text:
# 1 Ubiquitous Hadronic Interactions

## 1 Ubiquitous Hadronic Interactions

A microscopic understanding hadron-hadron scattering remains an elusive goal of hadronic physics. This is unfortunate because the interactions of hadrons is important from a variety of perspectives. At the hadronic level, it provides vital insight into the dynamics of quarks and gluons. It is also relevant to the search for the quark gluon plasma, since hadronic interactions can mask putative signals for the QCD phase transition. Applications extend beyond hadronic physics: for example the search for CP violating phases in the final states of $`D`$ of $`B`$ decays will require correctly accounting for strong interaction final state phases. Of course, hadron-hadron interactions are directly relevant to a longstanding goal of nuclear physics – deriving the nuclear force from QCD. This issue is not just of intellectual concern since it is important to be able to extend our understanding of internuclear forces to extreme conditions (of temperature and pressure) so that a variety of astrophysical and cosmological issues may be reliably examined.

Given the importance of the area, it is not surprising that a number of techniques have been developed to address the dynamics of hadron-hadron interactions. These roughly fall into two classes: those which treat hadrons as elementary fields and those which attempt to describe the interactions using QCD as the starting point. Among the former are potential approaches (Bonn, Paris, Argonne), relativistic hydrodynamic approaches, and a variety of effective field theories (chiral perturbation theory, effective NN theory). Among the latter are lattice gauge theory, Schwinger-Dyson models, light cone field theory, a multigluon dipole interaction model, and constituent quark models.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to summarize the advantages and faults of all of these methods here. Rather, the remainder of this document focuses on attempts to describe hadronic interactions which are based on the nonrelativistic constituent quark model (CQM). The CQM is beyond a doubt the most widely used description of the static properties of hadrons – largely because it is able to describe hundreds of experimental data with a handful of parameters in a comparatively simple picture. Thus it is no surprise that attempts to describe hadronic interactions with the CQM have a long history . Despite the well-known short comings of the CQM (some of which will be discussed below) the benefits are immediately apparent: the CQM may be applied to any hadronic interactions and the predictions are essentially parameter-free. By this I mean that the parameters of the CQM are very strongly fixed by comparison with static hadron properties – there is no wiggle room when computing interactions! Of course the extension of the CQM to dynamic properties of hadrons requires some extrapolation111For example, the dynamics of flux tubes may be essentially ignored in conventional meson and baryons. This is no longer the case for multiquark systems.; however, this should not form a barrier in itself. To paraphrase Feynman, “Trust your model and see how far it takes you.”

## 2 Quark Born Diagrams

In the following we shall consider a CQM which includes Coulomb and linear central potentials, a spin-spin colour hyperfine interaction, and possibly spin-orbit and tensor interactions. It may be somewhat of a surprise that the Breit-Fermi interactions are included here since they are normally only required to achieve detailed agreement with spectroscopic and other static properties of the hadrons. However, as we shall see shortly, subleading (in $`v/c`$) interactions can dominate hadronic scattering!

A great deal of effort has been expended on variational and resonating group approaches to scattering in the CQM. Here I describe a simplified approach where one evaluates the T-matrix at Born order, called the “Quark Born Diagram” (QBD) method. The T-matrix for meson-meson scattering is shown diagrammatically in Fig 1. The diagrams represent momentum flow in the Born order term of the Neumann series and must be attached to external mesonic wavefunctions. Quark exchange must occur to maintain asymptotic colour singlet states. In doing these computations one needs to be aware that scattering with composite objects can be very different than pointlike objects. For example, hermiticity of the scattering amplitude is no longer trivial but requires that the wavefunctions be exact eigenstates of $`H_0`$. This property is related to the “post-prior” discrepancy. Furthermore, consistency of the kinematical relationships must be maintained with the Hamiltonian (nonrelativistic Hamiltonians require nonrelativistic kinematics to maintain hermiticity). Also, one cannot change parameters at will! For example, mesonic radii or quark masses cannot be independently modified. One must instead adjust a Hamiltonian parameter, solve for the spectrum again, and then evaluate the T-matrix.

Fig. 1: Diagrams Contributing to Meson-Meson Scattering

### 2.1 Applications

The application of the Quark Born formalism requires some care. For example, if one is to restrict attention to the terms shown in Fig 1, then channels where strong quark annihilation effects are expected (such as $`I=0`$ $`\pi \pi `$) should be avoided. Furthermore, if the predicted interactions are strong, the Born order results should be iterated (this is discussed below). The Quark Born Diagram method has been applied to a variety of hadronic reactions. These include I=2 $`\pi \pi `$ scattering (with surprising agreement considering the relativistic and chiral nature of the pion), I=3/2 $`\pi K`$ scattering (testing Bose symmetry breaking due to the strange quark mass), $`KN`$ scattering (demonstrating surprising agreement in the S-wave and a dramatic failure in the P-wave), short range $`NN`$ scattering (in agreement with resonating group computations), $`BB`$ scattering  (in agreement with lattice computations), $`J/\psi \pi `$ scattering (in strong disagreement with previous estimates and in agreement with rudimentary data), $`\pi \rho `$ scattering (an examination of the generation of hadronic spin orbit and tensor interactions from the quark level), and possible meson-meson bounds states (the $`f_0(1710)`$ may be identified as a $`K^{}\overline{K}^{}\omega \varphi `$ bound state).

A comparison of the predicted and experimental isotensor S-wave $`\pi \pi `$ phase shifts is shown in Fig 2. A sample cross section prediction relevant to charm suppression at RHIC is shown in Fig 3.

Fig. 2: The $`I=2`$ S-wave $`\pi \pi `$ Phase Shift. The solid line is the QBD prediction,

the dashed line is the one loop chiral prediction, while the lower dashed line is

the tree order chiral result. Data are from .

Fig. 3: Prediction of the $`\pi \eta _cD^{}\overline{D}^{}`$ Cross Section.

## 3 Limitations and Extensions of the CQM

As mentioned above, the CQM in general, and the QBD formalism in particular, suffers from several inadequacies. We summarize several of these and discuss methods for addressing them.

### 3.1 Unitarity, Relativistic Kinematics, and Nonlocality

Perhaps the simplest problem arises when the scattering is so strong that the tree level diagrams of the QBD method are inaccurate. This may be tested by comparing QBD predictions to more complete resonating group calculations (which iterate the scattering to all orders and can, in principle, include the effects of coupled channels, wavefunction distortion, etc). Such a comparison of $`\rho \rho `$ scattering in isospin 2 was made in Ref.  where the accuracy of the QBD results were explicitly demonstrated. Nevertheless, it is worth observing that strong interactions may be accounted for by extracting effective potentials for the process in question and iterating the potential in the appropriate Schrödinger equation. An example of this is shown in Fig 4, where the effective $`\pi \pi `$ interaction has been extracted from the QBD $`\pi \pi `$ T-matrix and iterated in the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation. This is shown as a dashed line. Evidently, the agreement with data is ruined by this procedure (I am presenting the worst possible case – the procedure works very well in general). This is because the light mass of the pions (and the large invariant masses at which the formalism is being applied) requires relativistic kinematics to be employed (this has been used in the QBD prediction of Fig 2). Thus the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation is inappropriate for iterating the effective $`\pi \pi `$ interaction.

Fig. 4: I=2 $`\pi \pi `$ Scattering. The solid line is the QBD prediction, the dashed line is the

nonrelativistic local prediction, while the dotted line is the nonlocal, relativistic prediction.

A related problem is the nonlocality of the $`\pi \pi `$ T-matrix (because composite particles are being scattered). Any extracted effective potential which is local will induce unknown errors after being iterated. Fortunately, all three problems may be dealt with by choosing to solve for the T-matrix directly in momentum space:

$$T_E(k^{},k)=V(k^{},k)+d^3pV(k^{},p)\frac{1}{EE(p)+iϵ}T_E(p,k)$$
(1)
As is evident from the equation, nonlocal effective potentials may be directly employed (in fact these are proportional to the QBD T-matrices), unitarity is automatically restored, and nonrelativistic kinematics may be incorporated by use of the relativistic dispersion relation for $`E(p)`$. This is illustrated as the dotted line in Fig 4, where one sees that the effect of iterating the $`\pi \pi `$ potential is to weaken the scattering at higher invariant mass.

### 3.2 Annihilation to Hybrids

To this point attention has been restricted to ‘exotic’ channels such as I=2, where resonance contributions are forbidden. We now examine the issues involved in relaxing this constraint. Two possible intermediate states may be realized (at least at lowest order in the Fock space expansion), annihilation to intermediate mesons or annihilation to intermediate hybrid mesons. The latter process involves an intermediate state consisting of a quark – antiquark pair and a ‘gluon’ (where the gluon may be an excited flux tube or a constituent gluon, depending on one’s picture of soft glue).

The nonrelativistic reduction of the one gluon exchange potential which describes the coupling of a $`q\overline{q}`$ pair to an intermediate perturbative gluon is

$$V_{ann}=\frac{2\pi \alpha _s}{m^2}\left(\frac{3}{4}+\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j\right)\delta (\stackrel{}{r}_{ij})\frac{\lambda _i^a}{2}\frac{\lambda _j^a}{2}.$$
(2)
However, the intermediate state in this case is a hybrid, which typically has a mass some 1000 MeV above low lying mesons with the same quark content. Thus one may expect that it is more realistic to employ a gluon propagator with a fictitious mass of roughly 1 GeV. One may incorporate this into the expression above by multiplying it by a factor $`f`$ which is to be fit to the data and which we expect to be roughly -1. This rather speculative adjustment can be verified by comparing reactions with no annihilation to similar reactions where annihilation is permitted. For example, I=2 $`\pi \pi `$ scattering may be compared to I=0 $`\pi \pi `$; I=3/2 $`K\pi `$ scattering may be compared to I=1/2 $`K\pi `$; and $`K^+N`$ scattering may be compared to $`\pi N`$ scattering. All indicate that a negative value of $`f`$ is required; a fit yields $`f2.6`$.

### 3.3 Coupled Channels

Even a cursory examination of typical hadronic scattering data reveals the importance of intermediate resonance states. Unfortunately the mechanism by which hadrons couple is poorly understood and surely involves complicated nonperturbative gluodynamics. The current best guess is the purely phenomenological $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model in which $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs are created with vacuum quantum numbers and combine with the parent quarks to produce the daughter mesons. Extensive calculations of meson and baryon decays have been made with moderate success (typical errors in the amplitude are 20% or less).

Incorporating the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model directly into the quark model is the most direct way to include the effects of intermediate resonances. This may be achieved most simply by writing the quark model in second quantized notation and including a $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ term which creates and annihilates $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs. This is multiplied by a constant $`\gamma `$ which may be determined by comparison to a specific channel (say, $`\rho \pi \pi `$).

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dx({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{2m_q}}b_x^{}b_x{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{2m_{\overline{q}}}}d_x^{}d_x)+\gamma {\displaystyle }dx(b_x^{}\sigma \stackrel{}{}d_x^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.).`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y\left(b_x^{}b_y^{}+d_x^{}d_y^{}\right)V(xy)\left(b_yb_x+d_yd_x\right)}.`$
The field theory is simplified by restricting the Fock space to the meson and meson-meson sectors of interest. Thus we project onto $`|A`$, $`|BC`$ by making the following Ansatz for the exact eigenstate:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \phi _A(r_1r_2)b_1^{}d_2^{}|0}`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{BC}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{BC}(\frac{r_2+r_4r_1r_3}{2})\phi _B(r_1r_3)\phi _C(r_2r_4)b_1^{}d_3^{}b_2^{}d_4^{}|0}`$
Varying the reduced Hamiltonian matrix element with respect to the unknown meson $`\phi _A`$ and meson-meson $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{BC}`$ wavefunctions yields the coupled channel Schrödinger equation:

$`E\phi _A(r)`$ $`=`$ $`H_{q\overline{q}}(r)\phi _A(r)`$
$`\gamma {\displaystyle }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(_B`$ $`+`$ $`_C+_{BC})\phi _{0B}(r/2x)\phi _{0C}(r/2+x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{BC}(r/2),`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu _{13,24}}}_R^2`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle K_E(x,y,R)\mathrm{\Psi }_{BC}(R^{})}+{\displaystyle V_E(x,y,R)\mathrm{\Psi }_{BC}(R^{})}`$ (6)
$``$ $`8\gamma {\displaystyle \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(_B+_C+_{BC})\phi _{0B}\phi _{0C}\phi _A(2R)}`$
$`=`$ $`E\mathrm{\Psi }_{BC}(R)+E{\displaystyle N_E(x,y,R)\mathrm{\Psi }_{BC}(R^{})}`$
Here $`r`$ is the interquark radius in the meson channel and $`R`$ is the intermeson distance in the meson-meson channel. Remarkably there is a simple relationship between these coordinates: $`R=r/2`$. $`K_E`$, $`V_E`$, and $`N_E`$ represent the exchange kinetic energy, potential, and normalization kernels respectively. Wavefunctions with a ‘naught’ subscript $`\phi _0`$ represent mesonic wavefunctions without the effects of channel mixing (so that we have assumed no wavefunction distortion in deriving this equation). The first of these equations is the nonrelativistic quark model ($`H_{q\overline{q}}`$) supplemented with a term which couples it to the meson-meson continuum – thereby ‘unquenching’ the quark model. The second equation is the resonating group equation which describes meson-meson scattering in the CQM (the Born order T-matrix for this equation is provided by the QBD). The term proportional to $`\gamma `$ provides the desired coupling to intermediate resonances.

Eqns (5,6) may be solved with standard coupled channel methods and the effects of unquenching the quark model and of intermediate resonances in scattering problems may be examined. An example of this is given in Fig 5 where the effect of coupling virtual $`\rho `$s to the $`\pi \pi `$ P-wave channel is studied. The $`\rho `$ mass has been shifted down 80 MeV while the bare width is 10 MeV, this corresponds to an ‘RPA’ width of 90 MeV.

Fig. 5: I=1 $`\pi \pi `$ Scattering. The arrows indicate the locations of the ‘bare’ $`\rho `$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ mesons.

### 3.4 Chiral Pions

The apparently successful description of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering evident in Fig 1 is perhaps surprising given the chiral nature of the pion and its interactions at low energy. Explaining this success will go a long way towards explaining the unwarranted success of the CQM in the light quark sector. One way to do this is to construct a model of strong QCD which incorporates the physics of chiral symmetry breaking at a microscopic level. In this way one may compute $`\pi \pi `$ scattering with composite particles while observing the dictates of chiral symmetry. It is possible to construct such a model by assuming a nontrivial QCD vacuum (typically a BCS-type vacuum) and building states on this vacuum with the random phase approximation to the full Bethe Salpeter equation. This has been done in Coulomb gauge QCD, with similar calculations in the Schwinger-Dyson approach

## 4 Conclusions

Studying and understanding hadronic interactions is vital to hadronic physics and is an important part of nuclear and electroweak physics. It is probable that a microscopic description of hadronic interactions is necessary if one wishes to understand these phenomena in extreme conditions or in poorly known channels. The constituent quark model provides an excellent starting point for developing the understanding required to construct a reliable model of strong QCD. In the meantime, it also serves as an excellent phenomenological guide to the interpretation of scattering experiments. The development of continuum field theoretic models capable of describing hadrons and their interactions is in its infancy – we look forward to their maturation and application to reaction processes.

The author thanks the organizers of the Hirschegg workshop for their labours and for introducing the participants to the delights of the Kleinwalsertal. A large portion of the work described here was performed with Ted Barnes and Adam Szczepaniak. The author is grateful to Paul Geiger for discussions on coupled channels. This work was supported by the US DOE under contracts DE-FG02-00ER41135 and DE-AC05-84ER40150.


format: text

text:
# Acknowledgments

## Acknowledgments

The Sher Alam’s work is supported by the Japan Society for for Technology \[JST\].


text:
# Conjugacy rigidity for nonpositively curved graph manifolds

## 1 Introduction

Two complete Riemannian manifolds, $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$, are said to have $`C^0`$ conjugate geodesic flows if there is a continuous map $`F:S^1NS^1N^{}`$ such that $`Fg_t=g_t^{}F`$ for all $`t`$ where $`g_t`$ (resp. $`g_t^{}`$) represents the geodesic flow on the unit sphere bundle $`S^1N`$ (resp. $`S^1N^{}`$). The conjugacy is called $`C^k`$ if $`F`$ is $`C^k`$.

Graph manifolds of nonpositive curvature are compact three dimensional manifolds whose geometry has been extensively studied in \[Sh\]. They are of interest for a number of reasons, but in particular they are the easiest nontrivial examples of nonpositively curved manifolds that have Ballmann rank 1 but whose fundamental group is not hyperbolic. Here we show:

Theorem 1.1. If $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ are compact nonpositively curved graph manifolds whose geodesic flows are $`C^0`$ conjugate then they must be isometric.

The conjugacy rigidity question for compact Riemannian manifolds: “When does a $`C^k`$ conjugacy between the geodesic flows of two compact Riemannian manifolds $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ imply that $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ are isometric?” is a much studied but still largely open question. This question is closely related to other rigidity problems (such as the ”boundary rigidity” problem and - in negative curvature - the ”marked length spectrum” rigidity problem).

There are many examples where isometry does not hold (Zoll surfaces or more generally the examples in section 6 of \[C-K2\] for example) however none of these occur in the nonpositive curvature setting. The only general conjugacy rigidity result known where there are no curvature assumptions made is that of \[C-K2\] where one of the metrics is assumed to have a parallel vector field (hence it is locally a Riemannian product where one factor is an interval). A natural setting for these questions is when at least one of the manifolds (say $`N`$) is assumed to have nonpositive curvature. The two dimensional case (when $`N`$ has nonpositive curvature) is completely taken care of by \[C-F-F\], which is based on \[O\], and \[Cr1\]. In higher dimensions, if $`N`$ is a locally symmetric space of negative curvature (see \[B-C-G\]) or a flat manifold (see \[Cr2\]) and if the conjugacy is $`C^1`$ (or $`C^0`$ if $`Vol(N)=Vol(N^{})`$) then $`N^{}`$ is isometric to $`N`$.

In this paper we consider the case where both manifolds $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ have nonpositive curvature and $`n3`$ (since the 2 dimensional case was taken care of by \[C-F-F\]). In this setting it is known that $`N^{}`$ must be isometric to $`N`$ if $`N`$ has Ballmann rank $`2`$ (see \[C-E-K\]).

In the above I restricted my attention only to rigidity theorems for a pair of compact manifolds without boundary. There are a number of results on compact manifolds with boundary or on finite volume manifolds. Much work has also been done on the deformation question (i.e. can there be nontrivial differentiable one parameter families $`N_t`$ with the ”same” geodesic flows) (see for example \[G-K\], \[C-S\], \[D-S\], and \[S-U\]).

In a previous paper, \[C-K1\], motivated by a question of Gromov in \[Gr\], the author along with Bruce Kleiner considered the space of geodesic rays on the universal cover of such nonpositively curved graph manifolds (as well as other related spaces). The asymptotic properties of the geodesic rays are encoded in the geodesic boundary (equivalence classes of rays) and the induced action of the fundamental group on that boundary. We were able to give necessary and sufficient conditions on the metrics to guarantee that two such (necessarily homeomorphic) spaces have universal covers with equivalent boundaries (i.e. there is a an equivariant, with respect to the action of the fundamental group, homeomorphism between the boundaries). In the process we saw that there were examples of non isometric graph manifolds of nonpositive curvature whose universal covers have equivalent boundaries. It thus became natural to ask if complete knowledge of the geodesic flow (i.e. knowledge up to $`C^0`$ conjugacy) is enough to completely determine the metric. (Such a conjugacy, of course, induces an equivalence between boundaries in a natural way.) Theorem 1 gives a positive answer to that.

Graph manifolds of nonpositive curvature have a very restricted geometric form as studied in \[Sh\]. They are the union over totally geodesic boundaries of pieces (the “geometric Seifert components”) whose universal covers are isometric to a Riemannian product $`X\times `$ where $`X`$ is a surface of nonpositive curvature with geodesic boundary. The universal cover of the geometric Seifert components are minimal displacement sets (see section 2 for a definition) of isometries. In fact, the minimal displacement set of an isometry of any simply connected space of nonpositive curvature has the form $`X\times `$ where $`X`$ is a convex subspace. They thus become amenable to some techniques developed in \[C-K2\]. In sections 2 and 3 of the paper we thus consider $`C^0`$ geodesic conjugacies between arbitrary nonpositively curved manifolds of dimension $`3`$. In section 3 we show that for corresponding minimal displacement sets the conjugacy induces affine maps between the corresponding spaces $`X`$ (see Proposition 3).

In section 4 we restrict our attention to graph manifolds and prove Theorem 1. Using the results in section 3 it is straightforward to show that corresponding Seifert components are isometric. However, we note that it is easy to glue isometric Seifert components together so as to make non isometric spaces. The main point of section 4 is to show that the components must glued together in an isometric manner.

We are grateful to Bruce Kleiner for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

## 2 Notation and preliminaries

A standard consequence of the flat strip theorem says that if $`\nu `$ is a geodesic in a simply connected nonpositively curved manifold $`M`$ then the space $`M_\nu =\{xM|x`$ lies on a geodesic that stays a bounded distance from $`\nu \}`$ is a convex subset of $`M`$ which is isometric to $`X_\nu \times `$ where $`X_\nu `$ is a simply connected manifold of nonpositive curvature with convex boundary. The unit speed geodesics that stay a bounded distance from $`\nu `$ are precisely the ”vertical” curves $`t(x_0,t+t_0)X_\nu \times `$ for fixed $`(x_0,t_0)`$. We will let $`\pi _\nu :M_\nu X_\nu `$ (resp. $`_\nu :M_\nu `$) be the projection.

Let $`N`$ be a Riemannian manifold of dimension $`3`$ and of nonpositive curvature and $`\pi _N:MN`$ its universal cover. Since basepoint projection, $`b:S^1NN`$, induces an isomorphism between $`\pi _1(S^1N)`$ and $`\pi _1(N)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we see that $`\pi _N:S^1MS^1N`$ is also a universal cover. (For any tangent vector $`v`$ to any space we will let $`b(v)`$ represent its base point.) After appropriate choices of base points we get cocompact actions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`M`$ and $`S^1M`$ with $`M/\mathrm{\Gamma }=N`$ and $`S^1M/\mathrm{\Gamma }=S^1N`$. For every $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we let $`M_\gamma M`$ be the set of points of minimal $`\gamma `$-displacement, i.e. the set of $`m`$ such that $`d(m,\gamma (m))`$ is a minimum. This is exactly the space $`M_\nu `$ where $`\nu `$ is any axis of $`\gamma `$ (i.e. $`\gamma (\nu )=\nu `$) and the axes of $`\gamma `$ are precisely the vertical geodesics in $`M\gamma `$. Thus $`M_\gamma `$ is a convex subset of $`M`$ which is isometric to $`X_\gamma \times `$ where $`\gamma `$ acts by translation on the $``$ factor and $`X_\gamma `$ is a simply connected manifold of nonpositive curvature with convex boundary. (We will use $`\pi _\gamma :M_\gamma X_\gamma `$ and $`_\gamma :M_\gamma `$) to represent the projections.) The centralizer, $`Z(\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, of $`\gamma `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, will act cocompactly on $`M_\gamma `$ preserving the vertical directions.

For every $`mM_\gamma `$, $`\pi _N`$ takes the (vertical) geodesic segment $`\overline{m\gamma (m)}`$ to a closed geodesic in the free homotopy class of $`\gamma `$, and all such closed geodesics come this way.

## 3 Geodesic conjugacies and the $`M_\nu `$

In this section we consider compact nonpositively curved manifolds $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ of dimension $`3`$. We discuss the consequences that a $`C^0`$ conjugacy of the geodesic flows has on the spaces $`M_\nu `$ (and in particular on the $`M_\gamma `$).

The isomorphism $`F_{}:\pi _1(S^1N)\pi _1(S^1N^{})`$, induces an isomorphism between $`\pi _1(N)`$ and $`\pi _1(N^{})`$. We will let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ represent the common abstract group. Thus (after choices of base points compatible with $`F`$ for $`M`$ $`M^{}`$, $`N`$, and $`N^{}`$) we can lift $`F`$ to a uniformly continuous conjugacy $`\stackrel{~}{F}:S^1MS^1M^{}`$ and have cocompact actions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ whose differentials commute with $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$. We will let $`D(F)<\mathrm{}`$ be the maximum over $`mM`$ of the diameters of the sets $`\stackrel{~}{F}(S_m^1M)S^1M^{}`$ where $`S_m^1MS^1M`$ represents the unit vectors with basepoint $`m`$.

Lemma 3.1. For all $`v,wS^1M`$:

$$2D(F)d_M(b(v),b(w))d_N(b(\stackrel{~}{F}(v)),b(\stackrel{~}{F}(w)))2D(F)$$

Proof: For $`v,wSM`$, let $`\tau :[0,l]M`$ be a minimizing geodesic from $`b(v)`$ to $`b(w)`$. Then both $`d_N(b(\stackrel{~}{F}(v)),b(\stackrel{~}{F}(\tau ^{}(0))))`$, and $`d_N(b(\stackrel{~}{F}(w)),b(\stackrel{~}{F}(\tau ^{}(l))))`$, are bounded by $`D(F)`$ and $`d_N(b(\stackrel{~}{F}(\tau ^{}(0))),b(\stackrel{~}{F}(\tau ^{}(l))))=d_N(b(\stackrel{~}{F}(\tau ^{}(0))),b(g^l(\stackrel{~}{F}(\tau ^{}(0)))))=l=d_M(b(v),b(w))`$. Hence the inequalities follow from the triangle inequality.  $`\mathrm{}`$

For any geodesic $`\nu `$ of $`M`$, $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ will take the unit tangent vector field of $`\nu `$ to the unit tangent field of a geodesic of $`M^{}`$ which by abuse of notation we will call $`\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )`$.

For $`\nu `$ a geodesic in $`M`$ and $`mM_\nu `$ we let $`V(m)`$ be the vertical direction at $`m`$ (i.e. points in the positive $``$ direction of $`M_\nu =X_\nu \times `$). An immediate consequence of the above lemma is that if a geodesic $`\nu _1`$ stays a bounded distance from $`\nu `$ then $`\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu _1)`$ stays a bounded distance from $`\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{F}(V(m))=V^{}(m^{})`$ for some $`m^{}M_{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}`$. This allows us to define a map $`G_\nu :M_\nu M_{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{F}(V(m))=V^{}(G_\nu (m))`$, and then, since we have $`G_\nu (\tau _tm)=\tau _t^{}(G_\nu (m))`$ (where $`\tau _t`$ and $`\tau _t^{}`$ represent vertical translation in $`M_\nu =X_\gamma \times `$ and $`M_\nu ^{}`$ respectively), we get a well defined function $`GX_\nu :X_\nu X_{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}`$.

For $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the above applies to $`M_\gamma `$. Since $`F`$ must take closed geodesics in $`N`$ in the free homotopy class of $`\gamma `$ to corresponding closed geodesics (of the same length) in $`N^{}`$ we see that $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ takes $`M_\gamma `$ to $`M_\gamma ^{}`$ and gives rise to maps $`G_\gamma `$ and $`GX_\gamma `$ as above. This also tells us that the translation by $`\gamma `$ on $`M_\gamma `$ and $`M_\gamma ^{}`$ is by the same amount. We also note that since $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ commutes with the differentials of $`Z(\gamma )`$, and since $`Z(\gamma )`$ preserves $`M_\gamma `$ and vertical directions, we have that $`G_\gamma `$ commutes with $`Z(\gamma )`$ (which acts cocompactly).

A curve $`c`$ in $`M_\nu =X_\nu \times `$ is said to have $``$ growth rate $`A`$ if $`lim_t\mathrm{}(\frac{_\nu (c(t))}{t})=A`$.

Lemma 3.2. If a curve $`c`$ in $`M_\nu `$ has growth rate $`A`$ then $`G_\nu (c)`$ also has $``$ growth rate $`A`$.

Proof: Let $`B_\nu `$ be the Busemann function of $`\nu `$ (i.e. $`B_\nu (x)=lim_t\mathrm{}(td(x,\nu (t))`$). Now Lemma 3 (with both $`v`$ and $`w`$ vertical vectors) implies that $`|B_\nu (x)B_{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}(G_\nu (x))|2D(F)`$. On the other hand $`B_\nu (x)=_\nu (x)+const`$ and hence $``$ growth rates are the same as Bussemann growth rates (also in $`M_{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}`$) and the lemma follows.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 3.3. For any geodesic $`\nu `$ in $`M`$, $`GX_\nu `$ takes each unit speed geodesic segment in $`X_\nu `$ to a constant speed geodesic segment in $`X_{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}`$. Further, if the segment is a subset of a ray in $`X_\nu `$ then the image is unit speed.

Proof:

Let $`\sigma (t)`$ for $`0tL`$ be a unit speed geodesic segment in $`X_\nu `$ and for each $`i`$ let $`\sigma _i(t)=(\sigma (\frac{t}{\sqrt{1+i^2}}),\frac{it}{\sqrt{1+i^2}}))M_\nu `$ for $`0tL\sqrt{1+i^2}`$ be a unit speed geodesic in $`M_\nu `$. Now $`F(\sigma _i^{}(t))`$ will be the tangent vector field, $`\tau ^{}(t)`$, to a unit speed geodesic $`\tau _i(t)`$ in $`M^{}`$. Let $`p_iM_{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}`$ (resp. $`q_iM_{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}`$) be the unique closest point in $`M_{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}`$ to $`\tau _i(0)`$ (resp. $`\tau _i(L\sqrt{1+i^2})`$). The uniform continuity of $`F`$ guarantees $`d(F(\sigma _i^{}(t)),F(V(\sigma _i(t))))`$ converges to $`0`$ ($`d`$ computed in the tangent bundle) and hence that $`lim_i\mathrm{}d(p_i,\tau _i(0))=0`$ and $`lim_i\mathrm{}d(q_i,\tau _i(L\sqrt{1+i^2}))=0`$. Hence if $`\overline{\tau }_t(t)`$ for $`0tL\sqrt{1+i^2}`$ is the constant speed geodesic from $`p_i`$ to $`q_i`$ we see (by the nonpositivity of the curvature) that for every $`t`$, $`d(\tau _i^{}(t),\overline{\tau }_i^{}(t))`$, and hence $`d(\overline{\tau }_i^{}(t),F(V(\sigma _i(t))))`$, converges to zero. In particular for every $`t`$ we have $`d(\pi _{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}(\overline{\tau }_i^{}(t)),GX_\nu (\sigma (\frac{t}{\sqrt{1+i^2}})))`$ converges to $`0`$. But each $`\pi _{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}(\overline{\tau }_i^{}(t))`$ is a constant speed geodesic in $`X_{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}`$ and hence so is $`GX_\nu (\sigma (t))`$.

Now let $`r;[0,\mathrm{})X_\nu `$ be a unit speed ray and assume that $`GX_\nu (r)`$ is a ray with constant speed $`a`$. We need to show that $`a=1`$. Using the construction above for segments, we first define (by letting $`L`$ go to $`\mathrm{}`$) for each $`i`$ the unit speed ray $`\tau _i(t)`$ whose distance to $`M_{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}`$ goes uniformly (since $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is uniform) to 0 as $`i`$ goes to infinity and hence we can define (by a standard limiting argument) a ray $`\overline{\tau }_i(t)M_{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}`$ such that as $`i`$ goes to $`\mathrm{}`$ both $`d(\overline{\tau }_i^{}(t),\tau _i^{}(t))`$ and $`d(\pi _{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}(\overline{\tau }_i^{}(t)),GX_\nu (r(\frac{t}{\sqrt{1+i^2}})))`$ converge uniformly to 0. Note that $`d(\overline{\tau }_i(t),G_\nu (\sigma _i(t))`$ is uniformly bounded since both curves are at a uniformly bounded distance (depending on $`D`$) from $`\tau _i(t)`$, and hence, by Lemma 3, $`\overline{\tau }_i`$ has the same $``$ growth rate as $`\sigma _i`$ (i.e.$`\frac{i}{\sqrt{1+i^2}}`$). But since $`GX_\nu (r)`$ has speed $`a`$ (and hence $`GX_\nu (r(\frac{t}{\sqrt{1+i^2}}))`$ has speed $`\frac{a}{\sqrt{1+i^2}}`$), and $`\overline{\tau }_i`$ has speed approaching 1 (the speed of $`\tau _i`$) we see that $`\overline{\tau }_i`$ can have the same $``$ growth as $`\sigma _i`$ for all $`i`$ if and only if $`a=1`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Maps $`GX_\nu `$ that satisfy the conclusion of Lemma 3 are called affine maps. We now recall some of the standard properties of such maps (e.g. see chapter VI of \[K-N\]). For $`VS^1X_\nu `$ let $`s(V)`$ represent the speed of the $`GX_\nu `$ image of the geodesic determined by $`V`$. Since $`s`$ is continuous it is locally bounded above and hence $`GX_\nu `$ is locally Lipschitz (in fact globally in the cocompact case). Thus $`GX_\nu `$ is differentiable almost everywhere and at every $`xX_\nu `$ where $`GX_\nu `$ is differentiable we see $`GX_\nu =exp_{GX_\nu (x)}D(GX_\nu )_xexp_x^1`$ (this is always true locally, but in our case $`exp_x^1`$ is globally defined). In particular $`GX_\nu `$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`GX_\nu =exp_{GX_\nu (x)}D(GX_\nu )_xexp_x^1`$ holds for all $`x`$. This implies that $`GX_\nu `$ preserves the respective connections and hence that $`s`$ is invariant under holonomy. Since $`X_\nu `$ is convex (with boundary) and simply connected, invariant subspaces of the holonomy action induce deRham splittings as usual. Thus we get:

Corollary 3.4. For any geodesic $`\nu `$ in $`M`$, $`GX_\nu `$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$, takes deRham factors to deRham factors, acts homothetically on each non Euclidean deRham factor (and hence is an isometry on each noncompact one), and acts as an affine transformation on the flat factor. In particular if $`X_\nu `$ is irreducible, not flat, and noncompact (e.g. in the case of $`M_\gamma `$ when $`Z(\gamma )`$ is not cyclic) then $`GX_\nu `$ is an isometry.

Remark 3.5. It is certainly possible that in the above $`GX_\nu `$ is always an isometry. In fact, it is highly likely if the conjugacy rigidity conjecture for nonpositively curved manifolds is true since in this case $`X_\nu `$ and $`X_{\stackrel{~}{F}(\nu )}^{}`$ would be isometric.

Remark 3.6. Consider the case that $`N`$ is 3 dimensional, and for some $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`X_\gamma `$ is noncompact. Combining lemma 3 and the corollary we see that either $`X_\gamma `$ is a flat strip or $`G_\gamma `$ is an isometry that commutes with $`Z(\gamma )`$ and $`M_\gamma /Z(\gamma )`$ is isometric to $`M_\gamma ^{}/Z(\gamma )`$.

Let $`OX_\gamma `$ be a flat strip neighborhood of some boundary geodesic $`\tau `$, and $`\overline{O}M_\gamma `$ be $`\pi _\gamma ^1(O)`$, which has the metric of a flat plane cross an interval. Let $`\alpha Z(\gamma )`$, $`\alpha \gamma `$ be such that $`\pi _\gamma ^1(\tau )M_\gamma M_\alpha `$ then the geometry of $`\overline{O}`$ forces $`\overline{O}M_\gamma M_\alpha `$.

## 4 Graph Manifolds

We now consider the case where $`N=M/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a compact $`3`$-dimensional graph manifold with a nonpositively curved Riemannian metric with fundamental group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and universal cover $`M`$.

By the theorem of \[Sh\], $`N`$ has the following structure. There is a finite connected graph $`𝒢`$ with vertex set $`𝒱`$ and oriented edge set $``$ (i.e. each edge shows up twice in $``$). For each $`vV`$ There is a compact nonpositively curved $`3`$-manifold $`N_v`$ with nonempty totally geodesic boundary (the geometric Seifert components of $`N`$), and Seifert fibrations $`p_v:N_vX_v`$ where the metric on $`N_v`$ has local product structure compatible with the fibration $`p_v`$, and the $`X_v`$ are nonpositively curved orbifolds; $`N`$ is the union of the $`N_v`$. Each $`N_v`$ is $`M_{\gamma _v}/Z(\gamma _v)`$ for some $`\gamma _v\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. There is one boundary component $`T_e`$ of $`N_v`$ for each $`e`$ such that $`v`$ is the initial vertex of $`e`$. (Note that a nonoriented edge from $`v`$ to $`v`$ will correspond to two boundary components of $`N_v`$.) The $`N_v`$ are glued together as is described by $`𝒢`$. That is for each edge $`e`$, say from $`v_1`$ to $`v_2`$, we glue $`N_{v_1}`$ to $`N_{v_2}`$ along $`T_e`$ and $`T_e`$ respectively. (Note in the case where the metric on $`N_{v_1}`$ near $`T_e`$ is a product of an interval with $`T_e`$ then remark 3 says that the picture looks the same on $`N_{v_2}`$ near $`T_e`$ and the gluing identifies the whole product neighborhoods.)

We note that these gluings are only unique up to translations on the boundaries. In fact different choices of gluings lead to nonisometric manifolds (we explain more below).

It is easier to explain what is going on in the universal covering space. The universal covering space is built by gluing copies of the $`M_{\gamma _v}`$. The gluing is described by a tree $`\overline{𝒢}`$ (the Basse-Serre tree of the fundamental group - see section 2.5 of \[C-K1\]) with vertex set $`\overline{𝒱}`$ and edge set $`\overline{}`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts on $`\overline{𝒢}`$ with $`\pi _𝒢:\overline{𝒢}\overline{𝒢}/\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝒢`$. We can define the vertex and edge spaces $`M_{\overline{v}}`$, $`R_{\overline{e}}^2`$ in the universal cover, where $`M_{\overline{v}}`$ is isometric to $`M_{\gamma _v}`$ if $`\pi _𝒢(\overline{v})=v`$. For every $`s`$ there is an isometry $`\tau (\overline{v},s):M_{\overline{v}}M_{\overline{v}}`$ which translates by $`s`$ in the vertical direction. (The notation $`\tau (\overline{v},s)`$ is somewhat unusual - rather than $`\tau _{\overline{v}}^s`$ for example - but it makes things easier to see later.)

Now let $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ be nonpositively curved graph manifolds built from the same graph $`𝒢`$ and isometric pieces $`N_v`$ and $`N_v^{}`$ and let $`I_v`$ be a chosen isometry respecting the vertical directions. We can lift the $`I_v`$’s equivariantly to isometries $`I_{\overline{v}}:M_{\overline{v}}M_{\overline{v}}^{}`$. For each $`e\overline{}`$ from $`\overline{v_1}`$ to $`\overline{v_2}`$ then $`I_{\overline{v_1}}`$ and $`I_{\overline{v_2}}`$ define two isometries from $`R_{\overline{e}}^2`$ to $`R_{}^{2}{}_{\overline{e}}{}^{}`$ which differ by a Euclidean translation. We can thus uniquely define real numbers $`s_{\overline{e}}`$ and $`r_{\overline{e}}`$ such that on $`R_{\overline{e}}^2`$ we have

$$\tau (\overline{v_1},s_{\overline{e}})I_{\overline{v_1}}=\tau (\overline{v_2},r_{\overline{e}})I_{\overline{v_2}}.$$

We note that $`r_{\overline{e}}=s_{\overline{e}}`$ and that the equivariance of the lifting says that if $`\pi _𝒢(\overline{e_1})=\pi _𝒢(\overline{e_2})`$ then $`s_{\overline{e_1}}=s_{\overline{e_2}}`$ so we can define $`s_e`$ for $`e`$. We will call the relative gluings consistent if for every $`v𝒢`$ there is a $`s_v`$ such that for every $`e`$ which has $`v`$ as initial point we have $`s_v=s_e`$. If the gluings are consistent then we define an equivariant isometry $`I:MM^{}`$ by $`I(m)=\tau (\overline{v},s_{\overline{v}})I_{\overline{v}}(m)`$ for $`mM_{\overline{v}}`$. Thus we see:

Lemma 4.1. If $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ are nonpositively curved graph manifolds built from the same graph $`𝒢`$ and isometric pieces $`N_v`$ and with consistent relative gluings then $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ are isometric.

Remark 4.2. If the relative gluings are not consistent then it is not hard to see there will be no isometry which takes $`N_v`$ to $`N_v^{}`$. Thus we can make many nonisometric spaces with the same $`𝒢`$ and isometric pieces.

Two such nonisometric graph manifolds with the same $`𝒢`$, and isometric $`N_v`$, but different gluings will have the same “geometric data” in the sense of \[C-K1\] and hence give a new class of examples of nonisometric graph manifolds whose geometric boundaries are equivariantly homeomorphic.

Proof of theorem 1 To prove Theorem 1 we use Remark 3 to define our isometries $`I_{\overline{v}}:M_{\overline{v}}M_{\overline{v}}^{}`$ and assume (using Lemma 4) that $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ do not have consistent gluings. We will then find a closed geodesic $`cN`$ and a curve $`\xi N^{}`$ representing the same (as identified via the conjugacy $`F`$) free homotopy class such that $`L(\xi )<L(c)`$. This is the desired contradiction since any closed geodesic minimizes the lengths of curves freely homotopic to it and since $`\xi `$ is freely homotopic to $`F(c)`$ hence $`L(c)=L(F(c))L(\xi )`$. (We will do this by choosing $`c`$ so that it intersects appropriate boundary tori nearly tangentially and such that the discontinuous image of $`c`$ when we reglue the Seifert components to get $`N^{}`$ can be shortened to get a continuous curve in the appropriate homotopy class. We actually work in the universal covers.)

Thus we assume that there are edges $`e_1,e_2`$ and a vertex $`v`$ such that $`v`$ is the final point of $`e_1`$ and the initial point of $`e_2`$ and that $`s_{e_1}s_{e_2}`$. We will let $`v_1`$ be the initial point of $`e_1`$ and $`v_2`$ the final point of $`e_2`$.

The first step is to find an appropriate closed geodesic $`c`$ in $`N_{v_1}N_vN_{v_2}`$ such that $`c`$ intersects each of $`T_{e_1}`$ and $`T_{e_2}`$ in exactly two points and intersects no other $`T_e`$. To choose such a $`c`$ we first choose closed geodesics $`a_iN_{v_i}`$ and $`bN_v`$. We also choose minimizing geodesics $`\tau _i`$ from the base point of $`a_i`$ to the base point of $`b`$. They are chosen so that $`b`$ is in the homotopy class of $`\gamma _v`$ and the classes corresponding to $`a_i`$ (or more precisely $`\tau _ia_i\tau _i`$) do not commute with $`\gamma _v`$. For each $`n`$ we consider the curves

$$c_n=a_1\tau _1b^n\tau _2a_2\tau _2b^n\tau _1.$$

We will choose $`c`$ to be the closed geodesic in the free homotopy class of some $`c_n`$ (for some $`n`$ large in absolute value). Since $`c`$ can be gotten from $`c_n`$ by curve shortening, the convexity of the Seifert components can be used to make sure that each curve in the shortening process, and hence the final curve $`c`$, satisfies the required conditions.

Thus, we can choose a unit speed parameter $`c:[0,L]N`$ so that there are $`t_iR`$, $`0=t_0<t_1<t_2<t_3<t_4<t_5=L`$ with $`c([0,t_1])N_{v_1}`$, $`c(t_1)T_{e_1}`$, $`c([t_1,t_2])N_v`$, $`c(t_2)T_{e_2}`$, $`c([t_2,t_3])N_{v_2}`$, $`c(t_3)T_{e_2}`$, $`c([t_3,t_4])N_v`$, $`c(t_4)T_{e_1}`$, $`c([t_4,L])N_{v_1}`$.

For such a $`c`$ we will let $`\overline{c}[0,l]M`$ be a continuous lift of $`c`$. There are thus $`\overline{v}_1,\overline{v}_2,\overline{v}_3,\overline{v}_4,\overline{v}_5\overline{𝒱}`$ and $`\overline{e}_1,\overline{e}_2,\overline{e}_3,\overline{e}_4\overline{}`$ such that for

$$i=1,2,3,4,5,\overline{c}_i\overline{c}([t_{i1},t_i])M_{\overline{v}_i},$$

$$i=1,2,3,4,c(t_i)_{\overline{e}_i}^2,$$

$$\pi _𝒢(\overline{v}_1)=\pi _𝒢(\overline{v}_5)=v_1,$$

$$\pi _𝒢(\overline{v}_2)=\pi _𝒢(\overline{v}_4)=v,$$

$$\pi _𝒢(\overline{v}_3)=v_2,$$

$$\pi _𝒢(\overline{e}_1)=\pi _𝒢(\overline{e}_4)=e_1,$$

and

$$\pi _𝒢(\overline{e}_2)=\pi _𝒢(\overline{e}_3)=e_2.$$

We will now determine which $`n`$ to use. Let $`_{\overline{v}_i}:M_{v_i}`$ represent the projection onto the vertical. Choose $`|n|`$ large enough that $`|_{\overline{v}_2}(\overline{c}(t_2))_{\overline{v}_2}(\overline{c}(t_1))|>|s_{\overline{e}_2}s_{\overline{e}_1}|`$ (resp. $`|_{\overline{v}_4}(\overline{c}(t_4))_{\overline{v}_4}(\overline{c}(t_3))|>|s_{\overline{e}_2}s_{\overline{e}_1}|=|s_{\overline{e}_4}s_{\overline{e}_3}|`$). Choose the sign of $`n`$ (hence the signs of $`_{\overline{v}_2}(\overline{c}(t_2))_{\overline{v}_2}(\overline{c}(t_1))`$ and $`_{\overline{v}_4}(\overline{c}(t_4))_{\overline{v}_4}(\overline{c}(t_3))`$ for large enough $`n`$) so that

$$|_{\overline{v}_2}(\overline{c}(t_2))_{\overline{v}_2}(\overline{c}(t_1))+s_{\overline{e}_2}s_{\overline{e}_1}|<|_{\overline{v}_2}(\overline{c}(t_2))_{\overline{v}_2}(\overline{c}(t_1))|$$

and

$$|_{\overline{v}_4}(\overline{c}(t_4))_{\overline{v}_4}(\overline{c}(t_3))+s_{\overline{e}_4}s_{\overline{e}_3}|<|_{\overline{v}_4}(\overline{c}(t_4))_{\overline{v}_4}(\overline{c}(t_3))|.$$

Having now chosen $`c`$ we now proceed with the rest of the argument. We let $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be such that $`\gamma (\overline{c}(0))=\overline{c}(L)`$, and hence in particular

$$\gamma \tau (\overline{v_1},s_{\overline{e}_1})(\overline{c}(0))=\tau (\overline{v_5},s_{\overline{e}_1})(\overline{c}(L))=\tau (\overline{v_5},s_{\overline{e}_4})(\overline{c}(L))$$

.

Consider the following continuous curve, $`\xi `$ in $`M^{}`$ between $`\tau (\overline{v_1},s_{\overline{e}_1})(\overline{c}(0))`$ and $`\tau (\overline{v_5},s_{\overline{e}_4})(\overline{c}(L))`$:

For $`t_0tt_1`$, $`\xi (t)=\tau (\overline{v_1},s_{\overline{e}_1})(\overline{c}_1(t))`$.

For $`t_1tt_2`$, $`\xi (t)=\tau (\overline{v_2},\frac{t_2t}{t_2t_1}s_{\overline{e}_1}+\frac{tt_1}{t_2t_1}s_{\overline{e}_2})(\overline{c}_2(t))`$.

For $`t_2tt_3`$, $`\xi (t)=\tau (\overline{v_3},s_{\overline{e}_3})(\overline{c}_3(t))`$ (note $`s_{\overline{e}_3}=s_{\overline{e}_2}`$).

For $`t_3tt_4`$, $`\xi (t)=\tau (\overline{v_4},\frac{t_2t}{t_2t_1}s_{\overline{e}_3}+\frac{tt_1}{t_2t_1}s_{\overline{e}_4}))(\overline{c}_4(t))`$.

For $`t_4tt_5`$, $`\xi (t)=\tau (\overline{v_5},s_{\overline{e}_4})(\overline{c}_5(t))`$.

We now only need to see that $`L(\xi )<L=L(c)`$. The five pieces $`\xi _i`$ of $`\xi `$ correspond to the pieces $`c_i`$ of $`c`$. It is easy to see that $`L(c_i)=L(\xi _i)`$ for $`i=1,3,5`$ since one comes from the other by an isometry composed with a vertical shift (also an isometry). For $`i=2`$ we note that $`\pi _{X_{v_2}}(\overline{c}_2)`$ is the same as $`\pi _{X_{v_2}}(\xi _2)`$ and hence $`L(\xi _2)<L(c_2)`$ since:

$$|_{\overline{v}_2}(\xi _2(t_2))_{\overline{v}_2}(\xi _2(t_1))|=|_{\overline{v}_2}(\overline{c}_2(t_2))_{\overline{v}_2}(\overline{c}_2(t_1))+s_{\overline{e}_2}s_{\overline{e}_1}|<$$

$$<|_{\overline{v}_2}(\overline{c}_2(t_2))_{\overline{v}_2}(\overline{c}_2(t_1))|.$$

The $`i=4`$ case is similar.

Chris Croke:
Department of Mathematics
University of Pennsylvania
209 S. 33rd St.
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6395
ccroke@math.upenn.edu


text:
# Spherically Symmetric Solutions of Gravitational Field Equations in Kalb-Ramond Background

## I Introduction

The extension of the geometric principles of general relativity to the physics at a microscopic level where matter formation is done by elementary particles, characterized by a spin angular momentum in addition to the mass, is achieved in Einstein-Cartan theory. In such a theory the symmetric Christoffel connection is modified with the introduction of an antisymmetric tensorial term, known as the spacetime torsion, which is presumed to have a direct relationship with spin . Over the years, since Cartan’s pioneering works in early 1920s, there had been numerous interesting questions especially as to how the introduction of torsion in spacetime affects the solutions of the gravitational field equations under various circumstances. The advent of string theory and its emergence as a powerful tool for the quantum theoretic unification of all the fundamental forces of nature  has brought a resurgence of interest in spacetimes with torsion and the need for getting satisfactory answers to the aforesaid questions is enhanced. The field strength corresponding to the second rank antisymmetric tensor in the string spectrum is identified as the space time torsion.

In this paper, we aim to study the possible static (i.e., time-invariant) spherically symmetric solutions of the gravitational field equations in presence of torsion in spacetime. One of the important motivations in looking for such solutions is ideally to realise the effect of torsion on the electromagnetic waves coming from distant galactic sources . The basic underlying theory adopted by us is that proposed by Majumdar and SenGupta , in which a new antisymmetric tensor field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, identified as the Kalb-Ramond (KR) field, is introduced to ensure the U(1) gauge-invariance of the electromagnetic theory in a background with torsion. The massless KR field is taken to be the possible source of torsion. The strength of this KR field $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }=_{[\mu }B_{\nu \lambda ]}`$ is modified by U(1) Chern-Simons terms originating from the quantum consistency of an underlying string theory and the coupling of the KR field with torsion is done in a way that the gauge symmetry is preserved in the resulting action.

In Section 2, we focus our attention to the action of a purely gravitational field theory in a torsioned background. We vary the action, with respect to the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and as well as to the Kalb-Ramond field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, to obtain two sets of field equations. The variation of the action with respect to $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ merely gives a modified version of the old Einstein’s equations. The modification comes in a way that the coupling of torsion with gravity is reflected in the spin-density tensor, just as matter coupling to gravity is reflected in the energy-momentum tensor in the old equations. In Section 3, we seek the possible spherically symmetric solutions of the field equations in vacuum and show that it is not necessarily static, unlike what we get in Schwarzschild solution in absence of torsion. However in section 4, we construct an explicit static spherically symmetric solution with an appropriate Kalb-Ramond background.

## II Field Equations for gauge-invariant Einstein-Cartan-Kalb-Ramond Coupling

The action is taken to be of the form :

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}(g,T)}{\kappa }\frac{1}{2}H_{\mu \nu \lambda }H^{\mu \nu \lambda }+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\kappa }}T^{\mu \nu \lambda }H_{\mu \nu \lambda }\right]$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{R}(g,T)`$ is the scalar curvature for the Einstein-Cartan spacetime where the connections contain torsion $`T_{\mu \nu }^\alpha `$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha T_{\mu \nu }^\alpha ,$$
(2)
and $`\kappa =16\pi G`$ is the coupling constant. We choose $`T^{\alpha \mu \nu }`$ to be antisymmetric in its all three indices.

Direct calculation shows that the curvature scalar $`\stackrel{~}{R}(g,T)`$ of the Einstein-Cartan spacetime is related to that of purely Riemannian spacetime by

$$\stackrel{~}{R}(g,T)=R(g)+T_{\mu \nu \lambda }T^{\mu \nu \lambda }.$$
(3)
Moreover, the torsion tensor $`T_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$, being an auxiliary field in Eq.(1), obeys the constraint equation

$$T_{\mu \nu \lambda }=\frac{\sqrt{\kappa }}{2}H_{\mu \nu \lambda }$$
(4)
which implies that the augmented KR field strength 3-tensor plays the role of the spin angular momentum density, considered to be the source of torsion .

Substituting Eq.(4) in the action (1) and varying the latter with respect to $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ respectively, we obtain the field equations

$$G_{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=\kappa \tau _{\mu \nu }$$
(5)
and

$$D_\mu H^{\mu \nu \lambda }\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu (\sqrt{g}H^{\mu \nu \lambda })=0$$
(6)
where $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ are respectively the Ricci tensor and the Einstein tensor of Riemannian geometry; and $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ is a symmetric 2-tensor, having direct analogy with the energy-momentum tensor, and is a clear manifestation of the spin-density tensor in the field equations for the Einstein-Cartan spacetime. The expression for $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$ is of the form:

$$\tau _{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\left[\frac{(\sqrt{g}_{KR})}{g^{\mu \nu }}_\alpha \left(\frac{(\sqrt{g}_{KR})}{(_\alpha g^{\mu \nu })}\right)\right]$$
(7)
where $`_{KR}`$ is the Lagrangian density due to the KR field, which can be expressed as

$$_{KR}=\frac{3}{4}H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }H^{\alpha \beta \gamma }.$$
(8)
Substituting Eq.(8) in Eq.(7), we finally obtain

$$\tau _{\mu \nu }=\frac{3}{4}\left(3g_{\nu \rho }H_{\alpha \beta \mu }H^{\alpha \beta \rho }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }H^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\right).$$
(9)
Now, by virtue of the symmetric nature of $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\tau _{\mu \nu }`$, Eq.(5) can have, in general, ten component equations. Also, the totally antisymmetric property of $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ implies that it has four independent components, viz., $`H_{012},H_{013},H_{023}`$ and $`H_{123}`$, which we denote, for simplicity, as $`h_1,h_2,h_3`$ and $`h_4`$ respectively; the corresponding contravariant components are denoted by $`h^1,h^2,h^3`$ and $`h^4`$ respectively. Eq.(6) is a set of six independent equations

$`D_2h^1+D_3h^2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (10)
$`D_1h^1D_3h^3`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (11)
$`D_1h^2+D_2h^3`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (12)
$`D_0h^1+D_3h^4`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (13)
$`D_0h^3+D_1h^4`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (14)
$`D_0h^2D_2h^4`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (15)
## III Static Spherically Symmetric Solutions

The line element is taken in its most general spherical symmetric form:

$$ds^2=e^{\nu (r,t)}dt^2e^{\lambda (r,t)}dr^2r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(16)
so that the metric tensor is

$$g_{\mu \nu }=diag(e^\nu ,e^\lambda ,r^2,r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ).$$
(17)
The first set of field equations (5) take the form:

$`e^\lambda \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{}}{r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\kappa }(h_1h^1+h_2h^2+h_3h^3h_4h^4)`$ (18)
$`e^\lambda \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}}{r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\kappa }(h_1h^1+h_2h^2h_3h^3+h_4h^4)`$ (19)
$`e^\lambda \left(\nu ^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{r}}\right)e^\nu \left(\ddot{\lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\lambda }^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\lambda }\dot{\nu }}{2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\kappa }(h_1h^1h_2h^2+h_3h^3+h_4h^4)`$ (20)
$`e^\lambda \left(\nu ^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{r}}\right)e^\nu \left(\ddot{\lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\lambda }^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\lambda }\dot{\nu }}{2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\kappa }(h_1h^1+h_2h^2+h_3h^3+h_4h^4)`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda \dot{\lambda }}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\kappa }h_3h^4`$ (22)
$`h_2h^4=h_1h^4=h_2h^3`$ $`=`$ $`h_1h^2=h_3h^1=0`$ (23)
and the other set (10) - (15) reduce to:

$`h^1,_2+\mathrm{cot}\theta h^1`$ $`=`$ $`h^2,_3`$ (24)
$`h^1,_1+({\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}+\lambda ^{}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}})h^1`$ $`=`$ $`h^3,_3`$ (25)
$`h^2,_1+({\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}+\lambda ^{}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}})h^2`$ $`=`$ $`h^3,_2\mathrm{cot}\theta h^3`$ (26)
$`h^1,_0+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\nu }+\dot{\lambda }}{2}}\right)h^1`$ $`=`$ $`h^4,_3`$ (27)
$`h^3,_0+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\nu }+\dot{\lambda }}{2}}\right)h^3`$ $`=`$ $`h^4,_1({\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}+\lambda ^{}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}})h^4`$ (28)
$`h^2,_0+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\nu }+\dot{\lambda }}{2}}\right)h^2`$ $`=`$ $`h^4,_2+\mathrm{cot}\theta h^4.`$ (29)
Here dot and prime respectively stand for the differentiations with respect to $`t`$ and $`r`$; and $`\overline{\kappa }=\frac{9\kappa }{4}`$.

The left hand sides of Eqs.(20) and (21) are identical, which implies that both $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ must vanish, and this will satisfy Eq.(23) as well. It then follows from Eqs.(25) and (27) that

$$h^3,_3=h^4,_3=0$$
(30)
which means that $`h^3`$ and $`h^4`$ are both independent of the coordinate $`\varphi `$. But from Eq.(22) we find that $`\dot{\lambda }`$ is, in general, non-zero, i.e., $`\lambda `$ is time-dependent. Thus we arrive at an important result: the spherically symmetric gravitational field in vacuum, in a spacetime with torsion, is not necessarily static, unlike the case in the Schwarzschild solution of Einstein’s field equations. As we are primarily interested in static vacuum solutions in torsioned background, we set $`\dot{\lambda }=\dot{\nu }=0`$, which means that both $`\lambda `$ and $`\nu `$ are time-invariant and Eq.(22) suggests that either $`h_3`$ or $`h_4`$ or both should be equal to zero. But if both $`h_3`$ and $`h_4`$ vanish, i.e., all the torsion components are zero, we get back the Schwarzschild metric; and since we are interested in solutions involving torsion, we are bound to make the following two choices:

### A Choice I : $`h_30,h_4=0`$

In this case the field equations take the form:

$`e^\lambda \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{}}{r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\kappa }h_3h^3`$ (31)
$`e^\lambda \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}}{r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\kappa }h_3h^3`$ (32)
$`e^\lambda \left(\nu ^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{r}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\kappa }h_3h^3`$ (33)
$`h^3,_2+\mathrm{cot}\theta h^3`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (34)
$`h^3,_0=h^3,_3`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (35)
The left hand sides of Eqs.(31) - (33) are all functions of $`r`$ only, therefore, their right hand sides consisting of $`h_3h^3`$ must also be functions of r only. It follows from Eq.(35) that $`h_3`$ (and hence $`h^3`$) is not only independent of $`\varphi `$, but also independent of $`t`$.

Now,

$`h_3H_{023}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{00}g_{22}g_{33}H^{023}`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`e^\nu r^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta h^3.`$ (37)
Hence,

$$h_3h^3=e^\nu r^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (h^3)^2.$$
(38)
On integration, Eq.(34) yields

$$h^3(r,\theta )=\frac{h^3(r)}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }.$$
(39)
Substituting Eq.(38) in Eq.(37), we get

$$h_3h^3=e^\nu r^4[h^3(r)]^2$$
(40)
which indicates that $`h_3h^3`$ is indeed a function of $`r`$ only.

We denote

$$h_3h^3[h(r)]^2$$
(41)
and write the field equations in a more convenient way so that they can be solved easily:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}(re^\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`1+\overline{\kappa }r^2h^2`$ (42)
$`(re^\lambda )\{\nu ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}[\mathrm{ln}(r^2e^\lambda )]\}`$ $`=`$ $`2`$ (43)
$`e^\lambda \left(\nu ^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{r}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\kappa }r^2h^2`$ (44)
where the second equation, i.e., Eq.(42), is obtained simply by adding Eqs.(31) and (32). Eqs.(41) and (42) can be solved simultaneously to obtain

$$e^\lambda =1+\frac{c_1}{r}+\frac{\tau (r)}{r}$$
(45)
and

$$e^\nu =\frac{c_2}{r(r+\tau (r)+c_1)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2dr}{r+\tau (r)+c_1}\right]$$
(46)
where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are the constants of the integrations and

$$\tau (r)=\overline{\kappa }r^2h^2(r)𝑑r.$$
(47)
For vanishing torsion (i.e., $`\tau (r)=0`$), these solutions reduce exactly to the Schwarzschild solution, viz., $`e^\nu =e^\lambda =1\frac{r_s}{r}`$, provided $`c_2=1`$ and $`c_1=r_s`$, where $`r_s=2GM`$ is the Schwarzschild radius. However, when torsion is non-zero, the acceptability of these solutions rests on two factors: firstly, despite satisfying Eqs.(41) and (42), they must satisfy Eq.(43) as well, which is a separate field equation involving $`\nu `$ and $`\lambda `$; and secondly, they must attain the asymptotic forms $`e^\nu =e^\lambda =1`$ in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$. Both these conditions may be fulfilled only with some suitable form of $`\tau (r)`$. We explore such a possibility in Section 4.

### B Choice II : $`h_40,h_3=0`$

The field equations for this choice are

$`e^\lambda \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{}}{r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\kappa }h_4h^4`$ (48)
$`e^\lambda \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}}{r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\kappa }h_4h^4`$ (49)
$`e^\lambda \left(\nu ^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{r}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\kappa }h_4h^4`$ (50)
$`h^4,_1+({\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}+\lambda ^{}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}})h^4`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (51)
$`h^4,_2+\mathrm{cot}\theta h^4`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (52)
$`h^4,_3`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (53)
Here, again we find from Eqs.(47) - (49) that $`h_4h^4`$ must have to be a function of $`r`$ only, i.e., independent of $`t,\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$. Eq.(52) shows that $`h_4`$, and hence $`h^4`$, is independent of $`\varphi `$, but there is no equation from which it is evident that $`h_4h^4`$ is independent of $`t`$. Meanwhile, we have

$`h_4H_{123}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{11}g_{22}g_{33}H^{123}`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`e^\lambda r^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta h^4`$ (55)
which means

$$h_4h^4=e^\lambda r^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (h^4)^2.$$
(56)
Integrating Eq.(51), we get

$$h^4(r,\theta ,t)=\frac{h^4(r,t)}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }.$$
(57)
This on substitution into Eq.(54), yields

$$h_4h^4=e^\lambda r^4[h^4(r,t)]^2$$
(58)
which is independent of $`\theta `$. We assume that $`h_4h^4`$ is independent of $`t`$ as well, so that a static spherically symmetric solution can be obtained:

$$h_4h^4[\overline{h}(r)]^2.$$
(59)
The $`r`$-dependence of $`h^4`$ could be found directly from Eq.(50):

$$h^4(r,t,\theta )=\frac{h^4(t,\theta )}{r^2}e^{\frac{\nu +\lambda }{2}}$$
(60)
so that

$$h_4h^4=e^\nu [h^4(r,t)]^2=\alpha e^\nu $$
(61)
where we take $`[h^4(t)]^2=\alpha `$ (a constant), i.e., $`h^4`$ is kept time-invariant so as that $`h_4h^4`$ remains independent of time.

Thus

$$\overline{h}(r)=i\sqrt{\alpha }e^{\nu /2}$$
(62)
But this is quite unrealistic and not acceptable since $`e^\nu `$, identified as $`g^{00}`$, must approach unity in the asymptotic limit $`r\mathrm{}`$, leading to a finite non-vanishing value of torsion in that limit as is evident from Eq.(59). Moreover, Eq.(47) gives the result

$$g^{00}e^\nu =\frac{\frac{d}{dr}(re^\lambda )1}{\overline{\kappa }\alpha r^2},$$
(63)
wherefrom it is clear that in order to make $`g^{00}`$ approach unity asymptotically as $`r\mathrm{}`$ we must choose

$$\frac{d}{dr}(re^\lambda )=1+\overline{\kappa }\alpha r^2\gamma (r)+\delta (r),$$
(64)
and impose the conditions on the arbitrary functions $`\gamma (r)`$ and $`\delta (r)`$ that they must approach $`1`$ and $`0`$ respectively in the $`r\mathrm{}`$ limit. But this is simply not possible since this implies that $`e^\lambda `$, i.e., $`g^{11}`$ tends to infinity (instead of approaching unity) as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

Hence, we disregard the choice II and infer that the choice I leads to the only possibility of getting a generalized spherically symmetric solution of the gravitational field equations in a curved spacetime with a Kalb-Ramond background.

## IV  Exact static spherically symmetric solutions for the metric and the Kalb-Ramond background

A close insight to the field equations (41) - (43) reveals that the solutions (44) and (45), which were obtained by solving Eqs. (41) and (42) only, would satisfy Eq.(43) as well, only when the function $`\tau (r)`$, which depends on the KR field strength $`h(r)`$, satisfies the equation

$$\tau ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{\tau ^{}}{r}=\frac{\tau ^{}(\tau ^{}1)}{r+c_1+\tau }$$
(65)
which, on first integration, yields

$$\tau ^{}=\frac{\alpha }{r}(r+c_1+\tau )\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2dr}{r+c_1+\tau }\right]$$
(66)
where $`\alpha `$ is an integration constant.

The above equation has an exact solution

$$\tau (r)=\frac{\alpha }{r^2}$$
(67)
for $`c_1=0`$, whence we obtain the solution consistent with all the three field equations (41) - (43) :

$`e^\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r^2}}`$ (68)
$`e^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (69)
Here we note that the constant $`c_2`$ in eq.(45) is taken to be equal to $`1`$ in order that $`e^\nu `$ remains unity when $`r\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, the form of $`\tau (r)`$ in Eq.(65) suggests that the KR field strength has an inverse square dependence on $`r`$:

$$h(r)=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha }{\overline{\kappa }}}\frac{1}{r^2}.$$
(70)
But depending on the sign of $`\alpha `$, we have the following two cases:

Case I :  For real and positive $`\alpha `$ the KR field $`h`$ is real and we cannot find any event horizon for the metric under consideration. This implies that the singularity at $`r=0`$ is, actually, a naked singularity, not being shielded by an event horizon as in the ideal Schwarzschild case. In fact, there exists another singularity at $`r=\sqrt{\alpha }`$, whose origin is not quite clear, at least physically, but it is certain that its presence cannot lead to an event horizon.

Case II :  For real and negative $`\alpha `$ the KR field $`h`$ is imaginary, but again we find the absence of an event horizon leads to a naked singularity at $`r=0`$. Moreover, we note that, unlike the case I, we do not have any other singularity in this case.

## V Conclusions

We, therefore, have shown that in a spherically symmetric Kalb-Ramond background one may obtain a static spherically symmetric solution for the gravitational field equations. The KR field, modified suitably by Chern-Simons terms for gauge-invariance, may couple with electromagnetic field to produce non-trivial effects like optical activity for the radiowaves from the distant galaxies . In the references cited, the calculations have been done for a flat universe and more generally for matter and radiation dominated universe. However, our work will now allow to estimate such effects in static spherically symmetric background with KR field.

As the augmented KR background can be obtained in the scenario of string theory in the form of a second-rank antisymmetric tensor field  from a completely different angle like anomaly cancellation, our work therefore proposes a static spherically symmetric solution for string inspired gravity. In string theory the field strength corresponding to the second rank antisymmetric tensor field ( which is identified with spacetime torsion ) is related to the axion through a duality. Our work therefore essentially exhibits the existence of static spherically symmetric solution in an axion background. This solution now opens new possibilities of exploring various aspects of the gravitational solution including black holes. Work in this direction is in progress. Furthermore, the nature of the nonstatic solutions and their implications must also be investigated to have a complete understanding of the spherically symmetric solution in a torsioned background. We also propose to extend this work in a more generalized scenario where the Kalb-Ramond background admits of a parity violating extension . We expect to have some interesting solutions in such a case which may offer an explanation to the parity violating phenomenon in such a spacetime.

It must also be pointed out here that the horizon-free solution obtained for the inverse square nature of the KR field is completely compatible with the ”no hair” conjecture . That is to say this form of KR field exhibits an important feature in having no ”hair” whatsoever.

## VI Acknowledgement

We acknowledge illuminating discussions with N. Banerjee. This work is supported by Project grant no. 98/37/16/BRNS cell/676 from The Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India.


text:
# The effect of stellar evolution upon Population II Contact Binaries in the Period-Color Relation. I. Equal-Mass, Marginal Contact Systems

## 1 Introduction

W Ursae Majoris over-contact binaries (contact binaries here-after) are comprised of two stars which are sufficiently close that they both overfill their Roche equipotential surfaces. They are observed in the field (e.g. Rucinski 1997, Hendry & Mochnacki 2000), in open clusters (Rucinski & Kaluzny 1994) and in globular clusters (Mateo et al. 1990; Kaluzny & Krzeminski 1993; Yan & Mateo 1994; Rubenstein & Bailyn 1996; Kaluzny 1997; Mazur, Krzeminski & Kaluzny 1999; Mirabal & Mateo 1999; Thompson et al. 1999). In these studies, contact binaries typically represent roughly a tenth of a percent of the sample size. W UMa’s are of great interest to the study of stellar populations because they can be used as a test of distance (Rucinski & Duerbeck 1997, Rubenstein & Bailyn 1996, Edmonds et al. 1996, Yan & Mateo 1994), because even a tiny fraction of binaries can qualitatively alter the dynamical evolution of dense stellar systems (Heggie & Aarseth 1992), and because they are the most frequently observed type of common envelope objects.

The internal structure of contact binaries is complicated due to such factors as: the tidal deformation of the components, heat flow and mass transfer between the stars, possible thermal relaxation oscillations, chromospheric activity etc. (c.f. Rahunen & Vilhu 1977; Webbink 1979; Rahunen 1983; Sarna 1991; Jianmin 1993). However, many of their properties can be derived from spectroscopic observations or via light-curve modeling (see comprehensive text Kallrath & Milone 1999), especially when the two are used together (Hilditch, King & McFarlane 1988). In particular, the inclination angle ($`i`$), mass ratio ($`q=M_2/M_1`$) and fill-out ratio (F) can be described by study of the Fourier components of the light-curve (Rucinski 1993). Wilson-Devinney (1971 & 1973) type light-curve fitting (including recent improvements Kallrath, Milone, Terrell & Young 1998) allows us to derive several additional stellar properties such as the surface temperature of the common envelope, and star-spot sizes, locations, and temperatures as well as $`i`$, $`q`$, & F (see Kallrath & Milone 1999 and references within). As a result of these robust analyses, we have learned much about the underlying physics of contact systems. For example, we understand the origin of the Period-Color Relation (hereafter PCR; Eggen 1967), the observation that W UMa systems which are bluer have longer orbital periods. Briefly, a binary containing a massive star will be bluer than a binary comprised of lower mass stars. Since massive stars are physically larger than low mass stars, binaries containing a higher mass component must have a greater orbital separation to accommodate the greater stellar volume within its Roche lobe. This larger separation results in a longer period for these bluer systems.

However, the discovery of W UMa’s in globular clusters (GC’s) made it apparent that the PCR depends upon additional factors. Yan & Mateo (1994) demonstrated that the reduced line blanketing of metal-poor stellar atmospheres accounted for some of the difference in the GC W UMa’s positions in the PCR compared to field binaries. Rucinski (1995) recognized that metallicity variations will change the stellar radii and therefore the resulting orbital period of W UMa systems. He parameterized this effect by including a metallicity dependent term and found that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{B}\mathrm{V})0.08\times `$ \[Fe/H\] for metallicity in the range $`0.5<[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]<+0.5`$ while for \[Fe/H\]$`<2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{B}\mathrm{V})0.15`$. Rucinski & Duerbeck (1997) have since propagated that parameterization to the PCR (their equations 1-3), though they note that the significant scatter in their Figure 1 arises from variations in stellar age and the resulting structural changes. Recently, Rucinski (2000), used the metallicity-radius relation of Castellani, Degl’Innocenti & Marconi (1999) to determine the period changes produced by much lower than solar composition of W UMa’s. He found that the period decrease was consistent with the deviation of the population II W UMa’s from the population-I binaries in the period-color plane.

In §2 of this work, I will discuss the relationship between the period and the color of W UMa systems, taking into account evolution of the components as well as structural changes arising from variations in the chemical composition of systems. I will discuss the results derived for systems comprised of equal mass components which are critically filling their inner critical surfaces. Two example applications of these metallicity-age dependent Period-Color Relations are given in §3. The more general case of non-equal mass components and arbitrary fill-out ratios will be discussed in a forthcoming paper as will the consequences of rapid rotation.

## 2 Determining the Metallicity-Age Dependent Period-Color Relation for non-Solar Composition Binaries

Rather than try to determine what combination of “corrections” would translate the position of the Pop II W UMa’s onto the Pop I Period-Color Relation (PCR), it is more enlightening to determine what the location of the PCR should be for a range of ages and metallicities. The envelopes of low metallicity stars have lower opacities than those of higher metallicity stars. As noted previously (Yan & Mateo 1994, Rucinski 1995), this reduced opacity results in a higher effective temperature, Teff, and a bluer color. However, the lower opacity also results in a smaller stellar radius for a given mass and evolutionary state. Therefore, the components of a low metallicity contact binary must be closer together than their Pop I counterparts in order to maintain a contact configuration. The resulting orbital period is shorter. The combination of these factors shifts the expected location of W UMa systems in the Period-Color plane. Merely correcting for the reduced line-blanketing of metal-poor stellar atmospheres does not adequately model this shift (c.f. Yan & Mateo 1994 and Rubenstein & Bailyn 1996).

However, the PCR for a given metallicity can be calculated using the Roche lobe geometry constraint and stellar models which provide the radii of the stars of different masses and ages. Specifically, the volume of the stars and the volumes of their respective Roche lobes must be equal for the stars to be in critical contact (both stars touching the inner Roche potential). For the case of marginal contact, a unique period can be calculated for a given pair of masses and radii (Eggleton 1983):

$$P_{\mathrm{Orb}}=0.1375\sqrt{\frac{q}{1+q}\text{ }\frac{1}{r_L^3}\text{ }\frac{4\pi \mathrm{R}_{}^3}{3\mathrm{M}_{}^3}}$$

where $`q=\mathrm{M}_2/\mathrm{M}_1`$, $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{R}_{}`$ are the mass and radius of a component of the binary (Eggleton 1983). The dimensionless radius, $`r_L\frac{0.49q^{2/3}}{0.6q^{2/3}+ln(1+q^{1/3})}`$, and is Eggleton’s Eq. #2; $`r_L`$ is the stellar radius divided by the separation of the stars’ centers of mass. By using models which span a range of masses, the locus of a PCR can be calculated. One PCR is derived for each set of age and composition.

To study the variation of the PCR over a range of age and chemical composition, I have used stellar models from the Yale Isochrones (Chaboyer et al. 1995; hereafter YI95) to determine the stellar radii for stars. In this work I consider stars below the main-sequence turn-off at solar composition as well as for \[Fe/H\]=-0.7, -1.0, -1.5, -2.0 & -3.0 dex. I calculated the orbital period expected for cases where two equal mass stars are both in contact with their inner critical potential. This period and the B-V color of the stars (from YI95) then define the PCR for stars having the same age and composition. The curves in the four panels of Figure 1 show the PCR for these compositions at 2, 5, 10 & 15 Gyr.

How reasonable are the equal mass component and marginal contact assumptions? Most W UMa’s are not in critical contact and have mass ratios significantly less than one. Certainly the variation of system properties is important. However, these two restrictions serve as a useful starting point. In any event, many W UMa’s are, in fact, fairly close to critical contact; in Rucinski & Duerbeck’s (1997, hereafter RD97) Table 1, 15 out of 33 systems have $`f0.15`$, i.e.  nearly in critical contact. To determine how reasonable the case of critical contact is, let us consider the variation in expected properties between an idealized system in marginal contact and a second system with an overcontact of 15% (i.e. $`f=0.15`$). The 11% variation in stellar volume between these two cases corresponds to a difference in radial separation of less than 4% (c.f. procedure detailed in Mochnacki 1984 & 1985). The orbital period difference is then less than 6%; this factor is negligible compared to the effects of both metallicity and age. Furthermore, the important comparison is between systems of various age/metallicity pairs for a given degree of contact, so only the differential change in orbital period at different age/composition values is relevant and this is an even smaller effect. While the bulk of W UMa’s have mass ratios significantly different from unity, there are exceptions. RD97’s Table 1 indicates that three out of 33 systems have q$`0.75`$. The fractional volume difference of two primaries having q=1.0 and 0.75 is only 6%, of course the period difference will be larger. As before, the procedure delineated above depends upon the differential period change between systems having different system parameters. The first order structural changes are calculated in this work. The next paper will correct for these second order effects.

Do solar composition W UMa’s fit these calculated PCR’s? The asterisks in Figure 1 mark local W UMa’s from Mochnacki (1981) and Rucinski (1983) and the pluses mark Rucinski’s (1998) Baade’s Window systems. These calibration systems are plotted in the two and five Gyr panels only as it is believed that the mean age of the local W UMa’s is approximately a Gyr (Duerbeck 1984). Clearly this application of YI95 models to equal-mass component, contact configuration binaries adequately fits the calibration data for systems having approximately solar composition.

What can we learn about metal-poor W UMa’s? As expected, models of metal-poor W UMa’s occupy the region further to the blue/with shorter period than the more metal-rich calibration W UMa’s. The solid black dots in each panel correspond to the location in the period-color plane for specific models (0.5, 0.6 & 0.7 M, left to right). These show that at smaller ages, low metallicity W UMa’s have shorter orbital periods for all masses. Indeed, even for ages of 15 Gyr, metal-poor binaries with masses $`0.6`$ M have shorter orbital periods than more metal rich systems. However, for ages typical of globular clusters, evolution of those stars at the turn-off leads to slightly longer orbital periods for critical-contact, metal-poor systems.

We would like to be able to compare the observationally-based results of RD97 to those expected from these models. Unfortunately, RD97 and the preceding papers by Rucinski (1994, 1995 and 1997) do not include age as a parameter since they are working with calibration objects of approximately known distance, but unknown age, rather than stellar models. Likewise, Rucinski (2000) does not discuss the age of components as it impacts upon the PCR. To see what the RD97 relations might look like with various age stars, the YI95 models are combined with the RD97 relationships. The luminosity and stellar volume for a given mass, age, and metallicity define a particular model. Using that model, an inferred orbital period is calculated as above, and the expected B-V color is determined from RD97’s equation # 1. Figure 2 shows this comparison of the metallicity-age dependent (MAD) PCR’s and RD97’s observationally based metallicity/color parameterization.

The solar composition models yield nearly identical results for stars more massive than 0.4 M; the deviations at smaller mass are presumably due to our limited understanding of stellar opacities for low temperature stars. In each panel, the bold lines show the relevant MAD-PCR while the thin lines show the results of RD97. The solid lines are 2 (5) Gyr on the left (right) panels and the dashed lines are 10 (15) Gyr on the left (right) panels. The deviations between the MAD-PCR and RD97 lines are not significant since RD97’s reported $`1\sigma `$ uncertainty in magnitude is $`\pm 0.25`$, implying a color uncertainty of 0.35 mag. It is therefore apparent that the structural changes which arise from the reduced opacity of Pop II stars accounts for a significant fraction of the PCR differences for Pop I and II stars. Indeed, the shortened orbital period combined with the reduced line blanketing seem to explain the location of Pop II contact binaries, at least given the current limited range of binary component properties.

## 3 Applications

With many hundreds of field W UMa’s and more than 50 systems in metal-poor globular clusters (Rucinski 2000 and references therein), we are strongly motivated to better test the MAD-CPR’s against real data. As noted above, the bulk of W UMa’s have mass ratios significantly different from 1; for example, RD97’s Table 1 indicates that three out of 33 systems have q$`0.75`$. At present I will demonstrate the results of comparing two systems to the B-V MAD-PCR’s calculated above, and a more exhaustive comparison of known W UMa systems with this technique will be made after the current model’s restrictions are relaxed. The planned work will also include V-I MAD-PCR’s since many contact systems are studied in those filters.

In the 15 Gyr panel of figure 1 the large unfilled triangle shows the position of V1 in NGC 6397 (Rubenstein & Bailyn 1996). V1 falls on the MAD-PCR for \[Fe/H\]=-2, consistent with the composition of this globular cluster (Zinn & West 1984; Djorgovski 1993). The observational errors are smaller than the size of the symbol. The agreement between the metallicity derived from this work and the cluster’s known composition and estimated age ($`18`$ Gyr Chaboyer, Demarque & Sarajedini 1996) is encouraging even though Rubenstein & Bailyn’s best estimate of V1’s mass ratio is $`0.75`$, rather than this work’s implicit mass ratio of 1.0.

Another indication of the role which future MAD-PCR’s might fill follows. Covarrubias, Duerbeck & Maza (2001) found a W UMa binary roughly 1.4 kpc above the Galactic plane but were uncertain whether it is a Pop I or II object. This spectroscopically-confirmed binary has an orbital period of 0.35 day and (B-V)$`{}_{o}{}^{}=0.37`$. Inspection of Figures 1 & 2 suggest that the object is likely a Pop II binary with \[Fe/H\]$`1.0`$ dex, however, \[Fe/H\]$`0.7`$ for an age of only 2 Gyr can not be ruled out on this basis.

## 4 Conclusion

Metallicity-Age Dependent Period-Color Relations have been calculated to understand why Population II contact binaries are observed to be too blue/have too short an orbital period compared to their Pop I analogs. This work confirms that the structural changes which arise from the reduced opacity of metal poor stars leads directly to shorter orbital periods. The MAD-PCR’s calculated agree with the empirically derived corrections (Rucinski & Duerbeck 1997) to the Period-Color Relation to within 1-sigma ($`\pm 0.35`$ mag in B-V) down to at least P$`{}_{\mathrm{Orb}}{}^{}0.2`$d. However, their parameterization does not include the effect of evolution. Therefore, the predictions deviate to a greater degree as stellar age increases.

Figures 1 & 2 show the MAD PCR’s for a range of ages and compositions. The position of the W UMa binary “V1” from the metal-poor globular cluster NGC 6397 (Rubenstein & Bailyn 1996) is shown in the 15 Gyr panel of Figure 1 and the \[Fe/H\]=-2.0 panel of Figure 2. This object lands almost precisely on the MAD PCR appropriate to this cluster. The success in recovering V1’s age and metallicity by looking for a best fit MAD PCR suggests that this technique may provide an additional way to derive approximate cluster parameters. However, mass transfer may alter the surface abundance of He and metals in the envelope of the accreting star. Therefore, any age/metallicity determinations based on this technique can only be applied to the cluster as a whole for those W UMa’s which have a mass ratio close to unity to ensure that little mass transfer contamination has occurred. Since most W UMa’s do not have mass ratios close to unity (Rucinski & Duerbeck 1997), only a small fraction of contact binaries can be used to obtain age/metallicity values for their host clusters. In most instances, this technique would be used to determine the properties of contact systems for which an age and metallicity were not known (see §3).

The planned follow-up work includes extending the range of mass ratios and degree of contact to more accurately test this technique against systems with known q & F. Additional stellar models having a range of helium abundance will also be calculated to determine if this technique is sensitive to the helium enhancement which likely occurs in the late stages of mass transfer, though structural changes may make this determination difficult. In any event, contact systems with mass ratios close to unity might be able to provide insight into the relative rates of chemical enrichment of helium and iron among open clusters with supra-solar abundances. Finally, models of rapidly rotating stars will be used to account for changes in stellar radius and effective temperature.

I thank: Alison Sills for information concerning the effects of rapid rotation; Charles Bailyn and Pierre Demarque for helpful discussions; Ricardo Covarrubias, Hilmar Duerbeck and Jose Maza for pre-publication data of their W UMa; Slavek Rucinski and Stefan Mochnacki for prompt e-mail responses to related queries and Stefan Mochnacki’s code to derive Roche Lobe parameters; and an anonymous referee for helpful suggestions. I also acknowledge the support of NSF grant INT-9902667, the NSF International Research Fellowship Program, LTSA grant NAGW-2469 and the hospitality of CTIO where I did most of this work. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services.


text:
# Control of Spin Dynamics of Excitons in Nanodots for Quantum Operations

## appendix