format: text

text:
# IFIC/02-05 The Euler-Kockel-Heisenberg Lagrangian at Finite Temperature

## I Introduction

The investigation of the finite temperature effects in Effective Quantum Electrodynamics dates back the pioneering paper by W. Dittrich . Motivated by the works of Weinberg  and others , who investigated finite temperature effects in a variety of models in quantum field theory, Dittrich performed a detailed analysis of the finite temperature effects on the spinor and scalar QED in the presence of a constant magnetic field. In particular, he examined the Euler-Heisenberg effective Lagrangian  at finite temperature in the context of the elegant Fock-Schwinger proper-time method .

Almost ten years ago, Loewe and Rojas  extended Dittrich’s work in the sense that they considered a general constant electromagnetic field. They found an effective thermal Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian from which the effective thermal coupling constant and an effective thermal mass for the photon were identified. While Dittrich made use of the so-called imaginary time formalism  in order to implement temperature effects, Loewe and Rojas employed the real-time formalism known as Thermo Field Dynamics (TFD) . They argued that, despite the complication with doubling the number of fields, TFD allowed them to have a clear factorization of the interesting thermal effects. Along the same line, there are also the works by Elmfors et al , in which the problem of charged fermions in a (weak) constant magnetic field is investigated. They found that, in the high temperature limit, a logarithmic temperature dependence to the effective Lagrangian density is in agreement with .

In another important work on the issue of nonlinear electromagnetic interactions at finite temperature, Brandt et al  considered the analytically continued imaginary-time thermal perturbation theory , showing on quite general grounds that, for high temperatures, the electron-positron box diagram contribution to the effective action has a finite nonzero limit. In addition, from arguments of Lorentz invariance, they also addressed the absence of the logarithmic temperature dependence in the nonrelativistic static case as well as in the long wavelenght limit.

From this scenario, there remain many questions concerning the behaviour of the Effective QED in the (low and high) temperature limit and, therefore, further investigations must be done in order to elucidate some aparent contraditory results found in the literature.

With this in mind, the purpose of this paper is two fold: the first is to bring new light to the problem of high temperature effective spinor and scalar QED using an alternative approach based on TFD; the second, is to show the versatility of the (physicaly intuitive) zero-point energy method due to Weisskopf  which recently, has been improved from a mathematical standpoint in a paper by one of the authors . In , the (zero-temperature) Euler-Kockel-Heisenberg (E-K-H) Lagrangian was rederived for QED (spinor and scalar) and QED3 following the approach due to Berestetskii, Lifshitz and Pitaeviski  (which is inspired by Weisskopf ideas), employing Pauli-Villars-Rayski regularization prescrition  in order to keeping track of divergent sums and momentum integrals.

Thus, following , we study, in the next section, the problem of charge renormalization and the high temperature contribuction is extracted from the thermal correction for the Lagrangian density. In section III, a similar calculation is done in the case of scalar QED and a closed expression for the high temperature E-K-H effective Lagrangian density is obtained. Finally, in section IV, we make some concluding remarks.

## II The E-K-H Lagrangian at Finite Temperature

The Dirac Hamiltonian for the electron-positron field in the presence of a constant and homogeneous electromagnetic field is written in Fock space as

$$=\underset{𝐩,\sigma }{}ϵ_{𝐩\sigma }(a_{𝐩\sigma }^{}a_{𝐩\sigma }+b_{𝐩\sigma }^{}b_{𝐩\sigma })+\epsilon _0.$$
(1)
where

$$\epsilon _0=0||0=\underset{𝐩,\sigma }{}ϵ_{𝐩\sigma }^{()},$$
(2)
is the vacuum zero-point energy and $`ϵ_{𝐩\sigma }^{()}`$ is the energy density related to the negative frequency solution of Dirac equation in the presence of the electromagnetic field.

Following , the E-K-H effective Lagrangian density of the electromagnetic field, which accounts for the non-linear vacuum polarization effects is given by

$$\delta =_{ren}_0=[\epsilon _0(\epsilon _0)_{E=H=0}],$$
(3)
where $`_0`$ and $`_{ren}`$ are, respectively, the original and renormalized Lagrangian densities for the applied external electromagnetic field.

In order to study temperature effects in the E-K-H theory we make use of the so-called Thermo Field Dynamics (TFD). In TFD, temperature is introduced through a Bogoliubov transformation in the vacuum state of the system. In the present case, for each mode $`(𝐩,\sigma )`$, the vacuum state of the electron-positron field in the external field transforms as

$$|0|0_\beta =(1+\mathrm{e}^{\beta ϵ})^{1/2}\{|0_a|0_b+\mathrm{e}^{\beta ϵ/2}a^{}\stackrel{~}{a}|0_ab^{}\stackrel{~}{b}|0_b\}.$$
(4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ are annihilation operators of auxiliary fields which act on their corresponding vacuum sectors  and $`\beta =(1/kT)`$ ($`k`$ is the Boltzmann constant and $`T`$ the temperature).

Considering the case where only a magnetic field is present, the natural thermal generalization of (2) is

$`0||0_\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _0^\beta ={\displaystyle \underset{𝐩\sigma }{}}\epsilon _{𝐩\sigma }\{0|a^{}a|0_\beta +0|b^{}b|0_\beta 0|1|0_\beta \}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩\sigma }{}}ϵ_{𝐩\sigma }\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{e}^{\beta ϵ_{𝐩\sigma }}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{e}^{\beta ϵ_{𝐩\sigma }}}}\right\}`$ (6)
where

$$ϵ_{𝐩,\sigma }^{()}=\sqrt{m^2+(2n+1\sigma )|e|H+p_z^2}$$
(7)
is the energy levels of an electron with charge $`|e|`$ in a constant and uniform magnetic field $`H_z=H`$. In (6) $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`\sigma =\pm 1`$. For $`T0`$ the correct zero temperature result, expression (2), is recovered.

It must be stressed that the above expression for the thermal zero-point energy was obtained from the TFD vacuum state (4), which, by construction, accounts for the interaction between the fermion field and a thermal reservoir. Hence, in constrast with the functional action approach, there is no physical reason to consider separately the zero temperature contribution (say the the E-K-H Lagrangian). In fact, this kind of factorization emerges in a natural way in the Weisskopf’s formalism extended to finite temperature theories.

Considering the density of momentum states

$$\frac{|e|H}{2\pi }\frac{dp_z}{2\pi },$$
(8)
the sum over the $`z`$-component of the electron momenta in (5) goes to the continuum and the negative vacuum zero-point energy turns out to be

$$\epsilon _0^\beta =\frac{|e|H}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{n\sigma }{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑pϵ_{n\sigma }\left\{\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{e}^{\beta ϵ_{n\sigma }}}\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{e}^{\beta ϵ_{n\sigma }}}\right\}$$
(9)
where we have already changed the notation $`p_zp`$. It is convenient to rewrite (8) as

$$\epsilon _0^\beta =\frac{|e|H}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{n\sigma }{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑pϵ_{n\sigma }\left\{\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta ϵ_{n\sigma })}{1+\mathrm{cosh}((\beta ϵ_{n\sigma })}\right\}.$$
(10)
Despite the complication in solving the above divergent momentum integral one can investigate its high temperature limit in order to obtain an asymptotic expression for the thermal zero-point energy. Taking $`\beta 0`$ in (9) we find

$$\epsilon _0^{\beta 0}=\frac{|e|H}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{n\sigma }{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑pϵ_{n\sigma }\left\{\frac{6\beta (\alpha _{n\sigma }+p^2)^{1/2}}{12+\beta ^2(\alpha _{n\sigma }+p^2)}\right\}$$
(11)
where we have introduced $`\alpha _{n,\sigma }`$ through

$$ϵ_{n\sigma }^2=m^2+(2n+1\sigma )|e|H+p^2=\alpha _{n\sigma }+p^2.$$
(12)
Now, in order to keep under control the divergence in (10), we make use the gamma function integral representation, namely

$$\frac{1}{A^{1+\delta }}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\delta )}_{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\eta \eta ^\delta \mathrm{e}^{A\eta },$$
(13)
valid for $`\delta >1`$, which allow us to make an analytical regularization  through the choice of an appropriated $`\delta `$ value. Hence, it follows that

$$\epsilon _0^{\beta 0}=\frac{|e|H}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\delta )}\underset{n\sigma }{}_{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\eta \eta ^\delta \mathrm{e}^{(12+\beta ^2\alpha _{n\sigma })\eta }\left\{6\sqrt{\pi }\alpha _{n\sigma }\eta ^{1/2}3\eta ^1\frac{}{\beta }\left(\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\beta ^2\eta }}\right)\right\},$$
(14)
where the gaussian integration over $`p`$ has already been performed. Calculating the $`\beta `$ derivative in the last term of (13) and making use of the identity

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n\sigma }{}}\mathrm{e}^{\beta ^2\alpha _{n\sigma }\eta }=\mathrm{e}^{\beta ^2m^2\eta }\left(1+2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{e}^{\beta ^2(2|e|Hn)\eta }\right)=\mathrm{e}^{\beta ^2m^2\eta }\mathrm{coth}(\beta ^2|e|H\eta ),`$ (15)
we rewrite (13) as

$$\epsilon _0^{\beta 0}=A+B+C$$
(16)
where

$$A=\frac{|e|H}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{6\sqrt{\pi }m^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\delta )}_{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\eta \eta ^{3/2+1+\delta }\mathrm{e}^{(12+\beta ^2m^2)\eta }\mathrm{coth}(\beta ^2|e|H\eta ),$$
(17)
$$B=\frac{|e|H}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{6\sqrt{\pi }|e|H}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\delta )}_{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\eta \eta ^{3/2+1+\delta }\mathrm{e}^{(12+\beta ^2m^2)\eta }\mathrm{csch}^2(\beta ^2|e|H\eta )$$
(18)
and

$$C=\frac{|e|H}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{3\sqrt{\pi }}{\beta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\delta )}_{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\eta \eta ^{3/2+\delta }\mathrm{e}^{(12+\beta ^2m^2)\eta }\mathrm{coth}(\beta ^2|e|H\eta ).$$
(19)
The above integrals are finite objects and therefore the integrands in (16)-(18) can be expanded in power series for $`\beta m<<1`$, within convergence domain which corresponds to the analytic continuation $`\delta >1`$. In order to recover the original theory we take the limit $`\delta 0`$, after performing the $`\eta `$-integration. As a result we obtain, up to $`|e|^4`$,

$$A\frac{3\sqrt{12}m^2}{\pi \beta ^2}\left(1+\frac{1}{24}\beta ^2m^2\right)\frac{|e|^2H^2}{4(12)^{3/2}\pi }m^2\beta ^2\left(1\frac{3}{24}\beta ^2m^2\right)+\frac{|e|^4H^4}{12(12)^{7/2}\pi }m^2\beta ^6,$$
(20)
$$B\frac{2(12)^{3/2}}{\pi }\frac{1}{\beta ^4}\left(1+\frac{3}{24}\beta ^2m^2\right)+\frac{|e|^2H^2}{2\sqrt{12}\pi }\left(1\frac{1}{24}\beta ^2m^2\right)\frac{3|e|^4H^4\beta ^4}{40(12)^{5/2}\pi }\left(1\frac{5}{24}\beta ^2m^2\right),$$
(21)
and

$$C\frac{(12)^{3/2}}{\pi }\frac{1}{\beta ^4}\left(1+\frac{3}{24}\beta ^2m^2\right)+\frac{|e|^2H^2}{4\sqrt{12}\pi }\left(1\frac{1}{24}\beta ^2m^2\right)\frac{|e|^4H^4\beta ^4}{80(12)^{5/2}\pi }\left(1\frac{5}{24}\beta ^2m^2\right),$$
(22)
so that (3) can be written as

$`\delta ^{\beta 0}`$ $`=`$ $`_{ren}^{\beta 0}_0=[\epsilon _0^{\beta 0}(\epsilon _0)_{H=0}^{\beta 0}]`$ (23)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|e|^2H^2}{8\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{6}{\sqrt{12}}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{(12)^{3/2}}}m^2\beta ^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{|e|^4H^4}{\pi }}\left(\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{m^2\beta ^6}{(12)^{7/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{7\beta ^4}{80(12)^{5/2}}}\right)`$ (24)
and, therefore,

$`_{ren}^{\beta 0}`$ $`=`$ $`_0+\delta ^{\beta 0}`$ (25)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|e|^2H^2}{8\pi }}\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{6}{\sqrt{12}}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{(12)^{3/2}}}m^2\beta ^2\right)\right]`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H^2e_{ren}^2}{8\pi }},`$ (27)
where terms up to $`\beta ^2`$ have been discarded and the renormalized charge is given by

$$ee_{ren}^{\beta 0}=e\left[1+\left(\frac{6}{\sqrt{12}}\frac{5}{(12)^{3/2}}m^2\beta ^2\right)\right]^{1/2}.$$
(28)
## III Scalar QED

When spin effects become negligible, spinor QED reduces to scalar QED and a quite different theory then arise. In s-QED, the Hamiltonian for the charged boson field in the presence of an external electromagnetic field turns out to be

$$=\underset{𝐩}{}ϵ_𝐩(a_𝐩^{}a_𝐩+b_𝐩^{}b_𝐩)\epsilon _0.$$
(29)
where

$$\epsilon _0=0||0=\underset{𝐩}{}ϵ_𝐩^{()}\dot{=}\underset{𝐩}{}ϵ_𝐩.$$
(30)
Using the corresponding TFD-vacuum state for each mode of the boson field

$$|0|0_\beta =(1+\mathrm{e}^{\beta ϵ})^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta ϵ}{2}(a^{}\stackrel{~}{a}^{}b^{}\stackrel{~}{b}^{})\right\}|0_a|0_b$$
(31)
and, again, considering the case where there is just a magnetic field, (26) becomes

$$\epsilon _0^\beta =0||0_\beta =\underset{𝐩}{}ϵ_𝐩\left\{\frac{2+\mathrm{e}^{\beta ϵ_𝐩}}{1\mathrm{e}^{\beta ϵ_𝐩}}\right\}$$
(32)
where,

$$ϵ_𝐩=\sqrt{m^2+2n|e|H+p^2}$$
(33)
is the free spin degeneracy energy levels of the boson field with charge $`|e|`$, in a constant and uniform magnetic field $`H_z=H`$. Considering the corresponding density of momentum states, we have

$$\epsilon _0^\beta =\frac{|e|H}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑pϵ_n\left\{\frac{2+\mathrm{e}^{\beta ϵ_n}}{1\mathrm{e}^{\beta ϵ_n}}\right\}.$$
(34)
As in the fermion case, the above integral is difficult to be solved analytically. Again, we are interested in its asymptotic behavior. At first, we take the low temperature limit. In this limit, it is easy to see that expression (30) leads to the expected zero temperature result. On the other hand, for $`T\mathrm{}`$ one can determine a priori, the high temperature effective Lagrangian density defined in (3), i.e.,

$`\epsilon _0^{\beta 0}={\displaystyle \frac{|e|H}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}ϵ_n{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ϵ_n^2}{2}}\right\}`$ (35)
where terms up to second order in $`\beta `$ were neglected.

The above momentum integral presents different degrees of divergences at the ultraviolet, which are more severe than in the spinor case, damanding a consistent subtraction scheme. In order to extract finite results for the high temperature zero-point energy, we employ Pauli-Villars-Rayski regularization prescription . Following , where the motivation behind the use of such regularization scheme is discussed in detail, we substitute (31) by its regularized expression

$$(\epsilon _0^R)^{\beta 0}=\underset{i}{}c_i(\epsilon _{0,i})^{\beta 0},$$
(36)
where

$$(\epsilon _{0,i})^{\beta 0}=\frac{|e|H}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p\left\{\frac{1}{\beta }ϵ_{n,i}\frac{\beta ϵ_{n,i}^2}{2}\right\}.$$
(37)
The linear, quadratic, cubic and logarithmic divergence appearing in (31) might be eliminated by imposing on the coefficients $`c_i`$’s the following conditions

$$\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}c_i=0,\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}c_im_i^2=0.$$
(38)
In (34), $`N`$ is the total number of regulators and the coefficients are such that $`c_0=1`$ and $`m_0=m`$ is the bare mass of the boson field.

From this scenario, the regularized high temperature effective Lagrangian density $`\delta ^R`$ is constructed following the same steps done in the last section. However, despite the first term in (31) which do not contribute to $`\delta ^R`$ in virtue of the first condition in (34), the remaining two terms may be handled with the help of (12), keeping under control spurious finite terms that violates the invariance of the theory under reflections $`HH`$. This kind of odd-parity terms, which also appear in the zero-temperature theory, are subtracted by the addition of finite conterterms with opposite sign. As a final result we obtain

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^\eta }{\eta ^3}}\left\{\eta b\mathrm{coth}(\eta b)+1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}b^2\eta ^2\right\}`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^5\beta \sqrt{\pi }}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^\eta }{\eta ^{7/2}}}\left\{\eta b\mathrm{coth}(\eta b)+1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}b^2\eta ^2\right\},`$ (40)
where $`b=|e|H/m^2`$, and a charge renormalization has been performed with the help of conditions (34).

## IV Concluding Remarks

In this paper we applied the formalism of Thermo Field Dynamics in order to study temperature effects in the scope of spinor and scalar effective QED. Improving Weisskopf’s zero-point energy method we constructed a high temperature E-K-H Lagrangian density addressing the problem of charge renormalization at high temperature.

In the spinor case, we found that the renormalized coupling constant, expression (24), reaches a maximum slightly above its unrenormalized value as $`\beta `$ approaches zero. This result is in complete agreement with that of Brandt et al  in the sense that at high temperatures a finite nonzero contribution to the effective Lagrangian density is expected. We have also explicitly shown that for the case of a weak external magnetic field no logarithmic temperature dependence occurs. We must point out that such a logarithmic behaviour might be expected in the low temperature limit , where it may be related to the ultraviolet divergence of the theory at zero temperature .

Yet, we might argue that, in the high temperature regime, a logarithmic dependence would be obtained if we improperly define the effective lagrangian (3) as

$$\delta =[\epsilon _0^{\beta 0}(\epsilon _0^\beta \mathrm{})_{E=H=0}],$$
(41)
but than its physical meaning becomes obscured and unjustifiable in the context of Weisskopf approach, where the quantum nature of the thermal vacuum is accounted for since the very beginning, and the corresponding nonlinear contributions to Maxwell’s Lagrangian do not appear as corrections to zero temperature QED. Therefore, there is no need for a previous charge renormalization in the low temperature sector since it is absent from expansions (10) and (31).

In section III, scalar QED is considered and a similar calculation is performed. The divergences appearing in the asymptotic expression for the thermal zero-point energy (31) were regularized by means of the Pauli-Villars-Rayski subtraction scheme. Together with the specific conditions arising from different degrees of divergence in each term of (31), the requirement of parity invariance demanded the addition of finite counterterms so that parity invariance was retained.

In addition to the academic character of the subject, a better understanding of thermal effects in the context of Effective QED is fundamental, since the range of aplicability is broad . Along these lines, we also conclude that Weisskopf’s method in the context of TFD provides a powerfull tool for the investigation of problems associated with radiative corrections in finite temperature quantum field theory.

Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank Holger Gies for helpful comments and references. JLT thanks Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP, Brazil) grant 2000/14758-2 and Spanish MCyT grant PB98-0693, for the partial financial support. LCC is grateful to FAPESP for the financial support.


text:
# Structure of 𝐴(∞)-algebra and Hochschild and Harrison cohomology

## 1 Products

For an arbitrary graded module $`M=M_q`$ the tensor coalgebra $`T(M)`$ is defined as

$$T(M)=\mathrm{\Lambda }+M+MM+\mathrm{}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}^iM;$$

the grading in $`T(M)`$ is defined by $`dim(a_1\mathrm{}a_n)=dima_in`$, and the comultipliciation $`:T(M)T(M)T(M)`$ looks as

$$(a_1\mathrm{}a_n)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}(a_1\mathrm{}a_k)(a_{k+1}\mathrm{}a_n)$$

(here the empty bracket $`()`$ means $`1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). Iterating the comuultiplication $``$ we obtain a sequence of homomorphisms

$$\{^i:T(M)^iT(M),i=1,2,\mathrm{}\}$$

where

$$^1=id,^2=,^n=(id^{n1}).$$

There is also a product $`\mu :T(M)T(M)T(M)`$ which, together with $``$, determines on $`T(M)`$ a structure of Hopf algebra, this is the shuffle product defined by Eilenberg and MacLane in. This product is defined as

$$\mu ((a_1\mathrm{}a_n)(a_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{n+m}))=ϵ(\sigma )a_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}a_{\sigma (n+m)},$$

where summation is taken over all permutations of the set $`(1,2,\mathrm{},n+m)`$ which satisfy the condition: $`i<j`$ if $`1\sigma (i)<\sigma (j)n`$ or $`n+1\sigma (i)<\sigma (j)n+m`$.

In  it is shown that this product is uniquely characterized by the following axioms:

(1) $`\mu `$ turns $`T(M)`$ into a Hopf algebra;

(2) $`p_0(\mu (a_+b_+))=p_1(\mu (a_+b_+))=0`$ for arbitrary $`a_+,b_+T(M)_+`$ (here $`T(M)_+=_{n1}^nM`$ and $`p_i:T(M)^iM`$ is the clear projection).

Let us denote

$$\begin{array}{c}Sh^n(M)=_{k=1}^{n1}\mu ((^kM)(^{nk}M))^nM;\\ Sh(M)=Sh^n(M);Ch^n(M)=^nM/Sh^n(M);Ch(M)=Ch^n(M).\end{array}$$

It is clear that

$$\begin{array}{c}Sh(M)=\mu (T(M)_+T(M)_+);Ch(M)=T(M)/Sh(M);\\ Sh^0(M)=Sh^1(M)=0;Ch^0(M)=\mathrm{\Lambda };Ch^1(M)=M.\end{array}$$

Suppose now that together with $`T(M)`$ there is given a graded $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-module $`N=N_q`$. Denote by $`Hom^k(^nM,N)`$ a set of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-homomorphisms $`f:^nMN`$ of degree $`k`$ (that is $`f(a_1\mathrm{}a_n)M_{q+k}`$ where $`q=dima_i`$). We also use the notation

$$Hom(^nM,N)=\underset{k}{}Hom^k(^nM,N),Hom(T(M),N)=\underset{n}{}Hom(^nM,N).$$

In $`Hom(T(M),M)`$ Gerstenhaber  has introduced a product which we denote by $`_1`$, defined as follows. For $`fHom^k(^mM,N),gHom^t(^nM,N)`$ the product $`f_1gHom^{k+t}(^{m+n1}M,N)`$ looks as

$$f_1g(a_1\mathrm{}a_{m+n1})=\underset{k=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\pm f(a_1\mathrm{}a_kg(a_{k+1}\mathrm{}a_{k+n})\mathrm{}a_{m+n1}).$$

We shall use also more general product of an element $`fHom(T(M),M)`$ and a sequence $`(g_1,\mathrm{},g_k),g_iHom(T(M),M)`$ defined as

$$\begin{array}{c}f_1(g_1,\mathrm{},g_k)(a_1\mathrm{}a_n)=\hfill \\ \pm f(a_1\mathrm{}a_{k_1}g(a_{k_1+1}\mathrm{}a_{k_1+p_1})a_{k_1+p_1+1}\mathrm{}a_{k_1+t_1}\hfill \\ g_2(a_{k_1+t_1+1}\mathrm{}a_{k_1+t_1+p_2})\mathrm{}\hfill \\ a_sg_k(a_{s+1}\mathrm{}a_{s+p_k})a_{s+p_k+1}\mathrm{}a_n).\hfill \end{array}$$

The product $`f_1g`$ can be written as $`f_1g=f(idgid)^3`$. Similarly $`f_1(g_1,\mathrm{},g_k)=f(idg_1idg_2\mathrm{}idg_kid)^{2k+1}.`$ We remark also that these products are defined if $`fHom(T(M),N)`$ and $`g_iHom(T(M),M)`$.

The product $`f_1g`$ is not associative generally but easy to see that

$$f_1(g_1h)(f_1g)_1h=f_1(g,h)f_1(h,g).$$

Let us consider $`Hom(Ch(M),M)=_nHom(Ch^n(M),M)`$. Clearly

$$Hom(Ch^n(M),M)=\{fHom(^n(M),M),f|Sh^n(M)=0\},$$

hence $`Hom(Ch^n(M),M)`$ is also graded by degree of homomorphisms, i.e.

$$Hom(Ch^n(M),M)=\underset{k}{}Hom^k(Ch^n(M),M)$$

where

$$Hom^k(Ch^n(M),M)=\{fHom^k(^nM,M),f|Sh^n(M)=0\},$$

thus $`Hom(Ch(M),M)Hom(T(M),M)`$. It is possible to show that if $`f,gHom(Ch(M),M)`$ then $`f_1gHom(Ch(M),M)`$. Moreover, $`f_1(g,\mathrm{},g)Hom(Ch(M),M)`$ too.

## 2 Hochshild cohomology

Let $`A`$ be a graded algebra and $`M`$ be a graded bimodule over $`A`$. Hochschild cochain complex is defined as

$$C^{}(A,M)=C^n(A,M),C^n(A,M)=Hom(^nA,M),$$

the coboundary operator $`\delta :C^n(A,M)C^{n+1}(A,M)`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta f(a_1\mathrm{}a_{n+1})=a_1f((a_2\mathrm{}a_{n+1})+\\ _k\pm f(a_1\mathrm{}a_ka_{k+1}\mathrm{}a_{n+1})\pm f(a_1\mathrm{}a_n)a_{n+1}.\end{array}$$

Hochschild cohomology of $`A`$ with coefficients in $`M`$ is defined as homology of this cochain complex and is denoted by $`Hoch^{}(A,M)`$. Since $`A`$ and $`M`$ are graded, each $`C^n(A,M)`$ is graded too: $`C^n(A,M)=_kC^{n,k}(A,M)`$ where $`C^{n,k}(A,M)=Hom^k(^nA,M)`$. It is easy to see that $`\delta :C^{n,k}(A,M)C^{n+1,k}(A,M)`$ , so $`(C^{,k}(A,M),\delta )`$ is a direct summand in $`(C^{}(A,M),\delta )`$, thus Hochschild cohomology in this case is bigraded: $`Hoch^n(A,M)=_kHoch^{n,k}(A,M)`$ where $`Hoch^{n,k}(A,M)`$ is the $`n`$-th homology module of $`(C^{,k}(A,M),\delta )`$.

Instead of $`M`$ we can take the algebra $`A`$ itself. The complex $`C^,(A,A)`$ is a differential algebra with respect to the following product: for $`fC^{m,k}(A,A)`$ and $`gC^{n,t}(A,A)`$ the product $`fgC^{m+n,k+t}(A,A)`$ is defined by

$$fg(a_1\mathrm{}a_{m+n})=f(a_1\mathrm{}a_m)g(a_{n+1}\mathrm{}a_{m+n}).$$

Besides this product in $`C^,(A,A)`$ we have also the product $`f_1g`$ (see the previous section). In  it is shown that these products satisfy the standard conditions

$$\delta (fg)=\delta fg\pm f\delta g;$$
(1)
$$\delta (f_1g)=\delta f_1g\pm f_1\delta g\pm fg\pm gf.$$
(2)
## 3 Harrison cohomology

Suppose now $`A`$ is a commutative graded algebra and $`M`$ is a module over $`A`$. The Harrison cochain complex $`\overline{C}^{}(A,M)`$ is defined as a subcomplex of the Hochschild complex

$$\overline{C}^{}(A,M)=\{fC^{}(A,M)|f|Sh(A)=0\},$$

i.e. $`\overline{C}^{}(A,M)=Hom(Ch(A),M)=_nHom(Ch^n(A),M).`$ In  it is shown that $`\overline{C}^{}(A,M)`$ is closed with respect to the differential $`\delta `$ (that is if $`f|Sh(A)=0`$ then $`\delta f|Sh(A)=0`$). Harrison cohomology of a commutative algebra $`A`$ with coefficients in an $`A`$-module $`M`$ is defined as homology of the cochain complex $`(\overline{C}^{}(A,M),\delta )`$. These cohomologies we denote by $`Harr^{}(A,M)`$. As above each module $`\overline{C}^n(A,M)=Hom(Ch^n(A),M)`$ is graded by degrees of homomorphisms: $`\overline{C}^n(A,M)=_k\overline{C}^{n,k}(A,M)`$ where $`\overline{C}^{n,k}(A,M)=Hom^k(Ch^n(A),M)`$. Besides $`\delta :\overline{C}^{n,k}(A,M)\overline{C}^{n+1,k}(A,M)`$ , so $`(\overline{C}^{,k}(A,M),\delta )`$ is a direct summand in the Harrison complex $`(\overline{C}^n(A,M),\delta )`$. Thus $`Harr^n(A,M)=_kHarr^{n,k}(A,M)`$ where $`Harr^{n,k}(A,M)`$ is the $`n`$-th homology module of $`(\overline{C}^{,k}(A,M),\delta )`$. So Harrison cohomology in is bigraded for graded $`A`$ and $`M`$.

As it is mentioned in the section 1 the Harrison complex $`(\overline{C}^{,k}(A,M)`$ is closed with respect to products $`f_1g`$ and $`f_1(g,\mathrm{},g)`$. The formulae (1) and (2) are valid in this subcomplex too.

## 4 Twisting cochains in the Hochschild and Harrison complexes

In ,  N. Berikashvilihas has defined a functor $`D`$ from the category of differential algebras to the category of pointed sets, which have applications in the homology theory of fibrations. We recall shortly its definition. Let $`(C,d)`$ be a differential graded algebra. A twisting cochain is defined as an element $`a=a^2+a^3+\mathrm{},a^iC^i`$ satisfying the condition $`da=\pm aa`$. Let $`Tw(C)`$ be the set of all twisting cochains. In this set by Berikashvili was introduced the following equivalence relation: $`aa`$ if there exists an element $`p=p^1+p^2+\mathrm{},p^iC^i`$ such that

$$aa\mathrm{`}=pa\pm ap\pm dp.$$

The factorset of the set $`Tw(C)`$ by this equivalence is denoted by $`D(C)`$. We are going to introduce the similar definition in the Hochschild and Harrison complexes but with respect to $`_1`$ product. Note that Hochschild and Hasrrison complexes are not differential algebras with respect to the product $`f_1g`$, besides this product is not associative, hence in order to define the functor $`D`$ some modification is needed.

Let us define a twisting cochain in the Hochschild complex $`C^,(A,A)`$ as an element $`a=a^{3,1}+a^{4,2}+\mathrm{}+a^{i,2i}+\mathrm{},a^{i,2i}C^{i,2i}(A,A)`$ satisfying the condition $`\delta a=a_1a`$. Let $`Tw(A,A)`$ be the set of all twisting cochains. Now we introduce in this set the following equivalence relation: $`aa^{}`$ if there exists an element $`p=p^{2,1}+p^{3,2}+\mathrm{}+p^{i,1i}+\mathrm{},,p^{i,1i}C^{i,1i}(A,A)`$ such that

$$aa^{}=\delta p\pm p_1a\pm a^{}_1p\pm a^{}_1(p,p)\pm a^{}_1(p,p,p)\pm \mathrm{}$$
(3)
(the sum is finite in each dimension). This is an equivalence relation; we denote by $`D(A,A)`$ the factorset $`Tw(A,A)/`$. The set $`D(A,A)`$ is a pointed set: a distinguished point is the class of $`a=0`$, which we denote by $`0D(A,A)`$.

There is a possibility to perturb twisting cochains without changing their equivalence classes in $`D(A,A)`$. Indeed, let $`ATw(A,A)`$ and $`pC^{n,1n}(A,A)`$ be an arbitrary cochain, then there exists a twisting cochain $`\overline{a}Tw(A,A)`$ such that $`a^i=\overline{a}^i`$ for $`in`$, $`\overline{a}^{n+1}=a^{n+1}+\delta p`$ and $`\overline{a}a`$. The twisting cochain $`\overline{a}`$ can be solved inductively from the equation (3).

###### Theorem 1

If $`Hoch^{n,2n}(A,A)=0`$ for $`n3`$ then $`D(A,A)=0`$.

Proof. We have to show that in this case an arbitrary twisting cochain is equivalent to zero. From the equality $`\delta a=a_1a`$ in dimension $`n=3`$ we obtain $`\delta a^3=0`$ that is $`a^3C^{3,1}(A,A)`$ is a cocycle. Since $`Hoch^{3,1}(A,A)=0`$ there exists $`p^{2,1}C^{2,1}(A,A)`$ such that $`a^3=\delta p^{2,1}`$. Perturbing our twisting cochain $`a=a^3+a^4+\mathrm{}`$ by $`p^{2,1}`$ we we obtain new twisting cochain $`\overline{a}=\overline{a}^3+\overline{a}^4+\mathrm{}`$ equivalent to $`a`$ and with $`\overline{a}^3=0`$. Now the component $`\overline{a}^4`$ becomes a cocycle, which, which can be killed using $`Hoch^{4,2}(A,A)=0`$ etc. This completes the proof.

Now turn to the Harrison complex $`\overline{C}(A,A)`$ of a commutative algebra $`A`$. Since $`\overline{C}(A,A)`$ is closed with respect to $`_1`$ product, here we also can define twisting cochains and the set $`\overline{D}(A,A)`$ and prove the similar

###### Theorem 2

If $`Harr^{n,2n}(A,A)=0`$ for $`n3`$ then $`D(A,A)=0`$.

## 5  Structure of $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebra and Hochschild and Harrison cohomology

$`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebra was defined by Stasheff in. It is a graded $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-module $`M=M_q`$ equipped with a sequence of operations - $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-homomorphisms $`\{m_i:^iMM,i=1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ satisfying the following conditions

$$m_i(^iM)_qM_{qi+2},i.e.degm_i=2i;$$
(4)
$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{nj}{}}\pm m_i(a_1\mathrm{}a_km_j(a_{k+1}\mathrm{}a_{k+j})\mathrm{}a_n)=0.$$
(5)
A morphism of $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras $`f:(M,\{m_i\})(M^{},\{m_i^{}\})`$ is a sequence of homomorphisms $`\{f_i:^iMM^{},i=1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ satisfying the following conditions

$$f_i(^iM)_qM_{qi+1}^{},i.e.degf_i=1i;$$
(6)
$$\begin{array}{c}_{j=1}^n_{k=0}^{nj}\pm f_i(a_1\mathrm{}a_km_j(a_{k+1}\mathrm{}a_{k+j})\mathrm{}a_n)=\\ _{t=1}^n_{k_1+\mathrm{}+k_t=n}\pm m_t^{}(f_{k_1}(a_1\mathrm{}a_{k_1})\mathrm{}f_{k_t}(a_{nk_t+1}\mathrm{}a_n)).\end{array}$$
(7)
The obtained category is denoted by $`A(\mathrm{})`$.

For an arbitrary $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebra $`(M,\{m_i\})`$ the sequence of operations $`\{m_i\}`$ defines on the tensor coalgebra $`T(M)`$ a differential $`d:T(M)T(M)`$ given by

$$d(a_1\mathrm{}a_n)=\underset{k,j}{}\pm a_1\mathrm{}a_km_j(a_{k+1}\mathrm{}a_{k+j})\mathrm{}a_n$$

which fits with the coproduct $`:T(M)T(M)T(M)`$, i.e. turns $`T(M)`$ into a differential coalgebra. This differential coalgebra $`(T(M),d)`$ is called $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$-construction of $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebra $`(M,\{m_i\})`$ and is denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{B}(M,\{m_i\})`$ ().

An arbitrary morphism of $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras $`\{f_i\}:(M,\{m_i\})(M^{},\{m_i^{}\})`$ induces a $`DG`$-coalgebra morphism $`\stackrel{~}{B}(f):\stackrel{~}{B}(M,\{m_i\})\stackrel{~}{B}(M^{},\{m_i^{}\})`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{B}(f)(a_1\mathrm{}a_n)=\underset{t=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{k_1+\mathrm{}+k_t=n}{}f_{k_1}(a_1\mathrm{}a_{k_1})\mathrm{}f_{k_t}(a_{nk_t+1}\mathrm{}a_n).$$

Thus $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is a functor from the category of $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras to the category of $`DG`$-coalgebras.

We are interested in $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras of type $`(M,\{m_1=0,m_2,m_3,\mathrm{}\})`$, i.e. with $`m_1=0`$. The full subcategory of $`A(\mathrm{})`$ which objects are such $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras we denote by $`A^0(\mathrm{})`$.

Now let $`(M,\mu )`$ be a graded associative algebra with multiplication $`\mu :MMM`$. Consider all possible $`A(\mathrm{})`$ structures $`\{m_i\}`$ on $`M`$ with $`m_1=0,m_2=\mu `$. Two such structures we call equivalent if there exists a morphism of $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras $`\{p_i\}:(M,\{m_i\})(M,\{m_i^{}\})`$ for which the first component $`p_1`$ is the identity map (one can show that such morphisms are isomorphisms in the category $`A^0(\mathrm{})`$). The obtained factorset we denote by $`(M,\mu )(\mathrm{})`$. A trivial $`A^0(\mathrm{})`$ structure we define as $`\{m_i\}`$ with $`m_{i>2}=0`$. It’s class we denote as $`0(M,\mu )(\mathrm{})`$.

###### Proposition 3

The sets $`(M,\mu )(\mathrm{})`$ and $`D(M,M)`$ are bijective.

Proof. Let $`(M,\{m_i\})`$ be an $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebra with with $`m_1=0,m_2=\mu `$; we denote $`m=m_3+m_4+\mathrm{}`$. Each operation $`m_i:^iMM`$ can be interpreted as a Hochschild cochain from $`C^i(M,M)`$. It is easy to mention that the condition (5) means exactly $`\delta m=m_1m`$, i.e. $`mTw(M,M)`$. Conversely, each twisting cochain $`m=m_3+m_4+\mathrm{}Tw(M,M)`$ defines on $`m`$ an $`A^0(\mathrm{})`$-algebra structure $`(M,\{m_1=0,m_2=\mu ,m_3,m_4,\mathrm{}\})`$. It remains to show that two $`A^0(\mathrm{})`$-structures $`\{m_i\}`$ and $`\{m_i^{}\}`$ are equivalent if and only if the twisting cochains $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ are equivalent. Indeed, if $`A^0(\mathrm{})`$-structures $`\{m_i\}`$ and $`\{m_i^{}\}`$ are equivalent, i.e. there exists an isomorphism of $`A^0(\mathrm{})`$-algebras $`\{id,p_2,p_3,\mathrm{}\}:(M,\{m_i\})(M,\{m_i^{}\})`$, then the cochain $`p=p_2+p_3+\mathrm{}`$ realizes the equivalence of twisting cochains $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$, since the condition (7) is equivalent to (3). Conversely, if $`p=p_2+p_3+\mathrm{}`$ realizes the equivalence of twisting cochains $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$, then $`\{id,p_2,p_3,\mathrm{}\}:(M,\{m_i\})(M,\{m_i^{}\})`$ is the needed isomorphism.

From this proposition and the theorem 1 follows the

###### Corollary 4

If for a graded algebra $`(M,\mu )`$ all $`Hoch^{n,2n}(M,M)=0`$ for $`n3`$ then any $`A^0(\mathrm{})`$-algebra structure $`\{m_i\}`$ on $`M`$ (with $`m_1=0,m_2=\mu `$) is equivalent to trivial one.

Now we turn to the commutative case.

An $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebra we call commutative if the sequence of operations $`\{m_i\}`$ apart of the conditions (4) and (5) satisfies $`m_i|Sh^i(M)=0`$. In this case the differential $`d:T(M)T(M)`$ defined by $`\{m_i\}`$ fits with shuffle product, so $`\stackrel{~}{B}(M,\{m_i\})`$ becomes a DG-Hopf algebra. A morphism of commutative $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras $`\{f_i\}:(M,\{m_i\})(M^{},\{m_i^{}\})`$ we define as a morphism of $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras which, apart of the conditions (6) and (7) satisfies $`f_i|Sh^i(M)=0`$. In this case $`\stackrel{~}{B}(f):\stackrel{~}{B}(M,\{m_i\})\stackrel{~}{B}(M^{},\{m_i^{}\})`$ becomes a map of DG-Hopf algebras (see ). The condition $`m_i|Sh^i(M)=0`$ for $`i=2`$ means that $`m_2:MMM`$ is commutative and all the operations $`m_i:^iMM`$ are from the Harrison subcomplex $`\overline{C}(M,M)`$.

Now let $`(M,\mu )`$ be a graded commutative algebra with multiplication $`\mu :MMM`$. Consider all possible commutative $`A(\mathrm{})`$ structures $`\{m_i\}`$ on $`M`$ with $`m_1=0,m_2=\mu `$; two such structures we call equivalent if there exists a morphism of commutative $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras $`\{p_1=id,p_2,p_3,\mathrm{}\}:(M,\{m_i\})(M,\{m_i^{}\})`$ (which, as above, is an isomorphism). The obtained factorset we denote by $`(M,\mu )(\mathrm{})_c`$. Exactly as above we obtain the

###### Proposition 5

The sets $`(M,\mu )(\mathrm{})_c`$ and $`\overline{D}(M,M)`$ are bijective.

###### Corollary 6

If for a graded commutative algebra $`(M,\mu )`$ all $`Harr^{n,2n}(M,M)=0`$ for $`n3`$ then any commutative $`A^0(\mathrm{})`$-algebra structure $`\{m_i\}`$ on $`M`$ (with $`m_1=0,m_2=\mu `$)is equivalent to trivial one.


text:
# Quasi-Equatorial Gravitational Lensing by Spinning Black Holes in the Strong Field Limit

## I Introduction

Gravitational lensing, since its beginning, has been used to test General Relativity in the weak field approximation. Later on, several studies of null geodesics in strong gravitational fields have been lead in past years. Bardeen et al. Bar  studied the appearance of a black hole in front of a uniform source; Viergutz Vie  made a semi-analytical investigation of null geodesics in Kerr geometry; Nemiroff Nem  studied the visual distortions around a neutron star and around a black hole; Falcke, Melia & Agol FMA  considered the luminosity of the accretion flow as a source.

A recent paper by Virbhadra & Ellis VirEll  has risen a new interest about gravitational lensing as a probe for strong gravitational fields generated by collapsed objects, providing a new important test for the full general relativity. They have shown that a source behind a Schwarzschild black hole would generate an infinite series of images on both sides of the lens. These relativistic images are formed by light rays passing close to the event horizon and winding several times around the black hole before emerging towards the observer. By an alternative formulation, Frittelli, Kling & Newman FKN  attained an exact lens equation, giving integral expressions for its solutions, and compared their results to those by Virbhadra & Ellis. The phenomenology of collapsed objects with naked singularities, analyzed by Virbhadra & Ellis in another work VirEll2 , is radically different. This difference provides a possible way to test the correctness of the cosmic censorship conjecture.

A new, simple and reliable method to investigate the subject was proposed by Bozza et al. in Ref. BCIS . They revisited the Schwarzschild black hole lensing defining a strong field limit for the deflection angle, which retained the first two leading order terms. By this approximation, a fully analytical treatment was developed and simple formulae for the position and the magnification of the images were derived. The same method was applied by Eiroa, Romero & Torres ERT  to a Reissner-Nordstrom black hole, confirming the appearance of a similar pattern of images. Later on, the formulae given in Ref. BCIS  were used by Petters Pet  to calculate relativistic effects on microlensing events. Finally, in a previous work, we have developed a generalization of the strong field limit to an arbitrary spherically symmetric spacetime Boz , comparing the image patterns for several interesting metrics. We have shown that different collapsed objects are distinguishable by a careful examination of the separation between the first two relativistic images and their luminosity ratio. The sensitivities required for such measures are out of the actual VLBI projects VLBI , but might be reached in a not so far future.

Insofar, only spherically symmetric black holes have been adequately investigated. Yet, in general, a black hole would be characterized by a non-zero intrinsic angular momentum which breaks spherical symmetry, leaving only a rotational symmetry around one axis. Rotation heavily affects the gravitational field around the collapsed object. It is thus natural to expect relevant modifications in the phenomenology of strong field gravitational lensing.

A further motivation for such a study comes from the fact that previous works on the subject have selected the supermassive black hole hosted by the radio source Sagittarius A\* Ric  as the best candidate for strong field gravitational lensing VirEll ; Boz . Its mass has been estimated to be $`M=2.6\times 10^6M_{}`$ but our knowledge on a possible intrinsic angular momentum of this object is still very poor. However, the analysis of the variability of the spectrum in the mm-submm region suggests the possibility of a non-negligible spin LiuMel . In particular, the value

$$|a|0.044$$
(1)
has been proposed (with respect to Ref. LiuMel , we normalize distances to the Schwarzschild radius rather than to the black hole mass, hence the factor $`1/2`$ in this value), but high uncertainties in the assumptions behind the calculations may push the spin towards even higher values.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relevance of the black hole spin in strong field lensing phenomenology. We formulate the strong field limit for Kerr black hole lensing, considering trajectories close to the equatorial plane. With this limitation we cannot give a complete description of the whole phenomenology, which we shall delay to future works. However, as we shall see, quasi-equatorial motion yields very sharp indications useful to understand also the general case. In particular, we will show that the presence of a sufficiently high black hole spin drastically changes the expected pattern of observable images.

This paper is structured as follows. In Sect. 2 we recall some general properties of Kerr geodesics. In Sect. 3 we carry out the strong field limit expansion of the deflection angle on the equatorial plane. In Sect. 4 we move off from the equatorial plane and consider trajectories at small declinations. In Sect. 5 we write the lens equation on the equatorial plane. In Sect. 6 we write a polar lens equation dealing with displacements normal to the equatorial plane. In Sect. 7 we find the positions of the caustic points and the magnification of all images in the equatorial plane. In Sect. 8 we describe the critical curves and caustic structure. Sect. 9 discusses the effects of the black hole spin on the gravitational lensing phenomenology, with special reference to the black hole at the center of our Galaxy. Sect. 10 contains the summary.

## II Geodesics in Kerr spacetime

In Boyer-Lindquist coordinates BoyLin  $`x^\mu (t,x,\vartheta ,\varphi )`$, the Kerr metric reads

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta }{\rho ^2}}dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}dx^2\rho ^2d\vartheta ^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(x^2+a^2\right)^2a^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta }{\rho ^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta d\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2ax\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta }{\rho ^2}}dtd\varphi `$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }=x^2x+a^2`$ (3)
$`\rho ^2=x^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta `$ (4)
where $`a`$ is the specific angular momentum of the black hole. All distances are measured in Schwarzschild radii ($`\frac{2MG}{c^2}=1`$).

The Kerr space is characterized by a spherical event horizon at $`x_H=\frac{1+\sqrt{14a^2}}{2}`$ for $`|a|<0.5`$. Beyond this critical value of the spin there is no event horizon and causality violations are present in the whole spacetime, with the appearance of a naked singularity Car ; HawEll . We shall restrict to subcritical angular momenta. The ellipsoid $`\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta =0`$ is the static limit bounding the region where every static worldine ($`x=\vartheta =\varphi =0`$) becomes spacelike. The region between the static limit and the horizon is called ergosphere: here everything is bound to rotate around the black hole.

The geodesics equations can be derived taking

$$=g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu $$
(5)
as the Lagrangian, where the dot indicates the derivative with respect to some affine parameter.

Finding four integrals of motion, we can transform these equations into a set of four first order equations which are equivalent to the original ones. Two costants of motions are the energy and the angular momentum of the particle, given by

$`2E={\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}`$ (6)
$`2J={\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}.`$ (7)
By a suitable choice of the affine parameter, we can set

$$E=1.$$
(8)
From these equations, we find an expression for $`\dot{t}`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ in terms of $`x`$, $`\vartheta `$ and $`J`$

$`\dot{t}={\displaystyle \frac{g_{33}+g_{03}J}{g_{33}g_{00}g_{03}^2}}`$ (9)
$`\dot{\varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{g_{00}J+g_{03}}{g_{03}^2g_{33}g_{tt}}}.`$ (10)
$``$ is another constant of motion, which vanishes for null geodesics and can be used to write $`\dot{x}`$

$$\dot{x}=\pm \sqrt{\frac{g_{00}\dot{t}^2g_{22}\dot{\vartheta }^2g_{33}\dot{\varphi }^22g_{03}\dot{t}\dot{\varphi }}{g_{11}}}.$$
(11)
Finally, $`\dot{\vartheta }`$ can be obtained in terms of a fourth integral of motion, separating the Hamilton-Jacobi equation Car :

$$\dot{\vartheta }=\pm \frac{1}{\rho ^2}\sqrt{Q+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta J^2\mathrm{cot}^2\vartheta }.$$
(12)
Eqs. (9)-(12) represent the sought set of first order differential equations, suitable for a detailed study.

The integrals of motion $`J`$ and $`Q`$ can be expressed in terms of the geometric parameters of the incoming light ray trajectory. In general, we can identify a light ray coming from infinity by three parameters (Fig. 1), referring to the straight line which the photon would follow if there were no gravitational field. The projection of this line on the equatorial plane has a distance $`u`$ from the origin, which we shall call the projected impact parameter. At this minimum projected distance, the light ray has some height $`h`$ on the equatorial plane. Finally, the inclination $`\psi _0`$ is the angle that the light ray forms with the equatorial plane. When we switch on the gravitational field, the light ray is obviously deviated from this ideal straight line, but these three parameters can still be used to label any light rays coming from infinity.

Taking the asymptotic limit of the equations of motion, we can write $`J`$ and $`Q`$ in terms of the initial conditions characterizing the light ray

$`J=u\mathrm{cos}\psi _0`$ (13)
$`Q=h^2\mathrm{cos}^2\psi _0+(u^2a^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\psi _0.`$ (14)
## III Deflection angle in the equatorial plane

In this section, we consider light rays strictly lying on the equatorial plane $`\vartheta =\frac{\pi }{2}`$ by setting $`h=\psi _0=0`$. The reduced metric has the form

$$ds^2=A(x)dt^2B(x)dx^2C(x)d\varphi ^2+D(x)dtd\varphi .$$
(15)
with

$$\begin{array}{c}A(x)=1\frac{1}{x}\hfill \\ \\ B(x)=\frac{1}{1\frac{1}{x}+\frac{a^2}{x^2}}\hfill \\ \\ C(x)=x^2+a^2+\frac{a^2}{x}\hfill \\ \\ D(x)=2\frac{a}{x}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
What we say in this section is immediately extendable to any axially symmetric spacetime if we replace Eq. (16) by any other expression.

As $`\psi _0=0`$, by Eq. (13) the angular momentum $`J`$ coincides with the impact parameter $`u`$. The impact parameter is also related to the minimum distance $`x_0`$ reached by the photon. In general, a light ray coming from infinity approaches the black hole, reaches this minimum distance $`x_0`$ and then leaves again towards infinity. Evaluating the Lagrangian at $`x=x_0`$, we find an implicit relation between $`J=u`$ and the closest approach distance $`x_0`$

$`J=u`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{D_0+\sqrt{4A_0C_0+D_0^2}}{2A_0}}=`$ (17)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{a+x_0\sqrt{a^2+x_0(x_01)}}{x_01}},`$
where all the metric functions with the subscript 0 are evaluated at $`x=x_0`$. The impact parameter $`u`$ is then univocally determined by $`x_0`$ and vice versa. Choosing the positive sign before the square root, we describe only light rays winding counterclockwise when seen from above. For $`a>0`$ the black hole also rotates counterclockwise, while for $`a<0`$ the black hole and the photon rotate in opposite senses.

Dividing $`\dot{\varphi }`$ by $`\dot{x}`$, we find the azimuthal shift as a function of the distance

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dx}}=P_1(x,x_0)P_2(x,x_0)`$ (18)
$`P_1(x,x_0)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{B}(2A_0AJ+A_0D)}{\sqrt{CA_0}\sqrt{4AC+D^2}}}`$ (19)
$`P_2(x,x_0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{A_0A\frac{C_0}{C}+\frac{J}{C}(AD_0A_0D)}}}.`$ (20)
Integrating this expression from $`x_0`$ to infinity we find half the deflection angle as a function of the closest approach. Given the symmetry between approach and departure, we can write the whole deflection angle as

$`\alpha (x_0)=\varphi _f(x_0)\pi `$ (21)
$`\varphi _f(x_0)=2{\displaystyle \underset{x_0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dx}}𝑑x.`$ (22)
$`\varphi _f(x_0)`$ is the total azimuthal shift. It evaluates to $`\pi `$ for a straight line and becomes larger as the light ray is bent by the gravitational field. The expression for a spherically symmetric metric, given in Ref. Boz  can be recovered setting $`D=D_0=0`$.

The deflection angle grows as $`x_0`$ decreases. It diverges when $`x_0`$ reaches a minimum value $`x_m`$ which represents the radius of the photon sphere. If a photon falls inside this sphere, it is destined to be absorbed by the black hole. Of course, we will have different photon spheres for photons winding in the same sense of the rotation of the black hole (hereafter direct photons) and for photons winding in the opposite sense (retrograde photons). In general, we expect the latter to be absorbed more easily. Their photon sphere will thus be larger than that of retrograde photons, which can escape more easily. As we shall see later, this is what happens.

Following the philosophy of the strong field limit, we look for an expansion of the deflection angle of the form

$$\alpha (\theta )=\overline{a}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\theta D_{OL}}{u_m}1\right)+\overline{b}+O\left(uu_m\right)$$
(23)
where the coefficients $`u_m`$, $`\overline{a}`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ depend on the metric functions evaluated at $`x_m`$. $`D_{OL}`$ is the distance between the lens and the observer, so that the angular separation of the image from the lens (also referred as impact angle) is $`\theta =\frac{u}{D_{OL}}`$.

All the steps to be taken towards this final expression are very similar to those for spherically symmetric black holes, with few adjustments. We shall sketch them very briefly, referring to Ref. Boz  for details.

We define the variables

$`y=A(x)`$ (24)
$`z={\displaystyle \frac{yy_0}{1y_0}}`$ (25)
where $`y_0=A_0`$. The integral (22) in the deflection angle becomes

$`\varphi _f(x_0)={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}R(z,x_0)f(z,x_0)𝑑z`$ (26)
$`R(z,x_0)=2{\displaystyle \frac{1y_0}{A^{}(x)}}P_1(x,x_0)`$ (27)
$`f(z,x_0)=P_2(x,x_0)`$ (28)
where $`x=A^1\left[\left(1y_0\right)z+y_0\right]`$.

The function $`R(z,x_0)`$ is regular for all values of $`z`$ and $`x_0`$, while $`f(z,x_0)`$ diverges for $`z0`$. To find out the order of divergence of the integrand, we expand the argument of the square root in $`f(z,x_0)`$ to the second order in $`z`$

$$f(z,x_0)f_0(z,x_0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha z+\beta z^2}}.$$
(29)
When $`\alpha `$ is non zero, the leading order of the divergence in $`f_0`$ is $`z^{1/2}`$, which can be integrated to give a finite result. When $`\alpha `$ vanishes, the divergence is $`z^1`$ which makes the integral diverge. Then the outermost solution of the Eq. $`\alpha =0`$ defines the radius of the photon sphere $`x_m`$ (see also CVE ).

In the case of the Kerr metric, we have

$`\alpha `$ $`=x_0[x_0(35x_0+2x_0^2)2a^2+2a\sqrt{a^2+x_0(x_01)}]`$ (30)
$`[(x_01)(x_0^3+a^2(x_0+1)]^1.`$
Eq. $`\alpha =0`$ is equivalent to the third degree equation

$$8a^2x_0(32x_0)^2=0.$$
(31)
The real solution external to the horizon of this equation defines the radius of the photon sphere $`x_m`$, plotted in Fig. 2. As expected, for positive $`a`$, (direct) photons are allowed to get closer to the black hole, entering even the ergosphere ($`x_m`$ falls below 1) at high values of $`a`$. It is possible to calculate exactly from Eq. $`\alpha =0`$ at what angular momentum this happens. The critical value is

$$a_{cr}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}=0.354.$$
(32)
Notice that $`x_m1/2`$ as $`a1/2`$, i.e. the photon sphere coincides with the horizon in the limit of extremal Kerr black hole. For negative angular momenta, (retrograde) light rays must keep farther from the center.

The procedure to find the strong field limit coefficients is from now on identical to that described in Ref. Boz , with $`R(z,x_0)`$ $`f(z,x_0)`$ and $`f(z,x_0)`$ given by Eqs. (27), (28) and (29), respectively. We shall not repeat the whole technique here but just specify the results of Ref. Boz  for our metric.

The strong field limit coefficients of the expansion (23) are

$`u_m={\displaystyle \frac{D_m+\sqrt{4A_mC_m+D_m^2}}{2A_m}}`$ (33)
$`\overline{a}={\displaystyle \frac{R(0,x_m)}{2\sqrt{\beta _m}}}`$ (34)
$`\overline{b}=\pi +b_D+b_R+\overline{a}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{cx_m^2}{u_m}}`$ (35)
where

$`b_D=2\overline{a}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{2(1y_m)}{A_m^{}x_m}}`$ (36)
$`b_R={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}\left[R(z,x_m)f(z,x_m)R(0,x_m)f_0(z,x_m)\right]𝑑z`$ (37)
and $`c`$ is defined by the expansion

$$uu_m=c\left(x_0x_m\right)^2.$$
(38)
All the functions with the subscript $`m`$ are evaluated at $`x_0=x_m`$.

Fig. 3 shows the strong field limit coefficients as functions of $`a`$. The minimum impact parameter $`u_m`$ decreases with $`a`$ in a way similar to $`x_m`$. $`\overline{a}`$ grows and $`\overline{b}`$ decreases, both diverging with opposite signs at $`a=1/2`$. The divergence of the coefficients of the expansion warns that the strong field limit deflection angle (23) no longer represents a reliable description in the regime of high $`a`$, since $`x_m`$ becomes a higher order singularity in the function $`f(z,x_0)`$ and a different expansion should be performed.

## IV Precession of the orbits at small declinations

The study of the deflection angle for photons lying on the equatorial plane is sufficient to write a one-dimensional lens equation. However, to address the caustic structure and calculate the magnification of the images, we need a two-dimensional lens equation. For this reason, in this section we analyze trajectories close to the equatorial plane. They are described by one further coordinate: the polar angle $`\vartheta `$, or equivalently, the declination $`\psi =\frac{\pi }{2}\vartheta `$. The problem becomes too involved to be solved in general but we shall give a complete description for quasi-equatorial motion, preserving also the simplicity and immediacy of the strong field limit scheme.

In order to remain at small declinations, we restrict to light rays characterized by a small inward inclination $`\psi _0`$ and small height $`h`$ compared to the projected impact parameter $`u`$, with $`\psi _0\frac{h}{u}`$. Retaining the first relevant terms, from Eqs. (13)-(14) we get

$`Ju`$ (39)
$`Qh^2+\overline{u}^2\psi _0^2`$ (40)
$`\overline{u}\sqrt{u^2a^2}.`$ (41)
We require the declination $`\psi `$ to stay small (of the order of $`\psi _0`$) during the motion. Dividing Eq. (12) by Eq. (10), we get a simple evolution equation for $`\psi `$ as a function of the azimuth $`\varphi `$

$$\frac{d\psi }{d\varphi }=\pm \omega (\varphi )\sqrt{\overline{\psi }^2\psi ^2}$$
(42)
with

$`\overline{\psi }=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{\overline{u}^2}}+\psi _0^2}`$ (43)
$`\omega (\varphi )=\overline{u}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2+x(\varphi )(x(\varphi )1)}{\left[a+u(x(\varphi )1)\right]x(\varphi )}}.`$ (44)
In the Schwarzschild case ($`a=0`$), $`\omega 1`$ and Eq. (42) is immediately solved to

$$\psi (\varphi )=\overline{\psi }\mathrm{cos}(\varphi +\varphi _0).$$
(45)
After each loop around the black hole, the declination returns to the initial value. This means that there is no precession of the orbital plane, as expected for a spherically symmetric black hole.

For non-vanishing angular momenta, $`\omega `$ is no longer a constant, since $`x`$ depends on $`\varphi `$, and the solution of Eq. (42) is generalized to

$$\psi (\varphi )=\overline{\psi }\mathrm{cos}\left(\overline{\varphi }+\varphi _0\right)$$
(46)
with

$$\overline{\varphi }=\underset{0}{\overset{\varphi }{}}\omega (\varphi ^{})𝑑\varphi ^{}.$$
(47)
Since we are interested to gravitational lensing, the photon comes from infinity and returns to infinity. Therefore, we are interested to the quantity

$$\overline{\varphi }_f=\underset{0}{\overset{\varphi _f}{}}\omega (\varphi ^{})𝑑\varphi ^{}.$$
(48)
where $`\varphi _f`$ is the total azimuthal shift experienced by the photon in its whole trajectory, given by Eq. (22).

This integral can be rewritten as

$$\overline{\varphi }_f=2\underset{x_0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\omega (x)\frac{d\varphi }{dx}𝑑x=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}R_\omega (z,x_0)f(z,x_0)𝑑z$$
(49)
where

$$R_\omega (z,x_0)=\omega (x)R(z,x_0)$$
(50)
with $`R(z,x_0)`$ and $`f(z,x_0)`$ given by Eqs. (27) and (28), respectively. At this point, the integral can be solved by the same technique used for the integral (26) with a very similar result. This is possible since $`\omega (x)`$ adds no singularities and can be englobed in the regular function $`R`$.

The final result is

$`\overline{\varphi }_f=\widehat{a}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta D_{OL}}{u_m}}1\right)+\widehat{b}`$ (51)
$`\widehat{a}={\displaystyle \frac{R_\omega (0,x_m)}{2\sqrt{\beta _m}}}=1`$ (52)
$`\widehat{b}=\pi +\widehat{b}_D+\widehat{b}_R+\widehat{a}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{cx_m^2}{u_m}}`$ (53)
where

$`\widehat{b}_D=2\widehat{a}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{2(1y_m)}{A_m^{}x_m}}`$ (54)
$`\widehat{b}_R={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}\left[R_\omega (z,x_m)f(z,x_m)R_\omega (0,x_m)f_0(z,x_m)\right]𝑑z.`$ (55)
Notice that the coefficient of the logarithmic term $`\widehat{a}`$ turns ro be exactly equal to 1 for all values of the black hole spin. The coefficient $`\widehat{b}`$ is just $`\overline{b}+\pi `$ in the Schwarzwschild limit $`a=0`$. This recovers the equivalence between the phase in the polar motion $`\overline{\varphi }_f`$ and the total azimuthal shift $`\varphi _f`$ in this limit. The full behaviour of $`\widehat{b}`$ is plotted in Fig. 4. This coefficient diverges as well in the extremal black hole limit $`a1/2`$.

As a general remark, we can say that for positive angular momenta $`\omega `$ is always less than one, so that $`\overline{\varphi }_f<\varphi _f`$. As a consequence, the orbital plane suffers a counterclockwise precession, i.e. after each loop it is necessary an additional $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ to reach the same declination $`\psi `$. On the contrary, for negative angular momenta, $`\omega >1`$. In this case, the precession is clockwise, i.e. the photon reaches the same declination before completing a loop.

The integration constant $`\varphi _0`$ in Eq. (46) is fixed by the initial conditions. In particular, we have to impose that at $`\varphi =0`$ the declination is just minus the inclination of the incoming photon trajectory, that we have indicated by $`\psi _0`$. The result is that

$$\varphi _0=\mathrm{Sign}[h]\mathrm{arccos}\left[\frac{\psi _0}{\overline{\psi }}\right].$$
(56)
The declination of the outward photon is thus

$$\psi _f\psi (\varphi _f)=\overline{\psi }\mathrm{cos}\left(\overline{\varphi }_f+\varphi _0\right).$$
(57)
In alternative, using the expression of $`\varphi _0`$, we can write

$$\psi _f=\psi _0\mathrm{cos}\overline{\varphi }_f\frac{h}{\overline{u}}\mathrm{sin}\overline{\varphi }_f.$$
(58)
The phase $`\overline{\varphi }_f`$, calculated through Eq. (51), has a central importance in the discussion of Sects. VI, VII.

## V Lensing in the equatorial plane

In the previous sections we have expressed the deflection angle $`\alpha `$ as a function of the impact angle $`\theta `$ and the outward declination $`\psi _f`$ as a function of the incoming inclination $`\psi _0`$. We are thus ready to write a lens equation for the Kerr black hole. In this section we shall write the equatorial lens equation, while the next section will deal with the polar lens equation.

So let us start from the ideal case when observer and source both lie on the equatorial plane of the Kerr black hole and the whole trajectory of the photon is confined on the same plane. In previous works, the strong field limit has been developed assuming an almost perfect alignment of source, lens and observer. This because, for spherically symmetric metrics, the better the alignment the higher is the magnification. As we shall see in Sec. VII, this is no longer the case for Kerr black holes. Therefore we shall write the equatorial lens equation in a more general way, allowing for a generic geometric disposition of lens, source and observer (see Fig. 5).

The optical axis is the line joining the observer and the lens. Setting the origin on the black hole, the angle between the direction of the source and the optical axis will be indicated by $`\gamma `$. $`\gamma 0`$ is the case of almost perfect alignment discussed in Refs. BCIS ; ERT ; Pet ; Boz . From the lensing geometry, illustrated in Fig. 5, we can write the relation

$$\gamma =\alpha +\theta +\overline{\theta }\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi ,$$
(59)
where

$$\overline{\theta }\frac{u}{D_{LS}}\frac{D_{OL}}{D_{LS}}\theta $$
(60)
is the impact angle from the source and $`D_{LS}`$ is the distance between the lens and the source.

The equatorial lens equation is then

$$\gamma =\frac{D_{OL}+D_{LS}}{D_{LS}}\theta \alpha (\theta )\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi $$
(61)
In this lens equation $`\gamma `$ can assume any value in the trigonometric interval $`[\pi ,\pi ]`$. The source may even be on the same side of the observer when $`\gamma =\pi `$. The relation between $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta `$ (the angular position of the source as seen by the observer) is

$$\mathrm{sin}\beta =\frac{D_{LS}}{D_{OS}}\mathrm{sin}\gamma ,$$
(62)
but here in general we cannot substitute the sines by their arguments. $`D_{OS}`$ is the distance between source and observer which does not coincide with the distance $`D_{OL}+D_{LS}`$ actually covered by lensed photons.

To solve the lens equation, since $`\theta =\frac{u}{D_{OL}}1`$, in a first step we solve the Eq. $`\gamma =\alpha (\theta )`$ mod $`2\pi `$. Using the expression for the deflection angle derived in the strong field limit (23), we find

$`\theta _n^0={\displaystyle \frac{u_m}{D_{OL}}}\left(1+e_n\right)`$ (63)
$`e_n=e^{\frac{\overline{b}+\gamma 2n\pi }{\overline{a}}},`$ (64)
where $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ indicates the number of loops done by the photon around the black hole. This solution is then corrected expanding $`\alpha (\theta )`$ around $`\theta _n^0`$

$`\alpha (\theta )`$ $`=\alpha (\theta _n^0)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\theta }}|_{\theta _n^0}(\theta \theta _n^0)+o(\theta \theta _n^0)`$ (65)
$`\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\overline{a}D_{OL}}{u_me_n}}(\theta \theta _n^0).`$
Substituting in (61) and neglecting higher order terms, we find

$$\theta _n\theta _n^0\left(1\frac{u_me_n(D_{OL}+D_{LS})}{\overline{a}D_{OL}D_{LS}}\right),$$
(66)
where the correction is much smaller than $`\theta _n^0`$.

Images are formed on both sides of the lens. As all strong field limit coefficients depend on $`a`$ we have to be careful and choose the correct sign for the angular momentum. Conventionally we call north the direction of the black hole spin. Then photons winding counterclockwise are direct and are described by a positive $`a`$. They form images on the eastern side of the black hole. Images formed by retrograde rays appear on the western side and are described taking a negative $`a`$ and reversing the sign of $`\gamma `$.

## VI Lensing at small declinations

The lens equation (61) describes trajectories lying on the equatorial plane and can be employed to calculate the positions of the relativistic images. However, to investigate the problem on a deeper level we are forced to study what happens at least for small displacements from the equatorial plane. In this section we shall assist Eq. (61) by its polar counterpart, which is necessary to understand the caustic structure and compute the magnification of the images.

Thanks to the small declination hypothesis, at the lowest order we can neglect any backreaction on the equatorial lens equation. In all our discussion we shall speak (using time reversal) as the photon were emitted by the observer and absorbed by the source.

Consider a source whose height on the equatorial plane is $`h_S`$. The height of the observer will be indicated by $`h_O`$. We shall assume that the following hierarchy of distances holds (see Fig. 6)

$$u(h_O,h_S)(D_{OL},D_{LS}).$$
(67)
Recalling the meaning of the parameters $`\psi _0`$ and $`h`$ used insofar to identify the incoming light ray, we can write down the simple geometric relation

$$h=h_O+D_{OL}\psi _0.$$
(68)
A similar relation holds between the outgoing photon parameters $`h_f`$, $`\psi _f`$ and the source position

$$h_S=h_f+D_{LS}\psi _f.$$
(69)
Given the positions of source and observer, our purpose is to determine $`\psi _0`$, the inclination under which the observer emits (sees) the light ray.

By symmetry between the outgoing and the incoming parameters, Eq. (43) for $`\overline{\psi }`$ can be written substituting $`\psi _0`$ and $`h`$ by $`\psi _f`$ and $`h_f`$

$$\overline{\psi }=\sqrt{\frac{h_f^2}{\overline{u}^2}+\psi _f^2}.$$
(70)
In this way, we can express $`h_f`$ in terms of $`\psi _f`$ and then, by Eq. (57), in terms of $`\overline{\varphi }_f`$ and $`\varphi _0`$

$$h_f=\overline{u}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{sin}\left(\overline{\varphi }_f+\varphi _0\right).$$
(71)
Recalling Eq. (56), we also get

$$h_f=\overline{u}\psi _0\mathrm{sin}\overline{\varphi }_fh\mathrm{cos}\overline{\varphi }_f.$$
(72)
Substituting in Eq. (69) together with Eq. (58), we get

$$h_S=\psi _0\overline{u}ShCD_{LS}\psi _0C+D_{LS}\frac{h}{\overline{u}}S,$$
(73)
where

$`S=\mathrm{sin}\overline{\varphi }_f`$ (74)
$`C=\mathrm{cos}\overline{\varphi }_f.`$ (75)
Finally, substituting $`h`$ from Eq. (68) and discarding higher order terms, we obtain the lens equation in the polar direction

$`h_S=`$ $`h_O\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_{LS}}{\overline{u}}}SC\right)`$ (76)
$`\psi _0\left[(D_{OL}+D_{LS})C{\displaystyle \frac{D_{OL}D_{LS}}{\overline{u}}}S\right].`$
In this equation $`\psi _0`$ is directly related to the heights of the observer and the source. The solution is

$$\psi _{0,n}=\frac{h_S+h_OC_nh_O\frac{D_{LS}}{\overline{u}}S_n}{(D_{OL}+D_{LS})C_n+\frac{D_{OL}D_{LS}}{\overline{u}}S_n},$$
(77)
where $`S_n`$ and $`C_n`$ are $`S`$ and $`C`$ calculated for $`\overline{\varphi }_f=\overline{\varphi }_{f,n}`$. The phase $`\overline{\varphi }_{f,n}`$ of the n-th image is the only quantity that needs to be calculated preliminarly. However, once the equatorial lens equation (61) is solved, we know the impact angle $`\theta _n`$ of the n-th image and then we can calculate $`\overline{\varphi }_f`$ by Eq. (51).

As a consistency check we can see what we obtain in the Schwarzschild case when the photon completes just one loop around the black hole, exiting on the opposite side. In this case $`a=0`$ and $`\overline{\varphi }_{f,n}=(2n+1)\pi `$. We get

$$\psi _{0,n}|_{\overline{\varphi _f}=(2n+1)\pi }=\frac{h_Sh_O}{D_{OL}+D_{LS}},$$
(78)
which is the correct result for photons passing very close to the black hole, looping around it.

The consistency of our approximation requires that $`\psi _01`$ and $`hu`$. From Eq. (68) the height is

$`h_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{h_SD_{OL}h_OD_{LS}C_n}{(D_{OL}+D_{LS})C_n+\frac{D_{OL}D_{LS}}{\overline{u}}S_n}}.`$ (79)
For a generic $`\overline{\varphi }_f`$, both constraints are automatically satisfied, since the second term in the denominators dominates and we have that $`\psi _0h_O/D_{OL}`$ and $`huh_O/D_{OL}`$. However, in the neighborhood of $`\overline{\varphi }_f=k\pi `$ the denominators of the two expressions can vanish, making diverge both quantities. The equation

$$K(\gamma )=\overline{u}(D_{OL}+D_{LS})CD_{OL}D_{LS}S=0$$
(80)
defines the positions of the caustic points. In the next section we will discuss this equation in connection with the magnification of the images formed by sources close to the caustic points (which we call enhanced images for simplicity).

Surprisingly, thanks to the dragging phenomenon, the quasi-equatorial hypothesis is nearly always satisfied, except for enhanced images. In this situation the quasi-equatorial motion hypothesis is satisfied only for particular geometric configurations which keep $`\psi _0`$ and $`h`$ under control.

## VII Magnification and caustic points

The magnification is classically defined as the ratio of the angular area element of the image and the corresponding angular area element of the source that the observer would see if there were no lens. The angular area element of the image is

$$d^2A_I=d\theta d\psi _0.$$
(81)
The distance covered by the photons is $`D_{OL}+D_{LS}`$ and then the corresponding angular area element of the source is

$$d^2A_S=\frac{D_{LS}d\gamma dh_S}{(D_{OL}+D_{LS})^2}.$$
(82)
In fact the source element in the vertical direction is $`dh_S/(D_{OL}+D_{LS})`$. In the horizontal direction, the source element is span by $`d\gamma `$ when seen from the lens which corresponds to an angle $`D_{LS}d\gamma /(D_{OL}+D_{LS})`$ seen from the observer. If we want to compare the luminosity of a lensed image with the luminosity of the direct image (namely the source observed directly along $`D_{OS}`$ without lensing), the magnification is to be multiplied by the factor $`\frac{(D_{OL}+D_{LS})^2}{D_{OS}^2}`$.

Our lens application has the form

$`\gamma =\gamma (\theta )`$ (83)
$`h_S=h_S(\theta ,\psi _0),`$ (84)
where the dependence on $`\theta `$ in the polar lens application is through $`\overline{\varphi }_f`$ and we have neglected the backreaction of $`\psi _0`$ on $`\gamma `$. The ratio between $`d\gamma dh_S`$ and $`d\theta d\psi _0`$ is given by the modulus of the Jacobian determinant of the lens application

$$|J|=\left|\frac{\gamma }{\theta }\frac{h_S}{\psi _0}\right|.$$
(85)
The magnification is then given by

$$\mu =\frac{d^2A_I}{d^2A_S}=\frac{(D_{OL}+D_{LS})^2}{D_{LS}}\frac{1}{|J|}.$$
(86)
By the equatorial lens equation (61), retaining the dominant terms, we have

$$\frac{\gamma }{\theta }\frac{\overline{a}D_{OL}}{u_me_\gamma },$$
(87)
with

$$e_\gamma =e^{\frac{\overline{b}+\gamma }{\overline{a}}}.$$
(88)
In the following, it is convenient to encode the number of loops done by the photon within $`\gamma `$, in order to write more compact formulae for all the relativistic images. So $`\gamma `$ can assume any negative real value; $`\gamma `$ mod $`2\pi `$ represents the angular position of the source and $`n=\left[\frac{\pi \gamma }{2\pi }\right]`$ is the number of loops done by the photon. In concrete, two values of $`\gamma `$ differing by a multiple of $`2\pi `$ represent the same source position with respect to the lens, but reached by photons performing a different number of loops around the lens. For example, $`\gamma =0`$ is a source aligned behind the lens reached by a photon making no loop (weak field lensing); $`\gamma =2\pi `$ is the same source behind the lens but reached by a photon making one loop; $`\gamma =4\pi `$ is the same source for a photon making two loops, and so on.

By the polar lens equation (76), we have

$$\frac{h_S}{\psi _0}=(D_{OL}+D_{LS})C\frac{D_{OL}D_{LS}}{\overline{u}}S.$$
(89)
Assembling everything together, we get

$$\mu =\frac{(D_{OL}+D_{LS})^2}{D_{OL}D_{LS}}\frac{\overline{u}u_me_\gamma }{\overline{a}\left|\overline{u}(D_{OL}+D_{LS})CD_{OL}D_{LS}S\right|}.$$
(90)
For a generic $`\overline{\varphi }_f`$, $`\mu =O\left(\frac{u}{D_{OL}}\right)^2`$, but for the enhanced images, $`\mu `$ may even diverge (formally for point-like sources) when the denominator of Eq. (90) vanishes. The $`\gamma `$’s where this happens are called caustic points. At the lowest order in $`\frac{u}{D_{OL}}`$, Eq. (80) reduces to

$$\overline{\varphi }_fk\pi .$$
(91)
Combining the formula (51) for the phase $`\overline{\varphi }_f`$ with the formula for the deflection angle (23) and using the equatorial lens equation at the lowest order $`\gamma =\alpha (\theta )`$, this equation becomes

$$\frac{\gamma +\overline{b}}{\overline{a}}+\widehat{b}=k\pi .$$
(92)
The solutions of this equation determine the angular positions $`\gamma _k`$ of the caustic points

$$\gamma _k=\overline{b}+\overline{a}(\widehat{b}k\pi ).$$
(93)
For each $`k`$, we have one caustic point for direct photons and one caustic point for retrograde photons. $`k=1`$ would describe the weak field caustic points, formed when the azimuthal shift is about $`\pi `$. To be coherent with our strong field limit approximation, we shall restrict our analysis to $`k2`$.

Expanding the denominator of Eq. (90) around the caustic points, we have

$$K(\gamma )K^{}(\gamma _k)(\gamma \gamma _k(a))=\frac{D_{OL}D_{LS}}{\overline{a}}(\gamma \gamma _k(a)).$$
(94)
To understand the nature of these caustic points, notice that in the Schwarzschild limit $`\gamma _k(k1)\pi `$ and all the odd caustic points are aligned on the optical axis behind the lens on consecutive Riemann folds while the even ones are aligned before the lens. If the source is aligned behind the lens, the $`n`$-th image is given by photons doing $`n`$ loops around the black hole. Setting $`\gamma 2n\pi `$, the closest caustic point is $`\gamma _{2n+1}`$. Then we can recover the Schwarzschild magnification for the images created by a source behind the lens BCIS

$`\mu _n^{Sch}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(D_{OL}+D_{LS})^2}{D_{OL}D_{LS}}}{\displaystyle \frac{uu_me_n}{\overline{a}\left|\frac{D_{OL}D_{LS}}{\overline{a}}(2n\pi +\gamma )\right|}}=`$ (95)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{D_{OS}}{D_{OL}^2D_{LS}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_m^2e_n(1+e_n)}{\left|\beta \right|}}.`$
In Fig. 7 we plot the positions of the first five relativistic caustic points as functions of the black hole angular momentum. The first relativistic caustic point $`\gamma _2`$ is obtained when the photon turns around the black hole and comes back towards the observer. $`\gamma _2`$ is thus close to $`\pi `$ but is anticipated for negative $`a`$ and delayed for positive $`a`$. $`\gamma _3`$ is behind the lens but, at large angular momenta, can move very far from the initial position. At high values of the spin, the caustic points drift so much that they can even change their Riemann fold.

We can specify the magnification formula for the enhanced images using Eq. (94)

$`\mu _k^{enh}={\displaystyle \frac{(D_{OL}+D_{LS})^2}{D_{OL}^2D_{LS}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }_k(a)}{|\gamma \gamma _k|}}`$ (96)
$`\overline{\mu }_k(a)=\overline{u}(\gamma _k(a))u_m(a)e_{\gamma _k(a)}.`$ (97)
The quantity $`\overline{\mu }_k`$ regulates the magnification close to caustic points. The dependence on $`\gamma `$ has been extracted and has the typical $`|\gamma \gamma _k|^1`$ behaviour. The dependence on the astronomical distances $`D_{OL}`$, $`D_{LS}`$, $`D_{OS}`$ is negligible in $`\overline{\mu }_k`$ at the lowest order in $`\frac{u}{D_{OL}}`$. So we can use $`\overline{\mu }_k`$ as a measure of the magnifying power of the black hole for different enhanced images and different angular momenta.

In Fig. 8 we plot the magnifying power $`\overline{\mu }_3`$ of the caustic point $`\gamma _3`$, which for $`a=0`$ generates the first relativistic image of a source behind the lens. The magnification grows for negative angular momenta while decreases for positive $`a`$ almost linearly. The divergence in the magnification when $`a`$ approaches its extremal value $`1/2`$ should not be taken seriously, as the standard strong field limit approximation breaks down as explained in Sect. III.

The shape of $`\overline{\mu }_k`$ remains more or less the same for every $`k`$ but, since $`e_{\gamma _k}=e^{\widehat{b}k\pi }`$, we have that

$$\frac{\mu _{k+1}}{\mu _k}e^\pi =0.043.$$
(98)
The magnification of enhanced images falls quite rapidly as we let the photons make more and more loops.

## VIII Critical curves and caustic structure

It is well known that the Jacobian of the Schwarzschild lens has an infinite series of Einstein rings Nem ; VirEll . The first one is the classical weak field Einstein ring whose angular radius is

$$\theta _E=\sqrt{\frac{2D_{LS}}{D_{OL}D_{OS}}}.$$
(99)
The corresponding caustic is the point at $`\gamma _1=0`$.

At small impact parameters we enter the strong field limit of the Schwarzschild lensing and the light rays wind around the black hole. The second Einstein ring is created by photons coming back towards the observer. The caustic is at $`\gamma _2=\pi `$.

Decreasing $`u`$ further, the light ray completes a loop and we have the third Einstein ring, whose caustic point is $`\gamma _3=2\pi `$ and is superposed on the first caustic point (on the second Riemann fold).

Summing up, the Schwarzschild lens has a large weak field Einstein ring and an infinite series of concentric relativistic Einstein rings, very close to the minimum impact angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$. In the region bounded by the $`n`$-th ring and the $`n+1`$-th one, the sign of the Jacobian is $`(1)^{n+1}`$.

What changes when we turn on the spin of the black hole? As regards the first Einstein ring of the weak field limit, it is distorted and shifted. As a consequence, the caustic point turns into a finite extension diamond shaped caustic Ser .

For the critical curves in the strong field limit, we can calculate their intersections with the equatorial plane, which are

$`\theta _k^{cr}\theta _k^{0,cr}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{u_me_{\gamma _k}(D_{OL}+D_{LS})}{\overline{a}D_{OL}D_{LS}}}\right)`$ (100)
$`\theta _k^{0,cr}={\displaystyle \frac{u_m}{D_{OL}}}\left(1+e_{\gamma _k}\right).`$ (101)
They are closer to the optical axis on the positive $`a`$ side (for left-winding photons) and farther on the negative $`a`$ side (i.e. for right-winding photons). Therefore critical curves are distorted and shifted towards the negative $`a`$ side, that is the western side, if north is the direction of the spin.

The caustics are no longer points but acquire a non vanishing extension. $`\gamma _k(|a|)`$ and $`\gamma _k(|a|)`$ represent the intersections of the $`k`$-th caustic with the equatorial plane. As $`|\gamma _k(|a|)|<k\pi `$ and $`|\gamma _k(|a|)|>k\pi `$ the caustic is shifted towards the western side. To visualize this situation, in Fig. 9, we have plotted the projections of the caustics on the equatorial plane, as seen from the north direction. The $`[\gamma _1(|a|),\gamma _1(|a|)]`$ caustic is the weak field one, which stays almost aligned on the optical axis, while the relativistic caustics drift in the clockwise direction. As $`k`$ grows, the caustics become larger and farther from their initial position on the optical axis. Examining Fig. 7 we notice that at high angular momenta the caustics may become very large, covering even several Riemann folds!

At the lowest order in $`\psi `$ and neglecting any backreaction on the equatorial lens equation it is not possible to give a rigorous classification of the type of catastrophes we encounter on the equatorial plane. However, the fact that the first caustic in the weak field assumes the typical diamond shape of quadrupole lenses suggests a similar picture for strong field caustics. If this is the case, then the caustic points $`\gamma _k`$ on the equatorial plane are cusps. This is consistent with the fact that if we let $`\gamma `$ decrease below some $`\gamma _k`$ the corresponding image changes parity. This can happen only when at the critical point two images are formed with the same parity of the original image SchWei ; Rhi . These images rapidly move in the vertical direction and are missed in our quasi-equatorial approximation.

## IX Phenomenological implications

After all the analysis of the quasi-equatorial lensing in the Kerr spacetime, we are able to discuss the phenomenological relevance of the black hole spin.

In Ref. Boz , it was shown that all spherically symmetric black holes produce the same patterns of relativistic images. These patterns differ by the separations and the luminosity ratios between different relativistic images. The conclusion was that if strong field gravitational lensing will be caught by future VLBI experiments, it may provide a means to distinguish between different classes of black holes.

In spherically symmetric black hole lensing, a generic source not aligned with the optical axis produces extremely faint relativistic images. On the contrary, a point source perfectly aligned along the optical axis produces (theoretically) infinitely bright images. Actually the finite source radius cuts off the real brightness of the images. The relativistic images are maximally amplified altogether since all the caustic points of spherically symmetric black holes lie on the optical axis.

In Kerr lensing, the situation becomes radically different. The crucial fact is that the caustics no longer lie on the optical axis but drift throughout the trigonometric interval. Then if the source is close to one caustic point, it cannot be close to any other. The consequence is that only one image at a time can be enhanced, while all the others stay extremely faint.

To clarify the situation, suppose we have a source aligned with the caustic point $`\gamma _3(|a|)`$. Then the outermost relativistic image on the eastern side will be enhanced. If we put the source on $`\gamma _3(|a|)`$, then we only enhance the first relativistic image on the western side. If we put the source on $`\gamma _5(|a|)`$, then the second relativistic image on the eastern side will be enhanced and so on.

Rather than seeing an infinite series of relativistic images on each side of the lens, we would observe only one enhanced relativistic image. It would be difficult to recognize a single image as a gravitational lensing phenomenon rather than any kind of environmental source around the black hole. Even if we managed, it would be quite tricky to extract information about the strong fields around the black hole from one single relativistic image.

However, if the source is inside the caustic, two additional images should appear, making easier to recognize their real nature of lensed images of the same source. Moreover, three images can be used to investigate the gravitational field around the black hole and put constraints on its parameters. Alas, the additional images are missed in our quasi-equatorial approximation. In order to catch them, it is necessary to face the problem of Kerr lensing in its general form. A reliable treatment of non equatorial images, would complete our quasi-equatorial study and would make possible a detailed investigation of strong field gravitational lensing for high values of the black hole spin.

By now, we have discussed the two extreme situations: spherically symmetric black holes ($`a=0`$) and high spin black holes. It is interesting to estimate the value of the spin which separates the two regimes. We shall do it, referring to the black hole at the center of our Galaxy, assuming $`D_{OL}=8.5`$ kpc, $`D_{LS}=1`$ kpc.

In order to consider a black hole as spherically symmetric, the caustic drift must be negligible when compared to the extension of the source. In fact, in this case, the source does not “see” different caustics but they behave roughly as they were all at the same point. For small $`a`$ the $`\gamma _k`$ scale linearly as $`(k1)\pi a(\eta _0+\eta _1k)`$, with $`\eta _0`$ and $`\eta _1`$ numerical factors of order one. Then, the drift between two consecutive caustics will be negligible if

$$|\gamma _k(a)\gamma _{k+2}(a)\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi |=2\eta _1a\frac{R_S}{D_{LS}}.$$
(102)
If we consider a source with radius $`R_S=10R_{}`$, we then find that $`a`$ should be lower than $`10^{10}`$. When $`a`$ is greater than this value, the source will see only one caustic at a time. However, the caustic will be still seen as point-like, since the extension of the caustic scales as $`a^2`$. Therefore, we will still have two enhanced images, corresponding to the two intersections of the $`k`$-th caustic with the equatorial plane $`\gamma _k(a)`$ and $`\gamma _k(a)`$. This intermediate situation takes place as long as

$`|\gamma _k(a)+(k1)\pi |`$ $`|\gamma _k(a)+(k1)\pi |=`$ (103)
$`(\xi _0+\xi _1k)a^2{\displaystyle \frac{R_S}{D_{LS}}}`$
with $`\xi _0`$ and $`\xi _1`$ of order one.

For a $`10R_{}`$ source, this requires $`a10^5`$. Beyond this value, only one image at a time will be enhanced (together with an eventual additional pair of images if the source is inside the caustic), while all the others stay invisible.

These estimates reveal that the phenomenology of spherically symmetric black holes is realistic only for black holes with tiny spin. Yet, as recalled in the introduction, the first estimates of the spin of the black hole at the center of our Galaxy push towards high values LiuMel . If these estimates are confirmed, then we are forced to include spin in any realistic treatment of strong field gravitational lensing for Sgr A\*.

## X Summary

In this paper we have explored the modifications to strong field limit gravitational lensing induced by the rotation of the central body, analyzing the quasi-equatorial null geodesics.

The most apparent change is the formation of extended caustics which, for high angular momenta, can cover several Riemann folds. This situation is radically different from spherically symmetric black holes where the caustics are points aligned behind and in front of the lens. While for $`a=0`$ a source behind the lens is simultaneously close to all odd caustics and gives rise only to enhanced images, for Kerr black holes the source can be close to one caustic at a time and thus produces only one enhanced image.

As secondary interesting effects, we can also mention the asymmetry between images formed by photons winding in the same sense of the black hole and photons winding in the opposite sense, the latter appearing farther from the black hole. The magnification decreases with the spin, being higher for retrograde images.

The study of quasi-equatorial Kerr gravitational lensing is very instructive and has allowed us to discover a great number of interesting features of spinning black holes. However, to address the phenomenology of the black hole at the center of our Galaxy and/or other black holes with deeper insight, further investigation is necessary. In fact, we need a punctual description of the caustic structure not limited to the equatorial plane. The existence of extended caustics suggests the formation of pairs of non-equatorial images, missed in our approximation, which are of striking importance for the phenomenology.

The quasi-equatorial lensing, studied in this work, then represents a first fundamental step to understand lensing by spinning black holes. However, the complexity of the problem requires a global approach in order to give correct and complete answers to all observational questions. This settles as the main objective for future work on strong field gravitational lensing.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am grateful to Mauro Sereno for useful discussions on the subject.


text:
# Vacuum Energy, Cosmological Supersymmetry Breaking and Inflation from Colliding Brane Worlds.

## Acknowledgements

I wish to thank A. Faraggi and S. Abel for the invitation. This work is partially supported by the European Union (contract ref. HPRN-CT-2000-00152).