text:
# The Extraordinary X-ray Light Curve of the Classical Nova V1494 Aquilae (1999 #2) in Outburst: The Discovery of Pulsations and a “Burst”

## 1 Introduction

Classical novae (CN) are the third most violent stellar explosions after $`\gamma `$-ray bursts and supernovae. At maximum light, their bolometric luminosities exceed $`10^5`$L, and they eject more than $`10^4`$M of material into space, with strongly non-solar compositions. Previous X-ray (XR) studies of novae in outburst were performed by EXOSAT, ROSAT, and most recently ASCA, Bepposax and Chandra. EXOSAT detected QU Vul, PW Vul, RS Oph, and GQ Mus in the constant bolometric luminosity phase (Ögelman et al. 1987). ROSAT detected V838 Her, V351 Pup, V1974 Cyg, GQ Mus, and LMC 1995 (Krautter et al. 1996, K96; Orio et al. 2001a). The analyses of these data show that no other wavelength region provides unambiguous information on the evolution of the thermonuclear runaway on the white dwarf (WD). The ROSAT studies identified two components of the XR emission from a nova in outburst. The first is a soft component that places novae at, or near, the bright end of the class of Super Soft X-ray Sources (hereafter SSS; at low resolution the spectrum resembles an “emission” line with a peak $``$ 0.5 keV). There is also a “hard” component, $``$ 1 keV, that was seen in 3 of the 5 novae studied with ROSAT (K96, Orio et al. 2001a; and in V382 Vel studied with Bepposax and Chandra (Orio et al. 2001a; Starrfield et al. 2000). It was the ROSAT studies of V1974 Cyg, however, that established the connection between the SSS and CN in outburst (K96). It stayed bright in XR for more than 18 months and reached a peak of 76 cts s-1 before beginning its decline to quiescence (K96; Balman et al. 1998, B98).

V1494 Aquilae (Nova Aql 1999 #2) was discovered in the optical at m$`{}_{v}{}^{}6`$ on 1999 December 1.785 UT by Pereira (1999). This nova then reached a peak magnitude exceeding 4 within a few days of discovery. A report on early optical spectroscopic observations can be found in Kiss & Thomson (2000) who described it as a member of the Fe II class as defined by Williams (1992). This suggests that the nova ejected an optically thick cloud of material.

We activated our Chandra Target - of Opportunity (ToO) Program in January 2000 and obtained three observations with the ACIS - I instrument followed by two observations with the LETG+HRC-S instrument (separated by 4 days because of a $`\gamma `$-ray burst ToO). Our first ACIS-I spectrum was obtained on 15 April 2000. Both it and a second ACIS-I spectrum (7 June) showed an emission line spectrum with no obvious soft component (Starrfield et al. 2000; 2001). Our third ACIS-I spectrum on 6 August, however, showed that the nova had evolved into a bright SSS with a few weak emission lines at higher energies (Starrfield et al. 2000). We obtained an LETG+HRC-S spectrum at the end of September and this observation showed the high dispersion spectrum of a SSS. While it resembles the XMM spectrum of the SSS CAL 83 (Paerels et al. 2001), it appears somewhat hotter and the “emission features” are at different wavelengths. The evolution from a hard source to that of a SSS was also seen in the ROSAT observations of V1974 Cyg (K96) and combined ASCA-Bepposax observations of V382 Vul (Orio et al. 2001b, 2002; Mukai & Ishida 2001).

We will report on the spectral development and analyses of the spectra elsewhere. Because of its spectacular nature, in this paper we concentrate only on the light curve of the XR data obtained with Chandra. In the next section we describe the observations and the method of obtaining the light curve. In section 3 we describe our time-series analyses, section 4 contains a discussion of our results, and the last section is the summary.

## 2 Observations and Analysis

V1494 Aql was observed in two segments using the LETG+HRC-S. The first observation (ID 2308) was carried out on 2000 September 28 between UT 06:51:13 and 09:36:56, and the second (ID 72) three days later on 2000 October 1, between UT 10:08:56 and 15:39:30. Initial reduction of satellite telemetry was performed by the Chandra X-ray Center Standard Data Processing software version R4CU5UPD9. The analysis described here is based on the Level 2 products of this processing, together with instrument dead time corrections that are products of Level 1 processing. Dead time corrections generally need to be taken into account in the determination of exposure times when the total detector count rate in a particular interval exceeds the telemetry limit of 183 count s-1. The computed corrections are a multiplicative factor that, when averaged and applied to the elapsed exposure time for a particular time interval, yield the effective exposure time for that interval. Both of our observations experienced episodes of telemetry saturation and we have included dead time effects in all the subsequent analyses. However, these episodes were sufficiently short and infrequent so as to have no significant affect on the derived light curves. Total effective exposure times for the first and second observation were 8146 and 18232s, respectively.

We computed light curves from the bright zeroth order of the LETG+HRC-S spectrum as seen in the Level 2 photon event list using the PERL program LCURVE (P. Ratzlaff, unpublished). A circular source region with a diameter of 10 arcsec was employed, together with a surrounding annular region for background estimation, sized so as to be a factor ten larger in surface area than the source region. The source region was sufficiently large so as to include all significant signal in the LETG coarse support structure diffraction wings, and the background region sufficiently small so as not to include any significant amount of the first order dispersed spectrum.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Light Curves

Our light curves are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. The first of these shows the entire observations of first (ID 72) and second (ID 2308) segments using 25 s temporal bins. Note that all three plots cover the same size time interval (20 ks). The upper two panels of this figure cover the same range in count rate, while the lower panel shows the full range of count rate variation scaled by the flare observed near the middle of the second segment. Readily apparent in both segments is stochastic variability on time scales of minutes. In addition, a slower modulation with a period $``$2000-3000 s appears to be present. In the third panel, the flare corresponds to a $``$10-fold increase in intensity over the quiescent background signal and lasts for $``$820 s.

In Figure 2, we show the region around the time of the outburst in the second segment with a temporal bin size of 25 s. It is clear that the flare is not a single isolated event, but exhibits two main large flares and perhaps a precursor and trailer. Examining Figure 2, a precursor to the main flare appears to begin at t $``$ 8850 with a 3-fold increase in intensity and lasts for $``$270 s. This event is rapidly followed by an increase of $``$2.5 over the next 130 s to a well-defind narrow peak which lasts $``$60 s. A local minimum is reached at t $``$ 9340 but the intensity increases rapidly again peaking at t $``$ 9390, a factor of $``$10 above the quiescent background intensity. The duration of the second flare appears comparable to the first. Approximately 110 s later, the intensity has declined to nearly the quiescent level, but appears to be quickly followed by a small trailing flare event which lasts for $``$170 s. By t $``$ 9670, the burst is over.

### 3.2 Timing Analysis

In order to better understand the nature of the temporal variations seen in the light curves and discussed above, we performed four different time series analyses, each with increasing sophistication. These included: (1) a simple periodogram formed by fitting a cosine function over an array of trial periods; (2) phase dispersion minimization (PDM: Stellingwerf 1978); (3) a Fourier power spectrum (Deeming 1975); and (4) a ”cleaned” Fourier power spectrum (Roberts, et al. 1987) in which the sampling or spectral window function is removed from the raw or dirty power spectrum. This latter robust algorithm is particularly well suited to the analysis of a multiperiodic time series of unequally spaced data.

In preparation for the 4 techniques discussed above, the flare detected in the second segment was excised from the HRC-S photon event lists. This removal created three separate segments, each with a duration of 8000-9000 s: a segment consisting of the entire first observation (ID 2308) followed by two segments from the second observation (ID 72). These data are sampled in 25 s temporal bins, and are sensitive to periodic modulations with periods ranging from twice the bin width (50 s) to one half of the total time span covered by the observations (13,000 s).

We found that the time series spectra derived from a simple cosine periodogram, a PDM, and a Deeming power spectrum, are characterised by a significant periodicity at 2500 s as well as other possibly significant features. This interpretation is complicated by the fact that strong sidelobes of the sampling or window function produce spurious features throughout the power spectrum and thus affect the shape and power of significant features. Many attempts have been made to recognize these spurious features (Deeming 1975) but they remain problematic.

Recently, Roberts et al. (1987) have developed a one–dimensional variation of the two dimensional CLEAN (Högbom 1974) algorithm which is well suited to the temporal analysis of unequally spaced finite data samples as we consider here. We have applied this version of the CLEAN algorithm to our X-ray time series data of V1494 Aql, binned this time at 75s intervals, and the results are shown in Figure 3. Using this algorithm, the spectral window function has been iteratively subtracted in the Fourier domain from the raw or dirty power spectrum shown in Figure 3 (top panel). We assumed a gain of 0.2 and stopped after 10,000 iterations since no further improvement in the residual spectrum was apparent. Small gain values prevent the accumulation of errors in the subtraction of the sidelobes at the expense of computation time, and are preferred over gains close to unity and fewer iterations. The data were averaged in 75 s bins for this analysis. A frequency resolution of 1.0 $`\times `$ 10-5 Hz was chosen.

The cleaned power spectrum is shown in the bottom panel of Figure 3. It is difficult to attach an overall significance level to features appearing in the power spectrum because it depends on both the sampling and the signal-to-noise ratio of the data. To help assess the reality of features appearing in the power spectrum, therefore, we added a tracer periodic signal to the time series data with a frequency of 0.0011 Hz and an amplitude of 5% of the mean signal level. The location of this signal is indicated in Figure 3 and we note that the signal is easily detected suggesting that significant signals in this frequency range might have amplitudes of a few percent. The strongest peak is at $`\nu `$ = 0.0004002 Hz (P = 2498.8 s) and has an amplitude of 15% (0.11 counts/s) of the mean count rate level. The strength and detectability of the artificial signal suggests that other comparably strong features are real as well and thus the X-ray variations might be multiperiodic. These include a double–peaked feature at 0.00029 Hz (3461 s), 0.00059 Hz (1695 s), 0.00079 Hz (1266 s), 0.00097 Hz (1031 s), 0.00124 Hz (809 s), and perhaps 0.0019 Hz (526 s).

In addition to our main analysis of the 75 s binned data, we also examined the cleaned power spectra of these data averaged in 25 s and 150 s temporal bins to further assess their reality. The features listed above all appear in these additional power spectra at significant levels as defined by the tracer signal that we introduced into the data.

After further investigation, we found that the 2500 s period is close to the beat period of 2623.98 s formed from the two orthogonal spacecraft dither motions (with periods of 768.57 s and 1086.96 s in pitch and yaw, respectively). However, neither the pitch or yaw periods are present in the power spectra so it is difficult to understand how the beat period could be present in isolation. Nevertheless, in order to determine whether or not the 2500 s periodicity might be related to the spacecraft motion we performed identical analyses on light curves derived from calibration observations of the hot white dwarf stars HZ 43 and Sirius B (ObsID’s 59 and 1452). These light curves were expected to be featureless, and indeed their periodograms were mostly flat over the interval from 300 to 4000 s. The power spectrum of Sirius B shows a broad ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$t $``$ 500 s FWZI) and a weak feature at 2500 s but it is significant at less than the 2$`\sigma `$ level and thus not characteristic of the precise spacecraft dither motions.

We also used the Chandra Interactive Analysis of Observations (CIAO) software to isolate the regions around the dispersed spectra and obtained the light curve for these regions which were sampled in 50 s bins. We then performed the same cleaned power spectrum analyses on the light curve of the dispersed spectra. This analysis thus serves as an independent check on the results described above. We find the same major period at $``$2500 s is present in the dispersed light as well as the additional periods listed above. These results, are obtained completely independently of the zeroth order light curve, and strengthen our conclusion that the observed periods are not instrumental.

We can safely exlude instrumental background as being responsible for any or part of the time-variable signals we have detected. In the case of the 0th order light curve, for example, the background rate scaled to the source region size amounts to 0.5-$`\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}10}^2`$ count s-1, as compared to the quiescent source rate of $`0.6`$ count s-1: the background is completely negligible. We also examined the Chandra on-board particle monitor and found that no unusual episodes occurred during the interval of our V1494 Aql observation.

Another interesting feature is present in the cleaned power spectrum. A strong signal appears at a frequency of $`9.03\times 10^5`$ Hz which is consistent with the observed optical photometric orbital period of V1494 Aql (0.13467 d; Retter et al. 2000) within the errors.

## 4 Discussion

There are two obvious and distinct features in these light curves, the complex rise and fall in the observed count rate, which lasts about 1000 sec, and the periodic signal. We currently have no explanation for the burst. The spectrum obtained during the burst is slightly different from the spectrum of the rest of the observation (Starrfield et al. 2001). Once the orbital phase of the burst is known, it may provide more insight as to the cause.

The periodic signal demands more discussion. We have done a period analysis of both observations and find a 2500 s period in the light curve. We also find additional periods present in both the zeroth order and the dispersed data suggesting that we are not observing the rotation of the underlying WD. We interpret this result as the discovery of non-radial g+-mode pulsations in the hot, rekindled WD. At this stage in its evolution from explosion to quiescence, the hot, luminous WD has a structure which resembles that of the central stars of planetary nebulae. It contains a white dwarf core with a composition of carbon and oxygen and a thin layer of accreted plus core material on the surface in which nuclear burning is occurring at or near the bottom. Both this star and the central stars of planetary nebulae have effective temperatures exceeding $`10^5`$K and, when analyzed, the spectrum will show evidence for hydrogen depletion and a high abundance of carbon and oxygen. This star, therefore, resembles the planetary nebulae nuclei showing O VI in emission and absorption in optical-UV spectra, some of which have been shown to pulsate at periods ranging from $``$1000 s to $``$5000 s (Ciardullo & Bond 1996). The 2500 s period that we have found is close to periods found in observations of NGC 2371-2, RX J2117+3412, or NGC 1501 for example (Ciardullo & Bond 1996, and references therein).

Because of the similarity in structure we speculate that pulsation driving in this star is analogous to that of either the pulsating Planetary Nebulae Nuclei (PNN) or the GW Vir stars (see Dreizler et al. 1995 and references therein). For these stars it has been proposed that pulsations are driven by the $`\kappa `$/$`\gamma `$ effects—the instability caused by compression-induced increases in opacity and ionization—in the partial ionization zones of carbon and oxygen near the surface (Starrfield et al. 1984, 1985). In support of the possibility that this mechanism could be acting in V1494 Aql, we point out that the nova mechanism requires CO nuclei to have been mixed up into the accreted layers and this WD should have enriched CO near the surface. However, studies at that time suggested that a significant amount of hydrogen could poison pulsation driving. Since the WD is still luminous and presumably still burning hydrogen, it should still have hydrogen near the surface which would argue against the $`\kappa `$/$`\gamma `$ mechanism. Recent observational studies, however, have found pulsations in members of the GW Vir class which do have hydrogen present at the surface (Dreizler et al. 1996) and, therefore, the $`\kappa `$/$`\gamma `$ mechanism remains a viable possibility.

If theoretical studies of this star show that the $`\kappa `$/$`\gamma `$ mechanism cannot be responsible for the oscillations, then another possibility is the $`ϵ`$ mechanism. In this case, pulsation driving is caused by the ongoing nuclear energy generation near the surface. The pulsations would then last as long as there was nuclear burning in the envelope of the white dwarf. However, while existing studies of this phenomenon either in nova models (Sastri & Simon 1973), high luminosity degenerate stars (Vila & Sion 1976), or in hydrogen shell burning PNN (Kawaler 1988) have found instabilities, they are at periods far shorter than we have observed in V1494 Aql.

## 5 Summary

We have obtained LETG+HRC-S spectra of V1494 Aql about 10 months after discovery. The X-ray light curve shows a double peaked, short timescale, rise of $``$10 in counts per second. We have no explanation for this rise.

Power spectrum analyses of the zeroth order image shows a dominant period at 2498.8 s. There are other periods present our analyses which implies that we are observing pulsations and not rotation.

A period of $``$2500 s falls in the range of those measured for pulsating PNN such as NGC 1501 or K1-16. This is to be expected, if we are observing pulsation, since the structure of the WD at the time of our observations resembles that of a PNN.

We are grateful to E. M. Sion for valuable scientific discussions and to the referee who made valuable suggestions for improving the text. We thank P. Ratzlaff for developing the LCURVE software used in this work. JJD and YB were supported by NASA contract NAS8-39073 to the Chandra X-ray Center. SS, RMW, PHH, JWT, RDG, and CEW were partially supported by grants from the Chandra X-ray Center to their various institutions. Finally, we would like to thank the mission planners and staff of the CXC for flawless scheduling and execution of this ToO program.


format: text

text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

The vacuum is the most important state of any QFT. It can be defined as the state with lowest energy and maximal symmetry and it determines the kinematics of the theory due to the fundamental relation between symmetries, conserved quantities, quantum numbers and spectrum.

In theories of gravity, the vacuum also determines the zero point of the energy. Usually, it is associated to a classical solution of maximal symmetry which can be used as the arena on which other field theories can be defined. The basic example is Minkowski spacetime.

Some theories (in particular candidates to “Theory of Everything”) admit more than one vacuum and the problem of the vacuum selection (one of whose manifestations is the so-called “moduli problem”) is the most pressing and interesting one.

In this talk we are going to focus on vacua of supergravity (SUGRA) theories. These theories (we do not know if all of them) represent the low-energy effective limit of a Superstring Theory and, at the same time, can be considered as simply GR coupled to specific matter fields

$$\mathrm{GR}+\mathrm{matter}\mathrm{SUGRA}\stackrel{lowenergy}{}\mathrm{Superstrings}$$

SUGRA vacua are, to certain approximation, superstring vacua and provide new interesting GR solutions. In this talk, after a brief introduction to SUGRA theories (Section 1) we review the known vacua of SUGRA theories and explain how to find the associated supersymmetry algebras (Section 2). Finally, we review the very few known general results on supersymmetric solutions of SUGRA theories (Section 3).

## 1 SUGRA Theories

### 1.1 Supersymmetry

Supersymmetry (SUSY) is the ultimate symmetry allowed by the S matrix . It interchanges matter (fermions) with radiation (bosons, the carriers of interactions), implying a higher level of unification. In QFT, it interchanges bosonic fields $`B`$ (tensors) with fermionic (anticommuting) fields $`F`$ (spinors). This implies that it is generated by spinorial, anticommuting supercharges $`Q^\alpha `$, and the infinitesimal parameters of the field transformations are anticommuting spinors $`ϵ^\alpha `$. By dimensional arguments , SUSY transformations are always of the form

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \delta _ϵB& & \overline{ϵ}F,\hfill \\ \hfill \delta _ϵF& & ϵ+Bϵ.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.1)
The simplest superalgebra includes the Poincaré algebra $`\{P_a,M_{ab}\}`$ as bosonic (or even subalgebra and has the additional (anti-) commutators

$$\{Q^\alpha ,Q^\beta \}=i\left(\gamma ^a𝒞^1\right)^{\alpha \beta }P_a,[Q^\alpha ,M_{ab}]=\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma _{ab}\right)^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}Q_{}^{\beta }.$$
(1.2)
SUSY is, therefore a spacetime symmetry. In fact, it takes its simplest form as a symmetry of superspace.

### 1.2 From Supersymmetry to SUGRA

GR can be viewed444Strictly speaking it is not a gauge theory of the Poincaré group, but it can be constructed following the same steps, up to certain point. as a gauge theory of the Poincaré group (see e.g. ). The gauge potential $`𝒜_\mu `$ has one component for each generator

$$\{M_{ab},P_a\}\text{}𝒜_\mu \frac{1}{2}\omega _\mu {}_{}{}^{ab}M_{ab}^{}+e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}P_{a}^{},$$
(1.3)
as well as the curvature

$$R_{\mu \nu }2_{[\mu }𝒜_{\nu ]}+[𝒜_\mu ,𝒜_\nu ]=\frac{1}{2}R_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{ab}M_{ab}^{}+R_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a}P_{a}^{}.$$
(1.4)
The components $`R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$ are the Lorentz curvature and $`R_{\mu \nu }^a`$ to the torsion. The action is the first-order Einstein-Hilbert action

$$Sd^4xeR(e,\omega ),$$
(1.5)
and the equations of motion that follow from (1.5) are fully equivalent to Einstein’s vacuum equations

$$R_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a}=0,G_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(1.6)
although this formulation allows for the coupling of fermions to gravity (the Cartan-Sciama-Kibble (CSK) theory, see, e.g. ).

Similarly, SUGRA can be seen as the gauge theory of the Poincaré superalgebra. The gauge potential has one more component $`\psi _\mu ^\alpha `$

$$\{M_{ab},P_a,Q^\alpha \}\text{}𝒜_\mu \frac{1}{2}\omega _\mu {}_{}{}^{ab}M_{ab}^{}+e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}P_{a}^{}+\overline{\psi }_{\mu \alpha }Q^\alpha .$$
(1.7)
that compensates for local SUSY transformations and is known as the Rarita-Schwinger field, that describes a massless spin-$`3/2`$ particle: the gravitino. Its two possible helicity states ($`\pm 3/2`$) are the superpartners of the two helicity states of the graviton ($`\pm 2`$). The QFT will have the same number of bosonic and fermionic states at each mass level, a property of linearly realized SUSY.

The curvature is

$$R_{\mu \nu }2_{[\mu }𝒜_{\nu ]}+[𝒜_\mu ,𝒜_\nu ]=\frac{1}{2}R_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{ab}M_{ab}^{}+R_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a}P_{a}^{}+\overline{R}_{\mu \nu \alpha }Q^\alpha ,$$
(1.8)
and the action ($`N=1,d=4`$ SUGRA) is just the CSK theory for a Rarita-Schwinger field couplet to gravity

$$Sd^4xe\left\{R(e,\omega )+ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\overline{\psi }_\mu \gamma _5\gamma _\nu 𝒟_\rho (\omega )\psi _\sigma \right\},$$
(1.9)
but turns out to be invariant under local SUSY transformations

$$\delta _ϵe^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}=i\overline{ϵ}\gamma ^a\psi _\mu ,\delta _ϵ\psi _\mu =𝒟_\mu ϵ.$$
(1.10)
Now there is non-vanishing torsion, proportional to the fermions

$$T_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a}\overline{\psi }_\mu \gamma ^a\psi _\nu .$$
(1.11)
Setting all the fermions to zero is always a consistent truncation and any purely bosonic GR solution will also be a solution of $`N=1,d=4`$ SUGRA.

Generalizing the superalgebra we gauge we can generalize the SUGRA theory555Of course, we can always add supersymmetric matter, but here we are not interested in this possibility. There are three main ways (that can be combined) to generalize the Poincaré superalgebra:

1 Adding more supercharges

Adding more supercharges $`Q^{i\alpha }`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}N`$, one is left with $`N`$-extended $`d=4`$ Poincaré superalgebras. These turn out to admit central charges

$$Q^{ij}=Q^{ji},P^{ij}=P^{ji},$$
(1.12)
that appear in the anticommutator of two supercharges

$$\{Q^{i\alpha },Q^{j\beta }\}=i\delta ^{ij}(\gamma ^a𝒞^1)^{\alpha \beta }P_ai(𝒞^1)^{\alpha \beta }Q^{ij}(\gamma _5𝒞^1)^{\alpha \beta }P^{ij},$$
(1.13)
and commute with all generators. Gauging them we obtain $`N`$-extended Poincaré SUGRAS. The gauge potential contains $`N`$ gravitini $`\psi _\mu ^{i\alpha }`$ and also $`N(N1)/2`$ Abelian vector fields $`A^{ij}_\mu `$

$$𝒜_\mu \frac{1}{2}\omega _\mu {}_{}{}^{ab}M_{ab}^{}+e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}P_{a}^{}+\frac{1}{2}A^{ij}{}_{\mu }{}^{}Q_{}^{ij}+\overline{\psi }_{\mu \alpha }^iQ^{i\alpha }.$$
(1.14)
The action now contains the kinetic terms of $`N`$ gravitini and of $`N(N1)/2`$ Abelian vector fields $`A^{ij}_\mu `$ with field strengths $`F^{ij}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=2_{[\mu }A^{ij}_{\nu ]}`$, but this is not the whole story, as the counting of bosonic and fermionic states immediately shows: there are additional scalar fields and fermionic fields in the theory that cannot be accounted for with our heuristic formulation666A more rigorous formulation can be found in .. The scalars appear always in a non-linear $`\sigma `$-model, couple in a non-trivial fashion to the vector fields and have no potential.

$`N=8`$ (in $`d=4`$) is the maximum  if we do not want to deal with the problem of higher spin fields in interaction or more than one graviton.

2 Using a different spacetime bosonic superalgebra

The natural candidates are those superalgebras with a meaningful bosonic subalgebra777These can be understood as deformations of the Poincaré algebra in which the generators of translations $`P_a`$ do not commute. There are other possible deformations, like the Heisenberg algebras, that but, so far, no SUGRA has been constructed gauging them. Further, we could think of taking the product of some spacetime group and other compact group that would play the role of internal symmetries, but the corresponding SUGRAs arise naturally from the $`N`$-extended $`AdS`$ SUGRAs we are going to consider.: $`dS`$ or $`AdS`$. $`dS`$ leads to inconsistent field theories and thus, we are left with $`N`$-extended $`d=4,AdS`$ superalgebras. The supercharges $`Q^{i\alpha }`$ transform as spinors under the bosonic ($`AdS`$) subalgebra generated by the $`\widehat{M}_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}`$’s. On top of these, we are forced to introduce bosonic $`SO(N)`$ generators $`T^{ij}=T^{ij}`$ that rotate the supercharges and also appear in their anticommutator:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \{Q^{i\alpha },Q^{j\beta }\}& =& i\delta ^{ij}m^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}\alpha \beta }\widehat{M}_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}i(𝒞^1)^{\alpha \beta }T^{ij},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill [T^{ij},T^{kl}]& =& \delta ^{ik}T^{jl}+\delta ^{jl}T^{ik}\delta ^{il}T^{jk}\delta ^{jk}T^{il},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill [Q^{i\alpha },T^{jk}]& =& 2\delta ^{i[j}Q^{k]\alpha },\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.15)
Accordingly we have to introduce $`SO(N)`$ an vector field with $`N(N1)/2`$ components $`A^{ij}_\mu `$ and $`N`$ $`SO(N)`$-charged gravitini $`\psi _\mu ^{i\alpha }`$

$$𝒜_\mu \frac{1}{2}\widehat{\omega }_\mu {}_{}{}^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\widehat{M}_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}^{}+\frac{1}{2}A^{ij}{}_{\mu }{}^{}T_{}^{ij}+\overline{\psi }_{\mu \alpha }^iQ^{i\alpha }.$$
(1.16)
The resulting theory is known as a “gauged SUGRA” and for $`N=1,2`$ the Lagrangian has a negative cosmological constant whose value is related to the gauge coupling constant. For $`N>2`$ there also scalars present and there is a potential which has an extremum at a negative value and acts as a negative cosmological constant.

3 Using $`d>4`$ spacetime bosonic superalgebras

In the Poincaré case this is straightforward but only up to $`d=11`$, which is allowed only for $`N=1`$. Beyond $`d=11`$ we run into the same problems we found in going beyond $`N=8`$ in $`d=4`$ . These limits are related since $`N=8,d=4`$ SUGRAs can be derived from $`N=1,d=11`$ SUGRA  by dimensional reduction888A very complete guide to the literature on SUGRAs in diverse dimensions is .. $`AdS`$ superalgebras only exist up to $`d=7`$ .

The main feature of higher-dimensional superalgebras is that they admit quasi-central charges $`𝒵_{[a_1\mathrm{}a_p]}`$ that commute with the supercharges but transform as $`p`$-forms under Lorentz transformations. An important example is the $`N=1,d=11`$ Poincaré superalgebra (a.k.a. “M-superalgebra”, see  for a discussion of the great amount of information that it contains), which admits two quasi-central charges $`p=2,5`$

$$\{Q^\alpha ,Q^\beta \}=i(\gamma ^a𝒞^1)^{\alpha \beta }P_a+\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^{ab}𝒞^1)^{\alpha \beta }𝒵_{ab}+\frac{i}{5!}(\gamma ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_5}𝒞^1)^{\alpha \beta }𝒵_{a_1\mathrm{}a_5}.$$
(1.17)
The gauge potential must include now a potential $`C_\mu ^{ab}`$

$$𝒜_\mu \frac{1}{2}\omega _\mu {}_{}{}^{ab}M_{ab}^{}+e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}P_{a}^{}+\frac{1}{2}C_\mu {}_{}{}^{ab}𝒵_{ab}^{}+\overline{\psi }_{\mu \alpha }Q^\alpha ,$$
(1.18)
which actually appears in the SUGRA action as a 3-form potential $`C_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ with field strength $`G_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=4_{[\mu }C_{\nu \rho \sigma ]}`$.

$`(p+1)`$-form potentials naturally couple to the worldvolume of extended objects of $`p`$ spatial dimensions (“$`p`$-branes”). Higher-dimensional SUGRAs, are, therefore, theories associated to $`p`$-branes and, indeed, one finds classical solutions that include the $`(p+1)`$-dimensional Poincaré group in their isometry group and represent the long-range fields sourced by a flat $`p`$-brane999for a review on $`p`$-branes see, for example .. $`N=1,d=11`$ SUGRA can couple to a 2-brane and, through the dual 6-form potential, to a 5-brane. The quasi-central charges that appear in the superalgebra correspond to these objects and there are classical solutions associated to them. One of the main properties of these solutions is that they are supersymmetric.

## 2 From SUGRA Back to SUSY

In the previous section we have seen heuristically how to construct SUGRA theories based on a superalgebra. Most SUGRAs (actions and transformation laws), though, have not been constructed in this way and the question arises as to what superalgebra can be associated to a given SUGRA.

Actually, it is the vacuum of the theory what can be connected to a superalgebra and it so happens that many SUGRAs admit several vacua. Here we are going to show how to find the superalgebra associated to a given SUGRA vacuum. We need first a definition of vacuum: in GR, the vacuum is the maximally symmetric solution (i.e. Minkowski, $`AdS`$ or $`dS`$). In SUGRA we can define it as a maximally supersymmetric solution.

### 2.1 Supersymmetric Solutions

GR is invariant under any diffeomorphism but any given solution is only invariant under a finite isometry group generated by its Killing vectors $`k_{(I)}`$, that satisfy a Lie algebra

$$[k_{(I)},k_{(J)}]=f_{IJ}{}_{}{}^{K}k_{(K)}^{}.$$
(2.1)
We can call symmetric any solution with a non-trivial isometry group.

A SUGRA theory is invariant under any local supersymmetry transformation, but a given solution will only be invariant under some. By analogy, we call a SUGRA solution supersymmetric if there exists a (Killing) spinor $`\kappa `$ such that

$$\delta _\kappa =0\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \delta _\kappa B& =& \overline{\kappa }F=0,\hfill \\ \hfill \delta _\kappa F& =& \kappa +B\kappa =0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.2)
A supersymmetric solution will always be symmetric (see later). Its symmetries and supersymmetries must form a supergroup, and, the infinitesimal generators must form a superalgebra.

How can this superalgebra be found? The answer to this question was given in :

RECIPE

1. First we associate each Killing spinor (vector) to an odd (even) element of the superalgebra

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \kappa _{(A)}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }Q_{(A)}(\mathrm{Odd})& & \\ & & \\ \hfill k_{(I)}{}_{}{}^{\mu }P_{(I)}(\mathrm{Even})& & \end{array}\}\begin{array}{ccc}& \mathrm{SUPERALGEBRA}& \\ & \mathrm{GENERATORS}& \end{array}$$
(2.3)
The superalgebra is determined by the three sets of structure constants $`f_{IJ}{}_{}{}^{K},f_{AB}{}_{}{}^{I},f_{AI}^B`$
2. The structure constants $`f_{IJ}^K`$ of the even subalgebra are those of the isometry Lie algebra

$$[k_{(I)},k_{(J)}]=f_{IJ}{}_{}{}^{K}k_{(K)}^{}.$$
(2.4)
3. The structure constants $`f_{AB}^I`$ are given by the decomposition of the bilinears

$$i\overline{\kappa }_{(A)}\gamma ^a\kappa _{(B)}e_af_{AB}{}_{}{}^{I}k_{(I)}^{}.$$
(2.5)
4. The structure constants $`f_{AI}^B`$ are given by the spinorial Lie derivatives

$$𝕃_{k_{(I)}}\kappa _{(A)}f_{AI}{}_{}{}^{B}\kappa _{(B)}^{}.$$
(2.6)

Some of these rules deserve a comment:

* Rule 3: If $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$ are Killing spinors then one can show that the bilinear $`i\overline{\kappa }_1\gamma ^\mu \kappa _2`$ is a Killing vector, and, therefore, a linear combination of the $`k_{(I)}^\mu `$’s. This ensures that the $`f_{AB}^I`$’s are well-defined constants.
* Rule 4: The spinorial Lie derivative (see )is a particular case of a generalized G-reductive Lie derivative (see, e.g. ). In pedestrian/physicist terms it is just a gauge-covariant Lie derivative

$$𝕃_v=\mathrm{\pounds }_v+W(v),$$
(2.7)
where $`\mathrm{\pounds }_v`$ is the standard Lie derivative and $`W(v)`$ is a gauge compensator. Spinors are defined up to local (gauge) Lorentz transformations and

$$\mathrm{\pounds }_v\psi v^\mu _\mu \psi +\frac{1}{4}_{[\mu }v_{\nu ]}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\psi .$$
(2.8)
Charged spinors are also defined up to local phases and more terms have to be added to their Lie derivative. One of its main properties is that, taken w.r.t. Killing vectors, it transforms Killing spinors into Killing spinors. This ensures that the $`f_{AI}^B`$’s are also well-defined constants.

### 2.2 Vacua and Their Superalgebras

Let us now review the known maximally supersymmetric solutions of the different SUGRAs. Applying the above recipe we can derive their symmetry superalgebras.

#### 2.2.1 Poincaré SUGRAs

Minkowski spacetime is always a solution, maximally symmetric and supersymmetric. Its symmetry superalgebra is (not surprisingly) the Poincaré superalgebra:

1. Minkowski’s Killing vectors in Cartesian coordinates are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & k_{(a)}=_aP_a,\hfill \\ & & k_{ab}=2x_{[a}_{b]}M_{ab}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.9)
The Killing spinor equation in Cartesian coordinates with $`e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}=\delta _\mu ^a`$ is

$$_a\kappa =0,$$
(2.10)
and has four independent solutions

$$\kappa _{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{\beta }=\delta _{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{\beta }Q_{(\alpha )}.$$
(2.11)
2. $`\{P_a,M_{ab}\}`$ satisfy the Poincaré algebra.
3. The Killing spinor bilinears give, trivially

$$i\overline{\kappa }_{(\alpha )}\gamma ^a\kappa _{(\beta )}_a=i(𝒞\gamma ^a)_{\alpha \beta }k_{(a)}\{Q_{(\alpha )},Q_{(\beta )}\}=i(𝒞\gamma ^a)_{\alpha \beta }P_{(a)}.$$
(2.12)
4. The translational Killing vectors are covariantly constant and they annihilate the Killing spinors

$$_\mu k_{(a)\nu }=0𝕃_{k_{(a)}}\kappa _{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{\beta }=0[Q_{(\alpha )},P_{(a)}]=0.$$
(2.13)
The rotational Killing vectors have non-trivial covariant derivatives and act as Lorentz rotations on the Killing spinors

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _{[\mu }k_{(ab)\nu ]}=2e_{[a|\mu }e_{|b]\nu }& & 𝕃_{k_{(ab)}}\kappa _{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{\beta }=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _{ab})^\beta {}_{\gamma }{}^{}\kappa _{}^{\gamma }{}_{(\alpha )}{}^{},\hfill \\ & & \\ & & [Q_{(\alpha )},M_{ab}]=Q_{(\beta )}\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _{ab})^\beta {}_{\alpha }{}^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.14)

We could raise now the spinorial indices using the inverse charge conjugation matrix to have the algebra in the form Eq. (1.2).

#### 2.2.2 Anti-de Sitter Supergravities

$`AdS`$ is always a maximally symmetric and supersymmetric solution of all gauged supergravities. Its symmetry superalgebra can be derived most easily using a construction that exploits the fact that it is a homogeneous space that we are going to review in Section 2.3.

#### 2.2.3 Extended Poincaré Supergravities

Minkowski is always a maximally supersymmetric solution of all extended Poincaré SUGRAS, but there are additional maximally supersymmetric (but not maximally symmetric) solutions of essentially two types: products of $`AdS`$ spaces and spheres that appear as near-horizon limits and homogenous $`pp`$-wave spacetimes  of the type found by Kowalski-Glikman  (KG solutions) and which are related by a Penrose limit . A complete table follows:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill N=1,d=11:& \left\{\begin{array}{c}AdS_7\times S^4\\ AdS_4\times S^7\end{array}\right\}\text{}& \text{}& KG11\text{[19]}\\ & & & \\ \hfill N=2B,d=10:& \left\{AdS_5\times S^5\right\}& \text{}& KG10\text{[25]}\\ & & & \\ \hfill N=\left(\begin{array}{c}2,0\\ 4,0\end{array}\right),d=6:& \left\{AdS_3\times S^3\right\}& \text{}& KG6\text{}\\ & & & \\ \hfill N=2,d=5:& \left\{\begin{array}{c}AdS_3\times S^2\\ AdS_2\times S^3\\ AdS_2S^2\\ \text{Gödel}\end{array}\right\}\text{}& \text{}\text{}\text{}& KG5\text{[28]}\\ & & & \\ \hfill N=2,d=4:& \left\{AdS_2\times S^2\text{[29, 30]}\right\}& \text{}& KG4\text{[18]}\end{array}$$

The only two exceptional cases occur in $`d=5`$: the $`AdS_2S^2`$ solution which is the near-horizon limit of the rotating extreme $`d=5`$ black hole  and a Gödel-like solution .

### 2.3 The Symmetry Superalgebras of Homogeneous Spacetimes

All known maximally supersymmetric SUGRA vacua are homogeneous spaces. The less well known cases are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill AdS_2S^2& & \frac{\left[SO(2,1)\times SO(3)\right]}{SO(2)_\alpha }\text{[34]},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill Hpp& & \frac{H(d2)}{T_{d2}}\text{[16]}.\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \text{Gödel}_5& & \frac{H(2n+2)}{U(1)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.15)
where $`H(2n+2)`$ stands for the Heisenberg algebra. This makes easy to find the Killing spinors and supersymmetry algebras. It can be shown  that

1. The Killing spinors are (in an appropriate basis!)

$$\kappa _{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{\beta }=u^\beta {}_{\alpha }{}^{},u=e^{x^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(P_{(a)})},$$
(2.16)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(P_{(a)})`$ stands for the generators in the spinorial representation.
2. In most cases, the bilinears can be decomposed easily

$$i\overline{\kappa }_{(\alpha )}\gamma ^a\kappa _{(\beta )}e_a=i(\stackrel{~}{𝒞}\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(T^{(I)}))_{\alpha \beta }k_{(I)},f_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{I}=i(\stackrel{~}{𝒞}\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(T^{(I)}))_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(2.17)
3. The spinorial Lie derivatives w.r.t. the Killing vectors are given by

$$𝕃_{k_{(I)}}\kappa _{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{\beta }=\kappa _{(\gamma )}{}_{}{}^{\beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{s}^{}(T_{(I)})^\gamma {}_{\alpha }{}^{},f_{\alpha I}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(T_{(I)})^\gamma {}_{\alpha }{}^{}.$$
(2.18)

## 3 Some General Results on Supersymmetric Solutions

To end, let us review the few general results that exist on (not necessarily maximally) supersymmetric solutions.

### 3.1 $`N=1`$, $`d=4`$ Poincaré Supergravity

The Killing spinor equation is

$$_\mu \kappa =0\frac{1}{4}R_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{ab}\gamma _{ab}^{}\kappa =0.$$
(3.1)
Only two kinds of solutions known: Minkowski spacetime (maximally supersymmetric) and $`pp`$-waves spacetimes admitting a covariantly constant null Killing vector $`\mathrm{}^\mu `$ , whose Killing spinors satisfy

$$\mathrm{}_\mu \gamma ^\mu \kappa =0,$$
(3.2)
that has a 2-dimensional space of solutions ($`1/2`$ out of the 4 possible).

In Euclidean signature also the Gibbons-Hawking metrics  used to construct self-dual gravitational instantons preserve $`1/2`$ of the supersymmetries

$$\{\begin{array}{c}ds^2=H^1(d\tau +A_idx^i)^2+Hdx^idx^i,\hfill \\ ϵ_{ijk}_jA_k=_iH_i_iH=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.3)
### 3.2 $`N=2,d=4`$ Poincaré Supergravity

This theory is just Einstein-Maxwell coupled to $`\psi _\mu ^i`$ and all solutions of Einstein-Maxwell are solutions of $`N=2,d=4`$ Poincaré supergravity as well. The Killing spinor equation is

$$\left[\delta ^{ij}_\mu +\frac{1}{4}\overline{)}F(\sigma ^2)^{ij}\right]\kappa ^j=0\left\{C_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{ab}\gamma _{ab}^{}+2i\overline{)}(F_{\mu \nu }+i{}_{}{}^{}F_{\mu \nu }^{}\gamma _5)i\sigma ^2\right\}\kappa =0.$$
(3.4)
These integrability conditions were fully solved by Tod , who found two kind of solutions that preserve generically one half of the supersymmetries:

* Israel-Wilson-Perjés solutions

$$\{\begin{array}{c}ds^2=||^2(dt+\omega )^2||^2dx^idx^i,\hfill \\ A_t=2\mathrm{Re},\stackrel{~}{A}_t=2\mathrm{Re}(i\overline{}),\hfill \\ \omega =\omega _idx^i,ϵ_{ijk}_j\omega _k=\pm \mathrm{Im}(\overline{}_k),_i_i=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.5)
These include the extreme RN ($`M^2=Q^2`$) black hole (whose near-horizon geometry is the maximally supersymmetric Bertotti-Robinson spacetime, $`AdS_2\times S^2`$), the extreme Taub-NUT ($`M^2+N^2=Q^2`$), KN with $`M^2=Q^2`$ and multicenter solutions .
* Gravito-electromagnetic $`pp`$-waves

$$\{\begin{array}{c}ds^2=2du(dv+Kdu)2d\xi d\overline{\xi },\hfill \\ F_{\xi u}=_\xi C,K=\mathrm{Re}f+\frac{1}{4}|C|^2,\hfill \\ _{\overline{\xi }}f=_{\overline{\xi }}C=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.6)
The $`Hpp`$-waves are a particular (maximally supersymmetric) case with $`K=A_{ij}x^ix^j`$. $`KG4`$ is a particular case with $`A_{ij}\delta _{ij}`$.

Kowalski-Glikman proved that Minkowski, Bertotti-Robinson and the $`KG4`$ solutions are the only vacua of $`N=2`$ supergravity .

### 3.3 $`N=4`$, $`d=4`$ Poincaré Supergravity

The theory consists of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, six vectors $`A_\mu ^i`$, a complex scalar field $`\tau `$ (also known as axidilaton), four gravitini $`\psi _\mu ^i`$ and four dilatini $`\chi ^i`$.

The most general families of supersymmetric solutions were obtained by Tod , who identified several families:

* SUPER-Israel-Wilson-Perjés solutions  Include all the IWP spacetimes of $`N=2`$ $`d=4`$, but now none of them seems to be maximally supersymmetric.
* Waves ($`pp`$ and more) Again, none of them seems to be maximally supersymmetric.

### 3.4 $`N=2`$, $`d=5`$ Poincaré SUGRA

This theory is an interesting modification of the 5-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell theory that leads to very interesting new solutions like the rotating black string of . The action is

$$Sd^4xe\left\{R(e,\omega )\frac{1}{4}F^2\frac{1}{\sqrt{|g|}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }A_\delta \right\},$$
(3.7)
where the new Chern-Simons term changes the Maxwell equation.Recently it was shown in  how to construct all the supersymmetric solutions of this theory, although not all of them can be written explicitely. This method exploits the identities satisfied by the Killing spinor bilinears $`i\overline{\kappa }\gamma ^a\kappa `$. The most interesting of the new results is the presence of a Gd̈el-like maximally supersymmetric solution.

these are all the general results known. In higher dimensions and higher $`N`$ many supersymmetric solutions are known but no general classification scheme exists. This seems a very promising direction of research, worth pursuing.

## Acknowledgements

T.O. would like to thank M.M. Fernández for her continuous support. This work has been partially supported by the Spanish grant FPA2000-1584.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The stationary axially-symmetric Kerr-Newman (KN) solution of Einstein’s equations was found by performing a complex transformation on the tetrad field for the charged Schwarzschild (Reissner–Nordström) solution . For $`m^2a^2+q^2`$, it represents a black hole with mass $`m`$, angular momentum per unit mass $`a`$ and charge $`q`$ (we use units in which $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$). In the so called Boyer–Lindquist coordinates $`r,\theta ,\varphi `$, the KN solution is given by

$$ds^2=dt^2\frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}dr^2(r^2+a^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\rho ^2d\theta ^2\frac{Rr}{\rho ^2}(dta\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi )^2,$$
(1)
where $`\rho ^2=r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=r^2Rr+a^2`$ and $`R=2mq^2/r`$. This metric is invariant under the simultaneous changes $`(t,a)(t,a)`$, $`(m,r)(m,r)`$, and separately under $`qq`$. This black hole is believed to be the final stage of a very general stellar collapse, where the star is rotating and its net charge is different from zero.

The structure of the KN solution changes deeply when $`m^2<a^2+q^2`$. Due to the absence of an horizon, it does not represent a black hole, but a circular naked singularity in spacetime. This solution is of particular interest because it describes a massive charged object with spin, and with a gyromagnetic ratio equal to that of the electron . As a consequence, several attempts to model the electron by the KN solution have been made . In all these models, however, the circular singularity is somehow surrounded by a massive ellipsoidal shell (bubble), so that it is unreachable. In other words, the singularity is considered to be non-physical in the sense that the presence of the massive bubble precludes its formation.

Inspired in the works by Barut , who tried to explain the Zitterbewegung that appears in the electron’s Dirac theory, and also in the works by Wheeler  about “matter without matter” and “charge without charge”, we will propose here that the KN solution, without any matter surrounding it, can be consistently interpreted as a realistic model for the electron. Our construction will proceed according to the following scheme. First, by applying to the Kerr-Newman case the Hawking and Ellis extended spacetime interpretation of the Kerr solution , some properties of the classical KN solution for $`m^2<a^2+q^2`$ are reviewed. It is found that, similarly to the electron-positron system, the KN solution presents four inequivalent classical states. Then, an analysis of the topological properties of the space section of the extended KN spacetime is made. As already demonstrated in the literature , the possible topologies of three-manifolds fall into two classes, those which allow only vector states with integral spin, and those which give rise to vector states having both integral and half-integral spins. In other words, for a certain class of three-manifolds, the angular momentum of an asymptotically flat gravitational field can present half-integral values, revealing in this way the presence of a spinorial structure. As we are going to see, this is exactly the case of the space section of the Hawking and Ellis extended KN solution, when Wheeler’s idea of charge without charge is taken into account. This will also become evident from the fact that each one of the inequivalent KN states is seen to transform into itself only under a $`4\pi `$ rotation, a typical property of spinor fields. As a consequence of this property, those states can naturally be represented in a Lorentz spinor basis. By introducing such a basis, the vector state representing the whole KN solution in a rest frame is obtained. Then, the general representation of this vector state with a nonvanishing momentum ($`\stackrel{}{p}0`$) is found, and its evolution is shown to be governed by the Dirac equation. It is important to remark that the Dirac equation will not be obtained in a KN spacetime. Instead, the KN solution itself (for $`m^2<a^2+q^2`$) will appear as an element of a vector space, which is a solution of the Dirac equation. Furthermore, as is usually done in particle physics, the gravitational field produced by the electron—here represented by the KN solution—will be supposed to be fast enough asymptotically flat, so that the Dirac equation can be written in a Minkowski background spacetime. The above results suggest that the KN solution can be consistently interpreted as a model for the electron. At the final part of the paper, an analysis of some phenomenological consequences of the model is presented, and a discussion of the results obtained is made.

## 2 The Extended KN Solution

### 2.1 Basic properties

The KN solution for $`m^2<a^2+q^2`$ exhibits a true circular singularity of radius $`a`$, enclosing a disk across which the metric components fail to be smooth. If the center of the circle is placed at the origin of a Cartesian coordinate system, the circular singularity coincides with the $`xy`$ plane, and the axial symmetry of the solution (around the $`z`$-axis) becomes explicit. It should be remarked that, when dealing with such solution, the concepts of mass and charge must be carefully used because the presence of the singularity forbids one to apply both physical concepts and laws along points in the border of the disk. The lack of smoothness of the metric components across the enclosed disk can be remedied by considering the extended spacetime interpretation of Hawking and Ellis , although the circular singularity cannot be removed by this process. The basic idea of this extension is to consider that our spacetime is joined to another one by the singular disk. In other words, the disk surface (with the upper points considered different from the lower ones) is interpreted as a shared border between our spacetime, denoted by M, and another similar one, denoted by M’. According to this construction, the KN metric components are no longer singular across the disk, making it possible to smoothly join the two spacetimes, giving rise to a single $`4`$-dimensional spacetime $``$.

In what follows, we will assume the spacetime extension of Hawking and Ellis. This means that the space sections of the spaces M and M’ are joined through the disks enclosed by the singularity. This linking can be seen as solid cylinders going from one 3-manifold to the other (see Fig. 1). The main consequences of this interpretation are:

* We can associate the electric charge of the KN solution on each $`3`$-manifold with the net flux of a topologically trapped electric field, which goes from one space to the other, as proposed by Wheeler . Although the electric field lines seem to end at the singular ring (seen from either M or M’), the equality of the electric charge on both sides of $``$ tells us that no electric field lines can “disappear” when going from M to M’, or vice-versa. Then, in analogy with the geometry of the wormhole solution, there must exist a continuous path for each electric field line going from one space to the other. Furthermore, the equality of magnetic moment on both sides of $``$ implies that the magnetic field lines must also be continuous when passing through the disk enclosed by the singularity.
* We can associate the mass of the solution with the degree of non-flatness of the KN solution. Actually, the mass can be defined as the integral (we use in this part the abstract index notation of Wald )

$$m=\frac{1}{8\pi }_\sigma ϵ_{abcd}^c\xi ^d=\frac{3}{8\pi }_V_{[e}\left\{ϵ_{ab]cd}^c\xi ^d\right\},$$
(2)
where $`ϵ_{abcd}`$ is the spacetime volume element, $`\xi ^b=\left(/t\right)^b`$ is a timelike Killing vector-field, $`V`$ is a spacelike hypersurface, and $`\sigma `$ is the 2-sphere boundary of $`V`$. From this expression we obtain

$$m=\frac{1}{4\pi }_VR_{ab}n^a\xi ^b𝑑V,$$
(3)
where $`n^a`$ is a unit future-pointing vector normal to $`V`$, and $`dV`$ is the differential volume element which, in terms of the Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, reads

$$dV=\frac{1}{2}\left(a^2+2r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta \right)\mathrm{sin}\theta drd\theta d\varphi .$$
(4)
Equation (3) shows that $`m`$ depends on the Ricci curvature tensor of spacetime. This equation was obtained by Komar  and it is valid for all stationary asymptotically flat spacetimes. It is important to remark that the volume of integration must be taken either with $`r>0`$ or with $`r<0`$. Furthermore, we can see from Eq. (4) that in the M side ($`r`$ positive), the mass $`m`$ is positive, whereas it is negative in the M’ side ($`r`$ negative). Notice that the signs of $`\xi ^b`$ and $`n^a`$ are not fixed in $``$ since both of them can be either positive or negative. It should also be noticed that the mass $`m`$ is the total mass of the system, that is, the mass-energy contributed by the gravitational and the electromagnetic fields are already included in $`m`$ .

Now, using for $`a`$, $`m`$ and $`q`$ the experimentally known electron values, we can write the total internal angular momentum $`L`$ of the KN solution on either side of $``$ as

$$L=ma,$$
(5)
which for a spin $`1/2`$ particle assumes the value $`L=1/2`$. It is then easy to see that the disk has a diameter equal to the Compton wavelength $`\left(\lambda /2\pi \right)_e=1/m`$ of the electron, and consequently the angular velocity $`\omega `$ of a point in the singular ring turns out to be

$$\omega =2m,$$
(6)
which corresponds to Barut’s Zitterbewegung frequency  for a point-like electron orbiting a ring of diameter equal to $`\lambda _e`$. Therefore, if one takes the KN solution as a realistic model for the electron, it shows from the very beginning a classical origin for mass, electric charge and spin magnitude, as well as a gyromagnetic ratio $`g=2`$. It should be remarked that, differently from previous models , we are not going to suppose any mass-distribution around the disk, nor around its border. Instead, we are going to consider a pure (empty) KN solution where the values of mass, charge and spin are directly connected to the space topology.

### 2.2 Topology of the KN extended spacetime

By a simple analysis of the structure of the extended KN metric, it is possible to isolate four physically inequivalent states on each side of $``$, that is, on M and M’. These states can be labeled by the sense of rotation ($`a`$ can be positive or negative), and by the sign of the electric charge (positive or negative). Before a spin rotation axis is chosen, these states are equivalent (up to a rotation) but after choosing it they are physically different. If we place the KN disk in the $`xy`$ plane of a Cartesian coordinate system, the spin vector will be either in the $`+z`$ or in the $`z`$ direction. Now, each one of these inequivalent solutions in M must be joined continuously through the KN disk to another one in M’, but with opposite charge. Since we want a continuous joining of the metric components, this matching must take into account the sense of rotation of the rings. Through a spatial separation between the upper and lower disks on each manifold, these joinings can be drawn as solid cylinders (see Fig. 1), which makes explicit the difference between both disks. For the sake of simplicity, we are going to consider only one of the two possible electric charges on M ($`q<0`$, for example)333Two signs for the electric charge $`q`$ in M or M’ are allowed since the KN metric depends quadratically on $`q`$.. In Fig. 2, the tubular joinings between M and M’, just as in Fig. 1, are drawn, but now taking into account the different spin directions in each disk, which are drawn as small arrows. The only differences between these configurations are the orientation of the spin vector and the geometry of the tubes.

Now, in order to fully understand the topology of the spatial section of the KN spacetime, let us obtain its spatial metric, that is, the metric of its 3- dimensional space section. As the KN metric has non-zero off-diagonal terms, the correct form of the 3-dimensional infinitesimal interval is

$$d\gamma ^2=\left(g_{ij}+\frac{g_{oi}g_{oj}}{g_{oo}}\right)dx^idx^j\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(7)
where $`i,j=1,2,3`$. Applying this formula to the KN metric (1), we obtain

$`d\gamma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{r^22mr+a^2+q^2}}\right)dr^2+\left(r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)d\theta ^2`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{(r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 2mr+q^2}}\right)\left(r^2+a^22mr+q^2\right)d\varphi ^2.`$
The first thing to notice is that the spatial components are finite in the ring points, that is, $`r=0`$ and $`\theta =\pi /2`$. This does not mean that the singularity is absent. Rather, it means that only the metric derivatives are singular, not the metric itself. We can thus conclude that the spatial section of the KN solution has a well defined topology. In fact, the distance function

$$d(p,q)=_p^q\sqrt{\gamma (u)}𝑑u$$

is easily seen to be finite for any nearby points $`p`$ and $`q`$ of the space. The basic conclusion is that the KN space section, or $`^3`$, has a well defined topological structure, and is consequently a topological space.

In spite of presenting a well defined topological structure, the space $`^3`$ is not locally Euclidean everywhere. To see that, let us calculate the spatial length $``$ of the border of the disk $`r=0`$. It is given by

$$=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\gamma ,$$
(9)
where the integral is evaluated at $`r=0`$ and $`\theta =\pi /2`$. As a simple calculation shows, it is found to be zero, which means that the border of the disk is topologically a single point of $`^3`$. Therefore, an open ball centered at the point $`r=0`$, $`\theta =\pi /2`$ will not be diffeomorphic to an open Euclidean ball, and consequently the space $`^3`$ will not be locally Euclidean on the border of the disk $`r=0`$. This problem can be solved by using Wheeler’s concept of the electric charge. According to his proposal, the electric field lines never end at a point: they are always continuous. It is the non-trivial topology of spacetime which, by trapping the electric field, mimics the existence of charge sources. Applying this idea to the KN solution, we see that the electric field lines end at the singular ring only from the 4-dimensional point of view. From the 3-dimensional point of view, they end at a point (the border of the disk). Now, if this point is not the end of the electric field lines, then they must follow a path to the side with $`r`$ negative. This situation is quite similar to that of the Reissner-Nordström solution, where the electric field lines can be continued to the negative $`r`$ side by writing the solution in Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates  (it should be noted, however, that in this case the solution is not wholly static since the timelike coordinate changes to spacelike at small distances from the singularity). In the same way as in the Reissner-Nordström solution, we can excise a neighborhood of the point $`r=0`$ of the KN solution, and join again the resulting borders. In the KN case, considering the values of the electron mass, charge and spin, the time coordinate keeps its timelike nature at all points of the space, so the solution remains stationary after the excision procedure. Furthermore, from the causal analysis of the solution we can choose to excise precisely the torus-like region around the singularity where there exist non-causal closed timelike curves. From the metric (1), it is is easy to see that the coordinate $`\varphi `$ becomes timelike in the region where the following inequality is fulfilled :

$$r^2+a^2\left(\frac{q^22mr}{r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\right)a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta <0.$$
(10)
By removing this region, the KN spacetime becomes causal. As already said, this region has a simple form: it is tubular-like and surrounds the singular ring on the negative and positive $`r`$ sides. When the values of $`a`$, $`q`$ and $`m`$ are chosen to be those of the electron, the surface of the tubular-like region is separated from the singular ring by a distance of the order of $`10^{34}`$ cm. At these infinitesimal distances, topology changes are predicted to exist, so it is not unexpected to have changes in the connectedness of spacetime topology. Wheeler’s idea can then be implemented in the KN case. This means to excise the infinitesimal region from the positive and negative $`r`$ sides, and then glue back the manifold keeping the continuity of both electric field lines and metric components. A simple drawing of the region to be excised can be seen in Fig. 3, where the direction of the gradient of $`r`$ has been drawn at several points, and the region’s size has been greatly exaggerated.

As an example, note that the point $`A`$ on the positive $`r`$ side must be glued to the point $`A`$ on the negative $`r`$ side. If we continue to glue all points of the tubular border, we obtain a continuous path for the electric field lines that flow from one side of the KN solution to the other side. Wheeler’s idea is then fully implemented, yielding a 3-dimensional spatial section $`^3`$ which is everywhere locally Euclidean, and consequently a Riemannian manifold.

For the sake of completeness, we determine now the form of the surface obtained by joining the points of the tubular borders in a metric-continuous way. To do it, we must define the application $`𝒜:S^1S^1`$, which is constructed in the following way: draw the two $`S^1`$ of Fig. 3, but now centered at the points $`(a,0,0)`$ and $`(a,0,0)`$ of a Cartesian coordinate system. The application $`𝒜(pS^1)`$ is then defined as $`𝒜(x,0,z)=(x,0,z)`$, where $`(x,0,z)`$ are the coordinates of $`p`$. The form of this application is deduced from the restriction of joining the tubular borders in a metric-continuous way. The surface determined by the joinings is then generated by the quotient space of $`S^1`$ by the equivalence relation $`p𝒜(p)`$, and by a rotation of $`\pi `$ of the circles around $`z`$. This surface coincides with the well known Klein Bottle (denoted by $`U_2`$), as can be easily verified in Ref. . It is important to remark that the Klein bottle has also been found by Punsly  in the context of the Kerr solution, through a metric extension procedure which eliminates the singular ring. However, in our case we have a physical justification for the excision procedure: the continuity of the electric field lines.

The elimination of the singular ring can be better understood by considering the map $`re^r`$, which makes possible to see both sides of the $`r=0`$ surface. This map is shown in Fig. 4, with the circles representing the small excised neighborhoods around the ring singularity. The full picture of the resulting $`3`$-manifold is obtained by rotating the plane of the figure by $`\pi `$. It is clear from this figure that the resulting manifold will be multiple connected since any path encircling the excised region cannot be contracted to a point. The borders of the excised regions must be joined in such a way to make the radial component of the metric continuous, as discussed in the analysis of Fig. 3. The other components of the metric are equal on the excised borders (by rotational symmetry), so that they can be always continuously matched.

According to the above construction, $`^3`$ is a non-trivial differentiable three-manifold. This three-manifold can be seen as a connected sum of the form

$$^3=𝐑^3\mathrm{}𝐊^3\mathrm{}𝐑^3,$$
(11)
where the first $`𝐑^3`$ represents the asymptotic space section of M, the second $`𝐑^3`$ represents the asymptotic space section of M’, and the 3-space $`𝐊^3`$ is the manifold formed by the one-point compactification of $`^3`$, which is obtained by adding the two points at $`\{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$. Then, each 2-sphere, respectively at $`\pm \mathrm{}`$, must be taken as a point of $`𝐊^3`$. If the connection between the disks were removed, $`𝐊^3`$ would become homotopic to two disjoint $`3`$-spheres. This comes from the fact that $`𝐑^3\{\mathrm{}\}S^3`$. But, as far as the joinings are present, $`𝐊^3`$ is not simply connected because there exist loops (those surrounding the $`U_2`$ surface) not homotopic to the identity. In fact, the first fundamental group of $`𝐊^3`$ is found to be $`\pi _1(𝐊^3)=𝐙`$. Furthermore, the second fundamental group of $`𝐊^3`$ is found to be $`\pi _2(𝐊^3)=\{e\}`$.

## 3 Existence of Half-Integral Angular Momentum States

### 3.1 Topological conditions

In order to exhibit gravitational states with half-integral angular momentum, a $`3`$-manifold $`^3`$ must fulfill certain topological conditions. These conditions were stated by Friedman and Sorkin , whose results were obtained from a previous work by Hendriks  on the obstruction theory in $`3`$ dimensions. In order to understand Hendrik’s result, it is convenient to divide the manifold $`^3`$ into an interior ($`_I^3`$) and an exterior ($`_E^3`$) regions in such a way that $`_I^3_E^3`$ is a spherical symmetric shell. After that, one defines a rotation by an angle $`\alpha `$ of the submanifold $`_I^3`$ with respect to $`_E^3`$ as a three-geometry obtained by cutting $`_I^3`$ at any sphere $`S^2_I^3_E^3`$, and re- identifying (after rotating) the inner piece with the outer. Then, one looks for a diffeomorphism that takes the final three-geometry, obtained after a rotation of $`\alpha =2\pi `$, to the initial one, characterized by $`\alpha `$ equal to $`0`$. If this diffeomorphism can be deformed to the identity, the gravitational states defined on the manifold can have only integral angular momentum. If the diffeomorphism cannot be deformed to the identity, then half-integral angular momentum gravitational states do exist. This diffeomorphism was called by Hendriks a rotation parallel to the sphere, and it will be denoted by $`\rho `$.

Hendriks’ results can then be summarized in the following form. If the division into an exterior and interior region is not possible, then $`\rho `$ cannot be deformed into the identity. Physically, this means that if M and M’ are joined not only at the surface $`r=0`$, but also at any other place, $`^3`$ can exhibit half-integral angular momentum states, since in this case there would not exist interior and exterior regions to a shell that encloses the $`r=0`$ surface. On the other hand, if the division is possible, then $`^3`$ will exhibit only integral angular momentum states only if it is a connected sum of compact three-manifolds (without boundary),

$$^3=𝐑^3\mathrm{}M_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}M_k,$$

each of which (a) is homotopic to $`P^2\times S^1`$ ($`P^2`$ is the real projective two-sphere), or (b) is homotopic to an $`S^2`$ fiber bundle over $`S^1`$, or (c) has a finite fundamental group $`\pi _1(M_j)`$ whose two-Sylow subgroup is cyclic. In order to exhibit half-integral angular momentum states, therefore, the 3-manifold $`^3`$ must fail to fulfill either one of these three conditions.

According to the decomposition (11), $`^3`$ can be seen as the connected sum of two $`𝐑^3`$ and $`𝐊^3`$. Now, as the original analysis of Hendriks was made for compact topological manifolds without boundary, we have to compactify $`𝐊^3`$ by adding two points at infinity. Besides compact, the resulting 3-space turns out to be without boundary (see Appendix B. Topological Properties of $`𝐊^3`$). Accordingly, Hendriks results can be used, and we can say that the manifold $`^3`$ will admit half-integral angular momentum states only if $`𝐊^3`$ fails to fulfill one of the above conditions (a) to (c). Condition (a) is clearly violated because, as $`\pi _1(𝐊^3)=𝐙`$, and as

$$\pi _1(P^2\times S^1)=\pi _1(P^2)\pi _1(S^1)=𝐙_2𝐙,$$

$`𝐊^3`$ cannot be homotopic to $`P^2\times S^1`$. Condition (b) is more subtle, but it is also violated. In fact, as is well known , the number of inequivalent bundles of $`S^2`$ over $`S^1`$ is just two: A trivial and a non- trivial one. Since the non-trivial bundle is always non-orientable, $`𝐊^3`$ cannot be homotopic to this space since it is orientable by construction. The trivial bundle $`T^3`$, on the other hand, is formed by taking the direct product of $`S^2`$ with $`S^1`$. We then have

$$\pi _1(T^3)=\pi _1(S^2\times S^1)=\pi _1(S^2)\pi _1(S^1)=\{e\}𝐙,$$

which is formally the same as $`\pi _1(𝐊^3)`$. However, the second homotopy group of $`T^3`$ is given by

$$\pi _2(T^3)=\pi _2(S^2\times S^1)=\pi _2(S^2)\pi _2(S^1)=𝐙\{e\},$$

and as $`\pi _2(𝐊^3)=\{e\}`$, then clearly $`\pi _2(𝐊^3)\pi _2(T^3)`$. This shows that $`𝐊^3`$ cannot be homotopically deformed to a bundle $`S^2`$ over $`S^1`$. Finally, as discussed in the last section, condition (c) is also violated because the fundamental group $`\pi _1(𝐊^3)=𝐙`$ is infinite. We can then conclude that the KN spacetime does admit gravitational states with half-integral angular momentum. More precisely, we can conclude that it admits gravitational states with spin 1/2.

### 3.2 Behavior under rotations

By using the definition of $`\rho `$ introduced earlier in this section, we can proceed to analyze the effect of a rotation in the region around $`r=0`$ of the manifold $`^3`$. The following analysis apply to anyone of the two possible interpretations, M joined to M’ through $`r=0`$ only, or through various other points. One has to choose a spherical shell centered on any one of the two sides of the $`r=0`$ surface. After choosing the shell one must look at the effect of a rotation on the 3-geometry of the manifold. For simplicity, we choose the positive side of de surface $`r=0`$ centered on a Cartesian coordinates system and a shell centered on $`(0,0,0)`$ with a radius large enough so that the geometry outside the shell can be taken as flat.

If we perform now a rotation by an angle $`\alpha `$ around anyone of the axis $`x`$, $`y`$ or $`z`$ of the interior region of the shell, the effect on the 3-geometry is to twist the cylindrical tubes of Fig. 1. In the specific case of a rotation around the $`x`$ axis, the twist of the tubes is shown in Fig. 5 for $`\alpha =\pi `$ and $`\alpha =2\pi `$.

From this figure, it can be inferred that only after a $`4\pi `$ rotation the twisting of the tubes can be undone by deforming and taking them around one of their extreme points. In other words, only after a $`4\pi `$ rotation a diffeomorphism connected to the identity does exist, which takes the metric of the twisted tubes into the metric of the untwisted ones. We mention in passing that the form of this diffeomorphism is equal to the one solving the well-known Dirac’s scissors problem .

The effect of a rotation in the interior region of the chosen shell can also be seen by performing first a transformation in the Boyer-Lindquist coordinates that modifies the coordinate $`r`$ only:

$$(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )(t,\mathrm{ln}R,\theta ,\varphi ).$$
(12)
This transformation compactifies M’, and takes the points on the disk ($`r=0`$) into the points on the surface $`R=1`$. A simplified form of the transformed three manifold $`^3`$ can be seen in Fig. 6. In this figure, the tubes joining the spaces M and M’ are drawn vertically. They must join the points of the inner surface (except those points near the equator) with the points of the outer surface. The points of M’ are those within the central surface, which is defined by $`R=1`$. It should be remarked that the homotopy groups of $`^3`$ are not altered by the transformation.

Now, a rotation in the interior region of a shell enclosing $`r=0`$ can be seen as a twisting of the cylindrical tubes that connect the two spaces. For a rotation by an angle $`\alpha =2\pi `$, this twisting cannot be undone by a diffeomorphism homotopic to the identity, since the extreme points of the cylinder should be kept fixed for it to be connected to the identity. For a rotation by an angle $`\alpha =4\pi `$, however, it is possible to untwist them because in this case there exists a diffeomorphism homotopic to the identity that untwist them, and at the same time keeps the extreme points fixed. The form of this unwitting diffeomorphism can be found in page 309 of ref. . The fact that the topological structure of the spatial section of the KN manifold returns to its initial state after a $`4\pi `$ rotation is a more intuitive way to see that this space admits spinorial states.

## 4 Algebraic Representation of the KN States

### 4.1 Spinor states

Following Ref. , we denote by $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(^3)`$ the space of asymptotically flat positive-definite three-metrics $`g_{ab}`$ on $`^3`$. Since the metric on $`^3`$ is fixed (up to a diffeomorphism), different points in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(^3)`$ represent three-metrics which differ only by the geometry of the joining between the sides of the $`r=0`$ surface. We define a state vector $`\psi `$, in the Schrödinger picture, as a functional on the space $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(^3)`$. The generalized position operator $`\widehat{g}_{ab}`$ is then defined as

$$\widehat{g}_{ab}\psi (g)=g_{ab}\psi (g),$$
(13)
which means that, for every point of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(^3)`$, we have a different state vector $`\psi (g)`$. Now, from the discussion of the last section, we can say that (under rotations) a path in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(^3)`$ is closed if and only if the parameter of the path varies from $`0`$ to $`4\pi `$. Furthermore, since the points of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(^3)`$ are in one to one correspondence with the states $`\psi (g)`$, we find that the effect of a $`2\pi `$ rotation on $`\psi (g)`$ is not equal to the identity operation:

$$\widehat{R}(2\pi )\psi (g)=\psi (R(2\pi )g)=\psi (g^{}g)\psi (g).$$

An adequate linear representation for the states $`\psi (g)`$ is one that carries, in addition to the informations about mass and charge, also information on the non- trivial behavior under rotations of the states representing the KN solution. As the state $`\psi (g)`$ depends on the metric $`g_{ab}`$, it is not a simple task to infer its general form. As a first step, we can separate a general $`\psi (g)`$ into a part ($`\psi ^+`$) defined on the positive $`r`$ coordinates, and another ($`\psi ^{}`$) defined on the negative $`r`$ coordinates:

$$\psi =a_+\psi ^++a_{}\psi ^{}.$$
(14)
Furthermore, if we choose the spin direction along the $`z`$-axis, we have two possibilities for it (see Fig. 2). Therefore, we can write

$`\psi ^+`$ $`=`$ $`b_1\psi _1^++b_2\psi _2^+`$ (15)
$`\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c_1\psi _1^{}+c_2\psi _2^{}.`$ (16)
This superposition is necessary because only after a measurement of the spin direction we know for sure the sign of $`a`$ in the metric (1). Replacing (15) and (16) into (14), we obtain

$$\psi =a_+\left(b_1\psi _1^++b_2\psi _2^+\right)+a_{}\left(c_1\psi _1^{}+c_2\psi _2^{}\right).$$
(17)
We want also that the state $`\psi (g)`$ be an eigenvector of both the energy and the spin operators. This means that

$`S_z\psi _1^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`s_z\psi _1^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _1^\pm `$ (18)
$`S_z\psi _2^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`s_z\psi _2^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _2^\pm `$ (19)
$`H\psi ^+`$ $`=`$ $`i_t\psi ^+=m\psi ^+`$ (20)
$`H\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i_t\psi ^{}=m\psi ^{}`$ (21)
where $`S_z`$ is the spin operator along the $`z`$ direction, $`H`$ is the energy operator, and $`m`$ is the mass of the KN solution. In these relations we have implicitly used the correspondence between mass and energy (remember that $`m`$ is negative on the negative $`r`$ sector of $`^3`$).

Now, as a consequence of the fact that an observer in the positive $`r`$ side of $`r=0`$, as well as one in the negative $`r`$ side, sees a state vector that transforms into itself only after a $`4\pi `$-rotation, we can naturally represent these states in a spinor basis of the Lorentz group SL(2, $`𝐂`$). More specifically, each one of the four inequivalent states defined in the positive $`r`$ side can be taken as Weyl spinors transforming under the $`(1/2,0)`$ representation, and those defined in the negative $`r`$ side as Weyl spinors transforming under the $`(0,1/2)`$ representation of the Lorentz group (see Appendix A. Lorentz Group and Parity Transformations for a more detailed discussion). Furthermore, according to Eqs. (20) and (21), the linear representation for $`\psi `$ must also contain a part proportional to a complex exponential of energy multiplied by time. Finally, it is important to notice that the representation cannot mix $`\psi ^+`$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ as they are defined on different spatial regions. With these provisos, we are led to the following representation for $`\psi (g)`$:

$$\psi (g)=a_+\left[b_1e^{iEt}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)+b_2e^{iEt}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)\right]+a_{}\left[c_1e^{iEt}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)+c_2e^{iEt}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)\right].$$
(22)
This can be considered as the most simple linear representation of a general $`\psi (g)`$ associated with the KN solution (at rest).

### 4.2 Evolution equation

If we want the above solution to represent a particle, we need it to be an eigenstate of momentum (or position). This is not easy because the “position” of the “particle” is not defined by a simple point in spacetime. So, for example, the usual momentum operator $`i\stackrel{}{}`$ is of no use because it is defined for point-like particles. To solve this problem, we need to get an approximate representation for $`\psi (g)`$, valid in the limit of long distances from the singularity. In this limit, the KN solution is supposed to converge to the metric produced by a spinning structureless point particle. Only in this case the momentum operator $`i\stackrel{}{}`$ becomes well suited for defining the momentum of the particle. In this limit, we can also consider the background metric as flat, which means to consider $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ as the spacetime metric. Using the form of $`\psi (g)`$ as given by Eq. (22), we find that an adequate dependence on the momentum of the particle is given by the exponential $`i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}`$. This is due to the fact that, in this case, the two exponential factors combine to give a covariant expression, and at the same time the state becomes an eigenvector of momentum. The most general state $`\psi _p(g)`$ is then given by

$$\psi _p(g)=a_+e^{ip_\mu x^\mu }\left[b_1\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)+b_2\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)\right]+a_{}e^{ip_\mu x^\mu }\left[c_1\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)+c_2\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)\right].$$
(23)
Now, from Eqs. (20) and (21), we can write the evolution equation for the KN state as

$$\frac{1}{i}_t\psi _p=H\psi _pE\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_2& 0\\ 0& I_2\end{array}\right)\psi _pE\beta \psi _p,$$
(24)
where $`I_2`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ identity matrix. The minus sign of the lower components is a reflection of the fact that the lower components of the vector state have negative energy. A more convenient form of the evolution equation can be obtained by performing a unitary transformation. We write this transformation, which is a particular case of the well known Foldy- Wouthuysen transformation , in the form

$$𝐔=\sqrt{\frac{E+m}{2E}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_2& \frac{\sigma _ip_i}{E+m}\\ \frac{\sigma _ip_i}{E+m}& I_2\end{array}\right).$$
(25)
It can then be easily verified that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_p=𝐔\psi _p$$
(26)
is a solution of the modified evolution equation

$$\frac{1}{i}_t\mathrm{\Psi }_p=𝐇\mathrm{\Psi }_p\left(\alpha _ip_i+\beta m\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_p,$$
(27)
with

$$𝐇=𝐔H𝐔^{}$$
(28)
the transformed Hamiltonian. As is well known, Eq. (27) is the standard form of Dirac’s relativistic equation for the electron. The basic conclusion is that the KN solution of Einstein’s equation can be represented by a state vector that is a solution of the Dirac equation. Besides exhibiting all properties of a solution of the Dirac equation, the KN state provides an intuitive explanation for mass, spin and charge. Furthermore, it clarifies the fact that, during an interaction, both positive and negative energy states contribute to the solution of the Dirac equation. This means that it is not possible to describe interacting states as purely positive or purely negative energy states since, as the extended KN solution explicitly shows, the two energy states are topologically linked. On the other hand, it is possible to describe a free, moving, positive-energy (negative-energy) state without considering negative-energy (positive-energy) components. It should be remarked that there exists an arbitrariness in this terminology. In fact, what we call a negative- energy state and a positive-energy state depends on which side of the KN solution we are supposed to live in. Furthermore, as the electric charge enters quadratically in the KN metric, it is not possible to say in which side of the KN solution an ideal observer is, and consequently what we call positive or negative energy state is also a matter of convention.

## 5 Some Phenomenological Tests

We look now for some experiments where the effects of the singularity would become manifest. We begin by noticing that, for symmetry reasons, the electric dipole moment of the KN solution vanishes identically, a result that is within the limits of experimental data . Another important point is that the uncertainty principle precludes one to localize the electron in a region smaller than its Compton wavelength without producing virtual pairs originated from the large uncertainty in the energy. Since we are proposing an extended electron model with the size of its Compton wavelength, the question then arises whether it contradicts scattering experiments that gives a limit to the extendedness of the electron as smaller than $`10^{18}`$cm. This is a difficult question because this model describes the electron as a nontrivial topological structure with a trapped electromagnetic field. As a consequence, its interaction with other electrons must be governed by the coupled Einstein–Maxwell equations. Even though, a simplified answer to this question can be given by noticing that a boost (in the spin direction) transforms the Kerr–Newman parameters $`m`$ and $`a`$ according to

$$a^{}=a\sqrt{1v^2};m^{}=\frac{m}{\sqrt{1v^2}},$$
(29)
where $`v`$ is the boost velocity. It should be clear that $`a`$ and $`m`$ are thought of as parameters of the KN solution, which only asymptotically correspond respectively to angular momentum per unit mass and mass. Near the singularity, $`a`$ represents the radius of the singular ring, which according to Carter is unobservable . The above “renormalization” of the KN parameters has been discussed by many authors , being necessary to maintain the internal angular momentum constant. As a consequence, to a higher velocity, there might correspond a smaller radius of the singular ring. With this renormalization, it is a simple task to verify that, for the usual scattering energies, the resulting radius is within the experimental limit for the extendedness of the electron. According to these arguments, therefore, the electron extendedness will not show up in high-energy scattering experiments. This extendedness will show up only in low energy experiments, where the electrons move at low velocities.

Let us then look for a simple low energy test involving interactions with other particles, or electromagnetic fields. Take, for example, a pair of electrons confined to a two dimensional plane $`D`$. If a strong magnetic field perpendicular to the plane is applied, the spin vectors of the electrons will align with the magnetic field. This means that the KN disk will be coplanar with $`D`$. The magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ through the plane is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=_D\stackrel{}{B}𝑑\stackrel{}{s}=_D\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}(z)𝑑\stackrel{}{s}=_DA(z)𝑑z,$$
(30)
where $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ is the magnetic field, $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ is the vector potential defined on $`D`$, and $`z=x+iy`$ are complex coordinates for the plane. The border of $`D`$ will have three parts: An external part, and the border enclosing the KN disk for each electron. Taking periodic boundary conditions on the external border,444In practice, the plane $`D`$ must be finite for the electrons to be confined. we are left with two disconnected borders only. In such multiply-connected spacetime, the vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}(z)`$ is not uniquely defined since there exist two other closed one-forms $`\zeta _k^1d\zeta _k`$, $`k=1,2`$, with the property

$$_{D_k}\zeta _k^1𝑑\zeta _k=2\pi i,$$
(31)
where $`D_k`$ denotes the boundary of each electron disk. Due to this fact, the computation of the flux (30) must take into account all different configurations for $`\stackrel{}{A}(z)`$ . Assuming that all three configurations enter with the same weight, and using unities in which $`q=1`$ (so that the flux quanta becomes $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=1`$), the total flux turns out to be

$`\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle _{D_1D_2}}A(z)𝑑z+{\displaystyle _{D_1D_2}}\left(A(z)dz{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi }}\zeta _1^1d\zeta _1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi }}\zeta _2^1d\zeta _2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{D_1D_2}}\left(A(z)dz{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi }}\zeta _1^1d\zeta _1\right)+{\displaystyle _{D_1D_2}}\left(A(z)dz{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi }}\zeta _2^1d\zeta _2\right).`$ (32)
Using then the flux quantization condition

$$_{D_1D_2}A(z)𝑑z=n;n=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(33)
we get

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=4n2.$$
(34)
If we compute now the relation $`\nu =`$ number of electrons/number of flux quanta, we get

$$\nu =\frac{2}{4n2}=\frac{1}{2n1}.$$
(35)
This experimental setup is used in the study of the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE) , and in this context the quantity $`\nu `$ is called the filling factor. The above result coincides with the experimental one if we consider that the interactions between electrons on the confining plane are pair-dominated .

## 6 Conclusions

We have shown in this paper that, by using the extended spacetime interpretation of Hawking and Ellis together with Wheeler’s idea of charge without charge, the KN solution exhibits properties that are quite similar to those presented by an electron, paving the way for the construction of an electron model . The first important point is that, due to its topological structure, the extended KN solution admits the presence of spacetime spinorial structures. As a consequence, the KN solution can naturally be represented in terms of spinor variables of the Lorentz group SL(2, $`𝐂`$). The evolution of the KN state vector so obtained is then shown to be governed by the Dirac equation. Another important point is that this model provides a topological explanation for the concepts of mass, charge and spin. Mass can be interpreted as made up of gravitation, as well as rotational and electromagnetic energies, since all of them enter its definition. Charge, on the other hand, is interpreted as arising from the multi- connectedness of the spatial section of the KN solution. In fact, according to Wheeler, from the point of view of an asymptotic observer, a trapped electric field is indistinguishable from the presence of a charge distribution in spacetime. Finally, spin can be consistently interpreted as an internal rotational motion of the infinitesimally sized $`U_2`$ surface. Besides these properties, we have also shown that this model can provide explanations to not well-understood phenomena of solid state physics, as for example the fractional quantum Hall effect. It is important to remark once more that the topology ensued by the Hawking and Ellis interpretation of the Kerr-Newman solution leads actually to fundamental states with spin 1/2 only. Observe, for example, that the Kerr-Newman solution presents four independent states, a typical property of the electron- positron system. Notice, however, that it is possible to construct states with higher spins by considering composed states, with the spin 1/2 solution as building blocks. This, of course, changes the topology of the whole solution. Higher-spin states are therefore possible, but then the manifold $``$ will exhibit a different topology from the presented here. Finally, we would like to remark that the metric does not fix the sign of $`r`$ at each side of the $`r=0`$ surface. It is actually a matter of convention, an arbitrary choice of the observer.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank R. Aldrovandi, D. Galetti and Yu. N. Obukhov for useful discussions. They would like to thank also FAPESP-Brazil, CNPq-Brazil, COLCIENCIAS-Colombia and CAPES-Brazil for financial support.

## Appendix A. Lorentz Group and Parity Transformations

As is well known, the complexified Lie algebra of the Lorentz group SL(2, $`𝐂`$) is isomorphic to the complexified Lie algebra of the group SU(2) $``$ SU(2). In fact, denoting by $`J_i`$ and $`K_i`$ respectively the generators of infinitesimal rotations and boost transformations in M, with $`i,j,k=x,y,z`$, the complex generators

$$A_i=\frac{1}{2}\left(J_i+iK_i\right)\mathrm{and}A_i^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(J_iiK_i\right)$$
(36)
are known to satisfy, each one, the SU(2) Lie algebra :

$`[A_i,A_j]`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ_{ijk}A_k`$
$`[A_i^{},A_j^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ_{ijk}A_k^{}.`$
Furthermore, they satisfy also

$$[A_i,A_j^{}]=0,$$
(37)
which shows that they are independent, or equivalently, a direct product. The two Casimir operators $`A_iA_i`$ and $`A_i^{}A_i^{}`$ are also known to present respectively eigenvalues $`n(n+1)`$ and $`m(m+1)`$, with $`n,m=0,1/2,1,3/2,\mathrm{}`$. Thus, each representation can be labeled by the pair $`(n,m)`$. Now, as a simple inspection shows, under a parity transformation,

$$J_iJ_i\mathrm{and}K_iK_i.$$
(38)
Therefore, the generators $`A_i`$ and $`A_i^{}`$ are easily seen to be related by a parity transformation .

On the other hand, it is clear from the KN metric (1) in M, which is written in terms of the coordinates $`(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$, that the KN solution in M’ is written in terms of $`(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$. Then, the gradient function $`r`$ changes sign in M’, making its Cartesian coordinate system, with origin in the center of the disk, to present negative unitary vectors. This is so because the unitary Cartesian vectors are perpendicular to the $`r`$ = constant surfaces. The two sides of the KN solution, therefore, are related by a parity transformation. The conclusion is that the relationship between M and M’ is the same as that between $`A_i`$ and $`A_i^{}`$. This justifies the use in M of Weyl spinors transforming under the $`(1/2,0)`$ representation, and the use in M’ of Weyl spinors transforming under the $`(0,1/2)`$ representation of the Lorentz group.

## Appendix B. Topological Properties of $`𝐊^3`$

Let $`F:^3\{\pm \mathrm{}\}𝐑^3\{\mathrm{}\}`$ be a function from the metric space $`^3`$ (plus two points at infinity) to a 3-dimensional Euclidean space (plus one point at infinity). The function is defined by:

$`F(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`(e^r,\theta ,\varphi )`$
$`F(\mathrm{},\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`(0,\theta ,\varphi )`$
$`F(\mathrm{},\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{},\theta ,\varphi ).`$
The space $`𝐑^3\{\mathrm{}\}`$ is the Alexandroff’s one-point compactification of $`𝐑^3`$, which is topologically equivalent to $`S^3`$. The function $`F`$ takes the surface $`r=0`$ of the KN solution into a sphere of unit radius, centered at $`(0,0,0)`$. The singular ring is mapped into the equator of the sphere. The function $`F`$ is continuous at any point $`c^3\{\pm \mathrm{}\}`$ if for any positive real number $`\epsilon `$, there exists a positive real number $`\delta `$ such that for all $`p^3\{\pm \mathrm{}\}`$ satisfying $`d_\gamma (p,c)<\delta `$, the inequality $`d_\eta (F(p),F(c))<\epsilon `$ is also satisfied. As the distance function defined by the metric $`\gamma _{ij}`$ of $`^3`$, given by (7), is finite everywhere, the continuity condition is valid for every $`p^3`$. However, as the border of the disk $`r=0`$ is a single point of $`^3\{\pm \mathrm{}\}`$, the function is not one-to-one. In fact, the point ($`r=0`$, $`\theta =\pi /2`$) is mapped into the equator of the unit sphere. Now, since $`S^3`$ is compact, and $`F^1`$ is continuous, $`^3\{\pm \mathrm{}\}`$ is also compact. If we excise an open set from $`S^3`$ in the form of a solid torus (without boundary) around the equator of the unitary sphere, we are left with a closed subset of $`S^3`$. This closed subset is also compact and has as boundary a 2-dimensional torus $`T^2`$. Denoting by $`T^3`$ the solid torus and by $`T_F^3`$ its image under $`F^1`$, the function

$$(F^1)^{}:𝐑^3\{\mathrm{}\}T^3^3\{\pm \mathrm{}\}T_F^3$$

is found to be continuous. As a consequence, $`^3\{\pm \mathrm{}\}T_F^3`$ will also be compact. Now, let $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ be the coordinates of $`T^2=S^1\times S^1`$, and consider the map $`A:T^2T^2`$ defined by $`A(\alpha ,\beta )=(\alpha +\pi ,\beta +\pi )`$. The surface obtained by making $`A(p)p`$, and then by taking the quotient space $`T^2/A`$, is the Klein bottle $`U_2`$. In this way, every point $`p`$ of $`U_2`$ has a neighborhood in $`S^3`$ which is homeomorphic to a Euclidean open ball. This implies that $`\{𝐑^3\{\mathrm{}\}T^3\}/A`$ is a compact manifold without boundary. Therefore,

$$:\{𝐑^3\{\mathrm{}\}T^3\}/A\{^3\{\pm \mathrm{}\}T_F^3\}/\{(F^1)^{}(A)\}=𝐊^3$$

will be a continuous function from a compact space, which means essentially that $`𝐊^3`$ is also a compact space. Furthermore, since $``$ is continuous, it maps every open set of $`\{𝐑^3\{\mathrm{}\}T^3\}/A`$ into an open set of $`𝐊^3`$, which implies that $`𝐊^3`$ has no boundary: $`𝐊^3=0`$.