text:
# Rigidity for Nonnegatively curved metrics on 𝑆²×ℝ³

## 1. Introduction

According to , the space $`S^2\times ^2`$ with an arbitrary complete metric of nonnegative sectional curvature must be a product metric or be isometric to a Riemannian quotient of the form

$$((S^2,g_0)\times (^2,g_f)\times )/,$$

were $`g_0`$ and $`g_f`$ are $``$-invariant metrics. These metrics are “rigid at the soul”, meaning the following inequality from  becomes an equality in the case when $`M`$ is diffeomorphic to $`S^2\times ^2`$:

###### Proposition 1.1.

 If $`M`$ is an open manifold of nonnegative curvature with soul $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, then for any $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, orthonormal vectors $`X,YT_p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and orthonormal $`W,V\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ = the normal space to $`T_p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`T_pM`$,

$$(D_XR)(X,Y)W,V^2(|R(W,V)X|^2+(2/3)(D_{X,X}R)(W,V,V,W))R(X,Y,Y,X).$$

In general, the metric sphere, $`S_ϵ`$, of small radius $`ϵ`$ about a soul inherits a metric of nonnegative curvature . If the above inequality is strict, then $`S_ϵ`$ is positively curved . If there is a single $`(p,W)\nu (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ such that the inequality is strict for all $`X,Y,V`$ at $`p`$, then $`ϵW`$ is a point of $`S_ϵ`$ with positive curvature, so $`S_ϵ`$ is quasi-positively curved, which means that it has nonnegative curvature, and positive curvature at a point (in this case, we will say that the inequality is “quasi-strict”).

The question whether $`S^2\times S^2`$ admits positive or quasi-positive curvature is a long-standing unsolved problem in Riemannian geometry, which motivates our study of metrics of nonnegative curvature on $`S^2\times ^3`$. Although we do not completely classify such metrics, we demonstrate special cases under which the inequality rigidly determines what the metrics may look like at the soul, which provides evidence that the family of metrics is small.

We first classify the connection metrics, i.e., metrics with totally geodesic Sharafutdinov fibers. It is convenient to simultaneously study the nontrivial $`^3`$ bundle over $`S^2`$, whose associated sphere bundle has total space $`CP^2\mathrm{\#}\overline{CP^2}`$.

###### Proposition 1.2.

Every nonnegatively curved connection metric on an $`^3`$-bundle over $`S^2`$ is isometric to a Riemannian quotient of the form:

$$M=((S^3,g_0)\times (^3,g_f))/S^1,$$

where $`g_f`$ is an $`S^1`$-invariant metric on $`^3`$ and $`g_0`$ is a connection metric on the principal bundle $`S^1S^3S^2`$.

Notice that an integer $`k`$ determines the relative speeds at which $`S^1`$ acts on $`S^3`$ and $`^3`$, and the bundle is trivial if and only if $`k`$ is even. The proposition implies that the holonomy group of the normal bundle of the soul (the “normal holonomy group”) is either trivial or isomorphic to $`S^1`$. The proposition is actually a corollary of a similar fact for $`S^2`$-bundles:

###### Proposition 1.3.

For an $`S^2`$-bundle $`\pi :MB=S^2`$, suppose that $`M`$ and $`B`$ have nonnegatively curved metrics so that $`\pi `$ is a Riemannian submersion with totally geodesic fibers. Then $`\pi :MB`$ can be metrically re-described as

$$M=((S^3,g_0)\times (S^2,g_1))/S^1\stackrel{\pi }{}(S^3,g_0)/S^1,$$

where $`g_0`$ is a connection metric on the principal bundle $`S^1S^3S^2`$, and $`g_1`$ is an $`S^1`$-invariant metric on $`S^2`$.

In the both propositions, $`g_0`$ is a connection metric on $`S^3`$, which means that (1) the principal $`S^1`$ action is by isometries, and (2) all it’s orbits have the same length. If instead we assume only (1), then $`g_0`$ is called a “warped connection metric”, and the resulting metric on the $`^3`$ (or $`S^2`$) bundle over $`S^2`$ is a non-connection metric with holonomy group $`S^1`$. However, not all nonnegatively curved metrics with holonomy group $`S^1`$ are of this type, as the next example shows.

###### Example 1.4.

In Proposition 1.2, if $`g_f`$ is a product metric, i.e., $`(^3,g_f)=(^2,g_1)\times `$, then

$$M=((S^3,g_0)\times (^3,g_f))/S^1=(((S^3,g_0)\times (^2,g_1))/S^1)\times =(E,g_E)\times ,$$

where $`(E,g_E)`$ is the total space of an $`^2`$-bundle over $`S^2`$ with a connection metric. Walschap showed in \[7, Theorem 2.1\] that when $`E`$ is nontrivial ($`k0`$), such a connection metric $`g_E`$ can be non-rigid. The most natural one, coming from the round $`g_0`$ and the flat $`g_1`$, can be altered fairly arbitrarily away from the soul without losing nonnegative curvature. If $`g_E^{}`$ is such an alteration, then $`(^2,g_E^{})\times `$ has nonnegative curvature and normal holonomy group $`S^1`$. Considering small metric spheres about a soul of $`(^2,g_E^{})\times `$ produces a large family of nonnegatively curved metrics on $`S^2\times S^2`$ ($`k`$ even) and on $`CP^2\mathrm{\#}\overline{CP^2}`$ ($`k`$ odd).

Although the metrics is the previous example are flexible, they are also rigid in the following sense:

###### Proposition 1.5.

For any complete nonnegatively curved metric on an $`^3`$-bundle over $`S^2`$ with normal holonomy group $`S^1`$, the inequality of Proposition 1.1 is not quasi-strict.

The remaining case is when the normal holonomy group is transitive, and we begin by showing that examples of this phenomenon exist:

###### Proposition 1.6.

Consider the following nonnegatively curved metric on $`S^2\times ^3`$:

$$M=((S^2,\text{round})\times (^3,g_f)\times (\text{SO}(3),g_B))/SO(3),$$

where $`g_f`$ is a nonnegatively curved $`SO(3)`$-invariant metric on $`^3`$ and $`g_B`$ is a bi-invariant metric on $`\text{SO}(3)`$. Then

1. The soul of $`M`$ is round.
2. The normal holonomy group is $`\text{SO}(3)`$.
3. Each Sharafutdinov fiber is isometric to $`^3`$ with a fixed $`S^1`$-invariant metric.

If $`g_B`$ is replace by a right-invariant nonnegatively curved metric in this construction, then $`M`$ is still nonnegatively curved. These are the only known examples with transitive holonomy. In particular, for the non-trivial $`^3`$-bundle over $`S^2`$, it is not known whether there is a nonnegatively curved metric with transitive normal holonomy group. Although it is difficult to describe the general right-invariant case as explicitly as we describe the bi-invariant case, it is at least straightforward to check that the metric spheres about the soul are not quasi-positively curved, so the inequality of Proposition 1.1 is not quasi-strict.

Since there are no other known examples with with transitive holonomy, one might ask whether an arbitrary metric with transitive holonomy looks like with one of these examples, at least at the soul. In section 6, we show some special cases in which the inequality of Proposition 1.1 rigidly determines what the metric may look like at the soul. For example, if we assume that the Sharafutdinov fibers are all $`S^1`$-invariant, then the inequality is not quasi-strict. If we additionally assume that the connection in the normal bundle of the soul has a special form, then the the soul must be round. These added assumptions are motivated by the geometry of the known examples, and our rigidity statements provide evidence that the family of nonnegatively curved metrics on $`S^2\times ^3`$ with transitive holonomy is small.

The author is pleased to thank Detlef Gromoll for helpful conversations about these results.

## 2. Connection metrics

In this section, we prove Proposition 1.2, which classifies the nonnegatively curved connection metrics on an $`^3`$-bundle over $`S^2`$.

###### Lemma 2.1.

For a connection metric of nonnegative curvature on an $`^3`$-bundle over $`S^2`$, the normal holonomy group is trivial or is isomorphic to $`S^1`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`M`$ be the space $`S^2\times ^3`$ together with a nonnegatively curved connection metric. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a soul of $`M`$. Let $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and let $`X,Y`$ be an orthonormal basis of $`T_p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let $`R^{}`$ denote the curvature tensor of the connection in the normal bundle of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

The map $`UR^{}(X,Y)U`$ is a skew-symmetric endomorphism of the fiber $`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })=^3`$, so there must be a non-zero vector $`W`$ in it’s kernel. Choose any $`V\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ such that $`\{V,W\}`$ is orthonormal. Let $`\alpha :[0,a]\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a piecewise-geodesic loop at $`p`$. Let $`X_t,Y_t,W_t,V_t`$ denote the parallel transports of $`X,Y,W,V`$ along $`\alpha `$. From Proposition 1.1,

$$(D_{\alpha ^{}(t)}R^{})(X_t,Y_t)W_t,V_t^2|R^{}(W_t,V_t)X_t|^2R(X_t,Y_t,Y_t,X_t).$$

In other words, if we let $`f(t)=|R^{}(W_t,V_t)X_t|=R^{}(X_t,Y_t)W_t,V_t`$, then

$$f^{}(t)^2f(t)^2R(X_t,Y_t,Y_t,X_t).$$

Since $`W`$ is chosen so that $`f(0)=0`$, it follows that $`f(t)=0`$ for all $`t`$. So either $`W`$ is fixed by the action of the normal holonomy group on $`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, or $`R^{}=0`$, which implies that the normal holonomy group is trivial. ∎

The following would be a natural generalization of Lemma 2.1

###### Conjecture 2.2.

For a connection metric of nonnegative curvature on an $`^k`$-bundle over a manifold $`M^n`$, the normal holonomy group is isomorphic to a subgroup of $`\text{SO}(n)`$.

Next we prove a result for $`S^2`$ bundles over $`S^2`$ analogous to Lemma 2.1.

###### Lemma 2.3.

For an $`S^2`$-bundle $`\pi :MB=S^2`$, suppose that $`M`$ and $`B`$ have nonnegatively curved metrics so that $`\pi `$ is a Riemannian submersion with totally geodesic fibers. Then the holonomy group of $`\pi `$ is trivial or is isomorphic to $`S^1`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`,𝒱`$ denote the horizontal and vertical distributions of $`\pi `$, and let $`A`$ denote the $`A`$-tensor of $`\pi `$. Since $``$ is 2-dimensional, $`𝒰_p=A(X,Y)`$ does not depend on the choice of oriented orthonormal basis $`\{X,Y\}`$ of $`_p`$. Thus $`𝒰`$ is a well-defined global vertical vector field on $`M`$.

Let $`pM`$ be a point where $`𝒰_p=0`$. There must be such a point on each $`\pi `$-fiber, since $`S^2`$ does not admit a nowhere vanishing vector field. Let $`X,Y`$ be an oriented orthonormal basis for $`_p`$, and let $`V𝒱_p`$ be arbitrary. Using O’Neill’s formula for Riemannian submersions,

$`R(X,Y+V,Y+V,X)`$ $`=`$ $`R(X,Y,Y,X)+2R(X,Y,V,X)+R(X,V,V,X)`$
$`=`$ $`R(X,Y,Y,X)+2(D_XA)_XY,V+0`$
$`=`$ $`R(X,Y,Y,X)+2_X𝒰,V0`$
Since the above is true for any $`V`$ (of any length), it follows that $`(_X𝒰)^𝒱=0`$. It’s also easy to see that $`(_X𝒰)^{}=0`$ since for any $`Z_p`$, $`_X𝒰,Z=A_XU,Z=0`$.

Since the fibers are totally geodesic, $`𝒰`$ restricted to any fiber is a Killing field. So, assuming $`𝒰`$ does not vanish on the entire fiber $`F_p`$ through $`p`$, $`p`$ is an isolated zero of $`𝒰`$ on $`F_p`$. In a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`M`$, the set $`S`$ of zeros of $`𝒰`$ is a 2-dimensional smooth submanifold. But,

$$T_pS\{XT_pM|_X𝒰=0\}=_p.$$

So $`T_pS=_p`$, and $`S`$ is an integral submanifold of $``$ near $`p`$. This implies that $`p`$ is a fixed point of the holonomy group. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 1.3.

Choose a fiber of $`\pi :MB=S^2`$. Define $`𝒰`$ as in the previous proof. $`𝒰`$ restricted to this fiber is a Killing field. Let $`O`$ denote an orbit of maximal length (the “equator” of the fiber). Let $`N`$ denote the orbit of $`O`$ under the holonomy group, which is a smooth 3-dimensional submanifold of $`M`$ (the union of the equators of all of the fibers). It is straightforward to verify that $`N`$ is totally geodesic.

The induced metric on the circle bundle $`S^1N\stackrel{\pi |_N}{}B`$ is a connection metric, which we claim can be metrically re-described as:

$$N=((S^3,g_0)\times S^1(r))/S^1\stackrel{\pi |_N}{}B=(S^3,g_0)/S^1.$$

More precisely, the relative speed, $`k`$, at which $`S^1`$ acts on $`S^3`$ and $`S^1`$ can be first chosen to give the topologically correct bundle. Next, choosing a connection metric $`g_0`$ on the bundle $`S^1S^3S^2`$ means choosing (1) a metric on $`S^2`$, (2) a principal connection in the bundle, (3) the fiber-length, $`l`$. We make the first choice such that $`(S^3,g_0)/S^1`$ is isometric to $`B`$. We make the second choice to induce the correct horizontal distribution in the circle bundle. Finally, we can choose $`l`$ and $`r`$ together so that the fiber-length is correct.

If $`g_1`$ denotes any $`S^1`$-invariant metric on $`S^2`$ whose equator (meaning the maximal-length orbit of the $`S^1`$-action) has circumference $`2\pi r`$, then the Riemannian submersion

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=((S^3,g_0)\times (S^2,g_1))/S^1\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}{}B=(S^3,g_0)/S^1$$

has totally geodesic fibers and holonomy group $`S^1`$. Further, if $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ denotes the union of the equators of all of the fibers of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\pi }|_{\stackrel{~}{N}}}{}B`$ is metrically equal to $`N\stackrel{\pi |_N}{}B`$. Finally, $`g_1`$ can easily be chosen so that the fiber metric of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ agrees with the fiber metric on $`\pi `$. It’s then straightforward to see that $`\stackrel{~}{M}\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}{}B`$ is metrically equal to $`M\stackrel{\pi }{}B`$. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 1.2.

For a nonnegatively curved connection metric on an $`^3`$-bundle, $`M`$, over $`S^2`$, the distance sphere, $`S_r`$, of any radius $`r`$ about a soul inherits a metric which, by Proposition 1.3, can be described as:

$$S_r=((S^3,g_0)\times (S^2,g_1))/S^1.$$

As we vary $`r`$, the soul metric $`(S^3,g_0)/S^1`$ does not change, and neither does the horizontal distribution of $`(S^3,g_0)(S^3,g_0)/S^1`$, since horizontal displacement of points in the sphere bundles is controlled by parallel transport of vectors in the normal bundle of the soul. So we can choose $`g_0`$ and $`k`$ independent of $`r`$. We write $`g_1(r)`$ to show the dependence of $`g_1`$ on $`r`$. Now define an $`S^1`$-invariant metric $`g_f`$ on $`^3`$ such that the distance sphere of radius $`r`$ about the origin has metric $`g_1(r)`$. It follows that $`M`$ is isometric to $`((S^3,g_0)\times (^3,g_f))/S^1.`$

## 3. Non-connection metrics with normal holonomy group $`S^1`$

We saw in example 1.4 that there is no simple group-theoretic classification of nonnegatively curved metrics on $`^3`$-bundles over $`S^2`$ with normal holonomy group $`S^1`$. In this section, we prove Proposition 1.5, which says that even though such metrics are in one sense perturbable, there is always partial rigidity at the soul.

###### Proof of Proposition 1.5.

Let $`M`$ denote the total space of an $`^3`$-bundle over $`S^2`$ together with a complete metric of nonnegative curvature. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denote a soul of $`M`$. Assume that the normal holonomy group is isomorphic to $`S^1`$, so that there exists a parallel section, $`W`$, of the normal bundle, $`\nu (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

For any $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, orthonormal vectors $`X,YT_p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and any unit-length vector $`V\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ orthogonal to $`W`$, we have:

$$(D_XR)(X,Y)W,V=|R(W,V)X|=0.$$

So the inequality of Proposition 1.1 implies that $`(D_{X,X}R)(W,V,V,W)0`$. We claim that in fact, $`(D_{X,X}R)(W,V,V,W)=0`$, which suffices to demonstrate that the inequality is not quasi-strict. To prove this claim, we must show that the curvature of any 2-plane normal to the soul containing $`W`$ is the same as any other.

To see this, assume $`p`$ and $`V`$ were chosen so that $`R(W,V,V,W)`$ is maximal among all possible choices of $`p`$ and $`V`$. Let $`\alpha (t)`$ denote any piecewise geodesic in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`\alpha (0)=p`$, and let $`X_t,Y_t,W_t,V_t`$ be the parallel transports of $`X,Y,W,V`$ along $`\alpha `$. Let $`f(t)=R(W_t,V_t,V_t,W_t)`$. The inequality says that $`f^{\prime \prime }(t)0`$. By the maximality assumption, $`f(t)`$ must be a constant function. But since the holonomy group is $`S^1`$, the 2-planed at $`p`$ spanned by $`W`$ and $`V`$ can be parallel transported along piecewise geodesics arbitrarily close to any other vertical 2-plane containing $`W`$ at any other point of the soul. Therefore, both the left and right sides of the inequality become zero when one of the vertical vectors equals $`W`$. ∎

## 4. An example with transitive normal holonomy group

In this sections, we prove Proposition 1.6, which describes the geometry of the Riemannian manifold

$$M=((S^2,\text{round})\times (^3,g_f)\times (\text{SO}(3),g_B))/SO(3),$$

To simplify the discussion, we take the unit-round metric on $`S^2`$, we take $`g_f`$ to be the flat metric on $`^3`$, and we assume the bi-invariant metric $`g_B`$ is scaled so that a unit-length vector in $`\text{so}(3)`$ corresponds to a Killing field on $`S^2(1)`$ with maximal norm one. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denote the soul of $`M`$. We begin by explicitly describing parallel transport in $`\nu (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, proving in particular:

###### Lemma 4.1.

The normal holonomy group of $`M`$ is $`SO(3)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`g`$ denote the product of the unit-round metric on $`S^2`$ with the flat metric on $`^3`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ denote the quotient metric on $`S^2\times ^3`$ obtained from the above description of $`M`$. According to , $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is obtained from $`g`$ by “rescaling along the $`SO(3)`$ action.” We next describe more precisely how the metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ on $`T_{(p,V)}(S^2\times ^3)`$ is obtained from the metric $`g`$.

Let $`(p,V)S^2(1)\times ^3`$ with $`|V|=1`$. Using the natural inclusion $`S^2(1)^3`$, define $`\theta `$ as the angle between $`p`$ and $`V`$. Assume that $`V\pm p`$. Denote:

$$W=\frac{VV,pp}{|VV,pp|}\text{ and }U=W\times p,$$

where “$`\times `$” denotes the vector cross product in $`^3`$. Notice that $`\{W,p,U\}`$ is an oriented orthonormal basis of $`^3`$, and $`V=\mathrm{cos}\theta p+\mathrm{sin}\theta W`$. Next, consider the following orthonormal basis $`\{X,A,Y,B,\widehat{r}\}`$ of $`T_{(p,V)}(S^2\times ^3)`$:

$$X=(W,0),A=(U,0),Y=(0,\mathrm{sin}\theta p\mathrm{cos}\theta W),B=(0,U),\widehat{r}=(0,V).$$

Choose an orthonormal basis $`\{E_1,E_2,E_3\}`$ of $`\text{so}(3)`$ corresponding to unit-speed right-handed rotations of $`S^2`$ about the vectors $`\{U,p,W\}`$ respectively. The values, $`T_1,T_2,T_3T_{(p,V)}(S^2\times ^3)`$, of the corresponding Killing fields at $`(p,V)`$ are:

$$T_1=X+Y,\text{ }T_2=\mathrm{sin}\theta B,\text{ }T_3=A+\mathrm{cos}\theta B.$$

Define

$$K=\left(k_{ij}\right)=\left(T_i,T_j_g\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}^2\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta & 1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \end{array}\right).$$

The metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ agrees with $`g`$ on the orthogonal compliment of $`\text{span}\{T_i\}`$. On $`\text{span}\{T_i\}`$ we have:

$$\stackrel{~}{K}=\left(\stackrel{~}{k}_{ij}\right)=\left(T_i,T_j_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\right)=K(I+K)^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{2}{3}& 0& 0\\ 0& 2\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 1}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 4}& \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 4}\\ 0& \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 4}& \frac{2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 4}\end{array}\right).$$

It is useful to define $`T_4=XY`$, so that $`\{T_1,T_2,T_3,T_4,\widehat{r}\}`$ becomes a basis for $`T_{(p,V)}(S^2\times ^3)`$. The change of basis matrix which translates from $`\{X,A,Y,B,\widehat{r}\}`$ to $`\{T_1,T_2,T_3,T_4,\widehat{r}\}`$ is $`N=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\frac{1}{2}& 0& \frac{1}{2}& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }& 0& \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& 0& \frac{1}{2}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ So if $`\stackrel{~}{K}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{K}& 0& 0\\ 0& 2& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$, then two vector $`𝒳,𝒴T_{(p,V)}(S^2\times ^3)`$ written in the basis $`\{X,A,Y,B,\widehat{r}\}`$ have inner product:

(4.1)
$$𝒳,𝒴_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=(N𝒳)^T\stackrel{~}{K}^{}(N𝒴).$$

Since the metric in the $`\widehat{r}`$ direction is unchanged when passing from $`g`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$, the Sharafutdinov map $`\pi :M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is also unchanged when passing from $`g`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$. So the vertical space of $`\pi `$ is unchanged:

$$𝒱_{(p,V)}=\text{span}\{Y,B,\widehat{r}\}=T_V^3T_{(p,V)}(S^2\times ^3).$$

It is now easy to show that the horizontal space of $`\pi `$ is

(4.2)
$$_{(p,V)}=\text{span}\{X+\frac{1}{2}Y,A+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}\theta B\}.$$

To verify this, use equation 4.1 to show that both of these vectors are $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$perpendicular to $`Y`$, $`B`$, and $`\widehat{r}`$.

Equation 4.2 allows a simple description of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$-parallel transportation in $`\nu (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Namely, suppose that $`\gamma `$ is a geodesic segment in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`\gamma (0)=p`$. Using the $`g`$-parallel identification $`^3=\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\nu _{\gamma (t)}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, we can think of the parallel transport of $`V\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ along $`\gamma `$ as a path, $`V(t)`$, in $`^3`$. If $`𝒰\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is perpendicular to the plane in which $`\gamma `$ lies, then $`V(t)`$ is the result of rotating $`V`$ an angle of $`t/2`$ about the axis determined by $`𝒰`$. In other words, parallel transport rotates $`^3`$ along with $`\gamma `$, but at half the speed. The Lemma follows easily. ∎

###### Lemma 4.2.

The soul is a round sphere with constant curvature $`2`$.

###### Proof.

As before, let $`T_1,T_2,T_3T_{(p,0)}(S^2\times ^3)`$ denote the values at $`(p,0)`$ of the Killing fields associated with an orthonormal basis $`E_1,E_2,E_3`$ of $`\text{so}(3)`$. If the $`E_i`$’s are chosen as before, then $`T_2=0`$ and $`\{T_1,T_3\}`$ form a $`g`$-orthonormal basis of $`T_pS^2T_{(p,0)}(S^2\times ^3)`$. So $`T_1,T_3_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=0`$ and for $`i=1,3`$, $`|T_i|_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=|T_i|_g/\sqrt{1+|T_i|_g}=1/\sqrt{2}`$. In other words, the metric on the soul is the unit-round metric with the norms of all vectors rescaled by a factor of $`1/\sqrt{2}`$. This metric has constant curvature $`2`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.3.

The intrinsic metric on a fiber of the Sharafutdinov map $`\pi :M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is $`S^1`$-invariant. Any two such fibers are isometric.

###### Proof.

Using notation from the proof of Lemma 4.1, a $`g`$-orthonormal basis for the tangent space to the fiber $`F_p=\pi ^1(p)`$ at $`(p,V)`$ is $`\{Y,B,\widehat{r}\}`$. By equation 4.1,

$$Y,Y_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=2/3,Y,B_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=0,B,B_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=\frac{2}{4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }.$$

Therefore, the metric on the distance sphere of radius $`1`$ about $`p`$ in $`F_p`$ is $`S^1`$-invariant and independent of $`p`$. But nothing essential changes in the proof of Lemma 4.1 if you take $`V`$ to have norm other than 1, so distance spheres of other radii about $`p`$ in $`F_p`$ are also $`S^1`$-invariant, so $`F_p`$ is $`S^1`$-invariant. The fixed vector of the $`S^1`$-symmetry is $`p`$. ∎

The $`S^1`$-symmetry of the fibers implies that the curvature of a vertical 2-plane $`\sigma `$ at a point $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ depends only the angle $`\theta `$ that $`\sigma `$ makes with $`p`$. We leave it to the reader to verify that planes containing $`p`$ have curvature $`3`$, while the plane orthogonal to $`p`$ has curvature $`3/2`$, so

(4.3)
$$k(\sigma )=3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta .$$

Next we describe the curvature tensor $`R^{}`$ of the connection $``$ in the normal bundle of the soul.

###### Lemma 4.4.

Let $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, let $`\{X,Y\}`$ be an oriented orthonormal basis of $`T_p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and let $`V\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Letting “$`\times `$” denote the vector cross product in $`^3`$, and using the natural identification $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=S^2^3=\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, we have:

$$R^{}(X,Y)V=\frac{3}{2}V\times p.$$

In particular, $`|R^{}|=\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`R^{}(X,Y)p=0`$.

Although we could prove Lemma 4.4 directly from equation 4.2, we find it simpler and more illuminating to prove a more general formula in the next section.

## 5. A family of connections in a trivial $`^3`$-bundle

In this section, we study a natural family of connections in the trivial $`^3`$-bundle over a manifold $`B^n`$.

Let $`f:B^nS^2`$ denote any smooth function. Let $`\lambda `$ be any real number. There is a connection, $``$, in the trivial vector bundle $`B^n\times ^3`$ naturally associated with $`\{f,\lambda \}`$ as follows. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:TS^2so(3)`$ denote the canonical map, which can be described algebraically as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(p,X)(W)=(p\times X)\times W=p,WXX,Wp.$$

Then $`𝒟=\mathrm{\Phi }df:TB^nso(3)`$ is a connection difference form; that is, $`𝒟`$ is a $`so(3)`$-valued one-form on $`B^n`$. So if $`\overline{}`$ denotes the flat connection on $`B^n\times ^3`$, then

$$=\overline{}+\lambda 𝒟$$

is a connection on $`B^n\times ^3`$.

###### Lemma 5.1.

The connection in the normal bundle of the soul of

$$((S^2,\text{round})\times (^3,g_f)\times (\text{SO}(3),g_B))/SO(3)$$

is determined as above by the identity map $`f:S^2S^2`$, with $`\lambda =1/2`$.

###### Proof.

This follows immediately from equation 4.2. ∎

Thinking of $`f`$ as a unit-length section of the bundle, the next lemma says that the curvature tensor, $`R^{}`$, of $``$ vanishes along $`f`$, and the norm of $`R^{}`$ depends on the area-distortion of $`f`$. Notice that Lemma 4.4 is a corollary of Lemma 5.2 and Lemma 4.2.

###### Lemma 5.2.

Let $`pB^n`$, $`X,YT_pB^n`$ and $`W^3`$. Define $`\overline{X}=df_pX`$ and $`\overline{Y}=df_pY`$. Then

$$R^{}(X,Y)W=\lambda (\lambda +2)\left(\overline{X},W\overline{Y}\overline{Y},W\overline{X}\right).$$

In particular, $`R^{}(X,Y)f(p)=0`$ and $`|R^{}(X,Y)|=|\lambda ^2+2\lambda ||\overline{X}\overline{Y}|`$.

###### Proof.

Extend $`\{X,Y\}`$ to local vector fields on $`B^n`$ which commute at $`p`$. Extend $`W`$ to a $`\overline{}`$-parallel section of the bundle. Let $`\overline{p}=f(p)`$. Then

$`R^{}(X,Y)W`$ $`=`$ $`_X_YW_Y_XW`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda (_X𝒟_YW_Y𝒟_XW)`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda (\overline{}_X𝒟_YW\overline{}_Y𝒟_XW)+\lambda ^2(𝒟_X𝒟_YW𝒟_Y𝒟_XW).`$
We have at $`p`$ that:

$$𝒟_YW=(\overline{p}\times \overline{Y})\times W=\overline{p},W\overline{Y}\overline{Y},W\overline{p},$$

so

$$𝒟_X𝒟_YW=\overline{p},𝒟_YW\overline{X}\overline{X},𝒟_YW\overline{p}=\overline{Y},W\overline{X}\overline{p},W\overline{X},\overline{Y}p,$$

and therefore,

$$𝒟_X𝒟_YW𝒟_Y𝒟_XW=\overline{X},W\overline{Y}\overline{Y},W\overline{X}.$$

Next let $`p(t)`$ denote a path in $`B^n`$ with $`p(0)=p`$ and $`p^{}(0)=X`$. It is convenient to let $`\overline{p}(t)=f(p(t))`$ and $`\overline{Y}(t)=df_{p(t)}(Y(p(t)))`$. then,

$$(𝒟_YW)_{p(t)}=(\overline{p}(t)\times \overline{Y}(t))\times W=\overline{p}(t),W\overline{Y}(t)\overline{Y}(t),W\overline{p}(t)$$

So at $`p`$,

$`\overline{}_X𝒟_YW`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D}{dt}}|_{t=0}\left(\overline{p}(t),W\overline{Y}(t)\overline{Y}(t),W\overline{p}(t)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{X},W\overline{Y}+\overline{p},W\overline{Y}^{}(0)\overline{Y}^{}(0),W\overline{p}\overline{Y},W\overline{X}.`$
Therefore,

$`\overline{}_X𝒟_YW\overline{}_Y𝒟_XW`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{X},W\overline{Y}2\overline{Y},W\overline{X}`$
$`+\overline{X}^{}(0)\overline{Y}^{}(0),W\overline{p}\overline{p},W(\overline{X}^{}(0)\overline{Y}^{}(0))`$
$`=`$ $`2\overline{X},W\overline{Y}2\overline{Y},W\overline{X}`$
The last equality is justified because $`[X,Y](p)=0`$ implies that $`[\overline{X},\overline{Y}](\overline{p})=0`$, which in turn implies that $`\overline{X}^{}(0)\overline{Y}^{}(0)`$ is parallel to $`\overline{p}`$. This completes the proof. ∎

We end this section by mentioning a few interesting properties of the connection associated with $`\{f,\lambda \}`$. If $`\lambda =0`$, then $``$ is clearly flat. By Lemma 5.2, if $`\lambda =2`$ then $``$ is flat, which is perhaps less obvious. Regarding $`f`$ as a unit-length section of the bundle, the covariant derivative of $`f`$ in the direction $`XT_pB^n`$ is

(5.1)
$$_Xf=\overline{}_Xf+\lambda 𝒟_Xf(p)=\overline{X}+\lambda (f(p)\times \overline{X})\times f(p)=\overline{X}+\lambda \overline{X}=(1+\lambda )\overline{X},$$

where $`\overline{X}=df_pX`$. So if $`\lambda =1`$, then $`f`$ is a parallel section, and hence the holonomy group of $``$ is isomorphic to $`S^1`$. Thus, $`\lambda `$ plays a significant role along with $`f`$ in determining the qualitative geometric properties of $``$.

## 6. Rigidity with $`S^1`$-invariant Sharafutdinov fibers

In this section, we show that for a class of metrics more general than connection metrics, the inequality of Proposition 1.1 forces some rigidity for the metric at the soul. As before, $`M`$ will denote the space $`S^2\times ^3`$ together with a metric of nonnegative curvature, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will denote a soul of $`M`$, and $``$ will denote the connection in the normal bundle $`\nu (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. In the remainder of this section, we make the following assumptions:

1. $`M`$ has a curvature nullity section, i.e., a global unit-length section $`W`$ of $`\nu (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ such that $`R^{}(,)W(p)=0`$ for all $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.
2. The sectional curvature of a 2-plane $`\sigma \nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ depends only on the angle that $`\sigma `$ forms with $`W(p)`$.

The first assumption is true in all known examples. To understand its content, define $`F:\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as the norm of $`R^{}`$. Let $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a point at which $`F(p)0`$. Let $`X,YT_p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be an oriented orthonormal basis. Since $`R^{}(X,Y):\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a skew-symmetric endomorphism of a $`3`$-dimensional vector space, there is a unit-length vector $`W(p)\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ such that $`R^{}(X,Y)W(p)=0`$. If $`F>0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, then a global unit-length section of $`\nu (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, $`pW(p)`$, can be constructed. In this case, there is a complimentary bundle

$$^2W^{}=\{U\nu (\mathrm{\Sigma }):U,W=0\}\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$

Even in known examples where $`F`$ is not strictly positive, it is always possible to find a curvature nullity section $`W`$, and therefore to define $`W^{}`$. In general, $`W`$ is not a parallel section.

For example, if $``$ is determined by $`\{f:S^2S^2,\lambda \}`$ as in section 5, then $`f`$ is a curvature nullity section, and the isomorphism class of the complimentary bundle depends on the mapping degree of $`f`$. If $`f`$ is a diffeomorphism, then the complimentary bundle is isomorphic to $`TS^2`$. As a second example, if $`M`$ has normal holonomy group $`S^1`$, then there is a parallel curvature nullity section. In the connection metrics of Proposition 1.2, the isomorphism class of the complimentary bundle depends on the even integer $`k`$.

The second assumption says that each fiber looks at the soul as if it admits an isometric $`S^1`$ actions with fixed direction $`W`$. This is true in the example of Section 4. If $`U,V\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ are orthonormal vectors orthogonal to $`W=W(p)`$, the second assumption implies $`R(U,V)W=R(U,W)V=0`$. It also implies that $`g_0(p)=R(W,U,U,W)`$ and $`g_1(p)=R(U,V,V,U)`$ describe well-defined functions $`g_0,g_1:\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Compare with equation 4.3, where $`g_0`$ and $`g_1`$ are constant. Proposition 1.2 implies the following relationships between these functions:

###### Proposition 6.1.

Let $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and let $`XT_p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be unit-length. Define $`a(X)=|_XW|`$, and let $`k_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denote the Gauss curvature of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then,

$$(XF)^2k_\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(F^2+\frac{2}{3}\text{hess}_{g_1}(X,X)\frac{4a(X)^2}{3}(g_1g_0)\right)$$

$$a(X)^2F^2\frac{2}{3}k_\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\text{hess}_{g_0}(X,X)+2a(X)^2(g_1g_0)\right)$$

$$0\frac{2}{3}k_\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\text{hess}_{g_0}(X,X)\right)$$

###### Proof.

Let $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`XT_p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`|X|=1`$. Let $`V=(_XW)/a(X)`$ if $`a(X)0`$; otherwise let $`V\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ be an arbitrary unit-length vector orthogonal to $`W`$. Let $`U\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ be such that $`\{U,V,W\}`$ is an orthonormal basis of $`W`$. Choose $`YT_p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ so that $`\{X,Y\}`$ forms an oriented orthonormal basis. For $`E_1,E_2\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, Define $`G(X,E_1,E_2)`$ as

$$k_\mathrm{\Sigma }(|R^{}(E_1,E_2)X|^2+(2/3)(D_{X,X}R)(E_1,E_2,E_2,E_1))(D_XR^{})(X,Y)E_1,E_2^2,$$

which is the right side minus the left side of the inequality of Proposition 1.1. The inequalities of the proposition come from: $`G(X,U,V)0`$, $`G(X,U,W)0`$ and $`G(X,V,W)0`$.

Notice that $`|R^{}(W,U)X|=|R^{}(W,V)X|=0`$, while $`|R^{}(U,V)X|=F`$. Next, extending $`U`$ and $`V`$ to be parallel along the path in the direction of $`X`$, it’s easy to see that:

$`(D_XR^{})(X,Y)W,V`$ $`=`$ $`R^{}(X,Y)(_XW),V=0`$
$`(D_XR^{})(X,Y)W,U`$ $`=`$ $`R^{}(X,Y)(_XW),U=a(X)F`$
It remains to compute $`(D_XR^{})(X,Y)U,V`$ and the three terms involving $`(D_{X,X}R)`$. For this we must find nice extensions of the vectors $`\{U,V,W\}`$ in the direction $`X`$. Let $`\alpha (t)`$ be the geodesic in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`\alpha (0)=p`$ and $`\alpha ^{}(0)=X`$. Let $`W(t)=W(\alpha (t))`$. For a first try, let $`U(t)`$ and $`V(t)`$ be arbitrary extensions of $`U`$ and $`V`$ along $`\alpha (t)`$ so that $`\{U(t),V(t),W(t)\}`$ is orthonormal for all $`t`$.

By choice of $`V=V(0)`$, we have $`W^{}(0)=aV(0)`$, where $`a=a(X)`$. Also, $`V^{}(0)=aW+bU`$ and $`U^{}(0)=bV`$ for some $`b`$ depending on the choice of extensions. We can improve our choice of extensions to achieve $`b=0`$ by defining:

$`\stackrel{~}{U}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi (t))U(t)+\mathrm{sin}(\varphi (t))V(t)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{V}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi (t))U(t)+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi (t))V(t),`$
where $`\varphi (0)=0`$, $`\varphi ^{}(0)=b`$, and $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(0)=V^{\prime \prime }(0),U=U^{\prime \prime }(0),V`$. It is straightforward to compute that $`\stackrel{~}{U}^{}(0)=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{}(0)=aW`$, $`\stackrel{~}{U}^{\prime \prime }(0)V`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{\prime \prime }(0)U`$. To simplify notation, omit the tilde’s. Using these extensions,

$$(D_XR^{})(X,Y)U,V=XFR^{}(X,Y)U^{}(0),VR^{}(X,Y)U,V^{}(0)=XF.$$

The proposition will follow once we verify that:

$`(D_{X,X}R)(U,V,V,U)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{hess}_{g_1}(X,X)2a^2(g_1g_0)`$
$`(D_{X,X}R)(W,U,U,W)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{hess}_{g_0}(X,X)+2a^2(g_1g_0)`$
$`(D_{X,X}R)(V,W,W,V)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{hess}_{g_0}(X,X)`$
Since the arguments are similar, we verify the third equality, leaving the first two to the reader.

$`(D_{X,X}R)(V,W,W,V)`$ $`=`$ $`X((D_XR)(V,W,W,V))2(D_XR)(V^{}(0),W,W,V)`$
$`2(D_XR)(V,W^{}(0),W,V)`$
$`=`$ $`X((D_XR)(V,W,W,V))00`$
$`=`$ $`\text{hess}_{g_0}(X,X)2XR(V^{},W,W,V)2XR(V,W^{},W,V),`$
Where the last two terms simplify as follows:

$`XR(V^{},W,W,V)`$ $`=`$ $`(D_XR)(V^{}(0),W,W,V)+R(V^{\prime \prime }(0),W,W,V)`$
$`+R(V^{}(0),W^{}(0),W,V)+R(V^{}(0),W,W^{}(0),V)`$
$`+R(V^{}(0),W,W,V^{}(0))`$
$`=`$ $`0+V^{\prime \prime }(0),Vg_0a^2R(W,V,W,V)+0+0`$
$`=`$ $`a^2g_0+a^2g_0=0`$
$`XR(V,W^{},W,V)`$ $`=`$ $`(D_XR)(V,W^{}(0),W,V)+R(V^{}(0),W^{}(0),W,V)`$
$`+R(V(0),W^{\prime \prime }(0),W,V)+R(V,W^{}(0),W^{}(0),V)`$
$`+R(V,W^{}(0),W,V^{}(0))`$
$`=`$ $`0a^2R(W,V,W,V)+W^{\prime \prime }(0),Wg_0+0+0`$
$`=`$ $`a^2g_0a^2g_0=0`$
From the third inequality of Proposition 6.1 we immediately learn the following, with $`G`$ defined as in the previous proof:

###### Corollary 6.2.

$`g_0`$ is a constant function, and $`G(X,W,V)=0`$. Hence, the inequality of Proposition 1.1 is not quasi-strict.

In the example of section 4, the first and second inequalities of Proposition 6.1 are both strictly satisfied. In fact, $`\text{span}\{W,V\}`$ is the unique plane for which $`G(X,W,V)=0`$. We therefore do not expect any rigidity to follow from the first and second inequalities. However, we do get further rigidity from the fact that $`G(X,,)0`$ for planes very near $`\text{span}\{W,V\}`$. We use this idea to prove:

###### Lemma 6.3.

Let $`\alpha (t)`$ be a geodesic in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let $`W(t)=W(\alpha (t))`$ denote the curvature nullity section restricted to $`\alpha `$. Then $`W^{\prime \prime }(t)\text{span}\{W(t),W^{}(t)\}`$ for all $`t`$.

The lemma means that, even though $`W`$ is not parallel, there is a parallel 2-plane containing $`W`$ along any geodesic; namely, the plane spanned by $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`p=\alpha (0)`$ and $`X=\alpha ^{}(0)`$, which we can assume is unit-length. Define $`U,V\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ as in the proof of Proposition 6.1, so that $`V`$ is parallel to $`W^{}(0)`$. An arbitrary 2-plane $`\sigma \nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is spanned by orthonormal vectors $`E_1,E_2`$ of the form:

$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`a_1W+b_1U+c_1V=(\mathrm{cos}\theta )W+0U+(\mathrm{sin}\theta )V`$
$`E_2`$ $`=`$ $`a_2W+b_2U+c_2V=(\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta )W+(\mathrm{cos}\varphi )U+(\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\theta )V`$
Here, $`E_2`$ is an arbitrary unit-vector expressed in spherical coordinates, and $`E_1`$ is the unit-vector in the $`WV`$-plane orthogonal to $`E_2`$. Defining $`G`$ as in the previous proof,

$`G(X,E_1,E_2)`$
$`=`$ $`(b_1c_2b_2c_1)^2G(X,U,V)+(a_1b_2a_2b_1)^2G(X,W,U)`$
$`2(b_1c_2c_1b_2)(a_1b_2a_2b_1)(D_XR^{})(X,Y)U,V^2(D_XR^{})(X,Y)W,U^2`$
$`(4/3)b_1b_2(a_1a_2)(c_2c_1)(D_{X,X}R)(U,V,U,W)`$
$`(4/3)c_1c_2(a_1a_2)(b_2b_1)(D_{X,X}R)(U,V,W,V)`$
$`(4/3)(a_1^2c_2^2+a_2^2c_1^22a_1a_2c_1c_2)(D_{X,X}R)(W,V,V,W).`$
Denote $`G(\varphi ,\theta )=G(X,E_1,E_2)`$. Notice that $`G(\pi /2,\theta )=G(X,W,V)=0`$. It’s straightforward to compute that:

$$\frac{dG}{d\varphi }(\pi /2,\theta )=(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}^3\theta )(D_{X,X}R)(U,V,W,V)0.$$

Using an argument similar to the proof of Proposition 6.1, we see that:

$$(D_{X,X}R)(U,V,W,V)=(g_1g_0)W^{\prime \prime }(0),U.$$

The trigonometric expression changes sign as $`\theta `$ varies, so the only possibility is that $`(g_1g_0)W^{\prime \prime }(0),U=0`$. But we can see from Proposition 6.1 that $`g_1g_0>0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, so $`W^{\prime \prime }(0),U=0`$, which completes the proof. ∎

Lemma 6.3 has a strong corollary in the special case where the connection in the normal bundle of the soul is of the type described in section 5:

###### Corollary 6.4.

If $``$ is induced by some diffeomorphism $`f:S^2S^2`$ and some $`\lambda `$, as described in section 5, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is round and $`f`$ is the identity function.

###### Proof.

Let $`\alpha (t)`$ be a geodesic in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and consider $`W(t)=W(\alpha (t))=f(\alpha (t))`$, which we could think of as a section of $`\nu (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ along $`\alpha `$ or as a path in $`S^2(1)`$. Using equation 5.1, taking one more derivative, and comparing to Lemma 6.3, we get that $`f(\alpha (t))`$ has no geodesic curvature. In other words, $`f(\alpha (t))`$ is a (possibly reparameterized) geodesic on the round sphere $`S^2(1)`$. Since $`f:\mathrm{\Sigma }S^2(1)`$ maps geodesics to paths whose images are geodesics, it follows that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ must be a round sphere of some radius, and $`f`$ must be the identity map from $`S^2`$ to $`S^2`$. ∎


format: text

text:
# The Extra-Solar Planet Imager (ESPI)

## 1. Introduction

Since the first detection of a planet orbiting another star, the presence of more than 100 other extra-solar planets has been inferred from the small reflex motions that they gravitationally induce on the star they orbit; these result in small, but detectable, periodic wavelength shifts in the stellar spectrum. Radial velocity favors the detection of massive, Jupiter-class objects orbiting close to the star, leaving open the question of whether the architecture of our solar system in which the giant planets occupy orbits $``$ 5 AU from the star is common or rare. This distinction is important since it is believed that giant planets cannot form close to a star and must spiral in from a much more distant radius, disrupting the stable orbits of any terrestrial planets in their path. In this way, the arrangement of giant planets around a star is related to the probability that that star harbors Earth-like planets in stable orbits at radii that allow for the presence of liquid water and possibly life.

## 2. ESPI Scientific Objectives

The scientific objective of the baseline 3-year ESPI mission is to directly image and characterize extra-solar giant planets in $`5`$ AU-radius orbits around 160-175 candidate stars, all of which are brighter than apparent magnitude V = 8 and lie within 16 parsecs of Earth; five of the nearest stars also offer an opportunity for detecting terrestrial-type planets. As shown in Figure 1, ESPI will successfully image planets whose orbital periods range up to 30 years, providing unique access to the outer regions of exoplanetary systems.

Most of these systems could be observed in 18 months, leaving 18 months for follow-up studies to confirm common proper motion (used to distinguish a planet from a chance background source) and to fit partial orbits to derive orbital parameters (in conjunction with precise radial velocity measurements). ESPI will also obtain spectroscopic and photometric measurements of several of the brightest planets found.

A variety of different conditions and chemical processes in the atmospheres of extra-solar planets is anticipated, making spectroscopy in the 5000 to 10,000 $`\AA `$ region essential, even if only a handful of the ESPI-discovered planets are sufficiently bright to permit it. If Jupiter-like planets with orbital radii $``$ 5 AU are common, the ESPI mission may yield two or three dozen detections of planets toward which filter spectrophotometry should be possible, and a further dozen with sufficient signal-to-noise ratios, SNR, to permit low resolution ($`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ 40) spectroscopy at SNR $``$ 8 to 9. Even these limited capabilities will permit ESPI to distinguish the albedo of planets with spectra similar to that of Jupiter, as contrasted to Uranus. The methane band at 9000 $`\AA `$ and the continuum breakbetween Jupiter-like gas giants and Uranus-like ice giants near 6000 $`\AA `$ are clearly detectable.

## 3. Technical Approach

ESPI uses an Apodized Square Aperture (ASA) to achieve the high dynamic range required for exoplanet imaging. The ESPI optical design employs an unobscured primary mirror in an off-axis Cassegrain configuration. An ASA transmission mask is located close to the focal plane along with a coronagraphic blocker at the focus. The ASA mask has the form of the product of two crossed prolate spheroidal (PS) functions. The PS functions are chosen to minimize diffraction close to the central peak and to maximize overall transmission through the mask(Papoulis, 1973). The ASA technique is described in detail in Nisenson and Papaliolios, 2001, Ap. J., 548, L201.

Figure 2 shows (a) Cuts through two versions of prolate spheroid apodization functions. (b) Three point spread functions from PS apodization adjusted for different throughputs and diffraction suppression: 48% (top), 33% (middle), and 23% (bottom). (c) Effect of random transmission errors on the psf. (d) Effect of random phase errors (flat spectrum at mid-frequencies, $`1/f^2`$ at higher frequencies). In panels b, c, and d, off-diagonal separations of $`\pm 3\lambda /D`$ are shown with vertical dashed lines.

The ESPI dynamic range will be limited by scattered light from the optical surfaces, not diffraction. Figure 3 is a result of an accurate computer simulation showing how ESPI could detect planetary systems: (a) The PS apodized aperture. (b) Two giant planets as seen with ESPI (no wavefront aberration) from 10 pc with the inner planet 1/2 Jupiter diameter and 2.5 AU from star and the outer planet 1 Jupiter at 5 AU from star. Note the suppression of diffraction everywhere except along the central cross (which is blocked). (c) ESPI image with 1/1000 wave optical quality for 5th magnitude star, 1 hour integration. (d) Image after subtraction of a field with no planets. For spectroscopy, rotation of the telescope allows locating a dark speckle in the position of the planet, improving the signal- to-noise ratio of the observation.

We have also tested the ESPI apodization approach in the laboratory. Using pairs of point sources and a superpolished imaging mirror, we have demonstrated detecting contrasts of $`3\times 10^9`$ between the “star” and a “planet” separated by $`6\times \lambda /D`$ is possible.

## 4. Summary

ESPI has been proposed for direct imaging and spectral analysis of giant planets orbiting solar-type stars. It also permits unique observations of many Galactic, extragalactic and cosmological sources. ESPI has an off-axis cassegrain design with a square telescope mirror. The apodization mask is located near the telescope focus and is optimized for transmission and for the narrowness of the central peak of the PSF, since this sets the angular resolution of the system. ESPI would be capable of detecting Jupiter-like planets in relatively long-period orbits around as many as 160 to 175 stars with a signal-to-noise ratio $``$ 5. In addition to the survey, ESPI will also study a few of the brightest discovered planets spectroscopically and spectro-photometrically to distinguish ice giants like Uranus and Neptune from gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, and to determine whether super-Earth and super-Venus planets exist.

## References

Nisenson, P. and Papaliolios, C. 2001, ApJ, 548L.

Papoulis, A. 1986, Systems and transforms with applications in optics (New York: McGraw-Hill).

## 5. Figure Captions

Figure 1 - Discovery Space for ESPI

Figure 2 - Apodizing Functions and PSF’s for ESPI

Figure 3 - Simulation of ESPI Planet Detection


text:
# Charmonium absorption in the meson-exchange model Supported by NSF Grant PHY-0088934 and Welch Foundation Grant A-1358.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Suppression of charmonium production in high energy heavy ion collisions is one of the most discussed possible signals for the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) that is expected to be formed in these collisions . Recent data from the Pb+Pb collision at $`P_{\mathrm{lab}}=158`$ GeV$`/c`$ in the NA50 experiment at CERN-SPS  have indeed shown an anomalously large $`J/\psi `$ suppression in events with moderate to large transverse energy. Although this anomalous suppression may very likely be due to the formation of the QGP , the conventional mechanism based on $`J/\psi `$ absorption by comoving hadrons has also been shown to contribute significantly to the observed suppression if the absorption cross sections are taken to be a few mb . For heavy ion collisions at RHIC where the number of charm mesons per event increases appreciably from SPS, these hadronic processes and their inverse reactions may even lead to a net production of $`J/\psi `$ during the hadronic stage of the collisions .

Since there is no empirical information on the cross sections for charmonium absorption by light hadrons, theoretical models are needed to determine their values. These include the perturbative QCD method, the quark-interchange model, and the meson-exchange model. In the perturbative QCD approach , charmonia are dissociated by the gluons from the colliding light hadron. The predicted $`J/\psi `$ dissociation cross section is found to increase monotonously with the kinetic energy $`E_{\mathrm{kin}}\sqrt{s}m_hm_\psi `$ but has a value of only about $`0.1`$ mb at $`E_{\mathrm{kin}}0.8`$ GeV. In the quark-interchange model, both the charmonium and the light hadron are treated as composites of constituent quarks, and the absorption of charmonium is via the interchange of the charm quark in the charmonium with the light quark in the light hadron. An earlier study  based on this model gives a $`J/\psi `$ absorption cross section by pion that has a peak value of about $`7`$ mb at the kinetic energy of $`0.8`$ GeV. Later studies  predict, however, a peak value of only $`1`$ mb at the same kinetic energy. In both cases, the cross sections are much greater than that obtained from the perturbative QCD method.

In the meson-exchange model, the cross sections between charmonia and hadrons are evaluated using effective hadronic Lagrangians derived from the SU(4) flavor symmetry. In the first application of this model, only interaction Lagrangians involving pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar-vector-meson couplings are included . Without employing form factors at the interaction vertices, the resulting cross section for $`J/\psi `$ absorption by pion is about 0.3 mb at the kinetic energy of 0.8 GeV. In later more complete studies, both three-vector-meson and four-point couplings are also included in the interaction Lagrangians , and much larger cross sections are obtained for $`J/\psi `$ absorption by light hadrons. In contrast to the perturbative QCD approach and the quark-interchange model, form factors are needed at the interaction vertices in the meson-exchange model to take into account the finite size of hadrons. The cross sections for $`J/\psi `$ absorption by light hadrons depend sensitively on the form factors. Although there are some studies of the form factors involving charmed hadrons , the monopole form factors with cutoff parameters of about 1 GeV have been used in most meson-exchange model calculations. The resulting cross sections are a few mb, which are somewhat larger than those from the quark-interchange model but much greater than that from the perturbative QCD method.

In the following, we shall review in more detail the meson-exchange model and its predictions on the cross sections for $`J/\psi `$ absorption by hadrons. We shall also discuss the effects due to anomalous parity interactions, uncertainties in form factors, constraints from chiral symmetry, and the change of charmed meson mass in medium.

## 2 THE MESON-EXCHANGE MODEL

### 2.1 The effective Lagrangian

To obtain the interaction Lagrangians for charmonia and charmed mesons with the least number of free parameters, we start with the free Lagrangian for pseudoscalar and vector mesons in the SU(4) limit, i.e.,

$`_0=\mathrm{Tr}\left(_\mu P^{}^\mu P\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(F_{\mu \nu }^{}F^{\mu \nu }\right),`$ (1)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu V_\nu _\nu V_\mu `$, and $`P`$ and $`V`$ denote, respectively, the properly normalized $`4\times 4`$ pseudoscalar and vector meson matrices in SU(4) :

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\eta }{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\eta _c}{\sqrt{12}}& \pi ^+& K^+& \overline{D^0}\\ \pi ^{}& \frac{\pi ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\eta }{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\eta _c}{\sqrt{12}}& K^0& D^{}\\ K^{}& \overline{K^0}& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\eta +\frac{\eta _c}{\sqrt{12}}& D_s^{}\\ D^0& D^+& D_s^+& \frac{3\eta _c}{\sqrt{12}}\end{array}\right),`$ (6)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{\rho ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\omega ^{}}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{J/\psi }{\sqrt{12}}& \rho ^+& K^+& \overline{D^0}\\ \rho ^{}& \frac{\rho ^0}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\omega ^{}}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{J/\psi }{\sqrt{12}}& K^0& D^{}\\ K^{}& \overline{K^0}& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\omega ^{}+\frac{J/\psi }{\sqrt{12}}& D_s^{}\\ D^0& D^+& D_s^+& \frac{3J/\psi }{\sqrt{12}}\end{array}\right).`$ (11)
The couplings between pseudoscalar mesons and vector mesons are obtained through the minimal substitution by replacing the partial derivatives with the covariant derivatives, i.e.,

$`_\mu P𝒟_\mu P=_\mu P{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}\left[V_\mu P\right],F_{\mu \nu }_\mu V_\nu _\nu V_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}[V_\mu ,V_\nu ].`$ (12)
The effective Lagrangian is then given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`_0+{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(^\mu P[P^{},V_\mu ^{}]+^\mu P^{}[P,V_\mu ]\right){\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}\left([P^{},V_\mu ^{}][P,V^\mu ]\right)`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(^\mu V^\nu [V_\mu ^{},V_\nu ^{}]+_\mu V_\nu ^{}[V^\mu ,V^\nu ]\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{8}}\mathrm{Tr}\left([V^\mu ,V^\nu ][V_\mu ^{},V_\nu ^{}]\right).`$
Hermiticity of $`P`$ and $`V`$ reduces the above Lagrangian to

$``$ $`=`$ $`_0+ig\mathrm{Tr}\left(^\mu P[P,V_\mu ]\right){\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}\left([P,V_\mu ]^2\right)`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`ig\mathrm{Tr}\left(^\mu V^\nu [V_\mu ,V_\nu ]\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{8}}\mathrm{Tr}\left([V_\mu ,V_\nu ]^2\right).`$
Since the SU(4) symmetry is explicitly broken by hadron masses, terms involving hadron masses are added to Eq.(14) using the experimentally determined values. The above effective Lagrangian can also be derived from the chiral Lagrangian, which includes both vector and axial vector fields, with the axial vector fields removed by gauge transformations .

With this effective Lagrangian, various reactions involving charmed mesons and $`J/\psi `$ have been studied. These include charmed meson scattering such as $`\pi D\rho D^{}`$  and charmonium absorption such as $`\pi \psi D\overline{D}^{}`$ . Extension of the effective hadronic Lagrangian to SU(5) flavor symmetry allows one to study also $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ absorption by hadrons .

For $`J/\psi `$ absorption by $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ mesons, there are following processes:

$`\pi \psi D^{}\overline{D},\pi \psi D\overline{D^{}},\rho \psi D\overline{D},\rho \psi D^{}\overline{D^{}}.`$ (15)
Their diagrams are shown in Figure 1 except the process $`\pi \psi D\overline{D^{}}`$ which has the same cross section as the process $`\pi \psi D^{}\overline{D}`$.

As an example, we consider explicitly the first process $`\pi \psi D^{}\overline{D}`$. Its full amplitude, without isospin factors and before summing and averaging over external spins, is given by

$`_1_1^{\nu \lambda }ϵ_{2\nu }ϵ_{3\lambda }=\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=a,b,c}{}}_{1i}^{\nu \lambda }\right)ϵ_{2\nu }ϵ_{3\lambda },`$ (16)
with

$`_{1a}^{\nu \lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\pi DD^{}}g_{\psi DD}(2p_1+p_3)^\lambda \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_D^2}}\right)(p_1p_3+p_4)^\nu ,`$
$`_{1b}^{\nu \lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\pi DD^{}}g_{\psi D^{}D^{}}(p_1p_4)^\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_D^{}^2}}\right)\left[g_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1p_4)_\alpha (p_1p_4)_\beta }{m_D^{}^2}}\right]`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[(p_2p_3)^\beta g^{\nu \lambda }+(p_1+p_2+p_4)^\lambda g^{\beta \nu }+(p_1+p_3p_4)^\nu g^{\beta \lambda }\right],`$
$`_{1c}^{\nu \lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\pi \psi DD^{}}g^{\nu \lambda }.`$ (17)
In the above, $`p_j`$ denotes the momentum of particle $`j`$, with particles $`1`$ and $`2`$ representing initial-state mesons while particles $`3`$ and $`4`$ representing final-state mesons on the left and right sides of the diagrams shown in Figure 1, respectively. The indices $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$, $`\lambda `$, and $`\omega `$ denote the polarization components of external particles while the indices $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ denote those of the exchanged mesons.

After averaging (summing) over initial (final) spins and including isospin factors, the cross section is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _1}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96\pi sp_{i,\mathrm{cm}}^2}}_1^{\nu \lambda }_1^{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}\left(g_{\nu \nu ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{2\nu }p_{2\nu ^{}}}{m_2^2}}\right)\left(g_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{3\lambda }p_{3\lambda ^{}}}{m_3^2}}\right),`$ (18)
with $`s=(p_1+p_2)^2`$ and $`p_{i,\mathrm{cm}}`$ the momentum of initial-state mesons in the center-of-mass (c.m.) frame.

### 2.2 Current conservation

The effective Lagrangian in Eq. (14) is generated by minimal substitution and is thus equivalent to treating vector mesons as gauge particles. Both $`VVV`$ and four-point couplings in the Lagrangian are thus due to the gauge invariance . The gauge invariance also leads to current conservation conditions on the scattering amplitudes . In the limit of zero vector meson masses, degenerate pseudoscalar meson masses, and SU(4) invariant coupling constants, these conditions are

$`_n^{\lambda _k\mathrm{}\lambda _l}p_{j\lambda _j}=0,`$ (19)
with the index $`\lambda _j`$ denoting the external vector meson $`j`$ in the process $`n`$ shown in Figure 1. For example, we have $`_1^{\nu \lambda }p_{3\lambda }=0`$ and $`_3^{\mu \nu \lambda \omega }p_{2\nu }=0`$.

If the external vector meson is a member of the diagonal elements in the vector meson matrix $`V`$ in Eq. (11), such as the rho meson and $`J/\psi `$, the above current conservation condition is valid even for arbitrary hadron masses and coupling constants, reflecting the flavor conservation in strong interactions.

### 2.3 Coupling constants

In all studies based on the meson-exchange model, the coupling constants in the effective Lagrangian are determined as much as possible from the empirical information. For example, the coupling constant $`g_{\pi DD^{}}`$ is determined from the $`D^{}`$ decay width, given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D^{}\pi D}=g_{\pi DD^{}}^2p_f^3/(2\pi m_D^{}^2)`$, where $`p_f`$ is the momentum of final particles in the rest frame of $`D^{}`$. The recently measured width of $`96`$ keV from the CLEO experiment  then gives $`g_{\pi DD^{}}=5.6`$. However, an old value of $`g_{\pi DD^{}}=4.4`$  has been used in most studies. For other three-point coupling constants involving the rho meson or $`J/\psi `$, the vector meson dominance model has been used to relate them to the fine structure constant, i.e.,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\psi g_{\psi DD}}{m_\psi ^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e,{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\rho g_{\rho DD}}{m_\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\omega g_{\omega DD}}{m_\omega ^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e,{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\rho g_{\rho DD}}{m_\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\omega g_{\omega DD}}{m_\omega ^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e,`$ (20)
where $`\gamma _V`$ is related to the vector meson partial decay width to $`e^+e^{}`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Vee}=\alpha \gamma _V^2/(3m_V^3)`$. These relations then give

$`g_{\rho DD}=g_{\rho D^{}D^{}}=2.52,g_{\psi DD}=g_{\psi D^{}D^{}}=7.64.`$ (21)
Since there is no empirical information on the four-point coupling constants, relations derived from the SU(4) symmetry are thus used to determine their values in terms of the three-point coupling constants, i.e.,

$`g_{\pi \psi DD^{}}=g_{\pi DD^{}}g_{\psi DD},g_{\rho \psi DD}=2g_{\rho DD}g_{\psi DD},g_{\rho \psi D^{}D^{}}=g_{\rho D^{}D^{}}g_{\psi D^{}D^{}}.`$ (22)
### 2.4 Form factors

To take into account the composite nature of hadrons, form factors are needed at interaction vertices. In most studies, the form factors are taken to have the usual monopole form at the three-point $`t`$ channel and $`u`$ channel vertices, i.e.,

$`f_3={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+𝐪^2}},`$ (23)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cutoff parameter, and $`𝐪^2`$ is the squared three momentum transfer in the c.m. frame.

The form factor at four-point vertices is less known. In Ref.  and later in some other studies, it was taken to have the form

$`f_4=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2+\overline{𝐪}^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2+\overline{𝐪}^2}}\right).`$ (24)
In the above, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ are the two different cutoff parameters at the three-point vertices present in the process with the same initial and final particles, and $`\overline{𝐪}^2`$ is the average value of the squared three momentum transfers in $`t`$ and $`u`$ channels.

For simplicity, the same value has usually been used for all cutoff parameters, i.e.,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi DD^{}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\rho DD}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\rho D^{}D^{}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\psi DD}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\psi D^{}D^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (25)
and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is chosen as either $`1`$ or $`2`$ GeV to study the uncertainties of the resulting cross sections due to form factors.

### 2.5 Cross sections for charmonium absorption

Figure 2 shows the cross sections for $`J/\psi `$ absorption by $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ mesons as functions of the c.m. energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. The cross section $`\sigma _{\pi \psi }`$ includes contributions from both $`\pi \psi D\overline{D^{}}`$ and $`\pi \psi D^{}\overline{D}`$, which have same cross sections. Solid curves are the results obtained without form factors. The three $`J/\psi `$ absorption cross sections are seen to have very different energy dependence near the threshold energy. While $`\sigma _{\pi \psi }`$ increases monotonously with c.m. energy, the cross section for the process $`\rho \psi D\overline{D}`$ decreases rapidly with c.m. energy, and that for the process $`\rho \psi D^{}\overline{D}^{}`$ changes little with c.m. energy after an initial rapid increase near the threshold.

The results with form factors are shown by the short- and long-dashed curves for cutoff parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2`$ and 1 GeV, respectively. It is seen that form factors suppress strongly the cross sections and thus cause large uncertainties in their values. However, the absorption cross sections for $`J/\psi `$ remain appreciable after including form factors at interaction vertices. With $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ GeV, the values for $`\sigma _{\pi \psi }`$ and $`\sigma _{\rho \psi }`$ are roughly $`3`$ mb and $`2`$ mb, respectively, and are comparable to those used in phenomenological studies of $`J/\psi `$ absorption by comoving hadrons in relativistic heavy ion collisions .

## 3 DISCUSSIONS

### 3.1 Anomalous parity interactions

There are also anomalous parity interactions which contribute to $`J/\psi `$ absorption by light hadrons . These interactions can be introduced via a gauged Weiss-Zumino term in the interaction Lagrangian, and lead to interaction Lagrangians of the $`PVV`$, $`PPPV`$, and $`PVVV`$ types such as $`\pi D^{}D^{}`$, $`\rho DD^{}`$, $`DD^{}\psi `$, $`\pi DD\psi `$, $`\pi D^{}D^{}\psi `$, and $`\rho DD^{}\psi `$. As examples, we show a few in the following:

$`_{\pi D^{}D^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\pi D^{}D^{}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }_\mu D_\nu ^{}\pi _\alpha \overline{D}_{}^{}{}_{\beta }{}^{},`$
$`_{\pi DD\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{\pi DD\psi }ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\psi _\mu _\nu D_\alpha \pi _\beta \overline{D},`$
$`_{\pi D^{}D^{}\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{\pi D^{}D^{}\psi }ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\psi _\mu D_\nu ^{}_\alpha \pi \overline{D}_{}^{}{}_{\beta }{}^{}ih_{\pi D^{}D^{}\psi }ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }_\mu \psi _\nu D_\alpha ^{}\pi \overline{D}_{}^{}{}_{\beta }{}^{},`$ (26)
where $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ is the totally antisymmetric tensor with $`ϵ_{0123}=1`$.

As for the coupling constants in the normal interactions, the coupling constants in the anomalous parity interaction Lagrangians can mostly be determined from the vector dominance model and the SU(4) symmetry relations. The coupling constant for $`\pi D^{}D^{}`$ can, on the other hand, be be related to the $`\pi DD^{}`$ by the heavy quark spin symmetry, i.e., $`g_{\pi D^{}D^{}}\overline{M}(D)g_{\pi DD^{}}/2`$ with $`\overline{M}(D)`$ being the average mass of $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$.

The anomalous parity interactions give rise to many additional diagrams for $`J/\psi `$ absorption. As a result, the cross section for absorption by pion is increased by 50% although that by rho meson is not much affected . They also open up new absorption processes involving $`\eta _c`$ and/or $`b_1(1235)`$ in the final state, i.e., $`\pi \psi \eta _c\rho `$ and $`\pi \psi \eta _cb_1`$ via $`\omega `$ exchange . The coupling constant $`g_{\psi \eta _c\omega }`$ needed for evaluating these reactions can again be determined from the vector dominance model, and the cross sections are found to be comparable with those processes with charmed mesons in the final state.

### 3.2 Nuclear absorption

Since the $`J/\psi `$ absorption cross sections by pion and rho meson cannot be directly measured, it is useful to find empirical information which can constrain their values. One such constraint is the $`J/\psi `$ absorption cross section by a nucleon, as this process can be viewed as the absorption of $`J/\psi `$ by the virtual pion and rho meson cloud of the nucleon . From $`J/\psi `$ production in photon- and proton-nucleus reactions, the extracted cross section for $`J/\psi `$ absorption by a nucleon is a few mb .

Although the total $`J/\psi `$ absorption cross section by a nucleon is dominated by the process $`J/\psi N\overline{D}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ at low c.m. energies through charmed meson exchange, the process $`J/\psi ND^{}\overline{D}N`$ and $`J/\psi N\overline{D}^{}DN`$ due to the virtual pion and rho meson cloud of the nucleon is most important at high c.m. energies . With a cutoff parameter of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ GeV, the total $`J/\psi `$ absorption cross section is at most 5 mb and is consistent with the empirical value. This result thus indicates that the cross sections for $`J/\psi `$ absorption by pion and rho meson evaluated in previous studies using the meson-exchange model are not in contradiction with the empirical cross section for $`J/\psi `$ absorption by a nucleon.

### 3.3 Medium effects

Since $`J/\psi `$ absorption by comovers is important in hot and dense hadronic matter, medium effects on the charmed meson mass can affect its cross sections. At finite temperature, lattice gauge calculations have indicated that the linearly rising potential between heavy quarks in free space changes to a saturated one as a result of the formation of a $`\overline{Q}qQ\overline{q}`$ pair when their separation becomes large . This may be interpreted as the reduction of the charmed meson mass at finite temperature . Although there is no lattice gauge result on the heavy quark potential at finite baryon density, explicit calculations based on the QCD sum rules analysis  and the quark-meson coupling model  have shown that the charmed meson mass is also reduced at finite density. With reduced charmed meson mass, not only the threshold for $`J/\psi `$ absorption by comovers is reduced but also the cross sections for these reactions are enhanced . It is thus important to take into account these medium effects in studying $`J/\psi `$ production and suppression in relativistic heavy ion collisions.

### 3.4 More on form factors

Form factors involving charm mesons introduce significant uncertainties in the predicted $`J/\psi `$ absorption cross sections from the meson-exchange model. One can get some information on form factors from the QCD sum rules. Recent studies based on the three point function approach  show that the $`\pi DD^{}`$ form factor for an off-shell pion can be fitted by a Gaussian form in the pion four momentum with a range or cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =1.2`$ GeV, while that for an off-shell $`D`$ meson is best fitted with a monopole form in the charmed meson four momentum with a cut-off parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D=3.5`$ GeV. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D`$ is related to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ introduced in Section 2.4 by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_D^2m_D^2`$. This gives $`\mathrm{\Lambda }3`$ GeV, which is in the range of values used for evaluating the $`J/\psi `$ absorption cross sections.

Form factors that takes into account the quark substructure of the interaction vertices have also been considered . In this scenario, a three-point interaction vertex is viewed as a quark triangle diagram and is associated with a form factor that involves the product of three Gaussian wave functions with range parameters given by the meson masses. A four-point interaction vertex is, on the other hand, viewed as a quark box diagram, and the associated form factor is a product of four Gaussian wave function with range parameters given again by the masses of the on-shell mesons. As a result, the meson-exchange diagrams are suppressed compared to the contact interaction diagrams as they involve six Gaussian factors. The resulting cross sections with these quark-model inspired form factors are thus smaller than those obtained with the monopole form factors and are comparable to those given by the quark-interchange model.

Other types of form factors, ranging from the power law form to the Gaussian form, have also been used by other groups . Those results show that the different form factors also affect strongly the energy dependence of the $`J/\psi `$ absorption cross section. One can even adjust the form factors to obtain a cross section which is very close to that from the quark-interchange model in both its magnitude and dependence on the c.m. energy .

In most calculations, the introduction of form factors has led to violation of the current conservation conditions. It is possible to recover these conditions by introducing more general four-point interactions that involve not only the $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ form but also all possible lowest-order Lorentz invariant products of the external momenta . The coefficients in these new amplitudes are then adjusted to ensure that the current conservation conditions are satisfied.

### 3.5 Chiral symmetry

Although the effective Lagrangian shown in Eq.(14) can be derived from the SU(4) chiral Lagrangian, it involves non-derivative couplings for pions and thus leads to finite scattering amplitudes when the external pion four momentum is zero. This violation of the soft pion theorem is a result of treating charmed mesons on the same footing as pions. To ensure the SU(2)$`\times `$SU(2) chiral symmetry, the $`J/\psi `$ absorption cross section by pion has been evaluated in Ref.  by dropping those terms in the Lagrangian that involve non-derivative pion couplings. The resulting cross section is found to be reduced appreciably. A more consistent way of including chiral symmetry in the meson-exchange model is thus needed.

Also, vector mesons are treated as gauge particles in the meson-exchange model to generate their interactions. Since the SU(4) symmetry is badly broken by the heavy quark mass, it is not clear to what extent charmonia can be treated as gauge particles. An alternative approach  based on both chiral symmetry and heavy quark effective theory may provide a more consistent model for the interactions of charmonia with light hadrons.

## 4 SUMMARY

In summary, we have reviewed the study of $`J/\psi `$ absorption cross sections by $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ mesons based on the meson-exchange model. The effective hadronic Lagrangian is generated from the free Lagrangian by assuming the SU(4) flavor symmetry and treating vector mesons as gauged particle. Using coupling constants determined either empirically or from relations derived from the SU(4) symmetry, the resulting cross sections are found to be a few mb if form factors with reasonable cutoff parameters are introduced at interaction vertices. These cross sections are comparable to those from the quark-interchange model but are much greater than those from the perturbative QCD approach. They are also consistent with that extracted from $`J/\psi `$ production in photo- and proton-nucleus reactions as the latter can be viewed as $`J/\psi `$ absorption by the virtual pion and rho meson cloud of the nucleon. We have also discussed the additional contributions from the anomalous parity interactions and other anomalous processes involving $`\eta _c`$ in the final state. Medium effects due to reduced charmed meson mass are mentioned as they not only reduce the threshold of absorption processes but also increase their cross sections. We have further described the attempt of imposing chiral symmetry on pions by dropping the non-derivative pion couplings in the Lagrangian, which reduces appreciably the cross section for $`J/\psi `$ absorption by pions. Finally, we have pointed out the need to develop an improved approach based on the chiral symmetry for light hadrons and the heavy quark symmetry for heavy hadrons.


text:
# References

Dynamics of a Two-Level System Coupled to Ohmic Bath: A Perturbation Approach

H.Zheng

Department of Physics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University

Shanghai 200030, People’s Republic of China

Abstract

The physics of a two-level system coupled to Ohmic bath is studied by means of the perturbation approach based on a unitary transformation. Our main results are: The coherence-incoherence transition is at $`\alpha _c=\frac{1}{2}[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_r/\omega _c]`$; for $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$ the dynamical quantity $`P(t)=\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0t)\mathrm{exp}(\gamma t)`$; the sussceptibility $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )/\omega `$ is of a double peak structure for $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$ and the Shiba’s relation is exactly satisfied; at the transition point $`\alpha =\alpha _c`$ the real time correlation function $`C(t)1/\gamma _c^2t^2`$ in the long time limit.

PACS numbers: 72.20.Dp; 05.30.-d;

Studies of the two-level system coupled to Ohmic bath (spin-boson model, SBM) have a long history. Although there were many studies using various kinds of methods, in recent years the physics of SBM has still attracted considerable attention because it provides a universal model for many physical systems. The Hamiltonian of SBM reads

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _x+\underset{k}{}\omega _kb_k^{}b_k+\frac{1}{2}\underset{k}{}g_k(b_k^{}+b_k)\sigma _z.$$
(1)
The notations are the same as usual. In this work we consider the zero bias case with temperature $`T=0`$. The Ohmic bath is characterized by its spectral density: $`_kg_k^2\delta (\omega \omega _k)=2\alpha \omega \theta (\omega _c\omega )`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the dimensionless coupling constant and $`\theta (x)`$ is the usual step function.

The Hamiltonian (1) seems to be quite simple. However, it cannot be solved exactly and various approximate analytical and numerical methods have been used\[1-13\]. Recent studies of SBM focused on its dynamical properties\[6-12\]. Among these studies, the variational approach proposed by Silbey and Harris is of interest. They proposed to make a unitary transformation: $`H^{}=\mathrm{exp}(S)H\mathrm{exp}(S)`$, with

$`S={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_k}{2\omega _k}}\xi _k(b_k^{}b_k)\sigma _z.`$ (2)
Then, the variational ground state energy is: $`E_g=s_1|\{0_k\}|H^{}|s_1|\{0_k\}`$, where $`|s_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ and $`|s_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ are eigenstates of $`\sigma _x`$ and $`|\{0_k\}`$ is the vacuum state of bosons in which $`n_k=0`$ for every $`k`$. By minimizing $`E_g`$ $`\xi _k`$ is determined as

$`\xi _k`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _k/(\omega _k+\eta \mathrm{\Delta }).`$ (3)
The authors calculated the renormalized tunnelling $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$,

$`\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}=\left(e{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega _c}}\right)^{\frac{\alpha }{1\alpha }}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{1\alpha }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta \mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega _c+\eta \mathrm{\Delta }}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c+\eta \mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega _c}}\right)\right].`$ (4)
Although the variational method can predict correctly the delocalized-localized transition point $`\alpha _l=1`$ at the scaling limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\omega _c1`$, it is not suitable for calculating the dynamical properties of SBM. In this work we present a new analytical approach, based on the unitary transformation ((2) and (3)) and the perturbation theory, for calculating the dynamical preperties of SBM which works well for the coupling constant $`0<\alpha <1`$ and the bare tunnelling $`0<\mathrm{\Delta }<\omega _c`$. The approach is quite simple and physically clear, and may be easily extended to more complicated coupling systems. Throughout this work we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and $`k_B=1`$.

The unitary transformation (2) can be done to the end and the result is $`H^{}=H_0^{}+H_1^{}+H_2^{}`$, where

$`H_0^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta \mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _x+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\omega _kb_k^{}b_k{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_k^2}{4\omega _k}}\xi _k(2\xi _k),`$ (5)
$`\eta =\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_k^2}{2\omega _k^2}}\xi _k^2],`$ (6)
$`H_1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}g_k(1\xi _k)(b_k^{}+b_k)\sigma _z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta \mathrm{\Delta }i\sigma _y{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_k}{\omega _k}}\xi _k(b_k^{}b_k),`$ (7)
$`H_2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _x\left(\mathrm{cosh}\{{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_k}{\omega _k}}\xi _k(b_k^{}b_k)\}\eta \right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }i\sigma _y\left(\mathrm{sinh}\{{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_k}{\omega _k}}\xi _k(b_k^{}b_k)\}\eta {\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_k}{\omega _k}}\xi _k(b_k^{}b_k)\right).`$ (8)
Obviously, $`H_0^{}`$ can be solved exactly because in which the spin and bosons are decoupled. The eigenstate of $`H_0^{}`$ is a direct product, $`|s|\{n_k\}`$, where $`|s`$ is $`|s_1`$ or $`|s_2`$ and $`|\{n_k\}`$ means that there are $`n_k`$ phonons for mode $`k`$. The ground state of $`H_0^{}`$ is

$$|g_0=|s_1|\{0_k\}.$$
(9)
$`H_1^{}`$ and $`H_2^{}`$ are treated as perturbation and they should be as small as possible. Eq.(3), $`\xi _k=\omega _k/(\omega _k+\eta \mathrm{\Delta })`$, leads to

$`H_1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta \mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_k}{\omega _k}}\xi _k\left[b_k^{}(\sigma _zi\sigma _y)+b_k(\sigma _z+i\sigma _y)\right]`$ (10)
and $`H_1^{}|g_0=0`$. Note that the form of $`\xi _k`$, Eq.(3), in this work is determined by $`H_1^{}|g_0=0`$, instead of minimizing the ground state energy $`E_g`$. Thus, we get rid of the variational condition.

The lowest excited states are $`|s_2|\{0_k\}`$ and $`|s_1|1_k`$, where $`|1_k`$ is the number state with $`n_k=1`$ but $`n_k^{}=0`$ for all $`k^{}k`$. It’s easily to check that $`g_0|H_2^{}|g_0=0`$ (because of the form of $`\eta `$ in Eq.(6)), $`\{0_k\}|s_2|H_2^{}|g_0=0`$, $`1_k|s_1|H_2^{}|g_0=0`$, and $`\{0_k\}|s_2|H_2^{}|s_1|1_k=0`$. Moreover, since $`H_1^{}|g_0=0`$, we have $`\{0_k\}|s_2|H_1^{}|g_0=0`$ and $`1_k|s_1|H_1^{}|g_0=0`$. Thus, we can diagonalize the lowest excited states of $`H^{}`$ as

$`H^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta \mathrm{\Delta }|g_0g_0|+{\displaystyle \underset{E}{}}E|EE|+\text{terms with higher excited states}.`$ (11)
The diagonalization is through the following transformation:

$`|s_2|\{0_k\}={\displaystyle \underset{E}{}}x(E)|E,`$ (12)
$`|s_1|1_k={\displaystyle \underset{E}{}}y_k(E)|E,`$ (13)
$`|E={\displaystyle \underset{E}{}}x(E)|s_2|\{0_k\}+{\displaystyle \underset{E}{}}y_k(E)|s_1|1_k,`$ (14)
where

$`x(E)=\left[1+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_k^2}{(E+\eta \mathrm{\Delta }/2\omega _k)^2}}\right]^{1/2},`$ (15)
$`y_k(E)={\displaystyle \frac{V_k}{E+\eta \mathrm{\Delta }/2\omega _k}}x(E),`$ (16)
with $`V_k=\eta \mathrm{\Delta }g_k\xi _k/\omega _k`$. $`E`$’s are the diagonalized excitation energy and they are solutions of the equation

$`E{\displaystyle \frac{\eta \mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_k^2}{E+\eta \mathrm{\Delta }/2\omega _k}}=0.`$ (17)
The dynamical quantity $`P(t)=b,+1|+1|e^{iHt}\sigma _ze^{iHt}|+1|b,+1`$ is defined in Ref., where $`|+1`$ is the eigenstate of $`\sigma _z=+1`$ and $`|b,+1`$ is the state of bosons adusted to the state of $`\sigma _z=+1`$. Because of the unitary transformation ($`e^S\sigma _ze^S=\sigma _z`$)

$`P(t)=\{0_k\}|+1|e^{iH^{}t}\sigma _ze^{iH^{}t}|+1|\{0_k\},`$ (18)
since $`e^S|+1|b,+1=|+1|\{0_k\}`$. Using Eqs.(11)-(17) the result is

$`P(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{E}{}}x^2(E)\mathrm{exp}[i(E+\eta \mathrm{\Delta }/2)t]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{E}{}}x^2(E)\mathrm{exp}[i(E+\eta \mathrm{\Delta }/2)t]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi i}}{\displaystyle _C}𝑑E^{}e^{iE^{}t}\left(E^{}\eta \mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_k^2}{E^{}+i0^+\omega _k}}\right)^1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi i}}{\displaystyle _C^{}}𝑑E^{}e^{iE^{}t}\left(E^{}\eta \mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_k^2}{E^{}i0^+\omega _k}}\right)^1,`$ (19)
where a change of the variable $`E^{}=E+\eta \mathrm{\Delta }/2`$ is made. The real and imaginary parts of $`_kV_k^2/(E^{}\pm i0^+\omega _k)`$ are denoted as $`R(E^{})`$ and $`\gamma (E^{})`$,

$`R(\omega )=2\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{(\eta \mathrm{\Delta })^2}{\omega +\eta \mathrm{\Delta }}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c}{\omega _c+\eta \mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\omega +\eta \mathrm{\Delta }}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{|\omega |(\omega _c+\eta \mathrm{\Delta })}{\eta \mathrm{\Delta }(\omega _c\omega )}}\right]\right\},`$ (20)
$`\gamma (\omega )=2\alpha \pi \omega (\eta \mathrm{\Delta })^2/(\omega +\eta \mathrm{\Delta })^2.`$ (21)
The integral in (19) can proceed by calculating the residue of integrand and the result is $`P(t)=\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0t)\mathrm{exp}(\gamma t)`$, where $`\omega _0`$ is the solution of equation

$`\omega \eta \mathrm{\Delta }R(\omega )=0`$ (22)
and $`\gamma =\gamma (\eta \mathrm{\Delta })=\alpha \pi \eta \mathrm{\Delta }/2`$ (the second order approximation). This $`P(t)`$ is of the form of damped oscillation and one can check that the solution $`\omega _0`$ is real when $`1>2\alpha \omega _c/(\omega _c+\eta \mathrm{\Delta })`$. When $`1<2\alpha \omega _c/(\omega _c+\eta \mathrm{\Delta })`$, the solution $`\omega _0`$ is imaginary and we have an incoherent $`P(t)`$. $`\alpha _c=\frac{1}{2}[1+\eta \mathrm{\Delta }/\omega _c]`$ determines the critical point where there is a coherent-incoherent transition. Note that when $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\omega _c1`$, we have $`\alpha _c=1/2`$, $`\omega _0=0`$ and $`P(t)=\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _ct)`$ ($`\gamma _c=\pi e\mathrm{\Delta }^2/4\omega _c`$ since $`\eta =e\mathrm{\Delta }/\omega _c`$ from Eq.(4)), which is the same as was predicted by previous authors ($`\gamma _c=\pi \mathrm{\Delta }^2/2\omega _c`$ in Ref.). Fig.1 shows the calculated $`\omega _0/\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$ as functions of $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha \alpha _c`$) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.01`$, $`0.1`$, and $`0.5`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r=\eta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the renormalized tunnelling. The dotted line is $`\gamma /\mathrm{\Delta }_r=\alpha \pi /2`$.

Since $`e^S\sigma _ze^S=\sigma _z`$, the retarded Green’s function is

$`G(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta (t)[\mathrm{exp}(iH^{}t)\sigma _z\mathrm{exp}(iH^{}t),\sigma _z]^{},`$ (23)
where $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ means the average with thermodynamic propability $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta H^{})`$. The Fourier transformation of $`G(t)`$ is denoted as $`G(\omega )`$, which satisfies an infinite chain of equation of motion. We have made the cutoff approximation for the equation chain at the second order of $`g_k`$ and the solution at $`T=0`$ is

$`G(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \eta \mathrm{\Delta }_kV_k^2/(\omega \omega _k)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +\eta \mathrm{\Delta }_kV_k^2/(\omega +\omega _k)}}.`$ (24)
The susceptibility $`\chi (\omega )=G(\omega )`$, and its imaginary part is

$`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (\omega )\theta (\omega )}{[\omega \eta \mathrm{\Delta }R(\omega )]^2+\gamma ^2(\omega )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (\omega )\theta (\omega )}{[\omega +\eta \mathrm{\Delta }+R(\omega )]^2+\gamma ^2(\omega )}}.`$ (25)
The $`\omega 0`$ limit of $`S(\omega )=\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )/\omega `$ is

$`\underset{\omega 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )}{\omega }}={\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha \pi }{(\eta \mathrm{\Delta })^2\{12\alpha [1\eta \mathrm{\Delta }/(\omega _c+\eta \mathrm{\Delta })]\}^2}}.`$ (26)
Besides, the real part of the susceptibility is

$`\chi ^{}(\omega =0)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\eta \mathrm{\Delta }\{12\alpha [1\eta \mathrm{\Delta }/(\omega _c+\eta \mathrm{\Delta })]\}}}.`$ (27)
Thus, the Shiba’s relation

$$\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\frac{\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )}{\omega }=\frac{\pi }{2}\alpha \chi ^{}(\omega =0)^2$$
(28)
is exactly satisfied. $`S(\omega )`$ has a double peak structure for $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$. For $`\alpha \alpha _c`$ there is only one peak at $`\omega =0`$. Fig.2 shows the $`S(\omega )`$ versus $`\omega `$ relations for fixed $`\alpha =0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.01`$, $`0.1`$, and $`0.5`$.

The symmetrized correlation function

$`C(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{exp}(\beta H)[\sigma _z(t)\sigma _z+\sigma _z\sigma _z(t)]\right\}/\text{Tr}[\mathrm{exp}(\beta H)]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{coth}({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \omega }{2}})\text{Im}G(\omega )\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (\omega )}{[\omega \eta \mathrm{\Delta }R(\omega _0)]^2+\gamma ^2}}\mathrm{cos}(\omega t),`$ (29)
where $`\omega _0`$ is the solution of Eq.(22) and $`\gamma (\omega )`$ in the denominator is approximated by the second order approximation $`\gamma `$. At the scaling limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\omega _c1`$ and the coherence-incoherence transition point $`\alpha =1/2`$,

$`C(t)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\omega \mathrm{cos}(\omega t)}{\omega ^2+\gamma _c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta \mathrm{\Delta })^2}{(\omega +\eta \mathrm{\Delta })^2}}.`$ (30)
$`C(t)`$ decays algebraically in the long-time limit: $`C(t)1/\gamma _c^2t^2`$, which is the same as what was predicted by previous authors.

In summary: The physics of SBM is studied by means of the perturbation approach based on a unitary transformation. Analytical results of the dynamical quantity $`P(t)`$, the sussceptibility $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ and the real time correlation function $`C(t)`$ are obtained for both the scaling limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r/\omega _c1`$ and the general finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r/\omega _c`$ case. Our approach is quite simple, but it can reproduce nearly all results which agree with those of previous authors using various complicated methods. Besides, our approach can be easily extended to other more complicated coupling systems.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the China National Natural Science Foundation (Grants No.10074044 and No.90103022).

Figure Captions

Fig.1 $`\omega _0/\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$ versus $`\alpha `$ relations for $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\omega _c=0.01`$ (solid line, $`\alpha _c=0.50014`$), $`0.1`$ (dashed, $`\alpha _c=0.51212`$), and $`0.5`$ (dashed-dotted, $`\alpha _c=0.66244`$). The dotted line is $`\gamma /\mathrm{\Delta }_r=\alpha \pi /2`$.

Fig.2 $`S(\omega )`$ as functions of $`\omega `$ for fixed $`\alpha =0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.01`$ (solid line), $`0.1`$ (dashed), and $`0.5`$ (dashed-dotted).