text:
# Duality for symmetric second rank tensors. II. The linearized gravitational field

## I Introduction

In preceding articles we have discussed the construction of dual theories for massive fields in a Lagrangian framework, and in particular we fully developed the case of a massive spin two theoryCMUO ; CMU . The purpose of this paper is to extend the analysis to the massless case, focusing on the linearized gravitational field in four dimensions.

Let us recall the procedure. Starting from a second order Lagrangian, the first step is to construct a first order Lagrangian, with a particular structure defined by the kinetic term. It contains the derivative of the original field times a new auxiliary variable, which corresponds to the field strength of the original theory. The key recipe to construct the dual theory is to introduce a point transformation in the configuration space for the auxiliary variable which involves the completely antisymmetric tensor $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma \tau }`$ and leads to the first order parent Lagrangian. From the latter, both the original and the dual theories are obtained. In fact, the equations of motion for the auxiliary variables take us back to our starting action. Alternatively, we can eliminate the original field from the parent Lagrangian, using its equations of motion, thus obtaining the dual theory which is equivalent to the original one through the transformation defined by such equations of motion.

Using the well known example of massive scalar-tensor duality we will revise the main steps of the procedure summarized above, to point out the new features that will appear in the massless case. Such a duality corresponds to the equivalence between a free scalar field $`\phi `$, with field strength $`f_\mu =_\mu \phi `$, and an antisymmetric potential $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, the Kalb-Ramond field, with field strength $`H_{\mu \nu \sigma }=_\mu B_{\nu \sigma }+_\nu B_{\sigma \mu }+_\sigma B_{\mu \nu }`$FLUND ; KR ; DSH . Starting from the standard second order Lagrangian for $`\phi `$ we derive a first order Lagrangian

$$L(\phi ,L^\mu )=L^\mu _\mu \phi \frac{1}{2}L^\mu L_\mu \frac{1}{2}m^2\phi ^2+J\phi .$$
(1)
To construct the dual theory we introduce the point transformation $`L_\mu `$ $`=ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }H^{\nu \rho \sigma }`$for the variable $`L_\mu `$, which leads to a new first order Lagrangian

$$L(\phi ,H_{\nu \sigma \tau })=H_{\nu \sigma \tau }ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma \tau }_\mu \phi +3H_{\nu \sigma \tau }H^{\nu \sigma \tau }\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi ^2+J\phi .$$
(2)
This turns out to be the parent Lagrangian from which both theories (original and dual) can be obtained. On the one hand, using the equation of motion for $`H_{\nu \sigma \tau }`$ we get

$$H_{\nu \sigma \tau }(\phi )=\frac{1}{6}ϵ^{\nu \sigma \tau \mu }_\mu \phi ,$$
(3)
which takes us back to the original second order Lagrangian for $`\phi `$ after it is substituted in Eq. (2). On the other hand, we can eliminate the field $`\phi `$ from the Lagrangian (2) using its own equation of motion

$$m^2\phi =_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma \tau }H_{\nu \sigma \tau }+J.$$
(4)
In this way we obtain the new theory

$$L(H_{\nu \sigma \tau })=\frac{1}{2}\left(ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma \tau }_\mu H_{\nu \sigma \tau }\right)^2+3m^2H_{\nu \sigma \tau }H^{\nu \sigma \tau }Jϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma \tau }_\mu H_{\nu \sigma \tau }+\frac{1}{2}J^2,$$
(5)
which is equivalent to the original one through the transformation (4). This is a singular Lagrangian for the massive field $`H_{\nu \sigma \tau }`$, which is equivalent to a scalar field of mass $`m`$.

Following the same parent Lagrangian approach we have also constructed a family of dual theories for the massive Fierz-Pauli field $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ in terms of the fields $`T_{(\mu \nu )\rho }`$ satisfying $`T_{(\mu \nu )\rho }=T_{(\nu \mu )\rho }`$ and $`T_{(\mu \nu )}^{\text{ }\nu }=0`$. The cyclic identity

$$T_{(\mu \nu )\rho }+T_{(\nu \rho )\mu }+T_{(\rho \mu )\nu }=0,$$
(6)
which selects $`T_{(\mu \nu )\rho }`$ in the spin two irreducible representation, was not assumed as a starting point and arose as a dynamical result via the equations of motionCMUO ; CMU .

We now turn to the massless case. Here a very important difference appears, which we still illustrate in the scalar field context. In this case the equation of motion (4) of $`\phi `$ becomes a constraint on $`H_{\nu \sigma \tau }`$

$$_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma \tau }H_{\nu \sigma \tau }=J.$$
(7)
Out of the sources, where $`_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma \tau }H_{\nu \sigma \tau }=0`$, this constraint tells us that the field $`H_{\nu \sigma \tau }`$ can be considered as a field strength with an associated potential

$$H_{\nu \sigma \tau }=_\nu B_{\sigma \tau }+_\sigma B_{\tau \nu }+_\tau B_{\nu \sigma }.$$
(8)
In the region where $`J0`$ this is not valid. Hence it is not possible to give a global solution for $`B_{\sigma \tau }`$ because, using Eq. (8), the LHS of Eq. (7) is always zero while the RHS might be non null in a given domain. The problem is similar to that of finding the electromagnetic potential for a magnetic monopole.

To deal with this situation we introduce a Dirac-type string singularity $`f^\mu (x)`$ defined bySCHWINGER

$$f^\mu (x)=_C^x𝑑\xi ^\mu \delta ^{(4)}(\xi ),_\mu f^\mu (x)=\delta ^{(4)}(x).$$
(9)
The path $`C`$ begins at infinity, ends up at the point $`x`$ and can be chosen as a straight line if considered convenient. Thus we can write a particular solution to Eq. (7) as

$$ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma \tau }H_{\nu \sigma \tau }(x)=(dy)f^\mu (xy)J(y),$$
(10)
with the general solution being

$$H_{\nu \sigma \tau }=_\nu B_{\sigma \tau }+_\sigma B_{\tau \nu }+_\tau B_{\nu \sigma }+\frac{1}{6}ϵ_{\nu \sigma \tau \rho }(dy)f^\rho (xy)J(y),$$
(11)
in terms of the potential field and the one dimensional singular string.

The Lagrangian for the potential $`B_{\alpha \beta }`$ is obtained by substituting Eq. (11) into (5), which produces the corresponding equations of motion.

The duality transformations are expressed in terms of the following non-local relation between the field $`\phi `$, describing the original zero-mass scalar theory, and the potential $`B_{\alpha \beta }`$, which is obtained through the comparison of $`H^{\mu \nu \rho }`$ in Eqs. (3) and (11)

$$\frac{1}{6}ϵ_{\nu \sigma \tau \mu }^\mu \phi =_\nu B_{\sigma \tau }+_\sigma B_{\tau \nu }+_\tau B_{\nu \sigma }+\frac{1}{6}ϵ_{\nu \sigma \tau \rho }(dy)f^\rho (xy)J(y).$$
(12)
Thus, in the case of massless theories the first order equation of motion for the original variable becomes a constraint, i.e. it looks like a Bianchi identity, which states that the dual field can now be considered as a field strength with an associated potential plus a non-local contribution. Solving the constraint we obtain the dual theory, in which this potential becomes the basic field. Both theories arise from the same parent Lagrangian and represent the same physics. This procedure strongly resembles the electric-magnetic duality of the Maxwell theory. In fact, it is a generalization of the well known p-form duality to arbitrary tensorial massless fieldsDUAL .

Naively one could think that another possibility to generate a massless dual theory for the linearized gravity is to take $`m=0`$ in the massive $`T_{(\mu \nu )\sigma }`$ Lagrangian of Ref. CMU . We explore this possibility in the Appendix, with negative results. The Dirac analysis shows that such a theory describes only a spin zero excitation. This result corrects our previous preliminary calculation of the number of degrees of freedom for the massless theory reported in Refs. CMUO ; CMU , which erroneously stated that this number was two.

The construction of dual theories is usually based on a kinematical perspective where the basic dual fields are assigned to associated representations of the Poincaré groupLAB ; LABAST . Some dynamical realizations of duality have also been considered in the framework of four dimensional higher derivatives theories of gravityDESER  and in other gravitational theoriesOBREGON . Our approach is based on a Lagrangian basis, where the auxiliary fields are not in irreducible representations to begin with, but the ensuing Lagrangian constraints warrant that the dynamics develops in an adequate reduced space, with a well defined spin content.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we apply the dualization scheme to the Fierz-Pauli theory and obtain the dual description in terms of two tensors, a symmetric one, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$, and an antisymmetric one, $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$. Section III contains the analysis of the gauge symmetries of the dual theory, which clarifies the physical meaning of the dual fields. In Section IV we consider two examples which illustrate the construction and the effect of the dual transformations: (i) the field describing polarized gravitational waves and (ii) the gravitational field produced by a point mass at rest. The last section contains a summary and some comments on the work. Finally, in the Appendix we discuss the massless theory for the $`T_{(\mu \nu )\sigma }`$ field.

## II The massless spin 2 field parent Lagrangian

The parent Lagrangian for $`m=0`$ is (see Eq. (39) of Ref.CMU  with $`a=e^2=1/4`$)

$$L=\frac{1}{8}T_{(\mu \nu )\sigma }T^{(\mu \nu )\sigma }+\frac{1}{4}T_{(\mu \nu )\sigma }T^{(\mu \sigma )\nu }+\frac{1}{2}T_{(\mu \nu )\sigma }ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }_\alpha h_\beta ^\sigma +h^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha \beta },$$
(13)
where the source $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha \beta }`$ is symmetric, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{\Theta }_{\beta \alpha }`$, and conserved, $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha \beta }=0`$. The field $`T_{(\mu \nu )\rho }`$ has zero trace, $`T_{(\mu \nu )}{}_{}{}^{\mu }=0`$. From the equation of motion for $`T_{(\mu \nu )\sigma }`$ we can solve $`T_{(\mu \nu )\sigma }`$ in terms of $`h_\beta ^\sigma `$

$$T_{(\mu \nu )\beta }=ϵ_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\alpha \sigma }_{\alpha }^{}h_{\sigma \beta }+ϵ_{\mu \nu \beta \lambda }\left(_\alpha h^{\alpha \lambda }^\lambda h_\alpha ^\alpha \right),$$
(14)
which indeed has a null trace. Plugging back the expression (14) in the Lagrangian (13) one obtains a Lagrangian for $`h^{\sigma \kappa }`$, which is the linearized Einstein Lagrangian

$$=_\mu h^{\mu \nu }_\alpha h_\nu ^\alpha +\frac{1}{2}^\alpha h_{\mu \nu }_\alpha h^{\mu \nu }+_\mu h^{\mu \nu }_\nu h_\alpha ^\alpha \frac{1}{2}_\alpha h_\mu ^\mu ^\alpha h_\nu ^\nu +h^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha \beta },$$
(15)
as we proved in a previous paperCMU .

The corresponding equations of motion for $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ are the linearized Einstein equations

$$^\alpha _\alpha h_{\mu \nu }+_\mu _\nu h_\alpha ^\alpha \left(_\mu _\alpha h_\nu ^\alpha +_\nu _\alpha h_\mu ^\alpha \right)\eta _{\mu \nu }\left(^\alpha _\alpha h_\beta ^\beta _\alpha _\beta h^{\alpha \beta }\right)=\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu },$$
(16)
which clearly show that $`h_\beta ^\sigma `$ is a spin 2 massless field. This Lagrangian has the gauge symmetry

$$h_{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }+_\mu \epsilon _\nu +_\nu \epsilon _\mu .$$
(17)
On the other hand the Euler-Lagrange equation for the Lagrange multiplier $`h^{\mu \nu }`$ in (13) reduces to a simple constraint

$$_\sigma (ϵ^{\alpha \beta \sigma \nu }T_{(\alpha \beta )}{}_{}{}^{\mu }+ϵ^{\alpha \beta \sigma \mu }T_{(\alpha \beta )}{}_{}{}^{\nu })=\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }.$$
(18)
Substituting the expression (14) in the above equation we recover the equation of motion (16) for $`h_{\mu \nu }`$.

We face here a situation similar to the one already encountered for the scalar field. From the constraint (18) we are able to introduce a potential for the field $`T_{(\alpha \beta )}^\mu `$ only outside of the sources. Therefore there is no global solution for a potential. In analogy with the scalar field, we choose the particular solution $`\overline{T}_{(\alpha \beta )}^\mu `$ of Eq. (18) as

$$(ϵ^{\alpha \beta \sigma \nu }\overline{T}_{(\alpha \beta )}{}_{}{}^{\mu }+ϵ^{\alpha \beta \sigma \mu }\overline{T}_{(\alpha \beta )}{}_{}{}^{\nu })(x)=(dy)f^\sigma (xy)\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }(y),$$
(19)
which leads to

$$\overline{T}_{(\alpha \beta )}{}_{}{}^{\mu }=\frac{1}{6}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \sigma \nu }(dy)f^\sigma (xy)\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }(y).$$
(20)
Next, we find the solution $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\alpha \beta )}^\nu `$ to the homogeneous equation associated to (18)

$$_\sigma \left(ϵ^{\alpha \beta \sigma \nu }\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\alpha \beta )}^\mu +ϵ^{\alpha \beta \sigma \mu }\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\alpha \beta )}^\nu \right)=0.$$
(21)
The above equation implies that the symmetric part of the tensor $`k^{\mu \nu }=_\sigma ϵ^{\alpha \beta \sigma \nu }\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\alpha \beta )}^\mu `$ is zero. Furthermore, this tensor has a vanishing divergence $`_\nu k^{\mu \nu }=0`$, and thus it can be written as $`k^{\mu \nu }=ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma \delta }_\sigma A_\delta `$, leading to

$$_\sigma \left(ϵ^{\alpha \beta \sigma \nu }\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\alpha \beta )}^\mu ϵ^{\alpha \beta \sigma \mu }\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\alpha \beta )}^\nu \right)=2ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma \delta }_\sigma A_\delta .$$
(22)
In fact, Eq. (22) is a linear equation for $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\alpha \beta )}^\mu `$, whose solution consists of the general solution for the homogeneous equation plus a particular solution for the complete one. The homogenous equation corresponding to (22) tells us that $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\alpha \beta )}^\mu `$ is a closed 2-form for each $`\mu `$, while a particular solution is given by $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\alpha \beta )}^\mu =\delta _\alpha ^\mu A_\beta \delta _\beta ^\mu A_\alpha `$. Thus the general solution for $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\alpha \beta )\mu }`$ in (22) is

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\alpha \beta )\mu }=\left(\eta _{\mu \alpha }A_\beta \eta _{\mu \beta }A_\alpha \right)+\left(_\alpha B_{\mu \beta }_\beta B_{\mu \alpha }\right),$$
(23)
where the tensor $`B_{\mu \beta }`$ is not necessarily symmetric. It can be expressed in terms of its symmetric and antisymmetric parts, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{h}_{\nu \mu }`$ and $`\omega _{\mu \nu }=\omega _{\nu \mu }`$ respectively,

$$B_{\mu \nu }=\omega _{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }.$$
(24)
Finally, taking into account that $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{(\alpha \beta )\mu }`$ must be traceless we obtain from (23)

$$A_\alpha =\frac{1}{3}\left(^\beta \stackrel{~}{h}_{\beta \alpha }_\alpha \stackrel{~}{h}_\beta ^\beta +^\beta \omega _{\beta \alpha }\right).$$
(25)
In this way we have found the general solution for the constraint equation (18) which is

$$T_{(\alpha \beta )\mu }=\left(\eta _{\mu \alpha }A_\beta \eta _{\mu \beta }A_\alpha \right)+\left(_\alpha B_{\mu \beta }_\beta B_{\mu \alpha }\right)\frac{1}{6}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \sigma \nu }(dy)f^\sigma (xy)\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }(y).$$
(26)
We have obtained a description of the theory in terms of the potentials $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$, together with a Dirac-type string contribution.

Considering for simplicity the free field case, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }=0`$, and substituting (23) and (25) into the Lagrangian (13) we get

$`L`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\alpha \stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }_\alpha \stackrel{~}{h}^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}^{\mu \nu }_\alpha \stackrel{~}{h}_\nu ^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_\alpha ^\alpha ^\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_\alpha ^\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_\alpha ^\alpha _\nu \stackrel{~}{h}^{\mu \nu }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}^{\mu \nu }^\alpha \omega _{\nu \alpha }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}_\mu \omega ^{\nu \mu }^\alpha \omega _{\nu \alpha }.`$ (27)
In fact only the divergence of $`\omega _{\nu \alpha }`$ appears in the Lagrangian, which implies that $`\omega _{\nu \alpha }`$ is an auxiliary field, defined up to an arbitrary exact two form. The equations of motion are

$`^\alpha _\alpha \left(\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{h}_\sigma ^\sigma \right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}_\alpha \left(_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_\nu ^\alpha +_\nu \stackrel{~}{h}_\mu ^\alpha \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(_\nu _\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_\alpha ^\alpha +\eta _{\mu \nu }_\alpha _\beta \stackrel{~}{h}^{\alpha \beta }\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}^\alpha \left(_\mu \omega _{\nu \alpha }+_\nu \omega _{\mu \alpha }\right)=0,`$ (28)
$`_\beta \left(_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_\nu ^\beta _\nu \stackrel{~}{h}_\mu ^\beta \right)^\alpha \left(_\mu \omega _{\nu \alpha }_\nu \omega _{\mu \alpha }\right)=0.`$ (29)
Eq. (29) implies that $`^\alpha \omega _{\nu \alpha }_\beta \stackrel{~}{h}_\nu ^\beta `$ has zero curl. Thus

$$^\alpha \omega _{\nu \alpha }_\beta \stackrel{~}{h}_\nu ^\beta =_\nu \mathrm{\Phi },$$
(30)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a scalar field. The divergence of Eq. (30) leads to

$$^\nu _\beta \stackrel{~}{h}_\nu ^\beta =^\nu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(31)
Replacing the expression (30) for $`^\alpha \omega _{\nu \alpha }`$ in (28) we obtain

$$^\alpha _\alpha \stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }_\mu _\alpha \stackrel{~}{h}_\nu ^\alpha _\nu _\alpha \stackrel{~}{h}_\mu ^\alpha +\frac{1}{3}_\nu _\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_\alpha ^\alpha +\frac{1}{3}\eta _{\mu \nu }\left(_\alpha _\beta \stackrel{~}{h}^{\alpha \beta }^\beta _\beta \stackrel{~}{h}_\alpha ^\alpha \right)\frac{2}{3}_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(32)
Note that the trace of the the above equation does not yield $`^2\stackrel{~}{h}_\alpha ^\alpha ^\alpha ^\beta \stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }=0`$, at difference with the case of the linearized sourceless Einstein equations.

Contracting (14) with $`ϵ_{\kappa \lambda \sigma \alpha }`$we have

$$\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\kappa \lambda \sigma \alpha }^\kappa \omega ^{\sigma \lambda }D_\alpha =\left(_\alpha h_\beta ^\beta _\beta h_\alpha ^\beta \right).$$
(33)
This equation gives the curl of the antisymmetric component, and also shows that it is a topologically conserved current in the dual description, $`^\alpha D_\alpha =0`$. This conservation law can also be derived from the equation of motion for $`h^{\sigma \kappa }`$ when the energy momentum tensor is traceless. It expresses that in this case the scalar curvature vanishes.

## III Gauge symmetries

The $`T_{(\alpha \beta )}^\mu `$ field is invariant under the following local transformations

$`\delta _\mathrm{\Psi }A_\beta =_\beta \mathrm{\Psi },\delta _\mathrm{\Psi }B_{\mu \beta }=\eta _{\mu \beta }\delta \mathrm{\Psi },`$ (34)
$`\delta _fA_\beta =0,\delta _fB_{\mu \beta }=_\mu f_\beta ,`$ (35)
which in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$ read

$`\delta \omega _{\mu \nu }`$ $`=\left(_\mu f_\nu _\nu f_\mu \right),`$ (36)
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=\eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Psi }+\left(_\mu f_\nu +_\nu f_\mu \right).`$ (37)
The induced transformation upon the auxiliary field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, introduced in Eq. (30), is

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }2_\alpha f^\alpha ,$$
(38)
which shows that it is pure gauge.

The dual theory we have constructed exhibits two kinds of gauge symmetries, one of them similar to that of the Fierz-Pauli spin two theory. Next we show that an adequate gauge fixing for the additional $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$-symmetry reduces our theory to a standard massless spin two form. We can use the freedom in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to set

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\stackrel{~}{h}_\alpha ^\alpha .$$
(39)
With this choice Eq. (30) becomes

$$^\alpha \omega _{\nu \alpha }_\beta \stackrel{~}{h}_\nu ^\beta =_\nu \stackrel{~}{h}_\alpha ^\alpha ,$$
(40)
which leads to

$$^\alpha ^\beta \stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }^2\stackrel{~}{h}_\alpha ^\alpha =0.$$
(41)
As we have mentioned previously, the above equation is the trace of the sourceless Einstein equations (16). Let us also remark that Eq. (40) is invariant under the remaining gauge transformations generated by the functions $`f^\nu `$ in Eqs. (36) and (37). This is because, according to Eq. (38), the gauge (39) fixes $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ without constraining $`f^\alpha `$. Thus the equations of motion (32) can be rewritten as

$$^\alpha _\alpha \stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }\left(_\mu _\alpha \stackrel{~}{h}_\nu ^\alpha +_\nu _\alpha \stackrel{~}{h}_\mu ^\alpha \right)+_\nu _\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_\alpha ^\alpha =0,$$
(42)
where we have explicitly used the trace condition (41). In this way we have recovered the linearized Einstein equations for $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$, thus describing spin two massless excitations. In particular the gauge condition $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\stackrel{~}{h}_\alpha ^\alpha `$ leads to $`A_\alpha =0`$, according to expressions (25) and (30). Therefore, we have shown that the dual theory here obtained, described by the Lagrangian (27), is a gauge description where a $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$-orbit is conformed by a set of theories which are gauge-equivalent to the linearized Einstein theory. In what follows we will always work in the gauge $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\stackrel{~}{h}_\alpha ^\alpha `$.

From Eqs. (14) and (23), the duality relation among the potential fields is

$$ϵ^{\kappa \lambda \sigma \beta }\left(_\alpha h_\beta ^\alpha _\beta h_\alpha ^\alpha \right)ϵ^{\kappa \lambda \alpha \beta }_\alpha h_\beta ^\sigma =\left(^\kappa \stackrel{~}{h}^{\sigma \lambda }^\lambda \stackrel{~}{h}^{\sigma \kappa }\right)+\left(^\kappa \omega ^{\sigma \lambda }^\lambda \omega ^{\sigma \kappa }\right).$$
(43)
At this stage we can completely determine the fields of the dual theory. A standard gauge choice in the linearized spin two theory via the functions $`f^\nu `$ gives $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }`$, which in turn fixes the divergence of $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$ through Eq. (40), and the curl of $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$ through Eq. (33), thus yielding $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$.

We can now obtain the relationship between the corresponding Riemann tensors. Recalling its definition

$$R_{\mu \nu \kappa }^\lambda =\frac{1}{2}\left[_\mu \left(_\kappa h_\nu ^\lambda _\nu h_\kappa ^\lambda \right)^\lambda \left(_\kappa h_{\mu \nu }_\nu h_{\mu \kappa }\right)\right],$$
(44)
and using Eqs. (43) and (33) we have

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_\mu ^{\sigma \lambda \kappa }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }^{\kappa \lambda }R_\mu ^{\sigma \alpha \beta },$$
(45)
which exhibits the local transformation between the field strengths arising from the non-local relation among the potentials.

Finally, it is interesting to explore the relation among the gauge transformations in both theories. The gauge freedom due to $`\epsilon ^\mu `$ in the original theory is mapped into gauge transformations of the antisymmetric tensor $`\omega _{\sigma \kappa }`$

$$\delta \omega _{\sigma \kappa }=ϵ_{\mu \nu \sigma \kappa }^\mu \epsilon ^\nu ,$$
(46)
while the new gauge freedom of $`\stackrel{~}{h}^{\mu \nu }`$ due to $`f^\mu `$ is independent from them. Thus the dual Lagrangian is invariant under (46) because it depends only on the divergence of $`\omega _{\sigma \kappa }`$, which does not change under this gauge transformation.

## IV Examples

In this section we discuss two examples which illustrate the construction and effects of the proposed dual transformations. The first one refers to the behavior of the polarization components of a gravitational wave. The second one discusses the field produced by a point mass and shows how it is mapped into the potentials $`\omega _{0i}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{0i}`$, that have a form analogous to the electromagnetic potential of a magnetic monopole.

### IV.1 Gravitational waves

In this case the gauge can be fixed using the transverse traceless gauge TT. Working in the momentum space the gravitational field is

$$h_{\mu \nu }(k)=h^+(k)e_{\mu \nu }^+(k)+h^\times (k)e_{\mu \nu }^\times (k),$$
(47)
where $`k^\mu =(k^0,\stackrel{}{k})`$, with $`k_0=\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|`$, and the two possible helicities have polarization tensors

$$e_{\mu \nu }^+(k)=m_\mu m_\nu n_\mu n_\nu ,e_{\mu \nu }^\times (k)=m_\mu n_\nu +n_\mu m_\nu .$$
(48)
The space-like quadrivectors $`m^\mu =(0,\widehat{m})`$, $`n^\mu =(0,\widehat{n})`$ are such that

$$\widehat{m}\widehat{m}=\widehat{n}\widehat{n}=1,\widehat{m}\widehat{n}=0,\widehat{m}\stackrel{}{k}=\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{k}=0.$$
(49)
That is to say, $`\widehat{m}`$,$`\widehat{n}`$, and $`\widehat{k}=\stackrel{}{k}/|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ form an orthonormal triad with $`\widehat{n}=\widehat{m}\times \widehat{k}`$. Thus, the properties that define the TT gauge are $`^\mu h_{\mu \nu }=h_\nu ^\nu =h^{0\nu }=0`$. In this gauge we have $`D^\lambda =0`$ so that Eq. (33) leads to

$$ϵ_{\lambda \sigma \kappa \alpha }^\lambda \omega ^{\sigma \kappa }=0.$$
(50)
Given the field of a gravitational wave as in (47) we will now find the dual fields. To begin with we also choose the TT gauge for the field $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\alpha \beta }`$, which implies

$$^\mu \omega _{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(51)
according to Eq. (40). Thus we obtain $`\omega _{\mu \nu }=0`$. In the chosen gauge we have the following expression for $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }(k)`$

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }(k)=\stackrel{~}{h}_+e_{\mu \nu }^+(k)+\stackrel{~}{h}_\times e_{\mu \nu }^\times (k).$$
(52)
According to Eq. (43) the duality relations between both theories are

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_{\kappa \sigma \lambda }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\kappa \lambda }{}_{}{}^{\alpha \beta }D_{\alpha \sigma \beta }^{},$$
(53)
where $`D^{\lambda \sigma \kappa }^\lambda h^{\sigma \kappa }^\kappa h^{\sigma \lambda }`$. The properties ($`ϵ^{0123}=+1`$)

$$ϵ_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }k_{\mu }^{}m_\nu =(k_\alpha n_\beta k_\beta n_\alpha ),ϵ_{\alpha \beta }{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }k_{\mu }^{}n_\nu =(k_\alpha m_\beta k_\beta m_\alpha ),$$
(54)
lead to

$`ϵ_{\kappa \lambda }{}_{}{}^{\nu \mu }(k_\nu e_{\sigma \mu }^+k_\mu e_{\sigma \nu }^+)`$ $`=+2\left[k_\kappa e_{\sigma \lambda }^\times k_\lambda e_{\sigma \kappa }^\times \right],`$
$`ϵ_{\kappa \lambda }{}_{}{}^{\nu \mu }(k_\nu e_{\sigma \mu }^\times k_\mu e_{\sigma \nu }^\times )`$ $`=2\left[k_\kappa e_{\sigma \lambda }^+k_\lambda e_{\sigma \kappa }^+\right].`$ (55)
The next step is to substitute Eqs. (47) and (52) in the relation (53). The elements $`e_{\alpha \beta }^+`$ and $`e_{\alpha \beta }^\times `$ of the tensor basis in the LHS of (53) are mixed by the epsilon symbol according to Eqs. (55), which interchanges the labels $`+`$ and $`\times `$ of the basis tensors. Comparing with the corresponding terms of the RHS we obtain the relations

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_+=h_\times ,\stackrel{~}{h}_\times =h_+.$$
(56)
Summarizing, the net result of the dualization procedure is to interchange the helicity states.

### IV.2 Point mass

In the de Donder gauge $`^\nu h_{\mu \nu }=1/2_\mu h^\alpha _\alpha `$, the linearized gravitational field produced by a point mass $`M`$ is

$$h_{\mu \nu }=\frac{2M}{r}\delta _{\mu \nu },$$
(57)
where the metric is $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=diag(+,,,)`$. Note that $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is proportional to $`\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ and not to $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$. The trace of the gravitational field is

$$h=\eta ^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }=\frac{4M}{r},$$
(58)
so that we can rewrite $`h_{\mu \nu }=1/2h\delta _{\mu \nu }`$.

The curl of $`\omega ^{\sigma \lambda }`$ is fixed by the original gravitational field $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ through Eq. (33) which yields

$$ϵ_{\kappa \lambda \sigma \alpha }^\kappa \omega ^{\sigma \lambda }=D_\alpha =4\frac{M}{r^3}x_\alpha .$$
(59)
To solve this equation we must specify the divergence of $`\omega ^{\sigma \lambda }`$, which we do by choosing

$$^\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }=_\nu \stackrel{~}{h}_\alpha ^\alpha ,$$
(60)
as the gauge in which the dual field $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ is described. In this way Eq. (40) yields

$$^\mu \omega _{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(61)
We solve Eq. (59) as usual. The zero divergence condition (61) yields $`\omega _{\mu \nu }^H=0`$ for the regular solutions of the corresponding homogeneous equation. As we see from Eq. (59) it is not possible to give a global particular solution for $`\omega ^{\sigma \lambda }`$, because the divergence of the RHS is always zero, while the divergence of the RHS gives $`16\pi M\delta \left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)`$. The problem is similar to finding the electromagnetic potential for a magnetic monopole. Using a Dirac string of the form $`f^\mu (x)=n^\mu f(x)`$, with the constant vector $`n^\mu =(0,\widehat{n})`$, we obtain that the only non zero components of $`\omega ^{\sigma \lambda }`$ are $`\omega ^{0i}=\omega ^{i0}=H^i`$ with

$$\stackrel{}{H}=(H^1,H^2,H^3)=2M\frac{\widehat{n}\times \stackrel{}{r}}{r(r+\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{r})},$$
(62)
which are singular on the negative $`\widehat{n}`$ axis. The reader can verify that we have $`\stackrel{}{H}=0`$ outside the singularity line.

Now we determine the dual field $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$. To this end we use the duality relations (43) between the fields $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$. Going back to the notation $`T^{(\kappa \lambda )\sigma }`$ for the LHS of (43) and using (57) we can show that the only non-zero contribution is

$$T_{(ij)0}=ϵ_{ij0k}^kh.$$
(63)
In this way, the explicit expressions for Eqs. (43) are

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`_i\stackrel{~}{h}^{00}^0\stackrel{~}{h}^{0i},`$ (64)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`_i\left(\stackrel{~}{h}^{j0}+\omega ^{j0}\right)^0\stackrel{~}{h}^{ij},`$ (65)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(^i\stackrel{~}{h}^{kj}^j\stackrel{~}{h}^{ki}\right),`$ (66)
$`ϵ_{ijk0}^kh`$ $`=`$ $`\left(^i\stackrel{~}{h}^{0j}^j\stackrel{~}{h}^{0i}\right)+\left(^i\omega ^{0j}^j\omega ^{0i}\right).`$ (67)
Equation (66), together with the symmetry of $`\stackrel{~}{h}^{kj}`$, implies that $`\stackrel{~}{h}^{kj}=^k^jU`$ for a scalar $`U`$. At this point we note that to implement the condition (61) we have made use of the gauge tranformations of $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$, which depend on the curl of $`f_\mu `$. We still have the gauge freedom given by $`f_\mu =_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$, which only involves a scalar function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The corresponding transformation of $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ is $`\delta \stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }=2_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Delta }`$. We can make use of this gauge freedom to set $`\stackrel{~}{h}^{jk}=0`$. Eq. (65) then gives place to $`\stackrel{~}{h}^{j0}=\omega ^{j0}`$, where we are discarding constant solutions that do not go to zero at infinity. In consequence, the second term in (64) vanishes and we have $`\stackrel{~}{h}^{00}=0`$. Thus, from the first three equations we get

$$\stackrel{~}{h}^{00}=0,\stackrel{~}{h}^{ij}=0,\stackrel{~}{h}^{j0}=\omega ^{j0}.$$
(68)
The remaining equation (67) is

$$^i\omega ^{0j}^j\omega ^{0i}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{0ijk}^kh,$$
(69)
which the reader can verify is only a rewriting of Eq. (59), which $`\omega ^{0i}`$ indeed satisfies.

Summarizing, we see that the duality introduced here maps the field of a point source into $`\omega ^{0i}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}^{0i}`$, which have the form of the electromagnetic potential of a magnetic monopole with its corresponding Dirac string singularity. The potential $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ breaks the rotational symmetry of the problem, but this is a gauge artifact, and as Eq. (45) shows the gauge invariant quantities are symmetric under spatial rotations.

## V Summary and Final Comments

Using a parent Lagrangian approach we have constructed dual theories for linearized gravity. The starting point is the zero mass case of the parent Lagrangian for massive spin-two theories developped in Ref. CMU . The equation of motion for the original field $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ leads to a constraint impliying that the dual field $`T_{(\mu \nu )\rho }`$ can be written as the field strength of a potential. The presence of sources required the introduction of Dirac-type line singularities in order to have a global solution for the potentials. The general solution for the constraint leads to a dual description in terms of an auxiliary field $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$, which enters only through its divergence, together with $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$. The resulting theory has the standard gauge symmetry of linearized gravity plus an additional $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$-symmetry, according to Eqs. (34). By an adequate gauge fixing of the latter symmetry one recovers the Einstein equations for $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ together with the standard symmetries. They still affect the field $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$, (see Eqs. (36) and (37)), which becomes determined through the gauge fixing of the gravitational fields $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$. In fact, such gauge fixing determines the curl and divergence of $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$ respectively, as can be seen from Eqs. (33) and (40). The relation between the dual theories is established at the level of the non-local equation (43) involving the corresponding potentials $`h_{\mu \nu }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$. We show that this equation translates into the somewhat expected local relation between the corresponding linearized Riemann tensors (45), thus providing further evidence for the auxiliary character of the field $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$.

Two examples have been considered which illustrate the construction of the dual theory together with the physical significance of the the dual gravitational field $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$. In the case of a gravitational wave, duality just interchanges the polarizations. When considering the field produced by a point mass, the dual configuration is a Dirac-type string. This last example shows that the duality transformation interchanges the role of gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic fields, defined as proportional to the gradient of the Newtonian potential and the curl of the $`h^{0i}`$ field respectively. Such a possibility was conjectured on the basis of the formal similarity between Maxwell equations for the electromagnetism and Einstein equations in the context of the PPN expansion for gravitationZEE . This duality relation also has a geometrical motivation because, in the same way as the original Newtonian potential for a point mass is the weak field approximation for the Schwarzschild metric, the dual field $`\stackrel{~}{h}^{\mu \nu }`$ we found is the weak field approximation for the massless Taub-NUT metricMISNER , which corresponds to spaces where gravitomagnetic charges can be definedMAGNON . Following the analogy with the original work of Dirac on magnetic monopoles, the possibility of a mass quantization due to the existence of a gravitomagnetic charge has also been consideredZEE ; GUO .

Finally we have explored an alternative possibility to obtain a dual theory for massless spin-two fields. The idea is to take the zero mass case of the massive $`T_{(\mu \nu )\rho }`$ theory previously developed, which is dual to massive Fierz-Pauli. Duality in this construction is realized in terms of constraints that enforce a reduced phase space with the correct spin content. It is by no means an obvious matter how these constraints and their classification into first and second class subsets (which determines the count of degrees of freedom) will be modified by the zero mass condition. Hence it is difficult to know in advance which will be the spin content of the resulting theory. We have studied this case in the Appendix, concluding that the resulting massless theory describes spin-zero excitations. This result corrects our previous preliminary calculation of the number of degrees of freedom of the massless theory reported in Refs. CMUO  and CMU , which erroneously stated that this number was two. This phenomena provides a clear manifestation of the van Dam-Veltman-ZakharovVVS  zero mass discontinuity, which leads to massless theories having different spin content with respect to the original massive cases.We can understand our result in terms of irreducible representations of $`SO(3)`$. Since we basically start from four antisymmetric two-forms embedded in $`T_{(\mu \nu )\rho }`$, we are dealing with the product $`(2,0)\times (1,0)`$ which decomposes into $`(3,0)`$ $`+`$ $`(2,1).`$Previous results LABAST ; CURT  indicate that the representation $`(2,1)`$ carries zero degrees of freedom, while the representation $`(3,0)`$ corresponds to the Kalb-Ramond field.

## Acknowledgements

RM and LFU acknowledge fruitful discussions with Antonio Garcia. This work was partially supported by CONICET-Argentina and CONACYT-México. LFU acknowledges support from DGAPA-UNAM project IN-117000, as well as CONACYT project 40745-F.

*

## Appendix A The massless theory for $`T_{(\mu \nu )\sigma }`$

There is still another possibility we can explore when constructing massless theories. In a preceding article we discussed dual Lagrangians for massive spin two fieldsCMU . In this approach the fields were not in irreducible representations of the Poincaré group at the Lagrangian level, but the Euler-Lagrange equations lead to constraints that reduced the configuration space to the adequate representation. We can take $`m=0`$ in these theories with the hope of obtaining an alternative massless spin-two formulation. Moreover, it is not obvious a priori how the constraints will be modified by this choice and hence, which will be the spin content of the resulting theory. In this Appendix we explore these matters and show how the van Dam-Veltman-ZakharovVVS  zero mass discontinuity, which leads to massless theories having different spin content with respect to the original massive cases, is realized.

First we give a brief review of the well-known case of the Kalb-Ramond field, from the perspective of the Dirac method, in order to provide a unified description of the massive and massless cases, which clearly shows the difference in the final counting of the true degrees of freedom. Subsequently we present a more detailed account of the zero mass case corresponding to the massive spin-two theory for $`T_{(\alpha \beta )\mu }`$ previously developedCMU .

The massive Kalb-Ramond theory for $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ considered in Ref. CURT  can be more conveniently described in terms of the field

$$b_\alpha =\frac{1}{6}ϵ_{\alpha \mu \nu \lambda }H^{\mu \nu \lambda },$$
(70)
with Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\left(_\alpha h^\alpha \right)\left(_\beta h^\beta \right)\frac{m^2}{2}h^\alpha h_\alpha .$$
(71)
The momenta are

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0=\frac{L}{\left(^0h^0\right)}=\left(_\alpha h^\alpha \right),\mathrm{\Pi }_i=\frac{L}{\left(^0h^i\right)}=0,$$
(72)
leading, respectively, to

$$\dot{h}_0=\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_0_ih^i\right),$$
(73)
together with the primary constraint $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i=0`$. The Hamiltonian $`H=\mathrm{\Pi }_0\dot{h}^0L+\lambda ^i\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ is

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^2+h^i_i\mathrm{\Pi }_0+\frac{m^2}{2}\left(h^0h_0+h^ih_i\right)+\lambda ^i\mathrm{\Pi }_i.$$
(74)
The secondary constraints are

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_k=00=\mathrm{\Theta }_k=_k\mathrm{\Pi }_0+cm^2h_k.$$
(75)
The terciary constraints

$$0=\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}_k=m^2\left(_kh_0\lambda _k\right)$$
(76)
finalize the Dirac procedure in both cases. When $`m0`$ they determine the Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda _k`$. When $`m=0`$ the consistency is automatically fulfilled. Summarizing, we have the constraints

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_i=0,\mathrm{\Theta }_k=_k\mathrm{\Pi }_0+cm^2h_k=0,$$
(77)
whose classification in terms of first or second class strongly depends upon the theory being massive or massless. In the case $`m0`$ the six constraints are second class, yielding $`\frac{1}{2}\left(2\times 46\right)=1`$ true degrees of freedom, thus reproducing the standard scalar field. However, the situation changes drastically in the case $`m=0`$. Here, the secondary constraint $`_k\mathrm{\Pi }_0=0`$ reduces to only one, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0=cte`$, and the remaining four constraints are first class. This leaves $`\frac{1}{2}\left(2\times 42\times 4\right)=0`$ true degrees of freedom. This is in accordance with the results of Refs. CURT  and LABAST

Next we study the zero mass case of the dual massive spin-two theory previously developed. Taking $`m=0`$ in Eq. (61) of Ref. CMU , the resulting Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{4}{9}F_{(\alpha \beta \gamma )\nu }F^{(\alpha \beta \gamma )\nu }+\frac{2}{3}F_{(\alpha \beta \gamma )\nu }F^{(\alpha \beta \nu )\gamma }F_{(\alpha \beta \mu )}{}_{}{}^{\mu }F_{}^{(\alpha \beta \nu )}{}_{\nu }{}^{},$$
(78)
with

$$F^{(\alpha \beta \gamma )\nu }=^\alpha T^{\left(\beta \gamma \right)\nu }+^\beta T^{\left(\gamma \alpha \right)\nu }+^\gamma T^{\left(\alpha \beta \right)\nu }.$$
(79)
The Lagrangian (78) dynamically fixes $`T_\beta ^{\left(\alpha \beta \right)}=0`$, and therefore it is not necessary to impose this constraint through a Lagrange multiplier. The corresponding equations of motion are

$$4_\alpha F^{\left(\alpha \nu \rho \right)\sigma }2_\alpha F^{\left(\alpha \nu \sigma \right)\rho }+2_\alpha F^{\left(\alpha \rho \sigma \right)\nu }2_\alpha F^{\left(\nu \rho \sigma \right)\alpha }+3^\sigma F^{\left(\nu \rho \mu \right)}{}_{\mu }{}^{}=0.$$
(80)
In order to analyze the constraints following the Dirac procedure we start by rewriting the Lagrangian (78) in terms of spatial and temporal components

$``$ $`=`$ $`F_{(0ij)0}F^{(0ij)0}2F^{(0ij)0}F_{(ijk)}^k2F_{(0ij)}{}_{}{}^{j}F_{}^{(0ik)}_k`$ (81)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}F_{(0ij)k}F^{(0ij)k}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}F_{(0ij)k}F^{(0ik)j}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}F_{(0ij)k}F^{(ijk)0}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}F_{(ijk)l}F^{(ijk)l}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}F_{(ijk)0}F^{(ijk)0}.`$
The primary constraints arising from the definition of the momenta are

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ik)}{}_{k}{}^{}=0,`$ (82)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(i0\right)0}=0,`$ (83)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(0i\right)j}=0,`$ (84)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(ij\right)k}4^iT^{\left(jk\right)0}\right)=0.`$ (85)
The Hamiltonian is

$`H`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ij)0}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(ij)0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{(ij)k}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ij)k}+\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ij)0}F_{(ijk)}^k`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}F^{(ijk)0}F_{(ijk)0}+2T_{(j0)0}_i\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ij)0}2T_{(0j)k}_i\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ij)k}`$ (86)
$`+\lambda _i\mathrm{\Pi }^{(i0)0}+\lambda _{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(0i)j}+\lambda (\mathrm{\Pi }4F^0)+\mu _i\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ik)}{}_{k}{}^{},`$ (87)
with

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ij)k},F^0=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}^iT^{(jk)0}.$$
(88)
We see that $`T_{(0j)k}`$ and $`T_{(0j)0}`$ act as Lagrange multipliers, stating that $`_i\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ij)k}=0`$ and $`_i\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ij)0}=0`$. Therefore the degrees of freedom must be in $`T_{(ij)\mu }`$.

The time evolution of the primary constraints yields an additional set of secondary constraints

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{i0}=_j\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ji)0},`$ (89)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ij}=_k\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ki)j},`$ (90)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }=ϵ_{ijk}\left(^i\mathrm{\Pi }^{(jk)0}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}_rF^{(ijk)r}\right).`$ (91)
There are no tertiary constraints.

Our set of constraints contains the first class subset

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^i=\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ik)}{}_{k}{}^{}=0`$ $`,3,`$ (92)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^i=\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(i0\right)0}=0`$ $`,3,`$ (93)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(0i\right)j}=0`$ $`,9,`$ (94)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{i0}=_j\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ji)0}=0`$ $`,(_i_j\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ji)0}=0)31=2,`$ (95)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ij}=_k\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ki)j}=0`$ $`,(_k\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ki)}{}_{i}{}^{}=0,_i_k\mathrm{\Pi }^{(ki)j}=0)931=5.`$ (96)
In parenthesis we have indicated the identities that must be substracted when counting the number of independent constraints, which is shown to the right of each equation. Their total number is 22. The second class subset is

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(ij\right)k}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}F^{\left(ijk\right)0}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(ij\right)k}4^kT^{\left(ij\right)0}\right),`$ (97)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }=ϵ_{ijk}\left(^i\mathrm{\Pi }^{(jk)0}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}_rF^{(ijk)r}\right)=ϵ_{ijk}^i\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^{(jk)0}+4_rT^{(jk)r}\right).`$ (98)
In this way the standard count of the independent degrees of freedom $`N`$ gives

$$N=\frac{1}{2}(2\times 242\times 222)=1,$$
(99)
showing that the massless dual theory describes a spin zero excitation.

The above count is most clearly seen in a plane wave configuration with $`k^\mu =(k,\mathrm{0\; 0}k)`$. In this case the constraints become

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(i0\right)0}=0,\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(0i\right)j}=0,i=1,2,3,`$ (100)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(31)0}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{(32)0}=0,`$ (101)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(12)2}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{(21)1}=0,`$ (102)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(31)2}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{(32)1}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{(31)1}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{(32)2}=0,`$ (103)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(31)3}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{(32)3}=0,`$ (104)
with

$$T^{\left(12\right)0}=\frac{1}{4k}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(12\right)3},\mathrm{\Pi }^{(12)0}=4kT^{(12)3}.$$
(105)
The canonical pair that remains is ($`T^{(12)3}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(12)3}`$), which means that there is only one degree of freedom, corresponding to a spin zero field.


format: text

text:
# Combinatorial Problems in Finite Geometry and Lacunary Polynomials

## 1. Introduction

In 1991 I wrote a survey paper called Extremal Problems in Finite Geometries . It concerns among others problems of the following type:

Given a set $`B`$ of points in a finite projective plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, with the property that there is a restricted number of possibilities for the size of the intersection of a line with $`B`$. What can be concluded about the size and the structure of $`B`$.

The archetypal result is Segre’s theorem :

If $`\mathrm{\Pi }=PG(2,q)`$, $`q`$ odd, and $`B`$ has at most two points on a line, then $`|B|q+1`$ (this part is easy), and in case of equality $`B`$ consists of the points of a conic.

The problem becomes much more difficult when larger intersections are allowed. A subset $`B`$ of $`PG(2,q)`$ of size $`k`$ having at most $`n`$ points on a line, is called a $`(k,n)`$-arc.

A simple counting argument going back to Barlotti  gives that if $`B`$ is a $`(k,n)`$-arc, then $`k(n1)(q+1)+1=nqq+n`$, and equality implies that $`n|q`$ and all lines intersect $`B`$ in 0 or $`n`$ points.

An arc $`B`$ meeting the above upper bound is called a maximal arc. The first non trivial case is $`n=2`$, and $`q`$ is even. In this case $`|B|=q+2`$ is possible and the maximal arc is called a hyperoval. In fact every $`(q+1)`$-arc can be extended to a hyperoval by adding one point and classifying or trying to find new hyperovals is one of the very active areas in finite geometry. For a survey on the current situation we refer to the two papers by Hirschfeld and Storme .

For $`n=3`$ non-existence of maximal arcs in $`PG(2,9)`$ was shown by Cossu , and later by Thas for general $`q`$ . Very little is known however in this case. In fact, if $`k(q)`$ stands for the maximal size of a $`(k,3)`$-arc in $`PG(2,q)`$ then it is unknown whether limsup $`k(q)/q>2`$ or liminf $`k(q)<3`$.

For $`n=4`$, and in fact for all $`n=2^a`$ and $`q=2^b`$, $`b>a`$ examples are known, most of them due to Denniston  and Thas .

For odd $`n`$ it was conjectured in  that maximal arcs don’t exist. This was finally proved by Ball, Blokhuis and Mazzocca in 1996 . A simplified proof appeared a year later .

Now we turn to the case where $`B`$ intersects every line in at least one point. Such a set is called a blocking set. It is called non-trivial if it does not contain a line. Here the classical result is due to Bruen :

A non-trivial blocking set $`B`$ in a projective plane of order $`q`$ has size at least $`q+\sqrt{q}+1`$, with equality if and only if $`q`$ is a square, and $`B`$ is a Baer subplane.

Our understanding of the situation when $`q`$ is not a square has increased dramatically in the last 10 years, from knowing very little to more or less complete knowledge.

Starting point was the unexpectedly simple proof (in 1993)  that a non-trivial blocking set in $`PG(2,p)`$, $`p`$ prime, has size at least $`3(p+1)/2`$.

The proof is based on properties of a certain kind of lacunary polynomial (as introduced and studied by Rédei in ) associated to the blocking set. The importance of Rédei’s work in this area was realized soon after the appearance of his book in 1970 notably in papers by Bruen and Thas, , where his result on the number of directions determined by the graph of a function on a finite field was used.

In contrast to the case that $`B`$ is an arc, we can still say something if we require that $`B`$ intersects every line of the plane in at least $`t`$ points, for some $`t>1`$. If $`q`$ is a square then a natural candidate for $`B`$ is the union of $`t`$ disjoint Baer subplanes. These can be found for all appropriate values of $`t`$ because it is possible to partition $`PG(2,q)`$ in $`q\sqrt{q}+1`$ disjoint Baer subplanes.

Building on earlier work by Ball , Gács, Szőnyi  and others Blokhuis, Storme and Szőnyi showed that for $`t<q^{1/6}`$ a $`t`$-fold blocking set in $`PG(2,q)`$ has size at least $`t(q+\sqrt{q}+1)`$ with equality if and only if $`B`$ is the union of $`t`$ disjoint Baer subplanes .

## 2. Directions

Let $`f:GF(q)GF(q)`$. Define the set of directions determined by $`f`$ to be

$$D_f:=\left\{\frac{f(u)f(v)}{uv}\right|u,vGF(q),uv\}.$$

We are interested in functions $`f`$ for which the set $`D_f`$ is small. If $`f`$ is linear, then $`D_f`$ just consists of the slope of the line defined by the graph of $`f`$. Our starting point will be the following important result of Rédei , p. 237, Satz 24.

###### Theorem 2.1

\[Rédei, 1970\] Let $`f:GF(q)GF(q)`$ be a nonlinear function, where $`q=p^n`$, $`p`$ prime. Then $`|D_f|`$ is contained in one of the intervals

$$(1+\frac{q1}{p^e+1},\frac{q1}{p^e1}),e=1,\mathrm{},[n/2];(\frac{q+1}{2},q).$$

Examples of functions determining relatively few directions are given by:

1. $`f(x)=x^{\frac{q+1}{2}}`$, $`q`$ odd, $`|D_f|=(q+3)/2`$;
2. $`f(x)=x^{p^e}`$, where $`e|n`$, $`|D_f|=(q1)/(p^e1)`$;
3. $`f(x)=\text{Tr}(GF(q)GF(p^e))(x)`$, $`|D_f|=(q/p^e)+1`$.

In all the examples $`|D_f|`$ is contained in one of the Rédei intervals corresponding to a subfield of $`GF(q)`$, i.e., $`e|n`$, and the obvious question was whether this could be proved. In  Blokhuis, Brouwer and Szőnyi slightly improved Rédei’s result but the real progress came with the paper  where not only it was proved that only the intervals with $`e|n`$ occur, but the functions for which $`|D_f|<(q+3)/2`$ where essentially characterized:

###### Theorem 2.2

\[Ball, Blokhuis, Brouwer, Storme, Szőnyi, 1999\] Let $`f:GF(q)GF(q)`$, where $`q=p^h`$, $`p`$ prime, $`f(0)=0`$. Let $`N=|D_f|`$. Let $`e`$ (with $`(0en)`$ be the largest integer such that each line with slope in $`D_f`$ meets the graph of $`f`$ in a multiple of $`p^e`$ points. Then we have one of the following:

1. $`e=0`$ and $`(q+3)/2Nq+1`$,
2. $`e=1`$, $`p=2`$ and $`(q+5)/3Nq1`$,
3. $`p^e>2`$, $`e|n`$, and $`q/p^e+1N(q1)/(p^e1)`$,
4. $`e=n`$ and $`N=1`$.

Moreover, if $`p^e>3`$ or ($`p^e=3`$ and $`N=q/3+1`$), then $`f`$ is a linear map on $`GF(q)`$ viewed as a vector space over $`GF(p^e)`$.

Very recently this result has been perfected by Simeon Ball, removing the condition $`p^e>2`$ in the third case (and thus getting rid of the second).

When we consider the set $`B`$ formed by the $`q`$ points of the graph of $`f`$ together with the $`N=|D_f|`$ points on the line at infinity corresponding to the directions determined by $`f`$, we get a blocking set. For if $`l`$ has a slope determined by $`f`$ then the infinite point of $`l`$ belongs to $`B`$, and if not, then $`l`$ and its parallels all contain precisely one point of the graph of $`f`$.

Conversely, if $`B`$ is a blocking set in $`PG(2,q)`$ of size $`q+N`$, and there is a line intersecting $`B`$ in $`N`$ points, then it arises from this construction. The blocking set is then called of Rédei type.

As mentioned in the introduction, the smallest non-trivial blocking sets were characterized by Bruen  to be Baer subplanes. They are of Rédei type and correspond to the function $`xx^\sqrt{q}`$.

If the blocking set $`B`$ is of Rédei type, then as a consequence of the direction theorem above the structure is very special if $`N<(q+3)/2`$, or equivalently if $`|B|\frac{3}{2}(q+1)`$. An important step towards showing that this is true in general is the following result for planes of prime order already mentioned in the introduction .

###### Theorem 2.3

\[Blokhuis, 1994\] Let $`B`$ be a blocking set in $`PG(2,p)`$, $`p`$ prime, not containing a line. Then

$$|B|\frac{3}{2}(p+1).$$

The proof is based on properties of lacunary polynomials, introduced and studied by Rédei in . In the same paper it is proved that a blocking set in $`PG(2,p^3)`$ has size at least $`p^3+p^2+1`$. Recently Polverino  has shown that small blocking sets in $`PG(2,p^3)`$ are all of Rédei type, and the possible sizes are $`p^3+p^2+1`$ and $`p^3+p^2+p+1`$ (corresponding to examples 2 and 3 above). When mentioning possible sizes of blocking sets we will always tacitly assume that they are minimal, so deleting a point destroys the blocking property.

A very interesting and probably feasible problem is to characterize the sets that give equality in the bound for $`PG(2,p)`$. For all (odd) $`p`$ the graph of the function

$$f:xx^{(p+1)/2},$$

(the first example) together with it’s $`(p+3)/2`$ directions is an example, and it is the essentially unique one of Rédei type (this was proved already in 1981 by Lovász and Schrijver  who also gave an elementary proof of Rédei’s result for the case that $`q=p`$ is prime). Only two examples (of size $`3(p+1)/2`$) are known that are not of Rédei type, one (with 12 points) in the plane of order 7, it looks like a dual affine plane of order 3. The other (with 21 points) in the plane of order 13 was only found last year by Blokhuis, Brouwer and Wilbrink. Both are unique . In the same paper it is shown that no other examples exist in planes of (prime) order less than 37, and it is extremely unlikely that this is different later on.

Motivated by these results we call blocking sets of size $`<\frac{3}{2}(q+1)`$ small, so small blocking sets only exist in planes of non-prime order. The structure of small blocking sets is restricted by the following theorem of Szőnyi :

###### Theorem 2.4

\[Szőnyi, 1997\] Let $`B`$ be a (minimal) small blocking set in $`PG(2,q)`$, where $`q`$ is a power of the prime $`p`$. Then $`|Bl|=1`$ mod $`p`$ for every line $`l`$.

For a long time I was convinced, and even conjectured that small blocking sets were necessarily of Rédei type, but this turned out to be false. Nice examples of small non-Rédei type blocking sets were found by Polito and Polverino .

The basic idea is very simple. Consider $`PG(2,q^s)`$. By definition its points and lines are the 1- and 2-dimensional subspaces of $`V=V(3,q^s)`$, a 3 dimensional vector space over $`GF(q^s)`$. When we consider $`V^{}`$ which is just $`V`$ as $`3s`$-dimensional over $`GF(q)`$ then points and lines correspond to certain $`s`$-, and $`2s`$-dimensional subspaces of $`V^{}`$. Now let $`W`$ be any $`s+1`$-dimensional subspace of $`V^{}`$. Let $`B(W)`$ be the collection of points in $`PG(2,q^s)`$ for which the corresponding $`s`$-space in $`V^{}`$ intersects $`W`$ non-trivially. One readily checks that $`B(W)`$ is a blocking set (of size at most $`(q^{s+1}1)/(q1)`$), because in the $`3s`$ dimensional vector space $`V^{}`$ an $`(s+1)`$-space and a $`(2s)`$-space must intersect in at least a 1-space. Polito and Polverino give examples that are not of Rédei type in all planes $`PG(2,p^n)`$, $`n>3`$. The examples of small blocking sets of Rédei type also fall under this more general construction, by the direction theorem.

Next we consider multiple blocking sets. $`B`$ is called a $`t`$-fold blocking set if every line intersects $`B`$ in at least $`t`$ points. If $`q`$ is a square, then $`PG(2,q)`$ can be partitioned into Baer subplanes, and taking $`t`$ of them produces a set with the property that every line intersects it in either $`t`$ or $`t+\sqrt{q}`$ points (this makes it a two-intersection set). Again using the theory of lacunary polynomials it can be shown that for small $`t`$ these are the minimal examples . Our knowledge on the structure of (relatively) small multiple blocking sets is summarized in the following

###### Theorem 2.5

\[Blokhuis, Storme, Szőnyi, 1998\] Let $`B`$ be a $`t`$-fold blocking set in $`PG(2,q)`$ of size $`t(q+1)+c`$. Let $`c_2=c_3=2^{1/3}`$ and $`c_p=1`$ for $`p>3`$.

1. If $`q=p^{2d+1}`$ and $`t<q/2c_pq^{2/3}/2`$ then $`cc_pq^{2/3}`$.
2. If $`4<q`$ is a square, $`t<q^{1/4}/2`$ and $`c<c_pq^{2/3}`$, then $`ct\sqrt{q}`$ and $`B`$ contains the union of $`t`$ disjoint Baer subplanes.
3. If $`q=p^2`$ and $`s<q^{1/4}/2`$ and $`c<p\frac{1}{4}+\sqrt{(p+1)/2}`$, then $`ct\sqrt{q}`$ and $`B`$ contains the union of $`t`$ disjoint Baer subplanes.

What it essentially says is that for $`t<q^{1/6}`$ a $`t`$-fold blocking set has at least the size of $`t`$ disjoint Baer subplanes, and equality implies that it is just that. In the special case that $`q`$ is the square of a prime, then the same is true for $`t<q^{1/4}/2`$.

This result appears to be rather sharp in the following sense: In  Ball, Blokhuis and Lavrauw construct a two-intersection set with the same parameters as, but different from the union of $`q^{1/4}+1`$ disjoint Baer subplanes, so the above characterization does no longer apply if $`t>q^{1/4}`$.

The construction is based on the Polito-Polverino idea. So the plane is $`PG(2,q^s)`$, and $`V=V(3,q^s)`$ and $`V^{}=V(3s,q)`$. Now we take for $`W`$ an $`s+2`$-dimensional subspace of $`V^{}`$. If this has the additional property that intersections with the $`s`$-dimensional subspaces of $`V^{}`$ corresponding to projective points are at most $`1`$-dimensional, then the corresponding set $`B(W)`$ is a $`(q+1)`$-fold blocking set. To see this note that if $`L`$ is a $`2s`$-dimensional subspace of $`V^{}`$ corresponding to a line, then $`WL`$ is at least 2-dimensional, but by assumption $`W`$ intersects $`s`$-spaces corresponding to points in at most 1 dimension, so it has to intersect at least $`q+1`$ of them.

The question of whether it is possible to find such subspaces lead to the notion of scattered subspaces with respect to spreads. An $`s`$-spread in a vector space $`V`$ is a collection of $`s`$-dimensional subspaces partioning the nonzero vectors of $`V`$. In order for $`V`$ to admit an $`s`$-spread it is necessary and sufficient that its dimension is a multiple of $`s`$. So in the above example the $`s`$-spaces in $`V^{}`$ corresponding to points of $`PG(2,q^s)`$ define an $`s`$-spread. Given a vector space $`V`$ together with an $`s`$-spread $`S`$ we say that the subspace $`W`$ is scattered by $`S`$ if $`W`$ intersect each spread element in an at most 1-dimensional subspace. A natural question is what the maximal dimension is of a scattered subspace. Results on this question and related problems can be found in the thesis of Lavrauw .

A detailed survey of the many recent results on blocking sets and multiple blocking sets is contained in the paper by Hirschfeld and Storme . Blocking sets of projective planes can also be considered as a special case of the more general concept of covers in hypergraphs, extensively treated in the excellent (but not too recent) survey by Füredi .

To conclude this section let me mention two attractive problems (on which no progress has been made in the last 10 years).

The first concerns double blocking sets in $`PG(2,p)`$. A lower bound due to Blokhuis and Ball gives $`|B|5(p+1)/2`$. A trivial example is formed by the union of three lines, of size $`3p`$. Could it be that this is the minimal size? It is true for $`p=2,3,5,7`$, but it might already be false for $`p=11`$.

The second question has repeatedly been asked to me by Paul Erdős. Is there a universal constant $`c`$ (10 say), such that in any plane (or any $`PG(2,p)`$ say) there is a blocking set with at most $`c`$ points on every line. In all of the known examples there are some lines with many points of the blocking set. Results by Ughi show that it does not work to use for $`B`$ the union of a small set of algebraic curves of bounded degree , using for instance a union of conics one obtains blocking sets with $`c\mathrm{log}(q)`$ points on a line. On the other hand, in $`PG(2,p^n)`$ there is a blocking set with at most $`p+1`$ point on every line.

## 3. Lacunary polynomials

We now turn to the main tool in the recent investigations on (multiple) blocking sets.

Let $`f(X)GF(q)[X]`$ be fully reducible, in other words, $`f(X)`$ factors into linear factors over $`GF(q)`$. In  Rédei investigates the case $`f(X)=X^q+g(X)`$ with deg$`(g)<q1`$, and calls the polynomial lacunary. The problem is to characterize those $`f`$ where the degree of $`g`$ is small. As an easy example we prove:

###### Theorem 3.1

\[Rédei, 1970\] Let $`f(X)=X^q+g(X)`$ be fully reducible in $`GF(q)[X]`$, where $`q=p^n`$ is prime. Then either $`f(X)GF(q)[X^p]`$, or $`g(X)=X`$ or deg$`(g)(q+1)/2`$.

Proof: Write $`f=s.r`$, where $`s`$ has the same zeroes as $`f`$, but with multiplicity one, and $`r`$ consists of the remaining factors. Then $`s|X^qX`$, as well as $`f`$, so $`s|X+g`$, and $`r|f^{}=g^{}`$. Hence $`f=s.r|(X+g)g^{}`$ so either $`(X+g)g^{}=0`$ or $`\mathrm{deg}(g)+\mathrm{deg}(g^{})\mathrm{deg}(f)=q`$.

If $`q=p`$ is prime, then $`g^{}=0`$ together with deg$`(g)<p`$ imply that $`g`$ is constant.

Much of Rédei’s book is devoted to the classification of those $`f`$ with deg$`(g)=(q+1)/2`$. For us the case $`g^{}=0`$ (and hence $`fGF(q)[X^p]`$ is more interesting however, also for our applications we need to consider polynomials of the form $`f(X)=X^qg(X)+h(X)`$, where both $`g`$ and $`h`$ have degree less than $`q`$.

The following theorem summarizes what we know in this case :

###### Theorem 3.2

\[Blokhuis, Storme, Szőnyi, 1998\] Let $`fGF(q)[X]`$, $`q=p^n`$, $`p`$ prime, be fully reducible, $`f(X)=X^qg(X)+h(X)`$, where $`(g,h)=1`$. Let $`k=\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{deg}(g),\mathrm{deg}(h)<q`$. Let $`e`$ be maximal such that $`f`$ is a $`p^e`$-th power (so $`fGF(q)[X^{p^e}]`$). Then we have one of the following possibilities:

1. $`e=n`$ and $`k=0`$;
2. $`e2n/3`$ and $`kp^e`$;
3. $`2n/3>e>n/2`$ and $`kp^{ne/2}\frac{3}{2}p^{ne}`$;
4. $`e=n/2`$ and $`k=p^e`$ and $`f(X)=a\text{Tr}(bX+c)+d`$ or $`f(X)=a\text{Norm}(bX+c)+d`$ for suitable constants $`a,b,c,d`$. Here Tr and Norm respectively denote the trace and norm function from $`𝐅_q`$ to $`𝐅_\sqrt{q}`$;
5. $`e=n/2`$ and $`kp^e\frac{1}{4}+\sqrt{(p^e+1)/2}`$;
6. $`n/2>e>n/3`$ and $`kp^{(n+e)/2}p^{ne}p^e/2`$, or if $`3e=n+1`$ and $`p3`$, then $`kp^e(p^e+1)/2`$;
7. $`n/3e>0`$ and $`kp^e(p^{ne}+1)/(p^e+1)`$;
8. $`e=0`$ and $`k(q+1)/2`$;
9. $`e=0`$, $`k=1`$ and $`f(X)=a(X^qX)`$.

It would be very pleasant to have stronger information in the case $`n/3<e<n/2`$, this would have very useful applications.

## 4. The connection

In this section we will illustrate the connection between the direction problem, (multiple) blocking sets, and lacunary polynomials.

Let $`f:GF(q)GF(q)`$ be any map, and let $`D_f`$ be its set of directions. Consider the auxiliary (Rédei) polynomial

$$R(X,Y)=\underset{wGF(q)}{}(XwY+f(w)),$$

introduced by Rédei. Let $`y`$ and $`vwGF(q)`$. Then $`vyf(v)=wyf(w)`$ if and only if $`(f(v)f(w))/(vw)=y`$. It follows that for $`yD_f`$ the map $`wwyf(w)`$ is a bijection, and hence $`R(X,y)=_{zGF(q)}(Xz)=X^qX`$. Write

$$R(X,Y)=X^q+r_1(Y)X^{q1}+\mathrm{}+r_{q1}(Y)X+r_q(Y),$$

where $`r_i`$ is a polynomial of degree $`<i`$ in $`Y`$ (with the exception of $`r_{q1}`$ of degree $`q1`$: it is clear that $`r_i`$ has degree at most $`i`$, but the coefficient of $`Y^i`$ is the $`i`$-th elementary symmetric polynomial in the elements of $`GF(q)`$, so this is 0 for $`0<iq1`$). If $`yD_f`$ and $`iq1`$ then $`r_i(y)=0`$. So $`r_i`$ is identically zero for $`i|D_f|`$. As a consequence we have for $`yD_f`$ that $`R(X,y)=X^q+g(X)`$ for some $`g`$ depending on $`y`$ with deg$`(g)q|D_f|1`$. So the Rédei polynomial when specialized for $`Y=yD_f`$ is a lacunary polynomial and information on deg$`(g)`$ gives results for $`|D_f|`$.

The extension of the Rédei polynomial from the graph of a function to point sets in general can be illustrated best in the case of an ordinary blocking set $`B`$ of $`PG(2,q)`$. We may coordinatize our plane in such a way that the line at infinity becomes a tangent, containing the point $`(1:0:0)`$ of the blocking set.

Let $`|B|=q+1+d`$ then the remaining $`q+d`$ points have certain affine coordinates $`(a_i,b_i)`$ and the Rédei polynomial associated to $`B`$ (in this position) can be defined as:

$$R[X,Y]:=(Xa_iY+b_i)=X^{q+d}+r_1(Y)X^{q+d1}+\mathrm{}+r_{q+d}(Y).$$

For $`y,cGF(q)`$ consider the line $`\{(U,V):V=yU+c\}`$. It contains an affine point $`(a,b)`$ of the blocking set: $`c=bay`$. Hence $`R[X,y]`$ is divisible by $`(Xc)`$ for all $`cGF(q)`$, in other words $`X^qX`$ divides $`R[X,y]`$. It follows as before that $`r_i`$ is identically zero for $`i=d+1,\mathrm{},q2`$. As a consequence we obtain the lacunary polynomial

$$f(X)=(Xa_i)=X^qg(X)+h(X),$$

with $`g`$ of degree $`d`$ and $`h`$ of degree at most $`d+1`$, and information on $`f`$ translates to information on $`B`$. For the case that $`q=p`$ is prime it not only gives that $`|B|3(p+1)/2`$, but in case of equality it also gives that each point of the blocking set is on exactly $`(p1)/2`$ tangents, and by classifying the possible polynomials it gives all possibilities for the configuration of the tangents through a particular point. For small $`p`$ (at most 37) the number of possibilities is sufficiently small to be handled by a computer, and to prove uniqueness of the minimal example (for $`p7,13`$).