text:
# The Quantum Content of the Normal Surfaces in a Three-Manifold

## 1. Introduction

This paper initiates the study of non-perturbative quantum invariants of three-manifolds $`M`$ away from roots of unity. Turaev and Viro  defined invariants of closed 3-manifolds as state sums depending on a complex parameter $`t`$. When $`t`$ is a root of unity this sum is finite. At values of $`t`$ other than roots of unity the formula for the Turaev-Viro invariant becomes an infinite sum. The partial sums could oscillate wildly, so that even after renormalizing the series does not converge. However, we are able to show that for a special class of spines of some three-manifolds, the oscillation does not occur and there is a limit.

The key is to see the invariant as a sum over surfaces in the manifold. An efficient ideal triangulation  of the manifold is one where the only normal spheres and tori are links of the boundary components of the manifold. Given an efficient ideal triangulation we know what the invariant should be. It is a sum over surfaces carried by a spine dual to the efficient triangulation. The surfaces contribute to the sum in a way that fits the modern approach to normal surface theory. The study of normal surfaces  has been augmented by looking at surfaces that aren’t normal, and coming to an understanding of how a surface fails to be normal. The farther a surface is from being normal, the less it contributes to the sum for the invariant. The higher the genus of a surface the less it contributes. In a very real sense, the Turaev-Viro invariant is a measure of the normal surface theory of $`M`$.

In section 2 we broach preliminary concepts relating to special functions, and to spinal and normal surfaces in an ideal triangulation of a $`3`$-manifold. This is followed by section 3 that studies properties and limiting behavior of the $`6j`$-symbols. Section 4 is concerned with estimates of the contributions of spinal surfaces to the state sum. The final section proves the result about the convergence of the infinite state sum.

The authors would like to thank Ian Agol, William Jaco, Marc Lackenby, Sergei Matveev, Dennis Roseman and Hyam Rubinstein for enlightening conversations about normal surface theory.

## 2. Preliminaries

### 2.1. Special Functions

The formulas in this section are taken from , however we use the variable $`t`$ instead of $`A`$. Throughout this paper $`t`$ is a real number with $`0<t<1`$. There are several functions of $`t`$ that we will work with. The first is known as quantized $`n`$,

(1)
$$[n]=\frac{t^{2n}t^{2n}}{t^2t^2}.$$

The next is just a variation on the first,

(2)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_n=(1)^n\frac{t^{2n+2}t^{2n2}}{t^2t^2}=(1)^n[n+1].$$

There is quantized factorial, defined recursively by $`[0]!=1`$ and

(3)
$$[n]!=[n][n1]!.$$

A triple of nonnegative integers $`(a,b,c)`$ is admissible if their sum is even and they satisfy every possible triangle inequality. Admissibility is the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a Kauffman triad on $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$. Suppose that $`(a,b,c)`$ is admissible. Arrange $`a`$ points, $`b`$ points and $`c`$ points on the sides of a triangle. There exists a system of disjoint proper arcs joining opposite sides of the triangle having those points as their boundary. Figure 1 shows the admissible triple $`(2,3,3)`$.

The number of strands running between the family of $`a`$ points, and the family of $`b`$ points is $`x_1=\frac{a+bc}{2}`$, between the $`b`$ points and the $`c`$ points is $`x_2=\frac{c+ba}{2}`$, and between the $`a`$ points and the $`c`$ points is $`x_3=\frac{a+cb}{2}`$. Admissibility is equivalent to the statement that all three functions are nonnegative and integral. We call $`x_1`$, $`x_2`$ and $`x_3`$ the strand numbers of the triple $`(a,b,c)`$.

You can always add two admissible triples and the result will be admissible, but you cannot always subtract them. However,

###### Proposition 1.

Suppose that $`(a,b,c)`$ and $`(a^{},b^{},c^{})`$ are admissible and $`x_i`$ and $`x_i^{}`$ are the strand numbers corresponding to the two triples. If $`x_ix_i^{}`$ for all $`i`$, then $`(aa^{},bb^{},cc^{})`$ is admissible.

###### Proof.

The strand numbers are linear functions of the triples, thus the strand numbers for $`(aa^{},bb^{},cc^{})`$ are integral and nonnegative. ∎

If $`(a,b,c)`$ is an admissible triple, define,

(4)
$$\theta (a,b,c)=(1)^{\frac{a+b+c}{2}}\frac{[\frac{a+b+c}{2}+1]![\frac{a+bc}{2}]![\frac{a+cb}{2}]![\frac{b+ca}{2}]!}{[a]![b]![c]!}.$$

Suppose that a tetrahedral net has been labeled as in Figure 2 where the letters are nonnegative integers and the triples appearing at each vertex $`v`$ are admissible.

The tetrahedral coefficient  is the quantity

(5)
$$\text{Tet}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right)=$$

$$\frac{_v[x_{v,1}]![x_{v,2}]![x_{v,3}]!}{[a]![b]![c]![d]![e]![f]!}\underset{s=m}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{(1)^s[s+1]!}{[B_1s]![B_2s]![B_3s]![sA_1]![sA_2]![sA_3]![sA_4]!},$$

where the $`B_i`$ are half the sums of the labels over the four cycles, the $`A_i`$ are half the sums of the labels at each vertex, $`m`$ is the maximum of the $`A_i`$ and $`M`$ is the minimum of the $`B_i`$. The $`x_{v,i}`$ are the strand numbers of the admissible triple at the vertex $`v`$.

The unitary $`6j`$ symbol  is the quantity:

(6)
$$\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right\}_u=\frac{\text{Tet}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right)}{\sqrt{\theta (a,d,e)\theta (b,c,e)\theta (a,b,f)\theta (c,d,f)}}.$$

A consequence of admissibility is that the denominator is a square root of a positive number, so the formula is unambiguous.

Letting $`q=t^4`$, let $`(x;q)_n=_{i=1}^n(1xq^{i1})`$. We need the following fact : The function

(7)
$$(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1xq^{i1})$$

is well defined when $`|q|<1`$. In particular, $`(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}`$ is well defined. Notice that

(8)
$$[n]=t^{2n+2}\frac{1q^{n1}}{1q},$$

and

(9)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_n=(1)^nt^{2n}\frac{1q^n}{1q},$$

so that

(10)
$$[n]!=t^{(n1)n}\frac{(q;q)_n}{(1q)^n},$$

and

(11)
$$\theta (a,b,c)=(1)^{\frac{a+b+c}{2}}\frac{t^{abc}}{1q}\frac{(q;q)_{\frac{a+b+c}{2}+1}(q;q)_{\frac{a+bc}{2}}(q;q)_{\frac{b+ca}{2}}(q;q)_{\frac{a+cb}{2}}}{(q;q)_a(q;q)_b(q;q)_c}.$$

The quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$, $`\theta (a,b,c)`$ and $`\text{Tet}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right)`$ can be understood as the Kauffman brackets of colored graphs .

### 2.2. Spines and Ideal Triangulations

An ideal triangulation  of the compact three-manifold $`M`$ is a union of tetrahedra joined along faces with their vertices removed so that the result is homeomorphic to the interior of $`M`$.

A surface is normal with respect to the triangulation  if it intersects each tetrahedron in triangles and quadrilaterals (quads) as in Figure 3.

Parameterize normal surfaces by their intersection with the edges of the tetrahedra. Arrange these numbers in a $`2\times 3`$ array, so that each column of the array is the number of points of intersection of the normal surface with two opposite edges of the tetrahedron. More specifically, there is a tetrahedral net dual to the $`1`$-skeleton of the tetrahedron, lying on the boundary of the tetrahedron, as pictured in Figure 4. The intersection of the normal surface with the boundary of the tetrahedron is a family of circles carried by this net, the number of strands carried by an edge of the net is the intersection number of the normal surface with the edge of the tetrahedron transverse to the particular edge of the net. We form the array of nonnegative integers just as if we were indexing a tetrahedral coefficient, see Figure 2, where the label on the edge is the number of strands carried by that edge. Let $`C_1,C_2,C_3`$ be the sums of the columns of the array, named so that $`C_1C_2C_3`$.

###### Proposition 2.

An array of nonnegative integers corresponds to a normal surface if and only if the integers assigned to the three edges around each face of the tetrahedron form an admissible triple, and $`C_1=C_2`$.

###### Proof.

Think of a face of a tetrahedron as a triangle, and the intersection of the normal surface with the triangle as a system of arcs joining points on the three edges. As we are joining the points on the three sides of the triangle by nonintersecting arcs, the triple around each face must be admissible. The second condition follows from the fact that the intersection of a normal surface with any tetrahedron can only contain triangles and one type of quad. ∎

You cannot necessarily add normal surfaces, because if two normal surfaces have different quads in the same tetrahedron, their double curve sum may no longer be normal. However, there is always a finite family of normal surfaces so that every normal surface can be written as an integral sum of those surfaces, with nonnegative coefficients.

Letting $``$ denote the nonnegative integers, a rational cone is the solution of a family of linear homogeneous equations with integer coefficients in $`^k`$ for some $`k`$. An element of a rational cone is irreducible if it cannot be written as the sum of two elements of the cone in a nontrivial way. It is a classical result that a rational cone has only finitely many irreducible elements and they generate the cone additively. The set of irreducibles is called a Hilbert basis for the cone.

The normal surfaces form a rational cone. The class of normal surfaces is a subset of a more general class of surfaces, the spinal surfaces.

Let

(12)
$$X=\{(x,y,z)^3|z=0\text{or}(z0\text{and}x=0)\text{or}(z0\text{and}y=0)\}.$$

A subset $`Y`$ of the 3-manifold $`M`$ is modeled on $`X`$ if for every $`pY`$ there is an open neighborhood $`U`$ of $`p`$, open set $`V^3`$ and a homeomorphism $`\varphi :UV`$, with $`\varphi ^1(X)=YU`$. There is a decomposition of $`Y`$ into vertices, (open) edges and (open) faces coming from the natural decomposition of $`X`$ into vertices, edges and faces.

We say $`SM`$ is a regular spine  if:

1. $`S`$ is modeled on $`X`$.
2. $`MS`$ is homeomorphic to $`M\times [0,1)`$.
3. $`S`$ has at least one vertex.
4. Every edge of $`S`$ has a vertex in its closure.
5. Every face of $`S`$ is simply connected.

###### Proposition 3.

Ideal triangulations and regular spines are in one to one correspondence up to isotopy via duality.

###### Proof.

For each ideal triangulation there is a regular spine. Put a vertex in the center of each tetrahedron. Join the vertices in adjacent tetrahedra by edges, and then form faces of the spine that intersect the edges of the triangulation transversely and are bounded by the edges of the spine. The intersection of the spine with a tetrahedron is pictured in Figure 5.

Similarly for each regular spine there is an ideal triangulation, so that its six edges intersect the six faces of the spine coming into the vertex transversely, and each edge intersects exactly one face.∎

Given a spine $`S`$ of $`M`$ and a simple closed curve $`\kappa M`$ there is a possibly singular annulus $`A_\kappa M`$ having $`\kappa `$ as one boundary component so that the intersection of $`A_\kappa `$ with $`S`$ is the other boundary component of $`A_\kappa `$. The annulus is constructed by taking the closure of the points lying over $`\kappa `$ in the product structure on $`MS`$. The singularities of $`A_\kappa `$ come from the fact that the map from $`M`$ to $`S`$ given by following the lines of the product structure is two to one along faces. Since there is some ambiguity in the product structure we can choose the annulus $`A_\kappa `$ so that it is in general position with respect to the spine. This means its boundary misses the vertices of the spine, intersects the edges transversely and its only singular points are transverse double points occurring in the interior of the faces of the spine. If $`𝒞`$ is a system of disjoint simple closed curves in $`M`$ let $`A_\kappa `$, where $`\kappa C`$, be a system of disjoint annuli corresponding to the curves in $`C`$ that is in general position with respect to the spine $`S`$. The union $`S(C)=S\left(_{\kappa C}A_\kappa \right)`$ is called the augmentation of the spine with respect to $`C`$. Except for points on $`C`$ the augmentation is still modeled on $`X`$, so it can be decomposed into vertices, edges and faces just as a spine. If the spine is regular then the faces of the augmentation are simply connected except for the annular faces with one boundary component a curve in $`C`$.

An admissible coloring of a spine is an assignment of a nonnegative integer to each face of the spine so that the integers assigned to the three faces meeting along each edge form an admissible triple. Given an admissible coloring of the spine there is a spinal surface built as follows. If the face $`f`$ carries the integer $`u_f`$ then take $`u_f`$ parallel copies of $`f`$. Along the edges glue the faces together so that they look like the Cartesian product of a triple of arcs at a vertex with an interval. The triple $`(2,3,3)`$ occurring along an edge is shown in Figure 6.

So far, the surface constructed intersects the boundary of a small ball at each vertex in a collection of circles arranged along a tetrahedral net. To finish the construction, fill in the surface inside each ball with a disk for each circle in the net.

Topologically, the spinal surfaces are those surfaces that intersect the tetrahedra in disks, so that their intersection with any face of a tetrahedron consists of arcs whose endpoints lie in distinct edges of the face. The spinal surfaces form an additive cone, as the sum of two admissible colorings is an admissible coloring. However, Euler characteristic is not always additive under sum. Clearly, spinal surfaces are a larger class than the normal surfaces associated to the dual triangulation. We can identify the normal surfaces inside the spinal surfaces by looking at the tetrahedral net at each vertex. In specific at each vertex we can define the three column sums of the tetrahedral net and order them so that $`C_1C_2C_3`$.

###### Remark 1.

By Proposition 2 the surface is normal in the dual ideal triangulation if and only if at each vertex $`C_1=C_2`$.

The spinal surfaces form a rational cone. The proper domain is the Cartesian product of copies of $``$, one for each strand number. The color on a face is the sum of the two adjacent strand numbers along an edge of the face. The equations defining the cone come from the requirement that the computed color of a face must be the same no matter what edge of the face you compute it along. Thus we have the following:

###### Fact 1.

There is a set of primitive spinal surfaces $`\{F_i\}`$ so that every spinal surface can be written as a nonnegative sum of the $`\{F_i\}`$’s.

Suppose now that $`C`$ is a system of disjoint simple closed curves in $`M`$ and $`S(C)`$ is an augmentation of the spine with respect to $`C`$. An admissible coloring of $`S(C)`$ is defined the same way as an admissible coloring of a spine except that the annular faces can only carry the color $`1`$. There is once again a correspondence between admissible colorings and surfaces, but now the surfaces have boundary equal to the union of the curves in $`C`$.

In order to understand the Euler characteristic of a surface carried by a spine or an augmented spine we need to understand how many circles there are in a colored tetrahedral net.

###### Proposition 4.

Suppose that a tetrahedral net has column sums $`C_1C_2C_3`$. The number of circles in the net is $`\mathrm{gcd}(C_1C_2,C_1C_3)/2+C_2+C_3C_1`$.

###### Proof.

Unless a tetrahedral net is of the form

(13)
$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& a+b\\ a& b& a+b\end{array}\right)$$

with $`a`$ and $`b`$ nonzero then there is always a simple closed curve in the net that is the boundary of one of the faces of the tetrahedron.

Removing a curve that bounds a face does not change $`C_1C_2`$ or $`C_1C_3`$, but $`C_2+C_3C_1`$ is reduced by one. Remove such curves until there are no more curves that bound faces. The remaining net will be of the form above. If $`\mathrm{gcd}(C_1C_2,C_1C_3)=2`$ then the system consists of a single curve. More generally, the number of components is $`\mathrm{gcd}(a,b)=\frac{\mathrm{gcd}(C_1C_2,C_1C_3)}{2}`$. ∎

From this proof we see that the net is made up of circles that are boundaries of faces along with multiple copies of a single type of circle that appears in a tetrahedral net of type

(14)
$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& a+b\\ a& b& a+b\end{array}\right)$$

where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are relatively prime. Alternatively, the boundary of a simplex with its vertices removed is a four times punctured sphere. Any simple closed curve is either boundary parallel or separates the surface into two pairs of pants. The dearth of disjoint systems of simple closed curves on a pair of pants causes all curves that are not triangles to be parallel. The $`a`$ and $`b`$ can be understood in terms of geometric intersection numbers with crosscuts. Name such curves by the pair $`(a,b)`$ where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are relatively prime and $`ab`$. For each such pair there are six or three different ways (depending on the symmetries of the particular curve type) of labeling the tetrahedron corresponding to the curve of type $`(a,b)`$. We say that two $`(a,b)`$ curves are non-conflicting if the curves are parallel in a regular neighborhood of the $`1`$-skeleton of the tetrahedral net.

###### Proposition 5.

Euler characteristic of spinal surfaces is additive when the two surfaces have the same $`(a,b)`$ types at each vertex and those types are non-conflicting.

###### Proof.

The surface that corresponds to the sum of the colorings is the disjoint union of the surfaces corresponding to the two colorings. ∎

The type $`(0,1)`$ is a quad, the type $`(1,1)`$ corresponds to an almost normal surface . Further types wind more and more around the tetrahedral net before closing up.

## 3. $`6j`$-symbol Details

### 3.1. Bounding the $`6j`$-symbols.

We begin with a universal bound on the size of the unitary $`6j`$–symbols in terms of their entries.

###### Proposition 6.

Let $`C_1C_2C_3`$ be the column sums of the unitary $`6j`$–symbol $`\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right\}_u`$ and assume that $`0<t<1`$. There exists a function $`K(t)>0`$ such that

(15)
$$\left|\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right\}_u\right|K(t)t^{\frac{1}{2}(C_1C_2)(C_1C_3)+C_1}.$$

###### Proof.

After collecting and canceling terms, $`\left|\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right\}_u\right|`$ is equal to

(16)
$$\frac{\sqrt{_v\left|[x_{v,1}]![x_{v,2}]![x_{v,3}]!\right|}}{\sqrt{[\frac{a+d+e}{2}+1]![\frac{b+c+e}{2}+1]![\frac{a+b+f}{2}+1]![\frac{c+d+f}{2}+1]!}}\left|\underset{s=m}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{(1)^s[s+1]!}{_{i=1}^3[B_is]!_{j=1}^4[sA_j]!}\right|.$$

Using (10) this is further equal to

(17)
$$t^p(1q)^2\sqrt{\frac{_v(q;q)_{x_{v,1}}(q;q)_{x_{v,2}}(q;q)_{x_{v,3}}}{(q;q)_{\frac{a+d+e}{2}+1}(q;q)_{\frac{b+c+e}{2}+1}(q;q)_{\frac{a+b+f}{2}+1}(q;q)_{\frac{c+d+f}{2}+1}}}$$

$$\left|\underset{s=m}{\overset{M}{}}t^{p_s}\frac{1}{1q}\frac{(1)^s(q;q)_{s+1}}{_{i=1}^3(q;q)_{B_is}_{j=1}^4(q;q)_{sA_j}}\right|.$$

Here

(18)
$$p=\frac{1}{2}(a^2b^2c^2d^2e^2f^2+ae+ad+ab+af+be+bc+bf+ce+cd+cf+de+df)$$

$$+a+b+c+d+e+f$$

and

(19)
$$p_s=6s^2+a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2+e^2+f^2$$

$$+af+ac+ae+fc+fe+ce+be+bd+bf+ed+df+ab+ad+bc+cd$$

$$2s(1+2a+2b+2c+2d+2e+2f).$$

After completing the square, $`p_s`$ is

(20)
$$p_s=6\left(s\frac{a+b+c+d+e+f+\frac{1}{2}}{3}\right)^2+\frac{1}{3}(a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2+e^2+f^2)$$

$$\frac{1}{3}(af+ae+ac+ad+ab+fe+fc+ce+be+bd+bf+ed+df+bc+cd)\frac{2}{3}(a+b+c+d+e+f)\frac{1}{6}.$$

Combining all the factors of $`(1q)`$ outside and the powers of $`t`$ inside the sum, formula (17) can be simplified to

(21)
$$(1q)\sqrt{\frac{_v(q;q)_{x_{v,1}}(q;q)_{x_{v,2}}(q;q)_{x_{v,3}}}{(q;q)_{\frac{a+d+e}{2}+1}(q;q)_{\frac{b+c+e}{2}+1}(q;q)_{\frac{a+b+f}{2}+1}(q;q)_{\frac{c+d+f}{2}+1}}}$$

$$\left|\underset{s=m}{\overset{M}{}}t^{p_s^{}}\frac{(1)^s(q;q)_{s+1}}{_{i=1}^3(q;q)_{B_is}_{j=1}^4(q;q)_{sA_j}}\right|.$$

where

(22)
$$p_s^{}=6\left(s\frac{a+b+c+d+e+f+\frac{1}{2}}{3}\right)^2\frac{1}{6}(a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2+e^2+f^2)$$

$$\frac{1}{3}(ac+fe+bd)+\frac{1}{6}(ad+ae+de+bc+be+ce+ab+af+bf+cd+cf+df)$$

$$+\frac{1}{3}(a+b+c+d+e+f)\frac{1}{6}.$$

The formula (21) is the absolute value of an alternating sum from $`s=m`$ to $`s=M`$. Take the quotient whose numerator is the summand at $`s+1`$ and whose denominator is the summand at $`s`$, the result is,

(23)
$$(1)t^{12s4(a+b+c+d+e+f)+4}\frac{(1q^{s+2})_{i=1}^3(1q^{B_is})}{_{j=1}^4(1q^{s+1A_j})}.$$

Take the absolute value, with the effect of removing the (-1). In order to see that each one of these quotients is smaller than the last, take the logarithm of the result, giving:

(24)
$$(12s4(a+b+c+d+e+f)+4)\mathrm{log}(t)+\mathrm{log}(1q^{s+2})+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\mathrm{log}(1q^{B_is})\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\mathrm{log}(1q^{s+1A_j})$$

Apply the Taylor series for $`\mathrm{log}(1x)`$ to get

(25)
$$(12s4(a+b+c+d+e+f)+4)\mathrm{log}(t)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}\left(q^{n(s+2)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}q^{n(B_is)}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}q^{n(s+1A_j)}\right).$$

As $`t<1`$ the first term gets smaller as $`s`$ increases. We analyze the sum over $`n`$ in (25) term by term. As $`n`$ gets larger, $`q^{n(s+2)}`$ gets smaller so $`q^{n(s+2)}`$ gets larger. However, for each $`i`$ and $`j`$, $`q^{n(B_is)}`$ and $`+q^{n(s+1A_j)}`$ get smaller as $`s`$ increases. Furthermore the powers of $`q`$ appearing in any $`q^{n(s+1A_j)}`$ are smaller than in $`q^{n(s+2)}`$ which means that the amount any one of them is decreasing is greater than the amount that $`q^{n(s+2)}`$ is increasing, so each term is getting smaller. Therefore the sum over all $`n`$ is getting smaller and the quotients are decreasing. Thus, the absolute value of the sum has a unique maximum. Since the sum is alternating we conclude that the absolute value of the summand is less than or equal to the largest term. For any $`n`$, using $`(q;q)_n1`$ in the numerator and $`(q;q)_n(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the denominator of (21) together with the fact that the power of $`t`$ is the largest when the exponent is the smallest, the expression in equation (21) is smaller than

(26)
$$(1q)\sqrt{\frac{1}{\left((q;q)_{\mathrm{}}\right)^4}}t^{\mathrm{min}}\frac{1}{\left((q;q)_{\mathrm{}}\right)^7},$$

where $`\mathrm{min}`$ is the smallest value of $`p_s^{}`$. Analyzing (22) we can see that $`p_s^{}`$ is minimal when $`s=M=(C_2+C_3)/2`$. Substituting we see that

(27)
$$p_s^{}\frac{(C_1C_2)(C_1C_3)}{2}+C_1.$$

The final estimate is

(28)
$$\left|\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right\}_u\right|\frac{1q}{\left((q;q)_{\mathrm{}}\right)^9}t^{\frac{(C_1C_2)(C_1C_3)}{2}+C_1}.$$

### 3.2.  Some important limits

Let $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right)`$ be an admissible labeling of the edges of a tetrahedron. For any nonnegative integer $`k`$, the labelings $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a+2k& b+2k& e+2k\\ c+2k& d+2k& f+2k\end{array}\right)`$, $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a+2k& b+2k& e\\ c+2k& d+2k& f+2k\end{array}\right)`$, and $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a+2k& b+2k& e\\ c+2k& d+2k& f\end{array}\right)`$ are admissible.

###### Proposition 7.

Given an admissible labeling $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right)`$ of a tetrahedral net, the sequences

(29)
$$t^{4k}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a+2k& b+2k& e+2k\\ c+2k& d+2k& f+2k\end{array}\right\}_u,$$

(30)
$$t^{4k}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a+2k& b+2k& e\\ c+2k& d+2k& f+2k\end{array}\right\}_u,$$

and

(31)
$$t^{4k}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a+2k& b+2k& e\\ c+2k& d+2k& f\end{array}\right\}_u$$

are convergent.

We will only prove the first limit exists, the other two are similar. The proof is based on the following elementary lemma.

###### Lemma 1.

Suppose that $`w(k)_n`$ is a sequence of sequences so that for each fixed $`k`$, the sequence is alternating and converges to zero, and for fixed $`n`$ the sequence is convergent. Suppose further that there exists $`N`$ so that, independent of $`k`$, if $`nN`$ then $`|w(k)_n||w(k)_{n+1}|`$. The sequence

(32)
$$w(k)_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{n}{}w(k)_n$$

(depending on $`k`$) is convergent.

###### Proof.

This is an application of the proof of the alternating series test. ∎

###### Proof.

(of Proposition 7) Recall Formula (21). The strand numbers increase by $`1`$ each time $`k`$ increases by $`1`$ so the $`(q;q)_{x_{v,i}}`$ all converge to $`(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}`$ as $`k`$ goes to infinity. Similarly, the functions in the denominator inside the radical all converge to $`(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}`$. Hence to prove the convergence we must only understand the quantities inside the sum.

Let $`M(k)`$, $`m(k)`$, $`A_j(k)`$, $`B_i(k)`$ and $`p^{}(k)_s`$ be the quantities in (21) associated to

(33)
$$\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a+2k& b+2k& e+2k\\ c+2k& d+2k& f+2k\end{array}\right\}_u,$$

as in the proof of Proposition 6. Let $`n=M(k)s`$, and let

(34)
$$w(k)_n=t^{p^{}(k)_s4k}\frac{(1)^s(q;q)_{s+1}}{_{i=1}^3(q;q)_{B_i(k)s}_{j=1}^4(q;q)_{sA_j(k)}}$$

for $`nM(k)m(k)`$, and $`w(k)_n=0`$ for $`n>M(k)m(k)`$.

As $`k`$ increases by $`1`$, the $`B_i(k)`$ increase by $`4`$ and the $`A_j(k)`$ only increase by $`3`$. So, $`M(k)=M(0)+4k`$, $`m(k)=m(0)+3k`$, $`B_i(k)=B_i(0)+4k`$, and $`A_j(k)=A_j(0)+3k`$. When $`n=0`$, $`s=M(k)`$ and

(35)
$$p^{}(k)_{M(k)}=\frac{(C(k)_1C(k)_2)(C(k)_1C(k)_3)}{2}+C(k)_1,$$

which increases by $`4`$ when $`k`$ increases by $`1`$, so $`t^{4k+p^{}(k)_{M(k)}}`$ is a constant. We see that $`w(k)_0`$ is convergent. A similar analysis shows that for fixed $`n`$ the sequence $`w(k)_n`$ is convergent. The series is clearly alternating.

We have already seen that for fixed $`k`$ the sequence $`|w(k)_n|`$ can have at most one maximum, we just need to see that there is a bound on how big $`n`$ is at that maximum depending only on $`t`$, and $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right)`$. We do this by looking at $`\mathrm{log}|w(k)_n/w(k)_{n+1}|`$ and seeing when it becomes nonnegative. When $`n>M(0)m(0)+k`$ then $`w(k)_n=0`$, so the maximum of $`|w(k)_n|`$ has already occured. Hence we only need to understand the case when the quotient $`w(k)_n/w(k)_{n+1}`$ is well defined. To this end we substitute into Formula (24) to get,

(36)
$$\mathrm{log}|w(k)_n/w(k)_{n+1}|=(12(M(0)n)4(a+b+c+d+e+f)+4)\mathrm{log}(t)$$

$$+\mathrm{log}(1q^{M(0)+4kn+2})\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\mathrm{log}(1q^{M(0)+kn+1A_j(0)})+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\mathrm{log}(1q^{(B_i(0)M(0)+n)}).$$

Choose $`N`$ large enough so that,

(37)
$$(12(M(0)N)4(a+b+c+d+e+f)+4)\mathrm{log}(t)>$$

$$\mathrm{log}(1q^{M(0)+4NN+2})\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\mathrm{log}(1q^{M(0)N+2}).$$

Notice that $`_{i=1}^4\mathrm{log}(1q^{M(0)+kn+1A_j(0)})>0`$. Inequality (37) guarantees that the expression (36) is positive when $`k=N`$. Increasing k in $`\mathrm{log}(1q^{M(0)+4kN+2})`$ makes it smaller. Thus, by the argument from the proof of Proposition 6, the sequence $`|w_k(n)|`$ is monotone decreasing for $`nN`$.

We have established the criterion for convergence from Lemma 1. ∎

Let the limit of the sequence (29) from Proposition 7 be denoted by:

(38)
$$\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right\}_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}t^{4k}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a+2k& b+2k& e+2k\\ c+2k& d+2k& f+2k\end{array}\right\}_u.$$

Similarly, denote the limits of the sequences (30) and (31) by

(39)
$$\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e_0\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right\}_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}t^{4k}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a+2k& b+2k& e\\ c+2k& d+2k& f+2k\end{array}\right\}_u,$$

and

(40)
$$\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e_0\\ c& d& f_0\end{array}\right\}_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}t^{4k}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a+2k& b+2k& e\\ c+2k& d+2k& f\end{array}\right\}_u.$$

###### Remark 2.

(41)
$$\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right\}_{\mathrm{}}=(1q)(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}\underset{u=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{\frac{C_2+C_3}{2}+u}$$

$$t^{6u^2+2(2C_1C_2C_3+1)u+\frac{(C_1C_2)(C_1C_3)}{2}+C_1}\frac{1}{(q;q)_u(q;q)_{u+\frac{C_1C_2}{2}}(q;q)_{u+\frac{C_1C_3}{2}}}$$

The limits (39) and (40) are zero unless $`a+c=b+d`$.

## 4. Normal and Spinal Surfaces

### 4.1.  Analysis of the contribution of a surface

For the remainder of this paper $`M`$ will be a compact three-manifold with non-empty connected boundary. Although the method works for a more general class of manifolds, this assumption simplifies the arithmetic so that the ideas behind the estimates are in the foreground.

###### Definition 1.

An ideal triangulation $`T`$ whose only normal spheres and tori are the link of a vertex is efficient. An ideal triangulation is $`0`$-efficient if and only if the only embedded, normal $`2`$-spheres are vertex linking.

The $`0`$-efficient triangulations were studied in . In particular, it is shown there that any triangulation of a closed, orientable irreducible $`3`$-manifold can be modified to a $`0`$-efficient triangulation, or it can be shown that the $`3`$-manifold is one of $`S^3`$, $`P^3`$ or $`L(3,1)`$. It is also shown that any triangulation of a compact, orientable, irreducible and boundary irreducible $`3`$-manifold with non-empty boundary can be modified to a $`0`$-efficient triangulation. In the announced sequel to  authors explore the concept of $`1`$-efficient manifolds. They show that the triangulations of irreducible, atoroidal, closed $`3`$-manifolds can be obtained so that in addition to being $`0`$-efficient, any embedded normal torus is of a very special form or the $`3`$-manifold is $`S^3`$, a lens space or a small Seifert fiber space.

Assume that $`M`$ has an efficient triangulation $`T`$. Suppose that $`S`$ is the spine dual to $`T`$. Let $`F`$ be a surface carried by $`S`$. It is induced by an admissible coloring of the spine. Let $`u_f`$ denote the color assigned to the face $`f`$. At each edge $`e`$ the three faces sharing that edge carry colors $`a_e`$, $`b_e`$ and $`c_e`$. At each vertex there is a corresponding coloring of a tetrahedral net, $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_v& b_v& e_v\\ c_v& d_v& f_v\end{array}\right)`$. Denote the column sums at vertex $`v`$ by $`C_{1,v}C_{2,v}C_{3,v}`$.

We can form the three strand numbers at each edge: $`x_{e,1}=\frac{a_e+b_ec_e}{2}`$, $`x_{e,2}=\frac{c_e+b_ea_e}{2}`$ and $`x_{e,3}=\frac{a_e+c_eb_e}{2}`$. These are in fact linear functionals on the space of spinal surfaces. There is an arbitrariness to the choice of which function is which, so fix this choice along each edge once and for all. Similarly, at each vertex we can form three linear functionals $`S_{1,v}`$, $`S_{2,v}`$ and $`S_{3,v}`$ corresponding to the column sums of the tetrahedral net at the vertex.

###### Definition 2.

If $`C`$ is a (possibly empty) set of simple closed curves on the boundary of $`M`$, let $`𝒮(C)`$ denote the set of spinal surfaces with respect to an augmentation of the spine corresponding to $`C`$. For brevity, let $`𝒮=𝒮(\mathrm{})`$. A sector $``$ is determined by fixing the order of the values of the $`S_{i,v}`$ at each vertex (that is, deciding which of the $`S_{i,v}`$’s is the largest column sum, $`C_{1,v}`$, etc.).

Specifying these orderings at all vertices breaks the space of spinal surfaces into $`6^{\mathrm{\#}v}`$ sectors. Given any infinite sequence of spinal surfaces we can find a subsequence that lives in one sector, because there are only finitely many sectors.

###### Proposition 8.

Suppose that the spinal surface $`F`$ lies in the sector $``$. Then every connected component of $`F`$ lies in the same sector.

###### Proof.

Recall that the intersection of a spinal surface with a tetrahedron consists of triangles along with one family of disks having a particular curve type $`(a,b)`$. The triangles contribute the same to each column of the corresponding symbol so any restriction on the sector comes from the curve type. Since all components of $`F`$ are made up of a subset of the components of the intersection of $`F`$ with each tetrahedron, they lie in any sector that $`F`$ lies in (and maybe some other sectors too.) ∎

###### Definition 3.

A spinal surface $`F`$ is $`k`$-peelable if $`k`$ is the maximum non-negative integer such that $`F`$ can be written as $`F=F^{}+kM`$. Use $`𝒮_k(C)`$ to denote the set of all surfaces in $`𝒮(C)`$ that are $`k`$-peelable. Similarly, use $`_k(C)`$ to denote the $`k`$-peelable surfaces in the sector $`(C)`$.

There is a one-to-one correspondence between $`𝒮_0`$ and $`𝒮_k`$ for any $`k0`$ given by $`u_fu_f+2k`$ for every $`f`$. Furthermore, this correspondence preserves sectors.

###### Proposition 9.

A spinal surface is in $`𝒮_0`$ if and only if some $`x_{v,i}=0`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from Proposition 1 (on being able to subtract admissible triples). ∎

Consequently, a spinal surface is $`k`$-peelable if and only if the minimum over all strand numbers $`x_{v,i}`$ is equal to $`k`$.

Let $`Q:𝒮`$ be the function that assigns to each surface $`F`$,

(42)
$$Q(F)=\underset{f}{}2u_f+\underset{v}{}\frac{1}{2}(C_{1,v}C_{2,v})(C_{1,v}C_{3,v})+C_{1,v}.$$

###### Proposition 10.

* $`2\chi (F)Q(F)`$
* The function $`Q(F)`$ is super additive on any sector. That is, for any surfaces $`F`$, $`F^{}`$ lying in the same sector, if $`C_{i,v}`$ are the column sums corresponding to $`F`$ and $`C_{i,v}^{}`$ are the column sums corresponding to $`F^{}`$ then

(43)
$$Q(F+F^{})=Q(F)+Q(F^{})+(C_{1,v}C_{2,v})(C_{1,v}^{}C_{3,v}^{})/2+(C_{1,v}^{}C_{2,v}^{})(C_{1,v}C_{3,v})/2$$

$$Q(F)+Q(F^{})$$
* $`Q(F)`$ is bounded below on $`𝒮_0`$.
* The level sets of $`Q(F)`$ on $`𝒮_0`$ are finite.
* The cardinality of the level sets of $`Q`$ on $`𝒮_0`$ grows at most polynomially in the level.

###### Proof.

* The Euler characteristic of the surface $`F`$ corresponding to the coloring $`u_f`$ is

(44)
$$\underset{f}{}u_f\underset{e}{}\frac{a_e+b_e+c_e}{2}+\underset{v}{}\mathrm{gcd}(C_{1,v}C_{2,v},C_{1,v}C_{3,v})/2+C_{2,v}+C_{3,v}C_{1,v}$$

Because each edge has exactly two ends we can redistribute the sum to eliminate the sum over the edges. This yields,

(45)
$$\underset{f}{}u_f+\underset{v}{}\mathrm{gcd}(C_{1,v}C_{2,v},C_{1,v}C_{3,v})/2+\frac{1}{2}C_{2,v}+\frac{1}{2}C_{3,v}\frac{3}{2}C_{1,v}.$$

Comparing (45) to the right hand side of the inequality from item (i) we see that it is enough to show that for each vertex $`v`$,

(46)
$$\mathrm{gcd}(C_{1,v}C_{2,v},C_{1,v}C_{3,v})C_{2,v}C_{3,v}+3C_{1,v}\frac{1}{2}(C_{1,v}C_{2,v})(C_{1,v}C_{3,v})+C_{1,v}.$$

In the case that $`C_{1,v}C_{2,v}=0`$ this reduces to $`C_{1,v}C_{1,v}`$ thus the proposition is true. Assume that $`C_{1,v}C_{2,v}>0`$. The triples at each vertex are admissible so $`C_{1,v}C_{2,v}C_{1,v}C_{3,v}`$ are even and positive. Hence, $`\mathrm{gcd}(C_{1,v}C_{2,v},C_{1,v}C_{3,v})2`$. Substituting this in (46) and putting everything on the right side, the inequality is equivalent to:

(47)
$$\frac{1}{2}(C_{1,v}C_{2,v}2)(C_{1,v}C_{3,v}2)0.$$

Since we are assuming $`C_{1,v}C_{2,v}2`$ and $`C_{1,v}C_{3,v}2`$ this is true.
* This is a direct computation from the formula.

In what follows we would like to use this formula, to that end we write it more compactly as follows. Letting $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ be surfaces in the same sector with $`\delta _v=C_{1,v}C_{2,v}`$, $`\gamma _v=C_{1,v}C_{3,v}`$ being associated with $`F`$ and $`\delta _v^{}=C_{1,v}^{}C_{2,v}^{}`$, $`\gamma _v^{}=C_{1,v}^{}C_{3,v}^{}`$ being associated with $`F^{}`$, we have,

(48)
$$Q(F+F^{})=Q(F)+Q(F^{})+\underset{v}{}\frac{\delta _v\gamma _v^{}+\delta _v^{}\gamma _v}{2}.$$
* Since there are only finitely many sectors, if $`Q`$ is bounded below on each sector, then it is bounded below on $`𝒮_0`$. So assume we are working in a particular sector. Suppose that $`Q`$ is not bounded below. Starting with a surface with $`Q<0`$ we demonstrate the existence of another surface of a particular form with smaller $`Q(F)`$. We then bound $`Q`$ below on surfaces of that form.

Suppose that $`Q(F)<0`$. Decompose $`F`$ as a union $`F_p`$ of components with positive Euler characteristic and a union $`F_n`$ components with negative Euler characteristic. Since $`Q(F)<0`$, the surface $`F_p`$ is nonempty. By super-additivity we have that $`Q(F)Q(F_p)+Q(F_n)`$. Since $`Q(F_n)0`$ this implies that $`Q(F_p)Q(F)`$. Since $`F_p`$ is a subsurface of $`F`$, by Proposition 8 it is in the same sector. So we can assume that we are working with a surface all of whose components are spheres.

Next assume that $`F`$ has $`\delta _v4`$ for some $`v`$. Our estimate that $`Q(F)2\chi (F)`$ tells us that if $`F`$ has a single component then $`Q(F)4`$. Using the fact that $`\delta _v4`$ for some vertex allows us to improve this to $`Q(F)2`$ Assume that $`F`$ is not connected. We can then write $`F=F_1+F_2`$ where the $`F_i`$ are from $`𝒮_0`$, and $`F_2`$ is connected and has nonempty intersection with a small ball about $`v`$. We use $`\delta _{v,1}`$, $`\delta _{v,2}`$ to denote the differences between the largest column and second largest column of these two surfaces at the vertex $`v`$, and $`\gamma _{v,1}`$ and $`\gamma _{v,2}`$ to describe the difference between the largest column and the smallest column. Note, $`\delta _v=\delta _{v,1}+\delta _{v,2}`$ and $`\gamma _v=\gamma _{v,1}+\gamma _{v,2}`$. The super-additivity formula gives

(49)
$$Q(F)=Q(F_1+F_2)=Q(F_1)+Q(F_2)+\underset{v}{}\frac{\delta _{v,1}\gamma _{v,2}+\delta _{v,2}\gamma _{v,1}}{2}.$$

Since $`\delta _{v,1}+\delta _{v,2}4`$ it follows that $`Q(F_1)Q(F)`$ and it has smaller $`\delta _v`$. Replace the surface $`F`$ with the surface $`F_1`$ and continue until all $`\delta _v2`$.

Suppose $`F`$ is a surface in $`_0`$ with all $`\delta _v2`$. Since there are no normal spheres in $`_0`$ each sphere making up $`F`$ has some $`\delta _v=2`$. Since $`\delta _v`$ is additive this means that there are no more spheres in $`F`$ than there are vertices in the spine. Hence $`Q`$ is bounded below by $`4(\text{\# vertices})`$.
* It is enough to prove that the intersection of any level set with any sector is finite. Suppose that $`F_i`$ is an infinite sequence of spinal surfaces in a sector with $`Q(F_i)=c`$. If necessary we can pass to a subsequence so that the strand numbers of the surfaces $`F_i`$ are monotone increasing. There are two cases.

Case 1 If the $`C_{v,1}C_{v,2}=\delta _v`$ stay bounded then we can further refine the sequence so that all these numbers are constant. As the strand numbers are monotone increasing we can subtract the first term of the sequence from every subsequent term to get a new sequence of spinal surfaces which are normal. The values of $`Q(F_i)`$ are bounded below (by item (iii)), hence there is an infinite sequence of surfaces with the same Euler characteristic. Since these surfaces all have some strand number $`0`$, and the triangulation is efficient they can be written as a sum of a finite list of normal surfaces so that none of the surfaces has positive or zero Euler characteristic. This is a contradiction, as their Euler characteristic is increasing.

Case 2 If some $`C_{v,1}C_{v,2}=\delta _v`$ is unbounded we refine the sequence so that the $`\delta _v`$ are monotone increasing and the strand numbers are monotone increasing. Let $`v`$ be a vertex where the $`\delta _v`$ are unbounded, and assume that the first surface in the sequence has $`\delta _v>0`$. If not, just start later. Subtracting the first surface from every surface in the sequence the super-additivity formula informs us that this is a sequence of surfaces in $`𝒮_0`$ such that $`Q`$ is not bounded below. This contradicts item $`(\mathrm{𝐢𝐢𝐢})`$.
* If $`V`$ is a finite dimensional free $``$-module and $`v_i`$ is a basis, we can define $`N:V`$ by

(50)
$$N(\underset{i}{}c_iv_i)=\underset{i}{}|c_i|.$$

The cardinality of the set of elements in $`V`$ with $`N(v)n`$ is less than or equal to a polynomial in $`n`$. Fixing a sector $``$ there is a finite family of surfaces $`F_i`$ that generate the surfaces in $``$ as an integer cone. As there are only finitely many surfaces $`F`$ with $`Q(F)0`$, there is an integer $`K`$ so that for any $`_ic_iF_i`$, if some $`c_iK`$ then $`Q(_ic_iF_i)>0`$. Let $`S_j`$ be the set of all surfaces $`_ic_iF_i`$, so that some $`c_i`$ is between $`K`$ and $`2K`$ and the other $`c_i`$ are between $`0`$ and $`K1`$. It is clear that all but finitely many surfaces in $`𝒮`$ can be written as a positive sum of these surfaces. Form a free $``$-module with basis $`v_j`$ corresponding to the $`S_j`$ and define a map from the nonnegative integer sums of the $`v_j`$ to $`𝒮`$ by sending the $`v_j`$ to the $`S_j`$. This map is onto all but a finite subset of $``$. Also,

(51)
$$N(\underset{i}{}c_jv_j)Q(\underset{j}{}c_jS_j),$$

so the level set $`Q(S)=n`$ is the image of a subset of $`V`$ contained inside the set $`N(v)n`$. Therefore the level sets of $`Q`$ grow at most polynomially in $`n`$.

Now suppose that $`C`$ is a system of simple closed curves on $`M`$. We consider colorings of an augmentation of the spine corresponding to $`C`$. Let $`\chi (f)`$ denote the Euler characteristic of the face $`f`$. Note that $`\chi (f)=1`$ if $`f`$ is an open disk, and $`\chi (f)=0`$ if $`f`$ is an annulus.

The space of surfaces corresponding to admissible colorings of the augmented spine is much like the space of spinal surfaces, except you can’t add two augmented colorings. However, you can add an augmented coloring and any coloring of the original spine. We can divide the space of colorings of the augmented spine into sectors just like we did for spinal surfaces, and we can define $`k`$-peelable. Let $`(C)`$ be the surfaces in a sector coming from colorings of an augmentation of the spine, and denote by $``$ the corresponding sector in space of spinal surfaces associated to the original spine. Use $`(C)_k`$ to denote the $`k`$-peelable surfaces in that sector. Define $`Q`$ from the space of surfaces corresponding to admissible colorings of the augmented spine to the counting numbers by,

(52)
$$Q(F)=\underset{f}{}2\chi (f)u_f+\underset{v}{}\frac{1}{2}(C_{1,v}C_{2,v})(C_{1,v}C_{3,v})+C_{1,v}.$$

###### Proposition 11.

* $`2x_FQ(F)`$
* The function $`Q(F)`$ is super additive on sectors. If $`C_{i,v}`$ are the column sums corresponding to $`F(C)`$ and $`C_{i,v}^{}`$ are the column sums corresponding to $`F^{}`$ then

(53)
$$Q(F+F^{})=Q(F)+Q(F^{})+(C_{1,v}C_{2,v})(C_{1,v}^{}C_{3,v}^{})/2+(C_{1,v}^{}C_{2,v}^{})(C_{1,v}C_{3,v})/2$$

$$Q(F)+Q(F^{}).$$
* $`Q(F)`$ is bounded below on $`𝒮(C)_k`$.
* The level sets of $`Q(F)`$ on $`𝒮(C)_k`$ are finite.
* The cardinality of the level sets of $`Q`$ on $`𝒮(C)_k`$ grows at most polynomially in the level.

###### Proof.

The proof is an extension of the proof of Proposition 10. The first two parts follow directly from the formula for $`Q`$.

The third part we argue as follows. First get the estimate on $`𝒮(C)_0`$ by working in sectors. Given a surface $`F(C)_0`$ it can be written as a sum of a surface $`F_1`$ such that each of its components has nonempty boundary and a surface $`F_2`$ each component of which is closed. From Proposition 10 we have a lower bound for $`Q(F_2)`$, from inequality (i) we can bound $`Q(F_1)`$ below by $`2`$ times the number of components in $`C`$. By super-additivity we have bounded $`Q`$ from below on $`(C)_0`$.

To bound $`Q`$ below on $`𝒮(C)_k`$ use the one-to-one correspondence between surfaces in $`𝒮(C)_k`$ and surfaces in $`𝒮(C)_0`$ obtained by adding $`k`$ copies of $`M`$. Once again we bound the value of $`Q`$ on $`k`$ parallel copies of the boundary using the inequality from item (i) and then use the bound on $`𝒮(C)_0`$ and super-additivity on sectors.

The proofs of items (iv) and (v) are completely analogous to the proofs in Proposition 10. ∎

### 4.2. Summing Over $`k`$-peelable Surfaces

Let $`C`$ be a system of simple closed curves in $`M`$, let $`S`$ be a spine that is dual to an efficient triangulation of $`M`$ and let $`S(C)`$ be an augmentation of $`S`$ with respect to $`C`$. Given a coloring $`F`$ of the augmented spine $`S(C)`$ let the $`u_f`$, $`a_e`$, $`b_e`$, $`c_e`$, $`a_v`$, $`b_v`$, $`c_v`$, $`d_v`$, $`e_v`$, $`f_v`$ and $`\chi (f)`$ be defined as before. Also, let $`\chi (e)=1`$ if the edge $`e`$ has some vertex in its closure and let $`\chi (e)=0`$ otherwise ($`\chi (e)`$ is the Euler characteristic of the edge $`e`$).

###### Definition 4.

The contribution of $`F`$ is defined to be

(54)
$$E(F)=\frac{_f\mathrm{\Delta }_{u_f}^{\chi (f)}_v\mathrm{Tet}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_v& b_v& e_v\\ c_v& d_v& f_v\end{array}\right)}{_e\theta (a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi (e)}}.$$

Notice that faces and edges of the spine contribute to $`E(F)`$ unless they are annular or belong to the simple closed curves on the boundary respectively. Each vertex is an endpoint of four edges and each edge that counts in the contribution of a surface has two ends. We can thus collect the tetrahedral coefficient at each vertex with the thetas to reparse this product as

(55)
$$E(F)=\underset{f}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{u_f}^{\chi (f)}\underset{v}{}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a_v& b_v& e_v\\ c_v& d_v& f_v\end{array}\right\}_u.$$

There is a map $`S(C)_0S(C)_k`$ that adds $`k`$ copies of the boundary of $`M`$ (as a union of triangles near the vertex). This map is one to one and onto. If the largest color corresponding to $`F`$ is $`N`$ then the largest color corresponding to $`F+kM`$ is $`N+2k`$. We define

(56)
$$E_k(F)=E(F+kM).$$

Since $`\chi (M)=\mathrm{\#}f\mathrm{\#}v`$,

(57)
$$Q(F+kM)=Q(F)4k\chi (M).$$

Using results of Proposition 7 about limits of $`6j`$ symbols we have,

###### Proposition 12.

For every surface $`F𝒮(C)_0`$, the limit

(58)
$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}t^{4k\chi (M)}E_k(F)$$

exists. When $`C=\mathrm{}`$, it is equal to

(59)
$$E_{\mathrm{}}(F)=\underset{f}{}(1)^{u_f}\frac{t^{2u_f}}{1q}\underset{v}{}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a_v& b_v& e_v\\ c_v& d_v& f_v\end{array}\right\}_{\mathrm{}}.$$

###### Proof.

Assume first that $`C=\mathrm{}`$, thus $`\chi (f)=1`$ for all $`f`$. Given a surface $`F𝒮(C)_0`$ and $`k>0`$, use (55) together with (8) to express

(60)
$$E_k(F)=\underset{f}{}(1)^{u_f2k}t^{2u_f4k}\frac{1q^{u_f+2k}}{1q}\underset{v}{}t^{4k}t^{4k}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a_v+2k& b_v+2k& e_v+2k\\ c_v+2k& d_v+2k& f_v+2k\end{array}\right\}_u.$$

Since $`\chi (M)=\mathrm{\#}f\mathrm{\#}v`$, equation (60) can be rewritten as

(61)
$$t^{4k\chi (M)}\underset{f}{}(1)^{u_f}t^{2u_f}\frac{1q^{u_f+2k}}{1q}\underset{v}{}t^{4k}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}a_v+2k& b_v+2k& e_v+2k\\ c_v+2k& d_v+2k& f_v+2k\end{array}\right\}_u.$$

By Proposition 7, along with the fact that $`lim_k\mathrm{}\frac{1q^{u_f+2k}}{1q}=\frac{1}{1q}`$, limit (58) exists and is given by the formula (59).

In the case when $`C\mathrm{}`$ the argument is similar. The product in (60) must be taken over all faces $`f`$ with $`\chi (f)0`$ and for some of the vertices $`v`$ we need to consider the limit of sequences (30) or (31) instead of the sequence (29) as in equation (61).

Let $`𝒮(C)_k^N`$ be the subset of $`𝒮(C)_k`$ where the largest color $`u_f`$ is less than or equal to $`N`$ and let $`𝒮(C)_k^{T(N)}`$ be the subset of $`𝒮(C)_k`$ where the largest $`u_f`$ is greater than $`N`$, the tail of the set. Clearly,

(62)
$$𝒮(C)_k=𝒮(C)_k^N𝒮(C)_k^{T(N)}.$$

###### Lemma 2.

For every $`ϵ>0`$ there is $`N`$ so that for all $`k`$,

(63)
$$\underset{F𝒮(C)_k^{T(N+2k)}}{}|E(F)|<t^{4k\chi (M)}ϵ,$$

where $`\chi (M)`$ is the Euler characteristic of the manifold $`M`$.

Moreover, for every $`i0`$, the limit

(64)
$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}t^{4k\chi (M)}\underset{F𝒮(C)_k^{k+i}}{}|E(F)|$$

exists.

###### Proof.

Using (55) along with the estimate from Proposition 6, we see that,

(65)
$$|E(F)|D(t,M,C)t^{Q(F)},$$

where $`D(t,M,C)`$ is a number that only depends on $`t`$, the manifold $`M`$ and the augmentation of the spine corresponding to $`C`$. From Proposition 11 the function $`Q(F)`$ is bounded below by some $`Q_0`$, and has finite level sets, so that the level set where $`Q`$ takes on the value $`n`$ has its cardinality bounded above by a polynomial $`p(n)`$. Comparing with

(66)
$$\underset{nQ_0}{}p(n)t^n,$$

the series

(67)
$$\underset{F𝒮(C)_0}{}|E(F)|$$

is absolutely summable. This means that for each $`ϵ>0`$ there is $`N`$ so that

(68)
$$\underset{F𝒮(C)_0^{T(N)}}{}D(t,M,C)t^{Q(F)}<ϵ.$$

Using equation (57) we have

(69)
$$\underset{F𝒮(C)_k^{T(N+2k)}}{}D(t,M,C)t^{Q(F)}<t^{4k\chi (M)}ϵ.$$

Combining the above argument with Proposition 12 yields the existence of the limit (64). ∎

###### Remark 3.

The first part of this lemma can be restated as follows: for every $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`N`$ so that independent of $`k`$,

(70)
$$\underset{F𝒮(C)_0^{T(N)}}{}t^{4k\chi (M)}|E_k(F)|<ϵ.$$

###### Proposition 13.

Let

(71)
$$Z_k(M)=\underset{F𝒮(C)_k}{}E(F)=\underset{F𝒮(C)_0}{}E_k(F),$$

and

(72)
$$|Z|_k(M)=\underset{F𝒮(C)_k}{}|E(F)|=\underset{F𝒮(C)_0}{}|E_k(F)|=.$$

For each $`k`$, $`Z_k(M)`$ and $`|Z|_k(M)`$ are well defined. Moreover, the limits $`Z_{\mathrm{}}(M)=lim_k\mathrm{}t^{4k\chi (M)}Z_k(M)`$ and $`|Z|_{\mathrm{}}(M)=lim_k\mathrm{}t^{4k\chi (M)}|Z|_k(M)`$ exist.

###### Proof.

The well defined part of the proposition follows directly from Lemma 2.

In order to prove convergence of $`Z_k(M)`$, choose $`ϵ>0`$. There exists $`N`$ so that for all $`k`$

(73)
$$\underset{F𝒮(C)_k^{T(N+2k)}}{}D(t,M,C)t^{Q(F)}<t^{4k\chi (M)}ϵ/4.$$

By Proposition 12 there is a $`K`$ so that if $`k_1,k_2>K`$ then

(74)
$$|t^{4k_1\chi (M)}\underset{F𝒮(C)_{k_1}}{\overset{N}{}}E(F)t^{4k_2\chi (M)}\underset{F𝒮(C)_{k_2}}{\overset{N}{}}E(F)|<ϵ/2.$$

This means that

(75)
$$|t^{4k_1\chi (M)}Z_{k_1}(M)t^{4k_2\chi (M)}Z_{k_2}(M)|$$

$$|t^{4k_1\chi (M)}\underset{F𝒮(C)_{k_1}}{\overset{N}{}}E(F)t^{4k_2\chi (M)}\underset{F𝒮(C)_{k_2}}{\overset{N}{}}E(F)|+$$

$$|t^{4k_1\chi (M)}\underset{F𝒮(C)_{k_1}^{T(N+2k_1)}}{}E(F)|+|t^{4k_2\chi (M)}\underset{F𝒮(C)_{k_2}^{T(N+2k_2)}}{}E(F)|$$

$$ϵ/2+ϵ/4+ϵ/4.$$

As the sequence is Cauchy it converges. The same proof works for $`|Z|_{\mathrm{}}`$. ∎

## 5. The Invariant Sums

In the section we analyze the sum of contributions of all spinal surfaces in the three-manifold $`M`$ with an efficient triangulation.

Given any integer $`r3`$, all the special functions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$, $`\theta (a,b,c)`$, $`\text{Tet}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& e\\ c& d& f\end{array}\right)`$, are well defined for $`t=e^{\frac{\pi i}{2r}}`$ whenever $`a,b,c,d,e,fr1`$ and the condition $`a+b+c2r4`$ is added to the definition of admissibility. Given a system $`C`$ of disjoint simple closed curves in $`M`$ and an augmentation $`S(C)`$ of the spine dual to the triangulation of $`M`$, the (finite) sum over all $`r`$-admissible colorings of the faces of $`S(C)`$,

(76)
$$\underset{r\text{-admissible colorings of }S(C)}{}\frac{_f\mathrm{\Delta }_{u_f}^{\chi (f)}_v\mathrm{Tet}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_v& b_v& e_v\\ c_v& d_v& f_v\end{array}\right)}{_e\theta (a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi (e)}},$$

is a coefficient (corresponding to $`C`$) of a vector-valued invariant associated to $`M`$ by the topological quantum field theory underlying the Turaev-Viro invariant of $`M`$ at level $`r`$. Our idea is the extend the invariant away from the roots of unity. The first major step is to analyze the convergence of the infinite sums like (76), where $`t=e^{\frac{\pi i}{2r}}`$ is replaced by any $`0<t<1`$ and the colorings are admissible.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`S(C)^N`$ denote the set of admissible colorings of $`S(C)`$ with all $`u_fN`$.

* If the Euler characteristic of $`M`$ is negative then

(77)
$$\underset{\text{admissible colorings }u_f\text{ of }S(C)}{}\frac{_f\mathrm{\Delta }_{u_f}^{\chi (f)}_v\mathrm{Tet}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_v& b_v& e_v\\ c_v& d_v& f_v\end{array}\right)}{_e\theta (a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi (e)}}$$

converges absolutely.
* If $`\chi (M)=0`$ then

(78)
$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\underset{S(C)^N}{}\frac{_f\mathrm{\Delta }_{u_f}^{\chi (f)}_v\mathrm{Tet}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_v& b_v& e_v\\ c_v& d_v& f_v\end{array}\right)}{_e\theta (a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi (e)}}$$

exists and is equal to $`Z_{\mathrm{}}(M)=_{FS_0(C)}E_{\mathrm{}}(F)`$ which converges absolutely.
* If $`\chi (M)=1`$ then

(79)
$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}t^{8N}\underset{S(C)^{2N}}{}\frac{_f\mathrm{\Delta }_{u_f}^{\chi (f)}_v\mathrm{Tet}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_v& b_v& e_v\\ c_v& d_v& f_v\end{array}\right)}{_e\theta (a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi (e)}}$$

exists. Given a spinal surface $`F`$, let $`m(F)`$ denote the least even number greater than or equal to the maximal color corresponding to $`F`$. The limit (79) is equal to the sum of the absolutely convergent series:

(80)
$$\frac{1}{1q}\underset{FS_0(C)}{}t^{4m(F)}E_{\mathrm{}}(F).$$

###### Proof.

* We need to show that the sequence of partial sums of the absolute values of the series (77) converges, that is,

(81)
$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{S(C)^N}{}\left|\frac{_f\mathrm{\Delta }_{u_f}^{\chi (f)}_v\mathrm{Tet}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_v& b_v& e_v\\ c_v& d_v& f_v\end{array}\right)}{_e\theta (a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi (e)}}\right|$$

exists. Notice that

(82)
$$\underset{S(C)^N}{}\left|\frac{_f\mathrm{\Delta }_{u_f}^{\chi (f)}_v\mathrm{Tet}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_v& b_v& e_v\\ c_v& d_v& f_v\end{array}\right)}{_e\theta (a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi (e)}}\right|=$$

$$\underset{k}{}\underset{F𝒮(C)_k^N}{}|E(F)|<\underset{k}{}|Z|_k(M).$$

Proposition 13 implies that the series $`_k|Z|_k(M)`$ converges by comparison with the series $`_kt^{4k\chi (M)}`$.
* First, regroup the finite sum in (78) according to $`k`$-peelable surfaces. That is, use the fact that $`S(C)^N`$ is a disjoint union of subsets $`S(C)_k^N`$ with $`k=0,\mathrm{},N`$ (since $`𝒮(C)_k^N`$ is empty for $`k>N`$). Thus,

(83)
$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{S(C)^N}{}\frac{_f\mathrm{\Delta }_{u_f}^{\chi (f)}_v\mathrm{Tet}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_v& b_v& e_v\\ c_v& d_v& f_v\end{array}\right)}{_e\theta (a_e,b_e,c_e)^{\chi (e)}}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{F𝒮(C)_k^N}{}E(F).$$

By Proposition 13 we can find $`K`$ so that for all $`k>K`$ we have

(84)
$$|Z_k(M)Z_{\mathrm{}}(M)|<\frac{ϵ}{4}.$$

By Lemma 2 there exists $`n_1`$ so that for all $`k`$

(85)
$$|Z_k(M)\underset{F𝒮(C)_k^{n_1+k}}{}E(F)|<\frac{ϵ}{4}.$$

Combining these, we get that for all $`k>K`$, all $`n_0n_1`$

(86)
$$|Z_{\mathrm{}}(M)\underset{F𝒮(C)_k^{k+n_0}}{}E(F)|<\frac{ϵ}{2}.$$

Therefore, each of the $`NKn_11`$ terms of the sum

(87)
$$\underset{k=K+1}{\overset{Nn_1}{}}\underset{F𝒮(C)_k^N}{}E(F)$$

is at most $`\frac{ϵ}{2}`$ away from $`Z_{\mathrm{}}(M)`$. Since $`lim_N\mathrm{}\frac{NKn_11}{N}=1`$ to finish the proof it suffices to show that the first $`K+1`$ terms and the last $`n_1`$ terms inside the outer sum on the right hand side of (83) are bounded regardless of the value of $`N`$. For the first $`K+1`$ terms notice that by (85)

(88)
$$|\underset{k=0}{\overset{K}{}}\underset{F𝒮(C)_k^N}{}E(F)|<K(\frac{ϵ}{4}+B),$$

where $`B=\text{max}(|Z_0(M)|,|Z_1(M)|,\mathrm{}|Z_K(M)|)`$. The fact that the last $`n_1`$ inner sums

(89)
$$|\underset{k=Nn_1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{F𝒮(C)_k^N}{}E(F)|$$

are bounded regardless of $`N`$ follows from the fact that for every $`i`$ the limit

(90)
$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{F𝒮(C)_k^{k+i}}{}E(F)$$

exists (see Lemma 2).
* Absolute convergence of the sum (80) follows from the existence of the universal bound on $`|E_{\mathrm{}}(F)|`$ for $`FS_0(C)`$. Since $`lim_k\mathrm{}t^{4k}E_k(F)=E_{\mathrm{}}(F)`$, this in turn follows from a universal bound on $`|t^{4k}E_k(F)|`$ for $`FS_0(C)`$. By letting $`ϵ=\frac{1}{2}`$ in Remark 3 we see that except for finitely many surfaces $`FS_0(C)`$, $`t^{4k}E_k(F)<\frac{1}{2}`$. Since each of the sequences $`t^{4k}E_k(F)`$ is convergent for the remaining surfaces, the quantities $`|t^{4k}E_k(F)|`$ are universally bounded for all surfaces $`FS_0(C)`$.

Our goal is to show that the sequence

(91)
$$t^{8N}\underset{F𝒮(C)^{2N}}{}E(F)$$

converges to the sum (80). The first step is to rewrite the finite sum in (91) so that it is a sum over $`0`$-peelable surfaces. We get,

(92)
$$\underset{F𝒮_0(C)}{}\underset{k=0}{\overset{2Nm(F)}{}}t^{8N}E_k(F).$$

The largest part of this sum is at the end, so we change variables to put the largest part at the beginning. Let $`i=2Nm(F)k`$. Substitution, along with splitting off an appropriate power of $`t`$, yields:

(93)
$$\underset{F𝒮_0(C)}{}\underset{i=0}{\overset{2Nm(F)}{}}t^{4m(F)+4i}t^{8N4m(F)4i}E_{2Nm(F)i}(F).$$

From Remark 3 there exists $`K_0`$ so that, for all $`iK_0`$,

(94)
$$\underset{F𝒮_0(C)^{T(K_0)}}{}t^{4i\chi (M)}E_i(F)<\frac{ϵ(1q)}{4},$$

thus

(95)
$$\underset{F𝒮_0(C)^{T(K_0)}}{}\frac{t^{4m(F)}}{1q}E_i(F)<\frac{ϵ}{4}.$$

Estimating based on summing the geometric series $`_it^{4i}=\frac{1}{1q}`$ we can truncate the sum (93) using any $`KK_0`$ as follows and remain within $`ϵ/4`$ of the original sum.

(96)
$$\underset{F𝒮_0(C)^K}{}\underset{i=0}{\overset{2Nm(F)}{}}t^{4m(F)+4i}t^{8N4m(F)4i}E_{2Nm(F)i}(F).$$

Since by Proposition 11 the function $`Q(F)`$ is bounded below on $`𝒮_0(C)`$ there exists $`B`$ so that for all $`F`$, $`N`$ and $`i`$

(97)
$$t^{8N4m(F)4i}E_{2Nm(F)i}(F)<B.$$

From the elementary theory of the geometric series there exists $`I`$ so that for all $`F𝒮_0(C)^K`$,

(98)
$$\underset{iI}{\overset{2Nm(f)}{}}t^{4m(F)+4i}B<ϵ/4.$$

This means we can truncate the sum (96) again as follows and remain within $`ϵ/4`$ of the original sum:

(99)
$$\underset{F𝒮_0(C)^K}{}\underset{i=0}{\overset{I}{}}t^{4m(F)+4i}t^{8N4m(F)4i}E_{2Nm(F)i}(F).$$

Using the fact that for any $`F`$, and for any fixed $`i`$,

(100)
$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}t^{8N4m(F)4i}E_{2Nm(F)i}(F)=E_{\mathrm{}}(F),$$

together with the fact that the number of terms of the sum (99) is bounded independent of $`N`$, we can choose $`N`$ so large that the sum (99) is within $`ϵ/4`$ of

(101)
$$\underset{F𝒮_0(C)^K}{}\underset{i=0}{\overset{I}{}}t^{4m(F)+4i}E_{\mathrm{}}(F),$$

leaving us within $`\frac{3ϵ}{4}`$ of the original sum (91). Using the absolute convergence of $`_{F𝒮_0(C)}t^{4m(F)}E_{\mathrm{}}(F)`$, and the fact that the bound $`B`$ is still valid for $`E_{\mathrm{}}(F)`$, we can choose $`I`$ large enough to make this last sum (101) within $`ϵ/4`$ of

(102)
$$\underset{F𝒮_0(C)}{}\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^{4m(F)+4i}E_{\mathrm{}}(F).$$

Summing the geometric series yields the final result. ∎


format: text

text:
# The Uncertainty in Newton’s Constant and Precision Predictions of the Primordial Helium Abundance

## Abstract

The current uncertainty in Newton’s constant, $`G_N`$, is of the order of 0.15%. For values of the baryon to photon ratio consistent with both cosmic microwave background observations and the primordial deuterium abundance, this uncertainty in $`G_N`$ corresponds to an uncertainty in the primordial 4He mass fraction, $`Y_P`$, of $`\pm 1.3\times 10^4`$. This uncertainty in $`Y_P`$ is comparable to the effect from the current uncertainty in the neutron lifetime, $`\tau _n`$, which is often treated as the dominant uncertainty in calculations of $`Y_P`$. Recent measurements of $`G_N`$ seem to be converging within a smaller range; a reduction in the estimated error on $`G_N`$ by a factor of 10 would essentially eliminate it as a source of uncertainty the calculation of the primordial 4He abundance.

Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) represents one of the key successes of modern cosmology Rev1 ; Rev2 . In recent years, the BBN production of deuterium has emerged as the most useful constraint on the baryon density in the universe, both because of observations of deuterium in (presumably unprocessed) high-redshift QSO absorption line systems (see Ref. Kirkman , and references therein), and the fact that the predicted BBN yields of deuterium are highly sensitive to the baryon density. These arguments give a baryon density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$, of Kirkman

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.01940.0234,$$
(1)
which is in excellent agreement with the baryon density derived by the WMAP team from recent cosmic microwave background observations Spergel :

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.0220.024.$$
(2)
Given these limits on the baryon density, BBN predicts the primordial abundances of 4He and 7Li. Because the 4He abundance is particularly sensitive to new physics beyond the standard model, a comparison between the predicted and observed abundances of 4He can be used to constrain, for example, neutrino degeneracy or extra relativistic degrees of freedom (see, e.g., Refs. Kneller ; Barger ).

For this reason, it is useful to obtain the most accurate possible theoretical predictions for the primordial 4He mass fraction, $`Y_P`$. The primordial production of 4He is controlled by the competition between the rates for the processes which govern the interconversion of neutrons and protons,

$`n+\nu _e`$ $``$ $`p+e^{},`$
$`n+e^+`$ $``$ $`p+\overline{\nu }_e,`$
$`n`$ $``$ $`p+e^{}+\overline{\nu }_e,`$ (3)
and the expansion rate of the Universe, given by

$$\frac{\dot{R}}{R}=\left(\frac{8}{3}\pi G_N\rho \right)^{1/2}.$$
(4)
In BBN calculations, the weak interaction rates are scaled off of the inverse of the neutron lifetime, $`\tau _n`$. When these rates are faster than the expansion rate, the neutron-to-proton ratio ($`n/p`$) tracks its equilibrium value. As the Universe expands and cools, the expansion rate comes to dominate and $`n/p`$ essentially freezes out. Nearly all the neutrons which survive this freeze-out are bound into 4He when deuterium becomes stable against photodisintegration. Following the initial calculations of Wagoner, Fowler, and Hoyle Wagoner , numerous groups examined higher-order corrections to the 4He production. The first such systematic attempt was undertaken by Dicus et al. Dicus , who examined the effects of Coulomb and radiative corrections to the weak rates, finite-temperature QED effects, and incomplete neutrino coupling. Later investigations included more detailed examination of Coulomb and radiative corrections to the weak rates Donoghue1 ; Donoghue2 ; Sawyer ; Chapman , finite-temperature QED effects Heckler , and incomplete neutrino decoupling Dodelson , as well as an examination of the effects of finite nuclear mass Gyuk . These effects were systematized by Lopez and Turner Lopez  (see also Ref. Esposito ), who argued that all theoretical corrections larger than the effect of the uncertainty in the neutron lifetime had been accounted for, yielding a total theoretical uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y_P<0.0002`$. Assuming an uncertainty of $`\pm 2`$ sec in the neutron lifetime, the corresponding experimental uncertainty in $`Y_P`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y_P=\pm 0.0004`$. Similar results were obtained in Ref. Esposito .

Two relevant changes have occurred since the publication of Refs. Lopez ; Esposito . First, the estimated uncertainty in the neutron lifetime has decreased, with the current value being PDG

$$\tau _n=885.7\pm 0.8\mathrm{sec}.$$
(5)
Second, the estimated uncertainty in the value of $`G_N`$ has increased. The value currently recommended by CODATA (Committee on Data for Science and Technology) is Mohr

$$G_N=6.673\pm 0.010\times 10^8\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{gm}^1\mathrm{sec}^2.$$
(6)
This represents a factor of twelve increase over the previous recommended uncertainty Cohen , and is primarily due to an anomalously high value for $`G`$ determined by Michaelis, Haars, and Augustin Michaelis . (See Table 1).

It is easy to calculate the effect of both of these uncertainties on the primordial 4He abundance. For the range of values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ given in equations (1) and (2), we find, numerically,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }Y_P`$ $`=`$ $`0.088(\mathrm{\Delta }G_N/G_N),`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }Y_P`$ $`=`$ $`0.18(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _n/\tau _n).`$ (8)
The coefficient in equation (8) is twice that in equation (7). This factor of 2 comes from the fact that the expansion rate (equation 4) scales as $`G_N^{1/2}`$, while the weak interaction rates scale as $`\tau _n^1`$, and the abundance of 4He is essentially unchanged if the ratio of the weak interaction rates to the expansion rate is held constant.

Then the current uncertainties in $`G_N`$ and $`\tau _n`$ given in equations (5) and (6) yield, for the $`1\sigma `$ uncertainties in $`Y_P`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Y_P=\pm 1.6\times 10^4,$$
(9)
from the uncertainty in $`\tau _n`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Y_P=\pm 1.3\times 10^4,$$
(10)
from the uncertainty in $`G_N`$.

These two uncertainties are roughly comparable. This is significant because the uncertainty in $`\tau _n`$ is often taken to be the dominant uncertainty in calculations of $`Y_P`$. Of course, both of these effects are exceedingly small, and well below the dispersion in the estimates of the primordial 4He abundance from observations of low-metallicity systems Rev2 . (The effect of the uncertainty in $`G_N`$ is comparable to the corrections to $`Y_P`$ due to QED plasma effects and residual neutrino heating Lopez ). A further source of uncertainty in theoretical calculations of $`Y_P`$ is the uncertainty in the nuclear reaction rates. A recent exhaustive study of this effect has been undertaken by Cyburt Cyburt , who concluded that the effect on $`Y_P`$ of the uncertainties in the nuclear reaction rates is currently subdominant. (See also earlier work in Refs. Krauss1 ; Krauss2 ).

The uncertainty in $`G_N`$ has consequences in other astrophysical settings. Lopes and Silk Lopes  investigated the effect on the sound speed in the sun. They argued that helioseismology (in combination with improved solar neutrino measurements) might eventually provide an independent constraint on $`G_N`$, although this claim has been disputed by Ricci and Villante Ricci .

In principle, the uncertainty in $`G_N`$ also affects CMB measurements. The change in the observed CMB fluctuation spectrum due to a fixed change in $`G_N`$ was investigated by Zahn and Zaldarriaga Zahn . Even under the most optimistic conditions for future observations, the smallest change in $`G_N`$ which is, in principle, detectable in CMB measurements is $`\mathrm{\Delta }G_N/G_N0.006`$, well above the current CODATA uncertainty.

It is likely, of course, that current and future measurements will lead to a reduction in the uncertainty in $`G_N`$. A set of the most recent measurements of $`G_N`$ is displayed in Table 1. (For a survey of measurements of $`G_N`$ over a longer timeline, see Ref. Gillies ). The three most recent measurements all yield a value of $`G_N`$ within a very narrow range. Reduction in the uncertainty in $`G_N`$ by, for example, a factor of 10 (e.g., back to the 1986 CODATA level of uncertainty) would essentially eliminate any significant effect on BBN calculations.

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank M. Kaplinghat and G. Greene for helpful discussions.


text:
# Scientific Highlights of the HETE-2 Mission

## 1 Introduction

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are the most brilliant events in the Universe. They mark the birth of stellar-mass black holes and involve ultra-relativistic jets traveling at 0.9999 c. Long regarded as an exotic enigma, they have taken center stage in high-energy astrophysics by virtue of the spectacular discoveries of the past six years. It is now clear that they also have important applications in many other areas of astronomy: GRBs mark the moment of “first light” in the universe; they are tracers of the star formation, re-ionization, and metallicity histories of the universe; and they are laboratories for studying core-collapse supernovae.

Three major milestones have marked this journey. In 1992, results from the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) on board the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory ruled out the previous paradigm (in which GRBs were thought to come from a thick disk of neutron stars in our own galaxy, the Milky Way), and hinted that the bursts might be cosmological (Meegan et al., 1993). In 1997, results made possible by BeppoSAX (Costa et al., 1997) decisively determined the distance scale to long GRBs (showing that they lie at cosmological distances), and provided circumstantial evidence that long bursts are associated with the deaths of massive stars \[see, e.g., Lamb (2000)\]. In 2003, results made possible by the High Energy Explorer Satellite 2 (HETE-2) (Vanderspek et al., 2003a) dramatically confirmed the GRB – SN connection and firmly established that long bursts are associated with Type Ic core collapse supernovae. Thus we now know that the progenitors of long GRBs are massive stars.

The HETE-2 mission has been highly productive in addition to achieving this breakthrough:

* HETE-2 is currently localizing 25 - 30 GRBs per year;
* HETE-2 has accurately and rapidly localized 43 GRBs in 2 1/2 years of operation (compared to 52 GRBs localized by BeppoSAX during its 6-year mission); 14 of these have been localized to $`<2`$ arcmin accuracy by the SXC plus WXM.
* 21 of these localizations have led to the identification of the X-ray, optical, or radio afterglow of the burst.
* As of the present time, redshift determinations have been reported for 11 of the bursts with afterglows (compared to 13 BeppoSAX bursts with redshift determinations).
* HETE-2 has detected 16 XRFs so far (compared to 17 by BeppoSAX).
* HETE-2 has observed 25 bursts from the soft gamma-ray repeaters 1806-20 and 1900+14 in the summer of 2001; 2 in the summer of 2002; and 18 so far in 2003. It has discovered a possible new SGR: 1808-20.
* HETE-2 has observed $``$ 170 X-ray bursts (XRBs) in the summer of 2001, $`>`$ 500 in the summer of 2002, and $`>`$ 150 so far in 2003 from $``$ 20 sources. (We pointed HETE-2 toward the Galactic plane during the summer of 2002 and caught a large number of XRBs in order to calibrate new SXC flight software.)

Fourteen GRBs have been localized by the HETE-2 WXM plus SXC so far. Remarkably, all 14 have led to the identification of an X-ray, optical, infrared, or radio afterglow; and 13 of 14 have led to the identification of an optical afterglow. In contrast, only $``$ 35% of BeppoSAX localizations led to the identification of an optical afterglow.

## 2 Scientific Highlights of the HETE-2 Mission

Confirmation of the GRB – SN connection is a singular achievement and certainly one of the scientific highlights of the HETE-2 mission. Other highlights of the mission include the following:

* HETE-2 made possible rapid follow-up observations of a short GRB, allowing severe constraints to be placed on the brightness of any X-ray or optical afterglow.
* The rapid follow-up observations made possible by HETE-2 have opened the era of high-resolution spectroscopy of optical afterglows (e.g, GRBs 020813, 021004, and 030329).
* Accurate, rapid HETE-2 localizations sent to ground-based robotic telescopes have made it possible to explore the previously unknown behavior of optical afterglows in the 3 - 20 hour “gap” immediately following the burst that existed in the BeppoSAX era. This has confirmed the existence of a very bright, distinct phase lasting $``$ 10 minutes.
* HETE-2 is solving the mystery of “optically dark” GRBs. As already remarked upon, the identification of an optical afterglow for 13 of 14 GRBs localized by the SXC plus WXM instruments on HETE-2 has shown that very few long GRBs are truly ”optically dark.”
* Optical and NIR follow-up observations made possible by HETE-2 have provided the best case to date of a GRB whose optical afterglow has been extinguished by dust, and several examples of GRBs with exceptionally dim optical afterglows. These GRBs would very likely have been classified as “optically dark” were it not for the accurate, rapid localizations provided by HETE-2.
* HETE-2 is revealing the nature of X-ray flashes (XRFs). Specifically, HETE-2 has provided strong evidence that the properties of XRFs, X-ray-rich GRBs, and GRBs form a continuum, and therefore that these three types of bursts are the same phenomenon.
* HETE-2 results also show that XRFs may provide unique insights into the nature of GRB jets, the rate of GRBs, and the role of GRBs in Type Ic supernovae. In particular, the HETE-2 results provide evidence that GRB jets are uniform rather than structured. They also suggest that the jets are very narrow, and that the rate of GRBs may be much larger than has been thought.

## 3 GRB – SN Connection

There has been increasing circumstantial and tantalizing direct evidence in the last few years that GRBs are associated with core collapse supernovae \[see, e.g. Lamb (2000)\]. The detection and localization of GRB 030329 by HETE-2 (Vanderspek et al., 2003a) led to a dramatic confirmation of the GRB – SN connection. GRB 030329 was among the brightest 1% of GRBs ever seen. Its optical afterglow was $`12^{\mathrm{th}}`$ magnitude at 1.5 hours after the burst (Price et al., 2003) – more than 3 magnitudes brighter than the famous optical afterglow of GRB 990123 at a similar time (Akerlof et al., 1999). In addition, the burst source and its host galaxy lie very nearby, at a redshift $`z=0.167`$ (Greiner et al., 2003). Given that GRBs typically occur at $`z`$ = 1-2, the probability that the source of an observed burst should be as close as GRB 030329 is one in several thousand. It is therefore very unlikely that HETE-2, or even Swift, will see another such event.

The fact that GRB 030329 was very nearby made its optical afterglow an ideal target for attempts to confirm the conjectured association between GRBs and core collapse SNe. Astronomers were not disappointed: about ten days after the burst, the spectral signature of an energetic Type Ic supernova emerged (Stanek et al., 2003). The supernova has been designated SN 2003dh. Figure 1 compares the discovery spectrum of SN 2003dh in the afterglow light curve of GRB 030329 and the spectrum of the Type Ic supernova SN 1998bw. The similarity is striking. The breadth and the shallowness of the absorption lines in the spectra of SN 2003dh imply expansion velocities of $``$ 36,000 km s-1 – far higher than those seen in typical Type Ic supernovae, and higher even than those seen in SN 1998bw.

The clear detection of SN 2003dh in the afterglow of GRB 030329 confirmed decisively the connection between GRBs and core collapse SNe, and implies that GRBs are a unique laboratory for studying Type Ic core collapse supernovae. Confirmation by HETE-2 of the connection between GRBs and core collapse supernovae has also strengthened the expectation that GRBs occur out to redshifts $`z20`$, and are therefore a powerful probe of cosmology and the early universe.

## 4 Short GRBs

Assuming that short bursts follow the star-formation rate (as long bursts are thought to do), Schmidt (2001) has shown than the peak luminosities of short bursts are essentially the same as those of long bursts. Otherwise, little is known about the distance scale or the nature of short GRBs. BeppoSAX did not detect any short, hard GRBs during its 6-year mission, despite extensive efforts. The rapid HETE-2 and IPN localizations of GRB 020531 (Lamb et al., 2003a) made possible rapid optical ($`t`$ = 2-3 hours) follow-up observations. No optical afterglow was detected (Lamb, 2002; Miceli et al., 2002; Dullighan et al., 2002). Chandra follow-up observations at $`t=5`$ days showed that $`L_X(\mathrm{short})/L_x(\mathrm{long})<0.010.03`$ (Butler et al., 2002). These results suggest that real time or near-real time X-ray follow-up observations of short GRBs may be vital to unraveling the mystery of short GRBs.

## 5 “Optically Dark” GRBs

Only $``$ 35% of BeppoSAX localizations of GRBs led to the identification of an optical afterglow. In contrast, 13 of the 14 GRBs localized so far by the WXM plus the SXC on HETE-2 have optical afterglows. HETE-2 is thus solving the mystery of “optically dark” bursts.

Three explanations of “optically dark” GRBs have been widely discussed:

* The optical afterglow is extinguished by dust in the vicinity of the GRB or in the star-forming region in which the GRB occurs \[see, e.g., Lamb (2000); Reichart & Price (2002)\].
* The GRB lies at very high redshift ($`z>5`$), and the optical afterglow is absorbed by neutral hydrogen in the host galaxy and in the intergalactic medium along the line of sight from the burst to us (Lamb & Reichart, 2000).
* Some GRBs have afterglows that are intrinsically very faint \[see, e.g., Fynbo et al. (2001); Price et al. (2002); Lazzati, Covino, & Ghisellini (2002)\].

Rapid optical follow-up observations of the HETE-2–localized burst GRB 030115 (Kawai et al., 2003) show that the optical afterglow of this burst is the best case observed to date of a burst whose optical afterglow is extinguished by dust. Figure 2 (left panel) shows the NIR and optical afterglow spectrum of this burst and the best-fit model, assuming extinction by dust (Lamb et al., 2003b). The amount of extinction by dust is a sensitive function of the redshift of the burst. Since the redshift of this burst has not been reported as yet, the case shown in Figure 2 (left panel) assumes $`z=3.5`$, the largest redshift allowed by the observations and the one that attributes the least amount of extinction by dust. The amount of extinction by dust in the optical is still substantial.

Rapid optical follow-up observations (Fox et al., 2003b; Park, Williams & Barthelmy, 2002; Li et al., 2003; Wozniak et al., 2002) of the HETE-2–localized burst GRB 021211 (Crew et al., 2003) show that the optical afterglow of this burst is intrinsically much fainter than those observed previously. The transition from the reverse shock component (Sari & Piran, 1999) to the forward shock component is clearly visible in the light curve of the afterglow at about 20 minutes after the burst. Figure 2 (right panel) shows the light curve of the afterglow of GRB 021211 compared to those of other GRBs, including a two-component flare $`+`$ afterglow fit for the early optical emission from GRB 021211 (Fox et al., 2003b). These observations show that the light curve of the afterglow of this burst tracks those of GRBs 990123 and 030329, but is three and six magnitudes fainter than them, respectively.

This burst would almost certainly have been classified as “optically dark” were it not for its accurate, rapid localization by HETE-2. Upper limits or measurements of the optical afterglows of other BeppoSAX– and HETE-2–localized bursts suggest that they too have afterglows that are very faint \[see, e.g., Fynbo et al. (2001); Price et al. (2002); Lazzati, Covino, & Ghisellini (2002)\]. GRBs with intrinsically faint afterglows may therefore account for a substantial fraction of bursts previously classified as “optically dark.”

The temporal behavior of the optical afterglow of the HETE-2–localized burst GRB 021004 was nearly flat at early times – a behavior that is different than any seen previously and that suggests the “central engine” powering the GRB continued to pour out energy long after the burst itself was over (Fox et al., 2003a). Thus HETE-2 is making it possible to explore the previously unknown behavior of GRB afterglows in the “gap” in time from the end of the burst to 3 - 20 hours after the burst that existed in the BeppoSAX era.

## 6 Nature of X-Ray Flashes and X-Ray-Rich GRBs

As already discussed, the 1, 2, and 6 keV thresholds, and the effective areas at X-ray energies of the WXM, SXC, and FREGATE instruments make HETE-2 ideal for detecting and studying XRFs. Indeed, two-thirds of all HETE-2–localized bursts are either “X-ray-rich” or XRFs, and one-third are XRFs (see Figure 4).111We define “X-ray-rich” GRBs and XRFs as those events for which $`\mathrm{log}[S_X(230\mathrm{kev})/S_\gamma (30400\mathrm{kev})]>0.5`$ and 0.0, respectively. These events have received increasing attention in the past several years (Heise et al., 2000; Kippen et al., 2002), but their nature remains largely unknown.

XRFs have $`t_{90}`$ durations between 10 and 200 sec and their sky distribution is consistent with isotropy. In these respects, XRFs are similar to “classical” GRBs. A joint analysis of WFC/BATSE spectral data showed that the low-energy and high-energy photon indices of XRFs are $`1`$ and $`2.5`$, respectively, which are similar to those of GRBs, but that the XRFs had spectral peak energies $`E_{\mathrm{peak}}^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ that were much lower than those of GRBs (Kippen et al., 2002). The only difference between XRFs and GRBs therefore appears to be that XRFs have lower $`E_{\mathrm{peak}}^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ values. It has therefore been suggested that XRFs might represent an extension of the GRB population to bursts with low peak energies.

Clarifying the nature of XRFs and X-ray-rich GRBs, and their connection to GRBs, could provide a breakthrough in our understanding of the prompt emission of GRBs. The spectrum of the HETE-2–localized event XRF 020903 is exceedingly soft (Sakamoto et al., 2003a). The upper limit $`E_{\mathrm{peak}}^{\mathrm{obs}}<`$ 5 keV (99.7% confidence level) makes this event one of the most extreme XRFs seen so far by HETE-2 . Follow-up observations made possible by the HETE-2 localization identified the likely optical afterglow of the XRF (Soderberg et al., 2002). Later observations determined that the optical transient occurred in a star-forming galaxy at a distance $`z=0.25`$ (Soderberg et al., 2002; Chornock & Filippenko, 2002); both of these properties are typical of GRB host galaxies.

Analyzing 42 X-ray-rich GRBs and XRFs seen by FREGATE and/or the WXM instruments on HETE-2, Sakamoto et al. (2003b) find that the XRFs, the X-ray-rich GRBs, and GRBs form a continuum in the \[$`S_\gamma (2400\mathrm{kev}),E_{\mathrm{peak}}^{\mathrm{obs}}`$\]-plane (see Figure 5). This result strongly suggests that these three kinds of events are the same phenomenon.

Furthermore, Lamb et al. (2003c) have placed 9 HETE-2 GRBs with known redshifts and 2 XRFs with known redshifts or strong redshift constraints in the ($`E_{\mathrm{iso}},E_{\mathrm{peak}}`$)-plane (see Figure 6). Here $`E_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ is the isotropic-equivalent burst energy and $`E_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ is the energy of the peak of the burst spectrum, measured in the source frame. The HETE-2 bursts confirm the relation between $`E_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ found by Amati et al. (Amati et al., 2002) for GRBs and extend it down in $`E_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ by a factor of 300. The fact that XRF 020903, one of the softest events localized by HETE-2 to date, and XRF 030723, the most recent XRF localized by HETE-2, lie squarely on this relation (Sakamoto et al., 2003a; Lamb et al., 2003c) provides additional evidence that XRFs and GRBs are the same phenomenon. However, additional redshift determinations are clearly needed for XRFs with 1 keV $`<E_{\mathrm{peak}}<30`$ keV energy in order to confirm these results.

## 7 Conclusions

The HETE-2 mission has been highly productive. It has observed more than 250 GRBs so far. It is currently localizing 25 - 30 GRBs per year, and has localized 43 GRBs to date. Twenty-one of these localizations have led to the detection of X-ray, optical, or radio afterglows, and as of now, 11 of the bursts with afterglows have redshift determinations. HETE-2 has also observed more than 45 bursts from soft gamma-ray repeaters, and more than 700 X-ray bursts.

HETE-2 has confirmed the connection between GRBs and Type Ic supernovae, a singular achievement and certainly one of the scientific highlights of the mission so far. It has provided evidence that the isotropic-equivalent energies and luminosities of GRBs are correlated with redshift, implying that GRBs and their progenitors evolve strongly with redshift. Both of these results have profound implications for the nature of GRB progenitors and for the use of GRBs as a probe of cosmology and the early universe.

HETE-2 has placed severe constraints on any X-ray or optical afterglow of a short GRB. It has made it possible to explore the previously unknown behavior optical afterglows at very early times, and has opened up the era of high-resolution spectroscopy of GRB optical afterglows. It is also solving the mystery of “optically dark” GRBs, and revealing the nature of X-ray flashes.