text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction

The goal of this paper is to develop the idea of self-indexing and the technology of gradient-like vector fields in the setting of Morse theory on a complex algebraic stratification. Our main result (Theorem 1.5) is the local existence, near a Morse critical point, of gradient-like vector fields satisfying certain “stratified dimension bounds up to fuzz” for the ascending and descending sets. As a global consequence of this, we derive the existence of self-indexing Morse functions (Theorem 1.6).

This paper traces its roots to the informal lecture notes “Intersection Homology and Perverse Sheaves” by R. MacPherson . These notes outline a vision for developing the theory of middle perversity perverse sheaves on a stratified complex variety, starting with a definition of a perverse sheaf in the style of the Eilenberg-Steenrod axioms. This approach to perverse sheaves relies on self-indexing Morse functions as a key technical tool. We now proceed to introduce this circle of ideas at a leisurely pace.

### 1.1 Classical Morse Theory

Let $`X^d`$ be a compact smooth manifold, and let $`f:XR`$ be a Morse function. Write $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_f`$ for the set of critical points of $`X`$. The function $`f`$ is called self-indexing if $`f(p)=\mathrm{index}_f(p)`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_f`$. The significance of this definition is the following. A self-indexing $`f`$ gives rise canonically to a cochain complex $`𝒞_f=(C^{},d)`$ of $`C`$-vector spaces such that:

(a) $`C^i`$ has a natural basis up to sign parameterized by $`\{p\mathrm{\Sigma }_f|\mathrm{index}_f(p)=i\}`$;

(b) $`H^{}(𝒞_f)=H^{}(X;C)`$.

Often, one uses an arbitrary Morse function plus another piece of structure (e.g., a generic metric) to define a complex for computing $`H^{}(X;C)`$. However, one needs self-indexing to produce a canonical complex starting with a Morse function alone. The complex $`𝒞_f`$ is called the Morse-Smale complex. It plays a central role in Milnor’s beautiful exposition  of Smale’s proof of the $`h`$-cobordism theorem in dimensions $`>4`$. The first step of that proof is the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1.1

\[16, Theorem B\] Every compact, smooth manifold $`X`$ admits a self-indexing Morse function $`f:XR`$.

We recall an outline of the proof of this in . Start with any Morse function $`g:XR`$. A $`g`$-like vector field $`V`$ on $`X`$ is a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ vector field such that:

(a) $`V_p=0`$ for all $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$;

(b) $`V_xg>0`$ for all $`x\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$.

(This definition is slightly different from the one in .) Given such a $`V`$, let $`\psi _V:X\times RX`$ denote its flow. Then for $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, let

$$M_V^\pm (p)=\{xX|\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi _V(x,t)=p\}.$$

The sets $`M_V^\pm (p)`$ are called the ascending and descending sets of $`p`$ (relative to $`V`$). Here now are the three main steps of the proof of Theorem 1.1.

Step 1: Morse lemma. By Morse lemma, there exists a $`g`$-like vector field $`V`$ such that, for every $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, the set $`M_V^{}(p)`$ is a manifold of dimension $`\mathrm{index}_g(p)`$, and $`M_V^+(p)`$ is a manifold of dimension $`d\mathrm{index}_g(p)`$.

Step 2: General position. By perturbing the vector field $`V`$, we can ensure that $`M_V^{}(p)M_V^+(q)=\mathrm{}`$ whenever $`\mathrm{index}_g(p)\mathrm{index}_g(q)`$.

Step 3: Modifying $`g`$. There exists a Morse function $`f:XR`$ such that:

(a) near each $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, we have $`f(x)=g(x)+\mathrm{index}_g(p)g(p)`$;

(b) $`V`$ is $`f`$-like.

Conditions (a) and (b) guarantee that $`f`$ is self-indexing. The role of the vector field $`V`$ is to ensure that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_f=\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$.

The main result of this paper (Theorem 1.5) is a replacement for Step 1 in the complex stratified setting. Steps 2 and 3 carry over in a more or less straightforward fashion.

### 1.2 Stratified Morse Theory

Let now $`X^d`$ be a smooth complex algebraic variety, and let $`𝒮`$ be an algebraic Whitney stratification of $`X`$. Stratified Morse theory, pioneered by Goresky and MacPherson (see , ), aims to study the topology of the pair $`(X,𝒮)`$ by means of a real $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ function $`f:XR`$. The following definitions go back to the original paper .

###### Definition 1.2

(i) Let $`pX`$ be a point contained in a stratum $`S`$. We say that $`p`$ is critical for $`f`$ ($`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_f`$) if it is critical for the restriction $`f|_S`$.

(ii) For $`S𝒮`$, let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$ be the conormal bundle $`T_S^{}XT^{}X`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝒮=_S\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$. This $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is called the conormal variety to $`𝒮`$; it is a closed Lagrangian subvariety of $`T^{}X`$ (the fact that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is closed is equivalent to one of the Whitney conditions). Note that $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_f`$ if and only if $`d_pf\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

(iii) Let $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_f`$. We say that $`p`$ is Morse for $`f`$ if it is Morse for the restriction $`f|_S`$ (where $`S`$ is the stratum containing $`p`$) and $`d_pf\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$, the smooth part of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ is called the set of generic conormal vectors to $`𝒮`$.

It is important to note that there is nothing specifically complex about the above definitions: they would apply equally well to any Whitney stratification of a real $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ manifold. By contrast, the following definition is only justified in the complex algebraic (or analytic) setting.

###### Definition 1.3

Let $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_f`$ be Morse and let $`S`$ be the stratum of $`p`$. We define

$$\mathrm{index}_f(p)=\mathrm{index}_{f|_S}(p)dim_CS=\mathrm{index}_{f|_S}(p)+\mathrm{codim}_CSd.$$

The normalization constant $`d=dim_CX`$ is subtracted to make the possible range of values of the index symmetric about the origin: $`\mathrm{index}_f(p)\{d,\mathrm{},d\}`$. Ignoring this normalization, the index is attempting to count the (real) “descending directions” of $`f`$ at $`p`$, by counting the tangent directions in the obvious way and then postulating that exactly half of the normal directions are descending. The point of this paper is that this method of counting is justified. The justification comes from a local result concerning Morse theory near a point stratum. Before stating the result itself, we present a somewhat sharper conjecture.

###### Conjecture 1.4

Let $`X=C^d`$, $`pX`$ be the origin, and $`𝒮`$ be an algebraic Whitney stratification of $`X`$ such that $`\{p\}`$ is a stratum. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^0=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\{p\}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ be the set of generic covectors at $`p`$, and let $`f\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^0`$. Regard $`f`$ as a linear function $`f:XR`$. Then there exists a closed ball $`B`$ around $`p`$ and an $`𝒮`$-preserving $`f`$-like vector field $`V`$ on $`B`$ such that the ascending and descending sets $`M_V^\pm (p)`$ satisfy:

$$dim_RM_V^\pm (p)Sdim_CS\text{for every}S𝒮.$$

The reader is referred to Section 2.2 for precise definitions of an $`𝒮`$-preserving $`f`$-like vector field and of the sets $`M_V^\pm (p)`$. However, the truth and the level of difficulty of this conjecture might be sensitive to the exact class of vector fields chosen. Therefore, it is best to view the conjecture as being somewhat imprecise, with the phrase “$`𝒮`$-preserving $`f`$-like vector field” open to interpretation. Theorem 1.5 should be seen as Conjecture 1.4 “up to fuzz”.

###### Theorem 1.5

Let $`X`$, $`p`$, $`𝒮`$ be as in Conjecture 1.4, and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^0`$ be an open set. Then there exit an $`f\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (which we view as a linear function $`f:XR`$), a closed ball $`B`$ around $`p`$, and a closed, real semi-algebraic $`KB`$ such that:

(i) $`dim_RKSdim_CS`$ for every $`S𝒮`$;

(ii) $`f^1(0)K=\{p\}`$; and

(iii) for every open $`𝒰K`$, there exists an $`𝒮`$-preserving $`f`$-like vector field $`V`$ on $`B`$ with $`M_V^\pm (p)𝒰`$.

Theorem 1.5 will be proved in Sections 4 and 5. It is important to note that for both Conjecture 1.4 and Theorem 1.5 it is crucial that the pair $`(X,𝒮)`$ is assumed to be complex. For contrast, consider $`X=R^3`$, let $`𝒮`$ be the obvious stratification with six strata whose $`2`$-skeleton is the cone $`x^2+y^2=z^2`$, and take $`f(x,y,z)=z`$. Then every $`𝒮`$-preserving $`f`$-like vector field $`V`$ on $`X`$ will have $`dimM_V^+(p)=dimM_V^{}(p)=dimX=3`$. (An ice cream cone can hold a 3d amount of ice cream!) This example shows that the concept of index does not generalize well to Morse theory on a real stratification. It is also easy to modify the above example to one with all strata of even dimension (just put the same cone in $`R^4`$). The following consequence of Theorem 1.5 will be proved in Section 6.

###### Theorem 1.6

Every proper, Whitney stratified complex algebraic variety $`(X,𝒮)`$ admits a self-indexing Morse function $`f:XR`$.

### 1.3 Perverse Sheaves

We now explain the motivation behind Theorems 1.5 and 1.6 coming from the theory of middle perversity perverse sheaves. Let $`(X^d,𝒮)`$ be as in Section 1.2. Associated to the pair $`(X,𝒮)`$ is the category $`𝒫(X,𝒮)`$ of middle perversity perverse sheaves on $`X`$ constructible with respect to $`𝒮`$. This category was first introduced by Beilinson, Bernstein, and Deligne in the seminal paper  in 1982. They defined $`𝒫(X,𝒮)`$ as a full subcategory of $`D_𝒮^b(X)`$, the bounded $`𝒮`$-constructible derived category of sheaves on $`X`$. This way $`𝒫(X,𝒮)`$ inherits an additive structure from $`D_𝒮^b(X)`$. In fact, it turns out to be an abelian category, unlike the derived category $`D_𝒮^b(X)`$. Perverse sheaves are “simpler” than the derived category in several other respects. For example, they form a stack (i.e., objects and morphisms are locally defined), which is not the case for $`D_𝒮^b(X)`$.

For these reasons, it was long felt desirable to have a definition of $`𝒫(X,𝒮)`$ which does not rely on the more complicated derived category, and which elucidates the very simple formal properties of perverse sheaves. Such a definition was proposed by MacPherson in his AMS lectures in San Francisco in January 1991. Informal notes of those lectures  produced by MacPherson (and dated 1990) were distributed at the meeting, but were never published. A slightly modified version of the same definition has now appeared in print in the lecture notes  from the summer institute held in Park City, Utah in July 1997.

Roughly, MacPherson’s definition (the 1997 version) proceeds as follows. A perverse sheaf $`P𝒫(X,𝒮)`$ is an assignment $`(Y,Z)H^{}(Y,Z;P)`$, plus coboundary and pull-back maps, subject to a set of axioms modeled after the Eilenberg-Steenrod axioms. Here $`(Y,Z)`$ is a standard pair in $`X`$, that is a pair of compact subsets of a certain special kind. Namely, $`Y`$ is a smooth, real $`2d`$ dimensional submanifold of $`X`$ with corners of codimension two, and $`Z`$ is a union of some of the walls of $`Y`$, so that each corner is formed by one wall from $`Z`$ and one wall not from $`Z`$, and all the boundary strata of $`Y`$ are transverse to $`𝒮`$. It is a very pleasant feature of this definition that we only need to consider standard pairs. The structure group $`H^{}(Y,Z;P)`$ is called the cohomology of $`Y`$ relative to $`Z`$ with coefficients in $`P`$; it is a finite dimensional, graded vector space over $`C`$.

Turning now to the axioms, all but one (the dimension axiom) represent a more or less straightforward adaptation of the classical Eilenberg-Steenrod to the setting of pairs inside a fixed space. The remaining axiom runs as follows.

Dimension Axiom: Let $`f:XR`$ be a proper Morse function, and $`cR`$ be a value such that $`f^1(c)`$ contains exactly one critical point: $`f^1(c)\mathrm{\Sigma }_f=\{p\}`$. Then

$$H^i(\{xX|cϵf(x)c+ϵ\},\{xX|f(x)=cϵ\};P)=0$$

for $`i\mathrm{index}_f(p)`$ and $`0<ϵ1`$.

Here is how this definition fits with the idea of self-indexing. Given a standard pair $`(Y,Z)`$, one can use a variant of Theorem 1.6 to find a self-indexing function

$$f:Y\{\text{corners}\}[d1,d+1]$$

which is adapted to the pair $`(Y,Z)`$. More precisely, this means that $`f^1(d1)=Z\{\text{corners}\}`$, $`f^1(d+1)=YZ`$, and the level sets of $`f`$ “look like pages of a book” near the corners. Now, just as in classical Morse theory, such a function $`f`$ gives rise to a functor

$$𝒞_f:𝒫(X,𝒮)\{\text{cochain complexes}\}$$

with the property that $`H^{}(𝒞_f(P))=H^{}(Y,Z;P)`$ for every $`P𝒫(X,𝒮)`$. If we write $`𝒞_f=(C^{},d)`$, then the functor

$$C^i:𝒫(X,𝒮)\{\text{vector spaces}\}$$

breaks up into a direct sum over $`\{p\mathrm{\Sigma }_f|\mathrm{index}_f(p)=i\}`$ of the so-called Morse group functors

$$M_{d_pf}:𝒫(X,𝒮)\{\text{vector spaces}\}.$$

Each of the $`M_{d_pf}`$ is localized near $`p`$, i.e., factors through the restriction to any open neighborhood of $`p`$. (Perverse sheaves on open subsets of $`X`$ and restriction functors between them are defined in the obvious way.) Moreover, as implied by the notation, the functor $`M_{d_pf}`$ depends on $`f`$ only through the differential $`d_pf\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$.

The existence of the lift $`𝒞_f`$ from cohomology to cochain complexes with the above properties, by itself, has important consequences for the structure of the category $`𝒫(X,𝒮)`$. For example, it immediately implies that morphisms of perverse sheaves are locally defined. More is true however: the functor $`𝒞_f`$ is, in some sense, independent of $`f`$; the only essential dependence is on the pair $`(Y,Z)`$. To be precise, given any two self-indexing functions $`f_1,f_2`$ adapted to $`(Y,Z)`$, the functors $`𝒞_{f_1}`$ and $`𝒞_{f_2}`$ are related by a quasi-isomorphism which is itself canonical up to chain homotopy. A reader familiar with Floer homology has, no doubt, anticipated this. However, unlike in Floer homology, this independence of the function requires a proof which is rather more involved than the proof of $`d^2=0`$. (The later is a straightforward consequence of the axioms.)

Once the independence of the function is established in a suitably flexible form, all of the (soft) formal properties of perverse sheaves can be derived from considering the complexes $`𝒞_f`$ for different functions and standard pairs. For example, the abelian property of $`𝒫(X,𝒮)`$ follows easily from the abelian property of the category of cochain complexes. Finally, one can develop the theory of perverse sheaves, starting with MacPherson’s definition, to the point of proving the following.

###### Theorem 1.7

MacPherson’s definition of $`𝒫(X,𝒮)`$ agrees with the original definition due to Beilinson-Bernstein-Deligne.

The present author has recently had an opportunity to work through a proof of Theorem 1.7 in a graduate course at MIT, and a future paper describing this proof is being planned. The goal of the present paper is to provide the main geometric tool: self-indexing Morse functions. We conclude this introduction with a conjecture due to MacPherson.

###### Conjecture 1.8

Omitting the dimension axiom from MacPherson’s definition of $`𝒫(X,𝒮)`$ gives a category which is equivalent to $`D_𝒮^b(X)`$.

Acknowledgments. I would like to thank the IHES in Bures-sur-Yvette for their hospitality during August 99 when most of this work was done. My intellectual debt to Bob MacPherson is clear from the preceding introduction. I am also grateful to the students in my course at MIT for patiently (but not uncritically) allowing me to think through these ideas out loud.

## 2 Technical Preliminaries

In this section, we summarize the preliminary material on controlled and weakly controlled vector fields that we will need, and define precisely the ingredients of Theorem 1.5. The reader is referred to \[2, Chapter 2\] and \[14, Chapter 2.5\] for a detailed treatment of controlled vector fields. However, our definitions differ slightly from these sources. The main distinction is that our notion of a quasi-distance function is more flexible than the corresponding notions in  and . This is necessary to make Theorem 3.1 true “in the controlled category.”

### 2.1 Controlled Vector Fields

Let $`X`$ be a real $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ manifold with a Whitney stratification $`𝒮`$.

###### Definition 2.1

Let $`S𝒮`$ be a stratum, and let $`U_S`$ be an open neighborhood of $`S`$. A tubular projection $`\mathrm{\Pi }_S:U_SS`$ is a smooth submersion restricting to the identity on $`S`$.

###### Definition 2.2

Let $`M`$ be a smooth manifold, and let $`EM`$ be a vector bundle with zero section $`Z`$. A quasi-norm on $`E`$ is a smooth function $`\rho :EZR_+`$ such that $`\rho (\lambda e)=\lambda \rho (e)`$ for every $`eEZ`$ and $`\lambda R_+`$.

###### Definition 2.3

Let $`S𝒮`$ be a stratum, and let $`U_S`$ be an open neighborhood of $`S`$.
A quasi-distance function $`\rho :U_SSR_+`$ is a smooth function satisfying the following condition. There exist a vector bundle $`p:ES`$ with zero section $`Z`$, an open neighborhood $`U^{}E`$ of $`Z`$, and a diffeomorphism $`\varphi :U^{}U`$, such that $`\varphi |_Z=p|_Z`$ and $`\rho \varphi `$ is the restriction to $`U^{}Z`$ of a quasi-norm on $`E`$.

###### Definition 2.4

Control data on $`(X,𝒮)`$ is a collection $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}_{S𝒮}`$, where $`U_SS`$ is an open neighborhood, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_S:U_SS`$ is a tubular projection, and $`\rho _S:U_SSR_+`$ is a quasi-distance function, subject to the compatibility conditions $`\mathrm{\Pi }_S\mathrm{\Pi }_T=\mathrm{\Pi }_S`$ and $`\rho _S\mathrm{\Pi }_T=\rho _S`$, both being equalities between maps of $`U_SU_T`$.

###### Definition 2.5

Let $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$ be control data on $`(X,𝒮)`$, let $`𝒰X`$ be an open subset, let $`A`$ be a set, and let $`f:𝒰A`$ be a map of sets. We say that $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$ is $`f`$-compatible on $`𝒰`$ if, for every $`S𝒮`$, there is a neighborhood $`U_S^{}`$ of $`S𝒰`$ such that $`f\mathrm{\Pi }_S=f`$ on $`U^{}`$.

###### Definition 2.6

Let $`(X,𝒮)`$, $`(\widehat{X},\widehat{𝒮})`$ be two Whitney stratified manifolds, with control data $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$ and $`\{U_{\widehat{S}},\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{S}},\rho _{\widehat{S}}\}`$. A controlled homeomorphism $`\varphi :X\widehat{X}`$ is a homeomorphism which takes strata diffeomorphicly onto strata, establishing a bijection $`S\widehat{S}`$, and satisfies the following condition. For every $`SS`$, there is a neighborhood $`U_S^{}U_S`$ of $`S`$ such that $`\varphi \mathrm{\Pi }_S=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\widehat{S}}\varphi `$ and $`\varphi \rho _S=\rho _{\widehat{S}}\varphi `$ on $`U_S^{}`$.

###### Definition 2.7

Suppose we are given control data $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$ on $`(X,𝒮)`$. A controlled vector field $`V`$ on $`X`$ compatible with $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$ is a collection $`\{V_S\}_{S𝒮}`$ of smooth vector fields on the individual strata, satisfying the following condition. For every $`S𝒮`$, there exists a neighborhood $`U_S^{}U_S`$ of $`S`$ such that:

(a) $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_S)_{}V_x=V_{\mathrm{\Pi }_S(x)}`$ for every $`xU_S^{}`$;

(b) $`V_x\rho _S=0`$ for every $`xU_S^{}S`$.

Integrating controlled vector fields is a basic technique for constructing controlled homeomorphisms, going back to the work of Thom  and Mather . The following variant of \[15, Lemma 4.11\] and \[13, Theorem 1.1\] will serve as our basic tool for constructing controlled vector fields.

###### Lemma 2.8

Let $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$ be control data on $`(X,𝒮)`$. Let $`S`$ be a stratum, let $`US`$ be open in $`S`$, and let $`V`$ be a smooth vector field on $`U`$. Then there exist an open $`𝒰X`$ with $`𝒰S=U`$ and a controlled vector field $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ on $`𝒰`$, compatible with $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$, such that $`\stackrel{~}{V}|_U=V`$. Furthermore, the vector field $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ can be chosen to be continuous as a section of $`T𝒰`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 2.2 Weakly Controlled Vector Fields

Controlled vector fields are not suitable for discussing the ascending and descending sets. Indeed, the trajectory of a controlled vector field can not approach a point on a smaller stratum as time tends to infinity. We will therefore need the following definition.

###### Definition 2.9

Suppose we are given control data $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$ on $`(X,𝒮)`$. A weakly controlled vector field $`V`$ on $`X`$ is a collection $`\{V_S\}_{S𝒮}`$ of smooth vector fields on the individual strata, satisfying the following condition. For every $`S𝒮`$, there exists a neighborhood $`U_S^{}U_S`$ of $`S`$ and a number $`k>0`$ such that:

(a) $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_S)_{}V_x=V_{\mathrm{\Pi }_S(x)}`$ for every $`xU_S^{}`$;

(b) $`|V_x\rho _S|<k\rho _S(x)`$ for every $`xU_S^{}S`$.

###### Proposition 2.10

Weakly controlled vector fields integrate to stratum preserving homeomorphisms. More precisely, let $`V`$ be a weakly controlled vector field on $`X`$. Then for every $`xX`$, there is a neighborhood $`U_x`$ of $`x`$ and number $`t_0>0`$ such that, for every $`t[t_0,t_0]`$, the time-$`t`$ flow of $`V`$ is defined on $`U_x`$ and gives a stratum preserving homeomorphism $`\psi _{V,t}:U_x\psi _{V,t}(U_x)`$, which is smooth on each stratum.

Proof: The main thing to check is that a trajectory of $`V`$ lying in a stratum $`T`$ can not approach a point on a smaller stratum $`S\overline{T}`$ in finite time. This follows from condition (b) in Definition 2.9. See \[14, Proposition 2.5.1\] for more details. $`\mathrm{}`$

The next two definitions clarify the statement of Theorem 1.5.

###### Definition 2.11

Let $`f:XR`$ be a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ function. An $`𝒮`$-preserving $`f`$-like vector field $`V`$ on an open subset $`𝒰X`$ is a weakly controlled vector field (compatible with some control data on $`(X,𝒮)`$) satisfying:

(a) $`V_p=0`$ for all $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_f𝒰`$;

(b) $`V_xg>0`$ for all $`x𝒰\mathrm{\Sigma }_f`$.

A $`f`$-like vector field on an arbitrary subset $`AX`$ (e.g., on a closed ball) is the restriction to $`A`$ of a $`f`$-like vector field on some open $`𝒰A`$.

###### Definition 2.12

Let $`f:XR`$ be a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ function, let $`V`$ be a $`f`$-like vector field on some $`AX`$, and let $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_fA`$. We define $`M_V^{}(p)`$ to be the set of all $`xA`$ such that the trajectory $`\psi _{V,t}(x)`$ is contained in $`A`$ for all $`t0`$ and we have $`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi _{V,t}(x)=p`$. The ascending set $`M_V^+(p)`$ is defined similarly.

### 2.3 The Flow Topology

In this section, we discuss the notion of the flow topology on the set of weakly controlled vector fields. It will give us a degree of flexibility, making some of our constructions less tied to the choice of control data.

Let $`𝒱(X,𝒮)`$ be the set of all weakly controlled vector fields on $`(X,𝒮)`$, compatible with all possible control data, and let $`𝒱(X)`$ be the union of the $`𝒱(X,𝒮)`$ over all Whitney stratifications $`𝒮`$ of $`X`$. Fix a Riemannian metric $`g`$ on $`X`$. Let $`V𝒱(X)`$, let $`KX`$ be a compact subset, let $`t>0`$ be a number such that $`\psi _{V,s}(x)`$ is defined for all $`xK`$ and all $`s[t,t]`$, and let $`ϵ>0`$ be any positive number. Define

$$𝒰(V,K,t,ϵ)=\{V^{}𝒱|xK,s[t,t]:\text{dist}_g(\psi _{V,s}(x),\psi _{V^{},s}(x))<ϵ\},$$

where we set $`\text{dist}_g(\psi _{V,s}(x),\psi _{V^{},s}(x))=+\mathrm{}`$ if $`\psi _{V^{},s}(x)`$ is undefined.

###### Definition 2.13

The flow topology on $`𝒱(X)`$ is the weakest topology in which all the $`𝒰(V,K,t,ϵ)`$ are open sets.

It is easy to see that the flow topology is independent of the metric $`g`$.

###### Proposition 2.14

(i) Let $`𝒮`$ and $`\widehat{𝒮}`$ be two Whitney stratifications of $`X`$ such that $`\widehat{𝒮}`$ is a refinement of $`𝒮`$. Fix a vector field $`\widehat{V}𝒱(X,\widehat{𝒮})`$ and control data $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$ on $`(X,𝒮)`$. Then there exists a sequence $`\{V_i𝒱(X,𝒮)\}_{iN}`$ of vector fields compatible with $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$ such that $`V_i\widehat{V}`$ in the flow topology.

(ii) In the situation of part (i), assume that $`\widehat{𝒮}`$ has a unique point stratum $`\{p\}`$, and that $`f:XR`$ is a smooth function whose only stratified critical point with respect to $`\widehat{𝒮}`$ is $`p`$. Assume also that $`V`$ is $`f`$-like. Then all the $`V_i`$ can be chosen to be $`f`$-like too.

Proof: This is an exercise using Lemma 2.8 and partitions of unity. For part (i), the first step is to show that there is a sequence $`\{\widehat{V}_i𝒱(X,\widehat{𝒮})\}`$ of continuous vector fields compatible with the same control data as $`V`$, such that $`\widehat{V}_i\widehat{V}`$ in the flow topology. The second step is to show that each $`\widehat{V}_i`$ can be approximated in the $`C^0`$ topology by continuous vector fields from $`𝒱(X,𝒮)`$ compatible with $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$. Then it remains to note that the $`C^0`$ topology on continuous weakly controlled vector fields is stronger than the flow topology. Part (ii) is similar. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Stratified Morse Lemma

In this section, we prove an isotopy lemma (Theorem 3.1) adapted to the local study of stratified Morse functions. As consequences, we derive some local normal form statements, one of which (Corollary 3.2) may be called the stratified Morse lemma. The results of this section are very close to those of H. King in  and . We continue with a Whitney stratified smooth manifold $`(X,𝒮)`$. As in Section 1.2, we denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ the set of generic conormal vectors to $`𝒮`$. We also let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S^0=\mathrm{\Lambda }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$, for each $`S𝒮`$.

###### Theorem 3.1

Let $`S𝒮`$ with $`dimS=s`$. Let $`BS`$ be a closed $`s`$-ball smoothly embedded in $`S`$, with interior $`B^{}B`$ and a fixed point $`aB^{}`$. Let $`𝒰X`$ be an open neighborhood of $`B`$, let $`p:𝒰S`$ be a smooth submersion restricting to the identity on $`𝒰S`$, and let $`f:𝒰R`$ be a smooth function such that $`f|_{S𝒰}=0`$ and $`d_bf\mathrm{\Lambda }_S^0`$ for every $`bB`$. Write $`N=p^1(a)`$. Then there exist an open set $`U𝒰`$ with $`US=B^{}`$, control data on $`U`$ which is $`p`$-compatible on $`U`$ and $`f`$-compatible on $`US`$, and a controlled homeomorphism $`\varphi :(UN)\times B^{}U`$ such that:

(i) $`\varphi (x,a)=x`$ for every $`xUN`$;

(ii) $`p\varphi (x,y)=y`$ for every $`xUN`$ and $`yB^{}`$.

(iii) $`f\varphi (x,y)=f(x)`$ for every $`xUN`$ and $`yB^{}`$.

###### Corollary 3.2

Let $`f:XR`$ be a smooth function with a stratified Morse critical point $`a`$, lying in a stratum $`S`$, let $`𝒰X`$ be a neighborhood of $`a`$, and let $`p:𝒰S`$ be a smooth submersion restricting to the identity on $`𝒰S`$. Write $`N=p^1(a)`$. Then there exist a smaller neighborhood $`U𝒰`$ of $`a`$, control data on $`U`$ which is $`p`$-compatible on $`U`$ and $`f`$-compatible on $`US`$, and a controlled homeomorphism $`\varphi :(UN)\times (US)U`$ such that:

(i) $`\varphi (x,a)=x`$ for every $`xUN`$;

(ii) $`p\varphi (x,y)=y`$ for every $`xUN`$ and $`yUS`$;

(iii) $`f\varphi (x,y)=f(x)+f(y)f(a)`$ for every $`xUN`$ and $`yUS`$.

Proof: Apply Theorem 3.1 to the function $`ffp`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.3

Corollary 3.2 can be used to give a short proof of Goresky and MacPherson’s product theorem for Morse data, as stated in Chapter 1 of  (Theorem STM, part B). This was earlier observed by H. King in  and . We should also mention that a different short proof of Goresky and MacPherson’s result has appeared recently in .

###### Corollary 3.4

Let $`S`$ be a stratum. Suppose we have two points $`a,\widehat{a}S`$, two normal slices $`N,\widehat{N}`$ to $`S`$ passing through these points, and two functions $`f:NR`$ and $`\widehat{f}:\widehat{N}R`$ with $`f(a)=\widehat{f}(\widehat{a})=0`$. Assume that the differentials $`d_af`$ and $`d_{\widehat{a}}\widehat{f}`$ are both in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S^0`$ and, moreover, in the same path-component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S^0`$. Then there exist open neighborhoods $`UN`$ and $`\widehat{U}\widehat{N}`$ of $`a`$ and $`\widehat{a}`$, control data on $`U`$ and $`\widehat{U}`$, $`f`$\- (resp. $`\widehat{f}`$-) compatible on $`U\{a\}`$ (resp. $`\widehat{U}\{\widehat{a}\}`$), and a controlled homeomorphism $`\varphi :U\widehat{U}`$ such that $`f=\widehat{f}\varphi `$.

Proof: Apply Theorem 3.1 to a suitable function on the product $`X\times R`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.5

As another corollary of Theorem 3.1, we note the fact that stratified Morse functions are topologically locally stable in the same sense as the ordinary Morse functions. In other words, a stratified Morse function is (locally) right-equivalent, by a controlled homeomorphism, to any nearby function with the same critical value. We omit the precise statement.

The proof of Theorem 3.1 is based on the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.6

In the situation of Theorem 3.1, fix a Riemannian metric $`g`$ on $`X`$. Let $`r:𝒰R_0`$ be the distance-to-$`S`$ function. Let $`\alpha =(f,r):𝒰SR\times R_+`$. Then there exist an open neighborhood $`𝒰^{}𝒰`$ of $`B`$ and number $`k>0`$, such that $`(p,\alpha ):𝒰SS\times R\times R_+`$ is a stratified submersion on the set $`\{x𝒰^{}S||f(x)|kr(x)\}`$.

Proof: Suppose the lemma is false. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒰S`$ be the stratified critical locus of the map $`(p,\alpha )`$. Then there exists a sequence $`\{x_i\mathrm{\Sigma }\}`$, converging to a point $`bB`$, such that

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{f(x_i)}{r(x_i)}=0.$$
(1)
By passing if necessary to a subsequence, we can assume that all the $`\{x_i\}`$ lie in the same stratum $`R`$, and that there exists a limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }=limT_{x_i}RT_bX`$. But then, combining equation (1) with the Whitney conditions for the pair $`(S,R)`$, we may conclude that the differential $`d_bf`$ annihilates $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This, however, contradicts the genericity assumption $`d_bf\mathrm{\Lambda }_S^0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 3.1: Without loss of generality, we may assume that $`X`$ is the total space of a vector bundle $`XM`$, that $`S`$ is the zero section, and that $`f:𝒰R`$ is the restriction of a fiber-wise linear function $`\stackrel{~}{f}:XR`$. Fix a Euclidean structure in the bundle $`XM`$, and let $`r:XR_0`$ be the associated norm. Let $`\alpha =(f,r):𝒰SR\times R_+`$, and apply Lemma 3.6 to produce a neighborhood $`𝒰^{}𝒰`$ of $`B`$ and a number $`k>0`$.

Step 1. Let $`R_k=\{(\xi ,\eta )R\times R_+||\xi |k\eta \}`$. There exists a smooth, $`R_+`$-equivariant function $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:R\times R_+R_+`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\xi ,\eta )=|\xi |`$ for all $`(\xi ,\eta )R_k`$.

Step 2. Let $`\rho :𝒰^{}SR_+`$ be the composition $`\rho =\stackrel{~}{\rho }\alpha `$. Then $`\rho `$ is a quasi-distance function for $`S`$.

Step 3. There exist control data $`\{U_T,\mathrm{\Pi }_T,\rho _T\}`$ on $`𝒰^{}`$ such that $`U_S=𝒰^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_S=p|_𝒰^{}`$, $`\rho _S=\rho `$, and $`\{U_T,\mathrm{\Pi }_T,\rho _T\}`$ is $`\alpha `$-compatible on some open set containing $`𝒰^{}\alpha ^1(R_k)`$.

Step 4. Every smooth vector field $`V`$ on $`B`$ extends to a controlled vector field $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ on $`𝒰^{}p^1(B)`$, compatible with $`\{U_T,\mathrm{\Pi }_T,\rho _T\}`$ and satisfying $`d\alpha (\stackrel{~}{V}_x)=0`$ for every $`x𝒰^{}p^1(B)\alpha ^1(R_k)`$.

Step 5. The homeomorphism $`\varphi `$ is constructed by integrating the $`\stackrel{~}{V}_i`$ for a suitable collection $`\{V_i\}_{i=1}^s`$ of vector fields on $`B`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Construction of the Set $`K`$

We now begin the proof of Theorem 1.5. It is based on the following lemma.

###### Lemma 4.1

In the situation of Theorem 1.5, there exist a covector $`l\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (which we regard as a map $`l:XC`$), a complete linear flag $`\{p\}=F_0F_1\mathrm{}F_d=X`$, a closed ball $`BX`$ around $`p`$, and an algebraic Whitney stratification $`𝒳`$ refining $`𝒮`$, such that the following three conditions hold.

(i) For $`S𝒳`$, if $`p\overline{S}`$ then $`\overline{S}B=\mathrm{}`$.

(ii) Let $`Q_i=X/F_{di}`$ and $`\pi _i:VQ_i`$ be the projection. Then for every $`S𝒳`$ of dimension $`i>0`$, the map $`\pi _{i1}l:SBQ_{i1}C`$ has full rank.

(iii) Let $`X_i`$ be the union of all $`S𝒳`$ with $`dimSi`$. Then for every $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$, the intersection $`X_iF_{di+1}KerlB=\{p\}`$.

Assuming Lemma 4.1 for the moment, we take $`f`$ in Theorem 1.5 to be the real part of the covector $`l`$, and we let the ball $`B`$ to be the same as in the lemma. We now describe the subset $`KB`$. It is defined as a union $`K=K^+K^{}`$, where $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ are constructed inductively. Let $`K_0^+=K_0^{}=\{p\}`$. Suppose now $`1id`$, and the sets $`K_{i1}^\pm `$ have been constructed. We set

$$K_i^+=\{xX_iB|Iml(x)=0\&yK_{i1}^+:\pi _{i1}(x)=\pi _{i1}(y),f(x)f(y)\},$$

$$K_i^{}=\{xX_iB|Iml(x)=0\&yK_{i1}^{}:\pi _{i1}(x)=\pi _{i1}(y),f(x)f(y)\},$$

where $`Iml:XR`$ is the imaginary part of $`l`$. Lastly, we set $`K^\pm =K_d^\pm `$. It is clear that $`K`$ is a closed, real semi-algebraic subset of $`B`$.

###### Lemma 4.2

With these definitions, conditions (i) and (ii) of Theorem 1.5 are satisfied.

Proof: To check condition (i), note that $`K^\pm X_i=K_i^\pm `$. We now prove by induction on $`i`$ that $`dim_RK_i^\pm i`$. Indeed, case $`i=0`$ is trivial, and the induction step follows from the definition of $`K_i^\pm `$ and condition (ii) of Lemma 4.1.

To check condition (ii), we argue by contradiction. Suppose the set $`K^+f^1(0)`$ is larger than $`\{p\}`$ (the case of $`K^{}`$ is of course analogous). Let $`i`$ be the smallest integer such that $`K_i^+f^1(0)`$ contains a point $`xp`$. By construction, there is a $`yK_{i1}^+`$ with $`\pi _{i1}(x)=\pi _{i1}(y)`$ and $`f(x)f(y)`$. By the minimality of $`i`$, we must have $`y=p`$ and, therefore, $`xF_{ni+1}`$. But $`x`$ is also in $`Kerl`$, since $`Rel(x)=0`$ by assumption and $`Iml(x)=0`$ by the construction of $`K_i^+`$. Thus we have a contradiction with condition (iii) of Lemma 4.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Lemma 4.1: Without loss of generality, we can assume that every stratum of $`𝒮`$ is connected (i.e., irreducible). All stratifications in this proof will have connected strata, so we can refer to “the generic point of a stratum” with no ambiguity. We proceed inductively, starting with $`i=1`$ and going up to $`i=d`$, to construct the following four things:

$``$ the $`i`$-plane $`F_iV`$;

$``$ the set $`X_{di}X`$;

$``$ a covector $`l_i\mathrm{\Delta }`$;

$``$ an (algebraic, Whitney) refinement $`𝒳_i`$ of the stratification $`𝒮`$.

When the process is complete, we will take $`l=l_d`$ and $`𝒳=𝒳_d`$. After the $`i`$-th step of the construction, the following conditions will be satisfied:

(1) $`X_{di}`$ is the union of $`S𝒳_i`$ with $`dimSdi`$;

(2) $`dimX_{di}Kerl_idi1`$;

(3) if $`i>1`$, every $`S𝒳_{i1}`$ with $`dimSdi+2`$ is also a stratum of $`𝒳_i`$;

(4) if $`i>1`$, we have $`l_i|_{F_i}=l_{i1}|_{F_i}`$;

(5) $`p`$ is an isolated point of $`F_iX_{di}`$;

(6) for every $`S𝒳_i`$ with $`dimS=di`$ and $`p\overline{S}`$, the projection $`\pi _{di}:SQ_{di}`$
has full rank near $`p`$;

(7) $`p`$ is an isolated point of $`F_iX_{di+1}Kerl_i`$;

(8) for every $`S𝒳_i`$ with $`dimS=di+1`$ and $`p\overline{S}`$, the map
$`\pi _{di}l_i:SQ_iC`$ has full rank near $`p`$.

Note that (3) and (4) ensure that (7) and (8) will continue to hold if we replace $`l_i`$ by $`l_d`$ and $`𝒳_i`$ by $`𝒳_d`$. Thus, our construction will prove the lemma.

As a base step of the induction, we take $`𝒳_1=𝒮`$, so $`X_{d1}`$ is the union of all but the largest stratum of $`𝒮`$. Let $`C(X_{d1})`$ be the normal cone of $`X_{d1}`$ at $`p`$. We take $`F_1`$ to be any line not contained in $`C(X_{d1})`$, and $`l_1`$ to be any covector in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which does not vanish on $`F_1`$. Conditions (1)–(8) for $`i=1`$ are clearly satisfied.

Assume now $`i>1`$, and the first $`i1`$ steps of the construction have been completed. To select the plane $`F_i`$, we consider two cones in $`Q_{di+1}=X/F_{i1}`$. First, let $`X_{di}^{}`$ be the union of all $`S𝒳_{i1}`$ with $`dimSdi`$, and let $`C_1`$ be the normal cone of the image $`\pi _{di+1}(X_{di}^{})`$ at $`p`$. It is a proper, closed cone in $`Q_{di+1}`$. Second, let $`C_2`$ be the normal cone at $`p`$ of $`\pi _{di+1}(Kerl_{i1}X_{di+1})`$. By part (2) of the induction hypothesis, this too is a proper, closed cone in $`Q_{di+1}`$. We now choose any line $`LQ_{di+1}`$ not contained in $`C_1C_2`$, and set $`F_i=\pi _{di+1}(L)V`$. This also defines the projection $`\pi _{di}:VQ_{di}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the set of all $`S𝒳_{i1}`$ with $`dimS=di+1`$ and $`p\overline{S}`$.

Claim 1: For every $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the map $`\pi _{di}l_{i1}:SQ_{di}C`$ has full rank at the generic point of $`S`$.

Proof: Suppose the claim is false. Consider the intersection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=F_iS`$. By part (6) of the induction hypothesis, there is an open neighborhood $`UX`$ of $`p`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }U`$ is a smooth curve, cut out transversely as the zero set of $`\pi _{di}|_{SU}`$. By part (5) of the induction hypothesis, and because the line $`L`$ in the construction of $`F_i`$ was chosen not to lie in the cone $`C_1`$, we have $`p\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. Further, since $`L`$ was also chosen not to lie in the cone $`C_2`$, we can assume that there are no critical points of $`l_{i1}|_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`U`$. This means that the map $`\pi _{di}l_{i1}:SQ_{di}C`$ has full rank at every point of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }U`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, let $`S^{}`$ be the part of $`S`$ where the map $`\pi _{di}l_{i1}:SQ_{di}C`$ has full rank. We set

$$X_{di}=X_{di}^{}\underset{S\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}SS^{}.$$

It is clear from the proof of Claim 1 that condition (5) is satisfied.

Claim 2: Let $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and let $`TSS^{}`$ be an irreducible, smooth, locally closed subvariety with $`dimT=di`$ and $`p\overline{T}`$. Then the restriction $`\pi _{di}|_T`$ has full rank at the generic point of $`T`$.

Proof: Suppose the claim is false. Then we have $`dim\pi _{di}(\overline{T})<di`$. Therefore, every fiber of $`\pi _{di}|_{\overline{T}}`$ must have positive dimension at every point. But it is clear from the proof of Claim 1 that $`p`$ is an isolated point of $`F_i\overline{T}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are now ready to describe the stratification $`𝒳_i`$. We take every stratum $`S𝒳_{i1}`$ with $`dimS>di`$ and $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to be also a stratum of $`𝒳_i`$. This ensures that conditions (1) and (3) are satisfied. For $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we take each irreducible component of $`S^{}`$ to be a stratum of $`𝒳_i`$. It remains to stratify the set $`X_{di}`$. By Claim 2, this can be done in such a way that the resulting stratification $`𝒳_i`$ is a Whitney refinement of $`𝒳_{i1}`$, and condition (6) is satisfied.

The last thing to construct is the covector $`l_i`$. To satisfy condition (2) we must ensure that $`l_i`$ does not vanish identically on any of the $`(di)`$-dimensional strata of $`𝒳_i`$. We take $`l_i=l_{i1}+h\pi _{di}`$, where $`h:Q_{di}C`$ is a small linear functional in general position. It is easy to check using condition (5) that, for a suitable choice of $`h`$, we will have $`l_i\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and condition (2) will hold.

This completes the construction of the quadruple $`\{F_i,X_{di},l_i,𝒳_i\}`$. We have already remarked that conditions (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) are satisfied. Condition (4) is clear from the definition of $`l_i`$. Condition (7) follows from the fact that the line $`L`$ in the construction of $`F_i`$ was chosen not to lie in the cone $`C_2`$, combined with condition (4) and part (5) of the induction hypothesis. Finally, condition (8) follows from the definition of the loci $`S^{}`$ ($`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$), again combined with condition (4). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Construction of the Flows

In this section, we complete the proof of Theorem 1.5 by constructing the $`f`$-like vector fields appearing in part (iii) of that theorem. We begin with some preparations (keeping the notation of Section 4).

Theorem 1.5 stipulates that the vector field $`V`$ should be $`𝒮`$-preserving, i.e., weakly controlled with respect to some control data on $`(X,𝒮)`$. However, by Proposition 2.14, it suffices to construct, for each $`𝒰K`$, a vector field $`V`$ which is $`𝒳`$-preserving, instead. We therefore fix some control data on $`(X,𝒳)`$, subject to the only condition that the quasi-distance function $`\rho _{\{p\}}`$ is the standard Euclidean distance to $`p`$. All weakly controlled vector fields in the rest of this section will be compatible with this control data.

Let $`𝒳^{}`$ be the set of all $`S𝒳`$ with $`SB\mathrm{}`$ and $`dimS>0`$. For every $`S𝒳^{}`$, with $`dimS=i`$, let $`V^S`$ be the unique smooth vector field on $`SB`$ satisfying the following properties:

(a) the (standard, Euclidean) norm $`V_x^S=x`$ for every $`xSB`$;

(b) $`V^S`$ preserves the projection $`\pi _{i1}:SBQ_{i1}`$;

(c) $`V^S`$ preserves the imaginary part $`Iml:SBR`$;

(d) $`V_x^Sf>0`$ for every $`xSB`$.

For every $`S𝒳^{}`$, we fix a continuous, controlled extension $`\stackrel{~}{V}^S`$ of $`V^S`$ to some neighborhood $`U_S`$ of $`SB`$. The vector field $`V`$ will be constructed by “patching together” the $`\stackrel{~}{V}^S`$.

Without loss of generality, we may assume that $`U_ST=\mathrm{}`$, for all distinct $`S,T𝒳^{}`$ with $`dimTdimS`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{U}_S`$ be the union of all $`T𝒳^{}`$ with $`dimT>dimS`$ or $`T=S`$. We say that $`\varphi :\stackrel{~}{U}_S[0,1]`$ is a cut-off function for $`SB`$ if $`\text{supp}(\varphi )U_S`$ and $`\varphi ^1(1)`$ contains a neighborhood of $`SB`$. Given two cut-off functions $`\varphi ,\psi `$ for $`SB`$, we write $`\varphi \psi `$ if $`\text{supp}(\psi )\varphi ^1(1)`$.

Now, let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be the set of all collections $`\overline{\varphi }=\{\varphi _S\}_{S𝒳^{}}`$, where $`\varphi _S`$ is a cut-off function for $`SB`$. Given $`\overline{\varphi },\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we write $`\overline{\varphi }\overline{\psi }`$ if $`\varphi _S\psi _S`$ for all $`S𝒳^{}`$. It is easy to see that $`(\mathrm{\Phi },)`$ is a directed set:

$$\overline{\varphi }_1,\overline{\varphi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\varphi }_3\mathrm{\Phi }:\overline{\varphi }_1\overline{\varphi }_3,\overline{\varphi }_2\overline{\varphi }_3.$$

Fix an ordering $`𝒳^{}=\{S_1,\mathrm{},S_n\}`$ such that $`dimS_idimS_j`$ for $`ij`$. For every $`\overline{\varphi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we define a vector field $`V=V(\overline{\varphi })`$ on $`B`$ as follows. Let $`V_p=0`$, and use the formula

$$V=\varphi _{S_1}\stackrel{~}{V}^{S_1}+(1\varphi _{S_1})(\varphi _{S_2}\stackrel{~}{V}^{S_2}+(1\varphi _{S_2})(\varphi _{S_3}\stackrel{~}{V}^{S_3}+\mathrm{}+(1\varphi _{S_{n1}})V^{S_n})\mathrm{})$$

on $`B\{p\}`$. This formula should be parsed left to right, and evaluation should stop as soon as one of the expressions $`(1\varphi _{S_i})`$ is found to be zero. In this way, we will never have to evaluate one of the $`\varphi _{S_j}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{S_k}`$ at a point where it is not defined. Also, note the missing $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ over $`V^{S_n}`$; it is not needed because $`S_n`$ is the open stratum of $`𝒳`$. It is not hard to check that there is a $`\overline{\varphi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }`$ such that, for every $`\overline{\varphi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with $`\overline{\varphi }_0\overline{\varphi }`$, the vector field $`V(\varphi )`$ is $`f`$-like. Theorem 1.5 is a consequence of the following claim.

Claim 1: For every open $`𝒰K`$, there exists a $`\overline{\varphi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }`$ such that, for every $`\overline{\varphi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with $`\overline{\varphi }_0\overline{\varphi }`$, we have $`M_{V(\varphi )}^\pm (p)𝒰`$.

Claim 1, in turn, follows from the following.

Claim 2: For every $`xBK`$, there is a neighborhood $`U_x`$ of $`x`$ and a $`\overline{\varphi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }`$ such that, for every $`\overline{\varphi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with $`\overline{\varphi }_0\overline{\varphi }`$, we have $`M_{V(\varphi )}^\pm (p)U_x=\mathrm{}`$.

Claim 2 is readily proved by induction on the dimension of the stratum containing $`x`$, using the definition of $`K`$ and the following.

Claim 3: Fix an $`i\{0,\mathrm{},d1\}`$, and let $`AB`$ be a compact set such that $`AX_i=\mathrm{}`$. Then for every $`ϵ>0`$, there is a $`\overline{\varphi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }`$ such that, for every $`\overline{\varphi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with $`\overline{\varphi }_0\overline{\varphi }`$ and every $`aA`$, we have the following estimates:

$$d\pi _i(V(\varphi )_a)<ϵdf(V(\varphi )_a),$$

$$|Imdl(V(\varphi )_a)|<ϵdf(V(\varphi )_a).$$

Lastly, Claim 3 follows from the fact that the $`\stackrel{~}{V}^S`$ in the construction of $`V(\varphi )`$ were chosen to be continuous extensions of the vector fields $`V^S`$ satisfying conditions (b)-(d). This completes the proof of Theorem 1.5.

## 6 Self-Indexing

In this section, we give a proof of Theorem 1.6. It follows the same scheme as the proof of Theorem 1.1 outlined in Section 1.1.

###### Definition 6.1

Let $`(X,𝒮)`$ be a compact, Whitney stratified $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ manifold. A stratified subset $`AX`$ is a closed subset presented as a finite disjoint union $`A=A_i`$ so that each $`A_i`$ is a smooth submanifold of one of the strata of $`𝒮`$, and the frontier $`\overline{A_i}A_i`$ is a union of several of the $`A_j`$ with $`dimA_j<dimA_i`$.

###### Definition 6.2

Let $`(X,𝒮)`$ be a compact, Whitney stratified $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ manifold, with fixed control data. A time-dependent controlled vector field $`\{V_t\}_{t[0,1]}`$ on $`(X,𝒮)`$ is a controlled vector field defined in some neighborhood of $`X\times [0,1]X\times R`$, whose component in the $`R`$-direction is identically zero.

###### Lemma 6.3

Let $`(X,𝒮)`$ be as in Definition 6.2, and let $`A,BX`$ be two stratified subsets. Assume that for every $`S𝒮`$, we have:

$$dim(AS)+dim(BS)<dimS.$$

Then there exists a time-dependent controlled vector field $`\{V_t\}_{t[0,1]}`$ on $`X`$ whose time-1 flow $`\psi _{V,1}:XX`$ satisfies $`\psi _{V,1}(A)B=\mathrm{}`$.

Proof: The restriction of $`V_t`$ to the $`i`$-skeleton of $`𝒮`$ is constructed by induction on $`i`$. The induction step is an application of the general position in manifolds. See \[12, §3\] for a proof of a much more general stratified general position result. $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 1.6 follows from Lemmas 6.4 and 6.5 below.

###### Lemma 6.4

Let $`(X,𝒮)`$ be a Whitney stratified complex algebraic variety, and let $`g:XR`$ be a proper Morse function. Let $`IR`$ be an open interval whose preimage contains exactly two critical points: $`g^1(I)\mathrm{\Sigma }_f=\{p,q\}`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{index}_g(p)\mathrm{index}_g(q)`$ and $`g(p)g(q)`$. Then for every $`a,bI`$, there is a Morse function $`f:XR`$ such that:

(i) $`f^1(I)=g^1(I)`$, and $`f=g`$ outside of some compact subset of $`g^1(I)`$;

(ii) $`f^1(I)\mathrm{\Sigma }_f=\{p,q\}`$;

(iii) in some neighborhood of $`p`$ we have $`f(x)=g(x)+ag(p)`$;

(iv) in some neighborhood of $`q`$ we have $`f(x)=g(x)+bg(q)`$.

###### Lemma 6.5

Let $`(X,𝒮)`$ and $`g:XR`$ be as in Lemma 6.4, and let $`IR`$ be an open interval such that all the critical points in $`g^1(I)`$ have the same index. Then for every $`cI`$, there is a Morse function $`f:XR`$ such that:

(i) $`f^1(I)=g^1(I)`$, and $`f=g`$ outside of some compact subset of $`g^1(I)`$;

(ii) $`f^1(I)\mathrm{\Sigma }_f=g^1(I)\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$;

(iii) near each $`pf^1(I)\mathrm{\Sigma }_f`$ we have $`f(x)=g(x)+cg(p)`$.

The proofs of Lemmas 6.4 and 6.5 are similar; we will only give the first.

Proof of Lemma 6.4: Step 1: The case when $`g(p)=g(q)`$ is obvious, so we assume that $`g(p)>g(q)`$. Pick two numbers $`c<d`$ from the interval $`(g(q),g(p))`$. Let $`D=g^1[c,d]`$. Fix control data $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$ on $`(X,𝒮)`$ which is $`g`$-compatible in some neighborhood of $`D`$.

Claim 1: There exist a $`g`$-like vector field $`V^D`$ on $`D`$, compatible with $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$, and a pair of stratified subsets $`A,Bg^1(d)`$ such that:

(i) for every $`S𝒮`$ with $`dim_CS=s`$, we have:

$$dim_R(AS)<s\mathrm{index}_g(q);$$

$$dim_R(BS)<s+\mathrm{index}_g(p).$$

(ii) for every pair of open neighborhoods $`𝒰_A,𝒰_Bg^1(d)`$ of $`A`$ and $`B`$, there is a $`g`$-like vector field $`V`$ on $`X`$ with $`V|_D=V^D`$ such that:

$$(M_V^+(q)g^1(d))𝒰_A;$$

$$(M_V^{}(p)g^1(d))𝒰_B.$$

Claim 1 follows by putting together Theorem 1.5, Proposition 2.14, and Corollaries 3.2 and 3.4.

Step 2: Using Lemma 6.3 to modify the vector field $`V^D`$, we can strengthen Claim 1 as follows.

Claim 2: The sets $`A`$ and $`B`$ in Claim 1 can be chosen to satisfy $`AB=\mathrm{}`$.

This immediately implies that there exists a $`g`$-like vector field $`V`$ on $`X`$, compatible with $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$, such that $`M_V^{}(p)M_V^+(q)=\mathrm{}`$.

Step 3: Now, choose a smooth function $`\varphi :g^1(d)[0,1]`$ such that:

(a) the control data $`\{U_S,\mathrm{\Pi }_S,\rho _S\}`$ on $`(X,𝒮)`$ restricts to $`\varphi `$-compatible control data on $`g^1(d)`$ (with the stratification induced from $`𝒮`$);

(b) there is a neighborhood $`𝒰_Ag^1(d)`$ of $`M_V^+(q)g^1(d)`$ such that $`\varphi |_{𝒰_A}=0`$;

(c) there is a neighborhood $`𝒰_Bg^1(d)`$ of $`M_V^{}(p)g^1(d)`$ such that $`\varphi |_{𝒰_b}=1`$.

It is not hard to check that $`\varphi `$ extends uniquely to a smooth function $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }:g^1(I)[0,1]`$, which is constant along the flow lines of $`V`$.

The function $`f`$ is now easy to construct by setting $`f|_{g^1(I)}=\stackrel{~}{f}\alpha `$, where $`\alpha =(g,\varphi ):g^1(I)I\times [0,1]`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}:I\times [0,1]I`$ is a suitable smooth function of two variables. $`\mathrm{}`$

This completes the proof of Theorem 1.6.

Northwestern University, Department of Mathematics, 2033 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208-2730 grinberg@math.nwu.edu


format: text

text:
# Strong Confinement and Oscillations in Two-Component Bose-Einstein Condensates

## Abstract

Abstract: We present a new model of BEC dynamics based on strong confinement near the ground state. The model predicts oscillations in a two-component condensate, based on interference of non-spreading wave packets moving within a pair of tilted nearly square potentials. The oscillations are similar to those recently reported for a magnetically trapped 87Rb condensate, and the model’s predictions give good quantitative agreement with the experiments.

Since its first application to quantum Rabi oscillations in the two-level cavity QED context, collapse and revival analysis  has been used for the understanding of a widening class of recurrent physical phenomena. The timing and nature of revivals have been employed in interpreting the dynamics of a variety of quantum systems , but a number of cases provide puzzling features that are considered open questions .

Recent elegant experimental observations of Rabi-type oscillations in a two-component Bose-Einstein condensate of 87Rb  offer a new example that has resisted analysis. Multi-component BEC’s  in the presence of external driving fields have provided a rich spectrum of physical responses to challenge current theoretical understanding. In the two-component case of interest here  the theoretical situation has been described by various groups . In particular, differential shifting of the trap centers for two species has led to interesting theoretical predictions such as a “condensate dressed state” , Josephson-type oscillations and periodic modulation of Rabi oscillations , all of which originate in analogies with two-level quantum optical systems. Despite heuristic arguments using “twists” of an $`SU(2)`$ order parameter , it is fair to say that the fundamental dynamics of the observed oscillations are not understood.

In this Letter, we go beyond revival analysis to present a new quantum mechanical picture of the physics based on a strong confinement model, which explains experimentally observed features quite well. We show that the coupled Gross-Pitaevski (GP) equations for the two-component Bose-Einstein condensate can be decoupled by a time-dependent dressing transformation. The transformed Schrödinger equations describe localized wavepackets that accelerate in opposite directions and bounce back and interfere after hitting the walls of the confinement. We find that the spatial and temporal behavior of the two BEC’s are determined by these wavepackets and the experimental observations that have been reported can be explained in detail in terms of their interference. Our model gives quantitative predictions that also agree well with numerical simulation of the coupled GP equations.

The two components of the condensate, $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$, obey GP equations that are coupled to each other via the “drive” parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which plays a role similar to the Rabi frequency of a driven two-level system:

$$i\frac{\psi _1}{t}=H_0\psi _1+\mu (r_1|\psi _1|^2+|\psi _2|^2)\psi _1+\frac{\delta }{2}\psi _1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}\psi _2$$
(1)
$$i\frac{\psi _2}{t}=H_0\psi _2+\mu (|\psi _1|^2+r_2|\psi _2|^2)\psi _2\frac{\delta }{2}\psi _2+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}\psi _1,$$
(2)
where $`H_0\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{z^2}+\frac{1}{2}z^2`$ is the bare Hamiltonian for the harmonic trap. For simplicity we present here only a one dimensional model. We have used the axial oscillation frequency $`\omega _z`$ to express units: $`\mathrm{}\omega _z`$ is our unit of energy and $`1/\omega _z`$ and $`d_z=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega _z}`$ are the units of time and distance. The coefficient $`\mu =4\pi a_{12}N/d_z`$ measures the strength of interaction between two species of BEC where $`N`$ is the total particle number and $`a_{12}`$ is the interspecies scattering length. The small difference reported  for the ratios in $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$, $`r_1=a_1/a_{12}1.03`$ and $`r_2=a_2/a_{12}0.97`$, among scattering lengths has little effect on the subsequent discussion so we assume that $`r_1=r_2=1`$ in the following.

The detuning $`\delta `$ and the interspecies coupling $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, both measured in the unit $`\omega _z`$, can depend on the axial position $`z`$. We will make assumptions of no detuning ($`\delta =0`$) and a linear $`z`$-dependence of coupling: $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0+2\beta z`$, consistent with experiment . The nonvanishing detuning case will be discussed later. Now we introduce the time-dependent dressing transformation

$$\varphi _\pm (\psi _1\pm \psi _2)e^{\pm i\mathrm{\Omega }_0t/2},$$
(3)
which gives two decoupled GP equations in a slow time frame:

$$i\frac{\varphi _\pm }{t}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2\varphi _\pm }{z^2}+V_\pm \varphi _\pm ,$$
(4)
where the potentials $`V_\pm `$ are given by

$$V_\pm (z)=\frac{1}{2}z^2+\frac{\mu }{2}(|\varphi _+|^2+|\varphi _{}|^2)\pm \beta z.$$
(5)
The first crucial observation is that although these potentials are spatially very nonlinear, they are nearly independent of time if the system is started near its ground state. This is due to the strong and relatively tight nonharmonic confinement provided in the present case by the GP interaction. In principle, the potentials depend on time through the total density of the condensate, $`\rho _{tot}=|\psi _1|^2+|\psi _2|^2=\frac{1}{2}(|\varphi _+|^2+|\varphi _{}|^2)`$, but $`\rho _{tot}`$ changes very little during hundreds of Rabi cycles that are well-resolved in the experiments. This is evident in the relatively very rigid spatial shape of the total condensate density seen in the series of snapshots in Fig. 1. To obtain the snapshots we solved the coupled GP equations using the combined split-step Fourier technique familiar from fiber optics theory (where the GP equation is called the non-linear Schrödinger equation), modified to include two components

The second crucial observation, also evident in Fig. 1 and noted previously , is that $`\rho _{tot}`$ maintains a Thomas-Fermi-like spatial distribution. We have found that this allows the confining forces on the packets to be converted into boundary conditions, leaving relatively free $`\varphi _\pm `$ packets to accelerate slowly in opposite directions at the rate $`\pm \beta `$ along the bottoms of two potential wells that are nearly square but tipped in opposite directions, as shown in Fig. 2. We will now demonstrate that this simplified picture is powerfully effective in unraveling relatively complicated condensate evolution.

If, as in the JILA experiments, a condensate at nearly zero temperature is prepared initially in the pure 1 component, i.e. $`\psi _1(z,0)=\psi _g(z),\psi _2(z,0)=0`$, we have equally distributed $`\varphi ^{}s:\varphi _+(z,0)=\varphi _{}(z,0)=\psi _g(z)`$. As these $`\pm `$ probability packets fall along the bottom of the well toward opposite walls they must interfere since $`\varphi _+`$ and $`\varphi _{}`$ are coherent parts of the same two-component condensate. An effective interaction between the decoupled $`\pm `$ packets comes from their interference to produce the observed density $`|\psi _1|^2`$:

$`|\psi _1|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(|\varphi _+|^2+|\varphi _{}|^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\left(e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_0t}\varphi _+^{}\varphi _{}\right)`$ (6)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\psi _g|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\left(e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_0t}\varphi _+^{}\varphi _{}\right),`$ (7)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the real part.

First we show additional results of direct numerical integration of the original two nonlinear GP equations (4). The calculated temporal evolution of the space-integrated population of component 1 is shown in Fig. 3. The corresponding experimental data is given in Fig. 4-a. Rapid oscillations at the drive frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ are evident, as the population cycles between components 1 and 2. An apparent collapse in region $`A`$, and a revival or perhaps a pair of them, is seen in regions $`D`$ and $`E`$. Small features at $`B`$ and $`C`$ are also noted. Now we will use the strong confinement model to obtain a detailed understanding of the curve. As we will see, revivals in the conventional sense play no role. The correct explanation is in some respects simpler, and capable of wider applicability as we mention at the end.

Now we return to our simplified picture, according to which the main slow motion is acceleration with each packet moving toward an opposite wall. This main slow motion can also be factored out of the quantum amplitudes by defining

$$\chi _\pm (z,t)=\varphi _\pm (z,t)\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\beta zt+i\beta ^2t^3/6),$$
(8)
and changing the coordinates into those of the two accelerating frames: $`T=t,Z_\pm =z\pm \beta t^2/2`$. The packets $`\chi _\pm `$ satisfy the free Schrödinger equation, $`\left(i/T+\frac{1}{2}^2/Z_\pm ^2\right)\chi _\pm =0`$, with initial conditions $`\chi _\pm (T=0)=\psi _g`$, and so can be integrated directly to yield

$$\chi _\pm =\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑z^{}𝑑ke^{ik(zz^{}\pm \beta t^2/2)ik^2t/2}\psi _g(z^{},0).$$
(9)
Since the initial $`\psi _g`$ is very smooth, this shows that the two $`\chi _\pm `$ move apart with a combined quantum mechanical dispersion which is relatively small in our Thomas-Fermi like configuration. The interference term in Eq.(7) is now given by $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\left(\mathrm{exp}[i\mathrm{\Omega }_0t+2i\beta zt]\chi _+^{}\chi _{}\right)`$ with $`\chi _\pm `$ as given above.

Thus we predict spatial oscillations with wavelength $`L_0=\pi /\beta t`$ to develop in the population of condensate 1, dramatically evident in Fig. 1-B. The interference occurs in the region where the $`\pm `$ packets continue to overlap, a shrinking region of length $`L=2R\beta t^2`$, where the full axial length is $`2R`$. These spatial interference oscillations have nodes that can be monitored experimentally \[see Fig. 4-b\] and the node formation has been called “twisting.” Various effects are predicted and labeled in Fig. 3 as follows.

A. Collapse. The number of nodes in existence at time $`t`$ is fixed at $`n=L/L_0=\beta t(2R\beta t^2)/\pi `$. By about the time of the second twist there is a good balance of the two components in the condensate (e.g., $`|\psi _1|^2|\psi _2|^20.5`$), which shows up in the data as the completion of the “collapse” at the end of region A in Fig. 3. From $`n=2`$, with the parameters used in the calculation ($`R=8.53,\beta =0.25`$), one easily finds for the collapse time $`t_C1.5`$, in excellent agreement with Fig. 3.

B. Twist resolvability. Our formula also predicts a maximum twist number $`n_M`$, and says that it occurs at time $`t_M=\sqrt{2R/3\beta }`$, after which the $`\pm `$ packets are falling too fast to have resolvable spatial interference. This gives $`n_M=\sqrt{32\beta R^3/27\pi ^2}`$, or $`t_M=4.77`$ and $`n_M=4.3`$, also in good agreement with the observed behavior in region B.

C. Bounce time, $`t=t_B`$. When the centers of $`\varphi _\pm `$ reach the walls at time $`t_B=\sqrt{2R/\beta }`$ ($`=8.26`$ in our case), the $`\varphi _\pm `$ become maximally separated and have a finite but minimally overlapping interference region. Eq. (7) shows that in the near-wall regions, the densities $`|\psi _1|^2`$ and $`|\psi _2|^2`$ reduce to about half of the initial ground state density. This cannot be seen in Fig. 3, but is confirmed by examining snapshots of the spatial behavior of the two condensate components. Five such snapshots were already given in Fig. 1, and Fig. 1-C confirms that at the time of the wall bounce, in the regions near the walls, the two components are not interfering but each contain about half of the total density. Of course, due to reflection at the wall and subsequent self-interference, there arise complicated motions for each $`\varphi _\pm `$. A more complete analytic description of the interference between $`\varphi _\pm `$ can be made by solving the Schrödinger equation (4) directly in terms of Airy functions.

D. Packet recovery, $`t=t_R`$. After bouncing from the strong confinement, the packets $`\varphi _\pm `$ return approximately to their initial positions. As they return, oscillations in the overlapping region spread out over the half-ground-state density region with increasing amplitude and wavelength. When the number of nodes reaches three, with one central peak and two side peaks, oscillations in the half-ground-state region interfere most destructively, thereby minimizing the population of component 1 (Fig. 1-D). This happens before completing one round trip by the amount of time required to develop three nodes in the initial stage. However, the external coupling drive quickly switches back from the minimum population to the maximum population for condensate 1. Thus, the maximal recovery occurs at $`t_R=2t_B\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is obtained from $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }t(2R\beta (\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2)/\pi =3`$.

In our case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=2.4`$ and $`t_R=14.1`$. This shows that the maximum revival of population does not come with the original shape. In fact, Fig. 1-D shows that it rather has the shape of a dark soliton. This is also in agreement with the reduced contrast of about 60 percent of the original.

E. Completing one cycle, $`t=t_F`$. At the classical return time, $`t_F=2t_B`$, the recovery of population of condensate 1 happens but in a smaller scale than in case $`D`$, as shown in Fig. 1-E.

In closing, let us return to an earlier point. In the spin-boson language of revival analysis, a vanishing detuning ($`\delta =0`$ in the evolution equation (2), for example) corresponds to exactly zero Zeeman splitting of the two spin states, removing any possibility of resonant coincidence with the boson (oscillator) transition frequencies. This is why revival anaysis is misapplied to the existing data. However, although the BEC oscillator is very anharmonic under its strong confinement, one suspects that it could support a near-resonance with a non-zero $`\delta `$, if $`\delta `$ were large enough. In such a case one would have an intriguing combination of bouncing packets and quantum revivals (which themselves are of course known to have packet interpretations). Since the energy spacings in the confinement are small, $`\delta `$ would not have to be very large.

In this Letter, we have introduced a quantum mechanical packet model which provides an excellent qualitative description of the previously unexplained temporal behavior of oscillations in two-component driven-BEC experiments. One clearly sees that the strong-confinement bouncing packet model permits easy analysis that predicts all five distinct events in the temporal record as well as predicting their appropriate time scales. Figs. 1-3 compare these events with numerical simulations and with the experimental record in Fig. 4.

It is clear that this model is not restricted to the two-component case, and it will be interesting to extend our work to the three-component BEC recently reported  and partially analysed .

We thank S. Raghavan for his participation in the early stage of this work and C.R. Stroud, Jr. for a key remark about Airy packets. This research is supported by NSF grant PHY94-15583. Q.P. is also supported in part by the Brain Korea 21 Project, and by KOSEF 97-07-02-02-01-3.


text:
# REFERENCES

An Effective Field Model to High Temperature Superconductors: Fitting of The Energy Gap to the Experimental Results of the $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_8`$
E.C. Bastone ***work partially developed at DCNat - Departamento de Ciências Naturais, FUNREI - Fundação de Ensino Superior de São João del Rei. Praça Dom Helvecio, CEP:36.300-000,São João del Rei - M.G. Brazil and P.R. Silva

Departamento de Física, Instituto de Ciências Exatas,
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais,
Belo Horizonte, CEP 30.123-970, C.P. 702, MG, Brazil
e-mail: erika@fisica.ufmg.br

ABSTRACT

## Abstract

We use an effective field model (transverse Ising model) to describe the dependence on the temperature of the energy gap of some two-dimensional $`(2D)`$ superconducting systems. The order parameter of this model is put in a direct correspondence with that of the Ising model. Then, we use the exact relations for the spontaneous magnetization of the Ising model in some $`2D`$ lattices as a means to fit the experimental results of $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_8`$ films obtained through reflectivity measurements by Brunel et al \[Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1346 (1991)\] and the argon-annealed $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_8`$ samples investigated by Staufer et al \[Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1069 (1992)\] through Raman scattering. The zero temperature energy gap $`E_g(0)`$ relations were evaluated in various $`2D`$ lattices and also in the $`(3D)`$ simple cubic lattice, for comparison. In the square lattice case we obtained $`E_g(0)=3.52kT_c`$, coincidentally the same number as the BCS result, and in the triangular lattice case we get $`E_g(0)=3.30kT_c`$ in agreement with the experimental findings of Brunel et al.

Pacs number: 74.20.De, 74.72.Hs

As has been pointed out by Anderson 1 : the consensus is that there is absolutely no consensus on the theory of high temperature superconductivity. Anderson 2 attributes the novel phenomenology present on cuprates materials to a second kind of metallic state, namely, the Luttinger liquid. Schrieffer 1 has pursued the interplay between antiferromagnetism and superconductivity, extending the BCS pairing theory beyond the Fermi-liquid regime in terms of spin polarons or ”bags”. As pointed out by Cox and Maple 3, the cuprates materials possess strong electronic correlations, where by ”strong correlations” we mean that the average interaction energy substantially exceeds the average kinetic energy of the partially filled $`3d`$ state of the $`Cu^{2+}`$ ion. Therefore the discussion of what would be the proper mechanism to describe the high temperature superconductivity in cuprates becomes polarized between the BCS theory defenders as Schrieffer, and the people who trust in the Hubbard model description as Anderson 1.This controversy suggest us that the proposition of new effective hamiltonians, which does not enter in specific details of the mechanism, could be an alternative way to look at this problem. Inspired in the Gorter-Casimir two-fluid model of superconductivity 4, and also taking into account the Blinc-de Gennes model 5,6 for the hydrogen-bonded ferroelectrics, Gaona J. and Silva 7 have proposed the following effective Hamiltonian as a means to describe some basic features of the superconducting state:

$$H=\mathrm{\Omega }X_i\frac{1}{2}J_{ij}Z_iZ_j\text{.}$$
(1)
The second term of (1) is a Ising-like term, where the operator $`Z`$ is related to the wave function of the condensate of holes (electrons) and the coupling $`J_{ij}`$ favors the pairing of holes at two different lattice sites, contributing to the coherence of their wave functions below the critical temperature $`T_c`$. In the first term of (1) the operator $`X`$ is related to the wave function of the normal electrons (holes), where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ represents the transverse field. This term, which gives dynamics to the model, could represent a mimic for the motion of the free electrons (holes) through the Fermi barrier, in close analogy with the tunneling of protons through the double-well potential barrier in the KH2PO4-like (hydrogen-bonded ferroelectrics) case (see 5).

We treat the dynamics of Hamiltonian (1), by applying the Random Phase Approximation (RPA), where we replace a time dependent expectation value $`<S_i>_t`$ by a constant part $`<S_i>`$ \- which is just the MFA expectation value - plus a small time dependent deviation $`\delta <S_i>e^{i\omega t}`$ from the molecular field solution, to the Heisenberg equation of motion. The solution of it in the first order approximation is 7:

$$\omega ^2=J_0^2<Z>^2+\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\mathrm{\Omega }J_0<X>\right)\text{ .}$$
(2)
This solution is constrained by the zero order approximation

$$\left(\mathrm{\Omega }J_0<X>\right)<Z>=0\text{ .}$$
(3)
Below $`T_c`$ , $`<Z>0`$ and by putting (3) into(2), leads to

$$\omega _\pm =\pm J_0<Z>\text{ .}$$
(4)
In (4) $`\omega _\pm `$ can represent a two level system, and we could treat it as a gas of elementary excitations related to the hole (electron) condensate. It seems natural to interpret the separation in energy of this effective two-level system as the energy gap $`E_g\left(T\right)`$. We have (in units where $`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$2\mathrm{\Delta }\left(T\right)=E_g\left(T\right)=\omega _{}\left(T\right)\omega _+\left(T\right)=2J_0<Z>\text{.}$$
(5)
Now, by using an idea introduced by Rummer and Ryvkin 8, since the quasi-particles are non interacting fermions and their numbers are not fixed, then the averaged occupancy of the levels $`\omega _\pm \left(T\right)`$ is determined by the Fermi-Dirac distribution formula with zero chemical potential. Then we have

$$<n\left(\omega \right)>=\left[e^{\beta \omega }+1\right]^1\text{,}$$
(6)
where $`\beta =1/kT`$. By using the above distribution and associating a $`|`$ eigenstate to the $`\omega _+`$ energy and a $`|+`$ eigenstate to the $`\omega _{}`$ energy, we obtain the following relation for the superconductor order parameter $`<Z>`$, namely

$$<Z>=\left(1\right)n_++\left(+1\right)n_{}\text{ ,}$$
(7)
or alternatively we can write

$$<Z>=\mathrm{tanh}\left[\left(\beta J_0<Z>\right)/2\right]\text{ .}$$
(8)
Close to $`T_c`$, $`<Z>`$ goes to zero and we have from (8):

$$2kT_c=J_0\text{.}$$
(9)
At $`T=0`$, $`<Z>=1`$ and by putting (9) into (5) we obtain the energy gap

$$E_g\left(0\right)=2\mathrm{\Delta }\left(0\right)=2J_0=4kT_c\text{.}$$
(10)
It is interesting to mention that Hao 9 have obtained this value for the energy gap as one of the possible solutions of the BCS 10 self-consistency equation. Equation (8) can be put in a direct correspondence with the self-consistency equation for the Ising model in the mean field approximation (MFA), but with the temperature multiplied by a factor of $`2`$ 11. Now let us consider the situation where the thermal correlations close to $`T_c`$ are very important, so that the MFA is a bad description to the order parameter behavior of the system. Indeed this seems to be the case in some two-dimensional superconducting systems, as for instance the $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_8`$, where the order parameter were experimentally determined through Raman scattering and reflectivity measurements 12,13. The temperature dependence of the order parameter of the Ising model in two-dimensions is exactly known 14. We can assume that, for a two-dimensional ($`2D`$) superconducting system where thermal correlations can not be neglected, the order parameter can be mapped into the exact relation for the spontaneous magnetization of the $`2D`$ Ising ferromagnetic model. However in this case and in the neighborhood of $`T_c`$, the gas of elementary excitations approximation does not work quite well and we must turn to the Boltzmann statistics. Now let us consider the exact relation for the spontaneous magnetization of the Ising model in the square lattice 14-16:

$$m=\left[\frac{2\mathrm{tanh}^2\left(2\beta J\right)1}{\mathrm{tanh}^4\left(2\beta J\right)}\right]^{1/8}\text{.}$$
(11)
In figures 1, 2 and 3, we compare eq. (11) with the experimentally determined order parameter in $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_8`$ single crystals, investigated through Raman scattering by Staufer et al. 12 and in films of the same material obtained through reflectivity measurements by Brunel et al. 13. For comparison, we plot in the same figure the eq. (8) and the BCS curve 10. We observe that the curve given by eq. (11) nicely fits to the measurements of the energy gap performed at the $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_8`$ films, a manifestly $`2D`$ system. On the other hand, in the case of single crystals, the adjust to curve (11) is good in the case of the essentially $`2D`$ argon-annealed samples. In the oxygen annealed crystals the energy gap can be described both by BCS theory as equivalently by eq. (8). In fitting the experimental points to eq. (11), we have considered that:

$$m=\frac{E_g\left(T\right)}{E_g\left(0\right)}=\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }\left(T\right)}{2\mathrm{\Delta }\left(0\right)}\text{,}$$
(12)
and in the case of eq. (8) $`m`$ coincides with $`<Z>`$.

Now let us consider the exact result for the critical temperature of the Ising model in the square lattice 14,15. We have

$$\frac{kT_c}{J}=2.27$$
(13)
which leads to the zero temperature energy gap

$$2\mathrm{\Delta }\left(T\right)=2J_0=2zJ=\frac{8kT_c}{2.27}=3.52kT_c\text{ ,}$$
(14)
where we took $`z=4`$ (the coordination number of the square lattice). The result we got in (14), is coincidentally the same as the BCS result and must be compared with the experimental finding of $`3.3kT_c`$, obtained by Brunel et al. 13. It must be emphasized that although the zero temperature energy gap has been derived from a mean field analysis (eq. (5)), its use in conjunction with the exact result for $`T_c`$ (eq.(13)) does not lead to contradictions, once at $`T=0`$, we are far from the critical temperature $`T_c`$, where thermal correlations are important and the mean field treatment substantially differs from the exact one.

Until now, we have compared the experimental measurements of the order parameter of the $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_8`$ with the exact result of the spontaneous magnetization of the Ising ferromagnetic in the square lattice. It would be interesting to pursue further on this subject, by comparing within the same token, the zero temperature energy gap obtained by considering other $`2D`$ and $`3D`$ lattices. Therefore in the following we present the relations for the spontaneous magnetization (SM) of the Ising model in some other $`2D`$ lattices.

In the case of the honeycomb lattice 17,18 we have:

$$m=\left[\frac{12\sqrt{1\mathrm{tanh}^2\left(2\beta J\right)}}{\mathrm{tanh}^2\left(2\beta J\right)\left[2\mathrm{tanh}^2\left(2\beta J\right)2\mathrm{tanh}^2\left(2\beta J\right)2\sqrt{1\mathrm{tanh}^2\left(2\beta J\right)}\right]}\right]^{1/8}\text{.}$$
(15)
For the triangular lattice case, the order parameter behavior is given by the equation 15,19:

$$m=\left[\frac{2\mathrm{tanh}\left(2\beta J\right)1}{2\mathrm{tanh}^3\left(2\beta J\right)\mathrm{tanh}^4\left(2\beta J\right)}\right]^{1/8}\text{.}$$
(16)
In the case of the simple cubic lattice we do not have an exact relation for the SM. However, fifteen years ago, one of the present authors 20 was able to ”guess” a relation for the SM of this $`3D`$ lattice, which reproduces very closely the series results of Fisher 21. This relation is

$$m=\left[\frac{3\mathrm{tanh}^2\left(3\beta J\right)1}{2\mathrm{tanh}^3\left(3\beta J\right)}\right]^{5/16}\text{.}$$
(17)
In table 1 we present the energy gaps of various $`2D`$ lattices. For sake of comparison the $`3D`$ simple cubic lattice is also quoted in this table.

Also is worth to notice that for the $`2D`$ lattices, the order parameter goes to zero at $`T_c`$ as $`(T_cT)^{1/8}`$ 14-15,17-19, while it behaves as $`(T_cT)^{5/16}`$ in the $`3D`$ lattice 20 and as $`(T_cT)^{1/2}`$ in the BCS theory 10 (a mean field like behavior). In figure 4 we compare the experimental data of Brunel et al 13 with the exact result for the order parameter of the Ising model on the triangular lattice 19. We again obtain a nice fitting of the experimental data to the theoretical curve, with the bonus that the zero temperature gap of the theory reproduces that experimentally observed. We would like also to comment that the superconducting state of pairs of spinless quasiparticles was considered on the basis of a model hamiltonian in MFA, by Safanov 22. One of the results obtained by him is that the order parameter has a steeper rise with $`(1T/T_c)`$ in the case of parastatistics than in the case of Fermi statistics.

Finally, ultrafast dynamical optical response of $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{7\delta }`$ was recently investigated by Stevens et al 23. They found that the optical response is strongly peaked at $`1.5eV`$, and contains two distinct components: one with a characteristic relaxation time of $`5ps`$, and a long-lived component $`(>10ns)`$ which is consistent with localized quasiparticle states at Fermi energy. For the slow component its differential transmittance behaves with the temperature as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau /\tau \mathrm{exp}\left(2\mathrm{\Delta }_0/kT\right)`$, where $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0=3.5kT_c`$. This corresponds to a thermal activated behavior with a fixed gap $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. We can interpret this experimental result of Stevens et al 23, taking into account that in two-dimensional systems the gap only appreciably deviates from its zero temperature value very close to $`T_c`$ (see figure 1), and as we have determined in the square lattice case, this value is given by $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0=3.52kT_c`$.

The present research has been supported partly by CNPq-Brazil.

Lattice   Transitions Temperature   Zero Temperature       (values of $`kT_c`$ in $`J`$ )   Energy Gap    Honeycomb $`(z=3)`$   $`2.104`$    $`2.85kT_c`$    Square $`(z=4)`$   $`2.27`$    $`3.52kT_c`$    Triangular $`(z=6)`$   $`3.64`$    $`3.30kT_c`$    Simple Cubic $`(z=6)`$   $`4.51`$    $`2.66kT_c`$

Table 1: Zero temperature energy gap evaluated in this work for various $`2D`$ lattices and for the simple cubic lattice $`(3D)`$.

Figure Captions

Figure 1: Order parameter as a function of reduced temperature $`T/T_c`$. The full line is the exact Ising curve for the square lattice. The points are experimental results for superconducting films of $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_8`$ obtained by Brunel et al 13: open circles are obtained at $`T_c=87K`$ and open squares at $`T_c=78K`$. The dotted line represents the BCS theory and the crosses are the MFA results (equation (8)).

Figure 2: Order parameter as a function of reduced temperature $`T/T_c`$. The full line is the exact Ising curve for the square lattice. The points are experimental results for superconducting samples of $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_8`$ obtained by Staufer et al 12: open circles are as-grown annealed at $`T_c=86K`$, open squares are annealed in flowing $`Ar`$ at $`T_c=86K`$ and the triangles are annealed in $`O_2`$ at $`T_c=79K`$. The samples are observed at $`xy`$ polarization. The dotted line represents the BCS theory and the crosses are the MFA results (equation (8)).

Figure 3: Order parameter as a function of reduced temperature $`T/T_c`$. The full line is the exact Ising curve for the square lattice. The points are experimental results for superconducting samples of $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_8`$ obtained by Staufer et al 12: open circles are as-grown annealed at $`T_c=86K`$, solid circles are annealed in flowing $`Ar`$ at $`T_c=86K`$, the triangles are annealed in $`O_2`$ at $`T_c=79K`$. The samples are observed at $`xy`$ polarization. The squares are annealed in $`O_2`$ at $`T_c=79K`$ but observed at $`xx`$ polarization. The dotted line represents the BCS theory and the crosses are the MFA results (equation (8)).

Figure 4: Order parameter as a function of reduced temperature $`T/T_c`$. The full line is the exact Ising curve for the triangular lattice. The points are experimental results for superconducting films of $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_8`$ obtained by Brunel et al 13: open circles are obtained at $`T_c=87K`$ and open squares at $`T_c=78K`$. The dotted line represents the BCS theory and the crosses are the MFA results (equation (8)).