format: text

text:
# Strange and singlet form factors of the nucleon: Predictions for G0, A4, and HAPPEX-II experiments

## I Introduction

It is of utmost importance to understand the strangeness content of the nucleon, since it gives a clue about its internal quark structure. In particular, the deviation from the valence quark picture and the polarization of the quark sea must be investigated. In fact, with this aim a great deal of experimental and theoretical effort has been put into the study of the strangeness in the nucleon in various channels: The spin content of the nucleon EMC ; SMC1 ; SMC2 ; E142 ; E143 , the $`\pi N`$ sigma term $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ Gasser:1991ce , and the strange vector form factors Kaplan:1988ku ; Jaffe:1989mj . In particular, the strange vector form factors have been a hot issue recently, as their first measurement was achieved by the SAMPLE collaboration Mueller:1997mt ; Spayde:2000qg ; SAMPLE00s  at MIT/Bates, parity-violating electron scattering being used. The most recent result by the SAMPLE collaboration SAMPLE00s  for the strange magnetic form factor finds ($`Q^2`$ in (GeV/$`c`$)2)

$$G_M^\mathrm{s}(Q^2=0.1)=(+0.14\pm 0.29(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.31(\mathrm{syst}.))\text{n.m.}.$$
(1)
It is extracted from the knowledge of both the neutral weak magnetic form factor $`G_M^Z`$ measured in parity-violating elastic e-p scattering and the electromagnetic form factors $`G_M^{p\gamma }`$, $`G_M^{n\gamma }`$ by using the relation (assuming isospin invariance)

$$G_M^Z=\left(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right)G_M^{p\gamma }G_M^{n\gamma }G_M^s,$$
(2)
where $`\theta _W`$ is the Weinberg mixing angle determined experimentally PDG00 : $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.23147`$.

The HAPPEX collaboration at TJNAF also announced the measurement of the strange vector form factors Aniol:2000at . The asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{th}}`$ is obtained from the parity-violating polarized electron scattering, from which the singlet form factors are extracted:

$$\frac{(G_E^0+0.392G_M^0)}{(G_M^{p\gamma }/\mu _p)}(Q^2=0.477)=1.527\pm 0.048\pm 0.027\pm 0.011.$$
(3)
With the help of the available data for the electromagnetic form factors via the relation

$$G_{E,M}^\mathrm{s}=G_{E,M}^0G_{E,M}^{p\gamma }G_{E,M}^{n\gamma },$$
(4)
the HAPPEX Collaboration arrives at the following result about the strange form factors:

$$(G_E^\mathrm{s}+0.392G_M^\mathrm{s})(Q^2=0.477)=0.025\pm 0.020\pm 0.014,$$
(5)
where the first error is experimental and the second one is from the uncertainties in electromagnetic form factors.

There has been a great deal of theoretical effort in order to predict the strange vector form factors Theory  and each approach emphasizes different aspects. Beck, Holstein, and McKeown reviewed some of theoretical works in Refs. Beck:2001dz ; Beck:2001yx .

A proper theoretical description of the strange form factors of the nucleon should be based on QCD. Since, however, these form factors basically reflect the excitation of $`\mathrm{s}\overline{\mathrm{s}}`$ pairs, it is very difficult to use lattice gauge techniques because they are still hampered by technical problems, in particular, with light quarks. Thus, appropriate models are required, which are based on QCD and treat the relevant degrees of freedom in a good approximation. One of those is the chiral quark-soliton model ($`\chi `$QSM). It is an effective quark theory of the instanton-degrees of freedom of the QCD vacuum and results in a Lagrangian for valence and sea quarks both moving in a static self-consistent Goldstone background field Christov:1996vm ; Alkofer:1994ph . It has successfully been applied to electromagnetic and axial-vector form factors Christov:1996vm  and to forward and generalized parton distributions Diakonov:1996sr ; Petrov:1998kf ; Goeke:2001tz  and has lead even to the prediction of the heavily discussed pentaquark baryon $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ Diakonov:1997mm .

Two of the present authors studied the strange vector form factors within the framework of this $`\chi `$QSM some years ago Kim:1996vj . The formalism used contains a conceptual difficulty because the rotational corrections break the venerable Gell-Mann-Nishijima relation Watabe:1998vi . The reason for this lies probably in the fact that the large $`N_c`$ expansion, underlying the stationary phase approximation of the $`\chi `$QSM, has not been fully extended to the SU(3) collective quantization procedure. Instead, Praszałowicz et al. Praszalowicz:1998jm  suggested on practical ground an approximate formalism, which fulfills the Gell-Mann-Nishijima relation and in addition has proper limits for large and small solitonic radii, i.e. the limit of the Sykrme and the nonrelativistiv quark model, respectively. This so-called symmetry-conserving quantization method Praszalowicz:1998jm  is used in the present paper and the corresponding formulae, correcting also a technical error of Ref. Kim:1996vj , are given in the appendix.

The present authors have recently reinvestigated the strange vector form factors, following the above-mentioned quantization scheme suggested by Praszałowicz et al. Praszalowicz:1998jm . We presented some aspects of the SAMPLE, HAPPEX, and A4 experiments within the framework of the $`\chi `$QSM Silva:2001st . Results have shown a fairly good agreement with experimental data of the SAMPLE and HAPPEX. In this work, we want to extend the former investigation, to document the relevant formulae of the model and to present the results pertinent to future experiments: G0 experiments being conducted at TJNAF will measure a linear combination of the strange vector form factors at seven different values of the momentum transfer $`Q^2`$ with two different angles, i.e. the forward angle $`\theta =10^{}`$ and the backward angle $`108^{}`$. With these measurements, the strange electric and magnetic form factors can be separately obtained. The A4 experiment at MAMI will soon bring out the new data at $`Q^2=0.227\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ with $`\theta =35^{}`$ Maas:2003xp . The planned HAPPEX II experiment will measure the combination of the strange vector form factors at $`Q^2=0.11\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, which is the same momentum transfer as the SAMPLE experiment, with the forward angle $`\theta =6^{}`$ to extract the separated strange electric and magnetic form factors with the SAMPLE data combined. Thus, in the present work, we will continue our previous work Silva:2001st  and will concentrate on predicting the above-given future experiments, in particular, G0 experiment.

## II Strange and singlet vector form factors

In this section we very briefly review the formalism of the $`\chi `$QSM. Details of the model Diakonov:1988ty  can be found in ref. Christov:1996vm . Employing in the following the non-standard sign convention used by Jaffe Jaffe:1989mj  for the strange vector current, the strange and singlet vector form factors of the baryons are expressed in the quark matrix elements as follow:

$$N(p^{})|J_\mu ^{\mathrm{s},(0)}|N(p)=\overline{u}_N(p^{})\left[\gamma _\mu F_1^{\mathrm{s},0}(q^2)+i\sigma _{\mu \nu }\frac{q^\nu }{2M_N}F_2^{\mathrm{s},0}(q^2)\right]u_N(p),$$
(6)
where $`q^2`$ is the square of the four momentum transfer $`q^2=Q^2`$ with $`Q^2>0`$. $`M_N`$ and $`u_N(p)`$ stand for the nucleon mass and its spinor, respectively. The strange quark current $`J_\mu ^\mathrm{s}`$ can be expressed in terms of the flavor-singlet and flavor-octet currents in Euclidean space:

$$J_\mu ^\mathrm{s}=i\psi ^{}\gamma _\mu \widehat{Q}_s\psi =\frac{1}{N_c}J_\mu ^{(0)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}J_\mu ^{(8)},$$
(7)
where $`J_\mu ^{(0)}`$ and $`J_\mu ^{(8)}`$ are the flavor-singlet and flavor-octet currents, respectively:

$`J_\mu ^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`i\psi ^{}\gamma _\mu \psi `$
$`J_\mu ^{(8)}`$ $`=`$ $`i\psi ^{}\gamma _\mu \lambda _8\psi .`$ (8)
Here, $`N_c=3`$ is correctly introduced to make it sure that the baryon number must be equal to unity. The baryon and hypercharge currents are equal to the singlet and octet currents, respectively.

The strange (singlet) Dirac form factors $`F_1^{\mathrm{s},0}`$ and $`F_2^{\mathrm{s},0}`$ can be written in terms of the strange (singlet) Sachs form factors, $`G_E^{\mathrm{s},0}(Q^2)`$ and $`G_M^{\mathrm{s},0}(Q^2)`$:

$`G_E^{\mathrm{s},0}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^{\mathrm{s},0}(Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{4M_N^2}}F_2^{\mathrm{s},0}(Q^2)`$
$`G_M^{\mathrm{s},0}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^{\mathrm{s},0}(Q^2)+F_2^{\mathrm{s},0}(Q^2).`$ (9)
Having carried out a lengthy calculation following strictly Refs.Kim:1995mr ; Praszalowicz:1998jm , we obtain the expressions for the strange vector form factors and flavor-singlet form factors of the nucleon:

$`G_E^{\mathrm{s},0}(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`G_E^{\mathrm{s},0,m_s^0}(𝑸^2)+G_E^{\mathrm{s},0,m_\mathrm{s}^1,\mathrm{op}}(𝑸^2)+G_E^{\mathrm{s},0,m_\mathrm{s}^1,\mathrm{wf}}(𝑸^2),`$
$`G_M^{\mathrm{s},0}(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`G_M^{\mathrm{s},0,m_s^0}(𝑸^2)+G_M^{\mathrm{s},0,m_\mathrm{s}^1,\mathrm{op}}(𝑸^2)+G_M^{\mathrm{s},0,m_\mathrm{s}^1,\mathrm{wf}}(𝑸^2),`$ (10)
where $`G_E^{\mathrm{s},m_\mathrm{s}^0}(𝑸^2)(G_M^{0,m_\mathrm{s}^0}(𝑸^2))`$ stands for the SU(3) symmetric part of the strange (flavor-singlet) electric and magnetic form factors, whereas the symmetry breaking parts $`G_E^{\mathrm{s},m_\mathrm{s}^1,\mathrm{op}}(𝑸^2)(G_M^{0,m_\mathrm{s}^1,\mathrm{op}}(𝑸^2))`$ and $`G_E^{\mathrm{s},m_\mathrm{s}^1,\mathrm{wf}}(𝑸^2)(G_M^{0,m_\mathrm{s}^1,\mathrm{wf}}(𝑸^2))`$ correspond to the symmetry breaking in the operator and in the baryon wave functions, respectively. The explicit expressions for the strange vector form factors in Eq.(10) are given below. They differ from those of Ref. Kim:1996vj  by some numerical constants and by discarding some redundant terms.

$`G_E^{\mathrm{s},m_\mathrm{s}^0}(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}\left(7(𝑸^2){\displaystyle \frac{_1(𝑸^2)}{I_1}}6{\displaystyle \frac{_2(𝑸^2)}{I_2}}\right)`$ (11)
$`G_E^{\mathrm{s},m_\mathrm{s}^1,\mathrm{op}}(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}\left((m_0\overline{m})13+m_8{\displaystyle \frac{5}{\sqrt{3}}}\right)𝒞(𝑸^2)`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`m_8{\displaystyle \frac{12}{15\sqrt{3}}}\left(I_1𝒦_1(𝑸^2)K_1_1(𝑸^2)\right)`$
$`+`$ $`m_8{\displaystyle \frac{12}{5\sqrt{3}}}\left(I_2𝒦_2(𝑸^2)K_2_2(𝑸^2)\right)`$
$`G_E^{\mathrm{s},m_s^1,\mathrm{wf}}(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`m_8\left(c_{\overline{10}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6\sqrt{3}}{5I_1}}c_{27}\right)(𝑸^2)`$ (13)
$``$ $`m_8{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5I_1}}\left(5c_{\overline{10}}6c_{27}\right)_1(𝑸^2)m_8{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5\sqrt{3}I_2}}c_{27}_2(𝑸^2),`$
$`G_M^{\mathrm{s},m_\mathrm{s}^0}(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{3|𝑸|}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{8}{30}}(𝒬_0(𝑸^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{I_1}}𝒬_1(𝑸^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6I_2}}𝒳_2(𝑸^2))S_3`$ (14)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15I_1}}𝒳_1(𝑸^2)S_3\}`$ (15)
$`G_M^{\mathrm{s},m_\mathrm{s}^1,\mathrm{op}}(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{3|𝑸|}}\{m_8{\displaystyle \frac{4}{135}}(6_2(𝑸^2)2{\displaystyle \frac{K_2}{I_2}}𝒳_2(𝑸^2))S_3`$ (16)
$``$ $`m_8{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\left(_0(𝑸^2)+_1(𝑸^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_1}{I_1}}𝒳_1(𝑸^2)\right)S_3`$ (17)
$``$ $`m_8{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}\left(_0(𝑸^2)_1(𝑸^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_1}{I_1}}𝒳_1(𝑸^2)\right)S_3`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`(m_0\overline{m}){\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}_0(𝑸^2)S_3\},`$ (19)
$`G_M^{\mathrm{s},m_s^1,\mathrm{wf}}(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{3|𝑸|}}\{m_8{\displaystyle \frac{8}{45}}c_{27}(𝒬_0(𝑸^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{I_1}}𝒬_1(𝑸^2)`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{I_2}}𝒳_2(𝑸^2){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2I_1}}𝒳_1(𝑸^2))\}S_3.`$ (21)
The flavor-singlet vector form factor are written as:

$`G_E^{0,m_\mathrm{s}^0}(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(𝑸^2),`$ (22)
$`G_E^{0,m_\mathrm{s}^1,\mathrm{op}}(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2(m_0\overline{m})+m_8{\displaystyle \frac{3}{10\sqrt{3}}}\right)𝒞(𝑸^2),`$ (23)
$`G_E^{0,m_s^1,\mathrm{wf}}(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (24)
$`G_M^{0,m_\mathrm{s}^0}(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{|𝑸|}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒳_1(𝑸^2)}{I_1}}S_3`$ (25)
$`G_M^{0,m_\mathrm{s}^1,\mathrm{op}}(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{|𝑸|}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_8\sqrt{3}}{15}}\left(6_1(𝑸^2)2{\displaystyle \frac{K_1}{I_1}}𝒳_1(𝑸^2)\right)S_3`$ (26)
$`G_M^{0,m_s^1,\mathrm{wf}}(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (27)
where the coefficients like $`c_{\overline{10}}`$ are known from the SU(3) algebra, the $`I_1`$ etc. are moments of ineria whose expressions can be found in Ref. Blotzetal . The other quantities like $`_1(𝑸^2)`$ are explicitely given in appendix A.

## III Results and discussion

We present now the results obtained from the $`\chi `$QSM. A detailed description on numerical methods is presented in Refs. Kim:1995mr ; Christov:1996vm . The parameters of the model are the constituent quark mass $`M`$, the current quark mass $`m_\mathrm{u}`$, the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the proper-time regularization, and the strange quark mass $`m_\mathrm{s}`$. These parameters are not free but have to be adjusted to independent observables in a very clear way (in fact this was done many years ago): The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the $`m_\mathrm{u}`$ are adjusted for a given $`M`$ in the mesonic sector. The physical pion mass $`m_\pi =139`$ MeV and the pion decay constant $`f_\pi =93`$ MeV are reproduced by these parameters. The strange quark mass is chosen to be $`m_\mathrm{s}=180`$ MeV throughout the present work. The remaining parameter $`M`$ is varied from $`400`$ MeV to $`450`$ MeV. The value of $`420\text{ MeV}`$, which for many years is known to produce the best fit to many baryonic observables Christov:1996vm , is selected for our final result in the baryonic sector. The magnetic moments of the proton and neutron in the symmetry-conserving quantization are: $`\mu _\mathrm{p}=1.77\mu _N`$ and $`\mu _\mathrm{n}=1.20\mu _N`$, respectively. Compared to the experimental data, they are underestimated by $`35\%`$.

We always assume isospin symmetry. Actually with this formalism we obtained the results (within the admittedly large experimental errors) in fairly good agreement with the data of SAMPLE and HAPPEX.

The formalism of the $`\chi `$QSM has been applied frequently to SU(3) baryons. In the present case, where explicitly a strange quantity is considered, one meets a problem concerning the asymptotic behavior of the kaon field. While in SU(2) the soliton incorporates the asymptotic pion behavior $`\mathrm{exp}(\mu r)/r`$ with $`\mu =m_\pi `$ in a natural way, the construction of the SU(3) hedgehog by Witten’s embedding causes all other Goldstone bosons to share the same asymptotic behavior. This, however, contradicts the common belief that the asymptotic form of the kaon field is given by $`\mathrm{exp}(\mu r)/r`$ with $`\mu =m_K`$. Therefore, in our procedure, there is some sort of systematic error which we have to estimate. We do this described in Ref. Silva:2001st , performing two separate calculations, first by choosing the parameter $`\overline{m}`$ in the one-bady Dirac Hamiltonian with the background meson fields such that the SU(3) calculation yields a pionic tail for all the solitonic profiles ($`\mu =m_\pi `$), and second, by selecting $`\overline{m}`$ in order to get a kaonic tail ($`\mu =m_K`$). In both cases we compensate by modifying the perturbative collective treatment of $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ (or $`m_8`$) by subtracting the corresponding term. Altogether we get for each purely strange contribution to an observable two values the differences of which gives a measure for the systematic error of our solitonic calculation (for the up and down part of an observable we always use the Yukawa mass $`\mu =m_\pi `$). To get a feeling for the dependence of our results on the other parameters of the model, we also present results for various constituent quark mass $`M`$ (always yielding a correct $`f_\pi =93\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`m_\pi =139\mathrm{MeV}`$, of course).

The magnetic strange form factor $`G_\mathrm{M}^\mathrm{s}(Q^2)`$ for three different values of $`M`$ is shown in Fig. 1 with the pionic asymptotics. This is a typical case such that altogether the effect of the variation of $`M`$ is not very important and smaller than the effect of having different Yukawa tails. This quantitative feature is true for the electric strange form factors as well. Thus, we consider only the results of our model with $`M=420`$ MeV, since it has been shown in several calculations Christov:1996vm  that many other baryonic observables are reproduced well.

The figures for the form factors of the present calculations have been published already in Ref. Silva:2001st . For completeness, we present here the strange Dirac and Pauli form factors in Figs. 2, 3 with kaon and pion tails, respectively. They will be suitable for a direct comparison with the results of the A4 experiment which will soon come out.

In Table I we display the prediction of the $`\chi `$QSM for the G0 experiment. Presented is the combination of the strange vector form factors $`G_E^\mathrm{s}+\beta G_M^\mathrm{s}`$. Here, $`\beta `$ is defined as

$$\beta (Q^2,\theta )=\frac{\tau G_M^{p\gamma }}{ϵG_E^{p\gamma }},$$
(28)
where $`\tau =Q^2/(4M_N^2)`$ and $`ϵ=[1+2(1+\tau )\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta /2)]^1`$ and the $`G_M^{p\gamma }`$ and $`G_E^{p\gamma }`$ are taken from the experiment. For smaller $`Q^2`$ values, $`G_E^\mathrm{s}+\beta G_M^\mathrm{s}`$ is rather sensitive to which tail we use. For example, the result at $`Q^2=0.16\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ shows $`15`$ to $`50`$ % difference at $`\theta =10^{}`$ and $`\theta =108^{}`$, respectively, between kaon and pion tails, whereas at $`Q^2=0.951\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ we find $`10`$ to $`15\%`$ difference. Thus, smaller $`Q^2`$ show more sensitivity to the tail. The difference between the results from the kaon and pion tails is comparatively smaller at backward angles. In any case this difference indicates the size of the systematic error of our model.

In Table II we list the predictions of the singlet form factor $`G_E^0+\beta G_M^0`$ for the G0 experiment and in in Table III and IV we present, respectively, the predictions of the strange form factor $`G_E^\mathrm{s}+\beta G_M^\mathrm{s}`$ and singlet form factor $`G_E^0+\beta G_M^0`$ at $`Q^2=0.227\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ for the A4 experiment. In Table V we list the prediction of the strange form factor for the HAPPEX II experiment, whereas in table VI we predict the corresponding singlet form factor. Again the difference between the numbers obtained using a pion and also a kaon tail indicates the size of the systematic error of our model.

## IV Summary and outlook

In the present work, we have investigated the strange vector form factors $`G_E^\mathrm{s}`$ and $`G_M^\mathrm{s}`$ and flavor singlet vector form factors within the framework of the SU(3) chiral quark-soliton model, incorporating the symmetry-conserving quantization. The rotational $`1/N_c`$ and strange quark mass $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ corrections were taken into account. In order to get a feeling for the systematic error of our approach in calculating such a sensitive quantity as a strange form factor, we also have considered two different asymptotic behaviors of the soliton in such a way that the tails of the soliton fall off according to the Yukawa mass of the pion and of the kaon.

We first have examined in detail the dependence of the strange form factors on the constituent quark mass $`M`$ which is the only free parameter we deal with. The dependence on the $`M`$ turned out rather mild in general and we chose $`M=420`$ MeV for which many other properties of the nucleon and the hyperons are reproduced. We also have predicted the combination of the strange form factors, i.e. $`G_E^\mathrm{s}+\beta G_M^\mathrm{s}`$ and $`G_E^0+\beta G_M^0`$ corresponding to kinematics of three different experiments, that is, the G0, A4, and HAPPEX II experiments.

For the presently used chiral quark-soliton model the derivation of a strange contribution to the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon is a rather natural thing, since the theory can be considered as a many body approach with a polarized Dirac sea. In fact, as one finds in other observables of the nucleon, about $`5\%10\%`$ contribution comes from the strange $`\mathrm{s}\overline{\mathrm{s}}`$ excitation of the quark sea Christov:1996vm . If one compares the present approach with others in the literature, one finds a difference insofar that most of the theories yield a negative strange magnetic moment, whereas the present one produces a slightly positive one Silva:2001st . The reason might lie in the fact that the present approach is the only one with quarks in a self-consistent static meson field, with a proper treatment of the symmetries in SU(3) including rotational corrections. In particular, the meson field is closely related to the instanton liquid of the QCD vacuum. So far the approach has been successful in SU(2) and here we have a sensitive test in SU(3). It is planned also to calculate the asymmetries of parity-violating electron scattering directly. For this we need axial-vector form factors calculated in SU(3) which is presently under way.

Note added: While the present paper was in the refereeing process, the A4 Collaboration announced their results Maas:2004ta  for $`Q^2=0.230(\mathrm{GeV}/)^2`$ and $`\theta =35^{}`$. Apparently our predictions agree within the error bars with their results on $`G_E^\mathrm{s}+0.225G_M^\mathrm{s}=0.039\pm 0.034`$ for $`F_1^\mathrm{s}+0.130F_2^\mathrm{s}=0.032\pm 0.028`$.

## Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to F. Maas for useful discussions. HCK thanks D. von Harrach and M. Pitt for valuable discussions and comments. AS acknowledges partial financial support from Praxis XXI/BD/15681/98. The work of HCK is supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant (KRF–2003–041–C20067). The work has also been supported by the BMBF, the DFG, the COSY–Project (Jülich) and POCTI (MCT-Portugal).

## Appendix A Densities

In this appendix, we provide the densities for the strange vector and flavor-singlet form factors given in Eqs.(21, 27). We list only those, which are different from the ones in the appendix of ref. Kim:1996vj . The sums run freely over all single-quark levels including the valence one, except the sum over $`m_0`$, which is restricted to negative-energy orbits:

$`(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3xj_0(Qr)\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}^{}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}(𝒙)\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{}\mathrm{sgn}(E_n)\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒙)\right]},`$
$`𝒞(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_c{\displaystyle }d^3xj_0(Qr){\displaystyle }d^3y[{\displaystyle \underset{n\mathrm{val}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒚)\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}(𝒚)}{E_nE_{\mathrm{val}}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_m(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}(𝒚)\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)_{}(E_n,E_m)],`$
$`_1(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{6}}{\displaystyle }d^3xj_0(Qr){\displaystyle }d^3y[{\displaystyle \underset{n\mathrm{val}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}^{}(𝒚)𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)}{E_nE_{\mathrm{val}}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_m(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}(𝒚)𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)_{}(E_n,E_m)],`$
$`_2(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{4}}{\displaystyle }d^3xj_0(Qr){\displaystyle }d^3y[{\displaystyle \underset{m^0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}^{}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}^{}(𝒚)\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}(𝒚)}{E_{m^0}E_{\mathrm{val}}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m_0}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}^{}(𝒚)\mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)_{}(E_n,E_{m^0})],`$
$`𝒦_1(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{6}}{\displaystyle }d^3xj_0(Qr){\displaystyle }d^3y[{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}^{}(𝒚)\beta 𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)}{E_nE_{\mathrm{val}}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_m(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}(𝒚)\beta 𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)_{}(E_n,E_m)],`$
$`𝒦_2(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{4}}{\displaystyle }d^3xj_0(Qr){\displaystyle }d^3y[{\displaystyle \underset{m^0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}^{}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}^{}(𝒚)\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}(𝒚)}{E_{m^0}E_{\mathrm{val}}}}`$ (29)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m_0}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}^{}(𝒚)\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)_{}(E_n,E_{m^0})],`$
$`𝒬_0(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{3}}{\displaystyle }d^3x{\displaystyle \frac{j_1(Qr)}{r}}[\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}^{}(𝒙)\gamma _5\{𝒓\times 𝝈\}𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}(𝒙)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{sgn}(E_n)\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\gamma _5\{𝒓\times 𝝈\}𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒙)(E_n)],`$
$`𝒬_1(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\frac{j_1(Qr)}{r}d^3y}`$
$`\times `$ $`[{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{sgn}(E_n){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\gamma _5\{𝒓\times 𝝈\}\times 𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}^{}(𝒚)𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)}{E_nE_{\mathrm{val}}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\gamma _5\{𝒓\times 𝝈\}\times 𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_m(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}(𝒚)𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)_𝒬(E_n,E_m)],`$
$`𝒳_1(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_c{\displaystyle }d^3x{\displaystyle \frac{j_1(Qr)}{r}}{\displaystyle }d^3y[{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\gamma _5\{𝒓\times 𝝈\}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}^{}(𝒚)𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)}{E_nE_{\mathrm{val}}}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\gamma _5\{𝒓\times 𝝈\}\mathrm{\Psi }_m(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}(𝒚)𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)_{}(E_n,E_m)],`$
$`𝒳_2(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_c{\displaystyle }d^3x{\displaystyle \frac{j_1(Qr)}{r}}{\displaystyle }d^3y[{\displaystyle \underset{m^0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}^{}(𝒙)\gamma _5\{𝒓\times 𝝈\}𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}^{}(𝒚)\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}(𝒚)}{E_{m^0}E_{\mathrm{val}}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n,m^0}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\gamma _5\{𝒓\times 𝝈\}𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}^{}(𝒚)\mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)_{}(E_n,E_{m^0})],`$
$`_0(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_c{\displaystyle }d^3x{\displaystyle \frac{j_1(Qr)}{r}}{\displaystyle }d^3y[{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\gamma _5\{𝒓\times 𝝈\}𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}^{}(𝒚)\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)}{E_nE_{\mathrm{val}}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\gamma _5\{𝒓\times 𝝈\}𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_m(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}(𝒚)\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)_\beta (E_n,E_m)],`$
$`_1(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{3}}{\displaystyle d^3x\frac{j_1(Qr)}{r}d^3y}`$
$`\times `$ $`[{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\gamma _5\{𝒓\times 𝝈\}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}^{}(𝒚)\beta 𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)}{E_nE_{\mathrm{val}}}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\gamma _5\{𝒓\times 𝝈\}\mathrm{\Psi }_m(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}(𝒚)\beta 𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)_\beta (E_n,E_m)],`$
$`_2(𝑸^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{3}}{\displaystyle d^3x\frac{j_1(Qr)}{r}d^3y}`$ (30)
$`\times `$ $`[{\displaystyle \underset{m^0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}^{}(𝒙)\gamma _5\{𝒓\times 𝝈\}𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{val}}^{}(𝒚)\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}(𝒚)}{E_{m^0}E_{\mathrm{val}}}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,m^0}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{}(𝒙)\gamma _5\{𝒓\times 𝝈\}𝝉\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }_{m^0}^{}(𝒚)\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_n(𝒚)_\beta (E_n,E_{m^0})].`$
The regularization functions in Eq.(30) are as follows:

$`_I(E_n,E_m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{\sqrt{u}}}\varphi (u;\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_ne^{uE_n^2}+E_me^{uE_m^2}}{E_n+E_m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{uE_n^2}e^{uE_m^2}}{u(E_n^2E_m^2)}}\right],`$
$`_{}(E_n,E_m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sgn}(E_n)\mathrm{sgn}(E_m)}{E_nE_m}},`$
$`(E_n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{du}{\sqrt{\pi u}}\varphi (u;\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)|E_n|e^{uE_n^2}},`$
$`_𝒩(E_n,E_m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sgn}(E_n)\mathrm{sgn}(E_m)}{|E_n|+|E_m|}},`$
$`_𝒬(E_n,E_m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (E_n+E_m)E_m}{\sqrt{\alpha (1\alpha )}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left([\alpha E_n^2+(1\alpha )E_m^2]/\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2\right)}{\alpha E_n^2+(1\alpha )E_m^2}},`$
$`_\beta (E_n,E_m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{\sqrt{u}}}\varphi (u;\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_ne^{uE_n^2}E_me^{uE_m^2}}{E_nE_m}}\right],`$ (31)
where the cutoff function $`\varphi (u;\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)=_ic_i\theta \left(u\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2}\right)`$ is fixed by reproducing the pion decay constant and other mesonic properties Christov:1996vm .

FIGURES

FIG.1: The dependence of the strange magnetic form factor as a function of $`Q^2`$ on the constituent quark mass with the pion asymptotic tail ($`\mu =140`$ MeV). The solid curve is for $`M=420`$ MeV, the dashed one for $`400`$ MeV, and the dotted one for $`450`$ MeV. The strange quark mass is $`m_\mathrm{s}=180`$ MeV. The experimental data are taken from SAMPLE SAMPLE00s . The preferred curve is the one for $`M=420`$ MeV.

FIG.2: The form factor $`F_1^s`$ as a function of $`Q^2`$. The solid curve and dashed one represent the results for the kaon ($`\mu =490`$ MeV) and pion ($`\mu =140`$ MeV) asymptotic tails, respectively. The constituent quark mass is $`M=420`$ MeV.

FIG.3: The form factor $`F_2^s`$(in physical n.m.) as a function of $`Q^2`$. The solid curve and dashed one represent the results for the kaon ($`\mu =490`$ MeV) and pion ($`\mu =140`$ MeV) asymptotic tails, respectively. The constituent quark mass is $`M=420`$ MeV.

TABLES


text:
# Geodesics in spacetimes with expanding impulsive gravitational waves

## I Introduction

In his classical work Pen72  Roger Penrose constructed impulsive spherical gravitational waves in a Minkowski background using his vivid “cut and paste” method. It is based on cutting the spacetime along a null cone and then re-attaching the two pieces with a suitable warp. An explicit solution using coordinates in which the metric is continuous was later on given by Nutku and Penrose NutPen92  and Hogan Hogan93 ; Hogan94 , but was only recently related explicitly to the impulsive limit of Robinson–Trautman type N  solutions PodGri99 ; GriPodDoc02 . However, the latter has to be considered as only formal since the metric tensor contains terms proportional to the square of the Dirac-$`\delta `$, and the transformation relating this coordinate system to the continuous one mentioned above is necessarily discontinuous. Nevertheless, this transformation is analogous to the one relating the distributional and the continuous form of the metric tensor for impulsive pp -waves (plane-fronted gravitational waves with parallel rays kramerbook ) which was also introduced in Pen72  and has recently been analyzed rigorously  Stein98 ; KunSt99  using nonlinear theories of generalized functions (Colombeau algebras) Col84 ; Col92 . It is thus a natural open question whether a similar mathematically sound treatment can also be found for expanding spherical impulses. This indeed is one main motivation for the present work in which we study the motion of test particles in spacetimes with spherical impulsive waves.

On the other hand this work is motivated by the quest of a physical interpretation of radiative Robinson–Trautman spacetimes, one of the most interesting non-static exact solutions of Einstein’s equations which admit a geodesic, shearfree and twistfree null congruence of diverging rays kramerbook . This large family involves not only spacetimes of Petrov type N  (investigated in the impulsive limit in the present paper) but also type II  solutions describing bodies which radiate away their asymmetries and approach a Schwarzschild black hole, or the $`C`$-metric of type D  which represents gravitational radiation generated by uniformly accelerated black holes. By studying these explicit exact solutions one may acquire an intuition necessary for investigation of more general and realistic situations.

This work is organized as follows. In Sec. II we review the class of spacetimes under consideration and describe the geometry of the expanding impulses. By employing the continuous form of the metric in Sec. III we find a large class of privileged and simple geodesics which can be related to explicit geodesics in the distributional form of the metric “in front” and “behind” the spherical impulse. This may allow one to lay the foundations for a rigorous (distributional) treatment of impulsive Robinson–Trautman solutions of type N  as well as the transformation relating the latter to the continuous form of the metric. Moreover, assuming the geodesics to be $`C^1`$ across the impulse (in the continuous system) we completely solve the problem of geodesic motion in spacetimes with expanding impulsive gravitational waves. In Sec. IV we focus on impulsive waves generated by a snapping cosmic string. This interesting solution of Einstein’s equations was previously constructed by Gleiser and Pullin GlePul89  and Nutku and Penrose NutPen92  using the “cut and paste” method. An independent approach was used by Bičák Bicak90 ; BicSch89  (with recent generalizations in PodGri01a ) who obtained the same spacetime by considering a null limit of particular solutions with boost-rotational symmetry representing a pair of particles uniformly accelerating due to semi-infinite strings attached to them. We discuss in detail the physical interpretation of the motion of test particles influenced by such an impulse.

## II Expanding impulsive waves in a Minkowski background

As mentioned above, Penrose Pen72  has described a “cut and paste” method for constructing expanding spherical gravitational waves in a Minkowski background. The procedure can be performed explicitly as follows. One starts with the Minkowski line element

$$\mathrm{d}s_0^2=2\mathrm{d}\eta \mathrm{d}\overline{\eta }2\mathrm{d}𝒰\mathrm{d}𝒱=\mathrm{d}t^2+\mathrm{d}x^2+\mathrm{d}y^2+\mathrm{d}z^2,$$
(1)
where the relation between the coordinates is given by

$$𝒰=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(t+z),𝒱=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(tz),\eta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x+\text{i}y).$$
(2)
We may now perform the transformation

$`𝒱`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{p}}ϵU,`$
$`𝒰`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z\overline{Z}}{p}}VU,`$ (3)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{p}}V,`$
where

$$p=1+ϵZ\overline{Z},ϵ=1,0,+1.$$
(4)
(The parameter $`ϵ`$ is related to the Gaussian curvature of the 2-surfaces given by $`U=`$ const. $`V=`$ const., cf. PodGri99 .) Using (3), the metric (1) takes the form

$$\mathrm{d}s_0^2=2\frac{V^2}{p^2}\mathrm{d}Z\mathrm{d}\overline{Z}+2\mathrm{d}U\mathrm{d}V2ϵ\mathrm{d}U^2.$$
(5)
On the other hand, we consider the alternative, more involved transformation given by

$`𝒱`$ $`=`$ $`AVDU,`$
$`𝒰`$ $`=`$ $`BVEU,`$ (6)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`CVFU,`$
where

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p|h^{}|}},B={\displaystyle \frac{|h|^2}{p|h^{}|}},C={\displaystyle \frac{h}{p|h^{}|}},`$
$`D={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|h^{}|}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{4}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{h^{\prime \prime }}{h^{}}}\right|^2+ϵ\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{h^{\prime \prime }}{h^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Z}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{h}^{\prime \prime }}{\overline{h}^{}}}\right]\right\},`$
$`E={\displaystyle \frac{|h|^2}{|h^{}|}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{4}}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{h^{\prime \prime }}{h^{}}}2{\displaystyle \frac{h^{}}{h}}|^2`$
$`+ϵ[1+{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{h^{\prime \prime }}{h^{}}}2{\displaystyle \frac{h^{}}{h}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Z}}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{h}^{\prime \prime }}{\overline{h}^{}}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{h}^{}}{\overline{h}}})]\},`$
$`F={\displaystyle \frac{h}{|h^{}|}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{h^{\prime \prime }}{h^{}}}2{\displaystyle \frac{h^{}}{h}}){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{h}^{\prime \prime }}{\overline{h}^{}}}`$
$`+ϵ[1+{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{h^{\prime \prime }}{h^{}}}2{\displaystyle \frac{h^{}}{h}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Z}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{h}^{\prime \prime }}{\overline{h}^{}}}]\}.`$ (7)
Here $`hh(Z)`$ is an arbitrary function, and the derivative with respect to its argument $`Z`$ is denoted by a prime. With this, the Minkowski metric (1) becomes

$$\mathrm{d}s_0^2=2\left|\frac{V}{p}\mathrm{d}Z+Up\overline{H}\mathrm{d}\overline{Z}\right|^2+2\mathrm{d}U\mathrm{d}V2ϵ\mathrm{d}U^2,$$
(8)
where $`H`$ is the Schwarzian derivative of $`h`$, i.e.,

$$H(Z)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{h^{\prime \prime \prime }}{h^{}}\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{h^{\prime \prime }}{h^{}}\right)^2\right].$$
(9)
In the coordinates used in (5) as well as in the ones used in (8), the null hypersurface $`U=0`$ represents a null cone $`\eta \overline{\eta }𝒰𝒱=0`$, i.e., an expanding sphere $`x^2+y^2+z^2=t^2`$ in the Minkowski background. Moreover, the reduced 2-metrics on this cone are identical. Following the Penrose “cut and paste” method, we attach the line element (5) for $`U<0`$ to (8) for $`U>0`$. The resulting metric takes the form

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=2\left|\frac{V}{p}\mathrm{d}Z+U\mathrm{\Theta }(U)p\overline{H}\mathrm{d}\overline{Z}\right|^2+2\mathrm{d}U\mathrm{d}V2ϵ\mathrm{d}U^2,$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(U)`$ is the Heaviside step function. This combined metric, which was first presented in NutPen92 ; Hogan94 , is explicitly continuous everywhere, including the null hypersurface $`U=0`$. However, the discontinuity in the derivatives of the metric across $`U=0`$ yields an impulsive gravitational wave term proportional to the Dirac $`\delta `$-function. More precisely, the only non-vanishing component of the Weyl tensor in the Newman-Penrose formalism np ; kramerbook  is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_4=(p^2H/V)\delta (U)`$ which is the component $`\mathrm{\Psi }_4C_{abcd}l^a\overline{m}^bl^c\overline{m}^d`$ with respect to the null tetrad $`𝐤=_V`$, $`𝐥=ϵ_V_U`$, $`𝐦=p^2(V^2U^2\mathrm{\Theta }p^4H\overline{H})^1[(V/p)_{\overline{Z}}U\mathrm{\Theta }p\overline{H}_Z]`$. The spacetime is thus flat everywhere except on the wave surface $`U=0`$. Also, as shown in PodGri00 , the only non-vanishing tetrad component of the Ricci tensor is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}\frac{1}{2}R_{ab}l^al^b=(p^4H\overline{H}/V^2)U\delta (U)`$. This demonstrates that the spacetime is vacuum everywhere (except on the impulse at $`V=0`$ and at possible singularities of the function $`p^2H`$).

For later use we also remark that the inverse relation to (3) is given by

$`U={\displaystyle \frac{\eta \overline{\eta }}{𝒱}}𝒰,`$
$`V=𝒱,`$ (11)
$`Z={\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{𝒱}},`$
when $`ϵ=0`$, and by

$`U=ϵ𝒱{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta \overline{\eta }}{(𝒱ϵ𝒰)\sqrt{(𝒱ϵ𝒰)^2+4ϵ\eta \overline{\eta }}}},`$
$`V=(𝒱ϵ𝒰){\displaystyle \frac{4ϵ\eta \overline{\eta }}{(𝒱ϵ𝒰)\sqrt{(𝒱ϵ𝒰)^2+4ϵ\eta \overline{\eta }}}},`$
$`Z={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2\overline{\eta }}}\left[(𝒱ϵ𝒰)\sqrt{(𝒱ϵ𝒰)^2+4ϵ\eta \overline{\eta }}\right],`$ (12)
for $`ϵ0`$.

We may define the functions $`U_{inv}`$, $`V_{inv}`$ and $`Z_{inv}`$ of $`(U,V,Z,\overline{Z})`$ as the composition of (11) (or (12) for $`ϵ0`$) with (6), (7), which transforms the metric (8) to (5). Consequently, a discontinuous transformation

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`U+\mathrm{\Theta }(U)[U_{inv}(U,V,Z,\overline{Z})U],`$
$`w`$ $`=`$ $`V+\mathrm{\Theta }(U)[V_{inv}(U,V,Z,\overline{Z})V],`$ (13)
$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`Z+\mathrm{\Theta }(U)[Z_{inv}(U,V,Z,\overline{Z})Z],`$
relates (10) for all $`U0`$ to Minkowski spacetime in the form

$$\mathrm{d}s_0^2=2\frac{w^2}{\psi ^2}\mathrm{d}\xi \mathrm{d}\overline{\xi }+2\mathrm{d}u\mathrm{d}w2ϵ\mathrm{d}u^2,$$
(14)
where $`\psi =1+ϵ\xi \overline{\xi }`$. Interestingly, by considering the transformation (13) of the metric (10) for arbitrary $`U`$, i.e., keeping also the distributional terms, one (formally) obtains the metric

$`\mathrm{d}s^2`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{w^2}{\psi ^2}}\left|\mathrm{d}\xi f\delta (u)\mathrm{d}u\right|^2+2\mathrm{d}u\mathrm{d}w2ϵ\mathrm{d}u^2`$ (15)
$`+w\left[(f_\xi +\overline{f}_{\overline{\xi }}){\displaystyle \frac{2ϵ}{\psi }}(f\overline{\xi }+\overline{f}\xi )\right]\delta (u)\mathrm{d}u^2,`$
in which $`f(\xi )`$ is related to $`h(Z)`$ through the identification $`fZ_{inv}Z`$ evaluated on $`U=0`$. Although this form of the metric is only formal since it contains the square of the delta function, it explicitly shows that expanding impulsive gravitational waves (10) arise as the impulsive limits of the Robinson–Trautman type N  spacetimes, expressed in the coordinates introduced in GarPle81  (see BicPod99 ; PodGri99  for the details).

Let us now conclude this review section by a brief description of the geometry of the above expanding impulsive waves localized along the wave-surfaces $`U=0`$, i.e., $`u=0`$. This will also elucidate the meaning of the parameter $`ϵ`$.

From the Robinson–Trautman form of the metric (15) it is obvious that the impulse splits the spacetime into two flat regions, $`u>0`$ and $`u<0`$. In the following we shall call the Minkowski half-space $`u>0`$ as being “in front of the wave”, and the other Minkowski half-space $`u<0`$ (note that $`uU`$ for $`U<0`$) as being “behind the wave”. The “background” metric on both sides of the impulse is given by (14). For arbitrary  $`u0`$, this metric can be put into explicit Minkowski form (1) by the transformations (2) and (11) (or (12)) and the (trivial) identification $`u=U`$, $`w=V`$, $`\xi =Z`$. Using these relations, we can easily analyze the geometry of the null hypersurfaces $`u=u_0=`$const. in Minkowski coordinates which are geometrically privileged and thus allow for a clear physical interpretation.

We start with the subclass of solutions for which $`ϵ=0`$. Substituting (2) into (11) and setting $`U=u_0`$, we get the relation

$$x^2+y^2+(z+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}u_0)^2=(t+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}u_0)^2$$
(16)
(if $`tz`$, i.e., for $`x0`$, $`y0`$). For various values of $`u_0`$ this represents a family of null cones with vertices at $`(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}u_0,0,0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}u_0)`$ localized along a singular null line $`t=z,x=0,y=0`$. Also, $`V=w_0=`$const. is a set of parallel hyperplanes $`t=z+\sqrt{2}w_0`$ in the Minkowski background. This reveals the geometrical meaning of the coordinates $`u,w`$ used in the metric (14) with $`ϵ=0`$. Note that $`w=0`$ represents a physical singularity in the Robinson–Trautman spacetimes BicPra98  which can be interpreted as the source of the wave surfaces $`u=u_0`$. At any time $`t`$, these surfaces are spheres of the radius $`R=|t+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}u_0|`$. In particular, the impulse localized on $`u=0`$ is a null cone with the vertex in the origin which, at any time, is a sphere of radius $`R=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}=|t|`$.

Analogous results can similarly be obtained for the remaining two subclasses $`ϵ=\pm 1`$. In this case, using (2) and (12), the hypersurfaces $`u_0`$=const. are given by

$$x^2+y^2+z^2=(t+\sqrt{2}u_0)^2,$$
(17)
for $`ϵ=+1`$ and

$$x^2+y^2+(z+\sqrt{2}u_0)^2=t^2,$$
(18)
for $`ϵ=1`$, respectively. Again, these are families of null cones in Minkowski space with vertices shifted in the $`t`$-direction for $`ϵ=+1`$, and in the $`z`$-direction for $`ϵ=1`$. Note that these vertices form a singular timelike line $`x=0=y`$, $`z=0`$ if $`ϵ=+1`$, and a spacelike line $`x=0=y`$, $`t=0`$ if $`ϵ=1`$. These lines are given by $`\eta =0`$, $`𝒱ϵ𝒰=0`$, and correspond to the physical singularity of the Robinson–Trautman spacetime at $`w=0`$.

It is obvious that for the above spacetimes with a single expanding impulsive wave localized at $`u=u_0=0`$, i.e., at $`U=0`$, the null cones of the three classes of wave-surfaces given by (16), (17), and (18) coincide. In fact, in the impulsive limit the three (generically different) subclasses $`ϵ=0,+1,1`$ of the Robinson–Trautman class of solutions are locally equivalent PodGri99 .

It can also be observed, that for $`ϵ=0`$, the physical singularity at $`V=0`$ is a singular null line on the wavefront surface $`U=0`$. For a physical interpretation, it would be better to remove this singularity from the spacetime. This can be achieved by considering solutions with $`ϵ0`$: In these cases, the singularity at $`V=0`$ appears only at the vertex of the null cone, $`x=y=z=t=0`$, which may be considered as the “origin” of the spherical wave.

## III Geodesic motion in spacetimes with expanding impulsive waves

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of expanding impulsive waves of Robinson–Trautman type on the motion of freely moving test particles. It is natural to start with geodesics in (local, see below) Minkowski space $`U>0`$ in front of the wave, i.e., “outside” the null cone $`U=0`$ corresponding to $`x^2+y^2+z^2=t^2`$. (Note that at $`t=0`$ the spherical impulse is just “created” at the origin.) Obviously, general geodesics are given by

$`t^+=\gamma \tau ,`$
$`x^+=\dot{x}_0(\tau \tau _i)+x_0,`$ (19)
$`y^+=\dot{y}_0(\tau \tau _i)+y_0,`$
$`z^+=\dot{z}_0(\tau \tau _i)+z_0,`$
with $`\gamma =\sqrt{\dot{x}_0^2+\dot{y}_0^2+\dot{z}_0^2e}`$, i.e., $`\tau `$ is a normalized affine parameter of timelike ($`e=1`$) or spacelike ($`e=+1`$) geodesics. For null geodesics ($`e=0`$) it is always possible to scale the factor $`\gamma `$ to unity. The constants $`x_0,y_0,z_0`$ and $`\dot{x}_0,\dot{y}_0,\dot{z}_0`$ characterize position resp. velocity of each test particle at the instant

$$\tau _i=\sqrt{x_0^2+y_0^2+z_0^2}/\gamma ,$$
(20)
when the geodesic intersects the null cone. At $`\tau _i`$ each particle is hit by the impulse and its trajectory is refracted and (possibly) shifted. The geodesics (19) in front of the impulse can also be written as

$`𝒱^+`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{𝒱}_0^+(\tau \tau _i)+𝒱_0^+,`$
$`𝒰^+`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{𝒰}_0^+(\tau \tau _i)+𝒰_0^+,`$ (21)
$`\eta ^+`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\eta }_0^+(\tau \tau _i)+\eta _0^+,`$
where

$`\dot{𝒱}_0^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\gamma \dot{z}_0),𝒱_0^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\gamma \tau _iz_0),`$
$`\dot{𝒰}_0^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\gamma +\dot{z}_0),𝒰_0^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\gamma \tau _i+z_0),`$ (22)
$`\dot{\eta }_0^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\dot{x}_0+\text{i}\dot{y}_0),\eta _0^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x_0+\text{i}y_0).`$
Now, we wish to investigate the influence of the impulse on the geodesics, and to determine explicitly formulae for corresponding “refraction” and “shift”. In the region $`U<0`$ behind the impulse the particles again move in Minkowski space (1) so that the trajectories also have to be straight lines of the form

$`𝒱^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{𝒱}_0^{}(\tau \tau _i)+𝒱_0^{},`$
$`𝒰^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{𝒰}_0^{}(\tau \tau _i)+𝒰_0^{},`$ (23)
$`\eta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\eta }_0^{}(\tau \tau _i)+\eta _0^{}.`$
It remains to express the constants appearing in (23) in terms of the initial data introduced in (19), and the structural function $`h(Z)`$, which characterizes specific expanding impulsive waves.

The key idea is to employ the continuous form of the solution (10). It can easily be observed that in this coordinate system the Christoffel symbols $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{UU}^\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{UV}^\mu `$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{VV}^\mu `$ vanish identically. Therefore, the geodesic equations always admit privileged global solutions of the form

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`Z_0=\text{const.},`$
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{U}_0(\tau \tau _i),`$ (24)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{V}_0(\tau \tau _i)+V_0.`$
Here we have set $`U_0=0`$, so that each geodesic reaches the impulse localized at $`U=0`$ at parameter-time $`\tau =\tau _i`$.

Using (6), it is possible to express the geodesics (24) in front of the impulse in the Minkowski form (21) where the coefficients (22) are

$`\dot{𝒱}_0^+=A\dot{V}_0D\dot{U}_0,𝒱_0^+=AV_0,`$
$`\dot{𝒰}_0^+=B\dot{V}_0E\dot{U}_0,𝒰_0^+=BV_0,`$ (25)
$`\dot{\eta }_0^+=C\dot{V}_0F\dot{U}_0,\eta _0^+=CV_0.`$
The constants $`A,B,C,D,E`$ and $`F`$ are given by the values of the functions (7) at $`Z=Z_0`$. The relations (22) and (25) enable us to relate the parameters $`Z_0`$, $`\dot{U}_0`$, $`\dot{V}_0`$, and $`V_0`$ to the natural initial data introduced in (19) by

$`x_0=\sqrt{2}V_0eC,`$
$`y_0=\sqrt{2}V_0mC,`$
$`z_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}V_0(BA),`$ (26)
$`\dot{x}_0=\sqrt{2}[\dot{V}_0eC\dot{U}_0eF],`$
$`\dot{y}_0=\sqrt{2}[\dot{V}_0mC\dot{U}_0mF],`$
$`\dot{z}_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\dot{V}_0(BA)\dot{U}_0(ED)].`$
The three position parameters $`x_0`$, $`y_0`$, $`z_0`$ are thus related to the three independent constants $`Z_0`$, $`\overline{Z}_0`$, $`V_0`$. The normalization condition implies the constraint $`(\dot{V}_0ϵ\dot{U}_0)\dot{U}_0=\frac{1}{2}e`$ (which can be obtained using the identities $`ABC\overline{C}=0`$, $`DEF\overline{F}=ϵ`$, and $`AE+BDC\overline{F}\overline{C}F=1`$) on the parameters $`\dot{V}_0`$ and $`\dot{U}_0`$. However, in general it is possible to set at least one of the velocities $`\dot{x}_0`$, $`\dot{y}_0`$, or $`\dot{z}_0`$ to zero by a suitable choice of $`\dot{U}_0`$.

Finally, we transform the geodesics (24) behind the impulse using (3), which gives the uniform Minkowskian motion (23) with the coefficients

$`\dot{𝒱}_0^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{V}_0}{p}}ϵ\dot{U}_0,𝒱_0^{}={\displaystyle \frac{V_0}{p}},`$
$`\dot{𝒰}_0^{}={\displaystyle \frac{Z_0\overline{Z}_0}{p}}\dot{V}_0\dot{U}_0,𝒰_0^{}={\displaystyle \frac{Z_0\overline{Z}_0}{p}}V_0,`$ (27)
$`\dot{\eta }_0^{}={\displaystyle \frac{Z_0}{p}}\dot{V}_0,\eta _0^{}={\displaystyle \frac{Z_0}{p}}V_0.`$
Substituting for $`Z_0`$, $`V_0`$, $`\dot{V}_0`$ and $`\dot{U}_0`$ from the inverse of the relations (26), we obtain an explicit result which can be used for discussion of the effect of expanding impulsive waves on the privileged family of geodesics (24).

However, it should be emphasized that in the above construction we started with the initial data (19) outside the impulse in the region $`U>0`$, which is a Minkowski space only locally. Due to the complicated form of the generating complex function $`h`$, there are topological defects such as cosmic strings (corresponding to the presence of deficit angles) outside the null cone, see e.g., PodGri00  for more details. Therefore, for better physical interpretation it may be useful to set the initial data for the geodesics in the region $`U<0`$ inside the cone, which is considered to be a “complete” Minkowski space without topological defects. Evolving these data,

$`t^{}=\gamma \tau ,`$
$`x^{}=\dot{x}_0(\tau \tau _i)+x_0,`$ (28)
$`y^{}=\dot{y}_0(\tau \tau _i)+y_0,`$
$`z^{}=\dot{z}_0(\tau \tau _i)+z_0,`$
“backward” in time (i.e., for decreasing affine parameter $`\tau `$), it is possible to prolong the geodesics across the spherical impulse to the “incomplete” Minkowski region $`U>0`$ with cosmic strings outside the impulse.

In this case, the explicit geodesics outside the impulse have the form (21), (25), in which the constants $`Z_0`$, $`V_0`$, $`\dot{V}_0`$ and $`\dot{U}_0`$ have to be expressed in terms of the data (28). Using (11) for $`ϵ=0`$, and (12) for $`ϵ0`$ we obtain

$`Z_0={\displaystyle \frac{x_0+\text{i}y_0}{\gamma \tau _iz_0}},`$
$`V_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[(1+ϵ)\gamma \tau _i(1ϵ)z_0],`$
$`\dot{V}_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[(1ϵ)\gamma (1+ϵ)\dot{z}_0]{\displaystyle \frac{(1+ϵ)\gamma \tau _i(1ϵ)z_0}{(1ϵ)\gamma \tau _i(1+ϵ)z_0}},`$
$`\dot{U}_0={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\gamma (z_0\tau _i\dot{z}_0)}{(1ϵ)\gamma \tau _i(1+ϵ)z_0}},`$ (29)
with the constraint

$`[(1ϵ)\gamma \tau _i(1+ϵ)z_0)](\dot{x}_0+\text{i}\dot{y}_0)`$ (30)
$`=[(1ϵ)\gamma (1+ϵ)\dot{z}_0](x_0+\text{i}y_0).`$
In (29) above we assumed that $`(1ϵ)\gamma \tau _i(1+ϵ)z_0`$. The case $`(1ϵ)\gamma \tau _i=(1+ϵ)z_0`$ requires $`x_0=y_0=z_0=0`$. Such geodesics reach the singular vertex $`x=y=z=0`$ of the impulsive null cone at $`t=\tau =0`$, and it is thus unphysical to investigate their continuation across $`U=0`$. On the other hand, if $`(1ϵ)\gamma =(1+ϵ)\dot{z}_0`$ then $`\dot{x}_0=\dot{y}_0=0`$, and $`\dot{V}_0=0`$. These geodesics are null for $`ϵ=0`$ (with $`\dot{U}_0=\sqrt{2}\dot{z}_0`$), timelike for $`ϵ=1`$ (with $`\gamma =1`$, $`\dot{z}_0=0`$, $`\dot{U}_0=1/\sqrt{2}`$), and spacelike for $`ϵ=1`$.

Note that the relations (29) simplify for each particular choice of the parameter $`ϵ`$. In particular, in the case $`ϵ=0`$ we obtain

$`Z_0={\displaystyle \frac{x_0+\text{i}y_0}{\gamma \tau _iz_0}},V_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\gamma \tau _iz_0),`$
$`\dot{V}_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\gamma \dot{z}_0),\dot{U}_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\gamma \dot{z}_0}}.`$ (31)
Let us finally recall that the above class of geodesics is privileged and very special since $`Z=Z_0=\text{const.}`$ (cf. (24)). However, it is possible to find general  geodesics assuming them to be $`C^1`$ across the impulse in the continuous coordinate system (10). With this assumption, the constants

$`Z_iZ(\tau _i),V_iV(\tau _i),U_iU(\tau _i)=0,`$
$`\dot{Z}_i\dot{Z}(\tau _i),\dot{V}_i\dot{V}(\tau _i),\dot{U}_i\dot{U}(\tau _i),`$ (32)
describing positions and velocities at $`\tau _i`$, the instant of interaction with the impulsive wave, have the same values when evaluated in the limits $`U0`$ both from the region in front $`(U>0)`$ and behind the impulse $`(U<0)`$. Starting now with the general initial data (28) in the region $`U<0`$, in which (11), (12) apply, it is straightforward to derive

$`Z_i={\displaystyle \frac{x_0+\text{i}y_0}{\gamma \tau _iz_0}},`$
$`V_i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[(1+ϵ)\gamma \tau _i(1ϵ)z_0],`$
$`\dot{Z}_i={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{x}_0+\text{i}\dot{y}_0}{\gamma \tau _iz_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_0+\text{i}y_0}{(\gamma \tau _iz_0)^2}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{[(1ϵ)\gamma (1+ϵ)\dot{z}_0](\gamma \tau _iz_0)+2ϵ(x_0\dot{x}_0+y_0\dot{y}_0)}{(1+ϵ)\gamma \tau _i(1ϵ)z_0}},`$
$`\dot{V}_i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\{[(1ϵ)\gamma (1+ϵ)\dot{z}_0][(1ϵ)\gamma \tau _i(1+ϵ)z_0]`$
$`+4ϵ(x_0\dot{x}_0+y_0\dot{y}_0)\}[(1+ϵ)\gamma \tau _i(1ϵ)z_0]^1,`$
$`\dot{U}_i=\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{x_0\dot{x}_0+y_0\dot{y}_0+z_0\dot{z}_0\gamma ^2\tau _i}{(1+ϵ)\gamma \tau _i(1ϵ)z_0}}.`$ (33)
Then, using (6) the geodesics outside the impulse in the (local) Minkowski space $`U>0`$ are given by the expressions (21) with

$`𝒱_0^+=AV_i,`$
$`𝒰_0^+=BV_i,`$
$`\eta _0^+=CV_i,`$
$`\dot{𝒱}_0^+=A\dot{V}_iD\dot{U}_i+(A_{,Z}\dot{Z}_i+A_{,\overline{Z}}\dot{\overline{Z}}_i)V_i,`$ (34)
$`\dot{𝒰}_0^+=B\dot{V}_iE\dot{U}_i+(B_{,Z}\dot{Z}_i+B_{,\overline{Z}}\dot{\overline{Z}}_i)V_i,`$
$`\dot{\eta }_0^+=C\dot{V}_iF\dot{U}_i+(C_{,Z}\dot{Z}_i+C_{,\overline{Z}}\dot{\overline{Z}}_i)V_i,`$
in which the coefficients and their derivatives are given by the functions (7), evaluated at $`Z_i`$.

Of course, with the constraint (30) we obtain $`\dot{Z}_i=0`$, $`Z_i=Z_0`$, $`V_i=V_0`$, $`\dot{V}_i=\dot{V}_0`$, $`\dot{U}_i=\dot{U}_0`$, and the above geodesics reduce to the privileged family presented in (29).

## IV Geodesics in spacetimes with a snapping cosmic string

In this section we apply the above general results to an interesting particular class of spacetimes in which the expanding spherical impulsive wave is generated by a snapping cosmic string (identified outside the impulse by a deficit angle). This solution was previously introduced and discussed in a number of works NutPen92 ; GlePul89 ; Bicak90 ; PodGri01a . It can be written as the metric (10) with

$$H(Z)=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\delta (1\frac{1}{2}\delta )}{Z^2},$$
(35)
which is generated by (9) with $`h(Z)=Z^{1\delta }`$. Here $`\delta `$ is a real positive constant, $`\delta <1`$ which characterizes the deficit angle $`2\pi \delta `$ of the snapped string localized outside the impulse along the axis $`\eta =0`$ (see, e.g. NutPen92 ; PodGri00 ). It is straightforward to calculate the coefficients (7) and their derivatives for such a function $`h`$, i.e.,

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{|Z|^\delta }{(1\delta )p}},B={\displaystyle \frac{|Z|^{2\delta }}{(1\delta )p}},C={\displaystyle \frac{Z^{1\delta }|Z|^\delta }{(1\delta )p}},`$
$`D={\displaystyle \frac{|Z|^{\delta 2}}{1\delta }}\left[(\frac{1}{2}\delta )^2+(1\frac{1}{2}\delta )^2ϵ|Z|^2\right],`$
$`E={\displaystyle \frac{|Z|^\delta }{1\delta }}\left[(1\frac{1}{2}\delta )^2+(\frac{1}{2}\delta )^2ϵ|Z|^2\right],`$
$`F={\displaystyle \frac{Z^{1\delta }|Z|^{\delta 2}\frac{1}{2}\delta (1\frac{1}{2}\delta )p}{1\delta }},`$ (36)
$`A_{,Z}={\displaystyle \frac{|Z|^\delta [\frac{1}{2}\delta (1\frac{1}{2}\delta )ϵ|Z|^2]}{(1\delta )p^2Z}},`$
$`B_{,Z}={\displaystyle \frac{|Z|^{2\delta }[(1\frac{1}{2}\delta )\frac{1}{2}\delta ϵ|Z|^2]}{(1\delta )p^2Z}},`$
$`C_{,Z}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Z}}{Z}}\right)^{\delta /2}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\frac{1}{2}\delta )\frac{1}{2}\delta ϵ|Z|^2}{(1\delta )p^2}},`$
$`C_{,\overline{Z}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Z}}{Z}}\right)^{\delta /21}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\delta (1\frac{1}{2}\delta )ϵ|Z|^2}{(1\delta )p^2}}.`$
### IV.1 Privileged geodesics with $`Z=Z_0`$

We first consider the family of geometrically preffered geodesics (24) for which $`Z=Z_0=`$const. It is convenient to use the global axial symmetry of the solution (10), (35) corresponding to a coordinate freedom $`ZZ\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}\varphi )`$, where $`\varphi `$ is a constant. Therefore, without loss of generality we can assume $`Z_0`$ to be a real positive constant, in which case the coefficients (36) reduce to

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{Z_0^\delta }{(1\delta )p}},B={\displaystyle \frac{Z_0^{2\delta }}{(1\delta )p}},C={\displaystyle \frac{Z_0}{(1\delta )p}},`$
$`D={\displaystyle \frac{Z_0^{\delta 2}}{1\delta }}\left[(\frac{1}{2}\delta )^2+(1\frac{1}{2}\delta )^2ϵZ_0^2\right],`$
$`E={\displaystyle \frac{Z_0^\delta }{1\delta }}\left[(1\frac{1}{2}\delta )^2+(\frac{1}{2}\delta )^2ϵZ_0^2\right],`$ (37)
$`F={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\delta (1\frac{1}{2}\delta )p}{(1\delta )Z_0}},`$
where $`p=1+ϵZ_0^2`$. Substituting (37) into (26), we obtain the relations between the parameters $`Z_0`$, $`\dot{U}_0`$, $`\dot{V}_0`$ and $`V_0`$ characterizing the family of geodesics (24) and the initial data outside the spherical impulse (cf. (19)). Obviously, these geodesics all have $`y^+0`$, since $`\dot{y}_0=0=y_0`$ due to vanishing imaginary parts of $`C`$ and $`F`$. The remaining relations (26) yield

$`Z_0^{1\delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z_0}{x_0}}+\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{z_0^2}{x_0^2}}},`$ (38)
$`\dot{U}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{z_0\dot{x}_0x_0\dot{z}_0}{(ED)x_02Fz_0}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_0}{p}}V_0`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1\delta )x_0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_0}{p}}\dot{V}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1\delta )x_0{\displaystyle \frac{(ED)\dot{x}_02F\dot{z}_0}{(ED)x_02Fz_0}}.`$
(Note that “initially static” observers $`\dot{x}_0=0=\dot{z}_0`$ are excluded from the family (24) as this would give $`\dot{U}_0=0=\dot{V}_0`$, i.e., the geodesic is constant.) Finally, substituting (38) into (27) we obtain

$`x_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\delta )x_0,`$
$`y_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`z_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(1\delta )x_0(Z_0Z_0^1),`$
$`t_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(1\delta )x_0(Z_0+Z_0^1),`$
$`\dot{x}_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\delta )x_0{\displaystyle \frac{(ED)\dot{x}_02F\dot{z}_0}{(ED)x_02Fz_0}},`$ (39)
$`\dot{y}_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\dot{z}_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z_0^{}[(ED)\dot{x}_02F\dot{z}_0](1ϵ)(z_0\dot{x}_0x_0\dot{z}_0)}{(ED)x_02Fz_0}},`$
$`\dot{t}_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t_0^{}[(ED)\dot{x}_02F\dot{z}_0](1+ϵ)(z_0\dot{x}_0x_0\dot{z}_0)}{(ED)x_02Fz_0}},`$
where the coefficients $`ED`$ and $`F`$ are

$`(1\delta )(ED)`$ $`=`$ $`(1\frac{1}{2}\delta )^2(Z_0^\delta ϵZ_0^\delta )`$
$`(\frac{1}{2}\delta )^2(Z_0^{\delta 2}ϵZ_0^{2\delta }),`$
$`(1\delta )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}F`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (1\frac{1}{2}\delta )(Z_0^1+ϵZ_0),`$ (40)
and $`Z_0`$ is given by (38).

The above relations explicitly express the effect of an expanding impulsive wave generated by a snapping cosmic string on geodesics (19) of the privileged family (24). These start outside the impulse ($`U>0`$) with the initial data entering the right hand side of (39), and continue inside the spherical impulse in the Minkowski space without the string ($`U<0`$), where the positions and velocities at $`\tau =\tau _i`$ are now given by the left hand side of (39). For $`\delta =0`$ we obtain $`ED=1ϵ`$, $`F=0`$, $`Z_0Z_0^1=2z_0/x_0`$, $`Z_0+Z_0^1=2\gamma \tau _i/x_0`$, so that $`x^{}=x^+`$, $`y^{}=0=y^+`$, $`z^{}=z^+`$, $`t_0^{}=\gamma \tau _i`$, and $`\dot{t}_0^{}=\gamma `$ (to derive the last relation we have used the constraint (30)). Obviously, these are global geodesics in complete Minkowski space without the strings and the impulse.

Let us now investigate in some more detail the effect of the spherical gravitational impulse on free test particles. To describe the “refraction” and the “shift” of geodesic trajectories it is convenient to introduce angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, whose geometrical meaning is indicated in Fig. 1. Recall that for the special family of geodesics (24) we have $`y^{}=0=y^+`$, so that the motion is confinded to $`x,z`$-plane which contains the string (located along the $`z`$-axis). Hence $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ represent the position of the particle at the instant $`\tau _i`$ of interaction with the impulse resp. the direction of its velocity (inclination of the trajectory) in the $`x,z`$-plane.

In the region $`U>0`$ outside the impulsive wave these parameters are defined as

$$\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^+=z_0/x_0,\mathrm{cot}\beta ^+=\dot{z}_0/\dot{x}_0.$$
(41)
Similarly, behind the impulse in the region $`U<0`$ we have

$$\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^{}=z_0^{}/x_0^{},\mathrm{cot}\beta ^{}=\dot{z}_0^{}/\dot{x}_0^{}.$$
(42)
Straightforward calculations using (38) give

$$Z_0^{1\delta }=\mathrm{cot}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^+),$$
(43)
which implies the relation $`\frac{1}{2}(Z_0^{1\delta }Z_0^{\delta 1})=\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^+`$. From (39) and (43) we immediately obtain

$`\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(Z_0Z_0^1)`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{cot}^q(\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^+)\mathrm{cot}^q(\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^+)],`$
where $`q=1/(1\delta )`$. This expression gives the relation $`\alpha ^{}(\alpha ^+)`$ which identifies the points on both sides of the impulse in the natural Minkowskian coordinate systems.

Analogously we derive the following relation for the velocities,

$$\mathrm{cot}\beta ^{}\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^{}=𝒩(\mathrm{cot}\beta ^+\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^+),$$
(45)
where

$$𝒩=𝒩(\alpha ^+,\beta ^+)=\frac{1ϵ}{(1\delta )(ED)(1\delta )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}F\mathrm{cot}\beta ^+}.$$
(46)
This is the refraction formula for trajectories of free test particles which cross the spherical impulse.

Notice that the above considerations also apply to geodesics propagating in the privileged directions $`\beta ^+=0`$ and $`\beta ^+=\frac{\pi }{2}`$. For geodesics parallel to the string, i.e., in the case $`\beta ^+=0`$ (implying $`\dot{x}_0=0`$) the right hand side of (45) has to be replaced by the simple expression $`(ϵ1)/[(1\delta )2F]`$. For trajectories with $`\beta ^+=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ which are perpendicular to the strings ($`\dot{z}_0=0`$), the right hand side simplifies to $`[(ϵ1)\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^+]/[(1\delta )(ED)]`$.

Several interesting observations can immediately be done. For $`\delta =0`$ representing a complete Minkowski space without the impulse and topological defects, one obtains $`\alpha ^{}=\alpha ^+`$, $`𝒩=1`$, and consequently $`\beta ^{}=\beta ^+`$. There is thus no “shift” and “refraction”, as expected.

For a general $`\delta `$, it follows from (45) that if $`\alpha ^+=\beta ^+`$ then $`\alpha ^{}=\beta ^{}`$. This means physically that the radial geodesics (“perpendicular” to the spherical impulse) remain radial also behind the impulse.

Moreover, it can be observed from (46) that the coefficient $`𝒩`$ identically vanishes for spacetimes with the parameter $`ϵ=+1`$. Consequently, $`\alpha ^{}=\beta ^{}`$, which means that the geodesics (24) are refracted by the impulse in such a way that their trajectories become radial. These are thus either exactly focused towards the origin $`x=0=z`$, or defocused directly from it.

The typical behavior of geodesics affected by the impulsive gravitational wave (10), (35), as described by the refraction formula (45), is shown in Fig. 2 for various choices of $`\alpha ^+,\beta ^+`$, and $`ϵ`$. Each test particle follows in the region $`U>0`$ a trajectory with the inclination angle $`\beta ^+`$ until it reaches the spherical impulse at the point represented by $`\alpha ^+`$. The impulse influences the particle in such a way that it emerges in the region $`U<0`$ at the point given by $`\alpha ^{}`$ and continues to move uniformly along the straight trajectory with inclination $`\beta ^{}`$. Note that the lines in Fig. 2 represent just the inclination of the geodesic trajectories, not the speed and orientation of the motion — these will be investgated later on.

From Fig. 2 it becomes obvious that the dependence of $`\beta ^{}`$ on the data $`\alpha ^+`$, $`\beta ^+`$, and the parameter $`ϵ`$ is rather delicate. To shed some light on the details of this dependence we introduce two special “incoming” inclination angles denoted by $`\beta _{}^+(\alpha ^+)`$ and $`\beta _{}^+(\alpha ^+)`$ defined by the property that the corresponding geodesic behind the impulse are parallel ($`\beta ^{}=0`$) resp. perpendicular ($`\beta ^{}=\pm \frac{\pi }{2}`$) to the strings localized along the $`z`$-axis. It follows immediately from (45) that

$`\mathrm{cot}\beta _{}^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ED}{2F}},`$ (47)
$`\mathrm{cot}\beta _{}^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1ϵ)\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^+(1\delta )(ED)\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^{}}{(1ϵ)(1\delta )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}F\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^{}}},`$
where the functions $`D,E,F`$ are given by (40), $`Z_0`$ by (43), and $`\alpha ^{}`$ by (44). The functions (47) are drawn in Fig. 3 for the three types of spacetimes given by $`ϵ=0,1,+1`$, and for a “typical” value of the deficit-angle parameter $`\delta =0.3`$. Both $`\beta _{}^+`$ and $`\beta _{}^+`$ vanish at $`\alpha ^+=0`$. For $`ϵ=0`$ the functions $`\beta _{}^+(\alpha ^+)<\alpha ^+<\beta _{}^+(\alpha ^+)`$ monotonically increase to the values $`\mathrm{cot}\beta _{}^+=(1\delta )/[\delta (1\frac{1}{2}\delta )]`$, $`\beta _{}^+=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ at $`\alpha ^+=\frac{\pi }{2}`$. For $`ϵ=1`$ the relation is $`\beta _{}^+>\beta _{}^+>\alpha ^+`$, and the corresponding values at $`\alpha ^+=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ are $`\beta _{}^+=\pi `$, $`\beta _{}^+=\frac{\pi }{2}`$. In the case $`ϵ=1`$ these two functions coincide for all values of $`\alpha ^+`$, which directly follows from (47). The functions grow to a maximum value and then decrease to $`\beta _{}^+=\beta _{}^+=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ at $`\alpha ^+=\frac{\pi }{2}`$. The graphs presented in Fig. 3 provide a qualitative picture of the character of the trajectories depending on the choice of the initial angles $`\alpha ^+`$, $`\beta ^+`$. Trajectories close to $`\beta _{}^+(\alpha ^+)`$ become “nearly horizontal” behind the impulse, whereas those close to $`\beta _{}^+(\alpha ^+)`$ become “nearly vertical”. Since for $`\beta _{}^+`$ we have $`\dot{x}_0^{}=0`$ whereas $`\beta _{}^+`$ implies $`\dot{z}_0^{}=0`$, it follows that the particles actually stop behind the impulse if we choose $`\beta ^+=\beta _{}^+(=\beta _{}^+)`$ for a given $`\alpha ^+`$ in the impulsive spacetime with $`ϵ=+1`$.

Note, however, that the refraction formula (45) while relating the inclination of the trajectories behind the wave to its initial values does not provide any information on the specific speed and orientation of the motion. Of course, the velocity is proportional to the parameters $`\dot{x}_0,\dot{y}_0,\dot{z}_0`$, which are the derivatives of space coordinates with respect to the affine parameter $`\tau `$, see equation (19). However, for physical interpretation of the motion we need the velocity with respect to the Minkowski frame behind the impulse, which is given by

$$(v_x^{},v_y^{},v_z^{})=(\frac{\dot{x}_0^{}}{\dot{t}_0^{}},\frac{\dot{y}_0^{}}{\dot{t}_0^{}},\frac{\dot{z}_0^{}}{\dot{t}_0^{}}).$$
(48)
From (39) using (41) we obtain

$`v_x^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{G}{\frac{1}{2}(Z_0+Z_0^1)G(1+ϵ)(\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^+\mathrm{cot}\beta ^+)}},`$ (49)
$`v_z^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}(Z_0Z_0^1)G(1ϵ)(\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^+\mathrm{cot}\beta ^+)}{\frac{1}{2}(Z_0+Z_0^1)G(1+ϵ)(\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^+\mathrm{cot}\beta ^+)}},`$
and $`v_y^{}=0`$, where $`G=(1\delta )[(ED)2F\mathrm{cot}\beta ^+]`$. The above expressions determine the velocity of the particle (including its orientation) in the region behind the impulse as a function of the initial parameters $`\alpha ^+`$, $`\beta ^+`$: The particle moves from the point $`\alpha ^{}(\alpha ^+)`$ in the refracted direction $`\beta ^{}(\alpha ^+,\beta ^+)`$ given by (44) (45) in terms of the parameters $`\alpha ^+`$, $`\beta ^+`$ and its velocity is given by (49).

Each geodesic belonging to the family (24) following the trajectory determined by $`\alpha ^+`$, $`\beta ^+`$ has a specific causal character. If the magnitude of the velocity is such that $`v^{}\sqrt{(v_x^{})^2+(v_z^{})^2}<1`$, the geodesic is timelike ($`e=1`$). When $`v^{}=1`$ it is null ($`e=0`$), and for $`v^{}>1`$ it is spacelike ($`e=+1`$). Moreover, we can express the condition for the null geodesics explicitly. Substituting from (49) we obtain a quadratic equation for $`\mathrm{cot}\beta ^+`$ which can be solved. In the range $`\alpha ^+(0,\frac{\pi }{2}]`$ there are always two real roots, namely

$`1.`$ $`\beta _{null}^+=\alpha ^+,`$ (50)
$`2.`$ $`\mathrm{cot}\beta _{null}^+={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^+\frac{1}{2}(Z_0^1+ϵZ_0)(1\delta )(ED)}{ϵ\frac{1}{2}(Z_0^1+ϵZ_0)(1\delta )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}F}}.`$
The first equation in (50) implies that all geodesics of the family (24) which move radially “outside” the impulse are null. In fact, it follows from (38) and (41) that $`\dot{U}_0=0`$, i.e., $`U0`$. These are exactly those null geodesics which generate the spherical impulse itself. Non-trivial null geodesics which cross the impulsive wave are thus given by the second root in (50). Fig. 3 shows the functions $`\beta _{null}^+(\alpha ^+)`$ for the three spacetimes characterized by $`ϵ=0`$, $`ϵ=1`$, and $`ϵ=+1`$ respectively.

For $`ϵ=0`$ it follows immediately from (50) and (47) that $`\beta _{null}^+=\beta _{}^+`$. Therefore, these null geodesics are refracted to rays which are parallel to the strings behind the impulse ($`v_x^{}=0,v_z^{}=1`$). All geodesics with trajectories given by $`\alpha ^+`$, $`\beta ^+`$ such that $`\beta _{}^+<\beta ^+<\alpha ^+`$ are timelike with $`v_x^{}>0,v_z^{}>0`$. All other geodesics are spacelike.

In the case $`ϵ=1`$ it can be shown that the non-trivial root $`\beta _{null}^+`$ in (50) satisfies the relation $`\beta _{}^+>\beta _{null}^+>\beta _{}^+>\alpha ^+`$, as shown in Fig. 3. Again, in the region $`\beta ^+(\alpha ^+,\beta _{null}^+(\alpha ^+))`$ all the geodesics are timelike with $`v_x^{}>0`$. At $`\beta _{}^+`$ the velocity $`v_z^{}`$ changes sign: for $`\beta ^+<\beta _{}^+`$ we have $`v_z^{}>0`$, and for $`\beta ^+>\beta _{}^+`$ we obtain $`v_z^{}<0`$.

Finally, the most interesting case is $`ϵ=+1`$. In this case the graph shown in Fig. 3 is even more delicate. For a particular value $`\alpha _c^+`$ given by the condition $`\mathrm{cot}(\frac{1}{2}\alpha _c^+)=(\mathrm{\Delta }+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^21})^{1\delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=2\delta (1\frac{1}{2}\delta )`$, the denominator on the right hand side of (50) vanishes. Therefore, the value of $`\beta _{null}^+`$ jumps at $`\alpha _c^+`$ from $`\beta _{null}^+(\alpha _c^+)=\pi `$ to $`\beta _{null}^+(\alpha _{c+}^+)=0`$. (Note that $`\alpha _c^+`$ monotonically increases from $`0`$ to $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ as the string parameter $`\delta `$ grows from the value $`0`$ to $`1`$.) Consequently, there are two disconnected regions of timelike geodesics. In the “upper” region ($`\alpha ^+<\beta ^+<\beta _{null}^+`$) lies the line $`\beta _{}^+=\beta _{}^+`$: particles moving along timelike geodesics with the “incoming position” $`\alpha ^+`$ and a suitable “inclination” $`\beta ^+=\beta _{}^+(\alpha ^+)=\beta _{}^+(\alpha ^+)`$ will exactly stop at the point $`x_0^{},z_0^{}`$ in the region behind the impulse ($`v_x^{}=0=v_z^{}`$), see (49). Particles below this boundary ($`\beta ^+<\beta _{}^+=\beta _{}^+`$) move radially outward since $`v_x^{}>0,v_z^{}>0`$. On the other hand, timelike particles with $`\beta ^+>\beta _{}^+=\beta _{}^+`$ for a given $`\alpha ^+`$ have $`v_x^{}<0,v_z^{}<0`$ so that these radially approach the origin. Thus there is an exact focusing effect of the impulse on these timelike geodesics. The same is true for all timelike geodesics in the “lower region” corresponding to initial values $`\alpha ^+`$ close to $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ and small $`\beta ^+`$ (see Fig. 3). The time $`t_f^{}=2x_0(\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^+\mathrm{cot}\beta ^+)/(ED2F\mathrm{cot}\beta ^+)`$ when each individual particle in the spacetime $`ϵ=+1`$ reaches the origin, depends on the particular initial data. These geodesics are explicitly drawn in Fig. 4 with arrows indicating the precise value of the particle velocity behind the impulsive wave. Double arrows correspond to tachyons moving along spacelike geodesics. Notice that for large values of $`\beta ^+`$ and small $`\alpha ^+`$ some of the incoming trajectories (dashed lines) are drawn inside the circle which indicates the impulse. However, this is not a contradiction as the figure represents just a snapshot at a given time. In fact, the corresponding timelike particles move in the outer region $`U>0`$ until they are hit by the expanding impulse (which at previous instants of time is a smaller circle). The tachyons move ”acausally” and thus their motion is neither intuitive nor represents the motion of a test particle; this case is included for the sake of completeness.

All the above results can equivalently be obtained also by the “inverse approach”, i.e., starting with the initial data (28) behind the impulse (in the region $`U<0`$) and evolving these “backward” in time into $`U>0`$. The solution is given by (29) which has to be substituted into (25). Let us demonstrate this method by considering a simple yet important particular example. Consider a geodesic motion of timelike particles which are at rest behind the impulse generated by a snapping cosmic string, $`\dot{x}_0=\dot{y}_0=\dot{z}_0=0`$ (so that $`\gamma =1`$). In other words, we investigate motion of those particles which are exactly stopped by the impulse. Again, we can without loss of generality assume that $`y_0=0`$. Then the constraint (30) implies $`ϵ=+1`$ so that such a situation may occur only in the spacetime with this value of the parameter $`ϵ`$. Relations (29) then immediately yield

$$Z_0=\frac{x_0}{\tau _iz_0},V_0=\sqrt{2}\tau _i,\dot{V}_0=0,\dot{U}_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(51)
The motion of the particles in front of the wave is thus given by (25) with the parameters substituted from (51) and (37). We obtain

$`x_0^++\text{i}y_0^+=2\tau _iC,\dot{x}_0^++\text{i}\dot{y}_0^+=F,`$
$`z_0^+=\tau _i(BA),\dot{z}_0^+=\frac{1}{2}(ED),`$ (52)
$`t_0^+=\tau _i(B+A),\dot{t}_0^+=\frac{1}{2}(E+D).`$
As expected, $`y_0^+=0=\dot{y}_0^+`$ since the coefficients $`C`$ and $`F`$ are real. From the remaining relations we easily derive (using the definitions (47) and the fact that $`ϵ=+1`$)

$`\mathrm{cot}\alpha ^+{\displaystyle \frac{z_0^+}{x_0^+}}={\displaystyle \frac{BA}{2C}}=\frac{1}{2}(Z_0^{1\delta }Z_0^{\delta 1}),`$
$`\mathrm{cot}\beta ^+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{z}_0^+}{\dot{x}_0^+}}={\displaystyle \frac{ED}{2F}}\mathrm{cot}\beta _{}\mathrm{cot}\beta _{}.`$ (53)
Of course, these results are identical to those obtained previously using the “direct” approach. However, now we know explicitly how to choose the initial data $`\alpha ^+`$, $`\beta ^+`$ to put the particle at rest behind the impulse at time $`\tau _i`$ in the specific point $`x_0`$, $`z_0`$. For this, one simply substitutes $`Z_0=x_0/(\tau _iz_0)`$ into (53).

### IV.2 General $`C^1`$-geodesics

Let us recall again that all the geodesics in the spacetime (10) with the impulsive gravitational wave generated by a snapping cosmic string (35) which we have investigated so far, are very special, i.e., $`Z=Z_0=`$const. (cf. (24)). They are geometrically preferred since they are restricted to a single plane (taken above as $`y=0`$) which also contains the snapping string localized along the $`z`$-axis. This fact immediately follows from the constraint (30). Therefore, the corresponding particles move — although not necessarily parallel — “along” the strings. To investigate more general geodesics which “bypass” the strings, we have to relax the condition $`Z=Z_0`$. However, these general geodesics with $`\dot{Z}_00`$ cannot be found easily in the continuous form of the metric (10). Nevertheless, in (32)-(34) we presented an explicit form of general geodesics which was derived under the assumption that these are $`C^1`$ in the continuous coordinate system (10).

As an interesting particular example, which can be investigated using these expressions, let us now consider geodesics in the $`z=0`$ plane only. This is the plane of symmetry perpendicular to the strings. We assume that $`z_0=0=\dot{z}_0`$ in the region $`U<0`$ behind the wave. With this, the relations (33) simplify to

$`Z_i={\displaystyle \frac{x_0+\text{i}y_0}{\gamma \tau _i}},V_i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1+ϵ)\gamma \tau _i,`$
$`\dot{Z}_i={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{x}_0+\text{i}\dot{y}_0}{\gamma \tau _i}}`$
$`(x_0+\text{i}y_0){\displaystyle \frac{(1ϵ)\gamma ^2\tau _i+2ϵ(x_0\dot{x}_0+y_0\dot{y}_0)}{(1+ϵ)(\gamma \tau _i)^3}},`$
$`\dot{V}_i={\displaystyle \frac{(1ϵ)^2\gamma ^2\tau _i+4ϵ(x_0\dot{x}_0+y_0\dot{y}_0)}{\sqrt{2}(1+ϵ)\gamma \tau _i}},`$
$`\dot{U}_i=\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{x_0\dot{x}_0+y_0\dot{y}_0\gamma ^2\tau _i}{(1+ϵ)\gamma \tau _i}},`$ (54)
from which follows that $`|Z_i|=1`$. Therefore the coefficients (36) entering (34) take the following form

$`A=B={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\delta )(1+ϵ)}},C={\displaystyle \frac{Z_i^{1\delta }}{(1\delta )(1+ϵ)}},`$
$`D={\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{1}{2}\delta )^2+ϵ(1\frac{1}{2}\delta )^2}{1\delta }},E={\displaystyle \frac{(1\frac{1}{2}\delta )^2+ϵ(\frac{1}{2}\delta )^2}{1\delta }},`$
$`F={\displaystyle \frac{Z_i^{1\delta }\frac{1}{2}\delta (1\frac{1}{2}\delta )(1+ϵ)}{1\delta }},`$ (55)
$`A_{,Z}={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\delta ϵ(1\frac{1}{2}\delta )}{(1\delta )(1+ϵ)^2Z_i}},B_{,Z}={\displaystyle \frac{(1\frac{1}{2}\delta )ϵ\frac{1}{2}\delta }{(1\delta )(1+ϵ)^2Z_i}},`$
$`C_{,Z}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Z}_i}{Z_i}}\right)^{\delta /2}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\frac{1}{2}\delta )ϵ\frac{1}{2}\delta }{(1\delta )(1+ϵ)^2}},`$
$`C_{,\overline{Z}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Z}_i}{Z_i}}\right)^{\delta /21}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\delta ϵ(1\frac{1}{2}\delta )}{(1\delta )(1+ϵ)^2}}.`$
Substituting (54), (55) into (34) we obtain an explicit solution which describes the behavior in the region $`U>0`$ outside the impulse. In particular, we easily derive that

$`z_0^+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(𝒰_0^+𝒱_0^+)=0,`$
$`\dot{z}_0^+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\dot{𝒰}_0^+\dot{𝒱}_0^+)=0.`$ (56)
Therefore, the geodesics remain in the plane $`z=0`$ also in the outside region, as is expected from the symmetry of the spacetime. Straightforward but somewhat lengthy calculations for $`\eta _0^+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x_0^++\text{i}y_0^+)`$, $`\dot{\eta }_0^+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\dot{x}_0^++\text{i}\dot{y}_0^+)`$ yield

$`x_0^++\text{i}y_0^+={\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma \tau _i)^\delta }{1\delta }}(x_0+\text{i}y_0)^{1\delta },`$ (57)
$`\dot{x}_0^++\text{i}\dot{y}_0^+=\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_0\text{i}y_0}{x_0+\text{i}y_0}}\right)^{\delta /2}`$
$`\times \left[(\dot{x}_0+\text{i}\dot{y}_0)𝒫(x_0+\text{i}y_0)\right],`$ (58)
where

$$𝒫=\frac{\delta }{1\delta }\left(\frac{\frac{1}{2}\delta (x_0\dot{x}_0+y_0\dot{y}_0)}{x_0^2+y_0^2}+\frac{1\frac{1}{2}\delta }{\tau _i}\right),$$
(59)
and $`\tau _i=\sqrt{(x_0^2+y_0^2)/(\dot{x}_0^2+\dot{y}_0^2e)}`$. The equations (57) and (58) describe the identification of points on the impulse, and the refraction formula in the transverse plane $`z=0`$, respectively. These admit a natural geometrical interpretation. If we introduce a “polar” representation of positions and velocities by $`x_0+\text{i}y_0\rho _0\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}\varphi _0)`$, $`\dot{x}_0+\text{i}\dot{y}_0\dot{\rho }_0\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}\dot{\varphi }_0)`$, we can conclude from (57) that $`\varphi _0^+=(1\delta )\varphi _0`$. As the range of $`\varphi _0`$ inside (behind) the spherical impulse spans the whole Minkowski space, $`\varphi _0[0,2\pi )`$, the range of the angular parameter $`\varphi _0^+`$ outside is $`[0,2\pi (1\delta ))`$. Therefore, there is a deficit angle  $`2\pi \delta `$ in front the impulse corresponding to the presence of the (snapped) cosmic string. This is in full agreement with the geometrical construction of the spacetime presented e.g., in PodGri00 . The relation (58) is the refraction formula for geodesics in the symmetry plane $`z=0`$ perpendicular to the strings. Interestingly, here the effect is totally independent of the parameter $`ϵ`$, i.e., the differences between the spacetimes characterized by $`ϵ=0,1,+1`$ disappear in this plane of symmetry. Of course, for $`\delta =0`$ we obtain a trivial solution $`\dot{y}_0^+=\dot{y}_0`$, $`\dot{x}_0^+=\dot{x}_0`$ in the complete Minkowski space without string and impulse. Note also that the factor

$$\left(\frac{x_0\text{i}y_0}{x_0+\text{i}y_0}\right)^{\delta /2}\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}\delta \varphi _0)$$
(60)
in (58) is just an appropriate “rectifying”complex unit factor which ensures the one-to-one correspondence between the identified points on both sides of the impulse (analogously to the function $`\alpha ^{}(\alpha ^+)`$ given by (44) for longitudinal motion). This can be seen easily if we consider two infinitesimally close parallel null geodesics $`y_0=0=\dot{y}_0`$ in the Minkowski region $`U<0`$ without topological defects. The first geodesic is given by $`\varphi _0=0`$, the second one by an angle $`\varphi _0`$ near $`2\pi `$. However, from the formula (58), which reads $`\dot{\rho }_0^+\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}\dot{\varphi }_0^+)=\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}\delta \varphi _0)`$, where $``$ is a real factor, it follows that $`\dot{\varphi }_0^+=\delta \varphi _0`$. Therefore, outside the impulse the two geodesics which remain parallel are described by $`\dot{\varphi }_0^+=0`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }_0^+`$ near to $`2\pi \delta `$, respectively. The difference $`2\pi \delta `$ exactly corresponds to the deficit angle in the (locally) flat space with the string outside the spherical impulse. Therefore, the “pure” physical refraction effect of the impulse on geodesics is described just by the expression in the square bracket on the right hand side of the equation (58).

The above relations can easily be applied to investigate the effect of the impulsive wave on a ring of free test particles. Let us consider a ring in the $`z=0`$ plane, centered around $`x=0=y`$, consisting of particles which are at rest in front of the wave, $`\dot{x}_0^+=0=\dot{y}_0^+`$, in the (locally) flat Minkowski region $`U>0`$. All the particles are simultaneously hit by the impulse at the instant $`\tau _i`$ and the ring starts to deform according to (57), (58). Obviously, it follows from (58) that the velocities of the particles $`\dot{x}_0`$, $`\dot{y}_0`$ behind the impulse ($`U<0`$) are given by

$$\dot{x}_0=𝒫x_0,\dot{y}_0=𝒫y_0,$$
(61)
with $`𝒫`$ given by (59) and $`\tau _i^1=\sqrt{𝒫^2+(x_0^2+y_0^2)^1}`$. This yields a self-consistent solution only if

$$𝒫=\frac{\delta (1\frac{1}{2}\delta )}{(1\delta )\sqrt{x_0^2+y_0^2}}.$$
(62)
Thus, all the particles of the ring move radially towards the origin in the $`z=0`$ plane, with the same velocity $`v\sqrt{\dot{x}_0^2+\dot{y}_0^2}=\delta (1\frac{1}{2}\delta )/(1\delta )`$. The ring is deformed by the impulse into contracting and concentric circles. Of course, this is in accordance with the axial symmetry of the spacetime.

A more general situation in which the impulse deforms a sphere of test particles (around the origin) initially at rest is, however, more difficult to investigate explicitly. We can again employ the coordinate freedom $`ZZ\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}\varphi )`$ related to the axial symmetry of the spacetime which corresponds to a simple rotation of the $`(x,y)`$-planes around the $`z`$-axis. Using (36) and (34) we conclude $`\eta _0^+\eta _0^+\mathrm{exp}[\text{i}(1\delta )\varphi ]`$, $`\dot{\eta }_0^+\dot{\eta }_0^+\mathrm{exp}[\text{i}(1\delta )\varphi ]`$. Therefore, without loss of generality we can always set for each individual test particle $`\eta _0^+`$ to be real, i.e., $`y_0^+=0`$. Moreover, we are considering the motion of test particles which are at rest outside the expanding impulsive wave, $`\dot{\eta }_0^+=0`$, $`\dot{z}_0^+=0`$. From (34), (36) and (33) it then follows that $`Z_i`$ and $`\dot{Z}_i`$ are real so that $`y_0=0=\dot{y}_0`$. The sphere of test particles is thus deformed into an axially symmetric surface which is fully described by the section $`y=0`$.

Setting $`y_0=0=\dot{y}_0`$ in (33) we can now simplify $`\dot{Z}_i`$ to

$`\dot{Z}_i=`$ (63)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{[(1ϵ)\gamma \tau _i(1+ϵ)z_0]\dot{x}_0[(1ϵ)\gamma (1+ϵ)\dot{z}_0]x_0}{(\gamma \tau _iz_0)[(1+ϵ)\gamma \tau _i(1ϵ)z_0]}}.`$
Consequently, for these geodesics $`\dot{Z}_i=0`$ if and only if the constraint (30) is satisfied. In such a case, the geodesics reduce to the privileged family (24) for which $`Z_i=Z_0=`$const. which we investigated in detail above. However, these special geodesics exclude observers which are static in the Minkowski region outside the impulse. Indeed, from the conditions $`\dot{x}_0^+=0=\dot{z}_0^+`$ we obtain using (34) the relation $`(AB)F=(DE)C`$. Substituting from (37) this reduces to $`Z_0^{\delta 1}(\frac{1}{2}\delta pϵZ_0^2)=Z_0^{1\delta }(\frac{1}{2}\delta p1)`$, which has no solution except for observers in the plane $`z=0`$ in spacetime with $`ϵ=+1`$, which we investigated in (61), (62).

Therefore, to obtain a nontrivial family of geodesics corresponding to initially static test particles, one has to consider the more complicated situation in which $`\dot{Z}_i0`$. It is difficult to obtain the description of these geodesics in an explicit form. Nevertheless one can immediately argue that the motion can not be spherically symmetric. For example, for the case $`ϵ=+1`$ we observe from (63) that $`z_0\dot{x}_0x_0\dot{z}_0`$ which, in terms of (42), can be expressed as $`\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}`$. Obviously, the trajectories of such geodesics behind the impulse are not radial, i.e., these do not “point” towards the origin. A sphere of free test particles which are at rest in the Minkowski region outside the expanding impulsive wave is thus not deformed into spherical shapes, but to a more complicated (axially symmetric) surface.

## V Concluding remarks

We presented a complete solution of geodesic motion — although not always in closed explit form — which describes the effect on free particles of expanding spherical impulsive gravitational waves propagating in a flat background. In particular, we discussed in detail the geodesics in the axially symmetric spacetimes with the impulse generated by a snapping cosmic string. The above results can be used not only for physical interpretation of the behavior of free test particles but also as a starting point for a mathematically rigorous distributional treatment of impulsive Robinson–Trautman spacetimes. To be more specific, the geodesics of the special family (24) provide the key to understand the discontinuous transformation relating the distributional and the continuous form or the metric (analogous to the case of impulsive pp-waves; cf. KunSt99 ). These interesting questions will, however, be investigated elsewhere.

###### Acknowledgements.

The present work was supported, in part, by the grant GACR-202/02/0735 of the Czech Republic and grant P-12023MAT of the Austrian Science Found.