text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the most intriguing challenges in modern physics is to find observable consequences of quantum gravity. Recently the attention has focused towards cosmology, where in particular inflation might serve as a useful testing ground for new ideas. One proposal is that the magnifying effect of inflation might allow physics beyond the Planck scale to show up in the CMBR-spectrum. For reviews see . Another approach, based on the successful introduction of holography in string theory, aims at finding meaningful constraints on inflation through holography. Some years ago there were several attempts in this direction, but the general conclusion, , was that a correct implementation of holography did not give anything more than what follows from the generalized second law of thermodynamics .

More recently there has been several interesting works discussing various aspects of holography and cosmology,   , where many conceptual problems of physics in de Sitter space are addressed. Furthermore, in  and , it has been argued that there are, in fact, situations where holography actually do imply non trivial constraints on inflation and that the effects might even be detectable. Other groups, like , do not find any such constraints on inflationary physics from holography and are therefore more in line with the earlier investigations.

In the present paper we will find evidence in favor of the conservative point of view. We will discuss the various entropy bounds during inflation and explain why they do not seem to yield any new constraints. The outline is as follows. In section two we review the Hubble and D-bounds for the entropy in an expanding universe. In section three we investigate more carefully where the entropy is from the point of view of different observers. In particular we pay attention to the scale on which the entropy can be found. We also discuss the entropy of the quantum fluctuations responsible for the fluctuations in the CMBR. In section four we investigate in more detail the entropy bounds in a slowly rolling universe without finding any constraints from holography. We end, in section five, with some speculations on how to find other ways of applying holography to inflation.

## 2 The Hubble and D-bound

The entropy bound that will serve as a starting point for our discussion is the Bekenstein bound in asymptotically flat space, , which states that

$$SS_B=2\pi ER,$$
(1)
where $`E`$ is the energy contained in a volume with radius $`R`$. There are several arguments in support of the bound when gravity is weak , and it is widely believed to hold true for all reasonable physical systems. Furthermore, in the case of a black hole where $`R=2El_p^2`$, we have an entropy given by

$$S_{BH}=\frac{A}{4l_p^2}=\frac{\pi R^2}{l_p^2},$$
(2)
which exactly saturates the Bekenstein bound. We will consequently put $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$, but explicitly write the Planck length, $`l_p=\sqrt{\frac{G\mathrm{}}{c^3}}`$, to keep track of effects due to gravity.

Beginning with , there have been many attempts to apply similar entropy bounds to cosmology and in particular to inflation. (See for instance .) The idea has been to choose an appropriate volume and argue that the entropy contained within the volume must be limited by the area. An obvious problem in a cosmological setting is, however, that for a constant energy density a bound of this type always will be violated if the radius $`R`$ of the volume is chosen to be big enough. However, as was explained in  , it is not reasonable to discuss radii which are larger than the Hubble radius in the expanding universe. See also . This, then, suggests that the maximum entropy in a volume of radius $`R>r`$, where $`r`$ is the Hubble radius, is obtained by filling the volume with as many Hubble volumes as one can fit – all with a maximum entropy of $`\frac{\pi r^2}{l_p^2}`$. This gives rise to the Hubble bound, which states that

$$S<S_H\frac{R^3}{r^3}\frac{r^2}{l_p^2}=\frac{R^3}{rl_p^2}.$$
(3)
As an illustrative example of how the Hubble bound works, we might consider a radiation field with a temperature. We begin by considering a case where the Hubble radius is not changing – not even through slow roll. The maximum entropy of the gas (attained in thermal equilibrium) is given by

$$S_g\left(ER\right)^{3/4}.$$

This is clearly much smaller than the naive Bekenstein bound given by $`S=2\pi ER`$. But the important point in a cosmological setting, is that there is nothing that prevents the energy $`E`$ to exceed the critical value $`\frac{R}{2l_p^2}`$, which in flat space would have corresponded to the formation of a black hole. In other words, the entropy can easily exceed the value given by $`S_{BH}`$, even if it can not exceed the Hubble bound $`S_H`$. In fact, if the matter is in the form of a gas it can not even saturate the bound. This follows since the entropy can not reach the Hubble bound value $`S_H`$ until the energy density is a factor $`\left(\frac{r}{l_p}\right)^{2/3}`$ larger than the energy density $`\frac{1}{r^2l_p^2}`$ in the cosmological constant. For saturation of the Hubble bound one would, instead, need a collection of black holes.

The Hubble bound is a bound on the entropy that can be contained in a volume much larger than the Hubble radius. It is, therefore, a bound that is meaningful only from the point of view of a global observer, typically using the standard, time dependent, FRW-coordinates. In order to be able to make actual measurements of associated quantities one needs, therefore, inflation to eventually stop and a non-accelerating phase to take over. The notion of a cosmological horizon and the corresponding area does not play an important role from this point of view since all entropy is present in matter, possibly in the form of black holes.

If we, on the other hand, want to discuss things from the point of view of what a local observer, that do not have time to wait for inflation to end, can measure, we must be more careful. In this case one has a cosmological horizon with an area that it is natural to give an entropic interpretation . Since the area of the horizon grows when matter is passing out towards the horizon, from the point of view of the local observer, it is natural to expect the horizon to encode information about matter that, in its own reference frame, has passed to the outside of the cosmological horizon of the local observer. From the point of view of the observer, the matter will never be seen to leave but rather become more and more redshifted. The outside of the cosmological horizon should, therefore, be compared with the inside of a black hole. It follows that the horizon only indirectly provides bounds on entropy within the horizon as is nicely exemplified through the D-bound introduced in . The cosmological horizon area in a de Sitter space with some extra matter is smaller than the horizon area in empty space. If the matter passes out through the horizon, the increase in area can be used to limit the entropy content in matter. This is the content of the D-bound which turns out to coincide with the Bekenstein bound. The D-bound, therefore has not, necessarily, that much to with de Sitter space or cosmology. It is more a way to use de Sitter space to derive a constraint on matter itself.

## 3 Entropy in an expanding universe

### 3.1 Where is the entropy?

In this section we will try to understand the nature and relations between the various entropy bounds a little bit better. In particular we must find out on what scales the entropy is stored. If we assume that all entropy is stored on short scales smaller than the horizon scale $`r`$, we can consider each of the horizon bubbles separately and use the Bekenstein bound (or D-bound) on each and everyone of these volumes. We conclude from this that the entropy, under the condition that it is present only on small scales, is limited by

$$S<S_{LB}=2\pi Er,$$

which we will refer to as the local Bekenstein bound. It is interesting to compare this with the entropy of a gas in thermal equilibrium. One then finds $`S_gEr`$ for high temperatures where $`T1/r`$, and $`S_gEr`$ for low temperatures where $`T1/r`$. This is quite natural and a consequence of the fact that most of the entropy in the gas is stored in wavelengths of the order of $`1/T`$. This means that the entropy for low temperatures is stored mostly in modes larger than the Hubble scale and are therefore unaffected by the local Bekenstein bound $`S_{LB}`$.

One can also imagine a situation starting out at high temperature, with entropy stored on small scales. As the universe expands, and the gas is diluted, the entropy is transferred to larger scales. From the point of view of the local observer the entropy is no longer stored in local matter, instead it has receded towards the horizon. The size of the horizon therefore limits the amount of information on scales larger than the Hubble scale, or, more precisely, the large scale information that once was accessible to the observer on small scales. If the horizon is smaller than its maximal value this is a sign that there is matter on small scales and the difference limits the entropy (or information) stored in the matter. This is the role of the D-bound. We conclude, then, that a system with an entropy in excess of $`S_{LB}`$ (but necessarily below $`S_H`$) must include entropy on scales larger than the horizon scale.

### 3.2 How does the entropy change?

While the entropy bounds above are rather well understood, the way entropy can flow and change involve some rather subtle issues. This is in particular true when the size of the horizon is slowly changing as in a slowly rolling inflationary scenario. As a start let us consider a slow roll universe and compare the horizon size at two different times. We have $`r_1=r\left(t_1\right)`$ and $`r_2=r\left(t_2\right)`$ with $`r_2r_1`$ for $`t_2t_1`$. From the previous section it is quite clear that it is possible to have a much larger entropy within the radius $`r_2`$ at time $`t_1`$ than the area of a sphere with radius $`r_2`$ without violating the Hubble bound. At time $`t_2`$, however, the entropy within $`r_2`$, which now has become the horizon, is limited by the horizon area. As a consequence, the entropy that has passed out through the fixed sphere with radius $`r_2`$ between time $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ will exceed the limit set by the area of the horizon. It is important to realize that there is no contradiction in this. The crucial issue is how much entropy has passed out through the apparent horizon which grows from $`r_1`$ to $`r_2`$ during the time interval, and this will, indeed, be limited by the horizon size at $`t_2`$. This is a direct consequence of the D-bound, and is explicit in the calculation of .

So far we have discussed entropy in the form of a diluting gas. As the universe expands this implies a flow of entropy out through the horizon, but as the gas eventually is completely diluted the flow of entropy taps off. Whether or not the horizon radius is changing, one will never be able to violate the Hubble bound or get an entropy flow through an apparent horizon violating the bound set by the area. But we also need to be able to go back in time where we will note that the entropy flow increases. The crux of the matter is, however, that if we go far enough back in time, the energy density will be comparable with the one of the cosmological constant, and the space time geometry will be dramatically different. As a consequence, we can not argue that the total entropy flow will be larger than is allowed for by the area of the horizon.

A potentially more disturbing situation is obtained if we consider an empty universe (apart from a possibly changing cosmological constant), which can be traced arbitrarily far back in time, with entropy generated through the quantum fluctuations that are of importance for the CMBR. As discussed in several works, , there is an entropy production that can be associated with these fluctuations and one can worry that this will imply an entropy flow out through the horizon that eventually will exceed the bound set by the horizon. This is the essence of the argument put forward in .

To understand this better one must have a more detailed understanding of the cause of the entropy. Entropy is always due to some kind of coarse graining where information is neglected. In the case of the inflationary quantum fluctuations we typically imagine that the field starts out in a pure state111In standard treatments this is done in the infinite past at energy scales infinitely higher than the Planck scale. In practice the initial conditions should be set at a finite scale supplied by quantum gravity. This is, however, not important for the present discussion., with a subsequent unitary evolution that keeps the state pure for all times. This is true whether we take the point of view of a local observer or use the global FRW-coordinates. To find an entropy we obviously must introduce a notion of coarse graining. Various ways of coarse graining have been proposed, but they all imply an entropy that grows with the squeezing parameter $`r_k`$. The squeezing formalism was first applied to cosmology in  . For large squeezing the entropy in a mode with comoving momentum $`k`$ is typically given by, ,

$$S_k=2r_k.$$
(4)
The squeezing parameter for a massless scalar in an inflating cosmology obeys

$$\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(r_k\right)=\frac{1}{4k^2\eta ^2},$$
(5)
which for late times (small negative conformal time $`\eta `$) can be approximated as

$$r_k\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{k^2\eta ^2}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{H}{p}.$$
(6)
Most of entropy is produced at large scales (when the modes are larger than the horizon), and, as we will show in a moment, well below the Hubble bound.

This is all in terms of the FRW-coordinates, but let us now take the point of view of the local observer. In this case the freedom to coarse grain is more limited. In order to generate entropy we must divide the system into two subsystems and trace out over one of the subsystems in order to generate entropy in the other. As an example consider a system with $`N`$ degrees of freedom divided into two subsystems with $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ degrees of freedom, respectively, with $`N=N_1+N_2`$ and $`N_2>N_1`$. If the total system is in a pure state it is easy to show that the entropy in the larger subsystem is limited by the number of degrees of freedom in the smaller one, i.e. $`S_2<\mathrm{ln}N_1`$.222A simple proof can be found in  in the context of the black hole information paradox. Applied to our case, this means that the entropy flow towards the horizon must be balanced by other matter with a corresponding ability to carry entropy within the horizon. Since the amount of such matter is limited by the D-bound, the corresponding entropy flow is also limited. As a consequence, there can not be an accumulated flow of entropy out towards the horizon that is larger than the area of the horizon. This does not mean that inflation can not go on for ever, rather it implies that the local observer will not be able to do an arbitrary amount of coarse graining. The analysis of  shows, indeed, how inflationary quantum fluctuations leave the horizon without actually affecting the horizon area. It is just the flow of energy, present in the case of slow roll, that makes the horizon grow. The size of the horizon should be viewed as the upper limit on the amount of entropy or information. Whether there is entropy in the fluctuations is not addressed in  – this is a matter of a subjective coarse graining. As an example of how this can happen one can consider the effect discussed in , where it was noted that if the fluctuations are actually measured this leads to an increase in energy of the detector and the horizon area shrinks. This implies that entropy is generated from the fluctuation and stored, not at large scales, but at small.

It is instructive to actually calculate the total amount of entropy in the fluctuations. We will focus on the entropy on large scales. The total entropy in a volume with radius $`R`$ on scales larger than the Hubble scales is of the order

$$SR^3_{1/R}^Hd^3pr_kR^3_{1/R}^H𝑑pp^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{H}{p}\frac{R^3}{r^3}\frac{R^3}{rl_p^2}S_H.$$
(7)
That is, there is only of the order of one degree of freedom per horizon volume and we are therefore far from any holographic bound. On the other hand, if we trace the volume $`R^3`$ back in time through the expanding universe, it will eventually become small enough to be contained within just one horizon volume. Hence all the entropy in (7) are carried by field modes that were once inside of the horizon of a single local observer. As explained above, this observer will not, however, be able to assign such a huge entropy to the fluctuations that have left, simply because the necessary coarse graining requires many Hubble volumes to be achieved. To summarize: from a local point of view the production of entropy in quantum fluctuations is limited by the ability to coarse grain; from a global point of view entropy is created on scales larger than the Hubble scale.

One can also note that the concept of thermalization will be quite different from the two points of view. The early universe will contain, from the point of view of the FRW-observer, thermal degrees of freedom as well as non thermal. It is the non thermal ones (well correlated and information carrying) that eventually leads to the CMBR-fluctuations. In fact, as explained in , one should not view the entropy in (7) as the actual entropy of the fluctuations. It is more appropriate to view (7) as the upper limit on the amount of information that can be present in the fluctuations. The actual entropy that we should assign to the fluctuations are much smaller than the value given in (7) – the difference is the information contained in the acoustic peaks. From the point of view of the local observer, both thermal and non-thermal fluctuations start out on small scales but expand and is eventually contained in the degrees of freedom of the horizon. From the local observer point of view this means that they all have thermalized.

## 4 The slow roll

Let us investigate how the above ideas work in more detail in the presence of a slowly changing Hubble constant in a slow roll universe. The Friedman equations in the presence of a scalar inflaton is given by

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi l_p^2}{3}\left(\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V\left(\varphi \right)\right),$$
(8)
while the equation of motion for the scalar field is given by

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }=V^{}\left(\varphi \right).$$
(9)
It is useful to define a slowroll parameter according to

$$\epsilon =\frac{1}{16\pi l_p^2}\left(\frac{V^{}\left(\varphi \right)}{V\left(\varphi \right)}\right)^2,$$
(10)
and assume $`\epsilon `$ to be small. To lowest, zeroth, order in $`\epsilon `$ the Hubble constant will be fixed at

$$H^2\frac{8\pi l_p^2}{3}V\left(\varphi \right),$$
(11)
(that is, the potential energy will dominate over the kinetic energy in contributing to the vacuum energy) while $`\varphi `$ is slowly varying according to

$$3H\dot{\varphi }V^{}\left(\varphi \right).$$
(12)
To first order in $`\epsilon `$ there will, however, be a variation in $`H`$ determined by

$$\dot{H}=\epsilon H^2,$$
(13)
which is easily integrated to give

$$H\left(t\right)=\frac{H_0}{1+\epsilon H_0t},$$
(14)
and

$$a\left(t\right)=\left(1+\epsilon H_0t\right)^{1/\epsilon }.$$
(15)
We have chosen the constants of integration such that $`H\left(0\right)=H_0`$ and $`a\left(0\right)=1`$.

A useful model for a slow roll is to assume a cosmological constant together with another matter component with an equation of state given by $`p=w\rho `$, with $`w`$ constant. In this setup the first Friedman equation becomes

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi l_p^2}{3}\left(\rho +\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\right),$$
(16)
where

$$\rho =\frac{\rho _0}{a^q},$$
(17)
with $`q=3\left(1+w\right)`$. We assume $`q>0`$; $`q=0`$ would just give an additional contribution to the true cosmological constant. The Friedman equation at $`t=0`$ now tells us that

$$H_0^2=\frac{8\pi l_p^2}{3}\left(\rho _0+\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\right),$$
(18)
while first order in $`t`$ implies

$$q\mathrm{\Omega }=2\epsilon ,$$
(19)
where we have defined

$$\rho _0=\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _c=\frac{3H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }}{8\pi l_p^2}.$$
(20)
As expected, the energy density in the extra matter is suppressed compared to the cosmological constant. Let us now compare the area of the final horizon given by

$$A_f=4\pi \left(\frac{8\pi l_p^2}{3}\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^2,$$
(21)
and the (smaller) one at $`t=0`$ given by

$$A_0=4\pi \left(\frac{8\pi l_p^2}{3}\left(\rho _0+\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\right)^2.$$
(22)
A short calculation (assuming $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ small) reveals that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A=A_fA_0=\frac{2\epsilon }{q}A_f.$$
(23)
The matter energy contained within the volume is given by

$$E=\frac{4\pi }{3}\rho _0H_0^3=\frac{\epsilon }{q}\frac{r}{l_p^2},$$
(24)
and we therefore conclude that the entropy contained in the matter is limited by

$$S\frac{1}{4}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }A}{l_p^2}=2\pi EH_0^1=2\pi Er.$$
(25)
This is simply an example of the D-bound at work.

It is instructive to compare with the calculation in  where the horizon was obtained from (8) either by keeping the kinetic term (the exact apparent horizon), or dropping the kinetic term (the slow roll approximation). This lead to a difference in area given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A=A_fA_0=\frac{\epsilon }{3}A_f,$$
(26)
and a corresponding entropy bound. It is easy to see that this is a special case of the discussion above. The parameter $`w`$ in the equation of state can be written

$$w=\frac{p}{\rho }=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2V}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V}.$$
(27)
The choice to remove just a kinetic term, as in , from the Friedman equation corresponds to having matter contributing to $`\rho `$ with $`w=1`$, which leads to $`q=6`$ and therefore agreement between equations (23) and (26). This, then, indicates that an entropy bound of the form (23) (or (26)) should be viewed as a bound on the entropy contained in the matter within the horizon.

## 5 Conclusions

It seems difficult to find clear cut implications of holography in the context of inflation. As advocated in, e.g., , holography does not seem to say anything more than an appropriate use of the generalized second law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, the latter, in its physical consequences, is always a consequence of using standard laws of general relativity and field theory in a proper way.

To get truly new physics one seems to need more than just a counting of the degrees of freedom. One such possibility would be to study the concept of horizon complementarity in a cosmological setting. In the black hole case, complementarity has been used to resolve the black hole information paradox . According to complementarity the same physics will look very different from the point of view of a local observer and from the point of view of FRW-coordinates. (Actually, one would need to wait until inflation is over to make real measurements relevant to these coordinates.) We have already seen how coarse graining and entropy necessarily will be treated in different ways. While objects passing out through the horizon do not experience anything dramatic from the point of view of FRW-coordinates, the local observer will see how the object experiences effectively higher and higher temperatures as the horizon is approached, and eventually observe how the object is boiled to pieces and thermalized. Could these phenomena, and the way complementarity makes the different pictures compatible, lead to detectable effects? In  it is argued that Poincare recurrences play an important role in resolving possible paradoxes in a universe where inflation ends. Unfortunately the analysis also shows that the time scales of inflation make it unlikely that anything of this will be relevant for observable physics. It would, however, be interesting to push these ideas further.

Another approach to finding effects of quantum gravity through inflation, is to use its ability to magnify small scale physics to cosmological scales. In particular one could hope that subtleties in how the effective initial conditions for the inflaton are chosen by high energy physics could leave a detectable imprint on the CMBR. These ideas have been investigated in several recent works, see  for reviews. In order to have any chance of finding something detectable, the scale of new physics can not be higher than the GUT-scale at $`10^{16}`$ GeV, see  for a detailed analysis, which happen to coincide with the string scale in many realistic heterotic string theories. One might also speculate that holography would provide a new scale. These kind of ideas were pursued in  in an attempt to understand the cosmological constant in the present universe, but it is easy to apply their ideas to an inflationary scenario. An obvious way to find a holographic scale is simply to say that the highest energy scale where field theory make sense, is limited through $`r^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\frac{r^2}{l_p^2}`$, which leads to an energy scale a bit below Planck scale, that is, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{l_p}{r}\right)^{1/3}\frac{1}{l_p}`$. In  it was argued that the limit can be improved by observing that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ should be limited by the highest entropy that you can have with out forming a black hole. That is, $`r^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\left(\frac{r^2}{l_p^2}\right)^{3/4}`$. This leads to a characteristic scale given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{l_p}{r}\right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{l_p}`$. (This is actually the temperature of a gas with an energy density equal to the cosmological constant.) Using the largest possible value of $`H`$, around $`10^{14}`$ GeV, one finds $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^{16}`$ GeV, which is, indeed, a potentially interesting energy scale.333This is the same scale as was argued for in  using a different interepretation than in the present paper of the results in section 4. Unfortunately it is difficult to give a firm argument for why this is a relevant limit. It remains, therefore, a challenge to find non-trivial limits on inflationary physics imposed by holography.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Daniel Domert and Martin Olsson for valuable discussions. The author is a Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Research Fellow supported by a grant from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The work was also supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR).


format: text

text:
# 1 The dependence of the ratio 𝑅^{𝑐/𝑛} on the excitation energy 𝐸=√𝑠-2𝑚_𝐵 in the region of the Υ(4𝑆) resonance (the center position is assumed to be at 𝐸₀=20𝑀𝑒𝑉) for some values of 𝑎 and 𝛿₁(𝐸₀): 𝑎⁻¹=200𝑀𝑒𝑉,𝛿₁(𝐸₀)=0 (solid), 𝑎⁻¹=400𝑀𝑒𝑉,𝛿₁(𝐸₀)=0 (dashed), 𝑎⁻¹=300𝑀𝑒𝑉,𝛿₁(𝐸₀)=30⁰ (dashdot), and 𝑎⁻¹=300𝑀𝑒𝑉,𝛿₁(𝐸₀)=-30⁰ (dotted).

The ratio of the production rates of charged and neutral $`B`$ mesons in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance,

$$R^{c/n}=1+\delta R^{c/n}=\frac{\sigma (e^+e^{}B^+B^{})}{\sigma (e^+e^{}B^0\overline{B}^0)},$$
(1)
is an important parameter in detailed studies of the properties of $`B`$ mesons. Recent dedicated measurements of $`R^{c/n}`$ at the maximum of the resonance report values ranging from $`1.04\pm 0.07\pm 0.04`$  to $`1.10\pm 0.06\pm 0.05`$ , which leave enough room for further studies of the quantity of interest $`\delta R^{c/n}`$.

Theoretically the difference $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ of the discussed ratio from one arises as dominantly an effect of the Coulomb interaction, clearly different for charged and neutral $`B`$ mesons, since the mass difference $`m_{B^0}m_{B^+}=0.33\pm 0.28MeV`$ is quite small, and its effect can be accounted separately. In the most simple approach, where the $`B`$ mesons are treated as point particles, and the existence of the resonant interaction is ignored, the estimate of $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ can be expressed in terms of the c.m. velocity $`v`$ of produced $`B`$ mesons, using the textbook Coulomb wave functions:

$$\delta R^{c/n}=\frac{\pi \alpha }{2v}+O\left(\frac{\alpha ^2}{v^2}\right).$$
(2)
At the excitation energy of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, $`E_0=M_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)}2m_B20MeV`$, one has $`v0.06`$, and the simple estimate (2) would yield $`\delta R^{c/n}0.19`$. It was subsequently argued that the estimate of $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ can in fact be substantially reduced from eq.(2) if one accounts for a finite size of the $`B`$ mesons (through their electromagnetic form factor) and also for the finite size of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$. The latter effect was further discussed in a specific model of heavy quarkonium. Recently the problem of calculation of the ratio $`R^{c/n}`$ was revisited in the context of a chiral-type model for strong interaction of $`B`$ mesons at short distances, including the $`B^{}B\pi `$ vertex and the coupled channels with pairs of pseudoscalar and/or vector mesons, although still considering all the mesons as point-like with respect to the Coulomb interaction.

It should be noted that in all previous theoretical studies of the ratio $`R^{c/n}`$ the presence of the resonance in the wave function of the $`B`$ meson pair was essentially ignored. In other words, the coupling of the resonance to the $`B`$ mesons was either treated perturbatively (although with a form factor), or the considered model of the strong interaction did not contain a resonance at all. For this reason the results predicted a smooth behavior of $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ with energy in the region of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. It is however well known (see e.g. in the two last chapters of the textbook ) that the presence of a resonance produces a large effect on the wave function of the scattering states, which is rapidly changing across the resonance with energy. The scale for the variation is set by the resonance width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In particular, the relative phase $`2\delta `$ between the outgoing and incoming spherical waves (twice the scattering phase $`\delta `$) changes by $`2\pi `$ at the scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ when the excitation energy $`E`$ passes the central value $`E_0`$. It is the purpose of the present paper to properly take into account the resonant behavior of the wave function of the scattering states along the lines of the standard non relativistic scattering theory. It will be shown that an interplay between the rapidly changing relative phase of incoming/outgoing wave and of the effects of the Coulomb interaction gives rise to a rather non-trivial behavior of $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ with the energy changing across the resonance. Namely $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ has to change sign at energy within a fraction of the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the ‘nominal’ resonance center energy $`E_0`$. It will also be argued that the effect of a rapid variation of $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ should be model independent, while the details, such as the overall magnitude of $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ and the precise position of its zero(s), do depend on yet unknown details of the strong and electromagnetic interactions of the $`B`$ mesons at short distances and of the structure of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. Thus a detailed experimental study of the behavior of $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ in the resonance region could in principle provide a certain insight into those finer properties of the hadron dynamics.

The standard physical picture for considering the scattering in the resonance region (c.f. Ref.) is that the strong interaction, responsible for the existence of the resonance has a short range $`a`$, and the essential effects of the interaction at distances $`r<a`$ can be parameterized in terms of phenomenologically measurable parameters of the resonance, the most important being its energy $`E_0`$ above the threshold and the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. At distances larger than $`a`$ the motion is described by a known potential $`V(r)`$: either $`V(r)=0`$, or a Coulomb potential (with a possible modification due to form factor at short distances), where the wave function of the scattering state can be found explicitly from the Schrödinger equation. The boundary (matching) conditions at $`ra`$ for the ‘outer’ wave function are related to the measurable parameters of the resonance. In the discussed process the $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs are produced in the $`P`$ wave. Also beyond the region of strong interaction, i.e. at $`r>a`$, there is no strong interaction mixing between the “neutral”, $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$, and the “charged”, $`B^+B^{}`$, channels. Thus the ‘outer’ wave function at $`r>a`$ is described by the spherical wave with $`L=1`$, whose radial part can be written as $`R(r)=\chi (r)/r`$, with a separate function $`\chi (r)`$ for each of the channels: $`\chi _n(r)`$ and $`\chi _c(r)`$, each satisfying at energy $`E=p^2/m`$ the corresponding one-dimensional Schrödinger equation

$$\chi _n^{\prime \prime }+\left(p^2\frac{2}{r^2}\right)\chi _n=0,\chi _c^{\prime \prime }+\left(p^2+m\frac{\alpha }{r}\frac{2}{r^2}\right)\chi _c=0,$$
(3)
where the prime denotes derivative over $`r`$, and $`m=m_B5280MeV`$ is the mass of either of the $`B`$ mesons (a possible small mass difference between the charged and neutral $`B`$ mesons is completely ignored throughout the present discussion).

The coupling between the “neutral” and the “charged” channels takes place in the region of strong interaction at short distances. At those distances the light quark parts of the mesons strongly overlap and become a part of (presumably) quite complicated dynamics of light quarks and gluons. Thus in this region it would be inappropriate to continue description in terms of individual $`B`$ mesons. The boundary condition for the ‘outer’ dynamics at distances $`r>a`$ is however dictated by the isotopic invariance of the strong interaction. Namely, one can assume with a rather high degree of accuracy that when the $`B`$ mesons emerge from the region of strong dynamics as individual particles their wave function is an isotopic singlet. In other words, the isospin condition for the functions $`\chi _n`$ and $`\chi _c`$ is that they evolve from one and the same function at a certain short distance $`r=a`$, i.e. that

$$\chi _c(a)=\chi _n(a)\mathrm{and}\chi _c^{}(a)=\chi _n^{}(a),$$
(4)
which boundary conditions can be viewed as our formal definition of the short distance parameter $`a`$. Although there can be a small ‘intrinsic’ isospin violation also in the region of strong interaction, its effect in $`\delta R^{c/n}`$, as discussed in Ref., is noticeably smaller than that of the Coulomb interaction, and can be studied as a further adjustment, using the approximation of exact isospin symmetry at short distances in eq.(4) as a starting point.

As is known from the standard Breit-Wigner description of a resonance scattering at energy $`E`$ near the position $`E_0`$ of the resonance, the relevant ‘outer’ solution of the Schrödinger equations (3) for stationary wave functions has the form

$`\chi _n(r)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }i\gamma )b_nf_n(r)+(\mathrm{\Delta }+i\gamma )b_n^{}f_n^{}(r),`$
$`\chi _c(r)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }i\gamma )b_cf_c(r)+(\mathrm{\Delta }+i\gamma )b_c^{}f_c^{}(r),`$ (5)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=EE_0`$, $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$ and the complex coefficients $`b_{n(c)}`$ are generally functions of the energy, which however have no zeros at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=i\gamma `$. Finally, each of the functions $`f_n`$ and $`f_c`$ is the solution of the corresponding equation in (3), which contains only the outgoing wave, i.e. at $`r\mathrm{}`$ they contain only the factor $`\mathrm{exp}(ipr)`$ (while their complex conjugates $`f_{n(c)}^{}`$ contain only the incoming wave factor $`\mathrm{exp}(ipr)`$).

The function $`f_n(r)`$ specified by this condition is well known for the free motion with $`L=1`$,

$$f_n(r)=\left(1+\frac{i}{pr}\right)e^{ipr},$$
(6)
and with this condition for its phase, the phase of the coefficient $`b_n`$ coincides with the non-resonant scattering phase $`\delta _1`$ at $`L=1`$,

$$\mathrm{exp}(2i\delta _1)=\frac{b_n}{b_n^{}}.$$
(7)
The corresponding function $`f_c(r)`$ for the motion in the Coulomb potential is also well known (see e.g. in Ref.), however for our present purpose it would be more convenient to make use of the perturbation theory in the Coulomb interaction, rather than to do an expansion of the explicit expression. In specifying the phase convention for the function $`f_c`$ a minor technical point arises due to the well known fact that its phase at $`r\mathrm{}`$ contains a slowly varying logarithmic Coulomb phase: $`f_c(r)\mathrm{exp}i[pr+(\alpha /2v)\mathrm{ln}2pr+const]`$. This however can be readily resolved by assuming that the Coulomb interaction is cut off at a large distance $`r=R`$. Then at still larger $`r`$ the Coulomb phase does not change and can be considered as constant. Clearly the physical results, including the discussed here effect in $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ do not depend on this infrared cutoff. Implying such regularization, the function $`f_c(r)`$ in eq.(5) can be chosen to exactly coincide (both in phase and in normalization) with $`f_n(r)`$ at asymptotically large distances: $`f_c(r)=\mathrm{exp}(ipr)`$. Thus any difference in phase and magnitude that arises from the Coulomb interaction in the “charged” channel is encoded in the coefficient $`b_c`$.

In order to find from the wave function of a stationary state (eq.(5)) the relative rate of production of the pairs of charged and neutral $`B`$ mesons in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, i.e. by a source localized well inside the region of strong interaction, it is necessary to note that the rate in each channel is proportional to the inverse of the norm squared of the coefficient in front of the incoming wave. This can be understood by considering the reverse process: annihilation of a meson pair into $`e^+e^{}`$, in complete analogy with an explanation of the “$`|\psi (0)|^2`$ rule” for production of bound states. In the reverse process the incoming wave has a fixed flux, i.e. a fixed norm of the coefficient in front of $`\mathrm{exp}(ipr)`$ at large $`r`$. Matching this wave to the incoming part of the wave function in eq.(5) implies that the corresponding function $`\chi (r)`$ has to be divided by the coefficient of its incoming wave part. Under the normalization conventions adopted here for the functions $`f(r)`$ this results in the annihilation rate being proportional to the factor $`|(\mathrm{\Delta }+i\gamma )b^{}|^2`$, with $`b`$ equal to $`b_n`$ or $`b_c`$, depending on the chosen initial state for the incoming wave. Clearly, this factor in the rate contains both the standard Breit-Wigner resonance curve and the normalization factor $`|b|^2`$. Thus the discussed here ratio of the yields in the two channels is given by111In a somewhat more widely familiar non-resonant situation when point-like particles are produced by a point source, the functions $`\chi _n(r)`$ and $`\chi _c(r)`$ are the regular at $`r=0`$ solutions of the equations (3). In this case one has (for a $`P`$ wave): $`|b_n/b_c|^2=|\psi _c^{}(0)/\psi _n^{}(0)|^2`$, where $`\psi _c(r)`$ and $`\psi _n(r)`$ are the wave functions for corresponding stationary states, having the same relative normalization at infinity.

$$R^{c/n}=\frac{|b_n|^2}{|b_c|^2}.$$
(8)
The relation between the coefficients $`b_n`$ and $`b_c`$ is found from the matching conditions (4). After substituting the wave functions from eq.(5) into the conditions (4), the ratio of the coefficients (in fact the inverse of that entering eq.(8)) is found as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{b_c}{b_n}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(f_n+f_n^{}e^{2i\delta _{BW}2i\delta _1}\right)f_c^{}\left(f_n^{}+f_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}e^{2i\delta _{BW}2i\delta _1}\right)}{f_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{}f_cf_c^{}f_c^{}}}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2p}}\left[f_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(f_n+f_n^{}e^{2i\delta _{BW}2i\delta _1}\right)f_c^{}\left(f_n^{}+f_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}e^{2i\delta _{BW}2i\delta _1}\right)\right],`$
where all the functions and their derivatives are taken at the matching point $`r=a`$, $`\delta _{BW}`$ is the standard Breit-Wigner resonance phase: $`\mathrm{exp}(2i\delta _{BW})=(\mathrm{\Delta }i\gamma )/(\mathrm{\Delta }+i\gamma )`$, and the non-resonant phase $`\delta _1`$ is defined by eq.(7). Finally, in the last transition a use is made of the fact that the denominator in the intermediate expression is the Wronskian, which is constant in $`r`$ and can thus be found from the asymptotic form of the function $`f_c`$ at large $`r`$.

The equation (9) contains no approximation with regards to the Coulomb interaction, and can be used down to arbitrarily small values of $`v`$, i.e. for arbitrary values of the Coulomb parameter $`\alpha /v`$, provided that the exact Coulomb function is used for $`f_c(r)`$. However for the practical purpose of discussing the Coulomb effects at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance it is sufficient to consider only the effect of first order in $`\alpha `$. In this order one can write $`f_c(r)=f_n(r)+\varphi (r)`$ with $`\varphi `$ being formally a small perturbation of order $`\alpha `$ of the wave function. Using this expression in eq.(9) and also assuming an expansion of the ratio $`b_c/b_n`$ to the first order in $`\alpha `$, one readily finds

$$\delta R^{c/n}=\frac{|b_n|^2}{|b_c|^2}1=\frac{1}{p}\mathrm{Im}\left\{e^{2i\delta _{BW}+2i\delta _1}\left[\varphi (a)f_n^{}(a)\varphi ^{}(a)f_n(a)\right]\right\}.$$
(10)
The combination of the functions in this expression can be found directly from the equations (3) by also a rather standard method. Indeed, the function $`f_n(r)`$ satisfies the first of those equations, while $`f_c(r)`$ satisfies the second equation. Multiplying the first equation by $`f_c(r)`$ and the second equation by $`f_n(r)`$, subtracting the results, and expanding in the difference $`\varphi `$ between $`f_c`$ and $`f_n`$, one arrives at the relation

$$\frac{d}{dr}\left[\varphi (r)f_n^{}(r)\varphi ^{}(r)f_n(r)\right]=m\frac{\alpha }{r}f_n^2(r).$$
(11)
Integrating this relation over $`r`$ from $`a`$ to infinity, using the fact that under our conventions $`\varphi (r)0`$ at $`r\mathrm{}`$, and also using the explicit expression (6) for $`f_n(r)`$, one finds in terms of eq.(10) the formula

$`\delta R^{c/n}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{v}}\mathrm{Im}\left[e^{2i\delta _{BW}+2i\delta _1}{\displaystyle _a^{\mathrm{}}}e^{2ipr}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{pr}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{r}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{v}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\gamma ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\gamma ^2}}\left(A\mathrm{cos}2\delta _1+B\mathrm{sin}2\delta _1\right){\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\gamma ^2}}\left(B\mathrm{cos}2\delta _1A\mathrm{sin}2\delta _1\right)\right],`$
where in the latter expression the coefficients $`A`$ and $`B`$ are given (with the oposite sign) by respectively the imaginary and the real part of the integral with complex exponent:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{pa}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u^2}}\right)\mathrm{sin}2u+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cos}2u}{u}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u}},`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{pa}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}2u}{u}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u^2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}2u\right]{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u}}.`$ (13)
At small values of the product $`pa`$ the coefficients $`A`$ and $`B`$ have the expansion:

$$A=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{2pa}{3}+O(p^3a^3),B=\frac{1}{2p^2a^2}\mathrm{ln}2pa\gamma _E+1+O(p^4a^4),$$
(14)
where $`\gamma _E=0.577\mathrm{}`$ is the Euler constant.

One can see from eq.(S0.Ex3) that in the limit, where the effects of the strong interaction in the wave function of the scattering state are ignored, corresponding to $`\gamma 0`$ and $`\delta _10`$, the simple estimate (2) of $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ is recovered, assuming production of point-like particles by a point source (i.e. also $`a0`$). However this limit of a vanishing resonance width is totally inadequate for resolving the behavior of $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ inside the resonance curve, i.e. at the energy scale of $`\gamma `$. In particular, the second term in the final expression in eq.(S0.Ex3), proportional to $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }/(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\gamma ^2)`$ vanishes at energies far away from the resonance, i.e. at $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|\gamma `$, as well as at the center of the resonance, i.e. at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. On the other hand, the first term contains the factor $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^2\gamma ^2)/(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\gamma ^2)`$, which changes from $`+1`$ away from the resonance to $`1`$ at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. Thus $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ necessarily has to change sign within the width of the resonance.

Given that the coefficient $`B`$ is singular at small momenta, it is instructive to analyze the behavior of $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ described by the equations (S0.Ex3 - 14) in the limit of small $`p`$ (but still considering $`\alpha /v`$ as small for the applicability of the perturbative treatment of the Coulomb interaction). At this point one has to recall that the width parameter $`\gamma `$ for a $`P`$ wave resonance has to vanish at small $`p`$ as $`p^3`$, and that the non-resonant scattering phase $`\delta _1`$ also vanishes as $`p^3`$. Thus the effect of the $`p^2`$ singularity in the coefficient $`B`$ results in a constant at small velocity term in the correction: $`const\alpha `$, which is small in comparison with the dominant part of the correction behaving as $`\alpha /v`$.

It should be emphasized, prior to discussing the behavior at the realistic $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, that the expressions (S0.Ex3) - (14) are formally applicable only in the limit of small $`pa`$. Indeed, in this limit the details of the transition between an isotopically symmetric strong dynamics at short disatnces and the Coulomb behavior at the relevant distances of order $`p^1`$ are not essential, and the parameter $`a`$ enters only the leading singularity of the coefficient $`B`$ resulting in a subleading at low energy term in $`\delta R^{c/n}`$, which can be studied phenomenologically222It can be noticed that a non-removable dependence on a short-distance parameter is a general property of scattering in the states with $`L0`$, and in fact it also appears, although as a logarithmic dependence, in the $`S`$ wave scattering in the presence of a Coulomb interaction.. When the parameter $`pa`$ cannot be considered as small, the details of the actual behavior of the wave functions at the transition distances would generally depend on the shape of the transition, and a more elaborate matching at short distances, than the conditions (4) at a fixed distance, might be required.

The position of the actual $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance corresponds to the momentum $`p_0330MeV`$. Thus, most likely, the relevant values of the parameter $`pa`$ are of order one, i.e. the parameter is neither small nor large in the region of interest. Under these circumstances one can approach this region of phenomenological interest from the side of small values of $`pa`$ aiming at an at least qualitative description of what kind of behavior should be expected for $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ at the resonance. In addition, the width of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }14MeV`$, is not small as compared to its excitation energy. Combined with the not too small value of $`p_0`$ this can generally lead to that effects of higher terms of expansion in $`p^2`$ of the quantities $`\gamma (p)`$, $`\delta _1(p)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$ may become essential. (An attempt at taking into account higher than $`p^3`$ terms in the width parameter was done in connection with the experimental measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in Ref.. However the effect of those higher terms turned out to be quite small within the experimental accuracy.)

With all the stated reservations about uncertainties involved in a quantitative description of the behavior of $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ in the region of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, a qualitative illustration of the expected variation of $`R^{c/n}`$ in the resonance region is provided by the plots in Fig.1. The curves in the plots are calculated with various values of $`a`$ and $`\delta _1`$ under the following assumptions: only the leading terms in the expansion of $`A`$ and $`B`$ at small $`pa`$, explicitly shown in eq.(14), are retained, the width parameter is parameterized as $`\gamma =(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)(p/p_0)^3`$, and the non-resonant phase as $`\delta _1=\delta _1(E_0)(p/p_0)^3`$. (It should be mentioned that the range of $`\delta _1(E_0)`$ from $`30^0`$ to $`+30^0`$ most likely is unrealistically broad, and is used here for an illustration of the effect of the phase under extreme assumptions.) One can clearly see from the shown curves that being undoubtedly different in details, they exhibit quite similar qualitative behavior333The second zero of $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ at $`E>E_0`$ is not reached in some of the curves in Fig.1 within the shown range of the energy. The behavior at large energies however becomes very sensitive to higher in $`p^2`$ terms in $`\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`\delta _1`$, and the location of that zero cannot be presently estimated with any certainty.. Thus, as expected on general grounds from eq.(S0.Ex3), the very fact of a substantial and rapid variation of $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ within the resonance width stays robust under assumptions about the presently unknown parameters.

The strong variation of $`\delta R^{c/n}`$ at the scale of few MeV near the center of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance can be important in a comparison of the data obtained in different experiments, especially at different electron-positron colliders, given the differences in the beam energy spread and possible slight differences in the values (and stability) of the central energy of the beams, at which the data are collected. The thus far available results are consistent with each other mainly due to the substantial statistical and systematic errors. This agreement however can change if the measurements of the discussed relative yield are pursued further with better accuracy, possibly permitting a quantitative study of the variation of this yield. As is argued here, the effect of the variation is not small, and the detailed behavior is sensitive to properties of the heavy and light quark and hadron dynamics, which would be difficult, if possible at all, to study by other means.

I gratefully acknowledge useful discussions with Ron Poling, Jon Urheim, and Arkady Vainshtein of the experimental and theoretical issues related to the problem considered in this paper. This work is supported in part by the DOE grant DE-FG02-94ER40823.


text:
# Seshadri constants and the geometry of surfaces

## 0 Introduction

In this paper we study how locally defined numerical invariants can carry global geometric information about algebraic surfaces. The local invariants which we will study are Seshadri constants which measure the positivity of a line bundle near a point.

###### Definition 1

Suppose $`X`$ is a smooth projective variety, $`xX`$, and $`A`$ an ample line bundle on $`X`$. Then

$$ϵ(x,A)=\underset{Cx}{inf}\frac{c_1(A)C}{\mathrm{mult}_x(C)};$$

here the infimum runs over all integral curves $`CX`$ passing through $`x`$.

This numerical definition is equivalent to a more intuitive geometric definition. In particular, $`ϵ(x,A)`$ is the supremum of all non–negative rational numbers $`\alpha `$ such that the linear series $`|nA|`$ separates $`n\alpha `$–jets at $`x`$ for $`n`$ sufficiently large and divisible. Note that if $`L`$ is a nef line bundle on $`X`$ then Definition 1 still makes sense and $`ϵ(x,L)`$ is defined accordingly. When $`L`$ is nef but not ample, however, $`ϵ(x,L)`$ can take the value zero at some or all points of $`X`$.

Given the local nature of this definition, it is surprising that Seshadri constants can carry global information about a variety $`X`$. Indeed, at special points Seshadri constants rarely carry interesting global information: for example, suppose $`\pi :XY`$ is the blow–up of a smooth surface at a point with exceptional divisor $`E`$. Then for any ample line bundle $`A`$ on $`Y`$ and any sufficiently large positive integer $`n`$, $`ϵ(x,\pi ^{}(nA)(E))=1`$ at all points $`xE`$. At a very general point, however, this type of behavior cannot occur as the numerical equivalence class of any cycle through a very general point moves to cover the entire variety: recall that a point $`xX`$ is called very general if $`x`$ belongs to the complement of a countable union of closed, proper subvarieties of $`X`$. Thus at a very general point one can hope for Seshadri constants to carry some global information.

In particular, one global property which might be captured via Seshadri constants is whether or not $`X`$ admits a dominant morphism to a variety of smaller dimension. Indeed suppose $`\pi :XY`$ is a surjective map of projective varieties with $`dim(Y)1`$ and let $`A`$ be an ample line bundle on $`Y`$. If $`B`$ is an ample line bundle on $`X`$ and $`\eta X`$ a general point then

$$ϵ(\eta ,\pi ^{}(nA)+ϵB)1$$

for $`ϵ1`$ as one can see by intersecting with a curve $`C`$ contained in the fibre $`\pi ^1(\pi (\eta ))`$. Note that the line bundles $`\pi ^{}(nA)+ϵB`$ form an unbounded family as $`n`$ grows. We will show that the converse is also true in case $`X`$ is a surface: namely, if there exists an unbounded family of ample line bundles whose Seshadri constant at a very general point is bounded, then $`X`$ admits a dominant morphism to a curve.

In order to state our result formally, we require a few definitions. We let

$$S(X)=\left\{ANE(X)𝐐\text{ample}\right|ϵ(\eta ,A)1\},$$

where $`\eta X`$ is a very general point and $`NE(X)`$ denotes divisor classes modulo numerical equivalence. For an ample $`𝐐`$–divisor $`A`$ we let

$$m(A)=\underset{DA}{sup}\left\{\mathrm{mult}_\eta (D)\right|D\mathrm{Div}(X)𝐐\text{effective}\}.$$

To see that the invariant $`m(A)`$ is well–defined, choose a very ample divisor $`B`$ and let $`d=dim(X)`$. For any $`𝐐`$–divisor $`DA`$, we can choose general divisors $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_{d1}`$, containing $`\eta `$, so that the intersection

$$\mathrm{support}(D)B_1\mathrm{}B_{d1}$$

is proper. It then follows that

$$\mathrm{mult}_\eta (D)c_1(A)c_1(B)^{d1}$$

establishing that the supremum exists in the definition of $`m(A)`$.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface and define

$$m(X)=\underset{AS(X)}{sup}m(A).$$

Then $`m(X)>2`$ if and only if $`X`$ admits a surjective morphism $`\varphi :XC`$ to a curve $`C`$.

Note in particular that Theorem 2 implies that $`m(X)>2`$ if and only if $`m(X)=\mathrm{}`$. Indeed, whenever $`X`$ fibres over a variety $`Y`$ it is easy, as above, to produce a family of line bundles $`\{A_i\}`$ with bounded Seshadri constant at a very general point but where $`m(A_i)\mathrm{}`$ as $`i\mathrm{}`$. One interesting corollary of Theorem 2 is the following:

###### Corollary 3

Suppose $`A`$ is an ample line bundle on a surface $`X`$ satisfying

$$\sqrt{c_1(A)^2}>\sqrt{3}ϵ(\eta ,A).$$

Then there exists a non–trivial fibration $`\pi :XC`$ such that the general fibre $`F_\eta `$ is Seshadri–exceptional for $`A`$.

Note that an inequality like that of Corollary 3 holds for any ample line bundle on a smooth surface, namely

$$ϵ(\eta ,A)\sqrt{c_1(A)^2}.$$

With somewhat more delicate analysis one can also establish the following generalization of a result proven for abelian varieties in \[N\]:

###### Theorem 4

Suppose $`A`$ is an ample line bundle on $`X`$ satisfying $`A^2>1`$ and $`ϵ(\eta ,A)=1`$. Then there exists a non–trivial fibration $`\pi :XC`$ such that the general fibre $`F_\eta `$ is smooth and Seshadri–exceptional for $`A`$.

The methods we use to prove Theorems 2 and 4 are very close to those of \[EL\], namely we exploit the fact that any curve $`CX`$ passing through a very general point moves in a non–trivial family. Theorem 4 also used the Kodaira–Spencer construction of \[EL\].

Note that by work of Oguiso \[\], Seshadri constants can not increase under specialization and thus if $`\eta `$ is a very general point then $`ϵ(\eta ,A)`$ is the maximal value achieved by the Seshadri constants $`ϵ(x,A)`$ as $`x`$ varies over all points of $`X`$. Hwang and Keum \[HK\] study this maximal value, which they denote by $`\mu (A)`$, and, following the methodology of \[EKL\], prove that when $`\mu (A)`$ is too small relative to the volume of $`A`$ then $`X`$ admits a fibration like that produced in Corollary 3, Theorem 4, and Corollary 6. The work of Hwang and Keum is very closely related to the present paper, analysing the higher dimensional case and providing several interesting examples.

Acknowledgments It is a real pleasure to thank the referee for numerous helpful comments and suggestions which greatly improved the quality of exposition in this paper. The referee also kindly shared with me the very interesting paper of Hwang and Keum \[HK\] which has not, to my knowledge, been published.

## 1 Main Results

Proof of Theorem 2 One direction of Theorem 2 is trivial. Namely, suppose that there exists a surjective map $`\varphi :XC`$ to some curve $`C`$. Let $`\eta X`$ be a very general point and let $`P=\varphi (\eta )`$. We denote by $`F_P`$ the fibre of $`X`$ over $`P`$. Then $`F_P`$ is nef and $`ϵ(\eta ,F_P)=0`$. Thus, if $`A`$ is any ample line bundle on $`X`$ we have, for $`\alpha `$ sufficiently small

$$ϵ(\eta ,\alpha A+nF_P)1,n0$$

and this is clearly a family $`S`$ of divisors for which $`m(S)`$ is unbounded.

For the other direction of Theorem 2, we require the notion of a Seshadri exceptional subvariety

###### Definition 5

Suppose $`A`$ is an ample line bundle on a variety $`X`$ and $`xX`$. An irreducible subvariety $`V`$ containing $`x`$ is called Seshadri exceptional at $`x`$ relative to $`A`$ if

$$ϵ(x,A)=\frac{\mathrm{deg}_A(V)}{\mathrm{mult}_x(V)}.$$

A result of Campana and Peternell \[CP\] asserts that there always exists a Seshadri exceptional subvariety. In particular, on a surface $`X`$, if $`ϵ(\eta ,A)<\sqrt{A^2}`$ then $`X`$ itself can not be Seshadri exceptional and thus there must exist a Seshadri exceptional curve.

Suppose $`m(X)>2`$. Then by definition we can find an ample divisor $`AS(X)`$ and an $`\alpha >0`$ with

$`m(A)>2+\alpha .`$ (2.1)
Since $`ϵ(\eta ,A)1`$ it follows that $`X`$ is not Seshadri exceptional for $`A`$ and thus there is a Seshadri exceptional curve $`C`$ satisfying

$`{\displaystyle \frac{AC}{\mathrm{mult}_\eta (C)}}1.`$ (2.2)
Let $`m=\mathrm{mult}_\eta (C)`$. Applying \[EL\] Corollary 1.2 gives

$`C^2m(m1).`$ (2.3)
We begin by showing

$`C`$ is smooth at $`\eta `$ and $`C^2=0`$. (2.4)
Suppose first that $`m2`$. We claim that

$`ϵ(\eta ,C)m1.`$ (2.5)
To prove 2.5, note first that $`C^2/\mathrm{mult}_\eta (C)m1`$ by 2.3 and for any curve $`C^{}C`$ through $`\eta `$ one has $`CC^{}/\mathrm{mult}_\eta (C^{})m`$. Thus we have established 2.5. Note that since $`C^2>0`$ and $`C`$ is irreducible, it follows that $`C`$ is big and nef. Consequently, there exists an effective divisor $`D`$ so that $`C\delta D`$ is ample for any $`\delta >0`$. Since $`\eta `$ is general, we can assume that $`\eta `$ is not contained in $`D`$. By 2.5, given $`ϵ>0`$ for all $`\delta `$ sufficiently small

$$ϵ(\eta ,C\delta D)>m1ϵ.$$

So if $`p:YX`$ denotes the blow–up of $`X`$ at $`\eta `$ with exceptional divisor $`E`$ then

$$p^{}(C\delta D)(((m1ϵ)E))$$

is ample. Thus for $`k`$ sufficiently large and divisible the linear series $`\left|k(C\delta D)_\eta ^{k(m1ϵ)}\right|`$ has an isolated base point at $`\eta `$ and its general member is irreducible: here $`_\eta 𝒪_X`$ is the ideal sheaf of the point $`\eta `$. Hence for any $`ϵ>0`$ there exists a non–trivial family $`\{D_t\}`$ of $`𝐐`$-divisors, irreducible in a neighborhood of $`\eta `$, numerically equivalent to $`C`$ with

$`\mathrm{mult}_\eta (D_t)m1ϵ.`$ (2.6)
By 2.1, there is a $`𝐐`$–divisor $`F`$, numerically equivalent to A, with $`\mathrm{mult}_\eta (F)>2+\alpha `$. Choose a divisor $`D_t`$ in the family above which meets $`F`$ properly, except possibly along $`D`$. By 2.2

$$ACm.$$

On the other hand, using 2.6 we have

$`AC`$ $`=`$ $`FD_t`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{mult}_\eta (F)\mathrm{mult}_\eta (D_t)+\delta DF`$
$``$ $`(2+\alpha )(m1ϵ)O(\delta ).`$
For $`\delta `$ and $`ϵ`$ sufficiently small, this is a contradiction unless $`m=1`$. We conclude that the first part of 2.4 holds, namely that $`C`$ is smooth at $`\eta `$.

To prove the second part of 2.4, note first that $`C^20`$ since $`C`$ passes through a very general point of $`X`$. Moreover, since $`C`$ is irredubible $`C`$ must be nef so that $`ϵ(\eta ,C)`$ is well–defined. irreducible We assume that $`C^21`$ and derive a contradiction. Since $`C`$ is irreducible we have

$$\frac{CC^{}}{\mathrm{mult}_\eta (C^{})}1,C^{}C.$$

Since $`C`$ is smooth at $`\eta `$ we also have

$$\frac{CC}{\mathrm{mult}_\eta (C)}1.$$

Thus $`ϵ(\eta ,C)1`$. In particular, for $`ϵ>0`$ we see as in 2.6 above that there is a non–trivial family of divisors $`\{D_t\}`$, numerically equivalent to $`C`$ and locally irreducible at $`\eta `$, with $`\mathrm{mult}_\eta (D_t)>1ϵ`$. Suppose as above that $`F`$ is a $`𝐐`$–divisor numerically equivalent to $`A`$ with $`\mathrm{mult}_\eta (F)>2+\alpha `$. Arguing exactly as above we see that $`F`$ cannot intersect $`D_t`$ properly, a contradiction since the family of divisors $`D_t`$ has no base points other than $`\eta `$. Thus we have established the second half of 2.4, namely that $`C^2=0`$, and we now have a curve which is a candidate for giving a fibration of $`X`$.

Since the curve $`C`$ passes through a very general point $`\eta X`$ we can apply \[Ko\] Proposition 2.5 to obtain a non–trivial family of curves in $`X`$, parametrized by a variety $`S`$, which are numerically equivalent to $`C`$. More precisely, there is a scheme $`U`$ with a flat map $`\pi :US`$ to a reduced scheme $`S`$ of finite type and a map $`f:UX`$ such that $`f:\pi ^1(s)X`$ is birational for all $`sS`$ and $`C=f(\pi ^1(t))`$ for some $`tS`$. We replace $`S`$ with a suitable smooth affine curve $`T`$ and $`U`$ with $`\pi ^1(T)`$ so that the new family is also non–trivial. Consider the graph $`\mathrm{\Sigma }U\times T`$ of $`\pi `$ and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}X\times T`$ be the image of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ via the morphism $`f\times \mathrm{id}`$. Let $`\pi _2:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}T`$ denote the projection to the second factor. Shrinking $`T`$ if necessary, we can assume that $`\pi _2^1(t)`$ is a curve for all $`tT`$. Then for $`xT`$ the divisors $`C_x=\pi _2^{}(x)`$ are algebraically equivalent and satisfy $`C_x^2=0`$ since each curve $`C_x`$ is numerically equivalent to $`C`$.

Choose a general point $`xT`$ and consider the map

$$\varphi :T\mathrm{Pic}^0(X)$$

given by $`\varphi (y)=𝒪_X(C_yC_x)`$ where $`C_x`$ and $`C_y`$ are the curves corresponding to $`x,yT`$. The map $`\varphi `$ naturally induces a map $`\varphi ^n:T^n\mathrm{Pic}^0(X)`$ where $`T^n`$ is the $`n^{th}`$ Cartesian product of $`T`$ and for $`n`$ sufficiently large $`\varphi ^n`$ is not injective. This means that for some $`mn`$ there are points $`\{P_i\}_{i=1}^m`$ and $`\{Q_i\}_{i=1}^m`$, mutually distinct, satisfying

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(C_{P_i}C_{Q_i})\text{linearly equivalent to 0}.$$

Consider the linear system

$$\left|\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}C_{P_i}\right|.$$

This system contains the two effective divisors, $`_{i=1}^mC_{P_i}`$ and $`_{i=1}^mC_{Q_i}`$. By hypothesis, these two divisors are disjoint and thus the linear series $`\left|_{i=1}^mC_{P_i}\right|`$ is base point free. In particular, using the pencil of divisors spanned by $`_{i=1}^mC_{P_i}`$ and $`_{i=1}^mC_{Q_i}`$ gives a map $`\psi :X𝐏^1`$ which contracts $`C_x`$ for all $`xT`$ since $`\left(_{i=1}^mC_{P_i}\right)C_x=0`$. On the other hand, the map is surjective because the corresponding linear series has projective dimension one. This completes the proof of Theorem 2.

Note that we have the following immediate corollary to Theorem 2:

###### Corollary 6

Suppose $`X`$ is a smooth projective surface admitting no non–trivial fibration over a curve. Then

$$\sqrt{A^2}2ϵ(\eta ,A)$$

for all ample line bundles $`A`$.

Proof of Corollary 6 Suppose that $`\sqrt{A^2}>2ϵ(\eta ,A)`$. Then it follows that there is a $`𝐐`$–divisor $`D`$ numerically equivalent to $`A`$ such that $`\mathrm{mult}_\eta (D)>2ϵ(\eta ,A)`$. Arguing as in the proof of Theorem 2 shows that if $`C`$ is Seshadri exceptional for $`A`$ at $`\eta `$ then $`C^2=0`$ and one obtains a fibration of $`X`$ over a curve. Corollary 6 can also be restated as follows: if $`A`$ is ample on $`X`$ and $`\sqrt{A^2}>2ϵ(\eta ,A)`$ then $`X`$ fibres over a curve with general fibre Seshadri exceptional for $`A`$. This is slightly weaker than Corollary 3 which we prove now.

Proof of Corollary 3 According to the proof of Theorem 2, it suffices to produce a Q–divisor $`D`$ numerically equivalent to $`A`$ with $`\mathrm{mult}_\eta (D)>2ϵ(\eta ,A)`$. However, using \[EKL\] Proposition 2.3 we see that for any $`n>0`$ a divisor $`D|nA|`$ with $`\mathrm{mult}_\eta (D)>n(ϵ(\eta ,A)+\alpha )`$ has multiplicity at least $`n\alpha `$ along $`C_\eta `$. Note that it is critical for this result that the point $`\eta `$ be very general. In particular, the cost of imposing order of vanishing $`n(ϵ(\eta ,A)+\alpha )`$ at $`\eta `$ is asymptotically at most

$$\left(\frac{ϵ(\eta ,A)^2}{2}+\alpha ϵ(\eta ,A)\right)n^2,$$

the maximum cost coming of course when $`C_\eta `$ is smooth. Here $`\frac{ϵ(\eta ,A)^2}{2}n^2`$ represents the asymptotic cost of imposing multiplicity $`nϵ(\eta ,A)`$ at $`\eta `$ and $`\alpha ϵ(\eta ,A)n^2`$ is the maximal cost of raising the multiplicity by an additional $`n\alpha `$. Thus one can always obtain a $`𝐐`$–divisor numerically equivalent to $`A`$ with multiplicity at $`\eta `$ arbitrarily close to

$$ϵ(\eta ,A)+\frac{A^2ϵ(\eta ,A)^2}{2ϵ(\eta ,A)}.$$

In particular, the hypothesis of Corollary 3 is satisfied as soon as

$$\sqrt{A^2}>\sqrt{3}ϵ(\eta ,A).$$

Proof of Theorem 4 We begin with some concrete examples of Corollary 3. Suppose $`A^24`$ and $`ϵ(\eta ,A)=1`$. Then by Corollary 3 the Seshadri exceptional curve of $`A`$ at $`\eta `$ must give a fibration of $`X`$ over a curve. If $`A^2=3`$ and $`ϵ(\eta ,A)=1`$ the argument for the case where $`A^24`$ fails if $`C_\eta `$ is smooth. In order to eliminate the possibility that $`C_\eta `$ is smooth we consider $`C_\eta ^2`$. If $`C_\eta ^2=0`$ then we obtain the desired fibration. If $`C_\eta ^2>0`$ then $`ϵ(\eta ,C_\eta )1`$ and we find a contradiction arguing as in the second half of 2.4.

We now consider the special case where $`A^2=2`$. If $`C_\eta `$ is a Seshadri exceptional curve at $`\eta `$, then one readily establishes that there are only three possibilities. First $`C_\eta `$ is smooth with $`C_\eta ^2=0`$ in which case $`C_\eta `$ gives a fibration of $`X`$ over a curve. Second, one could have $`C_\eta ^21`$ and $`C_\eta `$ smooth at $`\eta `$. This would imply that $`AC_\eta =1`$ which contradicts the Hodge index theorem:

$$AC\sqrt{A^2}\sqrt{C^2}$$

Finally, one could have $`C_\eta ^2=2`$ and $`\mathrm{mult}_\eta (C)=2`$: all other possibilities are eliminated as above using the Hodge index formula and 2.3. This last case is of course possible provided one allows $`C_\eta `$ to be reducible, namely one can take $`X=C_1\times C_2`$, the product of two curves and $`A=F_1+F_2`$, the sum of the two fibres through $`\eta `$. In this case, both $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are Seshadri exceptional and the divisor $`A`$ satisfies $`A^2=2`$ and $`\mathrm{mult}_\eta (A)=2`$. We would now like to establish that this is essentially the only such possibility. In particular, we will show that $`C_\eta `$ is reducible and thus both components of $`C_\eta `$ are smooth and give fibrations.

We will assume that $`C_\eta `$ is irreducible for very general $`\eta X`$ and derive a contradiction. We first claim that for a very general point $`\eta `$ we have the numerical equivalence

$`AC_\eta .`$ (4.1)
Note that $`AC_\eta =2`$ since $`\mathrm{mult}_\eta (C_\eta )=2`$ and $`C_\eta `$ is Seshadri exceptional for $`A`$ at $`\eta `$. Thus

$$A(AC_\eta )=0.$$

One checks that $`(AC_\eta )^2=0`$ and thus the Hodge index theorem implies that $`A`$ and $`C`$ are numerically equivalent, establishing 4.1.

Next we claim that the curve $`C_\eta `$ with $`\mathrm{mult}_\eta (C_\eta )=2`$ and $`AC_\eta =2`$ is unique. Suppose that there were two such curves $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$. From the previous paragraph, we have that $`C_1C_2A`$. Thus $`C_1C_2=2`$ but since both $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are singular at $`\eta `$ this is only possible if $`C_1=C_2`$. Choose a positive number $`m`$ so that $`mA`$ is very ample and consider the corresponding Chow variety $`V`$ parametrizing curves $`CX`$ of degree $`2m`$ relative to $`A`$. Note that any curve $`C`$ with $`mAC=2m`$ which is singular must either be one of the Seshadri exceptional curves $`C_\eta `$ or must have its singular point in a closed proper subvariety of $`X`$. Thus we can find a closed subvariety $`WV`$ parametrizing curves whose general member is one of the curves $`C_\eta `$. Let $`SW`$ be an open subset parametrizing a family of the curves $`\{C_\eta \}`$. We obtain an embedding $`SX`$ since the curve $`C_\eta `$ singular at $`\eta `$ is unique. Consider the universal curve

$$DX\times S$$

defined by the property that $`DX\times \eta =C_\eta \times \eta `$ for all $`\eta S`$. We let $`F`$ denote a local equation defining $`D`$. Note that the divisor $`D`$ is singular along the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by Bertini’s theorem applied to the map $`\pi _2:DS`$.

Suppose $`x_1,x_2`$ are local coordinates on $`X`$ and $`t_1,t_2`$ the corresponding coordinates on $`S`$. We claim that for all general $`\eta S`$ there is a differential operator $`/t`$, on the $`S`$ factor, satisfying

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}F|C_\eta =0,`$ (4.2)
where $`(/t)F|C_\eta `$ locally represents the Kodaira–Spencer class along a one parameter family with tangent direction $`t`$ at $`\eta `$. Let $`xC_\eta `$ be a general point and choose $`/t`$ so that

$$\frac{}{t}F(x)=0:$$

this is possible since we have a two parameter family of partial derivitives in the coordinates on $`S`$. The Kodaira–Spencer construction in \[EL\] Corollary 1.2 would then produce a section of $`H^0(C,N)`$, where $`N`$ denotes the normal bundle of $`C`$ in $`X`$, vanishing at $`\eta `$ and at $`x`$. Since $`\mathrm{mult}_\eta (C_\eta )=2`$ this would imply that $`C^23`$ unless $`\frac{}{t}F|C_\eta =0`$, establishing 4.2.

If $`A`$ denotes an arc in $`S`$ through $`\eta `$ with tangent direction $`t`$ then the family of curves $`\pi _2^1(A)`$ has a moving singular point and so as in \[EL\] §2 this implies that the corresponding Kodaira–Spencer class is non–trivial, a contradiction. We conclude that the curves $`C_\eta `$ must be reducible. The irreducible components of $`C_\eta `$ give the fibration in question, establishing Theorem 4.

The question naturally arises whether or not the fibration in Theorem 2 can be detected in a more intrinsic fashion by studying the effective cone more closely. In particular, one can hope to detect such a fibration numerically as the fibre $`F`$ is a nef class satisfying $`c_1(F)^2=0`$ and, moreover, curves in the equivalence class of $`F`$ should be Seshadri exceptional for the appropriate choice of an ample line bundle. We see, however, in the following example, that numerical criteria alone are not sufficient to identify a fibration.

###### Example 7

Suppose $`E`$ is an elliptic curve and consider $`X=E\times E`$. Let $`F_1,F_2`$ be fibres of the first and second projections respectively and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the diagonal. Consider the divisor

$$D=\sqrt{2}F_1+\sqrt{3}F_2\frac{\sqrt{6}}{\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

Then one checks that $`D^2=0`$ and $`DA>0`$ for $`A=F_1+F_2`$. Thus $`D`$ is a nef divisor on the boundary of the effective cone. On the other hand the ray corresponding to $`D`$ in the effective cone of $`X`$ can contain no points corresponding to integral divisor classes on $`X`$: to see this, note that

$$\frac{DF_1}{D\mathrm{\Delta }}=\frac{3(\sqrt{3}\sqrt{2})}{\sqrt{3}+\sqrt{2}}$$

is irrational. Thus the divisor $`D`$ is not associated to a surjective map $`\varphi :XC`$.

A more natural example than Example 7 was given by Mumford (see \[H\]). In particular, Mumford constructs a surface $`X`$ and a divisor $`D`$ wth $`DC>0`$ for all irreducible curves $`CX`$ but where no multiple of $`D`$ is effective. In particular $`D`$ is nef and satisfies $`c_1(D)^2=0`$ but $`D`$ is not associated to a fibration of $`X`$.

We also have the following phenomenon where a sequence of fibrations, suitably normalized, can actually converge to a distinct fibration:

###### Example 8

Suppose again $`X=E\times E`$ for an elliptic curve $`E`$ and for a postive integer $`m`$ consider the morphism

$$\varphi _m:E\times EE,\varphi _m(x,y)=mxy.$$

Let $`PE`$ be a point and let $`F_m=\varphi _m^1(P)`$. Then the divisors $`F_m`$ are all on the boundary of the ample cone and $`\frac{F_m}{|F_m|}`$ converges in $`NE(X)`$ to the class $`\frac{F}{|F|}`$, $`F`$ a fibre of the projection to the first factor.

Thus a real nef class $`\xi `$ with $`\xi ^2=0`$ does not necessarily carry specific geometric information about morphisms from $`X`$ to a curve. One still has, however, the following interesting question

###### Question 9

Suppose $`X`$ is a smooth projective surface and suppose that there exists a non–zero nef real class $`\xi `$ with $`\xi ^2=0`$. Does $`X`$ necessarily admit a surjective morphism $`\varphi :XC`$ to a curve $`C`$?

Question 9 naturally leads to the following

###### Question 10

Suppose $`X`$ is a smooth projective surface and $`A`$ an ample line bundle on $`X`$ with $`A^2=1`$. If $`\eta X`$ and $`\pi :YX`$ the blow–up of $`X`$ at $`\eta `$ then does $`Y`$ admit a non–trivial fibration over a curve $`C`$ whose general fibre is numerically equivalent to a Seshadri exceptional curve of $`A`$?

In particular, with the hypotheses of Question 10, by \[EL\] we know that $`ϵ(\eta ,A)1`$ and hence $`ϵ(\eta ,A)=1`$. Thus the line bundle $`L=\pi ^{}(A(E))`$ is nef with $`L^2=0`$. On the other hand, $`L`$ is clearly not numerically equivalent to zero so Question 9 would provide the desired fibration.

| Department of Mathematics and Statistics |
| --- |
| University of New Mexico |
| Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131 |
| Electronic mail: nakamaye@math.unm.edu |