text:
# The Weyl functional near the Yamabe invariant

## 1 Introduction: results and examples

1.1. The Yamabe constant/invariant. Let $`M`$ be a smooth compact (without boundary) manifold of $`dimM=n3`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{iem}(M)`$ the space of the Riemannian metrics on $`M`$, and by $`𝒞(M)`$ the space of conformal classes of Riemannian metrics on $`M`$. The Einstein-Hilbert functional $`I:\mathrm{iem}(M)𝐑`$ is given as

$$I(g)=\frac{_MR_g𝑑\sigma _g}{\mathrm{Vol}_g(M)^{\frac{n2}{n}}},$$

where $`R_g`$ is the scalar curvature and $`d\sigma _g`$ is the volume form of $`g`$. It is well-known that the functional $`I`$ is not bounded from above and below for any manifold, and the set of critical points of $`I`$ coincides with the Einstein metrics on $`M`$. Let $`C𝒞(M)`$ be a conformal class. The restiction $`I|_C`$ is always bounded from below. The constant

$$Y_C(M):=\underset{gC}{inf}I(g)$$

is known as the *Yamabe constant* of the conformal class $`C`$. The Yamabe constant satisfies the inequality $`Y_C(M)Y_{C_0}(S^n)`$, where the equality holds if and only if the manifold $`(M,C)`$ is conformally equivalent to the standard sphere $`S^n`$ with the standard conformal class $`C_0`$. Then the supremum

$$Y(M):=\underset{C𝒞(M)}{sup}Y_C(M)$$

is the *Yamabe invariant* of $`M`$. The Yamabe constant $`Y_C(M)`$ is an important conformal invariant. In particular, for any conformal class $`C𝒞(M)`$, there exists a metric (Yamabe metric) $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}C`$ such that $`I(\stackrel{ˇ}{g})=Y_C(M)`$. The Yamabe metric has constant scalar curvature $`R_{\stackrel{ˇ}{g}}=Y_C(M)`$ under the normalization $`\mathrm{Vol}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{g}}(M)=1`$.

1.2. The Weyl functional. Now let $`dimM4`$. We denote by $`W_g=(W_{jk\mathrm{}}^i)`$ the Weyl tensor of a metric $`g\mathrm{iem}(M)`$. The norm $`|W_g|_g`$ is defined as

$$|W_g|_g=\left(W_{jk\mathrm{}}^iW_i^{jk\mathrm{}}\right)^{1/2}.$$

Let $`C𝒞(M)`$, and let $`gC`$ be any metric. Then the integral

$$W_C(M):=_M|W_g|_g^{\frac{n}{2}}𝑑\sigma _g$$

does not depend on the choice of the metric $`gC`$. The map $`𝒞(M)𝐑`$, $`CW_C(M)`$, is called the *Weyl functional*. We shall call $`W_C(M)`$ the *Weyl constant* of the conformal class $`C`$ and the infimum

$$W(M):=\underset{C𝒞(M)}{inf}W_C(M)$$

the *Weyl invariant* of $`M`$. Clearly the invariant $`W(M)`$ is a diffeomorphism invariant as well as $`Y(M)`$.

1.3. General results. To state our main results, we define one more numerical invariant $`\omega (M)`$ as follows. Firstly, for a given manifold $`M`$, we say that a sequence $`\left\{C_i\right\}`$, $`C_i𝒞(M)`$, of conformal classes is a *Yamabe sequence* if

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}Y_{C_i}(M)=Y(M).$$

In particular, if there exists a class $`C𝒞(M)`$ satisfying $`Y(M)=Y_C(M)`$, the sequence $`C_i=C`$ for $`i1`$ is a Yamabe sequence. Secondly, we define the constant

$$\omega (M,\left\{C_i\right\}):=\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}infW_{C_i}(M)0$$

for any Yamabe sequence $`\left\{C_i\right\}`$. Then the invariant $`\omega (M)`$ is defined as

$$\omega (M):=inf\left\{\omega (M,\left\{C_i\right\})\right|\left\{C_i\right\}\text{ is a Yamabe sequence}\}.$$

Notice that $`\omega (M)W(M)`$ by definition. Also it easy to show that $`\omega (M)=0`$ for $`M=S^n`$, $`S^1\times S^{n1}`$, $`T^n`$ and their connected sums.

Theorem A. Let $`M`$ be a compact manifold of $`dimM=n4`$. Then for any small $`\epsilon >0`$ and any constant $`\kappa >\omega (M)`$ there exists a conformal class $`C𝒞(M)`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}Y_C(M)Y(M)\epsilon ,\hfill \\ \kappa +\epsilon W_C(M)\kappa .\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
###### Remark 1.1

If $`\omega (M)=+\mathrm{}`$, Theorem A delivers an empty statement. It is not clear that the invariant $`\omega (M)`$ is finite for every compact manifold $`M`$. However, without the finiteness of $`\omega (M)`$, the following statement still holds.

Theorem A. Let $`M`$ be a compact manifold of $`dimM=n4`$. Then for any small $`\epsilon >0`$ and any constant $`\kappa >0`$ there exists a conformal class $`C𝒞(M)`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}Y_C(M)Y(M)\epsilon ,\hfill \\ W_C(M)\kappa .\hfill \end{array}$$

We prove Theorem A in two steps. Firstly, we prove Theorem A for $`M=S^n`$ by constructing a conformal class $`C𝒞(S^n)`$ satisfying (1) with the understanding that $`\omega (S^n)=0`$. Secondly, we prove the general case by constructing an appropriate conformal class on the connected sum $`M\mathrm{\#}S^n`$. Theorem A follows immediately from our argument as well.

To proceed further, we would like to introduce some terminology.

1.4. The $`𝖸𝖶`$-quadrant, Yamabe corner, Sobolev and Kuiper lines. For a compact manifold $`M`$ we consider the map

$$𝖸𝖶:𝒞(M)𝐑^2,C(Y_C(M),W_C(M)).$$

We denote by $`𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)𝐑^2`$ the image of the map $`𝖸𝖶`$. By definition, the set $`𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)`$ is a diffeomorphism invariant of $`M`$.

The third author observed that the set $`𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)`$ contains certain interesting aspects of conformal geometry, and he studied some of its properties (cf. , ).

Let $`(y,w)`$ be the Euclidian coordinates in $`𝐑^2`$. Consider the *$`𝖸𝖶`$-quadrant* of a manifold $`M`$:

$$𝐐^{𝖸𝖶}(M):=\left\{(y,w)\right|yY(M),wW(M)\},$$

see Fig. 1.1. Clearly $`𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)𝐐^{𝖸𝖶}(M)`$. We emphasize that there is not much known about the shape of the set $`𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)𝐐^{𝖸𝖶}(M)`$. In this paper we study the set $`𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)`$ near the Sobolev line defined below.

Fig. 1.1. The $`𝖸𝖶`$-quadrant of $`M`$. Here $`Y(M)>0`$, $`W(M)>0`$.

We explain the notations and terminology given in Fig. 1.1. We call the point $`(Y(M),W(M))`$ the *Yamabe corner* of $`M`$. Then we call the line $`\left\{y=Y(M)\right\}`$ the *Sobolev line*. This name is motivated by the following observation. Let $`Y(M)>0`$, and let $`C`$ be a positive conformal class (i.e. $`Y_C(M)>0`$). We denote by $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}C`$ a Yamabe metric. Then the following inequality holds (cf. )

$$\left(_M|f|^{\frac{2n}{n2}}𝑑\sigma _{\stackrel{ˇ}{g}}\right)^{\frac{n2}{n}}\frac{1}{\frac{n2}{4(n1)}Y_C(M)}_M|df|_{\stackrel{ˇ}{g}}^2𝑑\sigma _{\stackrel{ˇ}{g}}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{g}}(M)^{\frac{2}{n}}}_Mf^2𝑑\sigma _{\stackrel{ˇ}{g}}$$

for $`fL_{\stackrel{ˇ}{g}}^{1,2}(M)`$, where $`L_{\stackrel{ˇ}{g}}^{1,2}(M)`$ denotes the Sobolev space of $`L^2`$-functions with $`L^2`$ first derivatives relative to $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}`$. In particular, the constant $`\frac{n2}{4(n1)}Y_C(M)`$ is the best Sobolev constant for the Sobolev embedding $`L_{\stackrel{ˇ}{g}}^{1,2}(M)L_{\stackrel{ˇ}{g}}^{\frac{2n}{n2}}(M)`$. Furthermore, $`\frac{n2}{4(n1)}Y(M)`$ is the supremum of those Sobolev constants. We notice that

$$𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(S^n)\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of }S^n\right\}=\left\{(Y(S^n),0)\right\}=\left\{\text{the Yamabe corner of }S^n\right\}$$

for all $`n4`$ due to the final resolution of the Yamabe problem by Schoen . The case $`Y(M)0`$ does not have such interpretation, however, it is convenient to use this term in general case.

We call the line $`\left\{w=W(M)\right\}`$ the *Kuiper line* of $`M`$ (see Gursky’s paper  for some remarkable results on the Kuiper lines of $`4`$-manifolds). Our motivation for this name comes from the Kuiper Theorem : if $`W_C(S^n)=0`$ for a conformal class $`C𝒞(S^n)`$, then $`C`$ is equivalent (up to a diffeomorphism) to the standard conformal class $`C_0`$. In our terms,

$$𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(S^n)\left\{\text{the Kuiper line of }S^n\right\}=\left\{(Y(S^n),0)\right\}=\left\{\text{the Yamabe corner of }S^n\right\}.$$

In terms of the set $`𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)`$, Theorem A implies the following.

Corollary B. Let $`M`$ be a compact manifold of $`dimM=n4`$. Then

$$\overline{𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)}\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of }M\right\}=\left\{y=Y(M),w\omega (M)\right\}.$$

Here $`\overline{𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)}`$ is the closure of $`𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)𝐑^2`$.

1.5. The Einstein and the gap curves. Here we consider only 4-dimensional manifolds. For a manifold $`M`$ we denote by $`\chi (M)`$ and $`\tau (M)`$ the Euler characteristic and the signature of $`M`$ respectively. The Hirzebruch signature formula gives the following result.

###### Proposition 1.1

Let $`M`$ be an oriented, compact $`4`$-manifold. Then for any $`C𝒞(M)`$,

$$W_C(M)48\pi ^2|\tau (M)|$$

with the equality if and only if $`(M,C)`$ is half conformally flat (i.e. self-dual or anti self-dual). In particular, $`W(M)48\pi ^2|\tau (M)|`$.

The Chern-Gauss-Bonnet formula leads to the following interesting result.

###### Theorem 1.2

(\[12, Section 1-(i)\]) Let $`M`$ be a compact $`4`$-manifold. Then for any conformal class $`C𝒞(M)`$ the following inequality holds:

$$W_C(M)32\pi ^2\chi (M)\frac{1}{6}Y_C(M)^2$$

with the equality if and only if the conformal class $`C`$ contains an Einstein metric.

We call the curve $`w=32\pi ^2\chi (M)\frac{1}{6}y^2`$, $`wW(M)`$, $`yY(M)`$, the *Einstein curve* of $`M`$.

On the other hand, the Gap Theorems due to Gursky \[7, Theorem 3.3, Proposition 3.5\] and Gursky–LeBrun \[9, Theorem 1\] can be reformulated as follows.

###### Theorem 1.3

(Gap Theorem) Let $`M`$ be an oriented, compact $`4`$-manifold and $`C𝒞(M)`$ a conformal class satisfying $`Y_C(M)>0`$. Assume that either

1. $`b_2^+(M)=dimH_+^2(M;𝐑)>0`$, or
2. $`C`$ contains an Einstein metric and $`W_g^+0`$ for $`gC`$.

Then the following inequality holds:

$$W_C(M)\frac{1}{3}Y_C(M)^248\pi ^2\tau (M).$$

Here $`W_g^+`$ is the self-dual Weyl curvature of $`g`$.

We call the curve $`w=\frac{1}{3}y^248\pi ^2\tau (M)`$, $`w0`$, $`y0`$, the *gap curve* of $`M`$.

1.6. Examples. 1. Let $`M=S^4`$. Then we have $`W(S^4)=0`$, $`Y(S^4)=8\pi \sqrt{6}`$. The Einstein and the gap curves are $`w=64\pi ^2\frac{1}{6}y^2`$, $`w=\frac{1}{3}y^2`$ respectively. We notice that $`Y(S^4)=8\pi \sqrt{6}`$ coincides with the value of $`y`$ given by the intersection of the Einstein curve with $`w=0`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(S^4)\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of }S^4\right\}\hfill & =& \left\{\text{the Yamabe corner of }S^4\right\},\hfill \\ & & \\ 𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(S^4)\left\{\text{the Kuiper line of }S^4\right\}\hfill & =& \left\{\text{the Yamabe corner of }S^4\right\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

On the other hand, Corollary B implies that

$$\overline{𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(S^4)}\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of }S^4\right\}=\left\{y=8\pi \sqrt{6},w0\right\}.$$

We have the following picture for $`S^4`$:

Fig. 1.2. The $`𝖸𝖶`$-picture of $`S^4`$.

Here and below we shade a subset of $`𝐐^{𝖸𝖶}(M)`$ which still contains $`𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)`$. We call it the “$`𝖸𝖶`$-picture of $`M`$”.

Then Theorem 1.3 implies that the intersection $`𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(S^4)\left\{\text{the Einstein curve of }S^4\right\}`$ does not contain the points with $`8\pi \sqrt{2}<y<8\pi \sqrt{6}.`$ It is not known whether this intersection contains any points except the Yamabe corner.

Example 2. Let $`M=𝐂\text{P}^2`$. The Einstein curve and the gap curves are given as $`w=98\pi ^2\frac{1}{6}y^2`$ and $`w=\frac{1}{3}y^248\pi ^2`$ respectively.

It is known that $`W(𝐂\text{P}^2)=48\pi ^2`$ (it follows from Proposition 1.1) and $`Y(𝐂\text{P}^2)=12\pi \sqrt{2}`$ (LeBrun , Gursky–LeBrun ), where $`Y(𝐂\text{P}^2)`$ is attained by the conformal class $`[g_{FS}]`$ of the Fubini-Study metric $`g_{FS}`$ on $`𝐂\text{P}^2`$. In particular, $`\omega (𝐂\text{P}^2)=W_{[g_{FS}]}(𝐂\text{P}^2)=W(𝐂\text{P}^2)=48\pi ^2`$. The $`𝖸𝖶`$-picture of $`𝐂\text{P}^2`$ is shown at Fig. 1.3 below. Here the Yamabe corner coincides with the intersection of the Sobolev line, Kuiper line and the Einstein curve (and the gap curve). Moreover, it follows from Gursky–LeBrun’s result \[8, Theorem 7\] that

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(𝐂\text{P}^2)\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of }𝐂\text{P}^2\right\}=\left\{\text{the Yamabe corner of }𝐂\text{P}^2\right\}=\left\{(12\pi \sqrt{2},48\pi ^2)\right\}.\end{array}$$

Corollary B gives here that

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(𝐂\text{P}^2)}\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of }𝐂\text{P}^2\right\}=\left\{y=12\pi \sqrt{2},w48\pi ^2\right\}.\end{array}$$

In this case the gap curve does not give useful restrictions. However, it follows from \[9, Theorem 2\] that if a conformal class $`C`$ contains an Einstein metric different from $`g_{FS}`$, then $`Y_C(𝐂\text{P}^2)<4\pi \sqrt{6}`$, see Fig 1.3.

Fig. 1.3. The $`𝖸𝖶`$-picture of $`𝐂\text{P}^2`$.

1.7. Results on 4-manifolds. Let $`\chi (M)`$ and $`\tau (M)`$ be as above.

Theorem C. Let $`M`$ be a minimal compact complex surface of general type, that is, its Kodaira dimension $`\mathrm{Kod}(M)=2`$. Let $`M^{}=M\mathrm{\#}k\overline{𝐂\text{P}^2}\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}(S^1\times S^3)`$ ($`k,\mathrm{}0`$) be the connected sum of the blow-up of $`M`$ at $`k`$ points with $`\mathrm{}`$ copies of $`S^1\times S^3`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}\omega (M^{})=\frac{16}{3}\pi ^2(4\chi (M^{})3\tau (M^{})+2k+8\mathrm{}),\text{in particular,}\\ \\ \overline{𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M^{})}\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of}\text{ }M^{}\right\}=\left\{y=Y(M^{}),w\frac{16}{3}\pi ^2(4\chi (M^{})3\tau (M^{})+2k+8\mathrm{})\right\}.\end{array}$$

In this case the Yamabe invariant $`Y(M^{})`$ is known (see LeBrun ,  and Petean ):

$$Y(M^{})=4\sqrt{2}\pi \sqrt{2\chi (M)+3\tau (M)}<0.$$

We have the following $`𝖸𝖶`$-picture for such $`M`$:

Fig. 1.4. The $`𝖸𝖶`$-picture of a minimal compact complex surface $`M`$ of general type.

In Fig. 1.4, we assume that $`M`$ has a negative first Chern class. We emphasize that in general, it is not clear whether $`\omega (M)=W(M)`$ or $`\omega (M)>W(M)`$ for every minimal compact complex surface of general type.

Theorem D. Let $`M`$ be a minimal compact Kähler-type complex surface of $`\mathrm{Kod}(M)=0`$ or $`\mathrm{Kod}(M)=1`$. Let $`M^{}=M\mathrm{\#}k\overline{𝐂\text{P}^2}\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}(S^1\times S^3)`$ ($`k,\mathrm{}0`$). Then

$$\begin{array}{c}\omega (M^{})=W(M^{})=48\pi ^2\tau (M^{})=48\pi ^2(k\tau (M)),\text{in particular,}\\ \\ \overline{𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M^{})}\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of}\text{ }M^{}\right\}=\left\{y=Y(M^{}),w48\pi ^2\tau (M^{})\right\}.\end{array}$$

In this case it is also known that $`Y(M^{})=0`$ (see LeBrun  and Petean ).

###### Remark 1.2

(1) Under the assumptions of Theorem C or D, the intersection

$$𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of }M\right\}=\left\{\text{one point}\right\}\text{or}\mathrm{},$$

see \[4, Proposition 5.89\] or \[13, Theorem 1\].

(2) Theorems C and D still hold for more general $`4`$-manifolds $`M^{}`$, see \[10, Theorems A, B and C\].

1.8. More examples. Here we give examples illustrating Theorems C and D.

Example 3. Let $`M`$ be a $`K3`$-surface. Then $`M`$ is a minimal Kähler surface of $`\mathrm{Kod}(M)=0`$. Here $`\tau (M)=16`$, and Theorem D gives that $`W(M)=\omega (M)=768\pi ^2`$, $`Y(M)=0`$. Here we know also that there is no conformal class $`C𝒞(M)`$ with $`Y_C(M)=0`$ and with $`W_C(M)>\omega (M)=W(M)=768\pi ^2`$. Thus we have:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)\left\{\text{the Sobolev line}\right\}=\left\{(Y(M)=0,W(M)=768\pi ^2)\right\}=\left\{\text{the Yamabe corner}\right\},\\ \\ \overline{𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)}\left\{\text{the Sobolev line}\right\}=\left\{y=0,w768\pi ^2\right\}\text{by Corollary B.}\end{array}$$

In particular, we see that a conformal class $`C𝒞(M)`$ contains an Einstein metric if and only if $`Y_C(M)=0`$ and $`W_C(M)=768\pi ^2`$. We have the following $`𝖸𝖶`$-picture:

Fig. 1.5. The $`𝖸𝖶`$-picture of the $`K3`$ surface.

Example 4. Let $`M=T^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ is a surface with genus $`g2`$. Then $`M`$ is a minimal Kähler surface of $`\mathrm{Kod}(M)=1`$. Here $`\tau (M)=0`$ and $`\chi (M)=0`$.

Theorem D gives that $`\omega (M)=W(M)=0`$. We notice that $`Y(M)=0`$, however, there is no conformal class $`C𝒞(M)`$ such that $`Y(M)=Y_C(M)=0`$ (see \[20, Proposition 6\]). Hence we have

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of }M\right\}=\mathrm{},\\ \\ \overline{𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)}\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of }M\right\}=\left\{y=0,w0\right\}\text{by Corollary B.}\end{array}$$

Fig. 1.6. The $`𝖸𝖶`$-picture of $`M=T^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, $`g2`$.

Example 5. Let $`M=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g_1}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{g_2}`$ where $`g_1,g_22`$. Then $`M`$ is a minimal Kähler surface of $`\mathrm{Kod}(M)=2`$. We have $`\chi (M)=4(g_11)(g_21)`$, $`\tau (M)=0`$. Here the Yamabe invariant is attained by the canonical product Kähler-Einstein metrics. Theorem C gives that $`\omega (M)=\frac{256}{3}\pi ^2(g_11)(g_21)`$. Also $`Y(M)=16\pi \sqrt{(g_11)(g_21)}`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of }M\right\}=\left\{(Y(M),\omega (M))\right\}=\left\{\text{the Yamabe corner of }M\right\},\\ \\ \overline{𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)}\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of }M\right\}=\left\{yY(M),w\omega (M)\right\}\text{by Corollary B.}\end{array}$$

Here it is not clear whether $`\omega (\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g_1}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{g_2})>W(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g_1}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{g_2})`$ or they are equal.

Fig. 1.7. The $`𝖸𝖶`$-picture of $`M=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g_1}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{g_2}`$ with $`g_1,g_22`$.

Example 6. Let $`M=𝐂H^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a smooth compact quotient of the complex hyperbolic space. Then $`M`$ is a minimal compact Kähler surface of general type. Then $`\chi (M)=3\tau (M)>0`$ by \[16, Theorem 5\].

Theorem D now gives: $`\omega (M)=\frac{16}{3}\pi ^29\tau (M)=48\pi ^2\tau (M)=16\pi ^2\chi (M).`$ Let $`g_B`$ be the canonical Kähler-Einstein metric on $`M`$ (i.e. the Bergmann metric). The Yamabe invariant $`Y(M)=12\sqrt{2}\pi \sqrt{\tau (M)}`$ is attained by the metric $`g_B`$. Since $`g_B`$ is a self-dual metric, we have $`W(M)=48\pi ^2\tau (M)`$ by Proposition 1.1. Hence $`\omega (M)=W(M)=48\pi ^2\tau (M)=16\pi ^2\chi (M)`$. Here we have

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of }M\right\}=\left\{(Y(M),\omega (M))\right\}=\left\{\text{the Yamabe corner of }M\right\},\\ \\ \overline{𝐊^{𝖸𝖶}(M)}\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of }M\right\}=\left\{yY(M),w\omega (M)\right\}\text{by Corollary B.}\end{array}$$

Fig. 1.8. The $`𝖸𝖶`$-picture of $`M=𝐂H^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

1.9. The plan of the paper. Firstly we prove Theorems C, D assuming Theorem A in Section 2. Secondly we prove Theorem A for the particular manifold $`M=S^n`$ in Section 3. Thirdly we prove the general case of Theorem A in Section 4.

1.10. Acknowledgments. The first and the third authors are very grateful to the Department of Mathematics of the University of Oregon for hospitality. The authors are grateful to Claude LeBrun for his valuable comments concerning Theorem 1.3 and Theorems C, D.

## 2 Proofs of Theorems C and D

2.1. Proof of Theorem C. Let $`M`$ be a minimal compact complex surface of general type, and $`M^{}=M\mathrm{\#}k\overline{𝐂\text{P}^2}\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}(S^1\times S^3)`$. Here we use the results by LeBrun \[19, Theorem 7\], \[20, Theorem 2\], \[21, Proposition 3.2, Proof of Theorem 4.3\] and Petean \[22, Proposition 4\] to conclude that there exists a sequence of metrics $`\left\{g_j\right\}`$, $`g_j\mathrm{iem}(M^{})`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}_M^{}|W_{g_j}^+|_{g_j}^2𝑑\sigma _{g_j}=\frac{4}{3}\pi ^2(2\chi (M)+3\tau (M))>0,\hfill \\ \\ \underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}Y_{[g_j]}(M^{})=Y(M^{})=4\sqrt{2}\pi \sqrt{2\chi (M)+3\tau (M)}<0,\hfill \\ \\ \underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}_M^{}R_{g_j}^2𝑑\sigma _{g_j}=Y(M^{})^2=32\pi ^2(2\chi (M)+3\tau (M))>0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here we use the following convention: $`|W_g|_g^2=4\left(|W_g^+|_g^2+|W_g^{}|_g^2\right)`$. In particular, the sequence of conformal classes $`\left\{[g_j]\right\}`$ is a Yamabe sequence. Then the Hirzebruch signature formula gives:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}W_{[g_j]}(M^{})& =& 8\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}_M^{}|W_{g_j}^+|_{g_j}^2𝑑\sigma _{g_j}48\pi ^2\tau (M^{})\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& \frac{16}{3}\pi ^2(4\chi (M^{})3\tau (M^{})+2k+8\mathrm{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Then, by definition, we have:

$$\omega (M^{},\left\{[g_j]\right\})=\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}W_{[g_j]}(M^{})=\frac{16}{3}\pi ^2(4\chi (M^{})3\tau (M^{})+2k+8\mathrm{}).$$

From the formula (2) below, we also notice that

$$\omega (M^{})\frac{16}{3}\pi ^2(4\chi (M^{})3\tau (M^{})+2k+8\mathrm{}).$$

These imply Theorem C.

###### Remark 2.1

Under the same assumptions on $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ as in Theorem C, we notice the following.

1. There is a sharp inequality

$$|Y_C(M^{})|+\sqrt{6}\left(_M^{}|W_g^+|_g^2𝑑\sigma _g\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}6\sqrt{2}\pi \sqrt{2\chi (M)+3\chi \tau (M)}>0$$
(2)
for any $`C𝒞(M^{})`$ and $`gC`$ (see \[21, Formula (13)\]). When either $`k1`$ or $`\mathrm{}1`$, the inequality (2) provides a further restriction on the $`𝖸𝖶`$-picture of $`M^{}`$.
2. Furthemore,

$$\begin{array}{c}\left\{\text{the Sobolev line of }M^{}\right\}\left\{\text{the Einstein curve of }M^{}\right\}\\ \\ =\left\{(Y(M^{}),\frac{16}{3}\pi ^2(4\chi (M^{})3\tau (M^{})k4\mathrm{}))\right\}.\end{array}$$

Then if either $`k1`$ or $`\mathrm{}1`$, the above $`w`$-coordinate is strictly less than $`\omega (M^{})`$.

2.2. Proof of Theorem D. Let $`M`$ be a minimal compact Kähler-type complex surface of Kodaira dimension $`\mathrm{Kod}(M)=0`$ or $`1`$. Let $`M^{}=M\mathrm{\#}k\overline{𝐂\text{P}^2}\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}(S^1\times S^3)`$. Again we use the results due to LeBrun \[19, Theorem 7\], \[20, Theorems 4 and 6\], \[21, Proposition 3.2 and Proof of Theorem 4.3\] and Petean \[22, Proposition 3\] to conclude that there exists a sequence of metrics $`\left\{g_j\right\}`$, $`g_j\mathrm{iem}(M^{})`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}_M^{}|W_{g_j}^+|_{g_j}^2𝑑\sigma _{g_j}=\frac{4}{3}\pi ^2(2\chi (M)+3\tau (M)),\hfill \\ \\ \underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}Y_{[g_j]}(M^{})=Y(M^{})=0,\hfill \\ \\ \underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}_M^{}R_{g_j}^2𝑑\sigma _{g_j}=Y(M^{})^2=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus the sequence of conformal classes $`\left\{[g_j]\right\}`$ is a Yamabe sequence. Then the Hirzebruch signature formula gives:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}W_{[g_j]}(M^{})& =& 8\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}_M^{}|W_{g_j}^+|_{g_j}^2𝑑\sigma _{g_j}48\pi ^2\tau (M^{})\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& \frac{16}{3}\pi ^2(4\chi (M)3\tau (M)+9k)\hfill \end{array}$$

We obtain:

$$\omega (M^{},\left\{[g_j]\right\})=\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}W_{[g_j]}(M^{})=\frac{16}{3}\pi ^2(4\chi (M)3\tau (M)+9k).$$

It also follows from \[20, Theorem 4 and Proposition 7\] that $`2\chi (M)=3\tau (M)0`$ and $`\omega (M^{})=W(M^{})=48\pi ^2(k\tau (M))=48\pi ^2\tau (M^{})`$. These imply Theorem D.

## 3 The sphere

3.1. The result. Our goal here is to prove Theorem A for $`M=S^n`$, that is, the following result.

###### Theorem 3.1

For any small $`\epsilon >0`$ and arbitrary $`\kappa >0`$ there exists a conformal class $`C𝒞(S^n)`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}Y_C(S^n)Y(S^n)\epsilon ,\hfill \\ \kappa +\epsilon W_C(S^n)\kappa .\hfill \end{array}$$

To give a proof of Theorem 3.1 we will construct a required conformal class $`C𝒞(S^n)`$ using the manifold $`S^{n1}\times 𝐑`$. The following definition is due to Schoen and Yau .

###### Definition 3.1

Let $`(N,C)`$ be a conformal manifold of $`dimN=n3`$ (possibly noncompact) and $`gC`$ any metric. We denote

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill E_g(f)& =& _N\left(\alpha _n|df|_g^2+R_gf^2\right)𝑑\sigma _g,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill Q_g(f)& =& \frac{E_g(f)}{(_N|f|^{\frac{2n}{n2}}𝑑\sigma _g)^{\frac{n2}{n}}},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\alpha _n=\frac{4(n1)}{n2}`$. Then the Yamabe constant $`Y_C(N)`$ is defined as

$$Y_C(N)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}_{fC_{\mathrm{cpt}}^{\mathrm{}}(N)}\\ _{f0}\end{array}}{inf}Q_g(f).$$

The Yamabe constant $`Y_C(N)`$ does not depend on the choice of the metric $`gC`$ (see ).

3.2. Continuity of the Yamabe constant. First we recall the following result on the continuity of the Yamabe constant, see , \[13, Fact 1.4\] (cf. \[2, Lemma 4.1\]).

###### Fact 3.1

Let $`M`$ be a compact manifold of $`dimM=n3`$ and $`g\mathrm{iem}(M)`$. Let $`\left\{g_i\right\}`$ be a sequence of Riemannian metrics such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}g_ig,\hfill \\ R_{g_i}R_g\hfill \end{array}\text{as }i\mathrm{}$$

in the uniform $`C^0`$-norm on $`M`$ with respect to $`g`$. Then $`Y_{[g_i]}(M)Y_{[g]}(M)`$ as $`i\mathrm{}`$.

In the course of proving Proposition 3.1 one has to show that $`\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}infY_{[g_i]}(M)Y_{[g]}(M)`$. Here it is essential that the volume $`\mathrm{Vol}_g(M)`$ is finite. However, a similar continuity result still holds for noncompact manifolds under the positivity of scalar curvature.

###### Proposition 3.2

Let $`N`$ be a manifold without boundary (possibly noncompact). Assume that a metric $`g\mathrm{iem}(N)`$ satisfies the following condition

$$0<L_0^1R_gL_0\text{on}N$$
(3)
for some constant $`L_0>0`$. Let $`\left\{g_i\right\}`$ be a sequence of Riemannian metrics, such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}g_ig,\hfill \\ R_{g_i}R_g\hfill \end{array}\text{as }i\mathrm{}$$

in the uniform $`C^0`$-norm on $`N`$ with respect to $`g`$. Then $`Y_{[g_i]}(N)Y_{[g]}(N)`$ as $`i\mathrm{}`$.

* Given $`\epsilon >0`$, there exists an integer $`i(\epsilon )>0`$ such that

$$\begin{array}{c}|g_ig|_g\epsilon ,|g_i^1g^1|_g\epsilon \text{(with respect to }g\text{),}\\ \\ \begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill (1\epsilon )d\sigma _g& & d\sigma _{g_i}& & (1+\epsilon )d\sigma _g,\hfill \\ & & & & \\ \hfill 0<(1\epsilon )R_g& & R_{g_i}& & (1+\epsilon )R_g\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$

for any $`ii(\epsilon )`$. Note that the last inequality follows from the condition (3). For any compactly supported smooth function $`fC_{\mathrm{cpt}}^{\mathrm{}}(N)`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill E_{g_i}(f)& =& _N(\alpha _n|df|_{g_i}^2+R_{g_i}f^2)𝑑\sigma _{g_i}\hfill \\ & & \\ & & _N(\alpha _n(1\epsilon )|df|_g^2+(1\epsilon )R_gf^2)(1\epsilon )𝑑\sigma _g\hfill \\ & & \\ & & (12K\epsilon )_N(\alpha _n|df|_g^2+R_gf^2)𝑑\sigma _g\hfill \\ & & \\ & & (12K\epsilon )E_g(f)\hfill \end{array}$$

for any $`ii(\epsilon )`$. Similarly we have

$$\begin{array}{c}E_{g_i}(f)(1+2K\epsilon )E_g(f)\text{and}\\ \\ (1K^{}\epsilon )\left(_N|f|^{\frac{2n}{n2}}𝑑\sigma _g\right)^{\frac{n2}{n}}\left(_N|f|^{\frac{2n}{n2}}𝑑\sigma _{g_i}\right)^{\frac{n2}{n}}(1+K^{}\epsilon )\left(_N|f|^{\frac{2n}{n2}}𝑑\sigma _g\right)^{\frac{n2}{n}}.\end{array}$$

Here $`K`$, $`K^{}`$ are positive constants independent of $`f`$ and $`\epsilon `$. Hence we have

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill \frac{(12K\epsilon )}{(1+K^{}\epsilon )}Q_g(f)& & Q_{g_i}(f)& & \frac{(1+2K\epsilon )}{(1K^{}\epsilon )}Q_g(f),\hfill & \text{or}\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \hfill (1K^{\prime \prime }\epsilon )Q_g(f)& & Q_{g_i}(f)& & (1+K^{\prime \prime }\epsilon )Q_g(f),\hfill & \text{or}\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \hfill (1K^{\prime \prime }\epsilon )Y_{[g]}(N)& & Y_{[g_i]}(N)& & (1+K^{\prime \prime }\epsilon )Y_{[g]}(N)\hfill & \end{array}$$

for some positive constant $`K^{\prime \prime }`$. This implies that $`Y_{[g_i]}(N)Y_{[g]}(N)`$.

We recall the following well-known facts (cf. , ).

###### Fact 3.2

Let $`g_0`$ and $`h_0`$ denote the standard metrics on the spheres $`S^n`$ and $`S^{n1}`$ respectively. Let $`C_0=[g_0]`$. Then

$$Y(S^n)=Y_{C_0}(S^n)=Y_{C_0}(S^n\left\{\text{2 points}\right\})=Y_{[h_0+dt^2]}(S^{n1}\times 𝐑).$$

###### Fact 3.3

Let $`M`$ be a compact manifold, $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_kM`$, and $`C𝒞(M)`$ a conformal class which is conformaly flat near the points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$. Then

$$Y_C(M)=Y_C(M\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_k\}).$$

Let $`g_0`$ and $`h_0`$, as above, denote the standard metrics on the spheres $`S^n`$ and $`S^{n1}`$ respectively. As a corollary of Proposition 3.2 we have the following result.

###### Corollary 3.3

Let $`h(,t)`$ be a smooth (with respect to $`t`$) family of Riemannian metrics on $`S^{n1}`$, and let $`\overline{g}(z,t)=h(z,t)+dt^2`$, $`(z,t)S^{n1}\times 𝐑`$, be the corresponding metric on the cylinder $`S^{n1}\times 𝐑`$. Then for any $`\epsilon >0`$ there exists $`\delta >0`$ such that if the family $`h(,t)`$ satisfies the condition

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}|h(,t)h_0|_{h_0}<\delta & \text{on }S^{n1}\text{ for any }t𝐑\text{, and}\hfill \\ |R_{\overline{g}(,t)}R_{\overline{g}_0}|<\delta & \text{on}S^{n1}\times 𝐑,\hfill \end{array}$$

then $`Y_{[\overline{g}]}(S^{n1}\times 𝐑)Y_{[\overline{g}_0]}(S^{n1}\times 𝐑)\epsilon =Y(S^n)\epsilon `$. Here $`\overline{g}_0:=h_0+dt^2`$ on $`S^{n1}\times 𝐑`$.

3.3. Metrics on the cylinder $`N=M\times 𝐑`$. We consider the following general situation. Let $`M`$ be a compact manifold, and $`N=M\times 𝐑`$.

First, let $`g(,t)\mathrm{iem}(M)`$ be a smooth family of metrics and $`\overline{g}(z,t)=g(z,t)+dt^2`$ the corresponding metric on $`N=M\times 𝐑`$. First, we compare the scalar curvature functions $`R_g`$ and $`R_{\overline{g}}`$, where $`g:=g(,t)`$. We have:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill R_{\overline{g}}& =& R_g+\frac{1}{4}\left(g^{ij}g^{kl}_tg_{ij}_tg_{kl}(g^{ij}_tg_{ij})^2\right)\frac{1}{2}\left(g^{ij}_t^2g_{ij}+_t(g^{ij}_tg_{ij})\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& R_gg^{ij}_t^2g_{ij}\frac{1}{4}(g^{ij}_tg_{ij})^2+\frac{3}{4}g^{ij}g^{kl}_tg_{ij}_tg_{kl}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Here the indices $`i,j,k,\mathrm{}`$ vary within the corresponding indices $`1,\mathrm{},n1`$ of local coordinates $`z=\{z^1,\mathrm{},z^{n1}\}`$ on $`M`$. Now we consider a particular family of metrics. Let $`L>0`$ be a sufficiently large constant. We choose a nonnegative function $`\phi =\phi _LC^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑)`$ satisfying

$$|\phi ^{}|\frac{2}{L},|\phi ^{\prime \prime }|\frac{4}{L^2},\phi =\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{if}t0,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if}tL,\hfill \end{array}\text{(see Fig. }\text{3}\text{.1.)}$$

Fig. 3.1. The function $`\phi =\phi _L`$.

Let $`h,\widehat{h}\mathrm{iem}(M)`$ be two metrics on the “slice” $`M`$. We define the family of metrics on $`M\times \left\{t\right\}M`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g(z,t)& :=& \phi (t)h(z)+(1\phi (t))\widehat{h}(z)\hfill \\ & =& h(z)(1\phi (t))T(z),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`T(z):=h(z)\widehat{h}(z)`$. Let $`\overline{g}(z,t):=g(z,t)+dt^2`$ be the metric on the cylinder $`M\times 𝐑`$. We notice that

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g^{}& =& \phi ^{}T,\hfill \\ \hfill g^{\prime \prime }& =& \phi ^{\prime \prime }T\hfill \end{array}\text{and}\overline{g}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{h}+dt^2\hfill & \text{if}t0,\hfill \\ h+dt^2\hfill & \text{if}tL.\hfill \end{array}$$

Assume that $`|T|_h<<1`$, so that $`\frac{1}{2}(h_{ij})(g_{ij})2(h_{ij})`$. Then we use (4) to give the estimate

$$|R_{\overline{g}}R_g|\frac{8}{L^2}|T|_h+\frac{4}{L^2}|T|_h^2+\frac{12}{L^2}|T|_h^2\frac{K_0}{L^2}|T|_h$$
(5)
since $`|T|_h<<1`$. We denote $`\theta (z,t):=(1\phi (t))T(z)`$, so that $`g(z,t)=h(z)+\theta (z,t)`$ on $`M\times \left\{t\right\}M`$. We also denote

$$P_h(\theta ):=^j_i\theta _i^i+^i^j\theta _{ij}R_{ij}\theta ^{ij},$$

where $`(R_{ij})`$ is the Ricci curvature of $`h`$. A straightforward calculation gives the following formula for the scalar curvature (cf. , ):

$$R_g=R_h+P_h(\theta )+Q_h(\theta ),$$

where the function $`Q_h(\theta )`$ is estimated by

$$\begin{array}{c}|Q_h(\theta )|_hK_n\left\{|\theta |_h^2q^3+|\theta |_h|^2\theta |_hq^2+\left(|\theta |_h|^2\theta |_h+|\text{Ric}(h)|_h|\theta |_h^2\right)q\right\}\text{with}\\ \\ q(z,t):=\mathrm{max}\{\frac{h(X,X)}{g(X,X)}|XT_{(z,t)}M,X0\}.\end{array}$$
(6)
Here $``$, $`\text{Ric}=(R_{ij})`$ and all norms are with respect to the metric $`h`$. Now we also assume that $`|T|_h`$ and $`|^2T|_h`$ are sufficiently small. Then the estimates (5) and (6) imply that

$$|R_gR_h|\mathrm{\Phi }(h,T),$$

where the constant $`\mathrm{\Phi }(h,T)0`$ (depending on $`h`$ and $`T`$) is small as well. We obtain

$$|R_{\overline{g}}R_h|\frac{K_0}{L^2}|T|_h+\mathrm{\Phi }(h,T).$$

In particular, the above argument implies the following technical result.

###### Lemma 3.4

Let $`h_0\mathrm{iem}(S^{n1})`$ be the standard metric of constant curvature $`1`$. Then for any integer $`j>0`$ there exist a constant $`L(j)>>1`$ and a metric $`h_j\mathrm{iem}(S^{n1})`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}|\overline{g}_0\overline{g}_j|_{\overline{g}_0}\frac{1}{j},\hfill \\ |R_{\overline{g}_0}R_{\overline{g}_j}|\frac{1}{j}\hfill \end{array}\text{on}S^{n1}\times 𝐑.$$

Here the metrics $`\overline{g}_0`$ and $`\overline{g}_j`$ on $`S^{n1}\times 𝐑`$ are defined as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{g}_0(z,t)& :=& h_0(z)+dt^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{g}_j(z,t)& :=& \left(h_0(z)(1\phi (t))(h_0(z)h_j(z))\right)+dt^2,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\phi (t):=\phi _L(t)`$ for any $`LL(j)`$.

Proof of Theorem 3.1. Let $`h_0`$ be the standard metric on $`S^{n1}`$. We use Lemma 3.4 to conclude the following.

For any $`\epsilon >0`$ there exist a constant $`L>>1`$ and a metric $`h\mathrm{iem}(S^{n1})`$ (where $`h`$ is not homothetic but $`C^2`$-close to $`h_0`$) such that the metric

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \overline{g}(z,t)& :=& g(z,t)+dt^2\text{on }S^{n1}\times 𝐑\text{ with}\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill g(z,t)& :=& \{\begin{array}{cc}h(z)\hfill & \text{on}S^{n1}\times [\overline{L},\overline{L}],\hfill \\ h_0(z)(1\phi _L(t\overline{L}))(h_0(z)h(z))\hfill & \text{on}S^{n1}\times [\overline{L},\overline{L}+L],\hfill \\ h_0(z)(1\phi _L(t\overline{L}))(h_0(z)h(z))\hfill & \text{on}S^{n1}\times [(\overline{L}+L),\overline{L}],\hfill \\ h_0(z)\hfill & \text{on}S^{n1}\times \left(𝐑[(\overline{L}+L),\overline{L}+L]\right)\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

satisfies the inequalities

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill Y_{[\overline{g}]}(S^{n1}\times 𝐑)& & Y(S^n)\epsilon ,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill _{S^{n1}\times \left([(\overline{L}+L),\overline{L}][\overline{L},\overline{L}+L]\right)}|W_{\overline{g}}|_{\overline{g}}^{\frac{n}{2}}𝑑\sigma _{\overline{g}}& & \epsilon \hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
for any $`\overline{L}>0`$ (see Fig. 3.2).

Fig. 3.2. The metric $`\overline{g}`$ on $`S^{n1}\times 𝐑`$.

Notice that the restriction of the metric $`\overline{g}(z,t)`$ on $`S^{n1}\times [\overline{L},\overline{L}]`$ is given as $`\overline{g}(z,t)=h(z)+dt^2`$. Consider the function

$$f(\overline{L}):=_{S^{n1}\times [\overline{L},\overline{L}]}|W_{\overline{g}}|_{\overline{g}}^{\frac{n}{2}}𝑑\sigma _{\overline{g}}(0,\mathrm{}).$$

Then $`f`$ is continuous on $`(0,\mathrm{})`$, and

$$\underset{\overline{L}0}{lim}f(\overline{L})=0,\underset{\overline{L}\mathrm{}}{lim}f(\overline{L})=\mathrm{}.$$
(8)
By definition of $`f`$, we have:

$$_{S^{n1}\times 𝐑}|W_{\overline{g}}|_{\overline{g}}^{\frac{n}{2}}𝑑\sigma _{\overline{g}}=f(\overline{L})+_{S^{n1}\times \left([(\overline{L}+L),\overline{L}][\overline{L},\overline{L}+L]\right)}|W_{\overline{g}}|_{\overline{g}}^{\frac{n}{2}}𝑑\sigma _{\overline{g}}.$$
(9)
It follows from (7), (8) and (9) that for any $`0<\epsilon <<1`$ and any constant $`\kappa >0`$ there exist constants $`L>0`$ and $`\overline{L}>0`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\overline{g}(z,t)=g(z,t)+dt^2\text{on }S^{n1}\times 𝐑\text{ (as above)},\hfill \\ Y_{[\overline{g}]}(S^{n1}\times 𝐑)Y(S^n)\epsilon ,\hfill \\ \kappa +\epsilon W_{[\overline{g}]}(S^{n1}\times 𝐑)\kappa ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where $`\overline{g}(z,t)=h_0(z)+dt^2`$ on $`S^{n1}\times \left(𝐑[(\overline{L}+L),\overline{L}+L]\right)`$. Thus the conformal class $`[\overline{g}]`$ can be extended smoothly to a conformal class $`C𝒞(S^n)`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill Y_{[\overline{g}]}(S^{n1}\times 𝐑)& =& Y_C(S^n),\hfill \\ \hfill W_{[\overline{g}]}(S^{n1}\times 𝐑)& =& W_C(S^n).\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
Combining (10) with (11), we complete the proof of Theorem 3.1.

Fig. 3.3. The sphere $`(S^n,\widehat{g})`$.

###### Remark 3.1

In the proof of Theorem 3.1, we let $`\overline{L}`$ go to the infinity. Then (in the terminology of ) we obtain the canonical cylindrical manifold

$$\left(S^{n1}\times 𝐑,\overline{g}:=h+dt^2\right),$$

where $`h`$ is not homothetic but $`C^2`$-close to $`h_0`$. Proposition 3.2 implies that the inequality $`Y_{[\overline{g}]}(S^{n1}\times 𝐑)Y(S^n)\epsilon `$ still holds for a small $`\epsilon >0`$. However, $`W_{[\overline{g}]}(S^{n1}\times 𝐑)=+\mathrm{}`$. From \[3, Theorems 6.1, 6.2\] there exists a function $`uC_+^{\mathrm{}}(S^{n1}\times 𝐑)L_{\overline{g}}^{1,2}(S^{n1}\times 𝐑)`$ such that the metric $`\widehat{g}=u^{\frac{4}{n2}}\overline{g}`$ is a Yamabe metric (i.e. a minimizer of the functional $`Q_{\overline{g}}`$, see  for details). Furthermore, the metric $`\widehat{g}`$ is *almost conical metric* near the two ends.

Then, by adding two points $`p_{}`$, $`p_+`$ to the ends, we obtain the sphere

$$S^n=(S^{n1}\times 𝐑)\{p_{},p_+\}$$

with the metric $`\widehat{g}`$ (see Fig. 3.3).

Thus $`(S^n,\widehat{g})`$ is a compact Riemannian manifold with two almost conical singularities. These singularities provide the source of the phenomenon that

$$W_{[\widehat{g}]}(S^n)=W_{[\overline{g}]}(S^{n1}\times 𝐑)=+\mathrm{}.$$

## 4 Proof of Theorem A

We start with the following approximation result in  and  (see also ).

###### Proposition 4.1

Let $`M`$ be a compact manifold of $`dimM=n3`$ and $`oM`$ a point. Given any conformal class $`C𝒞(M)`$ and small $`\epsilon >0`$ there exists a conformal class $`\stackrel{~}{C}𝒞(M)`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}|Y_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(M)Y_C(M)|\epsilon ,\hfill \\ |W_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(M)W_C(M)|\epsilon ,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is conformally flat near the point $`oM`$.

* Let $`gC`$ be any metric. Then following the construction in \[13, Section 3\], we define a smooth family of approximation metrics. For a given $`oM`$, there exists a metric $`\overline{g}\mathrm{iem}(M)`$, which is conformally flat near the point $`o`$, such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}j_o^1(\overline{g})=j_o^1(g),\hfill \\ R_{\overline{g}}(o)=R_g(o).\hfill \end{array}$$

For a small $`\delta >0`$, there exist a positive constant $`0<\epsilon (\delta )`$ ($`0<\epsilon (\delta )<\delta `$) and a smooth cut-off function $`w_\delta =w_\delta (r)`$ ($`r0`$) satisfying

$$0w_\delta 1,w_\delta =\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if}r\delta ,\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if}0r\epsilon (\delta ),\hfill \end{array}\text{and}\{\begin{array}{c}|r\dot{w}_\delta |<\delta ,\hfill \\ |r^2\ddot{w}_\delta |<\delta .\hfill \end{array}$$

Then let $`g_\delta :=g+w_\delta (\overline{g}g)`$. Then we have that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}g_\delta g\hfill & \text{in the }C^1\text{-norm on }M\text{ with respect to }g,\hfill \\ R_{g_\delta }R_g\hfill & \text{in the }C^0\text{-norm on }M\hfill \end{array}$$

as $`\delta 0`$. This implies that $`Y_{[g_\delta ]}(M)Y_{[g]}(M)`$ as $`\delta 0`$.

To analyze the behaviour of the Weyl constant, we denote by $`B_\delta `$ the disk (with respect to $`g`$) centered at $`oM`$ of radius $`\delta `$. Also we denote $`h=\overline{g}g`$ and $`T=w_\delta h=O(r^2)`$. Then

$$(W_{g_\delta })_{jk\mathrm{}}^i(W_g)_{jk\mathrm{}}^i=O\left(|^2T|_g\right)+O\left((1+|T|_g^2)|T|_g^2\right).$$
(12)
Here

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T& =& \dot{w}_\delta h+w_\delta h,\hfill \\ \hfill ^2T& =& \ddot{w}_\delta h+2\dot{w}_\delta h+w_\delta ^2h.\hfill \end{array}$$

Notice that $`h=O(r)`$, $`^2h=O(1)`$, and then

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}|T|_g^2& & K_1\delta ^4,\hfill \\ |T|_g^2& & K_2\delta ^2,\hfill \\ |^2T|_g& & K_3\delta +K_4\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
for some positive constants $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$, $`K_3`$, $`K_4`$. From (12) and (13), we obtain

$$|W_{g_\delta }|_g|W_g|_g+K_5$$

for some $`K_5>0`$ on the disk $`B_\delta `$, and hence there exists a constant $`K_6>0`$ such that

$$|W_{g_\delta }|_g^{\frac{n}{2}}K_6\left(|W_g|_g^{\frac{n}{2}}+1\right).$$

This implies that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \left|W_{[g_\delta ]}(M)W_{[g]}(M)\right|& =& \left|_{B_\delta }|W_{g_\delta }|_{g_\delta }^{\frac{n}{2}}𝑑\sigma _{g_\delta }_{B_\delta }|W_g|_g^{\frac{n}{2}}𝑑\sigma _g\right|\hfill \\ & & \\ & & 2K_6_{B_\delta }\left(|W_g|_g^{\frac{n}{2}}+1\right)𝑑\sigma _g\hfill \end{array}$$

since $`d\sigma _{g_\delta }2d\sigma _g`$. We obtain that $`W_{[g_\delta ]}(M)W_{[g]}(M)`$ as $`\delta 0`$.

Proof of Theorem A. First we choose small $`\epsilon >0`$. Then by definition there exists a conformal class $`C𝒞(M)`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}Y_C(M)Y(M)\frac{\epsilon }{2},\hfill \\ \omega (M)+\frac{\epsilon }{2}W_C(M)\omega (M).\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
From Proposition 4.1 we may assume that $`C`$ is conformally flat near some point $`oM`$.

Now consider the sphere $`S^n`$. By an argument similar to the one in the proof of Theorem 3.1, for any constant $`\widehat{\kappa }>0`$ there exists a conformal class $`\widehat{C}𝒞(S^n)`$, which is conformally flat near $`\widehat{o}S^n`$, such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}Y_{\widehat{C}}(S^n)Y(S^n)\frac{\epsilon }{2},\hfill \\ \widehat{\kappa }+\frac{\epsilon }{2}W_{\widehat{C}}(S^n)\widehat{\kappa }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
We decompose the manifolds $`M\left\{o\right\}`$ and $`S^n\left\{\widehat{o}\right\}`$ as follows (see Fig. 4.1):

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}M\left\{o\right\}\hfill & =& X(S^{n1}\times [0,\mathrm{})),\hfill \\ S^n\left\{\widehat{o}\right\}\hfill & =& \widehat{X}(S^{n1}\times [0,\mathrm{})).\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`h_0`$ be the standard metric on $`S^{n1}`$. We choose metrics $`gC`$ and $`\widehat{g}\widehat{C}`$ satisfying

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}gC\hfill & \text{with}& g(z,t)=h_0(z)+dt^2\text{on}S^{n1}\times [0,\mathrm{}),\hfill \\ \widehat{g}\widehat{C}\hfill & \text{with}& \widehat{g}(z,t)=h_0(z)+dt^2\text{on}S^{n1}\times [0,\mathrm{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

For each $`\mathrm{}>0`$ let $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the natural gluing metric on the manifold

$$MM\mathrm{\#}S^n\left(X(S^{n1}\times [0,\mathrm{}])\right)_{S^{n1}\times \left\{\mathrm{}\right\}}\left((S^{n1}\times [0,\mathrm{}])\widehat{X}\right),$$

which satisfies

$$g_{\mathrm{}}|_{X(S^{n1}\times [0,\mathrm{}])}=g,\text{and}g_{\mathrm{}}|_{\widehat{X}(S^{n1}\times [0,\mathrm{}])}=\widehat{g}.$$

Fig. 4.1. The manifolds $`M\left\{o\right\}`$ and $`S^n\left\{\widehat{o}\right\}`$.

From the argument in the proof of \[13, Theorem 2\] (cf. ), there exists a large constant $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}(\epsilon )>0`$ such that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill Y_{[g_{\mathrm{}}]}(M)& & Y_{C\widehat{C}}((M\left\{o\right\})(S^n\left\{\widehat{o}\right\}))\frac{\epsilon }{2}\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& Y_{C\widehat{C}}(MS^n)\frac{\epsilon }{2}=\mathrm{min}\{Y_C(M),Y_{\widehat{C}}(S^n)\}\frac{\epsilon }{2}\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& \left(Y(M)\frac{\epsilon }{2}\right)\frac{\epsilon }{2}=Y(M)\epsilon .\hfill \end{array}$$

Recall that $`g`$ and $`\widehat{g}`$ are conformally flat on $`S^{n1}\times [0,\mathrm{})`$. Hence for the Weyl constant, we have:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill W_{[g_{\mathrm{}}]}(M)& =& _X|W_g|_g^{\frac{n}{2}}𝑑\sigma _g+_{\widehat{X}}|W_{\widehat{g}}|_{\widehat{g}}^{\frac{n}{2}}𝑑\sigma _{\widehat{g}}\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& W_C(M)+W_{\widehat{C}}(S^n).\hfill \end{array}$$

This combined with (14) and (15) implies

$$\widehat{\kappa }+\omega (M)+\epsilon W_C(M)+W_{\widehat{C}}(S^n)\widehat{\kappa }+\omega (M).$$

We take $`\widehat{\kappa }=\kappa \omega (M)>0`$ and then obtain the second inequality in Theorem A. This completes the proof of Theorem A.

Kazuo Akutagawa, Shizuoka University, Shizuoka, Japan
e-mail: smkacta@ipc.shizuoka.ac.jp
Boris Botvinnik, University of Oregon, Eugene, USA
e-mail: botvinn@math.uoregon.edu
Osamu Kobayashi, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
e-mail: ok@math.sci.kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Harish Seshadri, University of Oregon, Eugene, USA
e-mail: harish@darkwing.uoregon.edu


format: text

text:
# Experimental results on strangeness production in proton-proton collisions at COSY

## 1 Introduction

One of the main topics of this conference is the study of the properties of nuclear matter at high densities realized via relativistic heavy ion collisions. The experimental studies are performed by observation of the abundance and the phase space distributions of the produced particles . Information about processes occuring during such collisions are gained, in particular, by the registration of the $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ mesons , which were created in the fireball region. However, in order to learn – from the observed kaon yields and momentum distributions – about dense baryonic matter and properties of strange particles immersed in it, the knowledge of their creation in the elementary nucleon-nucleon collisons is indispensable. To the same extent the information of their interaction with hadrons is important, since being created in the dense nuclear environment they are likely to undergo further reactions before being registered in detection systems. The purpose of this talk is to give a short overview of experimental achievements in the field of the K+ and K- meson production in elementary proton-proton collisions close to the corresponding kinematical threshold, where due to the rapid growth of the phase space volume available to the produced particles the total cross sections increase by orders of magnitudes over a few MeV range of excess energy as depicted in Figure 1.

Such studies have been made possible due to the low emittance and small momentum spread proton beams available at the storage ring facilities and in particular at the cooler synchrotron COSY. The primary motivation for the investigation of hyperon and kaon production in elementary proton-proton collisions close to threshold – where only one partial wave dominates the reaction – is i) the understanding of the creation mechanism in the energy regime where both the hadronic and constituent quark-gluon degrees of freedom may be relevant , and ii) the study of low energy hadronic interactions between nucleons and strange mesons or hyperons. However, also investigations in the field of heavy ion collisions could benefit from the results of the elementary processes. A good example of the gain from comparative studies of strangeness production in heavy ion and elementary nucleon-nucleon collisions is the observation that in nuclear matter kaons undergo a repulsion, whereas anti-kaons feel a strong attractive potential. This leads to the splitting of their effective masses . The basis for this interpretation was the observation of the KAOS collaboration that the multiplicity of kaons produced in the C+C or Ni+Ni collisions is almost the same as for anti-kaons at the corresponding center-of-mass energy above threshold with respect to nucleon-nucleon kinematics. This was in a drastic contrast to elementary proton-proton collisions where the multiplicity of K+ mesons is determined to be two orders of magnitude larger than for anti-kaons, as can be seen in Figure 2, presenting additionally to the results of KAOS data taken at the laboratories COSY, SATURNE and BNL. The consequences of this comparison become even more astonishing if one takes into account that in nuclear matter kaons are much less absorbed than anti-kaons, since the latter in collisions with nucleons form hyperon resonances which may subsequently decay weakly into a pion-nucleon system. It is worth to note, that the repulsive hadronic interaction of kaons with protons and the attractive interaction of anti-kaons and protons is also seen in the shape of the energy dependence of the cross section for K+p or K-p elastic scattering presented in Figure 3. When comparing the data to calculations – including the changes of phase-space integral and Coulomb interaction in the initial and final states – one observes a huge enhancement for the K-p cross section with decreasing excess energy and a slight suppression in case of K+p scattering.

This observation may be attributed to the slight repulsion due to the kaon-proton hadronic interaction and significantly larger attraction caused by the strong interaction between the K- and proton due to the vicinity of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ hyperon resonance. The effect must have a direct influence on the kaon mass splitting in dense nuclear matter. A natural step on the way to understand the medium modification of strange meson properties is to study how the presence of a second nucleon or hyperon would influence the kaon-proton or anti-kaon proton interaction - an issue interesting in itself as well. This can be studied by measuring the energy dependence of the total cross section for the reactions $`pppK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`ppppK^+K^{}`$ close to their corresponding kinematical thresholds  or via a study of the distribution of double differential cross sections, for example in the Dalitz-plot representation  which gives the complete, experimentally obtainable, information about reactions with three particles in a final state .

## 2 Measurements of the $`ppppK^+K^{}`$ reaction near threshold at COSY

A primordial motivation for studying the $`ppppK^+K^{}`$ reaction close to the kinematical threshold was described extensively by W. Oelert at the first Cracow Workshop on Meson Production and Interaction . It concerns the study of the hadronic interaction between K+ and K- mesons and in particular the investigations of the still unknown origin of the scalar resonances f0(980) and a0(980). As a possible interpretation of their structure one considers exotic four quark , conventinal $`q\overline{q}`$ , or molecular like $`K\overline{K}`$ bound  states.

The first experiments aiming at the determination of the total cross section for the $`ppppK^+K^{}`$ reaction very close to threshold showed however that it is more than seven orders of magnitude smaller than the total proton-proton production cross section (see fig. 1) and hence the extraction of the signals required thorough investigations of possible background reactions . The experiments are being performed at the cooler synchrotron COSY , using the COSY-11 detection system shown in Figure 4 and a hydrogen cluster target  installed in front of one of the regular COSY dipole magnets as depicted schematically in Figure 4. The target being a beam of H2 molecules grouped to clusters of up to $`10^6`$ atoms crosses perpendicularly the COSY beam with intensities up to $`510^{10}`$ protons. The very thin cluster target of only $`10^{14}`$ atoms/cm2 makes the probability of secondary scattering negligible and hence allows the precise determination of the ejectile momenta. However, despite the low density of the target it is still possible to measure reactions whith cross sections in the nanobarn region, since the proton beam circulating in the ring hits the target more than $`10^6`$ times per second resulting in luminosities of up to $`510^{30}`$ cm-2s-1. If at the intersection point of the cluster target and COSY beam a collision of protons leads to the production of a K+K- meson pair, then the ejected particles – having smaller momenta than the circulating beam – are directed by the magnetic field towards the detection system and leave the vacuum chamber through the thin exit foils . Tracks of the positively charged particles, registered by the drift chambers, are traced back through the magnetic field to the nominal interaction point, leading to a momentum determination. A simultanous measurement of the velocity, performed by means of scintillation detectors, permits to identify the registered particle and to determine its four momentum vector. Since at threshold the center-of-mass momenta of the produced particles are small in comparison to the beam momentum, in the laboratory all ejectiles are moving with almost the same velocity. This means that the laboratory proton momenta are almost two times larger then the momenta of kaons and therefore in the dipole magnetic field protons expierience a much larger Lorentz force than kaons. As a consequence, in case of the near threshold production, protons and kaons are registered in separate parts of the drift chambers as shown schematically in Figure 4. Figure 5(left) shows the squared mass of two simultaneously detected particles in the right half of the drift chamber. A clear separation is observed into groups of events with two protons, two pions, proton and pion and also deuteron and pion. This spectrum enables to select events with two registered protons. The additional requirement that the mass of the third particle, registered at the left side of the chamber, corresponds to the mass of the kaon allows to identify events with a $`ppppK^+X^{}`$ reaction signature. Knowing both the four momenta of positively charged ejectiles and the proton beam momentum one can calculate the mass of an unobserved system $`X^{}`$. Figure 5(middle) presents the square of the missing mass spectrum with respect to the identified ppK+ subsystem. In case of the $`ppppK^+K^{}`$ reaction this should correspond to the mass of the $`K^{}`$ meson, and indeed a pronounced signal can be clearly recognised.

The additional broad structure seen in the Figure is partly due to the $`pppp\pi ^+X^{}`$ reaction, where the $`\pi ^+`$ was misidentified as a K+ meson but also due to K+ meson production associated with the hyperons $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$(1405) or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$(1385), e.g. via the reaction $`pppK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)pK^+\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi pK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma \pi pK^+p\pi \gamma \pi `$. In this case the missing mass of the ppK+ system corresponds to the invariant mass of the $`\pi \pi \gamma `$ system and hence can acquire values from twice the pion mass up to the kinematical limit. This background, however, can be completely reduced by demanding a signal in the silicon strip detectors at the position where the K- meson originating from the $`ppppK^+K^{}`$ reaction is expected .

This clear identification allows to determine the total cross section and the corresponding multiplicity shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The solid line in Figure 2 represents results of calculations  for the $`ppppK^+K^{}`$ reaction taking into account the changes of the production amplitude as deduced from the K+p and K-p elastic scattering shown in Figure 3, but neglecting the influence of the dominant proton-proton interaction! On the other hand the proton-proton FSI in case of three body final states e.g. $`pppp\pi ^0`$ , $`pppp\eta `$ , or $`pppp\eta ^{}`$  influences strongly the total cross section energy dependence by enhancing it by more than an order of magnitude for excess energies below Q $``$ 15 MeV. Thus it is surprising that in spite of its neglection one can describe the data of the $`ppppK^+K^{}`$ reaction. The origin of that effect will be investigated experimentally in the near future . At present one can only speculate whether it is due to the partial compensation of the pp and K-p hadronic interaction or maybe by the additional degree of freedom given by the four body final state . At present it is also not possible to judge to what extent the close to threshold production of K+K- pairs proceeds through the intermediate doorway state f0(980). The experimentally determined distribution of the missing mass with respect to the proton-proton system is shown in Figure 5(right) and demonstrates that the non-resonant K+K- production (shaded area) is hardly distinguishable from the resonant $`ppppf_0(980)ppK^+K^{}`$ reaction sequence (dashed line) . It is clear that the up to date statistics of the data is not sufficient to favour one of the two processes. Recently, the mass spectrum of the K+K- pair produced via the $`ppppK^+K^{}`$ reaction was calculated in the framework of the $`\pi \pi \text{K}\overline{\text{K}}`$ model of the Jülich group for cases where f0 is a genuine meson or $`\text{K}\overline{\text{K}}`$ bound state . However, again the present statistics is not enough to distinguish between the two hypotheses.

## 3 Study of the $`pppK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reaction at COSY

The kaon production associated with the hyperon $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ is studied experimentally very close to threshold at the internal facility COSY-11  presented in the previous section and also complementary for the higher energies at the large acceptance non-magnetic time-of-flight spectrometer COSY-TOF  which functioning shall be presented below. The TOF detector consists of four rotationally symmetric detection layers positioned close to the LH2 liquid hydrogen target  and the ”Quirl” scintillation hodoscope  as shown schematically in Figure 6. To minimize multiple scattering of beam protons and reaction products the whole system is enclosed in a vacuum vessel consisting of 3 m outer diameter barrel elements providing up to 8 m flight path in vacuum.

An event from a production of a neutral hyperon – with a mean decay path of a few cm – gives only two signals in the target start detectors and four in the fiber ring hodoscopes as is depicted in Figure 6. This allows to use a very selective trigger based on the hit multiplicity in the scintillation detectors. Hit positions measured in the start detector, in the double sided micro-strip silicon detector, the four layers of fiber scintillators and in the ”Quirl” or ”Ring” scintillation hodoscopes permit the precise reconstruction of the primary and decay vertices. From the reconstructed tracks after a mass assignment four-momentum vectors of all registered particles may be determined for each event. Due to the possibility of monitoring the beam-target luminosity both COSY-11 and TOF experiments can establish not only cross section distributions but also their absolute magnitude.

Gernerally the knowlegde of four-momentum vectors of all ejectiles, for each event, allows to study the low energy interaction among the produced particles, and specifically the hyperon-nucleon or kaon-nucleon interaction. A quantitative study of the Dalitz-plot occupation in case of the $`pppK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reaction performed by the COSY-11 collaboration resulted already in the estimation of scattering length and effective range parameters averaged over the spin states, with values of 2 fm and 1 fm being extracted, respectively .

With the installation of neutron detectors  both the TOF and COSY-11 facility allow also to study charged hyperon production, for example $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ via the $`ppnK^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ reaction. In case of the COSY-11 setup the neutron detector is positioned as shown in Figure 4 and in case of the TOF facility it is installed behind the ”Quirl” scintillation detector. Using the TOF facility the $`ppnK^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ reaction can again be identified by the event topology combined with the mass hypothesis and the missing mass method, whereas in case of COSY-11 the measurements of kaons and neutrons will allow to recognise the reaction via the missing mass technique only.

Data on the close to threshold kaon production are necessary in order to learn about the strangeness production mechanisms. Especially, they are needed to verify the hypothesis of the destructive interference between $`\pi `$ and K meson exchanges , proposed to explain the COSY-11 observation that close to threshold the $`K^+`$ meson, when associated with the hyperon $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is by a factor of $``$30 more copiously produced than when created together with a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ hyperon .

Presently, an additional tracking system consisting of straw chambers and silicon micro-strip detectors is being built for the TOF installation, which will improve the tracking possibilities and as a consequence allow for the registration of more complex decay patterns originating e.g. from the production of hyperons belonging to the 3/2 decuplet . For instance, the production of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(1385)`$ hyperon associated with the K0 meson can be identified by the reconstruction of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\pi ^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ prompt decay geometry and the delayed decays with separate vertices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ . The upgrade of the COSY-11 detection system by a new hexagonal drift chamber  and a $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\text{C}}`$erenkov detector  increases the efficiency of the kaon detection and its distinction from pions, which together with a near future installation of a spectator detector  will allow to measure close to threshold cross sections for the quasi-free $`pnnK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)`$ reactions.

## References


text:
# Temperature-dependent 𝐻_{𝑐2} anisotropy in MgB2 as inferred from measurements on polycrystals

## Abstract

We present data on temperature-dependent anisotropy of the upper critical field of MgB2 obtained from the analysis of measurements on high purity, low resistivity polycrystals. The anisotropy decreases in a monotonic fashion with increase of temperature.

The recent discovery  of superconductivity with a high critical temperature, $`T_c40`$ K, in the simple, binary intermetallic compound MgB2 evoked intense experimental and theoretical studies of the physical properties of this material that resulted in understanding of superconductivity in this material as being of the BCS type superconductor in which the observed value of $`T_c`$ is a result of the anisotropy of the electron-phonon coupling and anharmonicity in the relevant (boron $`E_{2g}`$) phonon modes.

One of the imporant superconducting properties of MgB2 is the anisotropy of its upper critical field. Reported values of $`\gamma =H_{c2}^{ab}/H_{c2}^c`$ span between $`\gamma 1`$  and $`\gamma =913`$.  These values were obtained on MgB2 in different forms and sample quality. For sub-$`mm`$ single crystallites of magnesium diboride the $`H_{c2}`$ anisotropy was communicated to be in the range of $`\gamma =1.73`$.  Recently the anisotropy of the upper critical field of single crystallites of MgB2 was studied using torque magnetometry  and it was found to be temperature (and applied field) dependent, changing monotonically from $`\gamma 2.8`$ at 35 K to $`\gamma 6`$ at 15 K. It has to be mentioned that while these results  have an advantage of being obtained by direct measurements on small single crystals, the state-of-the-art single crystals  have their $`T_c`$ lower ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }T_c|1`$ K) than that of good polycrystalline samples  and also have rather moderate vales of residual resistivity ratio: $`RRR`$ 5-7 for crystallites as opposed to $`RRR`$ 20 for high purity polycrystalline samples.

Temperature-dependent $`\gamma `$ implies a breakdown of the standard anisotropic Ginzburg-Landau theory with a temperature and field independent effective mass anisotropy. Temperature-dependent anisotropy of $`H_{c2}`$, $`\gamma (T)`$, has been observed in a number of materials  and was found to depend on the form and purity of the material. Since establishing the intrinsic anisotropy of the upper critical field for MgB2 and its temperature dependence is of importance for understanding of the properties of this material, we will present an alternate evaluation of the $`\gamma (T)`$ behavior in a wide temperature range ($`1.835`$ K) for samples with optimal $`T_c=39.239.4`$ K and high residual resistivity ratio ($`RRR20`$). The drawback of the approach is that the results are inferred from analysis of the measurements on polycrystalline material, however this analysis is robust enough to reflect the intrinsic anisotropic properties. In a recent communication  we presented anisotropic $`H_{c2}`$ data for $`T25`$ K and extracted a value of $`\gamma `$(25 K) $``$ 6. In this report we extend these data so as to determine the full $`\gamma (T)`$ plot.

Anisotropic $`H_{c2}^{min}(T)`$ and $`H_{c2}^{max}(T)`$ data for $`T25`$ K obtained from the analysis of the temperature-dependent magnetization of randomly (continuously) oriented MgB2 powders are readily available from Ref. . Applying the qualitative arguments used in Ref.  for $`M(T)|_H`$ data to magnetization isotherms, $`M(H)|_T`$,  one would expect to detect an anomaly at $`H_{c2}^{min}`$. As in the $`M(T)|_H`$ case the feature should be present for any continuous (but not necessary random) distribution of grains. Some theoretical discussion, albeit with additional approximations, related to the anomaly in second derivative of $`M(H)|_T`$ was presented more than a decade ago  in relation to high temperature copper oxide superconductors. In the case of MgB2 (sintered sample similar to the one used in \[\]) the anomaly in the second derivative is clearly seen (see inset to Fig. 1). The temperature-dependent $`H_{c2}^{min}(T)`$ data between 1.8 K and 35 K was obtained by monitoring this feature at different temperatures (see Fig. 1). The results deduced from the magnetization data taken along different lines in the $`HT`$ space are consistent.

Upon application of $`HH_{c2}^{max}|_T`$ all grains in a polycrystalline sample become normal, i.e. $`H_{c2}^{max}(T)`$ coincides with $`H_{c2}(T)`$ measured on a polycrystal. Since the polycrystalline $`H_{c2}`$ is very similar for our sintered pellets  and wire segments , we will use the $`H_{c2}(T)`$ data for wire segments  as an approximation for $`H_{c2}^{max}(T)`$ below 25 K. The data are consistent with the results obtained by analysis of $`M(T)|_H`$ curves  in the shared temperature region (above 25 K). The combined $`HT`$ phase diagram for a whole temperature range is presented in Fig. 2. The anisotropy of $`H_{c2}`$, $`\gamma (T)`$, is straightforwardly determined from this phase diagram.

Temperature-dependent anisotropy of the upper critical field of magnesium diboride inferred from the measurements on polycrystalline samples is shown in Fig. 3 together with the data from Ref. . Our data show a similar, but somewhat less pronounced, temperature dependence of the anisotropy: $`\gamma `$ changes from 3.5 to 7 with decrease of the temperature from 36 K down to 1.8 K. The fact that the two sets of data are qualitatively similar probably points to the intrinsic character of the observed temperature dependence of $`\gamma (T)`$.

In conclusion, anisotropy of the upper critical field of high purity, high $`T_c`$ ($`T_c39.239.4`$ K) and high $`RRR`$ ($`RRR20`$) MgB2 samples is temperature dependent. $`\gamma `$ decreases monotonically with increase of temperature from $`7`$ ($`T=1.8`$ K) to $`4`$ ($`T=35`$ K). The data are qualitatively consistent with the results of the measurements on sub-$`mm`$ single crystals.

We would like to thank V. G. Kogan for useful discussions. Ames Laboratory is operated for the U. S. Department of Energy by Iowa State University under contract No. W-7405-ENG-82. This work was supported by the Director of Energy Research, Office of Basic Energy Sciences.