future work.

Finally, we remark that there is a further uncertainty in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions compared to $`e`$-$`p`$ collisions since the parton densities in the photon are not as well known as those in the proton.

The dependence of the cross-section on the choice of parametrisation is shown in Fig. 6. The four panels show the sensitivity of the individual gluon contribution only for the different 1-res singlet and CO contributions when the WHIT rather than the GRV parametrisations are used. The WHIT1 gluon is closest to the GRV gluon. The WHIT2,3 are smaller at $`x>0.1`$ while the WHIT4 has a gluon that is twice that of WHIT1. While the corrections are rather large, especially for the WHIT4 density, where it exceeds 50%, the $`p_T`$ dependence is the same (in all 4 panels) for a given parametrisation for all the CS and CO terms and is rather flat. Unless the CS and CO matrix elements are known to precision, therefore, it may not be possible to distinguish the different parametrisations from the 1-res cross-section.

This can be seen from Fig. 7 where the 1-res and 2-res cross-sections are shown for a future linear collider at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV. The total cross-section is about an order of magnitude larger than at LEP2; however, the other features (such as the $`p_T`$ dependence of the various CS and CO contributions) remain the same when we go to larger $`\sqrt{s}`$ values. The sensitivity of the cross-section to the choice of parton densities in a photon is also shown in this figure. There is not much difference between the predictions from the GRV  and WHIT4  parton distribution sets for the 1-res case. However, since both photons are resolved into their partonic content in the 2-res case, the predictions are more sensitive to the densities in the 2-res case. It is seen that the cross-sections are systematically higher when the WHIT4 parametrisation is used than with the GRV set. However, the shape ($`p_T`$ dependence) remains roughly the same, independent of choice of parametrisation.

## 4 $`J/\psi `$ production from a photon linear collider

High intensity photon beams can be obtained by back-scattering of laser beams off electron beams. Such a photon linear collider can have high energies of $`\sqrt{s}=500`$–1000 GeV and very high luminosity. Hence there has recently been a great deal of interest in such colliders.

The $`J/\psi `$ production processes here are the same as in $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. Since the photons are accelerated by back-scattering, they are distributed very differently from the WWa case. In place of eq. (4) for the WWa photons, we have

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{laser}}(z)=\left(\frac{1}{1z}+1z4r(1r)\right)\frac{1}{\sigma _c},$$
(5)
where $`r=z/(\kappa (1z))`$ and the maximum energy of the photon is limited to $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=\kappa /(1+\kappa )`$, where the dimensionless variable, $`\kappa `$, is given by,

$$\kappa =\frac{4E_bE_0}{m_e^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta /2,$$

for an electron beam of energy $`E_b`$, a laser of energy $`E_0`$ and $`\theta `$ the angle between them. Here,

$$\sigma _c=\mathrm{log}(1+\kappa )+z_{\mathrm{max}}^2\left(\frac{\kappa +2}{2\kappa }\right)+\frac{4}{\kappa }\left(z_{\mathrm{max}}+\kappa 2\mathrm{log}(1+\kappa )\right),$$

and we choose $`\kappa =4.83`$ to avoid background from pair creation processes, $`\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}`$, in the collision.

We again use the GRV parametrisation  for parton distributions in the photon and compute the same cross-section, but for the laser back-scattered photon-photon scattering. That is, the subprocesses are the same as for the $`e^+e^{}`$ case, but the laser photon distribution given in eq. (5) is to be used instead of the WWa distribution. We present the results for such a future collider with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV in Figs. 8, 9, 10. Since the subprocesses are the same as in the $`e^+e^{}`$ case, the $`p_T`$ dependences are the same as before, with the same behaviour of the octet $`[8,{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}]`$ and $`[8,{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}]`$ terms. The advantage here is in the event rate which is much larger than in $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, as can be seen from the much larger cross-section in this case. Furthermore, the direct contribution in photon colliders is much smaller (by about two orders of magnitude) than in $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. Hence $`J/\psi `$ production at photon colliders will be dominated by the resolved contributions. Photon colliders will therefore be good sites for testing the colour octet contribution and obtaining the octet matrix elements that occur in $`J/\psi `$ production. Furthermore, the quark contribution to the 1-res case is negligible here. Hence the 1-res cross-section is proportional to the gluon content of the photon.

We have ignored the contribution to the cross-section from $`\chi `$ feed-down; however, with sufficient data, it may be possible to separate the prompt $`J/\psi `$ production rate from these decay modes. It may still be hard to separate out the individual octet $`[8,{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}]`$ and $`[8,{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}]`$ contributions in these processes.

In conclusion, $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction at both $`e^+e^{}`$ as well as photon linear colliders can prove to be a sensitive testing ground to determine the colour octet contribution in $`J/\psi `$ production. This, in comparison with the data from $`p\overline{p}`$ and $`ep`$ colliders, can help determine the colour octet matrix elements involved in $`J/\psi `$ production. It is also possible to use the shape of the $`p_T`$ spectrum to determine the various contributions. Turning the problem around, if the NRQCD matrix elements for the process are determined by other experiments, it is possible to use the measured $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction cross-sections as proposed in this paper, to determine the parton distribution functions in a resolved photon.

#### Acknowledgement

: MK thanks M. Cacciari, B.A. Kniehl and F. Maltoni for useful discussions. The work of RMG and DI was supported in part under CSIR grant No. 3 (745) 94-EMR-II. The authors also wish to thank the DST and the organisers of the fifth Workshop on High Energy Phenomenology (WHEPP-5), where these results were first presented.


text:
# Quantum nondemolition measurements and non–Newtonian gravity.

## 1 Introduction

The equivalence principle (EP) is one of the fundamental cornerstones in modern physics, and comprises the underlying symmetry of general relativity (GR) . At this point we must be more precise and state that EP has three different formulations, namely the weak, the medium strong, and finally, the very strong equivalence principle. In order to avoid misunderstandings, here we follow , namely weak equivalence principle (WEP) means the motion of any freely falling test particle is independent of its composition and structure, medium strong form (MSEP) means for every pointlike event of spacetime, there exists a sufficiently small neighborhood such that in every local, freely falling frame in that neighborhood, all the nongravitational laws of physics obey the laws of special relativity. Replacing all the nongravitational laws of physics with all the laws of physics we have the very strong form of the equivalence principle (VSEP).

The proposals that confront the predictions of GR with measurement outputs include already a large amount of experiments, for instance, the gravitational time dilation measurement , the gravitational deflection of electromagnetic waves , the time delay of electromagnetic waves in the field of the sun , or the geodetic effect . The discovery of the first binary pulsar PSR1913+16  allowed not only to probe the propagation properties of the gravitational field , but it also offered the possibility of testing the case of strong field gravity . Of course, all these impressive experiments are an indirect confirmation of the different EP.

Another important experimental direction comprises the attempts to test, directly, WEP. Though these efforts are already more than a century old , the interest in this area has not disappeared. Recently , WEP has been tested using a rotating 3 ton 238U attractor around a compact balance containing Cu and Pb test bodies. The differential acceleration of these test bodies toward the attractor was measured, and compared with the corresponding gravitational acceleration. Clearly, this proposal is designed to test WEP at classical level, i.e., gravity acts upon a classical system. At quantum realm the gravitational acceleration has been measured using light pulse interferometers , and also by atom interferometry based on a fountain of laser–cooled atoms . Of course, the classical experiment by Colella, Overhauser, and Werner (COW) , is also an experiment that explores the effects at quantum level of gravity, and shows that at this level the effects of gravity are not purely geometric .

The interest behind these experiments stems from the fact that various theoretical attempts to construct a unified theory of elementary particles predict the existence of new forces, and they are usually not described by an inverse–square law, and of course, they violate one of the formulations of EP. By studying these violations one could determine what interaction was producing these effects .

Among the models that in the direction of noninverse–square forces currently exist we have Fujii’s proposal , in which a “fifth force”, coexisting simultaneously with gravity, comprises a Yukawa term, $`V(r)=G_{\mathrm{}}\frac{mM}{r}\left(1+\alpha e^{\frac{r}{\lambda }}\right)`$, here $`G_{\mathrm{}}`$ describes the interaction between $`m`$ and $`M`$ in the limit case $`r\mathrm{}`$, i.e., $`G=G_{\mathrm{}}(1+\alpha )`$, where $`G`$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant. This kind of deviation terms arise from the exchange of a single new quantum of mass $`m_5`$, where the Compton wavelength of the exchanged field is $`\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_5c}`$ , this field is usually denoted dilaton.

The experiments, already carried out, that intend to detect a Yukawa term have already imposed some limits on the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\lambda `$. For instance, if $`10^4m\lambda 10^3m`$, then $`\alpha 10^{22}`$ , if $`\lambda =200\mu M`$, then $`\alpha 8\times 10^7`$  (for a more complete report see ).

To date, after more than a decade of experiments , there is no compelling evidence for any kind of deviations from the predictions of Newtonian gravity. But Gibbons and Whiting (GW) phenomenological analysis of gravity data  has proved that the very precise agreement between the predictions of Newtonian gravity and observation for planetary motion does not preclude the existence of large non–Newtonian effects over smaller distance scales, i.e., precise experiments over one scale do not necessarily constrain gravity over another scale. GW results conclude that the current experimental constraints over possible deviations did not severly test Newtonian gravity over the $`10`$$`1000`$m distance scale, usually denoted as the “geophysical window”.

The idea in this work is two–fold: firstly, the effects of a Yukawa term upon a quantum system (the one is continuously monitored) will be calculated; secondly, new theoretical predictions for one of the models in the context of quantum measurement theory will be found. In order to achieve these two goals we will obtain a nondemolition variable for the case of a particle subject to a gravitational field which contains a Yukawa term such that $`\lambda `$ has the same order of magnitude of the radius of the earth. At this point it is noteworthy to mention that the current experiments set constraints for $`\lambda `$ for ranges between 10km and 1000km , but the case in which $`\lambda `$ Earth’s radius remains rather unexplored. Afterwards, we will consider, along the ideas of the so–called restricted path integral formalism (RPIF) , the continuous monitoring of this nondemolition parameter, and calculate, not only, the corresponding propagators, but also the probabilities associated with the different measurement outputs.

## 2 Yukawa term

Suppose that we have a spherical body with mass $`M`$ and radius $`R`$. Let us now consider the case of a Yukawa form of gravitational interaction , hence the gravitational potential of this body reads

$`V(r)=G_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}\left(1+\alpha e^{\frac{r}{\lambda }}\right).`$ (1)
Let us now write $`r=R+z`$, where $`R`$ is the body’s radius, and $`z`$ the height over its surface. If $`R/\lambda 1`$ (which means that the range of this Yukawa term has the same order of magnitude as the radius of our spherical body), and if $`z<<<R`$, then we may approximate the Lagrangian of a particle of mass $`m`$ as follows

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2m}}+G_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{mM}{R}}\left([1+\alpha ][{\displaystyle \frac{1+\alpha }{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\lambda }}]z+[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\alpha }{2R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2R\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\lambda ^2}}]z^2\right).`$ (2)
## 3 Quantum Measurements

Nowadays one of the fundamental problems in modern physics comprises the so–called quantum measurement problem . Though there are several attempts to solve this old conundrum (some of them are equivalent ), here we will resort to RPIF , because it allows us to calculate, in an easier manner, propagators and probabilities. RPIF explains a continuous quantum measurement with the introduction of a restriction on the integration domain of the corresponding path integral. This last condition can also be reformulated in terms of a weight functional that has to be considered in the path integral. Clearly, this weight functional contains all the information about the interaction between measuring device and measured system. This model has been employed in the analysis of the response of a gravitational antenna not only of Weber type , but also when the measuring process involves a laser–interferometer . We may also find it in the quest for an explanation of the emergence of some classical properties, as time, in quantum cosmology .

Suppose now that our particle with mass $`m`$ goes from point $`N`$ to point $`W`$. Hence its propagator reads

$`U(W,\tau ^{\prime \prime };N,\tau ^{})=\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\pi i\mathrm{}T}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{im}{2\mathrm{}T}}\left[(x_Wx_N)^2+(y_Wy_N)^2\right]\right\}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{z_N}^{z_W}}d[p]d[z(t)]\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _\tau ^{}^{\tau ^{\prime \prime }}}[{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}+(1+\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{G_{\mathrm{}}mM}{R}}+Fz+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2z^2]dt\right\}.`$ (3)
Here we have introduced the following definitions

$`F=G_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{mM}{R}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\alpha }{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\lambda }}\right],`$ (4)
$`\omega ^2=2{\displaystyle \frac{G_{\mathrm{}}M}{R}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\alpha }{2R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\lambda R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\lambda ^2}}\right].`$ (5)
$`T=\tau ^{\prime \prime }\tau ^{}`$, and $`\sqrt{(x_Wx_N)^2+(y_Wy_N)^2}`$ denotes the projection on the body’s surface of the distance between points $`W`$ and $`N`$. We also have that $`G=G_{\mathrm{}}[1+\alpha ]`$, and $`G`$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant . In our case, $`[\frac{1+\alpha }{2R^2}+\frac{\alpha }{2\lambda R}+\frac{\alpha }{2\lambda ^2}]>0`$, hence, $`\omega =i\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$.

Suppose now that the variable $`A(t)`$ is continuously monitored. Then we must consider, along the ideas of RPIF, a particular expression for our weight functional, i.e., for $`w_{[a(t)]}[A(t)]`$. As was mentioned before, the weight functional $`w_{[a(t)]}[A(t)]`$ contains the information concerning the measuring process.

At this point we face a problem, namely, the choice of our weight functional. In order to solve this difficulty, let us mention that the results coming from a Heaveside weight functional  and those coming from a gaussian one  coincide up to the order of magnitude. These last remarks allow us to consider a gaussian weight functional as an approximation of the correct expression. But a sounder justification of this choice stems from the fact that there are measuring processes in which the weight functional possesses a gaussian form . In consequence we could think about a measuring device whose weight functional is very close to a gaussian behaviour.

Therefore we may now choose as our weight functional the following expression

$$\omega _{[a(t)]}[A(t)]=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2}{T\mathrm{\Delta }a^2}_\tau ^{}^{\tau ^{\prime \prime }}\left[A(t)a(t)\right]^2𝑑t\right\},$$
(6)
here $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ represents the error in our measurement, i.e., it is the resolution of the measuring apparatus.

## 4 Quantum nondemolition measurements

The basic idea around the concept of quantum nondemolition (QND) measurements is to carry out a sequence of measurements of an observable in such a way that the measuring process does not diminish the predictability of the results of subsequent measurements of the same observable . This concept stems from the work in the context of gravitational wave antennae. Indeed, the search for gravitational radiation demands measurements of very small displacements of macroscopic bodies . Braginsky et al  showed that there is a quantum limit, the so called “standard quantum limit”, which is a consequence of Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the one limits the sensitivity of the corresponding measurement (the original work  involves the sensitivity of a gravitational antenna). This work allowed also the introduction of the idea of a QND measurement, in which a variable is measured in such a way that the unavoidable disturbance of the conjugate observable does not disturb the evolution of the chosen variable .

Let us now suppose that in our case $`A(t)=\rho p+\sigma z`$, where $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ are functions of time. In this particular case, the condition that determines when $`A(t)`$ is a QND variable may be written as a differential equation

$$\frac{df}{dt}=\frac{f^2}{m}m\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(7)
where $`f(t)=\sigma /\rho `$.

It is readily seen that a solution to (7) is

$$f(t)=m\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{tanh}(\mathrm{\Omega }t).$$
(8)
Choosing $`\rho (t)=1`$, we find that in our case a possible QND variable is

$$A(t)=pm\mathrm{\Omega }z\mathrm{tanh}(\mathrm{\Omega }t).$$
(9)
## 5 QND and non–Newtonian gravity: Propagators and probabilities

With our weight functional choice (expression (6)) the new propagator involves two gaussian integrals, and can be easily calculated

$`U_{[a(t)]}(W,\tau ^{\prime \prime };N,\tau ^{})=\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\pi i\mathrm{}T}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{im}{2\mathrm{}T}}\left[(x_Wx_N)^2+(y_Wy_N)^2\right]\right\}`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}(1+\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{G_{\mathrm{}}mM}{R}}T\right\}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{T\mathrm{\Delta }a^2+i2m\mathrm{}}{4m^2\mathrm{}^2+T^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^4}}{\displaystyle _\tau ^{}^{\tau ^{\prime \prime }}}a^2(t)𝑑t\right\}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2m\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}{\displaystyle _\tau ^{}^{\tau ^{\prime \prime }}}[{\displaystyle \frac{F}{\mathrm{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }a}{4m^2\mathrm{}^2+T^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^4}}\mathrm{tanh}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)+i{\displaystyle \frac{2ma\mathrm{\Omega }T\mathrm{\Delta }a^2}{4m^2\mathrm{}^2+T^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^4}}]^2`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2\mathrm{}^2[1+\mathrm{tanh}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }t)]+T^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^4i2m\mathrm{}T\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{tanh}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }t)}{4m^2\mathrm{}^2[1+\mathrm{tanh}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }t)]^2+T^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^4}}\right]dt\}.`$ (10)
The probability, $`P_{[a(t)]}`$, of obtaining as measurement output $`a(t)`$ is given by expression $`P_{[a(t)]}=|U_{[a(t)]}|^2`$ . Hence, in this case

$`P_{[a(t)]}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2T\mathrm{\Delta }a^2}{4m^2\mathrm{}^2+T^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^4}}{\displaystyle _\tau ^{}^{\tau ^{\prime \prime }}}a^2(t)𝑑t\right\}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}{\displaystyle _\tau ^{}^{\tau ^{\prime \prime }}}\left[2I_1I_2I_3+I_4(I_2^2I_1^2)\right]𝑑t\right\}.`$ (11)
Here the following definitions have been introduced

$`I_1={\displaystyle \frac{F}{\mathrm{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }a}{4m^2\mathrm{}^2+T^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^4}}\mathrm{tanh}(\mathrm{\Omega }t),`$ (12)
$`I_2={\displaystyle \frac{2ma\mathrm{\Omega }T\mathrm{\Delta }a^2}{4m^2\mathrm{}^2+T^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^4}}\mathrm{tanh}(\mathrm{\Omega }t),`$ (13)
$`I_3={\displaystyle \frac{4m^2\mathrm{}^2[1+\mathrm{tanh}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }t)]+T^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^4}{4m^2\mathrm{}^2[1+\mathrm{tanh}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }t)]^2+T^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^4}},`$ (14)
$`I_4={\displaystyle \frac{2m\mathrm{}T\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{tanh}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }t)}{4m^2\mathrm{}^2[1+\mathrm{tanh}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }t)]^2+T^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^4}}.`$ (15)
## 6 Conclusions

In this work we have considered a Yukawa term coexisting with the usual Newtonian gravitational potential (expression (1)). Assuming that the range of this new interaction has the same order of magnitude than the Earth’s radius a QND variable was obtained for a particle with mass $`m`$ (expression (9)), and its corresponding propagator was evaluated. Afterwards, it was assumed that this QND variable was continuously monitored, and, along the ideas of RPIF, the propagator and probability associated with the possible measurement outputs were also calculated, expressions (14) and (15), respectively.

Another interesting point around expressions (10) and (11) comprises the role that the mass parameter plays in them. It is readily seen that if we consider two particles with different mass, say $`m`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$, then they render different propagators and probabilities. This last fact means that “gravity” is, in this situation, not purely geometric. This is no surprise, the presence of a new interaction, coexisting with the usual Newtonian gravitational potential, could mean the breakdown of the geometrization of the joint interaction (Newtonian contribution plus Yukawa term). The detection of this interaction would mean the violation of WEP, but not necessarily of VSEP . Nevertheless, the possibilities of using quantum measurement theory to analyze the possible limits of VSEP at quantum level do not finish here, indeed, the possible incompatibility between the different formulations of EP and measurement theory can also be studied along the ideas of this theory . Of course, more work is needed around the validity at quantum level of the different formulations of EP. Indeed, as has already been proved , in the presence of a gravitational field, the generalization to the quantum level of even the simplest kinematical concepts, for instance the time of flight, has severe conceptual difficulties.

This proposal would also render new theoretical predictions that could be confronted (in the future) against the experiment, and therefore we would obtain a larger framework that could allow us to test the validity of RPIF . As was mentioned before, this comprises our second goal in the present work.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank A. A. Cuevas–Sosa for his help. It is also a pleasure to thank R. Onofrio for bringing reference  to my attention. This work was partially supported by CONACYT (México) Grant No. I35612–E.