text:
# Almost normal Heegaard surfaces

## 1. Introduction

Any closed orientable triangulated $`3`$–manifold $`M`$ has a Heegaard surface, which is an embedded surface that decomposes $`M`$ into two handlebodies. By adding trivial handles, one can construct Heegaard surfaces of $`M`$ of arbitrarily large genus. An important problem is to construct a Heegaard surface of $`M`$ of *minimal* genus. Though this problem has an algorithmic solution for closed orientable atoroidal Haken manifolds by work of Johannson , it is still open for non-Haken manifolds. One approach to the non-Haken case is based on a result of Casson and Gordon . It states that any minimal genus Heegaard surface $`H`$ of a closed orientable irreducible non-Haken manifold $`M`$ is strongly irreducible, i.e., any two simple closed essential curves on $`H`$ bounding embedded discs in different connected components of $`MH`$ intersect each other in at least two points. In fact any compact orientable $`3`$–manifold can be decomposed along incompressible surfaces so that the pieces have strongly irreducible Heegaard surfaces with boundary .

Stocking  has shown that any strongly irreducible Heegaard surface is isotopic to a so-called almost normal surface, a mild generalization of normal surfaces that goes back to Rubinstein . This is amazing, since normal surfaces, introduced by Kneser  in his study of connected sums of $`3`$–manifolds, have been designed to deal with incompressible surfaces, whereas Heegaard surfaces bound two handlebodies and are thus completely compressible on both sides. The aim of this paper is to present a new and shorter proof of Stocking’s result.

We follow in this paper the terminology of Matveev . We define it in detail in Section 3 and here give just an outline. Let $`M`$ be a closed orientable $`3`$–manifold with a triangulation $`𝒯`$. A closed embedded surface in $`M`$ is $`2`$–normal if its intersection with any tetrahedron is formed by copies of the pieces shown in Figure 1, which are called normal triangles, squares and octagons. The surface is $`1`$–normal if it is formed by normal triangles and squares only.

Let $`\gamma `$ be an unknotted arc for some $`1`$–normal surface $`FM`$, i.e., $`\gamma `$ is contained in a tetrahedron $`t`$; connects two different components of $`Ft`$; and there is an embedded disc in $`t`$ whose boundary consists of $`\gamma `$, one arc in $`t`$ and two arcs in $`Ft`$. From $`F`$ we cut out small discs around the endpoints of $`\gamma `$, glue in an annulus (a “tube”) along $`\gamma `$ and denote the result by $`F^\gamma `$ — see Section 2 for a more general definition.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`M`$ be a closed orientable irreducible triangulated $`3`$–manifold, and let $`HM`$ be a strongly irreducible Heegaard surface. Either there is a $`1`$–normal surface $`FM`$ and an unknotted arc $`\gamma `$ such that $`F^\gamma H`$, or $`H`$ is isotopic to a $`2`$–normal surface with exactly one octagon.

We briefly outline our proof. It is easy to show that there are $`1`$–normal surfaces $`F_{},F_+`$ that can be “completed” to form disjoint surfaces $`S_{},S_+H`$, by adding some tubes disjoint from the edges of $`𝒯`$ (possibly multiple, knotted, nested tubes). Here $`S_{}`$ is a so-called upper trivial and $`S_+`$ a lower trivial surface. By application of a classical finiteness result of Kneser for $`1`$–normal surfaces, we choose $`F_{}`$ and $`F_+`$ so that any $`1`$–normal surface with an upper (resp. lower) trivial completion isotopic to $`H`$ separating $`S_{}`$ from $`S_+`$ is “essentially the same” as $`F_{}`$ (resp. $`F_+`$).

If $`S_{}`$ (or similarly $`S_+`$) satisfies a certain technical condition then we apply the reduction technique that we have developed in  and . If the first alternative of Theorem 1 does not hold then the result of the reduction is isotopic to $`H`$ and is an upper trivial completion of some $`1`$–normal surface different from $`F_{}`$ (in contradiction to the choice of $`F_{},F_+`$).

If, instead, $`S_{}`$ and $`S_+`$ do not satisfy the mentioned technical condition, we apply a *thin position* argument. If the first alternative of Theorem 1 does not hold, then it yields a surface $`SH`$ that is an upper or lower trivial completion of a $`2`$–normal surface with exactly one octagon. Again, we apply the reduction technique to $`S`$, and derive a contradiction to the choice of $`F_{},F_+`$, unless the second alternative of Theorem 1 holds. Thus in either case, one alternative is true.

The main reason why our proof is shorter than Stocking’s is the application of the completion and reduction techniques. This makes thin position a more efficient tool. Actually we only need to know one basic fact about thin position: A level surface in a thin position embedding has no pair of nested or independent compressing discs. The reduction technique was used in  to obtain bounds for the bridge number of links formed by edges of a triangulation of $`S^3`$. It also allows to simplify the correctness proof of the Rubinstein–Thompson algorithm (, ), which is implicit in .

We took a few technical results from the literature. To make this paper essentially self-contained, we include proofs or at least proof sketches for most cited results. Specifically, we re-prove Scharlemann’s “no nesting” lemma , that is at the base of our completion technique. It is convenient for us, though not strictly necessary, to work in a submanifold $`NM`$ whose complement is a $`3`$–ball containing all vertices of $`𝒯`$, and any $`1`$–normal sphere in $`N`$ is a copy of $`N`$. It is known  that such a submanifold exists for any triangulated irreducible $`3`$–manifold different from $`S^3`$. We include here a proof that is another application of the reduction technique. An algorithm that can be used to construct the submanifold appears in , with a bound for the complexity of $`N`$.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sections 24, we expose some basic constructions and the notions of almost $`k`$–normal and impermeable surfaces. In Section 5, we recall the reduction technique and prove the existence of the above mentioned submanifold $`N`$. In Section 6, we introduce upper and lower completions of surfaces and re-prove the “no nesting” lemma of Scharlemann. Theorem 1 is proved in Section 7.

## 2. Notations and basic notions

In this paper, $`M`$ denotes a closed orientable $`3`$–manifold with a triangulation $`𝒯`$. We denote the $`i`$–skeleton of $`𝒯`$ by $`𝒯^i`$, for $`i=0,\mathrm{},3`$. An ambient isotopy that fixes each simplex of $`𝒯^i`$ setwise is an isotopy mod $`𝒯^i`$. We denote the number of connected components of a topological space $`X`$ by $`\mathrm{\#}(X)`$. The notation $`XM`$ stands for a tame embedding of $`X`$ into $`M`$, and $`U(X)`$ denotes an open regular neighborhood of $`X`$ in $`M`$.

Let $`SM𝒯^0`$ be a closed surface, which is allowed to be empty or non-connected. The weight of $`S`$ is $`S=\mathrm{\#}(S𝒯^1)`$. The surface $`S`$ is splitting if any connected component of $`S`$ decomposes $`M`$ into two parts. We fix a vertex $`x_0𝒯^0`$ and define $`B^+(S)`$ (resp. $`B^{}(S)`$) as the closure of the union of components of $`MS`$ that are connectable with $`x_0`$ by a path transversely intersecting $`S`$ in an odd (resp. even) number of points. In particular, $`B^{}(\mathrm{})=M`$. We do not include $`x_0`$ in the notation “$`B^+(S)`$”, since in our applications the choice of $`x_0`$ plays no role.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }B^+(S)`$ be an embedded graph, not necessarily transversal to $`𝒯^2`$. We define $`S^\mathrm{\Gamma }=(B^{}(S)U(\mathrm{\Gamma }))`$. Similarly, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }B^{}(S)`$ then we define $`S^\mathrm{\Gamma }=(B^+(S)U(\mathrm{\Gamma }))`$.

If $`S`$ is in general position to $`𝒯`$ then $`G(S)`$ denotes the union of those connected components of $`S𝒯^2`$ that intersect $`𝒯^1`$. For any tetrahedron $`t`$ of $`𝒯`$, $`G(S)t`$ is a disjoint union of circles. Hence by inserting disjoint discs in $`M𝒯^2`$, one obtains from $`G(S)`$ a closed embedded surface $`S^\times `$ (pronounced “$`S`$ cut”), so that $`S^\times 𝒯^2=G(S)S𝒯^2`$ and $`S^\times 𝒯^2`$ is a disjoint union of discs. One obtains $`S^\times `$ from $`S`$ by cut-and-paste operations along discs in $`M𝒯^2`$, and omission of connected components that are disjoint from $`𝒯^1`$.

## 3. Almost $`k`$–normal surfaces

An embedded arc $`\gamma `$ in a closed $`2`$–simplex $`\sigma `$ of $`𝒯`$ disjoint from the vertices of $`\sigma `$ with $`\gamma \sigma =\gamma `$ is a normal arc, if $`\gamma `$ connects different edges of $`\sigma `$. Otherwise, $`\gamma `$ is a return. A closed surface $`SM`$ in general position to $`𝒯^2`$ is almost $`k`$–normal, if $`S𝒯^2`$ is a union of normal arcs and of circles in $`𝒯^2𝒯^1`$, and for any tetrahedron $`t`$ of $`𝒯`$, any edge $`e`$ of $`t`$ and any connected component $`c`$ of $`St`$ holds $`\mathrm{\#}(ce)k`$.

Almost $`k`$–normal surfaces are difficult to deal with. For instance, if an almost $`k`$–normal surface meets a tetrahedron in an annulus then this annulus can be arbitrarily knotted. These problems do not occur if one makes the additional assumption that all intersections with tetrahedra are discs, as in the following definition.

###### Definition 1.

Let $`FM`$ be an almost $`k`$–normal surface. If $`F𝒯^2`$ is a disjoint union of discs and $`F𝒯^2`$ is a union of normal arcs in the 2–simplices of $`𝒯`$ then $`F`$ is a $`k`$–normal surface.

Note that we do not assume $`F\mathrm{}`$. Actually it is convenient in our proofs to consider the empty set as a $`1`$–normal surface. If $`SM`$ is an almost $`k`$–normal surface, then $`S^\times `$ is $`k`$–normal. It is easy to show that $`S^\times `$ is determined by $`S𝒯^1`$ up to isotopy mod $`𝒯^2`$. We have $`S^\times =\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`S=0`$.

In this paper, we mainly consider $`1`$– and $`2`$–normal surfaces. A $`2`$–normal surface intersects a tetrahedron $`t`$ of $`𝒯`$ in a disjoint union of triangles, squares and octagons, as in Figure 1. Up to isotopy mod $`𝒯^2`$ there are four types of triangles (one for each vertex of $`t`$), three types of squares (one for each pair of opposite edges of $`t`$), and three types of octagons in $`t`$. A $`1`$–normal surface is formed by triangles and squares.

###### Theorem 2 (Lemma 4 in ).

Let $`n`$ be the number of tetrahedra of $`𝒯`$. Let $`FM`$ be a $`1`$–normal surface with more than $`20n`$ connected components. Then two connected components of $`F`$ are isotopic mod $`𝒯^2`$.∎

This finiteness result goes back to Kneser . There are better bounds for the number of components, but the proofs are more complicated than the proof of Lemma 4 in .

## 4. Compressing and essential discs

Here we study some properties of embedded discs whose interior is disjoint from $`𝒯^1`$. In the next section, these discs will be used to construct isotopies of $`S`$.

###### Definition 2.

Let $`SM`$ be a closed surface in general position to $`𝒯^1`$. Let $`\alpha 𝒯^1𝒯^0`$ and $`\beta S`$ be embedded arcs with $`\alpha =\beta `$. A compact embedded disc $`DM`$ in general position to $`S`$ is a compressing disc for $`S`$ with string $`\alpha `$ and base $`\beta `$, if $`D=\alpha \beta `$ and $`D𝒯^1=\alpha `$.

###### Definition 3.

Let $`SM`$ be a closed surface in general position to $`𝒯^1`$. A compact embedded disc $`DM𝒯^2`$ is essential for $`S`$, if $`DS`$ is not null-homotopic in $`S𝒯^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}(DS)\mathrm{\#}(D^{}S)`$ for any compact embedded disc $`D^{}M𝒯^2`$ bounded by $`D`$.

Let $`D`$ be a compressing or essential disc for a splitting surface $`SM`$. If $`DS`$ has a collar in $`DB^+(S)`$ (resp. $`DB^{}(S)`$) then $`D`$ is an upper (resp. lower) compressing or essential disc. If $`DSD`$ then $`D`$ is strict.

Obviously, $`k`$–normal surfaces have no essential discs. In fact, as stated in the following lemma, all discs in the complement of $`𝒯^1`$ with boundary in a $`1`$–normal surface are trivial.

###### Lemma 1 (Lemma 10 and 11 in ).

A $`1`$–normal surface $`FM`$ has no compressing discs. Let $`DM𝒯^1`$ be a closed embedded disc in general position to $`F`$ with $`DF`$. Then $`D`$ bounds a disc in $`F𝒯^1`$.

###### Proof.

We choose the disc $`D`$ up to isotopy of the pair $`(D,D)`$ in $`(M𝒯^1,F𝒯^1)`$ so that $`\mathrm{\#}(D𝒯^2)`$ is minimal. By cut-and-paste arguments, there are no circles in $`D𝒯`$. If $`D`$ is not contained in a single tetrahedron then there is a component $`D^{}`$ of $`D𝒯^2`$ such that $`D^{}F`$ is a single arc, contained in some tetrahedron $`t`$. Since $`F`$ is $`1`$–normal, $`D^{}F`$ splits off a disc $`D^{\prime \prime }t`$ from some component of $`Ft`$ so that $`D^{\prime \prime }𝒯^1=\mathrm{}`$. By an isotopy of $`D`$ with support in $`U(D^{\prime \prime })`$, one can remove $`D`$ from $`D^{\prime \prime }`$, decreasing $`\mathrm{\#}(D𝒯^2)`$ — in contradiction to our choice. Therefore $`D`$ is contained in a single tetrahedron, thus bounding a disc in $`F𝒯^2`$. The arguments are similar when $`D`$ is a compressing disc (see  for details). ∎

In the remainder of this section, we recall the notion of impermeable surfaces and its relationship with almost $`2`$–normal surfaces. Let $`SM`$ be a splitting surface in general position to $`𝒯`$ and let $`D_1,D_2`$ be upper and lower compressing discs for $`S`$ with strings $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$. If $`D_1D_2`$ or $`D_2D_1`$ then $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are nested. If $`D_1D_2\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ then $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are independent from each other. If $`S`$ has both strict upper and strict lower compressing discs and has no pair of nested or independent upper and lower compressing discs, then $`S`$ is impermeable. Note that this property does not change under an isotopy of $`S`$ mod $`𝒯^1`$. Impermeable surfaces are closely related to (almost) $`2`$–normal surfaces, by the following lemma that is implicit in the literature , . For completeness, we resume the proof.

###### Lemma 2.

Any impermeable surface $`SM`$ with strict upper and lower compressing discs $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ is related to an almost $`2`$–normal surface with exactly one octagon by an isotopy mod $`𝒯^1`$ with support in $`U(D_1D_2)`$ .

###### Proof.

By isotopy of $`S`$ mod $`𝒯^1`$ with support in $`U(D_1)`$, we pull the base of the strict upper compressing disc $`D_1`$ into a single tetrahedron, close to the string of $`D_1`$, changing $`S`$ into a surface $`S_1`$. Since $`S_1`$ is impermeable, no lower compressing disc for $`S_1`$ is contained in a $`2`$–simplex of $`𝒯`$. Hence any return of $`S_1`$ gives rise to an *upper* compressing disc. Similarly, we pull the base of $`D_2`$ into a single tetrahedron by isotopy mod $`𝒯^1`$ with support in $`U(D_2)`$, changing $`S`$ into a surface $`S_2`$ so that any return of $`S_2`$ gives rise to a lower compressing disc.

We transform $`S_1`$ into $`S_2`$ by isotopy mod $`𝒯^1`$ with support in $`U(D_1D_2)`$. No surface occurring in the transformation has both upper and lower compressing discs in $`𝒯^2`$, since this would give rise to a pair of nested or independent compressing discs. Thus, in the course of the isotopy, we obtain a surface $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ in general position to $`𝒯`$ that has neither upper nor lower compressing discs in $`𝒯^2`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is almost $`k`$–normal for some natural number $`k`$. It is easy to verify (see  for details) that an almost $`k`$–normal surface has a pair of nested or independent compressing discs, if it is not almost $`2`$–normal or has more than one octagon.

There remains to show that $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is not almost $`1`$–normal — for details see Lemma 21 in . Assume that $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is almost $`1`$–normal. Let $`D_u`$ be a strict upper compressing disc for $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. There is a subdisc $`DD_u`$ such that $`D\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is a single arc, and the closure of $`D\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is an arc $`\gamma 𝒯^2`$ that connects two different normal arcs of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and is the only arc in $`D𝒯^2`$ with that property. By pulling $`\stackrel{~}{S}D`$ along $`D`$ into a single tetrahedron, we obtain a surface $`\stackrel{~}{F}=(B^{}(\stackrel{~}{S})U(DU(\gamma )))`$. By the choice of $`D`$, $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ has no returns, hence it is almost $`1`$–normal and $`\stackrel{~}{F}^\times `$ is isotopic mod $`𝒯^2`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{S}^\times `$. The union of $`DU(\gamma )`$ with a stripe in $`𝒯^2`$ yields a not necessarily strict upper compressing disc $`\stackrel{~}{D}_u`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ contained in a single tetrahedron $`t`$ whose string $`\alpha `$ is contained in $`B^+(\stackrel{~}{F})`$. We can assume that $`\stackrel{~}{D}_u`$ is contained in a single connected component $`K`$ of $`tB^+(\stackrel{~}{F}^\times )`$ and meets $`K`$ only in its string $`\alpha `$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is almost $`1`$–normal, the two points of $`\alpha `$ belong to *different* components of $`t\stackrel{~}{F}`$.

Since $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is impermeable, it has a strict lower compressing disc $`D_l`$. Let $`\delta `$ be a component of $`D_lK`$. Since any component of $`\stackrel{~}{F}t`$ contains at most one point of $`\stackrel{~}{D}_u`$, there is a subdisc $`C^{}(K\stackrel{~}{F})𝒯^1`$ with $`C^{}\stackrel{~}{F}\delta `$ and $`\delta C^{}`$, such that $`C^{}`$ is disjoint from $`D_u`$. Hence, by cut-and-paste operations and since no lower compressing disc is completely contained in $`K`$, we can assume that $`D_l`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}_u`$ are independent, $`D_l\stackrel{~}{D}_u\alpha `$. This is impossible, as $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is impermeable. This finally proves that $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is not almost $`1`$–normal and has thus exactly one octagon. ∎

## 5. Upper and lower reductions

We recall here the reduction technique that we have introduced in  and refined in . If a surface $`SM`$ has a strict compressing disc then one can pull $`S`$ along it, as in the next definition, in order to decrease the weight $`S=\mathrm{\#}(S𝒯^1)`$. Under certain conditions on $`S`$, as stated below, one eventually comes to an almost $`1`$–normal surface by repeating this process. This fact is the basis for our main applications of the reduction technique.

###### Definition 4.

Let $`SM`$ be a splitting surface that is in general position to $`𝒯^2`$. Let $`DM`$ be a strict upper (resp. lower) compressing disc for $`S`$. The surface $`\left(B^{}(S)U(D)\right)`$ (resp. $`\left(B^+(S)U(D)\right)`$) obtained by pulling $`S`$ along $`D`$ is an elementary reduction of $`S`$ along $`D`$. An upper (resp. lower) reduction of $`S`$ is a surface $`S^{}M`$ obtained from $`S`$ by successive elementary reductions along strict upper (resp. strict lower) compressing discs. If these discs are contained in $`𝒯^2`$ then $`S^{}`$ is an upper (resp. a lower) $`𝒯^2`$–reduction of $`S`$.

We do not allow mixing of elementary reductions along upper and lower compressing discs in the transition from $`S`$ to $`S^{}`$. We have $`S^{}S`$ with equality if and only if $`S=S^{}`$. The following lemma is the key tool in applications of the reduction technique.

###### Lemma 3 (Corollary 1 in , p. 57).

Let $`NM`$ be a sub–$`3`$–manifold such that $`N`$ is $`k`$–normal for some $`k`$. Let $`SN`$ be a closed connected splitting surface in general position to $`𝒯`$. Assume that $`S`$ has only strict upper essential discs, and has no lower compressing discs contained in a single tetrahedron. Then $`S`$ has an almost $`1`$–normal upper $`𝒯^2`$-reduction in $`N`$ that has only strict upper essential discs.∎

The idea of the proof of the preceding lemma is as follows. Since $`N`$ is $`k`$–normal, it has no returns and no circles in $`𝒯^2𝒯^1`$. Hence if a surface in $`N`$ has a strict compressing disc in $`𝒯^2`$ then this disc is contained in $`N`$. Thus any upper $`𝒯^2`$–reduction $`S^{}`$ of $`S`$ is contained in $`N`$. One proves by induction on the number of elementary reductions that $`S^{}`$ has only strict upper essential discs and has no lower compressing discs contained in a tetrahedron. Hence any return of $`S^{}`$ gives rise to an upper compressing disc $`D𝒯^2`$ for $`S^{}`$ with string in $`B^+(S^{})`$. If there is a circle $`\gamma `$ in $`DS^{}`$ then $`\gamma `$ bounds discs in $`B^+(S^{})`$ (e.g., a strict upper essential disc), in *both* adjacent tetrahedra. It follows that $`\gamma `$ and $`DS^{}`$ belong to distinct components of $`S^{}`$. This contradicts the hypothesis that $`S`$ is connected. Hence $`D`$ is strict and gives rise to another elementary $`𝒯^2`$–reduction of $`S^{}`$. Thus we can assume that $`S^{}`$ has no returns at all, i.e., $`S^{}`$ is almost $`k`$–normal for some $`k\{1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$. Since $`S^{}`$ has no lower compressing discs contained in a tetrahedron, $`S^{}`$ is almost $`1`$–normal.

###### Theorem 3 (Implicit in , Proposition 3.3).

Let $`MS^3`$ be a closed orientable irreducible $`3`$–manifold with a triangulation $`𝒯`$. There is a $`1`$–normal sphere $`F_0M`$ such that $`B^{}(F_0)`$ is a $`3`$–ball and any $`1`$–normal sphere in $`B^+(F_0)`$ is isotopic mod $`𝒯^2`$ to $`F_0`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 2, there is a disjoint union $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ of finitely many $`1`$–normal spheres $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_m`$ such that any $`1`$–normal sphere in $`M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is isotopic mod $`𝒯^2`$ to a connected component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The link $`U(x)`$ of a vertex $`x`$ of $`𝒯`$ is a $`1`$–normal sphere that can be removed from any $`1`$–normal surface by isotopy mod $`𝒯^2`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ contains a copy of the link of any vertex.

Since $`M`$ is irreducible and not homeomorphic to $`S^3`$, there is a unique open $`3`$–ball $`B_iM`$ with $`B_i=S_i`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Let $`N=M_{i=1}^mB_i`$. For $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, if $`S_i`$ is the link $`U(x)`$ of a vertex $`x`$ then $`xB_i`$. Hence by definition, $`N`$ contains no vertex of $`𝒯`$. Therefore $`B^+(N)`$ does not depend on the choice of the vertex $`x_0`$ in the definition of $`B^+()`$, and $`N=B^+(N)`$.

We now show that $`N`$ is connected, which proves the theorem with $`F_0=N`$. Let us assume that $`N`$ is not connected, say $`N=S_1\mathrm{}S_n`$ with $`n>1`$. Since $`N𝒯^2`$ is connected, there is a system $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(N𝒯^2)𝒯^1`$ of $`n1`$ disjoint simple arcs with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }N`$, such that $`S=(N)^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a sphere. Note that $`S`$ is not almost $`1`$–normal, since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not in general position to $`𝒯`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒯^2B^+(N)`$, $`S`$ has only strict upper essential discs, and $`S`$ has no lower compressing discs contained in a single tetrahedron. Hence by Lemma 3, $`S`$ has an almost $`1`$–normal upper $`𝒯^2`$–reduction $`S^{}N`$ that has only strict upper essential discs. Any connected component of $`(S^{})^\times `$ is a $`1`$–normal sphere in $`N`$. Hence, by the choice of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`(S^{})^\times `$ is formed by copies of boundary components of $`N`$. Since $`S^{}`$ is connected and has only strict upper essential discs, $`(S^{})^\times `$ contains *at most one copy* of each connected component of $`N`$. Since $`S^{}`$ does not separate two components of $`N`$, we have either $`(S^{})^\times =N`$ or $`(S^{})^\times =\mathrm{}`$. But since $`S`$ is not almost $`1`$–normal, it follows $`SS^{}`$. Therefore $`S^{}<S`$, thus $`(S^{})^\times =\mathrm{}`$ and $`S^{}=0`$. By consequence, $`S^{}`$ bounds a ball $`B^{}M𝒯^1`$, hence $`B^+(S^{})=B^{}`$. But $`B^{}(S^{})B^{}(S)`$ is a ball as well, since it is a $``$–connected sum of the $`3`$–balls forming $`MN`$. This contradicts the hypothesis $`MS^3`$, which finally proves that $`N`$ is in fact connected. The theorem follows with $`F_0=N`$. ∎

We remark that, since $`MS^3`$, there is no $`2`$–normal sphere in $`B^+(F_0)`$ with exactly one octagon (see , ). A proof using the reduction technique is implicit in , Chapter 4. A construction algorithm for the system $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ occurring in the preceding proof and an estimate for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be found in . It was applied to a study of bridge numbers of links in  and to convex $`4`$–polytopes in .

## 6. Completions of surfaces

In this section, we introduce a bunch of notions that naturally occur when considering strongly irreducible Heegaard surfaces. Let $`SM`$ be a splitting surface. A simple closed curve on $`S`$ contained in the boundary of a tetrahedron is a short upper (resp. lower) meridian of $`S`$ if it does not bound a disc in $`S`$ and does bound an embedded disc in $`B^+(S)`$ (resp. in $`B^{}(S)`$).

Let $`cS`$ be any simple closed curve contained in the boundary of a tetrahedron. The curve bounds an embedded disc in the tetrahedron. By Scharlemann’s “no nesting” lemma (Lemma 2.2 in ), if $`S`$ is a strongly irreducible Heegaard surface then $`c`$ bounds an embedded disc in $`B^+(S)`$ or in $`B^{}(S)`$. Hence, if $`c`$ does not bound an embedded disc in $`B^{}(S)`$, then $`c`$ is a short upper meridian of $`S`$. If $`S`$ is in general position to $`𝒯`$ then any pair of short meridians can be made disjoint, by pushing one of them into the interior of a tetrahedron. Thus, a strongly irreducible Heegaard surface in general position to $`𝒯`$ either has no short upper meridians or no short lower meridians.

This gives rise to the following definition. Let $`SM`$ be a splitting surface. If any simple closed curve on $`S`$ contained in the boundary of a tetrahedron bounds an embedded disc in $`B^{}(S)`$ (resp. in $`B^+(S)`$) then $`S`$ is upper trivial (resp. lower trivial). If $`S^\times `$ is defined then we call $`S`$ an upper completion (resp. lower completion) of $`S^\times `$. Evidently, if $`S`$ is upper trivial and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }B^+(S)`$ is a graph in general position to $`𝒯^2`$ then $`S^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is upper trivial as well. By the preceding paragraph, a strongly irreducible Heegaard surface in general position to $`𝒯`$ is upper (resp. lower) trivial if and only if it has no short upper (resp. lower) meridian.

The following two lemmas are formulated for an upper trivial surface. Of course, these lemmas remain true if we exchange “upper” with “lower” and $`B^+`$ with $`B^{}`$.

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`M`$ be irreducible and let $`SM`$ be a connected upper trivial surface. Then either $`S`$ has a short lower meridian or $`S`$ is isotopic to a connected component of $`S^\times `$ or $`S`$ is contained in a $`3`$–ball.

###### Proof.

Let us assume that $`S`$ has no short lower meridian. Since $`S`$ is upper trivial, any simple closed curve $`cS`$ contained in the boundary of a tetrahedron $`t`$ bounds a disc in $`B^{}(S)`$. By assumption, $`c`$ actually bounds a disc $`DS`$, and it also bounds a disc $`D^{}t`$. By taking subdiscs, we assume that $`DD^{}=D=D^{}`$. Since $`M`$ is irreducible, the sphere $`DD^{}`$ bounds a $`3`$–ball $`B`$. We change $`S`$ by an isotopy with support in $`U(B)`$, replacing $`D`$ with $`D^{}`$. An iteration of this process yields a surface $`\stackrel{~}{S}M`$ so that $`G(\stackrel{~}{S})G(S)`$, and any simple closed curve on $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ contained in the boundary of a tetrahedron $`t`$ bounds a disc in $`\stackrel{~}{S}t`$.

If $`G(\stackrel{~}{S})\mathrm{}`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is isotopic mod $`𝒯^2`$ to a connected component of $`S^\times `$. Otherwise, $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is contained in a single tetrahedron ($`\stackrel{~}{S}𝒯^2=\mathrm{}`$) or in the union of two tetrahedra (in this case, $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is a sphere). Hence, $`S\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is contained in a $`3`$–ball. ∎

###### Lemma 5.

Let $`M`$ be irreducible. Let $`SM`$ be an almost $`1`$–normal upper trivial strongly irreducible Heegaard surface with a strict upper compressing disc $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$. Assume that $`S`$ is not isotopic to a connected component of $`S^\times `$ and $`S`$ is not contained in a $`3`$–ball. Then there is an arc $`\gamma (B^+(S^\times )𝒯^2)𝒯^1`$ such that $`S`$ is related to an upper completion of $`(S^\times )^\gamma `$ by isotopy mod $`𝒯^1`$ with support in $`U(\stackrel{~}{D})`$.

###### Proof.

By taking a parallel copy of a subdisc of $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$, there is a compact embedded disc $`DU(\stackrel{~}{D})𝒯^1`$ in general position to $`S`$ such that the closure of $`DS`$ is an arc $`\gamma B^+(S)𝒯^2`$ connecting two different normal arcs of $`S𝒯^2`$, and no other arc in $`(D𝒯^2)\gamma `$ connects two different normal arcs of $`S`$. When we pull $`S`$ across $`D`$ by an isotopy mod $`𝒯^1`$ with support in $`U(\stackrel{~}{D})`$, we obtain the surface $`S_D=(B^{}(S)U(D))`$. We will show that $`S_D`$ is an upper completion of $`(S^\times )^\gamma `$.

Consider a subdisc $`D^{}D`$ such that $`D^{}`$ is formed by an arc $`\alpha t_1`$ and an arc $`\beta St_1`$, for some tetrahedron $`t_1`$. Such a subdisc exists by an innermost arc argument. Let $`t_2`$ be the other tetrahedron whose boundary contains $`\alpha `$. When we pull $`S`$ across $`D^{}`$ (as part of the transition from $`S`$ to $`S_D`$), we obtain $`S^{}=(B^{}(S)U(D^{}))`$. If $`\alpha \gamma `$ then $`\alpha `$ does not connect different normal arcs of $`S`$, thus $`(S^{})^\times `$ is isotopic mod $`𝒯^2`$ to $`S^\times `$. If $`\alpha =\gamma `$ then $`S^{}=S_D`$.

To prove that $`S^{}`$ is upper trivial, we have to consider the parts of $`S^{}𝒯^2`$ that do not belong to $`S𝒯^2`$. If $`D^{}𝒯^2`$ contains simple closed curves (in the interior of $`D^{}`$) then these give rise to simple closed curves of $`S^{}𝒯^2`$ bounding discs in $`S^{}`$. There remains to consider curves adjacent to $`\alpha `$, in the following two cases.

1. We assume that $`\alpha `$ is contained in a single component of $`(S𝒯^2)𝒯^1`$. Let $`\alpha ^{}(S𝒯^2)𝒯^1`$ be the arc that connects the two endpoints of $`\alpha `$, and let $`c_1,c_2`$ be the components of $`St_1,St_2`$ that contain $`\alpha `$. By hypothesis and by Lemma 4, $`S`$ has a short lower meridian. The curves $`\alpha ^{}\beta `$, $`(c_1\alpha ^{})\beta `$ and $`c_2`$ bound discs in $`M`$. They are contained in a single tetrahedron, hence are disjoint from the short lower meridian. Thus, since $`S`$ is strongly irreducible and by the “no nesting” lemma, they bound discs in $`B^{}(S)`$. Taking the union of discs in $`B^{}(S)`$ bounded by $`c_2`$ and $`\alpha ^{}\beta `$, we see that $`(c_2\alpha ^{})\beta `$ bounds a disc in $`B^{}(S)`$ as well. Transforming $`S`$ into $`S^{}`$, $`\alpha ^{}\beta `$ becomes a new connected component of $`(S^{}𝒯^2)𝒯^1`$, $`(c_1\alpha ^{})\beta `$ replaces $`c_1`$, and $`(c_2\alpha ^{})\beta `$ replaces $`c_2`$ — compare the left part of Figure 2. Since all these curves bound discs in $`B^{}(S^{})`$, $`S^{}`$ is upper trivial.

2. We assume that $`\alpha `$ connects two different components of $`(S𝒯^2)𝒯^1`$. Since $`S`$ is almost $`1`$–normal, $`\alpha `$ connects two different components $`c_i,c_i^{}`$ of $`St_i`$, for $`i=1,2`$ — see the right part of Figure 2. Since $`S`$ is upper trivial, $`c_i,c_i^{}`$ bound discs in $`B^{}(S)`$. Transforming $`S`$ into $`S^{}`$, these discs become connected along a stripe in $`U(\alpha )B^{}(S^{})`$, and therefore any connected component of $`S^{}t_i`$ bounds a disc in $`B^{}(S^{})`$. Thus $`S^{}`$ is upper trivial.

We replace $`S`$ with $`S^{}`$ and repeat until $`\alpha =\gamma `$. In the final step of this iteration, we have $`S^{}=S_D`$, hence $`S_D`$ is upper trivial. Furthermore, $`G(S_D)`$ is isotopic mod $`𝒯^2`$ to $`G\left((S^\times )^\gamma \right)`$. Since $`S^\times `$ is $`1`$–normal, $`(S^\times )^\gamma 𝒯^2`$ is a disjoint union of discs. Hence $`S_D^\times `$ is isotopic mod $`𝒯^2`$ to $`(S^\times )^\gamma `$. ∎

Scharlemann’s “no nesting” lemma is fundamental for our applications of upper and lower completions. Scharlemann’s short proof (Lemma 2.2 in ) refers to a lemma stated in , but the proof there is also based on citation. To avoid nested citations, we include here an elementary proof of the “no nesting” lemma.

###### Lemma 6 (Lemma 2.2 in ).

Let $`HM`$ be a strongly irreducible Heegaard surface, and let $`\alpha H`$ be a simple closed curve bounding an embedded disc in $`M`$. Then $`\alpha `$ bounds an embedded disc in $`B^+(H)`$ or $`B^{}(H)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`DM`$ be an embedded disc with $`D=\alpha `$ such that $`D`$ is in general position to $`H`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}(DH)`$ is minimal. We can assume that $`DHD`$, since otherwise there is nothing to prove. In particular, $`\alpha `$ is essential. We can assume by induction that if a simple closed curve $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }H`$ bounds a disc $`\stackrel{~}{D}M`$ with $`\mathrm{\#}(\stackrel{~}{D}H)<\mathrm{\#}(DH)`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ bounds a disc in $`B^+(H)`$ or $`B^{}(H)`$.

Let $`\delta `$ be a connected component of $`(DH)D`$. It bounds a subdisc $`\stackrel{~}{D}D`$ with $`\mathrm{\#}(\stackrel{~}{D}H)<\mathrm{\#}(DH)`$. Hence by induction, $`\delta `$ bounds a disc in one handlebody of the decomposition, say, in $`B^{}(H)`$. Cut-and-paste arguments and minimality of $`\mathrm{\#}(DH)`$ imply that $`\delta `$ is essential on $`H`$ and bounds a component of $`DB^{}(H)`$. Since $`H`$ is strongly irreducible, the other components of $`(DH)D`$ are not meridians of $`B^+(H)`$. Hence when we apply the same argument, it follows that $`DB^{}(H)`$ is a non-empty disjoint union of meridional discs, and $`P=DB^+(H)`$ is a non-empty planar surface since $`DHD`$ by assumption.

Let $`CB^+(H)`$ be a meridional disc transversely intersecting $`P`$ such that $`\mathrm{\#}(CP)`$ is minimal. Since $`H`$ is strongly irreducible and $`P`$ contains a meridian of $`B^{}(H)`$, we have $`CP\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\gamma CP`$ be an innermost arc, cutting off a disc $`C^{}C`$ with $`C^{}P=\gamma `$. By cut-and-paste arguments, there is no circle in $`C^{}P`$, hence $`C^{}P=\gamma `$. Let $`\beta =C^{}H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=PD`$. We consider three cases.

1. If $`\gamma `$ connects two different components of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ then one can decrease $`\mathrm{\#}(DH)`$ by isotopy of $`D`$ along $`C^{}`$, in contradiction to the choice of $`D`$.

2. Assume that $`\gamma `$ is contained in a single component $`\delta P`$. If $`\gamma `$ cuts off a disc $`D^{}`$ in $`P`$ then a copy of $`C^{}D^{}`$ is a disc in $`B^+(H)`$ that is disjoint from $`P`$. Since $`P`$ contains a meridian of $`B^{}(H)`$ and $`H`$ is strongly irreducible, $`(C^{}D^{})`$ bounds a disc in $`H`$. Thus we can decrease $`\mathrm{\#}(CP)`$, in contradiction to the choice of $`C`$. Hence, $`\gamma `$ does not cut off a disc in $`P`$.

Let $`\delta _1,\delta _2`$ be the two connected components of $`\delta \gamma `$. If $`\delta _1\gamma `$ (resp. $`\delta _2\gamma `$) bounds a disc $`D^{\prime \prime }D`$ then $`D^{\prime \prime }P`$ by the preceding paragraph. Therefore $`\mathrm{\#}((C^{}D^{\prime \prime })H)<\mathrm{\#}(DH)`$, and hence $`\delta _1\beta `$ (resp. $`\delta _2\beta `$) bounds an embedded disc in $`B^+(H)`$ or $`B^{}(H)`$ by induction. It actually bounds a disc in $`B^{}(H)`$, since $`P`$ contains a meridian of $`B^{}(H)`$, since a copy of $`\delta _i\gamma `$ is disjoint from $`P`$, and since $`H`$ is strongly irreducible.

If $`\delta =D`$ then both $`\delta _1\gamma `$ and $`\delta _2\gamma `$ bound discs in $`D`$. Hence by the preceding paragraph, $`D`$ bounds a disc in $`B^{}(H)`$, in contradiction to our assumption. If $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ then either $`\delta _1\gamma `$ or $`\delta _2\gamma `$ bounds a disc $`D^{}D`$. Hence it bounds a disc $`D^{\prime \prime }B^{}(H)`$. Replacing $`D^{}`$ with $`D^{\prime \prime }C^{}`$, we can decrease $`\mathrm{\#}(DH)`$, since $`D^{}P`$. We obtain a contradiction to the minimality of $`\mathrm{\#}(DH)`$.

3. We are left with the case that $`\gamma `$ connects $`D`$ with a component $`\delta `$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let $`D_\delta `$ be the disc in $`DB^{}(H)`$ bounded by $`\delta `$. Let $`\tau H`$ be a simple closed curve obtained by connecting $`\delta U(\beta )`$ and $`DU(\beta )`$ with two copies of $`\beta `$. By taking the union of the disc $`D(U(\gamma )D_\delta )`$ with two copies of $`C^{}`$, $`\tau `$ bounds an embedded disc $`\stackrel{~}{D}M`$ with $`\mathrm{\#}(\stackrel{~}{D}H)<\mathrm{\#}(DH)`$. Hence, using the same arguments as in Case 2, $`\tau `$ bounds a disc $`D^{}`$ in $`B^{}(H)`$. Taking the union of $`D^{}`$ with a stripe along $`\beta `$ and with $`D_\delta `$, we obtain a disc in $`B^{}(H)`$ bounded by $`D`$. This contradicts our assumption and proves the lemma. ∎

## 7. Proof of Theorem 1

Let $`M`$ be a closed orientable irreducible $`3`$–manifold with a triangulation $`𝒯`$, and let $`HM`$ be a strongly irreducible Heegaard surface of $`M`$. By Waldhausen’s theorem  on Heegaard surfaces of $`S^3`$, $`H`$ is an embedded $`2`$–sphere if $`MS^3`$. In this case, we pick a vertex $`x𝒯^0`$, and connect two copies of the $`1`$–normal sphere $`U(x)`$ along an unknotted arc. We obtain an almost $`1`$–normal sphere isotopic to $`H`$ and satisfying Theorem 1. There remains to consider the case $`MS^3`$. In particular, $`H`$ is not contained in a $`3`$–ball. Let $`F_0M`$ be as in Theorem 3, and let $`N=B^+(F_0)`$.

By isotopy of $`H`$, we can assume that the ball $`MN`$ is contained in a single connected component $``$ of $`MH`$. Since $``$ is a handlebody, there is a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}N`$ in general position to $`𝒯`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}N`$, such that $``$ collapses onto $`(MN)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. Hence $`S_{}=(N)^\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ is an almost $`1`$–normal upper trivial surface isotopic to $`H`$. Similarly, there is a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+M`$ in general position to $`𝒯`$ such that $`M`$ collapses onto $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$. Hence $`S_+=U(\mathrm{\Gamma }_+)`$ is an almost $`1`$–normal lower trivial surface isotopic to $`H`$. We have $`NB^+(S_{})B^+(S_+)=U(\mathrm{\Gamma }_+)`$.

Thus there are $`1`$–normal surfaces $`F_{},F_+N`$, an upper completion $`S_{}H`$ of $`F_{}`$ and a lower completion $`S_+H`$ of $`F_+`$ with $`B^+(S_+)B^+(S_{})`$. Let $`SH`$ be a lower (resp. upper) trivial almost $`1`$–normal surface that is nested between $`S_{}`$ and $`S_+`$, i.e., $`B^+(S_+)B^+(S)B^+(S_{})`$. Assume that $`S<S_{}`$ (resp. $`S<S_+`$) or there is a connected component of $`S^\times `$ that can not be isotoped mod $`𝒯^2`$ into $`B^{}(F_{})`$ (resp. of $`B^+(F_+)`$). Then we replace $`F_{}`$ by $`S^\times `$ (resp. $`F_+`$ by $`S^\times `$), and iterate. By Kneser’s finiteness result (Theorem 2), the iteration stops after a finite number of steps. We choose $`F_{},F_+`$ so that a further iteration is impossible.

If some component $`F`$ of $`F_{}`$ or $`F_+`$ is isotopic to $`H`$ then we connect $`F`$ with $`N`$ along an unknotted arc, and obtain the first alternative of Theorem 1. By now we assume that no connected component of $`F_{}`$ or $`F_+`$ is isotopic to $`H`$. Hence by Lemma 4, $`S_{}`$ has a short lower meridian and $`S_+`$ has a short upper meridian.

### Case 1.

We assume that $`S_{}`$ has a strict upper compressing disc in $`B^{}(S_+)`$, for some choice of $`S_{},S_+`$. According to Lemma 5, $`S_{}`$ is isotopic mod $`𝒯^1`$ to an upper completion of $`F_{}^\gamma `$ contained in $`B^+(S_{})B^{}(S_+)`$, for some arc $`\gamma (B^+(F_{})𝒯^2)𝒯^1`$. The surface $`F_{}^\gamma `$ satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma 3, hence $`F_{}^\gamma `$ has an almost $`1`$–normal upper $`𝒯^2`$-reduction $`S^{}B^+(F_{})B^{}(F_+)`$ with $`S^{}<F_{}`$. We use the freedom in the choice of $`S_{},S_+`$ and isotope it so that $`S_{}S_+`$ has empty intersection with the strict compressing discs involved in the elementary reductions transforming $`F_{}^\gamma `$ into $`S`$. In particular, the upper $`𝒯^2`$–reduction $`S^{}`$ of $`F_{}^\gamma `$ gives rise to an almost $`1`$–normal upper $`𝒯^2`$–reduction $`S_{}^{}B^+(S_{})B^{}(S_+)`$ of $`S_{}`$.

If $`F_{}^\gamma H`$ then we get the first alternative of Theorem 1, by pushing $`\gamma `$ into the interior of a tetrahedron. Otherwise, by Lemma 4, $`S_{}`$ has a small lower meridian. We take a copy $`cS_{}𝒯^2`$ of this meridian. It is not affected by elementary reductions along compressing discs in $`𝒯^2`$. Thus $`S_{}^{}`$ has no short upper meridian, since it would be disjoint from the meridian $`c`$ of $`B^{}(S_{}^{})`$. Hence $`S_{}^{}H`$ is upper trivial. This is a contradiction to the choice of $`F_{},F_+`$, as $`S_{}^{}<S_{}=F_{}`$.

In conclusion, if $`S_{}`$ has a strict upper compressing disc in $`B^{}(S_+)`$, or similarly if $`S_+`$ has a strict lower compressing disc in $`B^+(S_{})`$, for some choice of $`S_{},S_+`$, then the first alternative of Theorem 1 holds.

### Case 2.

We assume that $`S_{}`$ has no strict upper compressing disc in $`B^{}(S_+)`$ and $`S_+`$ has no strict lower compressing disc in $`B^+(S_{})`$, for *any* choice of $`S_{},S_+`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ be the closed orientable surface whose genus $`g`$ coincides with the genus of $`H`$. By hypothesis on $`F_{},F_+`$, there is an embedding $`J:\mathrm{\Sigma }_g\times [0,1]M`$ in general position to $`𝒯`$ such that $`J_\xi =J(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g\times \{\xi \})H`$ for all $`\xi [0,1]`$, $`J_0`$ is an upper completion of $`F_{}`$, and $`J_1`$ is a lower completion of $`F_+`$.

For any $`\xi [0,1]`$, $`J_\xi `$ contains no vertex ($`𝒯^0`$ is in the complement of $`N`$), and it has at most one point of tangency with $`𝒯^1𝒯^0`$ or $`𝒯^2𝒯^1`$ by general position of $`J`$. A parameter $`\xi [0,1]`$ is critical if $`J_\xi `$ is tangent to $`𝒯^1`$. There are only finitely many critical parameters. The complexity of $`J`$ is

$$\kappa (J)=\underset{\xi I\text{ critical}}{}J_\xi .$$

We choose $`J`$ so that $`\kappa (J)`$ is minimal among all embeddings with the above properties. This is called *thin position*, a notion with many fruitful applications — for instance in , , ,  and .

By assumption on $`F_{},F_+`$, there is a short lower meridian of $`J_0`$ and a short upper meridian of $`J_1`$. Hence there is a non-critical parameter $`\zeta [0,1]`$ such that $`J_\zeta `$ has neither short upper nor short lower meridians, or has *both* short upper and short lower meridians. But the latter case can not occur since otherwise by small isotopy we obtain meridians of $`B^{}(J_\zeta )`$ and $`B^+(J_\zeta )`$ that intersect in at most one point (namely in a point of tangency of $`J_\zeta `$ with $`𝒯^2`$), in contradiction to strong irreducibility of $`J_\zeta `$. Thus $`J_\zeta `$ is both upper and lower trivial, and by small isotopy we can assume that it is in general position to $`𝒯`$.

If $`J`$ has no critical parameter then it easily follows that $`J_\zeta `$ has no returns, since $`J_0`$ and $`J_1`$ have no returns, $`G(J_0)B^{}(J_\zeta )`$, $`G(J_1)B^+(J_\zeta )`$, and $`G(J_0)`$ is isotopic mod $`𝒯^2`$ to $`G(J_1)`$. Thus $`J_\zeta `$ is almost $`k`$–normal for some $`k`$. Since a $`k`$–normal surface is determined by its intersection with $`𝒯^1`$, $`J_\zeta ^\times `$ is isotopic mod $`𝒯^2`$ to $`F_{}`$. Hence $`J_\zeta `$ is an upper completion of $`F_{}`$ isotopic to $`H`$ without a short lower meridian, in contradiction to the assumption. Therefore, $`J`$ has a critical parameter.

Since we are in Case 2, $`J_1=S_+`$ has no strict lower compressing discs. Hence there is a smallest critical parameter $`\xi _0[0,1]`$ with $`J_{\xi _0+ϵ}<J_{\xi _0ϵ}`$ for small $`ϵ>0`$. Since $`J_0`$ has no strict upper compressing disc and $`\xi _0`$ is minimal, we have $`J_0<J_{\xi _0ϵ}`$. Thus $`J_{\xi _0ϵ}`$ has both strict upper and lower compressing discs in $`B^+(J_0)B^{}(J_1)`$.

Assume that $`J_{\xi _0ϵ}`$ has a pair of nested or independent upper and lower compressing discs $`D_1,D_2M`$. By Lemma 1 and since $`F_{},F_+`$ are $`1`$–normal, we can choose $`D_1,D_2B^+(F_{})B^{}(F_+)`$. We can assume that the intersection of $`D_i`$ with $`S_\pm `$ is disjoint from $`𝒯^2`$. Thus $`D_1D_2`$ does not contain a meridian of $`B^+(S_{})`$ or of $`B^{}(S_+)`$, by the existence of short meridians of $`S_\pm `$ and strong irreducibility. Hence an isotopy of $`J`$ along $`D_1D_2`$ yields an embedding $`J^{}:\mathrm{\Sigma }_g\times IM`$ so that $`J_0^{}`$ is an upper completion of $`F_{}`$ and $`J_1^{}`$ is a lower completion of $`F_+`$. Moreover, the number of critical parameters does not increase and the weight of some critical levels *does* decrease, which implies $`\kappa (J^{})<\kappa (J)`$ — see  or  for details. This contradicts the choice of $`J`$ and disproves the existence of $`D_1,D_2`$.

By the preceding paragraphs, $`J_{\xi _0ϵ}B^+(J_0)B^{}(J_1)`$ is impermeable. It has strict upper and lower compressing discs in $`B^+(J_0)B^{}(J_1)`$ yield by critical points of $`J`$. Thus by Lemma 2, $`J_{\xi _0ϵ}`$ is isotopic mod $`𝒯^1`$ to an impermeable almost $`2`$–normal surface $`SB^+(J_0)B^{}(J_1)`$ that has exactly one octagon.

We assume that $`S`$ has a short lower meridian; the opposite case of a short upper meridian is of course symmetric. Let $`F`$ be the component of $`S^\times `$ containing the octagon. The octagon yields a strict upper compressing disc for $`F`$ contained in a tetrahedron. Let $`F^{}`$ be the result of an elementary reduction of $`F`$ along that strict upper compressing disc. $`F^{}`$ satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma 3. Thus $`F^{}`$ has an almost $`1`$–normal upper $`𝒯^2`$–reduction $`F^{\prime \prime }B^+(S^\times )B^{}(F_+)`$. As in Case 1, by an appropriate choice of $`S_{}`$ and $`S_+`$, we obtain an almost $`1`$–normal upper reduction $`S^{}B^+(S_{})B^{}(S_+)`$ of $`S`$ that has a short lower meridian. Hence $`S^{}`$ is upper trivial. The $`1`$–normal surface $`(S^{})^\times `$ is separated from $`F_{}`$ by $`F`$, which has an octagon. Hence some connected component of $`(S^{})^\times `$ can not be isotoped mod $`𝒯^2`$ into $`B^{}(F_{})`$. This is a contradiction to the choice of $`F_{}`$.

Thus $`S`$ has neither short upper nor short lower meridians, i.e., $`S`$ is both upper and lower trivial. Therefore $`H`$ is isotopic to a connected component $`F_1`$ of $`S^\times `$, by Lemma 4. If $`F_1`$ contains the octagon then we get the second alternative of Theorem 1. Otherwise, we join $`F_1`$ with $`N`$ along an unknotted arc and get the first alternative of Theorem 1. This finishes the proof of Theorem 1.


format: text

text:
# Tachyon field in cosmology

## Abstract

We study cosmological effects of homogeneous tachyon field as dark energy. We concentrate on two different scalar field potentials, the inverse square potential and the exponential potential. These models have a unique feature that the matter density parameter and the density parameter for tachyons remain comparable for a large range in redshift. It is shown that there exists a range of parameters for which the universe undergoes an accelerated expansion and the evolution is consistent with structure formation requirements. For a viable model we require fine tuning of parameters comparable to that in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }CDM`$ or in quintessence models. For the exponential potential, the accelerated phase is followed by a phase with $`a(t)t^{2/3}`$ thus eliminating a future horizon.

This report is based on recent work in collaboration with J. S. Bagla and T. Padmanabhan . In this paper, we construct cosmological models with homogeneous tachyon matter  to provide the dark energy component which drives acceleration of the universe (for a recent review of dark energy models see ). We assume that the tachyon matter coexists with normal nonrelativistic matter and radiation (for other work on cosmological aspects of tachyon field, see). For a spatially flat universe, the Friedman equations are

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3}}\rho ,{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G}{3}}(\rho +3p)`$ (1)
where $`\rho =\rho _{\mathrm{N}R}+\rho _\mathrm{R}+\rho _\varphi `$, with respective terms denoting nonrelativistic, relativistic and tachyon matter densities.

For the tachyon field $`\varphi `$ the energy density and pressure are given by

$`\rho _\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{\sqrt{1\dot{\varphi }^2}}},p_\varphi =V(\varphi )\sqrt{1\dot{\varphi }^2}`$ (2)
The equation of state for the tachyon is $`p=w\rho `$ with $`w=\dot{\varphi }^21`$. The evolution of the scalar field is described by

$$\ddot{\varphi }=(1\dot{\varphi }^2)\left[3H\dot{\varphi }+\frac{1}{V(\varphi )}\frac{dV}{d\varphi }\right]$$
(3)
We discuss cosmological models with two different potentials. The first one is an inverse square potential given by $`V(\varphi )=\frac{n}{4\pi G}\left(1\frac{2}{3n}\right)^{1/2}\varphi ^2.`$ The above potential leads to the power law expansion $`a(t)=t^n`$ if $`\varphi `$ is the only source . The term in the square bracket in the scalar field equation vanishes in the asymptotic limit when tachyons dominate and $`\varphi t`$. All initial conditions eventually converge to this asymptotic solution. If normal matter or radiation dominates, $`\dot{\varphi }`$ stays close to the transition point $`2/(3H\varphi )`$, unless we start the field very close to $`\dot{\varphi }^2=1`$. For a viable model with matter domination at high redshifts and an accelerating phase at low redshifts, we need to start the tachyon field such that $`\dot{\varphi }1`$ , and the field $`\varphi `$ is very large.

The second form of potential is the exponential one with $`V(\varphi )=V_0e^{\varphi /\varphi _0}`$. In a radiation dominated or a matter dominated universe, $`H(t)`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of time. As $`H(t)`$ keeps decreasing, $`\dot{\varphi }`$ increases slowly and asymptotically approaches unity. However, in a tachyon dominated scenario, the universe expands rapidly and $`H(t)`$ varies much more slowly than in the matter dominated or in the radiation dominated era. Thus $`\dot{\varphi }`$ changes at a slower rate but it still approaches unity and hence we eventually get a dust like equation of state for the tachyon field. Whether the evolution undergoes an accelerating phase or not depends on the initial values of $`\dot{\varphi }`$, $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$. The present values of density parameter for non-relativistic matter and for tachyons fix the epoch at which tachyons start to dominate the energy density. The parameter $`\varphi _0`$ sets the time when $`\dot{\varphi }`$ approaches unity and the asymptotic dust like phase for tachyons is reached and the duration of the accelerating phase is fixed by the initial value of $`\dot{\varphi }`$. If this initial value is very close to unity, it departs very little from it and if it starts far away from unity, the equation of state for the tachyon field leads to a significantly long accelerating phase. It is possible to fine tune the evolution by choosing a sufficiently large value for $`\varphi _0`$, so that $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is much smaller than unity even at the present epoch, and by requiring that the tachyon field starts to dominate the energy density of the universe at the present epoch. For the exponential potential, the accelerating phase is a transient between the matter dominated era and the tachyon dominated era both with $`a(t)t^{2/3}`$. These models have the attractive feature that they do not asymptotically approach de Sitter-like universe and hence do not possess a future horizon (for other attempts see ).

A comparison of these models with supernova type Ia data shows that the models are consistent with observations for a wide range of parameters. Therefore it is difficult to make a definite statement about constraints on the parameters. To further check the viability and to constrain the range of parameters, we study structure formation in tachyon models. The unique feature in tachyon models is that at high redshift, matter density parameter does not saturate at unity for all the models. This holds true for both the potentials. For models where the matter density parameter does not reach unity, the growth of perturbations is slow. The models in which density parameter is unity at high redshifts, the growth of perturbations is closer to that in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. The slower growth of perturbations implies that rms fluctuations in mass distribution were larger at the time of recombination as compared to conventional models. This will have an impact on the temperature anisotropies in the microwave background in these models.

The density parameter for matter is almost a constant at high redshifts ($`3<z<10^3`$), therefore in the linear limit we can solve for the rate of growth of density contrast. The equation for the density contrast is given by

$$\ddot{\delta }+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\delta }=4\pi G\rho \delta $$
(4)
where $`\delta =(\rho \overline{\rho })/\overline{\rho }`$, the factor $`\overline{\rho }`$ being the average density. The density contrast increases as $`\delta t^m`$ where $`m=(1/6)(\sqrt{1+24\mathrm{\Omega }_M}1)`$. The rate of growth slows down once the universe begins to approach an accelerated phase from the matter dominated phase and comes to a halt when the universe starts accelerating. This behavior is similar to what happens in most models with late time acceleration of the universe. In the framework of tachyon cosmology, one can indeed construct viable models in which the growth of perturbation is very similar to that in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models. These models are confined to a narrow range of parameters. For parameters lying outside this range, the perturbation growth is slower and should have higher amplitude in the past in order to maintain a given amplitude today and consequently the models are ruled out by cosmic microwave background observations.

We have shown that it is possible to construct viable models where tachyons contributes significantly to the energy density of the universe. Here we have considered models in which matter, radiation and tachyons coexist. It is shown that a subset of these satisfy the constraints on the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, for the accelerating phase to occur at the present epoch, it is necessary to fine tune the initial conditions. The density parameter for tachyons does not becomes negligible at high redshifts, hence the growth of perturbations in nonrelativistic matter is slower for most models than, e.g., the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. This problem does not exist in a small subset of models. Given that the density parameter of tachyons cannot be ignored in the matter dominated era, it is essential to study the fate of fluctuations in the tachyon field.


text:
# Study of the decay ϕ→𝜋⁺𝜋⁻𝜋⁰ with the KLOE detector.

## Abstract

We present a study of the reaction $`e^+e^{}`$$``$$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$$`\pi ^0`$ at the $`\varphi `$ peak, $`W=M(\varphi )`$ =1019.4 MeV, observed with the KLOE detector at DAΦNE. The reaction is dominated by $`\varphi `$ production and decay, $`e^+e^{}`$$``$$`\varphi `$$``$$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$$`\pi ^0`$. From a fit to the Dalitz plot density distribution we obtain the $`\rho `$-meson parameters for its three charge states. We also find the relative amplitudes for $`\varphi `$$``$$`\rho \pi `$ and $`\varphi `$$``$$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$$`\pi ^0`$ and the cross section for $`e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^0`$ with $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$.

, , , , , , , , 111Corresponding author: Cesare Bini, e-mail cesare.bini@roma1.infn.it, tel +390649914266, fax +39064957697, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The decay of the $`\varphi `$ meson to $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$, with a branching ratio (BR) of $``$15.5%, is dominated by the $`\rho \pi `$ intermediate states  $`\rho ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\rho ^{}\pi ^+`$, and $`\rho ^0\pi ^0`$ with equal amplitudes. We use data from $`e^+e^{}`$$``$$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$$`\pi ^0`$ to determine the masses and widths of the three charge states of the $`\rho `$-meson. CPT invariance requires equality of the masses and widths of $`\rho ^+`$ and $`\rho ^{}`$, while possible mass or width differences between $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\rho ^\pm `$ are related to isospin-violating electromagnetic effects. Additional contributions to $`e^+e^{}`$$``$$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$$`\pi ^0`$ are the so called “direct term”, $`\varphi `$$``$$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$$`\pi ^0`$, and $`e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^0`$, $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$.

We define the variables $`x=T^+T^{}`$ and $`y=T^0`$, where $`T^{+,,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}}`$ are the kinetic energies of the three pions in the center of mass system (CM). The Dalitz plot density distribution $`D(x,y)`$, in terms of the three amplitudes is given by:

$$D(x,y)|\stackrel{}{p}_+^{}\times \stackrel{}{p}_{}^{}|^2|A_{\rho \pi }+A_{\mathrm{dir}}+A_{\omega \pi }|^2$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{p}_\pm ^{}`$ are the $`\pi ^\pm `$ momenta in the CM and $`A_{\rho \pi }`$, $`A_{\mathrm{dir}}`$ and $`A_{\omega \pi }`$ are the amplitudes described above.

Some 2 million $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ events were collected with the KLOE detector in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at the Frascati $`\varphi `$-factory DAΦNE, in the fall of 2000. DAΦNE was run at a CM energy $`W=M(\varphi )`$ and the integrated luminosity was $``$=16 pb-1. In the following we present an analysis of the Dalitz plot density distribution and new determinations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ^{+0})`$, $`M(\rho ^{+0})`$, $`A_{\rho \pi }`$, $`A_{\mathrm{dir}}`$, $`A_{\omega \pi }`$ and $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^0,\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ at $`W=1019.4`$ MeV.

The KLOE detector consists of a large volume drift chamber  (3.3 m length and 2 m radius), operated with a 90% helium-10% isobutane gas mixture, and a sampling electromagnetic calorimeter  made of lead and scintillating fibres. The whole detector is surrounded by a superconducting coil producing a solenoidal field $`B`$=0.52 T. The drift chamber momentum resolution is $`\sigma (p_{})/p_{}`$$``$0.4%. The calorimeter determines photon impact points to an accuracy of 1 cm /$`\sqrt{E(\mathrm{GeV})}`$ in the direction along the fibres and of 1 cm in the transverse direction. Photon energies and arrival times are measured with resolutions of $`\sigma (E)/E=5.7\%/\sqrt{E(\mathrm{GeV})}`$ and $`\sigma (t)=57\mathrm{p}\mathrm{s}/\sqrt{E(\mathrm{GeV})}50`$ ps. The solid angle coverage of the calorimeter is 98% of 4$`\pi `$; however particles from the interaction point with a polar angle with respect to the beam axis $`\theta <15^{}`$ are shadowed by the low-$`\beta `$ insertion quadrupoles. The trigger  is based on the coincidence of at least two local energy deposits in the calorimeter, above a threshold that ranges between 50 and 150 MeV. In order to reduce the trigger rate due to cosmic rays crossing the detector, events with a large energy release in the outermost calorimeter planes are vetoed.

The DAΦNE beams collide with a crossing angle of 25 mrad, so the $`\varphi `$ is produced with a momentum in the horizontal plane $`|\stackrel{}{p}_\varphi |`$ 12.5 MeV. $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ events are selected by asking for two non-collinear tracks with opposite sign of curvature and polar angle $`\theta >40^{}`$ which intersect the interaction region. The acollinearity cut ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta <175^{}`$) removes $`e^+e^{}\gamma `$ events without incurring an acceptance loss for the signal. We then compute the missing mass,
$`M_{\mathrm{miss}}=\sqrt{(E_\varphi E_{\pi ^+}E_\pi ^{})^2|\stackrel{}{p}_\varphi \stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}|^2}`$ where $`E`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ are laboratory energies and momenta. $`M_{\mathrm{miss}}`$ is required to be within 20 MeV of the $`\pi ^0`$ mass. This requirement corresponds to an effective energy cut of $`20`$ MeV on the total energy radiated because of initial state radiation (ISR).

Two photons in the calorimeter are also required. A photon is defined as an energy deposit larger than 10 MeV with $`21^{}<\theta <159^{}`$ and an arrival time compatible with a particle travelling at the speed of light, within 5$`\sigma (t)`$. The two-photon opening angle in the $`\pi ^0`$ rest frame must satisfy $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\gamma \gamma }<0.98`$.

Fig. 1 shows the distributions of the missing mass $`M_{\mathrm{miss}}`$, of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ invariant mass, and of cos$`\theta _{\gamma \gamma }`$ for a sample of selected events. Due to the large cross-section 222Here and in the following we consider visible cross-sections, not corrected for the effect of the radiative corrections. for this final state with respect to other processes ($`\sigma _\varphi \times \mathrm{BR}(\varphi \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)=460`$ nb) and to the clean signature, the background to this process after the selection described is $`10^5`$. The Dalitz plot variables $`x`$ and $`y`$ are evaluated using the measured momenta of the charged pions, boosted to the center of mass system: $`x=E_+^{}E_{}^{}`$ and $`y=E_\varphi ^{}E_+^{}E_{}^{}M_{\pi ^0}=T_{\pi ^0}`$. $`E_\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_\varphi `$ are measured run by run using Bhabha scattering events. ISR lowers the mean $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$$`\pi ^0`$ total energy by $``$130 keV. This value is used in the analysis with negligible effect on the results. The resolution on $`x`$ and $`y`$ is about 1 MeV over the full kinematical range.

The Dalitz plot density distribution is shown in Fig. 2. In the plot the number of events corrected for the efficiency is shown divided by $`|\stackrel{}{p}_+^{}\times \stackrel{}{p}_{}^{}|^2`$. Three bands corresponding to the three $`\rho `$ states are clearly evident. The two-dimensional distribution is plotted in 8.75$`\times `$8.75 MeV2 bins. There are 1874 bins within the kinematic boundary. The bin width is larger than the $`x`$ and $`y`$ resolution, but is small compared to the density variations of the Dalitz plot as can be seen in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ projections shown in Fig. 3. Smearing effects due to the resolution are negligible.

Trigger and selection efficiencies have been evaluated as functions of $`x`$ and $`y`$. A full Monte Carlo simulation of the detector has been used with corrections based on control samples of data. Corrections to the detection efficiency for low energy photons have been obtained using $`e^+e^{}\gamma `$ events while analysis of tracking efficiency shows that the ratio of data to Monte Carlo efficiency is very close to 1 and uniform in the relevant momentum range. The trigger cosmic ray veto rejects $``$5% of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ events. The amount and the distribution of the rejected events in the Dalitz plot has been evaluated using downscaled samples of vetoed events. Fig. 4 shows the efficiency bin by bin obtained from a sample of $`5\times 10^6`$ Monte Carlo events. It can be noticed that the overall efficiency ranges between 20% and 30% within the Dalitz plot. The efficiency is dominated by acceptance cuts on charged tracks and photons. In particular, the low efficiency in the upper corners is due to the fact that low momentum pions do not reach the drift chamber. The uncertainty on the efficiency is dominated by Monte Carlo statistics and is on the order of 1% in each bin.

The calibration of the momentum scale is checked using the measured missing mass $`M_{\mathrm{miss}}`$. The central value of $`M_{\mathrm{miss}}`$ differs from $`M_{\pi ^0}`$ by less than 0.1 MeV. The rms fluctuation of the missing mass across the entire Dalitz plot is 0.25 MeV. The latter value is used in the estimates of systematic uncertainties for masses and widths.

The Dalitz plot distribution has been fitted according to Eq. 1. The $`\rho \pi `$ term includes the line-shape of the three charge states of the $`\rho `$  :

$$A_{\rho \pi }=a_\rho \mathrm{\Sigma }_k\frac{M_k^2}{q_k^2M_k^2+iq_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(k)}(q_k^2)}$$
(2)
where $`k=+,,0`$ is the $`\rho `$-meson charge and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(k)}(q_k^2)`$ is defined as:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(k)}(q_k^2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_k\left(\frac{p_\pi (q_k^2)}{p_\pi (M_k^2)}\right)^3\left(\frac{M_k^2}{q_k^2}\right)$$
(3)
In the above, $`q_k^2`$ is the invariant mass of the appropriate pion pair, $`\pi ^i\pi ^j`$ with $`i,j,k=+,,0`$; $`M_k`$ is the $`\rho `$ mass; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ the width; and $`p_\pi `$ is the pion momentum in the $`\rho `$ center of mass. The direct amplitude does not in general have the same phase as $`A_{\rho \pi }`$ and is taken as $`A_{\mathrm{dir}}=a_de^{i\varphi _d}`$. This term can be interpreted as the sum of $`\rho `$-like resonances of higher mass like $`\varphi \rho ^{}`$(1415)$`\pi `$, which is not distinguishable from a constant term multiplied by $`\times |\stackrel{}{p}_+^{}\times \stackrel{}{p}_{}^{}|^2`$. The $`\omega \pi `$ term is restricted to a horizontal band around $`y=83.7`$ MeV, the kinetic energy of the $`\pi ^0`$ in the $`\omega \pi ^0`$ final state. The amplitude is given by:

$$A_{\omega \pi }=a_\omega e^{i\varphi _\omega }\frac{M_\omega ^2}{q_0^2M_\omega ^2+iq_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega }$$
(4)
with the $`\omega `$ parameters fixed to PDG values . $`a_\rho `$, $`a_\omega `$ and $`a_d`$ are three dimensionless parameters.

We perform a $`\chi ^2`$ fit of the described density function to the data binned as described. The errors used are from data statistics and Monte Carlo statistics for efficiency calculations. Three fits have been performed: a) a fit assuming CPT and isospin invariance, i.e.$`M_{\rho ^0}=M_{\rho ^+}=M_\rho ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho ^0}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho ^+}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^{}`$; b) a fit assuming only CPT invariance i.e. $`M_{\rho ^+}=M_\rho ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho ^+}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^{}`$; and finally c) without limitations on masses and widths. Moduli and phases of direct and $`\omega \pi `$ terms and $`a_\rho `$ are also free parameters. There are 7 free parameters for fit a), 9 for fit b) and 11 for fit c). The number of degrees of freedom is 1874$``$7=1867 for fit a), 1865 for fit b) and 1863 for fit c). The results of the fits are shown in Tab. 1 and a one-dimensional comparison of the data with the fit function (fit (c)) is shown in Fig. 5.

The uncertainties on the parameters are given as the sum of fit uncertainties (due to event statistics and efficiencies) and systematic uncertainties coming from two sources: (a) the stability of the fit with respect to changes of the selection cuts, and (b) the absolute momentum calibration. Source (a) is dominant, and is evaluated by repeating the fit for data samples obtained using different values of the cuts and taking the rms variation of the parameters. Effects due to the modelling of ISR are automatically taken into account by the variation of the cut on the missing mass.

Fit (a) converges to an acceptable $`\chi ^2`$ probability, showing that the experimental distribution is consistent with CPT and isospin invariance. Mass and width differences between states of charge obtained by fit (b) and fit (c) are summarized in Tab. 2 where $`M_{\rho ^\pm }=(M_{\rho ^+}+M_\rho ^{})/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho ^\pm }=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho ^+}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^{})/2`$. The $`\rho `$ masses are significantly larger and the widths smaller than the PDG averages ($`M_\rho =771.1\pm 0.9`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho =149.2\pm 0.7`$ MeV, see ) but are close to recent results  for the $`\rho ^0`$ mass and width.

We observe significant contributions from the direct term and from the $`\omega \pi `$ term: the coefficients $`a_d`$ and $`a_\omega `$ are significantly different from 0. If we define the weight of each contribution $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =\rho \pi `$, $`\mathrm{dir}`$ and $`\omega \pi `$) as
$`I_\alpha =𝑑x𝑑y|A_\alpha |^2/𝑑x𝑑y|A_{\mathrm{tot}}|^2`$, where the amplitudes $`A_\alpha `$ are taken from the results of fit c) and $`A_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the sum of three amplitudes, we get the following weights:

$$I_{\rho \pi }=0.937$$
(5)
$$I_{\mathrm{dir}}=8.5\times 10^3$$
(6)
$$I_{\omega \pi }=2.0\times 10^4$$
(7)
The sum of the three weights is not equal to one, due to a sizeable interference term between $`A_{\rho \pi }`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{dir}}`$ accounting for about 6% of the total.

From $`I_{\omega \pi }`$, if we neglect interference, we obtain the visible cross section for the non resonant process $`e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^0`$ with $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ at $`W=1019.4`$ MeV.

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)=I_{\omega \pi }\times \sigma (e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)=92\pm 15\mathrm{pb}$$
(8)
The ratio of this cross-section to the value $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\omega \pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=0.46\pm 0.01\pm 0.03\mathrm{nb}`$ obtained by KLOE in the 5 photons analysis  gives:

$$R=\frac{\mathrm{BR}(\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{})}{\mathrm{BR}(\omega \pi ^0\gamma )}=0.20\pm 0.04$$
(9)
which compares well with the value 1.7/8.7=0.20$`\pm `$0.03 from .

We thank the DA$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$NE team for their efforts in maintaining low background running conditions and their collaboration during all data-taking. We also thank G.F. Fortugno for his efforts in ensuring good operations of the KLOE computing facilities. This work was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG-02-97ER41027; by EURODAPHNE, contract FMRX-CT98-0169; by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) contract 06-KA-957; by Graduiertenkolleg ’H.E. Phys.and Part. Astrophys.’ of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Contract No. GK 742; by INTAS, contracts 96-624, 99-37; and by TARI, contract HPRI-CT-1999-00088.


text:
# Anholonomy and Geometrical Localization in Dynamical Systems

## Abstract

We characterize the geometrical and topological aspects of a dynamical system by associating a geometric phase with a phase space trajectory. Using the example of a nonlinear driven damped oscillator, we show that this phase is resilient to fluctuations, responds to all bifurcations in the system, and also finds new geometric transitions. Enriching the phase space description is a novel phenomenon of “geometrical localization” which manifests itself as a significant deviation from planar dynamics over a short time interval.

Anholonomy is a phenomenon that arises if a quantity fails to recover its original value, when the parameters on which it depends are varied round a closed path. First introduced by Berry in quantum mechanics as a geometric phase associated with the wave function, it is now recognized that this phase can emerge in classical systems as well. The universality underlying this concept has proven to be very useful in a variety of systems.

In this Letter we present, for the first time, a formalism which uses this concept to quantify the geometric characteristics of complex phase space trajectories of systems exhibiting chaotic dynamics. Here, the root of the anholonomy lies in the non-planarity of the trajectories. Using the example of a nonlinear driven damped oscillator, we demonstrate that the geometric phase is a robust order parameter for the system, which not only responds to all bifurcations but also finds new geometrical transitions. These include geometrical resonances leading to both discontinuous as well as continuous changes in the geometry of periodic and strange attractors. Our formalism integrates phase space dynamics and its geometrical aspects by including information about the non-planarity of the trajectory. Underlying this enrichment is the novel phenomenon of geometrical localization: the temporal localization of the geometrical variables, when the deviation from planar dynamics occurs over small time intervals.

Although our formalism can be generalized to higher dimensions, we consider (as an illustrative example) a dynamical system described by three first-order coupled differential equations,

$$𝐫_t=𝐯(𝐫,\alpha );𝐫(t)=(x(t),y(t),z(t)),$$
(1)
where the subscript $`t`$ denotes the time-derivative, $`(x,y,z)`$ are the variables of the 3D phase space, $`𝐯`$ is a given function of these variables, and $`\alpha `$ is a control parameter. Driven damped nonlinear oscillators, Duffing’s equations for nonlinear mechanical vibrations, the Lorenz equations describing 2D convection in a heated fluid, nonlinear electronic circuit equations, etc., are some well-known examples of Eq. (1).

A phase trajectory of the dynamical system of Eq. (1) can be viewed as a space curve generated by the three-dimensional vector $`𝐫(t)`$ parametrized by the time $`t`$. From Eq. (1), we have $`|𝐫_t|=|𝐯|=v=s_t`$, giving $`s(t)=v𝑑t`$ as the arc length on the space curve. Thus the unit tangent vector is given by $`𝐓=𝐫_t/v`$. In accordance with the usual formalism  for a space curve, we define the orthogonal right-handed triad of unit vectors $`(𝐓,𝐍,𝐁)`$, where $`𝐍`$ and $`𝐁`$ denote, respectively, the normal and binormal unit vectors on the curve. The Frenet-Serret (FS) equations can be written in terms of the variable $`t`$ as

$$𝐓_t=v\kappa 𝐍,𝐍_t=v\kappa 𝐓+v\tau 𝐁,𝐁_t=v\tau 𝐍,$$
(2)
where the curvature $`\kappa `$ and the torsion $`\tau `$ are functions of $`s`$ and determine the local geometry of the trajectory. It can be shown that

$`\kappa (s)`$ $`=`$ $`|𝐫_t\times 𝐫_{tt}|/|𝐫_t|^3,`$ (3)
$`\tau (s)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐫_t(𝐫_{tt}\times 𝐫_{ttt})/|𝐫_t\times 𝐫_{tt}|^2.`$ (4)
Intuitively, the curvature measures the departure of a curve from a straight line, while the torsion measures its non-planarity.

To understand how the anholonomy of a trajectory arises, we rewrite Eqs. (2) as $`𝐅_t=\xi \times 𝐅`$, where $`𝐅`$ stands for $`𝐓,𝐍,`$ or $`𝐁,`$ and $`\xi =v\kappa 𝐁+v\tau 𝐓`$. This shows that as one moves on the trajectory $`𝐫(t)`$, the FS triad $`(𝐓,𝐍,𝐁)`$ rotates with angular velocities $`v\kappa `$ and $`v\tau `$ around $`𝐁`$ and $`𝐓`$ respectively. In the $`(𝐍,𝐁)`$ plane, we may introduce two orthogonal unit vectors $`𝐮`$ and $`𝐰`$ such that the triad $`(𝐓,𝐮,𝐰)`$ does not rotate around $`𝐓`$. This is achieved by using a Fermi-Walker parallel transport of any vector $`𝐏`$ moved along the curve according to $`\delta 𝐏/\delta t=𝐏_tv\kappa (𝐁\times 𝐏)`$. Thus, as one moves from $`t=0`$ to $`t=T`$, a geometric phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T=_0^Tv\tau 𝑑t=_{\gamma (s)}\tau 𝑑s`$ develops between its natural frame $`(𝐍,𝐁)`$ and the “non-rotating frame” $`(𝐮,𝐰)`$. The anholonomy $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ can also be interpreted in another way: Representing the rotation of the triad using Euler angles $`(\theta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ yields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T=2\pi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta 𝑑\phi `$. For a periodic trajectory, the second term is just the solid angle subtended by the area enclosed by the closed path $`\gamma (s)`$ traced out by the tangent indicatrix  on the unit sphere $`S^2`$. The same result holds good for a non-periodic trajectory as well, since it can always be closed using a geodesic on the sphere.

As is clear, the anholonomy $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ of a trajectory also characterizes its non-planarity. Since both periodic as well as chaotic trajectories occur in general, a more useful quantity is the geometric phase per unit time, defined over a long time $`T`$,

$$\varphi _T\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_T}{T}=\frac{1}{T}_0^Tv\tau 𝑑t$$
(5)
where $`T`$ is much larger than all the natural time scales in the problem. $`\varphi _T`$ as defined above can also be thought of as the mean angular velocity of the FS triad. As we show below, it turns out to be a good order parameter for both periodic and chaotic trajectories.

We now apply this formulation to a driven, damped, bilinear oscillator characterized by two different frequencies $`\omega _{1,2}`$ for positive and negative displacements respectively:

$$x_{tt}+2\beta x_t=\omega _{1,2}^2x+f\mathrm{cos}\omega t,(\beta >0).$$
(6)
This can be written in the form of Eq. (1) by choosing $`𝐫=(x,y,z)=(x,x_t,x_{tt})`$. For $`\beta =0,f=0`$, the oscillator has a frequency $`\omega _{\mathrm{bl}}=2\omega _1\omega _2/(\omega _1+\omega _2)`$. The system is piecewise linear, and analytic solutions can be obtained for $`x>0`$ and $`x<0`$. The discontinuity at the origin makes it essentially nonlinear, $`\alpha =\omega _2/\omega _1`$ being the nonlinearity parameter. Without loss of generality, we choose the units of $`t`$ and $`x`$ such that $`\omega =1`$ and $`f=1`$. The two key control parameters are then $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$, or, equivalently, $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega _1`$. The results to be presented are for fixed $`\omega _1=1.5`$, although we have investigated the full two-dimensional parameter space. For a linear damped driven oscillator ($`\omega _1=\omega _2`$), it is easy to show that $`\tau `$ calculated using Eq. (4) is identically zero and hence the attractor is a planar limit cycle.

Our numerical routine uses the analytical solution for $`x(t)`$ in each half of the phase space. Starting with an initial state $`x>0,x_t=0`$ (so that the oscillator frequency is $`\omega _1`$), we use very small time increments to determine precisely the time and the velocity when $`x`$ reaches $`0`$. These are used as the new initial conditions for dynamics in the region $`x<0`$ with oscillator frequency $`\omega _2`$, and the process is repeated. The availability of an analytic solution is particularly useful for computing the torsion of the phase trajectory using Eq. (4).

We have carried out a detailed exploration  of the system in the parameter space, and calculated the local phase space variable $`x`$, the local geometric variable $`\tau `$, the long-time average anholonomy $`\varphi _T`$, as well as $`\varphi _1,`$ the average anholonomy over a single period of the driving force.

The bilinear oscillator exhibits period-doubling transitions, followed by chaotic dynamics which is reflected by $`\varphi _1`$ in addition to phase space variables. A close look at Fig. 1 shows that all changes in the attractor in phase space are reflected in $`\varphi _T`$ as well, either as a discontinuity in $`\varphi _T`$ or as a change in its slope $`\varphi _T/\alpha `$. For example, at $`\alpha =2/3`$ ($`\omega _2=1`$) and $`\alpha 4.25`$ there is a sudden change in the Poincaré plot $`x_n`$ (due to coexisting attractors changing their basin of attraction) which is accompanied by a jump in $`\varphi _T`$. A sequence of period-doublings at $`\alpha 3.4,4.25,4.7\mathrm{}`$ as well as a resonance at $`\alpha 2.0`$, where $`\omega _{bl}=\omega `$, are accompanied by changes in $`\varphi _T/\alpha `$.

A striking feature is the emergence of a series of new geometric transitions of the attractor that are not captured by the standard bifurcation diagram for $`x_n`$. While $`x_n`$ varies smoothly, $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _T`$ show a jump at $`\alpha 1.25,3.0,3.4`$, reminiscent of a first-order phase transition. In contrast, at $`\alpha 0.61,`$ $`x_n`$ and $`\varphi _T`$ are both continuous, but $`\varphi _T/\alpha `$ has a jump, reminiscent of a second-order phase transition. These transitions are robust, as the threshold parameter values for both first and second order transitions lie on a smooth one-dimensional curve in two-dimensional parameter space. Based on our detailed numerical studies, there is ample justification for regarding $`\varphi _T`$ as an order parameter for such geometric transitions.

The first order transitions result in a discontinuous change in $`\varphi _1`$ by $`\omega `$ ( which is set to unity here) in only one of the branches of $`x_n`$. As a result, we see discontinuities in $`\varphi _T`$ by exactly $`1/n`$, where $`n`$ is the period of the attractor in units of $`2\pi /\omega `$. Therefore, the discontinuities in $`\varphi _T`$ correspond to a full rotation of the FS triad by $`2\pi `$ in a full period of the driving force. These transitions can thus be viewed as a resonance effect between the average rotation frequency of the FS triad and the driving frequency. Higher order resonances where the FS triad rotates by $`2\pi m`$ ($`m=`$ any integer) were also frequently observed for $`\alpha <1`$. In the neighborhood of a second-order transition, the mean anholonomy is very large as the FS triad executes many rotations (not necessarily an integer number) during one period of the driving. Such sudden responses in the geometry of the trajectories that are not captured by usual bifurcation diagrams will be referred to as geometrical resonances (GR).

Further insight into these intriguing phenomena can be gained by studying the local dynamics of both the phase space and geometrical variables as shown in Fig. 2 . As we discuss below, the key to the various effects is the localization characteristics underlying the torsion $`\tau `$, which we will refer to as the $`\tau `$-mode. We first discuss the dynamics near the first-order transition, given on the left in Fig. 2. An interesting aspect is the temporal localization of the $`\tau `$-mode corresponding to large geometrical changes in very short time intervals, as the nonlinearity increases from $`\alpha =1.1`$. At a critical parameter value, it becomes a $`\delta `$-function and then flips, i.e., the localized $`\tau `$ changes its sign, after which the $`\tau `$-dynamics that was “bi-directional” (i.e., $`\tau `$ had both signs) becomes “unidirectional”, with the FS triad rotating in one direction alone, as can be inferred from the figure. The geometrical transition appears to be linked to subtle changes in the dynamics. Here the local curvature vanishes as $`𝐫_t`$ and $`𝐫_{tt}`$ become collinear. In terms of phase space variables, the force and its two derivatives are very small and the particle is subjected to a small constant force for a long time interval.

One of the interesting aspects of a first-order GR transition is the fact that it is often associated with a period-doubling bifurcation; in that case it is a “twin” transition, where a jump in $`\varphi _1`$ before period-doubling is always accompanied by another jump (of identical magnitude but opposite sign) in $`\varphi _1`$ after the period-doubling. The twin aspect of the GR was seen throughout the two-dimensional parameter space, and may be universal.

In contrast to the first-order case, the dynamics near a second-order transition corresponds to an enhancement in the localization length of the $`\tau `$-mode. as described on the right in Fig. 2. In addition to this delocalization, the mode also becomes predominantly unidirectional (positive $`\tau `$) due to the disappearance of the strongly localized (negative) $`\tau `$. After this stage, the mode becomes bi-directional again. In view of the absence of ”flipping”, $`\varphi _T`$ remains continuous, while its derivative exhibits a discontinuity.

Localization of $`\tau `$ implies that the non-planarity of the attractor is significant only in short intervals of time. This nonlinearity-induced localization of the geometrical variables when the phase space variables continue to exhibit oscillatory dynamics is an interesting new phenomenon that we will refer to as geometrical localization. In addition to their existence near GRs, localized $`\tau `$-modes are seen frequently as sudden, seemingly random bursts in the chaotic time series as clearly seen in Fig. 3. They are tied to very subtle changes in the dynamics associated with the derivatives of $`x`$.

We had stated earlier that $`\varphi _T`$ is an appropriate order parameter even for dynamics on a chaotic attractor. This is borne out by the fact that $`\varphi _T`$ converges to a well-defined asymptotic value for very large sampling times $`t`$, as shown in Fig. 4.

The average anholonomy fluctuates before converging to a fixed value, reminiscent of the critical fluctuations of an order parameter near a thermodynamic phase transition. The fact that $`\varphi _T`$ converges to a unique asymptotic limit even for chaotic trajectories establishes the resilient aspect of the geometric phase in the classical bilinear oscillator. This tolerance to fluctuations may be a universal characteristic of geometric phases in both quantum and classical systems which has led to the exciting possibility of geometric quantum computation.

It is interesting to note that, by defining a complex vector $`𝐌=(𝐍+i𝐁)/\sqrt{2}`$, a short calculation using the FS equations (2) shows that the classical geometric phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T=_{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}\tau 𝑑s=i_{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}𝐌^{}𝐌_s𝑑s`$. This expression has exactly the same form as the quantum geometric phase found by Berry , when the classical vector $`𝐌`$ is replaced by a quantum state $`|n(𝐑)`$. In view of the general robustness of the geometric phase, we believe that our formalism that uses anholonomy may provide an alternative formulation for studying the classical-quantum correspondence.

In summary, our space curve formulation of dynamical systems using the FS equations provides a new method which adds geometrical features to the usual phase space description of the complex dynamics of classically chaotic systems. Non-planarity of the attractor is related to anholonomy, which, in turn, is shown to be an appropriate robust order parameter that characterizes the geometry of the attractors. Adding to the richness of the bifurcation diagram is the prediction of first and second-order transitions in the geometry of the attractor. These transitions are related to the localization characteristics of the torsion. This suggests the novel concept of geometrical localization near a transition, which emerges due to the fact that significant deviation from planar dynamics exists only over small time intervals. We thus relate nonlinearity not only to anholonomy but also to localization.

We believe that several of the features we have seen in our geometric description of the bilinear oscillator may be generic and found in other nonlinear systems as well. These were seen throughout the two-dimensional parameter space, and also for other choices of phase space variables such as $`𝐫=(x,x_t,t)`$ and $`(x,x_t,\mathrm{cos}\omega t)`$. Our formulation can also be extended to $`D4`$. For instance, when $`D=4`$, the anholonomy can be found from the expression for the angular velocity of a tetrad that can be appropriately defined for the system. We hope that our study will stimulate a new line of research relating geometry and dynamics in nonintegrable systems in general.

The research of IIS is supported by National Science Foundation Grant No. DMR 0072813.