text:
# References

Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16 (2001) 789–794

Gravitational Effects of Rotating Bodies ***The project supported partially by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China under Grant Nos. 95-Yu-34 and NKBRSF G 19990754 and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 10047004 and 19835040

Yuan-Zhong Zhanga, Jun Luob, and Yu-Xin Niec

aInstitute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 2735, Beijing, China Email: yzhang@itp.ac.cn
bDepartment of Physics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
cInstitute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

## Abstract

We study two type effects of gravitational field on mechanical gyroscopes (i.e. rotating extended bodies). The first depends on special relativity and equivalence principle. The second is related to the coupling (i.e. a new force) between the spins of mechanical gyroscopes, which would violate the equivalent principle. In order to give a theoretical prediction to the second we suggest a spin-spin coupling model for two mechanical gyroscopes. An upper limit on the coupling strength is then determined by using the observed perihelion precession of the planet’s orbits in solar system. We also give predictions violating the equivalence principle for free-fall gyroscopes .

It is known that the gravitational couplings of intrinsic spins of elementary particles have been investigated for long time in both theory and experiment (see, e.g., Ref.  and the literature quoted there). On the other hand, some experiments have been performed by use of mechanical gyroscopes and give contradictory results \[2-6\]. However, in theory the spin of a mechanical gyroscope (i.e. the rotation of an extended body) is essentially different from the intrinsic spin of an elementary particle. A reasonable deduction is then that the gravitational couplings of intrinsic spin could not be used to describe those of the spin of mechanical gyroscope. Thus it is necessary to study theoretically such effects of possible spin-gravitational couplings on the motion of the center-of-mass for a mechanical gyroscope in an external gravitational field. This is just the aim of the present paper.

For a rotating body (a mechanical gyroscope) in an external gravitational field there might exist two different kinds of physical effects. The first is that its inertial mass, according to the mass-velocity relation in special relativity, would increase owing to its rotation. And correspondently there would also be an increment in its gravitational mass. Hence a new test of the mass-velocity relation and equivalence principle could be given by comparing the gravitational acceleration of center-of-mass of a rotating extended body (i.e. a mechanical gyroscope) with that of an irrotating body moving in an external gravitational field. In addition, there would exist another sort of physical effect between mechanical gyroscopes, i.e. a new force between two rotating bodies, which would violate the equivalence principle.

We now discuss the first kind of effect. Consider a rotating rigid ball. According to special relativity the inertial mass of the rotating rigid ball is given by

$$m^I=\mathrm{d}^3x\frac{\rho }{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}m+\frac{m}{5}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }R}{c}\right)^2,$$
$`(1)`$
where the mass density $`\rho `$ is assumed to be a constant, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`R`$ are, respectively, angular velocity and radius of the rotating ball and $`\mathrm{\Omega }Rc`$, $`m`$ is the inertial mass of the ball when it was not rotated (we call it the rest mass), and $`c`$ is the speed of light.

In order to test the prediction of special relativity, we introduce the parameter $`\eta ^{sp}`$ in the second term of the right-hand side of Eq. (1), i.e.,

$$m^I=m\left[1+\eta ^{sp}\frac{1}{5}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }R}{c}\right)^2\right].$$
$`(2)`$
The passive gravitational mass of the rotating ball is assumed to be

$$M^p=m\left[1+\eta ^{ep}\eta ^{sp}\frac{1}{5}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }R}{c}\right)^2\right],$$
$`(3)`$
where $`\eta ^{ep}`$ is a dimensionless parameter, of which a deviation from unity indicates a violation of the equivalence principle. Here validity of the equivalence principle for irrotational bodies is proposed.

Then the free-fall acceleration of the rotating body within an external gravitational field could be written as

$$a=g\frac{M^p}{m^I}g\left[1+(\eta ^{ep}1)\eta ^{sp}\frac{1}{5}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }R}{c}\right)^2\right].$$
$`(4)`$
where $`g`$ is gravitational acceleration of the external gravitational field. Comparing the rotating ball to another irrotational ball with the same rest mass $`m`$, we have the relative free-fall acceleration between them,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }a}{a}\frac{(\eta ^{ep}1)\eta ^{sp}}{5}\left(\frac{2\pi Rn}{c}\right)^2.$$
$`(5)`$
For $`n=4\times 10^4\mathrm{rpm},R=10\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}`$ one arrives at from Eq. (5)

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }a}{a}=(\eta ^{ep}1)\eta ^{sp}\times 4\times 10^{13}.$$
$`(6)`$
It is shown from Eq. (6) that $`(\eta ^{ep}1)\eta ^{sp}0`$ implies violation of the equivalence principle for the rotating body. Thus comparing accelerations of a mechanical gyroscope and an irrotating body free falling in Earth’s gravitational field could give a test of the equivalence principle together with the mass-velocity relation. It is note that from this sort of observation one could not distinguish the test of the equivalence principle from that of the mass-velocity relation.

We next study the second kind of effect, the spin-gravitational coupling between two mechanical gyroscopes, which would violate the equivalence principle. It is known that Newtonian gravitational theory defines spin angular momentum for a extended body, but does not give spin-gravitational coupling. General relativity predicts spin-spin couplings between extended bodies, which causes spin precession but does not violate the equivalence principle for the motion of the center-of-mass. In addition there are many other gravitational theories, such as Poincare gauge theory of gravitation, high-dimension gravitational theories, superstring theory, and etc, all of which deal with the spin-gravitational couplings of intrinsic spins of particle fields. Because the intrinsic spins essentially differ from the rotation of mechanical gyroscopes, so it is difficult to discuss the interaction between the mechanical gyroscopes within the framework of these theories. In this paper we shall develop a phenomenological model for the interaction between the rotating bodies, which is independent of any specific theory.

We assume that spin-interaction exists between two rotating rigid bodies. Owing to the spin-coupling the rotating bodies would get an extra-energy (an extra-potential) $`E^s`$, and then have the extra inertial mass from the mass-energy relation in special relativity:

$$m^s=E^s/c^2.$$
$`(7)`$
The rotating body might then get the following raise in its passive gravitational mass:

$$M^s=\eta ^sE^s/c^2,$$
$`(8)`$
where $`\eta ^s`$ is a dimensionless parameter. The total inertial masses $`m_i^I`$ and the total passive gravitational masses $`M_i^p`$ of the rotating bodies are then

$$m_i^I=m_i+E_i^s/c^2,$$
$`(9)`$
and

$$M_i^p=m_i+\eta ^sE_i^s/c^2,$$
$`(10)`$
respectively, where $`m_i`$ for $`i=1,2`$ stand for the rest-masses of the bodies when they were not rotated. Here we have assumed that the equivalence principle is available for irrotational bodies. The equations of motion for the rotating bodies are then

$$m_i^I𝐚_i=\frac{GM_i^pM_j^p}{r_{ij}^3}𝐫_{ij},$$
$`(11)`$
where $`𝐫_{ij}=𝐫_i𝐫_j`$. Using Eqs. (9) and (10) and considering $`E_i^s/m_ic^21`$, the equation (11) can be written approximately as

$$m_i𝐚_i=\frac{Gm_im_j}{r_{ij}^3}𝐫_{ij}\left[1+(2\eta ^s1)\frac{E_i^s}{m_ic^2}\right].$$
$`(12)`$
In order to satisfy the motion theorem for the center of mass of the two body system and the theorem of moment of momentum, we have assumed $`E_1^s/(m_1c^2)=E_2^s/(m_2c^2)`$.

The extra-energy $`E^s`$ generated by the interaction between the rotating bodies has not yet been predicted in gravity theories as mentioned above. We here give a phenomenological model for the spin-gravitational interaction of rotating bodies. It is natural to suppose the extra-energy $`E^s`$ being proportional directly the gravitational potential $`V(1/r)`$. In other words the extra-energy is a function of $`1/r`$, which is assumed to be the form

$$E^s=E^s\left(\frac{1}{r}\right)=\alpha \frac{1}{r}+\beta \frac{1}{r^2}+\mathrm{}$$

where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ depend on spin-angular momentium of the rotating bodies. For simplicity we here consider only the first term on the right-hand side of the above equation, and then write

$$\frac{E_1^s}{m_1c^2}=\frac{E_2^s}{m_2c^2}=\mathrm{g}_s\frac{𝐬_1𝐬_2}{Gm_1m_2}\frac{1}{r_{12}},$$
$`(13)`$
where $`𝐬_1`$ and $`𝐬_2`$ are, respectively, the spin angular momentum of the rotating bodies 1 and 2, and $`\mathrm{g}_s`$ is the coupling constant for the spin interaction.

By using Eq. (13) in Eq. (12), we have the gravitational force between the center-of-mass of two mechanical gyroscopes as follows:

$$m_i𝐚_i=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r_{12}^3}𝐫_{ij}(2\eta ^s1)\mathrm{g}_s\frac{𝐬_1𝐬_2}{r_{12}^4}𝐫_{ij},$$
$`(14)`$
for $`i,j=1,2`$. The second term on the right-hand side of the equation is a new force, i.e. the spin-gravitational coupling of the gyroscopes, which would give perihelion precession of the planet’s orbits in solar system and also violate the equivalence principle. Thus the observations of the perihelion precession could give an upper limit on the parameter $`(2\eta ^s1)\mathrm{g}_s`$. For this purpose we apply Eq. (14) for the planet’s orbit in solar system, and get the following solution to Eq. (14)

$$r=\frac{(1\delta )p}{1+e\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{1\delta }\varphi \omega )},$$
$`(15a)`$
$$p=\frac{C^2}{G\left(M_{}+M\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(r_{min}+r_{max}\right)(1e^2)+O(\delta ),$$
$`(15b)`$
and

$$\delta =(2\eta ^s1)\mathrm{g}_s\frac{𝐬_{}𝐬}{GM_{}M}\frac{1}{p},$$
$`(15c)`$
where $`M_{}`$ and $`M`$ are the masses of, respectively, the Sun and planet, $`e`$ is the eccentricity of the planet’s orbit, $`G`$ is Newtonian gravitational constant, and $`C`$ is an integration constant.

We see that non-vanishing $`\delta `$ would give perihelion precession. In fact, for the perihelion we have $`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{1\delta }\varphi \omega )=1`$, i.e., $`\sqrt{1\delta }\varphi _n\omega =2n\pi `$ with $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. We then get the precession:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\varphi _n\varphi _02n\pi =2n\pi \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\delta }}1\right)n\pi \delta .$$
$`(16)`$
Using the observations of the planet’s perihelion precessions, in particular the observed Earth’s perihelion precession $`(5.0\pm 1.2)`$ arcseconds per one hundred years, we obtain a limit on the theoretical result of Eq. (16): $`100\pi \delta 1.2`$. Explicitly we have

$$(2\eta ^s1)\mathrm{g}_s\mathrm{cos}\chi 3.4\times 10^{31}\mathrm{gram}^1,$$
$`(17)`$
where $`\chi `$ is the angle between the spin directions of the Sun and Earth.

Let us now consider two rigid balls falling freely in Earth’s gravitational field, one of them rotating and the other irrotational. Relative difference in accelerations of the two balls can be obtained from Eq. (14)

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }a}{a}\frac{a_2a_1}{a_2}(2\eta ^s1)\mathrm{g}_s\frac{𝐬𝐬_{}}{GmM_{}R_{}},$$
$`(18)`$
where $`m`$ and $`𝐬`$ are the mass and angular momentum of the rotating ball, $`M_{},R_{}`$ and $`𝐬_{}`$ are the mass, radius and angular momentum of the Earth, and the parameter $`(2\eta ^s1)\mathrm{g}_s`$ is given by Eq. (17). For a rotating rigid ball with constant mass density, we have $`|𝐬|=(4/5)\pi nR^2m`$, where $`R`$ and $`n`$ are the radius and speed of rotation. For $`n=4\times 10^4\mathrm{rpm}`$ and $`R=10`$cm, one arrives at from Eq. (18)

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }a}{a}2\times 10^{14}.$$
$`(19)`$
It is note that the second prediction (19) follows from a different physical source rather than the first one (6). The second effect (19) could be distinguished experimentally from the first one in such a way: The second depends on the relative directions of the two gyroscopes while the first does not.

It is mentioned that in 1989 Hayasaka and Takeuchi  reported a balance experiment in which the right spinning gyroscope induced a weight decrease proportional to the rotational velocity, whereas the left spinning caused no weight change. Later the subsequent experiments (1990) \[3-5\] gave contradictory results: no weight change of gyroscopes when measured by balances, which within uncertainty are in agreement with the predictions above. Recently Hayasaka et al.  reported a free-fall experiment using a spinning gyro, in which a similar positive result was obtained: the mean value of the fall-accelerations of the right-spinning at 18 000 rpm is significantly smaller than that of zero spinning. This means that the equivalence principle is not valid for a right-spinning gyroscope. However, the weight change in the experiment is too larger than that predicted by the effects above. Thus it is necessary to repeat this kind of experiment.

These two effects, Eqs. (6) and (19), could be observations by use of the rotating torsion balances, satellites or long-distance free-fall experiments. For example, for a proposed free-fall experiment the drop test masses may be the inner spinning sphere and outer shell consisting of a superconductor gyroscope, and the gaps between the inner and outer test masses could be measured using the SQUID technology. The superconductor gyroscope is suspended in the top of a vacuum outer capsule. Make the inner sphere free-fall by turning off the power supply of the gyroscope during the outer shell free moving in the vacuum outer capsule after cutting off the suspension. This proposed experiment at a drop tower of one hundred meter high could reach an accuracy of $`\mathrm{\Delta }a/a<10^{12}`$ . A more longer-distance free-fall experiment could be done in such a way: A balloon can lift the facilities to about 40 kilometers altitude and then drop it down. There will be about 40 seconds free drop time for the test masses, which may improve the accuracy to $`<10^{13}`$ sensitive to the effects predicted above.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professors Wen-Rui Hu, Yuan-Ben Dai, Zhong-Yuan Zhu, Tao Huang, and Zhen-Long Zou for their helpful discussion.


format: text

text:
# Topology of billiard problems, I

## 1. Introduction

In the early 1900s, G.D. Birkhoff initiated the mathematical theory of convex plane billiards. His main interest was in estimating the number of periodic billiard trajectories. He has pioneered the use of topological methods, based on the variational reduction and using the critical point theory.

Periodic trajectories in convex billiards in Euclidean spaces of dimension $`>2`$ were studied in  and . The high-dimensional problem also allows approach based on the critical point theory, and the main difficulty lies in more complicated topology of the appropriate configuration space. Thus, the major effort of  was in computing the cohomology algebra of the cyclic configuration space of the sphere.

The purpose of this paper is to strengthen the estimates obtained in . In particular, we will obtain linear in $`n`$ estimates on the number of $`n`$-periodic billiard trajectories, improving the logarithmic estimates of . On the other hand, in this work we will study a larger variety of billiard problems: besides the periodic trajectories we will be also interested in the number of ways the billiard ball can be brought from a given initial point to a given final point after making a prescribed number $`n`$ of reflections at the boundary of the billiard domain.

Let $`X𝐑^{m+1}`$ be a closed smooth strictly convex hypersurface. The $`(m+1)`$-dimensional convex body $`T`$, bounded by $`X`$ will serve as our billiard table. The billiard ball is a point which moves in $`T`$ in a straight line, except when it hits $`X=T`$, where it rebounds making the angle of incidence equal the angle of reflection. In other words, if $`A,B,CX`$ are three subsequent reflection points then the normal to $`X`$ at point $`B`$ bisects the angle between the vectors $`BA`$ and $`BC`$.

We will consider the following billiard problems.

Problem A: Given two distinct points $`A,BX`$ and a number $`n`$, estimate the number of billiard trajectories inside $`X`$ which start at point A, end at point $`B`$ and make $`n`$ reflections at the hypersurface $`X`$.

Problem B: Estimate the number of billiard trajectories inside $`X`$, which start and end at a given point $`AX`$ and make a prescribed number $`n`$ of reflections at the hypersurface $`X`$.

Problem B deals with closed billiard trajectories. It is clear that any closed billiard trajectory starting and ending at $`AX`$ determines another closed billiard trajectory which is obtained by passing the same route in the reverse order. This explains that there is a natural $`𝐙_2`$-action on the set of closed billiard trajectories, and in Problem B one actually asks about the number of $`𝐙_2`$-orbits of closed billiard trajectories.

Using this $`𝐙_2`$-symmetry we will give a better estimate for Problem B than the estimate for Problem A given by Theorem 1 below .

Problem C: Estimate the number of $`n`$-periodic billiard trajectories inside the billiard domain $`T`$.

In  we showed that the number of $`n`$-periodic billiard trajectories is at least $`[\mathrm{log}_2(n1)]+m`$, and it is at least $`(n1)m`$ in the generic case.

In Part I of this paper we will give an answer to Problem A.

Our purpose is to prove the following Theorem.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`X𝐑^{m+1}`$ be a closed smooth strictly convex hypersurface, $`A,BX`$ two distinct points. Then for any integer $`n`$ the number of billiard trajectories inside $`X`$, which start at $`A`$, end at $`B`$ and make $`n`$ reflections is at least $`n+1`$, if $`m`$ is odd, and $`[(n+1)/2]+1`$, if $`m`$ is even. In a generic situation (cf. Definition 3 below) for any $`m`$ and $`n`$ the number of billiard trajectories inside $`X`$, which start at $`A`$, end at $`B`$ and make $`n`$ reflection, is at least $`n+1`$.

Here $`[x]`$ denotes the integer part of $`x`$, i.e. the largest integer not exceeding $`x`$.

Consider the following simple example. Let $`X=S^m𝐑^{m+1}`$ be the unit sphere. Any billiard trajectory $`A=A_0,A_1,\mathrm{},A_n,A_{n+1}=B`$ must lie in a 2-plane passing through the center of the sphere $`O`$. If the endpoints $`A,B`$ are distinct and not antipodal then there is a unique 2-plane passing through $`A,B`$ and $`O`$; the circle $`L`$, the intersection of this 2-plane with $`S^m`$, must contain all the reflection points $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_n`$. Fix an orientation on $`L`$ and let $`\varphi (0,2\pi )`$ be the angle from $`A`$ to $`B`$. Then the angle between $`A_i`$ and $`A_{i+1}`$ must be independent of $`i`$ and may take the values

$$\alpha _k=(\varphi +2\pi k)/(n+1),\text{where}k=0,1,\mathrm{}n.$$

Hence, we see that in this example there exist precisely $`n+1`$ billiard trajectories starting at $`A`$, ending at $`B`$ and making $`n`$ reflections.

This example shows that the statement of Theorem 1 for the generic case and for $`m`$ odd cannot be improved. It looks reasonable to conjecture that for even $`m`$ the lower bound on the number of billiard trajectories is also $`n+1`$.

Problems B and C will be studied in Part II.

I would like to thank S. Tabachnikov for useful discussions.

## 2. Billiard ball problem and Lusternik - Schnirelman category of configuration spaces

In this section we will use the variational method of G. Birkhoff to show that the problem of estimating the number of billiard trajectories can be reduced to a topological problem of estimating the Lusternik-Schnirelman category of a space of configurations of $`n`$ points on the sphere $`S^m`$.

Let $`X`$ be a manifold. Suppose that $`A,BX`$ are two fixed points. The symbol $`G(X;A,B,n)`$ will denote the subspace of the Cartesian power $`X^{\times n}=X\times X\times \mathrm{}\times X`$, consisting of the configurations $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)X^{\times n}`$, such that $`x_ix_{i+1}`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, and $`Ax_1`$ and $`x_nB`$. In the case $`AB`$ we will call $`G(X;A,B,n)`$ the open string configuration space. The space $`G(X;A,A,n)`$ is the closed string configuration space.

The configuration space $`G(X;A,B,n)`$ is closely related to the cyclic configuration space $`G(X,n)`$ introduced in , which consists of all $`n`$-tuples $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ of points of $`X`$ satisfying:

$`x_ix_{i+1}\mathrm{for}i=1,2,\mathrm{},n1,\text{and}x_nx_1.`$
Let $`X𝐑^{m+1}`$ be a smooth closed strictly convex hypersurface, the boundary of the billiard table. Denote by

$`L_X:G(X;A,B,n)𝐑`$
the perimeter length function, taken with the minus sign,

$`L_X(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}|x_ix_{i+1}|,i=0,\mathrm{},n,`$
where $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)G(X;A,B,n)`$ and the distance $`|x_ix_{i+1}|`$ is measured in the ambient Euclidean space $`𝐑^{m+1}`$. Here we understand that $`x_0=A`$ and $`x_{n+1}=B`$. The function $`L_X`$ is smooth. The reason for the minus sign will become clear later.

The following Lemma is well known.

###### Lemma 2.

A point $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)G(X;A,B,n)`$ is a critical point of $`L_X`$ if and only if the sequence $`A,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,B`$ determines a billiard trajectory inside $`X`$, starting at point $`A`$ and ending at point $`B`$.

###### Proof.

An easy calculation shows that a configuration $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)G(X;A,B,n)`$ is a critical point of $`L_X`$ if and only if for any $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ the vector

$$\frac{x_ix_{i1}}{|x_ix_{i+1}|}+\frac{x_ix_{i+1}}{|x_ix_{i+1}|}$$

is orthogonal to the tangent space $`T_{x_i}(X)`$. The last condition is clearly equivalent to the requirement that the normal to $`X`$ at $`x_i`$ bisects the angle between $`x_ix_{i1}`$ and $`x_ix_{i+1}`$. ∎

###### Definition 3.

The data $`(X,A,B,n)`$ will be called generic, if the associated perimeter length function $`L_X:G(X;A,B,n)𝐑`$ has only Morse critical points.

Compare §4 of .

Since $`X`$ is homeomorphic to $`S^m`$, the space $`G(X;A,B,n)`$ is homeomorphic to $`G(S^m;A,B,n)`$. The shape of the billiard domain $`X`$ becomes encoded in the function $`L_X:G(S^m;A,B,n)𝐑`$, and the problem of estimating the number of billiard trajectories inside $`X`$, which start at $`A`$ and end at $`B`$, turns into a problem of Morse-Lusternik-Schnirelman theory. The difficulty is that we cannot apply the Morse-Lusternik-Schnirelman theory directly to $`G(X;A,B,n)`$ since this manifold is not compact.

To avoid this difficulty, we will replace $`G(X;A,B,n)`$ by a compact manifold with boundary $`G_\epsilon (X;A,B,n)G(X;A,B,n)`$, where $`\epsilon >0`$ is small enough and

$`G_\epsilon (X;A,B,n)=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)X^{\times n}:{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}|x_ix_{i+1}|\epsilon \};`$ (2.1)
here $`x_0=A`$ and $`x_{n+1}=B`$. A similar approach can be found in  and in ,  for the two-dimensional case; cf. also  for the periodic case.

###### Proposition 4.

If $`\epsilon >0`$ is sufficiently small then:

1. $`G_\epsilon (X;A,B,n)`$ is a smooth manifold with boundary;
2. the inclusion $`G_\epsilon (X;A,B,n)G(X;A,B,n)`$ is a homotopy equivalence;
3. all critical points of $`L_X:G(X;A,B,n)𝐑`$ are contained in $`G_\epsilon (X;A,B,n)`$;
4. at every point of $`G_\epsilon (X;A,B,n)`$, the gradient of $`L_X`$ has the outward direction.

This statement is analogous to Proposition 4.1 from . The proof given in  also applies in this case. The only modification is that in the case $`AB`$, the arguments of the proof of Proposition 4.1 of , which explain that a critical configuration cannot lie entirely in a small neighborhood of $`X`$, become redundant.

###### Corollary 5.

Let $`X𝐑^{m+1}`$ be a smooth strictly convex hypersurface, $`A,BX`$ two fixed points. For any $`n0`$, the number of billiard trajectories inside $`X`$, which start at $`A`$, end at $`B`$ and make $`n`$ reflections is at least $`\mathrm{cat}(G(S^m;A,B,n)),`$ the Lusternik - Schnirelman category of the open string configuration space of the sphere $`S^m`$.

###### Proof.

Choose $`\epsilon >0`$ small enough such that the conclusions of Proposition 4 hold. Since at the points of the boundary $`G_\epsilon (X;A,B,n)`$ the gradient of $`L_X`$ has the outward direction, the critical point theory for manifolds with boundary  applies; the conclusion is that the critical points of the restriction $`L_X|_{G_\epsilon (X;A,B,n)}`$ should be ignored, and the number of critical pints of $`L_X`$ lying in the interior of $`G_\epsilon (X;A,B,n)`$ is at least the category of $`G_\epsilon (X;A,B,n)`$. Since $`\mathrm{cat}G_\epsilon (X;A,B,n)=\mathrm{cat}G(S^m;A,B,n)`$ (because of statement (b) of Proposition 4), the number of billiard trajectories inside $`X`$, which start at $`A`$, end at $`B`$ and make $`n`$ reflections is at least $`\mathrm{cat}(G(S^m;A,B,n)).`$

In the closed case, i.e. assuming that the endpoints are equal $`A=B`$, we may use $`𝐙_2`$-symmetry to give a better estimate. This result will appear in Part II.

## 3. Spectral sequence computing cohomology of the open string configuration space of a manifold

The following Theorem yields a spectral sequence computing the cohomology algebra of the open string configuration space $`G(X;A,B,n)`$, where $`X`$ is an arbitrary manifold. It is a Leray spectral sequence associated to the embedding $`G(X;A,B,n)X^{\times n}=X\times X\times \mathrm{}\times X`$ (the $`n`$-th Cartesian power).

This method was first suggested by B. Totaro  for the usual configuration space (i.e. for the space of all configurations $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)X^{\times n}`$ with $`x_ix_j`$ for all $`i,j`$). In  we used a similar spectral sequence for the cyclic configuration space $`G(S^m,n)`$.

$`𝐤`$ will denote a field.

###### Theorem 6.

Let $`X`$ be a connected oriented manifold of dimension $`m>1`$ and let $`A,BX`$ be two distinct points.

(A) There exists a spectral sequence of bigraded differential algebras, which converges to $`H^{}(G(X;A,B,n);𝐤)`$, whose $`E_2`$-term is the quotient of the bigraded commutative algebra

$$H^{}(X^{\times n};𝐤)[s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_n],$$

where $`H^p(X^{\times n};𝐤)`$ has bidegree $`(p,0)`$ and each generator $`s_i`$ has bidegree $`(0,m1)`$, by the relations

$$\begin{array}{cc}s_i^2=0,\hfill & \text{for}i=0,1,\mathrm{},n,\hfill \\ s_0s_1\mathrm{}s_n=0,\hfill & \\ p_1^{}(v)s_0=0,\hfill & \\ p_i^{}(v)s_i=p_{i+1}^{}(v)s_i,\hfill & \text{for}i=1,2,\mathrm{},n1,\hfill \\ p_n^{}(v)s_n=0,\hfill & \end{array}$$

where $`vH^{}(X;𝐤)`$ denotes an arbitrary cohomology class of positive degree and $`p_j:X^{\times n}X`$ denotes the projection onto the $`j`$-th factor, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$.

(B) The first nontrivial differential is $`d_m`$, where $`m=dimX`$. It acts by

$$\begin{array}{c}d_m(s_0)=(1)^mp_1^{}([X]),\hfill \\ d_m(s_i)=q_i^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }),i=1,2,\mathrm{},n1,\hfill \\ d_m(s_n)=p_n^{}([X]),\hfill \\ d_m(H^{}(X^{\times n};𝐤))=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`q_j:X^{\times n}X\times X`$ denotes the projection onto the factors $`j`$ and $`j+1`$, $`[X]H^m(X;𝐤)`$ is the fundamental class, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }H^m(X\times X;𝐤)`$ denotes the cohomology class of the diagonal.

###### Proof of Theorem 6.

Consider the inclusion $`\psi :G(X;A,B,n)X^{\times n}`$ and the Leray spectral sequence  of the continuous map $`\psi `$

$$E_2^{p,q}=H^p(X^{\times n};R^q\psi _{}𝐤)H^{p+q}(G(X;A,B,n);𝐤),$$

where $`R^q\psi _{}𝐤`$ is the sheaf on $`X^{\times n}`$ associated with the presheaf

$$UH^q(UG(X;A,B,n);𝐤).$$

To describe the sheaves $`R^q\psi _{}𝐤`$, consider partitions of the set $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},n,n+1\}`$ into intervals, that is, subsets of the form $`\{i,i+1,i+2,\mathrm{},i+j\}`$. For any such partition $`J`$ we denote by $`X_J`$ the subset of $`X^{\times n}`$, consisting of all configurations $`c=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)X^{\times n}`$, satisfying the conditions:

$$\begin{array}{c}x_i=x_j,\text{ if }i\text{ and }j\text{ lie in the same interval of the partition }J;\hfill \\ x_i=A,\text{ if index }i\text{ lies in the same interval with }0;\hfill \\ x_i=B,\text{ if index }i\text{ lies in the same interval with }n+1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Given two interval partitions $`I`$ and $`J`$, we say that $`J`$ refines $`I`$ and write $`IJ`$ if the intervals of $`I`$ are unions of the intervals of $`J`$. We denote by $`|J|`$ the number of intervals in the partition $`J`$. Note that $`IJ`$ implies $`X_IX_J`$ and $`|I||J|`$. For the partition $`J`$ with $`|J|=1`$ holds $`X_J=\mathrm{}`$ (since we assume that $`AB`$). If $`|J|=2`$ then $`X_J`$ is a single point. For $`|J|>2`$ the space $`X_J`$ is homeomorphic to the Cartesian power $`X^{\times (|J|2)}`$.

As in , we will denote by $`D(X,n)`$ the subset of $`X^{\times n}`$ satisfying the conditions $`x_ix_{i+1}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$. The configuration space $`D(𝐑^m,n)`$ is homotopy equivalent to the product of spheres $`(S^{m1})^{\times (n1)}`$. A homotopy equivalence $`D(𝐑^m,n)(S^{m1})^{\times (n1)}`$ is given by the map

$`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)({\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{|x_1x_2|}},\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{x_{n1}x_n}{|x_{n1}x_n|}}).`$ (3.1)
Fixing an orientation of the sphere $`[S^{m1}]H^{m1}(S^{m1};𝐤)`$, determines a canonical top-dimensional class in $`H^{(n1)(m1)}(D(𝐑^m,n);𝐤)`$, which is the pull-back of the product $`[S^{m1}]\times \mathrm{}\times [S^{m1}]`$ under (3.1).

If $`A,BX`$ two points, we denote by $`G(X;A,\mathrm{},n)`$ the subspace of $`D(X,n)`$ consisting of configurations $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ with $`x_1A`$; similarly we denote by $`G(X;\mathrm{},B,n)D(X,n)`$ the subspace of configurations with $`x_nB`$.

Let $`J`$ be a partition of $`\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},n+1\}`$ on intervals of lengths $`j_1,\mathrm{},j_r`$, and let

$`c=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}x_n)X_J,c{\displaystyle \underset{IJ,IJ}{}}X_I.`$
We claim that the stalk of the sheaf $`R^q\psi _{}𝐤`$ at $`c`$ equals

$$(R^q\psi _{}𝐤)_c=H^q(D(𝐑^m,j_1)\times \mathrm{}\times D(𝐑^m,j_r);𝐤).$$

Indeed, by definition, this stalk is $`H^q(UG(X;A,B,n);𝐤),`$ where $`U`$ is a small open ball around $`c`$. If $`c=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}x_n)`$ then we may choose points $`y_1=A,y_2,\mathrm{},y_{r1},y_r=BX`$, one for each interval of $`J`$, so that $`x_i=y_{j_s}`$ if $`i`$ belongs to the $`s`$-th interval. Let $`U_jX`$ be a small open neighborhood of $`y_j`$, so that each $`U_j`$ is diffeomorphic to $`𝐑^m`$ and the sets $`U_j`$ and $`U_j^{}`$ are disjoint when the points $`y_j`$ and $`y_j^{}`$ are distinct. Then we may take $`U=U_1^{\times j_1}\times U_2^{\times j_2}\times \mathrm{}\times U_r^{\times j_r}`$, and our claim follows.

We see that $`R^q\psi _{}𝐤`$ vanishes unless $`q`$ is a multiple of $`m1`$ and

$$dim(R^{s(m1)}\psi _{}𝐤)_c=\{\begin{array}{c}0,\text{for}s>n+2|J|,\hfill \\ \\ \left(\begin{array}{c}n+2|J|\\ s\end{array}\right),\text{for}sn+2|J|.\hfill \end{array}$$

For an interval partition $`J`$ of $`\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},n+1\}`$ with $`|J|>1`$ denote by $`\epsilon _J`$ the constant sheaf with stalk $`𝐤`$ and support $`X_J`$. We claim:

for any $`r=2,3,\mathrm{},n+2`$, the sheaf $`R^{(n+2r)(m1)}\psi _{}𝐤`$ is isomorphic to the direct sum of sheaves

$`R^{(n+2r)(m1)}\psi _{}𝐤{\displaystyle \underset{|J|=r}{}}\epsilon _J,`$ (3.2)
the sum taken over all interval partitions $`J`$ with $`|J|=r`$.

To prove the claim, let $`I`$ be an interval partition of $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},n+1\}`$ into intervals of length $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_s`$, where $`s=|I|>1`$. Then for any interval partition $`J`$ into intervals of length $`j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_r`$, such that $`IJ`$, we have the canonical inclusion

$$\nu _{JI}:D(𝐑^m,i_1)\times \mathrm{}\times D(𝐑^m,i_s)D(𝐑^m,j_1)\times \mathrm{}\times D(𝐑^m,j_r).$$

The target space of map $`\nu _{JI}`$ has a canonical nonzero $`(n+2r)(m1)`$-dimensional cohomology class (cf. above). The induced map $`\nu _{JI}^{}`$ on $`(n+2r)(m1)`$-dimensional cohomology with $`𝐤`$ coefficients is a monomorphism. Let $`z_{JI}`$ denote the image of the top-dimensional canonical class under the induced map $`\nu _{JI}^{}`$. Then (similarly to Lemma 3 in ) for a fixed $`I`$, the classes $`\{z_{JI}\}`$ form a linear basis of the cohomology $`H^{(n+2r)(m1)}(D(𝐑^m,i_1)\times \mathrm{}\times D(𝐑^m,i_s);𝐤)`$, where $`J`$ runs over all partitions with $`IJ`$ and $`|J|=r`$.

Indeed, using the map into product of spheres (3.1) we see that a linear basis of the cohomology $`H^{(n+2r)(m1)}(D(𝐑^m,i_1)\times \mathrm{}\times D(𝐑^m,i_s);𝐤)`$ form monomials $`s_{a_1}s_{a_2}\mathrm{}s_{a_{n+2r}}`$ with $`0a_1<a_2<\mathrm{}<a_{n+2r}n+1`$, such that for any $`s=1,\mathrm{},n+2r`$ the indices $`a_s`$ and $`a_s+1`$ belong to the same interval of partition $`I`$. Let $`J`$ be the partition determined by the equivalence relation on $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},n+1\}`$, where $`a_sa_s+1`$. Then $`IJ`$ and the above monomial coincides with the class $`z_{JI}`$.

Given a partition $`J`$ of $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},n+1\}`$ on intervals of length $`j_1+1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_{r1},j_r+1`$, where $`r>1`$, consider the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}G(X;A,B,n)& \stackrel{\psi }{}\hfill & X^{\times n}\\ & & \\ & & \mathrm{id}\\ & & \\ G(X;A,\mathrm{},j_1)\times D(X,j_2)\times \mathrm{}\times G(X;\mathrm{},B,j_r)& \stackrel{g_J}{}\hfill & X^{\times n}\end{array}$$

formed by the natural inclusions. Define sheaf $`\epsilon _J^{}=R^{(n+2r)(m1)}g_{J}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(𝐤)`$ over $`X^{\times n}`$. We want to show that $`\epsilon _J^{}`$ is isomorphic to $`\epsilon _J`$, i.e. it is the constant sheaf with stalk $`𝐤`$ and support $`X_J`$. First, $`\epsilon _J^{}`$ vanishes outside $`X_J`$ (since we are considering the cohomology of the top dimension). Let $`U`$ be a small open neighborhood of a point $`cX_JX^{\times n}`$, such that $`U=U_i`$, where all $`U_i`$ are small open disks and $`U_i=U_j`$ if $`i`$ and $`j`$ lie in the same interval of $`J`$. Then

$$\epsilon _J^{}(U)=H^{s(m1)}(D(U_{i_1},j_1+1)\times D(U_{i_2},j_2)\times \mathrm{}\times D(U_{i_r},j_r+1);𝐤)𝐤$$

(where $`s=n+2r`$) has a canonical element (cf. above). This gives a continuous section of $`\epsilon _J^{}`$ over $`X_J`$, and hence $`\epsilon _J^{}\epsilon _J`$.

The commutative diagram above gives a map of sheaves $`\epsilon _JR^{(n+2r)(m1)}\psi _{}(𝐤)`$, and summing, we obtain a map of sheaves

$$\underset{|J|=r}{}\epsilon _JR^q\psi _{}(𝐤),\text{where}q=(n+2r)(m1),$$

which, as we have seen above, is an isomorphism on stalks; hence it is an isomorphism, and the claim (3.2) follows.

We arrive at the following description of the term $`E_2`$ of the Leray spectral sequence

$$E_2^{p,r(m1)}=\underset{|J|=n+2r}{}H^p(X_J;𝐤),$$

where $`J`$ runs over all partitions of $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},n+1\}`$ with $`|J|>1`$. In order to identify this description with the one given in the statement of the theorem, assign to a monomial $`s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_r}`$ with $`0i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_rn`$ the equivalence relation on the set of indices $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},n+1\}`$ generated by

$$i_1i_1+1,i_2i_2+1,\mathrm{},i_ri_r+1.$$

This equivalence relation defines a partition $`J`$ of the set $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},n+1\}`$ on $`n+2r`$ intervals. In view of the relations

$`\begin{array}{c}p_1^{}(v)s_0=0,\hfill \\ p_i^{}(v)s_i=p_{i+1}^{}(v)s_i,\text{where}i=1,\mathrm{},n1,\hfill \\ p_n^{}(v)s_n=0,\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.6)
the term $`H^p(X^{\times n};𝐤)s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_r}`$ is isomorphic to $`H^p(X_J;𝐤)`$.

The monomial $`s_0s_1\mathrm{}s_n`$ corresponds to the partition $`|J|=1`$, which we should ignore since $`X_J=\mathrm{}`$; this explains the relation $`s_0s_1\mathrm{}s_n=0`$.

Now we prove statement (B) concerning the differentials of the spectral sequence. The first nontrivial differential is $`d_m`$. To find $`d_m`$ it is enough to find the cohomology classes $`d_m(s_i)H^m(X^{\times n};𝐤)`$, where $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$.

We will use functoriality of the Leray spectral sequence and the following well-known property. Let $`Y`$ be a manifold and let $`ZY`$ be a submanifold of codimension $`m>1`$ with oriented normal bundle. Consider the Leray spectral sequence

$$E_2^{p,q}=H^p(Y;R^q\varphi _{}𝐤)H^{p+q}(YZ;𝐤),$$

of the inclusion $`\varphi :(YZ)Y`$. The sheaf $`R^{m1}\varphi _{}𝐤`$ is the constant sheaf with support $`Z`$ and stalk $`𝐤`$ for $`q=m1`$ and it vanishes for all other values $`q>0`$. The only nonzero differential $`d_m:E_2^{0,m1}E_2^{m,0}`$ acts as follows: the class $`1H^0(Z;𝐤)=E_2^{0,m1}`$ is mapped into $`d_m(1)=[Z]H^m(Y;𝐤)`$, the class dual to $`Z`$, where the same orientation of the normal bundle to $`Z`$ is used in order to trivialize the sheaf $`R^{m1}\varphi _{}𝐤`$ and to define the dual class $`[Z]`$.

In order to show the first relation $`d_m(s_0)=(1)^mp_1^{}([X])`$, consider the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}G(X;A,B,n)& \stackrel{}{}& X^{\times n}\\ & & \mathrm{id}\\ (XA)\times X^{\times (n1)}& \stackrel{}{}& X^{\times n}\end{array}$$

and apply the previous remark to the bottom row with $`Y=X^{\times n}`$ and $`Z=A\times X^{\times (n1)}`$. The sign $`(1)^m`$ appears as the degree of the antipodal map $`S^{m1}S^{m1}`$: the framing of the normal bundle to $`AX`$, which we use to define the fundamental class $`[X]H^m(X;𝐤)`$, is antipodal to the framing determined by (3.1), which we use to trivialize the derived sheaf.

To obtain relations $`d_m(s_i)=q_i^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ with $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$ we use the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}G(X;A,B,n)& \stackrel{}{}& X^{\times n}\\ & & \mathrm{id}\\ X^{\times (i1)}\times (X\times X\mathrm{\Delta })\times X^{\times (ni1)}& \stackrel{}{}& X^{\times n}\end{array}$$

and apply the remark above with $`Y=X^{\times n}`$ and $`Z=X^{\times (i1)}\times \mathrm{\Delta }\times X^{\times (ni1)}`$. The last relation $`d_m(s_n)=p_n^{}([X])`$ follows similarly.

We will apply Theorem 8 and Proposition 2.2 from  to compute the integral cohomology of the configuration space $`G(𝐑^m;A,B,n)`$. For any $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$ we have the map

$$\varphi _i:G(𝐑^m;A,B,n)S^{m1},(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)\frac{x_ix_{i+1}}{|x_ix_{i+1}|}S^{m1},$$

where we understand $`x_0=A`$ and $`x_{n+1}=B`$. Define the cohomology classes

$$s_iH^{m1}(G(𝐑^m;A,B,n);𝐙),\text{as}s_i=\varphi _i^{}([S^{m1}]),i=0,1,\mathrm{},n.$$

###### Proposition 7.

For $`m>1`$ the algebra $`H^{}(G(𝐑^m;A,B,n);𝐙)`$ (where $`AB`$) is generated by cohomology classes

$$s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_nH^{m1}(G(𝐑^m;A,B,n);𝐙)$$

and all relations between the classes $`s_i`$ are consequences of

$$\begin{array}{c}s_0^2=s_1^2=\mathrm{}=s_n^2=0,s_is_j=(1)^{m1}s_js_i,s_0s_1\mathrm{}s_n=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

If we replace $`𝐙`$ by a field $`𝐤`$, the result follows directly from Theorem 8. In particular, we see that the dimension of the cohomology of $`G(𝐑^m;A,B,n)`$ do not depend on the field of coefficients. We conclude that the integral cohomology of $`G(𝐑^m;A,B,n)`$ has no torsion and is nonzero only in dimensions divisible by $`m1`$.

Consider the cyclic configuration space $`G(𝐑^m,n+2)`$ (cf. ) and the fibration

$`G(𝐑^m,n+2)G(𝐑^m,2)S^{m1},(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+2})(x_{n+2},x_1),`$ (3.7)
which has $`G(𝐑^m;A,B,n)`$ as the fiber. The nonzero rows of the Serre spectral sequence have numbers divisible by $`m1`$; also, the spectral sequence has only two columns $`p=0`$ and $`p=m1`$. We obtain that all differentials of the spectral sequence vanish and the cohomology of the fiber $`H^{}(G(𝐑^m;A,B,n);𝐙)`$ is isomorphic to the factor of the ring $`H^{}(G(𝐑^m,n+2);𝐙)`$ with respect to the ideal generated by class $`s_{n+2}`$ (the pull-back of the fundamental class of the base). Comparing the above information with the structure of the ring $`H^{}(G(𝐑^m,n+2);𝐙)`$, described in Proposition 2.2 of , proves Proposition 7. ∎

## 4. Cohomology of open string configuration spaces of spheres

In this section we state a theorem describing the cohomology of the configuration space $`G(S^m;A,B,n)`$, assuming that the points $`A`$ and $`B`$ are distinct. We will see that the additive structure of the cohomology algebra $`H^{}(G(S^m;A,B,n);𝐤)`$ is similar for all $`m`$, but the multiplication depends on the parity of the dimension $`m`$. Also, the case $`m=1`$ is special, for the space $`G(S^1;A,B,n)`$ consists of $`n+1`$ path connected components and each is contractible (cf. section 7); in this case only zero-dimensional cohomology exists.

Let $`𝐤`$ be a field.

###### Theorem 8.

The cohomology $`H^{}(G(S^m;A,B,n);𝐤)`$ of the open string configuration space (where $`AB`$) has additive generators

$$\sigma _iH^{i(m1)}(G(S^m;A,B,n);𝐤),i=0,1,\mathrm{},n;$$

the Poincaré polynomial of $`G(S^m;A,B,n)`$ equals $`1+t^{m1}+t^{2(m1)}+\mathrm{}+t^{n(m1)}`$. For $`m3`$ odd, the multiplication is given by

$`\sigma _i\sigma _j=\{\begin{array}{c}{\displaystyle \frac{(i+j)!}{i!j!}}\sigma _{i+j},\text{if}i+jn,\hfill \\ \\ 0,\text{if}i+j>n.\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.4)
For $`m2`$ even, the multiplication is given by

$`\sigma _i\sigma _j=\{\begin{array}{c}{\displaystyle \frac{[(i+j)/2]!}{[i/2]![j/2]!}}\sigma _{i+j},\text{if }i+jn\text{ and }i\text{ or }j\text{ is even,}\hfill \\ \\ 0,\text{if either }i+j>n\text{, or both }i\text{ and }j\text{ are odd.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.8)
Recall that $`[x]`$ denotes the integer part of $`x`$.

The proof of Theorems 8 is given in the following sections.

###### Remark 9.

Choosing an arbitrary point $`CS^m`$, where $`CA,`$ and $`CB`$ we obtain an inclusion $`\varphi :G(S^mC;A,B,n)G(S^m;A,B,n)`$; here we may identify $`S^mC`$ with $`𝐑^m`$. From the proof of Theorem 8 it will be clear that the induced homomorphism

$$\varphi ^{}:H^{}(G(S^m;A,B,n);𝐤)H^{}(G(S^mC;A,B,n);𝐤)=H^{}(G(𝐑^m;A,B,n);𝐤),$$

is injective and its image may easily be described. For example, for $`m`$ odd, $`\varphi ^{}`$ maps each generator $`\sigma _r`$ to the degree $`r`$ symmetric function of classes $`s_i`$:

$`\varphi ^{}(\sigma _r)={\displaystyle \underset{0i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}i_rn}{}}s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\mathrm{}s_{i_r},r=1,\mathrm{},n,`$ (4.9)
where $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_nH^{m1}(G(S^mC;A,B,n);𝐤)=H^{m1}(G(𝐑^m;A,B,n);𝐤)`$ are the generators given by Proposition 7.

For even $`m`$ the classes $`\varphi ^{}(\sigma _r)`$ may also be described. Such description may easily be extracted from the proof of Theorem 8 given below. For instance,

$$\varphi ^{}(\sigma _1)=s_ns_{n1}+\mathrm{}+(1)^ns_0\text{and }\varphi ^{}(\sigma _2)=\underset{0i<jn}{}(1)^{i+j}s_is_j,$$

as follows from formulae (6.12). More generally,

$`\varphi ^{}(\sigma _r)=(1)^{[r/2]+nr}{\displaystyle \underset{0i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_rn}{}}(1)^{i_1+i_2+\mathrm{}+i_r}s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\mathrm{}s_{i_r},`$ (4.10)
where the sum is taken over all increasing sequences $`0i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_rn`$. This follows using

$$\beta _j\beta _{j+1}=\beta _js_{j+1}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{j}{}}(1)^{i+j}s_is_{j+1}$$

from our definition (6.13).

## 5. Proof of Theorem 8 for $`m`$ odd.

Theorem 6 gives a spectral sequence of bigraded algebras, which converges to the cohomology algebra $`H^{}(G(S^m;A,B,n);𝐤)`$; the initial term $`E_2=E_m`$ has generators $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_n`$, having bidegree $`(m,0)`$, which satisfy

$$u_iu_j=u_ju_i,u_i^2=0,$$

and also generators $`s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_n`$, having bidegree $`(0,m1)`$, which satisfy

$`\begin{array}{c}s_is_j=s_js_i,s_i^2=0,\hfill \\ s_iu_j=u_js_i,\hfill \\ u_1s_0=0,\hfill \\ (u_iu_{i+1})s_i=0,\text{for}i=1,2,\mathrm{},n1,\hfill \\ u_ns_n=0,\hfill \\ s_0s_1\mathrm{}s_n=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.7)
Here $`u_i`$ denotes $`1\times \mathrm{}\times u\times 1\times \mathrm{}1H^m((S^m)^{\times n};𝐤)`$, where $`u`$ is the fundamental class of the sphere $`S^m`$, which appears on the place number $`i`$.

The differential $`d=d_m:E_mE_m`$ acts by

$$\begin{array}{c}du_j=0,\hfill \\ ds_0=u_1,\hfill \\ ds_i=u_iu_{i+1},\text{for}i=1,2,\mathrm{},n1,\hfill \\ ds_n=u_n.\hfill \end{array}$$

Introduce new variables $`v_0,v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}v_0=u_1,\hfill \\ v_i=u_iu_{i+1},\text{for}i=1,\mathrm{},n1,\hfill \\ v_n=u_n.\hfill \end{array}$$

We have the following relations:

$`\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{i})\hfill & v_iv_j=v_jv_i,v_i^2=0,\hfill \\ (\mathrm{ii})\hfill & v_0+\mathrm{}+v_n=0,\hfill \\ (\mathrm{iii})\hfill & v_is_i=0,\text{for}i=0,1,\mathrm{},n,\hfill \\ (\mathrm{iv})\hfill & s_is_j=s_js_i,s_iv_j=v_js_i,\hfill \\ (\mathrm{v})\hfill & s_i^2=0,\hfill \\ (\mathrm{vi})\hfill & s_0s_1\mathrm{}s_n=0,\hfill \\ (\mathrm{vii})\hfill & ds_i=v_i,\text{for}i=0,1,\mathrm{},n,\hfill \\ (\mathrm{viii})\hfill & dv_i=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.16)
Denote by $`\sigma _kE_m`$ the $`k`$-th symmetric function in variables $`s_0`$, $`s_1,`$ $`\mathrm{},s_n`$, i.e.,

$$\sigma _0=1,\mathrm{and}\sigma _k=\underset{0i_1<\mathrm{}<i_kn}{}s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\mathrm{}s_{i_k}\mathrm{for}k=1,2,\mathrm{},n.$$

It is clear (because of (v) in (5.16)) that

$`\sigma _i\sigma _j=\{\begin{array}{c}\left(\begin{array}{c}i+j\\ i\end{array}\right)\sigma _{i+j},\mathrm{for}i+jn,\hfill \\ \\ 0,\mathrm{for}i+j>n.\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.22)
It is clear that

$$d\sigma _1=d(s_0+\mathrm{}+s_n)=v_0+\mathrm{}+v_n=0$$

and similarly

$$d(\sigma _i)=(v_0+v_1+\mathrm{}+v_n)\sigma _{i1}=0$$

for any $`i`$. Hence we have found nonzero cycles $`\sigma _0,\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n`$, which (by the obvious geometric reasons) cannot belong to the image of $`d`$. Our purpose is to show that these classes additively generate the whole cohomology $`H^{}(E_m,d)`$.

Denote by $`(A_n,d)`$ the graded differential algebra with generators $`v_0,\mathrm{},v_n`$ and $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_n`$ which satisfy relations (i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) among (5.16). The differential $`d:A_nA_n`$ is given by formulae (vii) and (viii) of (5.16). We consider $`A_n`$ with the total grading, where each $`s_i`$ has degree $`m1`$ (even) and each $`v_i`$ has degree $`m`$ (odd).

We claim that $`H^j(A_n,d)=0`$ for $`j>0`$. The proof will use induction on $`n`$. For $`n=0`$ the claim is obvious. We have a natural inclusion $`A_{n1}A_n`$, which identifies $`A_{n1}`$ with the subalgebra of $`A_n`$ generated by $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_{n1}`$ and $`v_0,\mathrm{},v_{n1}`$. We will show that the factor $`A_n/A_{n1}`$ is acyclic which clearly implies step of induction. Any element $`aA_n/A_{n1}`$ can be uniquely represented in the form $`a=s_nx+v_ny`$, where $`x,yA_{n1}`$. If $`da=0`$ then

$$d(a)=v_nx+s_nd(x)v_nd(y)=s_nd(x)+v_n[xd(y)]=0$$

and hence $`x=d(y)`$ and $`a=d(s_ny)`$. The claim follows.

Introduce a new differential $`\delta _n:A_nA_n`$ of degree $`m`$:

$$\delta _n(x)=(\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}v_i)x.$$

Clearly, $`\delta _n^2=0`$ and $`\delta _nd=d\delta _n`$; however $`\delta _n`$ does not obey the Leibnitz rule. We claim that

$`H^i(A_n,\delta _n)=\{\begin{array}{c}𝐤,\mathrm{if}i=(n+1)(m1),\hfill \\ \\ 0,\mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.26)
and a nontrivial cohomology class is represented by the product $`s_0s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_n`$. Indeed, each element of $`A_n`$ can be written as a sum of monomials in $`s_i`$, $`v_i`$. For $`I\{0,1,2,\mathrm{}n\}`$, denote by $`s_I`$ the product of all $`s_i`$ for $`iI`$. Similarly, we will label the monomials $`v_{i_1}\mathrm{}v_{i_r}`$ with $`i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_r`$ as $`v_J`$, where $`J`$ is a subset $`J=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_r\}\{0,1,2,\mathrm{}n\}`$. Note that the product $`s_Iv_JA_n`$ is nontrivial if and only if $`I`$ and $`J`$ are disjoint subsets of $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Note also that

$$\delta _n(s_Iv_J)=\underset{iIJ}{}ϵ_is_Iv_{J\{i\}},$$

where $`ϵ_i`$ is $`\pm 1`$ depending on whether $`J`$ contains even or odd number of members less than $`i`$. We see that application of $`\delta _n`$ does not change the multi-index $`I`$. Hence, the complex $`(A_n,\delta _n)`$ splits into a direct sum over different multi-indices $`I`$. Fix a set $`I`$ and denote by $`k`$ the cardinality of the set $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},n\}I`$. Then the respective part of the complex $`(A_n,\delta _n)`$ is isomorphic to the standard cochain complex of the simplex with $`k`$ vertices:

the differential of an $`r`$-dimensional face (i.e., set $`J`$) is the sum of $`r+1`$-dimensional faces that contain the given one (sets $`J\{i\}`$). Note that empty set $`J`$ is also allowed. This complex has zero cohomology, unless $`k=0`$ (empty simplex), in which case the cohomology is $`𝐤`$. This exceptional case corresponds to $`I=\{0,1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, and (5.26) follows.

Let $`_nA_n`$ and $`𝒦_nA_n`$ denote the image and the kernel of $`\delta _n:A_nA_n`$. Note that $`_n𝒦_n`$ and the factor $`𝒦_n/_n`$ is one-dimensional generated by the product $`s_0s_1\mathrm{}s_n`$. Hence we obtain that

$$H^j(_n,d)H^j(𝒦_n,d),j(n+1)(m1),$$

and $`H^{(n+1)(m1)}(_n,d)=0.`$

Since we know that $`H^j(A_n,d)=0`$ for $`j>0`$, the short exact sequence

$$0𝒦_nA_n\stackrel{\delta _n}{}_n0$$

gives isomorphisms

$$H^{j+m1}(_n,d)H^j(𝒦_n,d)$$

for all $`j>1`$. This leads to periodicity

$$H^j(_n,d)H^{j+m1}(_n,d),\text{for all}j1,j(n+1)(m1).$$

On the other hand it is obvious that for $`1<j<2m1`$ the cohomology $`H^j(_n,d)`$ vanishes unless $`j=m`$ and for $`j=m`$ it is one dimensional (generated by the class $`v_0+v_1+\mathrm{}+v_n`$). This shows that

$$dimH^j(_n,d)=\{\begin{array}{c}1,\text{for}j=i(m1)+1,1in+1,\hfill \\ 0,\text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Using $`H^j(A_n,d)=0`$ we get

$$dimH^j(A_n/_n,d)=\{\begin{array}{c}1,\text{for}j=i(m1),0in+1,\hfill \\ 0,\text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

The term $`E_m`$ is obtained from $`A_n/_n`$ by factoring out with respect to the ideal generated by the product $`s_0s_1\mathrm{}s_n`$, generating the top-dimensional cohomology space $`H^{(n+1)(m1)}(A_n/_n,d)`$. Hence

$$dimH^j(E_m,d)=\{\begin{array}{c}1,\text{for}j=i(m1),0in,\hfill \\ 0,\text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

This proves that the classes $`\sigma _0,\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _nH^{}(E_m,d)`$ (which were described in the beginning of the proof) span the cohomology.

## 6. Proof of Theorem 8 for $`m`$ even

### 6.1.

Theorem 6 gives a spectral sequence of bigraded algebras converging to $`H^{}(G(S^m;A,B,n);𝐤)`$, with the initial term $`E_2=E_m`$ described below.

$`E_m`$ has generators $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_n`$, having bidegree $`(m,0)`$, which satisfy

$$u_i^2=0,u_iu_j=u_ju_i,$$

and also generators $`s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_n`$, having bidegree $`(0,m1)`$, which satisfy

$`\begin{array}{c}s_is_j=s_js_i,s_i^2=0,\hfill \\ s_iu_j=u_js_i,\hfill \\ u_1s_0=0,\hfill \\ (u_iu_{i+1})s_i=0,\text{for}i=1,2,\mathrm{},n1,\hfill \\ u_ns_n=0,\hfill \\ s_0s_1\mathrm{}s_n=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (6.7)
Here as in the previous section, $`u_i`$ denotes $`1\times \mathrm{}\times u\times 1\times \mathrm{}1H^m((S^m)^{\times n};𝐤)`$, where $`u`$ is the fundamental class of the sphere $`S^m`$ and it appears on the place number $`i`$.

The differential $`d=d_m:E_mE_m`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}du_j=0,\hfill \\ ds_0=u_1,\hfill \\ ds_i=u_i+u_{i+1},\text{for}i=1,2,\mathrm{},n1,\hfill \\ ds_n=u_n.\hfill \end{array}$$

Our purpose is to compute the cohomology of $`(E_m,d)`$; from the answer which we will obtain, it will be clear that all further differentials $`d_r,r>m`$ vanish and thus $`H^{}(E_m^,,d)=E_{\mathrm{}}^,`$.

### 6.2.

In this subsection we will describe nontrivial classes

$$\sigma _iE_m^{i(m1),0},i=1,2,\mathrm{},n,$$

which are cocycles $`d\sigma _i=0`$. They appear in the first column of the spectral sequence and hence they cannot belong to the image of $`d`$. Later we will show that the cohomology classes of cocycles $`\sigma _i`$ span the whole cohomology of $`(E_m,d)`$.

Let us denote

$$\beta _i=s_is_{i1}+\mathrm{}+(1)^is_0E_m^{m1,0},\text{for}i=0,1,\mathrm{},n.$$

We may express $`s_i`$ as $`\beta _i+\beta _{i1}`$ for $`i1`$ and $`s_0=\beta _0`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}\beta _i\beta _j=\beta _j\beta _i,\beta _i^2=0,\hfill \\ d\beta _i=u_{i+1},\text{for}i=0,1,\mathrm{},n1,\hfill \\ d\beta _n=0\hfill \end{array}$$

Relations (6.1) give

$`\begin{array}{c}\beta _0u_1=0,\hfill \\ \beta _{i1}u_i\beta _iu_{i+1}+d(\beta _{i1}\beta _i)=0,\text{for}i=1,\mathrm{},n1,\hfill \\ \beta _{n1}u_n+d(\beta _{n1}\beta _n)=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (6.11)
Now we will set

$`\sigma _1=\beta _nE_m^{m1,0},\sigma _2={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\beta _i\beta _{i+1}E_m^{2(m1),0}.`$ (6.12)
Then $`d\sigma _1=0`$ and (using (6.11)) we obtain $`d\sigma _2=0`$.

For any $`kn/2`$ we will define

$`\sigma _{2k}={\displaystyle \beta _{i_1}\beta _{i_1+1}\beta _{i_2}\beta _{i_2+1}\mathrm{}\beta _{i_k}\beta _{i_k+1}}E_m^{2k(m1),0},`$ (6.13)
where

$$i_r+1<i_{r+1},0i_r<n\text{for}r=1,\mathrm{},k.$$

For $`2k+1n`$ we will define

$$\sigma _{2k+1}=\sigma _1\sigma _{2k}E_m^{(2k+1)(m1),0}.$$

It is clear that the classes $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{},\sigma _n`$ are nonzero and

$`(\sigma _2)^k=k!\sigma _{2k}\text{and}\sigma _1^2=0.`$ (6.14)
Hence classes $`\sigma _i`$ satisfy the following multiplication law:

$`\sigma _i\sigma _j=\{\begin{array}{c}0,\text{if either }i+j>n\text{, or both }i\text{ and }j\text{ are odd,}\hfill \\ \\ {\displaystyle \frac{[(i+j)/2]!}{[i/2]![j/2]!}}\sigma _{i+j},\text{if }i+jn\text{ and }i\text{ or }j\text{ is even.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (6.18)
We have

$`\begin{array}{cc}d(\sigma _{2k})\hfill & =\beta _{i_1}\beta _{i_1+1}\mathrm{}\beta _{i_{k1}}\beta _{i_{k1}+1}d(\beta _j\beta _{j+1})=\hfill \\ & \\ & =\sigma _{2(k1)}_{j=0}^{n1}d(\beta _j\beta _{j+1})=\sigma _{2(k1)}d(\sigma _2)=0.\hfill \end{array}`$
In the first sum $`j`$ runs over the set $`\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ and indices $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_{k1}`$ satisfy $`0i_r<n`$ and $`i_r+1<i_{r+1}`$. Thus we have

$$d(\sigma _i)=0,\text{for all}i=1,\mathrm{},n.$$

### 6.3.

Next we will show that $`H^{}(E_m,d)`$ contains no nontrivial cohomology classes except linear combinations of $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n`$. More precisely, we will show that the cohomology $`H^j(E_m,d)`$ (considered with respect to the total grading) vanishes if $`j>n(m1)`$ or if $`j`$ is not divisible by $`m1`$ and it is one-dimensional otherwise.

We will introduce new variables $`v_j`$, where $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$, given by

$$\begin{array}{c}v_0=u_1,\hfill \\ v_i=u_{i+1}u_i,\text{for}i=1,2,\mathrm{},n1,\hfill \\ v_n=u_n.\hfill \end{array}$$

The new variables commute $`v_iv_j=v_jv_i`$ and satisfy:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& (\mathrm{i})\hfill & v_0^2=0,\hfill \\ & (\mathrm{ii})\hfill & v_i^2+2v_i(v_0+v_1+\mathrm{}+v_{i1})=0,\text{for}i=1,2,\mathrm{},n,\hfill \\ & (\mathrm{iii})\hfill & v_0+v_1+\mathrm{}+v_n=0,\hfill \\ & (\mathrm{iv})\hfill & v_is_i=0\text{for}i=0,1,2,\mathrm{},n,\hfill \\ & (\mathrm{v})\hfill & s_is_j=s_js_i,\hfill \\ & (\mathrm{vi})\hfill & s_0s_1\mathrm{}s_n=0,\hfill \\ & (\mathrm{vii})\hfill & ds_i=2v_0+2v_1+\mathrm{}+2v_{i1}+v_i,\text{for}i=0,1,\mathrm{},n,\hfill \\ & (\mathrm{viii})\hfill & dv_i=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (6.28)
Let us denote by $`(A_n,d)`$ the graded differential algebra with generators $`v_0,\mathrm{},v_n`$ and $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_n`$ satisfying relations (i), (ii), (iv), (v). Thus, we simply ignore relations (iii) and (vi).

The differential $`d:A_nA_n`$ is given by formulae (vii) and (viii). Note that the ideal generated by the relations (i), (ii), (iv), (v) is invariant under the differential $`d`$; for example, $`d(v_is_i)=v_i(2v_0+\mathrm{}+2v_{i1}+v_i)`$ belongs to the ideal because of relation (ii). Thus $`d:A_nA_n`$ is well defined.

###### Lemma 10.

$`H^j(A_n,d)=0`$ for all $`j>0`$.

###### Proof.

Using relations (i), (ii), (iv), (v) we see that the additive basis of $`A_n`$ is given by monomials of the form $`v_Is_J`$, where

$$I,J\{0,1,\mathrm{},n\},IJ=\mathrm{},$$

are disjoint multi-indices. Hence it is clear that for $`j<n`$ the differential algebra $`A_j`$ can be embedded into $`A_n`$; in fact $`A_j`$ may be identified with the subalgebra generated by $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_j`$ and $`v_0,\mathrm{},v_j`$.

The factor $`A_j/A_{j1}`$ has a very simple structure. Each element $`aA_j/A_{j1}`$ has a unique representation in the form $`a=s_jx+v_jy`$, where $`x,yA_{j1}`$. From formula (v) we obtain that the differential of $`A_j/A_{j1}`$ acts as follows $`da=v_jxs_jd(x)+v_jd(y)`$. Hence $`da=0`$ is equivalent to $`x+dy=0`$, which implies that $`a=d(s_jy)`$. Thus we obtain that each factor $`A_j/A_{j1}`$ is acyclic.

The statement of the Lemma now follows by induction. ∎

Consider now the homomorphism $`\delta _n:A_nA_n`$ given by multiplication by $`v_0+v_1+\mathrm{}+v_n`$, i.e.

$$\delta _n(x)=(v_0+v_1+\mathrm{}+v_n)x,xA_n.$$

Using relations (i) and (ii) one obtains $`\delta _n^2=0,`$ i.e. $`\delta _n`$ may be viewed as a new differential on $`A_n`$. Note that $`\delta _n`$ increases the total grading by $`m`$.

###### Lemma 11.

$$H^j(A_n,\delta _n)=\{\begin{array}{c}0,\text{for}j(n+1)(m1),\hfill \\ 𝐤,\text{for}j=(n+1)(m1)\hfill \end{array}$$

and the product $`s_0s_1\mathrm{}s_nA_n`$ is a cocycle (with respect to $`\delta _n`$), representing a nontrivial cohomology class.

###### Proof.

We will use induction on $`n`$. The statement is trivial when $`n=0`$. Let’s assume that it is true for $`n1`$. Consider the homomorphism

$$\varphi :A_{n1}A_n,\varphi (x)=v_nx,xA_{n1}.$$

It is clear that $`\varphi `$ is injective and increases the total degree by $`m`$. Using relation (ii) one finds

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta _n(\varphi (x))=(v_0+\mathrm{}+v_n)v_nx=\hfill \\ =v_n(v_0+\mathrm{}+v_{n1})x=\hfill \\ =\varphi (\delta _{n1}(x)).\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence we obtain a short exact sequence

$$0A_{n1}\stackrel{\varphi }{}A_nA_n/\varphi (A_{n1})0$$

and a long homological sequence

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{\varphi }{}H^j(A_n,\delta _n)H^j(A_n/\varphi (A_{n1}),\delta _n)\stackrel{\kappa }{}H^j(A_{n1},\delta _{n1})\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$

We will show that the connecting homomorphism

$$\kappa :H^j(A_n/\varphi (A_{n1}),\delta _n)H^j(A_{n1},\delta _{n1})$$

is an isomorphism for all $`j(n+1)(m1)`$ and its is an epimorphism with one-dimensional kernel for $`j=(n+1)(m1)`$. This clearly implies the statement of the Lemma.

Any element $`aA_n/\varphi (A_{n1})`$ has a unique representation in the form

$$a=x+s_ny,x,yA_{n1}.$$

Then $`\delta _{n1}(a)A_n/\varphi (A_{n1})`$ equals $`\delta _n(x)s_n\delta _{n1}(y)`$ and hence we obtain

$$H^j(A_n/\varphi (A_{n1}),\delta _n)H^j(A_{n1},\delta _{n1})H^{jm+1}(A_{n1},\delta _{n1}),$$

where the first summand corresponds to the class of $`x`$ and the second summand corresponds to the class of $`y`$.

Suppose that $`a`$ is a cycle of the relative complex $`A_n/\varphi (A_{n1})`$. In order to calculate $`\kappa (a)`$, the image under the connecting homomorphism, we have to view $`a=x+s_ny`$ as a chain in $`A_n`$ and compute $`\delta _n(a)A_n`$. We obtain $`\delta _n(a)=\varphi (a)`$, which shows that $`\kappa `$ is always an epimorphism and it is an isomorphism if and only if $`H^{jm+1}(A_{n1},\delta _{n1})=0`$; by our induction hypothesis it holds if $`jm+1n(m1)`$.

This completes the proof. ∎

Let $`_nA_n`$ and $`𝒦_nA_n`$ denote the image and the kernel of $`\delta _n:A_nA_n`$. Note that $`_n𝒦_n`$ and by Lemma 11 the factor $`𝒦_n/_n`$ is one-dimensional generated by the product $`s_0s_1\mathrm{}s_n`$. Hence we obtain that

$$H^j(_n,d)H^j(𝒦_n,d),j(n+1)(m1),$$

and $`H^{(n+1)(m1)}(_n,d)=0.`$

From Lemma 10 and short exact sequence

$$0𝒦_nA_n\stackrel{\delta _n}{}_n0$$

we obtain isomorphisms

$$H^{j+m1}(_n,d)H^j(𝒦_n,d)$$

for all $`j>1`$. This gives periodicity

$$H^j(_n,d)H^{j+m1}(_n,d),\text{for all}j1,j(n+1)(m1).$$

On the other hand it is obvious that for $`1<j<2m1`$ the cohomology $`H^j(_n,d)`$ vanishes unless $`j=m`$ and for $`j=m`$ it is one dimensional (generated by the class $`v_0+v_1+\mathrm{}+v_n`$). This shows that

$$dimH^j(_n,d)=\{\begin{array}{c}1,\text{for}j=i(m1)+1,1in+1,\hfill \\ 0,\text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Using Lemma 10 we get

$$dimH^j(A_n/_n,d)=\{\begin{array}{c}1,\text{for}j=i(m1),0in+1,\hfill \\ 0,\text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

### 6.4. End of the proof of Theorem 8 for $`m`$ even

The differential algebra $`(E_m,d)`$ is obtained from $`(A_n,d)`$ by adding relations (iii) and (vi) of (6.28); therefore, $`(E_m,d)`$ is obtained from $`(A_n/_n,d)`$ by adding relation (vi) of (6.28). We know that algebra $`H^{}(A_n/_n,d)`$ is generated by $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n`$, where $`\mathrm{deg}(\sigma _i)=i(m1)`$. It is clear that the product $`s_0s_1\mathrm{}s_n`$ is a nontrivial cycle of $`A_n/_n`$ having degree $`(n+1)(m1)`$. Comparing all this information we conclude that the classes $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n`$ form an additive basis of $`H^{}(E_m,d)=E_{m+1}`$. All further differentials $`d_r`$ with $`r>m`$ vanish.

This clearly concludes the proof of Theorem 8 for $`m`$ even.

## 7. Proof of Theorem 1

For $`m>1`$ Theorem 1 follows from Corollary 5 and Theorem 8. If $`m>1`$ is odd we obtain a nonzero power

$$\sigma _1^n=n!\sigma _n0H^{n(m1)}(G(S^m;A,B,n);𝐤),$$

where $`𝐤`$ is a field of characteristic zero. Hence the cohomological cup-length of $`G(S^m,n)`$ with $`𝐤`$ coefficients is at least $`n`$ and hence the Lusternik-Schnirelman category of $`G(S^m,n)`$ is at least $`n+1`$.

For $`m`$ even we use Theorem 8. It gives a nontrivial cup-product

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\sigma _2^{n/2}=(n/2)!\sigma _n,\text{if }n\text{ is even},\hfill \\ \sigma _1\sigma _2^{(n1)/2}=[n/2]!\sigma _n,\text{if }n\text{ is odd}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence we obtain that the Lusternik - Schnirelman category of $`G(S^m;A,B,n)`$ is at least $`[(n+1)/2]+1`$.

In case $`m=1`$ we may use a direct argument. We may identify $`S^1`$ with the unit circle on the complex plane $`𝐂`$. Then a configuration $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)G(S^1;A,B,n)`$ (where we assume that $`AB`$) can be described by a point of the open $`n`$-dimensional unit cube $`(\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _n)(0,1)^n`$, such that

$$x_1=A\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\varphi _1),\text{and}x_j=x_{j1}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\varphi _j)\text{for}j=2,\mathrm{},n.$$

If $`\psi (0,1)`$ is such that $`B=A\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\psi )`$ then a point $`(\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _n)(0,1)^n`$ corresponds to a configuration of the open string configuration space $`G(S^1;A,B,n)`$ if and only if $`_{j=1}^n\varphi _j\psi `$ is not an integer. The hyperplanes

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\varphi _j=\psi +k,\text{where}k=0,1,\mathrm{},n1,$$

divide the cube $`(0,1)^n`$ into $`n+1`$ connected components, each is convex and hence contractible. We obtain that the configuration space $`G(S^1;A,B,n)`$ has $`n+1`$ path connected components and each is contractible. This gives

$$\mathrm{cat}(G(S^1;A,B,n))=n+1$$

and our statement follows from Corollary 5. ∎


text:
# A Fundamental Relation Between Supermassive Black Holes and Their Host Galaxies

## 1. Introduction

After decades of indirect and circumstantial evidence, the motion of gas and stars on parsec scales has provided irrefutable dynamical evidence for the presence of $`10^710^9`$ M black holes (BHs) in about a dozen elliptical and a handful of spiral galaxies (Kormendy & Richstone 1995). While efforts to build a larger, statistically significant sample continue, we have now moved from debating the existence of supermassive BHs, to asking what regulates their formation and evolution, and how their presence influences, and is influenced by, their host galaxies.

In an early review based on eight detections, Kormendy & Richstone (1995) found that BH masses $`M_{}`$ scale linearly with the absolute blue luminosity of the host bulge or elliptical galaxy. This correlation was later strengthened by Magorrian et al. (1998) using a larger ($`30`$) sample of galaxies to which simple stellar dynamical models were applied. At the same time, it has been noted (e.g. Jaffe 1999) that the $`M_{}B_T^0`$ relation suffers from observational biases and exhibits a large scatter which is not accounted for by the uncertainties in the individual measurements.

By understanding how the properties of BHs relate to those of their host galaxies, we can hope to learn about the formation and evolution of both. In this Letter, the connection between BH masses and the stellar velocity dispersion of the host galaxy is investigated for the first time. We find a remarkably tight correlation with negligible intrinsic scatter when using galaxies with well-determined BH masses (roughly speaking, those galaxies in which the observations have resolved the sphere of gravitational influence of the BH). Our results suggest that the stellar velocity dispersion may be the fundamental parameter regulating the evolution of supermassive BHs in galaxies.

## 2. Database

All secure BH mass estimates available to date (see §3), together with a compilation of properties of the host galaxies, are given in Table 1. Revised Hubble and T-type (from the Third Reference Catalogue, RC3, de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991) are found in columns 2 and 3, while column 4 lists distances to the host galaxy. With a few exceptions detailed in the footnotes, all distances are from surface brightness fluctuation (SBF) data (Tonry et al. 2000) calibrated as in Ferrarese et al. (2000).

Total apparent magnitudes mB, uncorrected for Galactic absorption, are from the RC3 for all elliptical galaxies (T-type = $``$4 or smaller), and from de Vaucouleurs & Pence (1978) for the Milky Way. For the lenticular and spiral galaxies (T-type = $``$3 and larger), $`m_B`$ for the bulge is derived using the empirical correlation between T-type and the ratio between bulge and total luminosity (Simien & de Vaucouleurs 1986), and is deemed to be accurate within 0.5 mag. Finally, all magnitudes are corrected for Galactic extinction using the DIRBE/IRAS maps of Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis (1998) and an extinction law following Cardelli, Clayton & Mathis (1989), and converted to absolute magnitudes (col. 5) given the distances in column 4.

The methods used in deriving the BH masses, and references to the original papers are listed in the last column of Table 1. Because the masses depend linearly on the assumed distance to the host galaxies, the values in column 6 have been corrected to adhere to our homogeneous set of distances. This correction is random in nature, and negligible with the exception of IC 1459, which is twice as distant as assumed in the original paper. Uncertainties in the host galaxies’ distances have been incorporated in the errors in the BH masses.

Elliptical galaxies and bulges of spirals have radial velocity gradients, hence a measure of the velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ will depend on the distance to the galaxy, the size of the aperture used, and the location of the aperture with respect to the galaxy core (e.g. Davies et al. 1987). For this work, we have chosen the same definition of $`\sigma `$ used for studies of the fundamental plane of elliptical galaxies, namely the central velocity dispersion, typically measured in an aperture a few arcseconds in diameter (Davies et al. 1987, and references listed in the footnotes of Table 1). Our choice will be justified in §3. To bring all values of $`\sigma `$ to a common system, we have adopted the prescription of Jorgensen, Franx & Kjaergaard (1995) and transformed all velocity dispersions to the equivalent of an aperture of radius $`r_e/8`$, where $`r_e`$ is the galaxy (or bulge) effective radius. The applied corrections are very small (rarely exceeding 5%) and are deemed accurate to within 1% (Jorgensen, Franx & Kjaergaard 1995). Raw and corrected $`\sigma `$ are listed in columns 7 and 8 of

Table 1. For the Milky Way, we adopt the mean velocity dispersion compiled by Kent (1992) within $`r_e/8`$.

## 3. Analysis

We did not make any attempt to homogenize the error estimates on the BH masses. Except for adding in quadrature the (small) uncertainty in the galaxies’ distances, the errors on $`M_{}`$ listed in Table 1 are those quoted by the respective authors. However, the real uncertainties are often much larger. For instance, Magorrian et al. (1998) derived BH masses based on fitting a simple class of dynamical models to ground-based kinematical data. In almost all of these galaxies, the data can equally well be fit by a more general class of model with no BH at all; thus the Magorrian et al. mass estimates might conservatively be interpreted as upper limits (e.g. van der Marel 1997). The same is true for the majority of ground-based, stellar-kinematical BH detections.

In view of this fact, we list in Table 1 only the galaxies which we deem to have reliable BH mass estimates. The proper motion studies of the Sagittarius A star cluster and the dynamics of the water maser disk in NGC 4258 lead to the most robust determinations of $`M_{}`$. Close seconds are estimates in 10 additional galaxies, based on data from high-resolution HST observations, either absorption-line stellar spectra or observations of the motion of nuclear dust/gas disks. These 12 galaxies comprise our “Sample A.” Additional galaxies with less secure BH mass detections are Arp 102B ($`M_{}`$ obtained from fitting accretion disk models to variable optical emission lines, Newman et al. 1997), and all galaxies for which $`M_{}`$ is estimated based on stellar kinematics obtained from the ground (e.g. the Magorrian et al. 1998 sample). These galaxies define our “Sample B”: the data are tabulated in Merritt & Ferrarese (2000).

We then searched for linear correlations between $`\mathrm{log}M_{}`$ and both $`B_T^0`$ and $`\mathrm{log}\sigma _c`$. We used the bivariate linear regression routine of Akritas & Bershady (1996), which accommodates intrinsic scatter as well as measurement errors in both variables. $`M_{}`$ was taken as the dependent variable. The results of the regression fits, applied to each sample of $`N`$ galaxies, are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 1.

The correlation between $`M_{}`$ and bulge magnitude $`B_T^0`$ (Fig. 1a,c) is poor, both for Sample A and Sample B. Although the best linear fit to the data has a slope close to the value of $`0.4`$ expected if $`M_{}`$ is simply proportional to the bulge mass, it is apparent from the figure, and from the reduced $`\chi _r^2`$ of the fit (Table 2), that even by restricting the sample to the galaxies with the most accurately determined BH masses, the intrinsic scatter in the $`M_{}B_T^0`$ relation remains significantly larger than the reported errors. No sub-sample of galaxies, selected either by Hubble Type or method used in deriving $`M_{}`$, defines a tight linear relation between $`M_{}`$ and $`B_T^0`$. This implies that differences in the mass-to-light ratio between Hubble types, or systematic biases affecting any particular method, are unlikely to account for the large scatter.

Figures 1b and 1d show the dependence of $`M_{}`$ on the central stellar velocity dispersion $`\sigma _c`$ of the host bulge or elliptical galaxy. The correlation is remarkable: Sample A, which shows a large scatter in the $`M_{}B_T^0`$ plots, now defines a linear relation with negligible intrinsic scatter. The best-fit linear relation is

$$\mathrm{log}M_{}=4.80(\pm 0.54)\mathrm{log}\sigma _c2.9(\pm 1.3)$$
(1)
with $`M_{}`$ in units of $`M_{}`$ and $`\sigma _c`$ in km s-1. The slope of the relation remains unaltered, albeit with a larger uncertainty, if the two galaxies at the low-velocity-dispersion end of the distribution (the Milky Way and M32) are excluded from the fit. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit (Table 2) is only $`0.8`$, consistent with a scatter that derives entirely from measurement errors. The first incarnation of Eq. (1) was suggested by Merritt (2000) (the “Faber-Jackson law for black holes”).

The galaxies in Sample B define a much weaker correlation between $`M_{}`$ and $`\sigma _c`$ (Fig. 1d). Furthermore, the BH masses in this sample lie systematically above the mean line defined by Sample A, some by factors of $`10^2`$. Two factors distinguish the two samples: the reliability of the $`M_{}`$ estimates; and the method used to derive the BH masses. About 1/2 of the mass determinations in Sample A are based on gas motions while almost all of the Sample B masses are derived from stellar kinematics. We see no evidence for a systematic difference between the two types of mass determination; for instance, NGC 4342 and NGC 7052 have identical $`\sigma _c`$ and $`M_{}`$, even though the determination of $`M_{}`$ in NGC 4342 is based on stellar kinematics and in NGC 7052 on rotation of a gas disk. In the case of IC 1459, for which $`M_{}`$ predicted by Eq. 1 is $`2.5`$ times larger than measured, Verdoes-Kleijn et al. (2000) suggest that the true BH mass could be a factor $`34`$ greater than their best estimate due to non-circular motions of the gas. It seems likely that the different correlations defined by the two samples result largely from errors in the determination of $`M_{}`$ for the galaxies in Sample B.

Our choice of aperture-corrected, central velocity dispersions is convenient but not unique. We note first that correcting $`\sigma `$ for the effect of aperture size does not introduce a bias in either the slope or the intercept (see Table 1). However, the need for

aperture corrections could be avoided by using a measurement of the rms velocity at some fiducial distance from the center. Figure 2 plots $`M_{}`$ vs. the rms stellar velocity $`v_{rms}`$ at $`r_e/4`$, with $`v_{rms}=\sqrt{(\sigma ^2+v_r^2/\mathrm{sin}^2i)_{r_e/4}}`$. Here $`\sigma `$ and $`v_r`$ are the measured stellar velocity dispersion and mean line-of-sight velocity respectively. A complication with this approach is the typically poorly-constrained value of the inclination angle $`i`$ between the rotation axis and the line of sight. Estimates for $`i`$ are available only for NGC 3115 (Emsellem, Dejonghe & Bacon 1999) and NGC 4342 (Scorza & van den Bosch 1998). Neglecting or wrongly estimating $`\mathrm{sin}i`$ will increase the scatter in the relation and bias the slope too low, by moving faint, rapidly-rotating galaxies to the left in the $`M_{}v_{rms}`$ plane. Nevertheless, for our sample A, linear regression fits (Table 2) show that the slopes of $`M_{}`$ vs bulge velocity are coincident whether $`\sigma _c`$ or $`v_{rms}`$ is used.

An interesting question is whether the tight correlation between $`M_{}`$ and $`\sigma _c`$ might simply reflect the influence of the BH on the stellar kinematics of the nucleus. The coincidence of the slopes obtained when $`v_{rms}`$ is substituted for $`\sigma _c`$ is the most convincing evidence that this is not the case, since $`v_{rms}`$ is measured well beyond the radius at which the BH could have a measurable effect. In addition, most of the measurements of $`\sigma `$ listed in Table 1 were carried out using apertures much larger than the expected radius of gravitational influence of the BH. We stress that – even if the correlation between $`M_{}`$ and $`\sigma _c`$ were due in part to the gravitational influence of the BH on the motion of stars in the nucleus – this would not vitiate the usefulness of the relation as a predictor of $`M_{}`$. Figure 1b suggests that $`M_{}`$ can be predicted with an accuracy of $`30\%`$ or better from a single, low-resolution observation of a galaxy’s velocity dispersion. This is a remarkable result.

## 4. Discussion

We have found a nearly perfect correlation between the masses of nuclear BHs and the velocity dispersions of their host bulges, $`M_{}\sigma ^\alpha `$, $`\alpha =4.8\pm 0.5`$. Here we examine some of the implications of this correlation.

The Magorrian et al. (1998) mass estimates fall systematically above the tight correlation defined by our Sample A (Fig. 1d), some by as much as two orders of magnitude. The discrepancy is a strong function of distance to the galaxy, particularly at the high-mass end: nine of the Magorrian et al. galaxies have BH masses that are larger than the largest BH mass in our Sample A ($`3.6\times 10^9M_{}`$, in NGC 4486), and six of these are more distant than 50 Mpc. A number of authors (van der Marel 1997; Ho 1998) have suggested on other grounds that the Magorrian et al. mass estimates may be systematically high. If our Eq. (1) correctly predicts $`M_{}`$, the gravitational radius of influence of the BHs in most of these galaxies would be far too small to have been resolved from the ground. For example, Eq. (1) predicts $`M_{}2.8\times 10^8M_{}`$ for NGC 4874, a full two orders of magnitudes smaller than the Magorrian et al. estimate; the implied radius of influence is $`24`$ pc $``$ 0′′.05. In support of this idea, we note that the best-fitting $`M_{}`$ found by Magorrian et al. in five of their 36 galaxies was negative, while an additional three galaxies – altogether, $`1/4`$ of their sample – were consistent with $`M_{}<0`$. In view of this, we suggest that correlation studies based on the Magorrian et al. masses (e.g. Merrifield, Forbes & Terlevich 2000) be interpreted with caution.

In passing, we caution against the indiscriminate extrapolation of Eq. (1) much below the range plotted in Figure 1 (for example to the range appropriate to dwarf elliptical galaxies or globular clusters), as the formation mechanism of BHs with masses smaller than $`10^5`$ M might differ from that of more massive systems (Haehnelt, Natarajan & Rees 1998).

Why should BH masses be so tightly correlated with bulge velocity dispersions? One possibility is a fundamental connection between $`M_{}`$ and bulge mass, with $`\sigma `$ a good predictor of bulge mass – a better predictor, for instance, than $`B_T^0`$. This explanation is superficially plausible, since the masses of early-type galaxies scale with their luminosities as $`ML^{5/4}`$ (Faber et al. 1987) and $`L\sigma ^4`$, hence $`M\sigma ^5`$. The $`M_{}\sigma `$ relation of Figure 1b would therefore imply a rough proportionality between BH mass and bulge mass, i.e. that a universal fraction of the baryonic mass was converted into BHs. However early-type galaxies appear to be two-parameter systems (Djorgovski & Davis 1987) and it is not clear that $`\sigma `$ alone should be a good predictor of galaxy mass.

Another possibility is that $`\sigma `$ measures the depth of the potential well in which the BH formed. A number of authors (Silk & Rees 1998; Haehnelt, Natarajan & Rees 1998) have suggested that quasar outflows might limit BH masses by inhibiting accretion of gas. Equating the energy liberated in one dynamical time of the bulge to the gravitational binding energy, and assuming accretion at the Eddington rate, gives a maximum BH mass that scales as $`\sigma ^5`$ (Silk & Rees 1998), again consistent with the observed relation. This dependence could be maintained in the face of mergers only if BHs continued to grow by gas accretion during all stages of the merger hierarchy (Kauffmann & Haehnelt 2000).

We thank Avi Loeb for an illuminating discussion which served as a key motivation for this paper, and W. Dehnen, C. Joseph, J. Magorrian and M. Sarzi for comments and suggestions which improved the manuscript. LF acknowledges grant NASA NAG5-8693, and DM acknowledges grants NSF AST 96-17088 and NASA NAG5-6037. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED).


text:
# COLLECTIVE STATES FROM RANDOM INTERACTIONS

## 1 Introduction

In empirical studies of medium and heavy even-even nuclei very regular features have been observed, such as the tripartite classification of nuclear structure into seniority, anharmonic vibrator and rotor regions . In each of these three regimes, the energy systematics is extremely robust, and the transitions between different regions occur very rapidly, typically with the addition or removal of only one or two pairs of nucleons. These robust features suggest that there exists an underlying simplicity of low-energy nuclear structure never before appreciated. In order to address this point we present the results of a study of the systematics of collective levels in the framework of the interacting boson model (IBM) with random interactions .

## 2 Randomly interacting bosons

In the IBM, collective excitations in nuclei are described in terms of a system of $`N`$ interacting monopole and quadrupole bosons . We consider the most general one- and two-body Hamiltonian $`H=H_1/N+H_2/N(N1)`$. The two one-body and seven two-body matrix elements of the IBM are chosen independently from a Gaussian distribution of random numbers with zero mean and variance $`v^2`$, such that the ensemble is invariant under orthogonal basis transformations. In order to remove the $`N`$ dependence of the many-body matrix elements, we have scaled $`H_1`$ by $`N`$ and $`H_2`$ by $`N(N1)`$. In all calculations we take $`N=16`$ bosons and 1000 runs. For each set of randomly generated one- and two-body matrix elements we calculate the entire energy spectrum and the $`B(E2)`$ values between the yrast states.

Just as for the nuclear shell model with random interactions , we find a predominance of $`L^P=0^+`$ ground states. In 63.4 $`\%`$ of the runs the ground state has $`L^P=0^+`$, followed by the state with the maximum value of the angular momentum $`L^P=32^+`$ with 16.7 $`\%`$ and $`L^P=2^+`$ with 13.8 $`\%`$.

For the cases with a $`0^+`$ ground state we calculate the probability distribution $`P(R)`$ of the energy ratio of the yrast states $`R=[E(4^+)E(0^+)]/[E(2^+)E(0^+)]`$. This energy ratio has characteristic values of $`R1`$, $`2`$ and $`10/3`$ for the seniority, vibrational and rotational regions, respectively. Fig. 1 shows a remarkable result: $`P(R)`$ has two very pronounced peaks, one at $`R1.95`$ and a narrower one at $`R3.35`$ . These values correspond almost exactly to the harmonic vibrator and rotor values of 2 and 10/3 (see Table 1).

Energies by themselves are not sufficient to decide whether or not there exists a collective structure. Levels belonging to a collective band are connected by strong electromagnetic transitions. In Table 1 we show the energy ratio $`R`$ and the ratio of $`B(E2)`$ values of the $`4^+2^+`$ and $`2^+0^+`$ transitions for the three symmetry limits of the IBM . In the large $`N`$ limit, the ratio of $`B(E2)`$ values is 2 for the harmonic vibrator and 10/7 both for the $`\gamma `$-unstable rotor and the axially symmetric rotor. In Fig. 2 we show a correlation plot between the ratio of $`B(E2)`$ values and the energy ratio $`R`$. There is a strong correlation between the first peak in the energy ratio and the vibrator value for the ratio of $`B(E2)`$ values (the concentration of points in this region corresponds to about 50 $`\%`$ of all cases), and for the second peak and the rotor value (about 25 $`\%`$ of all cases) .

A subsequent study  of the dependence of these collective features on the number of bosons $`N`$ and the rank $`k`$ of the interactions has shown that the vibrational and rotational band structures appear gradually as a function of $`N/k`$. For $`Nk`$ there is little or no evidence for such bands. For larger values of $`N`$ we first see the development of vibrational structure, followed later by the appearance of rotational bands. If $`N`$ increases further these band structures become more and more pronounced.

## 3 Conclusions

A study of the IBM with random ensembles of one- and two-body Hamiltonians has shown that despite the randomness of the interactions the ground state has $`L^P=0^+`$ in 63.4 $`\%`$ of the cases. For this subset, the analysis of energies and quadrupole transitions shows strong evidence for the occurrence of both vibrational and rotational band structure. The inclusion of random three-body interactions does not significantly change the basic properties.

These regular features arise from a much wider class of Hamiltonians than are usually considered to be ‘realistic’, and represent general and robust properties of the many-body dynamics, which enters via the reduction formulas for the $`N`$-body matrix elements of $`k`$-body interactions. Since the structure of the model space is completely determined by the corresponding degrees of freedom, these results emphasize the importance of the selection of the relevant degrees of freedom.

A similar situation has been observed in the context of the nuclear shell model with respect to the pairing properties .

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by DGAPA-UNAM under project IN101997, and by CONACyT under projects 32416-E and 32397-E.

## References


text:
# CPT anomaly in two-dimensional chiral 𝑈(1) gauge theories

## I Introduction

Recently, a CPT anomaly has been found in certain four-dimensional chiral gauge theories, with the topology and spin structure of the spacetime manifold playing a crucial role . The well-known CPT theorem  is circumvented by the breakdown of Lorentz invariance at the quantum level . The calculation of Ref.  was done perturbatively and more or less the same type of anomaly was expected to occur in appropriate higher- and lower-dimensional chiral gauge theories. Here, we consider the two-dimensional chiral $`U(1)`$ gauge theory over the torus, for which the chiral determinant is known *exactly* . The aim of this paper is to determine whether or not the exact result contains the CPT anomaly and perhaps to learn more about the anomaly itself .

## II Chiral determinant

We consider in this Brief Report two-dimensional Euclidean chiral $`U(1)`$ gauge theory, defined over the torus $`T^2`$. For simplicity, we take a particular torus (modulus $`\tau =i`$), with Cartesian coordinates $`x^\mu `$ $``$ $`[0,L]`$, $`\mu =1`$, 2, and Euclidean metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\mu \nu }`$. The theory has the fermionic action

$$S[A,\overline{\psi },\psi ]=_0^Ldx^1_0^Ldx^2\overline{\psi }\sigma ^\mu \left(_\mu +iA_\mu \right)\psi ,$$
(1)
with $`\sigma ^1=1`$ and $`\sigma ^2=i`$. The boundary conditions for the real gauge potential $`A(x)`$ $``$ $`A_\mu (x)\mathrm{d}x^\mu `$ and the 1-component Weyl field $`\psi (x)`$ are *both* taken to be periodic:

$`A(x^1+mL,x^2+nL)`$ $`=`$ $`A(x^1,x^2),`$ (2)
$`\psi (x^1+mL,x^2+nL)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (x^1,x^2),`$ (3)
for arbitrary integers $`m`$ and $`n`$.

The two-dimensional gauge potential in the trivial topological sector can be decomposed as follows :

$$A_\mu (x)=ϵ_{\mu \nu }g^{\nu \rho }_\rho \varphi (x)+2\pi h_\mu /L+_\mu \chi (x),$$
(4)
with $`\varphi (x)`$ and $`\chi (x)`$ real periodic functions and $`h_\mu `$ real constants (the harmonic pieces of the gauge potential). Here, $`\chi (x)`$ corresponds to the gauge degree of freedom. Furthermore, the gauge potential $`A_\mu (x)`$ is taken to be smooth, i.e. without delta-function singularities.

The chiral determinant (the exponential of minus the Euclidean effective action) is then given by the following functional integral:

$`D^{\mathrm{PP}}[A]`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{PP}}[A]\right)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{PP}}}𝒟\psi 𝒟\overline{\psi }\mathrm{exp}\left(S[A,\overline{\psi },\psi ]\right),`$ (6)
where PP indicates the doubly-periodic boundary condition (2) on the fermion field. This chiral determinant has been calculated using various regularization methods. See Refs.  and references therein. Reference , in particular, introduces a local counterterm to restore translation invariance and obtains the following result :

$`D^{\mathrm{PP}}[A]`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\vartheta }(h_1+\frac{1}{2},h_2+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}(h_1h_2)\right)`$ (7)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2x\left(\varphi ^2\varphi +i\varphi ^2\chi \right)}\right),`$ (8)
with, for real variables $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$, the definition

$`\widehat{\vartheta }(k_1,k_2)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\pi (k_2)^2+i\pi k_1k_2\right]`$ (10)
$`\times \vartheta (k_1+ik_2;i)/\eta (i),`$
in terms of the Riemann theta function and Dedekind eta function

$`\vartheta (z;\tau )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi in^2\tau +2\pi inz\right),`$ (11)
$`\eta (\tau )`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi i\tau /12\right){\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi im\tau \right)\right].`$ (12)
The result (7) holds for the chiral determinant of a single positive chirality (right-moving) Weyl fermion of unit charge; cf. Eq. (1). If the charge is $`q_{R1}`$ instead, then the variables $`h_\mu `$, $`\varphi (x)`$, and $`\chi (x)`$ in Eq. (7) each need to be multiplied by a factor $`q_{R1}`$. For a negative chirality (left-moving) Weyl fermion of charge $`q_{L1}`$, one also has to take the complex conjugate of the whole expression (7). For the 345-model (three chiral fermions with charges $`q_{R1}=3`$, $`q_{R2}=4`$, and $`q_{L3}=5`$), one obtains the following chiral determinant :

$$D_{345}^{\mathrm{PP}}[A]=D^{\mathrm{PP}}[3A]D^{\mathrm{PP}}[4A]\left(D^{\mathrm{PP}}[5A]\right)^{}.$$
(13)
The chiral determinant (13) of the 345-model is gauge invariant. Indeed, it is straightforward to verify both the $`\chi `$ independence and the invariance under large gauge transformations $`h_\mu `$ $``$ $`h_\mu +n_\mu `$ for arbitrary integers $`n_\mu `$ . We will first focus on this particular chiral model. Other chiral models will be discussed later.

## III CPT noninvariance

The question, now, is how the gauge-invariant chiral determinant (13) of the 345-model behaves under a CPT transformation of the background gauge field:

$$A_\mu (x)A_\mu ^{\mathrm{CPT}}(x)A_\mu (x).$$
(14)
Using the elementary properties of the theta function , one finds

$$D_{345}^{\mathrm{PP}}[A^{\mathrm{CPT}}]=D_{345}^{\mathrm{PP}}[A],$$
(15)
with each of the three chiral fermions contributing a multiplicative factor $`1`$ on the right-hand side. Hence, the effective action of the chiral $`U(1)`$ gauge theory with PP spin structure over the torus *changes* under a CPT transformation (14) of the background gauge field, provided the total number ($`N_F`$) of charged chiral fermions of the theory is *odd* (e.g. $`N_F`$ $`=`$ $`3`$ for the 345-model). The result (15) thus provides conclusive evidence for a CPT anomaly of the chiral model considered.

The asymmetry (15) implies the vanishing of the chiral determinant (13) for $`A_\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$. For gauge fields (4) with $`\varphi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ and infinitesimal harmonic pieces $`h_\mu `$, one has, in fact,

$$D_{345}^{\mathrm{PP}}[h_1,h_2]=c(h_1+ih_2)(h_1^2+h_2^2)+\mathrm{O}(h^5),$$
(16)
with a nonvanishing complex constant $`c`$. This result follows from the observation that the analytic function $`\vartheta (z;i)`$ appearing in Eq. (7) has a simple zero at $`z`$ $`=`$ $`(1+i)/2`$. More directly, the holomorphic factor $`(h_1+ih_2)`$ in Eq. (16) corresponds to one of the eigenvalues of the Weyl operator $`\sigma ^\mu \left(_\mu +iA_\mu \right)`$ with doubly-periodic boundary condition and constant gauge potential, as do the holomorphic and antiholomorphic factors contained in $`(h_1^2+h_2^2)`$. Equation (16) agrees, of course, with the general result (15) on CPT violation. But the real importance of Eq. (16) is that, for this special case, the *origin* of the two-dimensional CPT anomaly can be identified explicitly, namely one particular eigenvalue of the Weyl operator. (See  for further details.)

The chiral determinant  of the 345-model over the torus is CPT invariant for the other spin structures AA, PA, and AP, where (A)P stands for (anti-)periodic boundary conditions on the fermion fields (the three fermion species being treated equally). This appears to be related to the observation that the CPT anomaly is not expected for the AA spin structure  and the fact that the chiral determinants  for the AA, PA, and AP spin structures transform into each other under modular transformations (global diffeomorphisms; cf. Ref. ), whereas the chiral determinant of the PP spin structure is invariant up to a phase. It is important to realize that this extra requirement of modular invariance for the AA, PA, and AP spin structures restricts the type of theories considered and also possible regularization methods . For the general question of how to sum over the different spin structures, see, for example, the discussion in Refs. . In our case, the two-dimensional CPT anomaly would be present as long as the PP spin structure appears in the sum.

## IV Lorentz noninvariance

Given that CPT invariance no longer holds for the 345-model with doubly-periodic spin structure over the torus, $`SO(1,1)`$ Lorentz invariance, or rather $`SO(2)`$ invariance for the Euclidean theory, is expected to be broken as well . Concretely, this can be tested by comparing the (translation-invariant) chiral determinant (13) for two different, *localized* gauge fields which are related by a Lorentz transformation .

Consider, for example, a gauge potential $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (x)`$ which, up to periodicity, is allowed to be nonzero only for $`|x^\mu L/2|`$ $`<`$ $`\mathrm{}`$, with a fixed length $`\mathrm{}`$ $`<<`$ $`L/2`$, and which has infinitesimal, but nonvanishing, harmonic pieces $`\stackrel{~}{h}_\mu `$ $``$ $`(2\pi L)^1\mathrm{d}^2x\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (x)`$. In other words, the gauge potential $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (x)`$ has local support (set by $`\mathrm{}`$) and produces small, but nonzero, averages $`\stackrel{~}{h}_\mu `$ (typically of order $`\mathrm{}/L`$). According to Eq. (16), the chiral determinant for this gauge field is then proportional to $`(\stackrel{~}{h}_1+i\stackrel{~}{h}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_\mu `$. Similarly, the chiral determinant for the $`SO(2)`$ Lorentz transformed (“boosted”) gauge potential,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{A}_1^{}(x)\\ \stackrel{~}{A}_2^{}(x)\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{A}_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }x)\\ \stackrel{~}{A}_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }x)\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\alpha & \mathrm{sin}\alpha \\ \mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha \end{array}\right),$$
(17)
is proportional to $`\sigma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_\mu ^{}`$. But these two particular factors differ by a phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha )`$, as can be readily verified. All other factors of the two chiral determinants being equal, this then implies

$$D_{345}^{\mathrm{PP}}[\stackrel{~}{A}^{}]=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha )D_{345}^{\mathrm{PP}}[\stackrel{~}{A}].$$
(18)
Note that Eq. (18), for $`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\pi `$, agrees with the previous result (15). Also note that the noninvariance of the factor $`\sigma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_\mu `$ in the chiral determinant directly carries over to the theory with Minkowskian metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}`$ $`(+1,1)`$. In short, the Lorentz invariance of the chiral determinant (13) for the localized gauge field $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (x)`$ is broken through its $`\stackrel{~}{h}_\mu `$ dependence. (The term $`\mathrm{d}^2x\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ from Eq. (7) is, of course, Lorentz invariant.)

As far as the gauge potential is concerned, this localized configuration $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (x)`$ could also have been embedded in the Euclidean plane $`^2`$. The Lorentz noninvariance of the effective gauge field action comes from the chiral fermions which are sensitive to the topology of the torus $`T^2`$. More physically, the periodic boundary conditions *predispose* the chiral fermions of the 345-model to select specific $`\stackrel{~}{h}_\mu `$–dependent terms from the local interaction with the gauge field. These special terms in the effective action then make the local dynamics of the (classical) gauge field $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (x)`$ Lorentz noninvariant.

## V Other chiral models

Up until now, we have focused on the 345-model, which has an odd number of charged chiral fermions ($`N_F`$ $`=`$ $`3`$). A chiral model with even $`N_F`$ does not have the CPT anomaly discussed above, but can still be Lorentz noninvariant. An example for $`N_F`$ $`=`$ $`10`$ would be the $`1^93`$-model, which has ten chiral fermions with charges $`q_{Ri}=1`$, for $`i=1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ , $`9`$, and $`q_{L10}=3`$. For this model, the chiral determinant (16) becomes

$$D_{1^93}^{\mathrm{PP}}[h_1,h_2]=c^{}(h_1+ih_2)^8(h_1^2+h_2^2)+\mathrm{O}(h^{12}),$$
(19)
which is invariant under the CPT transformation (14), but changes under the $`SO(2)`$ Lorentz transformation (17) by a phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i8\alpha )`$. On the other hand, a chiral model with even $`N_F`$ can also be Lorentz invariant, in the sense discussed above. An example would be the chiral model with $`N_F=6`$ chiral fermions of charges $`\{q_R\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{3,4,13\}`$ and $`\{q_L\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{5,5,12\}`$, for which the chiral determinant is $`c^{\prime \prime }(h_1^2+h_2^2)^3`$ to lowest order. (Vectorlike models, which have $`\{q_R\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{q_L\}`$, are always Lorentz invariant.) Clearly, a deeper understanding of what distinguishes these gauge-invariant chiral models remains to be desired.

## VI Discussion

For the two-dimensional chiral $`U(1)`$ gauge theory with an odd number $`N_F`$ of charged chiral fermions defined over the torus, we have thus seen that the CPT noninvariance of the effective gauge field action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{PP}}[A]`$ is carried by the harmonic pieces $`h_\mu `$ of the gauge fields $`A_\mu (x)`$. These $`h_\mu `$ are of the same type as the local Chern–Simons-like terms encountered previously in four dimensions . Indeed, the Chern–Simons one-form for an one-dimensional Abelian $`U(1)`$ gauge field $`a(x)`$ is given by

$$\omega _{\mathrm{CS}}[a](2\pi )^1a(x)\mathrm{d}x.$$
(20)
One possible two-dimensional Chern–Simons-like term is then the average over the $`x^2`$ coordinate of $`2\pi i`$ times the genuine Chern–Simons term for the $`x^1`$ space $`S^1`$, namely

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{CS}\mathrm{like},1}^{S^1\times S^1}[A]{\displaystyle _0^L}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x^2}{L}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi i{\displaystyle _{S^1}}\omega _{\mathrm{CS}}[A_1]\right)`$ (21)
$`=i{\displaystyle _0^L}dx^1{\displaystyle _0^L}dx^2A_1(x^1,x^2)/L=2\pi ih_1,`$ (22)
where $`h_1`$ is defined by Eq. (4). The other two-dimensional Chern–Simons-like term (based on the genuine Chern–Simons term for the $`x^2`$ space) equals $`2\pi ih_2`$. Hence, Chern–Simons-like terms play a role for the CPT anomaly in both two and four dimensions. There is, however, a difference, in that the four-dimensional Chern–Simons-like term immediately affects the gauge field propagation, with the vacuum becoming optically active .

In closing, we remark that the CPT noninvariance found here appears to be not directly related to the purely gravitational anomaly which afflicts Weyl fermions in two dimensions ($`4k+2`$ dimensions in general) . The gravitational anomaly (breakdown of general coordinate invariance) of the two-dimensional 345-model, say, shows up for deviations from the Euclidean metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\mu \nu }`$, but in our case the metric is perfectly Euclidean and, still, the effective gauge field action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{PP}}[A]`$ is CPT noninvariant. Instead of local spacetime fluctuations, it is the spacetime topology (and spin structure) that is relevant to the CPT anomaly. The CPT anomaly resembles in this respect the so-called topological Casimir effect .

## Acknowledgments

This work was started during the sabbatical leave of one of us (F.R.K.) and the hospitality of the High-Energy Theory group at the Niels Bohr Institute is gratefully acknowledged. J.N. is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.