text:
# Special relativistic spherically symmetric Lagrangean hydrodynamics from General Relativity

## 1 General relativistic hydrodynamics in the comoving reference frame

A detailed derivation of the hydrodynamical equations for the spherically symmetric motion in 3+1 dimensions can be found in the paper  (Liebendörfer, Mezzacappa & Thielemann), along with relativistic Boltzmann equation and its forms. However, the relation of General Relativistic hydrodynamical equations with Special Relativistic ones, such as used without derivation by Daigne & Mochkovitch , has remained unclear. We fill this blank with a comprehensive derivation of the basic equations in  starting from the very Einstein equations.

We will work in the reference frame moving with (baryonic) matter and suppose that the metric tensor has been diagonalised, adopting the following (already spherically symmetric) form of the interval:

$$ds^2=e^{2\phi }dt^2e^{2\lambda }dR^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
$`(1)`$
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$ is a solid angle differential. The quantities $`\phi ,\lambda ,r`$ are the functions of independent variables $`R,t`$, which are correspondingly the arbitrarily chosen radial and universal time coordinates. We have already set $`c`$ to be 1.

Jacobian of these 4-coordinates is $`\sqrt{g}=e^{\phi +\lambda }r^2|\mathrm{sin}\theta |`$, and jacobian of spatial coordinates equals $`\sqrt{\gamma }=e^\lambda r^2|\mathrm{sin}\theta |`$, hence, a 3-dimensional infinitesimal volume element integrated over $`\phi ,\theta `$ equals

$$dV=e^\lambda 4\pi r^2dR,$$
$`(2)`$
and $`r(R,t)`$ has the geometrical sense that the length of circle of radius $`r`$ is $`2\pi r`$.

Now we have to put some physical sense to the coordinate $`R`$ in order to fix its definition (one can apply a conversion $`R\stackrel{~}{R}`$ staying in the comoving frame and only changing $`\lambda \stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$, so $`R`$ is not fixed). We relate this coordinate with the baryon density, so that $`dR/Gdm_b`$ is the baryon mass inside the layer $`dR`$:

$$\rho _bdV=\rho _be^\lambda 4\pi r^2dR=dm_b=\frac{1}{G}dR.$$
$`(3)`$
In the following we put $`G=1`$ (so that mass and length are of the same dimension) and denote by prime the $`/R`$ derivative.

In our hands are the baryon number conservation law

$$(\rho _bu^\mu )_{;\mu }=0$$

and the Einstein equations

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }=8\pi T_{\mu \nu }.$$

In our comoving reference frame the 4-velocity equals $`u^\mu =(e^\phi ,\stackrel{}{0})`$, and using the formula for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu }^\mu =\frac{\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g}}{x^\nu }`$ we get

$$(\rho _bu^\mu )_{;\mu }=(\rho _bu^\mu )_{,\mu }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu }^\mu \rho _bu^\nu =e^\phi (\dot{\rho }+\rho \dot{\lambda }+2\rho \frac{\dot{r}}{r})=0,$$

that is,

$$\frac{\dot{\rho }}{\rho }=(\dot{\lambda }+2\frac{\dot{r}}{r}).$$
$`(4)`$
(We omit the index $`b`$ of $`\rho _b`$ and $`m_b`$). The Ricci tensor for the diagonal metrics

$$g_{ik}=e_ie^{2F_i}\delta _{ik},e_i=(1,1,1,1),$$

can be easily calculated using formulae

$$R_{ii}=\underset{li}{}\left[F_{i,i}F_{l,i}F_{l,i}^2F_{l,i,i}+e_ie_le^{2(F_iF_l)}(F_{l,l}F_{i,l}F_{i,l}^2F_{i,l,l}F_{i,l}\underset{mi,l}{}F_{m,l})\right],$$

$$R_{ik}=\underset{li,k}{}\left[F_{l,k}F_{k,i}+F_{i,k}F_{l,i}F_{l,i}F_{l,k}F_{l,i,k}\right],ik.$$

Finally the Einstein equations yield:

$$8\pi T_R^R=e^{2\lambda }\left(\frac{r^2}{r^2}+2\frac{r^{}}{r}\phi ^{}\right)\frac{1}{r}e^{2\phi }\left(2(\ddot{r}\dot{r}\dot{\phi })+\frac{\dot{r}^2}{r}\right)\frac{1}{r^2},$$
$`(5.1)`$
$$8\pi T_\theta ^\theta =e^{2\lambda }\left(\phi ^{\prime \prime }+\phi ^2+\frac{r^{\prime \prime }}{r}+\frac{r^{}}{r}(\phi ^{}\lambda ^{})\right)e^{2\phi }\left(\ddot{\lambda }+\dot{\lambda }^2+\frac{\ddot{r}}{r}+\frac{\dot{r}}{r}(\dot{\lambda }\dot{\phi })\right),$$
$`(5.2)`$
$$8\pi T_t^t=e^{2\lambda }\left(2\frac{r^{\prime \prime }}{r}+\frac{r^2}{r^2}2\frac{r^{}\lambda ^{}}{r}\right)+e^{2\phi }\left(\dot{\frac{r^2}{r^2}}+2\frac{\dot{\lambda }\dot{r}}{r}\right)+\frac{1}{r^2},$$
$`(5.3)`$
$$8\pi T_t^R=e^{2\lambda }\frac{2}{r}\left(\dot{r}^{}\phi ^{}\dot{r}\dot{\lambda }r^{}\right).$$
$`(5.4)`$
The hydrodynamical momentum-energy tensor

$$T_{\mu \nu }=(\epsilon +p)u_\mu u_\nu pg_{\mu \nu }$$

has very simple mixed components in the comoving frame:

$$T_t^t=\epsilon ,T_i^i=p,i=1,2,3,T_j^i=0,ij$$

which should be inserted in the LHS of eqns. (5)

Let us also write down the conservation laws (which follow from Einstein eqns(5) because the 4-divergence of Einstein tensor equals 0)

$$T_{t;\mu }^\mu =\dot{\epsilon }+(\epsilon +p)(\dot{\lambda }+2\frac{\dot{r}}{r})=0,$$
$`(6.1)`$
$$T_{R;\mu }^\mu =p^{}\phi ^{}(\epsilon +p)=0.$$
$`(6.2)`$
We used here the following useful formula for divergence of a tensor:

$$T_{\nu ;\mu }^\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\left(\sqrt{g}T_\nu ^\mu \right)_{,\mu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \sigma ,\nu }T^{\mu \sigma }.$$

From the comparison of eqns(6.1) and (4) we see that

$$\frac{\dot{\epsilon }}{\epsilon +p}=\frac{\dot{\rho }}{\rho },$$
$`(7)`$
which is nothing more than the adiabaticity relation $`dE+pdV=0`$. Using this relation we also get the formula for the internal energy $`\epsilon _{in}`$ defined as $`\epsilon =\rho (1+\epsilon _{in})`$:

$$\dot{\epsilon }_{in}=\frac{}{t}(\frac{\epsilon }{\rho })=p\frac{}{t}(\frac{1}{\rho }).$$
$`(8)`$
Now let’s define the following quantities:

$$\stackrel{~}{m}4\pi r^2\epsilon \frac{r}{R}𝑑R,$$
$`(9)`$
$$Ue^\phi \dot{r},$$
$`(10)`$
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }e^\lambda r^{}.$$
$`(11)`$
From this definition we simply find using the relation (6.1) for $`\dot{\epsilon }`$ with excluded $`\dot{\lambda }`$ via (5.4) and expressing $`\phi ^{}`$ through (6.2):

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{m}}=4\pi r^2p\dot{r}$$
$`(12)`$
Equation (5.3) with $`T_t^t=\epsilon `$ provides further relation between $`\stackrel{~}{m}(R,t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma },U`$. Really,

$$8\pi \epsilon r^2r^{}=(re^{2\lambda }rr^2+e^{2\phi }r\dot{r}^2)^{},$$

and hence

$$2\stackrel{~}{m}(R,t)=\underset{0}{\overset{R}{}}8\pi r^2r^{}\epsilon 𝑑R=r(1+U^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2).$$
$`(13)`$
We do not have to forget the relation (3) which reads

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }/\rho =\frac{}{m_b}(\frac{4\pi }{3}r^3),$$
$`(3^{})`$
or equivalently

$$\tau \frac{1}{\rho }=4\pi r^2e^\lambda .$$
$`(3^{\prime \prime })`$
Now we are able to formulate equations for evolution of $`\rho ,U,\epsilon _{in}`$. Using (7) and (6.1),

$$\dot{\tau }\frac{}{t}\frac{1}{\rho }=\frac{1}{\rho }\left(\frac{2\dot{r}}{r}+\frac{\dot{r}^{}\dot{r}\phi ^{}}{r^{}}\right)=e^\lambda 4\pi r^2\left(\frac{2\dot{r}}{r}+\frac{\dot{r}^{}\dot{r}\phi ^{}}{r^{}}\right)=\frac{e^\lambda }{r^{}}(4\pi r^2\dot{r}e^\phi )^{}e^\phi =\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(4\pi r^2U)^{}e^\phi ,$$

i.e. finally

$$e^\phi \frac{}{t}\frac{1}{\rho }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(4\pi r^2U)^{}.$$
$`(14)`$
Going further,

$$e^\phi \dot{U}=e^{2\phi }(\ddot{r}\dot{r}\dot{\phi })=e^{2\lambda }(\frac{r^2}{2r}+2r^{}\phi ^{})4\pi rp\frac{1}{2r}e^{2\phi }\frac{\dot{r}^2}{2r},$$

where we have used (5.1) for expressing $`(\ddot{r}\dot{r}\dot{\phi })e^{2\phi }`$, and finally

$$e^\phi \dot{U}=e^{2\lambda }2r^{}\phi ^{}4\pi rp\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{r^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{h}4\pi r^2p^{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{r^2}4\pi rp,$$
$`(15)`$
where we used the relation (13) for $`\stackrel{~}{m}/r`$ and introduced the specific enthalpy

$$h=(\epsilon +p)/\rho .$$
$`(16)`$
The set of equations (14,15,8) can be used as hydrodynamical equations without ultrarelativistic particles’ fluxes (i.e., additional terms in the energy-momentum tensor). Let me mention that Einstein equations (5.2,5.3) were not used directly in the derivation, but instead two conservation laws (6.1,6.2) were used which are themselves consequences of the whole set (5).

Now let’s add the momentum-energy tensor of ultrarelativistic particles, let us call them “neutrino” (but these may also be photons)

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(\nu )}=(\rho E_\nu +p_\nu )u_\mu u_\nu +(F_\mu ^{(\nu )}u_\nu +F_\nu ^{(\nu )}u_\mu )p_\nu g_{\mu \nu }.$$
$`(17)`$
$`p_\nu `$ is the neutrino pressure (not a 4-vector).

We may calculate the divergence of a slightly more general tensor

$$T_{\mu \nu }=Au_\mu u_\nu +(B_\mu u_\nu +B_\nu u_\mu )+Cg_{\mu \nu },$$
$`(18)`$
which yields

$$T_{t;\nu }^\nu =\dot{A}+\dot{C}+(\frac{2\dot{r}}{r}+\dot{\lambda })A+\left[\left(\dot{B}_0+B_0(\frac{2\dot{r}}{r}+\dot{\lambda })\right)(1+e^\phi )B_0\dot{\phi }+B_R^{}+B_R(\frac{2r^{}}{r}+\phi ^{}+\lambda ^{})\right],$$
$`(19.1)`$
$$T_{R;\nu }^\nu =C^{}\phi ^{}(A+2B_0)+e^\phi \left(\dot{B}_R+B_R(\frac{2\dot{r}}{r}+\dot{\lambda })\right).$$
$`(19.2)`$
Here $`B_R=g_{RR}B^R=\gamma _{RR}B^R=e^{2\lambda }B^R`$. In our case $`A=\epsilon +p+\rho E_\nu +p_\nu ,B_\mu =F_\mu ^{(\nu )},C=(p+p_\nu ).`$ We also introduce notations $`Q,q`$ according to:

$$T_{\beta ;\alpha }^{(\nu )\alpha }=(e^\phi Q,e^\lambda q,0,0),T_{;\alpha }^{(\nu )\alpha \beta }=(e^\phi Q,e^\lambda q,0,0),$$
$`(20)`$
so that $`Q,q`$ may be expressed through $`\epsilon _\nu \rho E_\nu ,p_\nu ,F_\nu \gamma _{RR}F^{(\nu )R}`$ (4-vector of flux must have $`F_0=0`$ in the local rest frame):

$$e^\phi Q=\dot{\epsilon }_\nu +(\epsilon _\nu +p_\nu )(\dot{\lambda }+\frac{2\dot{r}}{r})F_\nu ^{}F_\nu (\phi ^{}+\lambda ^{}+\frac{2r^{}}{r}),$$

$$e^\lambda q=p_\nu ^{}+\phi ^{}(\epsilon _\nu +p_\nu )e^\phi \left(\dot{F}_\nu +F_\nu (\dot{\lambda }+\frac{2\dot{r}}{r})\right);\dot{\lambda }+\frac{2\dot{r}}{r}=\frac{\dot{\rho }}{\rho }.$$

The components of momentum-energy tensor are now

$$T_t^t=\epsilon +\rho E_\nu ;T_t^R=e^\phi F^{(\nu )R}=e^{\phi 2\lambda }F_\nu ;T_R^R=T_\theta ^\theta =(p+p_\nu ).$$

From (5.4) we obtain now

$$\dot{\lambda }=\frac{\dot{r}^{}\phi ^{}\dot{r}4\pi re^\phi F_\nu }{r^{}},$$
$`(5.4^\nu )`$
and (6) are replaced by

$$\dot{\epsilon }=(\epsilon +p)(\dot{\lambda }+\frac{2\dot{r}}{r})e^\phi Q,$$
$`(6.1^\nu )`$
$$\phi ^{}=\frac{p^{}+e^\lambda q}{\epsilon +p}=\frac{\tau }{h}p^{}\frac{\tau ^2}{4\pi r^2}\frac{q}{h}.$$
$`(6.2^\nu )`$
Some minor changes in other relations:

$$h\dot{\rho }=\dot{\epsilon }+e^\phi Q$$
$`(7^\nu )`$
$$e^\phi \dot{\epsilon }_{in}=pe^\phi \dot{\tau }\tau Q$$
$`(8^\nu )`$
$$\stackrel{~}{m}(R,t)=4\pi r^2T_t^tr^{}𝑑R$$
$`(9^\nu )`$
Equations (10,11,13) are not modified, but (14,15) acquire additional neutrino couplings in the RHS:

$$e^\phi \dot{\tau }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(4\pi r^2U)^{}\tau \frac{4\pi r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}F_\nu ,$$
$`(14^\nu )`$
$$e^\phi \dot{U}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{h}4\pi r^2(p^{}+\frac{\tau }{4\pi r^2}q)\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{r^2}4\pi r(p+p_\nu ).$$
$`(15^\nu )`$
## 2 Lagrangean special relativistic hydrodynamics

After having formulated hydrodynamical equations in the comoving RF, we need to relate some quantities with observable values in some fixed RF. We’ll do this in the limit of very small gravitational mass, when a pseudo-euclidean (Minkowskian) RF exists:

$$ds^2=d\stackrel{~}{t}^2dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
$`(21)`$
It is obvious that $`r`$ here is the same as in the comoving RF (1), because the length of a circle ($`2\pi r`$) is the same in both RF’s (Lorentz transformation does not change transverse sizes, and matter moves only radially). For the same reason $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is the same in both RF’s, because it is the area on the unit sphere which is not transformed being transverse to the motion.

We need to relate times $`t`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$, and this must be some function $`\stackrel{~}{t}(t,m)`$. Derivatives of this function can be easily determined. As for a moving particle (which has $`m=`$ const), its worldline interval equals $`ds=e^\phi dt`$, and on the other hand,

$$ds=\sqrt{d\stackrel{~}{t}^2\left(\frac{r}{\stackrel{~}{t}}\right)_m^2d\stackrel{~}{t}^2}=d\stackrel{~}{t}\sqrt{1v^2}=\frac{1}{\gamma }d\stackrel{~}{t},$$

where we’ve defined $`v=\left(\frac{r}{\stackrel{~}{t}}\right)_m,`$ which is simply radial velocity of a particle $`(m)`$ in the fixed RF, and usual Lorentz factor $`\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1v^2}}`$. Hence,

$$\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{t}\right)_m=\gamma e^{\phi (m,t)}.$$
$`(22)`$
Now determine $`\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{t}\right)_r.`$ For a stationary point ($`r=`$ const) we have $`ds^2=d\stackrel{~}{t}^2=e^{2\phi }dt^2e^{2\lambda }dm^2,`$ $`dm=\frac{r/t}{r/m}dt`$ (derivative along the curve $`r(m,t)=`$ const). Therefore,

$$\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{t}\right)_r=\sqrt{e^{2\phi }e^{2\lambda }\left(\frac{r/t}{r/m}\right)^2}.$$
$`(23)`$
And with this formula it is straightforward to find $`\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{m}\right)_t`$: as $`\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{t}\right)_r=\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{t}\right)_m+\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{m}\right)_t\left(\frac{m}{t}\right)_r,`$

$$\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{m}\right)_t=\frac{r/m}{r/t}\left(\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{t}\right)_m\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{t}\right)_r\right)=\frac{e^\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}{e^\phi U}\left(\gamma e^\phi \sqrt{e^{2\phi }\left(\frac{e^\phi U}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)^2}\right).$$
$`(24)`$
We recall that $`U=\gamma v`$ (this follows from the equality $`U=\left(\frac{r}{s}\right)_m,ds=\frac{1}{\gamma }d\stackrel{~}{t}`$ for a moving particle). Moreover, in the case of weak gravitational fields which we assumed,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sqrt{1+U^2\frac{2\stackrel{~}{m}}{r}}\gamma \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{\gamma r}\gamma .$$
$`(25)`$
The difference between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\gamma `$, that is, $`\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{\gamma r}`$, is always small in the ultrarelativistic case: it goes like $`\rho _{tot}r^2/\gamma `$ for small $`r`$, equals $`\frac{GM_{tot}}{\gamma r}`$ outside of the most mass of matter, and never exceeds about $`\frac{GM_{tot}}{\gamma R}\frac{R_{grav}}{\gamma R}`$. So, derivatives (23,24) take the form:

$$\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{t}\right)_r=\frac{1}{\gamma }e^\phi ,\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{m}\right)_t=e^\lambda U.$$
$`(26)`$
And when one wishes to express $`(t,m)`$-derivatives through $`(\stackrel{~}{t},m)`$-derivatives, the next formulae are to be applied:

$$\left(\frac{}{t}\right)_m=\gamma e^\phi \left(\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{t}}\right)_m,$$
$`(27.1)`$
$$\left(\frac{}{m}\right)_t=\left(\frac{}{m}\right)_{\stackrel{~}{t}}+e^\lambda U\left(\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{t}}\right)_m.$$
$`(27.2)`$
We also write down for reference the formula relating distances in the two RFs:

$$dr|_{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}dr|_t.$$

(And remember that physical length between two mass points in the comoving RF is $`dL=e^\lambda dm=\frac{1}{\gamma }dr|_t;`$ it is now clear that the distance between the same points measured at the moment $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ in the euclidean RF is just $`dL/\gamma `$.) One is able to see now, that from the $`m`$-derivatives of pressure come also $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$-derivatives, and this circumstance complicates the set of equations. For example, rewrite the equation (14) for density evolution (for simplicity without photon/neutrino flux) in $`(\stackrel{~}{t},m)`$-terms:

$$\gamma \frac{\tau }{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\frac{4\pi }{\gamma }\left[\frac{}{m}\left(r^2U\right)_{\stackrel{~}{t}}+e^\lambda U\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{t}}\left(r^2U\right)\right]=\frac{4\pi }{\gamma }\left[\frac{}{m}\left(r^2U\right)_{\stackrel{~}{t}}+e^\lambda U\left(2r(\gamma 1)+r^2\frac{U}{\stackrel{~}{t}}\right)\right].$$
$`(28)`$
We can express here $`\frac{U}{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ using the second equation of our set (15), which reads in new variables

$$\gamma \frac{U}{\stackrel{~}{t}}=4\pi r\left[p+\frac{\gamma }{h}r\left\{\left(\frac{p}{m}\right)_{\stackrel{~}{t}}+e^\lambda U\frac{p}{\stackrel{~}{t}}\right\}\right].$$
$`(29)`$
We see that some additional $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$-derivatives appear on the RHS of evolutionary equations for (inverse) density, but fortunately this can be avoided writing equations for $`\frac{1}{\gamma \rho }`$ instead of $`\frac{1}{\rho }`$. Really, since $`d\gamma =vd(\gamma v),`$ we find

$$\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{t}}\frac{1}{\gamma \rho }\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}\frac{}{m}(4\pi r^2v)=\frac{4\pi r^2v}{\gamma ^3}\frac{\gamma }{m}+\frac{2v^3}{\rho \gamma r},$$

i.e., introducing $`V_m\frac{1}{\rho \gamma }`$ and denoting $`/\stackrel{~}{t}`$ and $`/m`$ by dot and prime, respectively,

$$\dot{V}_m\frac{4\pi }{\gamma ^2}(r^2v)^{}=\frac{4\pi r^2v\gamma ^{}}{\gamma ^3}+\frac{2v^3}{\rho \gamma r}.$$

Substituting here $`\gamma ^{}=\gamma ^3vv^{}`$ and bearing in mind that

$$\left(\frac{r}{m}\right)_{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\frac{1}{\gamma }e^\lambda =\frac{1}{4\pi r^2\gamma \rho }$$

(but compare this with eqn. (11) — this is different derivative because it is taken at constant $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$) we finally see

$$\dot{V}_m4\pi (r^2v)^{}=0.$$
$`(30)`$
The same trick may be applied to evade $`/\stackrel{~}{t}`$derivatives in the RHS of eqn. for momentum density $`U`$ if one uses $`S_mhU`$ instead of $`U`$:

$$\dot{S}_m+4\pi r^2p^{}=\frac{4\pi rph}{\gamma }.$$
$`(31)`$
For reference let me write down also the very equation for $`U`$:

$$\dot{U}=\frac{4\pi r^2}{h}(p^{}+\frac{U}{4\pi r^2\rho }\dot{p})\frac{4\pi rp}{\gamma }.$$
$`(29^{})`$
Using $`E_mh\gamma \frac{1}{\gamma }\frac{p}{\rho }`$ as the third variable (instead of $`\epsilon _{in}`$) we also do get a total cancellation of $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$derivatives (one should also express $`\dot{p}`$ through $`\dot{U}`$ and $`\dot{\gamma }v\dot{U}`$):

$$\dot{E}_m+4\pi (r^2\gamma vp)^{}=4\pi \frac{rvhp}{\gamma }.$$
$`(32)`$
Let me also mention that if we had not put $`G=1`$, the only additional multiple in the set (30-32) would be $`G`$ in the RHS of (31) and (32). This means that these additional (with respect to basic eqns. ) terms are of the order $`O(\frac{GM}{\gamma R})`$ and therefore must be neglected since we have already omitted such terms, for example, in (25). Moreover, to take into account these corrections, coming from General relativity, one should change the very assumption of existence of the metrics (21).

Finally, let’s introduce one ”new” independent variable, following the notations of the work :

$$d\overline{m}=\gamma \rho \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi r^2dr|_{\stackrel{~}{t}}\frac{\rho }{\gamma }\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi r^2dr|_t.$$
$`(33)`$
Clearly, $`d\overline{m}|_{\stackrel{~}{t}}=dm|_t`$, so that $`\overline{m}`$ is a baryon rest-mass Lagrangean coordinate. Actually, $`\overline{m}(\stackrel{~}{t},r)`$ defined as

$$\overline{m}(\stackrel{~}{t},r)=\underset{r_0}{\overset{r}{}}\gamma \rho \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi r^2𝑑r|_{\stackrel{~}{t}}$$

is the same baryon rest mass like in the comoving RF but expressed as a function of $`(\stackrel{~}{t},r)`$:

$$\overline{m}(\stackrel{~}{t},r)m(t,r).$$

This implies that our notations are identical to those in . From this definition of $`m`$ it is easy to derive an equation for $`\dot{V}_m`$:

$$\left(\frac{m}{r}\right)_{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\frac{4\pi r^2}{V_m},$$

$$\dot{V}_m=4\pi \frac{}{\stackrel{~}{t}}(r^2\frac{r}{m})=4\pi (2r\dot{r}\frac{r}{m}+r^2\frac{^2r}{\stackrel{~}{t}m})=4\pi (2rv\frac{r}{m}+r^2\frac{v}{m})=\frac{}{m}(4\pi r^2v).$$

## 3 Conclusions

Let us summarize our results. If one is to consider General Relativistic effects, the exact set of hydrodynamical equations (14,15,8) can be used. In the weak field limit, one can apply the easier (and more suitable for comparison with observational data) set of Special Relativistic equations (30-32) which neglect $`O(GM/R)`$ effects but are formulated in the fixed pseudoeuclidean spacetime, call this “lab frame”. But if an exact set is used, it is desirable nevertheless to present results in $`(r,\stackrel{~}{t})`$-description, where $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ is the universal time in lab-(observer-)frame. To establish this, the functions $`\stackrel{~}{t}(t,m)`$ and $`r(t,m)`$ should be found, e.g., via integrating together with a set of hydro equations the following 4 equations:

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{t}=e^\phi \gamma ,\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{m}=e^\lambda U;$$

$$\frac{r}{t}=e^\phi U,\frac{r}{m}=e^\lambda \gamma .$$

This Jacobian matrix $`\frac{(\stackrel{~}{t},r)}{(t,m)}`$ has an evident remarkable symmetry.

So, if one knows a GR-solution, for instance, a path of a shock wave, $`m_{SW}(t)`$, then in the lab-frame the solution is a curve $`r=r(t,m_{SW}(t)),\stackrel{~}{t}=\stackrel{~}{t}(t,m_{SW}(t))`$ parameterized by $`t`$.

## Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Serguei Blinnikov for stimulating discussions and corrections to the text.

This work is partially supported by RFBR Grant 99-02-16205.

## References

 S. Yamada. An implicit Lagrangian code for spherically symmetric GRH… // ApJ 475 p.720

 F. Daigne, R. Mochkovitch. GRBs from internal shocks in a relativistic wind: an hydrodynamical study // published in A&A, see astro-ph/0005193

 L. Wen et al. ApJ 486 p.919

 R.D. Blandford, C.F. McKee. Fluid dynamics of relativistic blast waves //Phys. of Fluids, Vol.19 no. 8 p.1130 (1976)

 M. Liebendörfer, A. Mezzacappa, F.-K. Thielemann  Conservative General Relativistic Radiation Hydrodynamics in Spherical Symmetry and Comoving Coordinates // astro-ph/0012201


format: text

text:
# Diffusion and the Mesoscopic Hydrodynamics of Supercooled Liquids

## Abstract

The description of molecular motion by macroscopic hydrodynamics has a long and continuing history. The Stokes-Einstein relation between the diffusion coefficient of a solute and the solvent viscosity predicted using macroscopic continuum hydrodynamics, is well satisfied for liquids under ordinary to high temperature conditions, even for solutes as small as the solvent. Diffusion in supercooled liquids near their glass transition temperature has been found to deviate by as much as 3 orders of magnitude from that predicted by the Stokes-Einstein Relation . Based on the random first order transition theory , supercooled liquids possess a mosaic structure. The size- and temperature-dependence of the transport anomalies are quantitatively explained with an effective medium hydrodynamics model based on the microscopic theory of this mesoscale, mosaic structure.

According to macroscopic continuum mechanics and Einstein’s Brownian motion theory, the diffusion constant of a probe particle is determined by the viscosity of the liquid through which it moves by the Stokes-Einstein Relation

$$D_t^{SE}=\frac{k_BT}{4\pi \eta R},$$
(1)
where $`D_t^{SE}`$ is the translational diffusion coefficient, $`\eta `$ is the viscosity, and $`R`$ is the radius of the probe. This relation must hold if the solute is much larger than any relevant length scale in the liquid. Remarkably it is well satisfied even for self diffusion, i.e., where the radius of the solvent is the same as the solute. It is actually not a bad relation even for diffusion in moderately supercooled liquids ($`TT_g`$) . Viscosity can vary by as much as 12 orders of magnitude and diffusion coefficients vary by nearly as much. Nevertheless there is a noticeable discrepancy with the macroscopic hydrodynamic prediction in the vicinity of glass transition temperature $`T_g`$. In supercooled liquids around $`T_g`$, the translational diffusion is enhanced by as much as 3 orders of magnitude out of the 14 orders of magnitude change of viscosity ! Cicerone and Ediger have found the deviation depends strongly on the size of the probe and the temperature at which the measurement is taken . For deviations as large as a factor of 1,000, small adjustments of hydrodynamic boundary conditions arising from the details of the probe-liquid interface will not suffice. It is reasonable to conclude there is an additional length scale in a supercooled liquid to explain the discrepancy. Such a length scale arises naturally in the random first order transition theory of glasses. In this paper we will sketch the predictions of that theory for the deviations from the Stokes-Einstein law expected in supercooled liquids. Ediger and others recently have used the size-dependent deviations to infer the size of heterogeneous domains in supercooled liquids . In the published models, glass-forming liquids at low temperature are modeled as a two-component medium. One component is a solid-like background in which the diffusion is slow or impossible; the other component is a liquid-like excitation in which stress can be released quickly and the probe can move faster. By adjusting the parameters like the lifetime, appearance rate, internal viscosity and the size of the liquid-like domains, Stillinger and Hodgdon , and Cicerone, Wagner, and Ediger  have shown it is possible to get significant deviations from the Stokes-Einstein law. It has been appreciated  that there might not be such a clear cut distinction between two components; instead there should be a distribution of heterogeneities. A sensible question to ask is then how to derive this distribution from microscopic theory and thereby to explain quantitatively the decoupling between diffusion and viscosity in supercooled liquids.

Recently, we developed a microscopic theory of activation barriers and fragilities in supercooled molecular liquids based on the random first order theory for the liquid-glass transition . Several remarkable quantitative regularities emerge from theory. The relation between the typical activation barrier in a supercooled liquid and its configurational entropy is quantitatively obtained . Furthermore the theory yields the distribution of activation barriers explaining the $`\beta `$ parameter of the stretched exponential relaxation functions . The theory also yields the size scale of heterogeneous relaxing domains . We are now ready to investigate the effect of such heterogeneities on molecular hydrodynamics in supercooled liquids. To set the stage we briefly review the random first order theory and the microscopic theory of barriers.

The Random first order transition framework for the liquid-glass transition suggests supercooled liquids relax in an activated manner below a certain temperature, $`T_A`$. –The system has to overcome some free energy barrier to reach another metastable state. The activation barrier arises from a competition between the favorable increase in configurational entropy (the large number of other minimum energy configurations the local region could freeze into) and an unfavorable interfacial energy (the energy cost of forming another state in the original). This interfacial energy reflects the cost of a domain wall-like excitation where atoms are strained and are in far from local energy minimum configurations. Mathematically, the free energy change in forming a droplet with radius $`r`$ is

$$F(r)=\frac{4}{3}\pi Ts_cr^3+4\pi \sigma (r)r^2,$$
(2)
where $`s_c`$ is the configurational entropy density driving the random first order transition. The surface tension is strongly renormalized by the multiplicity of states which can wet the interface, much like in random field Ising model, $`\sigma (r)=\sigma _0(\frac{r_0}{r})^{1/2}`$ , where $`r_0`$ is the interparticle distance. The short range surface tension $`\sigma _0`$ is nearly universal since it depends on the degree of vibrational localization in aperiodic minima. This is usually expressed as a universal Lindemann-like criterion for vitrification . The free energy barrier determined by Eq.(2) can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F^{}=\frac{3\pi \sigma _0^2r_0}{Ts_c},$$
(3)
When the Lindemann value is substituted into the microscopic expression for $`\sigma _0`$ this results in an excellent description of the activation barriers in a wide range of liquids. The size of the droplet (or domain) is determined by the condition $`F(L)=0`$ giving

$$L=(\frac{3\sigma _0r_0^{0.5}}{Ts_c})^{2/3}.$$
(4)
This suggests regions of size $`L`$ are separated by domain walls and can reconfigure nearly independently. The configurational entropy, the driving force for reconfigurations, fluctuates around a mean value $`\overline{s_c}=\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{c_p}(T)\frac{TT_K}{T_K}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{c_p}(T)`$ is the specific heat jump per unit volume at the transition, with a magnitude $`\delta s_c=\sqrt{k_B\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{c_p}/V^{}}`$, where $`V^{}=\frac{4}{3}\pi L^3`$ is the volume of a typical domain. This results in a corresponding variation in free energy barriers and size for each mosaic element. This therefore gives a distribution of relaxation times and domain sizes. This leads to a quantitative relation between the Kohlrausch-William-Watts exponent $`\beta `$ and the liquid fragility .

The intricate mosaic structure of the supercooled liquid state presents a challenging problem in hydrodynamics. We can think of each region as having its own viscosity $`\eta _i`$ determined mostly by the local relaxation time $`\tau _i`$. The distribution of $`\tau _i`$ is determined by the entropy fluctuations. Of course there will be fluctuations in the higher frequency elastic modulus of each region, $`y_i`$, but these should be small. Thus $`\eta _i<y>\tau _i`$. If the probe is as large or larger than a typical domain it will be surrounded several cells of the mosaic with varying $`\eta _i`$. But the effect of this will be essentially the same as a homogeneous medium with the average viscosity $`\overline{\eta }=<\eta _i>`$. Only probes smaller than $`L`$ will be affected. The situation should be well described by a two-zone fluctuating viscosity hydrodynamics: a viscosity $`\eta _i`$ locally, which has a fluctuating value embedded in an infinite region with the average viscosity $`\overline{\eta }`$. A two-zone mean-field hydrodynamics description where the local viscosity is fixed was proposed by Zwanzig  and in a different context by Goodstein to explain ion mobility in superfluid helium . This picture was elaborated for glasses by Hodgdon and Stillinger . Much of their calculation can now be taken over, but with an additional final averaging being required. If the viscosity has one value $`\eta _i`$ in the inner zone and a different value $`\eta _o`$ in the outer zone, for a incompressible fluid with low Reynolds number, the fluid velocity $`v_i`$ is determined by the linear Navier-Stokes equation,

$$\eta \mathrm{\Delta }v_i=\frac{p}{x_i},$$
(5)
with two values of the viscosity as shown in Fig.(1). $`p`$ is the pressure, and the equation of continuity,

$$\stackrel{}{v}=0,$$
(6)
must be satisfied. For a probe particle with radius $`R`$ centered in such a spherical domain with size $`L`$, solving Eq.(5) and (6) with the proper boundary conditions at $`r=R`$ and $`r=L`$, Hodgdon and Stillinger as well as Goodstein find,

$$f=4\pi \eta _oRuC_5,$$
(7)
where $`f`$ is the translational drag force on the probe. This is obtained by integrating the pressure over the surface of the sphere, $`u`$ is the fluid velocity far from the fluctuating domain, and $`C_5`$ is a constant determined by the ratios of inner/outer viscosity and $`L/R`$. Using slip boundary conditions, at the surface of the probe molecule,

$`C_5`$ $`=`$ $`l[3+3l^5+\zeta (3+2l^5)]/d_s,`$ (8)
$`d_s`$ $`=`$ $`2+2l^5+\zeta (43l+l^5+3l^6)`$ (10)
$`+\zeta ^2(l1)^3(1+l)(2+l+2l^2),`$
where $`l=L/R`$ and $`\zeta =\eta _o/\eta _i`$.

From Eq.(7), we have the translational diffusion coefficient in a given domain as

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_t=\frac{k_BT}{4\pi \eta _oRC_5},$$
(11)
In heterogeneous supercooled liquid mosaic, the effective translational diffusion coefficient for the whole system must be averaged over the distribution of local relaxation times,

$$D_t=\stackrel{~}{D}_tP(s_c)𝑑s_c.$$
(12)
The deviation from the homogeneous hydrodynamics results, defined as the ratio between “real” diffusion coefficient and the one predicted by the macroscopic Stokes-Einstein Relation, Eq.(1), is

$$\frac{D_t}{D_t^{SE}}=\frac{1}{C_5(\zeta ,l)}P(s_c)𝑑s_c.$$
(13)
With Eq.(3)and (4), we may express $`\zeta `$ and $`l`$ in terms of $`s_c`$,

$$\zeta =\frac{\eta _o}{\eta _i}=e^{\beta \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }F}(1\mathrm{\Delta }F/\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }F})}=e^{\beta \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }F}(1\overline{s_c}/s_c)};$$
(14)
$$l=\frac{L}{R}=\frac{L}{\overline{L}}\frac{\overline{L}}{R}=\frac{\overline{L}}{R}(\frac{\overline{s_c}}{s_c})^{2/3}.$$
(15)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }F}`$ and $`\overline{L}`$ are the typical values for free energy barrier and domain size respectively, which can be obtained by substituting $`\overline{s_c}`$ into Eq.(3) and (4). Using a Gaussian distribution of $`s_c`$ with the given $`\overline{s_c}`$ and $`\delta s_c`$, we readily calculate the effective diffusion coefficient for a finite size probe immersed in the heterogeneous mosaic.

The experimental data are available only for a very limited number of materials due to the difficulty of such measurements near $`T_g`$. (At $`T_g`$ the typical relaxation time is 1,000-10,000 seconds.) Using the results from our previous papers for the distribution of relaxation times, the size dependence of the deviation factor for a probe moving in o-terphenyl, the most-studied glass-forming material, at $`T_g`$ can be calculated. The result, which does not contain any adjustable parameters, is in excellent agreement for small probes as shown in Fig.(2). The deviation from the experimental data for large probes is to be expected for the approximated two-zone model we applied. It could be connected by a very modest change ($`10\%`$) in the local domain size and doubtlessly reflects the crudeness of the simple geometry we have chosen.

The temperature dependence of the deviation from the macroscopic Stokes-Einstein law is shown in Fig.(3). The measurement was conducted for terracene in o-terphenyl . Again, there is a very good agreement between the theory and experiment over a large temperature range.

The deviation factors depend on the fragility, $`D`$, of the liquids if they are all measured at the glass transition temperature $`T_g`$. The degree of the heterogeneity, as measured by $`\delta s_c/\overline{s_c}`$, decreases as the liquid gets stronger . For very strong glass-forming liquids (like $`\mathrm{SiO}_2`$ with $`D=150`$), one would expect the macroscopic Stokes-Einstein Relation to hold well. The theory predicts large deviations only for very fragile liquids (with $`D`$ approximately smaller than 20) as shown in Fig.(4). The plot is for self-diffusion (or probe with similar size with the liquid molecule). Unfortunately presently, most of the experiments have been reported only for a very narrow range of substances with $`D10`$. We present the fragility dependence thus as a prediction to encourage investigations over a wider range of liquids.

There are a couple of important points to be made clear before we conclude our remarks. One is that we use the “average” or the measured viscosity as the outer viscosity $`\eta _o`$ in the calculation. A more thorough theory should treat simultaneously the fluctuations inside and outside the domain. Nevertheless the approximation to separate these two terms turns out to be a sound one. The physics underlying the simplification is the asymmetry in the contribution to the diffusion from the “fast” regions and “slow” regions. From the structure of Eq.(10), it is clear fast regions with relatively smaller local relaxation times (or viscosities) have much larger contributions to the averaged effective diffusion coefficient. A little algebra shows the largest contribution is from regions with $`s_c0.67\overline{s_c}`$. For these regions the local relaxation time is more than 5 orders of magnitude faster than the measured relaxation time (about 1,000-10,000 seconds). For practical purposes, the outer part of the system acts homogeneously for these fast regions.

The other comment concerns the treatment of smaller domains. As we have shown, at $`T_g`$, the typical domain size is about 7 times of the molecular distance. From Eq.(4), we know fast regions are also larger compared to the average. For the same reason we discussed above, these fast (or larger) regions have a much greater contribution to the calculated diffusion. The two-zone approximation we use will hold well. However, for probes with very large size comparable to the typical domain size, such an approximation may pose a problem as the diffusion of rubrene in o-terphenyl indicates. When the probe particle occupies multiple domains, an additional average over these domains should be taken to get more accurate results. Nevertheless, the model developed in this paper should serve as a good starting point even for larger probe diffusion.

In summary, the mosaic picture of the supercooled liquids based on the random first order transition theory explains the unusual decoupling of translational diffusion from the macroscopic hydrodynamics of glass-forming liquids. The picture has as an essential element the new length scale of dynamically correlated regions. This length is determined to a good approximation by a microscopic theory of the glassy state itself. The mosaic picture also has interesting consequences for the frequency dependence and nonlinearity of the response of a translating probe. Similarly the mesoscale correlation will affect rotational hydrodynamics and relative motion of probes in the liquid as is important for diffusion controlled reactions. We leave these problems for the future.

This work is supported by NSF grant CHE-9530680. We are happy to dedicate this work to Bruce Berne a pioneer of not only computer simulation but also of the hydrodynamic view of molecular motion in the modern era.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that the particles with the value of spin more than two arise naturally when quantizing such classical objects as the relativistic oscillator, string or discrete string. The challenging problem for these kinds of theories is to construct the lagrangian description both for free and for interacting particles with the higher spins.

Recent developments in this activity have revealed, that the particles with the higher spins can propagate through the background having the constant curvature, in particular through the AdS space (see  and the references therein), as well as interact with the constant electromagnetic field or symmetrical Einstein spaces . The utilization of the technique of the Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics leads also to the description of the particle with spin 2 on the background of the constant curvature , and on the background being real “Kahler – like” manifold . In all these approaches corresponding lagrangians possess some gauge invariance in order to remove the states with the negative norm – the ghosts – from the physical spectrum.

The same problem, i.e., the inclusion into the theory of necessary gauge invariance is present also in the description of free particles which belong to irreducible representations of the Poincare group. The possible way out of this problem is the method of the BRST constructions which naturally leads to the desired gauge invariant hermitian lagrangians . However, the construction of the corresponding nilpotent BRST charges for the system of constraints describing either reducible massive  or irreducible massless  representations of the Poincare group with the Young tableaux having one row is not straightforward due to the presence of the second class constraints. This problem can be solved after the introduction into the theory of the additional bosonic oscillator and the construction of the auxiliary representations for the second class constraints in terms of this oscillator. Then after the partial gauge fixing  the BRST invariant lagrangian leads to the one constructed by Fronsdal  for the irreducible massless higher spins.

The construction of lagrangians describing an arbitrary representations of the Poincare group is complicated due to the necessity of the construction of the auxiliary representations of the Lie algebras having the rank more than one in the framework of the BRST approach. The general method for such constructions where some generators from the Cartan subalgebra are excluded from the total system of constraints forming an arbitrary Lie algebra was given in . Below we use this method for the derivation of the lagrangians for the massless particles belonging to the irreducible representations of the Poincare algebra with the corresponding Young tableaux having two rows. The complete generalization of this procedure to the arbitrary irreducible representation of the Poincare group will be given elsewhere. Let us note that the approach used is different from the one given in  and leads to the different form of the final lagrangian which describes only irreducible representations, corresponding to Young tableaux with two rows.

The paper is organized as follows.

In Sec.2 we quote the main results of  needed for our study.

In Sec.3 we explicitly derive the lagrangians describing the irreducible representations of the Poincare group with corresponding Young tableaux having two rows.

In Sec.4 we present some explicit examples of our constriction.

Sec.5 contains our conclusions and discussion of open problems. Some complicated expressions and formulae are carried out to Appendix.

## 2 The BRST construction

The fields we are going to consider correspond to the following Young tableaux

(2.1)
and are described by the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{n_1},\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _{n_2}}(x)`$ which is the $`n_1+n_2`$ ($`n_1n_2`$) rank tensor field symmetrical with respect to the permutations of each type indices. The correspondence with a given Young tableaux implies, that after the symmetrization of all indices of the first raw with one index of the second raw the basic field vanishes, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\{\mu _\mathrm{𝟏}\mu _\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{}\mu _{𝐧_\mathrm{𝟏}},\nu _\mathrm{𝟏}\}\nu _\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{}\nu _{𝐧_\mathrm{𝟐}}}(x)=0.$$
(2.2)
Further, all traces of the basic field must vanish:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\rho \rho \mu _3\mathrm{}\mu _{n_1},\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _{n_2}}(x)=0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\rho \mu _2\mu _3\mathrm{}\mu _{n_1},\rho \nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _{n_2}}(x)=0,`$ (2.3)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{n_1},\rho \rho \nu _3\mathrm{}\nu _{n_2}}(x)=0,`$
In addition, this field is subject to the following system of equations, namely the mass shell and transversality conditions for each type of indices. In the massless case we have

$`p_\rho ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{n_1},\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _{n_2}}(x)=0,`$ (2.4)
$`p_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }_{\rho \mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{n_1},\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _{n_2}}(x)=0,`$ (2.5)
$`p_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{n_1},\rho \nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _{n_2}}(x)=0.`$ (2.6)
To describe all irreducible representations of the Poincare group simultaneously it is convenient to introduce an auxiliary Fock space generated by the creation and annihilation operators $`a_\mu ^{i+},a_\mu ^j`$ with Lorentz index $`\mu =0,1,2,\mathrm{},D1`$ and additional internal index $`i=1,2`$. These operators satisfy the following commutation relations

$$[a_\mu ^i,a_\nu ^{j+}]=g_{\mu \nu }\delta ^{ij},g_{\mu \nu }=diag(1,1,1,\mathrm{},1),$$
(2.7)
where $`\delta ^{ij}`$ is usual Cronecker symbol.

The general state of the Fock space depends on the space-time coordinates $`x_\mu `$

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{n_1},\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _{n_2}}(x)a_{\mu _1}^{1+}a_{\mu _2}^{1+}\mathrm{}a_{\mu _{n_1}}^{1+}a_{\nu _1}^{2+}a_{\nu _2}^{2+}\mathrm{}a_{\nu _{n_2}}^{2+}|0$$

and the components $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{n_1},\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _{n_2}}(x)`$ are automatically symmetrical under the permutations of indices of the same type.

The conditions (2.2) – (2.6) can be easily expressed in this auxiliary Fock space as

$`T|\mathrm{\Phi }=0,`$ (2.8)
$`L^{ij}|\mathrm{\Phi }=0,`$ (2.9)
$`L^0|\mathrm{\Phi }=L^i|\mathrm{\Phi }=0,`$ (2.10)
where the operators

$$T=a_\mu ^{+1}a_\mu ^2,L^{11}=\frac{1}{2}a_\mu ^1a_\mu ^1,L^{12}=a_\mu ^1a_\mu ^2,L^{22}=\frac{1}{2}a_\mu ^2a_\mu ^2,L^i=p_\mu a_\mu ^i,$$
(2.11)
along with their conjugates

$$T^+=a_\mu ^{+2}a_\mu ^1,L^{11+}=\frac{1}{2}a_\mu ^{1+}a_\mu ^{1+},L^{12+}=a_\mu ^{1+}a_\mu ^{2+},L^{22+}=\frac{1}{2}a_\mu ^{2+}a_\mu ^{2+},L^{i+}=p_\mu a_\mu ^{i+}$$
(2.12)
and operators

$$L^0=p_\mu ^2,H^i=a_\mu ^{i+}a_\mu ^i+\frac{D}{2}$$
(2.13)
satisfy the following nonzero commutation relations

$`[L^{11},L^{11+}]=H^1,[L^{22},L^{22+}]=H^2,[L^{12},L^{12+}]=H^1+H^2,`$
$`[T^+,L^{11+}]=L^{12+},[T^+,L^{12+}]=2L^{22+},`$
$`[T,L^{11}]=L^{12},[T,L^{12}]=2L^{22},[T,T^+]=H^1H^2,`$
$`[L^{22},L^{12+}]=T,[L^{22},T^+]=L^{12},[T,L^{22+}]=L^{12+},`$
$`[L^{11},L^{12+}]=T^+,[L^{12},L^{11+}]=T,[L^{12},L^{22+}]=T^+,`$
$`[T,L^{12+}]=2L^{11+},[T^+,L^{12}]=2L^{11}`$
and

$`[L^i,T^+]=\delta ^{i2}L^1,[L^i,T]=\delta ^{i1}L^2,`$
$`[L^{i+},T^+]=\delta ^{i1}L^{2+},[L^{i+},T]=\delta ^{i2}L^{1+},`$
$`[L^i,L^{11+}]=\delta ^{i1}L^{1+},[L^{i+},L^{11}]=\delta ^{i1}L^1,`$ (2.15)
$`[L^i,L^{22+}]=\delta ^{i2}L^{2+},[L^{i+},L^{22}]=\delta ^{i2}L^2,`$
$`[L^i,L^{12+}]=\delta ^{i1}L^{2+}\delta ^{i2}L^{1+},[L^{i+},L^{12}]=\delta ^{i1}L^2+\delta ^{i2}L^1,`$
$`[L^i,L^{j+}]=\delta ^{ij}L^0.`$
Note the asymmetry between the operators $`a_\mu ^{1+}`$ and $`a_\mu ^{2+}`$ in (2.8). The later equation means in turn that just (2.2) is fulfilled where one index of the second raw is symmetrized with indices of the first one. In order to restore the mentioned symmetry, the following equation

$$T^+|\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(2.16)
should be added to the system of constraints. The consistency of the equations (2.8) and (2.16)

$$[T,T^+]|\mathrm{\Phi }=(H^1H^2)|\mathrm{\Phi }=(n_1n_2)|\mathrm{\Phi }=0$$
(2.17)
implies the equality of numbers $`n_1=n_2=n`$ of the operators $`a_\mu ^{1+}`$ and $`a_\mu ^{2+}`$ in the Fock space vector (3.17). However, in this case one can show using only equation (2.8) the following property of the basic field

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _n,\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n}(x)=(1)^n\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n,\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _n}(x)$$
(2.18)
and, as a consequence, the equation (2.16) is also fulfilled. Moreover, there is no nonzero solution of the equation (2.8) for the case of $`n_1<n_2`$. All this means that the Fock space vector under the constraint (2.8) contains all possible Young tableaux of the type (2.1) and only once each of them.

The set of operators $`L^{ij},T,L^{ij+},T^+,H^i`$ form the algebra (2) of the group $`SO(3,2)`$, $`H^i`$ being the Cartan generators. Since the conditions $`H^i|\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ can not be satisfied for any nonzero vector $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the generators $`H^i`$ must be excluded from the total set of constraints, and therefore one obtains the system of the first and the second class constraints. The corresponding nilpotent BRST charge can be constructed as follows .

The first step is to construct the auxiliary representations of the algebra $`SO(3,2)`$ using the Verma module after introduction of the additional creation and annihilation operators $`[b_I,b_J^+]=\delta _{IJ}`$, $`I,J=1,\mathrm{},4`$ (The general method for such constructions was given in ). Note that the number of the oscillators is equal to the number of positive roots of algebra $`SO(3,2)`$ and the vector $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ depends also on the creation operators $`b_I^+`$. The auxiliary representation has the form:

$`L_{aux.}^{11+}=b_1^+,L_{aux.}^{12+}=b_2^+,L_{aux.}^{22+}=b_3^+,`$
$`T_{aux.}^+=b_4^+b_2^+b_12b_3^+b_2,`$
$`T_{aux.}=(h_1h_2b_4^+b_4)b_42b_1^+b_2b_2^+b_3,`$
$`H_{aux.}^1=2b_1^+b_1+b_2^+b_2b_4^+b_4+h_1,`$
$`H_{aux.}^2=b_2^+b_2+2b_3^+b_3+b_4^+b_4+h_2,`$ (2.19)
$`L_{aux.}^{11}=(b_1^+b_1+b_2^+b_2b_4^+b_4+h_1)b_1b_4^+b_2+b_3^+b_2b_2,`$
$`L_{aux.}^{12}=(2b_1^+b_1+b_2^+b_2+2b_3^+b_3+h_1+h_2)b_2+b_4^+b_4b_4b_1`$
$`+b_2^+b_3b_1b_4^+b_3+(h_2h_1)b_4b_1,`$
$`L_{aux.}^{22}=(b_2^+b_2+b_3^+b_3+b_4^+b_4+h_2)b_3`$
$`+(h_2h_1)b_4b_2+b_1^+b_2b_2+b_4^+b_4b_4b_2,`$
where $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ are parameters and the auxiliary representations of operators $`H^i`$ depend on them linearly.

Further, let us denote $`E^\alpha (L^{ij},T)(\alpha >0)`$, and define

$$^i=H^i+\stackrel{~}{H^i}_{aux.}+h^i,^\alpha =E^\alpha +E_{aux.}^\alpha (h),$$
(2.20)
where we have explicitly extracted the dependence on parameters $`h_i`$ in the auxiliary representations of Cartan generators. After writing the $`SO(3,2)`$ algebra in the compact form

$`[^i,^\alpha ]=\alpha (i)^\alpha ,`$
$`[^\alpha ,^\alpha ]=\alpha ^i^i,`$ (2.21)
$`[^\alpha ,^\beta ]=N^{\alpha \beta }^{\alpha +\beta },`$
we introduce the anticommuting variables $`\eta _\alpha (\eta _{ij},\eta _T)`$ $`\eta _\alpha =\eta _\alpha ^+`$, having ghost number one and corresponding momenta $`𝒫_\alpha =𝒫_\alpha ^+`$ and $`𝒫_\alpha `$, having ghost number minus one with the commutation relations:

$$\{\eta _\alpha ,𝒫_\beta \}=\{\eta _\alpha ,𝒫_\beta \}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }.$$
(2.22)
The “ghost vacuum” is defined as

$$\eta _\alpha |0=𝒫_\alpha |0=0$$
(2.23)
for positive roots $`\alpha `$. The nilpotent BRST charge for the above subsystem of constraints with no $`H^i`$ dependence has the form

$$Q_1=\underset{\alpha >0}{}\left(\eta _\alpha ^\alpha +\eta _\alpha ^\alpha \right)\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha \beta }{}N^{\alpha \beta }\eta _\alpha \eta _\beta 𝒫_{\alpha +\beta }$$
(2.24)
where the parameters $`h^i`$ have to be substituted by the expressions

$$\pi ^i=H^i\stackrel{~}{H}_{aux.}^i\underset{\beta >0}{}\beta (i)\left(\eta _\beta 𝒫_\beta \eta _\beta 𝒫_\beta \right)$$
(2.25)
The inclusion of the constraints $`^𝒜`$ $`(L^0,L^i,L^{i+})`$ into the total BRST charge $`Q`$ is trivial, namely

$$Q=Q_1+Q_2$$
(2.26)
where

$$Q_2=\eta _0L^0+\eta _iL^{i+}+\eta _i^+L^i\eta _i^+\eta _i𝒫_0+\underset{\alpha >0,A,B}{}(\eta _A\eta _\alpha ^+𝒫_BC_{\alpha ,A}^B+\eta _A\eta _\alpha 𝒫_BC_{\alpha ,A}^B)$$
(2.27)
in self explanatory notations. This completes the procedure of constructing nilpotent BRST charge for our system.

## 3 The lagrangian and the partial gauge fixing

The BRST invariant lagrangian which describes the massless irreducible representations of the Poincare group of the form (2.1) can be written as

$$L=𝑑\eta _0\chi |KQ|\chi ,$$
(3.1)
being invariant under the gauge transformations

$$\delta |\chi =Q|\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(3.2)
with a parameter of gauge transformations $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The Kernel operator $`K`$ in the scalar product (3.1) is necessary to make the lagrangian hermitian , since the BRST charge Q is not hermitian as one can conclude from the explicit form of the auxiliary representations (2). The operator $`K`$ is constructed as follows. Let us introduce the vector in the space of Verma module

$$|n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4_V=(L^{11+})^{n_1}(L^{12+})^{n_2}(L^{22+})^{n_3}(T^+)^{n_4}|0_V$$
(3.3)
where $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{}\alpha _r`$ is some ordering of positive roots, $`n_iN`$ and $`E^\alpha |0_V=0`$ The corresponding vector in the Fock space generated by the creation and annihilation operators $`b_I,b_I^+`$ is

$$|n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4=(b_1^+)^{n_1}(b_2^+)^{n_2}(b_3^+)^{n_3}(b_4^+)^{n_4}|0.$$
(3.4)
The Kernel operator $`K`$ defining the scalar product of two vectors $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2|K|\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ has the form

$$K=Z^+Z,$$
(3.5)
where the operator $`Z`$ transforms the given state from the Fock space to the corresponding state in the Verma module and have the following form

$$Z=\underset{n_i}{}\frac{1}{n_i!}(L^{11+})^{n_1}(L^{12+})^{n_2}(L^{22+})^{n_3}(T^+)^{n_4}|0_V0|(b_1)^{n_1}(b_2)^{n_2}(b_3)^{n_3}(b_4)^{n_4}.$$
(3.6)
Such form of the operators $`Z`$ and $`K`$ guarantees the identity of the scalar products of the corresponding vectors in the Fock space and in the Verma module. Then the following modified hermiticity relation is satisfied

$$Q^+K=KQ$$
(3.7)
In order to be physical the lagrangian (3.1) must have ghost number equal to zero and therefore the ghost number of the vector $`|\chi `$ which in turn is the series expansion with respect to creation operators $`\eta _0,\eta _i^+,𝒫_i^+,\eta _\alpha ^+,𝒫_\alpha ^+`$, along with operators $`a_\mu ^{i+}`$ and $`b_I^+`$ must be zero as well. The same applies to the parameter of the gauge transformations $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which has the ghost number equal to $`1`$.

Below we prove, following a slightly different way than in , that the vector $`|\chi `$ contains the only physical field $`|S_0`$ with no $`b_I^+`$ dependence. The other fields can be either excluded using the equations of motion or gauged away.

First let us write explicitly the $`𝒫_\alpha ^+`$ dependence of the vector $`|\chi `$ and the parameter $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

$$|\chi =|\chi _0+𝒫_\alpha ^+|\chi _\alpha +𝒫_\alpha ^+𝒫_\beta ^+|\chi _{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{}$$
(3.8)
$$|\mathrm{\Lambda }=|\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+𝒫_\alpha ^+|\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha +𝒫_\alpha ^+𝒫_\beta ^+|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{}$$
(3.9)
From the gauge transformation law (3.2) and the explicit form of the auxiliary representations of $`SO(3,2)`$ algebra (2) one can see that the field $`|\chi _0`$ transforms through parameters $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ as

$`\delta |\chi _0`$ $`=`$ $`(L^{11+}+b_1^+)|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}+(L^{12+}+b_2^+)|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{12}`$ (3.10)
$`+(L^{22+}+b_3^+)|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{22}+(T^++b_4^+b_2^+b_12b_3^+b_2)|\mathrm{\Lambda }_T.`$
As it was shown in  one can use this gauge freedom to gauge away all $`b_I^+`$ dependence in $`|\chi _0`$ and therefore

$$b_I|\chi _0=0$$
(3.11)
Let us note, that one is left with the residual gauge freedom in transformations of $`|\chi _0`$ with the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. However this parameter is irrelevant to the proof of $`b_I^+`$ independence of the vector $`|\chi _0`$.

As the second step we use the ideology of auxiliary BRST conditions . Namely since the equations of motion resulting from the lagrangian (3.1) have the form111Since the Kernel operator $`K`$ is nondegenerate one can multiply the equation $`KQ|\chi =0`$ on $`K^1`$ to obtain (3.12)

$$Q|\chi =0$$
(3.12)
one can also impose on $`|\chi `$ the auxiliary conditions

$$R_I|\chi =[M_I,Q]_\pm |\chi =QM_I|\chi =0$$
(3.13)
for some operators $`M_I`$. Such conditions do not affect the physical content of the theory since they remove the states with the zero norm. The choice of the operators $`M_I`$ is actually the choice of the BRST gauge.

Taking $`M_I=b_I`$, one obtains

$$(\eta _\alpha +A_\alpha (\eta _\alpha ^+,b))|\chi =0$$
(3.14)
where the operators $`A_\alpha `$ are written in the Appendix. Their explicit form leads to the following solution of equations (3.14)

$$|\chi =(1+𝒫_{11}^+A_{11})(1+𝒫_{12}^+A_{12})(1+𝒫_{22}^+A_{22})(1+𝒫_T^+A_T)|\chi _0,$$
(3.15)
and from (3.11) and (A1)–(A4) one obtains

$$|\chi =|\chi _0.$$
(3.16)
Until now we have proven that the all $`b_I^+`$ and $`𝒫_\alpha ^+`$ dependence in the vector $`|\chi `$ is the BRST gauge artifact. However one has to keep in mind the equations of motion resulting from the lagrangian (3.1) after the variation with respect to this “pure gauge” fields (see the Appendix).

Inserting the vector $`|\chi `$ of the form (3.16) into (3.1) and performing explicit calculation one obtains that the part $`|\chi `$ which contains $`\eta _\alpha ^+`$ dependence completely decouples from the lagrangian, therefore the state vector has effectively the form

$`|\chi `$ $`=`$ $`|S_0+\eta _1^+𝒫_1^+|S_1+\eta _2^+𝒫_2^+|S_2+\eta _1^+𝒫_2^+|S_3`$ (3.17)
$`+\eta _2^+𝒫_1^+|S_4+\eta _1^+\eta _2^+𝒫_1^+𝒫_2^+|S_5+\eta _0𝒫_1^+|R_1`$
$`+\eta _0𝒫_2^+|R_2+\eta _0\eta _1^+𝒫_1^+𝒫_2^+|R_3+\eta _0\eta _2^+𝒫_1^+𝒫_2^+|R_4`$
with vectors $`|S_i`$ and $`|R_i`$ having ghost number zero and depending only on bosonic creation operators $`a_\mu ^{i+}`$.

Finally using the residual gauge freedom with the parameter $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and equations of motion one can gauge away the field $`|S_3|S_4`$, express the other fields in terms of the single field $`|S_0`$ and put them into the lagrangian. The final expression for the lagrangian describing all massless irreducible representations of the Poincare group with the corresponding Young tableaux having two rows has the form

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`S_0|L^0L^{+1}L^1L^{+2}L^2L^{+1}L^{+1}L^{11}`$ (3.18)
$`L^{+1}L^{+2}L^{12}L^{+2}L^{+2}L^{22}2L^{+11}L^0L^{11}L^{+11}L^1L^1`$
$`L^{+12}L^0L^{12}L^{+12}L^1L^22L^{+22}L^0L^{22}L^{+22}L^2L^2`$
$`L^{+1}L^{+11}L^1L^{11}L^{+1}L^{+12}L^2L^{11}+L^{+1}L^{+22}L^1L^{22}`$
$`L^{+1}L^{+22}L^2L^{12}L^{+2}L^{+11}L^1L^{12}+L^{+2}L^{+11}L^2L^{11}`$
$`L^{+2}L^{+12}L^1L^{22}L^{+2}L^{+22}L^2L^{22}+L^{+1}L^{+1}L^{+22}L^{11}L^{22}`$
$`L^{+1}L^{+2}L^{+12}L^{11}L^{22}+L^{+2}L^{+2}L^{+11}L^{11}L^{22}+3L^{+11}L^{+22}L^0L^{11}L^{22}`$
$`+L^{+11}L^{+22}L^1L^1L^{22}L^{+11}L^{+22}L^1L^2L^{12}+L^{+11}L^{+22}L^2L^2L^{11}`$
$`+L^{+1}L^{+11}L^{+22}L^1L^{11}L^{22}+L^{+2}L^{+11}L^{+22}L^2L^{11}L^{22}|S_0`$
where the field $`|S_0`$ is constrained as

$$T|S_0=0$$
(3.19)
$`L^{11}L^{11}|S_0`$ $`=`$ $`L^{11}L^{12}|S_0=L^{22}L^{22}|S_0=L^{12}L^{22}|S_0`$
$`=(L^{12}L^{12}+2L^{11}L^{22})|S_0`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3.20)
From the algebra (2) one can conclude that the constraints given above are consistent with each other. Actually there are two independent constraints on the basic field, namely the constraint (3.19) and first of the constraints (3.20), the other ones can be considered as the consistency conditions for this system.

The lagrangian (3.18) is invariant under the transformations

$$\delta |S_0=L^{i+}|\lambda _ii=1,2.$$
(3.21)
parameters $`|\lambda _i`$ coming from $`𝒫_1^+|\lambda _1+𝒫_2^+|\lambda _2`$ term in $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ are constrained as

$$L^{kl}|\lambda _i=T|\lambda _2=0T|\lambda _1=|\lambda _2$$
(3.22)
The conditions (3.22) are necessary to maintain the gauge fixed form (3.17) (or equivalently the gauge invariance of constraints (3.19) –(3.20)) of the wavefunction $`|\chi `$ with respect the residual gauge transformations (3.2). Finally one arrives at the transformations with the single gauge parameter $`|\lambda =|\lambda _1`$

$$\delta |S_0=(L^{1+}+L^{2+}T)|\lambda $$
(3.23)
constrained as follows

$$L^{ij}|\lambda =T^2|\lambda =0$$
(3.24)
## 4 Examples

In this section we construct the explicit form of the lagrangians for some simple Young tableaux which correspond to lower orders in the expansion of the field $`|S_0`$.

* : $`|S_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu ,\nu }(x)a_\mu ^{1+}a_\nu ^{2+}|0`$
The equation (3.19) means antisymmetry of the field: $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu ,\nu }(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu ,\mu }(x)`$. The lagrangian (3.18) for this antisymmetric field (the notoph in four dimensions )

$$L=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu ,\nu }_\rho ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu ,\nu }+2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu ,\nu }_\mu _\rho \mathrm{\Phi }_{\rho ,\nu }$$
(4.1)
in terms of the field strength $`F_{\mu \nu \rho }=_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu ,\rho }+_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\rho ,\mu }+_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu ,\nu }`$ has the standard form

$$L=\frac{1}{3}F_{\mu \nu \rho }^2$$
(4.2)
and is invariant under the well known gauge transformations

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu ,\nu }(x)=_\mu \lambda _\nu (x)_\nu \lambda _\mu (x).$$
(4.3)
* : $`|S_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }(x)a_\mu ^{1+}a_\nu ^{1+}a_\rho ^{2+}|0`$
The symmetry with respect to the first two indices $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu \mu ,\rho }`$ which is guaranteed by the construction and the condition (3.19) lead to the following property of the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\rho \nu ,\mu }+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \rho ,\nu }=0.$$
(4.4)
Taking all this into account the lagrangian (3.18) for the third rank tensor field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }`$ corresponding to the considered Young tableaux can be written in the form

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }_\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }3\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \mu ,\rho }_\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu \nu ,\rho }4\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }_\mu _\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_{\sigma \nu ,\rho }2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }_\rho _\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\sigma }`$ (4.5)
$`+6\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\sigma \sigma ,\rho }+3\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \mu ,\rho }_\rho _\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu \nu ,\sigma },`$
and is invariant under the following gauge transformations

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }(x)=_\mu \lambda _{\nu ,\rho }(x)+_\nu \lambda _{\mu ,\rho }(x)_\rho \lambda _{\mu ,\nu }(x)_\rho \lambda _{\nu ,\mu }(x),$$
(4.6)
the gauge transformation parameter being traceless $`\lambda _{\mu ,\mu }=0`$.
* : $`|S_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }(x)a_\mu ^{1+}a_\nu ^{1+}a_\rho ^{2+}a_\sigma ^{2+}|0`$
The field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }`$ is symmetrical with respect to the permutations of the indices $`(\mu ,\nu )`$ and $`(\rho ,\sigma )`$ by the construction and obeys the relations

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\rho \nu ,\mu \sigma }+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \rho ,\nu \sigma }=0$$
(4.7)
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \mu ,\rho \rho }=2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \rho ,\mu \rho }$$
(4.8)
which is the only nontrivial among the constraints (3.19) as a consequence of (4.7). Moreover, according to (2.18) it is also symmetrical under the permutation of pairs of indices

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\rho \sigma ,\mu \nu }.$$
(4.9)
The lagrangian for this field has the form

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \tau }_\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \tau }+12\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \rho }_\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\tau \tau }3\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \mu ,\nu \nu }_\rho ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\sigma \sigma ,\tau \tau }`$ (4.10)
$`+16\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }_\mu _\tau \mathrm{\Phi }_{\tau \nu ,\rho \sigma }24\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\tau \tau ,\rho \sigma }`$
$`24\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \rho }_\mu _\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_{\sigma \nu ,\tau \tau }+12\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \rho }_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\sigma \sigma ,\tau \tau }`$
and is invariant under the transformations

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,ab}(x)=_\mu \lambda _{\nu ,ab}(x)2_a\lambda _{\mu ,\nu b}(x)$$
(4.11)
where the symmetrization over couples of Greek and Latin indices is assumed. The parameter of the gauge transformations $`\lambda _{\mu ,\nu \rho }`$ is symmetrical with respect to the indices $`\nu `$ and $`\rho `$ and obeys the constraints (3.24)

$$\lambda _{\mu ,\mu \nu }=\lambda _{\mu ,\nu \nu }=0,$$
(4.12)
$$\lambda _{\mu ,\nu \rho }+\lambda _{\nu ,\rho \mu }+\lambda _{\rho ,\mu \nu }=0$$
(4.13)
and, therefore it is described by the Young tableaux of type .

Although the symmetry properties of the tensor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }`$ do not coincide with those for Weyl tensor $`C_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }`$

$$C_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }=C_{\nu \mu ,\rho \sigma }=C_{\mu \nu ,\sigma \rho },C_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }=C_{\rho \sigma ,\mu \nu },$$
(4.14)
they can be related to each other with the help of the following transformations

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \sigma }+C_{\mu \sigma ,\nu \rho })`$ (4.15)
$`C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\rho \nu ,\mu \sigma }).`$ (4.16)
Strictly speaking $`C_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }`$ is not a Weyl tensor because its traces do not vanish. However, one can obtain from (4.10) the following lagrangian

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \tau }_\sigma ^2C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \tau }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{\mu \tau ,\nu \rho }_\sigma ^2C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \tau }+3C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \rho }_\sigma ^2C_{\mu \tau ,\nu \tau }`$ (4.17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}C_{\mu \nu ,\mu \nu }_\sigma ^2C_{\rho \tau ,\rho \tau }+2C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \sigma }_\mu _\tau C_{\tau \rho ,\nu \sigma }+2C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \sigma }_\mu _\tau C_{\tau \sigma ,\nu \rho }`$
$`6C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \sigma }_\mu _\nu C_{\tau \rho ,\tau \sigma }6C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \rho }_\mu _\sigma C_{\sigma \tau ,\nu \tau }+3C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \rho }_\mu _\nu C_{\sigma \tau ,\sigma \tau }`$
from which the vanishing of all traces of this tensor on mass shell follows. Therefore one can conclude that the lagrangian (4.17) consistently describes the free field theory of the Weyl tensor.

## 5 Conclusions

In the present paper we have explicitly constructed the lagrangians describing massless irreducible representations of the Poincare group of the form (2.1). As it was mentioned in the introduction and is clear from the calculations above the approach used for this construction can be directly applied for the lagrangian description of an arbitrary representation of the Poincare group as well.

It seems to be interesting to generalize this technique also for the description of the interaction of higher spin fields with some gravitational background. This will obviously lead to the modification of the system of constraints present in the BRST charge. The problem of constructing of the nilpotent BRST charge for this kinds of physical systems can in turn reveal an allowed types of gravitational backgrounds where the higher spin fields can propagate consistently.

Acknowledgments This investigation has been supported by the grant of the Committee for collaboration between Czech Republic and JINR. The work of Č.B. was supported by the grant of the Ministry of Education of Czech Republic VZ/400/00/18. The work of A.P. and M.T. was supported in part by the Russian Foundation of Basic Research, grant 99-02-18417 and the joint grant RFBR-DFG 99-02-04022.

Appendix

In this Appendix we present some formulae implicitly used in the main body of the paper.

The explicit form of the operators $`A_\alpha (\eta _\alpha ^+,b)`$ in (3.14) shows that they indeed depend only on the operators $`\eta _\alpha ^+`$ and $`b_I`$ – the property crucial for the establishing of the relation (3.16) :

$`A_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta _T^+b_22\eta _T^+b_1b_4\eta _{11}^+b_1b_1+\eta _{22}^+b_2b_2+2\eta _{12}^+b_1b_1b_4`$ (A1)
$`+2\eta _{22}^+b_1b_2b_4,`$
$`A_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _T^+b_3\eta _{11}^+b_1b_2\eta _{12}^+b_2b_2+\eta _T^+b_1b_4b_4\eta _{12}^+b_1b_1b_4b_4`$ (A2)
$`\eta _{22}^+b_1b_2b_4b_4,`$
$`A_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta _T^+b_3b_4\eta _{11}^+b_2b_22\eta _{12}^+b_2b_3\eta _{22}^+b_3b_3+2\eta _T^+b_2b_4b_4`$ (A3)
$`2\eta _{12}^+b_1b_3b_42\eta _{22}^+b_2b_3b_42\eta _{12}^+b_1b_2b_4b_42\eta _{22}^+b_2b_2b_4b_4,`$
$`A_T`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{11}^+b_2\eta _{12}^+b_3+\eta _T^+b_4b_4\eta _{12}^+b_1b_4b_4\eta _{22}^+b_2b_4b_4.`$ (A4)
The lagrangian (3.1) after using the explicit expression of the state vector (3.17) and of the BRST charge (2.26) takes the form

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`R_1||R_1+R_2||R_2R_3||R_3R_4||R_4R_1|L^1|S_0`$ (A5)
$`+R_1|L^{+1}|S_1+R_1|L^{+2}|S_3R_2|L^2|S_0+R_2|L^{+1}|S_4`$
$`+R_2|L^{+2}|S_2R_3|L^1|S_4+R_3|L^2|S_1+R_3|L^{+2}|S_5`$
$`R_4|L^1|S_2+R_4|L^2|S_3R_4|L^{+1}|S_5+S_0|L^0|S_0`$
$`S_0|L^{+1}|R_1S_0|L^{+2}|R_2S_1|L^0|S_1+S_1|L^1|R_1`$
$`+S_1|L^{+2}|R_3S_2|L^0|S_2+S_2|L^2|R_2S_2|L^{+1}|R_4`$
$`S_3|L^0|S_4+S_3|L^2|R_1+S_3|L^{+2}|R_4S_4|L^0|S_3`$
$`+S_4|L^1|R_2S_4|L^{+1}|R_3+S_5|L^0|S_5`$
$`S_5|L^1|R_4+S_5|L^2|R_3.`$
The equations of motion resulting from the lagrangian (A5) are

$`S0:`$ $`L^{+1}|R_1+L^{+2}|R_2L^0|S_0=0,`$
$`S1:`$ $`L^1|R_1+L^{+2}|R_3L^0|S_1=0,`$
$`S2:`$ $`L^2|R_2L^{+1}|R_4L^0|S_2=0,`$
$`S3:`$ $`L^2|R_1+L^{+2}|R_4L^0|S_4=0,`$
$`S4:`$ $`L^1|R_2L^{+1}|R_3L^0|S_3=0,`$
$`S5:`$ $`L^2|R_3L^1|R_4+L^0|S_5=0,`$
$`R1:`$ $`|R_1L^1|S_0+L^{+1}|S_1+L^{+2}|S_3=0,`$
$`R2:`$ $`|R_2L^2|S_0+L^{+2}|S_2+L^{+1}|S_4=0,`$
$`R3:`$ $`|R_3L^2|S_1+L^1|S_4L^{+2}|S_5=0,`$
$`R4:`$ $`|R_4+L^1|S_2L^2|S_3+L^{+1}|S_5=0,`$ (A6)
while the equations of motion obtained from the variation of the initial lagrangian (3.1) with respect to other fields in the expansion (3.8) which couple to the $`|\chi _0`$ look as follows

| $`T|S_0=0,`$ | $`T|R_1|R_2=0,`$ | $`T|R_2=0,`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`T|S_1|S_3|S_4=0,`$ | $`|S_2T|S_3=0,`$ | $`L^{11}|S_1=0,`$ |
| $`L^{11}|S_3=0,`$ | $`L^{12}|S_3+|S_5=0,`$ | $`L^{12}|S_1=0,`$ |
| $`L^{22}|S_1|S_5=0,`$ | $`|S_2T|S_4=0,`$ | $`L^{22}|S_3=0,`$ |
| $`T|S_2=0,`$ | $`L^{11}|S_2|S_5=0,`$ | $`L^{11}|S_4=0,`$ |
| $`L^{12}|S_4+|S_5=0,`$ | $`L^{12}|S_2=0,`$ | $`L^{22}|S_4=0,`$ |
| $`L^{22}|S_2=0,`$ | $`L^{11}|R_2+|R_3=0,`$ | $`L^{11}|R_1=0,`$ |
| $`L^{12}|R_1|R_3=0,`$ | $`L^{12}|R_2+|R_4=0,`$ | $`L^{22}|R_2=0,`$ |
| $`L^{22}|R_1|R_4=0,`$ | $`T|R_3|R_4=0,`$ | $`T|S_5=0,`$ |
| $`L^{11}|S_5=0,`$ | $`L^{12}|S_5=0,`$ | $`L^{22}|S_5=0,`$ |
| $`L^{11}|R_3=0,`$ | $`L^{12}|R_3=0,`$ | $`L^{22}|R_3=0,`$ |
| $`T|R_4=0,`$ | $`L^{11}|R_4=0,`$ | $`L^{12}|R_4=0,`$ |
| $`L^{12}|S_0+|S_3+|S_4=0,`$ | $`L^{22}|R_4=0.`$ |  |

(A7)
Due to this large but nevertheless, consistent system of equations all auxiliary fields entering in the expansion of the state vector (3.17) are expressed via the basic field $`|S_0`$

$`|S_1`$ $`=`$ $`L^{11}|S_0,|S_2=L^{22}|S_0,|S_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L^{12}|S_0,`$ (A8)
$`|S_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L^{12}|S_0,|S_5=L^{11}L^{22}|S_0,`$
$`|R_4=(L^1L^{22}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L^2L^{12}+L^{+1}L^{11}L^{22})|S_0,`$
$`|R_3=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L^1L^{12}L^2L^{11}L^{+2}L^{11}L^{22})|S_0,`$
$`|R_2=(L^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L^{+1}L^{12}+L^{+2}L^{22})|S_0,`$
$`|R_1=(L^1+L^{+1}L^{11}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L^{+2}L^{12})|S_0.`$


text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

QCD in one space and one time dimension with large numbers of flavours $`N_F`$ and colours $`N_C`$ has repeatedly attracted attention -, for various reasons. For one, the success of the $`1/N_C`$ expansion provokes the question as to which of its aspects are modified if also the number of flavours $`N_F`$ is taken to be large; after all, while one may arguably regard $`1/N_C`$ as a small number in the real world, this is much harder to justify for $`N_F/N_C`$. Compared with the one flavour, many colour case , which is exactly solvable for $`N_C\mathrm{}`$ and yields a Regge trajectory of mesons consisting strictly of two partons, the many flavour model is considerably more complex. The suppression of quark-antiquark pair creation engendered by the large $`N_C`$ limit  is offset by the increasing number of vacuum polarisation options as $`N_F`$ becomes large. In this way, a nontrivial limit of $`N_C\mathrm{}`$ at constant $`N_F/N_C`$ emerges which allows for a much wealthier spectrum than the one-flavour limit. While quark exchange interactions between different flavour singlet excitations are still suppressed , pair creation and annihilation effects within flavour singlets lead to these particles becoming complicated mixtures of states of different parton number. They resemble chains whose links are characterized by the quark and the antiquark at either end of the link being, alternatingly, either coupled to a colour or a flavour singlet. In this respect, there is a correspondence to QCD1+1 with one flavour, but adjoint colour quarks; also in the latter model, extended chain structures form due to each quark possessing two fundamental colour indices which need to be saturated. This not only shows up in large $`N_C`$ studies -, but also in the thermodynamical behaviour at $`N_C=2`$, cf. . The correspondence between the multiflavour, fundamental colour models and the one-flavour adjoint colour models can in fact be put on a formally exact footing for $`N_F=N_C\mathrm{}`$, where the massive spectra in the massless quark case can be shown to coincide .

Not least due to this correspondence, there have been repeated numerical studies of QCD1+1 at large $`N_F`$ and $`N_C`$; these include ones using quark degrees of freedom  as well as more recent and elaborate ones within the bosonization framework . However, all these investigations use more or less uncontrolled truncations of the theory. The purpose of the present note is to assess the severity of these truncations by comparing with results obtained in a particular regime which is under good numerical control, namely the regime of small $`N_F/N_C`$. More specifically, the leading behaviour, proportional to $`N_F/N_C`$, departing from the ’t Hooft meson spectrum  at $`N_F/N_C=0`$ is obtained using a simple perturbative calculation. Some agreement, but also significant discrepancies are found as compared with the aforementioned studies, even the more recent ones. This indicates that, at this stage, these treatments are not yet as reliable numerically as one might hope for. The results reported here should provide valuable benchmarks for future more elaborate studies of QCD1+1 in the limit of large $`N_F`$ and $`N_C`$.

## II Fock space and perturbation theory

The following treatment will concentrate on the case of zero quark mass matrix, which maximally allows for the pair creation and annihilation effects highlighted further above. Light-cone coordinates are used and, moreover, only the sector of overall flavour singlet states will be considered. In view of colour confinement, physical states will be composed out of (colour singlet) ’t Hooft mesons , which are created by the quark bilinear operators

$$M_{Qnab}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_C}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{Q}}_0^Q𝑑p\varphi _n(p/Q)\underset{i}{}q_{ai}^{}(p)q_{bi}(pQ)$$
(1)
where $`Q`$ denotes the light-cone momentum of the meson, $`n`$ its excitation number, $`i`$ is the colour index, and $`a,b`$ the flavour indices. The wave functions $`\varphi _n`$ satisfy ’t Hooft’s eigenvalue equationNote that the coupling constant $`g^2`$ used here and in  differs from the one used in  and  by a factor 2.

$$\left(\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{1x}\right)\varphi _n(x)_0^1\frac{dy}{(xy)^2}\varphi _n(y)=\frac{2\pi }{g^2N_C}\mu _n^2\varphi _n(x),x[0,1]$$
(2)
and form an orthonormal complete set of functions on the interval $`[0,1]`$ with the boundary conditions $`\varphi ^{}(0)=\varphi ^{}(1)=0`$; the eigenvalues $`\mu _n^2`$ represent the invariant square masses of the mesons. The singularity in the Coulomb propagator in (2) is defined as usual via the principal value prescriptionFor a dynamical regularization of the Coulomb propagator via gauge field zero modes, cf. .. By using the properties of quark operators acting on the vacuum, which is the perturbative one in light-cone quantization,

$`q_{ai}^{}(p)|0`$ for $`p<0`$ (3)
$`q_{ai}(p)|0`$ for $`p>0`$ (4)
one can convince oneself that the flavour singlet one-meson states

$$|2K,n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_F}}\underset{a}{}M_{(2K)naa}^{}|0$$
(5)
are normalized as

$$2K^{},n^{}|2K,n=\delta (2K2K^{})\delta _{nn^{}}$$
(6)
Likewise, one can define flavour singlet two-meson states§§§Note that the normalization of these states differs from the one in  by a factor $`1/\sqrt{2}`$. There, this factor was instead absorbed into the relative momentum wave function of the two mesons. It arises when classifying states according to total and relative momenta as opposed to the individual momenta of the mesons., where one has two options of coupling the flavours:

$`|K+Q/2,m;KQ/2,n_{SS}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}N_F}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}M_{(K+Q/2)maa}^{}M_{(KQ/2)nbb}^{}|0`$ (7)
$`|K+Q/2,m;KQ/2,n_{NN}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}N_F}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}M_{(K+Q/2)mab}^{}M_{(KQ/2)nba}^{}|0`$ (8)
Either both of the mesons are flavour singlets by themselves (7), or two flavour non-singlets are coupled to an overall singlet (8). Furthermore, to avoid double-counting of states, a definite ordering of the meson momenta in the states will be adopted, namely $`Q0`$. This means that for $`mn`$, one must distinguish between the states (7),(8) and the corresponding states with $`m`$ and $`n`$ exchanged. The singlet-singlet states (7) completely decouple from other states of lower or equal parton number in the large $`N_C`$ limit , and need not be considered further here. The states (8) of overall momentum $`2K`$ are normalized as

$$K^{}+Q^{}/2,m^{};K^{}Q^{}/2,n^{}|K+Q/2,m;KQ/2,n=\delta (2K2K^{})\delta (QQ^{})\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{nn^{}}$$
(9)
where the subscript $`NN`$ on the states is dropped here and in the following. The light-cone Hamiltonian of QCD1+1 in the light-cone gauge reads

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{N_C^21}{N_C}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}}:q_{ai}^{}(k)q_{ai}(k):`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b,i,j}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{q^2}}dkdk^{}(:q_{ai}^{}(k)q_{bi}(k^{}+q)q_{bj}^{}(k^{})q_{aj}(kq):`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_C}}:q_{ai}^{}(k)q_{ai}(kq)q_{bj}^{}(k^{})q_{bj}(k^{}+q):)`$
It has been normal-ordered with respect to the perturbative vacuum. In the ’t Hooft limit $`N_C\mathrm{}`$, $`N_F/N_C0`$, the meson states defined further above become eigenstates of the Hamiltonian,

$`H|2K,n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n^2}{4K}}|2K,n`$ (13)
$`H|K+Q/2,m;KQ/2,n`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _m^2}{2K+Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n^2}{2KQ}}\right)|K+Q/2,m;KQ/2,n`$ (14)
When $`N_F/N_C`$ remains finite as $`N_C\mathrm{}`$, the only non-vanishing matrix elements involving one-meson states are

$`2K^{},n^{}|H|2K,n`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (2K2K^{})\delta _{nn^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n^2}{4K}}`$ (15)
$`2K^{},n^{}|H|K+Q/2,m;KQ/2,n`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N_F}{N_C}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N_C}{16\pi K^{3/2}}}(1(1)^{m+n+n^{}})f_{mnn^{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{K+Q/2}{2K}}\right)\delta (2K2K^{})`$ (16)
with the form factorIn numerical evaluations of the form factor, the behaviour around the integration point $`(x,y)=(v,0)`$, at which the integrand superficially becomes singular, can be cast into a manifestly nonsingular form by using radial coordinates around this point.

$$f_{mnn^{}}(v)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{v(1v)}}_0^v𝑑x_0^{1v}𝑑y\varphi _m(x/v)\varphi _n(y/(1v))\frac{\varphi _n^{}(x)\varphi _n^{}(v+y)}{(v+yx)^2}$$
(17)
With these expressions, it is now straightforward to derive the leading perturbative corrections, of order $`N_F/N_C`$, to the masses of the ’t Hooft mesons. The perturbed eigenvalues $`E(2K,n)`$ of the Hamiltonian are given by

$`E(2K,n)2K^{},n|2K,n=`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n^2}{4K}}2K^{},n|2K,n`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d(2\overline{K}){\displaystyle _0^{2\overline{K}}}𝑑Q{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{m},\overline{n}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2K^{},n|H|\overline{K}+Q/2,\overline{m};\overline{K}Q/2,\overline{n}\overline{K}+Q/2,\overline{m};\overline{K}Q/2,\overline{n}|H|2K,n}{\mu _n^2/4K\mu _{\overline{m}}^2/(2\overline{K}+Q)\mu _{\overline{n}}^2/(2\overline{K}Q)}}`$ (19)
cf. (14). This expression deserves some comment for meson excitation number $`n=2`$ and higher, since these states already lie above production thresholds for two-meson states containing massive mesons of lower $`n`$ (the zeroth ’t Hooft meson is massless). Therefore, degenerate perturbation theory is called for. In this respect, the cases $`n=2`$ through $`n=4`$ are distinct from $`n5`$:

The ’t Hooft mesons of excitation number $`n=2`$ through $`n=4`$ lie in a continuum of two-meson states with the special property that one of the mesons in these states always carries excitation number zero, i.e. either $`\overline{m}=0`$ or $`\overline{n}=0`$ in (18). Now, the form factor (17) satisfies the relations

$$f_{m0n}\left(\frac{\mu _m^2}{\mu _n^2}\right)=f_{0mn}\left(1\frac{\mu _m^2}{\mu _n^2}\right)=0$$
(20)
shown in the Appendix. Because of this, zeroes of the energy denominator in (18) are cancelled by zeroes of the coupling matrix elements; i.e., the perturbed Hamiltonian is already diagonal in the subspace of states (quasi-)degenerate with the ’t Hooft mesons in question. Therefore, these mesons represent legitimate unperturbed states of degenerate perturbation theory and (18) remains consistent.

By contrast, mesons of excitation number $`n5`$ are degenerate with two-meson states in which both mesons carry nonzero excitation number. In this case, (18) develops poles (this was verified numerically), and becomes inconsistent as it stands. Instead, the single-meson states in question must be mixed with (quasi-)degenerate higher parton number states already at the unperturbed level, such as to rediagonalize the Hamiltonian in this subspace. This more complex case will not be considered further here; (18) was only evaluated numerically for the ’t Hooft mesons $`n=1`$ through $`n=4`$, which in view of the above discussion represent legitimate unperturbed eigenstates even in the presence of degeneracies with the two-meson continuum.

Inserting (16) into (18), one can cast the invariant square masses in terms of the dimensionless quantities $`e_0(n)`$ and $`e_1(n)`$,

$$4K\frac{2\pi }{g^2N_C}E(2K,n)=e_0(n)+\frac{N_F}{N_C}e_1(n)$$
(21)
with

$`e_0(n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g^2N_C}}\mu _n^2`$ (22)
$`e_1(n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{m},\overline{n}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{(1(1)^{\overline{m}+\overline{n}+n})^2}{e_0(n)2e_0(\overline{m})/(1+x)2e_0(\overline{n})/(1x)}}\left(f_{\overline{m}\overline{n}n}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+x}{2}}\right)\right)^2`$ (23)
The following table summarizes the results of the numerical evaluation of $`e_0(n)`$ and $`e_1(n)`$ for the ’t Hooft mesons with excitation number $`n=1`$ through $`n=4`$.

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ n& 1& 2& 3& 4\\ & & & & \\ & & & & \\ e_0(n)& 5.88& 14.14& 23.08& 32.30\\ & & & & \\ e_1(n)& 5.1& 12.0& 30.5& 9.1\end{array}`$

In the evaluation, the sums over $`\overline{m},\overline{n}`$ were truncated at $`\overline{m}=10`$, $`\overline{n}=10`$; at this level of approximation, neglected terms are suppressed compared with the sums obtained by a factor $`10^4`$ (in the case of $`n=4`$, by a factor $`410^4`$). Furthermore, since all neglected terms are negative, the values given for $`e_1(n)`$ represent rigorous upper bounds for the exact values.

The results given in in the above table can be compared to results of previous truncated numerical studies of the model. Starting with the first massive state, the studies  and  agree on a slope $`e_1(1)=5`$ as $`N_F/N_C`$ is increased from zero, which is confirmed by the result $`e_1(1)=5.1`$ obtained here. In , this state was discarded as uninteresting for the (not very compelling) reason that it exhibited a positive expectation value of the potential energy.

Considering further excited states, however, the spectrum displayed in  suggests that masses systematically rise as $`N_F/N_C`$ is increased from zeroNote that  gives results only for the sector of states which become ’t Hooft mesons of odd excitation number in the limit $`N_F/N_C=0`$.; indeed, it has been speculated  that $`N_F/N_C`$ essentially acts as a mass in the model. This is in qualitative disagreement with the result obtained above, where in particular the trajectory associated with the third ’t Hooft meson decreases very strongly\**\**\**In this respect, the results of  display at least qualitatively correct behaviour.. This disagreement is not entirely surprising in view of the delicate cancellation observed in connection with (18) for mesons with excitation number $`n=2`$ and higher, which are embedded in a continuous spectrum of two-meson states. Already slight truncations in the numerical treatment will destroy this cancellation and will thus lead to a remixing of ’t Hooft’s mesons with the two-meson continuum already at the unperturbed level, such that results at the next order, i.e. $`N_F/N_C`$, become completely unreliable. This is certainly what happened in , and in view of the strong discrepancy between the result arrived at in the present work and the behaviour displayed in , it evidently also takes place there. Indeed, the state $`n=3`$ already is claimed to be a strong mixture of different parton number states in .

On a more speculative level, the systematic rise of the spectral trajectories in the bosonization treatments , may also be tied to the behaviour found in these studies at large $`N_F/N_C`$, where only invariant square masses of the order of $`g^2N_F`$ are detected. It is tempting to conjecture that a rich spectrum at the lower scale $`g^2N_C`$ is thus entirely discarded; such a spectrum would seem to arise naturally in a perturbative treatment similar in spirit to the one presented above††††††A first, albeit strongly truncated, glimpse of a spectrum at the scale $`g^2N_C`$ was seen in .. At large $`N_F/N_C`$, it is initially indeed natural to measure energies in units of $`g^2N_F`$; consider e.g. recasting (15) and (16) in units of $`g^2N_F`$ instead of $`g^2N_C`$. Then, formally, (15) is of the order $`N_C/N_F`$ and (16) is of the order $`\sqrt{N_C/N_F}`$, whereas the coupling of two-meson states to two-meson states (given explicitly e.g. in ) is of order one‡‡‡‡‡‡Note that no higher orders arise because acting with the Hamiltonian on a multi-meson state only modifies up to two mesons in that state.. Thus, in the large $`N_F/N_C`$ limit, one would regard the latter as the unperturbed Hamiltonian and treat (15) and (16) as perturbations in $`N_C/N_F`$. Therefore, the unperturbed problem initially yields a spectrum of energies proportional to $`g^2N_F`$, as indeed happens in the bosonization approach -. However, this is only half the story; it should be realized that in this scheme there is a rich spectrum of (unperturbed) massless states. Among them are e.g. all of ’t Hooft’s mesons. Now, even if one is only interested in the massive spectrum of the model, one should not prematurely discard these zero energy states\**\**\**Note that the treatment of the large $`N_F`$ limit in  invokes a saddle-point argument based on the magnitude of $`N_F`$; great care must be exercised in justifying such an argument in the presence of (quasi-) zero modes., since their masses presumably are not protected against corrections once one includes the perturbations in $`N_C/N_F`$. Already at the next order, i.e. $`g^2N_FN_C/N_F`$, single meson states acquire corrections from two sources: First order perturbation theory in (15), yielding precisely ’t Hooft’s masses, and second order perturbation theory in (16), coupling to the two-meson states\*†\*†\*†Of course, additional care must be taken if massless unperturbed two-meson states occur in this scheme.. Thus, in the limit $`N_F/N_C\mathrm{}`$, there is a sound basis for the conjecture that a well-defined spectrum of invariant square masses of the order of $`g^2N_C`$ emerges.

In summary, it seems that more work is needed before a coherent picture of QCD1+1 with a large number of colours and flavours can be presented; the truncation schemes hitherto applied leave room for error even on a qualitative level. The results presented here for the first time provide stringent numerical control over the behaviour of the spectrum departing from the ’t Hooft limit $`N_F/N_C=0`$, albeit in a very limited range of the parameter $`N_F/N_C`$, and only for the low-lying ’t Hooft mesons of excitation number $`n=1`$ through $`n=4`$. These results may provide useful benchmarks for future improved studies of the model.

## Appendix

Consider the form factor $`f_{m0n}(v)`$, cf. eq. (17). Inserting the special form of the zeroth ’t Hooft meson wave function, $`\varphi _0(x)=1`$, this form factor satisfies

$`\sqrt{v(1v)}f_{m0n}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^v}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{1v}}𝑑y\varphi _m(x/v){\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _n(x)\varphi _n(v+y)}{(v+yx)^2}}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^v}𝑑x\varphi _m(x/v)\varphi _n(x){\displaystyle _0^{1v}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(v+yx)^2}}`$ (26)
$`v{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle _v^{1v}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _m(z)\varphi _n(v+y)}{(v+yvz)^2}}+v{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle _v^0}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _m(z)\varphi _n(v+y)}{(v+yvz)^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^v}𝑑x\varphi _m(x/v)\varphi _n(x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{vx}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1x}}\right)`$ (28)
$`v{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _m(z)\varphi _n(y)}{(yvz)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle _0^v}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _m(z)\varphi _n(y)}{(y/vz)^2}}`$
Using ’t Hooft’s equation (2) to carry out the $`y`$-integral in the first term in (28) and, likewise, the $`z`$-integral in the second term in (28), one arrives at

$`\sqrt{v(1v)}f_{m0n}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`v{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z\varphi _m(z)\varphi _n(vz)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{vvz}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1vz}}\right)`$ (31)
$`v{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z\varphi _m(z)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{vz}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1vz}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g^2N_C}}\mu _n^2\right)\varphi _n(vz)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}{\displaystyle _0^v}𝑑y\varphi _n(y)\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1y/v}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g^2N_C}}\mu _m^2\right)\varphi _m(y/v)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z\varphi _m(z)\varphi _n(vz)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1z}}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{1vz}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v}{1vz}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g^2N_C}}v\mu _n^2\right)`$ (33)
$`+{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z\varphi _n(vz)\varphi _m(z)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1z}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g^2N_C}}\mu _m^2\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{g^2N_C}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z\varphi _m(z)\varphi _n(vz)(v\mu _n^2\mu _m^2)`$ (34)
At the particular value $`v=\mu _m^2/\mu _n^2`$, the form factor $`f_{m0n}(v)`$ thus exhibits a zero. The case of $`f_{0mn}(1\mu _m^2/\mu _n^2)`$ can be treated in complete analogy.