text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

During more than 30 years of its existence Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) has become a critical technique available for precision tests of gravitational theory. The 20th century progress in three seemingly unrelated areas of human exploration - quantum physics and optics, astronomy, and human space exploration, led to the construction of this unique interplanetary instrument to conduct very precise tests of fundamental physics in our solar system. LLR offers very accurate laser ranging (currently $``$ 2 cm or $`4\times 10^{11}`$ in fractional accuracy) to retroreflectors on the Moon. Analysis of these very precise data contributes to many areas of fundamental and gravitational physics. Thus, these high-precision studies of the Earth-Moon-Sun system provide the most sensitive tests of several key properties of the weak-field gravity, including Einstein’s Strong Equivalence Principle (SEP) (the way gravity begets gravity) on which general relativity rests (in fact, LLR is the only means currently available for testing SEP). LLR also provides the strongest limits to date on variability of the gravitational constant (the way gravity is affected by the expansion of the universe), the best measurement of the de Sitter precession rate, and is relied upon to generate accurate astronomical ephemerides.

In the next few months LLR is poised to take a dramatic step forward, enabled both by detector technology and access to a large-aperture astronomical telescope. The Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation (APOLLO) is a unique instrument developed specifically to improve accuracies of LLR ranges to retroreflectors on the Moon. Using a 3.5 m telescope the APOLLO project will push LLR into a new regime of multiple photon returns with each pulse, enabling millimeter range precision to be achieved . The project will exploit a large, high-quality modern astronomical telescope at an excellent site to determine the shape of the lunar orbit with a precision of one millimeter. Converting APOLLO’s raw range measurements into scientific results requires corresponding improvement in the models used for the data analysis. These improvements, made in parallel with the startup and checkout of the accurate ranging hardware for the Apache Point Observatory, would permit improved solutions for parameters describing the Equivalence Principle, relativity theories, and other aspects of gravitation and solar system dynamics.

This paper focuses on the current techniques, methods and existing physical models that are used to conduct the LLR tests of $`\dot{G}`$ and other PPN parameters. It is also discusses the modeling and data analysis improvements necessary to make the order-of-magnitude improvement in these tests that the next-generation of LLR technique enables. Because of the dramatic increase in the range accuracy anticipated from the APOLLO instrument, today there is an urgent need to develop substantially improved analysis models. Therefore, we consider the challenges for modeling and data analysis needed to take full advantage of this new instrument. The upgraded analysis, combined with APOLLO data, should yield an order-of-magnitude improvement in tests of SEP and the time-variation of Newton’s constant, as well as more precise values for the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) parameters $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta `$, and for the geodetic precession rate of the lunar orbit. This paper addresses these and related issues that are pivotal in taking the full advantage of the newly acquired LLR capabilities.

## 2 Lunar Laser Ranging: history and techniques

### 2.1 Scientific Background

LLR has a distinguished history  dating back to the placement of retroreflector arrays on the lunar surface by the Apollo 11 astronauts (Figure 1a). Additional reflectors were left by the Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 astronauts (Figure 1b), and two French-built reflector arrays were placed on the Moon by the Soviet Luna 17 and Luna 21 missions. Figure 2 shows the weighted RMS residual for each year. Early accuracies using the McDonald Observatory’s 2.7 m telescope hovered around 25 cm. Equipment improvements decreased the ranging uncertainty to $``$15 cm later in the 1970s. In 1985 the 2.7 m ranging system was replaced with the McDonald Laser Ranging System (MLRS). In the 1980s ranges were also received from Haleakala Observatory on the island of Maui in the Hawaiian chain and the Observatoire de la Cote d’Azur (OCA) in France. Haleakala ceased operations in 1990. A sequence of technical improvements decreased the range uncertainty to the current $``$ 2 cm. The 2.7 m telescope had a greater light gathering capability than the newer smaller aperture systems, but the newer systems fired more frequently and had a much improved range accuracy. The new systems do not distinguish returning photons against the bright background near full Moon, which the 2.7 m telescope could do. There are some modern eclipse observations.

LLR accurately measures the time of flight for a laser pulse fired from an observatory on the Earth, bounced off of a corner cube retroreflector on the Moon, and returned to the observatory. For a general review of LLR see Dickey et al. . A comprehensive paper on tests of gravitational physics is Williams et al. . A recent test of the Equivalence Principle is in Anderson and Williams  and other gravitational physics tests are in Williams et al. . An overview of the LLR gravitational physics tests is given by Nordtvedt . Reviews of various tests of relativity, including the contribution by LLR, are given in Will .

The LLR measurements of the past have contributed to a wide range of scientific investigations , and are today solely responsible for production of the lunar ephemeris. On the fundamental scientific front, LLR provides the only means for testing SEP–the statement that *all* forms of mass and energy contribute equivalent quantities of inertial and gravitational mass. The SEP is more restrictive than the weak EP, which applies to non-gravitational mass-energy, effectively probing the compositional dependence of gravitational acceleration. It is the equivalence principle which leads to identical accelerations of compositionally different objects in the same gravitational field, and also allows gravity to be viewed as a geometrical property of spacetime–leading to the general relativistic interpretation of gravitation. In addition to the SEP, LLR is capable of measuring the time variation of Newton’s gravitational constant, G, providing the strongest limit available for the variability of this ‘constant’. LLR can also precisely measure the de Sitter precession–effectively a spin-orbit coupling affecting the lunar orbit in the frame co-moving with the Earth-Moon system’s motion around the Sun. The LLR results are also consistent with existence of gravitomagnetism within 0.1% of the predicted level , thus making the lunar orbit a unique laboratory for gravitational physics where each term in the relativistic equations of motion was verified to a very high accuracy. Finally, the interior, tidal response, and physical librations (rocking) of the Moon are all probed by LLR, making it a valuable tool for physical selenography .

The APOLLO lunar laser-ranging project will yield a one order-of-magnitude improvement in the precision of three important tests of the basic properties of the gravitational interaction. Below we shall discuss some expected results and their significance for fundamental and gravitational physics.

### 2.2 Equivalence Principle Tests

To date, the experimental evidence for gravitational physics is in agreement with Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity (GR). However, there are a number of theoretical reasons to question the validity of general relativity. Despite the success of modern gauge field theories in describing the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions, it is still not understood how gravity should be described at the quantum level. In theories that attempt to include gravity, new long-range forces can arise in addition to the Newtonian inverse-square law. Even at the purely classical level, and assuming the validity of the Equivalence Principle (EP), Einstein’s theory does not provide the most general way to generate the space-time metric. Regardless of whether the cosmological constant should be included, there are also important reasons to consider additional fields, especially scalar fields. Although the scalar fields naturally appear in the theory, their inclusion predicts a non-Einsteinian behavior of the gravitating systems at high energies. These deviations from GR lead to a violation of EP, modification of large-scale gravitational phenomena, and cast doubt upon the constancy of the “constants”. As a result, this progress has provided new strong motivation for high precision relativistic gravity tests.

The Equivalence Principle, the exact correspondence of gravitational and inertial masses, is a central assumption of general relativity and a unique feature of gravitation. EP tests can therefore be viewed in two contexts: tests of the foundations of the Standard Model of Gravity (i.e. general relativity), or as searches for new physics because, as emphasized by Damour , almost all extensions to the Standard Model of particle physics generically predict new forces that would show up as apparent violations of the EP. Easily the most precise tests of the EP are made by simply comparing the free fall accelerations, $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$, of different test bodies, with

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }a}{a}\frac{2(a_1a_2)}{(a_1+a_2)}=\left(\frac{M_G}{M_I}\right)_1\left(\frac{M_G}{M_I}\right)_2$$
(1)
where $`M_G`$ and $`M_I`$ represent gravitational and inertial masses of each body. The sensitivity of the EP test is determined by the precision of the differential acceleration measurement divided by the degree to which the test bodies differ (e.g. composition).

#### 2.2.1 The Weak Equivalence Principle

The weak form the EP (the WEP) states that the gravitational properties of strong and electro-weak interactions obey the EP. In this case the relevant test-body differences are their fractional nuclear-binding differences, their neutron-to-proton ratios, their atomic charges, etc. General relativity, as well as other metric theories of gravity, predict that the WEP is exact. However, extensions of the Standard Model of Particle Physics that contain new macroscopic-range quantum fields predict quantum exchange forces that will generically violate the WEP because they couple to generalized ‘charges’ rather than to mass/energy as does gravity . WEP tests can be conducted with laboratory or astronomical bodies, because the relevant differences are in the test-body compositions.

#### 2.2.2 The Strong Equivalence Principle

The strong form of the EP (the SEP) extends the principle to cover the gravitational properties of gravitational energy itself. In other words it is an assumption about the way that gravity begets gravity, i.e. about the non-linear property of gravitation. Although general relativity assumes that the SEP is exact, alternate metric theories of gravity such as those involving scalar fields, and other extensions of gravity theory, typically violate the SEP . For the SEP case, the relevant test body differences are the fractional contributions to their masses by gravitational self-energy. Because of the extreme weakness of gravity, SEP test bodies that differ significantly must have astronomical sizes. Currently the Earth-Moon-Sun system provides the best arena for testing the SEP.

To facilitate investigation of a possible violation of the SEP, the ratio between gravitational and inertial masses, $`M_G/M_I`$ is expressed in the form

$$\frac{M_G}{M_I}=1+\eta \frac{U}{Mc^2}$$
(2)
where $`U`$ is the gravitational self-energy of the body $`(U<0)`$, $`Mc^2`$ is its total mass-energy, and $`\eta `$ is a dimensionless constant. $`U/Mc^2`$ is proportional to $`M`$, so testing the SEP requires bodies the size of the Moon and planets. For the Earth-Moon system,

$$\frac{U_e}{M_ec^2}\frac{U_m}{M_mc^2}=4.45\times 10^{10}$$
(3)
where the subscripts $`e`$ and $`m`$ denote the Earth and Moon, respectively. Therefore, a violation of the SEP would produce an Earth-Moon differential acceleration of $`\mathrm{\Delta }a/a=4.45\times 10^{10}\eta `$.

In general, $`\eta `$ is a linear function of seven of the ten Parameterized Post-Newtonian (PPN) parameters, but considering only $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$

$$\eta =4\beta \gamma 3$$
(4)
In general relativity $`\eta =0`$. A unit value for $`\eta `$ would produce a displacement of the lunar orbit about the Earth , causing a 13 meter monthly range modulation.

### 2.3 LLR Tests of the Equivalence Principle

In essence, LLR tests of the EP compare the free-fall accelerations of the Earth and Moon toward the Sun. Lunar laser-ranging measures the time-of-flight of a laser pulse fired from an observatory on the Earth, bounced off of a retroreflector on the Moon, and returned to the observatory . If the Equivalence Principle is violated, the lunar orbit will be displaced along the Earth-Sun line, producing a range signature having a 29.53 day synodic period (different from the lunar orbit period of 27 days). Since the first LLR tests of the EP were published in 1976 , the precision of the test has increased by two orders-of-magnitude . (Reviews of contributions to gravitational physics by LLR are given by Nordtvedt  and Will .)

From the viewpoint of the EP, the Earth and Moon ‘test bodies’ differ in two significant ways: in composition (the Earth has a massive Fe/Ni core while the Moon has a much smaller core) and in their gravitational self-energies (the Earth is much more massive than the Moon). Therefore, LLR tests the total Equivalence Principle - composition plus self-energy - for the Earth and Moon in the gravitational field of the Sun. Two recent results yield $`\mathrm{\Delta }a/a`$ values of $`(1\pm 2)\times 10^{13}`$  and $`(0.7\pm 1.5)\times 10^{13}`$ . The latter corresponds to a $`2\pm 4`$ mm amplitude in range.

The LLR result is a null test so it can be argued that it is unlikely that there would be two compensating violations of the Equivalence Principle - composition and self-energy - that essentially cancel. However, because of the fundamental importance of a good SEP test, laboratory tests of the WEP are used to separate with certainty any composition-dependent and self-energy effects. Recent WEP tests performed at the University of Washington (UW) using laboratory test bodies whose compositions are close to those of the actual Earth and Moon set upper limits on any composition-dependent Earth-Moon differential acceleration . The random and systematic $`\mathrm{\Delta }a/a`$ uncertainties of  are $`1.4\pm 10^{13}`$ and $`0.2\times 10^{13}`$, respectively. Anderson and Williams  used the earlier of these WEP results  to limit the SEP parameter $`\eta =0.0002\pm 0.0008`$. If one adopts the more recent WEP test by the UW Eöt-Wash group , one gets an $`\eta `$ uncertainty of 0.0005. Note that the current intrinsic LLR accuracy, if the WEP were known perfectly, is 0.0003. Therefore, with its 1 mm range accuracy, APOLLO has the capability of determining $`\eta `$ to a precision of approximately $`3\times 10^5`$.

### 2.4 LLR Tests of Other Gravitational Physics Parameters

In addition to the SEP constraint based on Eq.(4), the PPN parameters $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta `$ affect the orbits of relativistic point masses, and $`\gamma `$ also influences time delay . LLR tests this $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ dependence, as well as geodetic precession, and $`\dot{G}/G`$. Recent work by Williams et al.  gives uncertainties of 0.004 for $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ deduced from sensitivity apart from and the SEP, 0.35% for the geodetic precession, and $`1.1\times 10^{12}`$ yr<sup>-1</sup> for $`\dot{G}/G`$ test.

Orbital precession depends on $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$, so their sensitivity depends on time span of the data. The uncertainty for $`\dot{G}/G`$ is improving rapidly because its sensitivity depends on the square of the time span. So 1 mm quality data would improve the $`G`$ rate uncertainty by an order-of-magnitude in $``$ 5 yr while $`\gamma `$ and geodetic precession would depend on orbital precession time scales: 6.0 yr for argument of perigee, 8.85 yr for longitude of perigee, and 18.6 yr for node.

LLR also has the potential to determine the solar $`J_2`$ , PPN $`\alpha _1`$ , hunt for influences of dark matter , and to test the inverse square law at the scale of $`ae`$ 20,000 km. A long-range Yukawa interaction has been tested by Müller et al. .

## 3 Overview of APOLLO

The Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation is a new LLR effort designed to achieve millimeter range precision and corresponding order-of-magnitude gains in measurements of fundamental physics parameters. The APOLLO project design and leadership responsibilities are shared between the University of California at San Diego and the University of Washington. In addition to the modeling aspects related to this new LLR facility, a brief description of APOLLO and associated expectations is provided here for reference. A more complete description can be found in .

The principal technologies implemented by APOLLO include a robust Nd:YAG laser with 100 ps pulse width, a GPS-slaved 50 MHz frequency standard and clock, a 25 ps-resolution time interval counter, and an integrated avalanche photo-diode (APD) array. The APD array, developed at Lincoln Labs, is a new technology that will allow multiple simultaneous photons to be individually time-tagged, and provide two-dimensional spatial information for real-time acquisition and tracking capabilities.

The overwhelming advantage APOLLO has over current LLR operations is a 3.5 m astronomical quality telescope at a good site. The site in the Sacramento Mountains of southern New Mexico offers high altitude (2780 m) and very good atmospheric “seeing” and image quality, with a median image resolution of 1.1 arcseconds. Both the image sharpness and large aperture enable the APOLLO instrument to deliver more photons onto the lunar retroreflector and receive more of the photons returning from the reflectors, respectively. Compared to current operations that receive, on average, fewer than 0.01 photons per pulse, APOLLO should be well into the multi-photon regime, with perhaps 5-10 return photons per pulse. With this signal rate, APOLLO will be efficient at finding and tracking the lunar return, yielding hundreds of times more photons in an observation than current operations deliver. In addition to the significant reduction in statistical error ($`\sqrt{N}`$ reduction), the high signal rate will allow assessment and elimination of systematic errors in a way not currently possible.

The principal range signature for the EP tests has a 29.53 day synodic period (lunar phase period the associated argument is called $`D`$). The current LLR data is not uniformly sampled, there are no observations near new Moon, and, for recent years, the only observations near full Moon occur during eclipses. The older, less accurate 2.7 m McDonald ranging system was strong enough to get full Moon ranges. APOLLO will also be able to range during full Moon.

There is an important term with half of the synodic period that depends on the product of $`G`$ and mass, $`M`$, of the Earth-Moon system. The non-uniform sampling causes a correlation (0.34) between the EP test and $`GM`$. Nordtvedt has studied the $`D`$ selection and consequences . Reference  lists several influences on the separation of the EP parameter. APOLLO’s data will be taken at lunar phases that will improve the separation of the EP and $`GM`$ parameters. In addition, APOLLO plans to incorporate a precision superconducting gravimeter and a GPS receiver that will measure crustal motions at the telescope site with millimeter precision. This information will significantly enhance our ability to model site displacements from tides, atmosphere and ocean loading, and ground-water infusion.

### 3.1 APOLLO Contribution to the Tests of Gravity

The new LLR capabilities offered by the newly developed APOLLO instrument offer a unique opportunity to improve accuracy of a number of fundamental physics tests. Some of them would have a profound effect on our understanding of the evolution of our universe. Thus, in the search for experimentally testable predictions of the scalar-tensor theories of gravity, Damour and Nordtvedt  recently considered the evolution of tensor-scalar theories following the inflation era. They conclude that the coupling between the scalar and tensor fields weakens with time so that GR is approached, but not reached. They consider a range of possibilities resulting in a deviation from GR described by $`10^7<\eta <10^4`$. Additionally, Damour and Nordtvedt note that there exists a connection between $`\dot{G}/G`$ and $`\eta `$. If G changes at a rate comparable to the reported change in the fine structure constant ($`\dot{\alpha }/\alpha 10^{15}`$ yr<sup>-1</sup>) , $`\eta `$ would be approximately $`10^5`$. Thus, an order-of-magnitude LLR range improvement would give an uncertainty within reach of the predictions by Damour and Nordtvedt, and comparable to the value implied by $`\dot{\alpha }.`$

It is already known via LLR that the Moon’s orbit is not displaced by a violation of the SEP at the $``$ 4 mm level of precision–based on 2 cm raw range precisions–constraining the SEP violation parameter $`\eta `$ at the level of about 5 parts in 10<sup>4</sup> (see Section 2.3). The high quality data from APOLLO should permit sub-millimeter determinations of the SEP-induced polarization of the lunar orbit, thereby achieving a few parts in 10<sup>5</sup> precision on the potential SEP violation. Various alternative theories of physics (string, or M-theory, for example) predict new particles such as the dilaton and moduli that couple with gravitational strength and whose exchange violates the SEP.

The SEP relates to the non-linearity of gravity (how gravity affects itself), with the PPN parameter $`\beta `$ representing the degree of non-linearity. Thus LLR provides the best way to measure $`\beta `$, as suggested by the strong dependence of $`\eta `$ on $`\beta `$ in Eq. (4). The parameter $`\gamma `$ has been measured independently via time-delay and gravitational ray-bending techniques. The published Viking  and Very Long-Baseline Interferometry (VLBI)  uncertainties for $`\gamma `$ are 0.002, 0.002, and 0.0022, respectively. Combining the above limits on $`\eta `$ from LLR and laboratory WEP tests with the Viking and VLBI results for $`\gamma `$ gives $`|\beta 1|<0.0005`$, the limit given by . The uncertainty in $`\beta `$ determined in this way is dominated by the uncertainty in $`\gamma `$. A much more accurate result for $`\gamma `$ is expected from the Cassini conjunction experiment  and would lead to a significant improvement of parameter $`\beta `$ determination.

The APOLLO project will push LLR into the regime of millimetric range precision which translates to an order-of-magnitude improvement in the determination of fundamental physics parameters. For the Earth and Moon orbiting the Sun, the scale of relativistic effects is set by the ratio $`(GM/rc^2)v^2/c^210^8`$. Relativistic effects are small compared to Newtonian effects. The Apache Point 1 mm range accuracy corresponds to $`3\times 10^{12}`$ of the Earth-Moon distance. The resulting LLR tests of gravitational physics would improve by an order of magnitude: the Equivalence Principle would give uncertainties approaching $`10^{14}`$, tests of general relativity effects would be $`<0.1`$%, and estimates of the relative change in the gravitational constant would be 0.1% of the inverse age of the universe. This last number is impressive considering that the expansion rate of the universe is approximately one part in 10<sup>10</sup> per year.

Therefore, the gain in our ability to conduct even more precise tests of fundamental physics is enormous, thus this new instrument stimulates development of better and more accurate models for the LLR data analysis at a mm-level. In the next section we shall discuss the current state and the needed future improvements in these models in more details.

## 4 Current Formulation of Range Model

LLR measures the range from an observatory on the Earth to a retroreflector on the Moon. The center-to-center distance of the Moon from the Earth, with mean value 385,000 km, is variable due to such things as eccentricity, the attraction of the Sun, planets, and the Earth’s bulge, and relativistic corrections. In addition to the lunar orbit, the range from an observatory on the Earth to a retroreflector on the Moon depends on the positions in space of the ranging observatory and the targeted lunar retroreflector. Thus, orientation of the rotation axes and the rotation angles of both bodies are important with tidal distortions, plate motion, and relativistic transformations also coming into play. To extract the gravitational physics information of interest it is necessary to accurately model a variety of effects.

The existing model formulation, and its computational realization in computer code, is the product of many years of effort. Most of the sensitivity to gravitational physics parameters is through the orbital dynamics, though PPN $`\gamma `$ also influences relativistic time delay. The successful analysis of LLR data requires attention to geophysical and rotational effects for the Earth and the Moon in addition to the orbital effects. The existing model and computer codes fit the recent range data with a root-mean-square (RMS) residual of 17 mm (150 mm in the one-way distance corresponds to 1 ns in two-way time of flight). A number of few-millimeter-sized effects are not presently modeled, and we plan to carry out such improvements in model accuracy. This effort should improve both random and systematic influences on the fits.

### 4.1 Existing Range Model

In the current model the time-of-flight (‘range’) calculation consists of the round-trip ‘light time’ from a ranging site on the Earth to a retroreflector on the Moon and back to the ranging site. The vector equation for the one-way range vector $`\stackrel{}{\rho }`$ is:

$$\stackrel{}{\rho }=\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}_e+\stackrel{}{R}_m$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ is the vector from the center of the Earth to the center of the Moon, $`\stackrel{}{R}_e`$ is the vector from the center of the Earth to the ranging site, and $`\stackrel{}{R}_m`$ is the vector from the center of the Moon to the retroreflector array. The times at the Earth and Moon are different: transmit, bounce, and receive times. Due to the motion of the bodies the light-time computation is iterated for both the up and down legs. The orbits and lunar rotation come from the numerical integration. The solar system barycenter is the coordinate frame for relativistic computations. The total time of flight is the sum of the up and down leg geometry plus delays due to atmosphere and relativity.

It is convenient to represent the model as a sum of its major components, including the description of the dynamics of the lunar orbit and rotation, the Earth’s and Moon’s finite size effects as well as the relativistic corrections. For illustrative purposes we shall discuss each of the components separately, in particular the existing range model accounts for:

#### 4.1.1 Orbit Dynamics & Lunar Rotation

The lunar and planetary orbits and the lunar rotation result from numerical integration of the differential equations of motion. The existing model for orbital motion accounts for:

* Newtonian and relativistic point mass gravitational interaction between Sun, Moon, and nine planets. This is parameterized for the tests of EP, $`\dot{G}`$ and PPN $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$.
* Newtonian attraction of the largest asteroids.
* Newtonian attraction between a point mass and a body with gravitational harmonics: Earth ($`J_2,J_3,J_4`$), Moon (2-nd through 4-th degree spherical harmonics), and Sun ($`J_2`$).
* Attraction from tides on Earth and Moon including both elastic and dissipative components.

Numerical integration of the rotation of the Moon accounts for:

* Torques from point mass attraction of Earth, Sun, Venus and Jupiter. The lunar gravity field is included with its spherical harmonics of 2-nd through 4-th degree.
* Figure-figure torques between Earth ($`J_2`$) and Moon ($`J_2`$ and $`C_{22}`$).
* Torques from tides raised on the Moon include elastic and dissipative components (a time delay formulation) .
* The fluid core of the Moon is considered to rotate separately from the mantle. A dissipative torque at the lunar solid-mantle/fluid-core interface couples the two . The rotations of both mantle and core are integrated.

#### 4.1.2 Finite-size Earth Effects

* The ranging station coordinates include rates for plate motion.
* Tidal displacements on Earth are scaled by terrestrial Love numbers $`h_2`$ and $`l_2`$ with a core-flattening correction for a nearly diurnal term. There is also a “pole tide” due to the time-varying part of the spin distortion.
* The orientation of the Earth’s rotation axis includes precession and nutation. The body polar axis is displaced from the rotation axis by polar motion. The rotation includes UT1 variations.
* Atmospheric time delay follows . It includes corrections for surface pressure, temperature and humidity which are measured at the ranging site.

A useful reference for Earth effects is .

#### 4.1.3 Finite-size Moon Effects

* The Moon-centered coordinates of the retroreflectors are adjusted for tidal displacements on the Moon. Tides are scaled by the lunar Love numbers $`h_2`$ and $`l_2`$.
* The rotation matrix for the Moon depends on three Euler angles that come from the numerical integration.

#### 4.1.4 Relativistic Corrections

The frame for computations is the solar system barycenter and relativistic corrections are needed to convert that position and time to and from geocentric position and station time. There are also light-time delays due to gravity.

* The motion of the Earth and Moon with respect to the solar system barycenter requires a Lorentz contraction for geocentric ranging station and Moon-centered reflector coordinates.
* In the relativistic time transformation there are time-varying relativistic terms due to the motion of the Earth’s center with respect to the solar system barycenter.
* The displacement of the ranging station from the center of the Earth causes relativistic time variations.
* The propagation of light in the gravity fields of the Sun and Earth causes a relativistic time delay.

### 4.2 Fit Parameters, Partial Derivatives, and Computation

For each fit parameter there must be a partial derivative of the “range” with respect to that parameter. The partial derivatives may be separated into two types: geometrical and dynamical. Geometrical partials are explicit in the model for the time of flight. Examples are partial derivatives for geocentric ranging station coordinates, Moon-centered reflector coordinates, station rates due to plate motion, tidal displacement Love numbers $`h_2`$ and $`l_2`$, nutation coefficients, diurnal and semidiurnal UT1 coefficients, angles and rates for the Earth’s orientation in space, ranging biases and many more.

Dynamical partials are for parameters that enter into the model for numerical integration of the orbits and lunar rotation. Examples are dynamical partial derivatives for the masses and initial conditions for the Moon and planets, the masses of several asteroids, the initial conditions for the rotation of both the lunar mantle and fluid core, Earth and Moon tidal parameters, lunar moment of inertia combinations $`(BA)/C`$ and $`(CA)/B,`$ lunar third-degree gravity field, a lunar core-mantle coupling parameter, Equivalence Principle $`M_G/M_I`$, PPN parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$, geodetic precession, solar $`J_2`$, and a rate of change for the gravitational constant $`G`$. Dynamical partial derivatives for the lunar and planetary orbits and the lunar rotation are created by numerical integration. At the time of the range calculation a file of integrated partial derivatives for orbits and lunar rotation with respect to dynamical solution parameters is read and converted to partial derivatives for range with respect to those parameters. The partial derivative for PPN $`\gamma `$ has both dynamical and geometrical components. Useful references may be found in .

The analytical model has its computational realization in a sequence of computer programs. Briefly these a) numerically integrate lunar and planetary orbits, lunar rotation, and dynamical partial derivatives, b) compute the model range for each data point, form the pre-fit residual, and compute range partial derivatives, c) solve the least-squares equations, and d) generate and plot post-fit residuals. All these programs would have to be updated in order to accommodate the new accuracy of the LLR data expected with the APOLLO instrument.

## 5 Next Steps and Conclusions

In order to respond to the technological challenge presented by the APOLLO project, there is an urgent need to improve the modeling accuracy by more than an order-of-magnitude in order to match the millimeter quality range accuracy expected from APOLLO. This requires investigating a number of effects that are ignored in the current model. Some effects may be precisely calculated while others require adjustable solution parameters.

Planning for model improvement to accompany the high-quality range data is already underway. We have begun exploring components of the current model which deserve attention. The high-precision ranging data will help pinpoint deficiencies in the model, ultimately enabling the model to reach mm precision or better.

There are a number of small influences on the Earth, Moon, and orbit. The larger effects generally have higher priority, but there are subtleties. Most serious are coherent effects that can mimic phenomena of interest. Thus, the effect of solar radiation pressure influences the orbit of the Moon. This causes a 3.7 mm synodic monthly periodicity which mimics the largest EP signature . Additionally, the monthly thermal expansion cycle of retroreflector array heights is 1-2 mm for the Apollo retroreflector arrays which sit on the soil, but is at least 5 mm for the Lunokhod reflector which is $``$1 m above the surface. The thermal cycle also occurs at the synodic period which is important to the EP test. Solar tides on the Moon ($`2`$ mm) occur at half the synodic period.

There are also two interesting effects influencing $`\dot{G}/G`$ tests (current uncertainty $`10^{12}`$ yr<sup>-1</sup>). For the Sun, changes in $`G`$ and $`M`$ cannot be distinguished. The solar mass loss relative to its mass is $`7\times 10^{14}`$ yr<sup>-1</sup> and can be accurately computed. For accuracies below $`10^{14}`$ yr<sup>-1</sup> thermal reradiation from the Earth and Moon should be considered. At present, the integration of the rotation of the Moon is Newtonian. There is an annual relativistic term of 8 mm amplitude at the equator, due to the time transformation, which would project into 3 mm or less in range (the projection depends on the reflector location). Also in the lunar rotation, the geodetic “precession” will alter the tilt rather than the precession rate because the precessing equator is a forced motion.

For near future APOLLO data analysis, coherent effects need to be modeled with precisions better than 1 mm.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2It may be argued that, in order to achieve the 1 mm aggregate RMS, a modeling accuracy considerably better than the expected range accuracy of the instrument is justified for individual effects. The least trouble is caused by random noise and effects that act like random noise since large numbers of observations reduce their influence. An example is atmospheric variations that are unrelated to lunar position. Many effects are in between these extremes. They may have modest correlations with some solution parameters, but low correlation with the parameters of interest. So both size and signature determine the modeling priority.

The expected improvement in the accuracy of LLR tests of gravitational physics expected with the new APOLLO instrument will bring significant new insights to our understanding of the fundamental physics laws that govern the evolution of our universe. The scientific results are significant which justify the more than 35 years of history of LLR research and technology development. It also imposes a need to develop the accurate range models and data analysis techniques that will sustain this new technological challenge.

In conclusion, LLR provides the most precise way to test the EP for gravity itself, the best way to test for non-gravitational long-range fields of dark matter as well as for time variation of Newton’s constant. With technology improvements and substantial access to a large-aperture, high-quality telescope, the APOLLO project will take full advantage of the lunar retro-reflectors and will exploit the opportunity provided by the unique Earth-Moon “laboratory” for fundamental gravitational physics.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank William Folkner of JPL for suggesting the thermal investigation. The work described here was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.


format: text

text:
# Lagrangian Surfaces in a Fixed Homology Class: Existence of Knotted Lagrangian Tori

## 1. Introduction and statement of the results

Let $`M`$ be a smooth, closed $`4`$-manifold endowed with a symplectic form $`\omega `$ and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a smooth, closed oriented surface. Consider two symplectic (resp. lagrangian) embeddings $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`M`$. Assume furthermore that the $`\varphi _i`$’s are smoothly homotopic. Among these maps we can define two notions of equivalence, the second implying the first:

(E1) The $`\varphi _i`$ are smoothly isotopic, i.e., there exists a smooth homotopy composed of embeddings;

(E2) The $`\varphi _i`$ are symplectically isotopic, i.e., there exists a smooth isotopy composed of symplectic (resp. lagrangian) embeddings.
(In what follows, the terms homotopy and isotopy will always refer to smooth ones.)

A necessary condition for two embeddings to be equivalent under the equivalence relations above is that their images, the embedded surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i:=\varphi _i(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, satisfy the corresponding equivalence relation (that will be referred to with the same notation): in the case of (E1), the surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ must be isotopic submanifolds of $`M`$, while in case of (E2), the surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ must be isotopic through symplectic (resp. lagrangian) submanifolds. (Note that if the genus of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is greater than $`0`$, these conditions could be not sufficient, as the embeddings $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi \gamma `$, where $`\gamma `$ a selfdiffeomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that is not isotopic to the identity, have the same image but could be nonisotopic.)

In what follows we will concentrate on the isotopy problem for the surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$; observe that, by a standard argument, two embeddings of a surface in a simply connected $`4`$-manifold $`M`$ are homotopic if and only if their images represent the same homology class.

A priori, the first equivalence relation belongs to differential topology, while the second one belongs to symplectic topology. However, as we assume that the embeddings are symplectic or lagrangian, in understanding (E1) we have to take into account the constraint related to the rigidity induced by this extra condition. In particular, this could prevent us from the possibility of realizing an equivalence class of embeddings with a symplectic or lagrangian representative. As we will see in the following, this rigidity can affect the existence of different classes of embeddings modulo the equivalence (E1).

The classification of embedded surfaces, modulo one of the equivalence relations above, can be defined as the symplectic (resp. lagrangian) knot problem. In particular, homologous but nonisotopic surfaces determine different knotted (in the sense of differential topology) symplectic or lagrangian surfaces, while isotopic surfaces that are not isotopic in the symplectic sense determine different symplectically knotted symplectic or lagrangian surfaces. (Note that, at least in general, there is no “unknot” i.e., a preferred representative of an homology class.)

In the recent past, a series of papers has addressed the question of determining whether two embedded symplectic surfaces representing the same homology class in a simply connected symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`M`$ must be isotopic. One motivation for the isotopy problem for symplectic manifolds comes from the analogous question for the case of complex curves on Kähler surfaces, where it is known, by classical results, that complex representatives of the same homology class are in fact isotopic. Working in this direction, Siebert and Tian have proven that a symplectic surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$, representing the class $`d[H]`$ in $`H^2(^2,)`$ (with standard notation) is symplectically isotopic to an algebraic curve of degree $`d`$, at least for $`d17`$. (Note that this result is stronger that the one holding in the Kähler case, as now we are requiring only that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ is symplectic.) A similar result holds for surfaces in $`S^2\times S^2`$. These results are presented in \[Ti\].

In contrast with that, Fintushel and Stern have presented a method to build nonisotopic symplectic tori representing multiples of the class of a symplectic $`c`$-embedded torus in a symplectic $`4`$-manifold (see \[FS2\] for precise definitions and results). Their construction, that applies to a large class of symplectic manifolds, shows in particular the existence of infinitely many nonisotopic simplectic tori representing the homology class $`2m[F]`$ ($`m2`$) for any elliptic surface $`E(n)`$ of fiber $`F`$. The latter result has been extended by the author in \[V2\] to cover the case of all multiples $`q[F]`$ (at least for $`n3`$); in particular, when $`q=1`$, we see that there exist infinitely many symplectic surfaces homologous, but nonisotopic, to a complex connected curve ($`F`$ itself). Etgü and Park have presented in \[EtP\] further constructions of nonisotopic tori (in classes with divisibility) that complement the previous ones. Examples of classes with positive self-intersection, or higher genus, are still eluding us (at least for simply connected manifolds: otherwise, see \[Sm\]). Some of the non-isotopy results above have been analyzed by Auroux, Donaldson and Katzarkov in \[ADK\], where they show that these examples (and new ones they built for the case of singular symplectic surfaces in $`^2`$) could be interpreted as a kind of braiding of parallel copies of a complex curve. The openness of the symplectic condition allows us to keep the submanifolds resulting from this braiding symplectic.

Considered all together, these results imply that, in suitable manifolds, infinitely many knot types can be realized by symplectic surfaces. On the other hand, the author is not aware of any example of isotopic symplectic surfaces that are symplectically knotted.

The symplectic knot problem, however, has been preceded historically by its lagrangian counterpart that, for reasons detailed below, is somewhat more subtle. This question arose, for the case of lagrangian $`^n`$’s in $`^{2n}`$ linear outside a ball, in the “first paper” on symplectic topology by Arnol’d (see \[A\]). In a more general set up, the problem has been summarized by Eliashberg and Polterovich in \[ElP3\].

The analogy between symplectic and lagrangian knot problems is obvious. But there are reasons that make the latter question more subtle, at least in relation to the equivalence (E1). The first (and probably less relevant) is that we can perturb the symplectic form $`\omega `$ on $`M`$ to a symplectic form $`\omega _ϵ`$ in such a way that an essential surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, lagrangian with respect to $`\omega `$, is symplectic with respect to $`\omega _ϵ`$. This result, whose proof appears in Gompf (\[G\]), holds true also for pairs of disjoint surfaces, so that the existence of essential knotted lagrangian surfaces entails the existence of knotted symplectic surfaces. But the main reason of interest stems from the fact that the lagrangian condition is a closed one, in that respect similar to the condition of being complex. In particular the rigidity of this condition imposes constraints to the possibility of braiding copies of a lagrangian surface in the spirit of \[ADK\], and makes a result of existence of lagrangian knots appear more problematic.

In fact, the few results known so far point towards absence of knotted lagrangian surfaces. In \[ElP1\] Eliashberg and Polterovich show that when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=S^2`$ or $`T^2`$ a lagrangian surface in $`T^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ homologous to the zero section is in fact isotopic to the zero section (this result is quite exhaustive as, by \[LS\], every homologically nontrivial lagrangian submanifold of $`T^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ must be homologous to the zero section). With similar spirit, the authors prove that, at a local level (see \[ElP2\] for precise definitions and statements) lagrangian submanifolds are unknotted (in the sense of (E2)). Again, in \[L\] Luttinger proved that infinitely many knot types of tori in $`^4`$ can not be realized with lagrangian embeddings. In light of these results, Question 1.3A of \[ElP2\] asks whether there exist homotopic, but not symplectically isotopic, embeddings of a lagrangian surface. Clearly, examples of this kind are provided by homologous lagrangian surfaces that fail to satisfy (E1) or (E2). Seidel has answered in the positive to this question (see \[Se1\] and \[Se2\]) constructing an infinite number of lagrangian spheres, in a suitable $`4`$-manifold, that are isotopic but symplectically knotted, i.e., equivalent under (E1) but not under (E2).

The goal of this paper is to complete the answer to Question 1.3A of \[ElP2\] constructing an infinite number of knotted lagrangian tori, i.e., homologous lagrangian tori that are not equivalent under (E1). We will prove the following results:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`E(2)_K`$ be the symplectic $`4`$-manifold (homotopy equivalent to $`E(2)`$) obtained by knot surgery on the left-handed trefoil $`K`$; then there exists a nontrivial primitive homology class $`[R]`$ such that any multiple $`q[R]`$, $`q1`$, can be represented by infinitely many mutually nonisotopic lagrangian tori.

Theorem 1.1 asserts therefore that infinitely many knot types can be realized by lagrangian embeddings.

It will be apparent from the proof that we are able in fact to prove something stronger, namely that if we denote by $`R_i`$ the lagrangian tori of Theorem 1.1, there is no diffeomorphism of pairs $`(E(2)_K,R_i)(E(2)_K,R_j)`$, even not connected to the identity, unless $`i=j`$.

This result can be extended without any effort to cover other classes of symplectic knot surgery manifolds, using for example the figure-eight knot, or any non-prime fibered knot containing $`K`$ as a summand, and many others. In fact, we expect the result to hold for all symplectic manifolds obtained by knot surgery on a fibered nontrivial knot, although the proof of this would require some modification in the proof of Theorem 1.1. We will address this problem in the future.

Using the aforementioned result of Gompf, we obtain the following Corollary:

###### Corollary 1.2.

The manifold $`E(2)_K`$ has a primitive homology class which can be represented by mutually nonisotopic symplectic tori.

We point out that phenomena of this kind for $`E(2)_K`$ are discussed in \[FS2\] and \[EtP\], but for homology classes with divisibility. Corollary 1.2 gives therefore the simplest (in the sense of geography) known symplectic manifold having symplectic nonisotopic tori in the same primitive homology class. Obviously, the same result obtained in Corollary 1.2 holds for all multiples of $`[R]`$.

We will briefly overview the ideas underlying the proof of Theorem 1.1. We will present the manifold $`E(2)_K`$ as result of link surgery over the link $`L=KM`$ given by the knot $`K`$ and its meridian $`M`$. The link exterior $`S^3\nu L`$ fibers over $`S^1`$ with fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ given by the fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K`$ of $`K`$ with a disk removed. We can obtain symplectic tori by looking at curves in $`S^3\nu L`$ transverse to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$. This is the approach of all available constructions of symplectic knots. Here, we will proceed instead in the opposite way: Let $`\gamma `$ be a curve in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$. Denote by $`N_K`$ the fibered $`3`$-manifold obtained by surgery on $`KM`$ with coefficients $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ respectively. Then the torus $`S^1\times \gamma `$ is a lagrangian, framed torus in the manifold $`S^1\times N_K`$ (endowed of a standard symplectic structure). By symplectic fiber summing two copies of $`E(1)`$ to $`S^1\times N_K`$, this torus defines a framed lagrangian torus in $`E(2)_K`$. The problem at this point is reduced to find infinitely many curves $`\gamma \mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ homologous (but nonisotopic) in $`S^3\nu L`$, and then try to distinguish the isotopy class of the resulting lagrangian tori. The latter result will be obtained with the technique we introduced in \[V2\], namely by studying the Seiberg-Witten polynomial of the (symplectic) $`4`$-manifolds given by fiber summing $`E(1)`$ along the lagrangian tori. As the sum with $`E(1)`$ does not depend on the choice of the gluing map, or the framing, the smooth structure of the resulting manifolds is determined by the smooth isotopy class of the tori, and SW theory allows us to distinguish the manifolds to the degree required in Theorem 1.1.

We finish by observing that the results above can be generalized without effort to the symplectic manifold $`E(n)_K`$ for any $`n2`$. The case of $`n=1`$, where the situation is somewhat different, will be discussed in future research.

Added in proof: R. Fintushel and R. Stern have in fact extended Theorem 1.1 to all $`E(n)_K`$, where $`K`$ is any nontrivial fibered knot. Also, they show that for $`n=1`$ the nullhomologous lagrangian tori resulting from our (and their) construction are not isotopic. See R. Fintushel, R. Stern, Invariants for Lagrangian tori, Geom. Topol., 8 (2004), 947–968.

Acknowledgements: It’s about time to pay my debt of gratitude to Ron Fintushel and Ron Stern for their invaluable support in this and other papers of mine. I would like to thank also Slaven Jabuka for a conversation that led me to investigate this problem, and Paul Seidel for several discussions.

## 2. Preliminaries

In this Section we will recall some standard definitions and results that can be found, for example, in \[GS\]; we will moreover specify the different notions of knot.

Let $`M`$ be a smooth, closed, simply connected $`4`$-manifold and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a smooth, closed, oriented surface. Given a homotopy class of maps $`h[\mathrm{\Sigma },M]`$, we will say that two embeddings $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2h`$ are isotopic (equivalence relation (E1) ) if there is a homotopy $`\varphi _t:\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ through embeddings. The images $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i:=\varphi _i(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ of isotopic embeddings are isotopic submanifolds of $`M`$, i.e., there is an isotopy of the inclusion map of the first one that has as image of the terminal map the second. By the Isotopy Extension Theorem, isotopic submanifolds are ambient isotopic, i.e., there exists a self-diffeomorphism $`f`$ of $`M`$ connected to the identity such that $`f(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$. Because of that, when we glue a manifold to $`M`$ along a submanifold $`N`$, the result of the surgery depends, up to diffeomorphism, only on the isotopy class of $`N`$, together with the choice of a gluing map on $`N`$ and of a lifting of this map to $`\nu N`$.

We will say that $`M`$ contains a knotted surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ if there exists an homotopy class of maps in $`[\mathrm{\Sigma },M]`$ whose images represent (infinitely many) isotopy classes of embedded surfaces. By standard arguments, this corresponds to have nonisotopic representatives of the same homology class of $`M`$. Each isotopy class is called a knot, or a knot type.

When $`M`$ admits a symplectic structure $`\omega `$, an embedding $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ is lagrangian if $`\varphi ^{}\omega `$ in trivial on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ or, which is the same, it restricts trivially to the image $`\varphi (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Coherently with the previous definition, we say that $`M`$ contains a knotted lagrangian surface if, for an homotopy class in $`[\mathrm{\Sigma },M]`$, (infinitely many) knot types are realized by embedded lagrangian surfaces.

We remark that we could define the equivalence of embedded surfaces in terms of the coarser definition of pair diffeomorphism instead than isotopy (for classical knots in $`S^3`$ the definitions coincide). As previously mentioned, our results hold also under this more restrictive condition.

As observed before, we could further ask whether the isotopy between lagrangian surfaces can be realized through lagrangian surfaces (equivalence relation E(2)). We say that $`M`$ contains a symplectically knotted surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ if there are (infinitely many) lagrangian embeddings of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ whose images are isotopic, but not symplectically isotopic. See \[Se1\] and \[Se2\] for the results on this.

## 3. Construction of the links

In this section we will discuss the construction of a family of links, that will be useful in the proof of Theorem 1.1.

Let $`K`$ be a nontrivial fibered knot, and denote by $`L`$ the $`2`$-component link given by $`K`$ itself and a meridian $`M`$. Consider the link exterior $`S^3\nu L`$. We have the following simple Proposition, that follows easily by observing that, up to isotopy, we can assume that $`M`$ is transverse to the fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K`$ of $`S^3\nu K`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

The $`3`$-manifold $`S^3\nu L`$ admits a fibration over $`S^1`$, having class $`(1,0)H^1(S^3\nu L,)=^2`$, with fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ given by the spanning surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K`$ of $`K`$ with a disk removed.

In the Proposition above we have implicitly assumed as cohomology basis the basis of $`H^1(S^3\nu L,)`$ dual to $`[\mu (K)],[\mu (M)]`$. We want to remark that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ is not the spanning surface of $`L`$.

We point out that the left-handed trefoil knot $`K`$ is a genus $`1`$ knot, whose minimal genus Seifert surface (the fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K`$, canonically defined up to isotopy) is a surface having boundary $`K`$ itself, illustrated in Figure 1 (left hand side). The fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ of $`L`$ is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K`$ by removing any disk.

We will now identify now a family of simple closed curves, lying in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$, that are homologous as elements of $`H_1(S^3\nu L,)`$, but not isotopic. We have several choices of simple closed curves lying in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K`$. For sake of definiteness, we will consider the infinite family of knots defined as in the right hand side of Figure 1: the $`p`$-th element of the family has $`p`$ strands on the first twisted annulus and $`1`$ on the second, as represented in Figure 1 for the case of $`p=5`$ (in what follows we will always consider $`p2`$). Note that each $`\gamma _p`$ has a natural framing induced by the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K`$.

It is not difficult to recognize that the knot denoted by $`\gamma _p`$ is in fact the torus knot $`T(p,p+1)`$. In fact, the two half-twists on the annulus act on the $`p`$ strands as illustrated in Figure 2 (for $`p=5`$).

Every strand under-crosses all the strands at its right, and we can represent this with both the braids of Figure 2 (the equivalence of the two braids can be checked with repeated application of the braid relations). We can now represent $`\gamma _p`$ as the composition of the two braids of Figure 2, plus the additional crossing of the $`p`$-th strand over the others (due to the passage on the second annulus of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K`$). We obtain in this way the presentation of Figure 3 (left). Proceeding now as in Figure 3, we obtain a presentation of $`\gamma _p`$ as closure of a braid with $`(p+1)`$ strands that shows clearly that it is a torus knot, homologous to $`p`$ times the meridian and $`(p+1)`$ times the longitude of a standard torus in $`S^3`$. In particular, the example on the right hand side of Figure 1 is the torus knot $`T(5,6)`$.

We claim that the linking number of $`\gamma _p`$ with $`K`$ is zero. In fact, by looking at the crossings of $`\gamma _p`$ and $`K`$ in Figure 1, we can see that the computation can be reduced to verifying that the sum of the signs of the crossings of each of the two strands of Figure 4 (left hand side) and $`K`$ equals zero, something that can be checked by direct computation as indicated in the Figure.

Now let’s consider the link $`L`$ and its fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L\mathrm{\Sigma }_K`$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that the curves $`\gamma _p`$ are embedded in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$, but in order to do so we need to specify how $`M`$ links $`\gamma _p`$. We will fix an integer $`q1`$, and consider the family of curves $`\gamma _p`$ for $`pq`$. We can isotope $`\gamma _p`$ (in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K`$) in such a way that $`\gamma _p`$ pierces with the first $`q`$ of its strands the spanning surface of $`M`$, as illustrated in the right hand side of Figure 4 (where $`p=5`$, $`q=3`$). We will denote by $`\gamma _{p,q}`$ the curve of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ thus obtained. In particular, for $`q=1`$, $`M`$ is isotopic (in $`S^3\nu \gamma _{p,1}`$) to a meridian of $`\gamma _{p,1}`$. As knots in $`S^3`$, we have $`lk(\gamma _{p,q},M)=q`$.

We want to make clear that, with the definition above, the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ contains, for all values of $`q`$, the entire family of curves $`\{\gamma _{p,q}\}_{q,pq}`$.

We can define now a $`3`$-component link $`L_{p,q}=L\gamma _{p,q}`$, which has linking matrix

(1)
$$l_{p,q}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& 1& 0\\ 1& & q\\ 0& q& \end{array}\right).$$

Observe that the linking matrix does not depend on $`p`$. As a consequence of this we have, in the homology of $`S^3\nu L`$, the following relation:

(2)
$$[\gamma _{p,q}]=lk(\gamma _{p,q},K)[\mu (K)]+lk(\gamma _{p,q},M)[\mu (M)]=q[\mu (M)]H_1(S^3\nu L,).$$

Although all the $`\gamma _{p,q}`$’s (for a fixed value of $`q`$) are homologous, they are quite clearly non isotopic, for different values of $`p`$, as knots in $`S^3`$ and, a fortiori, in $`S^3\nu L`$. We will exploit this fact in order to prove Theorem 1.1.

## 4. Construction of the symplectic link surgery manifold

The link surgery construction is a convenient method to translate some properties of knots and links to $`4`$-dimensional manifolds. In our case we will construct a symplectic manifold, homotopy equivalent to the elliptic surface $`E(2)`$, starting from the link $`L`$. Although not strictly necessary for the proof of Theorem 1.1, we will present the manifold in two different ways. First, as knot surgery for the knot $`K`$, and next as link surgery manifold for the link $`L`$. This pretty straightforward observation, true for any knot $`K`$, has some interest per se.

We will start with the standard definitions contained in \[FS1\] of a homotopy $`E(n)`$ associated with the knot $`K`$:

(3)
$$E(n)_K=(E(n)\nu F)_{T^3}S^1\times (S^3\nu K)=E(n)\mathrm{\#}_{F=S^1\times C_K}S^1\times N_K$$

where the gluing map on the boundary $`3`$-torus identifies the elliptic fiber $`F`$ with $`S^1\times \mu (K)`$ and, reversing orientation, $`\lambda (K)`$ with the meridian circle to the elliptic fiber. In Equation 3 the $`3`$-manifold $`N_K`$ is the result of $`0`$-surgery of $`S^3`$ along $`K`$ and $`C_K`$ is the core of the Dehn filling (a curve isotopic to $`\mu (K)`$). The torus $`S^1\times C_K`$ has a canonical framing induced by the Dehn filling in $`N_K`$, while $`F`$ in $`E(n)`$ has a canonical framing induced from the fibration of $`E(n)`$. The fiber sum identifies the two tori and acts as complex conjugation on the normal bundles. We are interested in the case of $`n=2`$: we claim that $`E(2)_K`$ can be described as link surgery manifold over the link $`L`$, with the generalized definition introduced in \[V1\]. Precisely, we can construct an homotopy $`E(2)`$ starting from $`L`$ and the fibration of $`S^3\nu L`$ of fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ in the following way:

(4)
$$\begin{array}{c}E(2)_K=_{i=1}^2(E(1)_i\nu F_i)_{T_i^3}S^1\times (S^3\nu L)=\\ \\ =E(1)_1\mathrm{\#}_{F_1=S^1\times C_K}S^1\times N_K\mathrm{\#}_{F_2=S^1\times C_M}E(1)_2.\end{array}$$

The gluing maps identify, on the first $`3`$-torus, $`F_1`$ with $`S^1\times \mu (K)`$ and the meridian of $`F_1`$ with $`\lambda (K)`$ and, on the second $`3`$-torus, $`F_2`$ with $`S^1\times \lambda (M)`$ and the meridian of $`F_2`$ with $`\mu (M)`$. $`C_K`$ is again the core of the Dehn filling along $`K`$ and $`C_M`$ is the core of the trivial Dehn filling of the $`\mathrm{}`$-surgery along $`M`$ (a curve isotopic to $`\lambda (M)`$ itself). Note that, with this gluing prescription above, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ is naturally capped off with one disk section in each $`(E(1)\nu F_i)`$. As $`\lambda (M)`$ is isotopic to $`\mu (K)`$ we have, up to isotopy, $`C_K=C_M`$ and $`F_1=F_2=S^1\times C_{()}`$. The connection between the two definitions above comes by observing that, as $`E(2)=E(1)\mathrm{\#}_FE(1)`$, we can think to $`E(2)_K`$ as obtained by fiber summing $`E(1)`$ to $`E(1)_K`$ along a copy of $`F=S^1\times C_K`$, which is exactly the definition of Equation 4. Note that the definitions of Equations 3 and 4 are equivalent also in the symplectic category.

The definition of $`E(2)_K`$ in Equation 4 shows the existence of two noteworthy homology classes of $`E(2)_K`$, images under the injective map

(5)
$$i_{}:H_1(S^3\nu L,)H_2(S^1\times (S^3\nu L),)H_2(E(2)_K,)$$

of the two generators $`[\mu (K)]`$ and $`[\mu (M)]`$. The first one is identified with the homology class of $`F`$, while the second is the homology class of a kind of rim torus, identified with $`S^1\times \mu (M)`$, that we will denote by $`R`$. This class is primitive: in order to verify this, observe that the torus $`R`$ intersects once (with positive sign) the sphere obtained by capping the annulus spanning $`M`$ and pierced once by $`K`$ (representing the dual to the class $`(0,1)H^1(S^3\nu L,)`$) with one vanishing disks in each copy of $`E(1)\nu F`$. The class of $`R`$ has self-intersection $`0`$.

## 5. Infinitely many lagrangian tori

We are ready now, using the constructions of Sections 3 and 4, to exhibit a family of lagrangian tori that represents any multiple of the class of the rim torus $`R`$. Fix, as in Section 3, an integer $`q1`$ and pick the collection of curves $`\gamma _{p,q}`$ with $`pq`$. The following holds true.

###### Lemma 5.1.

The images $`R_{p,q}E(2)_K`$ of the tori $`S^1\times \gamma _{p,q}S^1\times (S^3\nu L)`$ define a family of lagrangian, framed tori representing the class $`q[R]`$.

Proof: The homology class of these tori is given, by Equation 2, by the formula

(6)
$$\begin{array}{c}[R_{p,q}]=i_{}[\gamma _{p,q}]=lk(\gamma _{p,q},K)i_{}[\mu (K)]+lk(\gamma _{p,q},M)i_{}[\mu (M)]=\\ \\ =q[R]H_2(E(2)_K,).\end{array}$$

The elements of the infinite collection of tori $`R_{p,q}`$, with $`pq`$, is therefore homologous to $`q`$ copies of $`R`$. As the knot $`K`$ is fibered, the closed $`3`$-manifold $`N_K`$ is fibered too, with fiber the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ capped off with two disks. The fiber sum presentation of Equation 4, scaling suitably the symplectic forms to obtain matching volumes on the gluing tori, shows that $`E(2)_K`$ admits a symplectic structure that, on the interior of $`S^1\times N_K\nu (S^1\times C_KS^1\times C_M)=S^1\times (S^3\nu L)`$, coincides with the restriction of a standard symplectic form on $`S^1\times N_K`$, namely $`\alpha dt+ϵ\beta `$, where $`\alpha `$ is a closed $`1`$-form on $`N_K`$ determined up to isotopy by the fibration of $`N_K`$ and $`\beta `$ is a closed $`2`$-form on $`N_K`$ restricting to a volume form on each fiber. The tori $`S^1\times \gamma _{p,q}`$ embed in $`S^1\times N_K`$ and are lagrangian with respect to its symplectic structure, as the tangent space in each point is spanned by $`\frac{}{t}`$ and by a vector tangent to the fiber, and therefore lying in the kernel of $`\alpha `$. Consequently, the tori $`R_{p,q}`$ are lagrangian and have a canonical framing induced from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$; this framing coincides with the lagrangian framing, as the tori obtained by pushing off $`\gamma _{p,q}`$ along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ are lagrangian. This completes the proof of the Lemma. Q.e.d.

Lemma 5.1 asserts that the tori $`R_{p,q}`$, for a fixed value of $`q`$, are images of homotopic lagrangian embeddings of $`T^2`$ in $`E(2)_K`$. Our goal is now to show that these tori are not isotopic. In order to do so, we can define the family of (symplectic) manifolds

(7)
$$X_{p,q}=E(1)\mathrm{\#}_{F=R_{p,q}}E(2)_K.$$

The definition of the fiber sum depends a priori on the choice of the framing for $`R_{p,q}`$, determining (with a marking of the tori) the gluing map for the boundary $`3`$-tori. Anyhow, any orientation preserving self-diffeomorphism of $`(E(1)\nu F)`$ extends to $`(E(1)\nu F)`$ (see \[GS\]): different choices of the framing or marking lead therefore to the same smooth manifold, namely $`X_{p,q}`$ depends only on the isotopy class of $`R_{p,q}`$. More is actually true, namely the smooth structure of $`X_{p,q}`$ depends only the diffeomorphism type of the pair $`(E(2)_K,R_{p,q})`$. Our goal is to distinguish different smooth structures, for different values of $`p`$, by computing the Seiberg-Witten polynomial of $`X_{p,q}`$. In order to do so, we start with the following

###### Proposition 5.2.

Consider the manifold $`X_{p,q}=E(1)\mathrm{\#}_{F=R_{p,q}}E(2)_K`$ and the $`3`$-component link $`L_{p,q}=KM\gamma _{p,q}`$. The manifold $`X_{p,q}`$ is diffeomorphic to the link surgery manifold $`E(3)_{L_{p,q}}`$.

Proof: The manifolds $`X_{p,q}`$ and $`E(3)_{L_{p,q}}`$ can both be written, as smooth manifolds, as

(8)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(E(1)\nu F)_{T_i^3}S^1\times (S^3L_{p,q}),$$

where the gluing maps on the boundary $`3`$-tori are defined in different ways for the two manifolds. However, because of the aforementioned extension property of the self-diffeomorphisms of $`(E(1)\nu F)`$, the choice of the gluing maps does not affect the smooth structure of the resulting manifold. Q.e.d. Proposition 5.2 allows us to apply the following Lemma of Fintushel-Stern (\[FS1\]).

###### Lemma 5.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p,q}^s(x,y,t)`$ be the symmetrized Alexander polynomial of the link $`L_{p,q}=KM\gamma _{p,q}`$. Then the Seiberg-Witten polynomial of $`X_{p,q}`$ is given by

(9)
$$SW_{X_{p,q}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{p,q}^s(x^2,y^2,t^2)$$

where we identify $`x,y,t`$ with (the Poincaré dual of) the images of $`S^1\times \mu (K),S^1\times \mu (M),S^1\times \mu (\gamma _{p,q})`$ respectively.

Note that, as the relative Seiberg-Witten polynomial of $`(E(1),F)`$ is just equal to $`1`$, the polynomial of Equation 9 is in fact the relative Seiberg-Witten polynomial of $`(E(2)_K,R_{p,q})`$ \- see \[MT\] for a discussion of the invariants from this point of view. We will use this result in the next section to prove our main Theorem.

## 6. Proof of the main theorem

In order to prove Theorem 1.1 we could attempt to compute, using Lemma 5.3, the SW polynomial of $`X_{p,q}`$ for each value of $`p`$ and use the result to distinguish the smooth structure for different values of $`p`$ and, with that, the isotopy class of the torus $`R_{p,q}`$. Conceptually, the computation of the Alexander polynomial of $`L_{p,q}`$ does not present any difficulty, but obtaining a general formula is practically not viable. Moreover, even when this is done, while comparing the SW polynomial of two manifolds, we would need to show that there is no change of basis in the second cohomology group transforming one polynomial in the other, compare with the discussion in \[V2\].

For this reason, we will be content with a weaker result, that is anyhow sufficient to prove Theorem 1.1 (even in its stronger form for diffeomorphisms of pairs)

###### Theorem 6.1.

For any choice of $`q1`$ the family of manifolds $`\{X_{p,q}\}_{pq}`$ contains infinitely many pairwise non-diffeomorphic manifolds.

Proof: In order to prove the statement it is enough to show that the number of basic classes of $`X_{p,q}`$, that we will denote by $`\beta _{p,q}`$, satisfies the condition $`lim_p\beta _{p,q}=\mathrm{}`$. As all the manifolds $`X_{p,q}`$ have a finite number of basic classes, this implies that infinitely many components of the family $`\{X_{p,q}\}_{pq}`$ are distinguished by the SW polynomial. To start we can observe that $`\beta _{p,q}`$ is the same as the number of nonzero terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p,q}(x,y,t)`$ (symmetrization is irrelevant here). The latter number, moreover, is bounded below by the number of nonzero terms of any specialization of the polynomial, so we will make our life simpler by considering specializations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p,q}(x,y,t)`$. We have the following Lemma.

###### Lemma 6.2.

The number of nonzero terms of the Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p,q}(x,y,t)`$ of $`L_{p,q}`$ is bounded below by the number of nonzero terms of the polynomial (written here in quotient form)

(10)
$$P_{p,q}(t)=\frac{(1t^q)(1(t^{p+1})^p)}{(1t^p)(1t^{p+1})}.$$

Proof: The number of nonzero terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p,q}(x,y,t)`$ is bounded below by the number of nonzero terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p,q}(1,y,t)`$. This specialization of the Alexander polynomial can be computed using the Torres formula (see e.g., \[Tu\]) to get

(11)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{p,q}(1,y,t)=(y^{lk(M,K)}t^{lk(\gamma _{p,q},K)}1)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _{p,q}M}(y,t)=(y1)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _{p,q}M}(y,t).$$

Let’s consider first the case of $`q=1`$. In this case, $`\gamma _{p,1}M`$ is a pair given by the torus knot and its meridian or, which is the same, its $`(0,1)`$-cable. As such we can represent it as result of splicing $`\gamma _p`$ with the generalized Hopf link (the “necklace”) $`H`$ (with $`3`$ components), along a component $`H_2`$. The Alexander polynomial of $`H`$ is given, as easily checked, by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H(u,v,w)=(u1)`$. Applying the splicing formula of Theorem 5.3 of \[EN\] we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _{p,1}M}(y,t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _p}(t)`$, where the latter is the Alexander polynomial of the torus knot $`T(p,p+1)`$, namely

(12)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _p}(t)=\frac{(1t)(1(t^{p+1})^p)}{(1t^p)(1t^{p+1})}.$$

This exactly the polynomial $`P_{p,1}(t)`$ of Equation 10 and it should be clear at this point, by looking at Equation 11, that the statement of the Lemma holds true for $`q=1`$. To prove the general case, let’s write

(13)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _{p,q}M}(y,t)=\underset{k}{}a_{k,p,q}(y)t^k,$$

where the Laurent polynomials $`a_{k,p,q}(y)`$ are defined by this identity. We can write Equation 11 in the form

(14)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{p,q}(1,y,t)=\underset{k}{}(y1)a_{k,p,q}(y)t^k.$$

Consider the set of coefficients $`(y1)a_{k,p,q}(y)`$ of this Laurent polynomial of the variable $`t`$. The number of coefficients that are nonzero is bounded below by the number of terms $`a_{k,p,q}(1)`$ that are nonzero. By the definition contained in Equation 13, the value of $`a_{k,p,q}(1)`$ is determined by the Equation

(15)
$$\underset{k}{}a_{k,p,q}(1)t^k=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _{p,q}M}(1,t)=\frac{t^{lk(\gamma _{p,q},M)}1}{t1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _p}(t)=\frac{t^q1}{t1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _p}(t),$$

where to get the last expression we used again Torres formula. By looking at Equation 12 we see that this last polynomial is exactly the polynomial $`P_{p,q}(t)`$ of Equation 10. Q.e.d.

The formula of Equation 10 tells us that $`\beta _{p,q}`$ is bounded below by the number of nonzero terms in the polynomial $`P_{p,q}(t)`$. Concerning this polynomial, we have the following result:

###### Lemma 6.3.

The number of nonzero terms of the polynomial $`P_{p,q}(t)`$, with $`pq`$, is bounded below by $`pq+1`$.

Proof: The proof of this statement follows by a fairly simple argument. First, we can rewrite, in $`[[t]]`$,

(16)
$$\begin{array}{c}P_{p,q}(t)=\frac{(1+t^{p+1}+\mathrm{}+t^{(p1)(p+1)})(1t^q)}{1t^p}=\\ \\ =\frac{1t^q+t^{p+1}t^{p+1+q}+\mathrm{}+t^{(p1)(p+1)}t^{(p1)(p+1)+q}}{1t^p}=\\ \\ =(1t^q+t^{p+1}t^{p+1+q}+\mathrm{}+t^{(p1)(p+1)}t^{(p1)(p+1)+q})(1+t^p+t^{2p}+\mathrm{}).\end{array}$$

The product of the polynomial and the formal power series above is in fact a polynomial, and we claim that it contains all the $`pq+1`$ terms of the form

(17)
$$t^{(q1)(p+1)},t^{(q1)(p+1)+p},\mathrm{},t^{(q1)(p+1)+(pq1)p},t^{(q1)(p+1)+(pq)p}.$$

In order to prove so, observe first that, as $`0(q1)(p1)`$, the polynomial in the second line of Equation 16 contains the term $`t^{(q1)(p+1)}`$ with coefficient equal to $`1`$. Therefore we obtain, with coefficient equal to $`1`$, all the terms of Equation 17 by multiplying the term $`t^{(q1)(p+1)}`$ by the first $`(pq+1)`$ terms of the formal power series (plus an infinite series of other terms that, in fact, will get canceled). Next, considering the fact that the power series has all terms with positive coefficients, the only possibility for the terms $`t^{(q1)(p+1)+np}`$, $`0n(pq)`$ to be canceled is that there exists a pair $`k,l`$, with $`0l(p1)`$, such that

(18)
$$(q1)(p+1)+np=kp+l(p+1)+q$$

(roughly speaking, the power of $`t^{l(p+1)+q}t^{kp}`$, appearing with a negative sign, must equal the power of $`t^{(q1)(p+1)+np}`$). Remember that, in this equation, $`p`$ and $`q`$ are fixed. Equation 18 means that, mod $`p`$, we must have $`l+1=0`$. As $`0l(p1)`$, the only solution to this condition is $`l=(p1)`$. With this value of $`l`$, Equation 18 becomes

(19)
$$(q1)p+np=kp+p^2.$$

The smallest value of $`n`$ for which this equation holds true is when $`k=0`$, for which $`n=pq+1`$, namely none of the terms in Equation 17 gets canceled, as claimed (while the higher terms get canceled, as they should). With similar considerations it is possible to show that the coefficient of these terms is exactly equal to $`1`$, but we will omit the proof (as it has no implications to our result). Q.e.d. (Note that the estimate contained in Proposition 6.3 is quite rough, and probably without much effort a precise value could be obtained, but this result would be irrelevant in our discussion).

Proposition 6.3 implies that $`lim_p\mathrm{}\beta _plim_p\mathrm{}(pq+1)=\mathrm{}`$, and thus completes the proof of Theorem 6.1 and, with that, Theorem 1.1. Q.e.d.


text:
# Coulomb Drag as a Probe of the Nature of Compressible States in a Magnetic Field

present address: \]Fakultät für Physik, Universität Regensburg, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany

## Abstract

Magneto-drag reveals the nature of compressible states and the underlying interplay of disorder and interactions. At $`\nu =3/2`$ a clear $`T^{4/3}`$ dependence is observed, which signifies the metallic nature of the $`N=0`$ Landau level. In contrast, drag in higher Landau levels reveals an additional contribution, which anomalously grows with decreasing $`T`$ before turning to zero following a thermal activation law. The anomalous drag is discussed in terms of electron-hole asymmetry arising from disorder and localization, and the crossover to normal drag at high fields as due to screening of disorder.

The interplay of disorder and Coulomb interactions is the key ingredient in the physics of two-dimensional electron systems (2DESs) subjected to quantizing magnetic fields. While it is widely accepted that without interactions all states are localized by disorder except one delocalized state at the Landau-level (LL) center, in high-mobility samples electron correlations lead to a metallic state in the lowest ($`N=0`$) LL Kalmeyer ; Halperin , and to even more exotic states in higher ($`N1`$) LLs in ultra-high-mobility samples HigherLL . Even in samples of moderate mobilities, Coulomb interactions are anticipated to qualitatively alter the nature of compressible states between quantized plateaus via the screening of long-range potential disorder inherent to modulation-doped structures Cooper .

Coulomb drag in double-layer 2DESs Gramila , in which a current driven through one layer causes a voltage in the other layer via interlayer scattering, has proven to be a powerful technique for investigating interlayer interactions. Physically, interlayer scattering occurs via charge density fluctuations, so the drag reflects the ability of the system to create and maintain density fluctuations. If interlayer correlation is weak or absent, drag mostly reflects the density response of individual 2DESs Zheng , and thus provides information complementary to single-layer transport. At $`B=0`$, drag is well understood in terms of momentum transfer between two Fermi liquids. The phase space for scattering scales as $`T`$ for each layer, which entails a $`T^2`$ dependence of the drag resistivity, $`\rho _D=(W/L)V_{\text{drag}}/I_{\text{drive}}`$ ($`W/L`$: width-to-length ratio of the sample). $`\rho _D`$ is defined as positive if the voltage in the drag layer appears in the opposite direction to the resistive voltage drop in the drive layer, as is the case for drag between like-charge carriers at $`B=0`$. The sign oscillations of the drag, observed in quantizing magnetic fields when the densities of the two layers are mismatched Feng ; Lok , are thus totally unexpected from conventional theories Bonsager . A recent theory von Oppen , which considers the nonlinear dependence of conductivity on electron density, produces the required sign reversal, but in conflict with experiments, predicts negative drag for matched densities and a sizeable Hall drag component.

In this Letter, we study magneto-drag over an unprecedentedly wide range of temperatures down to 50 mK and up to 16 K. The data reveal the existence of an anomalous contribution in the higher ($`N1`$) LLs, which is thermally activated at low $`T`$ and declines at higher $`T`$. We discuss its origin in terms of electron-hole (e-h) asymmetry arising from disorder and localization, and the crossover to the normal drag at high fields as a manifestation of the interplay of disorder and screening.

Measurements are performed on independently contacted density-tunable double-layer 2DESs in GaAs double quantum wells (QWs) Lok . We present data for 80-$`\mu `$m wide Hall bars taken from two wafers that show different behavior for spin-split LLs. Sample A (B) has QWs of 25 (15) nm separated by a barrier of 18 (22) nm. The electron mobility of the front (back) 2DES is 140 (80) m2/Vs in sample A, and 120 (105) m2/Vs in sample B. A drive current of 2–50 nA at 7 Hz is applied in one layer and the voltage in the other layer is lock-in detected. All standard checks for drag Gramila  rule out spurious signals. The samples are cooled in a 3He cryostat (0.25–16 K) or a dilution refrigerator (0.05–0.7 K).

We first show data of sample A. Figure 1 plots typical traces of $`\rho _D`$ (upper panel) and the single-layer resistivity $`\rho _{xx}`$ of the front 2DES (lower panel) for matched densities of $`n_s=1.24\times 10^{15}`$ m-2. As in earlier experiments Rubel ; Hill , $`\rho _D`$ oscillates with magnetic field $`B`$ reflecting the density of states (DOS) at the Fermi level ($`E_F`$) and hence the phase space for interlayer scattering. The data additionally reveal two important points. First, the minima in $`\rho _D`$ at odd integer fillings persist down to very low fields where $`\rho _{xx}`$ does not show any spin splitting. The origin of these minima, initially discussed in terms of higher sensitivity of drag to spin splitting Hill  or enhanced screening of interlayer interactions at the DOS maxima Rubel , was later put into question Lok , and will be explained below in terms of e-h symmetry. Second, the temperature dependence of $`\rho _D`$ is different for high and low fields. We find that at LL filling factor $`\nu =3/2`$ the drag follows a power law, $`\rho _DT^{4/3}`$, below 1.2 K (inset). ($`\nu =n_s/n_\varphi `$ with $`n_\varphi eB/h`$ the degeneracy of a spin-split LL.) The power dependence reflects the continuous DOS at $`E_F`$ and hence gapless excitations available for interlayer scattering, thus signifying the metallic nature of the $`N=0`$ LL at half filling, similar to the case for $`\nu =1/2`$Lilly . The observation of the $`T^{4/3}`$ dependence, in contrast to $`T^2`$ for simple Fermi liquids, agrees with theoretical predictions for drag between composite fermions (CF) CompositeFermion , thus providing evidence for the predicted unusual frequency and wave vector dependence of the conductivity Halperin .

Turning to the higher ($`N1`$) LLs, we note that the $`T`$ dependence gets weaker with decreasing $`B`$, and eventually becomes opposite, i.e., $`\rho _D`$ is increasing with decreasing $`T`$. The left inset of Fig. 2 compares the $`T`$ dependence over a much wider temperature range for various fillings, $`\nu =2N+3/2`$ ($`N=0,1,2,3`$), which for complete spin splitting would correspond to the half-filled spin-down branch of the $`N^{\text{th}}`$ LL. The data clearly reveal the existence of two contributions in the higher LLs. In addition to the normal drag which monotonically increases with $`T`$ and dominates at high $`T`$, there is an anomalous contribution at low $`T`$ which initially grows with $`T`$ and then turns to decrease upon further increasing $`T`$. A decrease in $`\rho _D`$ with increasing $`T`$ is totally inconsistent with what is expected from the simple phase-space argument. We further note that the anomalous drag eventually vanishes for $`T0`$, indicating that it originates from thermal fluctuations rather than interlayer correlations Kellogg .

To elucidate the contributions of normal and anomalous drag for different $`\nu `$, Fig. 2 replots the data against normalized temperature, $`\tau k_BT/\mathrm{}\omega _c`$, where $`\omega _c=eB/m^{}`$ is the cyclotron frequency and $`m^{}=0.067m_0`$ the effective mass. To accommodate the factor $`B^1`$ in the abscissa and the $`B`$ dependence of the drag, the vertical axis is taken to be $`\rho _D\nu ^\alpha `$. Here we choose $`\alpha =2.7`$, which conveniently scales the high-$`T`$ data for all $`\nu `$. The use of the normalized temperature is necessary since the normal drag for different $`\nu `$ cannot be described by one single power law. An approximate $`\tau ^2`$ dependence is restored only in the high-$`T`$ regime ($`\tau 1.0`$), where inter-LL scattering is the dominant source of drag. For $`\tau 0.2`$, where intra-LL excitation is mostly relevant, the exponent is smaller, but cannot be quantified for the higher ($`N1`$) LLs due to the presence of the anomalous contribution which develops at these temperatures

Another distinct feature of the anomalous drag is the bipolarity of the sign, and its dependence on the filling-factor difference, $`\delta \nu `$ ($`\nu _B\nu _F`$), between the layers. This is demonstrated in Fig. 3(a), which compares $`\rho _D`$ for the filling-factor combinations of $`(\nu _F,\nu _B)=(9.5,9.5)`$ and $`(8.5,9.5)`$ in the front and back layers. For $`T2`$ K where normal drag dominates, there is no qualitative difference, while at low $`T`$ where anomalous drag dominates, $`\rho _D`$ turns negative for $`\delta \nu =1`$, but with the absolute value showing similar behavior as the positive drag for $`\delta \nu =0`$. This clearly indicates that the positive drag for $`\delta \nu =`$ even and negative drag for $`\delta \nu =`$ odd have the same origin.

Furthermore, instead of the generally assumed power dependence, we find that the low-$`T`$ behavior of the anomalous drag is well described by thermal activation, $`|\rho _D|\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }/T)`$ \[Fig. 3(b)\]. This thermal activation indicates the existence of a finite energy gap for creating density fluctuations, thus suggesting a different nature of states in higher LLs. Figure 3(c) compares the activation energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`\rho _D`$ for matched densities with the activation energy $`U`$ of the single-layer conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$ calculated from $`\rho _{xx}`$ and $`\rho _{xy}`$. The two energies depend on $`\nu `$ similarly, reflecting the position of $`E_F`$ with respect to the delocalized level at the LL center, and in the regions where they overlap, their magnitudes are comparable. These observations clearly indicate the relevance of localized states in the anomalous drag Localization ; Mortensen . We note, however, that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ remains finite even at the spin-split conductivity peaks where $`\sigma _{xx}`$ does not show activated behavior.

Upon further discussing the origin of the anomalous drag, we recall that finite drag results from different propagation of electronlike (occupied states above $`E_F`$) and holelike (empty states below $`E_F`$) excitations within an energy window $`k_BT`$ around $`E_F`$, which is often referred to as ‘e-h asymmetry’, or ‘nonlinear susceptibility’ Kamenev ; von Oppen . For normal Fermi liquids, this is related to the curvature of the energy dispersion, $`^2E/k^2`$, which determines if an electron excited above $`E_F`$ has a larger velocity than the ‘hole’ left below $`E_F`$. Such arguments, however, do not hold for quantum Hall systems, where in the absence of disorder LLs have no dispersion in the interior of the sample. Only in the $`N=0`$ LL does a Fermi surface form as a result of strong electron correlations. In Ref. Feng , negative drag has been discussed in terms of holelike dispersions, $`^2E/k^2<0`$, of bulk extended states or edge states caused by disorder. Consideration of only continuum of extended states, however, would lead to power dependence, rather than the observed activated behavior. Reference von Oppen , on the other hand, proposed that the source of the nonlinear susceptibility is the dependence of the local conductivity on the local electron density. The drag and its sign would thus reflect the product of $`\mathrm{d}\sigma _{xx}/\mathrm{d}n_s`$ of the two layers, which does explain why the anomalous drag vanishes at the spin-degenerate $`\sigma _{xx}`$ peaks (Fig. 1, $`\nu =11,13,15,17`$), while in seeming conflict with the data for the spin-split case where $`\rho _D`$ does not show minima at the $`\sigma _{xx}`$ peaks.

To settle this enigma, we note that due to broadening of LLs by disorder, electrons of both spin directions can coexist at $`E_F`$, and that the energies of the delocalized states for the spin-up and down electrons, $`E_{c,}`$ and $`E_{c,}`$, are separated by the (exchange enhanced) Zeeman energy \[Fig. 4(c)\]. When $`E_F=E_{c,}`$, the spin-up electrons in the extended state dominate $`\sigma _{xx}`$. This spin-up branch at its half filling, however, possesses e-h symmetry, and would not contribute to the anomalous drag. Note however, that the e-h symmetry of the overall system is broken by the population of spin-down branch below its half filling. In this picture, the activation energy corresponds to the energy difference between $`E_F`$ and the delocalized state at the LL center of the minority spin. At half filling of the majority spin, this corresponds to the Zeeman energy \[Fig. 4(c)\], and upon moving away from half filling, it increases Activation , consistent with the experiment \[Fig. 3(c)\].

The above arguments are confirmed by the results of sample B, shown in Fig. 4(a) for matched densities of $`n_s=1.57\times 10^{15}`$ m-2. For comparison, data of sample A are included. While at 800 mK the two samples behave similarly, at lower $`T`$ new features develop. $`\rho _D`$ of sample B now shows additional minima near the maxima of spin-split $`\sigma _{xx}`$ peaks, most clearly seen at $`\nu =8.5`$–10.5. When the filling factor in one layer is varied, $`\rho _D`$ additionally changes sign around these fillings \[Fig. 4(b)\]. These observations indicate that in sample B the system acquires e-h symmetry at the maxima of the spin-split $`\sigma _{xx}`$ peaks, suggesting that the electrons in the topmost LL are fully spin polarized as schematically shown in Fig. 4(d). This is also supported by the $`\sigma _{xx}`$ data. In sample A, spin-up and spin-down $`\sigma _{xx}`$ peaks are overlapping, and accordingly, $`\sigma _{xx}`$ peaks are displaced toward odd-integer fillings. By contrast, $`\sigma _{xx}`$ peaks of sample B appear closer to half fillings, indicating a more complete spin polarization Fogler . Why the two samples having similar mobilities exhibit such different behavior is not clear. One interesting possibility is that the narrower well widths of sample B enhance the intralayer exchange interactions, which facilitates full spin polarization in the topmost LL.

Now we discuss how the involvement of localization modifies the e-h (a)symmetry argument. Following the line of arguments in Ref. von Oppen , we speculate that the e-h asymmetry underlying the anomalous drag is associated with the response of localization properties to local potential modulations. For instance, lowering (raising) the local potential at a saddle point connects the adjacent closed orbits trapped around potential valleys (hills) Polyakov . The involvement of localized states could thus explain why in general (as in sample A) $`\sigma _{xx}`$ and $`\rho _D`$ do not show the same e-h symmetry, i.e., the former probes only extended states while the latter probes localized states as well. Furthermore, why the anomalous drag declines at high $`T`$ is naturally explained. Once the thermal distribution gets wider than the amplitude of the disorder potential, the sensitivity of the localization/delocalization to local potential modulations is lost, and so is the anomalous drag. The use of a similar idea as in Ref. von Oppen , however, would result in the overall sign of $`\rho _D`$ opposite to the experimental results. Further advances in theories are required to account for the overall sign, huge magnitude, and temperature dependence of the anomalous drag.

Finally, we address how the anomalous drag is taken over by the normal one with increasing $`B`$, or why negative drag is observed only at low $`B`$Feng ; Lok\_Physica . At low $`B`$, due to the small DOS ($`n_0`$) of the partially occupied LL, the disorder potential is not fully screened. As a result, electrons in the uppermost LL split into incompressible regions that are either locally full or empty. The resultant potential landscape is similar to that of a noninteracting 2DES. As the DOS per LL gets larger with increasing $`B`$, compressible regions, in which the disorder potential is fully screened, start to develop, which for the $`N=0`$ LL evolve into the CF liquid. Note that the e-h picture underlying the anomalous drag is no longer valid for the latter case where the potential becomes flat. At $`T=0`$, the crossover between the two regimes occurs when the scale of the Coulomb force, $`n_0e^2/2\pi ϵ`$, exceeds the root mean square of the bare potential gradient Cooper , $`\sqrt{|W_B|^2}=\sqrt{n_D/32\pi }e^2/ϵw`$, with $`ϵ`$ the dielectric constant, $`n_D`$ the density of remote ionized donors, and $`w`$ the spacer thickness. With $`w=60`$ nm and $`n_D=n_s`$, the crossover occurs around 0.76 and 1.52 T for the spin-degenerate ($`n_0=2n_\varphi `$) and fully spin-split ($`n_0=n_\varphi `$) cases, respectively. These values are consistent with the typical maximum field ($`1`$ T) at which negative drag is observed in high-mobility samples LowMobility .

In summary, anomalous drag in higher LL at low fields suggests the relevance of localized states. The crossover to the normal drag at high fields reflects the development of compressible regions due to increased screening of disorder, and the absence of anomalous drag in the lowest LL signifies the metallic nature specific to the $`N=0`$ LL.

We thank A. H. MacDonald, A. Stern, F. von Oppen, K. Flensberg, W. Metzner, S. Brener, and Y. Tokura for discussions, J. Weis for the use of his experimental facilities, H. Yamaguchi and Y. Hirayama for supporting the research. The work was supported by NEDO international joint research, ‘nanoelasticity’ and BMBF.