text:
# Gravitomagnetic Clock Effects in Black Hole Spacetimes

## Preface

One of us (R.J.) knew Ruggiero through our mutual friend Giovanni Platania for several decades and was happy that finally, with a collaborator (D.B.) relocated to Napoli, it appeared that we could begin to interact more directly both socially and professionally. Indeed we all had a wonderful dinner together in the summer of 2000. This potential was cut short prematurely, saddening both of us tremendously. In our many years of crossing paths, Ruggiero was always such a gentleman, with obvious class, and had a good sense of optimism and humor and a special Neopolitan way of looking at the world that we will never forget. He continues to live on in our hearts and memories with special affection.

## 1 Introduction

Recently, various clock effects in stationary axially symmetric spacetimes have renewed interest in better understanding them and possibly eventually measuring some of them. It is precisely the presence of a rotating source of the gravitational field that leads to these effects, first in black hole spacetimes which have the most interest as the exterior fields of physically interesting time independent axially symmetric sources, and secondarily in other members of the larger symmetry class to which they belong, including the Gödel and van Stockum spacetimes, which provide alternative examples of what can happen in theory. Rotating sources thus mean nontrivial gravitomagnetism; the Sagnac effect, synchronization gaps, and other clock comparison effects all fall (or should fall) under this umbrella topic referred to as “gravitomagnetic clock effects.” In fact, one can study them all in parallel and their relationships using a general approach set in the context of stationary axisymmetry.

It is important to consider the observers who are associated with each of these effects, since most of the effects are observer-dependent. Gravitoelectromagnetism is basically a long word for a way of describing spacetimes in terms of families of test observers, and so it appropriate to use its related tools in approaching the present questions. Each such family measures spacetime quantities relative to its own local space and time directions, thus performing a “relative observer analysis.” The quotient of the spacetime by the family of world lines of the observer family is useful for considering and making sense of the “closed circular loops” that we normally think of when visualizing these effects. In fact for stationary circular world lines, it is really only the geometry of the intrinsically flat timelike cylinder containing them which is relevant, where the observer splittings are easy to picture and the local splitting of each tangent space extends to the whole cylinder by the symmetry, with global complications which are at the heart of the various clock effects.

One must distinguish three distinct gravitomagnetic clock effects for a pair of oppositely rotating circular geodesic test particles (oppositely rotating with respect to an intermediate observer) (see  and references therein):

1. the observer-dependent single-clock clock effect: the difference between the periods of the oppositely rotating geodesic test particles as measured by the observer’s clock ,
2. the observer-dependent two-clock clock effect: the difference between the periods of the oppositely rotating geodesic test particles as measured by their own clocks for one revolution with respect to an observer , and
3. the observer-independent two-clock clock effect: the difference between the periods of the oppositely rotating geodesic test particles as measured by their own clocks between two crossing events .

In the first two cases, for a given observer, one compares the periods of one revolution of these orbits (starting from and returning to the same observer world line) measured either by the observer’s own clock (single-clock effect) or by the clocks carried along the two orbits (two-clock effect). In the third case, no observer enters the calculation.

The Sagnac effect is similar but with a pair of oppositely rotating accelerated photons replacing the geodesic test particle pair. The observer-dependent single-clock effect in this new context is the Sagnac effect. The desynchronization effect is similar but with accelerated spacelike curves (orthogonal to the observer family) replacing the null curves of the Sagnac effect. This observer-dependent single-clock effect, divided by 2, is the synchronization gap which measures the failure to synchronize the observer family proper times around a single loop.

Here we draw some connections between the various clock effects, the Sagnac and desynchronization effects, and the usual symmetry adapted coordinates in black hole spacetimes, while extending some previous work.

## 2 Metric splitting, observer-adapted frames, <br>lapse/shift notation

An orthogonally transitive stationary axially symmetric line element is usually written in the Boyer-Lindquist-like coordinates $`\{t,r,\theta ,\varphi \}`$ adapted to the timelike Killing observers:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`ds_{(t,\varphi )}^2+ds_{(r,\theta )}^2,`$ (1)
where

$`ds_{(t,\varphi )}^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{tt}dt^2+2g_{t\varphi }dtd\varphi +g_{\varphi \varphi }d\varphi ^2,`$
$`ds_{(r,\theta )}^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{rr}dr^2+g_{\theta \theta }d\theta ^2;`$ (2)
Decomposing the $`t,\varphi `$ 2-metric into perfect square form defines the lapse ($`M`$), shift ($`M_\varphi `$) and spatial metric quantity ($`\gamma _{\varphi \varphi }`$) in the so-called threading point of view of the Killing observers

$$ds_{(r,\theta )}^2=M^2(dtM_\varphi d\varphi )^2+\gamma _{\varphi \varphi }d\varphi ^2.$$
(3)
The 4-velocities of circularly rotating timelike orbits/observers (i.e. at fixed $`r`$ and $`\theta `$) form a 1-parameter family most simply parametrized by their coordinate “angular velocity” $`\zeta `$

$$U=\mathrm{\Gamma }(_t+\zeta _\varphi ),$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=dt/d\tau _U>0`$ is a normalization factor defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{[g_{tt}+2\zeta g_{t\varphi }+\zeta ^2g_{\varphi \varphi }]\}^{1/2}.$$
(5)
In order for $`U`$ to be timelike, $`\zeta `$ must belong to the interval $`(\zeta _{},\zeta _+)`$ between the roots of the quadratic equation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=0`$ in $`\zeta `$ corresponding to the two null directions, namely

$`\zeta _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`[g_{t\varphi }\pm (g_{t\varphi }{}_{}{}^{2}g_{\varphi \varphi }g_{tt})^{1/2}]/g_{\varphi \varphi }.`$ (6)
(Note $`\zeta _{}0\zeta _+`$.) Thus apart for an arbitrary normalization factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(\mathrm{null})}`$, the photon 4-momentum vector $`P_\pm `$ is of the same form as $`U`$

$$P_\pm =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(\mathrm{null})}(_t+\zeta _\pm _\varphi ).$$
(7)
We assume that the source of the rotating gravitational field is rotating in the positive sense, i.e. in the increasing $`\varphi `$ direction. Corotating and counter-rotating orbits will refer to motion in the positive ($`\zeta >0`$) and negative ($`\zeta <0`$) $`\varphi `$ direction respectively in this coordinate system. For example, the 4-velocities of the corotating ($`+`$) and counter-rotating ($``$) circularly rotating timelike geodesics are

$$U_\pm =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm (_t+\dot{\varphi }_\pm _\varphi ),$$
(8)
where it is assumed that $`\zeta _{}<\dot{\varphi }_{}<0<\dot{\varphi }_+<\zeta ^+`$. These represent the orbits of freely falling test particles.

It is convenient to introduce new coordinates adapted to a generic circularly rotating stationary observer $`U`$

$$\stackrel{~}{t}=t,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\varphi \zeta t,$$
(9)
so that the new form of the metric is

$$ds_{(\stackrel{~}{t},\stackrel{~}{\varphi })}^2=g_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}}d\stackrel{~}{t}^2+2g_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}d\stackrel{~}{t}d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+g_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2=ds_{(t,\varphi )}^2,$$
(10)
or equivalently

$$ds_{(\stackrel{~}{r},\stackrel{~}{\theta })}^2=\stackrel{~}{M}{}_{}{}^{2}(dt\stackrel{~}{M}_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}d\stackrel{~}{\varphi })_{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }{}_{}{}^{2}.$$
(11)
The 4-velocity of the observer $`U`$ can be represented in exactly the same form as with respect to the original $`(t,\varphi )`$ coordinates

$$U=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}[_{\stackrel{~}{t}}+\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}]=[g_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}}]^{1/2}_{\stackrel{~}{t}},$$
(12)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=\zeta \zeta =0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=(g_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}})^{1/2}`$. Finally, the direction $`\overline{U}`$ orthogonal to $`U`$ has the form Eq. (4) with the replacement

$$\zeta \overline{\zeta }=\frac{g_{tt}+\zeta g_{t\varphi }}{g_{t\varphi }+\zeta g_{\varphi \varphi }}.$$
(13)
The quantity $`\overline{\zeta }`$ is an inverse angular velocity measuring the local effective rate of change of the synchronization gap with respect to angle.

Table 1 summarizes the representations of the new observer 4-velocity and unit 1-form and their orthogonal counterparts. The new lapse, shift and spatial metric quantities are explicitly

$`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}}=(g_{tt}+2\zeta g_{t\varphi }+\zeta ^2g_{\varphi \varphi })=\mathrm{\Gamma }^2,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{M}_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}/g_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(g_{t\varphi +\zeta g_{\varphi \varphi }})=(\overline{\zeta }\zeta )^1,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}+\stackrel{~}{M}^2\stackrel{~}{M}_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}^2=\gamma _{\varphi \varphi }g_{tt}/g_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}}.`$ (14)
The coordinate time $`t=\stackrel{~}{t}`$ can be used to parametrize the world lines of the observer $`U`$ or any other timelike or null world line. This may be converted to a proper time with respect that observer differentially by

$$d\tau _U=\mathrm{\Gamma }^1dt=\stackrel{~}{M}d\stackrel{~}{t}.$$
(15)
Integrating this along a world line segment gives the equivalent proper time elapsed along an observer world line between the beginning and ending time hypersurface.

## 3 Clock effects

Consider a pair of oppositely rotating orbits, $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$, as seen by an intermediate observer $`U`$, with angular velocities $`\zeta _1`$, $`\zeta _2`$ and $`\zeta `$ respectively with respect to the original coordinates $`(t,\varphi )`$ satisfying $`\zeta _1<\zeta <\zeta _2`$. We have in mind identifying $`U_{1,2}`$ either with the oppositely rotating geodesic pair (counter-rotating: $`U_1=U_{}`$, corotating: $`U_2=U_+`$) or with oppositely rotating photons (counter-rotating: $`U_1=P_{}`$, corotating: $`U_2=P_+`$) and new coordinates $`(\stackrel{~}{t},\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$ will be adapted to the observer $`U`$ as described in the previous section. The unit tangent vector along the orthogonal spacelike counterpart of timelike rotating curves $`U_{1,2}`$ (i.e. corresponding to the orthogonal direction in the $`t\varphi `$ space, oriented in the sense of increasing $`\varphi `$) will be denoted by $`\overline{U}_{1,2}`$.

We now consider each of the various clock effects in turn, analyzed from the relative-observer point of view.

### 3.1 Timelike observer-dependent single-clock clock effect

The timelike single-clock clock effect relative to the observer $`U`$ measures the observer proper time elapsed between the arrivals of the two geodesics (one co-rotating and the other counter-rotating) which depart from the same event on that observer worldline (i.e. the geodesics each make a single spacetime loop beginning and ending at the observer worldline). Denoting by $`C_{U_\pm }^+`$ the line with unit tangent vector $`U_\pm `$ oriented according the direction of increasing time, this single-clock proper time difference is just the difference of the observer periods of the two loops

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(1\mathrm{c})}(U,U_{},U_+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_{U_+}^+}}𝑑\tau _U{\displaystyle _{C_U_{}^+}}𝑑\tau _U`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}[{\displaystyle _{C_{U_+}^+}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{t}{\displaystyle _{C_U_{}^+}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{t}]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\dot{\varphi }_+\zeta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\dot{\varphi }_{}\zeta }}]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta \zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}}{(\zeta \dot{\varphi }_{})(\zeta \dot{\varphi }_+)}},`$
where $`\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}=(\dot{\varphi }_++\dot{\varphi }_{})/2`$ is the angular velocity of the ‘geodesic meeting point observers’ , whose world lines pass through the successive alternating meeting points of each pair of corotating and counter-rotating geodesics, corresponding to undergoing complete revolutions with respect to those observers.

The computation of these integrals is conveniently done by changing the integration variable from $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ and noting the following facts a) along the world lines $`C_{U_\pm }^+`$ the 1-form $`\overline{U}_\pm d\stackrel{~}{t}\frac{1}{\zeta \dot{\varphi }_\pm }d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ vanishes identically; b) along $`C_U_{}^+`$ (counter-rotating), $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ goes from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$ while along $`C_{U_+}^+`$ (co-rotating), $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ goes from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$.

As a function of the observer angular velocity $`\zeta `$, the single clock effect $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(1\mathrm{c})}(U,U_{},U_+)`$ is positive for $`\zeta >\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}`$ (which means the corotating geodesic returns later than the counter-rotating one), zero corresponding to $`U=U_{(\mathrm{gmp})}`$ and negative for $`\zeta <\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}`$, and it is a monotonically increasing function of $`\zeta `$, from $`\zeta =\dot{\varphi }_{}`$ (where a vertical asymptote is located) to $`\zeta =\dot{\varphi }_{}`$ (where another vertical asymptote is located).

### 3.2 Lightlike observer-dependent single-clock clock effect or Sagnac effect

The lightlike single-clock clock effect relative to the observer $`U`$  is a measure of the observer proper time elapsed between the arrivals of the two photons (one co-rotating and the other counter-rotating) at a particular observer, having both departed from a single event on that observer’s world line (i.e. the photons each make a single spacetime loop around the observer $`U`$). Denoting by $`C_{P_\pm }^+`$ the photon world line with null tangent vector $`P_\pm `$ oriented according the direction of increasing time this single-clock proper time difference is just the Sagnac effect

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(1\mathrm{c})}(U,P_{},P_+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_{P_+}^+}}𝑑\tau _U{\displaystyle _{C_P_{}^+}}𝑑\tau _U`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}[{\displaystyle _{C_{P_+}^+}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{t}{\displaystyle _{C_P_{}^+}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{t}]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta _+\zeta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta _{}\zeta }}]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta \zeta _{(\mathrm{nmp})}}{(\zeta \zeta _{})(\zeta \zeta _+)}},`$
where $`\zeta _{(\mathrm{nmp})}=(\zeta _++\zeta _{})/2`$ is the angular velocity of the ‘null meeting point observers’, whose world lines contains the alternating successive meeting points of the two corotating and counter-rotating photons after making complete revolutions with respect to those observers. These observers are also called ‘slicing observers’ because their with 4-velocity $`n`$ is orthogonal to the $`t=constant`$ hypersurfaces which form a slicing of the spacetime itself $`\zeta _{(\mathrm{sl})}=\zeta _{(\mathrm{nmp})}`$.

The Sagnac effect $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(1\mathrm{c})}(U,P_{},P_+)`$ vanishes when $`U=U_{(\mathrm{nmp})}=n`$ and its behavior as a function of $`\zeta `$ is similar to that of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(1\mathrm{c})}(U,U_{},U_+)`$ but the two vertical asymptotes correspond now to the photon angular velocities.

One can study the relations that might exist between the timelike single-clock clock effect and its lightlike analogue. Recently an observer family has been found  for which

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(1\mathrm{c})}(U,U_{},U_+)=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(1\mathrm{c})}(U,P_{},P_+).$$
(19)
In other words the Sagnac effect and 1-clock clock effect agree. These observers turn out to be the so-called ‘extremely accelerated observers’ . Their 4-velocity is related to those of the co- and counter-rotating geodesics by a renormalized average

$$U_{(\mathrm{ext})}=\frac{U_++U_{}}{U_++U_{}},$$
(20)
and their angular velocity is therefore:

$$\zeta _{(\mathrm{ext})}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\dot{\varphi }_++\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\dot{\varphi }_{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_++\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}.$$
(21)
The most important additional properties of these observers are briefly summarized here:

1. They see the two geodesics (co-rotating and counter-rotating) with equal magnitude but opposite sign relative velocities:

$$\nu (U_+,U_{(\mathrm{ext})})=\nu (U_{},U_{(\mathrm{ext})});$$
(22)
2. Their 4-acceleration is extremal among the whole family of circular orbits parametrized by the angular velocity:

$$_\zeta a(U)|_{\zeta =\zeta _{(\mathrm{ext})}}=0;$$
(23)
3. They are “intrinsically non-rotating”. In fact the first and second torsion of the spacetime Frenet-Serret frame associated with them are both vanishing. Consequently the spacetime Frenet-Serret angular velocity is also vanishing and the (intrinsic) spatial frame is Fermi-Walker dragged along their own world lines. Thus if the extremely accelerated observers carry a test gyroscope along with them, there is no gyroscope precession when referred to their intrinsic Frenet-Serret axes.

### 3.3 Observer-dependent two-clock clock effect

The two-clock clock effect with respect to a generic observer $`U`$ is defined as the difference between the proper periods of two geodesic loops (one co-rotating and the other counter-rotating) with respect to the observer $`U`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(2\mathrm{c})}(U,U_{},U_+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_{U_+}^+}}𝑑\tau _{U_+}{\displaystyle _{C_U_{}^+}}𝑑\tau _U_{}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+}}{\displaystyle _{C_{U_+}^+}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{t}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}}{\displaystyle _{C_U_{}^+}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{t}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(\dot{\varphi }_+\zeta )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\dot{\varphi }_{}\zeta )}}`$
$`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_++\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta \zeta _{(\mathrm{ext})}}{(\zeta \dot{\varphi }_{})(\dot{\varphi }_+\zeta )}},`$
This shows another important property which must be added to those enumerated in the previous subsection for the extremely accelerated observers:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(2\mathrm{c})}(U_{(\mathrm{ext})},U_{},U_+)=0.$$
(25)
Their observer-dependent 2-clock clock effect is zero.

### 3.4 Observer-independent two-clock clock effect

The observer-independent two-clock clock effect coincides with the observer-dependent two-clock clock effect with respect to the geodesic meeting point observers $`U_{(\mathrm{gmp})}`$, whose worldline contains the alternating successive meeting points of the two oppositely rotating geodesics:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(2\mathrm{c})}(U_{(\mathrm{gmp})},U_{},U_+)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_++\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}\zeta _{(\mathrm{ext})}}{(\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}\dot{\varphi }_{})(\dot{\varphi }_+\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})})}}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\dot{\varphi }_+\dot{\varphi }_{}}}.`$
This effect is observer-independent since it only involves the meeting points of the two geodesics after a full revolution (during which they meet twice after the initial departure event).

### 3.5 Synchronization gap

The amount of observer proper time $`\tau _U`$ elapsing before the arrival of the orthogonal spatial orbit with unit tangent vector $`\overline{U}`$ is what has been called the synchronization gap

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(\mathrm{SG})}(U,\overline{U})=_{C_{\overline{U}}^+}𝑑\tau _U=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{1}{(\overline{\zeta }\zeta )}.$$
(27)
It is nonzero for observer families with nonzero vorticity, which prevents the synchronization of the proper times on the whole family of observer world lines by an orthogonal slicing. Orthogonal synchronization can always be carried out by curves orthogonal to the observer world lines, but if they complete a loop around the symmetry axis, the initial and final times are desynchronized, hence a ‘desynchronization effect’ occurs. The synchronization gap is a measure of this effect. It vanishes for the slicing observers ($`\overline{\zeta }_{(\mathrm{sl})}\mathrm{}`$) and is just half the Sagnac effect:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(\mathrm{SG})}(U,\overline{U})=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(1\mathrm{c})}(U,P_{},P_+).$$
(28)
## 4 Kerr black holes

We conclude by specializing our results to the equatorial plane of the Kerr spacetime. The $`t`$-$`\varphi `$ 2-metric in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates is

$$ds_{(t,\varphi )}^2=(1+2/r)dt^24a/rdtd\varphi +(r^2+a^2+2a^2/r)d\varphi ^2,$$
(29)
and the geodesic angular velocities are

$$\dot{\varphi }_\pm ^1=a\pm (r^3/)^{1/2}.$$
(30)
In the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$ (which corresponds to a realistic situation for experiments in the solar system) the coordinate gamma factors reduce to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm 1+\frac{3}{2r}+\frac{27^2}{8r^2}3\frac{a}{r}(\frac{}{r})^{3/2},$$
(31)
so that

$`\zeta _{(\mathrm{nmp})}`$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{a}{r^3}},`$
$`\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{r^3}},`$
$`\zeta _{(\mathrm{ext})}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{r^3}}(1+3{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}).`$
Denoting by $`m`$ the 4-velocity of the static observers (with $`\zeta =0`$) one finds

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(1c)}(m,U_{},U_+)`$ $``$ $`4\pi a,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(1c)}(U_{(\mathrm{ext})},U_{},U_+)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12\pi a}{r}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(2c)}(m,U_{},U_+)`$ $``$ $`4\pi a(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2r}}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{(2c)}(U_{(\mathrm{gmp})},U_{},U_+)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12\pi a}{r}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2r}}).`$ (33)
## 5 The Carter observers

In black hole spacetimes, the 4-velocity $`u_{(\mathrm{car})}`$ of the Carter observers  in the equatorial plane is tied to those of the usual threading observers ($`m`$) and the circular geodesics ($`U_\pm `$) by the following pair of parallel relationships at the global and local levels

$`{\displaystyle _{C_{\overline{u}_{(\mathrm{car})}}}}𝑑t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle _{C_{U_+}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle _{C_U_{}}}𝑑t],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\zeta }_{(\mathrm{car})}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\dot{\varphi }_+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\dot{\varphi }_{}}}],`$ (34)
where $`\zeta _{(\mathrm{car})}=a/(r^2+a^2)`$, $`\overline{\zeta }_{(\mathrm{car})}=1/a`$. The right hand side of the first equation is half the coordinate single-clock clock effect for the threading observers (compare with Eq. (17)), while its left hand side is the corresponding coordinate synchronization gap for the Carter observers, where the loop is defined with respect to the threading observers (compare with Eq. (18)).

This is in direct analogy with the same pair of corresponding equations for the photon orbits and the threading observer Sagnac effect

$`{\displaystyle _{C_{\overline{m}}}}𝑑t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle _{C_{P_+}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle _{C_P_{}}}𝑑t],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\zeta }_{(\mathrm{thd})}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta _+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta _{}}}].`$ (35)
These reciprocal averaging relationships are complementary to the direct averaging relationships $`\zeta _{(\mathrm{gmp})}=(\dot{\varphi }_++\dot{\varphi }_{})/2`$, $`\zeta _{(\mathrm{sl})}=\zeta _{(\mathrm{nmp})}=(\zeta _++\zeta _{})/2`$. All four such relationships may be restated in terms of averaging relationships among the coordinate-time renormalized 4-velocities and corresponding 1-forms and their orthogonal counterparts (i.e. the coefficient of $`_t`$ or $`dt`$ is 1). In contrast, the extremely accelerated observers are defined by an averaging relationship for the unit 4-velocities.

## 6 Conclusions

The various gravitomagnetic clock effects in stationary axially symmetric spacetimes have been discussed from a relative observer point of view, including the closely related Sagnac and desynchronization effects. The analysis has shown the special roles played by the ‘geodesic meeting point observers’ and the ‘extremely accelerated observers’, which have been previously introduced in the literature in a different context (test particle motion, relativistic definition of inertial forces). The discussion is also relevant in view of possible solar system experiments to test the validity of the theory of general relativity.

## Acknowledgment

We thank Bahram Mashhoon for our mutual collaboration in revisiting this topic, leading to the clarification of our understanding of the larger picture into which all of these effects fit.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction.

Recently the idea that our world is confined on the four-dimensional subspace of higher dimensional space-time  attracts considerable attention. Within this scenario, often known as a ”Brane World” scenario, several phenomenological, cosmological and astrophysical issues have been revisited. What is particularly exiting within this approach is that the size of extra dimensions can be large  or even infinite , leading to the interesting theoretical alternative to conventional Kaluza-Klein (KK) compactification as well as to the specific predictions that can be tested experimentally in the visible future.

One of the original motivations for the recent versions of Brane World models was an explanation of the apparent hierarchy among two fundamental scales, the Planck scale $`M_{Pl}`$, and the electroweak scale $`M_W`$  (see also ). The scenario of Refs.  utilize $`\delta `$ extra compact dimensions with large compactification radii $`r_n`$ ($`n=1,\mathrm{},\delta `$) in the factorizable, $`M^4\times N^\delta `$, ($`4+\delta `$)-dimensional space-time and thus the apparent weakness of gravity in the visible four-dimensional world ($`M^4`$, 3-brane) is explained due to the large volume $`V_{N^\delta }_{n=1}^\delta r_n`$ of the extra-dimensional submanifold $`N^\delta `$ :

$$M_{Pl}^2=M_{}^{\delta +2}V_{N^\delta },$$
(1)
where $`M_{}`$ is the fundamental high-dimensional scale and $`M_{Pl}`$ is the ordinary four-dimensional Planck scale.

The scenario of Ref.  deals with a 5-dimensional non-factorizable AdS5 space-time with two 3-branes located at the $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold fixed points of the fifth compact dimension. Now the weakness of gravity in the visible world 3-brane is explained without recourse to large extra dimensions, but rather as a result of gravity localization on the hidden 3-brane. Gravity localization in such scenario occurs because the five-dimensional Einstein’s equations admit the solution for the space-time metric with a scale factor (“warp factor”) which is a falling exponential function of the distance along the extra dimension y perpendicular to the branes111Generalizations to higher-dimensional space-times is possible within the intersecting branes scenarios , models with string-like defects (in the case of 2 extra dimensions)  or along the lines discussed in .:

$$ds^2=e^{2k|y|}dx_{1+3}^2+dy^2,$$
(2)
when the bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$) and the tensions $`T_{vis}`$ and $`T_{hid}`$ of the visible and hidden branes respectively are related according to:

$$T_{hid}=T_{vis}=6M_{}^3k,k=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6M_{}^3}}.$$
(3)
Thus, graviton is essentially localized on the hidden brane with positive tension ($`T_{hid}>0`$) which is located at $`y=0`$ fixed point of the $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold, while the Standard Model particles are assumed to be restricted on the visible brane with negative tension ($`T_{vis}<0`$) which is located at $`y=\pi r_c`$ ($`r_c`$ is the size of extra dimension) orbifold fixed point. So, a hierarchically small scale factor generated for the metric on the visible brane gives an exponential hierarchy between the mass scales of the visible brane and the fundamental mass scale $`M_{}`$, after one appropriately rescales the fields on the visible brane. In fact, assuming $`M_{}M_{Pl}`$, TeV-sized electroweak scale can be generated on the visible brane by requiring $`r_cM_{}12`$.

However, there is even more severe hierarchy problem afflicting fundamental physics which is related to the observed smallness of the 4-dimensional cosmological constant (for reviews see ). In the original proposals with large  or warped  extra dimensions this problem remains untouched. Say, the fine-tuned condition (3) which provides the solution (2) is nothing but the condition for the vanishing of the effective 4-dimensional cosmological constant. Several more or less successful attempts have been made recently to attack this problem within the Brane World models . One solution is to ensure dynamical self-adjustment of the relation (3) by introducing an extra bulk scalar field $`\varphi `$ with an appropriate bulk potential . In this scenario, however, the scalar fields $`\varphi `$ becomes singular at a finite distance along the extra dimension222For a non-singular solution see . and the warp factor in the metric (2) vanishes at singularity. As a result the whole background solution becomes unstable under the bulk perturbations and any procedure which regularize the singularity reintroduces the fine-tuning back.. It was shown also in  that non-static (cosmological) solutions of  might be unstable as well, thus leading to the energy non-conservation as brane world expands (contracts).

In this paper we would like to suggest an alternative possibility to overcome an unnatural fine-tuning (3) by introducing an extra time-like dimensions. Particularly, we construct the configuration of intersecting branes in a 6-dimensional bulk space-time with signature $`(4,2)`$. With a certain additional symmetry imposed on the extra space-time, we find that effective 4-dimensional cosmological constant automatically vanishes, providing a static solution with gravity localized at the intersection region. Remarkable, the symmetry which forced the cosmological constant to vanish prevents, at the same time, propagation of a massive Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes of graviton (including those of tachyonic) and thus gives the full localization of gravity at the intersection of branes, while non-trivial warp factor of the background metric allows us to solve Planck/TeV scale hierarchy problem by placing visible 3-brane at distances $`𝒪(10^2M_{Pl})`$ away from the intersection.

## 2 Extra time-like dimensions and null space dimensional reduction.

Except of a very few recent works  (see also  for some earlier works on extra time-like dimensions), most of the Brane World models considered so far deal with extra space-like dimensions. The reason is some pathological features of field theories with extra time-like dimensions associated with appearance of ghost and tachyonic states in the effective four dimensional theory and related with them instabilities of various kind . However, there are no firm theoretical reasons why extra time-like dimensions cannot exist and, moreover, they indeed appear at the fundamental level within the various versions of string theory (see e.g.  for some recent approaches). The tachyonic instabilities, being the subject of experimental verification, can be accommodated within the theoretical models if they do not contradict the existing experimental date. Indeed, in the case of conventional KK compactification with factorized geometry of space-time one can satisfy experimental upper limits on various processes leading to the instability of matter by choosing sufficiently small radii for the compact extra time-like dimensions 333It is interesting that in the case when only gravity feels extra times  the imaginary part of the gravitational self-energy due to the exchange of tachyonic KK gravitons of the spherically symmetric body is periodic and for some critical radii of the body $`R=2\pi kL`$ (where $`L`$ is a size of extra time-like dimension and $`kN`$) it vanishes, so such self-gravitating body in fact is stable. Another interesting phenomena observed in  is the screening of the gravitational force due to the contribution of the tachyonic KK gravitons.. The same is actually true for the case of warped compactification  if our visible world is confined on the brane which is sufficiently close to the so called Planck scale brane where the graviton zero mode is localized. Otherwise, demanding that the visible brane is displaced from the Placnk brane at distances which provides the solution to the Planck/TeV hierarchy problem, one gets for instance an unacceptable rapid gravitational decay of neutron . Thus, it seems that generation of Planck/TeV hierarchy is incompatible with extra time-like dimensions in both scenarios with factorizable  and non-factorizable geometry .

Of course, it is more desirable to overcome appearance of ghost and tachyons in the four-dimensional effective theory. One obvious way to do this is to choose a certain geometry of the extra space preventing the appearance of ghost and tachyons. Indeed, for example, one can start with a topological gravity in higher dimensions generating usual Einstein’s gravity in four-dimensional subspace . Then, since the bulk space-time is topological the propagation of gravitons in the extra space does not take place at all and thus tachyonic KK gravitons do not appear in the effective four-dimensional theory. In such a case, however extra time-like dimensions are non-dynamical and certainly metaphysical. Another example is an extra space with no Killing vectors (see Aref’eva, Volovich in ) which prevents the appearance of ghost states in four dimensions.

Here we would like to suggest different possibility to eliminate tachyons and ghosts from an effective four-dimensional theory. Suppose that bulk space-time contains both time-like and space-like dimensions, i.e. the metric of extra space is Lorentzian. Now we can make so called null space reduction to lower dimensions demanding an extra subspace $`M^{(p,q)}`$ with $`p`$ space-like and $`q`$ time-like dimensions is actually a null space444Note that null space dimensional reduction is that what happens in $`F`$-theory (see Vafa in ) where the BRST invariance demand the extra $`M^{(1,1)}`$ subspace of a $`10+2=12`$ dimensional type IIB string theory with an $`U(1)`$ super-Maxwell field on the worldsheet to be a null space, so that $`F`$-theory in 12 dimensions with signature $`(10,2)`$ becomes dual to type IIB string theory in 10 dimensions with signature $`(9,1)`$.. If so, then the physical states carry no non-zero momentum along $`M^{(p,q)}`$ subspace and so all KK excitations will be confined on the light cone. Thus the physical states (perhaps except of some additional zero mass modes) are the same as in four-dimensional theory and the effective four-dimensional theory will be tachyon-free. Another important outcome from the null reduction is that since the physical states are essentially the same as in four dimensional theory the physical laws will be also four-dimensional for all energy scales. Say, $`1/r^2`$ 4-dimensional Newton’s law will remain the same in the null reduced higher-dimensional theory at any distances.

Below we explicitly demonstrate these features by considering a 6-dimensional space-time with one extra time-like and one extra space-like dimensions, i.e. the space-time with signature (4,2). The null reduction is realized by imposing additional discrete symmetry that prevents propagation of the massive KK modes of graviton including those of tachyonic. In this way we will avoide phenomenological difficulties comming from the matter instability usually induced in theories with extra time-like dimensions. Remarkable enough, that the same symmetry forced the cosmological constant to be zero555For some earlier attempts to solve cosmological constant problem by introducing extra time-like dimensions see Aref’eva, Dragovich, Volovich in ; Linde in ; ..

## 3 Intersecting branes: vacuum solutions.

Let us consider 6-dimensional space-time $`M^{(4,2)}`$ with one extra time-like dimension $`\tau `$ and one extra dimension $`y`$, i.e. space-time with a signature $`(4,2)`$. Suppose that there are two branes with a world-volume signature $`(4,1)`$ (“time brane”) and , $`(3,2)`$ ( “space brane”) embedded in $`M^{(4,2)}`$ with tensions $`T_\tau `$ and $`T_y`$, respectively. The intersection of these branes, which we take to be at $`(y=0,\tau =0)`$ point for definiteness, is a 4-dimensional subspace (3-brane) of $`M^{(4,2)}`$ with signature $`(3,1)`$ which can be identified with a visible world. The relevant action describing such a set-up is:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^6x\sqrt{detg}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa _6^2}R\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\right)}{\displaystyle d^6x\sqrt{detg}\left[T_\tau \delta (\tau )+T_y\delta (y)\right]}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{M^{(4,2)}}}d^4x𝑑y𝑑\tau \sqrt{detg}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _6^2}}R\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle _{M^{(4,1)}}}d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{detg^{\tau =0}}T_\tau {\displaystyle _{M^{(3,2)}}}d^4x𝑑\tau \sqrt{detg^{y=0}}T_y.`$
Here $`\kappa _6^2=16\pi M_6^4`$, where $`M_6`$ is the six-dimensional fundamental scale of the theory and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ is a bulk cosmological constant. The induced metrics on the branes, $`g_{ab}^{\tau =0}(a,b=\mu ,y)`$ and $`g_{\alpha \beta }^{y=0}(\alpha ,\beta =\mu ,\tau )`$, are defined as:

$`g_{ab}^{\tau =0}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{ab}(x^\mu ,y,\tau =0),`$
$`g_{\alpha \beta }^{y=0}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\alpha \beta }(x^\mu ,y=0,\tau ),`$ (5)
where $`g_{MN}`$, $`M,N=\mu (0,1,2,3),y,\tau `$, is a six-dimensional metric. We use metric with mostly positive signature $`(++++)`$. The field equations followed from the above action (4) are:

$$R_N^M\frac{1}{2}\delta _N^MR=\frac{\kappa _6^2}{2}T_N^M,$$
(6)
where the energy momentum tensor $`T_N^M`$ is expressed through the bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ and brane tensions $`T_\tau `$ and $`T_y`$ as:

$$T_N^M=\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\delta _N^M\sqrt{\frac{detg^{\tau =0}}{detg}}T_\tau \delta (\tau )\delta _a^M\delta _N^a\sqrt{\frac{detg^{y=0}}{detg}}T_y\delta (y)\delta _\alpha ^M\delta _N^\alpha .$$
(7)
We are looking for a static solution of the above equations (6) that respects 4-dimensional Poincare invariance in the $`x^\mu `$ direction. A 6-dimensional line element satisfying this anzatz can be written as:

$$ds^2=A^2(y,\tau )\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +B^2(y,\tau )dy^2C^2(y,\tau )d\tau ^2,$$
(8)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is a 4-dimensional flat Minkowski metric. It is more convenient, however, to perform the actual calculations within a conformaly flat metric anzatz

$$ds^2=A^2(z,\theta )\eta _{MN}dx^Mdx^N,$$
(9)
which can be obtained from (8) by the following coordinate transformations666Generally this transformations do exist for the rather special cases. However, they are actually valid in the case of the background solutions we are interested in (see below).:

$`dz`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{A}}dy,`$
$`d\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{A}}d\tau .`$ (10)
Now using the well-known conformal transformation formulae for the Einstein tensor $`G_N^M=R_N^M\frac{1}{2}\delta _N^MR`$

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{MN}`$ $`=`$ $`G_{MN}+4\left(_M\mathrm{ln}A_N\mathrm{ln}A_M_N\mathrm{ln}A\right)`$ (11)
$`+4\eta _{MN}\left(^2\mathrm{ln}A+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}A\right)^2\right),`$
we easily obtain:

$`G_\nu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{A^2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}}{A}}\right)^2+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^{\prime \prime }}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{A}}{A}}\right)\right]\delta _\nu ^\mu ,`$ (12)
$`G_z^z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{A^2}}\left[5\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}}{A}}\right)^22{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{A}}{A}}\right],`$ (13)
$`G_\theta ^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{A^2}}\left[5\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}}{A}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}\right)^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{A^{\prime \prime }}{A}}\right],`$ (14)
$`G_\theta ^z`$ $`=`$ $`G_z^\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{4}{A^2}}\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}A^{}}{A^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}^{}}{A}}\right],`$ (15)
where primes and overdots denote the derivatives with respect to space-like $`z`$ and time-like $`\theta `$ coordinates, respectively. Taking the conformal factor (warp factor) in (9) as777Turning back to the original coordinates $`y`$ and $`\tau `$ we will have: $`A=\left(e^{k_y\left|y\right|}+e^{k_\tau \left|\tau \right|}1\right)^1`$, $`B=e^{k_y\left|y\right|}A`$ and $`C=e^{k_\tau \left|\tau \right|}A.`$

$$A=\frac{1}{k_y\left|z\right|+k_\tau \left|\theta \right|+1},$$
(16)
one can easily check that non-diagonal elements (15) of the Einstein tensor vanish, $`G_\theta ^z=G_z^\theta =0`$, and thus $`\left(z\theta \right)`$ Einstein’s equations are satisfied identically, while the remaining equations will be satisfied if the following relations are fulfilled888While this paper was in preparation there appeared the paper  in the hep-archives where the same solution was considered. An earlier presentation of the present work was given in .:

$`k_y^2k_\tau ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}{10}},`$ (17)
$`k_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6^2T_y}{4}},`$ (18)
$`k_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6^2T_\tau }{4}}.`$ (19)
Here we will assume that the space brane has a possitive tension $`T_y>0`$, while the time brane the negative one, $`T_\tau <0`$, so that both $`k_y`$ and $`k_\tau `$ are positive. In the opposite case, the negative (positive) tension space (time) brane is expected to be unstable under the fluctuations since in this case brane fluctuation modes show up as a ghost states in the effective theory on the brane world-volume.

Taking away the ”time brane” ($`T_\tau =0`$) one gets the 6-dimensional version (with an extra time on the brane world-volume) of Ref.  , where the bulk cosmological constant is negative, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b<0`$, while in the case $`T_y=0`$ one leads to the 6-dimensional version of the model of Ref.  with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b>0`$. Thus, generally, depending on the brane tensions $`T_y`$ and $`T_\tau `$, bulk space-time can be anti-de Sitter $`\left(\left|T_\tau \right|<\left|T_y\right|,\mathrm{\Lambda }_b<0\right)`$, de Sitter $`\left(\left|T_\tau \right|>\left|T_y\right|,\mathrm{\Lambda }_b>0\right)`$ or Minkowskian $`\left(T_\tau =T_y,\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=0\right)`$. Remarkably, that in the latter case one can observe an apparent discrete symmetry of the background solution (16-19). Indeed, when one exchanges the extra time-like and space-like dimensions, $`\theta z`$ the background solution (16-19) with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=0`$ remains untouched, while the solution with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b<0`$ goes to the one with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b>0`$ and vise versa. Thus if we demand that the Einstein equations (6) are invariant under the $`\theta z`$ exchange than among the solutions (16-19) the one with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=0`$ survives. The fine tuning problem now is resolved since the above invariance demands $`T_\tau =T_y`$ and ensures automatic cancellation of the 4-dimensional cosmological constant.

One can worry that the above result just simply follows from the fact that we have considered the anzatz (9) (or equivalently (8)) where the flatness of the 4-dimensional space-time of the intersection of branes was already assumed. However, this is not the case. Indeed, one can start from the more general anzatz by taking

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }=\left(1\frac{1}{4}H^2\eta _{\mu \nu }x^\mu x^\nu \right)^2\eta _{\mu \nu }$$
(20)
instead of the flat 4-dimensional metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ in (9). Here $`H`$ is a ”Hubble constant” on the intersection. Now the anzatz (9) with (20) instead of $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ describes maximally symmetric 4-dimensional space-times of the intersection of branes, i.e. de Sitter ($`H^2>0`$) or anti de Sitter ($`H^2<0`$) (the flat Minkowski case considered above corresponds to $`H=0`$). Then the components of the Einstein tensor (12) and (13), (14) will be changed by the additional term $`+\frac{3H^2}{A^2}\delta _\nu ^\mu `$ and $`+\frac{6H^2}{A^2}`$, respectively, while (15) will remain unchanged. It is easy to see that the corresponding Einstein equations will remain invariant under the discrete symmetry $`\theta z`$ if and only if $`H=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=0`$. This can be easily understood from the fact that the origin for the non-zero Hubble constant is a non-zero 4-dimensional cosmological constant on the intersection of branes which in turn is indeed forbidden if one demands that the theory is invariant under the discrete symmetry imposed above.

Of course, in general, for an arbitrary metric $`g_{MN}`$ the invariance we have imposed does not take place. In what follows we require here that such an invariance holds for all perturbations around the background solution as well. In other words, we restrict to consider the manifolds which are isometric under the discrete symmetry transformations $`\theta z`$. So, the above invariance can be viewed as a constraint imposed on the system described by the action (4) which holds for the special class of metrics $`g_{MN}`$ including the background one given by (9,16-19) with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=0`$999On the language of the initial action (4) the vanishing of cosmological constant can be related to the following symmetry reasons. One can consider a discrete transformation changing the signature of the metric, $`g_{MN}g_{MN}`$ (and hence $`RR`$). The first term in the action (4) changes the sign if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=0`$. (In fact, in theories with even number of space-time dimensions the bulk comsological constant can be forbidden by assuming that when the metric changes the signature also the action changes the sign. E.g. in the usual $`1+3`$ case the change $`g_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }`$ is equivalent to the changing the signature $`(+,,,)`$ by the signature $`(,+,+,+)`$). If along this transformation also the $`\tau `$ and $`y`$ branes are exchanged, then the whole action changes sign, $`SS`$, if $`T_\tau =T_y`$.. Notice that the vanishing of the bulk cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=0`$, and the relation $`T_\tau =T_y`$ emerge merely from the discrete symmetry imposed and are not consequence of any fine-tuning. As we will see this symmetry leads at the same time to the resolution of the problem of tachyonic states.

## 4 Linearized perturbations.

To examine the gravity induced by a matter source localized on the 4-dimensional intersection of branes let us consider the linearized perturbations around the background metric (9,16-19). Taking

$$g_{MN}=A^2(z,\theta )\left(\eta _{MN}+\gamma _{MN}\right)$$
(21)
and keeping linear in $`\gamma _{MN}`$ terms only in (6) we get:

$$\frac{1}{2}_K^K\gamma _{MN}\frac{1}{2}_M_N\gamma _K^K+^K_{(M}\gamma _{N)K}+\frac{1}{2}\eta _{MN}\left(_K^K\gamma _L^L^K^L\gamma _{KL}\right)+$$

$$2\left[\left(2_{(M}\gamma _{N)K}_K\gamma _{MN}\eta _{MN}\left(2^L\gamma _{KL}_K\gamma _L^L+2\gamma _{KL}^L+3\gamma _{KL}n^L\right)\right)\right]n^K=0$$
(22)
where $`n_K_K\mathrm{ln}A=(0,0,0,0,\frac{A^{}}{A},\frac{\dot{A}}{A})`$ and indices are raised and lowered by the $`6`$-dimensional flat metric $`\eta _{MN}`$. We work with so-called Randall-Sundrum (RS) gauge  which is defined as a 4-dimensional transverse traceless gauge

$$^\mu \gamma _{\mu \nu }=0,\gamma _\mu ^\mu \gamma =0$$
(23)
along with an extra conditions

$$\gamma _{M\tau }=\gamma _{My}=0.$$
(24)
Although RS gauge (23,24) becomes inconsistent with equations of motion when one considers an extra matter sources beyond those given by branes itself , for the discussion of the gravity localization on the intersection of branes it is rather convenient and we will keep it here and return to this point later101010For some alternative gauges as well as discussions on subtleties in the RS gauge choice see .

In the above gauge (23,24) one left with 2 physical massless degrees of freedom on the intersection, which corresponds to just 2 polarization states of the 4-dimensional graviton and the equations (22) simplify significantly to become:

$$_M^M\gamma _{\mu \nu }+4_M\gamma _{\mu \nu }n^M=0.$$
(25)
Boundary conditions on $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ can be deduced by integration of (25) from just below to just above of the time and space branes resulting in the Darmois-Israel matching conditions 111111Actually from the Darmois-Israel formalism one can get in general another type of boundary conditions, which tell us that the derivatives of the metric are just continuous $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }^{}_{z=0^+}=\gamma _{\mu \nu }^{}_{z=0^{}},`$ $`\dot{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }_{\theta =0^+}=\dot{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }_{\theta =0^{}}`$, but not necessarily zero as in (26). Here, following to , we also assume that similar to the background metric the perturbations are also even under the discrete transformations $`zz`$ and $`\theta \theta .`$ Then the only boundary conditions consistent with these symmetries are those given in (26).:

$$\gamma _{\mu \nu }^{}_{z=0}=0,\dot{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }_{\theta =0}=0$$
(26)
To proceed further, we separate the intersection world-volume and extra space-time coordinates in (25) setting $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \nu }(x^\sigma )\mathrm{\Psi }_m(z,\theta )`$. Then the Eqs.(25) are splitted as:

$$_\sigma ^\sigma h_{\mu \nu }=m^2h_{\mu \nu },$$
(27)
$$\left(_y^y_\tau ^\tau +4n_y_y4n_\tau _\tau \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_m(z,\theta )=m^2\mathrm{\Psi }_m(z,\theta ),$$
(28)
where $`m^2`$ is a separation constant. The eqs. (27,28) describe the propagation of a free massive spin-2 particle in the intersection world-volume with a mass $`m^2`$ and the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m(z,\theta )`$. Although we are not able to solve the equation (28) explicitly in the general case, but it is obvious that one has normalizable solutions for the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m(z,\theta )`$ corresponding to the mass eigenvalues in the whole range $`\mathrm{}<m^2<+\mathrm{}`$. This readily follow from the fact that the normalize massive KK excitations along the time-like extra dimension are actually tachyonic ($`m^2<0`$)  while those of along the space-like extra dimension are bradionic ($`m^2>0`$) . Finally, in general case, one expects also a collection of infinitely many massless gravitons propagating in the 4-dimensional world-volume. One of them is a ”true” zero mode localized on the intersection, while others are the excitations along the light-cone in extra space-time. Obviously, with such a spectrum of KK-states one can not have any satisfactory phenomenology on the intersection world-volume. Besides the already mentioned problem with tachyonic KK-states of graviton , one could worry about the infinitely degenerate massless gravitons as well, since they also might bring inconsistencies when one goes beyond the linearized approximation .

Now let us proceed to the nul space dimensional reduction by requiring that eqs. (27,28) are invariant under the interchange of extra time-like and extra space-like coordinates, $`\theta z`$, as it was proposed in the previous section. This symmetry demand vanishing of $`m^2`$ in (27,28), $`m^2=0`$, and the eqs. (27,28) now become:

$$_\sigma ^\sigma h_{\mu \nu }=0$$
(29)
$$\left(_y^y_\tau ^\tau +2kA\left(\delta (\theta )\delta (z)\right)\right)\psi (z,\theta )=0.$$
(30)
Here we set $`\psi (z,\theta )=A^2\mathrm{\Psi }_0(z,\theta )`$ in order to canonically normalize the kinetic term in (30) and $`k_y=k_\tau k`$. Now, eqs. (29,30) describe the propagation of massless spin-2 particle localized on the 4-dimensional intersection region. Indeed, the only normalizable solution which is consistent with boundary conditions (26) is:

$$\psi (z,\theta )=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\frac{k}{\left(k\left(\left|z\right|+\left|\theta \right|\right)+1\right)^2}$$
(31)
where we have properly normalized the wave function, $`𝑑z𝑑\theta \left|\psi (z,\theta )\right|^2=1`$. Thus the discrete symmetry $`\theta z`$ not only provides automatic cancelation of the effective cosmological constant on the 4-dimensional intersection, but also singles out the zero mode solution (31), for the graviton. This in turn means that gravity is fully localized on the 4-dimensional intersection and the Newton law at all distances there is just ordinary 4-dimensional one. Indeed the Newton potential of the two point-like mass $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ placed on the intersection at a distance $`r`$ from each other is:

$$V(r)=G_N^{(6)}\frac{M_1M_2}{r}\left|\psi (0,0)\right|^2=G_N^{(4)}\frac{M_1M_2}{r}$$
(32)
where the effective 4-dimensional Newton constant $`G_N^{(6)}\frac{\kappa _4^2}{2}=8\pi M_4^2`$ is related to the 6-dimensional one $`G_N^{(6)}\frac{\kappa _6^2}{2}=8\pi M_6^4`$ through the following relation:

$$G_N^{(4)}=\frac{3k^2}{2}G_N^{(6)}$$
(33)
Note also that, while the effects of extra dimensions are essentially hidden for the 4-dimensional observer, they show up in the non-trivial warp factor $`A`$ (16). Thus the solution to the Plank/TeV scale hierarchy problem is possible in our scheme in the spirit proposed in , i.e. by placing the TeV 3-brane with Standard Model particles localized on it in the bulk at an appropriate distance from the intersection. Finally, the extension of the above scheme to more extra dimensions is also possible, although it requires more sophisticated extra symmetries to remove tachyonic KK modes from the effective 4-dimensional theory and to ensure natural (without fine tuning) vanishing of the cosmological constant.

## 5 Gravity on the intersection in the Minkowski bulk.

Here we would like to discuss the null space dimensional reduction in the case of the flat Minkowski bulk space-time. From the preceding sections, at first glance, it seems that KK modes are confined on the light cone even in the case of a Minkowski bulk space-time and thus 4-dimensional observer will still obtain $`\frac{1}{r^2}`$ Newton’s law on the intersection. Then, leaving aside the solution to the hierarchy problem via warped compactification, one can ask: do we really need to warp up or compactify the extra dimensions in order to have consistent 4-dimensional physics on the intersection region? The answer seems would be positive for all interactions except of gravity. Indeed, to have a consistent 4-dimensional gravity on the intersection it is not sufficient to correctly reproduce the Newton law, but one should ensure that the gravity on the intersection is just a tensor-type, i.e. an extra polarization states are actually decoupled from the 4-dimensional massless graviton. If it is not a case then one fails to explain some familiar gravitational experiments such as the experiments on the bending of light in the gravitational field of the Sun and the experiments measured precession rate of the Mercury orbit.

These extra polarization states show up in the tensor structure of the propagator of massless graviton. Basically this is related to the well-known fact that the massless limit of the massive graviton is actually discontinuous in the flat background space-time . So one should evaluate full propagator including the tensor structure as well. Here we come to the point the discussion on which we have postponed in the previous section. As we have mentioned there, the RS gauge (21,24) becomes inconsistent when one consider an extra matter sources say localized on the intersection of the branes. One can relax the traceless condition in (21), but now extra scalar polarization state appear in the spectrum of the massless states on the 4-dimensional intersection. Thus one can worry that this scalar polarization state can not be removed from the physical spectrum and the gravity on the 4-dimensional intersection is scalar-tensor type. As it is shown in , actually this is not the case in the original RS model . The extra scalar can indeed be gauged away. The physical reason for this is that in the RS model one has a zero mode graviton localized on the brane for which one expect to have the usual 4-dimensional massless propagator. Since in the case considered in the previous section the graviton zero mode is also localized on the intersection, the same procedure used in  can be applied to show that the gravity on the intersection is just the Einstein-type one.

Now turning to the case of the Minkowski bulk, it is obvious that the extra polarization states can not be gauged away, since gravity is allowed to freely propagate in the infinite Minkowski bulk space-time. Although we can hide all massive KK-states through the null space dimensional reduction, so that the scalar part of the propagator of graviton will be just as for the massless 4-dimensional one, but the tensor structure of the propagator is expected to be higher-dimensional, due to the contributions of the massless scalar modes. Note once again that this point is peculiar to the gravitational interactions. Say gauge fields, living in the null reduced Minkowski bulk, can correctly reproduce 4-dimensional physics on the intersection.

## 6 Conclusions.

We discussed the cosmological constant problem within the Brane World scenario with extra time-like dimension. Particularly, we considered the intersecting brane configuration in the 6-dimensional space-time with one extra time-like and one extra space-like dimensions. Among the possible warped background solutions to the Einstein equations we have found one with vanishing cosmological constant which is invariant under the discrete interchange of extra time-like and extra space-like dimensions. This simple symmetry can be suitably generalized (see footnote 9) to ensure vanishing of the bulk cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=0`$, and the realation $`T_\tau =T_y`$ in the original action (4) and thus to single out the desired background solution with flat 4-dimensional intersection of branes. On the other hand, it is remarkable that the same symmetry leads to the fully localized gravity on the 4-dimensional intersection world-volume. Thus the problem of natural (without fine tuning) vanishing of the cosmological constant and the stability problem related with extra time-like dimension are solved simultaneously.

Clearly, several questions have to be answered before the above proposal can be considered as a candidate solution to the cosmological constant problem. Among them are the localization of Standard Model fields on the 4-dimensional intersection and the origin of the discrete symmetry imposed, which in the given set-up perhaps looks rather artificial. One can hope to find an answers to these questions at a more fundamental level. In this respect it is interesting to investigate whether the above or similar constructions can be obtained as a low energy limit of more fundamental string theory.

### Acknowledgments.

We thank Gia Dvali, Gregory Gabadaze, Merab Gogberashvili, Zurab Kakushadze and Dimitri Polyakov for useful discussions. A.B.K. would like also to gratefully acknowledge stimulating research atmosphere at Gran Sasso Summer Institute ”Dark matter and Supersymmetry” where the part of this work was done. The research of M.C., A.B.K and Z.H.Y. was supported by the Academy of Finland under the Research Project No. 163394 and that of Z.B. was partially supported by the MURST research grant ”Astroparticle Physics”.


text:
# Unitarity Bounds and the Cuspy Halo Problem

## I Introduction

There is a long history of efforts to constrain dark matter properties from galactic structure (e.g. ). Recent numerical simulations  sharpen the predictions of Cold Dark Matter (CDM) structure formation models, and apparent discrepancies with the observed properties of structures from galactic to cluster scales are uncovered. The main one that has attracted a lot of attention is the cuspy halo problem , namely that CDM models predict halos that have a high density core or have an inner profile that is too steep compared to observations (, but see also ). This has encouraged several proposals that dark matter might have properties different from those of conventional CDM (see  and summary therein).

On the other hand, general principles of quantum mechanics impose non-trivial constraints on some of these models. We focus here on the proposals of collisional or strongly self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) by  and of strongly annihilating dark matter (SADM) by . Both require high level of interaction by particle physics standard: an elastic scattering cross-section of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}.}10^{24}(m_X/\mathrm{GeV})\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for the former and an annihilation cross-section of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}.}v_{\mathrm{rel}}10^{28}(m_X/\mathrm{GeV})\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for the latter, where $`m_X`$ is the particle mass, and $`v_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ is the relative velocity of approach. The proposed dark matter is therefore quite different from usual candidates such as the axion or neutralino. We show that the unitarity of the scattering matrix, together with a few reasonable assumptions, imposes interesting particle mass bounds as well as other physical constraints. This is done while making minimal assumptions about the nature of the interactions. Our results complement constraints from experiments or astrophysical considerations e.g. .

Griest and Kamionkowski  previously derived similar mass bounds related to the freeze-out density of thermal relics, assuming 2-body final states. In §II, we provide a general derivation for arbitrary final states using the classic optical theorem . We summarize our findings in §III, discuss exceptions to our bounds, and other solutions to the cuspy halo problem.

## II Deriving the Unitarity Bounds

Different versions of the unitarity bounds can be found in many textbooks, and can be most easily understood using non-relativistic quantum mechanics (e.g. ), which is probably adequate for our purpose. However, the results and derivation given here might be of wider interest e.g. for estimating thermal relic density. Here we follow closely the field theory treatment of .

The optical theorem  is a powerful consequence of the unitarity of the scattering matrix $`S`$, i.e. $`S^{}S=1`$, which implies $`(1S)^{}(1S)=(1S^{})+(1S)`$, or

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\gamma \beta |1S|\gamma \gamma |1S^{}|\alpha }=2\mathrm{Re}\beta |1S|\alpha `$ (1)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ represent two specified states and $`\gamma `$ represents a complete set of states with measure $`d\gamma `$. Using the definition of the scattering amplitude $`A_{\beta \alpha }`$

$$\beta |1S|\alpha i(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_\beta p_\alpha )A_{\beta \alpha }$$
(2)
where $`p_\beta `$ and $`p_\alpha `$ are the total four-momenta, one obtains

$$𝑑\gamma (2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_\alpha p_\gamma )|A_{\gamma \alpha }|^2=2\mathrm{Im}A_{\alpha \alpha }$$
(3)
if $`\beta =\alpha `$ in eq. (1). We are interested in the case where $`\alpha `$ represents a 2-body state of $`X+X`$ or $`X+\overline{X}`$ approaching each other. The final state $`\gamma `$, on the other hand, is completely general, and the integration over $`\gamma `$ covers the entire spectrum of possible final states. To be more precise, suppose $`|\alpha =|k_1,s_1^z;k_2,s_2^z;n`$ where $`s_1^z`$ and $`s_2^z`$ represent the spin-states of the two incoming particles with spins $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ (in our particular case, $`s_1=s_2`$) while $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are their respective 4-momenta, and $`n`$ labels the particle types (e.g. mass, etc.). Recalling that $`d\sigma /d\gamma |A_{\gamma \alpha }|^2`$, eq. (3) gives in the center of mass frame (adopted hereafter i.e. $`𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}+𝐤_\mathrm{𝟐}=0`$):

$$𝑑\gamma \frac{d\sigma }{d\gamma }(\alpha \gamma )=\frac{\mathrm{Im}A_{\alpha \alpha }}{2(E_1+E_2)|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|}$$
(4)
where the left hand side is exactly the total cross-section. This is the optical theorem. It states that the total cross-section for scattering from a two-body initial state to all possible final states equals the imaginary part of the two-body to two-body forward scattering amplitude.

To use this theorem, we expand the scattering amplitude in terms of partial waves i.e. states labeled as $`|𝐤_{\mathrm{tot}.},E_{\mathrm{tot}.},j,j^z,\mathrm{},s,n`$ where $`𝐤_{\mathrm{tot}.}`$ is the total linear momentum ($`=0`$ in the center of mass frame), $`E_{\mathrm{tot}.}`$ is the total energy , $`j`$ is the total angular momentum, $`j^z`$ is its z-component, $`\mathrm{}`$ is the orbital momentum and $`s`$ is the total spin. Inserting appropriate complete sets of partial wave outer products into eq. (2), we obtain

$`A_{\beta \alpha }`$ $`=4i(2\pi )^2[E_1^{}+E_2^{}/|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}|]^{\frac{1}{2}}[E_1+E_2/|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j,j^z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}^{},s^{},\mathrm{},s}{}}\mathrm{}^{}s^{}n^{}|1S|\mathrm{}sn_{j,E_{\mathrm{tot}.}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}_{}^{z}{}_{}{}^{},s_{}^{z}{}_{}{}^{}}{}}s^{}s_{}^{z}{}_{}{}^{}|s_{1}^{z}{}_{}{}^{}s_{2}^{z}{}_{}{}^{}_{s_1^{},s_2^{}}jj^z|\mathrm{}_{}^{z}{}_{}{}^{}s_{}^{z}{}_{}{}^{}_{\mathrm{}^{},s^{}}\widehat{𝐤}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}|\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}_{}^{z}{}_{}{}^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}^z,s^z}{}}ss^z|s_1^zs_2^z_{s_1,s_2}^{}jj^z|\mathrm{}^zs^z_{\mathrm{},s}^{}\widehat{𝐤}_\mathrm{𝟏}|\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^z^{}`$
where the crucial assumption is that $`S`$ is rotationally invariant and so $`j`$ and $`j_z`$ are conserved, in addition to energy conserving. The notation $`\mathrm{}^{}s^{}n^{}|1S|\mathrm{}sn_{j,E_{\mathrm{tot}.}}`$ emphasizes that $`S`$ is diagonal in $`j`$, $`j^z`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ but the $`j^z`$ dependence drops out because $`S`$ commutes with $`J_x\pm iJ_y`$. The inner products $`ss^z|s_1^zs_2^z_{s_1,s_2}`$ and $`jj^z|\mathrm{}^zs^z_{\mathrm{},s}`$ give the Clebsch-Gordon coefficients, and $`\widehat{𝐤}_\mathrm{𝟏}|\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^z=Y_\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^z(\widehat{𝐤}_\mathrm{𝟏})`$ is the spherical harmonic function. We assume $`\widehat{𝐤}_\mathrm{𝟏}=\widehat{𝐳}`$ in which case $`Y_\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^z(\widehat{𝐤}_\mathrm{𝟏})=\delta _{\mathrm{}^z,0}\sqrt{2\mathrm{}+1/(4\pi )}`$. The index $`\beta `$ denotes a 2-body final state $`|k_1^{},s_1^{};k_2^{},s_2^{};n^{}`$.

Setting $`\beta =\alpha `$, and averaging over the spin-states (i.e. $`(2s_1+1)^1(2s_2+1)^1_{s_1^z,s_2^z}`$) on both sides of eq. (4), the optical theorem, we obtain :

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}.}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|^2(2s_1+1)(2s_2+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(2j+1)`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{},s}{}}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{}sn|1S|\mathrm{}sn_{j,E_{\mathrm{tot}.}}`$
This gives the total spin-averaged cross-section for scattering from $`X+X`$ or $`X+\overline{X}`$ to all possible final states.

For $`X+\overline{X}`$ annihilation, we exclude from the above the contribution due to elastic scattering (where type and mass of particles do not change i.e. $`X+\overline{X}X+\overline{X}`$, implying $`|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}|=|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|`$) . To do so, we need the following expression for 2-body to 2-body scattering cross-section:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\beta }d\beta =\frac{|A_{\beta \alpha }|^2}{4(E_1+E_2)|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_\beta p_\alpha )d\beta ,$$
(11)
We average over initial spin states and integrate over outgoing momenta, but focus on the elastic contribution ($`n^{}`$ in $`|\beta =|k_1^{},s_1^{};k_2^{},s_2^{};n^{}`$ is set to $`n`$ in $`|\alpha `$) :

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}.}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|^2(2s_1+1)(2s_2+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(2j+1)`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{},s,\mathrm{}^{},s^{}}{}}|\mathrm{}^{}s^{}n|1S|\mathrm{}sn_{j,E_{\mathrm{tot}.}}|^2`$
The above is the total cross-section for elastic scattering (note: the same expression also describes $`X+XX+X`$ elastic scattering) that has to be subtracted from $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}.}`$ to yield the total inelastic scattering cross-section, which is relevant for annihilation into all possible final states:

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{inel}.}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k_1^2(2s_1+1)(2s_2+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(2j+1)`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{},s}{}}[1|\mathrm{}sn|S|\mathrm{}sn|^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{},s^{}s}{}}|\mathrm{}^{}s^{}n|1S|\mathrm{}sn|^2]`$ (15)
From eq. (10) & (14), we can derive two bounds:

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}.}4\pi [|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|^2(2s_1+1)(2s_2+1)]^1{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{},s}{}}2j+1`$ (16)
$`\sigma _{\mathrm{inel}.}\pi [|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|^2(2s_1+1)(2s_2+1)]^1{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{},s}{}}2j+1`$ (17)
The first inequality uses $`|\mathrm{}sn|S|\mathrm{}sn|^21`$, obtained from $`𝑑\gamma \mathrm{}sn|S^{}|\gamma \gamma |S|\mathrm{}sn|\mathrm{}sn|S|\mathrm{}sn|^2`$ and $`S^{}S=1`$. A similar bound can be derived for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}.}`$ as well, which coincides exactly with that for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}.}`$.

We pause to note that the above bounds assume only unitarity and the conservation of total energy and linear and angular momentum. No assumptions are made about the nature of the particles, whether they are composite or point-like. Nor do we assume the number of particles in the final states. To obtain useful limits from the bounds, we take the low velocity limit. Assuming the scattering amplitude $`A_{\beta \alpha }`$ is an analytic function of $`𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ as $`𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}0`$ (exceptions will be discussed in §III), and noting that $`k^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{𝐤}|\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^z`$ is a polynomial function of $`𝐤`$, we expect the $`\mathrm{}`$ partial wave contribution to $`A_{\beta \alpha }`$ (eq. 8) to scale as $`|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|^{\mathrm{}}`$. This means in the low velocity limit, as is relevant for our purpose (typical velocity dispersion in halos range from $`10`$ to $`1000`$ km/s $`c`$), the $`\mathrm{}=0`$ or s-wave contribution dominates. Setting $`\mathrm{}=0`$ in eq. (16), (17):

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}.}16\pi /(m_Xv_{\mathrm{rel}})^2,\sigma _{\mathrm{inel}.}v_{\mathrm{rel}}4\pi /(m_X^2v_{\mathrm{rel}})`$ (18)
where $`k_1^2=m_X^2|𝐯_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐯_\mathrm{𝟏}|^2/4=m_X^2v_{\mathrm{rel}}^2/4`$ is used. The second inequality agrees with . Hence,

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}.}1.76\times 10^{17}\mathrm{cm}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{GeV}}{m_X}}\right]^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}{v_{\mathrm{rel}.}}}\right]^2`$ (19)
$`\sigma _{\mathrm{inel}.}v_{\mathrm{rel}.}1.5\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{GeV}}{m_X}}\right]^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}{v_{\mathrm{rel}.}}}\right]`$ (20)
Furthermore, if $`\sigma _{\mathrm{inel}.}`$ is bounded from below, say $`\sigma _{\mathrm{inel}.}\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}.}`$, one can derive a lower bound on $`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}.}`$ using eq. (13) & (14), and setting $`\mathrm{}=0`$. Defining $`X_J[(2s_1+1)(2s_2+1)]^1_{j,\mathrm{},s}(2j+1)X`$, using $`S`$ at the moment to denote $`\mathrm{}sn|S|\mathrm{}sn`$, and noting that $`1_J=1`$ for $`\mathrm{}=0`$, it can be shown $`(\pi /k_1^2)(1|S|_J^2)(\pi /k_1^2)(1|S|^2_J)\sigma _{\mathrm{inel}.}\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}.}`$, which implies $`|S|_J\sqrt{1k_1^2\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}.}/\pi }`$. Also, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}.}(\pi /k_1^2)|1S|^2_J(\pi /k_1^2)(1|S|)^2_J(\pi /k_1^2)(1|S|_J)^2`$. Combining, we have

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}.}(\pi /k_1^2)[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\sqrt{1k_1^2\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}.}/\pi }]^2`$ (21)
This tells us that the elastic scattering cross-section cannot be arbitrarily small given a non-vanishing inelastic cross-section, e.g. via annihilation.

The above 3 bounds are the main results of this section. Two more results will be useful for our later discussions. For two-body to two-body processes, recall that the $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ contribution to $`A_{\beta \alpha }`$ scales as $`|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|^{\mathrm{}}|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}|^{\mathrm{}^{}}`$. Using $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }=|A_{\beta \alpha }|^2(|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}|/|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|)/[64\pi ^2(E_1+E_2)^2]`$ (obtained from eq. 11 by integrating over $`\beta `$ except for solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$), it can be seen that for elastic scattering, where $`|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}|=|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|`$,

$`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{const}.[1+O(v_{\mathrm{rel}.})]`$ (22)
as $`|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|0`$. For inelastic scattering where the system gains kinetic energy by losing rest mass (e.g. de-excitation of a composite particle or annihilation), since $`|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}|`$ approaches a non-zero value as $`|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|0`$, we have

$`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{const}./v_{\mathrm{rel}.})[1+O(v_{\mathrm{rel}.})]`$ (23)
instead in the low velocity limit. The opposite case where the particle gains mass is discussed in .

## III Discussion

We can derive the following four constraints for strongly self-interacting dark matter (SIDM)  and strongly annihilating dark matter (SADM) .

1. The range $`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}.}10^{24}10^{23}\mathrm{cm}^2(m_X/\mathrm{GeV})`$ is given by  for SIDM to yield the desired halo properties. Using the lower $`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}.}`$, and $`v_{\mathrm{rel}.}1000`$ km/s (appropriate for clusters), eq. (19) tells us $`m_X\text{ }<12`$ GeV for SIDM.

2. The annihilation cross-section from , $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}.}v_{\mathrm{rel}.}10^{28}\mathrm{cm}^2(m_X/\mathrm{GeV})`$, together with eq. (20) and $`v_{\mathrm{rel}.}1000`$ km/s, gives us a bound of $`m_X\text{ }<25`$ GeV for strongly annihilating dark matter.

3. For SADM, efficient annihilation (a form of inelastic scattering) inevitably implies some elastic scattering as well. From eq. (21), and using $`v_{\mathrm{vel}}1000`$ km/s as before, we have

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}.}`$ $``$ $`4\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2[\mathrm{GeV}/m_X]^2`$ (25)
$`[1\sqrt{17\times 10^5(m_X/\mathrm{GeV})^3}]^2`$
Two simple limiting cases: when $`m_X`$ is close to the upper bound of $`25`$ GeV, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}.}\text{ }>4\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$; when $`m_X`$ is small, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}.}\text{ }>5\times 10^{31}\mathrm{cm}^2(m_X/\mathrm{GeV})^4`$. Hence, elastic scattering is inevitable in this scenario, but can be reduced by having a sufficiently small mass.

4. Recent simulations suggest that the simplest version of SIDM fails to match simultaneously the observed halo properties from dwarf galaxies to clusters  (see also ), which have $`v_{\mathrm{rel}.}`$ ranging over 3 orders of magnitude. It was suggested that an elastic scattering cross-section of $`\sigma 1/v_{\mathrm{rel}.}`$ might solve the problem. But as shown in eq. (22), elastic scattering generally implies $`\sigma `$ constant in the small velocity limit. Hence, $`\sigma 1/v_{\mathrm{rel}.}`$ likely requires inelastic processes. As eq. (23) shows, processes in which the net kinetic energy increases ($`|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}|>|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|`$ in c.o.m. frame) can give such a velocity dependence. SADM provides an example. More generally, the net kinetic energy increase (super-elasticity) must be taken into account when considering the viability of a model with $`\sigma 1/v_{\mathrm{rel}.}`$ e.g. it may delay core collapse and make the core larger. Note, however, the general considerations in the last section does not forbid an elastic cross-section that increases as $`v_{\mathrm{rel}.}`$ decreases e.g. the $`O(v_{\mathrm{rel}.})`$ term in eq. (22) can have a negative coefficient. A $`1/v_{\mathrm{rel}.}`$ power-law may approximate such a cross-section, but likely only for a limited range of $`v_{\mathrm{rel}.}`$. An example is the neutron-neutron scattering cross-section, which approaches a constant for $`|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|\text{ }<10^2`$ GeV, and scales as $`1/v_{\mathrm{rel}.}`$ only for $`10^2\text{ }<|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|\text{ }<5\times 10^2`$ GeV .

It is helpful to mention here possible exceptions to the above limits. Our bounds are obtained from eq. (19) & (20), which are the $`\mathrm{}=0`$ (s-wave) versions of eq. (16) & (17). The argument for putting $`\mathrm{}=0`$ in the small velocity limit assumes the analyticity of $`A_{\beta \alpha }`$ at $`𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}=0`$. The latter breaks down if the interaction is long-ranged, e.g. Coulomb scattering. This is unlikely to be relevant, because there are strong constraints on dark matter with such long ranged interaction . Our argument for the dominance of s-wave scattering can also be invalid if there is a resonance. However, given that the scattering cross section should vary smoothly over three orders of magnitude in velocities from dwarfs to clusters, a resonance seems unlikely. Finally, the most likely situation in which the bounds break down is if the particle has a large enough size, or the interaction has a large enough effective range, $`R`$, such that $`|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|R>1`$ (e.g. see ). In such cases, higher partial waves in addition to s-wave generally contribute, and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}.}\text{ }<64\pi R^2`$ and our arguments turn into a limit on $`R`$ . The condition $`|𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}|R>1`$ gives the most stringent constraint on $`R`$ for $`v_{\mathrm{rel}.}=10`$ km/s, as appropriate for dwarf galaxies: $`R\text{ }>10^9\mathrm{cm}(\mathrm{GeV}/m_X)`$. One can compare this with $`R`$ for neutron-neutron scattering $`10^{13}`$ cm .

It is intriguing that halo structure might be telling us the elementary properties, in particular the mass, of dark matter. It is interesting that several proposals to address the cuspy halo problem, such as Warm Dark Matter  and Fuzzy Dark Matter  make explicit assumptions about the mass of the particles – $`m_X1`$ keV and $`m_X10^{22}`$ eV respectively. For SIDM and SADM, astrophysical considerations generally only put constraints on the cross-section per unit mass. We have shown here that unitarity arguments imply a rather modest mass for both scenarios as well. It is also worth pointing out that our arguments, with suitable modification to take into account bose enhancement and multiple incoming particles, can be extended to cover dark matter in the form of a bose condensate, as has been proposed as yet another solution to the cuspy halo problem . They generally require small masses as well $`\text{ }<10`$ eV.

A few issues are worth further investigation. Wandelt et al.  recently argued a version of SIDM, where the dark matter interacts strongly also with baryons, is experimentally viable, but requires $`m_X\text{ }>10^5`$ GeV, or $`m_X\text{ }<0.5`$ GeV. Our bound here is inconsistent with the large mass region (but see exceptions above); experimental constraints on the low mass region will be very interesting ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}.}\text{ }<10^{25}\mathrm{cm}^2`$). It would be useful to find a micro-physics realization of the collisional scenario  or its variant where $`\sigma `$ scales appropriately with velocity to match observations. The impact of inelastic collisions on halo structures is worth exploring in more detail. It is also timely to reconsider possible astrophysical solutions to the cuspy halo problem, such as the use of mass loss mechanisms . We hope to examine some of these issues in the future.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thanks Manoj Kaplinghat, Avi Loeb, Dam Son, Paul Steinhardt and Igor Tkachev for useful discussions, and Jonathan Feng, Andrei Gruzinov and Yossi Nir for helpful comments. Thanks are due to David Spergel for pointing out the example of neutron scattering, and to Kim Griest and Marc Kamionkowski for educating the author on elastic scattering, which led to a tightening of a bound from an earlier version. Support by the Taplin Fellowship at the IAS, and by the Outstanding Junior Investigator Award from DOE, DE-FG02-92-ER40699, is gratefully acknowledged.