text:
# Unknotting tunnels and Seifert surfaces

## 1. Introductory comments

In \[GST\] the following conjecture of Morimoto’s was established: if a knot $`KS^3`$ has a single unknotting tunnel $`\gamma `$, then $`\gamma `$ can be moved to be level with respect to the natural height function on $`K`$ given by a minimal bridge presentation of $`K`$. The repeated theme of the proof is that by “thinning” the $`1`$-complex $`K\gamma `$ one can simplify its presentation until the tunnel is either a level arc or a level circuit.

The present paper was originally motivated by two questions. One was a rather specialized conjecture of Goda and Teragaito: must a hyperbolic knot which has both genus and tunnel number one necessarily be a $`2`$-bridge knot? A second question was this: Once the thinning process used in the proof of \[GST\] stops because the tunnel becomes level, can thin position arguments still tell us more?

With respect to the second question, it turns out that there is an obstruction to further useful motion of $`\gamma `$ that can be expressed as an element $`\rho \frac{Q}{2Z}`$. Surprisingly, further investigation showed that, so long as $`K`$ is not $`2`$-bridge, the obstruction $`\rho `$ can be defined in a way completely independent of thin position and thereby can be viewed as an invariant of the pair $`(K,\gamma )`$. Moreover, this apparently new invariant has useful properties: It is not hard to calculate. If $`\rho 1`$, then the tunnel can be isotoped onto a minimal genus Seifert surface. This, in combination with some work \[EU\] of Eudave-Munoz and Uchida, verifies a conjecture of Goda and Teragaito \[GT\] in the case in which $`\rho (K,\gamma )1`$. If $`\rho =1`$ and the tunnel is a level edge, then the tunnel can be moved so that instead of connecting two maxima (say) of $`K`$, it connects two minima and vice versa. A future paper will expand on this observation, addressing the technically difficult and rather specialized case in which $`\rho =1`$ with the goal of verifying the Goda-Teragaito conjecture in this final case.

Here are a few technical notes on conventions and notation used in the arguments that follow:

1. For $`XM`$ a polyhedron, $`\eta (X)`$ will denote a closed regular neighborhood, whereas (abusing notation slightly) $`M\eta (X)`$ will mean the closed complement of $`\eta (X)`$ in $`M`$.
2. Pairs of curves in surfaces will typically be regarded as having been isotoped to minimize the number of points in which they intersect. Only occasionally is care required with this convention. For example, if a surface $`S`$ containing curves $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ is cut open along a circle $`c`$ and the remnants $`\alpha c`$ and $`\beta c`$ are isotoped in $`Sc`$ to minimize their intersection (not necessarily fixing $`\alpha c`$ or $`\beta c`$) then when $`S`$ is reassembled, new intersections are introduced because of twisting around $`c`$. In most contexts this won’t matter, since it is the absence of intersections that typically complicates an argument.
3. When put in thin position as in \[GST\], a $`1`$-complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`S^3`$ will typically be regarded as having first been made “generic” with respect to the given height function on $`S^3`$; that is, all vertices will be of valence $`3`$, with two edges incident from above (resp. below) and one from below (resp. above). At any height there will be at most one critical point or vertex. This convention leads to the following semantic problem: A process which puts $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in thin position typically terminates when an edge of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is made level. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is no longer generic, but can be made generic by a small perturbation in which the height function on the edge becomes monotonic. To describe this situation we will sometimes say that the edge is a “perturbed” level edge.

## 2. Unknotted handlebodies in $`S^3`$ and their splitting spheres

Consider a standard genus two handlebody $`H`$ in $`S^3`$ and suppose $`\mu ^+,\mu ^{},\mu ^t`$ are three non-parallel, non-separating meridian disks for $`H`$, fixed throughout our discussion. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denote the $`4`$-punctured sphere $`H(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$, with boundary components $`\mu _l^\pm ,\mu _r^\pm `$. Let $`\mu ^{}`$ denote a fixed separating meridian disk of $`H`$ that is disjoint from $`\mu ^\pm `$ and intersects $`\mu ^t`$ in a single arc. There’s a natural projection of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to the rectangle $`I\times I`$ so that $`\mu ^{}`$ projects to a horizontal bisector, $`\mu ^t`$ to a vertical bisector, the two copies $`\mu _l^+`$ and $`\mu _r^+`$ of $`\mu ^+`$ in $``$$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ project near the points $`I\times \{1\}`$ and the two copies copies $`\mu _l^{}`$ and $`\mu _r^{}`$ of $`\mu ^{}`$ in $``$$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ project near the points $`I\times \{1\}`$.

A complete pair of arcs in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will be a pair of arcs whose boundary has one point on each boundary component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. A complete pair of arcs $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}`$ disjoint from $`\mu ^t`$ is said to have infinite slope and a complete pair of arcs $`\lambda _0`$ that is disjoint from $`\mu ^{}`$ is said to have slope $`0`$. The union $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}\lambda _0`$ divides $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ into two copies of $`I\times I`$, which we’ll call the front face and the back face of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. See Figure 1. There is a natural correspondence between proper isotopy classes of complete pairs of arcs in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the extended rationals $`p/q\mathrm{}`$. Here $`|p|`$ is the number of times one of the pair intersects $`\mu ^{}`$, $`|q|`$ is the number of times it intersects $`\mu ^t`$, and the fraction is positive (resp. negative) if the pair (when isotoped to have minimal intersection with $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}\lambda _0`$) is incident to the lower left corner $`\mu _l^{}`$ on the front (resp. back) face. Note that a complete pair of arcs in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for which one end of each arc lies on $`\mu ^{}`$ and the other on $`\mu ^+`$ corresponds to a rational $`p/q`$ with $`p`$ odd. See Figure 2.

###### Definition 2.1.

Given two complete pairs of arcs $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$, with slopes $`p/q`$ and $`p^{}/q^{}`$ respectively, define $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda ,\lambda ^{})=|pq^{}p^{}q|`$.

Note that if $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda ,\lambda ^{})1`$ then the two pairs can be isotoped to be disjoint; otherwise, $`|\lambda \lambda ^{}|=2\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda ,\lambda ^{})2`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

Suppose $`HS^3`$ is an unknotted genus two handlebody and $`S`$ is a sphere that intersects $`H`$ in a single essential circle. Then $`S`$ is a splitting sphere for $`H`$.

Alternatively, we could define a splitting sphere to be a reducing sphere for the Heegaard splitting $`S^3=H_H(\overline{S^3H})`$.

Suppose $`S`$ is a splitting sphere for $`HS^3`$, so $`D=SH`$ is an essential separating disk in $`H`$. One possibility is that $`D`$ lies entirely inside the ball $`H(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$. But, if not, then an outermost arc in $`D`$ of $`D(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ cuts off a disk $`D_0`$ and $`D_0H`$ is an arc $`\alpha `$ with both ends at one of the boundary components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, say $`\mu _l^{}`$. An arc in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, such as $`\alpha `$, with both ends at $`\mu _l^{}`$, say, is called a wave based at $`\mu _l^{}`$. A simple counting argument (as many ends of arcs of $`D\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lie on $`\mu _l^{}`$ as on $`\mu _r^{}`$) shows that there’s also a wave $`\alpha ^{}`$ based at $`\mu _r^{}`$ and that one of the components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\alpha `$ is an annulus whose other end is one of $`\mu _r^+`$ or $`\mu _l^+`$. A spanning arc for that annulus unambiguously gives us an arc with one end on $`\mu _l^{}`$ and the other end on one of $`\mu _r^+`$ or $`\mu _l^+`$. Similarly $`\alpha ^{}`$ unambiguously gives us an arc from $`\mu _r^{}`$ to the other choice of $`\mu _r^+`$ or $`\mu _l^+`$. Thus, given a splitting sphere, either its intersection circle with $`H`$ lies entirely in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ or there is unambiguously defined a complete pair of arcs, each of which has one end on $`\mu ^{}`$ and one end on $`\mu ^+`$. On the other hand, knowing that a specific essential pair $`\lambda `$ is the result of this construction, we do not know whether the waves are based on $`\mu ^{}`$ or on $`\mu ^+`$. In other words, to any choice of essential pairs of arcs, each of which has one end on $`\mu ^{}`$ and one end on $`\mu ^+`$, there correspond exactly two possible (pairs of) waves.

###### Definition 2.3.

Let $`H`$ be the standard genus two handlebody in $`S^3`$, $`\mu ^+,\mu ^{},\mu ^t`$ be three non-parallel, non-separating meridian disks for $`H`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ a fourth, separating, meridian disk that is disjoint from $`\mu ^\pm `$ and which intersects $`\mu ^t`$ in a single arc. Finally let $`S`$ be a splitting sphere for $`H`$.

Define $`\rho _{}(\mu ^+,\mu ^{},\mu ^t,\mu ^{},S)\mathrm{}`$ to be the slope associated to the waves of $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as defined above.

Two splitting spheres $`S,S^{}`$ are said to have the same augmented slope (with respect to $`\mu ^+,\mu ^{},\mu ^t,\mu ^{}`$), if

$$\rho _{}(\mu ^+,\mu ^{},\mu ^t,\mu ^{},S)=\rho _{}(\mu ^+,\mu ^{},\mu ^t,\mu ^{},S^{})$$

and the associated waves are based at the same meridian $`\mu ^+`$ or $`\mu ^{}`$.

A natural question is to what extent $`\rho _{}(\mu ^+,\mu ^{},\mu ^t,\mu ^{},S)`$, or indeed the augmented slope, depends on our choices. Let’s begin by considering different choices of splitting spheres.

###### Definition 2.4.

Let $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ be two splitting spheres for $`HS^3`$ and let $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ be the corresponding separating curves $`HS`$ and $`HS^{}`$. Define the intersection number $`SS^{}`$ to be the minimum number of points in $`CC^{}`$.

Since there is essentially only one way for a pair of circles $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ in the sphere to intersect in either $`2`$ or $`4`$ points, the relation between spheres with low intersection number is easy to understand and describe. Note, for example, that if $`|CC^{}|=4`$ then each of the eight resulting arcs is adjacent to exactly one bigon disk in each sphere. See Figure 3.

###### Lemma 2.5.

If $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ are not isotopic then $`SS^{}4`$. If $`SS^{}=4`$ then $`SS^{}`$ is a single circle. Each of the two disjoint disks in $`H`$ obtained by attaching a disk in $`(SS^{})H`$ to its adjacent bigon disk in $`(S^{}S)H`$ is a non-separating essential disk in $`H`$ (and similarly for the handlebody $`S^3H`$).

###### Proof.

If $`SS^{}=0`$ then $`SS^{}=\mathrm{}`$. In a genus two handlebody, any pair of separating disks is parallel, so $`S`$ would be isotopic to $`S^{}`$. If $`SS^{}=2`$ then $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ would be two separating circles in $`H`$ that intersect in two points, hence they would be isotopic, a contradiction. Suppose $`SS^{}=4`$. Then each of the disks described in the lemma has boundary a bigon in $`H`$ that can be made disjoint from $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$. If any boundary bigon were inessential it could be used to reduce $`|CC^{}|`$. So each bigon in $`H`$ (hence each disk in $`H`$) is essential. Furthermore, any essential circle in $`H`$ that is disjoint from $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ is non-separating. See Figure 4. ∎

###### Proposition 2.6.

If $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ are two splitting spheres for $`HS^3`$ then there is a sequence of splitting spheres

$$S=S_0S_1\mathrm{}S_m=S^{}$$

so that for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, $`S_{i1}S_i=0`$ or $`4`$.

###### Proof.

There is an obvious (but obviously not unique) orientation-preserving homeomorphism $`h:S^3S^3`$ with the property that $`h(H)=H`$ and $`h(S)=S^{}`$. By the Alexander trick, $`h`$ is isotopic to the identity.

In \[Go\] Goeritz shows that any isotopy of $`S^3`$ that ends in a homeomorphism carrying $`H`$ to $`H`$ is a product of particularly simple such isotopies, whose effect on a fixed separating sphere $`S_0`$ is simple to describe. In each case, either $`S_0`$ is preserved or the intersection number of $`S_0`$ with its image is $`4`$.

The upshot is this: the homeomorphism $`h`$ is the composition of homeomorphisms $`h=h_1h_2\mathrm{}h_m`$ where each $`h_i`$ is the $`H`$-preserving homeomorphism of $`S^3`$ obtained by one of the simple isotopies. To obtain a sequence of splitting spheres we take $`S_i=h_1h_2\mathrm{}h_i(S_0)`$. Then notice that $`S_iS_{i1}`$ can be understood by viewing it as the image under the homeomorphism $`h_1h_2\mathrm{}h_{i1}`$ of $`h_i(S_0)S_0`$, so $`S_iS_{i1}=h_i(S_0)S_0=0`$ or $`4`$. ∎

Remark: This argument can be extended to Heegaard splittings of arbitrary genus, using work of Powell \[Po\]. See \[Sc\].

###### Lemma 2.7.

If two splitting spheres for $`H`$ have different augmented slopes, then there is an essential disk in $`S^3H`$ which intersects each of $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ at most once.

###### Proof.

The conclusion is obvious if any splitting sphere $`S`$ intersects $`H`$ in a disk disjoint from $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, for just use the disk $`SH`$. So we may as well assume that every splitting sphere defines an augmented slope.

Suppose $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ are splitting spheres that give rise to two different augmented slopes. Then there is a sequence of splitting spheres, beginning with $`S`$ and ending with $`S^{}`$, such that each has intersection number $`4`$ with the previous splitting sphere. Since the first and last terms have different augmented slopes, somewhere there is a pair in sequence with different augmented slopes. So we may as well assume that $`SS^{}=0`$ or $`4`$.

Let $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ be the complete pair of arcs associated to the waves of $`SH`$ and $`S^{}H`$ respectively. First notice that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda ,\lambda ^{})1`$. For if not, then $`|\lambda \lambda ^{}|2`$. If we double each of the four arcs, the total number of intersection points is $`8`$, and converting a doubled arc into a wave can never remove intersection points, only add them.

Suppose next that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda ,\lambda ^{})=1`$. Then $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ can be made disjoint, but not the waves that define them. Indeed, if one pair of waves has its ends on $`\mu ^{}`$ and the other on $`\mu ^+`$ then each wave from $`S`$ intersects each wave from $`S^{}`$ in at least two points, a total of at least $`222=8`$ points. See Figure 5.

On the other hand, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda ,\lambda ^{})=1`$ and both pairs of waves have their ends on $`\mu ^{}`$ (or both on $`\mu ^+`$) then each wave from $`S`$ intersects each pair of waves from $`S^{}`$ in at least $`2`$ points, a total intersection of just the waves of $`4`$ points. Any other arc of $`S`$ with the same slope will intersect a wave of $`S^{}`$, and vice versa, so $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ must both be disjoint from $`\mu ^+`$. Following 2.5 we can say more: the bigons determined by the intersection points bound non-separating disks, two in $`H`$ and two in $`S^3H`$. In our case each relevant bigon in $`S^3H`$ are made up of a unions of arcs, each with one end on $`\mu _r^{}`$ and one end on $`\mu _l^{}`$. In particular, the bigon intersects $`\mu ^{}`$ twice or more, always with the same orientation. But no such curve can bound a disk in $`S^3H`$, for the union of the solid torus $`H\mu ^+`$ with the disk would define a punctured lens space in $`S^3`$. See Figure 6.

Finally, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda ,\lambda ^{})=0`$ but $`S`$ has waves on $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`S^{}`$ on $`\mu ^+`$, then each wave of $`S`$ intersects each wave of $`S^{}`$ in at least (hence exactly) two points. Because of the waves, any further component of $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ would intersect $`S^{}`$ and vice versa, so there can be no further components: $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ each intersects $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in exactly the two waves. Then the bigons cut out by $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ that bound disks in $`S^3H`$ each intersect each of $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+`$ in exactly one point. ∎

We have this corollary:

###### Corollary 2.8.

If different splitting spheres define different augmented slopes for $`(\mu ^+,\mu ^{},\mu ^t,\mu ^{})`$ then the knot core of the solid torus $`H\eta (\mu ^t)`$ is a $`2`$-bridge knot.

###### Proof.

We can regard $`H`$ as the regular neighborhood of a $`1`$-vertex figure-$`8`$ graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`S^3`$, in which $`\mu ^\pm `$ are meridians of neighborhoods of to the two edges of the graph. Let $`k^\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denote the subknots of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponding to the meridian disks $`\mu ^\pm `$. It suffices to show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a standard unknotted figure-$`8`$ graph in $`S^3`$ since then the boundary of a regular neighborhood of the vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ serves as a bridge sphere for a $`2`$-bridge presentation of the knot core of $`H\eta (\mu ^t)`$. Following the unpublished \[HR\] (see \[ST\]) it suffices then to show that each of the knots $`k^\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the unknot.

Suppose that $`ES^3H`$ is an essential disk, given by Lemma 2.7, that intersects each of $``$$`\mu ^+`$ and $``$$`\mu ^{}`$ at most once. If $`E`$ is disjoint from exactly one of the meridians, say $`\mu ^{}`$, then $`E`$ is an unknotting disk for $`k^+`$, and $`H\eta (E)`$ is an unknotted solid torus whose core is $`k^{}`$. Similarly, if $`E`$ is disjoint from both meridians, then $`E`$ divides $`S^3H`$ into two solid tori, each of whose meridians is an unknotting disk for one of $`k^\pm `$. If $`E`$ intersects both meridians, then $`H\eta (E)`$ is an unknotted solid torus in which both $`k^+`$ and $`k^{}`$ can be viewed (individually) as core curves. ∎

The next lemma shows that, given $`\mu ^t`$, there is a natural choice of meridians $`\mu ^\pm `$. First note that if $`\rho _{}(\mu ^+,\mu ^{},\mu ^t,\mu ^{},S)`$ is finite, then different choices of $`\mu ^{}`$ will change its value by a finite amount. Indeed, any other possible $`\mu ^{}`$ will differ from the given one by some number of full Dehn twists around $`\mu ^t`$, and such a Dehn twist changes $`\rho _{}`$ by $`\pm 2`$.

###### Lemma 2.9.

Suppose $`\mu ^t`$ is a non-separating meridian disk for an unknotted handlebody $`H`$ and $`S`$ is a splitting sphere for $`H`$. Then there is exactly one pair $`\mu ^\pm `$ of meridians disks for $`H`$ such that $`\{\mu ^t,\mu ^+,\mu ^{}\}`$ is a complete set of meridian disks for $`H`$ and $`\rho _{}(\mu ^+,\mu ^{},\mu ^t,\mu ^{},S)`$ is finite for any (hence every) choice of $`\mu ^{}`$ that is disjoint from $`\mu ^\pm `$ and intersects $`\mu ^t`$ in a single arc.

###### Proof.

Suppose, to begin, that there is an extension of $`\mu ^t`$ to a set of meridians $`\{\mu ^t,\mu ^+,\mu ^{},\mu ^{}\}`$ with respect to which $`\rho _{}`$ is finite. Because $`\rho _{}`$ is finite, an outermost disk of $`D=SH`$ cut off by the pair of meridians $`\mu ^\pm H`$ intersects $`\mu ^t`$. Then an outermost subdisk $`D_0`$ of this subdisk, cut off by $`\mu ^t`$, is disjoint from both meridians $`\mu ^\pm `$. Furthermore, $`D_0`$ intersects $`\mu ^t`$ in a single arc dividing $`\mu ^t`$ into two subdisks. The union of each of those subdisks with $`D_0`$ gives meridian disks for $`H`$ parallel to $`\mu ^\pm `$. (See Figure 7).

Now $`D_0\mu ^t`$ is an essential arc $`\alpha `$ in the twice punctured torus $`T_0=H\mu ^t`$, and the arc has both its ends on a single puncture. Let $`\alpha ^\pm `$ be closed curves in $`T_0`$ parallel to $`\alpha \{puncture\}`$, lying on either side of $`\alpha \{puncture\}`$. If $`\beta `$ is any other arc of $`T_0S`$ which has both its ends on a single puncture, then $`\beta `$ is disjoint from $`\alpha ^\pm `$; this is obvious if the ends of $`\beta `$ lie on the other puncture, and follows from a counting argument on ends of arcs in $`ST_0`$ if the ends of $`\beta `$ lie on the same puncture as those of $`\alpha `$. Any non-parallel separating pair of closed curves, e. g. $``$$`\mu ^\pm `$, in $`T_0\alpha `$ must be parallel to $`\alpha ^\pm `$. So we see that $`\mu ^\pm `$ are determined precisely by taking closed essential curves in $`T_0`$ that are parallel to $`\alpha \{puncture\}`$. (See Figure 8)

It’s now easy to see that there is always some such pair. Consider an outermost disk $`D_0`$ of $`D`$ cut off by $`\mu ^t`$ in $`H`$. Then the union of $`D_0`$ with each of the two subdisks of $`\mu ^t`$ into which $`D_0`$ splits $`\mu ^t`$ produces two natural meridian disks $`\mu ^\pm `$ for the solid torus $`H\mu ^t`$. These, together with $`\mu ^t`$ comprise a complete collection of meridian disks for $`H`$. Moreover, $`D_0T_0`$ is an essential arc that is disjoint from both meridians $`\mu ^\pm `$ of the solid torus $`H\mu ^t`$ bounded by $`T_0`$. Since some arc of $`ST_0`$ lying in the pairs of pants $`T_0\mu ^\pm `$ has both ends on $``$$`\mu ^t`$, no arc can have both ends on the same component of $`\mu ^\pm `$. Hence $`\rho _{}`$ is finite with respect to the meridian set $`\{\mu ^+,\mu ^{},\mu ^t\}`$. ∎

## 3. Knots with a single unknotting tunnel

###### Definition 3.1.

A knot $`K`$ has tunnel number one if it is possible to attach a single arc $`\gamma `$ to $`K`$ in $`S^3K`$ so that $`S^3\eta (K\gamma )`$ is a solid handlebody.

Put another way, $`K`$ has tunnel number one if there is a meridian disk $`\mu ^t`$ for a standard genus two handlebody $`HS^3`$ so that the solid torus $`H\mu ^t`$ has core knot isotopic to $`K`$.

###### Definition 3.2.

Let $`K`$ be a knot and let $`\gamma `$ be an unknotting tunnel for $`K`$. Let $`S`$ be a splitting sphere for $`H=\eta (K\gamma )`$ and $`\mu ^tH`$ be a meridian disk for $`\gamma `$. Let $`\mu ^\pm `$ be the meridians of $`H\mu ^t`$ given by Lemma 2.9 and $`\mu ^{}`$ be a meridian of $`H\mu ^\pm `$ that intersects $`\mu ^t`$ in a single arc. Define $`\rho (K,\gamma ,S)/2`$ to be the value, mod $`2`$ of $`\rho _{}(\mu ^+,\mu ^{},\mu ^t,\mu ^{},S)`$.

Since different choices of $`\mu ^{}`$ change $`\rho _{}`$ by multiples of $`2`$, $`\rho (K,\gamma ,S)`$ is well-defined. Moreover, by Corollary 2.8, if $`K`$ is not $`2`$-bridge, $`\rho `$ is independent of $`S`$ and so can be written $`\rho (K,\gamma )`$. Here we examine some features that $`\rho `$ reveals about the knot and its tunnel.

Much is already known about their geometry. The central theorem of \[GST\] says that if the graph $`K\gamma `$, viewed as a trivalent graph in $`S^3`$, is put in thin position, then $`K`$ is, on its own, in thin position and in bridge position, and $`\gamma `$ is a (perturbed) level edge. Moreover, the tunnel $`\gamma `$ either has one end on each of two different maxima (or minima) or is a (perturbed) level loop, or “eyeglass”, whose endpoint lies on a single maximum (or minimum) and which encircles all the other bridges of $`K`$.

The first claim is that the slope $`\rho (K,\gamma ,S)`$ is naturally revealed by some thin positioning of $`K\gamma `$. That is, there is a thin positioning of $`K\gamma `$ so that the two isotopy classes of meridians of $`K\gamma `$ with which level spheres intersect $`K\gamma `$ are the classes $`\mu ^\pm `$ identified in Lemma 2.9.

First we consider the case in which, upon thinning, $`\gamma `$ becomes a (perturbed) level eyeglass. We can equivalently take, in this case, $`\gamma `$ to be a level edge with both ends incident to $`K`$ in the same point $`pK`$, i. e. $`\gamma `$ is a cycle. Let $`P`$ be the level sphere in which $`\gamma `$ lies. Following \[GST\], we can furthermore take $`p`$ to be the lowest maximum (or highest minimum) of the knot $`K`$; every bridge of $`K`$ other than the one containing $`p`$ has one end on each disk component of $`P\gamma `$. By a meridian of $`Kp`$ we will mean any meridian of $`K`$ that is disjoint from the (vertical) meridian of $`K`$ corresponding to the maximum $`p`$.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Suppose $`S`$ is a splitting sphere for $`H=\eta (K\gamma )`$ and let $`D=SH`$. Then any outermost disk $`D_0`$ of $`D`$ cut off by a meridian $`\mu `$ of $`Kp`$ intersects the meridian $`\mu ^t`$ of the tunnel $`\gamma `$. Moreover, a subdisk of $`D_0`$ cut off by $`\mu ^t`$ is disjoint from a horizontal longitude of $`\eta (\gamma )`$.

###### Proof.

Cut $`H`$ open along the copies of $`\mu `$, denoted $`\mu _l`$ and $`\mu _r`$, corresponding to the points of $`KP`$ that are nearest to $`p`$ in $`K`$. Then $`\mu _r`$ and $`\mu _l`$ lie on different (disk) components of $`P\gamma `$. Cutting $`H`$ open along these meridians leaves one component that is a solid torus $`W`$ whose core is the cycle $`\gamma `$ and whose boundary contains disks corresponding to $`\mu _l`$ and $`\mu _r`$. The meridian $`\mu ^t`$ of $`\gamma `$ and the curves $`PW`$ (parallel in $`H`$) naturally define respectively a meridian curve (which we continue to call $`\mu ^t`$) and horizontal longitudes in the twice-punctured torus $`T_0=HW`$. We want to understand the pattern of arcs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=ST_0`$. See Figure 9.

We begin by examining how $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ intersects the twice punctured annulus $`A`$ obtained by cutting open $`T_0`$ along the horizontal longitude $`\lambda `$ at the top of $`H`$. Note that $`\mu ^t`$ intersects $`A`$ in a single spanning arc. The boundary of $`A`$ can be thought of as two copies of $`\lambda `$ which we denote $`_0A,_1A`$.

Claim: Among the arcs in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }A`$ that intersect $`\mu ^t`$, either there is one that has both ends on the same component of $`A`$ and separates the punctures $`\mu _r`$ and $`\mu _l`$, or there is one that has one end on $`A`$ and the other end on a puncture $`\mu _r`$ or $`\mu _l`$.

Proof of Claim: Let $`E=SH`$ be the exterior disk, and consider an outermost disk $`E_0`$ cut off from $`E`$ by an outermost arc $`\alpha `$ of $`EP`$. (It is easy to remove all closed components of $`EP`$, since $`K`$ is thin.) Since $`\alpha `$ obviously lies in a single component of $`PH`$, it follows easily that $`E_0`$ must lie below $`P`$ (all arcs of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }A`$ can be assumed to be essential and so each spans the annulus $`T_0A`$) and so $`E_0H`$ lies in $`A`$. The arc $`\alpha `$ can’t have one end on each of $`\mu _l`$ and $`\mu _r`$ since these lie in distinct components of $`P\gamma `$. If the ends of $`\alpha `$ both lie on the meridian $`\mu _l`$, say, then $`\alpha `$ is a longitudinal arc in the punctured annulus $`A`$. That is, $`\alpha \mu _l`$ is a core curve of $`A`$. On the other hand, the outermost disk of $`D`$ cut off by $`\mu `$ must be a meridinal wave in $`T_0`$, so it too must also be based at $`\mu _l`$. The complement of the two arcs, one meridinal and the other longitudinal, is then a disk in $`T_0`$ containing just the puncture $`\mu _r`$. But then no wave could be based at $`\mu _r`$, and there would be more ends of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`\mu _l`$ than on $`\mu _r`$, an impossibility. We deduce that $`\alpha `$ has one or both ends on $`A`$. Notice that if both ends of $`\alpha `$ lie on $`A`$ then they must lie on the same component ($`_0A`$, say) of $`A`$ (since they are connected by an arc in $`PH`$) and then the subdisk $`A_0`$ of $`A`$ cut off by $`\alpha `$ contains at least one puncture (or it would be inessential) but not both (else $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ would intersect $`_0A`$ more often than it intersects $`_1A`$.

It remains to show that $`\alpha `$ intersects $`\mu ^t`$. We will show that if it doesn’t, it can be used to make $`K`$ thinner. Suppose that $`\alpha `$ is disjoint from $`\mu ^t`$ and consider first the case in which $`\alpha `$ has one end on $`\mu _r`$ (say) and other end on $`A`$. Then there is an arc $`\kappa (A\mu ^t)`$ so that $`\kappa \alpha =\mathrm{}`$ and one end of $`\kappa `$ lies on each of $`\mu _l`$ and $`\mu _r`$. Since $`\kappa `$ is disjoint from $`\mu ^t`$ it is isotopic in the ball $`W\mu ^t`$ to $`K(W\mu ^t)`$. Then $`E_0`$ can be used to pull a minimum of $`K`$ past $`\kappa `$ to $`\alpha `$, thinning $`K`$, a contradiction. Similarly, if both ends of $`\alpha `$ lie on (necessarily the same component of) $`A`$, then $`E_0`$ is a lower cap, separating one component $`K_{}`$ of $`KP`$ below $`P`$ from all the others; $`K_{}`$ is parallel to an arc $`\kappa ^{}`$ in the punctured plane $`P^{}=(PH)A`$ that lies entirely in the twice punctured disk in $`P^{}`$ bounded by $`E_0`$. There is then an arc $`\kappa `$ in $`A\mu ^t`$ whose interior is disjoint from $`\kappa ^{}`$ and intersects $`\alpha `$ once and whose ends lie on the two punctures. Then $`K_{}`$ can be pushed up to $`\kappa ^{}`$ and $`KW`$ pushed down to $`\kappa `$, thinning $`K`$. From this contradiction, we conclude that $`\alpha `$ intersects $`\mu ^t`$, establishing the Claim.

Following the Claim, we have two cases to consider, corresponding to the two types of arcs given by the Claim. Both arguments will use the $`4`$-punctured sphere $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=T_0\mu ^t`$ bounded by $`\mu _l,\mu _r`$ and two copies $`\mu _\pm ^t`$ of $`\mu ^t`$. We briefly recount some of its properties. An outermost disk $`D^{}`$ of $`D`$ cut off by $`\mu ^t\mu `$ is a wave of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and if it’s based at $`\mu _l`$ an end count shows that there is a wave based at $`\mu _r`$ and vice versa. Similarly if a wave is based at one of $`\mu _\pm ^t`$ there is a wave based at the other. Furthermore, any two waves in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ must have the same slope. The arc $`\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a path joining the two copies $`\mu _\pm ^t`$; we can use it to establish slope $`0=0/1`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In these terms, a restatement of the Lemma is the claim that the wave determined by $`D^{}`$ is based at one of $`\mu _\pm ^t`$ and is disjoint from $`\lambda `$.

Suppose first that the arc $`\alpha `$ given by the Claim has both ends on a boundary component $`_0A`$ of $`A`$ and cuts off from $`A`$ a disk $`A_0`$ containing a single puncture $`\mu _r`$ (say). Once $`\alpha \mu ^t`$ is minimized by isotopy, an outermost arc of $`\mu ^t`$ in $`A_0`$ cuts off a bigon $`B`$ containing $`\mu _r`$ and bounded by subarcs of $`\mu ^t`$ and $`\alpha `$. (See Figure 10.) An outermost arc of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`B`$ (possibly the subarc of $`\alpha `$ in $`B`$) is a wave of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ based at $`\mu _\pm ^t`$ that is disjoint from $`\lambda `$, since $`B`$ is. It follows that all the waves in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, including that determined by $`D^{}`$, have the same property.

Suppose finally that only one end of $`\alpha `$ lies on $`\lambda `$ and the other end lies on $`\mu _l`$ (say). Since $`\alpha `$ intersects $`\mu ^t`$, the end segments of $`\alpha `$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ have these properties: One end, $`\eta ^+`$, connects one of $`\mu _\pm ^t`$ to $`\mu _l`$ and is disjoint from $`\lambda `$. The other end connects $`\lambda `$ to one of $`\mu _\pm ^t`$ essentially; let $`\eta ^{}`$ denote the segment of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that contains this end. Since one of $`\eta ^\pm `$ intersects $`\lambda `$ and one doesn’t, they have different slopes in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. (See Figure 11.) Observe that if waves are based on two boundary components of a $`4`$-punctured sphere, the only disjoint arc that can have a different slope than the waves is an arc that connects the bases of the waves. Since only one end of $`\eta ^+`$ can be the base of a wave, it follows that $`\eta ^{}`$ must connect the two bases of the waves. Since one end of $`\eta ^{}`$ lies on one of $`\mu _\pm ^t`$ this means that the waves must be based at $`\mu _\pm ^t`$, and $`\eta ^{}`$ runs between $`\mu _\pm ^t`$. Finally, the slope of the wave must be that of $`\eta ^+`$, so the wave is disjoint from $`\lambda `$. ∎

###### Corollary 3.4.

Suppose $`S`$ is a splitting sphere for $`H=\eta (K\gamma )`$ and let $`D=SH`$. Suppose in a thin positioning of $`K\gamma `$ the tunnel $`\gamma `$ is a level eyeglass at a maximum (minimum) $`p`$ of $`K`$. Then the ends of $`\gamma `$ at $`p`$ may be slid slightly down (up) $`K`$ so that, with respect to the resulting meridians $`\mu ^\pm `$ of $`K\gamma `$, $`\rho `$ is finite.

###### Proof.

We know from Lemma 2.9 how to find meridians with respect to which $`\rho `$ is finite: Begin with an outermost disk $`D_0`$ of $`D`$ cut off by $`\mu ^t`$ and choose meridians parallel to $`\mu ^tD_0`$ in the solid torus $`H\mu ^t=\eta (K)`$. Lemma 3.3 tells us precisely what those meridians are: one is $`\mu `$, the meridian of $`Kp`$. The other is bounded by the union of an arc disjoint from the highest horizontal longitude $`\lambda `$ of the circuit $`\gamma _c`$ and an arc that intersects $`\lambda `$ once. Hence the boundary of the second meridian has a single maximum, so it can be viewed as simply the vertical meridian of $`K`$ at $`p`$, separating the ends of $`\gamma `$. ∎

###### Theorem 3.5.

Suppose $`S`$ is a splitting sphere for $`H=\eta (K\gamma )`$ and let $`D=SH`$. Then $`\gamma `$ can be slid and isotoped to some thin positioning of $`K\gamma `$ so that $`\rho `$ is finite with respect to the meridians of $`K\gamma `$.

###### Proof.

Put $`K\gamma `$ in thin position so that $`\gamma `$ can be levelled. If $`\gamma `$ is an eyeglass, the result follows from Corollary 3.4, so assume $`\gamma `$ is a level edge $`e`$. Following \[GST\] we can assume that $`K`$ is in minimal bridge position and the ends of $`\gamma `$ connect the two highest maxima of $`K`$. If $`P_u`$ is a level sphere just below $`e`$, then the part of $`S^3H`$ lying above $`P_u`$ is just a collar $`(P_uH)\times I`$, so we may as well assume that the exterior disk $`E=SH`$ intersects this product region in bigons whose boundaries each consist of an arc in $`P_uH`$ and an arc in $`HP_u`$.

Let $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ be the meridians of the two arcs $`K\gamma `$; we know that $`\mu ^+`$, say, cuts off an outermost disk $`D_0`$ of $`D=SH`$. If $`D_0`$ intersects the meridian $`\mu ^t`$ of the tunnel $`\gamma `$ we are done, so suppose that $`D_0`$ is disjoint from $`\mu ^t`$. Somewhere below $`P_u`$ and above the highest minimum of $`K`$, there is a generic level sphere $`P`$ which cuts off both an upper disk $`E_u`$ and a lower disk $`E_l`$ from $`E`$. Since $`E_u`$ and $`D_0`$ can be made disjoint, it follows that $`E_u`$ crosses the meridian $`\mu ^t`$ of the tunnel at most once.

We are now in a position to apply the argument of \[GST, Theorem 5.3\], though now in the context that the edge $`e`$ disjoint from $`P`$ is $`\gamma `$, not a subarc of $`K`$: There cannot be simultaneously an upper cap and a lower cap that have disjoint boundaries in $`P`$, or $`K`$ could be thinned. If there is an upper cap and a disjoint lower disk or a lower cap and a disjoint upper disk, then, as in \[GST\] we can find such a pair for which the interior of the disk is disjoint from $`P`$. Then thin position implies that there cannot be simultaneously an upper cap and a lower disk and, if there is a lower cap which is disjoint from an upper disk (whose interior is now disjoint from $`P`$) then we can ensure that the boundary of the upper disk runs across the tunnel, hence exactly once across the tunnel. Similarly, if there is an upper disk which is disjoint from a lower disk then we can ensure that the interior of the upper disk is disjoint from $`P`$ and is disjoint either from a lower cap or a lower disk whose interior is also disjoint from $`P`$. Furthermore, the boundary of the upper disk must be incident to the tunnel, hence run exactly once across the tunnel. But then the upper and lower disks describe how to push the tunnel down to, or even below, the level of at least one minimum. Following \[GST, Corollary 6.2, Cases 1 and 2\] this implies (almost, see next paragraph) that the tunnel can be pushed down to connect two minima, which we may make to be the lowest minima. Furthermore, this operation lowers by two the number of extrema of $`K`$ (in our case, the number of minima) found in the interior of the component of $`K\gamma `$ containing $`\mu ^+`$, the base of the waves.

The argument then continues; it finally fails when there is only one extremum in the component of $`K\gamma `$ containing $`\mu ^+`$. That is, in the argument above, it may finally happen that the two maxima to which the ends of $`\gamma `$ are attached have only one minimum lying between them, and it’s the component on which $`\mu ^+`$ is found. In this case, the upper disk pushes $`\gamma `$ down to $`P`$, and then $`\gamma `$ together with the segment $`\beta (KP)`$ containing the minimum form an unknotted cycle. If any other minimum could be pushed up above this cycle then, again following \[GST, Corollary 6.2\], all the other minima could, and the cycle would bound a disk disjoint from $`K`$, a contradiction. We conclude that the lower disk or cap is in fact a lower disk that pushes $`\beta `$ up to $`P`$, thereby forming a level cycle. It can be used to slide $`\gamma `$ to form a level eyeglass, at which point we appeal to Lemma 3.3. ∎

## 4. Pushing the tunnel off of a Seifert surface

The next section will show that if $`\rho (K,\gamma )1`$ then $`\gamma `$ can be pushed onto a minimal genus Seifert surface for $`K`$. Ironically, the first step is to show that $`\gamma `$ can be pushed completely off of such a surface, which we will show in this section.

Let $`K`$ be a knot in $`S^3`$ and $`F`$ be a Seifert surface for $`K`$. We say that $`K`$ is parallel in $`S^3`$ to an imbedded curve $`c`$ in $`F`$ if there is an annulus $`A`$ imbedded in $`S^3`$ such that $`AF=A=Fc=Kc`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`K`$ be a knot in $`S^3`$ and $`F`$ be a minimal genus Seifert surface for $`K`$. Suppose $`K`$ is parallel in $`S^3`$ to a curve $`c`$ in $`F`$. Then $`K=bddF`$ is parallel to $`c`$ in $`F`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`A`$ be the annulus giving the parallelism between $`K`$ and $`c`$. Let $`\eta (A)`$ be a neighborhood of $`A`$ containing a neighborhood of $`K`$. Since $`A`$ is an annulus, we can think of $`\eta (A)`$ as being a ribbon-like neighborhood of $`K`$ itself. In the complement of $`\eta (A)`$, the remnant of $`F`$ is a possibly disconnected surface $`\overline{F}`$, with three (preferred) longitudinal boundaries on the boundary of $`\eta (A)`$. If $`\overline{F}`$ is disconnected (corresponding to the case in which $`c`$ is separating) then one of the components of $`\overline{F}`$ is a Seifert surface for $`K`$. Since it can’t be of lower genus than $`F`$, the other component must be an annulus, defining a parallelism between $`K`$ and $`c`$ in $`F`$, as required.

Suppose $`c`$ is non-separating. Then zero-framed surgery on $`K`$ yields a manifold $`M`$ and “caps off”’ $`\overline{F}`$; call the capped-off surface $`\overline{F^{}}`$. A capped-off version $`F^{}`$ of the Seifert surface $`F`$ also imbeds in $`M`$ and $`F^{}`$ and $`\overline{F^{}}`$ represent the same homology class in $`M`$. Since $`genus(\overline{F^{}})`$ is less than $`genus(F^{})`$, it follows from work of Gabai \[Ga, Corollary 8.3\] that genus $`K`$ is less than genus $`F`$, a contradiction. ∎

###### Proposition 4.2.

Suppose $`K`$ is a knot and $`\gamma `$ is an unknotting tunnel for $`K`$. Then $`\gamma `$ may be slid and isotoped until it is disjoint from some minimal genus Seifert surface for $`K`$.

###### Proof.

First choose a minimal genus Seifert surface $`F`$ and slide and isotope $`\gamma `$, doing both so as to minimize the number of points of intersection between $`\gamma `$ and $`F`$. The slides and isotopies may leave $`\gamma `$ as either an edge or an eyeglass. (In the latter case, let $`\gamma _a`$ be the edge in $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma _c`$ be the circuit.) We aim to show that $`\gamma F=\mathrm{}.`$

Suppose to the contrary that after the slides and isotopies $`\gamma F`$ is non-empty. Let $`E`$ be an essential disk in the handlebody $`S^3\eta (K\gamma )`$ chosen to minimize the number $`|EF|`$ of components in $`EF`$. $`|EF|>0`$ for otherwise the incompressible $`F`$ would lie in a solid torus, namely (a component of) $`S^3\eta (K\gamma E)`$, and so be a disk. Furthermore, since $`F`$ is incompressible, we can assume that $`EF`$ consists entirely of arcs.

Let $`e`$ be an outermost arc of $`EF`$ in $`E`$, cutting off a subdisk $`E_0`$ of $`E`$. The arc $`e`$ is essential in $`F`$, for otherwise we could find a different essential disk intersecting $`F`$ in fewer components. Let $`f=(E_0)e`$, an arc in $`\eta (K\gamma )`$ with each end either on the longitude $`F\eta (K)`$ or a meridian disk of $`\gamma `$ corresponding to a point of $`\gamma F`$.

* If any meridian of $`\gamma `$ is incident to exactly one end of $`f`$, then we can use $`E_0`$ to describe a simple isotopy of $`\gamma `$ which reduces the number of intersections between $`\gamma `$ and $`F`$.
* If no meridian of $`\gamma `$ is incident to and end of $`f`$, then both ends of $`f`$ lie on $`F\eta (K)`$. If the interior of $`f`$ runs over $`\gamma `$ we are done, for $`f`$ is disjoint from $`F`$. If the interior of $`f`$ lies entirely in $`\eta (K)`$ then $`E_0`$ would be a boundary compressing disk for $`F`$ (since $`e`$ is essential), contradicting the minimality of $`genus(F)`$.

The only remaining possibility is that both ends of $`f`$ lie on the same meridian of $`\gamma `$. In this case, $`e`$ forms a loop in $`F`$ and the ends of $`f`$ adjacent to $`e`$ both run along the same subarc $`\gamma _0`$ of $`\gamma `$. Since $`f`$ is disjoint from $`F`$, $`\gamma _0`$ either terminates in $`\eta (K)`$ or $`\gamma `$ is an eyeglass and $`\gamma _0`$ terminates in the interior vertex of $`\gamma `$.

If $`\gamma _0`$ terminates in an end of $`\gamma `$ in $`\eta (K)`$ then, since the interor of $`f`$ is disjoint from $`F`$, $`f`$ must intersect $`\eta (K)`$ in either an inessential arc in the torus or in a longitudinal arc. The former case is impossible, since if the disk bounded by the inessential arc did not contain the other end of $`\gamma `$ then it could be isotoped away and $`EF`$ reduced. If the disk did contain the other end of $`\gamma `$, then $`E`$ would cross one end of $`\gamma `$ more often than the other, an impossibility. It follows that $`f`$ intersects the torus $`\eta (K)`$ in a longitudinal arc. Then $`\eta (\gamma _0E_0)`$ is a thickened annulus $`A`$, defining a parallelism in $`S^3`$ between $`K`$ and the loop $`e`$ on $`F`$. By Lemma 4.1 that means the loop $`e`$ is parallel to $`F`$. Substituting $`A`$ for the annulus between $`e`$ and $`F`$ in $`F`$ would create a Seifert surface for $`K`$ with fewer intersections with $`\gamma `$, a contradiction.

So $`\gamma `$ is an eyeglass and $`\gamma _0`$ terminates in the interior vertex of $`\gamma `$. If, nonetheless, the interior of $`f`$ intersects $`\eta (K)`$ this means that $`f`$ traverses the edge $`\gamma _a\gamma `$ so $`\gamma _a`$ is disjoint from $`F`$. In that case, we can just repeat the argument above, absorbing $`\eta (\gamma _a)`$ into $`\eta (K)`$. So we can assume that $`f`$ lies entirely on $`\eta (\gamma )`$. Now the component $`Q`$ of $`\eta (\gamma )F`$ on which $`f`$ lies is either a punctured torus (if $`F`$ is disjoint from $`\gamma _c`$) or a pair of pants. In the former case, consider the Seifert surface $`F^{}`$ obtained from $`F`$ by removing the meridian disk $`\mu _f`$ of $`F\eta (\gamma )`$ on which the ends of $`f`$ lie and substituting $`Q`$. $`F^{}`$ is of one higher genus than $`F`$, and intersects $`\gamma `$ in one fewer point. Surgery to $`F^{}`$ using $`E_0`$ reclaims the minimal genus without introducing another point. Thus we get a contradiction to our choice of $`F`$.

If $`Q`$ is a pair of pants a similar argument works: Since $`F`$ is incompressible, it follows that the loop $`e`$ bounds a disk in $`F`$. Since $`f`$ is essential, that disk contains exactly one of the other two meridian disks (call it $`\mu _e`$) of $`\gamma `$ in $`F`$ that correspond to boundary components of $`Q`$. Remove the meridian disks $`\mu _f`$ and $`\mu _e`$ from $`F`$ and attach instead an annulus that runs parallel to the subarc of $`\gamma `$ (containing the interior vertex) that has ends at $`\mu _e`$ and $`\mu _f`$. This creates a Seifert surface $`F^{}`$ of genus one greater than $`F`$, but having one fewer intersection point with $`\gamma `$. Now do surgery on $`F^{}`$ using $`E_0`$, deriving the same contradiction as above. ∎

## 5. Pushing the tunnel onto a Seifert surface

In this section we will show that if $`\rho (K,\gamma )1`$ then $`\gamma `$ can be pushed onto a minimal genus Seifert surface for $`K`$. The first step was taken in the previous section: In general, $`\gamma `$ can be pushed completely off of some such surface. A difficulty is that, after the slides used to push the tunnel off the Seifert surface, we no longer know that the resulting meridians of $`K\gamma `$ are the ones by which we defined $`\rho (K,\gamma )`$ above. Our strategy will be to use the meridians $`\mu ^\pm `$ by which we defined $`\rho `$, but at this cost: On the two punctured torus $`\eta (K)\gamma `$ we no longer can assume that $`F`$ is a standard longitude. All we know is that it is a curve that is isotopic in the unpunctured torus to the standard longitude. The point of the following lemma, is that this situation is not a serious obstacle to further analysis.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Suppose $`K`$ is a knot with unknotting tunnel $`\gamma `$, $`H=\eta (K\gamma )`$, and $`K_0H`$ is a curve in the twice-punctured torus $`H\eta (\gamma )`$ which, in the unpunctured torus $`\eta (K)`$ is isotopic to a standard longitude. Suppose $`\alpha `$ is an arc in $`H`$ so that $`\alpha K_0=\alpha `$ and $`\alpha `$ traverses $`\eta (\gamma )`$ once. Then $`\alpha `$ is an unknotting tunnel for $`K_0`$ and the pair $`(K_0,\alpha )`$ is equivalent (by slides and isotopies) to the pair $`(K,\gamma )`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\alpha `$ traverses $`\gamma `$ once, we can shrink $`\alpha `$, dragging along its end points in $`K_0`$ until $`\alpha `$ is just a spanning arc of the annulus $`H\eta (\gamma )`$. (At this point, we can identify $`\alpha `$ with $`\gamma `$ but we cannot yet identify $`K_0`$ with $`K`$.) $`K_0`$ is a possibly complicated curve lying on $`T=\eta (K)`$ and $`K_0`$ is incident to $`\alpha =\gamma `$ at the ends of $`\gamma `$.

Using a collar $`T\times I`$ of $`T`$ in $`\eta (K)`$ isotope $`K_0T`$ until it is a standard longitude lying on the boundary of the smaller tubular neighborhood $`\eta _{}=\eta (K)(T\times I)`$ of the core $`K`$. Extend the isotopy to an ambient isotopy of $`T`$, i. e. a self-homeomorphism of $`T\times I\eta (K)`$. This extends the ends of $`\alpha `$ as a $`2`$-braid through $`T\times I`$; call the extended arc $`\alpha _+`$. The construction shows that $`\eta _{}\eta (\alpha _+)`$ is isotopic in $`H`$ to $`\eta (K_0\alpha )`$. Now make the braid trivial by absorbing it into $`\eta _{}`$. (This translates into slides of the ends of $`\alpha _+`$ on $`\eta _{}`$). Afterwards, $`H(\eta _{}\eta (\alpha _+))`$ is just a collar of $`H`$. ∎

###### Theorem 5.2.

Suppose $`K`$ is a knot with unknotting tunnel $`\gamma `$ and $`S`$ is a splitting sphere for the handlebody $`H=\eta (K\gamma )`$ with $`\rho (K,\gamma ,S)1`$. Suppose further that $`F`$ is an incompressible Seifert surface for the knot $`K`$ and that $`F`$ is disjoint from $`\gamma `$. Then $`\gamma `$ can be slid and isotoped until it lies on $`F`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`K_0`$ be the copy $`FH`$ of $`K`$ in $`H`$. Consider the hemispheres $`E=SH`$ and $`D=SH`$. By definition of $`\rho `$ there are meridians $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ for $`\eta (K)H`$ that realize the slope $`\rho `$. Then, in particular, there are subarcs of $`E=D`$ that are waves based at one of these meridians. (Warning: we know little about how these meridians intersect $`K_0`$.) If the exterior disk $`E`$ were disjoint from $`F`$, then $`F`$ would lie in a solid torus obtained by compressing $`H`$ to the outside along $`E`$, contradicting the assumption that $`F`$ is incompressible. So $`FE\mathrm{}`$. We can isotope $`E`$ and $`F`$ to have minimal intersection and then remove any closed components of $`FE`$ since $`F`$ is incompressible.

Let $`E_0`$ be an outermost disk of $`E`$ cut off by $`F`$. Then $`E_0`$ consists of two arcs, $`\alpha `$ lying on $`H`$ and $`\beta `$ lying on $`F`$. We may assume that $`\beta `$ is essential in $`F`$, for otherwise the subdisk of $`F`$ it cuts off, together with $`E_0`$, would again give an essential disk in $`S^3H`$ that is disjoint from $`F`$. An important observation is that the ends of $`\alpha `$ lie on $`F`$ and are incident to the same side of $`F`$. That is, if $`F`$ is normally oriented, the orientation points into (say) $`\alpha `$ at both ends of $`\alpha `$.

It’s also true that $`\alpha `$ must cross the meridian $`\mu ^t`$ of $`\gamma `$ at least once. For otherwise, $`E_0`$ would give a $``$-compression of $`F`$ to $`\eta (K)`$, contradicting the fact that $`F`$ is an incompressible (hence $``$-incompressible) Seifert surface for $`K`$. If $`\alpha `$ crosses $`\mu ^t`$ exactly once, then, following Lemma 5.1, $`\alpha `$ is equivalent to $`\gamma `$, so $`E_0`$ provides a way of isotoping $`\gamma `$ to $`F`$, completing the proof. Hence it suffices to show:

Claim: Any subarc of $`EH`$ whose interior is disjoint from $`F`$ and whose ends lie on the same side of $`F`$ crosses $`\mu ^t`$ at most once.

Proof of claim: Continue to denote this subarc by $`\alpha `$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denote the four-punctured sphere obtained by cutting open $`H`$ along the meridians $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ of $`K`$.

Case 1: $`F`$ intersects $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in loops as well as arcs.

Say the loops are based at $`\mu _l^+`$ and $`\mu _r^+`$ (see Figure 12).

We first note that we may as well assume that $`\alpha `$ lies entirely in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Indeed, since $`\rho `$ is finite, there are waves of $`E=D`$ based at $`\mu ^t`$ that lie in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and are on opposite sides of $`\mu ^t`$ (see Figure 13). It follows that $`\alpha `$ can’t cross $`\mu ^{}`$. For the same reason, we can assume that any component of $`\alpha \mu ^\pm `$ with an end on $`\mu ^+`$ must lie in the component $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^t`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }F`$ that contains $`\mu ^t`$, for any other component can be isotoped out through $`\mu ^+`$. But the segments $`\mu _r^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^t`$ and $`\mu _l^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^t`$ are disjoint, for otherwise the two adjacent loops of $`F\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ based at $`\mu _l^+`$ and $`\mu _r^+`$ would form a simple closed curve, which is impossible.

So now assume that $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. (We say $`\alpha `$ is short.) Since $`F`$ intersects $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in loops as well as arcs, then to intersect $`\mu ^t`$ at all, $`\alpha `$ must lie in the annulus lying between the two outermost loops. (See Figure 14.) This annulus has $`\mu ^t`$ as its core (since $`F`$ is disjoint from $`\mu ^t`$) and any essential path in the annulus intersects $`\mu ^t`$ at most once.

Case 2: $`F`$ intersects $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ only in arcs.

If $`F`$ intersects $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ only in arcs, then (considering the torus $`H\mu ^t`$) it must be in precisely two arcs, both of infinite slope (connecting $`\mu _l^+`$ to $`\mu _l^{}`$ and $`\mu _r^+`$ to $`\mu _r^{}`$.) If $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the argument is the same as above, using the annulus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }F`$ (see Figure 15).

So finally suppose $`\alpha `$ is not contained in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and suppose with no loss that the waves of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are based at $`\mu _l^{}`$ and $`\mu _r^{}`$. Any arc of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with an end on either $`\mu _l^+`$ or $`\mu _r^+`$ will then have a fixed slope, and since the slope $`\rho `$ is not $`+1=1\frac{}{2}`$ it will intersect $`F`$ in its interior. Moreover, if the normal orientation induced by that of $`F`$ points towards $`\mu _l^+`$ on an arc with an end on $`\mu _l^+`$ it will point away from $`\mu _r^+`$ on an arc with an end on $`\mu _r^+`$ (see Figure 16). Hence we conclude that $`\alpha `$ cannot cross $`\mu ^+`$.

It is as easy to rule out the possibility that $`\alpha `$ crosses $`\mu ^{}`$. An arc of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with one end on $`\mu _l^{}`$ may have slope $`\rho `$ or have slope $`\rho ^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\rho ,\rho ^{})=1`$. That is, fixing a meridian $`\mu ^{}`$ so that $`\rho _{}=p/q,q>|p|`$, p odd, we could have that $`\rho _{}^{}=r/s`$ with $`|psrq|=1`$. The arc couldn’t have its other end on $`\mu ^+`$ so $`r`$ is even, hence $`s`$ is odd and $`r/s\pm 1`$.

Note that $`|p/qr/s|=1/|qs|`$ whereas both $`|p/q|`$ and $`1|p/q|1/|q|1/|qs|`$. In words, $`p/q`$ is at least as close to $`r/s`$ as it is to $`0`$ or $`\pm 1`$. Hence $`|r/s|<1`$ and either $`r/s=0`$ (e. g. when $`p/q=1/k`$) or $`r/s`$ has the same sign as $`p/q`$. So any subarc of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with an end on $`\mu _l^{}`$ or $`\mu _r^{}`$ is either disjoint from $`F`$ (if $`\rho _{}^{}=0`$) or it first intersects $`F`$ on the same side as an arc with slope $`\rho `$. In particular, a subarc of $`SH`$ that intersects $`\mu ^{}`$ and intersects $`F`$ precisely in its endpoints, necessarily ends on opposite sides of $`F`$, and so cannot be $`\alpha `$. ∎

The proof of Case 1 in Theorem 5.2 did not require the assumption that $`\rho 1`$. In particular, we have the following corollary:

###### Corollary 5.3.

Suppose $`K`$ is a knot with unknotting tunnel $`\gamma `$ and $`S`$ is a splitting sphere for the handlebody $`H=\eta (K\gamma )`$. Suppose further that $`F`$ is an incompressible Seifert surface for the knot $`K`$ and that $`F`$ is disjoint from $`\gamma `$. If either of the meridians $`\mu ^\pm `$ of $`H`$, chosen via 2.9 so that $`\rho `$ is finite, intersects $`K_0=FH`$ in more than one point, then $`\gamma `$ is isotopic to an arc on $`F`$.

More significantly:

###### Corollary 5.4.

Suppose $`K`$ is a knot with unknotting tunnel $`\gamma `$, $`S`$ is a splitting sphere for the handlebody $`H=\eta (K\gamma )`$, $`genus(K)=1`$ and $`\rho (K,\gamma ,S)1`$. Then $`K`$ is a $`2`$-bridge knot.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 4.2 we may assume that $`\gamma `$ is disjoint from some genus one Seifert surface $`F`$. Theorem 5.2 shows that we can then isotope $`\gamma `$ onto $`F`$, necessarily as an essential arc. Then $`F\eta (\gamma )`$ is an incompressible annulus $`A`$ whose ends comprise a non-simple (because of $`A`$) tunnel number one link $`L`$. (The core of $`L`$’s unknotting tunnel is the dual arc to $`\gamma `$ in the rectangle $`\eta (\gamma )F`$.) This implies, via \[EU\], that each component of $`L`$ is unknotted. This then implies via \[HR\] or \[ST\] that the figure 8 graph obtained from $`K\gamma `$ by crushing $`\gamma `$ to a point $`v`$ can be isotoped to lie in a plane. This finally implies that $`K`$ is a $`2`$-bridge knot, with $`\eta (v)`$ the bridge sphere. ∎

This establishes the following conjecture of Goda-Teragaito (\[GT\]) in the case that $`\rho 1`$, and without the assumption that $`K`$ is hyperbolic.

###### Conjecture 5.5 (Goda-Teragaito).

A knot that is genus one, has tunnel number one, and is not a satellite knot is a $`2`$-bridge knot.

The verification of the remaining case, when $`\rho =1`$ and $`K`$ is hyperbolic, will be discussed elsewhere. Note that Matsuda \[Ma\] has verified the conjecture for all knots which are $`1`$-bridge on the uknotted torus, i. e. those with a $`(1,1)`$-decomposition.

## 6. A sample calculation

Let $`TS^3`$ be an unknotted torus and $`KT`$ be a torus knot in $`T`$. Let $`\gamma `$ be a spanning arc for the annulus $`TK`$. $`\gamma `$ is an unknotting tunnel for $`K`$ since $`S^3\eta (K\gamma )`$ is a handlebody, namely the union of the interior and the exterior of $`T`$ along a disk in $`T`$. In this section we will show that $`\rho (K,\gamma )=1`$. We will then use this calculation to construct examples of knots and tunnels with $`\rho `$ taking any value in $`/2`$.

To understand $`\eta (K\gamma )`$ we will regard it as a bicollar of the punctured torus $`T\eta (K\gamma )=\eta _T`$ and consider its lift $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }\times I`$ to the universal cover $`U=^2\times I`$ of $`T\times I`$. Here’s a back-handed way of doing that. Since $`\overline{L}=T\eta _T`$ is a disk, $`^2\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ is a $`^2=\times `$ lattice of disks. We can then regard $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ as the complement of the slightly fattened lattice $`L=\eta (^2)R^2`$.

Using this picture, it is easy to describe how a lift of the meridian $`\mu ^t`$ of the tunnel intersects $`R^2`$. Begin by considering an arc $`\mu `$ connecting the lattice point $`(0,0)`$ with the lattice point $`(m,n)`$, where $`m,n>0`$ are relatively prime. Then the complement of all translates of $`\mu `$ in $`^2L`$ will be the complement of all translates of the line $`my=nx`$, namely an infinite collection of bands, each with slope $`n/m`$. Each of these bands can also be described as a lift of $`\eta _T(K)`$ to $`^2`$, if $`K`$ is the $`(n,m)`$ torus knot. Thus we see: if $`K`$ is the $`(n,m)`$ torus knot, $`\mu \times I\stackrel{~}{\eta }\times I`$ is a lift of the meridian disk $`\mu ^t`$ of $`\gamma `$ to $`U`$.

In a similar spirit, a vertical arc between adjacent points in $`^2`$ is the lift of a meridian circle of $`T`$, and a horizontal arc between adjacent points is the lift of a longitude. Consider the following simple closed curve $`\sigma `$ on $`\eta (K\gamma )`$ (or rather the lift $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ of $`\sigma `$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }\times I`$): $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ intersects $`R^2\times \{0\}`$ in two adjacent vertical arcs connecting, say, the pair of points $`(0,0)`$ and $`(0,1)`$ to the points $`(1,0)`$ and $`(1,1)`$. $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ intersects $`R^2\times \{1\}`$ in the two horizontal arcs connecting the pair of points $`(0,0)`$ and $`(1,0)`$ to the points $`(0,1)`$ and $`(1,1)`$. These two pairs of arcs, one vertical and one horizontal, are then connected to each other by product arcs in $`L\times I`$. See Figure 17. In particular, the curve $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ projects to a unit square in $`R^2`$.

One can see that $`\sigma `$ bounds an essential disk in both $`\eta (K\gamma )`$ and in its complement. Indeed, it bounds a disk $`D`$ in $`\eta (K\gamma )`$ whose lift in $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }\times I`$ projects to the nullhomotopy of the square in the plane. A disk $`E`$ that $`\sigma `$ bounds in $`S^3\eta (K\gamma )`$ can be described as the union of two meridian disks in each solid torus component of $`S^3(T\times I)`$ (a total of four disks) each attached along a single arc to a disk in the ball $`\overline{L}\times IT\times I`$. The disk $`E(\overline{L}\times I)`$, when projected to $`I`$ has a single critical point, a saddle.

Now that we have found the tunnel meridian and a splitting sphere $`S=DE`$, we need to find the preferred meridians of $`K\gamma `$, that is, meridians with respect to which $`\rho _{}`$ is finite. The following argument is inspired by the proof of \[OZ, Lemma 2.2\].

Since $`m,n`$ are relatively prime, there are $`p,q`$ so that $`0<p<m`$ and $`0<q<n`$ and $`mqnp=1`$. Since

$$det\left(\begin{array}{cc}m& n\\ p& q\end{array}\right)=1,$$

it follows that

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m& n\\ p& q\end{array}\right)^1$$

is an integral matrix, so every point of $`^2`$ is in

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m& n\\ p& q\end{array}\right)^2.$$

It follows that the parallelogram $`P`$ with corners

$$\{(0,0),(mp,nq),(m,n),(p,q)\}$$

contains no element of $`^2`$ in its interior. See Figure 18. In particular, appropriate lifts of the two triangles

$$\mathrm{\Delta }((0,0),(mp,nq),(m,n))$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }((0,0),(p,q),(m,n))$$

tile each band in $`^2`$ that (as was described above) is a universal cover of $`\eta _T(K)T`$. It follows that the two arcs $`\alpha ^\pm `$ in $`^2`$ with ends respectively at $`(0,0),(p,q)`$ and $`(0,0),(mp,mq)`$, when thickened in $`U`$, are lifts of meridians $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ of $`\eta (K)`$. It will now be straightforward to show that these are the appropriate meridians for calculating $`\rho `$.

We begin with the easy fact that if $`a,b,c,d0`$ are integers so that $`a>b,c>d`$ and $`acbd=1`$, then $`a=c=1`$ and $`b=d=0`$. It follows then from $`det\left(\begin{array}{cc}mp& nq\\ p& q\end{array}\right)=1`$ that if $`mp>p`$ then $`nqq`$ and if $`mp<p`$ then $`nqq`$. Rephrasing this as geometry: the minor diagonal of the parallelogram $`P`$, whose ends lie at $`(p,q)`$ and $`(mp,nq)`$, never has negative slope. It follows that, for each corner $`(p,q)`$ and $`(mp,nq)`$ (say $`(p,q)`$) of $`P`$, some lift of the square $`\sigma `$ has the property that it intersects $`P`$ in a triangle, with $`(p,q)`$ a vertex, and its entire opposite side lying in a single side of $`P`$. (See Figure 19.) Translating the plane geometry into the motivating context, the triangle represents a disk $`D_0`$, cut off from the interior disk $`D`$ bounded by $`\sigma `$. $`D_0`$ is cut off by the meridian of $`K`$ represented by the side of $`P`$ on which the triangle is based. So the two sides of the triangle incident to $`(p,q)`$ are a wave of $`D`$ that crosses $`\mu ^t`$, represented by the major diagonal of $`P`$, in two points. Thus $`\rho (K,\gamma )`$ is not only seen to be finite, it is calculated to be $`1/2`$.

It is easy to extrapolate from this calculation to create examples in which $`\rho `$ can take on any value we like. Namely, replace a the two strands of $`K`$ in a neighborhood of $`\gamma `$ by an appropriate rational tangle. See Figure 20.

A torus knot is a simple example of a knot admitting a $`(1,1)`$-decomposition. That is, it can be written as a $`1`$-bridge knot on an unknotted torus $`T`$in $`S^3`$ (see \[Do\], \[MS\]). Each knot $`K`$ admitting a $`(1,1)`$-decomposition has an unknotting tunnel $`\gamma ^{}`$ (in fact two of them) best described as the eyeglass obtained by connecting the core $`\gamma _c^{}`$ of a solid torus $`T`$ bounds to the minimum of the knot $`K(T\times I)`$ by an ascending arc $`\gamma _a^{}`$ in $`T^2\times I`$. (For $`K`$ a torus knot, $`\gamma ^{}`$ is typically different from the tunnel $`\gamma `$ above.) An ambitious reader should be able to discover an algorithm which determines, for this eyeglass tunnel $`\gamma ^{}`$ and any knot $`K`$ admitting a $`(1,1)`$ decomposition, the value of $`\rho (K,\gamma ^{})`$.


format: text

text:
# Time Evolution of Fast Particles During the Decay of Hadronic Systems

## 1 Introduction

The particle production in heavy ion collisions was well represented by the fireball model  at medium energy range, where the concept of global equilibrium may be accepted. The fireball model was developed to fit experimental data at higher energies. A local equilibrium was assumed in the so called fire-streak model  that treats the variation across the overlap region of the target and projectile in the amount of energy and momentum that it deposited. The expression for calculating any observable takes the form of a sum over a series of terms, each one of which concerns to a local equilibrium and consists of a geometric, kinematics and statistical factors. As the energy increases more, it is expected that collision time becomes small enough so that particle emitted in the early stage of the reaction possesses non-equilibrium characteristics. The density function in phase space should be treated on the time scale to follow up the time grow of the reaction. Many trials have been done in this concern. The equation of motion can be reformulated to give it the appearance of classical equation for the phase distribution function. In this approximation, a local one body potential can be defined and the phase distribution function may contain the same information as the one body density matrix. This is the Hartree-Fock approximation . The many body physics enters only through the relation of the potential and the density. One more approximation reduces the equation to completely a classical form is to make a power series expansion of the one body potential and get the so called Vlasov equation \[5-7\]. A situation that can be analyzed with the Vlasov equation is the short time behaviour of the system subjected to an impulsive force. If the potential is sufficiently weak, the solution of the excited system may be treated by the quantum mechanical sum rules introduce first by Fallieros  and Noble . While it is not possible to integrate the Vlasov equation in general, some insight may be given by expanding the solution for small intervals of time. The starting point is the equilibrium solution, which is perturbed by the impulsive potential. Another treatment of the Vlasov equation depends on the theory of small oscillations in finite system . A closed expression has the appearance of Rayleigh‘s variation principle with a certain explicit form for the potential energy function. The solution is represented in the form of a sum of an equilibrium function plus a time dependent one which is assumed small compared with the first. The motion is assumed to have a sinusoidal time dependence with frequency. The variational principle was applied to estimate the frequencies of nuclear vibrations of various multi-polarity. In this work a method is developed to solve the Vlasov equation with reasonable approximations in a frame of a time dependent thermodynamic model, which enables the calculation of light and heavy particle spectra on the different reaction stages. The details of the model are presented in section 2. Results and discussion are displayed in section 3, and finally in section 4, we present conclusive remarks.

## 2 The Model

Let us consider the collision between a target nucleus T and a projectile one P at a given impact parameter $`\overline{b}`$. The collision goes through sequential stages. The first is a compression of the nuclear matter due to the high energy interaction, forming a fireball with diffuseness surface on the contrary of the fireball model assumptions  which support the concept of the participant and spectator nucleons with pure cylindrical cut in the nuclear matter. The nuclear matter is then treated as a heterogeneous thermodynamic system. Multiple nuclear collisions run inside the fireball which increases the energy density and allows the formation of quark gluon plasma state\[11-14\]. This leads to the creation of new particles and expansion of the system which gradually approaches the equilibrium state. The last stage is the fireball decay. Particle emission from the fireball is allowed at different points on the time scale of the reaction. Light created particles are expected to be emitted on the early stage at narrow forward cone angle, i.e. due to the first few collisions. The higher order collisions draw the system towards the equilibrium state producing particles in isotropic distribution in phase space. It is then convenient to consider the state of equilibrium as a time reference of the reaction. Drawing back, we may follow the historical grow of particle emissions on the time scale. Hadronic matter inside the fireball is partially formed by the fast projectile nucleons and the slow target ones. The relative projectile density in this mixture is a very important parameter. It determines the fireball parameters, the center of mass velocity, the temperature and the temperature gradient inside the fireball matter. We use a Gaussian density distribution  for nuclei of mass number $`A<20`$, while a Fermi density for $`A20`$. Consider a frame of reference coincides with the center of the target nucleus in the Lab. system, then the relative projectile density $`\eta (r,b)`$, at a given distance $`r`$ inside the fireball matter and a given impact parameter b, is given by:

$$\eta (r,b)=\frac{\rho _p(rb)}{\rho _p(rb)+\rho _T(rb)}\text{ }$$
(1)
Where, for $`A<20`$

$`\rho _i(\overline{r})`$ $`=`$ $`A_i(\pi r)^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}(r^2/R_i^2)`$
$`R_i^2`$ $`=`$ $`(3/2){\displaystyle \frac{<r^2>}{(11/A_T)}}\text{ }i=p,T`$ (2)
and for $`A20`$

$`\rho _i(\overline{r})`$ $`=`$ $`A_i\rho _o[1+\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{rc}{d}})]^1`$
$`c_i`$ $`=`$ $`1.19A_T^{1/3}1.61/\text{ }A_T^{1/3}\text{ }fm\text{ }i=p,T`$ (3)
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`0.54\text{ }fm`$
The local temperature $`T(\overline{r})`$at a position vector $`\overline{r}`$ is the solution of the thermodynamic energy conservation Eq.,

$$\zeta _{cm}=3T+m\frac{K_1(m/T)}{K_2(m/T)}$$

$$[m^2+2\eta (1\eta )mt_i]^{1/2}=3T+m\frac{K_1(m/T)}{K_2(m/T)}$$
(4)
where m is the rest mass of the constituent particle of the nuclear medium under investigation, $`K_1,K_2`$ are the McDonalds functions of first and second order  and $`t_i`$ is the incident kinetic energy per nucleon. Eq.(4) valid for each type of particles forming the fireball. The temperature is very sensitive to the form of the nuclear density. The momentum distribution of the fireball nucleons in the center of mass system is given by:

$$\frac{d^2N}{p^2dpd\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{N}{4\pi m^3}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(E/T)}{2(T/m)^2K_1(m/T)+(T/m)K_0(m/T)}$$
(5)
The equilibrium energy distribution in the lab system is given by:

$$f_o(E,r)=pE^{}\frac{d^2N}{p^2dp^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }}$$
(6)
The prime letters are defined in the center of mass system and relativistic transformed as:

$$E^{}=\gamma _{cm}(E_L\beta _{cm}P_L\mathrm{cos}\theta _L)$$
(7)
where the center of mass velocity $`\beta _{cm}`$ is given by,

$$\beta _{cm}\frac{P_L}{E_L}=\frac{\eta [t_i(t_i+2m)]^{1/2}}{m+\eta t_i}$$
(8)
Since particles emission is allowed before approaching the equilibrium state, then it is convenient to use the Vlasov equation  to deal with the particle energy spectra at any time of the reaction. The Vlasov Eq. has the form,

$$\frac{df}{dt}=\frac{f}{t}+\frac{\overline{P}}{m}\mathrm{}_rf_rU_pf$$
(9)
Where $`U(r)`$ is a scalar potential acting among the particles. Eq.(9) may be solved under some approximations. First, we shall consider a pre-equilibrium state where the time derivative $`\frac{df}{dt}`$ may be approximated as $`(ff_0)/t_c`$ . Where $`f_o`$ is the equilibrium distribution. Since we are dealing with a state near equilibrium, so it is convenient to consider that the rate of change of the function f is approximately equal to that of $`f_o`$. So we replace $`f`$ by $`f_o`$ in the RHS of Eq.(9). Moreover, let us consider the particles as almost free so that we neglect the potential $`U`$ in this stage of approximation. Eq.(9) then becomes,

$$f_1=f_0+t_c\frac{\overline{P}}{m}\overline{\mathrm{}}_rf_o$$
(10)
$$=f_0+t_c\frac{P}{m}\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{f_o}{r}$$

$`f_1`$ is the first order approximation of the particle spectrum, $`t_c`$ is the time interval required by the system to approach the equilibrium state $`f_o`$ , and $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle, the angle between the direction of particle emission $`\overline{P}`$ and the radial direction $`\overline{r}`$. A second order approximation is obtained by using $`f_1`$ instead of $`f`$ in the RHS of Eq.(9), so that,

$$f_2=f_0+t_c\frac{P}{m}\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{f_o}{r}+(t_c\frac{P}{m}\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2\frac{^2f_o}{r^2}$$
(11)
By the same analogy we get the recursion relation for the $`n^{th}`$ order approximation as;

$$f_n=f_0+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(t_c\frac{P}{m}\mathrm{cos}\theta )^i\frac{^if_o}{r^i}$$

so that the third and fourth order approximations are;

$$f_3=f_0+t_c\frac{P}{m}\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{f_o}{r}+(t_c\frac{P}{m}\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2\frac{^2f_o}{r^2}+(t_c\frac{P}{m}\mathrm{cos}\theta )^3\frac{^3f_o}{r^3}$$
(12)
$$f_4=f_0+t_c\frac{P}{m}\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{f_o}{r}+(t_c\frac{P}{m}\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2\frac{^2f_o}{r^2}+(t_c\frac{P}{m}\mathrm{cos}\theta )^3\frac{^3f_o}{r^3}+(t_c\frac{P}{m}\mathrm{cos}\theta )^4\frac{^4f_o}{r^4}$$
(13)
## 3 Results and discussion

The predictions of the pre equilibrium model are applied to the Ne-U collisions at 400 and 2100 A MeV. Assuming a frame of reference coincide with the center of the target, and that the projectile is located at a position $`\overline{r}`$, with an impact parameter $`\overline{b}`$ as shown in Fig.(1). The relative projectile density $`\eta (r,b)`$ is calculated according to Eq.(1). In Fig.(2) we demonstrate $`\overline{\eta }(r,b)`$ averaged over the whole range of impact parameter. The function $`\overline{\eta }(r,b)`$ shows a peak value of a height 0.5 at a distance $`R_p+R_T=10.7fm`$, where the projectile and the target have equal densities. According to the model assumptions, the nuclei have no sharp surface density but instead, a diffuseness surface which extends the range of the nuclear matter to about twice the sum of the nuclear radii. On the other hand the geometrical factor represented by the size of the nuclear matter has heavy weight near the origin and falls exponentially with $`\overline{r}`$ toward the surface as may be described by the tail of the Gaussian distribution. The effective range, where the nuclear matter forming the nuclear thermodynamic system has appreciable value is estimated to about $`1.5(R_p+R_T)`$. The parameter $`\eta `$ has a main role in evaluating the temperature and its gradient inside the nuclear matter as seen by Eq.(4). Fig.(3) shows the temperature as a function of $`\overline{\eta }`$ for the reactions at 400 and 2100 MeV incident kinetic energy per nucleon. The maximum temperature is found to be $`55`$ and $`230`$ $`MeV`$ respectively. The proton density function in its equilibrium form is calculated according to Eq.(6) over the effective range of the thermodynamic system. The results are shown in Fig.(4) for protons emitted with $`E_L=30,120`$ and $`180MeV`$ with emission Lab angle $`30^o`$. The protons produced at low energy show anisotropic distribution with peaks near the origin and the surface of the thermodynamic system. The position of the two peaks correspond to the regions characterized by low $`\overline{\eta }`$ values and consequently low temperature. High energy emission $`(120180MeV)`$ shows plateau shape density distribution. The bulk of which corresponds to high temperature zones. The yield from the low temperature zones decreases with increasing the energy of the emitted protons. The spatial variation of the function $`f_o(\overline{r},\overline{p})`$ is also studied. Fig.(5) exhibit the nth order derivative of $`f_o`$. Maximum variation of the derivatives occurs at the origin and near the surface where the temperature and its gradient also change rapidly. The solution of the Vlasov equation is calculated to the fourth order approximation as clarified by Eq.(8). The result is integrated over the effective range with a geometrical weight factor $`W(\eta )`$, depends on the size of the nuclear matter. Assuming azimuthal symmetry of the system then one can finally find the Lab energy spectra, which is calculated at specific values of emission angles $`\theta =30,60,90,120`$ and $`150^o`$.

$$f_L^n(E)=f^n(E,r)W(\eta (r))4\pi r^2𝑑r$$
(14)
Figs(6-11) shows the lab energy spectra of protons produced in Ne-U at 400 A MeV corrected to the second order. The prediction of the model is compared to the zero order correction (the equilibrium distribution) as well as the experimental data. The emission time parameter is found by fitting method to be $`12,12,8,4.5`$ and $`2(GeV)^1`$ corresponding to the emission angles $`\theta =30,60,90,120`$ and $`150^o`$ respectively. A global fair agreement is obtained by the second order corrected solution of the Vlasov equation. An appreciable improvement is observed in the prediction of the model, particularly in the forward emission spectra ( $`\theta `$ = 30 and 60o). The prediction of the model comes closer to the equilibrium distribution for the wide emission angles ( $`\theta `$ = 90, 120 and 150o). Particle produced at this wide angles are expected to make multiple collisions inside the nuclear matter before emission takes place. In other words, the wide angle production is a signal to the approach to the equilibrium state. Such a system is characterized by large number of inter-nuclear cascade collisions which increases the entropy of the system and leads to equilibrium. It is found that the solution of the Vlasov equation through the present approximation forms a converging series. It is enough to consider only the first two terms in the series on dealing with the Ne-U collisions at 400 A MeV. While terms up to the fourth order are found to have appreciable values for the case of Ne-U collisions at 2100 A MeV. The second correction and the fourth order correction improve the calculation toward the virtual values. Although we considered four terms for the reaction at 2100 MeV, but the agreement with experimental data was not fair enough. The hypothesis of pre-equilibrium includes many approximations that may not fit the systems formed at high energies. The last term in Vlasov equation containing the field potential between the interacting particles should be considered, and the problem then is treated microscopically instead of the macroscopic picture as presented in this article. Despite of the existence of the field theory of strong interactions, the theoretical description of this phenomena is necessarily phenomenological because of the very nature of the problem which involves many degrees of freedom. In a forthcoming article, one may encounter the problem taking into consideration the study of collective properties of hadronic matter, in particular its possible phase transition to the quark-gluon phase. The main merits of this approach lie, in our view, in the fact that the phenomenology is reduced to microscopic concepts like parton- parton cross sections and structure function and different equilibrium properties of the gluon and quark components of hadrons which allow for identification of the coherent parts of the interactions.

## 4  Conclusive remarks

i- The pre-equilibrium model with reasonable approximations may fit the experimental data of heavy ion collisions within the regime of few hundreds A MeV. In this case, a power series is presented to describe the nuclear density function in the frame of a thermodynamic picture.

ii- The relative projectile density plays an important role in determination of the hadronic matter temperature.

iii- The temperature gradient in the system comes due to the assumption that the nuclear matter has a diffuseness surface density with Gaussian distribution.

iv- The temperature has minimum values around the center and near the end of the effective range of the nuclear matter. These regions are responsible of the emission of low energy particles, while fast particles are produced in the bulk region characterized by $`\eta =0.5`$and high temperature.

v- The power series solution is converging in nature. The $`n^{th}`$ order term depends on the $`n^{th}`$ derivative of the phase space distribution function.

vi- A series up to the second order correction is sufficient to describe the reaction at 400 A MeV. While the fourth order term has appreciable importance in the reactions at 2100 A MeV.

vii- Particles emitted in the forward direction are produced in the early stage of the reaction, far from the equilibrium. Backward production comes in a later stage when the system constituents undergo multiple cascade collisions.

```

```

```

```

Figure Captions

1. Schematic diagram of the projectile and target collision at a given impact

parameter $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{b}`$.
2. The relative projectile density $`\eta `$ for Ne-U collision as measured from the center of the U target.
3. The variation of the temperature as a function of the relative projectile density $`\eta `$, for the Ne-U interactions at 400 and 2100 A MeV incident kinetic energies.
4. The proton density spectra $`f_o(r,p)`$ at emission Lab energies EL= 30, 120,180 MeV and Lab angle $`\theta _L`$= 30o produced in Ne-U collision at 400 MeV kinetic energy.
5. The nth order derivatives of the proton density spectra $`f_o(r,p)`$. The first three derivative at emission Lab energy EL= 30 MeV and Lab angle $`\theta _L`$= 30, produced in Ne-U collision at 400 MeV.
6. The energy spectra of protons produced in Ne-U interactions at 400 A MeV, at

emission angle 30o. The solid line represents the equilibrium distribution, while the

second correction is represented by dashed line, with an emission time parameter $`t=12`$ $`(GeV)^{1.}`$
7. The energy spectra of protons produced in Ne-U interactions at 400 A MeV, at

emission angle 60o. The solid line represents the equilibrium distribution, while the

second correction is represented by dashed with an emission time parameter $`t=12`$ $`(GeV)^{1.}`$
8. The energy spectra of protons produced in Ne-U interactions at 400 A MeV, at

emission angle 90o. The solid line represents the equilibrium distribution, while the second correction is represented by a dashed line, with an emission time parameter $`t=8`$ $`(GeV)^{1.}`$
9. The energy spectra of protons produced in Ne-U interactions at 400 A MeV, at

emission angle 120o. The solid line represents the equilibrium distribution, while the second correction is represented by dashed line with an emission time parameter $`t=4.5`$ $`(GeV)^{1.}`$
10. The energy spectra of protons produced in Ne-U interactions at 400 A MeV, at

emission angle 150o. The solid line represents the equilibrium distribution, while the second correction is represented by dashed line with an emission time parameter $`t=2.5`$ $`(GeV)^{1.}`$
11. The second order corrected pre-equilibrium energy spectra of protons produced

in Ne-U interactions at 400 A MeV, at emission angles of 30, 60, 90, 120 and 150o. The solid lines represent the calculated distributions and the experimental data are represented by (+) signs.


text:
# A smoother approach to scaling by suppressing monopoles and vortices

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Universality of lattice gauge theories implies that actions which differ merely by irrelevant terms in the parlance of the renormalization group lead to the same continuum quantum field theory. While many numerical simulations have been performed for the Wilson action for pure gauge theories, other choices, some motivated by the desire to find a smoother continuum limit, have also been employed. This usually has lead to results in accord with universality. Investigations of the deconfinement phase transition for mixed actions, obtained by extending the Wilson action by addition of an adjoint coupling term, showed , however, surprising challenges to the above notion of universality. Several finite temperature investigations have established the presence of a second order deconfinement phase transition for the Wilson action. Its critical exponents have been shown  to be in very good agreement with those of the three dimensional Ising model, as conjectured by Svetitsky and Yaffe . This verification of the universality conjecture strengthened our analytical understanding of the deconfinement phase transition which, however, came under a shadow of doubt by the results for the mixed actions. For two different actions, it was found  on a range of temporal lattice sizes that for large adjoint couplings a\] the deconfinement transition became definitely of first order and b\] no other separate bulk transition existed. In fact, simulations on large symmetric lattices even suggested  a lack of a bulk phase transition at an adjoint coupling where a first order deconfinement transition for a lattice of temporal size four was clearly seen.

Recently it was shown  that suppression of some lattice artifacts such as $`Z_2`$ monopoles and vortices do restore universality for one of the two actions: no first order deconfinement transition was found in the entire coupling plane in that case. Here we address this question for the other action in the same manner and find that one gains an additional bonus. The approach to scaling seems to become smoother than that for the original Wilson action.

## 2 ACTION AND RESULTS

Both actions  have an adjoint coupling $`\beta _A`$ in addition to the usual Wilson coupling $`\beta `$. The $`\beta `$ = 0 axis in each case describes an $`SO(3)`$ model which has a first order phase transition. At $`\beta _A`$ = $`\mathrm{}`$, the theories reduce to a $`Z_2`$ lattice gauge theory with again a first order phase transition at $`\beta ^{\mathrm{crit}}`$ 0.44. The first order transitions extend into the ($`\beta `$, $`\beta _A`$) coupling plane, meet at a triple point, and continue as a single line of first order transitions which ends at an apparently critical point, say, D in both cases. The proximity of D to the $`\beta _A=0`$ line has commonly been held responsible for the abrupt change from the strong coupling region to the scaling region for the Wilson action. Following Refs. , one can also suppress $`Z_2`$ monopoles and $`Z_2`$ electric vortices for the Bhanot-Creutz action with suitable chemical potentials to restore universality in its entire coupling plane. Using $`\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{Tr}_FU_P)`$ to identify the $`Z_2`$ monopoles and vortices, one can define the corresponding action for such suppressions as below:

$`S_{BC,S}={\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}\beta \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}_FU_P}{2}}\right)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}\beta _A\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}_AU_P}{3}}\right)+\lambda _M{\displaystyle \underset{c}{}}(1\sigma _c)`$
$`+\lambda _E{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}(1\sigma _l),`$ (1)
where $`\sigma _c=_{pc}\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{Tr}_FU_P)`$ and $`\sigma _l=_{p\widehat{}l}\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{Tr}_FU_P)`$. It is clear that the above theory flows to the same critical fixed point in the continuum limit for all $`\beta _A`$, $`\lambda _M`$ and $`\lambda _E`$ and has the same scaling behavior near the critical point. It has to be stressed though that universality has to be tested afresh for eq.(1) to be sure that the above naive argument about the $`\lambda _M`$ and $`\lambda _E`$ terms being irrelevant is correct. This is what we do in the following by determining a critical index of the deconfinement phase transition. We then check whether the passage to scaling is affected by studying the deconfinement transition as a function of the temporal lattice size. We chose $`\beta _A`$ =0, $`\lambda _M`$ = 1 and $`\lambda _E`$ = 5 throughout.

We studied the deconfinement phase transition on $`N_\sigma ^3\times N_\tau `$ lattices by monitoring its order parameter and the corresponding susceptibility for $`N_\tau =`$ 4, 5, 6 and 8 and $`N_\sigma =`$ 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16. We used the simple Metropolis algorithm and tuned it to have an acceptance rate $`40`$ %. The expectation values of the observables were recorded every 20 iterations to reduce the autocorrelations. Errors were determined by correcting for the autocorrelations and also by the jack knife method. The observables monitored were the average plaquette, P, and the absolute value of the average of the deconfinement order parameter $`|L|`$. We also monitored the susceptibilities for both $`|L|`$ and P: $`\chi _{|L|}=N_\sigma ^3(L^2|L|^2)`$ and $`\chi _P=6N_\sigma ^3N_\tau (P^2P^2)`$.

### 2.1 $`N_\tau =4`$

The deconfinement phase transition on $`N_\tau =4`$ lattices was studied by first making short hysteresis runs on the smallest lattice to look for abrupt or sharp changes in the order parameter $`|L|`$. In the region of its strong variation, longer runs were made to check whether the $`|L|`$-susceptibility exhibits a peak. Histogramming technique was used to extrapolate to nearby couplings for doing this. A fresh run was made at the $`\chi _{|L|}`$ peak position and the process repeated until the input coupling for the run was fairly close to the output peak position of the susceptibility. The same procedure was used for the bigger lattices also but by starting from the $`\beta _c`$ of the smaller lattice. Typically 2-4 million Monte Carlo iterations were used to estimate the magnitude of the peak height and the peak location for each $`N_\sigma `$. Table 1 lists our final results for all the $`N_\sigma `$ used. Fitting the peak heights in Table 1 to $`AN_\sigma ^\omega `$, we obtained $`\omega =1.93\pm 0.03`$, in excellent agreement with the values for both the standard Wilson action  and the 3-dimensional Ising model.

### 2.2 $`N_\tau =5`$, 6 and 8

For larger $`N_\tau `$, we used many longer runs in the region of strong variation of $`|L|`$ to obtain the susceptibility directly and used the histogramming only for the finer determination of the critical coupling. Our results for $`|L|`$ as a function of $`\beta `$ clearly show a deconfinement phase transition for $`N_\tau `$ = 5, 6 and 8. This is also evident in the $`\chi _{|L|}`$ determinations, shown in Fig. 1 for $`N_\tau =6`$.

Tables 2 and 3 list the estimated maxima of $`\chi _{|L|}`$ for $`N_\tau `$ = 5 and 6 for two different spatial volumes along with the corresponding peak locations. Using our value for $`\omega `$, and the peak height for the smaller spatial volume, the $`\chi ^{\mathrm{max}}`$ on the bigger lattice can be predicted. These predictions are listed in the respective tables in the last column and can be seen to be in very good agreement with the direct Monte Carlo determinations. We also determined $`\omega `$ from the peak heights in Tables 2 and 3 and found it to be in good agreement with the $`N_\tau =4`$ value. Not only is the universality of the deconfinement phase transition thus verified on three different temporal lattice sizes, but it also confirms that the same physical phase transition is being simulated on them, thus approaching the continuum limit of $`a0`$ in a progressive manner by keeping the transition temperature $`T_c`$ constant in physical units.

### 2.3 Scaling of $`T_c`$

Fig. 2 shows $`aT_c=N_\tau ^1`$ as a function of the corresponding critical $`\beta `$ for both our simulations (squares) with suppression of monopoles and vortices and the standard Wilson action (circles). The latter are taken from the compilation of Ref. . The dashed line describes a ‘phenomenological’ scaling equation,

$$aT_c=\frac{1}{N_\tau }\left(\frac{4b_0}{\beta }\right)^{b_1/b_0^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\beta }{4b_0}\right),$$
(2)
which is similar to the usual scaling relation, shown in Fig. 2 by full lines, but with twice the exponent. All lines were normalized to pass through the $`N_\tau `$= 8 data points.

One sees deviations from asymptotic scaling for both the Wilson action and our action with suppression of monopoles and vortices. The deviations for the same range of $`N_\tau `$ seem larger for our action but then one is also considerably deeper in the strong coupling region of the Wilson action where one a priori would not have even expected any scaling behaviour. As the agreement of our results with the dashed line of eq.(2) in Fig. 2 shows, scaling may hold in this region of $`\beta `$ for the suppressed action, since the relation between $`a`$ and $`\beta `$ in this region is similar to the asymptotic scaling relation, differing only in the exponent which will cancel in dimensionless ratios of physical quantities. It is clear that as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, the difference between the two actions must vanish. The data in Fig. 2 do show such a trend although the limiting point is still not reached by $`N_\tau `$ = 8. It seems likely though that the trend of evenly spaced transition points for our action will continue and the dashed line traced by its transition points will merge with the Wilson action by $`N_\tau 25`$ or so. If this were to be so, a much smoother approach to continuum limit is to be expected after the suppression of monopoles and vortices. In particular, one expects that dimensionless ratios of physical quantities at the deconfinement phase transition couplings should be constant, already from $`\beta 1.33`$, which is the transition point for the $`N_\tau `$ = 4.

## 3 SUMMARY

The phase diagram of the Bhanot-Cruetz  action in the fundamental and adjoint couplings has been crucial in understanding many properties of the $`SU(2)`$ lattice gauge theory, like the cross-over to the scaling region from the strong coupling region. Adding extra irrelevant terms to the action one obtains a modified action (1) in which monopoles and vortices can be suppressed by setting the additional couplings to large values. Our finite size scaling analysis of $`|L|`$-susceptibility for $`\beta _A`$ = 0, $`\lambda _M`$ = 1 and $`\lambda _E`$ = 5, yielded 1.93 $`\pm `$ 0.03 for the critical exponent $`\omega \gamma /\nu `$ for lattices with $`N_\tau `$ = 4, thus verifying the naive universality. However, as a result of the suppression, the critical coupling is shifted by about unity compared to the Wilson case. Our results on $`N_\tau `$ = 5 and 6 also yielded similar values for $`\omega `$ albeit with larger errors, confirming that the same physical transition was being studied this way as a function of the lattice cut-off, $`a`$. While the data for $`N_\tau ^1=aT_c`$ was found to vary slower with $`\beta `$ than expected from the asymptotic scaling relation for $`N_\tau `$ = 4–8, they did obey a similar relation with a factor of two larger exponent. A straightforward extrapolation suggests that the results from the modified action may merge with those of Wilson action for large $`N_\tau `$ ( of about $``$ 25). Thus the suppression appears to make the transition from strong coupling to the scaling region much smoother than that for the unsuppressed Wilson action, allowing us to simulate the theory at smaller $`\beta `$. It will be interesting to see if dimensionless ratios of physical quantities such as glueball masses or string tension with $`T_c`$ are constant in the range of critical couplings explored here. It will also be interesting to study such suppression in $`SU(3)`$, and indeed $`SU(N)`$ lattice gauge theories, since their phase diagrams are similar and the same mechanism is expected to work for them as well.