text:
# Symplectically aspherical manifolds

### Introduction

We say that the symplectic form $`\omega `$ on a smooth manifold $`M`$ is symplectically aspherical if

$$_{S^2}f^{}\omega =0,$$

for every map $`f:S^2M`$. In cohomological terms, it means that

$$[\omega ],h(a)=0$$

for all $`a\pi _2(M)`$, where $`h:\pi _2(M)H_2(M)`$ is the Hurewicz homomorphism. Frequently one writes the last equality as $`[\omega ]|_{\pi _2(M)}=0`$.

By the definition, a symplectically aspherical manifold is a connected smooth manifold which admits a symplectically aspherical symplectic form. The importance of symplectically aspherical manifolds in symplectic geometry and topology is well-known, see e.g. \[F, H, LO, R2, RO, RT\].

Clearly, every manifold $`M`$ with $`\pi _2(M)=0`$ is symplectically aspherical whenever it admits a symplectic structure. On the other hand there are some reasons to know whether there are symplectically aspherical manifolds with $`\pi _2(M)0`$, see e.g. \[G2\]. Examples of such manifolds were given in \[G2\] as some 4-dimensional closed manifolds obtained as branched coverings.

The starting point of this paper was searching for fundamental groups of symplectically aspherical manifolds. It is well known that every finitely presented group can be realized as the fundamental group of a closed symplectic manifold, \[G1\]. However, not every such group can be realized as the fundamental group of a closed symplectically aspherical manifold. For example, the trivial (or, more generally, any finite) group cannot.

According to what we have said above, it is interesting to compare the fundamental groups of symplectically aspherical manifolds having $`\pi _2(M)=0`$ with these ones having $`\pi _2(M)0`$. Definitely, the first class of groups is not contained in the second one (for example, the group $``$ does not belong to the second class, cf. Proposition 5.4 ), but we do not know whether the second class is contained in the first one. We also found some interesting dimensional phenomena: for instance, the group $`^{10}`$ can be realized as the fundamental group of a closed symplectically aspherical manifold $`M^{2n}`$ with $`2n5`$ but cannot for $`n>5`$.

However, later we realized that we need more knowledge on symplectically aspherical manifolds in themselves. For example, in order to use the van Kampen Theorem we must know that certain push-outs are symplectically aspherical. Because of this, we prove some results on contructions which respect symplectic asphericity. For example, we found some condition which force the Gompf symplectic sum to be symplectically aspherical.

So, the paper is divided into 2 parts: In the first one we discuss symplectic asphericity of manifolds, in the second one we discuss the fundamental groups of symplectically aspherical manifolds. See the table of contents for details.

We identify de Rham cohomology of a manifold $`M`$ with $`H^{}(M;)`$.

Following \[LO\], we call a closed connected manifolod $`M^{2n}`$ cohomologically symplectic or, brielfy, c-symplectic if there exists a class $`aH^2(M;)`$ with $`a^n0`$.

Acknowledgement: The paper was supported by MCyT, project BFM 2002-00788, Spain. The first author was partially supported by the project UPV/EHU 00127.310-EA-7781/2000, Spain. The second author is a member of European Differential Geometry Endeavour (EDGE), Research Training Network HPRN-CT-2000-00101, supported by The European Human Potential Programme. The third author was partially supported by Max-Planck Institute of Mathematics, Bonn, Germany, and by the free-term research money from the University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. The fourth author acknowledges the support of the Polish Committee for the Scientific Research (KBN).

We are grateful to Vladimir Chernov and Dusa McDuff for useful discussions and valuable advices.

### 1. Preliminaries

First, we fix the following fact.

###### 1.1 Proposition.

Let $`\omega `$ be a symplectically aspherical form on a manifold $`N`$, and let $`g:MN`$ be a map such that $`g^{}\omega `$ is a symplectic form on $`M`$. Then $`M`$ is symplectically aspherical. In particular, a covering manifold over symplectically aspherical manifold is symplectically aspherical. $`\mathrm{}`$

We need the following homotopic characterization of symplectically aspherical manifolds. Given a group $`\pi `$, recall that the Eilenberg–Mac Lane space $`K(\pi ,1)`$ is defined to be a connected $`CW`$-space with the fundamental group $`\pi `$ and such that $`\pi _i(K(\pi ,1)=0`$ for $`i>1`$. It follows from the elementary obstruction theory that the homotopy type of such space is completely determined by $`\pi `$

###### 1.2 Proposition.

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a smooth manifold manifold, let $`\omega `$ be a symplectic form on $`M`$, and let $`K`$ denote the Eilenberg–Mac Lane space $`K(\pi _1(M),1)`$. The following three conditions are equivalent:

(i) the form $`\omega `$ is symplectically aspherical;

(ii) there exists a map $`f:MK`$ which induces isomorphism on the fundamental groups and such that

$$[\omega ]\mathrm{Im}\{f^{}:H^2(K,)H^2(M,)\};$$

(iii) there exists a map $`f:MK`$ such that

$$[\omega ]\mathrm{Im}\{f^{}:H^2(K;)H^2(M,)\}.$$

Proof. See \[RT, Corollary 2.2\], cf. also \[LO, Lemma 4.2\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

As usual, we say that a closed form $`\alpha `$ on $`M`$ is integral if the cohomology class $`[\alpha ]H^{}(M;)`$ comes from integral cohomology, i.e. that $`\alpha ,a`$ for all $`aH_{}(M)`$.

###### 1.3 Proposition.

Let $`M`$ be a symplectically aspherical manifold such that $`H_2(M;)`$ is a finite dimensional vector space over $``$. Then $`M`$ admits an integral symplectically aspherical form. In particular, it holds if $`M`$ is a closed symplectically aspherical manifold.

Proof. We represent $`H_2(M;)`$ as a direct sum

$$H_2(M;)=\mathrm{Im}(h(\pi _2(M)))W$$

where $`h`$ is the Hurewicz homomorphism.

Let $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_k\}`$ be a family in $`H_2(M)`$ which yields an $``$-basis of $`H_2(M;)`$. We can and shall assume that $`W`$ is spanned by $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_l\}`$, $`lk`$. Let $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _k`$ be closed 2-forms sush that $`[\sigma _i],a_j=\delta _{ij}`$.

Choose a symplectically aspherical form $`\omega `$ on $`M`$ and consider the form

$$\eta =\omega +\lambda _1\sigma _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _l\sigma _l.$$

It is clear that $`\eta `$ is a symplectic form for $`\lambda _i`$ small enough and that $`\eta |_{\pi _2(M)}=0`$. Furthermore, we can always choose $`\lambda _i`$ such that $`\eta ,a`$ for all $`aH_2(M)`$. Now, the form $`N\eta `$ is integral for $`N`$ large enough. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we fix more properties of closed symplectically aspherical manifolds.

###### 1.4 Corollary.

Let $`\omega `$ be a symplectically aspherical form on a closed manifold $`M^{2n}`$, let $`[M]H_{2n}(M;)`$ be the fundamental class, and let $`f:MK=K(\pi _1(M),1)`$ be a map as in Proposition 1.2(iii). Then $`f_{}[M]0H_{2n}(K;)`$.

Proof. Since $`[\omega ]=f^{}(a)`$ for some $`aH^2(K;)`$, we conclude that

$$0\omega ^n,[M]=f^{}(a^n),[M]=a^n,f_{}[M],$$

and thus $`f_{}[M]0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 1.5 Corollary.

The fundamental group of a closed symplectically aspherical manifold is infinite.

Proof. Suppose that there exists a closed symplectically aspherical manifold $`M`$ with finite fundamental group. Passing to the (finite) universal covering, we can assume that $`M`$ is symply connected. Then the Hurewicz homomorphism $`\pi _2(M)H_2(M)`$ is an isomorphism. On the other hand, $`[\omega ]0H^2(M;)`$ since $`M`$ is closed, and so $`\omega ,a0`$ for some $`aH_2(M)=\pi _2(M)`$. But this contradicts symplectic asphericity. $`\mathrm{}`$

## Part I Basic examples and constructions of symplectically aspherical manifolds

### 2. Homogeneous spaces

Now we describe some classes of symplectically aspherical groups. For this purpose, we recall several notions.

A lattice in a Lie group $`G`$ is a discrete subgroup $`\pi G`$. A lattice $`\pi `$ in $`G`$ is called uniform if $`G/\pi `$ is compact.

###### 2.1 Definition.

A Lie group $`G`$ is called completely solvable, if any adjoint linear operator $`adV:𝔤𝔤`$ of the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ of $`G`$ has only real eigenvalues.

It is well known that every completely solvable Lie group is solvable, \[VGS\] .

###### 2.2 Lemma.

Let $`G`$ be a completely solvable simply connected Lie group, and let $`\pi G`$ be a uniform lattice in $`G`$. Suppose that the closed manifold $`M=G/pi`$ is c-symplectic. Then $`M`$ admits a symplectic structure. Finally, $`M=K(\pi _1(M),1)`$. In particular, $`\pi _2(M)=0`$, and therefore $`M`$ is symplectically aspherical.

Proof. Since $`M`$ is c-symplectic, there exists a cohomology class $`\alpha H^2(M,)`$ such that $`\alpha ^n0H^{2n}(M;)`$. Since $`G`$ is completely solvable then, by the Hattori theorem \[Ha\], there is an isomorphism

$$H^{}(M;)H^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤^{},\delta ),$$

where $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤^{},\delta )`$ denotes the standard Chevalley–Eilenberg complex for the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. Therefore $`\alpha `$ can be represented by a closed differential 2-form $`\omega `$ whose pullback $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ to $`G`$ is a left-invariant form. Furthermore, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ is non-degenerate since it is left-invariant and $`[\stackrel{~}{\omega }]^n0`$ on $`H^{2n}(\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤^{},\delta )`$. Hence, $`\omega `$ is non-degenerate, and so $`(M,\omega )`$ is a symplectic manifold.

Finally, $`G`$ is solvable, and hence $`G`$ is diffeomerphic to the Euclidean space. So, $`\pi _k(G)=0`$ for $`k>1`$, and thus $`M=K(\pi _1(M),1)`$ since $`G`$ is the universal cover of $`M`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Obviously, the class of completely solvable Lie groups contains all nilpotent Lie groups. So, every c-symplectic nilmanifold $`M`$ is symplectically aspherical. (Recall that a nilmanifold is defined to be a manifold of the form $`G/\pi `$ where $`\pi `$ is a uniform lattice in a simply connected nilpotent Lie group $`G`$.)

###### 2.3 Corollary.

Every orientable $`4`$-dimensional nilmanifold $`M`$ is symplectically aspherical.

Proof. It suffices to prove that $`M`$ is c-symplectic. It is well known that $`H^2(M;)0`$. (You can use classification of 4-dimensional nilmanifolds, \[VGS\], or notice that $`b_1(M)>1`$ while $`\chi (M)=0`$.) Take any $`aH^2(M;),a0`$. Then, by Poincaré duality, there exists $`bH^2(M;)`$ with $`ab0`$. Since $`ab=ba`$, we have

$$(a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2,$$

and so at least one of elements $`a^2,b^2`$ or $`(a+b)^2`$ must be non-zero. Thus, $`M`$ is a c-symplectic manifold. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 2.4 Example.

Here we show how to construct symplectically aspherical closed Kähler manifolds. Tori, products of complex curves and hyperplane sections of these manifolds give us examples of symplectically aspherical algebraic (and therefore Kähler) manifolds. Another source of such examples is based on the following construction. Let $`G`$ be a semisimple simply-connected Lie group of non-compact type, and let $`K`$ be a maximal compact connected subgroup of $`G`$. If the homogeneous space $`G/K`$ is a symmetric Hermitian space then $`G/K`$ turns out to be a Kähler manifold with the invariant Kähler metric. All such pairs $`(G,K)`$ are listed in \[He, Ch. IX\]. Moreover, every such group $`G`$ contains a uniform lattice $`\pi `$, \[VGS\]. Hence, $`M:=\pi \backslash G/K`$ is a closed Kähler manifold with the fundamental group $`\pi `$. Finally, $`M=K(\pi _1(M),1`$ since $`G/K`$ is diffeomorphic to Euclidean space, and thus $`M`$ is symplectically aspherical.

### 3. Gompf symplectic sum and symplectic asphericity

Here we discuss situations when the Gompf symplectic sum turns out to be a symplectically aspherical manifold.

First, recall the construction of the connected sum of two manifolds along a submanifold, with the aim to emphasize the symplectic version of this construction, \[G1\] .

Let $`M_1^n,M_2^n`$ and $`N^{n2}`$ be smooth closed oriented manifolds (not necessarily connected), of dimensions $`n`$ and $`n2`$, respectively. Assume that we are given two embeddings $`j_1:NM_1`$ and $`j_2:NM_2`$, with the normal bundles $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$, respectively, such that their Euler classes differ only by sign: $`e(\nu _1)=e(\nu _2)`$. It turns out to be that there exists an orientation-reversing bundle isomorphism $`\alpha :\nu _1\nu _2`$. Let $`V_i`$ denote a tubular neighborhood of $`j_i(N)`$, which we identify with the total space of $`\nu _i`$. Then $`\alpha `$ yields a diffeomorphism $`\psi :V_1V_2`$, which maps $`j_1(N)`$ to $`j_2(N)`$. Then $`\psi `$ determines an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism

$$\phi :(V_1j_1(N))(V_2j_2(N)),\phi =\theta \psi ,$$

where

$$\theta (p,v)=(p,\frac{v}{v^2})$$

is a diffeomorphism which turns each punctured normal fiber inside out.

###### 3.1 Definition.

Let $`M_1_\psi M_2`$ denote the smooth, closed oriented manifold obtained from the disjoint union $`M_1(j_1(N))M_2(j_2(N))`$ via gluing $`V_1j_1(N)`$ and $`V_2j_2(N)`$ by $`\phi `$:

$$M_1_\psi M_2=M(j_1(N)j_2(N))/$$

where $`ab`$ if and only if $`b=\phi (a),aV_1j_1(N),bV_2j_2(N).`$

It was noted in \[G1\] that there exists a cobordism $`X`$ between $`M_1M_2`$ and $`M_1_\psi M_2`$. It will be important for us to notice that the cobordism $`X`$ is obtained from $`(M_1M_2)\times I`$ ($`I=[0,1]`$) by identifying closed tubular neighborhoods of $`j_1(N)\times 1`$ and $`j_2(N)\times 1`$ by $`\psi `$ and rounding corners.

Now, we need the following observation. Every closed $`k`$-form $`\omega _M`$ on $`M`$ for which $`j_1^{}\omega _M=j_2^{}\omega _M`$ induces a cohomology class $`[\mathrm{\Omega }]H^k(X;)`$ and, hence, by restriction, a class $`[\omega ]H^k(M_1_\psi M_2;)`$. Note that $`[\omega ]=i^{}[\mathrm{\Omega }]`$, where $`i:M_1_\psi M_2X`$ is the canonical embedding.

In the sequel we will need the following result.

###### 3.2 Theorem.

Let $`M_1,M_2,N`$ and $`j_i:NM_i,i=1,2`$ be as in Definition 3.1. Suppose in addition that $`M_1,M_2`$ and $`N`$ are symplectic manifolds and both embeddings $`j_i:NM_i`$ are symplectic. Then, for any choice of orientation reversing $`\psi :V_1V_2`$, the manifold $`M_1_\psi M_2`$ admits a canonical symplectic structure $`\omega `$, which is induced by the symplectic form on $`M_1M_2`$ after a perturbation near $`j_2(N)`$. More precisely, there is a unique isotopy class of symplectic forms on $`M_1_\psi M_2`$ $`(`$independent of fiber isotopies of $`\psi )`$ that contains forms $`\omega `$ with the following characterization: the class $`[\omega ]H^2(M_1_\psi M_2;)`$ is the restriction of the class $`[\mathrm{\Omega }]H^2(X;)`$ canonically induced on the cobordism $`X`$ by the symplectic structure on $`M_1M_2`$.

Proof. See Gompf \[G1\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 3.3 Theorem.

Let $`M_1,M_2,N`$ and $`j_i:NM_i`$ be as in Theorem 3.2. Suppose in addition that $`M_1,M_2`$ and $`N`$ are connected. If $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are symplectically aspherical and $`(j_i)_{}:\pi _1(N)\pi _1(M_i),i=1,2`$ are monomorphisms, then the symplectic sum $`M_1_\psi M_2`$ is symplectically aspherical.

Proof. Given a topological space $`Y`$, set $`h(Y)=\mathrm{Im}(h:\pi _2(Y)H_2(Y)`$ where $`h`$ is the Hurewicz homomorphism. Let $`X`$ be the cobordism as above. Let $`\omega `$ be the form on $`M_1\psi M_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the form on $`X`$. Since $`\omega ,s=\mathrm{\Omega },i_{}s`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }|_{M_i}=\omega _i`$, it suffices to prove that

$$h(X)=\mathrm{Im}(h(M_1\times I)h(X))+\mathrm{Im}(h(M_2\times I)h(X)).$$

Because of general position arguments, every map $`f:S^2X`$ is homotopic to a smooth embedding. Moreover, we can always assume that $`f(S^2)W=f(S^2)\mathrm{Int}W`$ and that $`f(S^2)`$ intersects $`W`$ transvesally. So, consider an embedded sphere $`S`$ in $`X`$ which intesects $`W`$ transversely and does not meet $`W`$. We must prove that the homology class of $`S`$ can be represented as as a disjoint union of spheroids in $`X`$, each of whish does not meet $`W`$.

Since $`SW`$ must be a closed manifold, we conclude that $`SW`$ is a disjoint union of circles, $`SW=C_1\mathrm{}C_k`$ where each $`C_i`$ is a circle. It is easy to see that $`S(C_1\mathrm{}C_k)`$ contains at least one open 2-disc. Take one of such discs and denote it by $`D`$. Clearly, $`D`$ does not meet $`W`$. We denote the closure of $`D`$ in $`S`$ by $`D_+`$ and set $`D_{}=SD`$.

Clearly, $`D_+M_i\times I`$ for a certain $`i`$, and we assume that $`i=1`$. Notice that the circle $`C=D_+`$ is contractible in $`M_1\times I`$. So, it is contractible in $`W`$ because of monomorphicity of $`(j_1)_{}:\pi _1(N)\pi _1(M_1)`$. Now we consider two different cases: $`\mathrm{dim}W6`$ and $`\mathrm{dim}W=4`$.

First, assume that $`\mathrm{dim}W6`$. Then there exists an embedded 2-disc $`D_0`$ in $`W`$ with $`D_0=C`$. Moreover, we can even assume that $`D_0`$ does not meet $`SC`$.

Choose a trivialization $`W\times [1,1]`$ of the normal bundle of $`W`$ in $`X`$. We can assume that $`S(D\times [\epsilon ,\epsilon ])C\times [\epsilon ,\epsilon ]`$ for $`\epsilon `$ small enough. Now, set

$$S_1=(D_+(C\times [0,\epsilon )))D_0\times \{\epsilon \}$$

and

$$S_2=(D_{}(C\times (\epsilon ,0]))D_0\times \{\epsilon \}.$$

Clearly, $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are embedded 2-spheres, and the homology class of $`S`$ is the sum of the homology classes of $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$. Furthermore, $`S_1`$ sits in $`M_1\times I`$, while the intersection $`S_2W`$ has less connected components then $`SW`$ does. Now we leave $`S_1`$ as it is and perform the same procedure as above with $`S_2`$, and so on. Finally, we get the disjoint union of spheroids each of which does not meet $`W`$, and this disjoint union represents the same homology class as $`S`$.

Finally, if $`\mathrm{dim}M=4`$ then we can find not embedded but immersed disk $`D_0`$ in $`W`$, and we can assume the the interior of $`D_0`$ does not meet $`S`$ (since $`\mathrm{dim}X=5`$). Now we can do the same procedure as above, but $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ will be not embedded but immersed sphere. We can leave $`S_1`$ as it is, while we can perform a small perturbation of $`S_2`$ and get an embedded sphere $`S_2^{}`$ such that $`S_2W=S_2^{}W`$. Now we can finish the proof as in the case $`\mathrm{dim}W6`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`(X;A,B)`$ be a $`CW`$-triad. We set $`C=AB`$ and denote by $`j_1:AX`$, $`j_2:BX`$, $`i_1:CA`$, $`i_2:CB`$ the obvious inclusions.

###### 3.4 Proposition.

Fix any $`k`$ and any coefficient group. If the homomorphism $`i_1^{}:H^k(A)H^k(C)`$ is injective and the homomorphism $`i_1^{}:H^{k1}(A)H^{k1}(C)`$ is surjective, then the $`j_2^{}:H^k(X)H^k(B)`$ is injective and the homomorphism $`j_2^{}:H^{k1}(X)H^{k1}(B)`$ is surjective.

Proof. The exactness of the sequence

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}H^{k1}(A)& \stackrel{i_1^{}}{}& H^{k1}(C)H^k(A,C)& \stackrel{i_1^{}}{}& H^k(A)H^k(C)\end{array}$$

implies that $`H^k(A,C)=0`$. So, because of the excision property, $`H^k(X,B)=H^k(A,C)=0`$. Now, the exactness of the sequence

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}H^{k1}(X)& \stackrel{j_2^{}}{}& H^{k1}(B)H^k(X,B)& \stackrel{i_2^{}}{}& H^k(X)H^k(B)\end{array}$$

implies the required claim on $`j_2^{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We say that a 2-dimensional cohomology class $`a`$ is decomposable if it can be represented as $`a=_ia_ia_i^{}`$ where $`a_i`$ and $`a_i^{}`$ are 1-dimensional classes. Notice that a symplectic form $`\omega `$ on a symplectic manifold is aspherical if its cohomology class $`[\omega ]`$ is decomposable.

###### 3.5 Theorem.

Let $`M_1,M_2,N`$ and $`j_i:NM_i,i=1,2`$ be as in Theorem 3.2, and suppose that $`j_1`$ induces a surjection on the first cohomology group and an injection on the second cohomology group. Assume that $`H^2(M_2;)`$ consists of decomposable elements. Then the symplectic manifold $`(M_1_\psi M_2)`$ is symplectically aspherical.

Proof. Let $`X`$ be the cobordism described after Definition 3.1. It suffices to prove that the cohomology class $`[\mathrm{\Omega }]`$ of the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`X`$ is decomposable. Notice that $`X`$ is homotopy equivalent to the space $`Y=M_1_NM_2`$. So, we have the triad $`(Y;M_1,M_2)`$ with $`M_1M_2=N`$. Since smooth manifolds are triangulable, we can regard the above triad as a $`CW`$-triad. Let $`j:M_2Y`$ be the inclusion. Because of the conditions of the Theorem,

$$j^{}[\mathrm{\Omega }]=b_ib_i^{},b_i,b_i^{}H^1(M_2).$$

By the Proposition 3.4, the map $`j^{}:H^1(Y)H^1(M_2)`$ is an epimorphism. So, there are $`a_i,a_iH^1(Y)`$ with $`j^{}(a_i)=b_i,j^{}(a_i^{})=b_i^{}`$. So,

$$j^{}([\mathrm{\Omega }]a_ia_i^{})=0.$$

But, again by the Proposition 3.4, the map $`j^{}:H^2(Y)H^2(M_2)`$ is a monomorphism, and thus $`[\mathrm{\Omega }]a_ia_i^{}=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Another situation when the Gompf symplectic sum is symplectically aspherical is described in \[K, Proposition 3.1\].

### 4. Symplectic bundles and symplectic asphericity

We define a symplectic bundle to be a locally trivial bundle whose fiber is a closed symplectic manifold $`F=(F,\omega )`$ and with the structure group $`\mathrm{Symp}(F,\omega )`$ of symplectomorpisms of $`F`$. The goal of the section is to prove the following theorem.

###### 4.1 Theorem.

Let

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\xi =\{F& \stackrel{i}{}& M& \stackrel{p}{}& B\}\end{array}$$

be a symplectic bundle. Suppose also that there exists a cohomology class $`aH^2(M;)`$ such that $`i^{}a=[\omega _F]`$. Then the following holds:

(i) the group $`\pi _1(M)`$ is an extension of $`\pi _1(B)`$ by $`\pi _1(F)`$, i.e. there is an exact sequence

$$1\pi _1(F)\pi _1(M)\pi _1(B)1;$$

(ii) if the form $`\omega _F`$ is symplectically aspherical and $`B`$ is closed symplectically aspherical manifold such that the Hurewicz homomorphism $`h:\pi _2(B)H_2(B;)`$ is monic, then $`M`$ is symplectically aspherical.

We preface the proof with some supporting claims.

###### 4.2 Lemma.

Let

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}F& \stackrel{i}{}& E& \stackrel{p}{}& B\end{array}$$

be a locally trivial bundle. Suppose that there is a class $`aH^2(F;)`$ such that $`i^{}(a)|_{\pi _2(F)}=0`$. Assume also that the Hurewicz homomorphism $`h:\pi _2(B)H_2(B;)`$ is monic. Then there exists a class $`bH^2(E;)`$ with $`i^{}b=i^{}a`$ and $`b|_{\pi _2(E)}=0`$.

Proof. Consider the long exact sequence

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\mathrm{}& & \pi _2(F)& \stackrel{i_{}}{}& \pi _2(E)& \stackrel{p_{}}{}& \pi _2(B)& & \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

and decompose $`\pi _2(E)=i_{}(\pi _2(F))W`$.

Choose a base $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_k\}`$ of $`h(W)`$ where $`h:\pi _2(E)H_2(E;)`$ is the Hurewicz homomorphism. Define

$$\mu _i=<a,a_i>,i=1,\mathrm{},k.$$

Since the homomorphism $`h:\pi _2(B)H_2(B;)`$ is monic, the family $`\{p_{}(a_j)\}`$ is linearly independent in $`H_2(B;)`$. Let $`c_iH^2(B;)`$ be elements dual to $`p_{}(a_i)H_2(B;)`$,

$$<c_i,p_{}(a_j)>=\delta _{ij}.$$

We set

$$b=a\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mu _ip^{}c_i.$$

Clearly, $`i^{}b=i^{}a`$. So, $`b|_{i_{}(\pi _2(F))}=0`$, and it remains to prove that $`b|_W=0`$, i.e, that $`<b,a_i>=0`$ for all $`i`$. But

$`<b,a_i>`$ $`=`$ $`a{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\mu _jp^{}c_j,a_i=<a,a_i>{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\mu _j<p^{}c_j,a_i>`$
$`=`$ $`\mu _i\mu _i=0,`$
and we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`G`$ be a topological group. Given a map $`\phi :S^{n1}G`$ and a $`G`$-space $`F`$, the clutching construction gives us a locally trivial bundle $`\eta =\{FES^n\}`$ with the structure group $`G`$, \[St\]. Choose a point $`x_0F`$ and define the evaluation map

$$\mathrm{ev}:GF,\mathrm{ev}(g)=g(x_0).$$

If we regard $`G`$ as the pointed space with the unit as the base point, then $`\mathrm{ev}`$ turns into a pointed map. In particular, it induces a map $`\mathrm{ev}_{}:\pi _{n1}(G)\pi _{n1}(F)`$. Now, in the exact sequence

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\pi _n(F)\pi _n(E)& \stackrel{p}{}& \pi _n(S^n)& \stackrel{}{}& \pi _{n1}(F)\end{array}$$

we have

(4.1)
$$\alpha =\mathrm{ev}_{}([\phi ])$$

where $`\alpha \pi _n(S^n)=`$ is the generator and $`[\phi ]\pi _{n1}(G)`$ is the homotopy class of $`\phi `$ , cf. \[St, §18\].

###### 4.3 Proposition (\[LMP, Section 1.2\]).

Let $`M=(M,\omega )`$ be a closed symplectic manifold, and let $`\mathrm{Ham}(M)`$ be the group of hamiltonian symplectomorphisms of $`M`$. Then $`\mathrm{ev}_{}:\pi _1(\mathrm{Ham}(M))\pi _1(M)`$ is the zero homomorphism. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 4.4 Corollary.

Let $`FES^2`$ be a symplectic bundle whose structure group reduces to $`\mathrm{Ham}(F)`$. Then the boundary map $`:\pi _2(S^2)\pi _1(F)`$ in the homotopy exact sequence of the bundle is the zero map.

Proof. It follows from Propsition 4.3 and equality (4.1) $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 4.5 Theorem (\[MS, Theorem 6.36\]).

Let

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}F& \stackrel{i}{}& E& \stackrel{p}{}& B.\end{array}$$

be a symplectic bundle over a simply connected base $`B`$. Assume that there exists a class $`aH^2(E)`$ with $`i^{}(a)=[\omega _F]`$. Then the structure group of the bundle can be reduced to $`\mathrm{Ham}(F)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we are ready to prove Theorem 4.1.

Proof. (i) It suffices to prove that, in the exact sequence

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}\pi _2(M)\pi _2(B)& \stackrel{}{}& \pi _1(F)\mathrm{}\end{array}$$

of the bundle $`\xi `$, we have $`\beta =0`$ for every $`\beta \pi _2(B)`$. We represent $`\beta `$ by a map $`f:S^2B`$ and consider the bundle

$$f^{}\xi =\{FES^2\}$$

induced from the bundle $`\xi `$ by $`f`$. Then we have a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}F& \stackrel{i^{}}{}& E& & S^2\\ & & g& & f& & \\ F& \stackrel{i}{}& M& & B\end{array}$$

of bundles. Clearly, $`(i^{})^{}g^{}(a)=[\omega _F]`$, and so, by 4.5, the structure group of the top bundle reduces to $`\mathrm{Ham}(F)`$. Now, we have a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\mathrm{}& & \pi _2(E)& & \pi _2(S^2)& \stackrel{^{}}{}& \pi _1(F)& & \mathrm{}\\ & & & & f_{}& & & & & & \\ \mathrm{}& & \pi _2(M)& & \pi _2(B)& \stackrel{}{}& \pi _1(F)& & \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

of exact sequences. By 4.4, $`^{}\alpha =0`$. Now, $`\beta =f_{}\alpha =^{}\alpha =0`$, as asserted.

(ii) Let $`\omega _F`$ and $`\omega _B`$ be the symplectically aspherical forms on $`F`$ and $`B`$, respectively. We apply Lemma 4.2 to the bundle $`\xi `$ and see that there exists a class $`bH^2(M;)`$ such that $`i^{}b=[\omega _F]`$ and $`b|_{\pi _2(M)}=0`$. Because of a Thurston Theorem, see e.g. \[MS, Theorem 6.3\], $`M`$ possesses a symplectic form $`\omega `$ with $`[\omega ]=b+Kp^{}[\omega _B]`$ with $`K`$. Clearly, this form $`\omega `$ is symplectically aspherical. $`\mathrm{}`$

## Part II Fundamental groups of closed symplectically aspherical manifolds

Let us call a group symplectically aspherical if it can be realized as a fundamental group of a closed symplectically aspherical manifold. Because of Proposition 1.1, any subgroup of finite index of a symplectically aspherical group is symplectically aspherical.

From here and to the end of the paper, “symplectic manifold” means “closed symplectic manifolds” unless some other is said explicitly.

### 5. Dimension phenomena

The following theorem is a symplectic analog of the Lefschetz Theorem on Hyperplane Sections.

###### 5.1 Theorem.

Let $`(M^{2n},\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold with an integral symplectic form $`\omega `$, and let $`hH^2(M)`$ be an integral lift of $`[\omega ]`$. Then for $`N`$ large enough the Poincaré dual of $`Nh`$, in $`H_{2n2}(M)`$, can be realized by a symplectic submanifold $`V^{2n2}`$ of $`M^{2n}`$. Moreover, we can choose $`V`$ such that the inclusion $`i:VM`$ is an $`(n2)`$-equivalence, i.e. the homomorphism $`i_{}:\pi _k(V)\pi _k(M)`$ is an isomorphism for $`kn2`$ and an epimorphism for $`k=n1`$.

Proof. See \[D, Theorem 1 and Proposition 39\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 5.2 Proposition.

Suppose that a group $`\pi `$ can be realized as the fundamental group of a symplectically aspherical manifold $`(M^{2n},\omega )`$ with $`n3`$. Then $`\pi `$ can be realized as the fundamental group of a $`(2n2)`$-dimensional symplectically aspherical manifold.

Proof. Because of Proposition 1.3, we equip $`M`$ with an integral symplectically aspherical form. According to the Theorem 5.1, there exists a symplectic submanifold $`V^{2n2}`$ of $`M`$ such that the inclusion $`i:VM`$ is an $`(n2)`$-equivalence. In particular, $`\pi _1(V)=\pi _1(M)`$. Clearly, $`V`$ is symplectically aspherical since $`M`$ is, and the result follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 5.3 Corollary.

Suppose that a group $`\pi `$ can be realized as the fundamental group of a symplectically aspherical manifold $`(M^{2n},\omega )`$ with $`n3`$. Then $`\pi `$ can be realized as the fundamental group of a $`4`$-dimensional symplectically aspherical manifold. $`\mathrm{}`$

So, we can decrease the dimension of the symplectically aspherical manifold with a prescribed fundamental group. However, we are not always able to increase the dimension, as the following proposition shows.

###### 5.4 Proposition.

Let $`\pi `$ be a group such that $`H^{2k}(\pi ;)=0`$. Suppose that $`\pi `$ can be realized as the fundamental group of a symplectically aspherical manifold $`M^{2n}`$. Then $`nk`$.

Proof. Choose a symplectically aspherical form $`\omega `$ on $`M`$. Because of 1.2, there exists a map $`f:MK(\pi ,1)`$ such that

$$[\omega ]\mathrm{Im}\{f^{}:H^2(\pi ;)=H^{}(K(\pi ,1);)H^2(M;)\}.$$

Since $`[\omega ]^{2n}0`$, we conclude that $`nk`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 5.5 Corollary.

The group $`^m`$ cannot be realized as the fundamental group of a symplectically aspherical manifold of dimension $`2k`$ with $`2k>m`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Notice that $`^{2n}`$ is the fundamental group of the torus $`T^{2n}`$. Since $`\pi _2(T^{2n})=0`$, $`^{2n}`$ can be realized as the fundamental group of a symplectically aspherical manifold of dimension $`2k`$ with $`2kn`$.

###### 5.6 Remark.

Because of Propositions 5.3 and 5.4, it makes sense to introduce the following invariant of symplectically aspherical groups. Namely, given a symplectically aspherical group $`\pi `$, we define $`\nu (\pi )`$ to be the largest $`n`$ such that $`\pi `$ can be realized as the fundamental group of a closed symplectically aspherical manifold $`M^{2n}`$. For example, $`\nu (^{2n})=n`$. Furthermore, if $`\pi `$ is the fundamental group of a closed orientable surface then $`\nu (\pi )=1`$, and if $`G`$ is the direct product of $`n`$ such groups then $`\nu (G)=n`$.

### 6. Two classes of symplectically aspherical groups

Let $`𝒜`$ be the class of symplectically aspherical groups which can be realized as the fundamental groups of symplectically aspherical manifolds with trivial $`\pi _2`$, and let $``$ be the class of symplectically aspherical groups which can be realized as the fundamental groups of symplectically aspherical manifolds with non-trivial $`\pi _2`$. In this section we want to investigate the relation between the classes $`𝒜`$ and $``$. First, some trivial remarks.

1. If $`\pi `$ and $`\tau `$ is simplectically aspherical, then $`\pi \times \tau `$.
2. Let $`G`$ be the fundamental group of a closed orientable surface. Then $`G`$ (by Proposition 5.4).

According to the results of Section 5, it seems reasonable to introduce the classes $`𝒜_{2n}`$ an $`_{2n}`$ as follows. The group $`\pi `$ belongs to $`𝒜_{2n}`$ if $`\pi `$ can be realized as the fundamental group of a symplectically aspherical $`2n`$-dimensional manifold $`M`$ with $`\pi _2(M)=0`$. Similarly, the group $`\pi `$ belongs to $`_{2n}`$ if $`\pi `$ can be realized as the fundamental group of a symplectically aspherical $`2n`$-dimensional manifold $`M`$ with $`\pi _2(M)0`$. Because of what is done above, we have the following Proposition.

###### 6.1 Proposition.

$$𝒜_{2n+2}𝒜_{2n}\mathrm{}𝒜_6𝒜_4_4,_{2n+2}_{2n}\mathrm{}_4.$$

Proof. Consider the $`(n2)`$-equivalence $`i:V^{2n2}M^{2n}`$ from the proof of Theorem 5.2. The homomorphism $`i_{}:\pi _2(V)\pi _2(M)`$ is an isomorphism for $`n4`$ and an epimorphism for $`n=3`$. Therefore the result holds. $`\mathrm{}`$

Recall the following theorem of Hopf.

###### 6.2 Theorem.

Let $`X`$ be a connected $`CW`$-space with $`\pi _1(X)=\pi `$ and $`\pi _i(X)=0`$ for $`i<n`$. Then there is an exact sequence

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\pi _n(X)& \stackrel{h}{}& H_n(X)& & H_n(\pi )& & 0.\end{array}$$

Proof. See \[B, Theorem II.5.2\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

We denote by $`b_i(X)`$ the $`i`$-th Betti number of (the group or the space) $`X`$.

###### 6.3 Theorem.

Let $`\pi `$ and $`\tau `$ be symplectically aspherical groups. Then the following statements are true:

1. If $`\pi 𝒜_4`$, then $`b_1(\pi )b_3(\pi )`$.
2. If $`b_1(\pi )<b_3(\pi )`$, then $`\pi `$.
3. Let $`\pi `$ be fundamental group of a closed symplectically aspherical manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ with $`\pi _3(M)=0`$. If $`b_1(M)<b_3(M)`$ then $`\pi `$.
4. If $`\mathrm{max}\{b_3(\pi ),b_3(\tau )\}1`$, then $`\pi \times \tau `$.
5. If $`\mathrm{max}\{b_2(\pi ),b_2(\tau )\}2`$ and $`\mathrm{max}\{b_1(\pi ),b_1(\tau )\}1`$ then $`\pi \times \tau `$.
6. $`\pi \times ^4`$.

Proof. (i) Because of the Hopf Theorem 6.2, there is an epimorphism $`H_3(M)H_3(\pi )`$. So, $`b_1(\pi )=b_1(M)=b_3(M)b_3(\pi )`$.

(ii) Because of Corollary 5.3, $`\pi `$ can be realized as the fundamental group of a $`4`$-dimensional symplectically aspherical manifold. Now the result follows from (i).

(iii) If $`\pi _2(M)0`$ then we are done. So, suppose that $`\pi _2(M)=0`$. Since $`\pi _3(M)=0`$, the Hopf exact sequence from Theorem 6.2 for $`n=3`$ yields an isomorphism $`H_3(M)H_3(\pi )`$. So,

$$b_1(\pi )=b_1(M)<b_3(M)=b_3(\pi )$$

and the result follows from (ii).

(iv), (v) Notice that $`b_2(G)>0`$ for every symplectically aspherical group $`G`$. Now, $`b_1(\pi \times \tau )=b_1(\pi )+b_1(\tau )`$, while (by the Künneth formula)

$$b_3(\pi \times \tau )=b_3(\tau )+b_1(\pi )b_2(\tau )+b_2(\pi )b_1(\tau )+b_3(\pi ).$$

Now, each of the conditions in (iv), (v) implies that

$$b_3(\pi \times \tau )>b_1(\pi \times \tau ),$$

and the result follows from (iii).

(vi) This follows from (v) directly. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 6.4 Remarks and Questions.

1. Notice that $`_2=\mathrm{}𝒜_2`$.

2. We have $`𝒜_6_6\mathrm{}`$ since $`^8𝒜_6_6`$. Indeed, $`^8𝒜_8𝒜_6`$. On the other hand, $`^6=\pi _1(T^6)`$ and therefore $`^6_4`$ by Theorem 6.3(i). Thus, $`^8=^6\times ^2_6`$.

3. Similalry, $`𝒜_{2n}_{2n}\mathrm{}`$ for $`n3`$.

4. We don’t know whether $`𝒜_4_4\mathrm{}`$. In particular, is it true that $`^4_4`$?

5. Is $`^{2n+1}`$ symplectically aspherical if $`n>1`$? ($``$ and $`^3`$ are not by Proposition 5.4.) If the answer is negative, the proof should be delicate because the answer is positive at c-symplectical level, see Proposition 6.5 below.

6. Generally, is it true that $`𝒜`$?

###### 6.5 Proposition.

For every $`n>3`$ there exists a closed manifold $`N^{2n}`$ and a cohomology class $`aH^2(N;)`$ such that $`a^n0`$, $`\pi _1(N)=^{2n+1}`$ and $`a|_{\pi _2(N)}=0`$.

Proof. Take the torus $`T^{2n+2}`$ and consider its hyperplane section as in Theorem 5.1. Then we get a 2n-dimensional symplectically aspherical manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ with the fundamental group $`^{2n+2}`$. Then, by Proposition 1.2, there exists a map $`f:MT^{2n+2}`$ which induces an isomorphism of fundamental groups and such that $`f^{}(u^n)=[\omega ]^n0`$ for some $`uH^2(T^{2n+2};)`$. So, there are cohomology classes $`x_iH^1(T^{2n+2};),i=1,2,\mathrm{}2n`$ such that $`f^{}(x_1\mathrm{}x_{2n})0`$. This implies, in turn, that there exists a map $`g:MT^{2n}`$ with $`g^{}[\omega _T]^n0`$. Here $`\omega _T`$ is the symplectic form on $`T^{2n}`$. In particular, the degree of $`g`$ is non-zero.

Consider the induced homomorphism

$$g_{}:^{2n+2}=\pi _1(M)\pi _1(T^{2n})=^{2n}$$

and take any $`b\mathrm{Ker}g_{}`$. Let $`A`$ be the subgroup generated by $`b`$. Then

$$^{2n+2}/A^{2n+1}F$$

where $`F`$ is a finite abelian group.

Now, we represent $`b`$ by an embedded circle $`S`$ and perform the surgery of $`g`$ along $`S`$. Then we get a map $`h:PT^{2n}`$ which is bordant to $`g`$, and therefore $`h`$ has non-zero degree. So, $`h^{}[\omega ]^n0`$, and thus $`P`$ is c-symplectic. Furthermore, $`\pi _1(P)=^{2n+1}F`$. Now, consider a finite cover $`\phi :NP`$ which corresponds the direct summand $`Z^{2n+1}`$ of $`\pi _1(P)`$ and put $`a=\phi ^{}(h^{}\omega )`$. Then $`a^n0`$ since $`h^{}([\omega ]^n)0`$. Finally, the class $`a`$ vanishes on the image of the Hurewicz map since $`[\omega ]`$ does. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 7. Some results about realization

Now we describe some classes of symplectically aspherical groups. Let us call a group c-symplectic if $`K(\pi ,1)`$ can be realized as a closed c-symplectic manifold.

###### 7.1 Proposition.

If $`\pi `$ is a uniform lattice in a simply-connected completely solvable Lie group $`G`$ of dimension $`2n`$ and $`\pi `$ is c-symplectic, then $`\pi 𝒜_{2n}`$. In particular, $`\pi `$ is symplectically aspherical.

Proof. Since every $`G`$ is difeomorphic to $`^{2n}`$, This is a direct corollary of Lemma 2.2, because $`G/\pi `$ is the Eilenberg–Mac Lane space $`K(\pi ,1)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`\pi `$ be a polycylic group. Let $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(\pi )`$. There exists a subnormal series $`\pi =\pi _n\pi _{n1}\mathrm{}\pi _0`$ such that $`\alpha (\pi _i)\pi _i`$, \[Gb\]. (Here subnormality means that $`\pi _i`$ is normal in $`\pi _{i+1}`$ and $`F_i=\pi _{i+1}/\pi _i`$ are finitely generated abelian groups.) Hence $`\alpha `$ induces automorphisms $`\alpha _i\mathrm{Aut}(F_i)=GL(k_i,)`$. One can easily check that the set of eigenvalues of all operators $`\alpha _i`$ does not depend on the choice of a subnormal series. We call the elements of this set eigenvalues of $`\alpha `$.

###### 7.2 Definition.

A polycyclic group $`\pi `$ is called a group of type ($`R`$), if for all $`\gamma \pi `$ all eigenvalues of the inner automorphism $`\mathrm{Int}(\gamma )`$ are real and positive.

###### 7.3 Theorem.

A group $`\pi `$ is isomorphic to a uniform lattice in a completely solvable simply-connected Lie group if and only if $`\pi `$ is of type $`(R)`$.

Proof. See Gorbatsevich \[Gb\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 7.4 Corollary.

Every c-symplectic group $`\pi `$ of type $`(R)`$ belongs to $`𝒜`$. Furthermore, $`\pi `$ if $`b_1(\pi )<b_3(\pi )`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is well known that every finitely generated torsion free nilpotent group is of type ($`R`$), \[M, VGS\], and so every such group belongs to $`𝒜`$ provided it is c-symplectic. Now we show that some of these groups really belong to $``$.

###### 7.5 Corollary.

The fundamental group of any $`6`$-dimensional symplectic nilmanifold is a symplectically aspherical group of class $``$.

Proof. All 6-dimensional symplectic nilmanifolds are classified (see \[Sa, IRTU\]). In particular, the first and second Betti numbers of each of 34 such manifolds can be found in the corresponding tables in these papers. Note that since the Euler characteristic of any nilmanifold is zero, we get the following relation for the Betti numbers: $`22b_1+2b_2b_3=0`$. Hence $`b_1<b_3`$ is the same as

$$2+2b_2>3b_1.$$

One can check that each of the symplectic nilmanifolds from the tables \[Sa, IRTU\] satisfies this inequality. $`\mathrm{}`$

Notice that one can also get groups of type $`(R)`$ which are solvable but non-nilpotent. For example, consider the following simply-connected completely solvable Lie group $`G`$ consisting of matrices

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}e^t& 0& xe^t& 0& 0& y_1\\ 0& e^t& 0& xe^t& 0& y_2\\ 0& 0& e^t& 0& 0& z_1\\ 0& 0& 0& e^t& 0& z_2\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& t\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

It is shown in \[FLS\], that this group contains a uniform lattice $`\pi `$, and that the compact solvmanifold $`M:=G/\pi `$ has $`b_1(M)=2<b_3(M)=4`$. Thus, $`\pi `$.

###### 7.6 Example.

In Example 2.4 we constructed a (closed) symplectically aspherical Kähler manifolds of the form $`\pi \backslash G/K`$ with the fundamental group $`\pi `$ and trivial $`\pi _2`$. So, $`\pi 𝒜`$. Now we give an example of $`\pi `$ as above with $`\pi `$.

Let $`\chi (\pi )`$ denote the Euler characteristic of $`\pi `$. It was shown in \[VGS, Theorem 7.9\] that $`\chi (\pi )0`$ if and only if $`\text{rank}(G)=\text{rank}(K)`$, and in the latter case one has also the sign of $`\chi (\pi )`$ equal to $`(1)^n`$, where $`n=1/2\mathrm{dim}G/K`$. Now, consider $`G=Sp(2,)`$ and $`K=U(2)`$. Then $`G/K`$ is a 6-dimensional Hermitian symmetric space of non-compact type, and therefore $`\chi (\pi )<0`$. Furthermore, $`b_1(\pi )=0`$, see \[VGS, Theorem 7.1\]. On the other hand, $`\chi (\pi )=22b_1+2b_2b_3=2+2b_2b_3<0`$, which implies $`b_3(\pi )>0`$. Thus, $`\pi `$.

###### 7.7 Example.

The group theoretic constructions which might occur as symplectically aspherical groups.

1. Obviously, the product of two symplectically aspherical groups is symplectically aspherical.
2. Hopefully, other certain extensions of symplectically aspherical groups are again symplectically aspherical, in view of Theorem 4.1.
3. Amalgamated products can occur due to Theorem 3.3 In particular, if $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$ are closed orientetd surfaces and $`\pi `$ is symplectically aspherical group, then the group

$$\left(\pi _1(F_1)\times \pi \right)_\pi \left(\pi \times \pi _1(F_2)\right)$$

is symplectically aspherical by the Seifert–van Kampen Theorem .

### 8. Nilpotent groups in $`𝒜_4`$

In this section we describe all nilpotent groups which can be realized as the fundamental groups of symplectic manifolds $`M`$ with $`\pi _2(M)=0`$. Here we use some ideas from \[R1\].

Let $`\pi `$ be a finitely presented group, and let $`X`$ be a $`CW`$-space with $`\pi _1(X)=\pi `$ and finite 2-skeleton. Let $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ be the universal covering space of $`X`$, and let $`H_c^1(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ be the 1-dimensional cohomology with compact supports of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$.

###### 8.1 Proposition–Definition.

The group $`H_c^1(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ depends on the group $`\pi `$ only. We denote it by $`H_c^1(\pi )`$ and call the 1-dimensional cohomology with compact supports of $`\pi `$.

Proof. Consider two spaces $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ as the above described space $`X`$. First, assume that both $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are $`K(\pi ,1)`$’s. Consider homotopy equivalences $`f:X_1X_2`$ and $`g:X_2X_1`$ with $`gf1_{X_1}`$ and $`fg1_{X_2}`$. We can assume that $`f(X_1^{(2)})X_2^{(2)}`$ and $`g(X_2^{(2)})X_1^{(2)}`$. Moreover, the homotopies $`H:gf1`$ and $`H^{}:fg1`$ can be chosen so that $`H(X_1^{(1)}\times I)X_1^{(2)}`$ and $`H^{}(X_2^{(1)}\times I)X_2^{(2)}`$.

Passing to the universal coverings, we get the homotopy equivalences $`\stackrel{~}{f}:\stackrel{~}{X}_1\stackrel{~}{X}_2`$ and homotopies $`\stackrel{~}{H}:\stackrel{~}{X}_1\times I\stackrel{~}{X}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{}:\stackrel{~}{X}_2\times I\stackrel{~}{X}_2`$. Clearly, the maps

$$\stackrel{~}{f}|_{X_1^{(2)}}:X_1^{(2)}X_2,\stackrel{~}{g}|_{X_2^{(2)}}:X_2^{(2)}X_1$$

and the homotopies

$$\stackrel{~}{H}|_{X_1^{(1)}\times I}:X_1^{(1)}\times IX_1,\stackrel{~}{H}^{}|_{X_2^{(1)}\times I}:X_2^{(1)}\times IX_2$$

are proper maps. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ induces an isomorphism $`H_c^1(\stackrel{~}{X}_2)H_c^1(\stackrel{~}{X}_1)`$.

Now we consider an arbitrary space $`X`$ as above. We attach to $`X`$ cells of dimension $`3`$ and get an embedding $`XY`$ where $`Y=K(\pi ,1)`$. Since $`X^{(2)}=Y^{(2)}`$, we conclude that $`H_c^1(\stackrel{~}{X})=H_c^1(\stackrel{~}{Y})`$. This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 8.2 Remark.

Certainly, the group $`H_c^1(\pi )`$ admits a purely algebraic description in terms of the group $`\pi `$, cf \[R1, N\]. However, the description from 8.1 is enough for our goals.

###### 8.3 Theorem (cf. \[R1\]).

Let $`M^n`$ be a closed manifold with $`\pi _1(M)=\pi `$ and $`\pi _i(M)=0`$ for $`2in2`$. Then $`\pi _{n1}(M)=H_c^1(\pi )`$.

Proof. Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be the universal covering space for $`M`$. Because of the Poincaré duality we have

$$H_c^1(\pi )=H_c^1(\stackrel{~}{M})=H_{n1}(\stackrel{~}{M}).$$

But, by the Hurewicz Theorem, $`H_{n1}(\stackrel{~}{M})=\pi _{n1}(\stackrel{~}{M})=\pi _{n1}(M)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 8.4 Lemma.

If $`\pi `$ is finitely generated nilpotent group with $`\mathrm{rank}\pi >1`$, then $`H_c^1(\pi )=0`$.

We embed $`\pi `$ as a uniform lattice in a contractible nilpotent Lie group $`G`$ with $`\mathrm{dim}G=\mathrm{rank}\pi =n`$, \[M\].

Proof. First, we assume that $`\pi `$ is torsion free. We embed $`\pi `$ as a uniform lattice in a contractible nilpotent Lie group $`G`$ with $`\mathrm{dim}G=\mathrm{rank}\pi =n`$, \[M\]. Since $`n>1`$, we conclude that $`\pi _{n1}(G)=0`$. Thus, since $`\pi _1(G/\pi )=\pi `$, we deduce from Theorem 8.3 that $`H_c^1(\pi )=0`$.

Now, if $`\pi `$ is not torsion free then it contains a torsion free subgroup $`\pi ^{}`$ of finite index, \[Ku\]. Then $`K(\pi ^{},1)`$ can be regarded as a finite covering over $`K(\pi ,1)`$. So, $`K(\pi ^{},1)`$ and $`K(\pi ,1)`$ have the same universal covering, and thus, $`H_c^1(\pi )=H_c^1(\pi ^{})=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 8.5 Corollary.

Let $`M`$ be a closed $`n`$-dimensional manifold, $`n>1`$ with $`\pi _i(M)=0`$ for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n2`$. If $`\pi _1(M)`$ is a nilpotent group $`\pi `$ with $`\mathrm{rank}\pi >1`$, then $`\pi `$ is torsion free and $`\mathrm{rank}\pi =n`$.

Proof. By Lemma 8.4, $`H_c^1(\pi )=0`$. Therefore, by 8.3, $`\pi _{n1}(M)=0`$. Furthermore, $`H_n(\stackrel{~}{M})=0`$ because $`\pi `$ is infinite. So, $`\pi _n(\stackrel{~}{M})=0`$, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is contractible, i.e. $`M=K(\pi ,1)`$. So, $`\pi `$ is torsion free since $`M`$ is finite dimensional. Finally, $`M`$ is homotopy equivalent to a closed nilmanifold $`G/\pi `$ of dimension $`n`$, and therefore $`\mathrm{rank}\pi =n`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 8.6 Theorem.

Let $`M`$ be a closed $`4`$-dimensional symplectic manifold $`M`$ with $`\pi _2(M)=0`$. If $`\pi _1(M)`$ is a nilpotent, then $`\pi _1(M)`$ is a torsion free nilpotent group of rank $`4`$ and $`H^4(\pi ;)=0`$. Conversely, every finitely presented torsion free nilpotent group $`\pi `$ with $`\mathrm{rank}\pi =4`$ and $`H^4(\pi )=`$ can be realized as the fundamental group of closed $`4`$-dimensional symplectically aspherical manifold $`M`$ with $`\pi _2(M)=0`$.

Proof. First, notice that $`\mathrm{rank}\pi _1(M)>1`$. Indeed, if $`\mathrm{rank}\pi _1(M)=1`$ then $`\pi _1(M)`$ contains $``$ as a subgroup of finite index. Considering the finite covering with respect to the inclusion $`\pi _1(M)`$, we get a 4-dimensional closed symplectic manifold with the fundamental group $``$. But this is impossible by Proposition 5.4.

Now, by Lemma 8.5, $`\pi _1(M)`$ must be a torsion free nilpotent group of the rank 4. Furthermore, $`H^4(\pi )=H^4(M)=`$, since $`M`$ is symplectic and therefore orientable.

Conversely, consider a torsion free finitely presented nilpotent group $`\pi `$, $`\mathrm{rank}\pi =4`$ an $`H^4(\pi )=`$. We embed$`\pi `$ as a uniform lattice in a contractible nilpotent Lie group $`G`$ with $`\mathrm{dim}G=\mathrm{rank}\pi =4`$, \[M\]. Then $`M=G/pi`$ is a 4-dimensional nilmanifold with $`H^4(M)=`$. Now the result follows from Corollary 2.3. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 8.7 Corollary.

Let $`\pi `$ be a torsion free finitely generated c-symplectic nilpotent group. If $`\mathrm{rank}\pi >4`$ then $`\pi 𝒜_6,\pi _4`$ and $`\pi 𝒜_4`$.

This Corollary strength Corollary 7.5.

Proof. Recall that $`\pi `$ is a uniform lattice in a certain simply connected nilpotent Lie group $`G`$, $`\mathrm{dim}G=\mathrm{rank}\pi `$. Asserting as in Lemma 7.1, we conclude that $`\pi 𝒜_{2n}`$. Therefore $`\pi 𝒜_6`$, see Proposition 6.1. Furthermore, $`\pi 𝒜_4`$ by Theorem 8.6. Thus, $`\pi _4`$ since, by Proposition 6.1, $`𝒜_6𝒜_4_4`$. $`\mathrm{}`$


format: text

text:
# Coulomb Distortion in Quasielastic (𝑒,𝑒') Scattering on Nuclei: Effective Momentum Approximation and Beyond

## I Introduction

The quasielastic electron scattering off nuclei has represented, in the last 20 years, one of the most successful tools to study nuclear and nucleon structure properties. Both inclusive $`(e,e^{})`$ and exclusive (single arm $`(e,e^{},𝒩)`$ or double arm $`(e,e^{},𝒩,𝒩)`$) contributed to a deeper understanding of the many-body structure of strongly interacting systems like light and heavier nuclei opening the possibility of investigating also the in medium nucleon properties. In particular the quenching of the longitudinal strength in inclusive reactions has been related to partial restoration of chiral symmetry in nuclei combined with effects due to many-body short-range correlations in dense matter. Similar results have been recently obtained within a relativistic RPA approach taking into account the in medium modifications of the nucleon structure as described by a quark-meson coupling model.

However the experimental studies of inclusive and exclusive reactions induced by electrons have an intrinsic limitation in the case of target nuclei with a large number of protons. The strong Coulomb field induces a distortion of the wave front which modifies the structure of the $`(e,e^{})`$ cross section and induces sizable effects in the longitudinal/transverse separation of the electromagnetic responses.

The theoretical framework to investigate Coulomb corrections to the electron-nucleus cross sections is well established  and is called Distorted Wave Born Approximation (DWBA) in contrast to the better known Plane Wave Born Approximation (PWBA) where the incoming and outgoing charged leptons are described by (Dirac) plane wave neglecting the effect of the Coulomb interaction between the projectile and the target nucleus. The application of the DWBA scheme to the quasielastic $`(e,e^{})`$ regime is in principle straightforward , even if the numerical complications are extremely time consuming. Moreover the DWBA cross section cannot be written in a (Rosenbluth) separable form to extract charge (longitudinal) and current (transverse) responses: a property valid in PWBA only. As a consequence the direct numerical application of the DWBA approach cannot help in the separation of the structure functions.

The aim of the present work is to demonstrate that an Effective Momentum Approximation (EMA) can be defined and used, even in heavier nuclei, to disentangle Coulomb corrections from the experimental cross section once the effective value of the Colomb interaction between the electron and the nucleus is experimentally determined. Focusing corrections are automatically included at the lowest order of the EMA and higher order corrections can be estimated both theoretically and experimentally.

In section II the concept of effective momentum transfer is reviewed emphasizing how the Mott cross section can be factorized out in quasielastic scattering. In section III higher order corrections are investigated and the mean value of the Coulomb interaction discussed in view of recent experimental results. Numerical approaches are discussed in section IV and the experimental analysis of ($`e,e^{}`$) quasielastic data revised in section V. Conclusions are drawn in section VI.

## II The effective momentum transfer

Since the $`(e,e^{})`$ DWBA cross section does not assume a separable form, longitudinal and transverse components can be extracted, in heavy nuclei, only approximately and with the help of theoretical assumptions. The milestones of this path have been indicated by several authors in the past and I would like to follow their main arguments to demonstrate that the (approximated) PWBA-like form of the DWBA cross section must have a structure related to a specific physical ingredient: the effective momentum transfer. This quantity can be defined only in a phenomenological way because it is connected to an asymptotic expansion of the cross section, and embodies leading corrections to the PWBA cross section, on top of which one has to consider higher order effects, if relevant.

### A The eikonal approximation

Czyż and Gottfried , in their seminal work, discussed the break down of the PWBA for heavy nuclei and concluded that ”one may readily and quite reliably correct for this”. They defined the effective momentum transfer in their eq.(2.10)

$$𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}}=𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{eff}}𝐤_{\mathrm{f},\mathrm{eff}}=𝐪+\left(\widehat{𝐤}_\mathrm{i}\widehat{𝐤}_\mathrm{f}\right)\overline{V}_C,$$
(1)
where $`𝐪=𝐤_\mathrm{i}𝐤_\mathrm{f}`$ is the kinematical momentum transfer as measured in the laboratory frame where the initial (final) electron momentum $`𝐤_\mathrm{i}`$ ($`𝐤_\mathrm{f}`$) is determined. $`\overline{V}_C`$ represents the Coulomb interaction energy between the electron and the target nucleus so that its effective momentum in the vicinity of the nucleus becomes: $`𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f},\mathrm{eff}}=𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f}}\widehat{𝐤}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f}}\overline{V}_C`$. ($`E_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f}}=|𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f}}|`$ are the energies of the incoming and outgoing electrons as measured in the lab frame and whose masses are neglected in the high-energy limit).

The DWBA cross section as calculated in ref. (eq.(2.11)) is found ”identical to the cross section in Born Approximation, except for the displacement

$$𝐪^2𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=\omega ^2+4(E_\mathrm{i}\overline{V}_C)(E_\mathrm{f}\overline{V}_C)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /2\mathrm{"}.$$
(2)
By means of a Taylor expansion the Coulomb interaction energy $`\overline{V}_C`$ is approximated by $`V_C(0)`$, i.e. the energy at the center of the nucleus ($`V_C(0)=3/2Ze^2/R`$ for a hard sphere model of the nucleus with charge $`Ze`$ and radius $`R`$).

The conclusions of Czyż and Gottfried are questionable as well as their definition of EMA. In particular one can notice that the displacement (2) implies a modification of the Mott cross section

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}=4\alpha ^2\frac{E_\mathrm{f}^2}{q^4}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta /24\alpha ^2\frac{E_\mathrm{f}^2}{q_{\mathrm{eff}}^4}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta /2,$$
(3)
as can be seen from their eq.(2.11). This is an artifact originating from the form of the eikonal approximation assumed by Czyż and Gottfried as will be discussed in the next section II B 2.

### B High-Energy analytical solutions

#### 1 The approach of Yennie, Boos and Ravenhall

Yennie, Boos and Ravenhall  derived a three-dimensional approximation to high-energy electron scattering on nuclei extracting an analytical expression valid in the vicinity of the nucleus. The method employed an asymptotic expansion in inverse powers of $`qR`$; the electron wave function does not keep the plane wave form and both amplitude and phase contain several contributions. In particular current conservation introduces a factor $`k_{\mathrm{eff}}/k`$ which modifies the electron wave functions at lowest order, an effect not considered by Czyż and Gottfried and which has deep consequences on the modifications of the cross section as I am going to illustrate.

#### 2 The synthesis of Rosenfelder and the Mott cross section

Rosenfelder , in his comprehensive paper on quasielastic electron scattering, discussed also Coulomb corrections making use of a high-energy electron wave function  based on the formulation due to Yennie et al.. Referring to their own work , he wrote that ”for high-energy electrons the distorted wave can be approximated by

$$\psi _𝐤(𝐫)=\frac{|𝐤_{\mathrm{eff}}|}{|𝐤|}e^{i𝐤_{\mathrm{eff}}𝐫}\mathrm{with}𝐤_{\mathrm{eff}}=𝐤\widehat{𝐤}\overline{V}_\mathrm{C},$$
(4)
where $`\overline{V}_\mathrm{C}`$ is a mean value of the electrostatic potential of the nucleus ($`\overline{V}_\mathrm{C}3Z\alpha /2R`$ with $`R=(5/3)^{1/3}r^2^{1/2}`$ for a nucleus with charge $`Z`$ and rms-radius $`r^2^{1/2}`$). The net effect is the replacement $`𝐪𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as argument in the structure functions. Note that the amplitude factor $`|𝐤_{\mathrm{eff}}|/|𝐤|`$ makes sure that the Mott cross section remains unchanged.

The synthesis proposed by Rosenfelder has many practical consequences, namely:

i) the leading form of the electron wave function (4) incorporates, in addition to the effective momentum, the change in amplitude due to the focusing of the wave front also discussed by Yennie et al.;

ii) both incoming and outgoing leading focusing corrections to the electron wave functions concur to preserve the Mott cross section in its classical form. In fact the two terms ($`|𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f},\mathrm{eff}}|/|𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f}}|`$ of eq.(4)), factorize in calculating the ($`e,e^{}`$) cross section and are absorbed in the Mott expression: an important difference with respect the simplified assumptions of Czyż and Gottfried (cf. eq.(3)). In detail:

$`d\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`4\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta /2}{q_{\mathrm{eff}}^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{eff}}|}{|𝐤_\mathrm{i}|}}{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤_{\mathrm{f},\mathrm{eff}}|}{|𝐤_\mathrm{f}|}}\right)^2d𝐤_\mathrm{f}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _i,\lambda _f}{}}\left|W_{n0}\right|^2\delta \left(E_{n0}\omega \right)=`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`4\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta /2}{q^4}}E_\mathrm{f}^2dE_\mathrm{f}d\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{f}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _i,\lambda _f}{}}\left|W_{n0}\right|^2\delta \left(E_{n0}\omega \right)=`$ (6)
$``$ $`\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}dE_\mathrm{f}d\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{f}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _i,\lambda _f}{}}\left|W_{n0}\right|^2\delta \left(E_{n0}\omega \right),`$ (7)
where

$$W_{n0}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\theta /2}𝑑𝐱e^{i𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}}𝐱}\overline{u}_{\lambda _i}(𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{eff}})\gamma _\mu \overline{u}_{\lambda _f}(𝐤_{\mathrm{f},\mathrm{eff}})n|J^\mu (𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}})|0$$
(8)
is the usual matrix element of the transition current for free electrons with momenta $`𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f},\mathrm{eff}}`$.

On the contrary the Effective Momentum Approximation procedure proposed by Czyż and Gottfried would imply a modification of the Mott cross section which must be further compensated by considering the renormalization of the incoming and outgoing electron flux before comparing theory with data. The emphasis I am giving to this point is not academic; the confusion on that specific aspect is at the origin of incorrect experimental analysis as I will discuss in section V C;

iii) Rosenfelder mentions, as interaction energy to be used in the definition of the effective electron momentum and energy, a mean value of the Coulomb potential; a choice which differs from the popular assumption of the value at the origin $`V_\mathrm{C}(0)`$ (a formal mathematical consequence of the expansion of the wave function). The practical value he assumes is again the central value of an hard sphere model (cf. his discussion after eq.(4)), but the intuition is basically correct and I will discuss this aspect again in section III C.

## III DWBA cross section

### A Higher Order effects

The contribution we gave to the problem of finding an approximate expression for the DWBA cross section is strongly based on the path summarized in the previous points. The step forward made is the inclusion of the relevant additional focusing terms beyond the simple leading factors $`|𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f},\mathrm{eff}}|/|𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f}}|`$ of eq.(4), terms which modify the phase of the electron waves as discussed by Yennie et al.  and Lenz and Rosenfelder  (cf. sections II B 1 and II B 2). Generalizing a method proposed by Knoll  for the investigation of the transition form factors to discrete states, the analytic solution of ref. has been used to expand the DWBA matrix elements in terms of the Born solution and its derivative with respect the momentum transfer and applied to exclusive $`(e,e^{},p)`$ as well as inclusive $`(e,e^{})`$ quasielastic scattering . The approach has been developed up to second order in $`Z\alpha `$ and leads to an approximated but transparent way of writing the DWBA $`(e,e^{})`$ cross section, namely:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dE_\mathrm{f}d\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{f}}}|_{\mathrm{DWBA}}\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{q_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}\right)^2S_L(𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}},\omega )[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_L(𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}},\omega ,E_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{eff}})]+`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{q_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{2𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}+\mathrm{tan}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}]S_T(𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}},\omega )[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_T(𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}},\omega ,E_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{eff}})]+S_{\mathrm{int}}(𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}},\omega ,E_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{eff}})\}.`$ (10)
Equation (10) is, as a matter of fact, close to the Rosenfelder’s conclusions because $`\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}`$ assumes its classical form (cf. eq.(7)) and the effective momentum transfer $`𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ replaces the kinematical momentum $`𝐪`$ as argument in the structure functions. However additional modifications appear and they are embodied in the terms $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$ and in a Longitudinal-Transverse interference contribution $`S_{\mathrm{int}}(𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}},\omega ,E_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{eff}})`$. All these terms derive from higher order focusing contributions in the high-energy expansion of the electron waves and prevent the separability of the DWBA cross section. The size of their contribution is crucial to understand the limit of the PWBA approximation and the role of the effective momentum transfer.

A detailed calculation performed in a simple model of quasielastic scattering, suggests that the interference contribution $`S_{\mathrm{int}}`$ is negligible in the whole kinematical range of interest also for nuclei as large as 208Pb ($``$ 0.01% with respect to $`S_L`$ and $`S_T`$) and also the contributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$ are rather small (remaining within 0.5% in the quasielastic peak region and reaching 2 - 4% for the high-$`\omega `$ region and forward angles or for low-$`\omega `$ and backwards angles). These small deviations can play some minor role in the longitudinal transverse separation of the cross section and for a discussion I refer the reader to the papers of ref.. Of course the estimation of the absolute values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{int}}`$ are model dependent and they can differ for more sophisticated models of $`(e,e^{})`$ reactions. However the relative sizes are much more independent and the conclusion on their tiny contributions can be considered reliable.

### B EMA: the result of an asymptotic expansion

The marginal role of higher order corrections reduces the cross section (10) to a simplified and separable form valid (in particular) for medium-weight nuclei:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dE_\mathrm{f}d\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{f}}|_{\mathrm{DWBA}}\frac{d\sigma }{dE_\mathrm{f}d\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{f}}|_{\mathrm{EMA}}=\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}\left\{\left(\frac{q_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}\right)^2S_L(𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}},\omega )+\left[\frac{q_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{2𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}+\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\right]S_T(𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}},\omega )\right\}.$$
(11)
I will call the approximation (11) Effective Momentum Approximation (EMA) in analogy with my previous works . However let me stress that the explicit form of the electron wave function responsible for the reduction (11) contains also the flux renormalization factors of eq.(4) in order to preserve current conservation, a factor which also preserves the classical form of the Mott cross section (cf. eq.(7)). Another interesting point must be kept in mind: the expansion which produces the analytical result (10) is an asymptotic expansion. The effective momentum transfer $`𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ has to be chosen close to the ”real” momentum transfer (which differs from the kinematical momentum $`𝐪=𝐤_i𝐤_f`$ as measured in the laboratory) in such a way that the transition matrix elements of the nuclear current become smooth functions in the neighbourhood of $`r=0`$ and the coefficients of the expansion tend soon to zero . Since the effective momentum is a phenomenological quantity, its value has to be deduced from experimental evidences and eventually justified, from a theoretical point of view, only á posteriori. That is why most of the authors followed the mathematical guide, due to the expansion around $`r=0`$, by choosing $`V_C(0)`$ as correction terms in the definitions (1) and (4). The way to know the ”real” momentum transfer in quasielastic scattering off heavy nuclei is to measure it so that eq.(11) assumes all its relevance only after the experimental determination of $`\overline{V}_\mathrm{C}`$.

### C The effective momentum from experiments

Guèye et al. reported on a dedicated experiment  performed at the Saclay linear accelerator and recently published . Inclusive quasielastic $`(e,e^{})`$ cross sections on 12C and 208Pb have been measured using electron and positron beams in order to investigate charge dependent Coulomb corrections. Guèye et al. have been able to measure both the lowest order correction (determining the Coulomb interaction energy $`\overline{V}_\mathrm{C}`$) and higher order effects. These last contributions turn out to be quite small ($``$ 3%) once the effective kinematics is extracted from the data and the EMA of eq.(11) used to determine the total response. At the same time the experiment shows that the Coulomb potential energy related to the effective kinematics is quite close to the average

$$\overline{V}_\mathrm{C}=\frac{d^3rV_\mathrm{C}(r)\rho _{\mathrm{charge}}(r)}{d^3r\rho _{\mathrm{charge}}(r)}$$
(12)
an observation which definitely substantiates the mean value idea proposed by Rosenfelder (cf. section II B 2). In particular, in the case of for 208Pb, $`|\overline{V}_\mathrm{C}|=18.9\pm 1.5`$ MeV from the experiment and $`|\overline{V}_\mathrm{C}|=20.1`$ MeV from eq.(12), (while $`|V_\mathrm{C}(0)|=25.9`$ MeV).

A few comments are in order:

* the experiment of Guèye et al. corroborates the EMA scheme discussed in the previous sections;
* the information on the ”real” value of the momentum transfer or, equivalently, of the average Coulomb interaction energy, validates eq.(11) as the approximated separable form of the $`(e,e^{})`$ cross section for medium-weight and heavy nuclei as long as few percent residual effects (due to higher order focusing effects) can be neglected.

## IV Coulomb corrections: the numerical approach

A rigorous treatment of Coulomb distortion can be performed by means of a direct numerical calculation of the DWBA matrix elements of the nuclear current.

### A The DWBA calculation of Co’ and Heisenberg

The first complete numerical attempt for quasielastic scattering is due to Co’ and Heisenberg  and they conclude that the separability of the cross section is definitely lost in DWBA, in particular for the transverse response. A reliable model of the nuclear excitation in the quasielastic region is needed in order to extract the correction factors due to Coulomb distortions. This pessimistic conclusion on the model independence of the response functions is due to the comparison of their complete calculation with the PWBA results and to the idea that focusing contributions, added by the DWBA description, cannot be disentangled with the necessary precision in a model independent way. In fact Co’ and Heisenberg assume that the eikonal approximation à la of Czyż and Gottfried (cf. section II A) is the only analytic approximation one can make. The relevance of the flux renormalization effects, included in the DWBA and not in the eikonal approach, prevents the definition of an effective momentum approximation while the nature of the numerical solution cannot manifest the structure of cross section in DWBA.

However the contribution of Co’ and Heisenberg remains fundamental. The conclusion that the Rosenbluth plot of the DWBA appears to be linear despite the non separability of the cross section is illuminating. At that time such information was known , but within an approach including terms up to $`(Z\alpha )^2`$ only and not for a complete DWBA calculation. The fact that the usual Rosenbluth plot of a complete DWBA calculation shows a rather close linearity  demonstrates that experimental evidence of linearity is not a sufficient condition for the separation of the cross section. A large effect of the Coulomb distortion on the Rosenbluth representation is a rotation of the straight line whose intercept and slope are no longer connected with the longitudinal and transverse responses.

### B 1996: the approach of Kim et al.

Also Kim et al.  have the advantage of an exact DWBA numerical solution, but they have a more ambitious project: extracting an approximated form of the cross section which is not as time consuming as the complete DWBA procedure but able to reproduce the exact results keeping, at the same time, a separable form. The main ingredient is the local momentum transfer. In fact the momentum of the electron, in the external Coulomb field, can be rigorously defined as a local ($`r`$-dependent) quantity only. Consequently a Local Effective Momentum Approximation (LEMA) is considered in ref. as leading approximation instead of the EMA which involves an average over the nuclear volume. To transform this scheme into a simple form of DWBA cross section the authors need a certain number of ad hoc assumptions such as:

* the cross section is á priori assumed to have a separable form of Rosenbluth type. Interference contributions like those included in eq.(10), are simply not considered***The analytic approach of ref. shows that the specific error is, in practice, irrelevant because the interference contributions are generally negligible. However this conclusion cannot be drawn from a numerical calculation and is, in any case, valid á posteriori only.. Moreover the structure functions, which depend, to a good approximation, on the effective momentum and energy transfer only, (cf. eq.(11)) are charged of an artificial dependence on the kinematical conditions (incident energies and angles) due to the choice of factorizing the Rosenbluth terms $`\left(\frac{q^2}{𝐪^2}\right)^2`$ and $`\left[\frac{q^2}{2𝐪^2}+\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\right]`$ instead of the averaged quantities $`\left(\frac{q_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}\right)^2`$ and $`\left[\frac{q_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{2𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}+\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\right]`$;
* the local effective momentum transfer is assumed along the kinematical momentum transfer, a choice valid for elastic scattering only. More precisely, the inelastic effective momentum of eq.(1) can be written

$$𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}}=𝐪+\left(\widehat{𝐤}_i\widehat{𝐤}_f\right)\overline{V}_\mathrm{C}=𝐪\left(1\frac{\overline{V}_\mathrm{C}}{E_i}\right)+\frac{\omega }{E_i}\overline{V}_\mathrm{C}\widehat{𝐤}_f,$$
(13)
and becomes $`𝐪_{\mathrm{eff}}=𝐪\left(1\frac{\overline{V}_\mathrm{C}}{E_i}\right)`$ only for $`\omega =0`$.

The assumption of Kim et al. introduces deviations comparable with higher order focusing corrections (in particular at backward angles). As an example, for $`\theta =140^0`$ and momentum transfer as high as 400 MeV/c, the cross section is enhanced by $`4`$% on top of the quasielastic peak and reduced by $`20`$% at higher energy transfer (when its value reaches 1/3 of the maximum);
* several ad hoc factors are introduced in the approximated LEMA expression to reproduce the DWBA results. Most of them are tuned on the DWBA electron cross sections and they can induce quite different effects in the case of positron scattering partially explaining the discrepancy of the LEMA calculation by Kim et al. with the experimental results of ref..

### C faiblesse of the numerical approach

The merit of a complete numerical approach is obvious; nevertheless there is a point de faiblesse, already visible in the paper by Co’ and Heisenberg. It is determined by the intrinsic difficulty in separating higher order (focusing) effects from the simple flux renormalization due to the factors $`|𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f},\mathrm{eff}}|/|𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f}}|`$ of eq.(4) (both the effects are of course included in the complete solution). The natural leading reduction of a full DWBA numerical calculation appears to be the eikonal approximation of Czyż and Gottfried (cf. section II A) with the consequence of a change of the Mott cross section and the need of a renormalization of incoming and outgoing flux. This is a complicated procedure which can become source of errors in the analysis of the experimental data, as I will show in the next section.

## V Analysis of the experimental data

Some of the experimental data on quasielastic electron scattering for medium weight and heavy nuclei have been analyzed including Coulomb distortion effects. In particular the Bates experiment on 238U, the Saclay data on 208Pb, the reanalysis of Jourdan, and the 40Ca experiment at Bates. In this section I will summarize the situation to ask for new analysis which include Coulomb effects in a more consistent and/or more reliable way.

### A Bates data on 238U

The first attempt of obtaining quasielastic ($`e,e^{}`$) data on an heavy nucleus dates back to an experiment performed at Bates on 238U. The data have been analyed by means of an effective momentum transfer. However the approximation adopted was just a generalization of the scheme known for elastic scattering and the effective momentum was chosen to be along the kinematical momentum transfer, a choice valid for elastic scattering only as discussed already in section IV B (cf. eq.(13)).

Also focusing corrections were included by adapting a phase shift code used for elastic scattering. The details of the procedure are discussed neither in the article nor in the PhD thesis of Blatchley. The approach, however, has the merit of a first attempt even if manifestly insufficient for a complete analysis.

### B Saclay data on 208Pb

The Saclay data on 208Pb  have been analyzed including the quasielastic effective momentum and higher order corrections systematically. In particular the EMA in the form given by eq.(11) is used, for the first time, as leading order approximation to disentangle Coulomb corrections. Higher order effects are also discussed and included within the approximations of ref.. These approximations are, however, too severe to give a quantitative account of higher order contributions and a more rigorous treatment of the transition matrix elements shows that the effects are smaller. Also in the case of 208Pb a reanalysis is, therefore, useful even if the expected modifications cannot change the qualitative conclusions drawn in 1994.

### C Jourdan’s data analysis and the Bates experiment on 40Ca

I discuss the two analysis together for two reasons: i) they refer to medium-weight nuclei; ii) they both make use of the Coulomb distortion analysis proposed by Kim et al. , i.e. the use of a numerical approach. In the first case the method and the corrections suggested by Kim et al. have been applied to existing data on 12C , 40Ca  and 56Fe , while in the latter Jin, Wright and Onley coauthored the paper on the experiment.

Both papers discuss first the problem of flux renormalization due to leading order focusing effects (i.e. the factors $`|𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f},\mathrm{eff}}|/|𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{f}}|`$ I discussed in section II B 2). The complications induced by a numerical approach appear immediately: the correction factor chosen More precisely the two papers describe the application of two opposite procedures: the data of the ($`e,e^{}`$) cross section are reduced by a factor $`(|𝐤_\mathrm{i}|/|𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{eff}}|)^2`$ in the Jourdan analysis and increased by the same quantity in the Bates paper: however a closer look at the data analysis supports the idea of a misprint in the paper on 40Ca. to renormalize the cross section data is $`(|𝐤_\mathrm{i}|/|𝐤_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{eff}}|)^2`$ a choice which involves the incident energies only and it has no theoretical justification. In fact if the EMA of eq.(11) is accepted as leading approximation, the Mott cross section should be kept unchanged and higher order effects estimated. On the contrary if one prefers to obtain the cross section in the eikonal approximation of Czyż and Gottfried because this is the leading part of the numerical calculation, both the incoming and outgoing electron waves must be renormalized and not the incoming flux only (cf. section II B 2). Actually a possible origin of the incorrect normalization procedure is in the way of writing the Mott cross section in both papers, namely $`\left(\frac{\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta /2}{2E_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /2}\right)^2`$. The correct expression which distinguishes the contributions of two different regions (the interaction volume and the detector) reads $`\left(2\frac{\alpha E_\mathrm{f}\mathrm{cos}\theta /2}{q^2}\right)^2`$ and it reduces to the previous form only if Coulomb corrections are negligible. In fact the term $`E_\mathrm{f}^2`$ in the numerator of eq.(3) originates from the detection volume $`d𝐤_\mathrm{f}=E_\mathrm{f}^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{f}dE_\mathrm{f}`$ in the Lab, while the propagator of the virtual photon, $`\frac{1}{q^2}`$, involves the interaction region where the motion of the electron is influenced by the Coulomb potential and is to be modified to $`\frac{1}{q_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}`$ as stated by Czyż and Gottfried (see discussion in section II A). The inclusion of the leading focusing terms of eq.(4) compensate such a modification as already discussed (cf. eq.(7)).

The manifest inconsistent treatment of Coulomb distortions influences the conclusions of the analysis of refs.; a reanalysis would be welcome.

## VI Final remarks and conclusion

The structure of the DWBA cross section can be reduced (up to order $`(Z\alpha )^2`$) to the form (10). The contributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L,T}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{int}}`$ are due to higher order focusing effects of the electron waves in the proximity of the nucleus, in particular to its phase deformation. On the contrary the renormalization of the electron waves due to current conservation is a leading order effect and can be incorporated in a simple form (the expression (11)) known as Effective Momentum Approximation (EMA) where only higher order effects are neglected. The fact that in eq.(11) the Mott cross section keeps its classical expression is just a byproduct of current conservation. The Effective Momentum Approximation is a good scheme to interpret inclusive data as experimentally verified in the recent analysis of electron and positron quasielastic scattering and theoretically predicted in a series of papers.

Quasielastic data should be reanalyzed within such scheme in a consistent way to include those Coulomb distortion effects which give sizable contributions in the separation of the cross section in longitudinal and transverse components. The recent application of more complete numerical DWBA results shows a clear inconsistency and the data on longitudinal/transverse structure functions cannot be considered reliable, a remark confirmed by the comparison of the calculation by Kim et al. with the experimental data on Coulomb corrections measured comparing quasielastic scattering by electrons and positrons off 12C and 208Pb.

## Acknowledgments

Interesting discussions with J. Morgenstern and a useful correspondence with C. Williamson and J. Jourdan are gratefully acknowledged. I thank G. Orlandini and V. Vento for a critical reading of the manuscript.