format: text

text:
# Winds from accretion disks driven by the radiation and magnetocentrifugal force.

## 1 Introduction

Accretion disks are believed to lose mass via powerful outflows in many astrophysical environments such as active galactic nuclei (AGN); many types of interacting binary stars, non-magnetic cataclysmic variables (nMCVs), for instance; and young stellar objects (YSOs). Magnetically driven winds from disks are the favored explanation for the outflows in many of these environments. Blandford & Payne 1982 (see also Pelletier & Pudritz 1992) showed that the centrifugal force can drive a wind from the disk if the poloidal component of the magnetic field, $`𝐁_𝐩`$ makes an angle of $`>30^o`$ with respect to the normal to the disk surface. Generally, centrifugally-driven MHD disk winds (magnetocentrifugal winds for short) require the presence of a sufficiently strong, large-scale, ordered magnetic field threading the disk and the poloidal magnetic field to be comparable to the toroidal magnetic field, $`|B_\varphi /B_p|<1`$ (e.g., Cannizzo & Pudritz 1988, Pelletier & Pudritz 1992). Additionally, magnetocentrifugal winds require some thermal assistance to flow freely and steadily from the surface of the disk, to pass through a slow magnetosonic surface (e.g., Blandford & Payne 1982).

Many authors have studied magnetocentrifugal winds from a Keplerian disk (e.g., Ouyed & Pudritz 1997, Ustyugova et al. 1999, Krasnopolsky, Li & Blandford 1999, and references therein). These studies are either analytic, looking for stationary, often self-similar solutions or numerical, looking for both stationary and time-dependent solutions. However in numerical simulations of magnetocentrifugal winds, the lower boundary is between the slow magnetosonic surface and the Alfv$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$n surface. This specification requires setting the mass loss rate in advance (e.g., Bogovalov 1997). Simulations of magnetocentrifugal winds considering the whole disk (even regions below the slow magnetosonic surface) and not requiring an ad hoc mass loss rate, are only now becoming feasible. This requires, however, an accurate treatment of the radiation and gas pressure effects, among other physical processes.

Thermal expansion and the radiation force have been suggested as other mechanisms that can drive disk winds. These mechanisms can produce powerful winds without the presence of a magnetic field. Winds are likely thermally driven in X-ray-irradiated accretion disks in systems such as X-ray binaries and AGNs (e.g., Begelman, McKee & Shields 1983, Woods et al. 1996). These winds require the gas temperature to be so high that the gas is not gravitationally bound. In such cases, the radiation driving is probably not important because the gas is fully ionized, at least in the hottest regions, and the radiation force is only due to electron scattering. However in the regions where gas is cooler and not fully ionized the radiation force will be enhanced by spectral lines and play an important role in controlling the dynamics of the flow. In fact Murray et al. (1995) designed a line-driven disk wind model specifically for AGNs.

Radiation-driven disk winds have been extensively modeled (e.g., Pereyra, Kallman & Blondin 1997; Proga, Stone & Drew 1998, hereafter PSD I; Proga 1999; Proga, Stone & Drew 1999, hereafter PSD II). These recent studies showed that radiation pressure due to spectral lines can drive winds from luminous disks. This result has been expected (e.g., Vitello & Shlosman 1988). These studies, in particular those by PSD I, also showed some unexpected results. For example, the flow is unsteady in cases where the disk luminosity dominates the driving radiation field. Despite the complex structure of the unsteady disk wind, the time-averaged mass loss rate and terminal velocity scale with luminosity, as do steady flows obtained where the radiation is dominated by the central object.

To calculate the line force for disk winds, PSD I adopted the method introduced by Castor, Abbott & Klein (1975, hereafter CAK) and further developed by Friend & Abbott (1986), Pauldrach, Puls & Kudritzki (1986) for one-dimensional radial flows within the context of a wind from hot, luminous OB stars. To extend the CAK method to model multi-dimensional disk winds, it is necessary to accommodate the effects of the three-dimensional velocity field and the direction-dependent intensity. Owocki, Cranmer & Gayley (1996) showed that these effects can lead to qualitatively different results compared to those obtained from a one-dimensional treatment in the case of a rapidly rotating star. The most difficult aspect of calculating the line force due to a disk is in the evaluation of the integral involving the velocity gradient tensor over the entire solid angle occupied by the radiating surface. PSD I used an angle-adaptive quadrature to ensure an accurate result. However, computational limitations required that they simplified the integrand, retaining only the dominant terms in the velocity gradient tensor.

PSD II generalized the PSD I method and introduced a new quadrature that avoids any simplification of the integrand. This allowed them to evaluate the radiation force for completely arbitrary velocity fields within the context of the CAK formalism. They applied this method to recalculate several disk wind models first discussed in PSD I. These more physically accurate models show that PSD I’s more approximate method was very robust. The PSD II calculations predict total mass loss rates and velocities marginally different from those published in PSD I. Additionally, PSD II find that models which display unsteady behavior in PSD I are also unsteady with the new method. The largest change caused by the new method is in the disk-wind opening angle: winds driven only by the disk radiation are more polar with the new method while winds driven by the disk and central object radiation are typically more equatorial.

In this paper, we will numerically check how strong, ordered magnetic fields can change disk winds driven by the line force for a given disk luminosity. We assume that the transport of angular momentum in the disk is dominated by local disk viscosity, for instance due to the local shear instability in weakly magnetized disk (Balbus & Hawley 1997). Instead of adding the magnetic fields to the PSD II model and solving consistently the equations of MHD, we simply start by adding some of the effects due to the magnetic fields, namely (1) the azimuthal force so the wind conserves the specific angular velocity along the streamlines and (2) the force perpendicular to the field lines so the geometry of the disk wind is controlled by the magnetic field. We thus adopt the popular concept that the magnetic field dominates outside the disk and at least near the disk surface, one can think of the magnetic field lines as rigid wires that control any flow (e.g., Blandford & Payne 1982; Pelletier & Pudritz 1992). Such an approach is clearly simplistic and can be applied only to sub-Alfv$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$nic flows. Nevertheless, the results presented here provide a useful exploratory study of line-driven disk winds in the presence of a strong, large-scale field magnetic threading the disk.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we describe our numerical calculations; in Section 3 we present our results; in Section 4 we conclude with a brief discussion.

## 2 Method

To calculate the structure and evolution of a wind from a disk, we solve the equations of hydrodynamics

$$\frac{D\rho }{Dt}+\rho 𝐯=0,$$
(1)
$$\rho \frac{D𝐯}{Dt}=(\rho c_s^2)+\rho 𝐠+\rho 𝐅^{rad}+\rho 𝐅^{mc}$$
(2)
where $`\rho `$ is the mass density, $`𝐯`$ the velocity, $`𝐠`$ the gravitational acceleration of the central object, $`𝐅^{rad}`$ the total radiation force per unit mass, and $`𝐅^{mc}`$ the total ’magnetocentrifugal’ force. The term with $`𝐅^{mc}`$ ensures that gas flows along an assumed direction and conserves its specific angular velocity. The gas in the wind is isothermal with a sound speed $`c_s`$. We solve these equations in spherical polar coordinates $`(\rho ,\theta ,\varphi )`$.

The geometry and assumptions needed to compute the radiation field from the disk and central object are as in PSD II (see also PSD I). The disk is flat, Keplerian, geometrically-thin and optically-thick. We specify the radiation field of the disk by assuming that the temperature follows the radial profile of the so-called $`\alpha `$-disk (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973), and therefore depends only on the mass accretion rate in the disk, $`\dot{M}_a`$, and the mass and radius of the central object, $`M_{}`$ and $`r_{}`$. In particular, the disk luminosity, $`L_DGM_{}\dot{M}_a/2r_{}`$. In models where the central object radiates, we take into account the stellar irradiation of the disk, assuming that the disk re-emits all absorbed energy locally and isotropically. We express the central object luminosity $`L_{}`$ in units of the disk luminosity $`L_{}=xL_D`$. See PSD I and PSD II for further details.

Our numerical algorithm for evaluating the line force is described in PSD II. For a rotating flow, there may be an azimuthal component to the line force even in axisymmetry. However we set this component of the line force to zero because it is rather weak as compared to other components and is not of great importance (e.g., PSD II). Then we assume that the rotational velocity $`v_\varphi `$ is determined by the azimuthal component of the magnetocentrifugal force. The description of our calculation of the ’magnetocentrifugal’ force follows.

We choose the simplest geometry of the magnetic field and the flow: the poloidal component of the magnetic field, $`𝐁_𝐩`$ and of the velocity, $`𝐯_p`$ are parallel to one another, and the inclination angle $`i`$ between $`𝐯_p`$ and the disk midplane is fixed for all locations and times. In other words, we constrain the geometry of the flow to straight cones of pre-specified, radius- and time-independent opening angle. In practice, we impose this geometry in the following way: (i) we evaluate the physical accelerations and the curvature terms in eq. 2, hereafter collectively referred to as

$$𝐅^{}=\frac{1}{\rho }(\rho c_s^2)+𝐠+𝐅^{rad}+𝐅^i,$$
(3)
where $`𝐅^i`$ represents the curvature terms appearing on the left hand side of eq. 2 when $`\frac{D𝐯}{Dt}`$ is expressed in the spherical polar coordinate system (e.g., Shu 1992):

$$𝐅^i=\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{v_\theta ^2+v_\varphi ^2}{r}\\ \frac{v_\varphi ^2}{r}\mathrm{cot}\theta \\ 0\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
(ii) we calculate the component of $`𝐅^{}`$ perpendicular to a streamline:

$$𝐅_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=𝚲𝐅^{},$$
(5)
where

$$𝚲=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta i)& \mathrm{sin}(\theta i)\mathrm{cos}(\theta i)& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta i)\mathrm{cos}(\theta i)& \mathrm{cos}^2(\theta i)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
(iii) and finally we subtract $`𝐅_{}^{}`$ from $`𝐅^{}`$ so the total remaining force is tangent to the streamline.

The disk outflow that conserves its specific angular velocity, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=v_\varphi /(r\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$ along a streamline is simply the flow that corotates with the disk, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is constant and equals to the disk rotational velocity, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=v_\varphi (r_D,90^o)/r_D`$ at the footpoint of the streamline on the disk at the radius, $`r_D`$. To ensure corotation of the wind, we introduce the azimuthal force:

$$𝐅^t=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 2\frac{v_\varphi (v_r\mathrm{sin}\theta +v_\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta )}{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
Summarizing, our magnetocentrifugal force is

$$𝐅^{mc}=𝚲𝐅^{}+𝐅^t.$$
(8)
As in PSD II, we use the ZEUS-2D code (Stone & Norman 1992) to numerically integrate the hydrodynamical equations (1) and (2). We did not change the transport step in the code and so the changes we made are just to the source step as outlined above.

We explore disk wind models for three cases: (I) a wind corotates with the disk ($`𝐅_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=0`$ and $`F_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{t}=2v_\varphi (v_r\mathrm{sin}\theta +v_\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta )/(r\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$) ; (II) the wind geometry is fixed by adopting a fixed inclination angle between the poloidal component of the velocity and the disk midplane ( $`𝐅_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=𝚲𝐅^{}`$ and $`𝐅^t=0`$) ; and (III) a combination of (I) and (II) ( $`𝐅_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=𝚲𝐅^{}`$ and $`F_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{t}=2v_\varphi (v_r\mathrm{sin}\theta +v_\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta )/(r\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$).

In case I with $`x=0`$, we decided to put an additional constraint on the radial velocity to produce outward flows. Near the disk midplane, fluctuations of the density and velocity can occur (e.g., PSD I). Additionally, the radial component of the radiation force is negative near the disk midplane and the central object (e.g., Icke 1980, PSD I). Thus $`v_r`$ can be less than zero; gravity can dominate and pull the flow toward the center. To avoid this we apply the condition: $`v_r=\mathrm{max}(v_r,\mathrm{cot}\theta v_\theta )`$. This condition does not change the mass loss rate, but does reduce the wind opening angle.

To produce transonic flows in cases II and III, we need to increase the density along the disk midplane, $`\rho _o`$, from $`10^9\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ (as used by PSD I) up to $`10^4\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. For low $`\rho _o`$, the wind velocity does not depend on $`\rho `$, the mass loss rate is proportional to $`\rho _o`$ and may be higher than the mass accretion rate. For $`\rho _o>10^4\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ the mass loss rate is dramatically lower, does not change with $`\rho _o`$, and the flow is subsonic near the disk midplane. These are desired properties of the outflow; we expect gas near the midplane to be nearly in hydrostatic equilibrium. Equally important, we assume that the disk is in a steady state so the mass loss rate should be lower than the mass accretion rate.

In reality, gas near the disk midplane (inside the disk) is in hydrostatic equilibrium for the densities lower than those we assumed because the radiation force is lower as the radiation becomes isotropic. We would like to stress that we treat the region very close to the midplane as a boundary condition and do not attempt to model the disk interior.

As in PSD I and PSD II, we calculate disk winds with model parameters suitable for a typical nMCV (see PSD I’s Table 1 and our Table 1). We vary the disk and central object luminosity and the inclination angle. We hold all other parameters fixed, in particular the parameters of the CAK force multiplier: $`k=0.2`$, $`\alpha =0.6`$ and $`M_{max}=4400`$ (see PSD I). Nevertheless we can use our results to predict the wind properties for other parameters and systems – such as AGN – by applying the dimensionless form of the hydrodynamic equations and the scaling formulae as discussed in PSD I and Proga (1999).

## 3 Results

PSD I and PSD II showed that radiation-driven winds from a disk fall into two categories: 1) intrinsically unsteady with large fluctuations in density and velocity, and 2) steady with smooth density and velocity. The type of the flow is set by the geometry of the radiation field, parametrized by $`x`$: if the radiation field is dominated by the disk ($`x<1`$) then the flow is unsteady, and if the radiation is dominated by the central object ($`x>1`$) then the flow is steady. The geometry of the radiation field also determines the geometry of the flow; the wind becomes more polar as $`x`$ decreases. However the mass-loss rate and terminal velocity are insensitive to geometry and depend more on the total system luminosity, $`L_D+L_{}`$. We recalculated some of the PSD II models to check how inclusion of the magnetocentrifugal force will change line-driven disk winds.

Figure 1 compares the density in the wind in two models from PSD II where they used a generalized CAK method (top panels), models using PSD II’s method but conserving specific angular velocity – our case I (middle panels), and models using PSD II’s method, conserving specific angular velocity and having fixed inclination angle of the stream lines – our case III (bottom panels). Models in case III (bottom panels) are with the inclination angles approximately equal to those in the PSD II case (the top panels). The left column shows the results for a model with $`\dot{M}_a=10^8\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ and $`x=0`$, while the right column shows the results with $`\dot{M}_a=\pi \times 10^8\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ and $`x=1`$. The former corresponds to the fiducial $`x=0`$ model while the latter corresponds to the fiducial $`x=1`$ model discussed in detail in PSD I and PSD II.

We start with describing the $`x=0`$ wind model (left column panels). The most striking yet expected difference between PSD II’s case (top) and our case I (middle) is a decrease of the wind opening angle, $`\omega `$ from $`50^o`$ to $`15^o`$ when the specific angular momentum conservation is replaced by the specific angular velocity conservation. This result is caused by a much stronger centrifugal force in our case I than in the PSD II case which is also reflected in an increase of the radial velocity by more than one order of magnitude (Table 1). Another big difference between the two cases is in the mass loss rate, $`\dot{M}_w`$ which increases from $`5.5\times 10^{14}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ to $`1.3\times 10^{12}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. An unchanged property in these two cases is that the wind is unsteady. The quantitative changes between PSD I’s case (top) and case III (bottom) are similar or smaller than the changes described above (see Table 1). The most pronounced change caused by holding the inclination angle fixed is that the wind becomes steady. However this is not surprising because models with the fixed, rigid geometry are pseudo one-dimensional and the flow has one degree of freedom in space. In PSD I and PSD II models where the wind geometry is calculated self-consistently, a strong radial radiation force is required to produce a steady outflow.

The x=1 wind model (top right hand panel of Figure 1) is an example of a steady outflow from PSD II. This model remains steady in the two other cases shown in the figure and in case I listed in Table 1 (run Ic). The model changes from case to case mainly in the radial and rotational velocities which increase when the azimuthal force is added (middle and bottom panel). For example, the radial velocity increased from 3500 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in PSD II’s run C (top panel) to 28000 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in our run IIIc (bottom panel). As in the x=0 wind model, adding the azimuthal force also reduces the wind opening angle (middle panel). However an increase in the mass loss rate from PSD II’s case (top panel) to our case II (bottom panel) is only a factor of $`2`$. The mass loss rate is practically the same in case II and case III (run IIc and IIIc).

Models presented in Figure 1 both for $`x=0`$ and $`x=1`$ suggest that an increase in the mass loss rate due to conservation of the specific angular velocity decreases with the disk luminosity. Our other results, shown in Table 1, confirm this. For example, the x=0 model Ib with $`\dot{M}_a=\pi \times 10^8\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ has $`\dot{M}_w`$ higher than the corresponding PSD II’s model B by a factor of $`3`$ while an increase of $`\dot{M}_w`$ for models with $`\dot{M}_a=10^8\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ is by a factor $`24`$ (i.e., runs A and Ia).

The mass loss rate of the line-driven disk wind also increases by imposing the wind geometry such that $`i>0^o`$ as comparison of our results in case II and from PSD II reveals. Once the geometry is fixed the mass loss rate does not change with adding the azimuthal force – the corresponding models in our case II and III have the same $`\dot{M}_w`$.

Purely line-driven x=0 winds have streamlines perpendicular to the disk midplane near the midplane because the total horizontal force is negligible in comparison with the vertical force due to lines. This property of disk winds has been assumed in analytic studies of line-driven disk winds (e.g., Vitello & Shlosman 1988). We calculated a model assuming $`i=0^o`$ (run IIa) and find that the mass loss rate is very similar to the corresponding PSD II’s run A. This confirms then that the mass loss rate in line-driven disk winds for $`x=0`$ is determined in the regions where the matter flows still perpendicularly to the disk.

## 4 Conclusions and Discussion

We have studied winds from accretion disks with very strong organized magnetic fields and the radiation force due to lines. We use numerical methods to solve the two-dimensional, time-dependent equations of hydrodynamics. We have accounted for the radiation force using a generalized multidimensional formulation of the Sobolev approximation. To include the effects of the strong magnetic field we have added to the hydrodynamic equation an approximate magnetocentrifugal force. Our approach of treating the latter allows us to study cases where the wind geometry is controlled entirely by the magnetic field with the lines of the poloidal component of the field, $`𝐁_p`$ being straight and inclined at a fixed angle to the disk midplane where the specific angular velocity is conserved along the streamlines due to the magnetic azimuthal force, or both.

Our simulations of line-driven disk winds show that inclusion of the azimuthal force, $`𝐅^t`$ which makes the wind corotate with the disk, increases the wind mass loss rate significantly only for low disk luminosities. As expected such winds have much higher velocities than winds with zero azimuthal force. Fixing the wind geometry effectively reduces the flow from two-dimensional to one-dimensional. This in turn stabilizes winds which are unsteady when the geometry is allowed to be determined self-consistently. The inclination angle between the poloidal velocity and the normal to the disk midplane is important. If it is higher than zero it can significantly increase the mass loss rate for low luminosities, and increase the wind velocity for all luminosities. The presence of the azimuthal force does not change the mass loss rate if the geometry is fixed.

It is very intriguing that the mass loss rate can be enhanced by the magnetocentrifugal force the most for low luminosities where line force is weak and at the same time the mass loss rate remains a strong function of the disk luminosity for all luminosities. In particular, there is no wind when $`\dot{M}_a<10^8\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ as in purely line-driven case (e.g., PSD I; Proga 1999).

Model IIa’ with $`i=0`$ is steady and has the same $`\dot{M_w}`$ as the corresponding PSD II model. The mass loss rate is then the same regardless of the time behavior. This is consistent with PSD I conclusion that the mass loss rate depends predominately on the total system luminosity.

Drew & Proga (1999) applied results from PSD I, PSD II and Proga 1999 to nMCV. In particular, they compared mass loss rates predicted by the models with observational constraints. They concluded that either mass accretion rates in high-state nMCV are higher than presently thought by a factor of 2-3 or that radiation pressure alone is not quite sufficient to drive the observed hypersonic flows. If the latter were true then an obvious candidate to assist radiation pressure in these cases is MHD (e.g., Drew & Proga 1999).

An increases of the mass loss rate due to inclusion of a magnetocentrifugal force (our case I) brings our predictions close to the observational estimates for nMCVs. However we should bear in mind that at the same time, the radial velocity of the wind increases above the observed velocities in nMCVs that are of the order a few thousand $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The increase of the wind velocity may not be large if the magnetic field is moderately strong and spins up the disk wind only close to its base where the mass loss rate is determined. Then farther away from the disk the wind would gain less or no angular momentum and velocities would be similar to those in the case without the magnetic field at all.

Outflows which conserve specific angular velocity have a higher rotational velocity than those which conserve specific angular momentum. The former also have higher terminal velocities due to stronger centrifugal force. Additionally in the wind where the specific angular velocity is conserved the rotational velocity is comparable to the terminal velocity while in the wind where the specific angular momentum is conserved the rotational velocity decreases asymptotically to zero with increasing radius and is therefore much lower than the terminal velocity. Thus we should be able to distinguish these two kinds of winds based on their line profiles. For example, highly rotating winds should produce emission lines much broader than slowly rotating, expanding winds, if we see the disk edge-on.

So far we have discussed changes of the line-driven wind caused by inclusion of the magnetocentrifugal force. However we can also anticipate some changes in the magnetocentrifugal wind if we add the line force. For example, there may be a difference in the wind collimation caused by the line force. The centrifugal force decollimates the magnetocentrifugal outflow near the disk as $`i`$ must be greater than $`30^o`$. In such a case the magnetic field collimates the outlow only beyond the Alfv$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$n surface where the pinch force exerted by the toroidal component of the field operates. In the case with a significant line driving, the magnetic field does not have to be inclined at the angle $`>30^o`$. Then in such case, outflows are more collimated than pure magnetocentrifugal outflows from the start and may end up more collimated far away from the disk.

Let us now discuss some results of other related works. Recently Ogilvie & Livio (1998) studied a thin accretion disk threaded by a poloidal magnetic field. Their purpose was to determine qualitatively how much thermal assistance is required for the flow to pass through the slow magnetosonic surface. They found that a certain potential difference must be overcome even when $`i>30^o`$ and that thermal energy is not sufficient to launch an outlow from a magnetized disk. Ogilvie & Livio suggested that an additional source of energy, such as coronal heating may be required. PSD I showed the radiative line force can drive disk winds. Thus the ’missing’ energy may be in the radiation field. Our calculations here show that if the disk luminosity is sufficiently high the line and magnetocentrifugal forces produce strong transonic winds regardless of the wind geometry. Then the magnetocentrifugal force can assist the line force in producing disk winds – our approach to the problem or the line force or/and the thermal force can well assist MHD – Ogilvie & Livio’s approach (see also Wardle & K$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$ngil 1993; Cao & Spruit 1994, for instance). In seeking a steady state solution of a line-driven disk wind, Vitello & Shlosman (1988) also found that the flow must overcome a potential difference – an increase of the vertical gravity component with height. They suggested that for the radiation force to increase with height above the disk midplane and overcome this potential difference a very particular variation in the ionization state of the gas is required.

There are a number of limitations of our treatment of magnetic fields which are worthy of mention.

Our models do not include the whole richness of MHD because we approximate the Lorentz force by the ’magnetocentrifugal’ force (eqs 3-8) instead of solving self-consistently the equation of motion and the induction equation. We have included effects of a magnetic field on the disk winds in a simplistic manner that mimics some effects of a very strong, organized magnetic field where $`B_\varphi <B_p`$ near the disk surface. The magnetic field is treated as a rigid wire that controls the flow geometry outside the disk. More quantitatively, this corresponds to the situation where outside the disk, at least near the disk photosphere, the magnetic field dominates i.e., the magnetic pressure exceeds the disk gas pressure $`\beta 8\pi p_D/B_D^2<1`$. Inside the disk however the situation may be different. We assume that the disk is in a steady state that is also stable. In such a case, the regions near the disk midplane are likely supported by the gas pressure and the magnetic pressure should be smaller than the gas pressure, i.e., $`\beta >1`$, otherwise the disk may be unstable (Stella & Rosner 1984). Using the system parameters adopted here: $`c_s=14\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`\rho _o=10^4\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, we find that the $`\beta >1`$ condition yields a maximum value for the disk magnetic fields strentgh of the order of $`10^5`$ G. Our assumption that poloidal magnetic field lines are straight excludes any magnetic tension in the $`(r,\theta )`$ plane.

In our cases I and III we assume that the specific angular velocity, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is conserved along a streamline from the footpoint of the line to infinity or rather to the outer boundary of the computational domain. However in a steady state axisymmetric MHD flow, the quantity which is conserved is the total angular momentum per unit mass which can be written as

$$l=\mathrm{\Omega }r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \frac{r\mathrm{sin}\theta B_\varphi }{4\pi \kappa }\mathrm{\Omega }_Dr_A^2,$$
(9)
where $`r_A`$ is the position of the the Alfv$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$n point of the flow on the streamline, and $`\kappa =\rho v_p/B_p`$ is the mass load– another constant along the streamline (e.g., Pelletier & Pudritz 1992). The total angular momentum has contributions from both the flowing rotating gas and the twisted magnetic field. This means that as the material angular momentum, $`\mathrm{\Omega }r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ increases due to corotation with the disk, the toroidal component of the magnetic field must increase so the total angular momentum is conserved. Then our approximation in cases I and III corresponds to the situation where near the disk the total angular momentum is dominated by the contribution from the twisted magnetic field and the Alfv$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$nic surface is beyond our computational domain. In other words our approximation is valid in the region where the outflow is sub-Alfv$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$nic. Consequently, our approach does not allow us to study collimation of the wind by the magnetic field because this happens beyond the fast magnetosonic surface where the flow is super-Alfv$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$nic.

PSD II’s models and ours in case II correspond to the other extreme case where the total angular momentum has no contribution from the twisted magnetic field and the material angular momentum is conserved.

Our treatment of magnetic fields does not include effects of the magnetic pressure. The magnetocentrifugal driving presupposes the existence of a strong poloidal magnetic field comparable to the toroidal magnetic field near the disk surface, $`|B_\varphi /B_p|<1`$. However when the poloidal magnetic field is weaker than the toroidal magnetic field, $`|B_\varphi /B_p|>>1`$ the magnetic pressure may be dynamically important in driving disk winds (e.g., Uchida & Shibata 1985; Pudritz & Norman 1986, Shibata & Uchida 1986, Contopoulos 1995; Kudoh & Shibata 1997; Ouyed & Pudritz 1997 and references therein). For $`|B_\varphi /B_p|>>1`$, there is initially the buildup of the toroidal magnetic field by the differential rotation of the disk that in turn generates the magnetic pressure of the toroidal field. The magnetic pressure then gives rise to a self-starting wind. To produce a steady outflow driven by the magnetic pressure a steady supply of the advected toroidal magnetic flux at the wind base is needed, otherwise the outflow is likely a transient (e.g., K$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$nigl 1993, Contopoulos 1995, Ouyed & Pudritz 1997). However it is not clear whether the differential rotation of the disk can produce such a supply of the toroidal magnetic flux to match the escape of magnetic flux in the wind and even if it does whether such a system will be stable (e.g., Contopoulos 1995, Ouyed & Pudritz 1997 and references therein).

Concluding, we would like to stress that a further development of models of radiation-driven winds from disks should include taking into account magnetic field but it is equally important to consider adding the radiation force to models of MHD winds from luminous disks. Both kinds of models are quite well understood now and if merged they could allow us to study better disk winds in systems such as cataclysmic variables and AGNs. As we mentioned above thermal assistance may not be sufficient to launch wind from a magnetized disk and we should consider not only coronal heating but also line driving.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: We thank John Cannizzo, Janet Drew, Achim Feldmeier, Tim Kallman, Scott Kenyon, Mario Livio, and James Stone for comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We also thank Steven Shore and an anonymous referee for comments that helped us clarify our presentation. This work was performed while the author held a National Research Council Research Associateship at NASA/GSFC. Computations were supported by NASA grant NRA-97-12-055-154.

## REFERENCES

Balbus, S.A., & Hawley, J.F. 1998, Rev. Mod. Phys., 70, 1

Begelman M.C., McKee C.F., Shields G. A. 1983, ApJ, 271, 70

Blandford R.D., Payne D.G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883

Bogovalov S.V. 1997, A&A, 323, 634

Cannizzo J. K., Pudritz R.E. 1988, ApJ, 327, 840

Cao X., Spruit H.C. 1994, A&A, 287, 80

Castor J.I., Abbott D.C., Klein R.I. 1975, ApJ, 195, 157 (CAK)

Contopoulos J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 616

Drew J.E., Proga D., in “Cataclysmic Variables”, Symposium in Honour of Brian Warner, Oxford 1999, ed. by P. Charles, A. King, D. O’Donoghue, in press

Friend D.B., Abbott D.C., 1986 ApJ, 311, 701

Icke V. 1980, AJ, 85, 329

K$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$nigl A. 1993, in “Astrophysical Jets”, ed. by D.P. O’Dea (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 239

Krasnopolsky R., Li Z.-Y., Blandford R., 1999, ApJ, 526, 631

Kudoh T., Shibata K. 1997, ApJ, 474, 362

Murray N., Chiang J., Grossman S.A., Voit G.M. 1995, ApJ, 451, 498

Ogilvie G.I., Livio M. 1998, ApJ, 499, 329

Ouyed R., Pudritz R.E. 1997, ApJ, 484, 794

Owocki S.P., Cranmer S.R., Gayley K.G. 1996, ApJ, 472, L115

Pauldrach A., Puls J., Kudritzki R.P. 1986, A&A, 164, 86

Pelletier G., Pudritz R.E. 1992, ApJ, 394, 117

Pereyra N.A., Kallman T.R. Blondin J.M. 1997, ApJ, 477, 368

Proga D. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 938

Proga D., Stone J.M., Drew J.E. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 595 (PSD I)

Proga D., Stone J.M., Drew J.E. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 476 (PSD II)

Pudritz R.E., Norman C.A. 1986, ApJ, 301, 571

Shakura N.I., Sunyaev R.A. 1973 A&A, 24, 337

Shibata K., Uchida Y. 1986, PASJ, 38, 631

Shu, F. 1992, The Physics of Astrophysics, Vol. 2, Gas dynamics (Mill Valley: University Science Books)

Stellar L., Rosner R. 1984, ApJ, 277, 312

Stone J.M., Norman M.L. 1994, ApJ, 433, 746

Uchida Y., Shibata K. 1985, PASJ, 37, 515

Ustyugova G.V., Koldoba A.V., Romanova M.M. Chechetkin V.M. Lovelace R.V.E. 1999, ApJ, 516, 221

Vitello P.A.J., Shlosman I., 1988 ApJ, 327, 680

Wardle M., K$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$nigl A. 1993, ApJ, 410, 218

Woods, D. T., Klein, R. I., Castor, J. I., McKee, C. F., Bell, J. B. 1996, ApJ, 461, 767

Table 1. Summary of results for disc winds

| run | $`\dot{M}_a`$ | x | $`\dot{M}_w`$ | $`v_r(10r_{})`$ | $`\omega `$ or $`(90^oi)^{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | (M yr<sup>-1</sup> ) |  | (M yr<sup>-1</sup>) | $`(\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)`$ | degrees |
| PSD II |  |  |  |  |  |
| A | $`10^8`$ | 0 | $`5.5\times 10^{14}`$ | 900 | 50 |
| B | $`\pi \times 10^8`$ | 0 | $`4.0\times 10^{12}`$ | 3500 | 60 |
| C | $`\pi \times 10^8`$ | 1 | $`2.1\times 10^{11}`$ | 3500 | 32 |
| I |  |  |  |  |  |
| a | $`10^8`$ | 0 | $`1.3\times 10^{12}`$ | $`15000`$ | 15 |
| b | $`\pi \times 10^8`$ | 0 | $`1.3\times 10^{11}`$ | 20000 | 38 |
| c | $`\pi \times 10^8`$ | 1 | $`2.4\times 10^{11}`$ | 32000 | 12 |
| II |  |  |  |  |  |
| a | $`10^8`$ | 0 | $`6.3\times 10^{14}`$ | 600 | 90$``$ |
| a’ | $`10^8`$ | 0 | $`6.3\times 10^{13}`$ | 1100 | 60$``$ |
| c | $`\pi \times 10^8`$ | 1 | $`4.2\times 10^{11}`$ | 5000 | 30$``$ |
| III |  |  |  |  |  |
| a | $`10^8`$ | 0 | $`6.3\times 10^{13}`$ | 16000 | 60$``$ |
| c | $`\pi \times 10^8`$ | 1 | $`4.2\times 10^{11}`$ | 28000 | 30$``$ |

$``$ For all models from PSD II and our models in case I, the last column lists the wind opening angle, $`\omega `$. While for models in cases II and III, the last column lists $`90^oi`$ (marked with $``$), where $`i`$ is the assumed inclination angle between the poloidal component of the velocity and the normal to the disk midplane; note that then $`\omega (90^oi)`$.


text:
# Identification of clusters of companies in stock indices via Potts super-paramagnetic transitions

## Acknowledgments

Partial support by OTKA-T029985 is acknowledged with thanks.


text:
# Surgeries on periodic links and homology of periodic 3-manifolds

## Abstract

We show that a closed orientable 3-manifold $`M`$ admits an action of $`𝐙_p`$ with fixed point set $`S^1`$ iff $`M`$ can be obtained as the result of surgery on a $`p`$-periodic framed link $`L`$ and $`𝐙_p`$ acts freely on the components of $`L`$. We prove a similar theorem for free $`𝐙_p`$-actions. As an interesting application, we prove the following, rather unexpected result: for any $`M`$ as above and for any odd prime $`p`$, $`H_1(M,𝐙_p)𝐙_p`$. We also prove a similar criterion of 2-periodicity for rational homology 3-spheres.

0. Introduction

In the early 1960’s both Wallace \[Wa\] and Lickorish \[Li\] proved that every closed, connected, orientable 3-manifold may be obtained by surgery on a framed link in $`S^3`$. Thus, link diagrams may be used to depict manifolds. Every manifold has infinitely many different framed link descriptions. However, in 1970’s Kirby \[K\] showed that two framed links determine the same 3-manifold iff they are related by a finite sequence of two specific types of moves. This calculus of framed links, together with the earlier results, gives a classification of 3-manifolds in terms of equivalence classes of framed links. The framed link representation of 3-manifolds has proven to be extremely useful. For instance, most of the new 3-manifold invariants originating from famous Witten’s paper \[Wi\] are based on the framed link approach. Therefore, it is always very useful to have some kind of correspondence between certain classes of 3-manifolds and some classes of framed links. One example of such correspondence is the classical relationship between the lens spaces and the chain-link diagrams (see, for instance, \[Ro\]). This result, in particular, allowed L. Jeffrey to determine exact formulas for the Witten-Reshetikhin-Turaev invariants of the lens spaces \[Je\]. Another example is the fact that a closed oriented 3-manifold is an integral homology 3-sphere iff it can be obtained by surgery on an algebraically split link with framing numbers $`\pm 1`$ (see \[Mu-1\], \[O-1\]). This relationship plays a key role in many papers on quantum and finite invariants of integral homology 3-spheres (see, for instance, \[O-1\], \[O-2\], \[Mu-1\], \[Mu-2\]). In Section 1 we will establish an analogous relationship between periodic 3-manifolds and periodic links. Namely, we prove the following theorem:

Theorem 1.1 Let $`p`$ be a prime integer and $`M`$ be a closed oriented 3-manifold. There is an action of the cyclic group $`𝐙_p`$ on $`M`$ with the fixed-point set equal to a circle if and only if there exists a framed $`p`$-periodic link $`LS^3`$ such that $`M`$ is the result of surgery on $`L`$ and $`𝐙_p`$ acts freely on the set of components of $`L`$.

A special case of Theorem 1.1 when $`M`$ is a homology sphere was proven in \[Ka-Pr\]. In the general form the theorem was proven for the first time by the first author in his graduate course Topics in Algebra Situs111The George Washington University, February of 1999.. A similar result is obtained for manifolds with free $`𝐙_p`$ actions:

Theorem 1.2 Let $`p`$ be a prime integer and $`M`$ be a closed oriented 3-manifold. There is a free action of the cyclic group $`𝐙_p`$ on $`M`$ iff there exists a framed $`p`$-periodic link $`LS^3`$ admitting a free action of $`𝐙_p`$ on the set of its components such that $`M`$ is the result of surgery on $`L^{}=L\gamma `$, where $`\gamma `$ is the axis of the action with framing co-prime to $`p`$.

In Section 2 we give an interesting application of Theorem 1.1. Namely, we prove the following result:

Theorem 2.1 If a closed orientable 3-manifold $`M`$ admits an action of a cyclic group $`𝐙_p`$ where $`p`$ is an odd prime integer and the fixed point set of the action is $`S^1`$ then $`H_1(M;𝐙_p)𝐙_p`$.

Note that this theorem provides a non-trivial criterion for 3-manifolds admitting the described action. The simplest examples of 3-manifolds with $`H_1(M;𝐙_p)=𝐙_p`$ are lens spaces $`L_{pn,q}`$ (or more generally, $`(pn/q)`$ Dehn surgeries on knots in $`S^3`$).

Theorem 2.1 was first announced as a conjecture222 The conjecture was obtained as a result of extensive computations performed with a program written in Mathematica. and partially proven333In the case when the orbit space of the action can be obtained from $`S^3`$ by an integer surgery on a knot.  in April of 1999 \[So\] (It is interesting to mention that the conjecture was influenced by the study of Murakami-Ohtsuki-Okada invariants on periodic 3-manifolds444 In turn, our interest in Murakami-Ohtsuki-Okada invariants was sparked by their relation with the second skein module \[P-4\]. , but the equation $`MOO_p(M)=\pm G_p^{rkH_1(M;𝐙_p)}`$ eventually led to the more “classical” algebraic topology. Here $`p`$ is an odd prime integer, $`MOO_p`$ is the Murakami-Ohtsuki-Okada invariant parameterized by $`q=e^{2\pi i/p}`$, and $`G_p=_{j𝐙_p}q^{j^2}`$ ). Recently (November, 1999), Adam Sikora announced a proof of the theorem \[Si\]. In fact, using some classical but involved algebraic topology, he obtained more general results implying our theorem. The surgery presentation of periodic 3-manifolds developed in Section 1 allowed us to find an elementary proof of Theorem 2.1, presented in Section 2.

Theorem 2.1 is not true for $`p=2`$, see Remark 2.12. An interesting criterion for 2-periodic rational homology spheres is provided by the following theorem.

Theorem 2.2. Let $`M`$ be a rational homology 3-sphere such that the group $`H_1(M;𝐙)`$ does not have elements of order 16. If $`M`$ admits an orientation preserving action of $`𝐙_2`$ with the fixed point set being a circle then the canonical decomposition of the group $`H_1(M;𝐙)`$ has even number of terms $`𝐙_2`$ and even number of terms $`𝐙_4`$, and arbitrary number of terms $`𝐙_8`$.

The second author thanks Yongwu Rong and Adam Sikora for useful conversations. When a preliminary version of the paper was ready, we received an e-mail from James Davis saying that he and his student Karl Bloch also found a proof for Theorem 2.1.

1. Periodic 3-manifolds are surgeries on periodic links

We show in this section that $`p`$-periodic closed oriented 3-manifolds can be presented as results of integer surgeries on $`p`$-periodic links. We show also an analogous result for manifolds with free action of $`𝐙_p`$.

Before we prove theorems 1.1 and 1.2, we need to establish some basic terminology and preliminary lemmas.

1.1 Periodic Links.

Definition. By a framed knot $`K`$ we mean a ring $`S^1\times [0,\epsilon ]`$ embedded in $`S^3`$. By the framing of $`K`$ we mean an integer defined as follows. Let $`V_\epsilon `$ be the $`\epsilon `$-neighborhood of $`K_0=S^1\times \{0\}`$, then $`K_\epsilon =S^1\times \{\epsilon \}`$ is a projection of $`K_0`$ onto $`V_\epsilon `$. Let $`P`$ be the projection of $`K_0`$ onto $`V_\epsilon `$which is homologically trivial in $`S^3V_\epsilon `$. The framing $`f`$ is defined as the algebraic number of intersections of $`K_\epsilon `$ and $`P`$. A framed link is a collection of non-intersecting framed knots. We will adopt the usual “blackboard” convention for framed link diagrams.

Definition. A (framed) link $`L`$ in $`S^3`$ is called $`p`$-periodic if there is a $`𝐙_p`$-action on $`S^3`$, with a circle as a fixed point set, which maps $`L`$ onto itself, and such that $`L`$ is disjoint from the fixed point set. Furthermore, if $`L`$ is an oriented link, one assumes that each generator of $`𝐙_p`$ preserves the orientation of $`L`$ or changes it to the opposite one.

By the positive solution of Smith Conjecture (\[M-B\], \[Th\]) we know that the fixed point set of the action of $`𝐙_p`$ is an unknotted circle and the action is conjugate to an orthogonal action on $`S^3`$. In other words, if we identify $`S^3`$ with $`𝐑^3\mathrm{}`$, then the fixed point set can be assumed to be equal to the “vertical” axis $`z=0`$ together with $`\mathrm{}`$, and a generator $`\phi `$ of $`𝐙_p`$ can be assumed to be the rotation $`\phi (z,t)=(e^{2\pi i/p}z,t)`$, where the coordinates on $`𝐑^3`$ come from the product of the complex plane and the real line $`𝐂\times 𝐑`$. Thus, any (framed) $`p`$-periodic link $`L^p`$ may be represented by a $`\phi `$-invariant diagram, $`p`$-periodic diagram (with framing parallel to the projection plane), see Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

By the underlying link for $`L^p`$ we will mean the orbit space of the action, that is $`L_{}=L^p/𝐙_p`$.

Lemma 1.3 Let $`p`$ be a prime integer and $`L^pS^3`$ be a (framed) $`p`$-periodic link. The following three conditions are equivalent:

1) $`𝐙_p`$ acts freely on the set of components of $`L^p`$;

2) The linking number of each component of the underlying link $`L_{}`$ with the axis of rotation is congruent to zero modulo $`p`$;

3) The number of components of $`L^p`$ is $`p`$ times greater than the number of components of $`L_{}`$.

Proof. The equivalence of the conditions 1) and 3) is obvious. To prove that 2) is equivalent to 3), consider the covering projection $`L^pL_{}`$. Let $`l`$ be a component of $`L_{}`$. The preimage $`\rho ^1`$ of the closed path $`\lambda `$ which traverses $`l`$ exactly once (i.e., $`l`$ with a base point) consists of $`p`$ paths $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p`$ in $`L^p`$. The condition $`\text{lk}(l,\gamma )=0(modp)`$ is equivalent to the condition that each of $`\lambda _i`$ is closed. Thus, $`l`$ lifts to $`p`$ components in $`L^p`$ iff $`\text{lk}(l,\gamma )=0(modp)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Definition. A $`p`$-periodic link $`L^p`$ that satisfies any of the conditions from Lemma 1.3 will be called strongly $`p`$-periodic.

1.2 Periodic Manifolds.

Definition. A $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ is called $`p`$-periodic if it admits an orientation preserving action of the cyclic group $`𝐙_p`$ with a circle as a fixed point set, and the action is free outside the circle.

We can show immediately the easy part of Theorem 1.1. Indeed, consider a strongly $`p`$-periodic framed link $`L^p`$, and let $`M`$ be the 3-manifold obtained by surgery on $`L^p`$. By definition of a framed $`p`$-periodic link, there is a $`𝐙_p`$ action on $`S^3`$, and on $`S^3L^p`$, with a circle $`\gamma `$ as a fixed point set. This action induces a $`𝐙_p`$ action on $`M`$. Moreover, since the action of $`𝐙_p`$ is free on the set of components of $`L^p`$, there are no other fixed points of the action of $`𝐙_p`$ on $`M`$ but the circle $`\gamma `$.

To show the difficult part of Theorem 1.1 we first fix some notation. Suppose that $`𝐙_p`$ acts on $`M`$ with the fixed-point set equal to a circle $`\gamma `$. Denote the quotient by $`M_{}=M/𝐙_p`$, the projection map by $`h:MM_{}`$ and $`\gamma _{}=h(\gamma )`$.

Lemma 1.4 The map $`h_{}:H_1(M)H_1(M_{})`$ is an epimorphism.

Proof. Let $`x_0\gamma `$. Since $`x_0`$ is a fixed point of the action, any loop based at $`h(x_0)`$ lifts to a loop based at $`x_0`$. Thus $`h_\mathrm{\#}:\pi _1(M,x_0)\pi _1(M_{},h(x_0))`$ is an epimorphism, and since $`H_1`$ is an abelianization of $`\pi _1`$, the map $`h_{}`$ is also an epimorphism. $`\mathrm{}`$

Notice that the proof works for any finite group action on a manifold with a non-empty fixed point set.

Let us recall the Lefschetz’ duality theorem which we will use in our proof of Theorem 1.1. First some terminology: a compact connected $`n`$-dimensional manifold $`M`$ is called $`R`$-oriented for a commutative ring with identity $`R`$, if $`H_n(M,M;R)=R`$. In particular, any manifold is $`𝐙_2`$-oriented, and an oriented manifold is $`R`$-oriented for any ring $`R`$. For a reference, see \[Sp\].

Theorem 1.5 (Lefschetz) Let $`M`$ be a compact $`n`$-dimensional, $`R`$-oriented manifold. Then there is an isomorphism $`\tau :H^q(M;R)H_{nq}(M,M;R)`$. Furthermore if $`R`$ is a PID (principal ideal domain) and $`H_{q1}(M,R)`$ is free then $`H^q(M;R)=Hom(H_q(M;R),R)`$ and for $`\alpha H^q(M;R)`$ and $`cH_q(M;R)`$ one has: $`\alpha (c)=alg(c,\tau (\alpha ))`$, where $`alg(c,\tau (c))R`$ is the algebraic intersection number of $`c`$ and $`\tau (\alpha )`$ in $`M`$ ( $`alg:H_q(M;R)\times H_{nq}(M,M;R)R`$).

We use Lefschetz’ Theorem to show that the covering $`h:MM_{}`$ is yielded by a 2-chain whose boundary is a multiple of $`\gamma _{}`$. Because we work with $`q=1`$, then $`H_{q1}(M,R)`$ is free and we can use the intersection number interpretation of the Lefschetz’ Theorem.

Lemma 1.6 Let $`M`$ be a closed orientable $`p`$-periodic 3-manifold. With the notation as before, one has:

1. $`\gamma _{}0`$ in $`H_1(M_{},𝐙_p)`$.
2. There is a 2-chain $`CC_2(M_{},𝐙_p)`$ such that $`Cm\gamma _{}modp`$ and the covering $`h:(M\gamma )(M_{}\gamma _{})`$ is yielded by the map $`\varphi _C:H_1(M_{}\gamma _{})𝐙_p`$ where $`\varphi _C(K)`$ is the intersection number of $`K`$ with $`C`$ (i.e. for a 1-cycle $`KM_{}\gamma _{}`$, $`\varphi _C(K)=alg(K,C)`$ where $`alg(K,C)`$ is the intersection number of $`K`$ with $`C`$, well defined $`modp`$)555 If $`H_2(M_{},𝐙)=0`$, then $`alg(K,C)=lk(K,m\gamma _{})`$, but generally $`alg(K,C)`$ depends on the choice of $`C`$.. In particular $`\varphi _C(\mu _{})=m`$, where $`\mu _{}`$ is a meridian of $`\gamma _{}`$.

Proof. To work with Lefschetz’ Theorem we have to consider compact manifolds. Thus, instead of $`M_{}\gamma _{}`$ we consider a homotopically equivalent compact manifold $`\widehat{M}_{}=M_{}int(V_\gamma _{})`$, where $`V_\gamma _{}`$ is a regular neighborhood of $`\gamma _{}`$ in $`M_{}`$. Similarly, let $`V_\gamma =h^1(V_\gamma _{})`$ be a $`Z_p`$-invariant regular neighborhood of $`\gamma `$ in $`M`$. Let also $`\widehat{M}=Mint(V_\gamma )`$. Since $`\widehat{h}:\widehat{M}\widehat{M}_{}`$ is a regular covering, it is characterized by an epimorphism $`\pi _1(\widehat{M}_{})\pi _1(\widehat{M}_{})/\pi _1(\widehat{M})=𝐙_p`$ (up to an automorphism of $`𝐙_p`$). Thus, since $`𝐙_p`$ is abelian, $`\widehat{h}`$ is defined by an epimorphism $`\varphi :H_1(\widehat{M}_{})𝐙_p`$, where $`\varphi `$ is unique up to an automorphism of $`𝐙_p`$. Let $`\widehat{C}`$ be a 2-cycle representing the element of $`H_2(\widehat{M}_{},\widehat{M}_{};𝐙_p)`$ dual to the epimorphism $`\varphi `$, that is, such that $`alg(K,\widehat{C})\varphi (K)(modp)`$ for any $`KH_1(\widehat{M}_{})`$. We can assume that $`\widehat{C}\widehat{M}_{}`$ is a collection of simple noncontractible curves in the torus $`\widehat{M}_{}`$. Finally let $`C`$ be a 2-chain obtained from $`\widehat{C}`$ by adding to $`\widehat{C}`$ annuli connecting the components of $`\widehat{C}\widehat{M}_{}`$ with $`\gamma _{}`$ in $`V_\gamma _{}`$. Thus, $`C`$ of part (2) is constructed.

Let $`\mu _{}`$ be a meridian of $`\gamma _{}`$ (or more precisely, of $`V_\gamma _{}`$). $`\varphi (\mu _{})0(modp)`$ because $`\gamma _{}`$ is a branching set of the covering, so the preimage of $`\mu _{}`$ (under $`h`$) is a connected curve $`\mu `$, (a meridian of $`\gamma `$ in $`M`$), by the definition of a branched covering. Thus, there is $`0<m<p`$ such that $`\varphi (\mu _{})=m`$. We can conclude also that $`m\gamma _{}C`$ mod $`p`$, thus $`\gamma _{}0`$ in $`H_1(M_{};𝐙_p)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 1.1. By the classical result of Wallace (1960) and Lickorish (1962), every closed oriented 3-manifold is a result of a surgery on a framed link in $`S^3`$. In particular $`M_{}`$ can be represented as a result of surgery on some framed link $`L_\mathrm{\#}`$ in $`S^3`$. Inversely $`S^3`$ can be obtained as a result of surgery on some framed link $`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}`$ in $`M_{}`$. We can assume that $`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}`$ satisfies the following conditions (possibly after deforming $`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}`$ by ambient isotopy):

1. $`\gamma _{}\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}=\mathrm{}`$;
2. $`alg(\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}^i,C)0modp`$, for any component $`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}^i`$ of $`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}`$.

$`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}`$ satisfying the conditions 1-2 can be obtained as follows:
Let $`L_\mathrm{\#}S^3`$ be a framed link in $`S^3`$ such that $`M_{}`$ is a result of surgery on $`L_\mathrm{\#}`$. Let $`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}`$ denote the co-core of the surgery 666In our notation, core of the surgery is the framed surgery link, that is the framed link, regular neighborhood of which is removed in the “drilling” part of the surgery, with framing yielded by the meridian of the attached (“filling” part of the surgery) solid torus. The co-core of the surgery is the core of the “filling” solid torus, with its framing yielded by the meridian of the removed solid torus. The surgery on the co-core link brings back the initial manifold.. In particular, $`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}`$ is a framed link in $`M_{}`$ such that $`S^3`$ is a result of surgery on $`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}`$. By a general position argument, we can make $`\gamma _{}`$ and $`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}`$ disjoint, but in order to get condition (2) we should do so in a controllable manner.

Let $`C`$ be the 2-chain from Lemma 1.6. Let $`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}^i`$ be any component of $`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}`$. If we change a crossing between $`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}^i`$ and $`\gamma _{}`$ then the algebraic crossing number, $`alg(\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}^i,C)`$ changes by $`\pm m`$ mod $`p`$. Thus, by a series of crossing changes we can get $`alg(\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}^i,C)0modp`$ for any component of $`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}`$, providing condition (2).

This implies that we can easily modify $`C`$ (outside $`\gamma _{}`$) so that $`C\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}=\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, $`C`$ survives the surgery (as well as $`\gamma _{}`$), and in $`S^3`$ it has $`𝐙_p`$ boundary $`m\gamma _{}`$ and it is disjoint from $`L_\mathrm{\#}`$ (link in $`S^3`$ being the co-core of the surgery on $`\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#}`$ in $`M_{}`$). Thus, $`\mathrm{lk}(L_\mathrm{\#}^i,\gamma _{})0modp`$ for any component $`L_\mathrm{\#}^i`$ of $`L_\mathrm{\#}`$.

Now we are ready to unknot $`\gamma _{}`$ using Kirby calculus (\[K\], \[F-R\]). Choose some orientation on $`\gamma _{}`$. We can add unlinked components with framing $`\pm 1`$ to $`L_\mathrm{\#}`$ around each crossing of $`\gamma _{}`$, making sure that arrows on $`\gamma _{}`$ run opposite ways (i.e. the linking number of $`\gamma _{}`$ with the new component is zero, see Fig. 2). Use the K-move to change the appropriate crossings and thus to unknot $`\gamma _{}`$. Thus we trivialized $`\gamma _{}`$ without compromising conditions (1) and (2). Denote the framed link obtained from the initial link $`L_\mathrm{\#}`$ after the described isotopy and adding the new components by $`L_{}`$. Notice, that each new component that we introduce during the above procedure has linking number $`0`$ with any other component of $`L_{}`$.

Fig. 2

To complete the proof of the theorem, consider the $`p`$-fold cyclic branched covering of $`S^3`$ by $`S^3`$ with branching set $`\gamma _{}`$. Let $`L`$ denote the preimage of $`L_{}`$. Notice that $`L`$ is strongly $`p`$-periodic. We claim that the result of performing surgery on $`L`$ is $`𝐙_p`$-homeomorphic to $`M`$.

The preimage of each component of $`L_{}`$ consists of $`p`$ components permuted by a $`𝐙_p`$ action, by Lemma 1.4. Therefore, $`𝐙_p`$ acts on the result of the surgery on $`S^3`$ along $`L`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}=(S^3,L)`$, with a branched set $`\gamma `$ and quotient $`M_{}=(S^3,L_{})`$.

The group $`H_1(M_{}\gamma _{}\widehat{L}_\mathrm{\#})=H_1(S^3\gamma _{}L_{})`$ is generated by $`\mu _{}`$ (a meridian of $`\gamma _{}`$) and meridians of the components of $`L_{}`$, say $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_k`$. Of course, $`H_1(M_{}\gamma _{})`$ is also generated by $`\mu _{},b_1,\mathrm{},b_k`$. By Lemma 1.6, the covering $`\rho :(M\gamma )(M_{}\gamma _{})`$ is characterized by the map $`\varphi _C:H_1(M_{}\gamma _{})𝐙_p`$ (up to an automorphism of $`𝐙_p`$), where $`\varphi _C(K)`$ is the intersection number of $`KH_1(M_{}\gamma _{})`$ with $`C`$ modulo $`p`$. Similarly, the covering $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:(\stackrel{~}{M}\gamma )(M_{}\gamma _{})`$ is characterized by a map $`\varphi _2:H_1(M_{}\gamma _{})𝐙_p`$. By our construction, $`\varphi _C(\mu _{})=m`$ and $`\varphi _C(b_i)=0`$ for every $`1ik`$. We need to show that $`\varphi _2(\mu _{})=m^{}`$ for some $`m^{}`$ coprime to p, and $`\varphi _2(b_i)=0`$ for every $`1ik`$. This follows from the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }^1(b_i)`$ consists of $`p`$ loops and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }^1(\mu _{})`$ is a single loop. Thus, $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _C`$ are equivalent up to the automorphism of $`𝐙_p`$ sending $`m^{}`$ to $`m`$. Therefore, the manifolds $`(\stackrel{~}{M}\gamma )`$ and $`(M\gamma )`$ are $`𝐙_p`$-homeomorphic, with a homeomorphism given by $`g:(\stackrel{~}{M}\gamma )(M\gamma )`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\rho g`$. Notice, that $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ can be obtained from $`(\stackrel{~}{M}\gamma )`$ by attaching a 2-handle along $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }^1(\mu _{})`$ and then a 3-handle, and $`M`$ can be obtained from $`(M\gamma )`$ by attaching a 2-handle along $`\rho ^1(\mu _{})`$ and then a 3-handle. Since $`g(\stackrel{~}{\rho }^1(\mu _{}))=\rho ^1(\mu _{})`$, the homeomorphism $`g`$ can be extended to a $`𝐙_p`$-homeomorphism $`\widehat{g}:\stackrel{~}{M}M`$. Our proof of the Theorem 1.1 is completed. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark 1.7. Notice, that if in the proof of Theorem 1.1 we assumed that the link $`L_\mathrm{\#}`$ was algebraically split then the link $`L_{}`$ would be algebraically split as well. This remark will be important later in the proofs of Theorems 2.1 and 2.2.

As a corollary we obtain a proof of Theorem 1.2.

Proof of Theorem 1.2. Consider any $`𝐙_p`$ equivariant knot, say $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ in $`M`$. Let $`V_{\widehat{\gamma }}`$ be a $`𝐙_p`$ equivariant regular neighborhood of $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ in $`M`$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$ a curve on $`V_{\widehat{\gamma }}`$ which is also $`𝐙_p`$ equivariant. Notice, that $`\gamma ^{}`$ intersects a meridian of $`V_{\widehat{\gamma }}`$ exactly once. Now let $`M^{}`$ be a manifold obtained from $`M`$ by a surgery on $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ with the framing defined by $`\gamma ^{}`$. Let $`\gamma M^{}`$ be the co-core of the surgery. The $`𝐙_p`$ action on $`M`$ yields the action on $`M^{}`$ and our choice of framing guarantees that $`\gamma `$ is the (only) fixed point set of the action. Thus, we can apply to $`M^{}`$ the previous theorem. This proves that $`M`$ can be obtained by an integer surgery on $`L\gamma `$, where $`L`$ is a strongly $`p`$-periodic link. Furthermore, the framing of $`\gamma `$ must be coprime to $`p`$, to insure that $`𝐙_p`$ acts on the resulting manifold with no fixed points. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark 1.8. We plan to extend Theorem 1.1 to any $`𝐙_p`$ orientation preserving action on a closed 3-manifold $`M`$, and to $`𝐙_{p^k}`$ actions.

2. Homology of periodic 3-manifolds.

The main goal of this section is to give elementary proofs of Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 using the surgery presentation of $`p`$-periodic 3-manifolds developed in Section 1.

2.1 Linking matrices of framed strongly $`p`$-periodic links and of algebraically split links.

Let $`L`$ be a framed oriented link of $`n`$ components $`l_1,\mathrm{},l_n`$. The Linking matrix of $`L`$ is the matrix $`(a_{ij})_{n\times n}`$ defined by

$$a_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{lk}(l_i,l_j)\hfill & \text{if }ij\hfill \\ \text{framing of }l_i\hfill & \text{if }i=j\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`L^p`$ be a framed strongly $`p`$-periodic link and $`L_{}`$ be the corresponding underlying link. Fix an orientation of $`L_{}`$ and denote the components of $`L_{}`$ by $`l_1,\mathrm{},l_n`$. Consider a $`p`$-periodic diagram of $`L^p`$. Denote the $`p`$ copies of the tangle $`R`$ from the diagram (see Fig. 1) by $`R_1,\mathrm{},R_p`$ in the clockwise order. Lift the orientation of $`L_{}`$ to $`L^p`$. By Lemma 1.3, each component $`l_i`$ of $`L_{}`$ has $`p`$ covering preimages in $`L^p`$. Denote them in a clockwise order by $`l_{i1},\mathrm{},l_{ip}`$. By the clockwise order here we mean such an order that if we choose any point $`xl_{ij}R_j`$ then the corresponding point in $`R_{j+1}`$ will belong to $`l_{ij+1}`$ (subscripts are treated modulo $`p`$).

Now consider the following natural order for the components of $`L^p`$:

$$l_{11},\mathrm{},l_{1p},l_{21},\mathrm{},l_{2p},\mathrm{},l_{n1},\mathrm{},l_{np}.$$

It is not hard to see that with regard to this order, the linking matrix $`A_p`$ for $`L^p`$ is of the following form

$$A_p=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}A_{11}& B_{12}& \mathrm{}& B_{1n}\\ B_{21}& A_{22}& \mathrm{}& B_{2n}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ B_{n1}& B_{n2}& \mathrm{}& A_{nn}\end{array}\right),$$

where all the blocks are $`p\times p`$, $`A_{ii}`$ is the linking matrix for the sublink consisting of $`l_{i1},\mathrm{},l_{ip}`$, and $`B_{ij}`$ is the matrix with elements $`b_{ks}^{ij}=\text{lk}(l_{ik},l_{js})`$.

Recall, that a matrix $`(a_{ij})_{k\times k}`$ is called circulant if $`a_{ij}=a_{i+1j+1}`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},k`$ (subscripts mod $`k`$).

Proposition 2.3. Every block in $`A_p`$ is a circulant matrix.

Proof. Consider $`B_{ij}=(b_{ks}^{ij})_{p\times p}`$. Then $`b_{ks}^{ij}=\text{lk}(l_{ik},l_{js})`$ and $`b_{k+1s+1}^{ij}=\text{lk}(l_{ik+1},l_{js+1})`$. If one rotates the $`p`$-periodic diagram of $`L^p`$ around the center in the clockwise direction by $`2\pi /p`$ then the pair $`(l_{ik},l_{js})`$ will go into $`(l_{ik+1},l_{js+1})`$, taking subscripts modulo $`p`$. Thus, $`\text{lk}(l_{ik},l_{js})=\text{lk}(l_{ik+1},l_{js+1})`$. If we notice that the framing numbers of $`l_{i1},\mathrm{},l_{ip}`$ are all the same, then the above argument shows that $`A_{ii}`$ is also circulant for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Definition. We will call a (framed) link $`L`$ algebraically split if the linking number between any two components of $`L`$ is zero. A strongly $`p`$-periodic (framed) link $`L^p`$ will be called orbitally separated if the underlying link $`L_{}`$ is algebraically split.

Remark 2.4. It is not hard to see that a strongly $`p`$-periodic link $`L^p`$ is orbitally separated iff any two components of $`L^p`$ that cover different components of $`L_{}`$ have the linking number equal to zero.

Corollary 2.5. It follows from Proposition 2.3 and Remark 2.4 that $`L^p`$ is an orbitally separated link iff all the non-diagonal blocks $`B_{ij}`$ in $`A_p`$ are zero matrices. $`\mathrm{}`$

2.2 Nullity of symmetric circulant matrices over $`𝐙_p`$.

Circulant matrices are very well studied and a lot is known about them (see, for instance, \[D\]). But, apparently, not much is known about circulant matrices over finite fields (or rings). The following two results provide the key tool for our proof of Theorem 2.1, but they also appear to be interesting from a purely matrix theoretical point of view.

Lemma 2.6. If

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}a_1& a_2& a_3& \mathrm{}& a_n\\ a_n& a_1& a_2& \mathrm{}& a_{n1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ a_2& a_3& a_4& \mathrm{}& a_1\end{array}\right)$$

is a circulant matrix with integer elements then

$$\text{det }A=\{\begin{array}{cc}a_1^n+a_2^n+\mathrm{}+a_n^n(modn),\hfill & \text{if n is odd;}\hfill \\ a_1^na_2^n+\mathrm{}a_n^n(modn),\hfill & \text{if n is even.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. The determinant of $`A`$ is a sum of $`n!`$ terms. The terms of the form $`a_i^n`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, will be called diagonal. Note that any term different from diagonal appears in the sum exactly $`n`$ times:

$$a_{i_1}a_{i_2}a_{i_3}\mathrm{}a_{i_n},$$

$$a_{i_2}a_{i_3}\mathrm{}a_{i_n}a_{i_1},$$

$$\mathrm{}$$

$$a_{i_n}a_{i_1}a_{i_2}\mathrm{}a_{i_{n1}}.$$

Note that the sign for all such terms is the same. To prove this we need to show that the permutations

$$\sigma =\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 2& 3& \mathrm{}& n\\ i_1& i_2& i_3& \mathrm{}& i_n\end{array}\right)\text{ and }\sigma ^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 2& 3& \mathrm{}& n\\ i_n+1& i_1+1& i_2+1& \mathrm{}& i_{n1}+1\end{array}\right)$$

have the same parity (everything is modulo $`n`$). Obviously,

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 2& 3& \mathrm{}& n\\ i_n+1& i_1+1& i_2+1& \mathrm{}& i_{n1}+1\end{array}\right)=`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}2& 3& \mathrm{}& n& 1\\ i_1+1& i_2+1& \mathrm{}& i_{n1}+1& i_n+1\end{array}\right).`$
The row $`\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}2& 3& 4& \mathrm{}& n& 1\end{array}\right)`$ has $`n1`$ inversions. The numbers of inversions in $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}i_1& i_2& \mathrm{}& i_n\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}i_1+1& i_2+1& \mathrm{}& i_n+1\end{array}\right)`$ also differ by $`n1`$. Thus the parities of $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ are the same. Therefore, the total sum of all non-diagonal terms in $`\text{det }A`$ is 0 mod $`n`$. The result follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

Denote the nullity of $`A`$ over $`𝐙_n`$ by $`\text{null}_nA`$.

Lemma 2.7. Let $`p`$ be an odd prime integer and $`A`$ be a $`p\times p`$ symmetric circulant matrix over $`𝐙_p`$, then $`\text{null}_pA1`$.

Proof. Assume $`\text{null}_pA>0`$, i. e. $`a_1^p+2a_2^p+\mathrm{}+2a_{\frac{p+1}{2}}^p=a_1+2a_2+\mathrm{}+2a_{\frac{p+1}{2}}=0(modp)`$, by Lemma 2.6 (the second equality follows from Fermat’s theorem). After adding all rows to the last one and all columns to the last column we get

$$\text{det }A=\text{det}\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}a_1& a_2& a_3& \mathrm{}& a_3& 0\\ a_2& a_1& a_2& \mathrm{}& a_4& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ a_3& a_4& a_5& \mathrm{}& a_1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Denote the $`i`$th column of the above matrix by $`C_i`$. Then the linear combination

$$(p1)C_1+(p2)C_2+\mathrm{}+2C_{p2}+C_{p1}$$

is 0 modulo $`p`$. Indeed, the $`i`$th row of the linear combination is

$$(p1)a_i+(p2)a_{i+1}+\mathrm{}+2a_{i3}+a_{i2},$$

all the coefficients and subscripts are modulo $`p`$. It is not hard to see that after the substitution $`a_1=2a_22a_3\mathrm{}2a_{\frac{p+1}{2}}`$, the coefficient for $`a_k`$ ($`k1`$) in the above sum is

$$2(pi)+(p(i+k))+(p(ik))=0.$$

Thus, if $`\text{det }A=0`$ over $`𝐙_p`$ then $`\text{null}_pA2`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark 2.8. Lemma 2.7 is not true if $`p=2`$. For instance, nullity of $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$ is 1 over $`𝐙_2`$.

2.3. Proof of Theorem 2.1.

In this section we will prove Theorem 2.1, the main theorem of Section 2. Let $`M`$ be a closed oriented 3-manifold obtained by a Dehn surgery on a framed oriented link $`L`$, and let $`A`$ be the linking matrix of $`L`$. The following fact is well-known.

Lemma 2.9. $`\text{null}_pA=\text{rank }H_1(M;𝐙_p)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we are ready to prove an important special case of Theorem 2.1.

Proposition 2.10. Let $`p`$ be an odd prime integer. If a closed orientable 3-manifold $`M`$ can be obtained from $`S^3`$ by Dehn surgery on an orbitally separated framed link $`L^p`$ then $`H_1(M;𝐙_p)𝐙_p`$.

Proof. Assume that $`M`$ can be obtained by Dehn surgery on an orbitally separated framed link $`L^p`$. Let $`A_p`$ be the linking matrix of $`L^p`$, as constructed in Section 2.1. By Corollary 2.5, $`A_p`$ is a block diagonal matrix. Therefore, $`\text{null}_pA_p`$ is equal to the sum $`\text{null}_pA_{11}+\mathrm{}+\text{null}_pA_{nn}`$. By Proposition 2.3, each $`A_{ii}`$ is a circulant matrix. Moreover, since $`A_p`$ is a linking matrix, each $`A_{ii}`$ is symmetric. By Lemma 2.7, $`\text{null}_pA_{ii}1`$, hence, $`\text{null}_pA_p1`$. It follows from Lemma 2.9 that $`H_1(M;𝐙_p)𝐙_p`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

To finish our proof of the main theorem of Section 2 we need the following result (Corollary 2.3 in \[Mu-2\]).

Proposition 2.11 (H. Murakami) Fix an odd prime $`r`$. For every connected, closed, oriented 3-manifold $`M`$, there exist lens spaces $`L(n_1,1),\mathrm{},L(n_k,1)`$ with $`n_i`$ coprime to $`r`$ such that the connected sum $`M\mathrm{\#}L(n_1,1)\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}L(n_k,1)`$ can be obtained by Dehn surgery on an algebraically split link with integer framing. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we are ready to prove Theorem 2.1 in full generality.

Proof of Theorem 2.1. Let $`M`$ be a $`p`$-periodic closed oriented 3-manifold and $`M_{}=M/𝐙_p`$. By Proposition 2.11, there are integers $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_k`$ coprime to $`p`$ such that the connected sum $`\stackrel{~}{M_{}}=M_{}\mathrm{\#}L(n_1,1)\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}L(n_k,1)`$ can be obtained by Dehn surgery on an algebraically split framed link $`\stackrel{~}{L_{}}`$. Consider $`\stackrel{~}{M}=M\mathrm{\#}pL(n_1,1)\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}pL(n_k,1)`$. Obviously, $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is $`p`$-periodic such that $`\stackrel{~}{M_{}}=\stackrel{~}{M}/𝐙_p`$. Moreover, it easily follows from the proof of Theorem 1.1 that $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ can be obtained using Dehn surgery on an orbitally separated framed link (see Remark 1.7). Therefore, by Proposition 2.10, $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{M};𝐙_p)𝐙_p`$. Since the numbers $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_k`$ are coprime to $`p`$, we have $`H_1(L(n_i,1),𝐙_p)=0`$ for every $`i`$. This implies that $`H_1(M;𝐙_p)=H_1(\stackrel{~}{M};𝐙_p)𝐙_p`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

2.4. Orientation preserving $`𝐙_2`$ actions. Proof of Theorem 2.2.

Remark 2.12. Theorem 2.1 is not true in the case $`p=2`$. A simple counterexample is $`S^2\times S^1`$. It is interesting to notice that $`S^2\times S^1`$ admits two different orientation preserving actions of $`𝐙_2`$ with the fixed point set being a circle. Indeed, let $`H(1,1)`$ be the negative Hopf link with framing 1 on each component and let $`H(1,1)`$ be the negative Hopf link with framing $`1`$ on each component (see Fig. 3). Dehn surgery on each of these framed links produces $`S^2\times S^1`$. Moreover, permutation of the components defines $`𝐙_2`$ actions on $`S^2\times S^1`$ with a circle as the fixed point set. These two actions are different. In the first case the orbit space of the action $`M_{}`$ is $`S^2\times S^1`$, and in the second case $`M_{}=RP^3`$. Furthermore, one can see that in the first case $`𝐙_2`$ acts on $`𝐙=H_1(S^2\times S^1)`$ trivially, and in the second case it sends 1 to $`1`$. Both of the described actions were studied in \[P-3\].

Fig. 3

An interesting criterion for 2-periodic rational homology 3-spheres is provided by Theorem 2.2. Before we prove it, let us recall that every finite abelian group can be uniquely decomposed into a direct sum of cyclic groups whose orders are powers of prime numbers. Such decomposition will be called canonical.

Proof of Theorem 2.2. Let $`M`$ be a rational homology 3-sphere such that $`H_1(M,𝐙)`$ does not have elements of order 16. Assume that $`M`$ admits an orientation-preserving action of $`𝐙_2`$ such that the fixed point set is a circle. As before, let $`M_{}=M/𝐙_2`$ be the orbit space of the action. By Theorem 1.1, $`M`$ can be obtained using Dehn surgery on a strongly 2-periodic framed link $`L^2`$ with the underlying link $`L_{}`$. By Lemma 1.4, $`M_{}`$ is also a rational homology 3-sphere. Therefore, $`M_{}`$ can be obtained by surgery on an algebraically split framed link (see \[Mu-1\], \[O-1\]). Thus, we may assume that $`L_{}`$ is algebraically split (see Remark 1.7). By definition $`L^2`$ is orbitally separated, and by Proposition 2.3 and Corollary 2.5 the linking matrix of $`L^2`$ is block diagonal with every block being a $`2\times 2`$ symmetric circulant matrix. Recall that the linking matrix of $`L^2`$ can be considered as a presentation matrix for the abelian group $`H_1(M,𝐙)`$. Therefore, it is enough to show that every finite abelian group $`G`$ presented by a matrix $`A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& a\end{array}\right)`$ with $`a,b𝐙`$ either has an element of order 16 or there are even number of terms $`𝐙_2`$ and even number of terms $`𝐙_4`$ in the canonical decomposition of $`G`$, moreover it is possible that the canonical decomposition of $`G`$ contains only one term of the form $`𝐙_{2^t}`$ for any $`t3`$. Denote by $`g`$ the greatest common divisor of $`a`$ and $`b`$. Since $`G`$ is finite, we have $`detA0`$ and $`g>0`$. It is easy to see that $`G`$ can be presented by the diagonal matrix $`\stackrel{~}{A}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g& 0\\ 0& \frac{|detA|}{g}\end{array}\right)`$. Therefore $`G𝐙_g𝐙_{|detA|/g}`$ (here by $`𝐙_1`$ we mean the trivial group).

If $`a`$ and $`b`$ are both odd then $`g`$ is odd and $`\frac{|detA|}{g}`$ is divisible by 8.

If $`a`$ and $`b`$ are both even then $`g`$ is even. Let $`t`$ be the power of 2 in the prime decomposition of $`g`$. We have two different cases: 1) $`\frac{|detA|}{g^2}`$ is odd. Then $`G𝐙_{g/2^t}𝐙_{2^t}𝐙_{2^t}𝐙_{2l+1}`$, where $`2l+1=\frac{|detA|}{g2^t}`$. 2) $`\frac{|detA|}{g^2}`$ is even. This means that both $`\frac{a}{g}`$ and $`\frac{b}{g}`$ are odd and therefore $`\frac{|detA|}{g^2}`$ is divisible by $`2^s,s3`$, which implies that $`G𝐙_{g/2^t}𝐙_{2^t}𝐙_{2^{s+t}}𝐙_{2h+1}`$, where $`2h+1=\frac{|detA|}{g2^{s+t}}`$. In this case we have an element of order $`2^{s+t}`$, which is at least 16.

We are left with the case when one of the numbers $`a`$ and $`b`$ is even and the other one is odd. But in this case $`g`$ is odd and $`|detA|`$ is odd.

Therefore, if $`G`$ does not have elements of order 16 then the number of terms $`𝐙_2`$ and the number of terms $`𝐙_4`$ in the canonical decomposition of $`G`$ are both even numbers. To see that it is possible to have a single $`𝐙_8`$ term, consider the case $`a=3`$ and $`b=1`$ (An example of a manifold with such first homology is the lens space $`L(8,3)`$). $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 2.13 Let $`M`$ be a rational homology 3-sphere such that the group $`H_1(M;𝐙)`$ does not have elements of order 8. If $`M`$ admits an orientation preserving action of $`𝐙_2`$ with the fixed point set being a circle then $`H_1(M;𝐙_2)𝐙_2^m`$ for some even integer $`m`$.

przytyck@research.circ.gwu.edu

sokolov@gwu.edu

http://gwu.edu/\̃hskip0.1ptsokolov/math\_page/mathematics.htm