text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years D-branes on group manifolds have attracted a great deal of attention as an ideal setting for the study of D-branes in general string backgrounds. Because the world-sheet theories corresponding to strings on a group manifold are solvable Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) conformal field theories, one can analyse the stringy effects in great detail. WZW models have an underlying affine symmetry which corresponds to affine Lie algebras. By now D-branes associated with an automorphism of the affine algebra are fairly well understood, at least in the compact case . Different properties of these branes such as stability , underlying geometry , effective actions  etc., have been extensively studied.

Despite this progress there is a wide class of D-branes (i.e., boundary conditions) of WZW models which are less well understood and which correspond to the preservation of only (super)conformal symmetry. The only models which are rational with respect to (super)conformal symmetry are the (super) minimal models. The compact WZW models are rational only with respect to the affine symmetry but not with respect to (super)conformal symmetry. Therefore it is not so straightforward to analyse the (super)conformal branes. Interesting steps in this direction have been taken in .

In the present letter we would like to attack the problem from a different side. The WZW model provides a typical example of a string background admitting a sigma model description. This allows one to undertake a complementary study of the possible D-brane configurations. The sigma model description is valuable since it provides a geometric interpretation of D-branes in the semiclassical limit. We would like to analyse classical superconformal conditions that are local in terms of the sigma model fields and that do have such an interpretation. Furthermore we want to rewrite and interpret these boundary conditions in terms of gluing conditions for the affine currents. At the classical level, conformal symmetry is too weak a requirement on its own to draw any conclusions. Besides, conformal symmetry by itself does not guarantee a consistent geometrical description. As has been shown in , one must impose minimal supersymmetry together with conformality to obtain boundary conditions with a consistent geometrical description in terms of submanifolds.

The paper is organised as follows. We begin by reviewing the most general local superconformal boundary conditions of the non-linear sigma model. In section 2 we review the results obtained in  for $`N=1`$, and in section 3 we review the $`N=2`$ conditions derived in . These conditions are then analysed for the special cases of $`N=1`$ and $`N=2`$ WZW models, in sections 4 and 5, respectively. Finally, in section 6, we summarise and discuss the conclusions.

## 2 $`𝐍=1`$ review

Here we give a summary of the derivation of boundary conditions for the $`N=1`$ supersymmetric non-linear sigma model; for details, see . This model is given by the following action,

$$S=\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}d^2\xi \left[_{++}X^\mu _=X^\nu E_{\mu \nu }+i\psi _+^\mu _{}^{(+)}\psi _+^\nu g_{\mu \nu }+i\psi _{}^\mu _+^{()}\psi _{}^\nu g_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\psi _+^\lambda \psi _+^\sigma \psi _{}^\rho \psi _{}^\gamma _{\rho \gamma \lambda \sigma }^{}\right],$$
(2.1)
where $`E_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }+B_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes a background of general (Riemannian) metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and two-form $`B`$ with field strength $`H=dB`$. The curvature $`_{\rho \gamma \lambda \sigma }^\pm `$ is defined as

$$_{\sigma \rho \lambda }^{\pm \mu }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \sigma ,\rho }^{\pm \mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma ,\lambda }^{\pm \mu }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \gamma }^{\pm \mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \sigma }^{\pm \gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \gamma }^{\pm \mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma }^{\pm \gamma },$$
(2.2)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm `$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma }^{\pm \nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma }^\nu \pm g^{\nu \mu }H_{\mu \rho \sigma },$$
(2.3)
and $`_\pm ^{(\pm )}`$ by

$$_\pm ^{(+)}\psi _+^\nu =_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}\psi _+^\nu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma }^{+\nu }_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}X^\rho \psi _+^\sigma ,_\pm ^{()}\psi _{}^\nu =_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}\psi _{}^\nu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma }^\nu _{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}X^\rho \psi _{}^\sigma .$$
(2.4)
At the classical level the model (2.1) has $`N=(1,1)`$ superconformal symmetry modulo boundary terms. This symmetry gives rise to conserved currents, namely the stress tensor $`T`$ and the supersymmetry current $`G^1`$. The components of the currents are

$$G_+^1=\psi _+^\mu _{++}X^\nu g_{\mu \nu }\frac{i}{3}\psi _+^\mu \psi _+^\nu \psi _+^\rho H_{\mu \nu \rho },$$
(2.5)
$$G_{}^1=\psi _{}^\mu _=X^\nu g_{\mu \nu }+\frac{i}{3}\psi _{}^\mu \psi _{}^\nu \psi _{}^\rho H_{\mu \nu \rho },$$
(2.6)
$$T_{++}=g_{\mu \nu }_{++}X^\mu _{++}X^\nu +ig_{\mu \nu }\psi _+^\mu _+^{(+)}\psi _+^\nu ,$$
(2.7)
$$T_{}=g_{\mu \nu }_=X^\mu _=X^\nu +ig_{\mu \nu }\psi _{}^\mu _{}^{()}\psi _{}^\nu ,$$
(2.8)
and they are conserved, $`_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}G_{}^1=0`$ and $`_{_{\stackrel{=}{++}}}T_{\pm \pm }=0`$. In the absence of a boundary, these conservation laws give rise to four conserved charges. However, in the presence of boundaries one must take extra care when deriving the conserved charges from $`T_{\pm \pm }`$ and $`G_\pm ^1`$. It turns out that the appropriate boundary conditions to be imposed on the currents are

$$\left[T_{++}T_{}\right]_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0,\left[G_+^1\eta _1G_{}^1\right]_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0,$$
(2.9)
where the world-sheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is assumed to be $`\text{IR}\times [0,\pi ]`$ (i.e., $`\tau \text{IR}`$ and $`\sigma [0,\pi ]`$), and $`\eta _1=\pm 1`$ corresponds to the choice of spin structures. Our goal is to solve conditions (2.9) in terms of $`X^\mu `$ and $`\psi _\pm ^\mu `$ such that the solution is local in these fields (the locality is important for a geometrical interpretation of the boundary conditions). The most general local fermionic boundary condition allowed by dimensional analysis has the simple form

$$\psi _{}^\mu =\eta _1R_\nu ^\mu (X)\psi _+^\nu ,$$
(2.10)
where $`R_\nu ^\mu `$(X) is a locally defined object which transforms as a (1,1) tensor field under coordinate transformations. The bosonic counterpart of (2.10) can be derived by means of a supersymmetry transformation,444For an explicit component form of this transformation, see appendix A in . and reads

$$_=X^\mu R_\nu ^\mu _{++}X^\nu +2i(P_\rho ^\sigma _\sigma R_\nu ^\mu +P_\gamma ^\mu g^{\gamma \delta }H_{\delta \sigma \rho }R_\nu ^\sigma )\psi _+^\rho \psi _+^\nu =0,$$
(2.11)
where $`P_\nu ^\mu (\delta _\nu ^\mu +R_\nu ^\mu )/2`$.

In  we have shown that the expressions (2.10) and (2.11) are the solutions of (2.9) provided that $`R_\nu ^\mu `$ satisfies the following conditions,

$$g_{\rho \sigma }=R_\rho ^\mu g_{\mu \nu }R_\sigma ^\nu ,$$
(2.12)
$$P_\tau ^\rho R_\sigma ^\mu g_{\mu \nu }_\rho R_\gamma ^\nu +P_\sigma ^\rho R_\gamma ^\mu g_{\mu \nu }_\rho R_\tau ^\nu +P_\gamma ^\rho R_\tau ^\mu g_{\mu \nu }_\rho R_\sigma ^\nu +4P_\tau ^\mu P_\sigma ^\nu P_\gamma ^\rho H_{\mu \nu \rho }=0.$$
(2.13)
To understand the geometrical meaning of these conditions we need to introduce new objects. We define a projector $`Q_\nu ^\mu `$ (i.e., $`Q^2=Q`$) such that $`RQ=QR=Q`$. The complementary projector $`\pi =IQ`$ ($`I`$ is the identity operator) satisfies $`\pi P=P\pi =P`$. Then, by contracting (2.13) with $`Q_\lambda ^\tau `$, we find the condition

$$\pi _\gamma ^\mu \pi _\nu ^\rho Q_{[\mu ,\rho ]}^\delta =0,$$
(2.14)
which is the integrability condition for $`\pi `$. Therefore *there is a maximal integral submanifold* which corresponds to the distribution $`\pi `$. We may also contract (2.11) with $`Q`$, and use the integrability condition (2.14), to obtain that $`\pi _\nu ^\mu _0X^\nu =_0X^\mu `$ (or equivalently $`Q_\nu ^\mu _0X^\nu =0`$) and thus the end of the string is confined in the directions transverse to a given maximal integral submanifold.

The object $`R_\nu ^\mu `$ carries additional information. We define a $`B`$-field555More precisely, a gauge invariant combination of a $`U(1)`$-field strength and the background $`B`$-field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$. $`B_{\mu \nu }^\pi `$, i.e., a two-form living on the submanifold corresponding to $`\pi `$, by

$$\pi _\mu ^\rho g_{\rho \sigma }\pi _\nu ^\sigma B_{\mu \nu }^\pi =(\pi _\mu ^\rho g_{\rho \sigma }\pi _\lambda ^\sigma +B_{\mu \lambda }^\pi )R_\nu ^\lambda .$$
(2.15)
Contracting (2.13) with $`\pi `$ and using the definition (2.15) we find that

$$(dB^\pi )_{\mu \nu \rho }=\pi _\mu ^\lambda \pi _\nu ^\gamma \pi _\rho ^\sigma H_{\lambda \gamma \sigma }.$$
(2.16)
Thus an $`R_\nu ^\mu `$ which satisfies (2.13) encodes both the integrable distribution $`\pi `$ and the two-form $`B_{\mu \nu }^\pi `$ living on the corresponding integral submanifold. In addition $`dB^\pi `$ coincides with the pull-back of $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ to this submanifold. For details of the analysis leading to the above results we refer the reader to  and .

In summary, there is a one-to-one correspondence between local superconformal boundary conditions and submanifolds with extra ($`B`$-field) structure.

## 3 $`𝐍=2`$ review

We now turn to the $`N=2`$ sigma model, reviewing the results of .

Any Riemannian target manifold $``$ admits an $`N=(1,1)`$ sigma model. If the geometry on $``$ is further restricted  the sigma model can have $`N=(2,2)`$ supersymmetry. The target manifold $``$ of the $`N=(2,2)`$ sigma model must be equipped with two complex structures $`J_{\pm \nu }^\mu `$, and the metric $`g`$ must be Hermitian with respect to both of these. These complex structures should be such that

$$l^{\mu \rho }(J_{+\nu }^\mu +J_\nu ^\mu )g^{\nu \rho },m^{\mu \rho }(J_{+\nu }^\mu J_\nu ^\mu )g^{\nu \rho }$$
(3.1)
are Poisson bi-vectors. The torsion $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ is then defined via the Schouten bracket of these two Poisson structures .

In addition to the currents (2.5)–(2.8), an $`N=(2,2)`$ sigma model has two further supersymmetry currents, $`G_\pm ^2`$, and two $`U(1)`$ R-symmetry currents $`J_\pm `$. In terms of world-sheet fields the currents read

$$G_+^2=\psi _+^\mu _{++}X^\nu J_{+\mu \nu }+\frac{i}{3}\psi _+^\mu \psi _+^\nu \psi _+^\rho J_{+\mu }^\lambda J_{+\nu }^\sigma J_{+\rho }^\gamma H_{\lambda \sigma \gamma },$$
(3.2)
$$G_{}^2=\psi _{}^\mu _=X^\nu J_{\mu \nu }\frac{i}{3}\psi _{}^\mu \psi _{}^\nu \psi _{}^\rho J_\mu ^\lambda J_\nu ^\sigma J_\rho ^\gamma H_{\lambda \sigma \gamma },$$
(3.3)
$$J_+=\psi _+^\mu \psi _+^\nu J_{+\mu \nu },$$
(3.4)
$$J_{}=\psi _{}^\mu \psi _{}^\nu J_{\mu \nu }.$$
(3.5)
If we want to preserve the maximal possible amount of the bulk supersymmetries in the presence of a boundary, then in addition to the conditions (2.9) we need to simultaneously require the following boundary conditions for the currents $`G_\pm ^2`$ and $`J_\pm `$,

$$[G_+^2\eta _2G_{}^2]_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0,[J_+(\eta _1\eta _2)J_{}]_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0,$$
(3.6)
where $`\eta _2=\pm 1`$. As a result, the conditions (2.12) and (2.13) on $`R_\nu ^\mu `$ must be supplemented with the following,

$$J_\lambda ^\mu R_\nu ^\lambda =(\eta _1\eta _2)R_\lambda ^\mu J_{+\nu }^\lambda ,$$
(3.7)
$$J_{+[\mu }^\lambda H_{|\lambda |\nu |\sigma |}P_{\rho ]}^\sigma +J_{+[\mu }^\lambda R_{|\lambda |}^\sigma P_\nu ^\gamma R_{\rho ]}^\delta H_{\sigma \gamma \delta }J_{+[\mu }^\lambda R_{|\lambda }^\varphi \eta _{\varphi \gamma }_{\sigma |}R_\rho ^\gamma P_{\nu ]}^\sigma =0,$$
(3.8)
where the case $`(\eta _1\eta _2)=1`$ corresponds to B-type and $`(\eta _1\eta _2)=1`$ to A-type models.

It was shown in  that (3.8) is automatically satisfied, given the other three conditions, (2.12), (2.13) and (3.7). Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that (3.8) corresponds to the invariance of the two-fermion term in (2.11) under the appropriate combination of $`U(1)`$-symmetries.

Geometrically the $`N=2`$ superconformal boundary conditions should be interpreted in terms of submanifolds of special types. However, the problem has not been solved in all generality (some observations on the subject are made in ). Only $`N=2`$ D-branes on Kähler manifolds (i.e., $`J_{+\nu }^\mu =\pm J_\nu ^\mu `$) are well understood in terms of symplectic geometry. Unfortunately this case is irrelevant to the WZW models since group manifolds are never Kähler.

## 4 The $`𝐍=1`$ WZW model

We now analyse the $`N=1`$ boundary conditions given in section 2 for the WZW model. We begin by reviewing some basics pertaining to WZW models, in the process introducing some notation that will be useful in the analysis.

### 4.1 Preliminaries

The WZW models represent a special class of non-linear sigma models defined over a group manifold $``$ of some Lie group $`𝒢`$. The isometry group $`𝒢\times 𝒢`$ is generated by the left- and right-invariant Killing vectors $`l_A^\mu `$ and $`r_A^\mu `$ respectively, where $`A=1,2,\mathrm{},dim𝒢`$. They satisfy

$$\{l_A,l_B\}=f_{AB}^Cl_C,\{r_A,r_B\}=f_{AB}^Cr_C,\{l_A,r_B\}=0,$$
(4.1)
where $`\{,\}`$ is the Lie bracket for vector fields. We restrict ourselves to semi-simple Lie groups, so that the Cartan-Killing metric $`\eta _{AB}`$ has an inverse $`\eta ^{AB}`$ and can be used to raise and lower Lie algebra indices. Both $`l_A^\mu `$ and $`r_A^\mu `$ can be regarded as vielbeins, with inverses $`l_\mu ^A`$ and $`r_\mu ^A`$, respectively. To define the sigma model, we choose the invariant metric

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{\rho ^2}l_\mu ^Al_\nu ^B\eta _{AB}=\frac{1}{\rho ^2}r_\mu ^Ar_\nu ^B\eta _{AB},$$
(4.2)
while $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ is proportional to the structure constants of the corresponding Lie algebra $`𝐠`$,

$$H_{\mu \nu \rho }=\frac{1}{2}kl_\mu ^Al_\nu ^Bl_\rho ^Cf_{ABC}=\frac{1}{2}kr_\mu ^Ar_\nu ^Br_\rho ^Cf_{ABC}.$$
(4.3)
Here $`\rho `$ and $`k`$ are constants, and $`k`$ must satisfy a quantisation condition. If $`\rho ^2=\pm 1/k`$, then $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ is the parallelising torsion on the group manifold and this is also precisely the relation between the coupling constants that holds at the conformal fixed point of the beta-functions. Since we are interested in the conformal model, we set $`\rho ^2=1/k`$ in the following discussion. Moreover, since $`k`$ appears only as an overall factor in our calculations, we may set $`k=1`$.

We thus study the sigma model (2.1) with $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ given by (4.2) and (4.3). From the above properties follows that the left- and right-invariant Killing vectors satisfy

$$_\rho ^{()}l_A^\mu =0,_\rho ^{(+)}r_A^\mu =0,$$
(4.4)
where $`_\rho ^{(\pm )}`$ are the affine connections defined in (2.3). The relations (4.4) are the Cartan-Maurer equations for our group manifold. They imply the existence of chiral (antichiral) Lie algebra valued currents,

$$𝒥_{}^A=l_\mu ^AD_{}\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu ,𝒥_+^A=r_\mu ^AD_+\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu ,$$
(4.5)
obeying $`D_{}𝒥_\pm ^A=0`$. The components of these currents are defined as

$$j_\pm ^A=𝒥_\pm ^A|,k_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^A=iD_\pm 𝒥_\pm ^A|.$$
(4.6)
It is important to notice that there are two different sets of bosonic affine currents, $`𝒦_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^A`$ and $`k_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^A`$, related to each other by

$$\begin{array}{c}k_=^A=𝒦_=^A+\frac{i}{2}f_{BC}^Aj_{}^Bj_{}^C,\hfill \\ \\ k_{++}^A=𝒦_{++}^A+\frac{i}{2}f_{BC}^Aj_+^Bj_+^C,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.7)
where

$$𝒦_=^Al_\mu ^A_=X^\mu ,𝒦_{++}^Ar_\mu ^A_{++}X^\mu .$$
(4.8)
In terms of group elements $`g`$, they correspond to the currents $`𝒦_==g^1dg`$ and $`𝒦_{++}=dgg^1`$. However, here we will stick to the coordinate representation.

Note that, on a group manifold with metric (4.2) and torsion (4.3), with $`\rho ^2=1/k`$, the four-fermion term in the action (2.1) vanishes. Using the Lie algebra valued fermion fields defined in (4.6),

$$j_{}^A=l_\mu ^A\psi _{}^\mu ,j_+^A=r_\mu ^A\psi _+^\mu ,$$
(4.9)
we can rewrite (2.1) as

$$S=d^2\xi \left[_{++}X^\mu _=X^\nu E_{\mu \nu }+ij_{}^A\eta _{AB}_{++}j_{}^B+ij_+^A\eta _{AB}_=j_+^B\right],$$
(4.10)
where the bosonic part can be written in terms of the group elements as usual.

### 4.2 Boundary conditions

Here we discuss the $`N=1`$ superconformal boundary conditions which we reviewed in section 2, for the WZW models. The conditions (2.10) and (2.11) can be rewritten in terms of the affine bosonic and fermionic currents, as

$$j_{}^A=\eta _1R_B^Aj_+^B,$$
(4.11)
$$𝒦_=^AR_B^A𝒦_{++}^B+\frac{i}{2}\left(f_{SM}^AR_D^SR_L^Mf_{DL}^CR_C^A2_DR_L^A\right)j_+^Dj_+^L=0.$$
(4.12)
Here we have defined

$$R_\nu ^\mu l_A^\mu R_B^Ar_\nu ^B,_DR_L^Ak_D^\mu _\mu R_L^A,k_A^\mu r_A^\mu R_A^Ll_L^\mu .$$
(4.13)
Thus $`R_B^A:𝒢𝐠𝐠^{}`$ is a map from the group to the tensor product of the Lie algebra with its dual.

In terms of Lie algebra quantities, the conditions (2.12) and (2.13) can similarly be rewritten as

$$R_A^C\eta _{CD}R_B^D=\eta _{AB},$$
(4.14)
$$f_{ABC}R_A^DR_B^LR_C^Mf_{DLM}=\eta _{LM}R_{[C}^M_AR_{B]}^L.$$
(4.15)
The condition (4.15) is a first-order differential equation for the gluing matrix $`R_B^A`$. The most obvious solution of eq. (4.15) is a constant matrix $`R_B^A`$, i.e., $`_CR_B^A=0`$. In this case $`R_B^A`$ corresponds to a Lie algebra automorphism of $`𝐠`$. The boundary conditions (4.11) and (4.12) are then local in terms of the affine currents. This case is best known and geometrically corresponds to (twisted) conjugacy classes . Note that (4.15) allows also nonconstant $`R_B^A`$ to be Lie algebra automorphisms, as long as they satisfy $`_{[A}R_{B]}^C=0`$.

Although it is plausible from a technical point of view to write the boundary conditions in a local form for the affine currents, there is no physical reason why all (in some sense) reasonable conditions should be local in these currents. At the level of sigma models, however, locality in terms of $`X^\mu `$ and $`\psi _\pm ^\mu `$ is necessary for a geometrical interpretation.

Another interesting point is that, if we require the two-fermion term in (4.12) to be absent, then combining this with (4.15), we find that $`R_B^A`$ is constant along $`\pi `$, that is, $`\pi _\nu ^\mu _\mu R_B^A=0`$. Thus it corresponds to a Lie algebra automorphism along $`\pi `$.

## 5 The $`𝐍=2`$ WZW model

### 5.1 Preliminaries

The problem of $`N=2`$ supersymmetry for WZW models was first addressed in . However, we will not follow the original presentation; instead, the basic approach used here, as well as some of the results, may be found in .

The complex structures $`J_{\pm \nu }^\mu `$ are, respectively, left- and right-invariant, and are of the form

$$J_\nu ^\mu =l_A^\mu J_B^Al_\nu ^B,J_{+\nu }^\mu =r_A^\mu \stackrel{~}{J}_B^Ar_\nu ^B,$$
(5.1)
where $`J_B^A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_B^A`$ are constant matrices acting on the Lie algebra. Restricting attention to the left-invariant complex structure $`J_B^A`$, bulk supersymmetry imposes the following constraints,

$$J_C^AJ_B^C=\delta _B^A,$$
(5.2)
$$J_A^C\eta _{CD}J_B^D=\eta _{AB},$$
(5.3)
$$f_{ABC}=J_A^DJ_B^Lf_{DLC}+J_B^DJ_C^Lf_{DLA}+J_C^DJ_A^Lf_{DLB}.$$
(5.4)
Thus we need to construct a $`J_B^A`$ on the Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ satisfying (5.2)–(5.4). This is possible only for even-dimensional Lie algebras. $`J_B^A`$ has eigenvalues $`\pm i`$, and we choose a basis $`T_A=(T_a,T_{\overline{a}})`$ on the Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ such that $`J_B^A`$ is diagonal: $`J_b^a=i\delta _b^a`$, $`J_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{a}}=i\delta _{\overline{b}}^{\overline{a}}`$. In this basis eq. (5.3) leads to $`\eta _{ab}=\eta _{\overline{a}\overline{b}}=0`$, and (5.4) gives $`f_{abc}=f_{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}=0`$. Taken together, this implies that $`f_{ab}^{\overline{c}}=0`$ and $`f_{\overline{a}\overline{b}}^c=0`$, so that the two sets of generators $`\{T_a\}`$ and $`\{T_{\overline{a}}\}`$ form Lie subalgebras of $`𝐠`$, call them $`𝐠_+`$ and $`𝐠_{}`$, respectively. These subalgebras are maximally isotropic subspaces with respect to $`\eta _{AB}`$. Thus the complex structures on the even-dimensional group are related to a decomposition of the Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ into two maximally isotropic subalgebras with respect to $`\eta _{AB}`$, such that $`𝐠=𝐠_{}𝐠_+`$ as a vector space. Such a structure is called a Manin triple $`(𝐠,𝐠_{},𝐠_+)`$, and was initially introduced by Drinfeld in the context of completely integrable systems and quantum groups . The relevance of Manin triples to $`N=2`$ supersymmetry on group manifolds was pointed out in .

In the general situation the $`N=(2,2)`$ WZW model would be equipped with a left Manin triple $`(𝐠,𝐠_{},𝐠_+)`$, and a right Manin triple $`(𝐠,\stackrel{~}{𝐠}_{},\stackrel{~}{𝐠}_+)`$. However, both left and right Manin triples are defined with respect to the same ad-invariant bilinear nondegenerate form $`\eta _{AB}`$. If the left and right Manin triples are the same (i.e., $`J_B^A=\stackrel{~}{J}_B^A`$ modulo a Lie algebra automorphism), then the bivector $`(J_+J_{})g^1`$ defines a Poisson-Lie structure. Here we consider the situation where the left and right Manin triples are the same; for different left and right Manin triples the generalisation is straightforward.

### 5.2 Boundary conditions

In this section we study the implications of the $`N=2`$ boundary conditions (reviewed in section 3) for the WZW model. The currents may be written in terms of Lie algebra quantities (see appendix A), and the boundary conditions corresponding to (3.7) and (3.8) read

$$R_A^BJ_B^C=(\eta _1\eta _2)J_A^BR_B^C,$$
(5.5)
$$J_{NM}R_{[A}^N_BR_{C]}^M=0.$$
(5.6)
We first analyse the B-type conditions, $`(\eta _1\eta _2)=1`$. In this case eq. (5.5) implies that, in our chosen basis, $`R_{\overline{b}}^a=R_b^{\overline{a}}=0`$. Then we find from the $`N=1`$ condition (4.15) that (recall that $`f_{abc}=f_{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}=0`$)

$`f_{ab\overline{c}}f_{dl\overline{m}}R_a^dR_b^lR_{\overline{c}}^{\overline{m}}=\eta _{l\overline{m}}R_{\overline{c}}^{\overline{m}}\left(_{[a}R_{b]}^l\right),`$ (5.7)
$`f_{\overline{a}\overline{b}c}f_{\overline{d}\overline{l}m}R_{\overline{a}}^{\overline{d}}R_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{l}}R_c^m=\eta _{\overline{l}m}R_c^m\left(_{[\overline{a}}R_{\overline{b}]}^{\overline{l}}\right).`$ (5.8)
Using (4.14), we can write this as

$`f_{ab}^sR_s^lf_{mn}^lR_a^mR_b^n=_{[a}R_{b]}^l,`$ (5.9)
$`f_{\overline{a}\overline{b}}^{\overline{s}}R_{\overline{s}}^{\overline{l}}f_{\overline{m}\overline{n}}^{\overline{l}}R_{\overline{a}}^{\overline{m}}R_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{n}}=_{[\overline{a}}R_{\overline{b}]}^{\overline{l}}.`$ (5.10)
For the A-type conditions, $`(\eta _1\eta _2)=1`$, eq. (5.5) implies that $`R_b^a=R_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{a}}=0`$. The relations corresponding to (5.7) and (5.8) for A-type are then

$`f_{ab\overline{c}}f_{\overline{d}\overline{l}m}R_a^{\overline{d}}R_b^{\overline{l}}R_{\overline{c}}^m=\eta _{l\overline{m}}R_{\overline{c}}^l\left(_{[a}R_{b]}^{\overline{m}}\right),`$ (5.11)
$`f_{\overline{a}\overline{b}c}f_{dl\overline{m}}R_{\overline{a}}^dR_{\overline{b}}^lR_c^{\overline{m}}=\eta _{l\overline{m}}R_c^{\overline{m}}\left(_{[\overline{a}}R_{\overline{b}]}^l\right),`$ (5.12)
or equivalently,

$`f_{ab}^sR_s^{\overline{l}}f_{\overline{m}\overline{n}}^{\overline{l}}R_a^{\overline{m}}R_b^{\overline{n}}=_{[a}R_{b]}^{\overline{l}},`$ (5.13)
$`f_{\overline{a}\overline{b}}^{\overline{s}}R_{\overline{s}}^lf_{mn}^lR_{\overline{a}}^mR_{\overline{b}}^n=_{[\overline{a}}R_{\overline{b}]}^l.`$ (5.14)
Let us analyse the B-type equation (5.9) in detail (the analogous consideration can be applied to (5.10), as well as to the A-type equations). To understand the geometrical content of this condition, we first consider the vector $`k_a^\mu =r_a^\mu R_a^ll_l^\mu `$, with respect to which the Lie derivative in (5.9) is taken. We can ask when $`k_a^\mu `$ satisfies the Lie algebra bracket

$$\{k_a,k_b\}=f_{ab}^ck_c.$$
(5.15)
To obtain the answer, we use that the vectors $`l_a^\mu `$ and $`r_a^\mu `$ generate the algebra $`𝐠_{}`$,

$$\{l_a,l_b\}=f_{ab}^cl_c,\{r_a,r_b\}=f_{ab}^cr_c,\{l_a,r_b\}=0.$$
(5.16)
We find that $`k_a^\mu `$ satisfies (5.15) if and only if the following holds,

$$f_{ab}^sR_s^lf_{mn}^lR_a^mR_b^n=_{[a}R_{b]}^l.$$
(5.17)
This is precisely the condition (5.9).

If $`R_b^l`$ is constant then we find that it corresponds to an automorphism of the Lie algebra $`𝐠_{}`$. In this case $`k_a^\mu `$ has a clear geometrical interpretation: it generates a twisted adjoint action of the group $`𝒢`$ .

However, we are interested in the general case of nonconstant $`R_b^l`$. It is clear from the analysis above that this generalisation occurs in a controlled way. It simply modifies the vector $`k_a^\mu `$ by allowing $`X`$-dependence of the map $`R_b^l`$ in the definition of $`k_a^\mu `$. Moreover, the deviation of $`R_b^l`$ from being an automorphism is governed by (5.17).

In conclusion, we see that the most general $`N=2`$ superconformal boundary conditions are a very precise generalisation of the well-known ones that correspond to constant Lie algebra automorphisms. In geometrical terms, the resulting D-branes are related in a specific way to the known D-branes that correspond to conjugacy classes of $`𝒢`$.

It is interesting to examine the integrability conditions for eqs. (5.9), (5.10), (5.13) and (5.14). We focus on (5.9), hit it on both sides with $`_c`$ and antisymmetrise in $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$, to get

$$f_{[ab}^d_{c]}R_d^lf_{mn}^l_{[c}\left(R_a^mR_{b]}^n\right)=2_{[c}_aR_{b]}^l.$$
(5.18)
Using that $`_{[a}_{b]}=f_{ab}^d_d`$ (which follows from (5.15)), we then rewrite the right-hand side of (5.18) as

$$f_{[ab}^d_{|d|}R_{c]}^l,$$
(5.19)
which, using (5.9) as well as the Jacobi identity, expands to

$$f_{[ab}^d_{c]}R_d^l+f_{mn}^lf_{[ab}^dR_{|d|}^mR_{c]}^n.$$
(5.20)
On the other hand expanding the left-hand side of (5.18), and again using the Jacobi identity, yields

$$f_{[ab}^d_{c]}R_d^l+2f_{mn}^lf_{[ab}^dR_{|d|}^mR_{c]}^n.$$
(5.21)
Thus (5.18) is satisfied if and only if (5.20) and (5.21) are equal, i.e. the condition for (5.9) to be integrable is

$$f_{mn}^lf_{[ab}^dR_{|d|}^mR_{c]}^n=0.$$
(5.22)
This equation arises in Lie algebra cohomology, and is solved by

$$R_s^mf_{mn}^lR_p^n=f_{sp}^qT_q^l,$$
(5.23)
for some $`T_q^l`$. For simple Lie algebras the corresponding cohomology is trivial and this is the only solution to (5.22). If $`T_q^l=R_q^l`$, then (5.23) implies that $`R_q^l`$ is a Lie algebra automorphism, and otherwise the difference $`f_{ab}^q(T_q^lR_q^l)=_{[a}R_{b]}^l`$ is a measure of the extent to which it fails to be such an automorphism.

With the appropriate change of indices these results also apply to the remaining equations (5.10), (5.13) and (5.14).

## 6 Discussion

In this letter we have analysed the local classical superconformal boundary conditions for non-linear sigma models with specific target spaces, namely group manifolds. Information about the local boundary conditions is encoded in the gluing matrix $`R_B^A:𝒢𝐠𝐠^{}`$. Using the special features of WZW models we found the conditions that $`R_B^A`$ has to obey to preserve superconformal symmetry on the boundary. These conditions are a set of first-order differential equations for the gluing matrix. In the case of $`N=2`$ supersymmetry, these equations become especially interesting, and we also analysed their integrability. The geometrical significance of these results remains to be determined.

Our analysis is entirely classical and the well-known D-branes corresponding to Lie algebra automorphims are special solutions of our conditions.

At the quantum level the WZW models are not rational with respect to (super)conformal symmetry and therefore it is problematic to analyse the (super)conformal boundary conditions by means of a rational CFT. Thus, at present, at the quantum level, a full description of D-branes on group manifolds is still an open problem. It would be interesting to see if there are classical branes with nonconstant $`R_B^A`$ which have a quantum counterpart.

Acknowledgments: CA is grateful to Queen Mary, University of London, for hospitality while part of this work was carried out, and acknowledges support in part by EU contract HPMT-CT-2000-00025. UL acknowledges support in part by EU contract HPNR-CT-2000-0122 and by VR grant 650-1998368. MZ is grateful to Anton Alekseev, Andrea Cappelli and Pierre Vanhove for useful discussions on this and related subjects, and acknowledges support in part by EU contract HPRN-CT-2002-00325.

## Appendix A N=2 currents for the WZW model

Here we list the components of the $`N=2`$ stress tensor $`T_{\pm \pm }`$, supersymmetry currents $`G_\pm ^1`$ and $`G_\pm ^2`$, and R-symmetry currents $`J_\pm `$, in terms of the Lie algebra valued affine currents $`j_\pm ^A`$ and $`𝒦_{_{\stackrel{++}{=}}}^A`$. These are obtained by substituting the relations (4.2), (4.3), (4.8) and (4.9) into the expressions (2.5)–(2.8) and (3.2)–(3.5).

$$T_{++}=𝒦_{++}^A\eta _{AB}𝒦_{++}^B+ij_+^A\eta _{AB}_{++}j_+^B,$$
(A.1)
$$T_{}=𝒦_=^A\eta _{AB}𝒦_=^B+ij_{}^A\eta _{AB}_=j_{}^B,$$
(A.2)
$$G_+^1=j_+^A\eta _{AB}𝒦_{++}^B+\frac{i}{6}j_+^Aj_+^Bj_+^Cf_{ABC},$$
(A.3)
$$G_{}^1=j_{}^A\eta _{AB}𝒦_=^B+\frac{i}{6}j_{}^Aj_{}^Bj_{}^Cf_{ABC},$$
(A.4)
$$G_+^2=j_+^AJ_{AB}𝒦_{++}^B\frac{i}{6}j_+^Aj_+^Bj_+^CJ_A^DJ_B^LJ_C^Mf_{DLM},$$
(A.5)
$$G_{}^2=j_{}^AJ_{AB}𝒦_=^B\frac{i}{6}j_{}^Aj_{}^Bj_{}^CJ_A^DJ_B^LJ_C^Mf_{DLM},$$
(A.6)
$$J_+=j_+^Aj_+^BJ_{AB},J_{}=j_{}^Aj_{}^BJ_{AB}.$$
(A.7)


format: text

text:
# Gravitational Collapse of Self-Similar Perfect Fluid in 2+1 Gravity

## I Introduction

One of the most outstanding problems in gravitation theory is the final state of a collapsing massive star, after it has exhausted its nuclear fuel. In spite of numerous efforts over the last three decades or so, because of the (mathematical) complexity of the problem our understanding is still limited to several conjectures, such as, the cosmic censorship conjecture  and the hoop conjecture . To the former, many counter-examples have been found , although it is still not clear whether those particular examples are generic. To the latter, no counter-example has been found so far in four-dimensional spacetimes, but it has been shown recently that this is no longer true in five dimensions .

Lately, Brandt et al. have studied gravitational collapse of perfect fluid with kinematic self-similarities in four-dimensional spacetimes , a subject that has been recently studied intensively (for example, see  and references therein.). In this paper, we shall investigate the same problem but in 2+1 gravity . The main motivation of such a study comes from recent investigation of critical collapse of a scalar field in 3D gravity . It was found that in the 3D case the corresponding problem is considerably simplied and can be studied analytically. In particular, Garfinkle first found a class, say, $`S[n]`$, of exact solutions to Einstein-massless-scalar field equations, and then Garfinkle and Gundlach studied their linear perturbations and found that the solution with $`n=2`$ has only one unstable mode . By definition this is a critical solution, and the corresponding exponent, $`\gamma `$, of the black hole mass,

$$M_{BH}(pp^{})^\gamma ,$$

is $`\gamma =|k_1|^1=4/3`$, where $`k_1`$ denotes the unstable mode. Although the exponent $`\gamma `$ is close to the one found numerically by Pretorius and Choptuik, which is $`\gamma 1.2\pm 0.02`$ (but not the one of Husain and Olivier, $`\gamma 0.81`$), this solution is quite different from the numerical one . Using different boundary conditions *** Comparing the two sets of boundary conditions one will find that the only difference between them is that, in addition to the ones imposed by Garfinkle and Gundlach , Hirschmann, Wang and Wu  further required that no matter field should come out of the already formed black holes. This additional condition seems physically quite reasonable, and has been widely used in the studies of black hole perturbations ., Hirschmann, Wang and Wu found that the solution with $`n=4`$ has only one unstable mode . As first noted by Garfinkle , this $`n=4`$ solution matches extremely well with the numerical critical solution found by Pretorius and Choptuik . However, the corresponding exponent $`\gamma `$ now is given by $`\gamma =|k_1|^1=4`$, which is significantly different from the numerical ones. In this paper we do not intend to solve these problems, but study some analytical solutions that represent gravitational collapse of perfect fluid in $`2+1`$ gravity.

It can be shown that the conception of kinematic self-similarities given by Carter and Henriksen  in four-dimensional spacetimes can be easily generalized to D-dimensional spacetimes with the metric

$$ds^2=l^2\left\{\gamma _{ab}\left(x^c\right)dx^adx^bs^2\left(x^c\right)H_{ij}\left(x^k\right)dx^idx^j\right\},$$
(1.1)
where $`l`$ is an unit constant with the dimension of length, so that all the coordinates $`x^\mu `$ and metric coefficients $`\gamma _{ab}`$ and $`H_{ij}`$ are dimensionless. Here we use lowercase Latin indices, such as, $`a,b,c,\mathrm{},g`$, to run from $`0`$ to $`1`$, lowercase Latin indices, such as, $`i,j,k,\mathrm{}`$, to run from $`2`$ to $`D1`$, and Greek indices, such as, $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$, to run from $`0`$ to $`D1`$. Clearly, the above metric is invariant under the coordinate transformations

$$x^a=x^a\left(x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}\right),x^i=x^i\left(x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}\right).$$
(1.2)
On the other hand, the energy-momentum tensor (EMT) for a perfect fluid is given by

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\left(\rho +p\right)u_\mu u_\nu pg_{\mu \nu },$$
(1.3)
where $`u_\mu `$ denotes the velocity of the fluid, $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ are, respectively, its energy density and pressure. Using the coordinate transformations (1.2) we shall choose the coordinates such that,

$$u_\mu =\left(g_{00}\right)^{1/2}\delta _\mu ^0,g_{01}=0.$$
(1.4)
This implies that the coordinates are comoving with the perfect fluid. Then, metric (1.1) can be cast in the form,

$$ds^2=l^2\left\{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }(t,r)}dt^2e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }(t,r)}dr^2r^2S^2(t,r)H_{ij}\left(x^k\right)dx^idx^j\right\}.$$
(1.5)
Following Carter and Henriksen, we define kinematic self-similarity by

$$_\xi h_{\mu \nu }=2h_{\mu \nu },_\xi u^\mu =\alpha u^\mu ,$$
(1.6)
where $`_\xi `$ denotes the Lie differentiation along the vector field $`\xi ^\mu `$, $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionless constant, and $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is the project operator, defined by $`h_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }u_\mu u_\nu `$. When $`\alpha =0`$, the corresponding solutions are said to have self-similarity of the zeroth kind; when $`\alpha =1`$, they are said to have self-similarity of the first kind (or homothetic self-similarity); and when $`\alpha 0,1`$, they are said to have self-similarity of the second kind.

Applying the above definition to metric (1.5), we find that the metric coefficients must take the form,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t,r)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x),\mathrm{\Psi }(t,r)=\mathrm{\Psi }(x),S(t,r)=S(x),$$
(1.7)
where the self-similar variable $`x`$ and the vector field $`\xi ^\mu `$ are given by

$`\xi ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{x^\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+r{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}},`$ (1.8)
$`x=\mathrm{ln}(r)t,(\alpha =0),`$ (1.9)
for the zeroth kind, and

$`\xi ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{x^\mu }}=\alpha t{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+r{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}},`$ (1.10)
$`x=\mathrm{ln}(r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\mathrm{ln}(t),(\alpha 0),`$ (1.11)
for the first ($`\alpha =1`$) and second ($`\alpha 1`$) kind, respectively.

As mentioned above, in this paper we shall study perfect fluid with kinematic self-similarity in $`2+1`$-dimensional spacetimes with circular symmetry, for which metric (1.5) becomes

$$ds^2=l^2\left\{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}dt^2e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }(x)}dr^2r^2S^2(x)d\theta ^2\right\},$$
(1.12)
where the hypersurfaces $`\theta =0,2\pi `$ are identified. It should be noted that the above metric is of invariance under the following transformations,

$$t=A\overline{t},r=B\overline{r},g_{\mu \nu }=C^2\overline{g}_{\mu \nu },$$
(1.13)
for self-similar solutions of the first and second kinds, and

$$t=\overline{t}+A,r=B\overline{r},g_{\mu \nu }=C^2\overline{g}_{\mu \nu },$$
(1.14)
for self-similar solutions of the zeroth kind, where $`A,B`$ and $`C`$ are arbitrary constants.

On the other hand, to have circular symmetry, some physical and geometrical conditions needed to be imposed . In general this is not trivial. As a matter of fact, only when the symmetry axis is free of spacetime singularity, do we know how to impose these conditions. Since in this paper we are mainly interested in gravitational collapse, we shall assume that the axis is regular at the beginning of the collapse, so that we are sure that the singularity to be formed later on the axis is due to the collapse of the fluid. Following  we impose the following conditions:

(i) There must exist a symmetry axis, which can be expressed as

$$X\left|\xi _{(\theta )}^\mu \xi _{(\theta )}^\nu g_{\mu \nu }\right|=\left|g_{\theta \theta }\right|0,$$
(1.15)
as $`r0^+`$, where we have chosen the radial coordinate such that the axis is located at $`r=0`$, and $`\xi _{(\theta )}^\mu `$ is the Killing vector with a close orbit, given by $`\xi _{(\theta )}^\alpha _\alpha =_\theta `$.

(ii) The spacetime near the symmetry axis is locally flat, which can be written as

$$\frac{X_{,\alpha }X_{,\beta }g^{\alpha \beta }}{4X}1,$$
(1.16)
as $`r0^+`$, where $`()_{,\alpha }()/x^\alpha `$. Note that solutions failing to satisfy this condition are sometimes acceptable. For example, when the left-hand side of the above equation approaches a finite constant, the singularity at $`r=0`$ can be related to a point-like particle . However, since here we are mainly interested in gravitational collapse, in this paper we shall assume that this condition holds strictly at the beginning of the collapse.

(iii) No closed timelike curves (CTC’s). In spacetimes with circular symmetry, CTC’s can be easily introduced. To ensure their absence we assume that

$$g_{\theta \theta }=\xi _{(\theta )}^\mu \xi _{(\theta )}^\nu g_{\mu \nu }<0,$$
(1.17)
holds in the whole spacetime.

In addition to these conditions, it is usually also required that the spacetime be asymptotically flat in the radial direction. However, since we consider solutions with self-similarity, this condition cannot be satisfied by such solutions, unless we restrict the validity of them only up to a maximal radius, say, $`r=r_0(t)`$. Then, we need to join the solutions with others in the region $`r>r_0(t)`$, which are asymptotically flat as $`r\mathrm{}`$. In this paper, we shall not consider such a possibility, and simply assume that the self-similar solutions are valid in the whole spacetime.

It should be noted that the regularity conditions (1.15)-(1.17) are invariant under the transformations of Eq.(1.13) or Eq.(1.14). Using these transformations, we shall further assume that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t,0)=0,$$
(1.18)
that is, the timelike coordinate $`t`$ measures the proper time on the axis.

Moreover, in the analytical studies of critical collapse, one is usually first to find some particular solutions by imposing certain symmetries, such as, homothetic self-similarity, and then study their perturbations, because by definition critical solutions have one and only one unstable mode. In this paper we shall be mainly concerned with the first question, and leave the study of linear perturbations to another occasion. In particular, the rest of the paper is organized as follows: Exact solutions of the Einstein field equations with self-similarity of the first, second, and zeroth kinds will be given and studied, respectively, in Secs. $`II`$, $`III`$, and $`IV`$, while in Sec. $`V`$, our main conclusions are presented. There are also two appendices $`A`$ and $`B`$, where in Appendix $`A`$ the general expression of the Einstein tensor, among other things, for spacetimes with self-similarities of the zeroth, first and second kinds is given, while in Appendix $`B`$ the apparent horizon is defined in terms of the self-similar variables.

## II Self-Similar Solutions of the First Kind

In this section, we shall study solutions with self-similarity of the first kind. Substituting Eqs.(1.3), (1.4) and (A.48) with $`\alpha =1`$ into the Einstein field equations $`G_{\mu \nu }=\kappa T_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\kappa `$ is the Einstein coupling constant, we find that

$`y_{,x}(1+y)\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}y\right)y\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}=0,`$ (2.1)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{,xx}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}y2\right)`$ (2.2)
$`e^{2\left(x+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }\right)}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_{,xx}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}+y\right)\right]=0,`$ (2.3)
and

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ye^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}}{l^2r^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}e^{2(x+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\right),`$ (2.4)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(y+1\right)e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}}{l^2r^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}e^{2(x+\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\right),`$ (2.5)
where $`yS_{,x}/S`$. Note that in writing the above expressions we had set $`\kappa =1`$. In the rest of this paper we shall continuously choose units so that this is true. Clearly, to determinate the metric coefficients completely, we need to impose the equation of state for the perfect fluid. In general, it takes the form ,

$$\rho =\rho (T,\mathrm{\Sigma }),p=p(T,\mathrm{\Sigma }),$$
(2.6)
where $`T`$ is the temperature of the system and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the entropy. However, in some cases the system is weakly dependent on $`T`$, so the equation of state can be written approximately as $`p=p(\rho )`$. In the following we shall show that in the latter case the only equation of state that is consistent with the symmetry of homothetic self-similarity is the one given by

$$p=k\rho ,$$
(2.7)
where $`k`$ is an arbitrary constant. To show this, let us first write Eq.(2.4) in the form

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(x)}{r^2}},`$ (2.8)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g(x)}{r^2}}.`$ (2.9)
Then, from Eq. (2.8) we find that

$$x=x\left(r^2\rho \right),\frac{dx}{d\left(r^2\rho \right)}=\frac{1}{f^{}(x)},$$
(2.10)
where a prime denotes the ordinary differentiation with respect to $`x`$. Inserting Eq.(2.10) into Eq.(2.9) we find that

$$p=\frac{g\left(x\left(r^2\rho \right)\right)}{r^2},$$
(2.11)
which shows that in general $`p`$ is a function of $`r`$ and $`\rho `$. Taking partial derivative of the above equation with respect to $`r`$, and then setting it to zero, we find that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p(r,\rho )}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{g(x)}{r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dg(x)}{dx}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{d\left(r^2\rho \right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(r^2\rho \right)}{r}}`$ (2.12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2fg}{r^3f^{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{f}}\right)=0,`$ (2.13)
which gives $`g(x)=kf(x)`$. Then, Eq.(2.7) follows. In the following we shall further assume $`0k1`$ so that all the energy conditions hold  and that the pressure is non-negative.

The combination of Eqs.(2.4) and (2.7) immediately yields

$$y=\frac{1}{1+k}.$$
(2.14)
Then, Eqs.(2.1) and (2.14) have the solutions,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=k\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{1+k}}+\mathrm{\Psi }\right)+\mathrm{\Phi }_0,`$ (2.16)
$`S(x)=S_0e^{x/(1+k)},`$
while Eq.(2.2) becomes

$`k\mathrm{\Psi }_{,xx}+k\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+1}}\right)\left[\left(k1\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}1\right]`$ (2.17)
$`e^{2\left[\frac{x}{k+1}+\left(1k\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right]}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_{,xx}+\left(1k\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+1}}\right)\right]=0,`$ (2.18)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and $`S_0`$ are integration constants.

### A  Stiff Fluid ($`k=1`$)

When $`k=1`$, i.e., the stiff fluid, Eq.(2.17) has the general solution,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`q\mathrm{ln}\left(1e^{xx_0}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(xx_0\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }_0,`$ (2.19)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`q\mathrm{ln}\left(1e^{xx_0}\right)+x_0+\mathrm{\Psi }_0,`$ (2.20)
$`S(x)`$ $`=`$ $`S_0e^{x/2},`$ (2.21)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0,x_0,S_0`$ and $`q`$ are the integration constants, and $`x_02\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. Imposing the regularity conditions of Eqs.(1.15)-(1.17) and the gauge condition (1.18), we find that

$$S_0=2e^{x_0/2},\mathrm{\Psi }_0=x_0,$$
(2.22)
while $`x_0`$ and $`q`$ are arbitrary and cannot be removed by the transformations of Eq.(1.13). Then, the general solution is given by

$$ds^2=l^2\left\{\left(1e^{xx_0}\right)^{2q}\left[dt^2e^{(x+x_0)}dr^2\right]4r^2e^{(x+x_0)}d\theta ^2\right\},$$
(2.23)
and the corresponding energy density of the fluid reads,

$$\rho =p=\frac{12q}{4l^2(t)^2\left(1e^{xx_0}\right)^{2q}}.$$
(2.24)
It should be noted that in writing Eq.(2.23), we had implicitly assumed that $`xx_00`$. On the other hand, from Eq.(2.24) we can see that we must have $`q<1/2`$ in order to have $`\rho 0`$, a condition that we shall assume in the rest of the paper. The metric is singular on the hypersurface $`x=x_0`$, and depending on the values of $`q`$, the nature of the singularity is different.

#### 1 $`0<q<1/2`$

In this case the singularity is a curvature one and marginally naked. In fact, from Eq.(B.13) we find that

$`\theta _l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{fe^x}{2l^2r\left(1e^{xx_0}\right)^q}}\left[e^{(x_0x)/2}1\right],`$ (2.25)
$`\theta _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ge^x}{2l^2r\left(1e^{xx_0}\right)^q}}\left[e^{(x_0x)/2}+1\right],`$ (2.26)
from which we can see that $`\theta _n<0`$ for any given $`x[0,x_0]`$, and $`\theta _l`$ is positive for $`x<x_0`$, zero only on the surface $`x=x_0`$. Thus, now the hypersurface $`x=x_0`$ is a marginally trapped surface and the spacetime singularity located there is marginally naked. On the other hand, for any given hypersurface $`x=Const`$., say, $`C`$, its normal vector is given by

$$n_\alpha \frac{(xC)}{x^\alpha }=\frac{1}{r}\left(e^x\delta _\alpha ^t+\delta _\alpha ^r\right),$$
(2.28)
from which we find

$$n_\alpha n_\beta g^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{e^{x+x_0}}{l^2r^2}\left(1e^{xx_0}\right)^{12q}.$$
(2.29)
Clearly, on the hypersurface $`x=x_0`$ the normal vector, $`n_\alpha `$, becomes null. That is, the nature of the singularity is null. The corresponding Penrose diagram is given by Fig. 1.

#### 2 $`q=0`$

In this case the metric is free of spacetime and coordinate singularities on the hypersurface $`x=x_0`$, and valid in the whole region $`t0,r0`$. However, now the spacetime becomes singular on the hypersurface $`t=0`$ \[cf. Eq.(2.24)\]. From Eq.(2.25), which is also valid for $`q=0`$, we can see that this singularity is not naked, and always covered by the apparent horizon formed on the hypersurface $`x=x_0`$. In the region $`x>x_0`$, which is denoted as Region $`I`$ in Fig. 2, Eq.(2.25) shows that $`\theta _l`$ becomes negative and $`\theta _l\theta _n>0`$, that is, all the rings of constant $`t`$ and $`r`$ now become trapped. Thus, in this case Region $`I`$ can be considered as the interior of a black hole, which is formed by the gravitational collapse of the stiff fluid in Region $`II`$. The corresponding Penrose diagram is given by Fig. 2.

It should be noted that apparent horizons and black holes are usually defined in asymptotically flat spacetimes . As mentioned previously, the spacetimes considered here are not asymptotically flat, therefore, strictly speaking the above definitions are, in some sense, the generalization of those given in . As a matter of fact, to be distinguishable with the asymptotical case, Hayward called such apparent horizons as trapping horizons and defined black holes by future outer trapping horizons . For the sake of simplicity and without causing any confusions, following  we shall continuously use the notions, apparent horizons.

#### 3 $`q<0`$

In this case the spacetime is free of curvature singularity on the hypersurface $`x=x_0`$, although we do have a coordinate one there. Then, to have a geodesically maximal spacetime, we need to extend it beyond this surface. Introducing two null coordinates $`u`$ and $`v`$ via the relations

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(u\right)^n+\left(v\right)^n\right]^2,`$ (2.30)
$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{x_0}\left[\left(u\right)^n\left(v\right)^n\right]^2,`$ (2.31)
where

$$n\frac{1}{2q+1},$$
(2.32)
we find that the metric (2.23) becomes

$$ds^2=l^2\left\{2e^{2\sigma (u,v)}dudvR^2(u,v)d\theta ^2\right\},$$
(2.33)
with

$`\sigma (u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(12q\right)\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(u\right)^n+\left(v\right)^n\right]+\sigma _0,`$ (2.34)
$`R(u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(u\right)^{2n}\left(v\right)^{2n},`$ (2.35)
$`\sigma _0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(2n^24^{2q}\right),`$ (2.36)
and the corresponding velocity and energy density of the stiff fluid are given, respectively, by

$`u_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{le^\sigma }{\sqrt{2}}}\left(u_0\delta _\mu ^u+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_0}}\delta _\mu ^v\right),u_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{v}}\right)^{(n1)/2},`$ (2.37)
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0(uv)^{n1}}{\left[(u)^n+(v)^n\right]^{62/n}}},\rho _0={\displaystyle \frac{2n(2n1)}{l^2}}e^{2\sigma _0}.`$ (2.38)
From Eq.(2.30) we can see that the region $`t0,r0,xx_0`$ in the ($`t,r`$)-plane has been mapped into the region $`u0,v0`$ and $`vu`$ in the ($`u,v`$)-plane, which will be referred as to region $`II`$, as shown in Fig. 3. The null hypersurface $`x=x_0`$, as can be seen from Eq.(2.29), is mapped to the one $`v=0`$. Region $`I`$, where $`u0,v0,|u|v`$, represents an extended region. In this extended region, the metric is real only for $`n(2m+1)/(2j)`$, where $`j`$ and $`m`$ are integers. When $`n=(2m+1)/(2j)`$, a possible extension may be given by replacing $`v`$ by $`|v|`$. However, this extension is not analytical. In fact, no analytical extension exists in this case. The only case where the extension is analytical is the one where $`n`$ is an integer. When the extension is not analytical, it is also not unique. Thus, to have an unique extension in the following we shall assume that $`n`$ is an integer. On the other hand, from Eq.(B.8) we find that

$$\theta _l=\frac{2ne^{2\sigma }}{l^2R}(v)^{2n1},\theta _n=\frac{2ne^{2\sigma }}{l^2R}(u)^{2n1},$$
(2.39)
where $`RrS`$. From the above expressions we can see that $`\theta _n`$ is always negative in both regions $`I`$ and $`II`$, while $`\theta _l`$ is positive in Region $`II`$, zero on the hypersurface $`v=0`$, and negative in the extended region, $`I`$. Near the surface $`v=0`$ the only non-vanishing component of the energy-momentum tensor is given by

$$T_{uu}=\frac{l^2\rho _0e^{2\sigma _0}}{(u)^2},$$
(2.40)
which represents the energy flow moving from Region $`II`$ to Region $`I`$ along the hypersurfaces $`u=Const`$. To study the above solutions further, let us consider the two cases $`n=2m+1`$ and $`n=2m`$, separately, where $`m=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$.

When $`n`$ is an odd integer, i.e., $`n=2m+1`$, from Eq.(2.37) we can see that the spacetime is singular on the hypersurface $`u=v`$ in the extended region $`I`$, on which we have $`R(u,v)=0`$. On the other hand, all the rings of constant $`t`$ and $`r`$ are trapped in this region, as we can see from Eq.(2.39), now we have $`\theta _l(v>0)<0`$ and $`\theta _l\theta _n>0`$. Thus, region $`I`$ can be considered as the interior of the black hole that is formed from the gravitational collapse of the fluid in region $`II`$. The corresponding Penrose diagram is that of Fig. 3.

When $`n`$ is an even integer, say, $`n=2m`$, from Eq.(2.37) we can see that no spacetime curvature singularity is developed on the axis $`R=0`$ in the extended region $`I`$, although all the rings of constant $`t`$ and $`r`$ are also trapped in this region, as now we still have $`\theta _l(v>0)<0`$ and $`\theta _l(v>0)\theta _n(v>0)>0`$. However, the local flatness condition (1.16) is not satisfied there. In fact, it can be shown that now we have

$$\frac{X_{,\alpha }X_{,\beta }g^{\alpha \beta }}{4X}+1,$$
(2.41)
as $`vu`$. Thus, unlike that on the axis $`R=0`$ in Region $`II`$, where the local flatness condition is satisfied, now the spacetime on the axis $`R=0`$ in region $`I`$ has angle defect. The corresponding Penrose diagram is also given by Fig. 3, but now the horizontal double line $`R=0`$, instead of representing a curvature singularity, now represents an angle-defect-like singularity .

Moreover, in the extended region $`I`$, where $`uv<0`$, the function $`\rho `$ becomes negative, and the three-velocity $`u_\mu `$ becomes imaginary, as we can see from Eq.(2.37). A close investigation shows that the energy-momentum tensor in this extended region actually takes the form

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\overline{\rho }\left(2r_\mu r_\nu +g_{\mu \nu }\right),$$
(2.42)
where

$`r_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{le^\sigma }{\sqrt{2}}}\left(r_0\delta _\mu ^u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_0}}\delta _\mu ^v\right),r_0\left|{\displaystyle \frac{u}{v}}\right|^{(2m1)/2},`$ (2.43)
$`\overline{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0\left|uv\right|^{2m1}}{\left(u^{2m}+v^{2m}\right)^{(6m1)/m}}},(n=2m),`$ (2.44)
from which we find that

$$g^{\mu \nu }r_\mu r_\nu =1.$$
(2.45)
Thus, in the extended region the source is no more a stiff fluid. Introducing the unit vectors,

$$u_\mu =\frac{le^\sigma }{\sqrt{2}}\left(r_0\delta _\mu ^u+\frac{1}{r_0}\delta _\mu ^v\right),\theta _\mu =lR\delta _\mu ^\theta ,$$
(2.46)
where $`u_\nu u^\nu =1`$ and $`\theta _\nu \theta ^\nu =1`$, we find that Eq.(2.42) reads

$`T_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\rho u_\mu u_\nu p_rr_\mu r_\nu p_\theta \theta _\mu \theta _\nu ,`$ (2.47)
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`p_r=p_\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0\left|uv\right|^{2m1}}{\left(u^{2m}+v^{2m}\right)^{(6m1)/m}}}.`$ (2.48)
Thus, the source in region $`I`$ now becomes an anisotropic fluid with its energy density $`\rho `$ and two principal pressures, $`p_r`$ and $`p_\theta `$, in the direction of , respectively, $`r_\mu `$ and $`\theta _\mu `$. Note that although the pressure in the $`r_\mu `$ direction is negative, the anisotropic fluid satisfies all the three energy conditions . With this odd feature, it is not clear whether the corresponding solution can be interpreted as representing gravitational collapse of the stiff fluid. In fact, if we consider the fluid from its microscopic point of view, we might be able to rule out such a change in the equation of state across the hypersurface $`v=0`$ , a problem that is under our current investigation.

Before turning to study other cases, we would like to note that it is well-known that a still perfect fluid is energetically equivalent to a massless scalar field when the velocity of the fluid is irrotational $`_{[\mu }u_{\nu ]}=0`$ and the massless scalar field is timelike $`\varphi _{,\alpha }\varphi _{,\beta }g^{\alpha \beta }>0`$. Clearly, these conditions are fulfilled in Region $`II`$. In fact, comparing the solutions given by Eq.(2.34) with the corresponding massless scalar field ones found in , one can find that they are actually the same in Region $`II`$. However, as shown lately in 4-dimensional case , the spacetime across the horizon $`v=0`$ can be quite different. Our analysis given above and the one given in  show that this is also the case in $`2+1`$ Gravity. In , it was also shown that the linear perturbations in these two cases are different. Thus, it would be very interesting to study the linear perturbations of the above solutions in terms of stiff fluid.

### B Dust Fluid $`(k=0)`$

When $`k=0`$, the pressure of the perfect fluid vanishes, i.e., the dust fluid. Then, it can be shown that in this case the general solution is given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0,`$ (2.49)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left(1e^{xx_0}\right)x+\mathrm{\Psi }_0,`$ (2.50)
$`S(x)`$ $`=`$ $`S_0e^x,`$ (2.51)
for which we find

$$\rho =\frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}{l^2(t)^2\left(1e^{xx_0}\right)},p=0.$$
(2.52)
Since now we have $`R(t,r)=rS(x)=S_0t`$, we can see that these solutions are Kantowski-Sachs like , and may be interpreted as representing cosmological models. Because in this paper we are mainly interested in gravitational collapse, in the following we shall not consider this case in any more details.

### C Perfect Fluid With $`k0,1`$

When $`k0,1`$, introducing the function $`Z(x)`$ by

$$Z(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\left[\frac{x}{1+k}+\left(1k\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right]\right\},$$
(2.53)
we find that Eq.(2.17) can be written in the form,

$`2Z\left(kZ\right)Z_{,xx}`$ $`+`$ $`\left(Z3k\right)Z_{,x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2Z^2Z_{,x}`$ (2.54)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4k}{\left(k+1\right)^2}}Z^2\left(k^2Z\right)=0.`$ (2.55)
We are not able to find the general solution of this equation, but a particular one given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0,`$ (2.56)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{k+1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{1k}},`$ (2.57)
$`S(x)`$ $`=`$ $`S_0e^{\frac{x}{k+1}}.`$ (2.58)
Then, it can be shown that the conditions of Eqs.(1.15)-(1.18) are fulfilled, provided that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0,S_0=\frac{1+k}{k},k>0.$$
(2.59)
Thus, the corresponding metric takes the form

$$ds^2=l^2\left\{dt^2e^{2x/(1+k)}\left[dr^2+\left(\frac{1+k}{k}\right)^2r^2d\theta ^2\right]\right\},$$
(2.60)
and the pressure and energy density of the fluid are given by

$$p=k\rho =\frac{k}{l^2(1+k)^2(t)^2}.$$
(2.61)
From the above expression we can see that the spacetime is always singular at $`t=0`$. However, this singularity is not naked. In fact, from Eq.(B.13) we find that

$`\theta _l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{fe^{x/(1+k)}}{l^2(1+k)r}}\left(ke^{kx/(1+k)}\right),`$ (2.62)
$`\theta _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ge^{x/(1+k)}}{l^2(1+k)r}}\left(k+e^{kx/(1+k)}\right),`$ (2.63)
from which we can see that $`\theta _n`$ is always negative, and

$$\theta _l(t,r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}>0,x<x_0,\hfill & \\ =0,x=x_0,\hfill & \\ <0,x>x_0,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2.64)
where $`x_0`$ is given by

$$x_0\frac{1+k}{k}\mathrm{ln}(k).$$
(2.65)
Thus, the singularity at $`t=0`$ is always covered by the apparent horizon localized on the hypersurface $`x=x_0`$. In the region where $`t<0`$ and $`x>x_0`$, the rings of constant $`t`$ and $`r`$ are all trapped, as now we have $`\theta _l<0`$ and $`\theta _l\theta _n>0`$. Therefore, in the present case the collapse of the fluid always forms black holes. Moreover, the normal vector $`n_\alpha `$ to the hypersurface $`x=x_0`$ is still given by Eq.(2.28) but now with

$$n_\alpha n_\beta g^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{e^{2x_0/(1+k)}}{l^2r^2}\left(1k^2\right)<0,$$
(2.66)
since now we have $`0<k<1`$. That is, the apparent horizon is always timelike and the corresponding Penrose diagram is given by Fig. 4.

## III Self-Similar Solutions of the Second Kind

When $`\alpha 1`$, the term that is proportional to $`r^2`$ has different power-dependence on $`r`$ from the term that is proportional to $`t^2`$, when they are written out in terms of $`r`$ and $`x`$, since $`t=r^\alpha e^{\alpha x}`$. Then, it can be shown that the Einstein field equations in this case become

$`y_{,x}(1+y)\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}y\right)y\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.1)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{,xx}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}y2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.2)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{,xx}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}+y+1\alpha \right)+\left(1\alpha \right)y`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.3)
and

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y}{l^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha t)^2}}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\right\},`$ (3.4)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1+y}{r^2}}e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha t)^2}}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left[\left(1+y\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}\left(1\alpha \right)y\right]\right\},`$ (3.5)
where in writing Eqs.(3.2) - (3.4), we had used Eq.(3.1). From the above equations we can see that now the Einstein field equations are already sufficient to determinate completely the metric coefficients $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x),\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ and $`S(x)`$. Following Maeda et al , it can be shown that the symmetry of the self-similarity of the second kind is inconsistent with a polytropic equation of the kind,

$$p=k\rho ^\beta ,$$
(3.6)
or

$$p=kn^\beta ,\rho =m_bn+\frac{p}{\beta 1},$$
(3.7)
unless $`k=1`$, where the constant $`m_b`$ denotes the mean baryon mass, and $`n(t,r)`$ the baryon number density . Thus, in the following we shall consider only the case $`\beta =1`$. Combining it with Eq.(3.4), we find that

$`\left[1+\left(1+k\right)y\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.8)
$`\left[1+\left(1+k\right)y\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}(1\alpha )y`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3.9)
Since $`\alpha 1`$, we must have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}=0`$. Therefore, for the perfect fluid with the equation of state $`p=k\rho `$ and self-similarity of the second kind, it must move along the radial timelike geodesics. To solve Eqs.(3.1)-(3.3) and (3.9), let us consider the two cases $`y1`$ and $`y=1`$ separately.

Case A) $`y1`$: In this case, from Eq.(3.1) we find that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}=\frac{y_{,x}}{1+y}+y,$$
(3.10)
while from Eq.(3.9) we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{,xx}=\frac{y_{,x}}{1+\left(1+k\right)y}\left[\left(1\alpha \right)\left(1+k\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}\right].$$
(3.11)
Inserting the above expressions into Eq.(3.3) we find that it has three different solutions,

$`(a)k=0,`$ (3.12)
$`(b)y_{,x}=0,`$ (3.13)
$`(c)y_{,x}(\alpha 2)y(1+y)=0.`$ (3.14)
When $`k=0`$, it can be shown that Eqs.(3.1)-(3.3), (3.8) and (3.9) have the general solution,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\mathrm{ln}\left|1+(\alpha 1)e^{\alpha (x_0x)}\right|+\mathrm{\Psi }_0,`$ (3.15)
$`S(x)`$ $`=`$ $`S_0\left|1e^{\alpha (x_0x)}\right|,(k=0).`$ (3.16)
When $`y_{,x}=0`$, we find that the general solution is given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0,S(x)=S_0e^{ax},`$ (3.17)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`ax+\mathrm{\Psi }_0,a{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{1+k}}.`$ (3.18)
When $`y_{,x}(\alpha 2)y(1+y)=0`$, it can be shown that the corresponding solution is given by Eq.(3.17) with $`\alpha =2`$. Thus, this case is a particular one of Eq.(3.17).

Case B) $`y=1`$: In this case from Eq.(3.9) we find that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}=\frac{1\alpha }{k}.$$
(3.19)
Inserting it into Eq.(3.3) we find that there are only two solutions given, respectively, by

$`(i)k=1,`$ (3.20)
$`(ii)\alpha =1+k.`$ (3.21)
When $`k=1`$, the general solution is given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0,S(x)=S_0e^x,`$ (3.22)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(1\alpha )x+\mathrm{\Psi }_0,(k=1),`$ (3.23)
and when $`\alpha =1+k`$, we have

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0,S(x)=S_0e^x,`$ (3.24)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x+\mathrm{\Psi }_0,\alpha =1+k.`$ (3.25)
Thus, the most general solutions with self-similarity of the second kind ($`\alpha 0,1`$) and the equation of state $`p=k\rho `$ consist of four classes of solutions, given, respectively, by Eqs.(3.15), (3.17), (3.22) and (3.24). In the following, let us consider them separately.

### A $`y1,k=0`$

In this case, the solutions are given by Eq.(3.15). Applying the conditions (1.15)-(1.18) to them, we find that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0`$, $`S_0=e^{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}`$ and $`\alpha <1`$. Then, using the transformations (1.13) we can further set $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0`$. Thus, the corresponding metric finally takes the form,

$$ds^2=l^2\left\{dt^2\left[1(1\alpha )e^{\alpha (x_0x)}\right]^2dr^2r^2\left[1e^{\alpha (x_0x)}\right]^2d\theta ^2\right\},(\alpha <1),$$
(3.26)
and the energy density and pressure of the fluid are given by

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2(1\alpha )e^{2\alpha (x_0x)}}{l^2(\alpha t)^2\left|1e^{\alpha (x_0x)}\right|\left|1(1\alpha )e^{\alpha (x_0x)}\right|}},`$ (3.27)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`0,(\alpha <1).`$ (3.28)
From the above expressions we can see that the spacetime is singular on the hypersurfaces,

$$(i)t=0,(ii)x=x_0,(iii)x=x_1,$$
(3.29)
where

$$x_1x_0\frac{1}{\alpha }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{1\alpha }\right)<x_0.$$
(3.30)
On the other hand, from Eq.(B.13) we find that

$`\theta _l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{l^2r\left|1e^{\alpha (x_0x)}\right|}}\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_A}}\right)^{1\alpha }\right],`$ (3.31)
$`\theta _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{l^2r\left|1e^{\alpha (x_0x)}\right|}}\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_A}}\right)^{1\alpha }\right],(0<\alpha <1),`$ (3.32)
for $`0<\alpha <1`$, and

$`\theta _l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{l^2r\left|1e^{\alpha (x_0x)}\right|}}\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_A}}\right)^{1\alpha }\right],`$ (3.33)
$`\theta _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{l^2r\left|1e^{\alpha (x_0x)}\right|}}\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_A}}\right)^{1\alpha }\right],(\alpha <0),`$ (3.34)
for $`\alpha <0`$, where $`r_Ae^{\alpha x_0/(1\alpha )}`$.

From Eq.(3.31) we can see that, in the case $`0<\alpha <1`$, $`\theta _n`$ is always negative for any $`r[0,\mathrm{})`$, but $`\theta _l`$ is negative when $`r>r_A`$, zero when $`r=r_A`$ and positive when $`r<r_A`$ \[cf. Fig. 5\]. That is, the spacetime is closed far away from the axis even at the very beginning ($`t=\mathrm{}`$). This property makes the solution very difficult to be considered as representing gravitational collapse.

When $`\alpha <0`$, from Eq.(3.33) we can see that $`\theta _l`$ now is always positive, but $`\theta _n`$ changes signs at $`r=r_A`$. In particular, it shows that the ingoing radial null geodesics become expanding in the region $`r>r_A`$. With this odd property, it is also very difficult to consider the corresponding solutions as representing gravitational collapse.

### B $`y=Const.(1)`$

In this case the solutions are given by Eq.(3.17). It can be shown that the regularity conditions (1.15)-(1.17) and the gauge one (1.18) require $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0`$, $`S_0=e^{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}/(1+a)`$ and $`\alpha <1+k`$. On the other hand, using the transformations (1.13), we can further set $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0`$. Then, we find that

$$ds^2=l^2\left\{dt^2e^{2ax}\left[dr^2+\left(\frac{r}{1+a}\right)^2d\theta ^2\right]\right\},(\alpha <1+k),$$
(3.35)
and the corresponding physical quantities are

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`k\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{k\alpha ^2}{l^2(1+k)^2(\alpha t)^2}},`$ (3.36)
$`\theta _l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{fe^{ax}}{l^2(1+k)r}}\left[(1+k)(1+a){\displaystyle \frac{r^{1+a}}{(t)^{k/(1+k)}}}\right],`$ (3.37)
$`\theta _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ge^{ax}}{l^2(1+k)r}}\left[(1+k)(1+a)+{\displaystyle \frac{r^{1+a}}{(t)^{k/(1+k)}}}\right].`$ (3.38)
From the above we can see that the spacetime is singular on the hypersurface $`t=0`$, and the singularity is not naked. In fact, it is covered by the apparent horizon located on the hypersurface,

$$r_{AH}(t)=\left[(1+k)(1+a)(t)^{k/(1+k)}\right]^{1/(1+a)}.$$
(3.39)
The normal vector to the hypersurface $`rr_{AH}(t)=0`$ is given by $`n_\alpha (rr_{AH}(t))/x^\alpha `$. Then, we find that

$$n_\alpha n^\alpha =l^2\left(1+k\alpha \right)^{2\alpha /(1+k\alpha )}(t)^{2(1\alpha )/(1+k\alpha )}\left(1k^2\right).$$
(3.40)
Thus, the apparent horizon is timelike for $`0k<1`$, and the corresponding Penrose diagram is that of Fig. 4. When $`k=1`$, it is null, and the corresponding Penrose diagram is that of Fig. 2.

### C $`y=1,k=1`$

In this case the solutions are given by Eq.(3.22). The transformations (1.13) and the gauge condition (1.18) enable us to set $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0,S_0=1`$. Then, the metric takes the form

$$ds^2=l^2\left\{dt^2e^{2(1\alpha )x}dr^2(t)^{2/\alpha }d\theta ^2\right\},$$
(3.41)
from which we can see that the solutions are Kantowski-Sachs like and do not satisfy the regular conditions (1.15) and (1.16). The corresponding energy density is given by

$$\rho =p=\frac{\alpha 1}{l^2(\alpha t)^2}.$$
(3.42)
Thus, to have the energy density be positive, we must assume that $`\alpha >1`$.

### D $`y=1,\alpha =1+k`$

In this case, the solutions are given by Eq.(3.24). Using the transformations (1.13) and the gauge condition (1.18) we can set $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0`$ and $`S_0=1`$. Then, the metric takes the form,

$$ds^2=l^2\left\{dt^2e^{2(x_0x)}dr^2(t)^{2/\alpha }d\theta ^2\right\},$$
(3.43)
where $`\alpha =1+k`$ and $`x_0\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. Thus, in this case the solutions are also Kantowski-Sachs like, and the corresponding energy density and pressure of the fluid are given by

$$p=k\rho =\frac{k}{l^2(\alpha t)^2}.$$
(3.44)
As we mentioned in the last section, when $`k=1`$ the perfect fluid is energetically equivalent to a massless scalar field. Indeed, the solutions given by metric (3.41) and the ones given by Eqs.(3.35) and (3.43) with $`k=1`$ are the solutions found lately for a massless scalar field in .

## IV Self-Similar Solutions of the Zeroth Kind

In this case, combining Eqs.(1.3) and (A.24), we find that the Einstein field equations can be cast in the forms,

$`y_{,x}(1+y)\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}y\right)y\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4.1)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{,xx}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}y2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4.2)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{,xx}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}+y+1\right)+y`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4.3)
and

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y}{l^2r^2}}\left\{r^2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\right\},`$ (4.4)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2r^2}}\left\{(1+y)e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}r^2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left[\left(1+y\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}y\right]\right\},`$ (4.5)
where in writing Eqs.(4.2) - (4.4), we had used Eq.(4.1). Similar to the solutions with self-similarity of the second kind, now the Einstein field equations already determinate completely the metric coefficients. It can be also shown that the self-similarity of the zeroth kind is inconsistent with the equation of state given by Eq.(3.6), unless $`\beta =1`$. Then, following the last section, let us consider solutions that satisfy the equation of state (2.7), which, together with Eq.(4.4), yields,

$`[1+(1+k)y]\mathrm{\Phi },_x`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4.6)
$`[1+(1+k)y]\mathrm{\Psi },_xy`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (4.7)
The above equations have the solution

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}=\frac{y}{1+\left(1+k\right)y}.$$
(4.8)
Thus, similar to the case of self-similarity of the second kind, now the fluid must also move along radial timelike geodesics. Inserting the above expressions into Eqs.(4.1)-(4.3), we find that solutions exist only for three special cases, $`k=0,\pm 1`$.

### A $`k=0`$

When $`k=0`$, the general solution is given by,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0,S(x)=S_0\left(x_0x\right),`$ (4.9)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left(x_0x1\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }_0,(k=0).`$ (4.10)
Then, it can be shown that the conditions (1.15)-(1.18) require $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0`$ and $`S_0=e^{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}`$. On the other hand, using the transformations (1.14), we can further set $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0`$. Then, the solutions are finally given by

$$ds^2=l^2\left\{dt^2\left(x_0x1\right)^2dr^2r^2(x_0x)^2d\theta ^2\right\},$$
(4.11)
and the corresponding energy density is given by

$$\rho =\frac{1}{l^2\left(x_0x1\right)\left(x_0x\right)},p=0.$$
(4.12)
From this expression we can see that the spacetime is singular on the hypersurfaces $`x=x_01`$ and $`x=x_0`$ \[cf. Fig. 6\]. From Eq.(B.11) we also find that

$`\theta _l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{l^2(x_0x)r}}\left(1+r\right),`$ (4.13)
$`\theta _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{l^2(x_0x)r}}\left(1r\right).`$ (4.14)
Thus, $`\theta _l`$ is positive for $`x<x_0`$ and negative for $`x>x_0`$, while the signs of $`\theta _n`$ get changed when across the hypersurfaces $`r=1`$ and $`x=x_0`$. With this property, one can see that the solutions cannot be considered as representing gravitational collapse.

### B $`k=1`$

When $`k=1`$, the general solution is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=ax+\mathrm{\Psi }_0,S(x)=S_0e^{ax},$$
(4.15)
for which we have

$$\rho =p=\frac{a^2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}{l^2}.$$
(4.16)
This is a 3-dimensional de-Sitter solution. In fact, setting

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\overline{t}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{a}},r=\left[\left(1+a\right)\overline{r}\right]^{1/(1+a)},`$ (4.17)
$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}}{(1+a)S_0}}\overline{\theta },\beta ae^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0},`$ (4.18)
we find that the corresponding metric can be cast in the form

$$ds^2=l^2\left\{d\overline{t}^2e^{2\beta \overline{t}}\left(d\overline{r}^2+\overline{r}^2d\overline{\theta }^2\right)\right\}.$$
(4.19)
### C $`k=1`$

In this case, the general solution is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=x+\mathrm{\Psi }_0,S(x)=S_0e^x,$$
(4.20)
for which we have

$$\rho =p=\frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}{l^2}.$$
(4.21)
Clearly, now none of the three energy conditions is satisfied, and the physics of the solution is unclear (if there is any).

## V Conclusions

In this paper we have first generalized the notion of kinematic self-similarity of four-dimensional spacetimes to any dimensions for the metric given by Eq.(1.1), and then restricted ourselves to $`(2+1)`$-dimensional spacetimes with circular symmetry.

In Sec. $`II`$, we have studied solutions of the Einstein field equations with homothetic (the first kind) self-similarity for a perfect fluid. It has been shown that the only equation of state that takes the form $`p=p(\rho )`$ and is consistent with the self-similarity is $`p=k\rho `$, where $`k`$ is a constant. In the latter case, a master equation has been found, Eq.(2.17). Then, the general solutions for the stiff fluid ($`k=1`$) have been given in closed form. It has been found that some of these solutions represent formation of marginally naked singularities and the others represent the formation of black holes from gravitational collapse of the self-similar fluid. All the solutions of dust fluid ($`k=0`$) have also been given, and found that they are all Kantowski-Sachas-like. When $`k0,1`$, only particular solutions have been found and shown that the corresponding collapse always forms black holes.

In Secs. $`III`$ and $`IV`$, all the solutions with self-similarity of the second or zeroth kind and the equation of state $`p=k\rho `$ have been found and studied. In particular, it has been shown that the fluid must move along timelike radial geodesics. It has been also shown that some of those solutions represent gravitational collapse of the perfect fluid, while the others don’t. In the collapsing case, black holes are always formed.

In critical Type II collapse, all the critical solutions found so far have either discrete self-similarity or kinematic self-similarity of the first kind, and no critical solutions with kinematic self-similarity of the zeroth or second kind have been found, yet . However, in Statistical Mechanics, critical solutions with kinematic self-similarity of the second kind seem more generic than those of the first kind . Thus, it would be very interesting to study the linear perturbations of the solutions found in this paper with self-similarity of the zeroth or second kind.

Finally, we would like to note that Ida recently showed that a (2+1)-dimensional gravity theory which satisfies the dominant energy condition forbids the existence of black holes . This result does not contradict with the ones obtained here, as in our case the surfaces of apparent horizons of the black holes are not compact, a precondition that was assumed in .

## Append A: Circularly Symmetric Spacetimes with Kinematic Self-Similarity

The general metric of $`\left(2+1\right)`$-dimensional spacetimes with circular symmetry can be cast in the form,

$$ds^2=l^2\left\{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }(t,r)}dt^2e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }(t,r)}dr^2r^2S^2(t,r)d\theta ^2\right\},$$
(A.1)
where $`l`$ is a constant and has dimension of length. Then, it is easy to show that the coordinates $`\{x^\mu \}=\{t,r,\theta \}`$, the Christoffel symbols, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda `$, the Riemann tensor, $`R_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\sigma `$, the Ricci tensor, $`R_{\mu \nu }`$, and the Einstein tensor, $`G_{\mu \nu }`$, are all dimensionless, while the Ricci scalar, $`R`$, has the dimension of $`l^2`$, and the Kretschmann scalar, $`R^{\sigma \mu \nu \lambda }R_{\sigma \mu \nu \lambda }`$, has the dimension of $`l^4`$.

For the metric (A.1), we find that the non-vanishing Christoffel symbols are given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{,t},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}^0=\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^0=e^{2\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }\right)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,t},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}^0=r^2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}SS_{,t},`$ (A.2)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }\right)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}^1=\mathrm{\Psi }_{,t},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^1=\mathrm{\Psi }_{,r},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}^1=re^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}S\left(S+rS_{,r}\right),`$ (A.3)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{02}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S_{,t}}{S}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^2={\displaystyle \frac{S+rS_{,r}}{rS}},`$ (A.4)
and the Einstein tensor has the following non-zero components

$`G_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}}{rS}}\left\{re^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}S_{,t}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,t}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left[rS_{,rr}+2S_{,r}\left(S+rS_{,r}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{,r}\right]\right\},`$ (A.5)
$`G_{tr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{rS}}\left[rS_{,tr}S_{,t}\left(r\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r}1\right)\left(rS_{,r}+S\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{,t}\right],`$ (A.6)
$`G_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}}{rS}}\left[e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left(rS_{,r}+S\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r}re^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(S_{,tt}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,t}S_{,t}\right)\right],`$ (A.7)
$`G_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`r^2S^2\{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}[\mathrm{\Psi }_{,tt}+(\mathrm{\Psi }_{,t}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,t})\mathrm{\Psi }_{,t}]`$ (A.9)
$`e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}[\mathrm{\Phi }_{,rr}+(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,r})\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r}]\}.`$
### A.1 Spacetimes with Self-Similarity of the Zeroth Kind

To study solutions with self-similarity of the zeroth kind, let us first introduce the self-similar variables, $`x`$ and $`\tau `$ via the relations,

$$x=\mathrm{ln}(r)t,\tau =t,$$
(A.10)
or inversely

$$t=\tau ,r=e^{x+\tau }.$$
(A.11)
Then, for any given function $`f(t,r)`$ we have

$`f_{,t}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{,\tau }f_{,x},f_{,r}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}f_{,x},`$ (A.12)
$`f_{,tr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left(f_{,xx}f_{,\tau x}\right),f_{,rr}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left(f_{,xx}f_{,x}\right),`$ (A.13)
$`f_{,tt}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{,\tau \tau }2f_{,\tau x}+f_{,xx}.`$ (A.14)
Substituting these equations into Eq.(A.5), we find that

$`G_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}}{r^2S}}\{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}[S_{,xx}+S_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}(S_{,x}+S)]`$ (A.16)
$`r^2e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}(S_{,\tau }S_{,x})(\mathrm{\Psi }_{,\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x})\},`$
$`G_{tr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{rS}}[S_{,xx}S_{,\tau x}+(S_{,x}+S)(\mathrm{\Psi }_{,\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x})`$ (A.18)
$`+(S_{,\tau }S_{,x})(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}1)],`$
$`G_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}}{r^2S}}\{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}(S_{,x}+S)r^2e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}[S_{,\tau \tau }2S_{,\tau x}+S_{,xx}`$ (A.20)
$`+(S_{,\tau }S_{,x})(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\tau })]\},`$
$`G_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`S^2e^{2(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Psi })}\{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}[\mathrm{\Phi }_{,xx}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}1)]`$ (A.23)
$`r^2e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}[\mathrm{\Psi }_{,xx}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{,\tau \tau }2\mathrm{\Psi }_{,\tau x}`$
$`(\mathrm{\Psi }_{,\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x})(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }_{,\tau }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x})]\}.`$
For the self-similar solutions, the metric coefficients $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`S`$ are functions of $`x`$ only. Then, Eq.(A.16) reduce to,

$`G_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}}{r^2}}\left\{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left[y_{,x}+\left(y+1\right)\left(y\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}\right)\right]r^2e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}y\right\},`$ (A.24)
$`G_{tr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left[y_{,x}+\left(y+1\right)\left(y\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}\right)y\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\right],`$ (A.25)
$`G_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}}{r^2}}\left\{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\left(y+1\right)r^2e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}\left[y_{,x}+y\left(y\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\right)\right]\right\},`$ (A.26)
$`G_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`S^2e^{2(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Psi })}\{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}[\mathrm{\Phi }_{,xx}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}1)]`$ (A.28)
$`r^2e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}[\mathrm{\Psi }_{,xx}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x})]\},`$
where

$$y\frac{S_{,x}}{S}.$$
(A.29)
### A.2 Spacetimes with Self-Similarity of the First and Second Kinds

To study these kinds of self-similar solutions, let us introduce the self-similar variables, $`x`$ and $`\tau `$ by

$$x=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{\left(t\right)^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}}\right),\tau =\mathrm{ln}\left(t\right),$$
(A.30)
or inversely,

$$r=e^{(\alpha x\tau )/\alpha },t=e^\tau ,$$
(A.31)
where $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionless constant. When $`\alpha =1`$, the corresponding spacetimes are said to have self-similarity of the first kind or homothetic self-similarity. Otherwise, they are said to have self-similarity of the second kind.

For any given function $`f(t,r)`$, now we have

$`f_{,t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha t}}\left(\alpha f_{,\tau }+f_{,x}\right),f_{,r}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}f_{,x},`$ (A.32)
$`f_{,tr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha tr}}\left(\alpha f_{,\tau x}+f_{,xx}\right),f_{,rr}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left(f_{,xx}f_{,x}\right),`$ (A.33)
$`f_{,tt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2t^2}}\left(\alpha ^2f_{,\tau \tau }+2\alpha f_{,\tau x}+f_{,xx}+\alpha ^2f_{,\tau }+\alpha f_{,x}\right).`$ (A.34)
Substituting these equations into Eq.(A.5), we find that

$`G_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2r^2Se^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}}}\{\alpha ^2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}[S_{,xx}+S_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}(S_{,x}+S)]`$ (A.37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{t^2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}S_{,x}e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha r^2}{t^2}}e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}(\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_{,\tau }S_{,\tau }+\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}S_{,\tau }+\mathrm{\Psi }_{,\tau }S_{,x})\},`$
$`G_{tr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha trS}}\{S_{,xx}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}(S_{,x}+S)S_{,x}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}1)`$ (A.39)
$`+\alpha [S_{,\tau x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,\tau }(S_{,x}+S)S_{,\tau }(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}1)]\},`$
$`G_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2r^2Se^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}}}\{\alpha ^2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}(S_{,x}+S)\right]`$ (A.43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{t^2}}e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(S_{,xx}S_{,x}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha r^2}{t^2}}e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}\{\alpha S_{,\tau \tau }+2S_{,\tau x}S_{,x}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\tau }1)`$
$`S_{,\tau }[\alpha (\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\tau }1)+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}]\}\},`$
$`G_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S^2}{\alpha ^2}}\{\alpha ^2e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}[\mathrm{\Phi }_{,xx}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}1)]`$ (A.47)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{t^2}}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_{,xx}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}\alpha \right)\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha r^2}{t^2}}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\{\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_{,\tau \tau }+2\mathrm{\Psi }_{,\tau x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,\tau }[\alpha (\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }_{,\tau }1)+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}]`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }_{,\tau })\}\}.`$
For the self-similar solutions, the metric coefficients are also functions of $`x`$ only, but now with $`x`$ being given by Eq.(1.10). Thus, for the self-similar solutions, Eq.(A.37) reduces to

$`G_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2t^2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}e^{2\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }\right)}\left[y_{,x}+\left(y+1\right)\left(y\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}\right)\right],`$ (A.48)
$`G_{tr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha tr}}\left[y_{,x}+\left(y+1\right)\left(y\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}\right)y\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\right],`$ (A.49)
$`G_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2t^2}}e^{2\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }\right)}\left[y_{,x}+y\left(y\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}+\alpha \right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\left(y+1\right),`$ (A.50)
$`G_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`S^2\{e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}[\mathrm{\Phi }_{,xx}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}1)]`$ (A.52)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{\alpha ^2t^2}}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}[\mathrm{\Psi }_{,xx}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,x}\mathrm{\Psi }_{,x}\alpha )]\},`$
where $`y`$ is given by Eq.(A.29).

## Append B: Apparent Horizons of Circularly Symmetric Spacetimes

In , the ingoing and outgoing radial null geodesics were studied in double null coordinates, and apparent horizon was defined as the outmost hypersurface where the expansion of outgoing null geodesics vanishes. In this appendix, we shall write down the expansions in terms of the self-similar variables. To do this, let us first introduce two null coordinates $`u`$ and $`v`$ via the relations

$$du=f\left(e^\mathrm{\Phi }dte^\mathrm{\Psi }dr\right),dv=g\left(e^\mathrm{\Phi }dt+e^\mathrm{\Psi }dr\right),$$
(B.1)
where $`f`$ and $`g`$ satisfy the integrability conditions for $`u`$ and $`v`$,

$$\frac{^2u}{tr}=\frac{^2u}{rt},\frac{^2v}{tr}=\frac{^2v}{rt}.$$
(B.2)
Without loss of generality, we shall assume that they are all strictly positive,

$$f>0,g>0.$$
(B.3)
From the above we can see that the rays moving along the hypersurfaces $`u=Const.`$ are outgoing, while the ones moving along the hypersurfaces $`v=Const.`$ are ingoing. Then, it is easy to show that, in terms of $`u`$ and $`v`$, the metric (A.1) takes the form

$$ds^2=l^2\left\{2e^{2\sigma (u,v)}dudvR^2(u,v)d\theta ^2\right\},$$
(B.4)
where

$$\sigma (u,v)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(2fg\right),R(u,v)=rS.$$
(B.5)
On the other hand, from Eq.(B.1) we find that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f}}e^\mathrm{\Phi },{\displaystyle \frac{t}{v}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g}}e^\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (B.6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{u}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f}}e^\mathrm{\Psi },{\displaystyle \frac{r}{v}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g}}e^\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (B.7)
Then, the expansions of the outgoing and ingoing null geodesics are defined as ,

$`\theta _l`$ $``$ $`_\lambda l^\lambda =e^{2\sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{R_{,v}}{l^2R}}={\displaystyle \frac{f}{l^2R}}\left(e^\mathrm{\Phi }R_{,t}+e^\mathrm{\Psi }R_{,r}\right),`$ (B.8)
$`\theta _n`$ $``$ $`_\lambda n^\lambda =e^{2\sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{R_{,u}}{l^2R}}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{l^2R}}\left(e^\mathrm{\Phi }R_{,t}e^\mathrm{\Psi }R_{,r}\right),`$ (B.9)
where $`_\lambda `$ denotes the covariant derivative, and $`l^\lambda `$ ($`n^\lambda `$) is the null vector defined the outgoing (ingoing) null geodesics and given by

$$l_\lambda \frac{u}{x^\lambda }=\delta _\lambda ^u,n_\lambda \frac{v}{x^\lambda }=\delta _\lambda ^v.$$
(B.10)
For the self-similar solutions of the zeroth kind, Eq.(B.8) takes the form,

$`\theta _l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{l^2r}}\left\{\left(1+y\right)e^\mathrm{\Psi }ye^{x+\tau \mathrm{\Phi }}\right\},`$ (B.11)
$`\theta _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{l^2r}}\left\{\left(1+y\right)e^\mathrm{\Psi }+ye^{x+\tau \mathrm{\Phi }}\right\},(\alpha =0),`$ (B.12)
while for the ones of the first or second kind, it becomes

$`\theta _l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{\alpha l^2r}}\left\{\alpha \left(1+y\right)e^\mathrm{\Psi }+ye^{x+(\alpha 1)\tau /\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}\right\},`$ (B.13)
$`\theta _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\alpha l^2r}}\left\{\alpha \left(1+y\right)e^\mathrm{\Psi }ye^{x+(\alpha 1)\tau /\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}\right\},(\alpha 0).`$ (B.14)
Setting $`\theta _l=0`$ in the above expressions, we shall find the location of the apparent horizons.

## Acknowledgments

One of us (AW) would like to thank Eric W. Hirschmann for useful conversations and comments on gravitational collapse, and Nigel Goldenfeld for his kind invitation and valuable discussions and interest on critical phenomena in gravitational collapse. He would also like to express his gratitude to the Department of Physics, UIUC, for hospitality. The financial assistance from CAPES (AW) and CNPq (AYM) is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# ISN-03-11 nucl-th/0304015 Constraints on spin observables in 𝐩̄𝐩→𝚲̄𝚲

## Abstract

We discuss model-independent inequalities for the spin observables in the reaction $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which have been measured at CERN with a polarised proton target.

thanks: Presented by J.M.R. at the LEAP03 Conference, Yokohama, Japan, March 2003, to appear in the Proceedings to be published as a special issue of Nuclear Instrumentation and Methods in Physics Research, ed. R. Hayano et al.

, Spin observables, when carefully analysed, give access to reaction mechanisms. For instance, accurate measurements of proton–proton scattering have made it possible to separate the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{0}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{1}^{}`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{2}^{}`$ phase-shifts. At very low energy, their ordering is typical of tensor forces induced by pion exchange. As energy increases, their behaviours are rather different, revealing a coherent spin-orbit force mediated by scalar and vector exchanges. The fine structure of protonium and the spin dependence of $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}`$ scattering has been investigated at LEAR (for a recent review, see Ref. ). Antiproton–nucleus experiments also give valuable information. For instance the inelastic reaction $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{A}\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{A}^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{A}^{}`$ is a well identified excited level of the nucleus $`\mathrm{A}`$ with known quantum numbers, filters specific components of the antiproton interaction.

The strangeness-exchange reaction $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$  has been studied by the PS185 collaboration. The first data are well reproduced both by models with K, K exchange and by quark models . In particular, the dominance of the spin-triplet contribution over the spin-singlet contribution is reproduced in both approaches. A final run with a polarised target was carried out in order to better identify the underlying mechanisms.

Many measurements are needed for a full reconstruction of the amplitudes (up to an overall phase). Without enough information, ambiguities remain. On the other hand, when many observables are measured independently, one should address the problem of their compatibility. This is the subject of this note.

In a situation like $`\pi `$N scattering, with two amplitudes $`a`$ and $`b`$, and spin observables

$$A=(|a|^2|b|^2)/I_0,B=2\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}[ab^{}]/I_0,C=2\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}[ab^{}]/I_0,$$
(1)
together with $`I_0=|a|^2+|b|^2`$, both $`A`$ and $`B`$, as well as the sign of $`C`$ are needed to reconstruct the S-matrix. A value $`A=0`$, for instance, indicates that $`|b|=|a|`$, but does not inform about the relative phase of the two amplitudes. If, instead, it happens that $`A=+1`$, then $`b=0`$, and the measurement of $`B`$ or $`C`$ is not necessary, except for cross-checking. In any case, the observables fulfil $`A^2+B^2+C^2=1`$, and thus $`A^2+B^21`$, etc.

Needless to say, the algebra becomes more complicated when two fermions are involved. There are six independent amplitudes for $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, once symmetries are enforced. The spin observables (times the differential cross section $`I_0`$) are expressed by quadratic relations of the type

| $`I_0`$ | $`=|a|^2+|b|^2+|c|^2+|d|^2+|e|^2+|g|^2,`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`P_nI_0`$ | $`=2\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}(ae^{})+2\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}(dg^{}),`$ |
| $`A_nI_0`$ | $`=2\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}(ae^{})2\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}(dg^{}),`$ |
| $`C_{nn}I_0`$ | $`=|a|^2|b|^2|c|^2+|d|^2+|e|^2+|g|^2,`$ |
| $`D_{nn}I_0`$ | $`=|a|^2+|b|^2|c|^2|d|^2+|e|^2|g|^2,`$ |
| $`K_{nn}I_0`$ | $`=|a|^2|b|^2+|c|^2|d|^2+|e|^2|g|^2,\text{etc.}`$ |

(2)
Identities among these observables have been derived. For a review and references to the original papers, see, e.g., . With those identities in hand, one can deduce a number of constraining inequalities. Richard and Elchikh \[RE\] have studied the inequalities relating pairs of $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ observables in a empirical but systematic way. A powerful method is based on “the generalised density matrix”. The positivity of this density matrix gives a number of inequalities involving sub-determinants. More details will be given elsewhere . It should be noted that the framework developed for hadronic reactions can be applied to the transverse-momentum dependent helicity and transversity quark distributions in the nucleons. Existing inequalities \[Structure\] can be recovered.

For individual observables, the normalisation is such $`1𝒪_i+1`$. This can be checked on the published or preliminary data , as seen in Fig. 1.

For pairs of observables, the domain is naively the square $`\{1𝒪_i1,1𝒪_j1\}`$. It is found that many (not all) pairs are restricted to a smaller area, an unit disk $`𝒪_i^2+𝒪_j^21`$ or the inner part of a triangle $`𝒪_i^2(1+𝒪_j)^20`$, as shown in Fig. 2.

For triplets of observables, three are many possibilities, among which the inner part of the unit sphere, the inner part of a cone (Fig. 3, left) and the volume inside a symmetric cubic (right), which looks like a twisted cushion. This latter case is more interesting, as there is no restriction on any pair of the involved observables.

Acknowledgments: J.M.R. would like to thank the organisers of LEAP2003 for the enjoyable and stimulating atmosphere of the Conference.