text:
# New constraints in dynamical torsion theory

## 1 Introduction

Dynamical torsion theory (known also as a Poincaré gauge theory) is the simplest geometric generalization of general relativity in which torsion as well as metric is an independent dynamical variable . The most general ten parameter invariant Lagrangian yielding second order equations of motion contains invariants quadratic in curvature and torsion. Large number of independent coupling constants raises a crucial question what choice of the coupling constants are most acceptable from physical point of view?

There have been different approaches to get restrictions on the coupling constants in dynamical torsion theory. Unfortunately, there are weak experimental bounds (see, for example, ) and one has to take into account theoretical considerations. In \[4–6\] propagators for all modes entering the theory were considered and Lagrangians without ghosts and tachyons were found. Closely related criterion of positivity of masses and energy contributions to the canonical Hamiltonian in the linear approximation was considered in . Another constraints on the coupling constants can be found by the validity of Birkhoff theorem \[9–11\]. The restrictions on the coupling constants of the quadratic torsion terms can be obtained by the requirement of asymptotically Newtonian behavior of the gravitational field . The initial value problem and the corresponding restrictions on the coupling constants following from the validity of Cauchy–Kowalevski theorem as well as the hyperbolicity conditions were found in . To obtain the above restrictions on the coupling constants one has to make cumbersome calculations. Therefore, simpler restrictions are plausible.

In the present paper we impose new simple but very restrictive constraints on the Lagrangian. Namely, we demand equations of motion to admit solutions (i) with zero curvature and nontrivial torsion (absolute parallelism) and (ii) with zero torsion and non covariantly constant curvature (Einsteinian limit). We prove that only five parameter Lagrangian satisfies these constraints. The resulting Lagrangian is the sum of the Hilbert–Einstein Lagrangian for tetrad field, the three invariants quadratic in curvature, and cosmological constant. The three quadratic in curvature terms entering the Lagrangian are those that vanish in the case of zero torsion and describe massless Lorentz connection. It is very interesting that the resulting Lagrangian, after further fixing one more constant and dropping the cosmological constant, coincides with the unique Lagrangian without ghosts and tachyons found by Kuhfuss and Nitsch .

These constraints are motivated by the following consideration. Equations of motion in a general dynamical torsion theory have a very particular form. If one sets torsion equal zero in the equations of motion then one obtains the Einstein equations for a metric and additional constraint on the curvature tensor that is absent in general relativity. The last follows from the equation for the Lorentz connection and states that the curvature must be covariantly constant. Thus if one wants the usual general relativity to be incorporated in dynamical torsion theory then one should try to find the set of coupling constants that admits solutions of zero torsion and non covariantly constant curvature.

For zero curvature the equation for the Lorentz connection in a general case yields zero torsion condition, the theory becoming trivial. Thus if one wants the Weitzenböck absolute parallelism theory  to be also incorporated in dynamical torsion theory then one should find the coupling constants that admit solutions of zero curvature and nontrivial torsion. It is quite surprising that the set of coupling constants admitting general relativity and absolute parallelism theory as the two limiting cases of dynamical torsion theory exists.

The constraints used to reduce the number of coupling constants have also direct physical interpretation in solids with defects. It is known that curvature and torsion are correspondingly the surface densities of Frank and Burgers vectors for continuously distributed dislocations and disclinations \[17–20\]. Thus the two imposed constraints are nothing more than existence of the space-times with only dislocations or only disclinations. Since dislocations and disclinations in media are occurred independently, one may say that the constraints have experimental background.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the equations of motion are derived for a general type action. In Section 3 we solve the constraints and derive the five parameter Lagrangian. The Conclusion contains brief discussion of the resulting model.

## 2 General type action

Let $`^4`$ be a four-dimensional manifold (space-time) with coordinates $`x^\mu ,\mu =0,1,2,3`$. We assume that the space-time is a Riemann–Cartan manifold equipped with metric $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)=g_{\nu \mu }(x)`$ and torsion $`T_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\rho }(x)=T_{\nu \mu }{}_{}{}^{\rho }(x)`$ . Equivalent realization of Riemann–Cartan geometry can be given in terms of the tetrad $`e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a},a=0,1,2,3`$ and the Lorentz connection $`\omega _\mu {}_{}{}^{ab}=\omega _\mu ^{ba}`$ . Torsion and curvature have the following form in terms of these variables

$`T_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu e_\nu {}_{}{}^{a}\omega _\mu {}_{}{}^{ab}e_{\nu b}^{}(\mu \nu ),`$
$`R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \omega _\nu {}_{}{}^{ab}\omega _\mu {}_{}{}^{ac}\omega _{\nu c}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(\mu \nu ).`$
Here and in what follows transition between ”curved” Greek and ”flat” Latin indices is performed using the tetrad. Greek indices are raised and lowered by the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, while Latin indices are raised and lowered by the Lorentz metric $`\eta _{ab}=`$$`\mathrm{diag}(+)`$.

The most general invariant action yielding second order equations of motion for tetrad and Lorentz connection contains ten arbitrary parameters

$$I=d^4xeL,e=\mathrm{det}e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a},$$
(1)
where

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}T_{abc}\left(\beta _1T^{abc}+\beta _2T^{cab}+\beta _3\eta ^{ac}T^b\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R_{abcd}\left(\alpha _1R^{abcd}+\alpha _2R^{cdab}+\alpha _3R^{acbd}+\alpha _4\eta ^{bd}R^{ac}+\alpha _5\eta ^{bd}R^{ca}\right)+\lambda .`$
Ricci tensor, scalar curvature, and the trace of torsion are defined as follows $`R_{ac}=R_{abc}{}_{}{}^{b},R=R_a{}_{}{}^{a},T_b=T_{ab}^a`$. Lagrangian (2) contains all independent invariants constructed from $`T_{abc},R_{abcd}`$ and containing no more than two partial derivatives .

Let us note two identities which exclude two possible invariants from the Lagrangian. One has no need to add the Hilbert–Einstein Lagrangian $`\stackrel{~}{R}(e)`$ constructed only from tetrad (scalar curvature of zero torsion) because of the identity

$$R+\frac{1}{4}T_{abc}T^{abc}\frac{1}{2}T_{abc}T^{cab}T_aT^a\frac{2}{e}_\mu (eT^\mu )=\stackrel{~}{R}(e).$$
(3)
The second identity is the Gauss–Bonnet formula which excludes scalar curvature squared term

$$R_{abcd}R^{cdab}+4R_{ab}R^{ba}R^2=\frac{1}{e}_\mu (\mathrm{}).$$
(4)
In the next section we will also use the Bianchi identities111In the journal version of the paper the covariant derivative in the Bianchi identities was understood with the Lorentz connection acting on Latin indices and the Christoffel symbol acting on Greek ones. In that case terms with torsion in the right hand sides are abcent.

$`_\mu R_{\nu \rho }{}_{}{}^{ab}+_\nu R_{\rho \mu }{}_{}{}^{ab}+_\rho R_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{ab}=`$ $`T_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\sigma }R_{\rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{ab}+T_{\nu \rho }{}_{}{}^{\sigma }R_{\mu \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{ab}+T_{\rho \mu }{}_{}{}^{\sigma }R_{\nu \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{ab},`$ (5)
$`_\mu T_{\nu \rho }{}_{}{}^{a}+_\nu T_{\rho \mu }{}_{}{}^{a}+_\rho T_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a}=`$ $`T_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\sigma }T_{\rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}+T_{\nu \rho }{}_{}{}^{\sigma }T_{\mu \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}+T_{\rho \mu }{}_{}{}^{\sigma }T_{\nu \sigma }^{}^a`$
$`+R_{\mu \nu \rho }{}_{}{}^{a}+R_{\nu \rho \mu }{}_{}{}^{a}+R_{\rho \mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a},`$ (6)
where $``$ denotes the covariant derivative with Lorentz connection for Latin indices and the corresponding metrical connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\rho `$ for Greek indices. The latter is defined by equation

$$_\mu e_\nu {}_{}{}^{a}=_\mu e_\nu {}_{}{}^{a}\omega _\mu {}_{}{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}e_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\rho }e_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=0.$$
(7)
Equations of motion for action (1) have the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I}{\delta e_\mu ^a}}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa (Re^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}2R_a{}_{}{}^{\mu })+\beta _1\left(\stackrel{~}{}_\rho T^{\rho \mu }{}_{a}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}T_{bcd}T^{bcd}e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}+T^{\mu bc}T_{abc}\right)`$
$`+\beta _2[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{}_\nu (T_a{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }T_a{}_{}{}^{\nu \mu }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}T_{bcd}T^{dbc}e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T^{b\mu c}T_{cab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T^{bc\mu }T_{cab}]`$
$`+\beta _3[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{}_\nu (T^\nu e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}T^\mu e^\nu {}_{a}{}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}T_bT^be^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T^\mu T_a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T^bT_{ab}{}_{}{}^{\mu }]`$
$`+\alpha _1({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R_{bcde}R^{bcde}e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}+R^{\mu bcd}R_{abcd})`$
$`+\alpha _2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R_{bcde}R^{debc}e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}+R^{cd\mu b}R_{abcd})`$
$`+\alpha _3({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R_{bcde}R^{bdce}e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R_{abcd}R^{\mu cbd}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R_{abcd}R^{bc\mu d})`$
$`+\alpha _4({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R_{bc}R^{bc}e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R^{bc}R_{bac}{}_{}{}^{\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R_{ab}R^{\mu b})`$
$`+\alpha _5({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R_{bc}R^{cb}e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R^{cb}R_{bac}{}_{}{}^{\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R_{ab}R^{b\mu })+\lambda e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I}{\delta \omega _\mu ^{ab}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa (T_ae^\mu {}_{b}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T_{ab}{}_{}{}^{\mu })+\beta _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T^\mu {}_{ba}{}^{}+\beta _2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(T_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{b}{}^{}T_{ab}{}_{}{}^{\mu })+\beta _3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}T_be^\mu _a`$
$`+\alpha _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{}_\nu R^{\nu \mu }{}_{ab}{}^{}+\alpha _2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{}_\nu R_{ab}{}_{}{}^{\nu \mu }+\alpha _3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{}_\nu (R^\nu {}_{a}{}^{\mu }{}_{b}{}^{}R^\mu {}_{a}{}^{\nu }{}_{b}{}^{})`$
$`+\alpha _4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{}_\nu (R^\nu {}_{a}{}^{}e_{}^{\mu }{}_{b}{}^{}R^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}e_{}^{\nu }{}_{b}{}^{})+\alpha _5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{}_\nu (R_a{}_{}{}^{\nu }e_{}^{\mu }{}_{b}{}^{}R_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }e_{}^{\nu }{}_{b}{}^{})`$
$`(ab)=0.`$
Here the tilde sign over the covariant derivative means that it acts with Christoffell’s symbols (metrical connection of zero torsion) $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mu \nu }^\rho `$ on Greek indices and with Lorentz connection $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}`$ on Latin ones. For example,

$$\stackrel{~}{}_\rho T^{\nu \mu }{}_{a}{}^{}=_\rho T^{\nu \mu }{}_{a}{}^{}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\rho \sigma }{}_{}{}^{\nu }T_{}^{\sigma \mu }{}_{a}{}^{}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\rho \sigma }{}_{}{}^{\mu }T_{}^{\nu \sigma }{}_{a}{}^{}\omega _{\rho a}{}_{}{}^{b}T_{}^{\nu \mu }{}_{b}{}^{}.$$

The difference between Greek and Latin indices arises after integration by parts because of the identity $`_\mu e=e\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\nu \mu }^\nu `$.

To analyse the equations of motion we decompose torsion and curvature into irreducible components. Torsion tensor has three irreducible components

$$T_{abc}=t_{abc}+ϵ_{abcd}T^d+\frac{1}{3}(\eta _{ac}T_b\eta _{bc}T_a),$$

where we have extracted totally antisymmetric part by the use of totally antisymmetric tensor $`ϵ_{abcd},ϵ_{0123}=1`$, and the trace

$`T^d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}T_{abc}ϵ^{abcd},T_b=T_{ab}{}_{}{}^{a},`$
$`t_{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`t_{bca},t_{ab}{}_{}{}^{a}=0,t_{abc}+t_{bca}+t_{cab}=0.`$
Curvature tensor has six irreducible components

$`R_{abcd}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{abcd}^S+C_{abcd}^A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(R_{ac}^S\eta _{bd}R_{ad}^S\eta _{bc}R_{bc}^S\eta _{ad}+R_{bd}^S\eta _{ac}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(R_{ac}^A\eta _{bd}R_{ad}^A\eta _{bc}R_{bc}^A\eta _{ad}+R_{bd}^A\eta _{ac}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}R\left(\eta _{ac}\eta _{bd}\eta _{ad}\eta _{bc}\right)+ϵ_{abcd}R^{},`$
where we have extracted totally antisymmetric part $`R^{}`$ and all traces

$`R^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}R_{abcd}ϵ^{abcd},`$
$`R_{ab}^S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(R_{ab}+R_{ba}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R\eta _{ab},R_{ab}^A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(R_{ab}R_{ba}\right),`$
$`C_{abcd}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{bacd}=C_{abdc},C_{abc}{}_{}{}^{b}=0,C_{abcd}+C_{acdb}+C_{adbc}=0,`$
$`C_{abcd}^S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_{abcd}+C_{cdab}\right),C_{abcd}^A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_{abcd}C_{cdab}\right).`$
Irreducible component $`C_{abcd}^A`$ can be parametrized by a symmetric traceless pseudotensor

$$C_{abcd}^A=\frac{1}{8}(ϵ_{abce}D_d{}_{}{}^{e}ϵ_{abde}D_c{}_{}{}^{e}ϵ_{cdae}D_b{}_{}{}^{e}+ϵ_{cdbe}D_a{}_{}{}^{e}),$$

where

$$D_{de}=D_{ed}=C_{abcd}^Aϵ^{abc}{}_{e}{}^{},D_d{}_{}{}^{d}=0.$$

The symmetry of $`D_{de}`$ can be easily checked by multiplying its definition by totally antisymmetric tensor.

Note that for zero torsion three irreducible components of curvature equal zero

$$C_{abcd}^A=0,R_{ab}^A=0,R^{}=0,$$

and $`C_{abcd}^S`$ is called the Weyl tensor. In this case the curvature tensor has additional symmetry

$$R_{abcd}=R_{cdab}.$$
(10)
## 3 Solution of the constraints

In the present section we impose two constraints on the space of solutions of equations of motion which allow one to determine five of the ten parameters entering the Lagrangian (2). The first constraint states that there must be solutions with zero curvature and nontrivial torsion. The following theorem yields the restrictions on coupling constants.

###### Theorem 1.

Equation of motion (2) has solution $`R_{abcd}=0,t_{abc}0,T^a0,T_a0`$ if and only if the coupling constants obey

$$\beta _1=\kappa ,\beta _2=2\kappa ,\beta _3=4\kappa ,$$
(11)
$`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _5`$ being arbitrary.

Proof. Extracting the trace and totally antisymmetric part of equation (2) for $`R_{abcd}=0`$ one obtains the equations

$`(8\kappa 2\beta _1+\beta _23\beta _3)T_a=0,`$
$`(\kappa \beta _1\beta _2)T^a=0,`$ (12)
$`(4\kappa +2\beta _1\beta _2)t_{abc}=0.`$
Because all irreducible components of torsion are not equal to zero one can easily check that Eqs.(11) are the unique solution of Eqs.(12). $`\mathrm{}`$

Under the restrictions on the coupling constants (11) the first four terms in the Lagrangian (2) yield the Hilbert–Einstein Lagrangian due to the identity (3). For this choice of the coupling constants and zero curvature, equation of motion for the Lorentz connection is identically satisfied while equation of motion for the tetrad (2) reduces to the Einstein equation

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{R}g_{\mu \nu }\frac{\lambda }{2\kappa }g_{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(13)
Note that the tetrad field satisfying this equation defines nontrivial torsion on the manifold while the curvature remains zero. This model is known as Weitzenböck gravity theory with absolute parallelism (or teleparallelism theory) .

The second constraint on the space of solutions is that there must be solutions with zero torsion and non covariantly constant curvature. Corresponding restrictions on the coupling constants are given by the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.

Equation of motion (2) has solution $`T_{abc}=0,_\mu R0,_\mu C_{abc}{}_{}{}^{\mu }0`$ if and only if the coupling constants obey

$$\alpha _3=2(\alpha _1+\alpha _2),\alpha _5=\alpha _4.$$
(14)
$`\kappa `$ and $`\beta _1,\beta _2,\beta _3`$ being arbitrary.

Proof. In the case of zero torsion there are some simplifications. Now quantities with and without tilde sign coincide, and it will be dropped. Due to the definition (7) one can easily transform Greek indices into Latin ones inside the covariant derivatives. The one more simplification arises from the additional symmetry of the curvature tensor 10.

Using the Bianchi identity (6) equation for the Lorentz connection (2) is transformed,

$$^c\left[\left(\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _3\right)R_{abcd}+\frac{1}{4}\left(\alpha _4+\alpha _5\right)\left(R_{ac}\eta _{bd}R_{ad}\eta _{bc}R_{bc}\eta _{ad}+R_{bd}\eta _{ac}\right)\right]=0$$
(15)
where $`^c=e^{\mu c}_\mu `$. Taking the trace of this equation with $`\eta ^{bd}`$ and using the contracted Bianchi identity $`_\mu R=2_\nu R_\mu ^\nu `$ one obtains

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _3+\alpha _4+\alpha _5\right)_aR=0.$$
(16)
Using the Bianchi identity (5) in the form

$$^cC_{abcd}=\frac{1}{2}(_aR_{bd}_bR_{ad})\frac{1}{12}(_aR\eta _{bd}_bR\eta _{ad})$$

the traceless part of (15) can be rewritten as

$$2\left(\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _3+\frac{1}{4}\alpha _4+\frac{1}{4}\alpha _5\right)^cC_{abcd}=0.$$
(17)
For $`_aR0`$ and $`^cC_{abcd}0`$ the relations between coupling constants (14) are the unique solution of (16) and (17). $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that due to the Bianchi identity the Ricci tensor under the conditions of Theorem 2 cannot be covariantly constant $`_\nu R_\mu {}_{}{}^{\nu }0`$. Thus all irreducible components of the curvature are nonconstant.

Like in the previous case equation of motion for tetrad field under the restrictions (11) and (14) and zero torsion condition reduces to the Einstein equation (13). But now tetrad field will define nontrivial curvature, torsion of the manifold being zero. This is the Einsteinian limit of the model.

As was already mentioned the conditions of the proved theorems have direct physical interpretation in the physics of solids with continuously distributed defects. Theorem 1 yields the necessary condition for the existence of a space-time with only dislocations, while Theorem 2 yields the necessary conditions for the existence of a space-time with only disclinations. In fact, these conditions are sufficient because in both cases equation of motion for the tetrad field (2) coincides with the Einstein equation (13) which is known to have nontrivial solutions.

So the two conditions on the space of solution exclude five of the ten free parameters, and the resulting Lagrangian has the form

$$\frac{1}{e}L=\kappa \stackrel{~}{R}(e)+c_1C_{abcd}^AC^{Aabcd}+c_2R_{ab}^AR^{Aab}+c_3R^2+\lambda $$
(18)
where $`c_1=\frac{1}{4}(\alpha _1\alpha _2),c_2=\frac{1}{2}(\alpha _1\alpha _2+\alpha _4),c_3=18(\alpha _1+\alpha _2)`$.

## 4 Conclusion

So we have proved that two simple and physically reasonable constraints on the space of solutions of dynamical torsion theory define five parameters Lagrangian. The resulting theory contains the Hilbert–Einstein Lagrangian, three specific square curvature terms (which equal zero in the case of zero torsion) and cosmological constant. The space of solutions of the equations of motion contains at least two sectors. The first is the celebrated Einstein’s general relativity and the second is the less known Weitzenböck’s absolute parallelism theory. Both sectors are described by the same dynamical variable that is the tetrad field, the Lorentz connection being excluded from the theory. In the Einsteinian limit the Lorentz connection is the known function of the tetrad, while in absolute parallelism theory Lorentz connection is a ”pure gauge” and can be set equal to zero. In both cases the dynamics is governed by the Einstein equation for the tetrad which defines curvature in the Einsteinian limit and torsion in the absolute parallelism theory.

The Lagrangian 18 is highly degenerate. Besides the usual graviton it describes the massless Lorentz connection modes . From Hamiltonian point of view it contains primary if-constraints that may define the generators of extra gauge symmetry . The nonpropagating modes of the theory break 2 of the 10 Cauchy–Kowalevski conditions which are sufficient conditions for propagating of all modes in the theory . The hyperbolicity conditions  (also obtained for all modes) in our case lead to further restrictions $`\kappa =c_1=c_3=0`$, $`c_2`$ being arbitrary. Because of the large number of nonpropagating modes and the possible existence of extra gauge symmetry the Lagrangian 18 needs a separate consideration. Nevertheless, by costruction the space of solutions of the equations of motion surely contains at least two well defined sectors both goverened by the Einstein equation which is hyperbolic and possesses well posed Cauchy problem .

Linear approximation for Lagrangian (18) was elucidated in . It is interesting that for $`c_2=2c_1`$ and $`\lambda =0`$ one obtains the unique Lagrangian without ghosts and tachyons found by Kuhfuss and Nitsch . Another attractive feature is that the Lagrangian 18 is one of the particular Lagrangians yielding the asymptotically Newtonian behavior of the gravitational field found in Ref.. The supersymmetric extension of this Lagrangian is discussed in .

The constraints discussed in the present paper were also considered in lower number of dimensions. In three dimensional case, which is relevant to a static media with dislocations and disclinations, one obtains the sensible two-parameter Lagrangian  which has physically reasonable solutions. Two-dimensional gravity with torsion , which recently was proved to be completely integrable \[22–24\] , and renormalizable  admits solutions with zero torsion (only disclinations) but not admit solutions with constant curvature (only dislocations). Perhaps, the latter fact is connected with the absence of everywhere smooth vector field on a sphere, singularity of the vector field (director) representing disclination.

The author would like to thank I. V. Volovich for careful reading the manuscript and enlightening discussions.


format: text

text:
# Polarization and spin alignment in multihadronic Z0 decays

## 1 Introduction

Between 1989 and 1995, the four LEP collaborations have recorded over 16 million hadronic $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays which allow for detailed studies of the hadronization process.

Primary quarks produced in e+e- annihilations around the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ pole are strongly left-handed with longitudinal polarizations of approximately $`0.91`$ for down-type quarks and $`0.64`$ for up-type quarks.

A measurement of the leading baryon polarization in self-analysing weak decay modes can be used to investigate the polarization transport in the fragmentation process and gives useful new information on the dynamics of the hadronization process.

The vector mesons are $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ systems of total spin one without angular momentum, and any alignment of the meson spin must arise at least in part from the dynamics of the hadronization phase.

## 2 Principles of the Measurements

To measure the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ baryons, the decay angular distribution of the proton in the hyperon rest frame in the decay $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{p}\pi `$ is analysed.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ polarization is studied using its semileptonic decays with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon reconstructed in the final state. The energy spectra of the charged lepton and of the neutrino, determined by the missing energy in the hemisphere containing the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }l`$ system, are sensitive to the polarization.

Spin alignment of vector mesons can be described in terms of the spin density matrix $`\rho _{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$, which is a 3x3 Hermitian matrix with unit trace, usually defined in the helicity base. As described in  the elements of the helicity density matrix can be measured using the angular distribution of the corresponding vector meson decay products. The diagonal elements, limited by $`0\rho _{\lambda \lambda }1`$, represent the relative intensities of the three helicity states $`\lambda =1,0,+1`$. In parity conserving decays, only one diagonal element is measurable. Thus, a state with no spin alignment corresponds to $`\rho _{00}=1/3`$. The off-diagonal elements, for example $`\rho _{11}`$, measure the correlation between states with different helicities.

## 3 Polarization of Baryons

### 3.1 Polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons

Figure 1 shows the ALEPH and OPAL measurements of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization for different ranges of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ energy scaled to the beam energy (z$``$$`x_E`$). For $`x_E>0.3`$, the ALEPH collaboration measures a polarization of $`0.32\pm 0.07`$ consistent with the corresponding OPAL result of $`P_\mathrm{L}=0.329\pm 0.076`$.

A model of Gustafson and Häkkinen is used to calculate the expected $`x_E`$ dependence of the polarization using the JETSET and HERWIG Monte Carlo programs to determine the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production rates from several different sources. In this model the following assumptions were made:

* the spin of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is determined by the spin of the s quark and directly produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are polarized as the primary s quark;
* $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ particles which are decay products of heavier baryons containing the primary s quark will have a fraction of the polarization as given by the SU(6) model;
* any polarization is lost if a primary u or d quark becomes a constituent quark of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, forming a spin-0 ud diquark;
* $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons containing only quarks produced in the fragmentation are not polarized.

This relatively simple constituent quark model fits the observations. This supports the idea that the primary strange quark polarization is transferred completely to the formed final state hyperon during hadronization.

However, other interpretations of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization are by no means disfavoured.

### 3.2 Polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}`$ baryons

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}`$ polarization has been studied by ALEPH, DELPHI and OPAL.

A model of Falk and Peskin, based on HQET, taking account of b baryons proceeding through intermediate states such as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{b}^{}`$ gives a range of expected polarization between $`0.54`$ and $`0.88`$.

The experimental results given in Table 1 agree with each other and with the hypothesis of the HQET model that there is no loss of the initial b quark polarization during the fragmentation.

## 4 Vector Meson Helicity Density Matrix Elements

Helicity density-matrix elements have been measured by ALEPH, DELPHI and OPAL for various meson species.

As an example, the results of the inclusive $`\mathrm{K}^{}(892)^0`$ analysis are shown in Fig. 2. At large momentum where the $`\mathrm{K}^{}`$ most likely contains a primary quark from the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decay, the results show a clear deviation from $`\rho _{00}=1/3`$ and Re($`\rho _{11}`$) = 0.

Figure 3 summarizes the measurements of the matrix element $`\rho _{00}`$. $`\mathrm{B}^{}`$ mesons show no deviation from equal population of the three helicity states. The $`\mathrm{D}^{}(2010)^\pm `$ sample consists of both directly produced $`\mathrm{c}\mathrm{D}^{}`$ mesons and those from excited charm hadron decays. A value of $`\rho _{00}=0.40\pm 0.02`$ indicates an enhanced production in the zero helicity state. The results for the lighter leading mesons, which are likely to contain the primary polarized quark, are not completely conclusive. However, in general there is a clear indication for a production in the helicity zero state.

A statistical model based on spin counting fits the $`\mathrm{B}^{}`$ measurements. A QCD-inspired model predicts $`\rho _{00}=0`$ for leading vector mesons in the limit that quark and meson masses and transverse momentum can be neglected. If the vector meson production is considered as arising from a helicity-conserving process $`\mathrm{q}\mathrm{qV}`$, then $`\rho _{00}=1`$ is predicted. In the generally successful JETSET string model of hadron formation, no spin alignment is expected and the same is true for the HERWIG cluster model. The pattern of observations would benefit from more experimental measurements, and awaits a firm theoretical interpretation.

For some mesons OPAL and DELPHI have measured non-diagonal helicity density matrix elements. Whilst the OPAL collaboration has some evidence for small negative values of Re($`\rho _{11}`$) for the $`\mathrm{D}^{}`$, $`\varphi (1020)`$ and $`\mathrm{K}^{}(892)^0`$ mesons, which is in agreement with some theoretical expectations that coherence phenomena due to final-state interaction between the primary quark and antiquark play a role in fragmentation, the DELPHI results for $`\rho ^0`$, $`\mathrm{K}^{}(892)^0`$ and $`\varphi (1020)`$ are consistent with zero.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the organizers of the 30th International Symposium on Multiparticle Dynamics for the invitation to present these LEP results during the very pleasant meeting in Tihany, Hungary.