format: text

text:
# Contractions: Nijenhuis and Saletan tensors for general algebraic structures

## 1 Introduction

For a general (real) topological algebra, i.e., a topological vector space $`𝒜`$ over $``$ (but other topological fields, like $``$, can be considered in a similar way as well) with a continuous bilinear operation

$$\mu :𝒜\times 𝒜𝒜,(X,Y)XY,$$
(1)
one considers contraction procedures as follows.

If $`U(\lambda ):𝒜𝒜`$ is a family of linear morphisms which continuously depends on the parameter $`\lambda `$ from a neighbourhood $`𝒰`$ of 0 and $`U(\lambda )`$ are invertible for $`\lambda 𝒰\{0\}`$, then we can consider the continuous family of products $`X^\lambda Y`$ defined by

$$X^\lambda Y=U(\lambda )^1(U(\lambda )(X)U(\lambda )(Y)),$$
(2)
for $`\lambda 𝒰\{0\}`$. All these products are isomorphic by definition, since

$$U(\lambda )(X^\lambda Y)=U(\lambda )(X)U(\lambda )(Y)$$
(3)
and if $`N=U(0)`$ is invertible, then clearly

$$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}X^\lambda Y=N^1(N(X)N(Y)).$$
(4)
But sometimes, the limit $`lim_{\lambda 0}X^\lambda Y`$ may exist for all $`X,Y𝒜`$ even if $`N`$ is not invertible and (4) does not make sense. We say then that $`lim_{\lambda 0}X^\lambda Y`$ is a contraction of the product $`XY`$. Of course, the problem of existence and the form of the contracted product heavily depends on the family $`U(\lambda )`$. In \[Sa\] this problem has been solved for linear families $`U(\lambda )=\lambda I+N`$ and $`𝒜`$ – a finite-dimensional Lie algebra.

Here we study generalizations in various directions of the contraction procedure introduced by Saletan \[Sa\]. First of all, we consider products of arbitrary nature, not necessarily Lie brackets. Second, we generalize to infinite dimension, considering a modification of the approach by Nijenhuis tensors to bilinear operations on sections of finite-dimensional vector bundles. The motivation stems from physics, since infinite-dimensional algebras of sections of some bundles arise frequently as models both in Classical and Quantum Physics. In particular, we were confronted with this problem within the framework of Quantum Bihamiltonian Systems \[CGM\]. According to Dirac \[Di\], a ”quantum Poisson bracket” necessarily arises from the associative product on the space of operators. Similarly, by Ado’s theorem, any finite-dimensional Lie algebra arises as an algebra of matrices. It is therefore quite natural to investigate contractions of associative algebras along with contractions of Lie algebras and their generalizations to Lie algebroids. We concentrate mainly on smooth sections, but this particular choice plays no definite role in our approach.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we present the general scheme we are working with and the main result (Theorem 2) on contractions for algebras of sections of vector bundles. We make some remarks on contractions with respect to more general linear families $`U(\lambda )=\lambda A+N`$.

Section 3 is devoted to examples and Section 4 to more detailed studies of hierarchies of contractions. We develop an algebraic technique which allows us to produce much simpler proofs of facts about hierarchies than those available in the literature.

In Section 5 we comment on the behaviour of algebraic properties under contractions.

Contractions of Lie algebras and Lie algebroids, as particular cases of our general procedure, are studied in Sections 6 and 7.

In Section 8 we use our knowledge on contractions of Lie algebroids to define contractions of Poisson structures. The approach is very natural and leads to structures very similar (but slightly different) to those which are known under the name of Poisson-Nijenhuis structures (cf. \[MM, KSM\]).

We end up with observations on contractions of $`n`$-ary products and coproducts.

## 2 Linear contractions of products on sections of vector bundles

Let us assume that $`E`$ is a smooth vector bundle with fibers of dimension $`n_0`$, over a smooth manifold $`M`$. Denote by $``$ a bilinear operation $`\mu :𝒜\times 𝒜𝒜`$,

$$\mu :(X,Y)𝒜𝒜XY𝒜,$$

on the space of smooth sections of $`E`$ which is, at least point-wise, continuous. In practice, we shall deal with local products, therefore being defined by bilinear differential operators. We shall use both notations for the product according to which one is more convenient when treating particular cases.

Let $`N:EE`$ be a smooth vector bundle morphism over $`id_M`$. One refers also to $`N`$ as to a (1,1)–tensor field, i.e., a section of $`E^{}E`$. Since $`N_p:E_pE_p`$ is a morphism of the finite-dimensional vector space $`E_p`$, where $`E_p`$ denotes the fiber over the point $`pM`$, we have the Riesz decomposition $`E_p=E_p^1E_p^2`$ into invariant subspaces of $`N_p`$ in such a way that $`N_p`$ is invertible on $`E_p^1`$ and nilpotent of order $`q`$ on $`E_p^2`$, i.e., $`N^q(X_p)=0`$, for $`X_pE_p^2`$. One can take $`E_p^1=\stackrel{~}{N}_p(E_p)`$, $`E_p^2=\mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{N}_p`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{N}_p=(N_p)^{n_0}`$, with $`n_0=dimE_p`$. In this way we get the decomposition $`E=E^1E^2`$ of the vector bundle $`E`$ into two supplementary generalized distributions. Note that the dimension of $`E_p^1`$ may vary from point to point. Nevertheless, $`E^1`$ is a smooth distribution, i.e., it is generated locally by a finite number of smooth sections of $`E`$. Indeed, if $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_{n_0}\}`$ is a local basis of smooth sections of $`E`$, then $`\{\stackrel{~}{N}(e_1),\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{N}(e_{n_0})\}`$ is a set of local smooth sections generating locally $`E^1`$.

###### Theorem 1

The (generalized) distribution $`E^2`$ is smooth if and only if it is regular, i.e., of constant rank: $`dimE_p^2=\text{const}.`$

Proof.- Since the rank of a smooth distribution is semi-continuous from above:

$$\underset{pp_0}{lim}infdimE_p^2dimE_{p_0}^2,$$
(5)
and the complementary distribution $`E^1`$ is smooth, so that

$$\underset{pp_0}{lim}supdimE_p^2dimE_{p_0}^2,$$
(6)
we see that both conditions (5) and (6) are satisfied if and only if $`E^2`$ is of constant rank.

Conversely, if $`E^2`$ is of constant rank, say $`n_0l`$, take a basis $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_{n_0}\}`$ of smooth local sections of $`E`$ such that the elements of $`\{\stackrel{~}{N}(e_1),\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{N}(e_l)\}`$ span $`E_p^1`$. Then $`\{\stackrel{~}{N}(e_1),\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{N}(e_l)\}`$ is a basis of local sections of $`E^1`$ near $`pM`$. Write

$$\stackrel{~}{N}(e_i)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}f_{ij}\stackrel{~}{N}(e_j).$$

Then the functions $`f_{ij}`$ are smooth and the smooth sections

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_i=e_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}f_{ij}e_j,i=l+1,\mathrm{},n_0,$$

span locally $`E^2`$. Indeed, $`\stackrel{~}{N}(\stackrel{~}{e}_i)=0`$ and the elements $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, for $`i=l+1,\mathrm{},n_0`$, are linearly independent. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that in general no one of the distributions $`E^1`$ and $`E^2`$ has to be “involutive” in the sense that smooth sections of $`E^1`$ (resp. $`E^2`$) are closed with respect to the composition law $``$.

Consider now a new (1,1)-tensor $`U(\lambda )=\lambda I+N`$ depending on a real parameter $`\lambda `$. Since the spectrum of $`N`$ is finite and continuously depends on $`p`$, in a sufficiently small neighbourhood of $`p`$ all of $`U(\lambda )_p`$ are invertible for sufficiently small $`\lambda `$, but $`\lambda 0`$. Thus, we can locally define, for $`\lambda 0`$, a new operation

$`X_N^\lambda Y`$ $`=`$ $`U(\lambda )^1(U(\lambda )(X)U(\lambda )(Y))`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`U(\lambda )^1((\lambda X+N(X))(\lambda Y+N(Y)))`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`U(\lambda )^1(\lambda ^2XY+\lambda (N(X)Y+XN(Y))+N(X)N(Y)).`$ (9)
We would like to find conditions assuring that the limit

$$X_NY=\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}X_N^\lambda Y$$

exists for all $`X,Y𝒜`$ and find the corresponding contraction $`X_NY`$.

Using the identity $`U(\lambda )^1(\lambda I+N)=I`$, i.e.,

$$U(\lambda )^1(\lambda X)=XU(\lambda )^1N(X),$$

we get from (9) that

$`X_N^\lambda Y`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda XY+(N(X)Y+XN(Y)N(XY))`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`U(\lambda )^1(N(X)N(Y)N(N(X)Y+XN(Y)N(XY))).`$ (11)
Denoting

$$\delta _N\mu (X,Y)=X\stackrel{~}{}_NY=N(X)Y+XN(Y)N(XY),$$

and by $`T_N\mu (X,Y)`$ – the Nijenhuis torsion of N:

$$T_N\mu (X,Y)=N(X)N(Y)N(X\stackrel{~}{}_NY),$$

we can rewrite (11) in the form

$$X_N^\lambda Y=\lambda XY+X\stackrel{~}{}_NY+U(\lambda )^1T_N\mu (X,Y).$$

Hence, the limit

$$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}X_N^\lambda Y$$

exists if and only if

$$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}U(\lambda )^1T_N\mu (X,Y)\mathrm{exists}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{every}X,Y𝒜.$$
(12)
Denote by $`𝒜^1`$, $`𝒜^2`$, the spaces of smooth sections of $`E^1`$ and $`E^2`$, respectively. Of course, in general $`𝒜𝒜^1𝒜^2`$. We may have $`𝒜^2=\{0\}`$ even in the case $`E^2\{0\}`$. Since $`E^1`$ and $`E^2`$ are invariant distributions of $`U(\lambda )`$, hence of $`U(\lambda )^1`$, the existence of the limit (12) may be checked separately on the corresponding parts of $`T_N\mu `$. On $`E^2`$ the tensor $`N`$ is nilpotent, so for $`X_pE_p^2`$,

$$(\lambda I+N)_p^1(X_p)=\left(\lambda (I(N/\lambda ))\right)_p^1(X_p)=\frac{1}{\lambda }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda }\right)^nN_p^n(X_p),$$
(13)
where the sum is in fact finite, and

$$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}\underset{n=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{\lambda ^{n+1}}N_p^n(X_p)$$

exists if and only if $`X_p=0`$. Thus, a necessary condition for existence of the limit (12) is that $`T_N\mu (X,Y)𝒜^1`$ for every $`X,Y𝒜`$.

Since on $`E^1`$ the tensor $`N`$ is invertible, we have clearly

$$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}(\lambda I+N)^1=N^1$$

on $`E^1`$, so that, assuming $`T_N\mu (X,Y)𝒜^1`$,

$$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}U(\lambda )^1T_N\mu (X,Y)=N^1T_N\mu (X,Y)=\tau _N\mu (X,Y).$$

Here $`\tau _N\mu (X,Y)=N^1T_N\mu (X,Y)`$ is the unique section of $`E^1`$ determined by the condition

$$N(\tau _N\mu (X,Y))=T_N\mu (X,Y).$$

In order to get a new product on $`𝒜`$ we have to assume that $`\tau _N\mu (X,Y)`$ is smooth, which is a priori not automatic, even if we have $`T_N\mu (X,Y)𝒜^1`$. Note that if $`N`$ is regular, i.e., $`E^1`$ is of constant dimension, then, as we shall show in Theorem 3, $`N(𝒜^1)=𝒜^1`$ and $`\tau _N\mu (X,Y)`$ is smooth automatically.

Let us summarize the above as follows:

###### Theorem 2

Let $`\mu :𝒜\times 𝒜𝒜`$ be a point-wise continuous bilinear product of smooth sections of a vector bundle $`E`$ over a manifold $`M`$ (we will write also $`XY`$ instead of $`\mu (X,Y)`$) and let $`N:EE`$ be a smooth (1,1)–tensor. Denote by $`U(\lambda )=\lambda I+N`$ a deformation of $`N`$, by $`E=E^1E^2`$ the Riesz decomposition of $`E`$ relative to $`N`$, and by $`𝒜^1`$ the set of smooth sections of $`E^1`$. Then, the limit

$$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}U(\lambda )^1(U(\lambda )(X)U(\lambda )(Y))$$

exists for all $`X,Y𝒜`$ and defines a new (contracted) bilinear operation

$$D_N\mu (X,Y)=X_NY$$

on $`𝒜`$ if and only if the Nijenhuis torsion

$$T_N\mu (X,Y)=N(X)N(Y)N(N(X)Y+XN(Y))+N^2(XY)$$

takes values in $`N(𝒜^1)`$. If this is the case, then

$$X_NY=X\stackrel{~}{}_NY+\tau _N\mu (X,Y),$$
(14)
where $`X\stackrel{~}{}_NY`$ is a new bilinear operation $`\delta _N\mu `$ on $`𝒜`$ defined by

$$\delta _N\mu =X\stackrel{~}{}_NY=N(X)Y+XN(Y)N(XY),$$

and $`\tau _N\mu (X,Y)=N^1T_N\mu (X,Y)`$ is the unique section of $`𝒜^1`$ such that

$$N(\tau _N\mu (X,Y))=T_N\mu (X,Y).$$

Moreover, $`N`$ constitutes a homomorphism of $`(𝒜,\mu _N)`$ into $`(𝒜,\mu )`$:

$$N(X_NY)=N(X)N(Y).$$

Remark. Let us note that our procedure is not just applying the finite–dimensional linear one to every fiber, since the operation $``$ need not act fiber-wise. Also, this is not direct application to infinite–dimensional algebra $`𝒜`$, since we have not, in general, the Riesz decomposition $`𝒜=𝒜_1𝒜_2`$ with respect to $`N`$. On the other hand, the whole procedure can be applied directly to infinite-dimensional cases for which we are given the Riesz decomposition of $`N`$.

###### Definition 1

The tensor $`N`$ satisfying the assumptions of Theorem 2, i.e., such that $`T_N\mu `$ takes values in $`N(𝒜^1)`$, will be called a Saletan tensor. If $`N^k`$ is a Saletan tensor for every $`k=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, then $`N`$ will be called a strong Saletan tensor. In the case $`T_N\mu =0`$ we shall call $`N`$ a Nijenhuis tensor.

Remark. It is obvious from the proof of Theorem 2 that Nijenhuis tensors define contractions even in the case of infinite-dimensional algebras $`𝒜`$ without any assumption that $`𝒜`$ consists of sections of a finite-dimensional vector bundle. Indeed, with $`T_N\mu =0`$ we have no obstructions, the Riesz decomposition is irrelevant, and $`X_NY=X\stackrel{~}{}_NY`$. Of course,

(Nijenhuis) $``$ (strong Saletan) $``$ (Saletan).

We shall call $`N`$ regular, if $`E^1`$ (hence also $`E^2`$) is of constant rank. This is always the case when $`E`$ is a bundle over a single point, i.e., $`E=𝒜`$.

###### Theorem 3

In the regular case, i.e., when $`E^1`$ is of constant rank, $`N(𝒜^1)=𝒜^1`$, so that $`N`$ is a Saletan tensor if and only if $`T_N\mu (X,Y)`$ takes values in $`𝒜^1`$.

Remark. We shall prove a stronger result in Theorem 6.

Proof.- Indeed, according to Theorem 1, both $`E^1`$ and $`E^2`$ are smooth distributions. Locally we have a basis of smooth sections of $`E^1`$, and $`N`$ acts on this basis as invertible matrix of smooth functions. Indeed, since regularity of $`E^1`$ implies that there is a local basis $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_l\}`$ of sections of $`E^1`$, in this basis $`N`$ acts simply as invertible matrix of smooth functions $`(f_{ij})`$, so for $`X=g_ie_i`$,

$$N\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}h_ie_i\right)=X,$$

where the smooth functions $`h_i`$ are defined by

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}f_{ij}h_j=g_i.$$

Hence, $`N^1(X)`$ is locally, thus globally, smooth section of $`E^1`$ for any smooth section $`X`$ of $`E^1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. For a fiber bundle over a single point Theorem 2 gives exactly the Saletan result \[Sa\] in case $`\mu `$ is a Lie bracket. Saletan writes $`X_NY`$ in the form

$$X_NY=(X\stackrel{~}{}_NY)_2+N^1\left((N(X)N(Y))_1\right),$$
(15)
where $`X=X_1+X_2`$ is the decomposition of $`X𝒜`$ into sections of $`E^1`$ and $`E^2`$. Of course, (15) is formally the same as (14) for the decomposition into sections of $`E^1`$ and $`E^2`$. However, in general the summands of the right hand side of (15) are not smooth, while the decomposition (14) is into smooth parts. In the regular case both formulae coincide.

###### Theorem 4

(a) Theorem 2 remains valid when we consider the family $`U(\lambda )`$ in a slightly more general form: $`U(\lambda )=\lambda I+f(\lambda )N`$, where $`f`$ is continuous and $`f(0)=1`$.

(b) If we consider instead of $`U(\lambda )`$ the family $`U_1(\lambda )=\lambda A+N`$, then the contraction procedure for $`U_1(\lambda )`$ and the product $``$ is equivalent to the contraction procedure of the above type for a new $`N`$ and a new product. In particular, if $`A`$ is invertible, we get our standard contraction for $`A^1N`$ and the product $`X_AY=A^1(A(X)A(Y))`$. In other words, the contraction procedure for the family $`U_1(\lambda )=\lambda A+N`$ can be reduced to the contraction described in Theorem 2.

Proof.-

(a) Let us write $`U(\lambda )=\frac{U_1(\epsilon )}{f(\lambda )}`$, where $`U_1(\epsilon )=\epsilon I+N`$ and $`\epsilon =\frac{\lambda }{f(\lambda )}`$, so that $`\lambda 0`$ is equivalent to $`\epsilon 0`$. Since

$$U(\lambda )^1(U(\lambda )(X)U(\lambda )(Y))=\frac{1}{f(\lambda )}U_1(\epsilon )^1(U_1(\epsilon )(X)U_1(\epsilon )(Y))$$
(16)
and $`lim_{\lambda 0}f(\lambda )=1`$, both contraction procedures are equivalent.

(b) Assume first that $`A`$ is invertible. Since $`\lambda A+N=A(\lambda I+A^1N)`$, we can use Theorem 2 for $`N:=A^1N`$ and the product $`_A`$. In fact, we can skip the assumption that $`A`$ is invertible. For, take $`\lambda _0`$ for which $`A+\lambda _0𝔑`$ is invertible. Then, we write

$$U(\lambda )=\lambda A+N=(A+\lambda _0N)(\lambda I+(1\lambda \lambda _0)(A+\lambda _0N)^1N),$$
(17)
and we can proceed as before and using (a) of the Theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Examples

Many interesting physical applications are based on the idea of contraction by İnönü and Wigner \[IW\]. We will call a smooth distribution $`E^1`$ in the vector bundle $`E`$ involutive if the space $`𝒜^1`$ of sections of $`E^1`$ is closed with respect to the product $``$, i.e., $`𝒜^1`$ is a subalgebra of $`𝒜`$.

###### Theorem 5

Let $`E^1`$ be a smooth regular and involutive distribution in $`E`$. Take $`E^2`$ to be any supplementary smooth distribution and let $`N=P_{E^1}`$ be the projection on $`E^1`$ along $`E^2`$. Then $`N`$ is a Saletan tensor which is Nijenhuis if and only if $`E^2`$ is also involutive. The contracted product reads

$$X_NY=X_1Y_1+(X_1Y_2+X_2Y_1)_2,$$
(18)
where $`X=X_1+X_2`$, etc., is the decomposition with respect to the splitting $`E=E^1E^2`$.

Proof.- It is obvious that the Nijenhuis tensor $`T_N(X,Y)=N(X)N(Y)N(X\stackrel{~}{}_NY)`$ takes values in $`𝒜^1`$, since $`E^1`$ is involutive. Due to regularity, the corresponding contraction exists (Theorem 3). It is easy to see that

$$X\stackrel{~}{}_NY=X_1Y_1+(X_1Y_2+X_2Y_1)_2(X_2Y_2)_1.$$
(19)
Hence, $`T_N(X,Y)=\tau _N(X,Y)=(X_2Y_2)_1`$, so that $`N`$ is a Nijenhuis tensor if and only if $`E^2`$ is also involutive. Finally,

$$X_NY=X\stackrel{~}{}_NY+\tau _N(X,Y)=X_1Y_1+(X_1Y_2+X_2Y_1)_2.$$
(20)
$`\mathrm{}`$

Example 1. Consider a manifold $`M`$ with two foliations $`_1,_2`$ corresponding to a splitting into complementary distributions $`TM=E^1E^2`$. The projection $`N`$ of $`TM`$ onto $`E^1`$ along $`E^2`$ is a Nijenhuis tensor (Theorem 5). The contracted bracket is trivial for two vector fields which are tangent to $`_2`$, it is the standard one for two vector fields which are tangent to $`_1`$ and it is the projection onto $`E^2`$ of the standard bracket of two vector fields of which one belongs to $`_1`$ and the second to $`_2`$.

Example 2. Let $`E`$ be just 1–dimensional trivial bundle over $``$, i.e., $`𝒜=C^{\mathrm{}}()`$. Take $`fg=f^{}g^{}`$ and $`N=\phi I`$, where $`\phi 𝒜`$. Then $`E_p^1=T_p`$ if $`\phi (p)0`$ and $`E_p^1=\{0\}`$ otherwise, so the distribution need not to be regular. We have

$$f\stackrel{~}{}_Ng=\phi f^{}g^{}+\phi ^{}(f^{}g+fg^{})$$

and $`T_N\mu (f,g)=\phi ^{}\phi ^{}fg`$. For instance, if $`\phi (p)=p^2`$ (non–regular case), then

$$T_N\mu (f,g)=4\phi fg,$$

i.e., $`N`$ is not Nijenhuis but satisfies the assumptions of the Theorem. We get

$$f_Ng=f\stackrel{~}{}_Ng+N^1(T_N\mu (f,g))=\phi f^{}g^{}+\phi ^{}(f^{}g+fg^{})+4fg.$$

Example 3. It is easy to see that if $``$ is an associative product, the multiplication by any $`K𝒜`$:

$$N_K:𝒜𝒜,N_K(X)=KX,$$

is a Nijenhuis tensor. In view of Remark 4, the corresponding contraction yields

$$X_{N_K}Y=XKY.$$

This product has been recently used as an alternative product of operators in Quantum Mechanics in connection with deformed oscillators \[MMSZ\], taking up an old idea of Wigner \[Wi\].

Example 4. Another alternative product for Quantum Mechanics can be constructed as a contraction as follows (cf. \[CGM\]). Let now the algebra $`𝒜`$ be the algebra of $`n\times n`$ matrices, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. In the case $`n=\mathrm{}`$ we consider infinite matrices concentrated on the diagonal, i.e., matrices which are null outside a strip of the diagonal. The algebra $`𝒜`$ represents then unbounded operators on a Hilbert space $``$ with a common dense domain. We choose $`𝒜_1`$ to be a subalgebra of upper-triangular matrices and for $`𝒜_2`$ we take the supplementary algebra of strict lower-triangular matrices. Then, the mapping

$$N_\alpha (A)=(1\alpha )A_1+\alpha A$$
(21)
is a Nijenhuis tensor on $`𝒜`$ for every $`\alpha `$. For example, for $`n=2`$, the new associative matrix multiplication has the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}a^{}& b^{}\\ c^{}& d^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}aa^{}+\alpha bc^{}& ab^{}+bd^{}\\ ca^{}+dc^{}& dd^{}+\alpha cb^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(22)
Note that the unit matrix $`I`$ remains the unit for this new product and that inner derivations given by diagonal matrices are the same for both products.

Since the corresponding deformed associative products $`_{N_\alpha }`$ give all the same result if one of factors is a diagonal matrix, in the infinite case $`n=\mathrm{}`$ the Hamiltonian $`H`$ for the harmonic oscillator, $`He_n=ne_n`$, describes the same motion for all deformed brackets. This time, however, $`a^{}_{N_\alpha }a=\alpha H`$, so $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$ commute for $`\alpha =0`$.

## 4 Hierarchy of contractions

Let us have a look at the process of constructing contracted products in a more systematic way. For, denote the linear space of all bilinear products on $`𝒜`$ by $``$, the linear subspace of all bilinear products $`\mu `$ such that $`\mu (X,Y)N^k(𝒜^1)`$ by $`_k^1`$. Note that the distribution $`E^1`$ associated with the (1,1)–tensor field $`N`$(N will be fixed) is the same for all positive powers of $`N`$. Let $`A_N,B_N,C_N:`$ be given by

$`(A_N\mu )(X,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`N(\mu (X,Y)),`$ (23)
$`(B_N\mu )(X,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu (N(X),Y),`$ (24)
$`(C_N\mu )(X,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu (X,N(Y)).`$ (25)
It is easy to see that $`A_N,B_N,C_N`$ generate a commutative algebra of linear operators on $``$ for which $`_k^1`$ are invariant subspaces. Moreover, $`A_{N^k}=(A_N)^k`$, etc. Observe that for the derived product,

$$(\delta _N\mu )(X,Y)=\mu (N(X),Y)+\mu (X,N(Y))N(\mu (X,Y)),$$

we can write

$$\delta _N=B_N+C_NA_N,$$

and for the Nijenhuis torsion,

$$(T_N\mu )(X,Y)=\mu (N(X),N(Y))N(\delta _N\mu (X,Y)),$$

we can write

$$T_N=B_NC_NA_N\delta _N=(A_NB_N)(A_NC_N).$$

The contracted product $`D_N\mu `$ is defined via the formula

$$\mu _N=D_N\mu =\delta _N\mu +\tau _N\mu ,$$

where $`\tau _N\mu ^1`$ is such that $`A_N\tau _N\mu =T_N\mu .`$ Hence

$$A_ND_N\mu =(A_N\delta _N+T_N)\mu =B_NC_N\mu .$$
(26)
If we use $`N^k`$ instead of $`N`$, we can define the corresponding contracted product $`D_{N^k}\mu `$ if only $`T_{N^k}\mu _k^1`$. If this is the case, we call such (1,1)–tensor field $`N`$ a strong Saletan tensor (for $`\mu `$). We have the following:

###### Theorem 6

If $`N`$ is regular (e.g. $`E`$ is over a single point) and $`T_N\mu `$ takes values in $`𝒜^1`$ (i.e., $`N`$ is a Saletan tensor), then $`N`$ is a strong Saletan tensor.

Proof.- Indeed, in this case,

$$T_{N^k}\mu =(A_N^kB_N^k)(A_N^kC_N^k)=\omega (A_N,B_N,C_N)(A_NB_N)(A_NC_N)\mu ,$$

where $`\omega `$ is a polynomial and $`(A_NB_N)(A_NC_N)\mu =T_N\mu _0^1`$, since $`N`$ is a Saletan tensor. We have then $`T_{N^k}\mu _0^1`$, since $`_0^1`$ is an invariant subspace with respect to $`A_N,B_N,C_N`$. But in the regular case $`N^k(𝒜^1)=𝒜^1`$ (Theorem 3), so $`_0^1=_k^1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

There is a nice algebraic condition which assures that the tensor is regular.

###### Theorem 7

Suppose that there is a finite-dimensional $`N`$-invariant subspace $`V`$ in $`𝒜`$ which generates $`𝒜`$ as a $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)module`$, i.e., the sections from $`V`$ span the bundle $`E`$. Then the tensor $`N`$ is regular and it is a strong Saletan tensor if and only if its Nijenhuis torsion takes values in $`𝒜^1`$.

Proof.- Let $`V=V_1V_2`$ be the Riesz decomposition of $`V`$ with respect to $`N`$ (as acting on $`V`$). Since $`N^k(V_2)=\{0\}`$ for a sufficiently large $`k`$, $`V_2𝒜_2`$. Similarly, since $`N(V_1)=V_1`$, $`V_1𝒜_1`$. Since $`V`$ generates $`E`$, we have the decomposition $`E(p)=V_1(p)V_2(p)`$ for any $`pM`$. By the dimension argument, $`V_2(p)=E_2(p)`$ for every $`pM`$, so $`E^2`$ is a smooth distribution and its dimension is constant due to Theorem 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

For Nijenhuis tensors we have the following.

###### Theorem 8

If $`N`$ is a Nijenhuis tensor for the product $`\mu `$ and $`w,v`$ are polynomials, then $`w(N)`$ is a Nijenhuis tensor for $`\delta _{v(N)}\mu `$.

Proof.- N a is Nijenhuis tensor for $`\mu `$, so $`T_N\mu =0`$. Since $`A_{w(N)}=w(A_N)`$, etc., we have

$$T_{w(N)}\delta _{v(N)}\mu =\delta _{v(N)}W(A_N,B_N,C_N)\mu ,$$

where

$$W(x,y,z)=(w(x)w(y))(w(x)w(z))=W_1(x,y,z)(xy)(xz)$$

for certain polynomial $`W_1`$. Hence,

$$T_{w(N)}\delta _{v(N)}\mu =\delta _{v(N)}W_1(A_N,B_N,C_N)T_N\mu =0.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

For any strong Saletan tensor $`N`$ we get a whole hierarchy of contracted products

$$D_{N^k}\mu =\delta _{N^k}\mu +\tau _{N^k}\mu ,k=1,2,\mathrm{}$$

We will show that this is exactly the same hierarchy if we apply the contraction procedure inductively:

$$\mu _0=\mu ,\mu _{k+1}=D_N\mu _k.$$

For the case of Nijenhuis tensors, it is very easy. Indeed, as above, $`N^k`$ are Nijenhuis tensors for $`\mu `$ for any $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`D_{N^k}\mu =\delta _{N^k}\mu `$. To see that $`\delta _{N^k}\mu =(\delta _N)^k\mu `$, it is sufficient to check that

$$\left(\delta _{N^k}(\delta _N)^k\right)\mu =\left((B_N^k+C_N^kA_N^k)(B_N+C_NA_N)^k\right)\mu =0.$$

But the polynomial $`(x^k+y^kz^k)(x+yz)^k`$ vanishes for $`x=z`$ and for $`y=z`$, so that it can be written in the form $`\omega (x,y,z)(zx)(zy)`$. Hence,

$$\left(\delta _{N^k}(\delta _N)^k\right)\mu =\omega (A_N,B_N,C_N)(A_NB_N)(A_NC_N)\mu =0,$$

since $`(A_NB_N)(A_NC_N)\mu =0`$. For an arbitrary strong Saletan tensor the situation is a little bit more complicated. First, we show the following:

###### Lemma 1

With the previous notation, for any strong Saletan tensor and any couple of natural numbers $`i,k`$, we have

$$T_{N^i}D_{N^k}\mu =A_N^i(D_{N^{k+i}}\mu \delta _{N^i}D_{N^k}\mu ).$$
(27)
Proof.- First of all, let us observe that both sides belong to $`_0^1`$.

Indeed, the left hand side equals

$$T_{N^i}(\delta _{N^k}\mu +\tau _{N^k}\mu )=\delta _{N^k}T_{N^i}\mu +T_{N^i}\tau _{N^k}\mu ,$$

and $`T_{N^i}\mu ,\tau _{N^k}\mu _0^1`$, so the left hand side also belongs to $`_0^1`$, due to the invariance of $`_0^1`$. As for the right hand side, we write

$$A_N^i(D_{N^{k+i}}\mu \delta _{N^i}D_{N^k}\mu )=A_N^i(\delta _{N^{k+i}}\mu \delta _{N^i}\delta _{N^k}\mu +\tau _{N^{k+i}}\mu \delta _{N^i}\tau _{N^k}\mu ).$$

Since, similarly as above, $`\tau _{N^{k+i}}\mu `$ and $`\delta _{N^i}\tau _{N^k}\mu `$ belong to $`_0^1`$, it suffices to check that

$$\left(\delta _{N^{k+i}}\delta _{N^i}\delta _{N^k}\right)\mu _0^1,$$

which is straightforward, since

$`\left(\delta _{N^{k+i}}\delta _{N^i}\delta _{N^k}\right)\mu =(B_N^{k+i}+C_N^{k+i}A_N^{k+i}(B_N^i+C_N^iA_N^i)(B_N^k+C_N^kA_N^k))\mu `$ (28)
$`=\omega (A_N,B_N,C_N)(A_NB_N)(A_NC_N)\mu =\omega (A_N,B_N,C_N)T_N\mu _0^1,`$
where we use an analogous polynomial factor argument as above and the invariance of $`_0^1`$. Hence, we can check the following by applying $`A_N^k`$ to both sides of (27) ($`A_N`$ is invertible on $`E^1`$):

$$A_N^kT_{N^i}D_{N^k}\mu =A_N^{i+k}(D_{N^{i+k}}\mu \delta _{N^i}D_{N^k}\mu ).$$

Writing down expressions for $`D_{N^k}\mu `$ and $`D_{N^{k+i}}\mu `$ explicitly, and using

$$A_N^kD_{N^k}\mu =(A_N^k\delta _N^k+T_{N^k})\mu =B_N^kC_N^k\mu ,$$

etc., we get

$`A_N^kT_{N^i}D_{N^k}\mu `$ $`=`$ $`T_{N^i}B_N^kC_N^k\mu =(B_N^iC_N^i\delta _{N^i}A_N^i)B_N^kC_N^k\mu `$ (29)
$`=`$ $`(B_N^{i+k}C_N^{i+k}A_N^i\delta _{N^i}B_N^kC_N^k)\mu `$
$`=`$ $`A_N^{i+k}(D_{N^{i+k}}\mu \delta _{N^i}D_{N^k}\mu ).`$
$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 1

The tensor $`N`$ is a strong Saletan tensor for any of $`D_{N^k}\mu `$, $`k=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$.

###### Theorem 9

If $`N`$ is a strong Saletan tensor for $`\mu `$, then

i) We have a well–defined hierarchy of contracted products $`D_{N^k}\mu `$, $`k=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$.

ii) $`N`$ is a strong Saletan tensor for every $`D_{N^k}\mu `$, $`k=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$.

iii) $`D_{N^i}D_{N^k}\mu =D_{N^{i+k}}\mu `$, for any couple of natural numbers $`i,k`$.

iv) $`N^k`$ is a homomorphism of the product $`D_{N^{i+k}}\mu `$ into $`D_{N^i}\mu `$, for any couple of natural numbers $`i,k`$.

Proof.- We get i) by definition and ii) is just the Corollary above. To prove iii), let us write (27) from Lemma 1 in the form

$$\tau _{N^i}D_{N^k}\mu =D_{N^{k+i}}\mu \delta _{N^i}D_{N^k}\mu .$$

Hence,

$$D_{N^{k+i}}\mu =\delta _{N^i}D_{N^k}\mu +\tau _{N^i}D_{N^k}\mu =D_{N^i}D_{N^k}\mu .$$

Finally, iv) is straightforward. By the result of Lemma 1,

$`N^i(D_{N^{k+i}}\mu (X,Y))`$ $`=`$ $`(A_N^iD_{N^{k+i}}\mu )(X,Y)=(A_N^i\delta _{N^i}+T_{N^i})D_{N^k}\mu (X,Y)`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`B_N^iC_N^iD_{N^k}\mu (X,Y)=D_{N^k}\mu (N^i(X),N^i(Y)).`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2

For any strong Saletan tensor $`N`$ for $`\mu `$,

i) $`N^k(𝒜)`$ is a subalgebra with respect to the product $`D_{N^i}\mu `$;

ii) $`\mathrm{ker}N^k=\{X𝒜N^k(X)=0\}`$ is an ideal of $`D_{N^i}\mu `$, for all $`i>k`$.

## 5 Behaviour of properties of algebraic structures under contraction

Assume that our product $`\mu `$ is a specific one, satisfying some general axioms $`\{(a_\mu ^i)\}`$ of the form

$$(a_\mu ^i)x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n_i}𝒜[w_\mu ^i(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n_i})=0],$$
(33)
where $`w_\mu ^i`$ are $`\mu `$-polynomial functions, and using only universal quantifiers, like

$`(a_\mu ^1)x,y,z,𝒜[\mu (x,\mu (y,z))+\mu (y,\mu (z,x))+\mu (z,\mu (x,y))=0],`$
or

$`(a_\mu ^2)x,y𝒜[\mu (x,y)+\mu (y,x)=0],`$
or

$`(a_\mu ^3)x,y,z𝒜[\mu (x,\mu (y,z))\mu (\mu (x,y),z)=0],`$
but not using existential quantifiers like

$`(a_\mu ^4)1𝒜y𝒜[\mu (1,y)=y=\mu (y,1)].`$
An algebra satisfying $`(a_\mu ^1)`$ and $`(a_\mu ^2)`$ is a Lie algebra, an algebra satisfying $`(a_\mu ^3)`$ is associative, and $`(a_\mu ^4)`$ says that $`𝒜`$ is unital.

###### Theorem 10

If the product $`\mu `$ satisfies axioms of the form (33), then the contracted product $`\mu _N`$ satisfies these axioms.

Proof.- The products $`\mu _N^\lambda =U(\lambda )^1\mu U(\lambda )^2`$ are isomorphic to $`\mu `$, so that they satisfy the same axioms, and equations $`w_{\mu _N^\lambda }^i(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n_i})=0`$ are going to $`w_{\mu _N}^i(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n_i})=0`$ by passing to the limit as $`\lambda 0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. The above theorem implies that a contraction of a Lie algebra is a Lie algebra and a contraction of an associative algebra is an associative algebra. However, it is crucial that the axioms use the universal quantifiers only. For example, the existence of unity ($`a_\mu ^4`$) is, in general, not preserved by contractions as shows the case $`N=0`$. This is because the unit for the product $`\mu _N^\lambda `$ is $`U(\lambda )^1(1)`$ which may have no limit as $`\lambda 0`$.

Definition. We say that products $`\mu ,\mu ^{}`$ satisfying axioms (33) are compatible, if any linear combination $`\mu +\alpha \mu ^{}`$ satisfies these axioms. For instance, two associative products are compatible if and only if its sum is associative as well, etc.

###### Theorem 11

If $`N`$ is a Nijenhuis tensor for $`\mu `$, then the products $`\mu `$ and $`\mu _N=\delta _N\mu `$ are compatible.

Proof.- According to Theorem 3, $`I+\alpha N`$ is a Nijenhuis tensor for $`\mu `$ for any $`\alpha `$. Using now Theorem 10 we see that the product

$$\mu _{(I+\alpha N)}=\delta _{(I+\alpha N)}\mu =\mu +\alpha \mu _N$$

satisfies the axioms of $`\mu `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. If $`N`$ is only a Saletan tensor, the products $`\mu `$ and $`\mu _N`$ are, in general, not compatible. For example, the associative products $`XY`$ and $`X_NY=N^1(N(X)N(Y))`$, for invertible $`N`$, are in general not compatible, i.e., $`XY+X_NY`$ is, in general, not associative.

## 6 Contractions of Lie algebras

Let us consider now the very important particular case of a finite-dimensional Lie algebra $`(E,[,])`$. This corresponds to the vector bundle $`E`$ over a single point with $`𝒜=E`$ and $`\mu =[,]`$. The family $`U(\epsilon )`$ of endomorphisms of the underlying vector space $`V`$ considered by İnönü and Wigner \[IW\] is $`U(\epsilon )=P+\epsilon (IP)`$, where $`P`$ is a projection, and it was later studied by Saletan \[Sa\] in the more general case

$$U(ϵ)=ϵI+(1ϵ)N,$$

for which $`U(0)=N`$ and $`U(1)=I`$. By reparametrizing it with a new parameter $`\lambda =\frac{ϵ}{1ϵ}`$, it is, as shows Theorem 4, equivalent to the contraction

$$[X,Y]_N=\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}U(\lambda )^1[U(\lambda )X,U(\lambda )Y],$$
(34)
with $`U(\lambda )=\lambda I+N`$. In this particular case, the Riesz decomposition $`E=E^1E^2`$ with respect to $`N`$ is regular and, according to our general Theorem 2 and Theorem 3, the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of such a limit is that

$$T_N\mu (X,Y)=[NX,NY]N[NX,Y]N[X,NY]+N^2[X,Y]E^1.$$
(35)
Moreover, we obtain the following expression for the new bracket:

$$[X,Y]_N=N|_{E_1}^1[NX,NY]_1N[X,Y]_2+[NX,Y]_2+[X,NY]_2,$$

where the subscripts refer to the projections onto $`E^1`$ or $`E^2`$. Consequently, Theorem 2 implies

$`N[X,Y]_N=[NX,NY].`$ (36)
Therefore, a necessary condition for the existence of a contraction leading from a Lie algebra to become another one is the existence of a Lie algebra homomorphism of the second into the first one. However, as Levy–Nahas pointed out this is not a sufficient condition \[LN\].

The necessary and sufficient condition as expressed by Gilmore in \[Gi\]:

the contraction exists if and only if

$$N^{p+s}[X,Y]_2N^p[X,N^sY]_2=N^s[N^pX,Y]_2[N^pX,N^sY]_2\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}p,s>0,$$
(37)
can be easily obtained using techniques developed in Section 4. Indeed, in the notation of Section 4, (37) reads

$$(A_N^{p+s}A_N^pC_N^s)\mu _2=(A_N^sB_N^pB_N^pC_N^s)\mu _2,$$
(38)
where $`\mu _2`$ is the projection of the bracket onto $`E_2`$. Since all operators commute among themselves and with the projection, we can write (38) in the form

$`(A_N^sC_N^s)(A_N^pB_N^p)\mu _2`$ $`=`$ $`w(A_N,B_N,C_N)((A_NC_N)(A_NB_N)\mu )_2`$
$`=`$ $`w(A_N,B_N,C_N)(T_N\mu )_2=0,`$
which is true for all $`p,s>0`$ if and only if $`(T_N\mu )_2=0`$, since the polynomial $`w`$ equals $`1`$ for $`p=s=1`$.

Example 5. Using Theorem 5 we get the İnönü-Wigner contraction for Lie algebras. Consider just a splitting $`E=E^1E^2`$ of the Lie algebra $`E`$ into a subalgebra $`E^1`$ and a complementary subspace $`E^2`$. According to Theorem 5, the projection $`N`$ of $`E`$ onto $`E^1`$ along $`E^2`$ is a Saletan tensor with the splitting being also the Riesz decomposition. The resulting bracket is

$$[X,Y]_N=[X_1,Y_1]+[X_1,Y_2]_2+[X_2,Y_1]_2.$$
(39)
To have a particular example, take $`E=su(2)`$ with the basis $`X_1,X_2,X_3`$ satisfying the commutation rules

$$[X_1,X_2]=X_3,[X_2,X_3]=X_1,[X_3,X_1]=X_2.$$
(40)
As for $`E^1`$, take the 1-dimensional subalgebra spanned by $`X_1`$, and let $`E^2`$ be spanned by $`X_2,X_3`$. According to (39), the commutation rules for the contracted algebra read

$$[X_1,X_2]=X_3,[X_2,X_3]=0,[X_3,X_1]=X_2.$$
(41)
One recognizes easily the Lie algebra $`e(2)`$ of Euclidean motions in in a two-dimensional space.

As there were some contractions that could not be explained neither in the framework of İnönü–Wigner \[IW\] nor in that of Saletan \[Sa\], Levy–Nahas proposed a more singular contraction procedure by assuming families $`U(\lambda )=\lambda ^pU_s(\lambda )`$, where $`p`$ and $`U_s(\lambda )=N+\lambda I`$. Following a quite similar path to that of Saletan contractions, one obtains as a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the limit in the $`p=1`$ case,

$$N(T_N(X,Y)_2)=0,$$
(42)
where

$$T_N(X,Y)_2=[NX,NY]_2N[X,NY]_2N[NX,Y]_2+N^2[X,Y]_2$$

is the projection of the Nijenhuis torsion onto $`E^2`$ (cf. with the condition $`T_N(X,Y)_2=0`$ in the standard case). The new bracket is then $`T_N(X,Y)_2`$ For general $`p`$, the condition for the existence of the contraction is $`N^p(T_N(X,Y)_2)=0`$, and the resulted bracket is $`(N)^{p1}T_N(X,Y)_2`$.

For the sake of completeness we will finally mention that other generalized İnönü-Wigner contractions were proposed in \[DM\] and \[WW\].

## 7 Contractions of Lie algebroids

Lie algebroids, which are very common structures in geometry, should be very nice objects for contractions in our sense, since they are, by definition, certain algebra structures on sections of vector bundles. They were introduced by Pradines \[Pr\] as infinitesimal objects for differentiable groupoids, but one can find similar notions proposed by several authors in increasing number of papers (which proves their importance and naturalness). For basic properties and the literature on the subject we refer to the survey article by Mackenzie \[Mac\].

###### Definition 2

A Lie algebroid on a smooth manifold $`M`$ is a vector bundle $`\tau :EM`$, together with a bracket $`\mu =[,]:𝒜\times 𝒜𝒜`$ on the $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$-module $`𝒜=\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ of smooth sections of $`\tau `$, and a vector bundle morphism $`a_\mu :ETM`$, over the identity on $`M`$, from $`E`$ to the tangent bundle $`TM`$, called the anchor of the Lie algebroid, such that

(i) the bracket $`\mu `$ is a Lie algbera bracket on $`𝒜`$ over $``$;

(ii) for all $`X,Y𝒜`$ and all smooth functions $`f`$ on $`M`$ we have

$$\mu (X,fY)=f\mu (X,Y)+a_\mu (X)(f)Y;$$
(43)
(iii) For all $`X,Y𝒜`$,

$$a_\mu (\mu (X,Y))=[a_\mu (X),a_\mu (Y)],$$
(44)
where the square bracket is the Lie bracket of vector fields. In other words, $`a_\mu `$ is a Lie algebra homorphism.

Example 6. Every finite-dimensional Lie algebra $`E`$ is a Lie algebroid as a bundle over a single point with the trivial anchor. More generally, any bundle of Lie algebras is a Lie algebroid with the trivial anchor.

Example 7. There is a canonical Lie algebroid structure on every tangent bundle $`TM`$ with the bracket being the standard bracket of vector fields and the anchor being just the identity map on $`TM`$.

Example 8. There is a natural Lie algebroid associated with a realization of a Lie algebra in terms of vector fields. Suppose $`V`$ is a Lie algebra with the bracket $`[,]`$ with a realization $`\widehat{}:VX(M)`$ in terms of vector fields on a manifold $`M`$. We can view $`V`$ as a subspace of sections on the trivial bundle $`E=M\times V`$ over $`M`$, regarding $`XV`$ as constant sections of $`E`$. There is uniquely defined Lie algebroid structure on $`𝒜=\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)=C^{\mathrm{}}(M,V)`$ such that the Lie algebroid bracket $`\mu `$ and the anchor $`a_\mu `$ satisfy:

(i) $`\mu (X,Y)=[X,Y]`$ for all $`X,YV`$;

(ii) $`a_\mu (X)=\widehat{X}`$ for every $`XV`$.

In other words, identifying $`𝒜`$ with $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)V`$, the Lie algebroid bracket reads

$$\mu (fX,gY)=fg[X,Y]+f\widehat{X}(g)Yg\widehat{Y}(f)X.$$
(45)
Example 9. There is a canonical Lie algebroid structure on the cotangent bundle $`T^{}M`$ associated with a Poisson tensor $`P`$ on $`M`$. This is the unique Lie algebroid bracket $`[,]^P`$ of differential 1-forms for which $`[\mathrm{d}f,\mathrm{d}g]^P=\mathrm{d}\{f,g\}^P`$, where $`\{,\}^P`$ is the Poisson bracket of functions for $`P`$, and the anchor map is just $`P`$ viewed as a bundle morphism $`P:T^{}MTM`$. Explicitly,

$$[\alpha ,\beta ]^P=_{P(\alpha )}\beta _{P(\beta )}\alpha \mathrm{d}P,\alpha \beta .$$
(46)
This Lie bracket was defined first by Fuchssteiner \[Fu\]. We shall comment more on this structure in the next section.

It is interesting that any contraction of a Lie algebroid bracket gives again a Lie algebroid bracket. We start with the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2

If $`\mu `$ is a Lie algebroid bracket on $`𝒜=\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ and $`a_\mu :ETM`$ is the corresponding anchor, then for any $`(1,1)`$–tensor $`N`$ on $`E`$ we have

(i) $`\delta _N\mu (X,fY)=f\delta _N(X,Y)+a_\mu (N(X))(f)Y`$;

(ii) $`T_N\mu (X,fY)=fT_N\mu (X,Y)`$,

for any $`X,Y𝒜`$, $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$.

Proof.- (i) By definition and properties of Lie algebroid brackets,

$`\delta _N\mu (X,fY)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu (N(X),fY)+\mu (X,N(fY))N\mu (X,fY)`$
$`=`$ $`f\mu (N(X),Y)+a_\mu (N(X))(f)Y+f\mu (X,N(Y))`$
$`+a_\mu (X)(f)N(Y)fN\mu (X,Y)+a_\mu (X)(f)N(Y)`$
$`=`$ $`f(\mu (N(X),Y)+\mu (X,N(Y))N\mu (X,Y))+a_\mu (N(X))(f)Y`$
$`=`$ $`f\delta _N\mu (X,Y)+a_\mu (N(X))(f)Y.`$
Here we have used the fact that the multiplication by a function commutes with $`N`$ (i.e., $`N`$ is a tensor).

(ii) We have

$`T_N\mu (X,fY)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu (N(X),N(fY))N\delta _N\mu (X,fY)`$
$`=`$ $`f\mu (N(X),N(Y))+a_\mu (N(X))(f)N(Y)`$
$`fN\delta _N\mu (X,Y)a_\mu (N(X))(f)N(Y)`$
$`=`$ $`f(\mu (N(X),N(Y))N\delta _N\mu (X,Y))=fT_N\mu (X,Y),`$
where we have used (i). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 12

If $`N`$ is a Saletan tensor for a Lie algebroid bracket $`\mu `$ on $`𝒜=\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$, with an anchor map $`a_\mu :ETM`$, then the contracted bracket $`\mu _N`$ is again a Lie algebroid bracket on $`𝒜`$ with the anchor $`a_{\mu _N}=a_\mu N`$.

Proof.- We already know that the contracted bracket $`\mu _N=\delta _N\mu +\tau _N\mu `$ is a Lie bracket. Since $`N`$ is a Saletan tensor, $`\tau _N\mu =N^1T_N\mu `$ is well-defined and clearly satisfies also (ii) of the above Lemma. Thus, using also (i),

$`\mu _N(X,fY)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _N\mu (X,fY)+\tau _N\mu (X,fY)`$
$`=`$ $`f\delta _N\mu (X,Y)+a_\mu (N(X))(f)Y+f\tau _N\mu (X,Y)`$
$`=`$ $`f(\delta _N\mu (X,Y)+\tau _N\mu (X,Y))+a_\mu (N(X))(f)Y`$
$`=`$ $`f\mu _N(X,Y)+a_\mu (N(X))(f)Y,`$
so that $`a_{\mu _N}=a_\mu N`$ can serve for the anchor of $`\mu _N`$. It suffices to check the condition (44):

$`[a_{\mu _N}(X),a_{\mu _N}(Y)]`$ $`=`$ $`[a_\mu (N(X)),a_\mu (N(Y))]`$
$`=`$ $`a_\mu (\mu (N(X),N(Y))=a_\mu (N\mu _N(X,Y)).`$
We have used the identity $`\mu (N(X),N(Y))=N\mu _N(X,Y)`$ which holds for Saletan tensors. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that this type of contractions of Lie algebroids has been already studied by Kosmann-Schwarzbach and Magri in \[KSM\] in the case of Nijenhuis tensors. All results of this section can also be applied to general algebroids as defined in \[GU\].

Example 10. The contracted bracket of vector fields defined in Example 1 defines a new Lie algebroid structure on $`TM`$ with the anchor map being the projection onto the subbundle $`E^1`$ of $`TM`$.

Example 11. Any Saletan contraction of a Lie algebra $`V`$ leads to a contraction of the Lie algebroid associated with an action of $`V`$ on $`M`$, which was described in Example 8. More precisely, if $`N_0`$ is a Saletan tensor for $`V`$, then

$$N:M\times VM\times V,N(fX)=fN_0(X),$$
(47)
is a Saletan tensor for the canonical Lie algebroid bracket on $`𝒜=C^{\mathrm{}}(M)V`$. Indeed, if $`V=V^1V^2`$ is the Riesz decomposition for $`N_0`$, then $`E=E^1E^2`$, with $`E^i=C^{\mathrm{}}(M)V^i`$, is the Riesz decomposition for $`N`$. Moreover, the Nijenhuis torsion $`T_N\mu `$ takes values in $`𝒜^1`$. Indeed, by Lemma 2(ii), the Nijenhuis torsion $`T_N\mu `$ is tensorial, so it suffices to check that on $`V`$ it takes values in $`𝒜^1`$. But on $`V`$ the Nijenhuis torsion of $`N`$ with respect to $`\mu `$ is the same as the Nijenhuis torsion of $`N_0`$ with respect to the bracket on $`V`$, so it takes values in $`V^1𝒜^1`$. Finally, $`E^1`$ is of constant rank, so $`N`$ is regular and hence a Saletan tensor due to Theorem 3. The anchor map for $`\mu _N`$ is $`a_\mu N`$, so $`a_{\mu _N}(fX)=f\widehat{N_0(X)}`$ and the contracted anchor takes values in the module of vector fields generated by the action of the subalgebra $`N_0(V)`$ on $`M`$. In fact, what we get is the Lie algebroid structure on $`M\times V`$ associated with the contracted Lie algebra structure on $`V`$ and the anchor map $`a_\mu N`$.

As a particular example let us take the Lie algebroid on $`S^2\times su(2)`$ associated with the action of the Lie algebra $`su(2)`$ on the 2-dimensional sphere $`S^2=\{(x,y,z)^3:x^2+y^2+z^2=1\}`$ given by (in the notation of Example 5)

$$\widehat{X}_1=y_zz_y,\widehat{X}_2=x_zz_x,\widehat{X}_3=x_yy_x.$$
(48)
From the contraction of $`su(2)`$ into $`e(2)`$, as described in Example 5, we construct a contraction of this Lie algebroid. For the Lie bracket we get

$`\mu _N({\displaystyle f_iX_i},{\displaystyle g_jX_j})`$ $`=`$ $`(f_1\widehat{X}_1(g_1)g_1\widehat{X}_1(f_1))X_1`$
$`+(f_3g_1f_1g_3+f_1\widehat{X}_1(g_2)g_1\widehat{X}_1(f_2))X_2`$
$`+(f_1g_2f_2g_1+f_1\widehat{X}_1(g_3)g_1\widehat{X}_1(f_3))X_3`$
and the anchor reads

$$a_{\mu _N}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}f_iX_i\right)=f_1\widehat{X}_1.$$
(49)
This is the Lie algebroid structure on $`S^2\times e(2)`$ associated with the representation $`\widehat{(X_i)_N}=\delta _1^i\widehat{X}_1`$ of $`e(2)`$ in terms of vector fields on $`S^2`$.

## 8 Poisson contractions

Poisson brackets, being defined on functions, are brackets of sections of 1-dimensional bundles and seem, at the first sight, not to go under our contraction procedures. We shall show that this is not true and that our contraction method shows precisely what contraction of a Poisson tensor should be. The crucial point is that we should think about a Poisson tensor $`P`$ on $`M`$ as defining certain Lie algebroid structure on $`T^{}M`$ rather than defining just the Poisson bracket $`\{,\}^P`$ on functions. Recall from Example 9 that the Lie algebroid bracket on differential forms, associated with $`P`$, reads

$$[\alpha ,\beta ]^P=_{P(\alpha )}\beta _{P(\beta )}\alpha \mathrm{d}P,\alpha \beta .$$
(50)
The anchor map of this Lie algebroid is just $`P`$, viewed as a bundle morphism $`P:T^{}MTM`$, so that $`P`$ can be easily decoded from the Lie algebroid structure. Of course, not all Lie algebroid structures on $`T^{}M`$, even having a Poisson tensor for the anchor map, are of this kind. We just mention that an elegant characterization of Lie algebroid brackets associated with Poisson structures is that the exterior derivative acts as a graded derivative on the corresponding Schouten-like bracket of differential forms, or that this Lie algebroid structure constitutes a Lie bialgebroid (in the sense of Mackenzie and Xu \[MX\]) together with the canonical Lie algebroid structure on the dual, i.e., the tangent bundle $`TM`$.

One can think differently. Suppose we have a skew-symmetric 2-vector field $`P`$, viewed as a bundle morphism $`P:T^{}MTM`$, and we write formally the bracket (50). When do we obtain a Lie algebroid bracket? The answer is very simple (cf.\[KSM\]):

###### Theorem 13

If $`P`$ is a skew 2-vector field, then formula (50) gives a Lie algebroid bracket if and only if $`P`$ is a Poisson tensor.

Let us fix now a Poisson structure $`P`$ on $`M`$ and the Lie algebroid bracket $`\mu ^P=[,]^P`$. Given Saletan tensor $`N`$ for $`\mu ^P`$, we get the contracted bracket $`\mu _N^P`$. It is natural, in the case when $`\mu _N^P`$ is again a Lie algebroid bracket associated with a Poisson tensor (we shall speak about Poisson contraction), to call this tensor a contracted Poisson structure by means of $`N`$. By $`{}_{}{}^{t}N`$ we shall denote the dual bundle morphism of $`N:T^{}MT^{}M`$. In particular, $`{}_{}{}^{t}N:TMTM`$. We almost follow the notation of \[MM, KSM\] but with exchanged roles for $`N`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{t}N`$ which, as it will be seen later, seems to be more appropriate in our case.

###### Theorem 14

A necessary and sufficient condition for the contraction of the Lie algebroid $`\mu ^P`$ associated with a Saletan tensor N to be a Poisson contraction is that

(i) $`PN={}_{}{}^{t}NP`$

and

(ii) $`\mu _N^P=\mu ^{PN}`$.

Proof.- First, assume that the contraction according to $`N`$ is a Poisson contraction. Hence, $`\mu _N^P=\mu ^{P_1}`$ for a Poisson tensor $`P_1`$. But the anchor of $`\mu ^{P_1}`$ is $`P_1`$ and the anchor of $`\mu _N^P`$ is $`PN`$ (Theorem 12). We get then $`P_1=PN`$ and (ii). Since $`PN`$ must be skew-symmetric, $`{}_{}{}^{t}(PN)=PN`$. But $`{}_{}{}^{t}(PN)={}_{}{}^{t}N{}_{}{}^{t}P={}_{}{}^{t}NP`$ and we get (i).

Suppose now (i) and (ii). Since (i) means that $`PN`$ is skew-symmetric and $`\mu _N^P`$ is a Lie algebroid bracket, in view of Theorem 13, the tensor $`PN`$ is a Poisson tensor. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. Bihamiltonian systems, as noticed by Magri \[Mag\], play an important role in the discussion of complete integrability in the sense of Liouville. A geometrical approach to this questions, proposed in \[MM\] (see also \[KSM\]), uses the notion of a Poisson-Nijenhuis structure, i.e., a pair $`(P,N)`$, where $`P`$ is a Poisson tensor on $`M`$ and $`N`$ is a Nijenhuis tensor on the tangent bundle $`TM`$, which satisfy certain compatibility conditions. For contractions of $`\mu ^P`$, we use $`N`$ being a morphism of $`T^{}M`$ rather than of $`TM`$, but of course, by duality, $`{}_{}{}^{t}N:TMTM`$.

In the case when $`N`$ is a Nijenhuis tensor for $`\mu ^P`$, our conditions (i) and (ii) are the same as the compatibility conditions for Poisson-Nijenhuis structure of \[MM, KSM\] with $`N`$ replaced by $`{}_{}{}^{t}N`$. In this case $`\mu ^{PN}\mu _N^P`$ is exactly what in \[KSM\] is denoted by by $`C(P,{}_{}{}^{t}N)`$. Note that Poisson-Nijenhuis structures can be described in terms of Lie bialgebroids \[KS\] (cf. also \[GU1\] for a more general setting).

We do not assume that $`{}_{}{}^{t}N`$ (in our notation) is a Nijenhuis tensor for the canonical Lie algebroid $`TM`$, but that $`N`$ is a Saletan tensor for $`\mu ^P`$ on $`T^{}M`$. It is natural to call a pair $`(P,N)`$, where $`P`$ is a Poisson structure on $`M`$ and $`N`$ is a Saletan tensor for $`\mu ^P`$ satisfying (i) and (ii) of the above theorem, a Poisson-Saletan structure. If $`(P,N)`$ is a Poisson-Saletan structure, then $`(P,{}_{}{}^{t}N)`$ need not be a Poisson-Nijenhuis structure in the sense of \[KSM\], even if we impose that $`N`$ is a Nijenhuis tensor for $`\mu ^P`$, as shows the following example. However, this weaker assumption is sufficient to perform a Poisson contraction and to obtain the contracted Poisson structure $`PN`$. In the case when $`N`$ is a Nijenhuis tensor for $`\mu ^P`$, according to Theorem 11, Lie algebroid brackets $`\mu ^P`$ and $`\mu _N^P=\mu ^{PN}`$ are compatible, so also the Poisson tensors $`P`$ and $`PN`$ are compatible. We can also get a whole hierarchy of compatible Poisson tensors using the results of Section 4.

Example 12. Let $`M=M_1\times M_2`$, where $`M_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, is a manifold. On the product manifold consider the product Poisson structure $`P=P_1\times \{0\}`$, where $`P_1`$ is a Poisson structure on $`M_1`$. Let $`N_2:T^{}M_2T^{}M_2`$ be any $`(11)`$–tensor on $`M_2`$. It induces a tensor $`N:T^{}MT^{}M`$ which on

$$T_{(m_1,m_2)}^{}M=T_{m_1}^{}M_1T_{m_2}^{}M_2$$
(51)
acts by identity on $`T_{m_1}^{}M_1`$ and by $`(N_2)_{m_2}`$ on $`T_{m_2}^{}M_2`$. The $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$-module $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$ of 1-forms on $`M`$ is generated by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M_2)`$ and, as can be easily seen from (50), $`\mu ^P(\alpha ,\beta )=\mu ^{P_1}(\alpha ,\beta )`$ for $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M_1)`$, and $`\mu ^P(\alpha ,\beta )=0`$ when $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M_2)`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M_2)`$ are invariant subspaces for $`N`$, and since $`N`$ acts by identity on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M_1)`$, it follows that $`N`$ is a Nijenhuis tensor for $`\mu ^P`$ and that $`\mu _N^P=\mu ^P=\mu ^{PN}`$. Thus $`(P,N)`$ is a Poisson-Saletan structure. On the other hand, $`{}_{}{}^{t}N=id\times {}_{}{}^{t}N_{2}^{}`$ need not to be a Nijenhuis tensor for $`TM`$, since $`N_2`$ is arbitrary.

However, we have the following weaker result.

###### Theorem 15

If $`N:T^{}MT^{}M`$ is a Nijenhuis tensor for $`\mu ^P`$, then the Nijenhuis torsion of $`{}_{}{}^{t}N:TMTM`$ vanishes on the vector fields from the image of $`P:T^{}MTM`$. In particular, if $`P`$ is invertible, i.e., comes from a symplectic structure, then $`(P,{}_{}{}^{t}N)`$ is a Poisson-Nijenhuis structure is the sense of \[KSM\].

Proof.- Writing down $`T_N\mu ^P=0`$, we get

$$\mu ^P(N(\alpha ),N(\beta ))=N(\mu ^P(N(\alpha ),\beta )+\mu ^P(\alpha ,N(\beta ))N\mu ^P(\alpha ,\beta )).$$
(52)
Applying the anchor $`P`$ to both sides, we get, according to (44),

$$[PN(\alpha ),PN(\beta )]=PN(\mu ^P(N(\alpha ),\beta )+\mu ^P(\alpha ,N(\beta ))N\mu ^P(\alpha ,\beta )).$$
(53)
Using now $`PN={}_{}{}^{t}NP`$ and the fact that anchor is a homomorphism of the brackets once more, we get

$$[{}_{}{}^{t}NP(\alpha ),{}_{}{}^{t}NP(\beta )]={}_{}{}^{t}N([{}_{}{}^{t}NP(\alpha ),P(\beta )]+[P(\alpha ),{}_{}{}^{t}NP(\beta )]{}_{}{}^{t}N[P(\alpha ),P(\beta )]).$$
(54)
The last means exactly that

$$T_{{}_{}{}^{t}N}(P(\alpha ),P(\beta ))=0,$$
(55)
where $`T_{{}_{}{}^{t}N}`$ is the Nijenhuis torsion of $`{}_{}{}^{t}N`$ with respect to the bracket of vector fields. $`\mathrm{}`$ Remark. The property (55), together with the compatibility condition, defines a week Poisson-Nijenhuis structure in the terminology of \[MMP\]. That this week condition is sufficient to get recursion operators was first observed in \[MN\]. Note also that a similar procedure can be applied to Jacobi structures. Jacobi structures give rise to Lie algebroids as was observed in \[KSB\]. Similarly as above, the contraction procedures for these Lie algebroids give rise to a proper concept of a Jacobi-Nijenhuis structure. We refer to \[MMP\] for details.

## 9 Contractions of $`n`$-ary products and coproducts

Let, as before, $`N`$ be a (1,1)-tensor over a vector bundle $`E`$, $`E=E^1E^2`$ be the Riesz decomposition of $`E`$ relative to $`N`$, and $`𝒜,𝒜^1`$ be the spaces of smooth sections of $`E`$ and $`E^1`$, respectively. In complete analogy with binary products, we can consider $`n`$-ary products (resp. coproducts), i.e., linear mappings $`\mu :𝒜^n𝒜`$ (resp. linear mappings $`\mu :𝒜𝒜^n`$) and contractions of them with respect to families $`U(\lambda )=\lambda I+N`$. For an $`n`$-ary product (resp. coproduct) we denote

$$\delta _N\mu =\mu N_n^{n1}N\mu N_n^{n2}+\mathrm{}+(1)^{n1}N^{n1}\mu N_n^0,$$

and, respectively,

$$\delta _N\mu =N_n^{n1}\mu N_n^{n2}\mu N+\mathrm{}+(1)^{n1}N_n^0\mu N^{n1},$$

where $`N_n^k`$ are defined by

$$(\lambda I+N)^n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda ^{nk}N_n^k.$$

An obvious adaptation of the proof of Theorem 2 gives the following.

###### Theorem 16

Let $`\mu :𝒜^n𝒜`$ be a point-wise continuous $`n`$-ary product in $`𝒜`$. Then, for $`U(\lambda )=\lambda I+N`$, the limit

$$\mu _N=\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}(U(\lambda )^1\mu U(\lambda )^n)$$

exists and defines a new (contracted) $`n`$-ary product $`D_N\mu `$ on $`𝒜`$ if and only if the Nijenhuis torsion

$$T_N\mu =\mu N^nN\delta _N\mu $$

takes values in $`N(𝒜^1)`$. If this is the case, then

$$\mu _N=\delta _N\mu +\tau _N\mu ,$$
(56)
where $`N(\tau _N\mu )=T_N\mu `$. Moreover, $`N`$ constitutes a homomorphism of $`(𝒜,\mu _N)`$ into $`(𝒜,\mu )`$:

$$N\mu _N=\mu N^n.$$

A similar theorem for coproducts can be obtained by duality. Since it is much harder to put conditions for existence of contraction at arguments of the Nijenhuis torsion, for simplicity we give an explicit version for the regular case only.

###### Theorem 17

Let $`\mu :𝒜𝒜^n`$ be a point-wise continuous $`n`$-ary coproduct in $`𝒜`$. If $`N`$ is regular, i.e., $`E^1`$ is of constant dimension, then, for $`U(\lambda )=\lambda I+N`$, the limit

$$\mu _N=\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}(U(\lambda )^n\mu U(\lambda )^1)$$

exists and defines a new (contracted) $`n`$-ary coproduct $`D_N\mu `$ on $`𝒜`$ if and only if the Nijenhuis torsion

$$T_N\mu =N^n\mu \delta _N\mu N$$

vanishes on $`𝒜^2`$-the space of sections of $`E^2`$. If this is the case, then

$$\mu _N=\delta _N\mu +\tau _N\mu ,$$
(57)
where $`(\tau _N\mu )=T_N\mu N^1`$ on $`𝒜^1`$ and $`\tau _N\mu =0`$ on $`𝒜^2`$. Moreover, $`N`$ constitutes a homomorphism of $`(𝒜,\mu _N)`$ into $`(𝒜,\mu )`$:

$$\mu _NN=N^n\mu .$$

One can consider more general algebraic structures of the form $`\mu :𝒜^k𝒜^n`$, but this leads to more conditions of contractibility and we will not study these cases in the present paper. Note only that contractions of coproducts, as a part of contractions of Lie bialgebras, appeared already in \[BGHOS\].

## 10 Conclusions

Motivated by physical examples from Quantum Mechanics, we have studied contractions of general binary (or $`n`$-ary) products with respect to one-parameter families of transformations of the form $`U(\lambda )=\lambda A+N`$, generalizing pioneering work by İnönü, Wigner, and Saletan. Our generalization can be applied to many infinite-dimensional cases, especially Lie algebroids and Poisson brackets, however, it does not deal with a generic dependence of the contraction parameter. The problem of describing contractions with respect to general $`U(\lambda )`$, or even differentiable with respect to $`\lambda `$, is much more complicated.

The contraction procedure can be viewed as an inverse of a deformation procedure. Deformations of associative and Lie algebras, at least on the infinitesimal level, are related to some cohomology. It would be interesting to relate formally deformations to contractions and connect the cohomology also to contractions.

We postpone these problems to a separate paper.


text:
# TeV Neutrinos from Successful and Choked Gamma-Ray Bursts

## Jet propagation inside a massive progenitor envelope.

Numerical simulations of collapsar models leading to black hole formation  have been performed for a range of stellar progenitors and initial conditions. The characteristic progenitor structure is that of an evolved massive star, with $`2M_{}`$ Fe core of radius $`10^9`$ cm and $`8M_{}`$ He core extending to $`10^{11}`$ cm, in some cases surrounded by an H envelope extending to $`10^{13}`$ cm (a red supergiant), while in others the envelope has been (largely) lost. While the details remain uncertain, preliminary calculations suggest that a relativistic jet can be launched along the progenitor rotation axis , powered either by thermal $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ annihilation or MHD stresses coupling to the black hole and to the debris disk falling back onto the hole. The jet life time is limited by the gas fall-back time onto the black hole, and should be comparable to GRB durations, $`\text{ }<10^2`$ s. (Similar pair or MHD outflows may also arise from collapses leading to highly magnetized pulsars ).

When $`\gamma `$-rays are observed, the required isotropic equivalent luminosities are $`L_{\mathrm{iso}.}10^{52}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$ and the inferred jet Lorentz factors are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j10^2`$. This is the final value outside the star, which may be representative of the intrinsic injection Lorentz factor. As it advances through the star, the jet drives a bow shock ahead of it. The jet is capped by a termination shock, and a reverse shock moves back into the jet, at which the relativistic jet plasma is decelerated. Both the shocked jet plasma and the shocked stellar plasma advance with a jet head Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ . In the rest frame of the shocked, decelerated plasma, the fast jet moves with a Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j/2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$. During propagation in the Fe and He cores, the high density ahead of the jet implies deceleration of jet plasma to subrelativistic velocity. However, beyond the He core edge at $`r10^{11}`$ cm, the density in an H envelope drops to $`\rho 10^7\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and the jet can accelerate to relativistic velocity  (c.f. also . Balancing the energy density behind the forward shock, $`4\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^2\rho c^2`$, with that behind the reverse shock, $`4(\mathrm{\Gamma }_j/2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h)^2n_jm_pc^2`$, where the jet proper proton number density $`n_j=L_{\mathrm{iso}}/(4\pi r^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^2m_pc^3)`$, we find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_h=3\frac{L_{52}^{1/4}}{r_{12}^{1/2}\rho _7^{1/4}},$$
(1)
where $`L_{\mathrm{iso}}=10^{52}L_{52}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$, $`r=10^{12}r_{12}`$ cm is the shock radius, and $`\rho =10^7\rho _7\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

The jet head propagates at mildly relativistic velocity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ up to a typical super-giant H envelope radius $`r10^{13}`$ cm (and if it makes it through entirely, in the even lower density beyond it would increase back to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j10^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$). Envelopes larger than $`R_{}10^{13}R_{13}`$ cm, or denser cores, e.g. due to slower rotation rate, could however lead to a stalling of the jet before it breaks through the star, if the jet crossing time is longer than the jet lifetime (as argued by, e.g. ).

The proper number density $`n`$ of protons and electrons in the shocked, decelerated jet plasma is related to the proper density $`n_j`$ in the fast moving jet through $`n=4(\mathrm{\Gamma }_j/2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h)n_j`$, and the energy density in the shocked plasma is $`U=4(\mathrm{\Gamma }_j/2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h)^2n_jm_pc^2`$. The hot, shocked jet plasma drives the bow shock wave that propagates forward (radially) and sideways (tangentially) into the envelope. For a jet of small opening angle $`\theta <1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ , the proper thickness of the shocked jet plasma shell is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta r`$. This can be seen by balancing the particle flux across the reverse shock, $`\pi (\theta r)^2c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_j/2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h)n_j`$, with the tangential flux of particles leaving the cylinder of height $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and radius $`\theta r`$ of shocked plasma, $`2\pi \theta r\mathrm{\Delta }(c/\sqrt{3})4(\mathrm{\Gamma }_j/2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h)n_j`$ (taking the tangential flow velocity to be comparable to the sound speed in the shocked plasma). Adopting $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2\theta r`$ and $`\theta =10^1\theta _1`$, the Thomson optical depth of the shocked plasma shell is

$$\tau _T4\times 10^3\frac{\theta _1L_{52}}{r_{12}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h},$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j=10^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$.

The reverse shock may start out being collisionless, heating the electrons and protons to $`10^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ GeV. However, the electrons would lose all their energy on very short time scale, by synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission, converting a large fraction of the shocked plasma internal energy $`U`$ to radiation. Due to the high optical depth, the radiation will thermalize, with an approximate black body radiation temperature

$$T_r4\left(\frac{L_{52}}{r_{12}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^2}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{keV}.$$
(3)
The corresponding proper photon number density is

$$n_\gamma 2\times 10^{24}\left(\frac{L_{52}}{r_{12}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^2}\right)^{3/4}\mathrm{cm}^3.$$
(4)
Thus, the reverse shock is likely to become radiation dominated, i.e. the dissipation of jet kinetic energy may be mediated by inverse-Compton scattering of the electrons, whose mean-free-path is $`1/n_\gamma \sigma _T1`$ cm, where $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thomson cross section, and electrons lose all their momentum in a small number of scatterings (scattering of a thermal photon boosts its energy to $`10(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_h)^2`$ MeV in the shocked plasma frame).

The mean-free-path of thermal photons propagating back into the jet, in the decelerated plasma frame, is

$$l_\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_h/(2\mathrm{\Gamma }_jn_j\sigma _T)=5\times 10^6\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_hr_{12}^2}{L_{52}}\mathrm{cm}.$$
(5)
Thus, the thermal photons do not penetrate much into the jet. If the reverse shock is indeed radiation dominated, the shock thickness would also be of order $`l_\gamma `$.

## Photo-meson Interactions and Neutrinos.

In addition to the bow and reverse shocks moving with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ in the star, internal shocks in the pre-deceleration jet moving with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ are expected to occur at radii

$$r_s\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^2c\delta t=3\times 10^{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2\delta t_3\mathrm{cm},$$
(6)
which are smaller than the termination and reverse shock radius. Here $`\delta t`$ is the variability timescale of the injected relativistic outflow, whose minimum value s $`10^3\delta t_3`$ s . While the details could depend on the ratio of MHD to pair and baryon energy, it is commonly assumed that internal shocks are mildly relativistic in the jet frame, and protons will be Fermi accelerated to a power law distribution which approximates $`dn_p/dϵ_pϵ_p^2`$ (see  for detailed discussion).

As they approach the reverse shock, high energy protons may produce pions in photo-meson interactions with thermal photons of energy $`ϵ_\gamma T_r4`$ keV, provided their energy (measured in the decelerated plasma frame) satisfies $`ϵ_pϵ_\gamma 0.3\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, i.e. for $`ϵ_p10^5`$ GeV. The maximum energy to which protons may be accelerated in the internal shocks is limited by synchrotron losses. The acceleration time, in the jet frame, to observed energy $`ϵ_p^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_hϵ_p`$, corresponding to energy $`ϵ_p`$ in the decelerated plasma frame, is approximately

$$t_a\frac{R_L}{c}=\frac{ϵ_p^{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_jeB}=10^{6.5}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h\delta t_3}{(L_{52}\xi _{B,2})^{1/2}}ϵ_{p,15}\mathrm{s},$$
(7)
while the (jet frame) time scale for synchrotron losses, which dominate at high energy, is

$$t_{\mathrm{syn}}=\frac{6\pi m_p^4c^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}{\sigma _Tm_e^2ϵ_p^{}B^2}=10^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^7\delta t_3^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_hL_{52}\xi _{B,2}ϵ_{p,15}}\mathrm{s}.$$
(8)
Here, $`ϵ_p=10^{15}ϵ_{p,15}`$ eV, $`R_L`$ is the Larmor radius and $`\xi _B=10^2\xi _{B,2}`$ is the magnetic field equipartition fraction, $`4\pi r_s^2c\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^2B^2/8\pi =\xi _BL_{\mathrm{iso}.}`$. Thus, protons may be accelerated to energies well above the pion threshold.

Protons at the threshold energy, for which the thermal photons are at the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-resonance, lose $`20\%`$ of their energy in each interaction. Inside the jet, the thermal photon density drops exponentially with the distance $`x`$ from the reverse shock, $`n_\gamma (x)\mathrm{exp}(x/l_\gamma )`$, and resonant protons will lose all their energy to pion production at a distance $`x`$ from the termination shock where the photon density satisfies

$$n_\gamma ^\pi 5/(l_\gamma \sigma _{p\gamma })=2\times 10^{21}\frac{L_{52}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_hr_{12}^2}\mathrm{cm}^3.$$
(9)
Here, $`\sigma _{p\gamma }=5\times 10^{28}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ is the cross section at resonance. Typically, resonant protons and neutrons (which are produced with $`\pi ^+`$’s in proton photo-pion interactions) will lose their energy at $`x/l_\gamma 10`$, while higher energy nucleons, for which $`\sigma _{p\gamma }`$ is lower, will lose their energy to pions at shorter distance.

The pions produced in photo-meson interactions lose energy by inverse-Compton scattering on thermal photons. The lowest energy pions produced are characterized by Lorentz factors comparable to those of the resonant protons, $`10^5(T_r/4\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^1`$ in the decelerated plasma frame. Inverse-Compton scattering of $`4`$ keV photons by pions of higher energy is in the Klein-Nishina regime. Thus, the inverse-Compton energy loss time of high energy pions is $`\tau _{IC}[3n_\gamma ^\pi \sigma _T(m_e/m_\pi )^2c/8]^1(ϵ_\pi /10^{13}\mathrm{eV})(T_r/4\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})`$. The ratio of $`\tau _{IC}`$ to the pion life time is

$$\frac{\tau _{IC}}{\tau _{\mathrm{decay}}}5\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^{1/2}\left(\frac{r_{12}^2}{L_{52}}\right)^{3/4}.$$
(10)
We therefore expect $`1/4`$ of the energy lost by protons to pion production to be converted to muon neutrinos ($`1/2`$ of the energy is lost to neutral pion production, and $`1/2`$ of the charged pion energy is converted by decay into muon neutrinos).

If the termination shock is collisionless, rather than radiative, protons may be accelerated to energies exceeding the photo-meson threshold also in the termination shock. However, it is clear form Eq. (10) that inverse-Compton losses of the pions in the high density photon field prevent the production of very high energy neutrinos from protons accelerated in the termination shock.

The $`\nu _\mu (\overline{\nu }_\mu ,\nu _e,\overline{\nu }_e)`$ from pion decays due to protons accelerated in internal shocks will have a typical energy $`510\%ϵ_p`$. We therefore expect a flat power per decade neutrino spectrum , $`ϵ_\nu ^2dn_\nu /dϵ_\nu ϵ_\nu ^0`$, at

$$ϵ_\nu 2\left(\frac{1+z}{2}\right)^1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^{3/2}r_{12}^{1/2}}{L_{52}^{1/4}}\mathrm{TeV}.$$
(11)
We note, that since photons propagating backward into the jet are emitted from a region of shocked, decelerated plasma with small optical depth, the spectrum of photons with which protons interact may differ from thermal. In particular, a non-thermal extension of the photon spectrum to energies $`T_r`$ may lead to an extension of the neutrino spectrum to energies $`<1`$ TeV. A detailed calculation of the photon spectrum is, however, beyond the scope of this Letter.

The jet isotropic-equivalent luminosity, $`L_{\mathrm{iso}.}10^{52}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$, and energy, $`E_{\mathrm{iso}.}10^{53}`$ erg, are inferred from $`\gamma `$-ray observations, and reflect the energy of electrons accelerated to high energy by the internal, mildly-relativistic collisionless shocks. Protons are generally expected to be accelerated in such shocks with higher efficiency (see e.g.  for review). We therefore assume that the accelerated proton energy is at least comparable to that inferred from observations to be carried by accelerated electrons (see also ). A large fraction of this accelerated proton energy will be converted, while the jet is inside the envelope, to pions. The envelope is transparent to TeV neutrinos, and the expected TeV neutrino fluence at Earth from a jet at a luminosity distance $`D_L10^{28}`$ cm (redshift $`z1`$) is

$$F_{\nu _\mu (\overline{\nu }_\mu ,\nu _e,\overline{\nu }_e}\frac{E/8}{4\pi D_L^2}=10^5\frac{E_{53}}{D_{28}^2}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{cm}^2,$$
(12)
where $`E_{\mathrm{iso}.}=10^{53}E_{53}`$ erg.

The probability that a muon neutrino will produce a high-energy upward moving muon in a terrestrial detector is approximately given by the ratio of the muon range to the neutrino mean free path , $`P_{\nu \mu }1.3\times 10^6ϵ_{\nu ,\mathrm{TeV}}^\beta `$, with $`\beta =2`$ for $`ϵ_{\nu ,\mathrm{TeV}}<1`$ and $`\beta =1`$ for $`ϵ_{\nu ,\mathrm{TeV}}>1`$. For a flat neutrino spectrum, this implies that the number flux $`J_\mu `$ of muon induced neutrinos can be related to the neutrino energy flux $`F_\nu `$ by $`J_\mu =(P_0/ϵ_{\nu ,0})F_\nu `$, with $`P_0/ϵ_{\nu ,o}=1.3\times 10^6\mathrm{TeV}^1`$. Using Eq. (12), the average number of upward muon detections for an individual burst is

$$N_\mu \frac{P_0}{E_0}\frac{E/4}{4\pi D_L^2}=0.2\frac{E_{53}}{D_{28}^2}\mathrm{km}^2.$$
(13)
## Implications.

The typical angular resolution of planned neutrino telescopes at TeV energies (see  for a review) should be $`\theta 1`$ degree. The atmospheric neutrino background flux is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu ,bkg}10^7ϵ_{\nu ,\mathrm{TeV}}^{2.5}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1\text{ster}^1`$, implying a number of $`>1`$ TeV background events $`N_{bkg}10^4(\theta /\text{deg})^2t_2\mathrm{km}^2`$ per angular resolution element over a burst duration of $`10^2t_2`$ s. Thus, the neutrino signals from individual collapses at $`z1`$ would stand out with high statistical significance above the background.

The rate of $`\gamma `$-ray-detectable GRB events, resulting from successful breakthroughs of jets beamed towards Earth, is $`10^3`$/year . The predicted neutrino signal, $`0.2/\mathrm{km}^2`$ muon events/burst at $`ϵ_{\nu _\mu }\text{ }>5`$ TeV \[Eq. (13)\], would precede by $`t_{cross}\text{ }<t_j=10^2t_2`$ s the GRB trigger. Its detection would be a test of the collapsar hypothesis for long GRB, and the duration of the neutrino precursor would constrain the dimensions of, and jet advance speed in, the stellar envelope. In this case the absence (or a much reduced duration) of $`\nu `$-precursors in short GRB would be a test of the view that long and short GRB arise from qualitatively different progenitors.

The signals from both emerging and choked-off jets in equation (13) are calculated for “mean” events, i.e. for $`E_{iso}10^{53}E_{53}`$ erg, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j10^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ and $`z1`$. The total fireball jet energy and bulk Lorentz factors will, however, be distributed around these mean values, and fluctuations around the mean in these quantities and in the distance will lead to detections dominated by rare, energetic nearby events, as argued for GRB . Thus, one could expect a significant number of neutrino bursts (few/year) with $`N_\mu \text{ }>10/\mathrm{km}^2`$ muon events/burst. These should be easily distinguishable above the atmospheric neutrino background at $`z1`$, whether coincident with observed GRB or not.

The number of collapsars with Earth-pointing choked jets, while model-dependent, may be in excess of the number of successful collapsar GRB (where jet punch-through occurs and $`\gamma `$-rays are detected), $`\text{ }>10^3`$/year. If jet punch-through requires fast core rotation rate, e.g. from a massive star merger with a binary companion in a fraction of cases, choked collapsars could greatly exceed successful ones. The number of massive collapses may, e.g., be comparable to that of type II supernovae (SNe II), $`3\times 10^2`$/year/galaxy. For a galaxy density $`n_G10^2`$/Mpc3 within a Hubble radius $`3`$ Gpc ($`z1`$) the total rate of SNe II is $`_{SN}1`$ s-1. If all SNe II lead to jets beamed into a solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j10^24\pi `$ (e.g. ), the effective rate beamed towards Earth would be $`10^5`$/year. From equation (12), the $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ energy flux per logarithmic energy interval from all directions would be $`ϵ_\nu ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu 10^7\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{sr}`$, where we divided by $`\mathrm{ln}(ϵ_{\nu ,max}/ϵ_{\nu ,min})10`$. This signal is not far below the experimental upper bound on the diffuse neutrino flux recently established by the AMANDA experiment, $`ϵ_\nu ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu 10^6\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{sr}`$ . An increase in neutrino telescope exposure will therefore allow in the near future to put relevant constraints on the frequency of $`\gamma `$-ray dark $`\nu `$-bursts from choked jets, and hence on the frequency of core collapses at the poorly known high end of the stellar mass distribution. (Unfavorably aligned emerging jets would also appear $`\gamma `$-ray dark, but would be neutrino-dark as well).

The TeV neutrino signals preceding the $`\gamma `$-rays in GRB, as well as those from choked, $`\gamma `$-ray dark jets, would differ significantly from other neutrino signals expected during and after the $`\gamma `$-ray phase of GRB. In the latter, one expects $`\text{ }>100`$ TeV neutrinos  from internal shocks well beyond the stellar envelope accelerating protons that interact with MeV photons, or $`\text{ }>10^{17}`$ eV neutrinos  from external shock protons interacting with UV photons even further out, and one also expects 2-5 GeV neutrinos  from inelastic nuclear collisions when neutrons decouple from protons. For the flat $`ϵ_\nu ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$ neutrino spectra considered here, the number of precursor TeV neutrino events per burst is also larger by at least one order of magnitude, relative to those at $`\text{ }>100`$ TeV and at GeV expected during and after the $`\gamma `$-bright phase of GRB. Such GRB precursor or $`\gamma `$-ray dark TeV neutrino burst signals may therefore be the likeliest targets for early detection with planned km3 experiments .

If, as suspected, the first generations of stars formed in the Universe are much more massive than those forming now, then at redshifts $`z\text{ }>5`$ jet break-through collapses may be rare, and $`\gamma `$-ray dark choked jet collapses leading to TeV neutrinos may be much more common than today. Without an emerging jet, the X-ray, optical, IR and radio afterglows typical of GRB would also be absent. Such neutrino bursts, which at $`z5`$ produce a $`1`$ TeV fluence smaller by only a factor of $`10`$ compared to $`z1`$ bursts, would therefore be a prime tool for investigating both successful and failed GRB, as well as massive star formation at such high redshifts.

Acknowledgements: Partial support was received from BSF 9800343, Universities Planning & Budget Committee, Israel, NSF AST0098416 and NASA NAG5-9192.