text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

As shown by Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos, and Dvali (ADD) a few years ago , the existence of large extra dimensions with only gravity propagating in the bulk, provides an interesting alternative solution to the hierarchy problem. A dramatic consequence of this scenario is that gravity might become strong at the TeV scale, hence making plausible the possibility of detecting quantum gravity effects at future collider experiments .

In the ADD scenario, the Newton’s constant $`G_N`$ in the 3+1 dimensional space is related to the corresponding Planck scale $`M_D`$ in the $`D=4+\delta `$ dimensional space by

$$G_N^1=8\pi R^\delta M_D^{2+\delta }$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the compact manifold assumed to be on a torus. Therefore, the weakness of gravity might be due to the large size of the compactified extra dimensional space. In particular, if $`M_D`$ TeV then deviations from the Newton’s law are expected at distances of order $`R<10^{32/\delta 19}`$ meters . This is compatible with the present experimental sensitivity in gravity tests, which is above the millimeter scale. Then, assuming $`M_D`$ TeV, Eq.(1) implies $`\delta 2`$.

The effective Einstein theory in 3+1 dimension is then obtained by integrating out compact extra dimensions. It describes massive Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of the standard graviton field.*** For a detailed discussion about the effective four-dimensional theory, see . The KK excitations are very narrowly spaced in comparison to the $`M_D`$ scale, and can be often treated as a continuum. Remarkably, in the inclusive production (or virtual exchange) of KK gravitons, the sum over the allowed tower of KK states replaces the suppression factor $`(E/M_P)^2`$ associated to a single graviton production by the quantity $`(E/M_D)^{2+\delta }`$, where $`E`$ is the typical energy of the process, and $`M_P`$ is the Plank mass. Therefore, if $`M_D`$ is of order of TeV, quantum gravity effects may become accessible at future collider experiments.

In the framework of the ADD scenario, two classes of processes have been analyzed in $`e^+e^{}`$ and hadron collisions  : the direct production of KK gravitons, detected as missing energy in the final states, and the virtual KK graviton exchange. In the latter case, the graviton exchange induces local dimension-eight operators (associated with the square of the energy momentum-tensor) that will affect, for instance, the standard four fermion processes. The real part of this kind of contribution is divergent . The divergences can be regularized by introducing an unknown ultraviolet cutoff, therefore loosing the predictivity in terms of the fundamental Plank scale $`M_D`$. Indeed, in the effective Einstein theory in 3+1 dimension, arising by integrating out extra dimensions, divergences can appear even at tree-level after summing over the KK states of the graviton propagator. In the case of virtual graviton exchange, in many analyses the assumption is made that the divergent real part of the amplitude $`𝒜`$ is dominated by the lowest dimensional operator (of dimension eight in the case considered)

$$Re\left[𝒜\right]=\frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_T^4}\left(T_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{\delta +2}T_\mu ^\mu T_\nu ^\nu \right)$$
(2)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the energy-momentum tensor. The new scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_T`$ is an effective cutoff, assumed to be of order of $`M_D`$, introduced to parametrize unknown new physics contributions in the ultraviolet region.

On the other hand, the imaginary part $`Im[𝒜]`$ is finite, being connected to the branch-cut singularity of real graviton emission .

Up to now, phenomenological analyses have considered virtual KK graviton contributions to the standard model (SM) processes in kinematical regions far from the resonances of the SM spectrum. In this case, the leading contribution to the physical process is due to the interference of the amplitude $`Re[𝒜]`$ with the real part of the corresponding SM amplitude, and is suppressed by $`(E/\mathrm{\Lambda }_T)^4`$, where $`E`$ (assumed to be $`E<\mathrm{\Lambda }_T`$) is the typical energy of the process.

On the other hand, when considering SM resonant processes interfering with virtual KK graviton graphs, the corresponding interference is dominated by $`Im[𝒜]`$. Hence, it is finite, and predictable in terms of the fundamental Plank scale $`M_D`$.

In this paper we study an example of the latter class of processes, that is the two-fermion production in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$, in the resonant region of the Z pole. We compute the finite interference of the SM amplitude with the $`e^+e^{}Gf\overline{f}`$ amplitude (where $`G`$ is a KK graviton), and provide a detailed analysis of this new-physics effect in the light of our present knowledge on four-fermion processes at LEP and SLD .

In the next section, we present the analytical and numerical results for the angular distributions and total cross sections for the process $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$ at the Z pole, for both unpolarized and polarized initial beam and final states. We also discuss possible effects on the model-independent determination of the $`Z`$ mass through the $`Z`$ line shape. Section 3 is devoted to our conclusions.

## 2 Virtual-graviton effects on physical observables at the Z pole

We consider the two-fermion production in electron-positron collisions on the $`Z`$ pole

$$e^{}(k_1)e^+(k_2)f(k_3)\overline{f}(k_4)$$
(3)
where $`k_i`$ are the particle momenta.

We want to compute the physical effects of the interference of the resonant $`Z`$ diagram with the amplitude where a virtual KK graviton is exchanged in the $`s`$-channel. We define the Mandelstam variables as $`s=(k_1+k_2)^2`$ $`[M_Z^2]`$, $`t=(k_1k_3)^2`$, $`u=(k_1k_4)^2`$, and neglect all the fermion masses.

The scattering amplitude in the momentum space of the graviton-mediated process is given by a sum over all KK modes

$$𝒜=\frac{1}{\overline{M}_P^2}\underset{n}{}\left\{T_{\mu \nu }\frac{P^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }}{sm_{G_n}^2}T_{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{\delta 1}{\delta +2}\right)\frac{T_\mu ^\mu T_\nu ^\nu }{sm_{S_n}^2}\right\},$$
(4)
where $`\overline{M}_P`$ is the reduced Plank mass ($`\overline{M}_P=M_P/\sqrt{8\pi }`$). The first term in Eq.(4) corresponds to graviton exchange, the second to scalars exchange, with masses $`m_{G_n}`$ and $`m_{S_n}`$, respectively. The $`P^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ is the projector of the graviton propagator, that in the unitary gauge is given by

$$P^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\eta ^{\mu \alpha }\eta ^{\nu \beta }+\eta ^{\mu \beta }\eta ^{\nu \alpha }\right)\frac{1}{3}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\eta ^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{}$$
(5)
where $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric and dots represent the terms proportional to the momentum of the graviton propagator. Since we are using the massless approximation for initial and final states, terms proportional to the trace of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ vanish. Terms in the graviton propagator that are proportional to the graviton momentum $`q_\mu `$ vanish, too, being $`q^\mu T_{\mu \nu }=0`$. Hence, Eq.(4) becomes

$$𝒜=𝒮(s)T_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu },𝒮(s)=\frac{1}{\overline{M}_P^2}\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{sm_{G_n}^2}$$
(6)
The sum above can be easily computed in the continuum approximation for the KK graviton spectrum

$$𝒮(s)=\frac{1}{M_D^{2+\delta }}d^\delta q_T\frac{1}{sq_T^2}=\frac{\pi ^{\frac{\delta }{2}}}{M_D^4}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{\delta }{2})\left(\frac{s}{M_D^2}\right)^{\frac{\delta }{2}1}$$
(7)
where we used $`m_{G_n}^2=q_T^2`$, with $`q_T`$ the graviton momentum orthogonal to the brane. In the interference with the resonant channel at the $`Z`$ pole, only $`Im[𝒮(s)]`$ will contribute, with

$$Im[𝒮(s)]=\frac{\pi }{M_D^{2+\delta }}\frac{S_{\delta 1}}{2}s^{\frac{\delta 2}{2}}$$
(8)
where, for $`\delta =2n`$, $`S_{\delta 1}=2\pi ^n/(n1)!`$ and, for $`\delta =2n+1`$, $`S_{\delta 1}=2\pi ^n/_{k=0}^{n1}(k+\frac{1}{2})`$, with $`n`$ integer. While the real part of $`𝒮`$ (that is not relevant in our case !) is divergent and must be regularized by introducing an external cut off that parametrizes unknown new physics contributions in the ultraviolet region, the imaginary part is finite and predictable, only depending on the D-dimensional Plank scale $`M_D`$ and on the number of extra dimensions $`\delta `$. Indeed, the imaginary part is finite because it corresponds to the branch-cut singularity of real graviton emission.

We now present how the SM cross sections and distributions for the resonant process $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$ (assuming $`f`$ different from both $`e^{}`$ and $`\nu _e`$) are modified after the inclusion of the interference with the virtual-graviton exchange. We will make a tree-level analysis, i.e. we will neglect non-leading effects in the SM amplitude, such as the $`s`$-channel photon exchange, initial-state radiation, and electroweak and strong corrections. Although such corrections will turn out to be in general larger than the virtual-graviton ones, we will assume that the main effect of the virtual-graviton amplitude arises from its interference with the tree-level SM amplitude. We will also neglect terms corresponding to the squared amplitude of the graviton exchange.

One can find how the SM differential distribution $`d\sigma _f/dcos\theta `$ for the process $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$ is modified by interference terms with the graviton exchange, by means of Eq.(6) and Eq.(8). At the $`Z`$ pole (i.e., for $`s=M_Z^2`$), one gets the new contribution

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _f^{\mathrm{New}}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_cG_FS_{\delta 1}}{128\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_Z}{M_D}}\right)^{2+\delta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_Z}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}}\right)\left\{g_A^eg_A^f\left(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)2g_V^eg_V^f\mathrm{cos}^3\theta \right\}`$ (9)
with $`\theta `$ defined by $`t=s(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )/2`$. $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ is the $`Z`$ total width, $`g_V^f=T_3^f2Q_f\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and $`g_A^f=T_3^f`$ are the standard vectorial and axial $`Z`$ couplings (with $`T_3^e=1/2`$), and $`N_c=3`$ for quarks and 1 for leptons.

Correspondingly, the two-fermion cross section at the $`Z`$ pole, is modified as follows

$$\frac{d\sigma _f}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\frac{9\pi }{2M_Z^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{e^+e^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f\overline{f}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}S_f(\mathrm{cos}\theta )$$
(10)
where

$$S_f(x)=1+x^2\mathrm{\Delta }_1\left(13x^2\right)+2A_eA_f\left(x+\mathrm{\Delta }_2x^3\right),$$
(11)
and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f\overline{f}}`$ is the $`Z`$ partial width into $`f\overline{f}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f\overline{f}}=\frac{N_cG_FM_Z^3}{6\pi \sqrt{2}}\left((g_V^f)^2+(g_A^f)^2\right)`$ , and $`A_f=2g_V^fg_A^f/\left((g_V^f)^2+(g_A^f)^2\right)`$. The graviton-interference effects are confined in the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ that are $`f`$-flavour dependent A superscript $`\mathrm{\Delta }^f`$ is understood wherever in the paper., with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1=R_\delta \frac{A_eA_f}{g_V^eg_V^f},\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\frac{R_\delta }{g_A^eg_A^f},$$
(12)
and

$$R_\delta =\frac{\pi S_{\delta 1}}{32\sqrt{2}G_FM_Z^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}{M_Z}\right)\left(\frac{M_Z}{M_D}\right)^{2+\delta }.$$
(13)
In table 1, values of $`R_\delta `$ are shown for $`\delta =2,3,4,5,6`$, and $`M_D`$ in the range (0.5,3.0) TeV. The corresponding values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ for number of extra dimensions $`\delta =2`$, in the three cases of final charged leptons, up-type quarks and down-type quarks, are given in table 2.

Note that the whole dependence on the number of extra dimensions $`\delta `$ and on the D-dimensional Plank scale $`M_D`$ is contained in $`R_\delta `$. Values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ for a larger number of extra dimensions $`\delta =3,4,5,6`$ can be simply computed by multiplying the values in table 2 by the appropriate factors $`R_{3,4,5,6}/R_2`$ obtained from table 1.

A first remarkable result in Eq.(10) is that the contribution of the $`Z`$-graviton interference in the total cross section at the $`Z`$ pole exactly vanishes, after integrating the distributions $`(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )`$ and $`(\mathrm{cos}^3\theta )`$ in Eq.(11) over the full range $`(1,1)`$ of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. Indeed, this result holds in a larger class of processes. We found that the contribution to the total  cross section of the interference of the (non-necessarily resonant) amplitude for the scattering $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$ mediated by spin-1 fields in the $`s`$-channel (either axially or vectorially coupled) with the amplitude mediated by a spin-2 field in the $`s`$-channel always vanishes. We checked that the results on fermion scattering mediated by virtual graviton exchanges in  satisfy this property. Therefore, in the total cross section for the scattering $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$, with $`fe,\nu _e`$, virtual graviton effects are suppressed, being due, at leading order, to the squared amplitude of the graviton-exchange channel.

On the other hand, the non-trivial effect of the graviton interference on angular distributions gives rise to cross-section variations with respect to the SM values, whenever non-uniform angular conditions are applied. For instance, a forward-backward symmetric angular cut along the beams gives rise to a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ dependence of the cross section on the $`Z`$ resonance. An asymmetric cut produces a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ dependence, too.

Accordingly, we present now how the different asymmetries determined at LEP and SLD  are modified by the virtual-graviton interference at the $`Z`$ pole. In particular, we first show how the SM predictions are modified for the forward-backward asymmetries $`A_{FB}^f`$. A non-vanishing effect is also found and shown in the cases of the left-right polarization asymmetries $`A_{LR}^f`$, the left-right forward-backward asymmetries $`A_{LR}^{FB}(f)`$, and the $`\tau `$ polarization asymmetries $`P_\tau (\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$.

For the forward-backward asymmetry $`A_{FB}^f`$, defined as

$$A_{FB}^f=\frac{1}{\sigma _f}\left[_0^1\left(\frac{d\sigma _f}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1^0\left(\frac{d\sigma _f}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)d\mathrm{cos}\theta \right],$$
(14)
we obtain by Eq.(10)

$$A_{FB}^f=\frac{3}{4}A_eA_f\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_2}{2}\right).$$
(15)
Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ in Eq.(11) multiplies a $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$-even term, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ dependence drops in the $`A_{FB}^f`$ definition. The numerical deviation from the $`A_{FB}^f`$ standard-model value can be obtained by Eq.(15) from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ values shown in table 2. For $`\delta 2`$ and $`M_D>1`$ TeV, one gets $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_2|<10^4`$ for any flavour $`f`$. Hence, the virtual-graviton interference gives rise to a deviation in $`A_{FB}^f`$ that is much smaller than its present experimental error (about 1% ) from the LEP experiments.

One could think about a new kind of asymmetry that maximizes the sensitivity to the graviton-$`Z`$ interference. In Eq.(11), the SM distribution in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ has an even part \[$`(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )`$\] and an odd part \[$`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$\] that behave differently from the graviton-interference even part \[$`13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$\] and odd part \[$`\mathrm{cos}^3\theta `$\], respectively. Then, it is possible to define a new angular asymmetry $`A_G^f`$ which vanishes at the tree-level in SM,

$`A_G^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _f}}\left[{\displaystyle _c^{}^0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _f}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right)d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle _1^c^{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _f}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right)d\mathrm{cos}\theta \right]`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _f}}\left[{\displaystyle _0^c^{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _f}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right)d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle _c^{}^1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _f}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right)d\mathrm{cos}\theta \right],`$
where $`c^{}=(1+\sqrt{2})^{1/3}+(1+\sqrt{2})^{1/3}`$ is the (unique) real solution of the equation

$$_0^c^{}(1+x^2)𝑑x_c^{}^1(1+x^2)𝑑x=0,$$
(17)
corresponding to $`\theta ^{}=\mathrm{arccos}c^{}53^0`$. From Eq.(10), one then gets for $`A_G^f`$ a maximal sensitivity to graviton effects

$$A_G^f0.5764\mathrm{\Delta }_1.$$
(18)
Note that, although the $`A_G^f`$ angular asymmetry shows maximal sensitivity to the graviton interference at tree level, the inclusion of angular-dependent electroweak radiative corrections can (at least partly) spoil the goodness of the definition in Eq.(16). We do not go further into this point, and leave it as a suggestion for new analysis of experimental data.

We are now going to consider the cross-section at the $`Z`$ pole, for a longitudinally polarized electron beam. Eq.(10) can be easily generalized to the case of an electron beam with polarization $`\psi _p=P_e\psi `$ (with the projector $`P_e=(1+p_e\gamma _5)/2`$) as follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _f(p_e)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9\pi }{2M_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{e^+e^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f\overline{f}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}}\widehat{S_f}(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,p_e)`$ (19)
$`\widehat{S_f}(x,p_e)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1p_eA_e\right)\left(1+x^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1(p_e)\left(13x^2\right)\right)`$
$`+`$ $`2A_f\left(A_ep_e\right)\left(x+\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2(p_e)x^3\right)`$
where the coefficients $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1(p_e)`$, and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2(p_e)`$, are given by

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1(p_e)`$ $`=`$ $`R_\delta {\displaystyle \frac{A_eA_f}{\left(1p_eA_e\right)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_V^eg_V^f}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_e}{g_A^eg_V^f}}\right),`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2(p_e)`$ $`=`$ $`R_\delta {\displaystyle \frac{A_e}{\left(A_ep_e\right)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_A^eg_A^f}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_e}{g_V^eg_A^f}}\right).`$ (20)
Note that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{1,2}(p_e=0)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2}`$, and $`\widehat{S_f}(x,0)=S_f(x)`$. For instance, for $`M_D=1`$ TeV, $`\delta =2`$, and charged-lepton final states, one has, for $`p_e=1`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1=1.5\times 10^4`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2=7.4\times 10^5`$, while, for $`p_e=1`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1=1.2\times 10^4`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2=6.3\times 10^5`$.

From Eq.(19), using the polarized total cross section $`\sigma _f(p_e)`$ (that, as in the $`\sigma _f`$ case, is graviton-interference independent), one can determine the differential left-right asymmetry, defined as

$$\frac{dA_{LR}^f(p_e)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\frac{1}{\sigma _f(p_e)+\sigma _f(p_e)}\left(\frac{d\sigma _f(p_e)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }\frac{d\sigma _f(p_e)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right).$$
(21)
The result is

$$\frac{dA_{LR}^f(p_e)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\frac{3}{8}p_e\left\{A_e\left(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}\left(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)\right)+2A_f\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}\mathrm{cos}^3\theta \right)\right\},$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}=R_\delta \left(\frac{A_f}{g_A^eg_V^f}\right)=\left(\frac{g_V^e}{g_A^eA_e}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}=R_\delta \left(\frac{A_e}{g_V^eg_A^f}\right)=\left(\frac{g_A^eA_e}{g_V^e}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_2.$$
(23)
Numerical values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ for $`\delta =2`$, and different final states, are reported in table 2. One gets, for $`\delta 2`$ and $`M_D>1`$ TeV, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2}^{}|<10^4`$ for any flavour $`f`$. In the total left-right asymmetry, the $`Z`$-graviton contribution vanishes, and one recovers the SM tree-level value $`A_{LR}^f(p_e)=p_eA_e`$. As discussed previously, the pattern of electroweak radiative corrections could alter these leading-order results in a non-trivial way.

The left-right forward-backward asymmetry, defined as

$$A_{LR}^{FB}(f)=_0^1\left(\frac{dA_{LR}^f(p_e)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1^0\left(\frac{dA_{LR}^f(p_e)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)d\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(24)
has been also measured at SLC. For this observable, we obtain the following modification of the SM value

$$A_{LR}^{FB}(f)=\frac{3}{4}p_eA_f\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}}{2}\right).$$
(25)
Also in this case, the graviton-interference effects are much below the experimental errors . Here, too, one could try to introduce “most sensitive” variables of the kind of $`A_G^f`$ suggested in Eq.(16), hence getting a new asymmetry proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$.

We complete now the list of the asymmetries measured at LEP/SLC, by considering the $`\tau `$ polarization asymmetry, that is defined as

$$P_\tau (\mathrm{cos}\theta )=\frac{d\sigma _\tau ^R(\mathrm{cos}\theta )d\sigma _\tau ^L(\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{d\sigma _\tau ^R(\mathrm{cos}\theta )+d\sigma _\tau ^L(\mathrm{cos}\theta )}$$
(26)
where $`d\sigma _\tau ^R(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ and $`d\sigma _\tau ^L(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ stand for the differential cross sections $`\frac{d\sigma _\tau }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }(p_\tau )`$ for the production of a right-handed ($`p_\tau =1`$) and a left-handed ($`p_\tau =1`$) $`\tau `$-lepton, respectively. The effect of the graviton interference at the $`Z`$ pole gives in this case

$$P_\tau (\mathrm{cos}\theta )=\frac{A_\tau \left(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}\left(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)\right)+2A_e\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}\mathrm{cos}^3\theta \right)}{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{\Delta }_1\left(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)+2A_eA_\tau \left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{cos}^3\theta \right)}$$
(27)
Here, too, the virtual graviton effect is far from being detectable with the present experimental precision .

Finally, we want to discuss the possibility how the $`Z`$-graviton interference affects the model-independent determination of $`M_Z`$ from the $`Z`$ line shape . We showed that the total cross section on the $`Z`$ resonance is not altered at tree level by $`Z`$-graviton interference effects. On the other hand, any cross section measurement is affected by angular cuts that will give rise to finite effects.

The numerical value of the $`Z`$ mass is closely related to the peak position of the $`Z`$ line shape. In the resonant region around the $`Z`$ pole, the differential cross section is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _f}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{9\pi }{2M_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{e^+e^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f\overline{f}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}}\right)F(s)\{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +2A_eA_f\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (28)
$``$ $`G(s)[\mathrm{\Delta }_1(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ^2)2A_eA_f\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{cos}^3\theta ]\},`$
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ defined in Eq.(12). The function $`F(s)`$ is the usual Breit-Wigner resonance shape that is used at LEP to fit the $`Z`$ mass value , while $`G(s)`$ arises from the $`Z`$-graviton interference, and can modify the Breit-Wigner shape

$$F(s)=\frac{s\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}{\left(sM_Z^2\right)^2+M_Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2},G(s)=\left(\frac{s}{M_Z^2}\right)^{\frac{\delta }{2}}.$$
(29)
We are neglecting the contribution of the real part of the graviton mediated amplitude, that is suppressed with respect to its imaginary part by terms of order $`(sM_Z^2)/M_Z^2`$. After integrating over the polar angle the differential cross section in Eq.(28) over the interval $`(c^{},c^{})`$ \[with $`0<c^{}<1`$\], one gets

$`\sigma _f^c^{}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{9\pi }{2M_Z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{e^+e^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f\overline{f}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}}\right)F(s)\left\{I_1I_2\mathrm{\Delta }_1G(s)\right\}`$
$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _c^{}^c^{}}𝑑x\left(1+x^2\right),I_2={\displaystyle _c^{}^c^{}}𝑑x\left(13x^2\right).`$ (30)
The effect of the $`Z`$-graviton interference arises when considering angular cuts $`c^{}<1`$, while, for $`c^{}=1`$, one has $`I_2=0`$, and no effect on the Breit-Wigner shape is observed.

Then, in order to estimate the shift of the value of fitted $`Z`$ mass due to graviton-interference, one has to determine how much the position of the maximum of $`\sigma _f^c^{}(s)`$ is modified by the function $`G(s)`$. To do that, one has to solve the equation $`\frac{d}{ds}\sigma _f^c^{}(s)=0`$. By Eq.(30), this is equivalent to solve the equation

$$F^{}(s)\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1I_2}{I_1}G(s)\right)F(s)G^{}(s)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1I_2}{I_1}=0,$$
(31)
where the primed indices indicate the first derivative with respect to $`s`$. To find the solution of Eq.(31), it is convenient to use perturbation theory in the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. At the first order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, we make the ansatz that the maximum of the graviton-modified distribution is at the $`Z`$ mass value

$$\overline{M}_Z^2=\widehat{M}_Z^2+\delta _{M_Z^2},$$
(32)
where $`\widehat{M}_Z^2`$ is the peak position of the Breit-Wigner distribution $`F(s)`$ \[that is $`F^{}(\widehat{M}_Z^2)=0`$ and $`\widehat{M}_Z^2=M_Z^2\sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2/M_Z^2}`$\], and $`\delta _{M_Z^2}`$ is of order of $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_1)`$. By substituting $`s=\overline{M}_Z^2`$ in Eq.(31), making an expansion in $`\delta _{M_Z^2}`$, and retaining only the first-order terms, one has,

$$\delta _{M_Z^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_1}{4}\left(\frac{I_2}{I_1}\right)\left(1+𝒪(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}{M_Z^2})\right).$$
(33)
The shift in the $`Z`$ peak turns out to be quite small, since, it is not proportional to the squared $`Z`$ mass, but to the squared $`Z`$ width. Keeping only the leading term in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2/M_Z^2`$ expansion, we find that $`M_Z`$ is shifted by the quantity

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_Z=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2\mathrm{\Delta }_1\delta }{8M_Z}\left(\frac{I_2}{I_1}\right).$$
(34)
Of course the shift is critically dependent on the angular cuts entering into the integrals $`I_{1,2}`$. For $`c^{}=1/\sqrt{3}`$, $`\delta =2`$, $`M_D=1`$ TeV, and charged-lepton final states, the $`Z`$-graviton interference shifts the $`Z`$ resonance peak by about –1.4 keV. For up-type and down-type quarks, the shift is about 1.2 keV and –1.0 keV, respectively. The different sign for different final states would partly cancel the effect, that is anyhow much smaller than the present $`M_Z`$ experimental error (2.1 MeV ).

## 3 Conclusions

In scenarios with quantum gravity propagating in large extra dimensions, we computed the effects of the interference of the virtual KK graviton-exchange amplitude with the resonant amplitude on the $`Z`$ pole, on $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$ physical observables. Remarkably, results are finite and predictable in terms of the fundamental $`D`$-dimensional Plank scale $`M_D`$. The corresponding effect on total cross sections at tree-level vanishes, and this result remains valid for $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$ (with $`fe,\nu _e`$) far from the $`Z`$ resonance. On the other hand, non-trivial modifications of the angular distributions give rise to finite effects whenever angular cuts are applied, and $`Z`$-graviton interferences contribute to the forward-backward asymmetries. We also computed initial and final polarization asymmetries. In general, the relative magnitude of the $`Z`$-graviton interference effects on all these observables is of the order $`10^4`$ for number of extra dimensions equal to 2 and $`M_D1`$ TeV, that is 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the present experimental errors. Even a future linear collider operating in the GigaZ mode  (that is expected to improve the errors on many $`Z`$-pole precision measurements by about an order of magnitude) seems not to be sensitive enough to detect such effects.

Finally, we discussed the shift in $`M_Z`$ from the model-independent determination due to the modification of the Breit-Wigner resonant shape. Shifts in $`M_Z`$ are found at most of the order 1 keV. In conclusion, although appealing on theoretical grounds, virtual graviton exchanges do not presently affect $`Z`$-resonance observables at a detectable level.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Gian Giudice and Riccardo Rattazzi for useful discussions. E.G. and A.D. would also like to thank the Physics Department of University of Roma “La Sapienza” for its kind of hospitality during the preparation of this work. A.D. also thanks Academy of Finland (project number 48787) for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Comparing Criteria for Circular Orbits in General Relativity

## Abstract

We study a simple analytic solution to Einstein’s field equations describing a thin spherical shell consisting of collisionless particles in circular orbit. We then apply two independent criteria for the identification of circular orbits, which have recently been used in the numerical construction of binary black hole solutions, and find that both yield equivalent results. Our calculation illustrates these two criteria in a particularly transparent framework and provides further evidence that the deviations found in those numerical binary black hole solutions are not caused by the different criteria for circular orbits.

Binary black holes are among the most promising sources of gravitational radiation for the new generation of gravitational wave detectors LIGO, VIRGO, GEO and TAMA. Motivated by the need of theoretical models for the identification and interpretation of future gravitational wave signals, several researchers have solved the constraint equations of Einstein’s field equations to construct initial data describing binary black holes in quasi-circular orbit c94 ; b00 ; ptc00 ; ggb02 ; b02 ; tbcd02 .

Constructing such initial data requires making several choices, including the decomposition of the initial value problem and the background geometry and topology. Moreover, solving the constraint equations provides the gravitational fields for black holes with arbitrary separation and momenta, and an additional criterion has to be applied to identify circular orbits. It is not surprising that different choices lead to physically different data. While all of these different data may be correct solutions to the constraint equations of general relativity, some may be more relevant astrophysically than others, in that they better represent a binary black hole system as it arises from inspiral from large separation.

The results of Cook c94  and Baumgarte b00  (which we will jointly refer to as CB) and Grandclément, Gourgoulhon and Bonazolla ggb02  (hereafter GGB) differ by about a factor of two in the orbital frequency for the innermost stable circular orbit. This discrepancy raises two questions, namely which results are more relevant astrophysically and which choice in the respective approaches are responsible for the deviations. The better agreement of the GGB results with post-Newtonian results dgg02  suggests that these represent binary black holes in circular orbits more accurately footnote1 . There is also increasing evidence that the differences between CB and GGB are related to the different decompositions of the constraint equations pct02 ; py02 . CB adopt the conformal transverse-traceless decomposition, which allows for an analytic solution of the momentum constraint by80 , while GGB adopt the conformal thin-sandwich decomposition wm95 ; y99 ; c00  (see also py02 ). It has been demonstrated that the two decompositions may lead to physically different data pct02 , and it has also been suggested that the thin-sandwich decomposition together with maximal slicing may provide a more natural framework for constructing quasi-equilibrium solutions c00 .

In this Brief Report we explore the effect of another difference in the approaches of CB and GGB, namely the criterion for locating circular orbits. CB adopt a turning-point method, in which circular orbits are identified with extrema of the binding energy (see eq. (27) below), while GGB identify circular orbits by equating the ADM adm62  and Komar masses k59  (eq. (31)). Since the two mass definitions agree only for stationary spacetimes, this criterion is closely related to imposing a relativistic virial theorem bg94 .

To explore the effect of these different criteria for circular orbits in a particularly simple and transparent framework, we apply them to an analytic solution of Einstein’s equations describing a thin, spherical shell of identical collisionless particles. At every point on the shell the particles move isotropically, but all with the same speed in the plane perpendicular to the radius. In an oscillating shell, each particle moves about the center in a bound orbit. In the Newtonian limit, each orbit is a closed ellipse, and for static shells each orbit is circular (compare ybs01 ). Since each particle follows a geodesic, circular orbits can be identified without ambiguity. These orbits can then be compared with those obtained from the turning-point and mass methods.

In the following we will focus on a moment of time symmetry, when at least momentarily each particle is in a purely tangential orbit $`u^r=0`$ (where $`u^a`$ is the four-velocity). The spherically symmetric line element can then be written as

$$ds^2=\alpha ^2dt^2+\psi ^4(dr^2+r^2(d\theta +\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi )),$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ is the lapse function and $`\psi `$ the conformal factor.

The rest mass $`M_0`$ of the shell can be computed from

$$M_0=\rho _0u^t\sqrt{g}d^3x=4\pi \rho _0W\psi ^6r^2𝑑r,$$
(2)
where $`g`$ is the determinant of the spacetime metric and where we have defined the particles’ Lorentz factor $`W\alpha u^t`$. Since the shell’s co-moving density $`\rho _0`$, which is a sum of the individual particle densities $`\rho _0^A`$, vanishes everywhere except at the radius $`R`$ of the shell, we find

$$\rho _0=\underset{A}{}\rho _0^A=\frac{M_0}{4\pi R^2W\psi ^6}\delta (rR).$$
(3)
The conformal factor $`\psi `$ in (1) can now be found from the Hamiltonian constraint

$$^2\psi =2\pi \psi ^5\rho _N,$$
(4)
and, following GGB, the lapse $`\alpha `$ from the maximal slicing condition

$$^2(\alpha \psi )=2\pi \alpha \psi ^5(\rho _N+2S).$$
(5)
Here $`\rho _N`$ is the density measured by a normal observer $`n^a`$

$$\rho _N=n^an^bT_{ab}=n^an^b\underset{A}{}\rho _0^Au_a^Au_b^A=\rho _0W^2,$$
(6)
(compare djs00 ; st ), and $`S`$ is the trace of the spatial stress

$$S=\gamma ^{ij}T_{ij}=\rho _0\gamma ^{ij}u_iu_j=\rho _0(W^21),$$
(7)
where we have used the normalization condition

$$1=W^2\gamma ^{ij}u_iu_j.$$
(8)
For time symmetry both the momentum density $`j^a=\gamma ^{ab}n^cT_{bc}`$ and the extrinsic curvature vanish, so that a zero shift $`\beta ^i=0`$ identically satisfies the shift equation obtained in the conformal thin-sandwich decomposition.

The Hamiltonian constraint (4) and the maximal slicing condition (5) can readily be solved analytically by matching two vacuum solutions at the shell’s radius $`R`$. Choosing the vacuum solutions such that the interior solution is regular at the center, while the exterior solution is regular at infinity, we find for the conformal factor

$$\psi =\{\begin{array}{cc}1+\frac{W}{2\psi |_{\overline{R}}\overline{R}}\hfill & \text{ for }0\overline{r}<\overline{R}\hfill \\ 1+\frac{W}{2\psi |_{\overline{R}}\overline{r}}\hfill & \text{ for }\overline{r}\overline{R}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
Here and in the following we non-dimensionalize all quantities with respect to $`M_0`$, e.g. $`\overline{r}r/M_0`$. The value of $`\psi |_{\overline{R}}`$ can be found by evaluating the conformal factor at $`\overline{r}=\overline{R}`$, which yields a quadradic equation with the solution

$$\psi |_{\overline{R}}=\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+\frac{W}{2\overline{R}}}.$$
(10)
The sign has been chosen so that $`\psi `$ approaches the gravitational potential $`\varphi _{\mathrm{Newt}}`$ in the Newtonian limit.

In terms of the ADM mass adm62 ; my74

$$\overline{M}_{\mathrm{ADM}}=\frac{1}{2\pi M_0}_{\mathrm{}}D^i\psi d^2S_i=\frac{W}{\psi |_{\overline{R}}},$$
(11)
the exterior conformal factor (9) can be written

$$\psi =1+\frac{\overline{M}_{\mathrm{ADM}}}{2\overline{r}}\text{ for }\overline{r}\overline{R}.$$
(12)
The maximal slicing condition (5) can be solved analogously to the Hamiltonian constraint, yielding

$$\alpha \psi =\{\begin{array}{cc}1\frac{\alpha |_{\overline{R}}(3W^22)}{2W\psi |_{\overline{R}}\overline{R}}\hfill & \text{ for }0\overline{r}<\overline{R}\hfill \\ 1\frac{\alpha |_{\overline{R}}(3W^22)}{2W\psi |_{\overline{R}}\overline{r}}\hfill & \text{ for }\overline{r}\overline{R}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Dividing by $`\psi `$, we find in the exterior

$$\alpha =\frac{\alpha |_{\overline{R}}(3W^22)+2W\psi |_{\overline{R}}\overline{r}}{W^2+2W\psi |_{\overline{R}}\overline{r}}\text{ for }\overline{r}\overline{R}.$$
(14)
Evaluating this expression at $`\overline{r}=\overline{R}`$ determines the coefficient $`\alpha |_{\overline{R}}`$

$$\alpha |_{\overline{R}}=\left(1+\frac{2W^21}{\psi |_{\overline{R}}\overline{R}W}\right)^1.$$
(15)
Following GGB we now compute the Komar mass k59

$$\overline{M}_\mathrm{K}=\frac{1}{4\pi M_0}_{\mathrm{}}D^i\alpha d^2S_i=\frac{\alpha |_{\overline{R}}(3W^22)+W^2}{2W\psi |_{\overline{R}}}.$$
(16)
We note that the Komar mass is a slicing dependent quantity, and that this particular form results from having imposed maximal slicing. In terms of the Komar and ADM masses, the exterior lapse $`\alpha `$ can be written

$$\alpha =\frac{2\overline{r}(2\overline{M}_\mathrm{K}\overline{M}_{\mathrm{ADM}})}{2\overline{r}+\overline{M}_{\mathrm{ADM}}}\text{ for }\overline{r}\overline{R}.$$
(17)
This expression reduces to the lapse as identified from the Schwarzschild metric in isotropic coordinates (see, e.g., exercise 31.7 in mtw73 ) only if the two masses agree, $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{K}=\overline{M}_{\mathrm{ADM}}`$ (compare criterion (31) below).

So far, the shell’s radius $`\overline{R}`$ and Lorentz factor $`W`$ appear independently in the above equations. It is intuitively clear that searching for circular orbits will yield a relation between the particles’ angular velocity and the gravitational field, and hence between $`\overline{R}`$ and $`W`$. Since our model consists of collisionless particles, circular orbits can be determined directly by solving the geodesic equations. Since all particles are identical, it is sufficient to evaluate the equation of motion for one particle, which we take to orbit in the equatorial plane. We therefore have $`u^\theta =u^r=0`$, so that the normalization condition (8) yields a relation between $`u^\varphi `$ and $`W`$

$$(u^\varphi )^2=\frac{W^21}{\psi ^4|_RR^2},$$
(18)
where we temporarily drop the bar notation. We now evaluate the geodesic equation,

$$\frac{du^a}{d\lambda }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^au^bu^c=0,$$
(19)
for $`a=r`$ to find a condition for the particles to remain in a purely tangential orbit ($`du^r/d\lambda =0`$)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tt}^r(u^t)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi \varphi }^r(u^\varphi )^2=0.$$
(20)
Combining this with (18) and $`W=\alpha u^t`$ gives

$$W^2=\left(1+\frac{\psi ^4|_RR^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tt}^r}{\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi \varphi }^r}\right)^1.$$
(21)
When evaluating the Christoffel symbols, we must take into account the discontinuity in the first derivative of the metric coefficients at $`r=R`$. By averaging such a quantity over an extended shell and letting the thickness of the shell go to zero, we find that the derivative has to be replaced with

$$\psi _{,r}\frac{1}{2}(\psi _{,r}|_++\psi _{,r}|_{})=\frac{1}{2}\psi _{,r}|_+.$$
(22)
Using this rule for both $`\psi `$ and $`\alpha `$ we find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi \varphi }^r=\frac{M_{\mathrm{ADM}}}{2}\left(1+\frac{M_{\mathrm{ADM}}}{2R}\right)^1R$$
(23)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tt}^r=\frac{M_\mathrm{K}}{2R^2}\left(1+\frac{M_{\mathrm{ADM}}}{2R}\right)^6\left(1\frac{M_\mathrm{K}}{R+M_{\mathrm{ADM}}/2}\right)$$
(24)
at $`r=R`$. Inserting these into eq. (21) yields

$$W^2=\left(1\frac{M_\mathrm{K}}{2R2M_\mathrm{K}+M_{\mathrm{ADM}}}\right)^1.$$
(25)
After some algebraic manipulation and dividing out the unphysical root $`W=0`$, eq. (25) can be expanded into

$$4W^56\overline{R}W^44W^3+10\overline{R}W^2+W4\overline{R}=0,$$
(26)
where we have reintroduced the bar notation. This is the condition relating $`W`$ and $`\overline{R}`$ for circular orbits. It is easy to show that this equation reduces to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2=\overline{R}^3/2`$ in the Newtonian limit (with $`\overline{R}1`$, $`v1`$ and $`W1+v^2/2=1+\overline{R}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2/2`$).

For black holes, alternative criteria have to be used to identify circular orbits. In the following we will compare the turning-point method adopted by CB and the mass criterion adopted by GGB.

In the turning-point method, a circular orbit is identified by finding an extremum of the ADM mass (or equivalently the binding energy) at constant angular momentum $`\overline{u}_\varphi `$

$$\frac{d\overline{M}_{\mathrm{ADM}}}{d\overline{R}}|_{\overline{u}_\varphi }=0.$$
(27)
In a Newtonian context, this condition arises naturally from Hamilton’s equations of motion. We start by differentiating the normalization condition, $`(\overline{u}_\varphi )^2=\psi ^4|_{\overline{R}}M_0^2\overline{R}^2(W^21)`$, with respect to $`\overline{R}`$ to find

$$\frac{dW}{d\overline{R}}=\frac{(W^21)(1+b)}{\overline{R}W(1+b)+4W^22}$$
(28)
for sequences of constant angular momentum, where for convenience we have abbreviated $`b=(1+2W/\overline{R})^{1/2}`$. We now locate an extremum of the ADM mass (11) by setting its derivative with respect to $`\overline{R}`$ equal to zero

$$\frac{dW}{d\overline{R}}\left(\frac{W}{\overline{R}b(1+b)}1\right)=\frac{W^2}{\overline{R}^2b(1+b)}.$$
(29)
Combining (28) and (29) then yields the condition

$$W^2=\frac{\overline{R}(W^21)(1+b)(W\overline{R}b(1+b))}{\overline{R}W(1+b)+4W^22}.$$
(30)
Inserting $`b`$ and eliminating the unphysical root $`W=\overline{R}/2`$, eq. (30) can be expanded identically into eq. (26).

In the mass method of GGB, the condition for circular orbits is obtained by equating the ADM and Komar mass (as obtained from maximal slicing)

$$\overline{M}_{\mathrm{ADM}}=\overline{M}_\mathrm{K}.$$
(31)
Inserting (11) and (16) yields, after some manipulation and elimination of the unphysical root $`W=0`$, again the condition (26). Thus we have established that both criteria yield the correct condition for circular orbits in our model problem.

Since (31) only holds for stationary spacetimes, this criterion is closely related to a relativistic virial theorem. This relation is also evident from the expansions of the ADM and Komar masses to first order in $`ϵ1/\overline{R}v^2`$,

$$\overline{M}_{\mathrm{ADM}}1\frac{1}{2\overline{R}}+\frac{1}{2}v^2=1+\overline{U}+\overline{T}$$
(32)
and

$$\overline{M}_\mathrm{K}1\frac{1}{\overline{R}}+\frac{3}{2}v^2=1+2\overline{U}+3\overline{T},$$
(33)
where $`U`$ and $`T`$ are the Newtonian potential and kinetic energies of the spherical shell. The two expansions (32) and (33) are equal only if the Newtonian virial theorem $`T=U/2`$ holds.

For completeness, we evaluate the relativistic virial theorem in spherical symmetry as derived by bg94

$$\left(4\pi S\frac{1}{\psi ^4}\left(\left(\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\alpha }{dr}\right)^2\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\psi ^2}{dr}\right)^2\right)\right)\psi ^6r^2𝑑r=0.$$
(34)
Computing the above integral in terms of the Komar and ADM masses yields

$$\frac{(W^21)}{W}\frac{2\overline{M}_\mathrm{K}^2}{\overline{M}_{\mathrm{ADM}}2\overline{M}_\mathrm{K}+2\overline{R}}+\frac{\overline{M}_{\mathrm{ADM}}^2}{2\overline{R}}=0,$$
(35)
which can again be brought into the form (26).

We now briefly discuss the physical implications of the condition (26). Solving for $`\overline{R}`$ we find

$$\overline{R}=\frac{4W^54W^3+W}{6W^410W^2+4}.$$
(36)
To find a minimum value for the radius of our shell, we extremize the above equation with respect to $`W`$, which yields

$$(2W^21)(6W^621W^4+15W^22)=0.$$
(37)
The only physical root (i.e. $`W`$ real and $`W1`$) is $`W=1.607`$, corresponding to $`\overline{R}_{\mathrm{min}}=1.532`$. Expressing this in terms of $`M_{\mathrm{ADM}}`$ and circumferential radius $`R_\mathrm{C}`$ we find

$$\left(\frac{R_\mathrm{C}}{M_{\mathrm{ADM}}}\right)_{\mathrm{min}}=2.506\text{ (equilibrium)}.$$
(38)
This value should be compared with the Buchdahl limit $`(R_\mathrm{C}/M_{\mathrm{ADM}})_{\mathrm{min}}=9/4=2.25`$ b59  for static fluid balls and $`(R_\mathrm{C}/M_{\mathrm{ADM}})_{\mathrm{min}}=3`$ mtw73  for test particles in circular orbit in Schwarzschild spacetimes.

Requiring the particles’ orbits to be stable leads to a more stringent limit on the compaction, which we find by requiring the second derivative of $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{ADM}}`$ with respect to $`\overline{R}`$ to vanish in addition to (27). This yields an equation for $`W`$ with the physical root $`W=1.108`$ corresponding to $`\overline{R}_{\mathrm{min}}=3.053`$, or

$$\left(\frac{R_\mathrm{C}}{M_{\mathrm{ADM}}}\right)_{\mathrm{min}}=4.265\text{ (stability)},$$
(39)
which should be compared with the innermost stable circular orbit $`(R_\mathrm{C}/M_{\mathrm{ADM}})_{\mathrm{min}}=6`$ of test particles in Schwarzschild spacetimes.

To summarize, we construct an analytic solution to Einstein’s field equations describing a thin spherical shell consisting of collisionless particles in circular orbits. We apply the turning-point criterion (27) used by CB and the mass criterion (31) used by GGB and find that both conditions correctly identify circular orbits. The later criterion is intimately related to adopting maximal slicing, which is a natural choice for constructing quasi-equilibrium spacetimes (compare c00 ). Our calculation illustrates these two criteria in the context of a very transparent, analytical framework and provides further evidence that the differences between the findings of CB and GGB result from the different initial value decompositions.

###### Acknowledgements.

MLS gratefully acknowledges support through the Surdna Foundation Undergraduate Research Fellowship Program. We would also like to thank R. H. Price and K. S. Thorne for useful conversations, as well as the Visitors Program in Numerical Relativity at Caltech, where this project was initiated, for extending their hospitality. This work was supported in part by NSF Grant PHY 01-39907 to Bowdoin College.