text:
# Monopole classes and Einstein metrics

## 1. Introduction

Seiberg–Witten theory has been developed as a theory of moduli spaces of solutions to the monopole equations by imitating the development for the anti-self-dual Yang–Mills equations. Therefore, in the applications the use of the whole moduli space has been emphasized, following the ideas of Donaldson in Yang–Mills theory. Nevertheless, unlike Donaldson theory, Seiberg–Witten theory has incorporated geometric arguments exploiting a single solution to the monopole equations for explicit constructions, without necessarily studing all its deformations. Rather than imitating Donaldson theory, these arguments are more reminiscent of Yau’s work on the Calabi conjectures, where a single Einstein metric is constructed and used as input in geometric arguments, or of the use of minimal surfaces in three-dimensional topology or in the theory of manifolds of positive scalar curvature. Going back even further, there is a clear parallel with the use of harmonic forms and harmonic spinors in geometry. Of course, those are solutions of linear partial differential equations, rather than non-linear ones, and one might speculate that the mildness of the non-linearity of the Seiberg–Witten equations manifests itself in the way the solutions are used111With the hindsight of Seiberg–Witten theory, it is worth rereading early appraisals of Donaldson theory, such as ..

For arguments using the existence of a solution to the monopole equations rather than the non-triviality of a topological invariant, Kronheimer  introduced the notion of a monopole class. This is the characteristic class of a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$-structure for which there are solutions of the monopole equations for arbitrary metrics. The usefulness of this notion stems from the fact that one can make geometric arguments with a solution, without ever studying its deformation theory. The purpose of this paper is to derive certain constraints on the smooth structures underlying Einstein manifolds from the existence of monopole classes. In some of our arguments we need two additional properties of monopole classes, which are always satisfied by the basic classes coming from non-trivial Seiberg–Witten invariants, but which are not part of Kronheimer’s definition of monopole classes. Thus, in Section 2 we discuss variations on the definition, and the relations between these different definitions. This leads to issues of genericity and transversality for the monopole equations.

In Section 3 we derive restrictions on Einstein four-manifolds with monopole classes, and use these to give various examples of simply connected Einstein manifolds homeomorphic to smooth manifolds which cannot admit any Einstein metric.

The existence of such examples is not new. I gave the first examples in , showing that an obstruction to the existence of Einstein metrics discovered by LeBrun  depends on the smooth structure, rather than being homotopy-invariant. Recently, Ishida–LeBrun  asked if there are such examples which are spin. They found an obstruction that is applicable to spin manifolds, but were unable to show that it is not homotopy-invariant222See Remark 14 below for an instance where it does turn out to be homotopy-invariant.. We shall resolve their conundrum by exhibiting a simply connected Einstein manifold which is spin and satisfies the strict Hitchin–Thorpe inequality, and is homeomorphic to manifolds not admitting any Einstein metric because of the obstruction discussed in .

Of course, the spin condition is a red herring. It is clear from the known examples that the obstructions to Einstein metrics derived from the Seiberg–Witten monopole equations have to do with the reducibility of the underlying manifolds, spin or non-spin. (Compare  and Section 3 below.) In fact, it is quite tempting to conjecture that, except for blowups of the complex projective plane, Einstein four-manifolds should be irreducible. In Section 4 we prove some partial results in this direction.

In the Appendix, written jointly with J. Wehrheim, we prove some results about Ricci-flat four-manifolds motivated by the conjecture that all closed Ricci-flat four-manifolds should be covered by $`K3`$ or $`T^4`$. From these results we conclude that the existence of strongly scalar-flat four-manifolds which are not covered by $`T^4`$ or $`K3`$ would imply the existence of some new obstruction to positive scalar curvature.

## 2. Monopole classes

Consider a closed smooth oriented four-manifold $`X`$ with a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$-structure $`𝔰`$. For every choice of Riemannian metric $`g`$, the Seiberg–Witten monopole equations for $`(X,𝔰)`$ with respect to $`g`$ are a system of coupled equations for a pair $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$, where $`A`$ is a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$-connection in the spin bundle for $`𝔰`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a section of the positive spin bundle $`V_+`$. The equations are:

(1)
$$D_A^+\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$

(2)
$$F_{\widehat{A}}^+=\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }),$$

with $`D_A^+`$ the half-Dirac operator defined on spinors of positive chirality, and $`\widehat{A}`$ the connection induced by $`A`$ on the determinant of the spin bundle. The right-hand side of the curvature equation (2) is the $`2`$-form which, under the Clifford module structure determined by $`𝔰`$, corresponds to the trace-free part of $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$.

Solutions $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$ are called reducible. If there is a reducible solution, then $`c=c_1(𝔰)`$ is represented by an anti-self-dual harmonic form because of (2). This implies $`c^20`$, with equality if and only if $`c`$ is a torsion class.

The following definition is due to Kronheimer .

###### Definition 1.

A class $`cH^2(X,)`$ is called a monopole class, if there is a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$-structure $`𝔰`$ on $`X`$ with $`c=c_1(𝔰)`$ for which the monopole equations (1) and (2) admit a solution $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ for every choice of metric $`g`$.

Of course, on manifolds for which the Seiberg–Witten invariants are well-defined, every basic class is a monopole class. The rationale for considering the concept of a monopole class is that the existence of solutions to the monopole equations has immediate consequences, even when the corresponding invariants vanish. For example, Kronheimer  showed that the adjunction inequality $`2g(\mathrm{\Sigma })2c\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ holds for any monopole class $`c`$ and any smoothly embedded surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$ of positive genus $`g(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ which has trivial normal bundle.

Another immediate consequence, going back to Witten , is that a non-torsion monopole class $`c`$ rules out the existence of a metric of positive scalar curvature as soon as $`b_2^+(X)>0`$, i. e. the intersection form of $`X`$ is not negative definite. This is seen by combining the Weitzenböck formula for the Dirac operator with the curvature equation. A short calculation then shows that either $`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$, or one has the estimate $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(p)|s_g(p)`$ at points $`pX`$ where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|`$ has a local maximum. Therefore, if the scalar curvature $`s_g`$ is non-negative, every solution of the monopole equations is reducible. If $`c^2>0`$, this is a contradiction. If $`c^20`$, one has to perturb the metric, using that positivity of the scalar curvature is an open condition in the space of metrics. The following lemma then concludes the argument. A proof can be found in .

###### Lemma 2 (Donaldson).

Fix a non-torsion class $`cH^2(X,)`$. If $`b_2^+(X)>0`$, then for a generic metric $`g`$, there is no anti-self-dual harmonic form representing the image of $`c`$ in $`H^2(X,)`$.

Note that the above argument rules out metrics of zero scalar curvature if the monopole class $`c`$ satisfies $`c^2>0`$, but not otherwise, because scalar-flat metrics do not form an open set in the space of metrics.

There are two fundamental properties of basic classes, the use of which has already become second nature to workers in the field, and which it would be desirable to have at hand for monopole classes. One is the non-negativity of the formal dimension of the associated moduli space of solutions to the monopole equations, the other is finiteness of the set of basic, respectively monopole classes. Therefore, we make the following definition, modifying Kronheimer’s , to ensure these extra properties.

###### Definition 3.

A special monopole class $`c`$ is a monopole class for which $`c^22e(X)+3\sigma (X)`$.

Here $`e`$ and $`\sigma `$ stand for the Euler characteristic and the signature. The inequality $`c^22e(X)+3\sigma (X)`$ is equivalent to the non-negativity of the formal or expected dimension

$$d=\frac{1}{4}\left(c^2(2e(X)+3\sigma (X))\right)$$

of the solution space up to gauge equivalence. As an immediate consequence of the definition we have finiteness of special monopole classes:

###### Lemma 4 (Witten ).

On any smooth closed oriented four-manifold $`X`$ there are at most finitely many special monopole classes.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`c`$ is a special monopole class, and $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is any solution for the corresponding $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$-structure $`𝔰`$ and some Riemannian metric $`g`$. The estimate on solutions we discussed before implies

(3)
$$F_{\widehat{A}}^+_{L^2}^2\frac{1}{8}s_g_{L^2}^2.$$

The Chern–Weil formula

$$F_{\widehat{A}}^{}_{L^2}^2=F_{\widehat{A}}^+_{L^2}^24\pi ^2c^2$$

shows that an $`L^2`$ bound on $`F_{\widehat{A}}^+`$, such as (3), together with the assumption that $`c^2`$ is bounded below, implies an $`L^2`$ bound for $`F_{\widehat{A}}^{}`$.

Thus the projections of $`F_{\widehat{A}}`$ to the harmonic subspaces $`_+^2`$ and $`_{}^2`$ are both bounded, so that the image of $`c`$ in $`H^2(X,)=_+^2_{}^2`$ is contained in a bounded set. Thus there are only finitely many possibilities for $`c`$. ∎

Note that the proof works with any lower bound on $`c^2`$, equivalently any lower bound on the formal dimension $`d`$.

###### Remark 5.

Ishida–LeBrun  (p. 232) wrongly assert that Witten proved finiteness for all monopole classes, not necessarily special ones. Witten’s argument, see  (p. 782/783), is exactly the one in the proof of Lemma 4 above, with the additional assumption that $`d=0`$, cf. (3.6) at the top of page 783, because he was working with the basic classes for Seiberg–Witten invariants coming from zero-dimensional moduli spaces.

Here is an example with an infinite number of monopole classes, showing that not all monopole classes are special.

###### Remark 6.

On $`X=\overline{P^2}`$, every odd multiple of the generator of $`H^2(X,)`$ is a monopole class. For metrics of positive scalar curvature on $`X`$, like the Fubini–Study metric, all solutions are reducible.

In fact, this remark applies to any manifold with negative definite intersection form. Using the solution spaces of the monopole equations, one can prove Donaldson’s theorem concluding that these intersection forms are diagonal over the integers, as soon as one has special monopole classes on these manifolds. That special monopole classes would have to exist for every negative definite four-manifold with non-standard intersection form is the content of Elkies’s theorem .

One should keep in mind that on any spin four-manifold $`c=0`$ is a monopole class, because for every metric one has the trivial reducible solution for a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$-structure induced by a spin structure. Considering connected sums of $`S^2\times S^2`$ and $`S^3\times S^1`$, one sees that the zero class does not obstruct the existence of positive scalar curvature metrics, and that the expected dimension of the corresponding moduli space can be positive, zero, or negative. Monopole classes which are torsion play a different role from non-torsion classes.

As soon as $`b_2^+(X)>0`$, a non-torsion monopole class guarantees the existence of only irreducible solutions for generic metrics because of Lemma 2. However, it is not known whether these are cut out transversely by the monopole equations. This is the issue of the missing “generic metrics theorem”, which would be the analog of the Freed–Uhlenbeck theorem  for the anti–self–dual Yang–Mills equations. If such a result were true, saying that for irreducible solutions of (1) and (2) for a generic metric $`g`$ and a non-torsion $`c=c_1(𝔰)`$ the linearized equation has no cokernel, then it would follow that on manifolds with $`b_2^+(X)>0`$ all non-torsion monopole classes are special monopole classes.

Another useful variation of the definition is the following:

###### Definition 7.

A generic monopole class $`c`$ is a monopole class for which there are solutions of the equations

(4)
$$D_A^+\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$

(5)
$$F_{\widehat{A}}^+=\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi })+\omega ^+$$

for all metrics $`g`$ and all two-forms $`\omega `$.

###### Lemma 8.

If $`b_2^+(X)>0`$, then generic monopole classes are special.

###### Proof.

The usual transversality proof  shows that for a generic pair $`(g,\omega )`$, all the irreducible solutions of the perturbed equations (4) and (5) are cut out transversely. Thus $`d0`$ as soon as there are irreducible solutions for generic parameters. In view of $`b_2^+(X)>0`$, irreducible solutions exist for any non-torsion monopole class by Lemma 2. But even if $`c`$ is a torsion class, the assumption $`b_2^+(X)>0`$ allows us to choose generic parameters $`(g,\omega )`$ for which there are no reducible solutions. ∎

If one does not have an invariant constructed from the moduli space which is unchanged under the perturbation by $`\omega `$, it seems quite hard to determine whether a given special monopole class is a generic one. Thus the monopole classes detected by three-dimensional topology that Kronheimer  discussed are all special, but whether they are generic is not clear to me. Recall that in many cases, the zero class is a monopole class, but is not a generic monopole class, because the trivial solution disappears when we perturb the curvature equation with a non-zero $`\omega `$. However, if a torsion class is a generic monopole class, so that not all solutions disappear under perturbation of the equations with a small non-zero $`\omega `$, then this monopole class does obstruct the existence of positive scalar curvature metrics if $`b_2^+>0`$, cf. Lemma 2. Thus, rephrasing Witten’s discussion in  in the language of monopole classes, we have:

###### Proposition 9 (Witten ).

Let $`X`$ be a closed oriented four-manifold with $`b_2^+(X)>0`$. If $`X`$ admits a monopole class which is either non-torsion or generic, then $`X`$ does not support any metric of positive scalar curvature.

Obviously basic classes detected by numerical Seiberg–Witten invariants are generic monopole classes. A larger class of monopole classes, many of which are not basic, is detected by the stable cohomotopy invariant of Bauer–Furuta . These are generic, and therefore special, and often have $`c^2>2e(X)+3\sigma (X)`$, equivalently the formal dimensions $`d`$ of the moduli spaces are strictly positive. The following theorem summarizes and paraphrases some consequences of the connected sum formula for the stable cohomotopy invariant.

###### Theorem 10 (Bauer ).

Let $`X_i`$ be smooth closed oriented four-manifolds with $`b_1=0`$ and $`b_2^+3(mod4)`$. Assume that $`c_i`$ is a basic class on $`X_i`$ giving rise to a zero-dimensional moduli space with odd numerical Seiberg–Witten invariant. Then $`c_1+c_2`$, respectively $`c_1+c_2+c_3`$, is a generic monopole class on $`X_1\mathrm{\#}X_2`$, respectively on $`X_1\mathrm{\#}X_2\mathrm{\#}X_3`$.

Similarly, $`c_1+\mathrm{}+c_4`$ is a generic monopole class on $`X=X_1\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}X_4`$ if $`b_2^+(X)4(mod8)`$.

The formal dimensions of the relevant moduli spaces are $`1`$, $`2`$ and $`3`$ respectively.

## 3. The exotic smooth structures of Einstein manifolds

Recall that on simply connected four-manifolds the only classical obstruction to the existence of Einstein metrics is the Hitchin–Thorpe inequality

(6)
$$e(X)\frac{3}{2}|\sigma (X)|.$$

Hitchin  showed that Einstein manifolds for which (6) is an equality are either flat or are isometric quotients of a $`K3`$ surface with a Calabi–Yau metric. Thus, the existence of smooth manifolds homeomorphic but not diffeomorphic to the $`K3`$ surface provides examples of homeomorphic manifolds such that one admits an Einstein metric and the other one does not. I gave the first such examples satisfying the strict Hitchin–Thorpe inequality in . We shall paraphrase the argument to exclude Einstein metrics in certain cases in the next section. Suffice it to say here that it uses Witten’s estimate (3) which implies that for any monopole class $`c`$ on $`X`$ and any metric $`g`$ the projection $`c^+`$ of $`c`$ to the self-dual summand in $`H^2(X,)=_+^2_{}^2`$ satisfies

$$(c^+)^2\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}s_g_{L^2}^2.$$

Sometimes the following can be used in the same way to obtain stronger results.

###### Theorem 11 (LeBrun ).

Let $`c`$ be a monopole class on $`X`$. Then for any metric $`g`$ the projection $`c^+`$ of $`c`$ to the self-dual summand in $`H^2(X,)=_+^2_{}^2`$ satisfies

(7)
$$\frac{2}{3}(c^+)^2\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\left(\frac{1}{24}s_g_{L^2}^2+2W_+_{L^2}^2\right).$$

In the case of equality the metric is almost Kähler.

As an immediate consequence, we have:

###### Theorem 12.

Let $`c`$ be a monopole class on $`X`$, and $`d`$ the expected dimension of the corresponding moduli space. If $`X`$ admits an Einstein metric, then $`2e(X)+3\sigma (X)8d`$. In the case of equality $`X`$ admits a symplectic structure.

###### Proof.

If $`g`$ is an Einstein metric on $`X`$, the Gauss–Bonnet/Chern–Weil formulae for the Euler characteristic and the signature combine to give:

$$2e(X)+3\sigma (X)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\left(\frac{1}{24}s_g_{L^2}^2+2W_+_{L^2}^2\right).$$

Combining this with (7) and $`(c^+)^2c^2=4d+2e(X)+3\sigma (X)`$ gives the result.

The statement about the case of equality follows from the corresponding statement in Theorem 11. ∎

Note that whenever $`d0`$, this is weaker than the Hitchin–Thorpe inequality (6). In particular, the result is empty for monopole classes which are not special.

Theorem 12 clarifies the arguments of Ishida–LeBrun . It could have appeared in their paper, but did not, because they mixed up the consequences of the existence of a monopole class with the device used to find such classes. One of their statements is the following:

###### Corollary 13 (Ishida–LeBrun ).

Let $`X`$, $`Y`$, and $`Z`$ be simply connected symplectic $`4`$-manifolds with $`b_2^+3(mod4)`$. If $`c_1^2(X)+c_1^2(Y)12`$, then $`X\mathrm{\#}Y`$ does not admit Einstein metrics. Similarly, if $`c_1^2(X)+c_1^2(Y)+c_1^2(Z)24`$, then $`X\mathrm{\#}Y\mathrm{\#}Z`$ does not admit Einstein metrics.

###### Proof.

By Taubes’s result , the Chern classes $`c_1(X)`$ and $`c_1(Y)`$ are basic classes with numerical Seiberg–Witten invariant $`=\pm 1`$ on $`X`$ and $`Y`$ respectively. Applying Theorem 10 above, we see that $`c_1(X)+c_1(Y)`$ is a monopole class on $`X\mathrm{\#}Y`$, for which the expected dimension of the monopole moduli space is $`=1`$. Therefore, if $`X\mathrm{\#}Y`$ admits an Einstein metric, Theorem 12 implies $`c_1(X)+c_1(Y)12`$, with equality only if $`X\mathrm{\#}Y`$ is symplectic, which is not possible by .

The proof of the second statement is entirely similar, but now the expected dimension $`d=2`$. ∎

While this Corollary applies to spin manifolds, it is sometimes empty for non-obvious reasons.

###### Remark 14.

In the spin case the first part of Corollary 13 is a consequence of the Hitchin–Thorpe inequality (6), and is thus homotopy-invariant. A spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold with $`b_2^+3(mod4)`$ must have $`c_1^20(mod16)`$ by Rochlin’s theorem. On the other hand, it is minimal, so that $`c_1^20`$ by the result of Taubes . Therefore, the assumption $`c_1^2(X)+c_1^2(Y)12`$ implies that $`c_1^2`$ vanishes for both $`X`$ and $`Y`$, and then their connected sum violates the Hitchin–Thorpe inequality (6).

The second part of Corollary 13 can be used for spin manifolds in exactly one way: one of the summands has $`c_1^2=16`$, and the other two have $`c_1^2=0`$.

###### Example 15.

Let $`X`$ be a symplectic spin manifold with $`c_1^2(X)=16`$ and $`\chi (X)=4`$, where $`\chi =\frac{1}{4}(e+\sigma )`$ denotes the holomorphic Euler characteristic. Such manifolds exist by the results of Park and Szabó . By Freedman’s classification , such an $`X`$ is homeomorphic to $`K3\mathrm{\#}4(S^2\times S^2)`$. Take $`Y=E(2n)`$ a spin elliptic surface, and $`Z`$ the symplectic spin manifold obtained from $`E(2m)`$ by performing a logarithmic transformation of odd multiplicity $`p`$. Then Corollary 13 applies to show that the connected sum $`X\mathrm{\#}Y\mathrm{\#}Z`$ does not support an Einstein metric. Note that $`X\mathrm{\#}Y\mathrm{\#}Z`$ is homeomorphic to $`(n+m+1)K3\mathrm{\#}(n+m+2)(S^2\times S^2)`$. As we increase $`p`$, the multiplicity of the logarithmic transformation, we find that there are more and more basic classes on $`Z`$ whose numerical Seiberg–Witten invariants are $`\pm 1`$, see Fintushel–Stern , Theorem 8.7. By Theorem 10 these basic classes give rise to special monopole classes on $`X\mathrm{\#}Y\mathrm{\#}Z`$, so we have a sequence of smooth structures for which the number of special monopole classes is unbounded. Thus Lemma 4 shows that we have infinitely many smooth structures.

Varying $`n`$ and $`m`$, we see that $`kK3\mathrm{\#}(k+1)(S^2\times S^2)`$ has infinitely many smooth structures not supporting Einstein metrics for every $`k3`$.

For $`k4`$ such examples were previously given by Ishida–LeBrun333The argument of Ishida–LeBrun  for distinguishing infinitely many smooth structures is not correct as written, because the “bandwidth” is ill-defined taking the maximum over an infinite set, see Remark 5 above. The argument can be corrected by considering special monopole classes only.  using building blocks due to Gompf. Whenever $`k4`$, we have no way of finding a smooth structure on $`kK3\mathrm{\#}(k+1)(S^2\times S^2)`$ supporting an Einstein metric because this manifold violates the Noether inequality (or the Miyaoka–Yau inequality, if one reverses the orientation). The case $`k=3`$ allows us to prove the following:

###### Theorem 16.

There is a simply connected topological spin manifold $`M`$ which satisfies the strict Hitchin–Thorpe inequality $`e(M)>\frac{3}{2}|\sigma (M)|`$ and which admits a smooth structure supporting an Einstein metric and also admits infinitely many smooth structures not supporting Einstein metrics.

###### Proof.

We consider the manifold $`M=3K3\mathrm{\#}4(S^2\times S^2)`$. We showed in the above example that $`M`$ admits infinitely many smooth structures without Einstein metrics. On the other hand, the algebraic surface $`S`$ obtained as the double cover of the projective plane branched in a smooth holomorphic curve of degree $`10`$ has $`c_1^2(S)=8`$ and $`\chi (S)=7`$, and is spin because its canonical bundle is the pullback of $`𝒪(2)`$. Thus $`S`$ is homeomorphic to $`M`$ by . As it has ample canonical bundle, it admits an Einstein metric by the results of Aubin  and Yau . ∎

###### Remark 17.

The manifold $`M`$ has another infinite sequence of smooth structures, which are distinct from the ones discussed above. Fintushel–Stern  have shown that one can perform cusp surgery on a torus in $`S`$ to construct infinitely many distinct smooth structures which are irreducible and non-complex, and are therefore distinct from the smooth structures we consider. Whether they admit Einstein metrics is not known.

###### Example 18.

Continuing Example 15, we can prove that the following topological spin manifolds admit infinitely many smooth structures not supporting Einstein metrics: $`kK3\mathrm{\#}k(S^2\times S^2)`$ for all odd $`k5`$, and $`kK3\mathrm{\#}(k+4)(S^2\times S^2)`$ for all even $`k4`$.

We take the connected sum of one or two copies of the Park–Szabó manifold $`X`$ used in Example 15, and form the connected sum with three respectively two simply connected spin elliptic surfaces. Using the last part of Theorem 10 and Theorem 12 with $`d=3`$ shows that such a connected sum has no Einstein metric if it has $`b_2^+4(mod8)`$. This covers all the cases mentioned above. As before, we can obtain infinitely many distinct smooth structures detected by monopole classes by performing logarithmic transformations on the elliptic surfaces.

These manifolds do not admit almost complex structures, so there is certainly no chance to find Kähler–Einstein metrics for some other smooth structure.

Theorem 12 or Corollary 13 can be applied to non-spin manifolds to produce some examples not admitting Einstein metrics and which have small homology.

###### Example 19.

For every $`q26`$, the manifold $`6P^2\mathrm{\#}q\overline{P^2}`$ has smooth structures not admitting Einstein metrics. To see this we can use the symplectic manifolds with $`b_2^+=3`$ constructed by D. Park . For example, he constructs a minimal symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ homeomorphic to $`3P^2\mathrm{\#}13\overline{P^2}`$. This has $`c_1^2(X)=6`$. Applying the first part of Corollary 13 to this $`X`$ and blowups $`Y`$ of $`X`$ gives the result.

Note that these manifolds have rather smaller homology than similar examples in .

More interesting than the above are examples which can be shown to be homeomorphic to Einstein manifolds. The smallest example where the second part of Corollary 13 applies is the following.

###### Example 20.

The manifold $`9P^2\mathrm{\#}44\overline{P^2}`$ has a smooth structure with an Einstein metric, and infinitely many without. The smooth structure admitting an Einstein metric is that underlying a smooth quintic in $`P^3`$. To obtain smooth structures without Einstein metrics we can form the connected sum of two copies of D. Park’s examples , with $`b_2^{}=12`$ and $`13`$, and one copy of a $`K3`$ surface. Then performing logarithmic transformations on the $`K3`$ summand gives infinitely many distinct symplectic structures not admitting Einstein metrics as in Example 15 above.

This example is smaller than the ones in . It is interesting to note that one does not need any of the sophisticated ingredients we have used. It is easy to see that there are infinitely many distinct smooth structures on $`9P^2\mathrm{\#}34\overline{P^2}`$ which support symplectic forms and are distinguished by the numerical Seiberg–Witten invariants, see for example . The $`10`$-fold blowups of those smooth structures are still distinct, and do not admit Einstein metrics by . Thus, neither Theorem 11, nor any input from the stable cohomotopy refinement of the Seiberg–Witten invariants is needed for Example 20.

## 4. Towards irreducibility of Einstein manifolds

Except for the connected sums $`P^2\mathrm{\#}k\overline{P^2}`$ with $`k\{1,3,\mathrm{},8\}`$, all known Einstein four-manifolds are essentially irreducible. In fact, until recently the only other examples were either Kähler–Einstein, or of constant sectional curvature. Then, after the first version of this paper had been completed, Anderson  constructed some new examples of Einstein four-manifolds. The manifolds in his examples also admit Riemannian metrics of non-positive sectional curvature. Thus, by the Cartan–Hadamard theorem, the following Lemma applies to them, as it does to the space forms of non-positive sectional curvature. The only orientable space form of positive curvature is $`S^4`$.

###### Lemma 21.

Let $`M`$ be any manifold with universal covering homeomorphic to $`^4`$. Then $`M`$ is irreducible.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`M=M_1\mathrm{\#}M_2`$. The fundamental group of $`M`$ has only one end, and is therefore indecomposable as a free product. Thus one of the $`M_i`$, say $`M_1`$, is simply connected. Therefore $`\pi _1(M_2)=\pi _1(M)`$, and so $`M_2`$ carries the homology of $`\pi _1(M)`$. It follows that $`M_1`$ is a homotopy sphere. ∎

Concerning the Kähler–Einstein case, I proved in  that if a minimal closed symplectic four-manifold $`X`$ with $`b_2^+(X)>1`$ decomposes as a connected sum, then one of the summands is an integral homology sphere whose fundamental group has no non-trivial finite quotients. In particular, if $`\pi _1(X)`$ is residually finite, then $`X`$ is irreducible. This applies to Kähler–Einstein surfaces of non-positive scalar curvature, because such manifolds are always minimal. Moreover, Gromov  proved that the fundamental group of a compact Kähler manifold never splits as a non-trivial free product. Thus, if one were to split off a non-trivial homology sphere from a Kähler surface, then the other summand would have to be simply connected.

As further, admittedly rather weak, evidence for the possible irreducibility of Einstein manifolds we have the following result.

###### Theorem 22.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth four-manifold with a monopole class $`c`$. If $`X`$ admits an Einstein metric, then the maximal number $`k`$ of copies of $`\overline{P^2}`$ that can be split off smoothly is bounded by

(8)
$$k\frac{1}{2}\left(2e(X)+3\sigma (X)8d\right).$$

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`XY\mathrm{\#}k\overline{P^2}`$, and write $`c=c_Y+_{i=1}^ka_ie_i`$, with respect to the obvious direct sum decomposition of $`H^2(X,)`$. Here $`e_i`$ are the generators for the cohomology of the $`\overline{P^2}`$ summands. Note that the $`a_i`$ are odd integers because $`c`$ must be characteristic. Now the reflections in the $`e_i`$ are realised by self-diffeomorphisms of $`X`$, and the images of our monopole class under these diffeomorphisms are again monopole classes. Thus, moving $`c`$ by a diffeomorphism, we can arbitrarily change $`e_i`$ to its negative.

Given an Einstein metric $`g`$ on $`X`$, we choose the signs in such a way that $`a_ie_i^+c_Y^+0`$. Then we find

$`(c^+)^2`$ $`=\left(c_Y^++{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}a_ie_i^+\right)^2(c_Y^+)^2`$
$`c_Y^2=c^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}a_i^2=4d+2e(X)+3\sigma (X)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}a_i^2.`$
On the other hand, applying (7) to $`c`$ and $`g`$ gives

$$(c^+)^2\frac{3}{2}(2e(X)+3\sigma (X)).$$

Combining the two inequalities and noting that $`a_i^21`$ because all the $`a_i`$ are odd integers proves the result. ∎

Parts of this argument are reminiscent of the proof of irreducibility of minimal symplectic manifolds with residually finite fundamental groups in , which however uses some much deeper ingredients . Note that one obtains a stronger inequality whenever not all the $`a_i`$ are $`\pm 1`$.

A precursor of the argument in the proof of Theorem 22 was first applied by LeBrun  in the case where $`X`$ is the blowup of a Kähler or symplectic manifold $`Y`$, and $`c`$ is the basic class of the symplectic structure. I then observed in  that the argument works for blowups of arbitrary manifolds $`Y`$ with a basic class $`c_Y`$, because the blowup formula  shows that $`c_Y+_{i=1}^k\pm e_i`$ is a basic class on $`X`$. The formulation above is such that we circumvent the absence of a blowup formula for monopole classes.

## Appendix: Ricci-flat four-manifolds

by D. Kotschick and J. Wehrheim

A manifold of dimension at least three that admits metrics of positive scalar curvature also admits metrics of vanishing scalar curvature. However, there are also manifolds which admit scalar-flat metrics although they do not have any of positive scalar curvature. Such manifolds are called strongly scalar-flat. The simplest examples are tori and other flat manifolds.

Bourguignon proved that scalar-flat metrics on strongly scalar-flat manifolds are in fact Ricci-flat, and therefore Einstein, compare . In dimension three this implies that they are flat. In higher dimensions not much is known about strongly scalar-flat manifolds, although Futaki  and Dessai  have proved some partial classification results in dimensions $`>4`$.

In dimension $`4`$, the only known Ricci-flat manifolds are strongly scalar-flat. They are flat manifolds and finite quotients of $`K3`$ surfaces with Calabi–Yau metrics. The isometric quotients of $`K3`$ surfaces were classified by Hitchin  in his discussion of the borderline case of the Hitchin–Thorpe inequality (6). He showed that the possible covering groups are $`_2`$ and $`_2\times _2`$, both of which do actually occur. After earlier, unpublished, work of Calabi, Charlap–Sah and Levine, the closed orientable flat four-manifolds were classified by Hillman  and by Wagner , who showed that there are $`27`$ distinct ones. By Bieberbach, all these manifolds are finite quotients of $`T^4`$.

To investigate Ricci-flat four-manifolds, we first show that if there is a special monopole class on such a manifold, then it is one of the standard examples. The argument is a generalization of Witten’s vanishing theorem for non-torsion monopole classes in the case of positive scalar curvature.

###### Proposition 23.

Let $`X`$ be a closed oriented $`4`$-manifold with a special monopole class $`c`$. If $`X`$ admits a Ricci-flat metric $`g`$, then $`(X,g)`$ is isometric to a finite quotient of $`T^4`$ or $`K3`$ with a standard metric, and $`c`$ is a torsion class.

###### Proof.

As every solution of the monopole equations (1) and (2) on $`(X,g)`$ must be reducible, we conclude $`c^20`$.

On the other hand, $`(X,g)`$ is Einstein. Thus $`X`$ satisfies the Hitchin–Thorpe inequality $`2e(X)+3\sigma (X)0`$, and the assumption that $`c`$ is special gives $`c^22e(X)+3\sigma (X)0`$.

Combining the two inequalities, we conclude $`c^2=0`$. As the curvature form $`F_{\widehat{A}}`$ is anti-self-dual for every reducible solution $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ of the monopole equations, we conclude that $`F_{\widehat{A}}`$ vanishes and $`c`$ is a torsion class.

Moreover, we have $`2e(X)+3\sigma (X)=0`$, so we are in the borderline case of the Hitchin–Thorpe inequality (6), and Hitchin’s classification  shows that every Einstein metric on $`X`$ is either flat or an isometric quotient of a Calabi–Yau metric on $`K3`$. ∎

This implies the following restrictions on any other Ricci-flat four-manifolds.

###### Theorem 24.

If a closed orientable four-manifold $`X`$ admits a Ricci-flat metric and is not a finite quotient of $`T^4`$ or $`K3`$, then:

1. it satisfies the strict Hitchin–Thorpe inequality $`2e(X)>3|\sigma (X)|`$,
2. it has finite fundamental group,
3. $`X`$ and all its coverings have no special monopole classes for either choice of orientation, and
4. if the universal covering $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is spin, then $`\sigma (X)=0`$.

###### Proof.

We assume that $`X`$ admits an Einstein metric. As we have excluded the manifolds occuring in the borderline case of the Hitchin–Thorpe inequality (6), the inequality must be strict for $`X`$. In particular, the Euler characteristic of $`X`$ is positive. This, together with the splitting theorem of Cheeger–Gromoll for Ricci-flat manifolds, implies that $`X`$ has finite fundamental group.

By Proposition 23, the assumptions imply that, for either orientation, $`X`$ has no special monopole classes. The argument also applies to any finite covering.

Finally, suppose that $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is spin with non-zero signature. Then, for any metric, there must be a not identically zero harmonic spinor of pure chirality. For a scalar-flat metric, the Weitzenböck formula shows that such a spinor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is parallel. Now choose the orientation such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has positive chirality. Then $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is a non-zero parallel self-dual two-form, i. e. a Kähler form. The Kähler structure gives rise to a basic class $`c_1(\stackrel{~}{X})`$.

Now $`b_1(\stackrel{~}{X})=0`$, and $`|\sigma (\stackrel{~}{X})|16`$ by Rochlin’s theorem, so that

$$b_2^+(\stackrel{~}{X})=\frac{1}{2}(e(\stackrel{~}{X})+\sigma (\stackrel{~}{X}))1>\frac{1}{4}|\sigma (\stackrel{~}{X})|13$$

using the strict Hitchin–Thorpe inequality for $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$. Thus the basic class $`c_1(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ is a special monopole class, contradicting what we proved above. ∎

The second conclusion of this theorem shows that a non-standard Ricci-flat four-manifold is not prevented from having positive scalar curvature by either enlargeability in the sense of Gromov–Lawson , or by the minimal hypersurface method of Schoen–Yau , because those only apply to manifolds with infinite fundamental groups. The last part shows that the Lichnerowicz obstruction vanishes as well. Note that the refined index-theoretic obstructions to positive scalar curvature due to Rosenberg reduce to the Lichnerowicz obstruction the case at hand, because the fundamental group is finite. As there are no special monopole classes for either orientation and all covering spaces, the only known obstruction to positive scalar curvature that could apply is the existence of a non-special monopole class. Here such a monopole class $`c`$ would actually have to satisfy $`c^2<0`$, which is stronger than $`c^2<2e(X)+3\sigma (X)`$ because $`X`$ satisfies the strict Hitchin–Thorpe inequality.


format: text

text:
# The need for a second black hole at the Galactic center

## 1. Introduction

Near-infrared imaging observations with speckle and adaptive optics techniques now allow the study of the central parsec of our Galaxy at an angular resolution of 0.05 arcseconds. Monitoring over the course of the last decade has provided the proper motions for many of the stars orbiting in the central parsec (Eckart & Genzel, 1997; Ghez et al., 1998). Measurement of significant deviations from linear motion has yielded orbital solutions for several of the stars closest ($`<0.016`$ pc) to the supermassive black hole (SBH) at the Galactic center(Ghez et al., 2000; Eckart et al., 2002; Schödel et al., 2002; Ghez et al., 2003b, a). While the older, fainter stars exhibit an apparently isotropic distribution of stellar velocities, there exist separate populations of young stars, the motion of which appears to be dynamically unrelaxed. At distances $`0.1`$ parsecs from the black hole lie a group of He emission-line stars (the IRS 16 cluster) belonging to a tangentially-anisotropic orbital family (Genzel et al., 2000). These stars, with K band magnitudes $``$9–14, are believed to be evolved, supergiant or Wolf-Rayet stars, with masses estimated at $`30100M_{}`$ after correcting for the distance and the extinction towards the Galactic center (Ghez et al., 2003b). As such, these stars can only be $`110`$ Myr old. Closer to Sgr A there is a coeval but apparently kinematically distinct population of stars (Genzel et al., 1997; Gezari et al., 2002; Ghez et al., 2003b, a; Genzel et al., 2003). This group is claimed to be radially anisotropic and of an earlier, O/B spectral type. It is the provenance of these two groups of stars and the origin of their peculiar kinematics that we wish to address.

## 2. Previous Work

In situ formation of young massive stars is unlikely inside the central parsec as the tidal forces render it difficult for a sinking molecular cloud to survive long enough to form stars close to the SBH. Clouds that are sufficiently dense to resist tidal shear, $`n10^8`$ cm-3, are Jeans-unstable and fragment before they sink (Vollmer & Duschl, 2001). An alternative suggestion (Levin & Beloborodov, 2003) is that the stars formed in an extended, self-gravitating gaseous disk that had in the past existed close to the SBH. However there is no direct evidence to corroborate this hypothesis. To explain the non-coplanar orbits of the central cluster, Levin & Beloborodov (2003) propose that the orbits of the closest stars have been affected by Lens-Thirring precession due to an SBH spin that is not aligned with the disk axis.

If the young stars were not born in their current positions, they must have migrated inward from larger Galactocentric radii. Massive star clusters (Gerhard, 2001; Portegies Zwart, McMillan & Gerhard, 2003; McMillan & Portegies Zwart, 2003) can sink via dynamical friction within $`\mathrm{Myr}`$s but are tidally disrupted at a distance $`>1\mathrm{pc}`$ from the SBH where the specific gravitational binding energy is still $`100`$ times smaller than that of the most bound He-line star SO-2. Clusters impinging on the Galactic center on nearly-radial orbits are dispersed at their first passage near the SBH and result in a population of plunging, low-binding energy orbits unlike those of either the He line stars or of the central cluster.

Stars that form in the molecular clouds of the circum-nuclear disk (CND) at $`12`$ pc, as well as those that are deposited by the clusters disrupted at $`1`$ pc, diffuse toward orbits of larger binding energy on the local relaxation time scale:

$`T_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ $``$ $`3\times 10^9\mathrm{yr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{3M_{}}}\right)^1`$ (1)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2\times 10^5M_{}\mathrm{pc}^3}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}{10}}\right)^1,`$
where $`\sigma `$ is the local linear stellar velocity dispersion, $`M_{}`$ is the average stellar mass, $`\rho `$ is the local stellar density, and $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the Coulomb logarithm. Not only does this exceed the age of the observed stars, but relaxation via star-star scattering would have also erased the observed kinematic peculiarities.

The fundamental reason for the long relaxation time is that the stellar velocity dispersion $`\sigma R^{1/2}`$ diverges as the Galactocentric radius $`R`$ decreases. Large velocities weaken the effect of gravitational focusing in stellar scattering and decrease the average amount of energy transferred in a single encounter. This limitation applies equally to all stellar mass objects. Only objects significantly more massive than a star can sink on the timescales required. Star clusters, however, are not dense enough to survive intact in the strong tidal field (Portegies Zwart, McMillan & Gerhard, 2003). Thus, the only astrophysical entity both massive and dense enough to satisfy the requirements is an intermediate-mass black hole (IBH). The orbital decay of an IBH is driven by dynamical friction on a shorter timescale $`T_{\mathrm{df}}(M_{}/M_{\mathrm{IBH}})T_{\mathrm{rel}}110`$ Myr for an $`10^{34}M_{}`$ IBH. Furthermore, it has been argued that such black holes form generically in dense, young stellar clusters as a result of the segregation of massive stars to the cluster center (Spitzer, 1969) followed by the runaway merging in stellar collisions (Portegies Zwart & McMillan, 2002; Rasio, Freitag & Gürkan, 2003).

## 3. Stellar Orbital Migration

A small fraction of the parent stellar cluster may remain bound to the IBH as it sinks in the Galactic potential, namely those stars originally located within the dynamical radius of influence of the IBH. Tidal stripping and ejection due to strong stellar encounters gradually remove stars from the cluster. In the absence of internal dynamical evolution, cluster stars orbiting at distance $`r`$ from the IBH will be lost when they slip over the cluster Roche limit $`r=(M_{\mathrm{IBH}}/M_{\mathrm{SBH}})^{1/3}R`$, where $`R`$ is the distance to the SBH.

However, stars are also ejected by scattering off other stars in the cluster. Using equation  of Lin & Tremaine (1980), the ejection timescale from a power-law cusp (Bahcall & Wolf, 1976) dominated by the IBH is

$`T_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ $``$ $`1.4\times 10^6\mathrm{yr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}}{10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)^3`$ (2)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{10M_{}}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{\mathrm{cl}}}{10^5M_{}\mathrm{pc}^3}}\right)^1,`$
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}`$, $`\rho _{\mathrm{cl}}`$ are the velocity dispersion and stellar mass density of the parent cluster at the original dynamical radius of influence of the IBH.

The stars lost from the cluster are deposited over a range of radii. If stars are removed by tidal stripping alone, the profile of deposited stars reflects the original profile of the cluster, $`\rho (R)R^\gamma `$, where the Bahcall-Wolf value is $`\gamma =7/4`$. The stars most tightly bound to the IBH will be lost at a distance from the SBH of

$`R`$ $``$ $`0.2\mathrm{pc}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{IBH}}}{10^3M_{}}}\right)^{7/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{10M_{}}}\right)`$ (3)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{\mathrm{cl}}}{10^5M_{}\mathrm{pc}^3}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}}{10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)^4`$
Therefore to deposit the most bound star SO-2 at $`R0.01`$ pc, $`M_{\mathrm{IBH}}4\times 10^3M_{}`$ is required. If the IBH orbital decay is eccentric and self-similar (Valtaoja, Valtonen & Byrd, 1989), the profile may not be smooth; the young stars will be deposited in batches at a discrete set of locations corresponding to successive pericenter passages of the IBH.

Even stars not directly bound to the IBH may be transported if their orbits come close that of the IBH. The dynamics of the interaction between stars and the SBH-IBH binary is very similar to the interaction of comets with the Sun-Jupiter binary. In the case of the Jupiter family comets, they are observed in the inner solar system after being scattered by Jupiter from orbits with much larger semi-major axes (Quinn, Tremaine & Duncan, 1990). In a similar fashion, successive weak encounters with the IBH cause a random walk in the orbital parameters, and this can nudge the peribothra of some field stars inward. One difference is that the IBH is gradually moving inwards, in a fashion similar to planetary migration, for which planetesimal/comet scattering may also be a contributing factor (Murray et al., 1998) in some extrasolar systems. For this mechanism to be significant, the characteristic time $`\mu ^{1/3}T_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ between close encounters with the IBH must be shorter than the time $`\mu ^{1/3}T_{\mathrm{df}}`$ in which the IBH migrates a distance equivalent to the radius of its own sphere of influence, where $`T_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ is the stellar orbital period and $`\mu =M_{\mathrm{IBH}}/M_{\mathrm{SBH}}`$. This holds as long as

$$R<1\mathrm{pc}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{IBH}}}{10^3M_{}}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{\rho (1\mathrm{pc})}{2\times 10^5M_{}\mathrm{pc}^3}\right)^1,$$
(4)
where we have assumed the stellar density $`\rho 1/R^2`$ on these scales. Thus, the orbital decay of the IBH continues to push some stars inward even after the original cluster has been tidally disrupted. The efficiency of these processes, however, is low, because most scattered stars are ultimately ejected—producing the Oort cloud in the case of comets (Fernandez & Ip, 1981; Duncan, Quinn & Tremaine, 1987)—and a large population is needed at the outset. On the other hand, for an IBH born of a $`10^5M_{}`$ cluster, the efficiency of the process need only be $`10^3`$ to explain the handful of IRS 16 stars.

Dynamical friction drags the IBH toward the SBH until it reaches a critical separation where the binding energy in stars with peribothra smaller than the SBH-IBH separation is the same as that of the IBH itself. Using the most recent determination of central stellar cusp mass by Genzel et al. (2003), $`M_{\mathrm{cusp}}1.3\times 10^4M_{}(R/1^{^{\prime \prime }})^{1.63}`$, we infer this critical radius to be $`R0.2^{^{\prime \prime }}0.008(M_{\mathrm{IBH}}/10^3M_{})^{0.61}`$ parsecs. It could be smaller if there is a significant dark stellar population interior to this orbit. Subsequent orbital decay proceeds at a decreased rate contingent on how efficiently star-star scattering and other forms of orbital diffusion feed stars into the emptied region (usually called the “loss cone”), thereby providing new material for slingshot ejection by the binary (Begelman, Blandford & Rees, 1980; Quinlan, 1996; Milosavljević & Merritt, 2002). The binary shrinks by an octave for every $`M_{\mathrm{IBH}}`$-worth of stars that are removed. Stars are usually ejected by the cumulative effect of several encounters, with their orbital parameters undergoing a random walk. If the separation decreases to $`10\mathrm{AU}(M_{\mathrm{IBH}}/10^3M_{})`$, the emission of gravitational radiation dominates and will expedite the coalescence of the black holes within a million years.

## 4. The distribution of stars in the inner parsec

If the He-line stars are dynamically associated with the IBH, then their orbits must either be similar to the orbit the IBH had at some, perhaps earlier, stage of its infall, or must at least still cross the latter if they are in the process of being ejected by repeated scattering. To test this, we have examined the existing velocity data (Genzel et al. (2000);A. Ghez,private communication) for He-line stars with three measured velocity components. Combined with the projected position, we have information on 5 of the 6 phase space coordinates necessary to compute the orbits, as well as complete solutions for a few close to the SBH(Ghez et al., 2003a) . To assess the importance of the unknown component (location along the line of sight, $`Z`$) we explored the range from $`Z=0.5R_{}`$ to $`Z=1.5R_{}`$, where $`R_{}`$ is the projected distance to Sgr A. Figure 4 shows the resulting orbits which are plotted in a specific energy-angular momentum diagram.

The IRS 16 stars all cross a circular orbit located 2$`^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ from Sgr A. As such they are consistent with being the remnant of a disrupted IBH host cluster or, alternatively, are currently undergoing the scattering-induced diffusion and the eventual ejection if the IBH is located at this radius. The more tightly bound stars, the Sgr A cluster, do not cross this orbit. However, it is possible for an eccentric IBH orbit to interact with both the IRS 16 stars and the Sgr A cluster. The solid curve in Figure 4 delineates that region of parameter space (that part below the curve) in which stars interact with an orbit of semi-major axis of $`1^{^{\prime \prime }}`$(0.04 pc) and eccentricity 0.82, which covers all the early-type stars.

It is also possible that the IBH orbit is indeed not very eccentric, and that the central cluster stars once did cross the IBH orbit, but have since then received a significant perturbation near peribothron that resulted in a new apbothron within the orbit of the IBH. The star is then trapped until further IBH inspiral brings the orbits into contact again. The claimed radial anisotropy of these stars (Schödel et al., 2003) is consistent with such a scenario. The perturbation could have come from a grazing stellar collision or from the dynamical disruption of a binary system (Gould & Quillen, 2003). For the perturbation to be strong enough to trap the star in a closer-in orbit, the collision must be grazing because the velocities in this region are comparable to the escape velocities from the stars themselves, i.e., the dynamical evolution is dominated by physical collisions rather than two-body relaxation.

We find that the spectral differences between the central cluster stars and the IRS 16 stars lend support to this picture. Although both are young and massive, the former appear to be main sequence stars of roughly O or B type, while the latter are extended, evolved stars in the supergiant or the Wolf-Rayet stage. The more compact nature of the central cluster stars may indicate that the outer envelopes have been stripped in grazing collisions. Note that this is different from the alternative proposal (e.g., Genzel et al. 2003) in which the observed stars are assembled from lower mass objects in stellar mergers. The normal rotation rate of SO-2 (Ghez et al., 2003b) and the potential radial anisotropy of the orbits are both consistent with a limited role of collisional interactions.

If an IBH is present at the Galactic center, there is also the possibility of directly observing high velocity stars that have been ejected from the region. This would especially be true if the SBH-IBH binary has hardened past the stalling radius and is continuing to evolve slowly via the gravitational slightshot of stars that diffuse into the loss cone. The velocities of the ejected stars will reflect the specific binding energy of the IBH at the time of ejection.

Direct constraint on the IBH hypothesis may be provided by the non-inertial motion of Sgr A. The presence of an IBH at the Galactic center will be revealed in the apparent proper motion of the radio image of Sgr A relative to the mean $`6`$ mas yr-1 solar drift (Backer & Sramek, 1999; Reid et al., 1999). Assuming a circular orbit of the IBH, the amplitude of the gravitational reflex of SBH relative to the barycenter of the system as a whole, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{ref}}M_{\mathrm{IBH}}/M_{\mathrm{SBH}}\mathrm{\Psi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the angular separation between the black holes, must be larger than the cumulative positional resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }<1`$ mas of the radio telescope to achieve detection. In turn, the total projected distance traversed by the SBH, equal to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{ref}}T_\mathrm{m}M_{\mathrm{IBH}}R_{\mathrm{gc}}^1(G/RM_{\mathrm{SBH}})^{1/2}`$ for a monitoring program of duration $`T_\mathrm{m}`$ and distance to the Galactic center $`R_{\mathrm{gc}}8`$ kpc, must also be larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }`$. These constraints are summarized in Figure 5.

## 5. Conclusions

In this paper we have proposed a model that addresses the peculiar nature of the young stars in the Galactic center. Most importantly, the presence of an IBH can deliver the massive young stars to their observed location within the timescale required. In addition, our scenario provides a way to link the two disparate groups of stars (the IRS 16 group and the Sgr A cluster) within a single evolutionary scenario.       Assuming a circular orbit around an SBH of $`3\times 10^6M_{}`$, we can rule out an IBH with mass $`M_{\mathrm{IBH}}`$ and semi-major axis $`a`$ by measurement of an astrometric wobble of the radio image of Sgr A. The shaded regions show the detection thresholds for astrometric resolutions of $`0.01`$, $`0.1`$ and 1 milliarcseconds, respectively, assuming a monitoring period of 10 years. The dashed lines indicate coalescence due to gravitational radiation in $`10^6`$ and $`10^7`$ years, respectively.

In this scenario, once the IBH inspiral stalls, the stellar orbits continue to evolve under the action of scattering during close encounters with the IBH. Most stars will eventually be ejected, but some stars may be trapped near the SBH if they receive a sufficiently large perturbation (such as due to a grazing stellar collision). This may also serve to generate the observed spectral differences between the extended and apparently undisturbed He-line stars, and the more compact but apparently contemporaneous Sgr A cluster stars. Furthermore, the tangential anisotropy of the He line stars may reflect their still somewhat limited dynamical evolution under scattering, whereas the claimed radial anisotropy of the Sgr A cluster stars may reflect their having diffused to highly eccentric orbits before being scattered and trapped. However, this radial anisotropy is still uncertain because its determination is subject to severe selection effects.

Some questions remain open: Although the mass density of luminous stars can be measured, the true density profile of the central parsec is not well-known. Our adoption of the observed density profile is conservative as there are good reasons to believe that $`10M_{}`$ black holes will have segregated within few relaxation times to dominate the density of the central cluster (Morris, 1993; Miralda-Escudé & Gould, 2000). If such a dark cusp exists the central density could be as large as $`10^9M_{}\mathrm{pc}^3`$ and thus the stalling radius of the IBH could be much smaller than estimated above. Alternatively, if the IBH infall is an episodically recurring phenomenon, then the injection of a steady stream of IBH into the central parsec would help to maintain an evacuated region in the stellar distribution.

Finally, IBH are implicated in the formation of SBH in galaxies in a variety of ways (Rees, 1984). Indeed, it has been suggested (Ebisuzaki et al., 2001) that SBH form from the collapse of a cluster of IBH. It is intriguing that to gradually accumulate the present SBH at the Galactic center by this process requires IBH captures at the rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }3\times 10^7\mathrm{yr}^1\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{SBH}}}{3\times 10^6M_{}}\right)\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{IBH}}}{10^3M_{}}\right)^1.$$
(5)
With this rate one would expect the most recent entrant to be a few Myr old, which coincides with the time scale derived above from the stellar ages. Such a process could have a significant influence on the history of galactic nuclei (Hughes & Blandford, 2003).

The authors would like to thank Phil Armitage, Andrea Ghez, Mark Morris, Simon Portegies Zwart, Fred Rasio, Angelle Tanner and Scott Tremaine for comments, and David Merritt and Sterl Phinney for valuable discussions. MM thanks the Sherman Fairchild Foundation for support.


text:
# How Ice enables Superconductivity in 𝑁𝑎_𝑥𝐶𝑜𝑂₂.𝑦𝐻₂𝑂 by melting charge order: Possibility of novel Electric Field Effects

## Abstract

Charge ordering in doped $`CoO_2`$ planes near the commensurate fillings $`x=\frac{1}{4}`$ and $`\frac{1}{3}`$ are considered for $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ and suggested to be competitors to superconductivity, leading to the experimentally seen narrow superconducting dome bounded by commensurate doping: $`\frac{1}{4}<x<\frac{1}{3}`$. Intercalated hydrogen bonded $`H_2O`$ network, by its enhanced dielectric constant, screen and frustrate local charge order condensation energy and replace a generic ‘charge glass order’ by superconductivity in the dome. An access to superconductivity and charge order, available through the new water channel, is used to predict novel effects such as ‘Electrical Modulation of Superconductivity’ and ‘Electroresistance Effect’.

Discovery of superconductivity in $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ by Takada and collaborators have opened the possibility of realizing unconventional superconductivity and novel quantum states in 2D arising from strong electron correlations in doped $`CoO_2`$ layers. Water of a right proportion ($`y\frac{4}{3}`$) seems absolutely necessary for stabilizing superconductivity, suggesting $`H_2O`$’s critical role. While water does wonders in nature, its key role here is some what puzzling. Elucidating its role in this unusual superconductor is an important task from material science and physics point of view. This is what the present paper attempts using phenomenological and theoretical considerations.

Enthused by the remarkable discovery of superconductivity in $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ , the present author and others have suggested a single band t-J model as an appropriate model to understand superconductivity and low energy electronic phenomena. A phase diagram has been suggested using ideas of resonating valence bond (RVB) theory developed for cuprates. A recent experiment which shows superconductivity in a rather narrow range of doping $`\frac{1}{4}<x<\frac{1}{3}`$, than predicted by RVB theories, suggest that there are perhaps left out interactions and consequent competing phases which make a simple t-J model valid only for limited range of $`x`$. The situation is not unusual - even in cuprates a simple t-J modeling is strictly valid only in the neighborhood of optimal doping. Charge order phenomenon is known in cuprate superconductors; and it has been suggested to compete with superconductivity.

Doped $`CoO_2`$ , compared to $`CuO_2`$ layers of high $`T_c`$cuprates, has a narrower conduction band and a less polarizable valence band of oxygen. Consequently, short range coulomb repulsions among carriers are screened less. This is likely to stabilize a variety of frustrated charge ordering in the triangular lattice, as we discuss in this paper. NMR result of Ray et al. indeed provides a first evidence for charge freezing in $`Na_xCoO_2`$ family ($`x=\frac{1}{2}`$), $`Na_{0.5}CoO_2`$ below about $`T300K`$, a large temperature scale.

We estimate and include unscreened short range coulomb interactions in the t-J model for the study of unhydrated $`Na_xCoO_2`$ . We show that in addition to superconductivity, charge ordering in the narrow conduction band of $`CoO_2`$ layer is a major instability, for a range of higher doping than suspected (Wen et al. in ref 7). As the unscreened near neighbor coulomb interactions are large and comparable to the band width, the characteristic charge order temperatures are $`T_{\mathrm{ch}}400K`$.

Fortunately, $`H_2O`$ , in hydrated $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ , makes t-J modeling valid for a range of doping. For reasons which we elaborate in the present paper, hydrogen bonded $`H_2O`$ dipoles of the ice layers screen and frustrate charge order condensation energy. That is, they effectively screen out short range repulsions, and enable the physics of a simple t-J model to be realized in a narrow range of doping, $`\frac{1}{4}<x<\frac{1}{3}`$, as superconductivity.

We discuss few important charge ordered states at commensurate fillings, $`x=\frac{1}{4}`$ and $`\frac{1}{3}`$, which we believe are competitors to the experimentally observed superconductivity, in the range $`\frac{1}{4}<x<\frac{1}{3}`$. These reference charge ordered states are strongly frustrated by the random potential from the neighboring $`Na`$ layers, resulting in a glassy phase in the region $`\frac{1}{4}<x<\frac{1}{3}`$ and beyond. The charge glass phase is likely to be an anomalous metal, very much like the spin gap phase in cuprates, where there are local charge order activities at low frequency scales.

We estimate the enhancement of the background static dielectric constant at short distance due to hydrogen bonding in the $`H_2O`$ layers. We find that this screening is sufficient to reduce the large charge order transition temperature down to $`1K`$ and allow superconductivity to emerge. Strong commensurability effects and the associated short range charge order reduce superconducting $`T_c`$considerably as we approach the commensurate ends $`x=\frac{1}{4}`$ and $`\frac{1}{3}`$.

As $`H_2O`$ stabilize superconductivity and discourages charge order, we have a new access to the electronic phases of $`CoO_2`$ layer through water. This leads to the possibility of some novel effects: i) ‘Electrical Modulation of Superconductivity’ by external electric field or microwave radiation and ii) ‘Electroresistance Effect’ in the normal state. We estimate that voltages $`500V`$, applied capacitively to thin films of $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ of thickness $`1`$ micron will orient the water dipoles and reduce the short distance dielectric screening, resulting in stabilization of charge glass order phase and destabilization of superconductivity. This interesting switching effect may have device potential.

Recently we modeled the low energy physics of doped $`CoO_2`$ using a t-J model and discussed an RVB scenario for superconductivity including a PT violating $`d_1+id_2`$ wave superconductivity and a $`p_1+ip_2`$ wave superconductivity at a higher doping. To study charge order we must include some leading short distance carrier-carrier and carrier-$`Na`$-ion screened coulomb interaction:

$`H_{\mathrm{tJV}}=t{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}C_{i\sigma }^{}C_{j\sigma }+H.c.+J{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(𝐒_i𝐒_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n_in_j)`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}V_{ij}(n_i1)(n_j1)+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}ϵ_i(n_i1)`$ (2)
Here $`C`$’s and $`𝐒`$’s are the electron and spin operators. As we have an electron doped system we have the ‘zero occupancy’ constraint $`_\sigma n_{i\sigma }0`$ at every site i.

Recall that doubly occupied $`Co^{3+}`$ sites carry a charge $`e`$ with reference to the neutral $`CoO_2`$ layer and $`V_{ij}`$ is the screened coulomb repulsion between them. We have ignored the small two body off-diagonal coulomb interaction terms. For practical purposes only the nearest and next nearest neighbor terms $`V_1\frac{e^2}{\epsilon _{ab}R_{nn}}e^{\frac{R_{nn}}{\lambda _{ab}}}`$ and $`V_2\frac{e^2}{\epsilon _{ab}R_{nnn}}e^{\frac{R_{nnn}}{\lambda _{ab}}}`$ are important. Here $`\epsilon _{ab}\epsilon _O+\epsilon _{\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}}`$ represents the short distance dielectric screening arising from the filled oxygen bands of $`CoO_2`$ layers and $`H_2O`$ layers in $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ . And $`\lambda _{ab}CoCo`$ distance is the Thomas Fermi screening length for our tight binding metallic layer. The random site energy $`ϵ_i`$ of charge degree of freedom represents the screened coulomb attraction from neighboring $`Na^+`$ ions.

Electronic structure calculations give a value of $`t0.1eV`$ for the conduction band of the $`CoO_2`$ layer. We estimate $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ for $`Na_xCoO_2`$ , the non-hydrated case. The dielectric constants of oxides of $`Fe`$ and $`Ni`$ that flank $`Co`$ in the periodic table are $`4`$ to $`12`$. We assume a background (short distance) static dielectric constant of $`\epsilon _{ab}8`$ for our $`CoO_2`$ layer. Recall that in cuprates the background $`ϵ`$ is large $`20`$, in view of a more polarizable octahedral oxygen network; in $`CoO_2`$ the oxygen filled band is less polarizable and relatively deep below the fermi level. Using this dielectric constant and values of Co-Co distances in $`Na_{0.5}CoO_2`$ we get $`V_10.8eV`$ and $`V_20.4eV`$. The mean square fluctuation of the carrier site energy due to disordered $`Na`$-ions is $`\sqrt{\delta ϵ_i^2}0.2eV`$

In the absence of hopping, the dopant carriers $`Co^{3+}`$ will order classically and undergo order-disorder transition at a fairly high temperature $`k_BT_{\mathrm{ch}}(\mathrm{classical})2\overline{\mathrm{V}}10^3\mathrm{K}`$; here $`\overline{V}\frac{1}{2}(V_1+V_2)`$ is a mean short distance repulsion. However the electron dynamics reduce $`T_{\mathrm{ch}}(\mathrm{classical})`$ considerably. To estimate this reduction we perform a mean field analysis of the t-J-V model for a CDW order, pretending that an unfrustrated charge order arises from nesting instability for $`Na_{0.5}CoO_2`$ . This gives us a BCS like expression for $`T_c`$:

$$k_BT_{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}}ϵ_Fe^{\frac{1}{\overline{V}\rho _o}}$$
(3)
Here $`\rho _o`$ is a fermi sea averaged particle-hole density of states corresponding to the ordering wave vector. Substituting $`ϵ_F0.5eV`$, $`\rho _0\frac{1}{2ϵ_F}`$ and $`\overline{V}0.4`$, we get $`T_{\mathrm{ch}}480K`$. Frustration on the triangular lattice at half filling and disorder effect from $`Na`$ ions will further reduce this. Thus we get a charge order temperature in the right range, $`T_{\mathrm{ch}}(NMR)300K`$, seen in NMR,

Before we consider influence of $`H_2O`$ we discuss some simple charge orders at $`x=\frac{1}{4}`$ and $`\frac{1}{3}`$ that are favored by electrostatics in the unhydrated $`Na_xCoO_2`$ . We ignore the superexchange contribution, as $`J<<V_1,V_2`$. For $`x=\frac{1}{4}`$, the $`Co^{3+}`$ sites are arranged on a triangular lattice (figure 1) to minimize coulomb repulsions. Interestingly, the remaining sites carry spins and form spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a Kagome lattice. In our convention, the classical energy of this state is $`E_{\frac{1}{4}}(\mathrm{Kagome})=0`$. In the real system, carrier delocalization will considerably reduce the amplitude of charge order. In this sense the charge ordered states shown in figure 1 and figure 2 are to be thought of as reference classical states.

Another ground state comparable in energy is an anisotropic metal. It has ordered stripes - alternating insulating and 0.5 electron doped chains. The electrostatic energy of this state per site is $`\frac{1}{4}(V_1+V_2)`$. However, the carrier delocalization in the 0.5 electron doped chains leads to a gain in kinetic energy which is easily estimated when J is neglected in our t-J model. This case corresponds to a quarter filled infinite U Hubbard model, which can be converted into a half filled band of non-interacting spinless fermions giving us the delocalization energy $`=|t|\mathrm{cos}k=2\frac{|t|}{\pi }`$. Thus we get a total energy per site, $`E_{\frac{1}{4}}(\mathrm{stripe})=\frac{1}{4}(V_1+V_2)2\frac{|t|}{\pi }`$.

Figure 2 shows the case of $`x=\frac{1}{3}`$. This classical ground state minimizes electrostatic repulsion and $`Co^{3+}`$ sites fill one of the three sublattices and the remaining hexagonal lattice is the neutral spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ site. It is a hexagonal spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ quantum antiferromagnet. The energy of this state per site is $`E_{\frac{1}{3}}=\frac{V_2}{2}`$. We also find striped states which are local minima.

So far we studied charge order in the $`CoO_2`$ plane at commensurate fillings. As we move away from $`x=\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`x=\frac{1}{4}`$, defects and discommensurations will be produced or we may go to an incommensurate charge ordered structure. There may be one or more first order phase boundary between $`x=\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`x=\frac{1}{4}`$. However, all these nice charge ordered phases will be challenged by a generically disordered arrangement of $`Na`$ ions in a triangular lattice and the consequent random potential seen by the mobile $`Co^{3+}`$ carriers as explained below .

The energetically preferred sites of $`Na`$ atoms in $`Na_xCoO_2`$ form a triangular lattice that have the same lattice parameter as the triangular $`Co`$ layer. However, the $`Na`$ and $`Co`$ lattices are relatively shifted - if we project the allowed positions of the $`Na`$ atoms of the nearest top and bottom layer onto the $`Co`$ layer, these sites become the dual lattice (hexagonal lattice) of the $`Co`$ triangular lattice. Because of this a sublattice order of the $`Na`$ atoms does not couple to the charge density wave order-parameter of the $`CoO_2`$ lattice and in principle allows a finite temperature charge order-disorder phase transition: a 3-state Potts ($`Z_3`$ symmetry) model transition at $`x=\frac{1}{3}`$ and a 4-state Potts model ($`Z_4`$ symmetry) transition at $`x=\frac{1}{4}`$. However, an inevitable disorder in $`Na`$ sublattice leads to, based on an Imry-Ma type of argument, a glassy order at low temperatures rather than a genuine charge order phase transition. Thus we expect a phase diagram depicted in figure 3 for the range $`\frac{1}{3}<x<\frac{1}{4}`$.

Let us move on to the hydrated case, $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ . As we mentioned earlier, the enhanced dielectric constant of the $`H_2O`$ layer will screen short range coulomb repulsion and weaken and melt the high temperature charge ordering. It also screens and weakens the random $`Na`$ potential seen by the carriers. For the appearance of low temperature superconductivity $`T_{\mathrm{ch}}`$ need not be reduced to nearly zero value. A sufficiently weakened charge ordered state may give up at low temperatures and superconductivity may emerge. Figure 3 shows sketches the change of phase diagram as we go to the hydrated case. A strong resistance anomaly seen in a recent experiment at $`T^{}50K`$, may be the weakened charge order transition that we are discussing.

Let us discuss nature of $`H_2O`$ ordering hydrogen bonding in $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ in some detail. In what follows we use a recent suggestion of Cava et al. that $`H_2O`$ may have a structure similar to the layers in hexagonal ice (1h ice). As mentioned earlier, in $`Na_xCoO_2`$ , energetically favorable interlayer sites of $`Na`$ form a triangular lattice. These sites are at the center of trigonal biprisms, capped by an oxygen atom at the top and one at the bottom. To understand $`H_2O`$ ordering, we consider $`Na_{\frac{1}{3}}.CoO_2.\frac{4}{3}H_2O`$ as a reference compound. Fill one of of the three sublattices by $`Na`$ atoms to minimize electrostatic energy. We are left with two empty sublattices that form a hexagonal lattice. Two $`H_2O`$ molecules may be accommodated at the top and bottom of the capped trigonal biprism. By doing so we get two hexagonal lattices of $`H_2O`$ sandwiching a triangular lattice of $`Na`$ ions. Thus we have a triangular lattice filled by $`Na`$ and $`H_2O`$ in the ratio $`1:4`$. We can view the above hexagonal sheets as the sheets in hexagonal ice structure, as suggested by Cava and collaborators in their preliminary studies. We find it very interesting that the nearest neighbor $`H_2O`$-$`H_2O`$ distance in the above geometry, $`2.81Au`$, is nearly the same as that in real hexagonal ice $`2.71`$. No wonder water may freeze into ice in $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ ! Having nearly the same $`H_2O`$ -$`H_2O`$ distance may also help ice sheets to have a good hydrogen bonding network like in hexagonal ice.

Thus it is likely that $`H_2O`$ molecules continue to have hydrogen bonding in spite of the $`CoO_2`$ and $`Na`$ environment. As hydrogen bond energy is substantial $`0.5eV`$, water tends to have hydrogen bonding activity in extreme environments. Examples are biological systems, clathrate hydrates and water containing charged ions, where $`H_2O`$ continue to maintain hydrogen bonding even though the local structure deviates considerably from the standard ice or water structure. Further the random $`Na`$ environment in $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ may convert the 2D ice layer into a 2D amorphous ice layer with a good short range hexagonal order.

Now we discuss how the dielectric property of the $`H_2O`$ layer may control the low temperature electronic phases of the conducting $`CoO_2`$ layer. We are interested in finding how the electron-electron interactions at the charge order wave vector $`𝐪=𝐐`$ get screened by the interacting water dipoles. The relevant static dielectric constant is $`ϵ_{\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}}(Q)`$. In an ice system like ours with a large disorder in dipole orientations, we expect very small variation of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}}(q)`$ with $`q`$. Further random site disorder in the $`Na`$ sublattice will produce Bjerrum defects; so we do not expect a 2D dipolar order-disorder transition, as in ideal 2D models of ice.

Dielectric constant of ice has been studied extensively in the past and also recently. A general expression for the dielectric constant of an interacting dipolar system is:

$$ϵ=ϵ_{\mathrm{}}+\frac{4\pi }{3Vk_BT}(𝐏𝐏)^2$$
(4)
Here $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}12`$ is the high frequency dielectric constant of the dipole, in our case $`H_2O`$ molecule. $`𝐏`$ is the total dipole moment of the system of volume V. And $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes thermal average. Static dielectric constant of ice has not been measured at liquid He temperatures, as the dielectric relaxation becomes too slow even around liquid air temperatures. Fortunately, extensive numerical study of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}}`$ are available. For example, a recent calculation shows that for hexagonal ice, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}}`$ $`220`$ at $`T=50K`$.

We use this 3D result to get an approximate estimate for our weakly coupled hexagonal ice layers as follows. We replace the volume $`V`$ by $`6V`$ to account for the c-axis expansion in $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ . Missing hydrogen bonds along the c-axis reduces the number of allowed proton configurations leading to a reduction of $`(𝐏𝐏)^2`$ to $`\frac{2}{3}(𝐏𝐏)^2`$. This gives us $`ϵ_{\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}}`$ (hexagonal sheet) $`20`$ at $`T=50K`$. Our system being strongly disordered, we do not expect $`ϵ_{\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}}`$ (hexagonal sheet) to change at lower temperatures. Thus the background dielectric constant of $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ is $`ϵ=ϵ_o+ϵ_{\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}}8+20`$. This reduces the mean short range repulsion by nearly a factor of 3, making the $`T_{\mathrm{ch}}1K`$, in equation (2). Once the long range charge order is disabled by a reduction of V, the simple t-J model and consequent low temperature superconducting phase is realized, albeit with a reduced $`T_c`$in the range $`\frac{1}{3}<x<\frac{1}{4}`$. The sharp reduction in superconducting $`T_c`$at the commensurate boundaries of the dome should arise from the strong short range order and lesser discommensurations and defects. The experimentally seen flat value of $`T_c`$$`2K`$ for $`x<\frac{1}{4}`$ and for $`x>\frac{1}{3}`$is likely to be an effect of phase separation.

Our proposal of a critical and catalytic role of $`H_2O`$ layer suggests ways to access and control low temperature electronic phases of the $`CoO_2`$ layer. Based on this we suggest two effects: i) ‘Electrical Modulation of Superconductivity’. Here we control (figure 4) superconductivity and superconducting $`T_c`$by modifying the screening property of $`H_2O`$ layer by external electric fields - DC, AC or pulsed fields. This has interesting consequences of being able to locally erase superconductivity by STM tips, dynamically create Josephson networks or create 2D superconductivity of desired shapes through appropriate capacitor shapes etc. Since microwaves are absorved by hydrogen bonded networks we can pump microwaves at appropriate frequencies ($`\mathrm{}\omega <\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{sc}}`$, the superconducting gap) and dynamically polarize water dipoles and may influence its dielectric properties, and in turn control superconductivity.

ii) ‘Electroresistance Effect’. By modifying the amplitude of charge glass order as well as $`T_{\mathrm{ch}}`$ in the non-superconducting state, by influencing the $`H_2O`$ layer by external DC or AC electric field, we can change $`\rho _{ab}`$, the ab-plane resistivity.

Below we estimate the electric field required to completely suppress superconductivity. Having established a hydrogen bonded network it requires a finite energy to rotate a water molecule and orient its dipole moment along an external electric field. In infrared absorption and neutron scattering experiments the absorption band corresponding to rotation of $`H_2O`$ molecules is in the range $`60\mathrm{to}120meV`$. Assuming a random orientation, the average energy required to reorient a water molecule is $`50meV`$, i.e., a potential of $`50\mathrm{mV}`$ applied over the length $`1Au`$ of the water dipole will orient the dipole moment of water along its field. If we have c-axis oriented $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ film of thickness $`1`$ micron we need to apply a voltage $`500Volts`$ across the film, in order to orient the majority of dipoles. Strong polarization of water dipoles reduces the dielectric constant, as is evident from equation (3). The resulting reduced screening of carriers in the $`CoO_2`$ layer allows charge order to grow and superconductivity gets suppressed.

A theoretical analysis, including some of the possible difficulties in observing the effects will be presented in a future publication.

To get a clear understanding of this complex system, and to see if our proposal is correct more experiments are necessary:

a) Charge Order: It will be interesting to perform NMR, NQR, STM, $`\mu SR`$ and other local probe measurements to look for charge order in the vicinity of the commensurate fillings $`x=\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2},\frac{2}{3}`$ and $`\frac{3}{4}`$ and see how they differ between the two systems $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ and $`Na_xCoO_2`$ .

b) Spin order, singlets and gaps: Accompanying local charge order we expect a spin order at low temperatures (the scale of J is small, $`6`$ to $`7meV`$). In general the enhanced singlet stabilization by the superexchange process will introduce some kind of spin gap phenomenon. If the charge order at $`x=\frac{1}{4}`$ leads to a Kagome lattice of spins it will be an interesting testing ground for some of the ideas of the spin liquid phase of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ Kagome antiferromagnet, including possible novel excitations.

c) Lower Doping: Experimentally, it has not been possible to make $`Na_xCoO_2.yH_2O`$ for $`x<\frac{1}{4}`$. It is likely that c-axis ionic bonding is weakened, by decreasing $`x`$ and presence of water layer, making a 3D structure unstable. It will be important to synthesize, by non-equilibrium means, meta stable compounds for $`x<\frac{1}{4}`$ to test the validity of RVB theory and also test our hypothesis of the role played by water.

d) Replacing $`H_2O`$ : It will be desirable to have a stable solid $`Na_xCoO_2.yX`$, where an intercalant ‘X’ not only increases the dielectric constant but also provides additional bonding between $`CoO_2`$ layers and make stable compounds for $`x<\frac{1}{4}`$.

e) Higher doping: According to reference 6, the dopant induced dynamics, within the t-J model will favor ferromagnetic correlations and a consequent p-wave superconductivity at higher dopings slightly above $`x=\frac{1}{3}`$. It will be interesting to look for this.

f) Inhomogeneous Superconductivity: If ice plays a central role, as suggested in this paper, $`H_2O`$ density fluctuation in ice layer will directly influence superconductivity in nearby $`CoO_2`$ layers resulting in a corresponding fluctuation in the superconducting order parameter and possible well grown local charge ordered phase.

g) Slow Relaxation: Since interacting water dipoles have very slow dielectric relaxation time scales, they may consequently affect superconductivity and impose some anomalous relaxation/aging effects.

The present paper is phenomenological and qualitative in character. Any detailed quantitative calculations of $`T_c`$and phase diagram for this complex system needs further experimental guidance. Issue of calculating local screening and dielectric constant in hydrogen bonded systems is known to have subtleties; added to this, we have conducting layers sandwiching water layers. We have made very crude estimates based on simple physical arguments and very approximate considerations, as our primary aim is to focus and identify how water could play a crucial role in this complex system.

We thank A.K. Mishra, V.N. Muthukumar, Debanand Sa, Manas Sardar and R. Shankar for discussion and Latha Malar Baskaran for reference .