text:
# Lifts of points on curves and exponential sums.

## 0. Introduction

Character sums estimates over finite fields have been widely studied since Gauss. During the last decade, coding theorists initiated the study of a new type of sums, over points with coordinates in a $`p`$-adic field. The first result in this direction was the generalisation of the Weil-Carlitz-Uchiyama bound. Let $`f𝒪_m[X]`$ be a polynomial over the ring of integers of $`K_m`$, the unramified extension of degree $`m`$ of the field of $`p`$-adic numbers $`\text{}_p`$, $`𝒯=𝒯^{}\{0\}`$ the Teichmüller of $`𝒪_m`$, where $`𝒯^{}`$ is the multiplicative subgroup of elements of order prime to $`p`$ in $`𝒪_m^{}`$ ; if we write the $`p`$-adic expansion of $`f`$ as $`f_0+pf_1+\mathrm{}+p^{l1}f_{l1}+\mathrm{}`$, $`f_i𝒯[X]`$, Kumar et al. (cf. ) gave a bound for the following exponential sum, where $`\psi `$ is an additive character of order $`p^l`$ of $`𝒪_m`$ :

$$\left|\underset{x𝒯}{}\psi (f(x))\right|\left(\underset{0il1}{\mathrm{max}}(p^{l1i}\mathrm{deg}f_i)1\right)p^{\frac{m}{2}}.$$

For convenience, we choose to work over “Galois rings”, i.e. the rings $`R:=𝒪_m/p^l𝒪_m:=GR(p^l,m)`$. Note that $`𝒯`$ is the image of a section of reduction modulo $`p`$ : $`R\text{𝔽}_{p^m}`$. In other words, it is a “lift of points” from $`\text{𝔸}_{\text{𝔽}_{p^m}}^1(\text{𝔽}_{p^m})`$ to $`\text{𝔸}_R^1(R)`$. The purpose of this paper is to give bounds for analogous sums, defined on any smooth projective curve over $`R`$, not only the projective line.

To do so, we adopt the following point of view : let $`w:RW_l(k)`$ be the isomorphism between the Galois ring $`R`$ and the ring of Witt vectors of length $`l`$ with coefficients in $`k:=\text{𝔽}_{p^m}`$. If $`C`$ is a smooth projective curve over $`R`$, equiped with an embedding $`C\text{}_R^n`$, let $`U=\text{Spec}B\text{𝔸}_R^n=\text{Spec}R[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$ be an affine open of $`C`$ of the form $`C\backslash \{CH\}`$, with $`H`$ an hyperplane in $`\text{}_R^n`$ ; its image by Greenberg’s functor is, roughly speaking, the subvariety $`U\text{𝔸}_k^{nl}`$ whose points are the $`(w(x_1),\mathrm{},w(x_n))k^{nl}`$, where $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ describe the points of $`U(R)`$. We can define a “reduction morphism” $`\rho _U:UU_k:=Uk=\text{Spec}B_0`$ sending $`(w(x_1),\mathrm{},w(x_n))`$ to $`(\overline{x_1},\mathrm{},\overline{x_n})`$, i.e. each $`w(x_i)`$ on its first coordinate, which is the image of $`x_i`$ by reduction modulo $`p`$ $`Rk`$. Since $`U`$ is smooth, there exists a section $`\sigma `$ of $`\rho _U`$ and a morphism of $`R`$-algebras $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s):BW_l(B_0)`$ associated to $`\sigma `$. Then $`\sigma (U_k)(k)U(k)`$ corresponds to a subset $`𝒯_\sigma U(R)`$, and if $`fB`$ is a regular function on $`U`$, we can rewrite (theorem 1.2) the character sum :

$$\underset{x𝒯_\sigma }{}\psi (f(x))=\underset{xU_k(k)}{}\psi (\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f)(x)).$$

To give a bound for this last sum, we use Artin-Schreier-Witt theory (the theory of abelian extensions of a field of characteristic $`p`$, whose exponent is a power of $`p`$) ; it allows us to associate an idele class character to a Witt vector of functions. From Riemann hypothesis for curves over a finite field (Weil’s theorem), giving a bound for the last character sum reduces to the calculation of the conductor of such an idele class character, which depends on the pole order of the components of the Witt vector of functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f)`$.

Let us see how this works if $`C`$ is the projective line $`\text{}_R^1`$, and $`U`$ the affine line $`\text{𝔸}_R^1`$. In this case, $`U`$ is affine $`l`$-space $`\text{𝔸}_k^l`$, and the reduction morphism is projection on the first coordinate $`\text{𝔸}_k^l\text{𝔸}_k^1`$. Now since $`w(𝒯)`$ is the set $`\{(x,0,\mathrm{},0),xk\}`$, $`𝒯`$ corresponds to image of the section $`\sigma :\text{𝔸}_k^1\text{𝔸}_k^l`$ defined by $`\sigma (x)=(x,0,\mathrm{},0)`$. The morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s):R[X]W_l(k[X])`$ is defined by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)_{|R}=w`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(X)=(X,0,\mathrm{},0)`$. Finally, if $`f=f_0+\mathrm{}+p^{l1}f_{l1}`$ is as above, a Witt vector calculation shows that the conductor of the idele class character associated to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f)`$ is at most $`\mathrm{max}_i(p^{l1i}\mathrm{deg}f_i)+1`$, and we get the bound.

In the general case, the section $`\sigma `$ is much harder to write down, and many efforts are devoted to make it as explicit as possible. Actually we give a bound for the pole orders of the “coordinate functions” of certain sections $`\sigma `$, i.e. the components $`X_{i0},X_{i1},\mathrm{},X_{il1}`$ of the vectors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(X_i)`$ : we show (theorem 2.1) that if $`C_k=Ck`$ has genus $`g`$, and if $`D_0`$ is the intersection divisor of $`C_k`$ with $`H_0k`$ in $`\text{}_k^n`$, then there exists a section with $`X_{ij}`$ having polar divisor less than $`p^j(jD+(j+1)D_0)`$, where $`D`$ is a divisor of degree $`2g2+\frac{2g1}{p}`$ with support contained in that of $`D_0`$. Similar calculations have been made in the case of elliptic and hyperelliptic curves by Finotti (cf ), and this result may be of independent interest from the rest of the article.

Let us say a few words about the bounds we get, and compare them with previously known results. As in Weil-Carlitz-Uchiyama bound, the conductor is a “weighted degree” of the pole orders of the functions in the $`p`$-adic expansion of the function, inflated by a term of order $`2gp^{l1}`$ depending only on the genus of the reduced curve and on the ring $`R`$. This generalises known results : the case of projective line had been treated by Winnie Li (cf. ), who gives the exact degree of the conductor of the idele class character associated to additive or multiplicative characters and rational functions. Our method gives the same result in the case of additive characters (cf remark at the end of section 4) ; this shows that the bounds we give are tight with respect to the weighted degree of the pole orders. Other examples of such character sums in the case $`l=2`$ can be found in , , respectively for elliptic and $`C_{ab}`$ curves ; these results are particular cases of the ones we obtain. They are used to construct error correcting codes over Galois rings with good parameters. Note also that the Weil Carlitz Uchiyama bound allows the construction of large families of periodic sequences with low cross correlation.

The paper is organized as follows : in section 1 we show the existence of the sections described above, and show how they allow us to rewrite character sums (theorem 1.2) ; for certain of these sections, we give bounds for the pole orders of their coordinate functions in theorem 2.1 in section 2. Section 3 is independent from the rest of the article ; we recall without proof some results of Artin Schreier Witt theory ; the main result is theorem 3.1, which gives bounds for exponential sums associated to a Witt vector of functions and an additive character of order a power of $`p`$. We suspect this result to be well known, but we din’t find any reference (theorem 3.1 in  covers only the case of functions having a single pole at a rational point). It reduces our bounds to the calculation of the reduced pole orders of certain Witt vectors, and this is done in section 4. In the last section, we give the bounds, first in the general case (theorem 5.1), then we give two corollaries in particular cases where the bounds are simpler.

Notations

We first recall notations about rings of Witt vectors ; let $`A`$ be a ring of characteristic $`p`$ : in the sequel, $`W_l(A)`$ denotes the ring of Witt vectors of length $`l`$ with coefficients in the ring $`A`$. As usual,

$$V:W_l(A)W_l(A),V(a_0,\mathrm{},a_{l1})=(0,a_0,\mathrm{},a_{l2})$$

denotes the Verschiebung, and :

$$F:W_l(A)W_l(A),F(a_0,\mathrm{},a_{l1})=(a_0^p,\mathrm{},a_{l1}^p)$$

the Frobenius of $`W_l(A)`$. We recall the following relations, which we use in the sequel :

$$FVx=VFx=px;V^axV^by=V^{a+b}(F^bxF^ay)\text{for all}x,yW_l(A),a,b\text{}.$$

Let $`R=GR(p^l,m)`$ be a Galois ring with residue field $`k=\text{𝔽}_{p^m}`$, and $`R_d=GR(p^l,md)`$ its unramified extension of degree $`d`$, with residue field $`k_d=\text{𝔽}_{p^{md}}`$. Recall that there is a canonical isomorphism $`w:R_dW_l(k_d)`$. Recall that $`R_d^{}`$ has a subgroup of order $`p^{md}1`$ : we denote it by $`𝒯_d^{}`$ ; we also let $`𝒯_d=𝒯_d^{}\{0\}`$ and call it the “Teichmüller” of $`R_d`$. Note that via $`w`$, $`𝒯_d`$ corresponds to the elements of the form $`(a,0,\mathrm{},0)`$, $`ak_d`$.

We will need the following easy lemma about valuations of sums and products of Witt vectors of functions in the function field $`K(C_k)`$ of a curve $`C_k`$ over $`k`$ :

###### Lemma 0.1.

Let $`f=(f_0,\mathrm{},f_{l1}),g=(g_0,\mathrm{},g_{l1})W_l(K(C_k))`$, $`P`$ a point of $`C_k(\overline{k})`$, and $`v_P`$ the corresponding valuation. Set $`a_i=v_P(f_i);b_i=v_P(g_i);0il1.`$ Then

i) if $`h=(h_0,\mathrm{},h_{l1})=f+g`$, we have :

$$v_P(h_i)\underset{0ki}{\mathrm{min}}(p^{ik}a_k,p^{ik}b_k),0il1.$$

ii) if $`h=(h_0,\mathrm{},h_{l1})=fg`$, we have :

$$v_P(h_0)=a_0+b_0,v_P(h_i)\underset{0<j+ki}{\mathrm{min}}(p^{ij}a_j+p^{ik}b_k),1il1.$$

## 1. Teichmüller subsets

We begin by recalling some facts about Greenberg’s functor : the proofs can be found in . To any $`k`$-scheme $`Y`$, we associate functorially a scheme $`WY`$ over $`\text{Spec}R`$, with the same underlying topological space, and structure sheaf $`𝒪_{WY}=W_l(𝒪_Y)`$, defined for every $`U`$ open in $`Y`$ by :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,𝒪_{WY})=W_l(\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,𝒪_Y)).$$

If $`X`$ is a $`R`$-scheme, the functor associating $`\text{Hom}_R(WY,X)`$ to every $`k`$-scheme $`Y`$ is representable by a $`k`$-scheme $`X`$ : we have a functorial isomorphism :

$$\text{Hom}_R(WY,X)=\text{Hom}_k(Y,X).$$

Now Greenberg’s functor is the functor $`XX`$ from the category of $`R`$-schemes to the one of $`k`$-schemes. Note that we get a morphism $`\lambda _X`$ corresponding to the identity of $`X`$ by the adjuction formula. Moreover, since we have $`W\text{Spec}k_d=\text{Spec}R_d`$ for any $`d1`$, this formula gives a bijection, we shall call Greenberg’s bijection in the sequel :

$$X(R_d)=X(k_d),$$

between the set of $`R_d`$-points of $`X`$ and the set of $`k_d`$-points of $`X`$.

We now describe the image of an affine $`R`$-scheme $`X`$ under the functor $``$, and explicit the morphism $`\lambda _X`$ in this case. If $`X=\text{𝔸}_R^n`$ is affine $`n`$-space over $`R`$, we have $`X=\text{𝔸}_k^{nl}`$, the map $`\lambda _X:=\lambda `$ is the morphim corresponding to the morphism of $`R`$-algebras :

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\gamma & :& R[T_1,\mathrm{},T_n]& & W_l\left(k[T_i^j]_{1in,0jl1}\right)\\ & & \alpha R& & w_l(\alpha )\\ & & T_i& & (T_i^0,\mathrm{},T_i^{l1}).\end{array}$$

and Greenberg’s bijection is just the map :

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}w_l\times \mathrm{}\times w_l& :& \text{𝔸}_R^n(R_d)=R_d^n& & \text{𝔸}_k^{nl}(k_d)=k_d^{nl}\\ & & (\alpha _1\mathrm{},\alpha _n)& & (w_l(\alpha _1),\mathrm{},w_l(\alpha _n)).\end{array}$$

Let us write the image $`\gamma (f)`$ of a polynomial $`fR[T_i]`$. We first fix some notations. Let $`\delta `$ be the morphism :

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\delta & :& R[T_i]& & W_l(k[T_i^0])\\ & & T_i& & (T_i^0,0,\mathrm{},0)\end{array}$$

$`\delta _{|R}=w_l`$, and $`U_i=(0,T_i^1,\mathrm{},T_i^{l1})`$. Let $`M=\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_t\}`$ denote a $`t`$-uple of integers greater than $`1`$ ; we set $`|M|=m_1+\mathrm{}+m_t`$, $`\mathrm{\#}M=t`$, and $`M!=m_1!\mathrm{}m_t!`$. If $`J=\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_t\}`$ is a $`t`$-uple of indexes in $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, we set :

$$\frac{^{|M|}f}{T_J^M}=\frac{^{|M|}f}{T_{j_1}^{m_1}\mathrm{}T_{j_t}^{m_t}};U_J^M=U_{j_1}^{m_1}\mathrm{}U_{j_t}^{m_t}.$$

Then we can write, for all $`fR[T_i]`$:

$`\gamma (f)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (f)+{\displaystyle \underset{h=1}{\overset{l1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{|M|=h}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{J}{\mathrm{\#}J=\mathrm{\#}M}}{}}\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{M!}}{\displaystyle \frac{^hf}{T_J^M}}\right)U_J^M.`$
Note that $`\frac{1}{M!}\frac{^hf}{T_J^M}`$ is again a polynomial in $`R[T_i]`$. Developing, we obtain another description for $`\gamma `$ : if $`\gamma (f)=(f_0,\mathrm{},f_{l1})`$, we have :

$$f_0=\overline{f}(x_i^0),f_j=f^{(j)}(T_u^t)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\frac{\overline{f}}{T_i}(T_i^0))^{p^j}T_i^j,1jl1,$$

with $`\overline{f}`$ the reduction modulo $`p`$ of $`f`$, and $`f^{(j)}`$ a polynomial in $`k[T_u^t]_{1un,0tj1}`$.

Now let $`U`$ be an affine $`R`$-scheme $`U=\text{Spec}R[T_1,\mathrm{},T_n]/I`$, $`I=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_m)`$. For every $`1im`$, set $`\gamma (f_i)=(f_{i0},\mathrm{},f_{il1})`$ ; let $`I^{}`$ be the ideal in $`k[T_u^t]`$ generated by the $`f_{ij},1im,0jl1`$, and $`\pi _I^{}`$ the surjection $`k[T_u^t]k[T_u^t]/I^{}`$. Clearly the morphism :

vanishes on $`I`$ ; it induces a morphism $`\gamma _U:R[T_1,\mathrm{},T_n]/IW_l(k[T_u^t]/I^{})`$. Now the $`k`$-scheme $`\text{Spec}k[T_u^t]/I^{}`$ is $`U`$, and $`\lambda _U`$ is the morphism corresponding to $`\gamma _U`$.

In the sequel, we restrict our attention to the following situation : let $`U=\text{Spec}B`$ be a smooth affine $`R`$-scheme, and $`U_k=Uk=\text{Spec}B_0`$ ; we denote by $`\pi :U_kU`$ the morphism induced by reduction modulo $`p`$ (note that since $`U`$ is a smooth $`R`$-scheme, $`B`$ is a flat $`R`$-algebra and $`B_0=Bk=B/pB`$).

Let us construct a “reduction morphism” $`\rho _U:UU_k`$. Projection of Witt vectors on their first coordinate, $`p_0`$, induces a morphism $`\mu _U:UWU`$. Composing with $`\lambda _U`$, we get a morphism $`UU`$, which factors to $`\rho _U:UU_k`$. It corresponds to the morphism of $`R`$-algebras $`p_0\gamma _U`$, which factors as :

$$B=R[T_1,\mathrm{},T_n]/(f_1,\mathrm{},f_m)B_0k[T_1^0,\mathrm{},T_n^0]/(\overline{f_1},\mathrm{},\overline{f_m})k[T_i^j]/I_U,$$

and the last inclusion is the morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho _U)`$. Note that if $`(a_1^0,\mathrm{},a_n^{l1})`$ is a point of $`U`$, $`\rho _U`$ sends it to $`(a_1^0,\mathrm{},a_n^0)`$ : it acts as reduction modulo $`p`$ of the coordinates, seen as Witt vectors.

We are interested in constructing sections of $`\rho _U`$. Note that such a section gives a lifting of the Frobenius morphism from $`U_k`$ to $`U`$ ; if $`C`$ is a smooth projective curve over $`R`$, with $`C_k`$ of genus at least $`2`$, this is impossible due to a result of Raynaud ( I.5.4). That is the reason why we restrict our attention to an affine open $`U`$.

We have $`WU_k=\text{Spec}W_l(B_0)`$ : $`U_k`$ is defined by a nilpotent sheaf of ideals in $`WU_k`$. Since $`U`$ is smooth over $`R`$, the map $`\text{Hom}_R(WU_k,U)\text{Hom}_R(U_k,U)`$ induced by $`\mu _{U_k}`$ is surjective ( IV.17.1.1). Let $`s`$ be an antecedent of $`\pi :U_kU`$. The adjunction formula now gives $`\sigma \text{Hom}_k(U_k,U)`$ such that $`\lambda _UW\sigma =s`$.

Lemma 1.1.The morphism $`\sigma `$ is a section of $`\rho _U`$ ; it is a closed immersion $`U_kU`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the following diagram :

The left hand square is cartesian from the definition of the functor $`W`$, and the right hand one by the construction of $`\rho _U`$. From the adjunction formula, we have $`\lambda _UW\sigma =s`$, and $`\pi =s\mu _{U_k}`$ since $`s`$ is an antecedent of $`\pi `$ ; thus we get $`\lambda _UW\sigma \mu _{U_k}=\pi `$. Summing up, we obtain $`\pi \rho _U\sigma =\pi `$, and since $`\pi `$ is a closed immersion, we get the first claim of the lemma : $`\rho _U\sigma =\text{Id}_{U_k}`$. The second assertion comes immediately from the first one. ∎

Now we get a bijection $`\sigma (U_k)(k)=U_k(k)`$, and a bijection from $`\sigma (U_k)(k)U(k)`$ to a subset of $`U(R)`$.

Definition : We call this subset the Teichmüller subset of $`U(R)`$ associated to the section $`\sigma `$, and denote it by $`𝒯_\sigma `$.

Example : The simplest case is $`U=\text{𝔸}_R^1=\mathrm{Spec}R[T]`$ ; here we have $`U=\text{𝔸}_k^l=\text{Spec}k[T^0,\mathrm{},T^{l1}]`$, $`\rho _U`$ is the morphism $`k[T^0]k[T^0,\mathrm{},T^{l1}]`$, and $`\sigma :k[T^0,\mathrm{},T^{l1}]k[T]`$, $`T^0T`$, $`T^i0,1il1`$ is a section of $`\rho _U`$ ; the associated Teichmüller subset (via the identification $`\text{𝔸}_R^1(R)=R`$), is just the Teichmüller $`𝒯`$ of $`R`$.

Now we come to the main property of Teichmüller subsets ; they allow us to rewrite exponential sums :

Theorem 1.2. Let $`fB`$ be a regular function over $`U`$, and $`\psi `$ an additive character of $`GR(p^l,m)`$. We have the equality :

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Pi }𝒯_\sigma }{}\psi \left(f(\mathrm{\Pi })\right)=\underset{PU_k(k)}{}\psi \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f)(P)\right),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f)(P)=(f_0(P),\mathrm{},f_{l1}(P))`$ if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f)=(f_0,\mathrm{},f_{l1})`$

###### Proof.

Let $`PU_k(k)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{P}=\sigma PU(k)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }𝒯_\sigma `$ the point corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ by Greenberg’s bijection. Consider the following diagram (where $`P,\stackrel{~}{P},\mathrm{\Pi }`$ stand for the morphisms associated to the points $`P,\stackrel{~}{P},\mathrm{\Pi }`$) :

Since $`\stackrel{~}{P}=\sigma P`$, we have the equality of morphisms $`\sigma P=\stackrel{~}{P}`$, that is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{P})=\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma )`$ ; moreover, since $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ correspond by Greenberg’s bijection, the right-hand side of the diagram commutes. Thus the whole diagram commutes and we get :

$$fB,\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f)(P)=w(f(\mathrm{\Pi })).$$

Finally the two summation sets are in one to one correspondance, and the theorem is established. ∎

## 2. The degrees of coordinate functions

In this section, we give a precise description of certain sections $`\sigma `$, when $`U`$ is an affine open of a smooth curve $`C\text{}_R^n`$.

Let $`C`$ be a smooth, irreducible, geometrically connected curve over $`R`$, equiped with an embedding $`C\text{}_R^n=\text{Proj }R[X_0,\mathrm{},X_n]`$, and $`U`$ the affine open $`C\{X_00\}`$ of $`C`$. Recall that if $`C`$ is defined in $`\text{}_R^n`$ by homogeneous polynomials $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_m`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}F_i=d_i`$, $`U`$ is defined in $`\text{𝔸}_R^n=\text{Spec}R[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ by $`I=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_m)`$, $`f_i=F_i/X_0^{d_i}`$. We set $`B=R[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]/I`$, and $`B_0=Bk`$ the ring of regular functions on $`U_k=Uk`$.

Recall that the morphism : $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho _U):B_0k[x_i^j]_{1in,0jl1}/I_U`$ is the injection $`x_ix_i^0`$. Thus a morphism $`\varphi :k[x_i^j]_{1in,0jl1}B_0`$ factors to a section $`\sigma `$ of $`\rho _U`$ if and only if $`\varphi (x_i^0)=x_i`$ and it vanishes on $`I_U`$. Since the generators of $`I_U`$ are the components of the Witt vectors $`\gamma (f_i)`$, this last condition can be rewritten :

$$\varphi (\overline{f_t}(x_1^0,\mathrm{},x_n^0))=01tm;$$

$$\varphi \left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\frac{\overline{f_t}}{x_i^0})^{p^j}x_i^j+f_t^{(j)}\right)=01tm,1jl1.$$

in $`B_0`$. Now since $`\varphi (x_i^0)=x_i`$, the first conditions are automatically satisfied, and, if we set $`\varphi (x_i^j)=x_{ij}`$, we can rewrite the second ones in $`B_0`$ as :

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\frac{\overline{f_t}}{x_i})^{p^j}x_{ij}+f_t^{(j)}(x_i,x_{i1},\mathrm{},x_{i,j1})=0$$

Definition : If $`\sigma `$ is the corresponding section of $`\rho _U`$, we call the $`(x_{ij})`$ the coordinate functions of the Teichmüller subset $`𝒯_\sigma `$.

We now give a bound for the pole orders of these functions.

Theorem 2.1.  Let $`C`$, $`U`$ be as above, assume that $`C_k`$ has genus $`g`$, and denote by $`D_0`$ the intersection divisor of $`C_k`$ with the hyperplane $`\{X_0=0\}\text{}_k^n`$. Then if $`D`$ is an effective divisor on $`C_k`$ of degree $`2g2+\frac{2g1}{p}`$ whose support is contained in that of $`D_0`$, we can find a section $`\sigma :U_kU`$ of $`\rho _U`$ with coordinate functions $`(x_{ij})`$ such that, in $`W_l(B_0)`$ :

$$(0,x_{i,1},\mathrm{},x_{i,l1})=\underset{d=1}{\overset{l1}{}}p^{d1}V\left(X_i^{(d)}(Fx_i)X_0^{(d)}\right),1in,$$

with $`X_i^{(d)}=(x_{i,d}^{(d)},\mathrm{},x_{i,l1}^{(d)},0,\mathrm{},0)`$ satisfying $`x_{i,j}^{(d)}L\left(p^{jd+1}d(D+D_0)\right)`$.

We need a lemma :

Lemma 2.2.  Let $`d,e\text{}^{}`$, and $`E=dD+(d1)D_0`$. If $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_k,F^e𝒩_{_k^n/C_k})`$ is a global section of the sheaf $`F^e\left(𝒩_{_k^n/C_k}(E)\right)`$, there exists a global section $`\eta `$ of $`F^e\left(𝒯_^n(E)\right)`$ whose image is $`R`$ by the map :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(C_k,F^e\left(𝒯_^n(E)\right))\mathrm{\Gamma }(C_k,F^e\left(𝒩_{_k^n/C_k}(E)\right)),$$

and whose restriction :

$$(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n)\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_k,F^e\left(𝒯_^n(E)\right))=B_0^n$$

can be written :

$$\eta _i=E_ix_i^{p^e}E_0,E_iL(p^e(E+D_0)),0in.$$

###### Proof.

Consider the normal/tangent exact sequence of $`C_k`$ in $`\text{}_k^n`$ :

If we tensor it by $`(E)`$, then take its pull-back by the $`e`$-th power of the absolute Frobenius morphism, the sequence remains exact. Now by the assumption on $`D`$, the first sheaf is invertible of degree greater than $`2g1`$, and its first cohomology group vanishes from Riemann-Roch theorem. Hence the sequence remains exact when we apply the global section functor. From this we deduce the existence of $`\eta `$.

Consider now the pull-back of Euler’s exact sequence to $`C_k`$ :

Remark that $`𝒪_{C_k}(1)(D_0)`$ and apply the same operations as above. Again, the sequence remains exact when we take global sections, and we obtain a preimage for $`\eta `$ :

$$E=(E_0,\mathrm{},E_n)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(F^e(D_0+E)\right)^{n+1}=L(p^e(D_0+E))^{n+1}.$$

For the last assertion, we just have to apply the (exact) functor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_k,.)`$ to the last exact sequence ; we get :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_k,F^e(D_0+E)^{n+1})=(B_0^e)^{n+1}$$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_k,F^e(𝒯_{_k^n}(E)))=(B_0^e)^n$$

(where $`B_0^e`$ means the $`B_0`$-module $`B_0`$ acting on itself via the $`e`$-th power of the Frobenius morphism), and the morphism from the first of these $`B_0`$-modules to the second is :

$$(b_0,\mathrm{},b_n)(b_1x_1^{p^e}b_0,\mathrm{},b_nx_n^{p^e}b_0),$$

This completes the proof of lemma 2.2. ∎

###### Proof.

(of theorem 2.1.)

Let us begin by the case $`l=2`$. Consider the morphism :

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\varphi _1& :& R[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]& & W_2(B_0)\\ & & x_i& & (x_i,0)\end{array}$$

Since $`\varphi _1`$ induces reduction modulo $`p`$ on the first coordinate, we see that $`\varphi _{1|I}`$ induces a $`B`$-module homomorphism $`S_1:I/pIV(B_0)W_2(B_0)`$ such that $`(I/pI)^2\text{Ker}S_1`$. Note that since $`I`$ is the kernel of $`R[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]B`$, it is a flat $`R`$-module ; thus $`I/pI=I_0`$, and we get a morphism :

$$R_1:I_0/(I_0)^2V(B_0)B_0^{},$$

where $`B_0^{}`$ is the $`B_0`$-module described in the proof of the lemma. It is therefore natural to consider $`R_1`$ as a section of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_k,F^{}𝒩_{_k^n/C_k})`$. Now if $`\stackrel{~}{f_i}`$ is the image of $`\overline{f_i}`$ in $`I_0/(I_0)^2`$, then $`f_t^{(1)}(x_i)=R_1(\stackrel{~}{f_t})`$, and solving the equations (in $`B_0`$) :

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\frac{\overline{f_t}}{x_j})^px_{1j}+f_t^{(1)}(x_j)=01tm$$

boils down to finding a preimage of $`R_1`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_k,F^{}(𝒯_{_k^n}𝒪_{C_k}))`$ by the map :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_k,F^{}(𝒯_{_k^n}𝒪_{C_k}))\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_k,F^{}𝒩_{\text{}_k^n/C_k}),$$

which is the morphism of $`B_0^{}`$-modules induced by the transpose of the Jacobian matrix of $`U_k`$ in $`\text{𝔸}_k^n`$. Let us show the :

###### Claim 1.

$`R_1`$ is a global section of $`F^{}𝒩_{_k^n/C_k}`$.

It is sufficient to show that $`R_1(F^{}𝒩_{_k^n/C_k})_P`$ for all $`P`$ not in $`U_k`$ since $`R_1\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_k,F^{}𝒩_{_k^n/C_k})`$. Let $`P`$ be such a point, and assume it lies away from the hyperplane $`\{X_n=0\}`$. By the Jacobian criterion of smoothness, the $`𝒪_{C_k,P}`$-module $`(I_0/I_0^2)_P`$ is generated by $`n1`$ functions :

$$\frac{\overline{F_1}}{X_n^{d_1}}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{f_1}}{x_n^{d_1}},\mathrm{},\frac{\overline{F_{n1}}}{X_n^{d_{n1}}}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{f_{n1}}}{x_n^{d_{n1}}},d_i=\mathrm{deg}f_i.$$

Their images by $`R_1`$ are :

$$\frac{R_1\stackrel{~}{f_1}}{x_n^{pd_1}},\mathrm{},\frac{R_1\stackrel{~}{f_{n1}}}{x_n^{pd_{n1}}};$$

by Witt vectors calculations we get $`R_1\stackrel{~}{f_r}=\frac{1}{p}(f_r(x_i)^pf_r^p(x_i^p))`$, and $`\mathrm{deg}R_1\stackrel{~}{f_r}pd_r`$. Finally the $`\frac{R_1\stackrel{~}{f_r}}{x_n^{pd_r}}`$ are in $`𝒪_{C_k,P}`$, and $`R_1(F^{}𝒩_{_k^n/C_k})_P`$ : this proves the claim.

Consequently, since $`D`$ is an effective divisor with support contained in $`C_k\backslash U_k`$, we get that $`R_1`$ is also a global section of the sheaf $`F^{}(𝒩_{_k^n/C_k}(D))`$. Now we can apply lemma 2.2 to $`R_1`$ with $`d=1,e=1`$ : we obtain functions $`x_{i,1}^{(1)},0in`$ that are global sections of $`(p(D+D_0))`$, and theorem 2.1 is proved for $`l=2`$.

We finish the proof by induction on $`l`$ : suppose we have shown the result for $`l1`$, and consider the morphism :

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\varphi _{l1}& :& R[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]& & W_l(B_0)\\ & & x_i& & (x_i,0,\mathrm{},0)+_{k=1}^{l2}p^{k1}V(Y_i^{(k)}(Fx_i)Y_0^{(k)})\end{array}$$

where $`Y_i^{(k)}=(x_{i,k}^{(k)},\mathrm{},x_{i,l2}^{(k)},0,\mathrm{},0)`$ with the $`x_{i,j}^{(k)}`$ as in theorem 2.1 for $`l1`$. As above, the morphism $`\varphi _{l1|I}`$ factors to a morphism of $`B_0`$-modules :

$$R_{l1}:I_0/I_0^2V^{l1}(B_0)B_0^{l1},$$

$`R_{l1}(\stackrel{~}{f_t})=f_t^{(l1)}(x_i,x_{ij})`$ : we look for a preimage. For this purpose we need to rewrite $`f_t^{(l1)}`$ more precisely ; from the description of $`\gamma `$, we get :

$$\varphi _{l1}(f)=\delta (f)+\underset{h=1}{\overset{l1}{}}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|M|=h}{\mathrm{\#}J=\mathrm{\#}M}}{}\delta \left(\frac{1}{M!}\frac{^hf}{x_J^M}\right)\underset{j_iJM}{}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{l2}{}}p^{k1}V(Y_{j_i}^{(k)}Fx_{j_i}Y_0^{(k)})\right),$$

where $`JM`$ is the set of the indexes $`j_u`$ in $`J`$, each one counted with the multiplicity $`m_u`$ (note that $`JM`$ contains $`h`$ elements). Developing the last product yields the following general term :

$$p^{k_1+\mathrm{}+k_hh}\underset{j_iJM}{}V(Y_{j_i}^{(k_i)}(Fx_{j_i})Y_0^{(k_i)})=p^{k_1+\mathrm{}+k_h1}V\left(\underset{j_iJM}{}(Y_{j_i}^{(k_i)}(Fx_{j_i})Y_0^{(k_i)})\right)$$

Therefore we can write :

$$\varphi _{l1}(f)=R_{l1}^{(1)}(f)+\underset{d=2}{\overset{l1}{}}p^{d1}R_{l1}^{(d)}(f),$$

$$R_{l1}^{(1)}(f)=\delta (f)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\delta \left(\frac{f}{x_i}\right)V(Y_i^{(1)}(Fx_i)Y_0^{(1)}),\mathrm{}$$

$$R_{l1}^{(d)}(f)=\underset{h=1}{\overset{d}{}}\underset{k_1+\mathrm{}+k_h=d}{}V\left(\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|M|=h}{\mathrm{\#}J=\mathrm{\#}M}}{}F\delta \left(\frac{1}{M!}\frac{^hf}{x_J^M}\right)\underset{j_iJM}{}(Y_{j_i}^{(k_i)}(Fx_{j_i})Y_0^{(k_i)})\right)$$

Now by the induction hypothesis, for $`fI`$ we have $`R_{l1}^{(d)}(f)V^{ld}(B_0)W_{ld+1}(B_0)`$ and as above, $`R_{l1}^{(d)}`$ factors to a morphism from $`I_0/I_0^2`$ to $`V^{ld}(B_0)B_0^{ld}`$ ; thus we write :

$$R_{l1}^{(d)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_k,F^{ld}𝒩_{_k^n/C_k}).$$

###### Claim 2.

$`R_{l1}^{(d)}`$ is a global section of the sheaf $`F^{ld}(𝒩_{_k^n/C_k}(dD+(d1)D_0))`$.

As in the proof of claim 1, let $`PC_k\backslash U_k(\overline{k})`$ lying away from the hyperplane $`\{X_n=0\}`$, and $`f_r/x_n^{d_r},1rn1`$, a set of generators for the free $`𝒪_{C_k,P}`$-module $`(I_0/I_0^2)_P`$ ; we can write $`R_{l1}^{(d)}(f_r/x_n^{d_r})`$ as :

$$\frac{1}{x_n^{p^{ld}d_r}}\underset{h=1}{\overset{d}{}}\underset{k_1+\mathrm{}+k_h=d}{}V\left(\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|M|=h}{\mathrm{\#}J=\mathrm{\#}M}}{}F\delta \left(\frac{1}{M!}\frac{^hf_r}{x_J^M}\right)\underset{j_iJM}{}(Y_{j_i}^{(k_i)}(Fx_{j_i})Y_0^{(k_i)})\right).$$

When we develop the last product in the numerator, the terms corresponding to the systematic choice of $`(Fx_{j_i})Y_0^{(k_i)}`$ give :

$$Y_0^{(k_1)}\mathrm{}Y_0^{(k_h)}F\delta \left(\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|M|=h}{\mathrm{\#}J=\mathrm{\#}M}}{}\frac{1}{M!}\frac{^hf_r}{x_J^M}x_J^M\right),$$

with $`1hl1`$ and $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_h`$ as above. But the function in the parentheses is the image in $`B_0`$ of a polynomial of degree less than $`d_r1`$ (its homogeneous part of degree $`d_r`$ is a multiple of that of $`f_rI`$ by Euler’s theorem). Denoting by $`v`$ (resp. $`v_0`$) the multiplicity of $`D`$ (resp. $`D_0`$) at $`P`$, and applying lemma 0.1, the $`u`$-th component of this term has valuation at $`P`$ at least :

$$p^{u+1}(k_1+\mathrm{}+k_h)(v+v_0)p^{u+1}(d_r1)v_0=p^{u+1}d_rv_0p^{u+1}(dv+(d1)v_0).$$

The $`u`$-th components of the other terms of the numerator (where we choose at least once $`Y_{j_i}^{(k_i)}`$ in the development) have valuation at $`P`$ at least :

$$p^{u+1}\left((d_rh)v_0+\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}(k_i(v+v_0)+ϵ_iv_0)\right)p^{u+1}d_rv_0p^{u+1}(dv+(d1)v_0)$$

where $`ϵ_i\{0,1\}`$ and at least one of the $`ϵ_i`$ is zero (note that $`ϵ_i=1`$ corresponds to the choice of $`(Fx_{j_i})Y_0^{(k_i)}`$ rather than $`Y_{j_i}^{(k_i)}`$ in the product). Since the sum of these vectors is in $`V^{ld1}(B_0)`$, we write it $`V^{ld1}(F_r)`$, and we get $`v_P(F_r)p^{ld}(d_rv_0+dv+(d1)v_0)`$. Finally, since the denominator $`x_n^{p^{ld}d_r}`$ has valuation exactly $`p^{ld}d_rv_0`$, this ends the proof of the claim.

Applying lemma 2.2 with $`e=ld`$, we deduce the existence of $`x_{i,l1}^{(d)}(p^{ld}d(D+D_0)),0in`$ such that $`R_{l1}^{(d)}`$ is the image of :

$$(x_{i,l1}^{(d)}x_i^{p^{ld}}x_{0,l1}^{(d)})_{1in}\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_k,F^{ld}(𝒯_{_k^n}(dD+(d1)D_0))).$$

and setting :

$$X_i^{(d)}=Y_i^{(d)}+V^{l1d}(x_{i,l1}^{(d)},0,\mathrm{},0);X_i^{(l1)}=(x_{i,l1}^{(l1)},0,\mathrm{},0)$$

gives a Witt vector satisfying the hypotheses of theorem 2.1. Finally, the morphism defined by :

$$\varphi _{l1}(x_i)=(x_i,0,\mathrm{},0)+\underset{d=1}{\overset{l1}{}}p^{d1}V(X_i^{(d)}(Fx_i)X_0^{(d)}),$$

vanishes on $`I`$ from the preceding construction, and therefore defines a section of $`\rho _U`$. This completes the proof of theorem 2.1. ∎

The following is an easy consequence of the theorem, and will be useful in the proof of Proposition 4.3.

Corollary 2.3. The function $`x_{ij}`$ is in $`L(p^j(jD+(j+1)D_0))`$.

Remark : The degrees of the coordinate functions of the elliptic Teichmüller lift of an ordinary elliptic curve over a perfect field of characteristic $`p2,3`$ have been obtained by Finotti in  ; the exact degrees are obtained by calculations from the equation $`y^2=x^3+ax+b`$, and using the group structure.

## 3. Exponential sums

The aim of this section is to recall bounds for exponential sums over a curve $`C_k`$, associated to an additive character of a Galois ring. We first describe Artin-Schreier-Witt theory, i.e. the theory of abelian $`p`$-extensions of a field of characteristic $`p`$, then we focus on algebraic function fields of one variable before giving the bound.

Let $`K`$ be a field of characteristic $`p`$, fix $`K_s`$ a separable closure of $`K`$, and let $`G=\text{Gal }(K_s/K)`$ be the absolute Galois group of $`K`$. We define the morphism $`\mathrm{}=F\text{Id}`$ on $`W_l(K_s)`$. It is a $`G`$-morphism, surjective on $`W_l(K_s)`$, and we know from Galois theory that there is a one to one inclusion preserving correspondance between the collection of subgroups of $`W_l(K)/\mathrm{}W_l(K)`$ and the collection of abelian extensions of $`K`$ of exponent a divisor of $`p^l`$.

If $`A`$ is a subgroup of $`W_l(K)/\mathrm{}W_l(K)`$, let us denote by $`K(\mathrm{}^1A)`$ the corresponding extension. In the sequel, we restrict our attention to the extensions $`K(\mathrm{}^1<f>):=K(\mathrm{}^1f)`$ where $`K`$ is an algebraic function field of one variable, the function field of a curve $`C_k`$, with field of constants $`k=\text{𝔽}_{p^m}`$, and $`f`$ an element of $`W_l(K)`$.

Definition. a) Let $`d`$ be an integer, $`P`$ be a place of $`K`$ (a point of $`C_k(\overline{k})`$), and $`v`$ the corresponding valuation. We define a subset $`V_{d,P}W_l(K)`$ by

$$V_{d,P}=\{(a_0,\mathrm{},a_{l1})W_l(K)/i\{0,\mathrm{},l1\},p^{l1i}v(a_i)d\}.$$

b) If $`fW_l(K)`$, we define the valuation of $`f`$ at $`P`$ by $`V_P(f)=\mathrm{max}\{d\text{},fV_{d,P}\}`$, and the reduced pole order of $`f`$ at $`P`$ by :

$$\text{rp}_P(f)=\mathrm{min}\{d1,fV_{d,P}+\mathrm{}W_l(K)\}.$$

If $`a,b`$ are in $`W_l(K)`$, we have $`\text{rp}_P(a+b)\mathrm{max}(\text{rp}_P(a),\text{rp}_P(b))`$, with equality if $`\text{rp}_P(a)\text{rp}_P(b)`$ ; moreover, if $`0kl1`$, we have : $`p^k\text{rp}_P(V^ka)\text{rp}_P(a)`$.

At a fixed place $`P`$, we can always reduce a Witt vector modulo $`\mathrm{}W_l(K)`$ in such a way that none of its components has its valuation divisible by $`p`$ : if $`f`$ is in $`W_l(K)`$, there exists $`f^{}=(f_0^{},\mathrm{},f_{l1}^{})W_l(K)`$ such that :

$$i)ff^{}[\mathrm{}W_l(K)];ii)v_P(f_i^{})0\text{ or }(v_P(f_i^{}),p)=1,0il1.$$

This is the equivalent of Artin’s algorithm to compute reduced pole orders in the case $`l=1`$ (cf  Proposition 1.8) ; if $`\text{rp}_P(f)>0`$, we have :

$$\text{rp}_P(f)=\underset{0il1}{\mathrm{max}}\{p^{l1i}v_P(f_i^{})\}.$$

As in the Artin-Schreier case, the extension $`K(\mathrm{}^1f)`$, $`f=(f_0,\mathrm{},f_{l1})`$ is of degree $`p^l`$, and its constant field is $`k`$, if and only if $`f_0k+\mathrm{}_0K`$, where $`\mathrm{}_0`$ is the map $`gg^pg`$ from $`K`$ to $`K`$. We say that $`f`$ is nondegenerate. In this case we have the following estimate for the genus of $`L=K(\mathrm{}^1f)`$ :

$$2(g_L1)=2p^l(g_K1)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{p^l1}{}}\underset{P(nf)}{}(\text{rp}_P(nf)+1)\mathrm{deg}P,$$

where $`(f)=\{PC_k(\overline{k}),\text{rp}_P(f)>0\}`$.

We come to exponential sums. First we define a local symbol attached to the extension $`K(\mathrm{}^1f)/K`$. We describe it explicitely from its ghost components (cf. ) : if $`gK_P`$, the completion of $`K`$ at $`P`$, $`(f,g)_P`$ is the element of $`W_l(k(P))`$, $`k(P)`$ the residue field of $`C_k`$ at $`P`$, whose ghost components are :

$$\text{Res}_P(f_0\frac{dg}{g}),\mathrm{},\text{Res}_P((f_0^{p^{l1}}+\mathrm{}+p^{l1}f_{l1})\frac{dg}{g}).$$

From an additive character of $`W_l(k)`$, $`\psi `$, we can define an idele class character : if $`g=(g_P)_{PC_k(\overline{k})}`$is an idele, we set :

$$\chi (g)=\underset{PC_k(\overline{k})}{}\psi \left(\text{Tr}_{W_l(k(P))/W_l(k)}(f,g_P)_P\right).$$

Its conductor is given by :

$$D_\chi =\underset{P(f)}{}(\text{rp}_P(f)+1)P,$$

and we associate to this character a $`L`$-function :

$$L_{K,\chi }(T)=\underset{PC_k(\overline{k})\backslash (f)}{}\frac{1}{1\psi \left(\text{Tr}_{W_l(k(P))/W_l(k)}(f,\pi _P)_P\right)T^{\mathrm{deg}P}},$$

with $`\pi _P`$ a local parameter at $`P`$. This $`L`$-function is actually a polynomial of degree $`\mathrm{deg}D_\chi +2g_K2`$, and the Riemann-Weil hypothesis for function fields allows us to give a bound for the following exponential sums, which are the coefficients of its development in power series :

Theorem 3.1.  Let $`fW_l(K)`$ be a nondegenerate vector. We have :

$$\left|\underset{PC_k(k_d)\backslash (f)}{}\psi (\text{Tr}_{W_l(k_d)/W_l(k)}f(P))\right|\left(2(g_K1)+\underset{P(f)}{}(\text{rp}_P(f)+1)\mathrm{deg}P\right)p^{\frac{md}{2}}.$$

## 4. Estimation of reduced pole orders

In the sequel, $`U=\text{Spec}B`$ is an affine open of a smooth projective $`R`$-curve $`C`$, $`𝒯_\sigma `$ is the Teichmüller subset associated to a section $`\sigma :U_kU`$ satisfying theorem 2.1, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s):BW_l(B_0)`$ is the morphism of $`R`$-algebras associated to the morphism $`s:WU_kU`$ corresponding to $`\sigma `$. From theorems 1.2 and 3.1, in order to give a bound for the exponential sum associated to a function $`fB`$ over the Teichmüller subset $`𝒯_\sigma `$, we have to estimate the reduced pole orders of the vector $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f)`$ from the pole orders of $`f`$. We need to define what is the pole order of a function on $`C`$, a curve over $`R`$, at a point $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ of $`C(R)`$ ; this will be done from the expansion of $`f`$ in powers of local parameters, which are defined in section 4.1. Then we construct the morphism $`S`$ extending $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)`$ to the (constant) sheaf of total quotient rings of $`𝒪_C`$ in section 4.2 ; finally we estimate reduced pole orders of the Witt vectors $`S(t^i)`$, where $`t`$ is a local parameter at a pole of $`f`$, and we obtain the reduced pole order of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f)`$ from its expansion in powers of $`t`$ in section 4.3.

### 4.1. Local parameters

Let $`C`$ be an irreducible, geometrically connected smooth of relative dimension $`1`$ scheme $`C`$ over $`\text{Spec}(R)`$, equiped with an embedding $`C\text{}_R^n`$.

Let $`C_k:=C\times _{\text{Spec }R}\text{Spec }k`$ be the “reduction modulo $`p`$” of $`C`$ ; it is a smooth irreducible projective curve over $`\text{Spec }k`$. Note that, for any $`d1`$, points of $`C(k_d)`$ are in one to one correspondance with points of $`C_k(k_d)`$. We identify these two sets in the sequel.

We denote by $`K_C`$ the sheaf of total quotient rings of $`𝒪_C`$ ; recall from  that it is a constant sheaf, whose associated ring we also denote by $`K_C`$.

Let us denote by $`C(R_d)`$ the set of $`R`$-morphisms $`\mathrm{\Pi }:\text{Spec }R_dC`$ ; we call such a morphism an $`R_d`$-point of $`C`$. The morphism $`\text{Spec}k_d\text{Spec}R_d`$ induced by the reduction modulo $`p`$ associates to every $`R_d`$-point $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ an element $`PC(k_d)`$ ; we get a map $`r_C:C(R_d)C(k_d)=C_k(k_d)`$. We say : “$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is an $`R_d`$-point above $`P`$”.

The ideal sheaf associated to an $`R_d`$-point $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ of $`C`$ (considered as a subscheme of $`C`$) is locally principal  thus there exists an element $`t𝒪_{C,P}`$ such that the kernel of the morphism : $`\mathrm{\Pi }:𝒪_{C,P}R_d`$ is the principal ideal $`(t)𝒪_{C,P}`$. We call such an element a local parameter for $`C`$ at $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. If $`m_P`$ denotes the maximal ideal of $`𝒪_{C,P}`$, we have the following properties for a local parameter $`t`$ (cf. ) :

i) $`t`$ is not a zero divisor in $`𝒪_{C,P}`$ ;

ii) $`tm_P\backslash m_P^2`$ ;

iii) $`𝒪_{C,P}/(t^n)`$ is a free $`R_d`$-module with basis $`1,t,t^2,\mathrm{},t^{n1}`$ ;

iv) the quotient ring of $`𝒪_{C,P}`$, $`K_C`$, is an $`𝒪_{C,P}`$-module generated by $`1,t^1,\mathrm{}`$.

In the sequel we need to know local parameters for $`R_d`$-points explicitely : this is the aim of the next proposition.

Proposition 4.1.  Let $`C\text{}_R^n=\text{Proj }R[X_0,\mathrm{},X_n]`$ be a smooth projective curve over $`R`$, and $`P`$ be a point of $`C(k_d)`$, not lying in the hyperplane $`\{X_n=0\}`$. Then there exists an $`R_d`$-point $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ above $`P`$ whose local parameter is the image in $`K_C`$ of the function :

$$t=\pi _d(\frac{X_i}{X_n}),$$

where $`i\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, and $`\pi _d`$ is an irreducible polynomial of degree $`d^{}`$ dividing $`d`$, with all its roots in $`𝒯_d^{}`$.

###### Proof.

This is a local question, so we restrict our attention to the open $`U_0=\text{Spec}R[x_0,\mathrm{},x_{n1}]\text{}_R^n`$ (with $`x_i=X_i/X_n`$) containing $`P`$. Let $`CU_0=U=\text{Spec}R[x_0,\mathrm{},x_{n1}]/I_0`$, where $`I_0=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_m)`$ is the ideal defining $`UU_0`$. By the Jacobian criterion of smoothness applied to $`U`$ at $`P`$, we get $`n1`$ functions among the $`f_i,1im`$ and $`n1`$ indexes in $`\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}`$. Let $`i`$ be the last element of this set, and $`\pi _d`$ the polynomial with roots in $`𝒯_d`$, whose reduction modulo $`p`$ is the minimal polynomial of the $`i`$-th coordinate of any one of the $`d`$ points $`P_d`$ in $`\text{}_{R_d}^n(k_d)`$ corresponding to $`P`$. Consider the closed subscheme $`SU_0`$ defined by the ideal $`(f_1,\mathrm{},f_{n1},\pi _d(x_i))`$. Thus $`P`$ is an element of $`S(k_d)`$, and the Jacobian criterion ensures us that $`S`$ is smooth over $`\text{Spec}R`$ at $`P`$, of relative dimension $`0`$. We deduce that $`𝒪_{S,P}`$ is a local ring of dimension $`0`$, and a flat $`R`$-module (hence free since $`R`$ is a local ring), with maximal ideal $`(p)`$ and residue field $`k_d`$. Therefore we must have $`𝒪_{S,P}𝒪_{C,P}/(\pi _d(x_i))_PR_d`$, and the proposition follows.

There is an other description of $`R_d`$-points, in term of Cartier divisors (cf ) : let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be an $`R_d`$-point of $`C`$, above $`PC(k_d)`$, and $`t_d`$ a local parameter for $`C`$ at $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. We associate to $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ the Cartier divisor $`(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ defined by : $`(\mathrm{\Pi })=((U,t_d),(V,1))`$, where $`V`$ is the open $`C\backslash \{P\}`$, and $`U`$ an open containing $`P`$. We denote by $`𝒪_C(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ the invertible sheaf corresponding to this Cartier divisor.

### 4.2. The morphism $`S`$

We will work with expansions of $`f`$ at its poles, in terms of the local parameters obtained in proposition 1.1. Since these parameters are not in $`B`$, we first show that the morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)`$ extends to a morphism $`S:K_CW_l(K(C_k))`$ with $`K_C`$ as in section 1, and $`K(C_k)`$ the function field of the curve $`C_k`$.

Note from the definition of $`K_C`$ that we have $`K_C=i(U)^1\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,𝒪_C)=i(B)^1B`$, where $`i(B)`$ is the set of elements of $`B`$ which are not zero divisors in any of the local rings $`B_𝔭`$. These are just the elements of $`B\backslash pB`$ (since $`\text{Spec}B\text{Spec}R`$ is smooth, the zero divisors must be nilpotent), and we get $`B_{(p)}=K_C`$. If $`gB\backslash pB`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(g)`$ is an element of $`W_l(B_0)`$ with nonzero first coordinate, thus invertible in $`W_l(K(C_k))`$. We now define $`S`$ on $`K_C`$ by

$$S(fg^1)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(g)\right)^1,fB,gB\backslash pB.$$

Moreover, if $`f,g`$ are the images of $`f^{}R[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, $`g^{}R[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]\backslash (p)`$, we can extend $`\delta `$ to $`R[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]_{(p)}`$, and we can write again, in $`W_l(K(C_k))`$ :

$$S(\frac{f}{g})=\delta (f^{}/g^{})+\underset{h=1}{\overset{l1}{}}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|M|=h,}{\mathrm{\#}J=\mathrm{\#}M}}{}\delta \left(\frac{1}{M!}\frac{^h(f^{}/g^{})}{x_J^M}\right)U_J^M.$$

### 4.3. Reduced pole orders

If $`f\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,𝒪_C)`$ is a regular function on $`U`$, we have to estimate reduced pole orders of the function $`S(f)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f)`$. We will proceed as follows : the components of the vector $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f)`$ are in $`B_0=\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_k,𝒪_{C_k})`$, thus their only poles can occur at the points $`\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_r\}`$ of $`(C\{X_0=0\})(\overline{k})`$. In order to estimate these pole orders, we fix a local parameter $`t`$ at each point $`P`$ of $`(C\{X_0=0\})(\overline{k})`$. From above, we can write (in $`K_C`$ seen as the $`𝒪_{C,P}`$-module generated by $`1,t^1,\mathrm{}`$) :

$$f=a_nt^n+\mathrm{}+a_0+\mathrm{}+a_{N1}t^{N1}+t^Nh,$$

with the $`a_i`$ in $`R_d`$ and $`h`$ in $`𝒪_{C,P}`$. Now we just have to estimate the reduced pole orders of the vectors $`S(t^i)`$, $`S(t^Nh)`$ ; at the end of the section, we do so for the vectors $`S(t^i)`$, $`i\text{}`$, but we first get rid of the last term, showing that for sufficiently large $`N`$, the vector $`S(t^Nh)`$ is in $`W_l(𝒪_{C_k,P})`$ for each $`h`$ in $`𝒪_{C,P}`$.

It is sufficient to show that for any $`h`$ in $`𝒪_{C,P}`$, the components of $`S(h)`$ have bounded pole orders at $`P`$. Indeed, if $`S(t)=(t_0,\mathrm{},t_{l1})`$, the first component $`t_0`$ is a uniformizing parameter for $`C_k`$ at $`P`$, and $`v_P(t_0)=1`$. For this reason, if we take $`N`$ sufficiently large, the vector $`S(t^Nh)=S(t)^NS(h)`$ is in $`W_l(𝒪_{C,P})`$.

Lemma 4.2. Let $`P`$ be a point of $`C_k`$, $`n\text{}`$. As usual, $`v_P`$ stands for the valuation at $`P`$. The set :

$$_{n,P}=\{(f_0,\mathrm{},f_{l1})W_l(K(C_k)),v_P(f_i)ip^in\}W_l(K(C_k))$$

is a ring. Moreover, the elements of $`_{n,P}`$ with $`v_P(f_0)=0`$ are units of this ring.

###### Proof.

The first assertion is straightforward after lemma 0.1. If $`f=(f_0,\mathrm{},f_{l1})`$ is in $`_{n,P}`$ with $`v_P(f_0)=0`$, let $`g=(g_0,\mathrm{},g_{l1})=f^1`$ ; we have :

$$g=(f_0^1,0,\mathrm{},0)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{l1}{}}(1)^iV^i\left(F^i(f_0^{i1},0,\mathrm{},0)F^{i1}(f_1,\mathrm{},f_{l1},0)^i\right).$$

Since $`f_0`$ has valuation $`0`$, we just have to evaluate the valuations of the other terms. Set $`(h_0^{(i)},\mathrm{},h_{l1}^{(i)}):=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_{l1},0)^i`$. We have $`v_P(h_j^{(1)})(j+1)p^{j+1}n`$, and an easy induction on $`i`$, with the help of lemma 0.1 gives $`v_P(h_j^{(i)})(j+i)p^{j+1}n`$. If $`(k_0^{(i)},\mathrm{},k_{l1}^{(i)})=F^{i1}(f_1,\mathrm{},f_{l1},0)^i`$, we get $`v_P(k_j^{(i)})(j+i)p^{j+i}n`$. Since this function appears in the $`(i+j)`$-th component of $`g`$, we get $`v_P(g_i)ip^in`$, and finally $`g_{n,P}`$. ∎

We are ready to show the following proposition :

Proposition 4.3. Let $`D`$ and $`D_0`$ be the divisors defined in theorem 2.1, $`P`$ a closed point of $`C\backslash U`$. If $`v`$ and $`v_0`$ stand for the multiplicities of $`D`$ and $`D_0`$ at $`P`$, then $`S(𝒪_{C,P})_{v+2v_0,P}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`P\text{}^n(\overline{k})`$, $`PC(\overline{k})\backslash U(\overline{k})`$, and assume $`P`$ has invertible $`n`$-th coordinate, that is $`P`$ is in $`U_n(\overline{k})=C\{X_n0\}(\overline{k})`$. Then the regular functions on $`U_n`$ are the images of the elements of :

$$R[\frac{X_0}{X_n},\mathrm{},\frac{X_{n1}}{X_n}]=R[\frac{1}{x_n},\mathrm{},\frac{x_{n1}}{x_n}].$$

Moreover, the elements of $`𝒪_{C,P}`$ are the images of the elements of $`𝒪_{\text{}^n,P}`$, that is the $`fg^1`$, $`f,gR[\frac{1}{x_n},\mathrm{},\frac{x_{n1}}{x_n}]`$, $`\overline{g}(P)0`$ in $`\overline{k}`$. Note that this last condition is equivalent to asking that the 0-th component of $`S(g)`$ has valuation zero at $`P`$.

Thus if we show that $`S(\frac{1}{x_n}),\mathrm{},S(\frac{x_{n1}}{x_n})`$ are in $`_{v+2v_0,P}`$, the first part of lemma 4.2 ensures us that $`S(B_n)_{v+2v_0,P}`$, and the second part, joint with the preceding discussion, that $`S(𝒪_{C,P})_{v+2v_0,P}`$.

From the description of $`S`$, we have :

$`S({\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{x_n}})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ({\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{x_n}})+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{l1}{}}}(1)^k\delta (x_ix_n^{k1})(0,x_{n,1},\mathrm{},x_{n,l1})^k`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{l1}{}}}(1)^{k1}\delta (x_n^k)(0,x_{n,1},\mathrm{},x_{n,l1})^{k1}(0,x_{i,1},\mathrm{},x_{i,l1}).`$
Now the terms $`\delta (\frac{x_i}{x_n})`$, $`\delta (x_ix_n^{k1})`$ and $`\delta (x_n^k)`$ are in $`W_l(𝒪_{C_k,P})_{v+2v_0,P}`$ ; from corollary 2.3, the terms $`(0,x_{i,1},\mathrm{},x_{i,l1})`$ are in $`_{v+2v_0,P}`$, and we are done. ∎

Now we estimate the reduced pole orders of the vectors $`S(t^m)`$ ; we first treat the case $`PC(k)`$ ; let $`t=x_i/x_n\alpha ,\alpha 𝒯`$ be a local parameter for an $`R`$-point above $`P`$ as in proposition 4.1. From the description of $`S`$, we have :

$`S(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(t_0,\mathrm{},t_{l1})`$
$`=`$ $`\delta ({\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{x_n}}\alpha )+{\displaystyle \underset{h=1}{\overset{l1}{}}}(1)^h\delta (x_ix_n^{h1})(0,x_{n,1},\mathrm{},x_{n,l1})^h`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{h=1}{\overset{l1}{}}}(1)^{h1}\delta (x_n^h)(0,x_{n,1},\mathrm{},x_{n,l1})^{h1}(0,x_{i,1},\mathrm{},x_{i,l1}).`$
From theorem 2.1, we have :

$$(0,x_{i1},\mathrm{},x_{i,l1})=\underset{k=1}{\overset{l1}{}}p^{k1}V\left(X_i^{(k)}(Fx_i)X_0^{(k)}\right)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{l1}{}}V^k\left(F^{k1}X_i^{(k)}(F^kx_i)F^{k1}X_0^{(k)}\right)$$

When we develop the $`h`$-th and $`(h1)`$-th power in the expression for $`S(t)`$, we get that the general term of the first and second sum are respectively :

$$(1)^hV^{j_1+\mathrm{}+j_h}\left(F^{j_1+\mathrm{}+j_h}(x_ix_n^{h1}x_n^a)F^{j_1+\mathrm{}+j_h1}(X_n^{(j_i)}\underset{\mathrm{\#}\{j_i\}=a}{}X_0^{(j_i)})\right);$$

$$(1)^{h1}V^{j_1+\mathrm{}+j_h}\left(F^{j_1+\mathrm{}+j_h}(x_i^ϵx_n^hx_n^{aϵ})F^{j_1+\mathrm{}+j_h1}(X_n^{(j_i)}X_i^{(j_i)^ϵ}\underset{\mathrm{\#}\{j_i\}=a}{}X_0^{(j_i)})\right),$$

where $`0ah`$ is the number of times we choose the term $`(Fx_n)X_0^{(j)}`$ or $`(Fx_i)X_0^{(j)}`$ in the development, and $`ϵ`$ is $`0`$ or $`1`$ depending on whether we choose $`F^{k1}X_i^{(j)}`$ or $`(F^kx_i)F^{k1}X_0^{(j)}`$ in the last parenthesis. Note that the terms with $`a=h`$ and $`ϵ=1`$ are in one-to-one correspondance in the two sums, with coefficient $`(1)^h`$ in the first and $`(1)^{h1}`$ in the second. Thus their sum vanishes and we can impose $`ah1`$.

Now the terms of the two sums can be treated similarly regarding to their valuation ; we choose to write the general term of $`S(t)`$ as :

$$V^J(F^J(x_ix_n^{h1}x_n^a,0,\mathrm{},0)F^{J1}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}X_{}^{(j_i)})),J=j_1+\mathrm{}+j_hh,a<h.$$

Remark that $`\delta (t)=(x_ix_n^1,0,\mathrm{},0)(a,0,\mathrm{},0):=(t_0,f_1,\mathrm{},f_{l1})`$ is in $`W_l(𝒪_{C_k,P})`$, and that $`t_0=x_ix_n^1a`$ is a local parameter for $`C_k`$ at $`P`$, thus $`v_P(t_0)=1`$. We can now write the image of $`t^m`$ :

$$S(t^m)=(t_0^m,0,\mathrm{},0)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{l1}{}}(1)^kc_{m,k}(t_0^{mk},0,\mathrm{},0)(0,t_1,\mathrm{},t_{l1})^k,$$

where $`c_{m,k}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+k1}{k}\right)`$ if $`m<0`$, and $`c_{m,k}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}\right)`$ if $`m>0`$. From above, we can write the general term of $`(0,t_1,\mathrm{},t_{l1})^k`$ as :

$$(0,f_1,\mathrm{},f_{l1})^{k_0}\left(\underset{u=1}{\overset{t}{}}\left(V^{J_u}(F^{J_u}(x_ix_n^{a_uh_u1})F^{J_u1}(\underset{i_u=1}{\overset{h_u}{}}X_{}^{(j_{i_u})}))\right)^{k_u}\right),$$

where $`k_0+\mathrm{}+k_t=k`$. Setting $`K=k_0+_{u=1}^tk_uJ_u`$, we get :

$$V^K\left(F^K(t_0^{mk}\underset{u=1}{\overset{t}{}}(x_ix_n^{a_uh_u1})^{k_u})F^{K1}\left(\underset{u=1}{\overset{t}{}}(\underset{i}{}X_{}^{j_{i_u}})^{k_u}(f_1,\mathrm{},f_{l1})^{k_0}\right)\right).$$

which is congruent modulo $`\mathrm{}W_l(K(C_k))`$ to :

$$V^K\left(F(t_0^{mk}\underset{u=1}{\overset{t}{}}(x_ix_n^{a_uh_u1})^{k_u})\underset{u=1}{\overset{t}{}}(\underset{i}{}X_{}^{j_{i_u}})^{k_u}(f_1,\mathrm{},f_{l1})^{k_0}\right).$$

We want to evaluate the reduced pole order of this Witt vector. First set $`(g_0,\mathrm{},g_{l1})=_{u=1}^t(_iX_{}^{j_{i_u}})^{k_u}`$ ; from lemma 0.1, we get that $`v_P(g_i)p^{i+1}(Kk_0)(v+v_0)`$ since $`k_uj_{i_u}=Kk_0`$.

Next consider the term $`H=F(t_0^{mk}_{u=1}^t(x_ix_n^{a_uh_u1})^{k_u})`$ ; since $`v(x_n)=v_0`$ and $`v(x_i)v_0`$, we have $`v_P(H)p(mkk_u(a_uh_u)v_0)p(mk+(kk_0)v_0)`$ since $`a_uh_u1`$.

Setting $`(h_0,\mathrm{},h_{l1})=H(g_0,\mathrm{},g_{l1})(f_1,\mathrm{},f_{l1},0)^{k_0}`$, and remarking that the last vector has no incidence on our estimation, we get : $`v_P(h_i)p^{i+1}(mk+(kk_0)v_0(Kk_0)(v+v_0))`$, and :

$$\text{rp}_P(V^K(h_0,\mathrm{},h_{l1}))p^{lK}(mk+(kk_0)v_0(Kk_0)(v+v_0)).$$

Finally, since the $`0`$-th component of $`S(t^m)`$ is $`t_0^m`$, we get $`\text{rp}_P(S(t^m))\mathrm{max}(p^{l1}m,M)`$, where :

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{1kKl1;0k_0k}{\mathrm{max}}\left(p^{lK}(mk+(kk_0)v_0(Kk_0)(v+v_0))\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{1kKl1;0k_0k}{\mathrm{max}}\left(p^{lK}(mk+kv_0K(v+v_0)+k_0v)\right)`$
Since $`D`$ is effective, we have $`v0`$, and we have to take $`k_0=0`$. Now if we fix $`K`$ and let $`k`$ vary between $`1`$ and $`K`$, the maximum is obtained for $`k=1`$, and we get $`M=\mathrm{max}_{1Kl1}M_K`$, $`M_K=p^{lK}(m1+v_0K(v+v_0))`$. Assume $`m<0`$ ; computing the $`M_KM_{K+1}`$, we get the maximum for $`K=1`$ or $`K=2`$, depending on whether $`(1p)(m1)+v(p2)v_0`$ is positive or negative, that is :

Lemma 4.4. Notations being as above, let $`m<0`$ ; we have :

$$\text{rp}_P(S(t^m))\mathrm{max}(p^{l1}(m+1+v),p^{l2}(m+1+v_0+2v)),$$

and the first term is the maximum if $`(1p)(m1)+v(p2)v_0`$ is positive.

In the case $`m>0`$, we don’t need to get results as precise as before : it is sufficient to remark that $`\text{rp}_P(S(t^m))\text{rp}_P(S(t))`$ here ; by the same calculations as above, we obtain $`\text{rp}_P(S(t))\mathrm{max}(p^{l1}v,p^{l2}(v_0+2v))`$.

We drop the assumption $`PC(k)`$ : assume now $`PC(k_d)`$ (i.e. $`P`$ is a point of degree $`d`$ of the curve $`C_k`$, via the identification between $`C(\overline{k})`$ and $`C_k(\overline{k})`$). Let $`t=\pi _d(x_i/x_n)`$ be a local parameter for an $`R_d`$-point above $`P`$ as in proposition 4.1, and $`ft^n𝒪_{C,P}`$.

Consider the curve $`C_d:=C\times _{\text{Spec}R}\text{Spec}R_d`$, its reduction $`C_{k_d}:=C_dk_d`$, and let $`P_d`$ be one of the $`d`$ points in $`C_d(k_d)`$ dividing $`P`$. In $`K_{C_d}=K_CR_d`$, we write :

$$\pi _d(\frac{x_i}{x_n})=\underset{\sigma \text{Gal }(R_d^{}/R)}{}\left(\frac{x_i}{x_n}\alpha ^\sigma \right),$$

for some $`d^{}`$ dividing $`d`$. Exactly one of the $`t_d^\sigma =\frac{x_i}{x_n}\alpha ^\sigma `$ (say $`t_d=\frac{x_i}{x_n}\alpha `$) is a local parameter for an $`R_d`$-point above $`P_d`$, and the others are elements of $`𝒪_{C_d,P_d}^{}`$. Therefore we have $`ft_d^n𝒪_{C_d,P_d}`$ if we consider $`f`$ as an element of $`K_{C_d}=K_CR_d`$.

Now it is easy to verify that the morphism $`S`$ extends to $`S_d:K_{C_d}W_l(K(C_{k_d}))`$ (it is sufficient to extend $`S`$ on the constants, i.e. as the Witt isomorphism from $`R_d`$ to $`W_l(k_d)`$). If we apply lemma 4.4 to $`C_d`$ and $`P_d`$ ($`t_d`$ is exactly the local parameter given by proposition 4.1 for $`C_d`$ at $`P_d`$ since $`\alpha 𝒯_d`$), we get $`\text{rp}_{P_d}(S_d(t^m))\mathrm{max}(p^{l1}(m+1+v),p^{l2}(m+1+v_0+2v))`$. Now the following lemma generalizes lemma 4.4 to points of arbitrary degree :

Lemma 4.5. Let $`P\text{}(K)`$ a place of degree $`d`$ and $`P_1`$ be a place dividing $`P`$ in $`\text{}(Kk_d)`$. If $`fW_l(K)`$ is such that $`\text{rp}_{P_1}(f)=a>0`$ (in $`W_l(Kk_d)`$), then $`\text{rp}_P(f)=a`$ (in $`W_l(K)`$).

Finally, if we write $`f=a_nt^n+\mathrm{}+a_{N1}t^{N1}+t^Ng`$, $`g𝒪_{C,P}`$, the preceding results give the :

Proposition 4.6. Let $`PC(\overline{k})\backslash U(\overline{k})`$, and $`t`$ a local parameter at $`P`$ as in proposition 4.1 ; if $`ft^n𝒪_{C,P}`$, $`n>0`$, we have :

$$\text{rp}_P(S(f))\mathrm{max}(p^{l1}(n+1+v),p^{l2}(n+1+v_0+2v)).$$

If $`f𝒪_{C,P}`$, we get $`\text{rp}_P(S(f))\mathrm{max}(p^{l1}v,p^{l2}(v_0+2v))`$.

Remark. In the case of projective line, if we define the morphism $`S:R(x)W_l(k(x))`$ as $`w_l`$ on $`R`$ and $`S(x)=(x,0,\mathrm{},0)`$, the example following lemma 1.1, joint with theorem 1.2 show that we are estimating the same character sums as in  section 4 ; the calculations we did in this section, joint with the estimation of the degree of the idele class character in section 3, give theorem 4.1 of  and its corollaries.

## 5. Bounds

We know come to the estimation of the exponential sums ; let $`C\text{}_R^n`$ be a smooth projective curve over $`\text{Spec}R`$ with $`C_k=Ck`$ of genus $`g`$, $`H_0`$ the hyperplane $`\{X_0=0\}\text{}_R^n`$, and $`U`$ the affine open $`C\{X_00\}`$. Denote by $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_r`$ the points of $`(CH_0)(\overline{k})`$ ; let $`t_i=\pi _i(x_jx_n^1)`$ be a local parameter at $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ an $`R_d`$-point above $`P_i`$ ($`1ir`$) as in propostion 4.1, and $`𝒪_C((\mathrm{\Pi }_i))`$ the associated invertible sheaf. Denote by $`D_0`$ the intersection divisor of $`H_0`$ with $`C_k`$ in $`\text{}_k^n`$, and by $`v_{0i}`$ its multiplicity at $`P_i`$. Let $`D`$ be a divisor of degree $`2g2+\frac{2g1}{p}`$, whose support is contained in that of $`D_0`$, and $`v_i`$ its multiplicity at $`P_i`$.

###### Theorem 5.1.

There exists a subset $`𝒯_\sigma U(R)`$ which is the image of a section of the map $`r_U:U(R)U_k(k)`$, and such that for $`f=f_0+pf_1+\mathrm{}+p^{l1}f_{l1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,𝒪_C)`$ a nondegenerate function (that is $`S(f)`$ is a nondegenerate vector of functions) with $`f_j\mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒪_C(_{i=1}^rn_{ij}(\mathrm{\Pi }_i))),`$ we have the bound :

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Pi }𝒯_\sigma }{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2i\pi }{p^l}\text{Tr}(f(\mathrm{\Pi }))\right)\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}(A_i+1)\mathrm{deg}P_i+2g2\right)p^{\frac{m}{2}},$$

where :

$$A_i=\mathrm{max}(\underset{0jl2}{\mathrm{max}}(p^{l1j}(n_{ij}+1+v_i),p^{l2j}(n_{ij}+1+v_{0i}+2v_i)),n_{i,l1}).$$

###### Proof.

First choose for $`𝒯_\sigma `$ the Teichmüller subset corresponding to a section $`\sigma `$ satisfying the requirements of theorem 2.1. By the definition of the Cartier divisors $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_i)`$, we must have :

$$i\{1\mathrm{},r\},j\{0,\mathrm{},l1\},f_jt_i^{n_{i,j}}𝒪_{C,P_i}.$$

We will get the result from theorems 1.2 and 3.1, once we have estimated reduced pole orders of the Witt vector $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f)`$ ; first note that :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f_0)+V\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f_1)+\mathrm{}+V^{l1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f_{l1})[\mathrm{}W_l(K)]$$

Now applying proposition 4.6, we obtain :

$$\text{rp}_{P_i}(V^j\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f_j))\mathrm{max}(p^{lj1}(n_{ij}+1+v_i),p^{lj2}(n_{ij}+1+v_{0i}+2v_i)),$$

if $`jl2`$ ; for $`j=l1`$, since $`V^{l1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)(f_{l1})=(0,\mathrm{},0,\overline{f_{l1}})`$, the reduced pole order of this vector at $`P_i`$ is at most $`n_{i,l1}`$. ∎

We write this result in the particular case $`l=2`$ : it includes the Galois ring $`\text{}/4\text{}`$ which concentrates most of the efforts of coding theorists. Moreover the result is simpler : looking back at the estimations of the reduced pole orders, the maximum is $`p(m+1+v_i)`$ since we can only have $`K=1`$. The equality

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}v_i\mathrm{deg}P_i=2g2+\frac{2g1}{p}$$

(this is the degree of the divisor $`D`$) allows us to give a bound depending only on the pole orders of the function and on the genus of the curve $`C_k`$ :

Corollary 5.2. Let $`R=GR(p^2,m)`$ be a Galois ring, and $`C`$ a smooth curve over $`R`$, $`C\text{}_R^n`$. We can find a subset $`𝒯_\sigma U(R)`$ which is the image of a section of the map $`r_U:U(R)U_k(k)`$, and such that for $`f\mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒪_C(n_i(\mathrm{\Pi }_i)))`$ a nondegenerate function, we have the bound :

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Pi }𝒯_\sigma }{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2i\pi }{p^2}\text{Tr}(f(\mathrm{\Pi }))\right)B_fp^{\frac{m}{2}},$$

where

$$B_f=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}(p(n_i+1)+1)\mathrm{deg}P_i+(2g2)(p+1)+p\frac{2g1}{p}.$$

It can be shown that, if $`C_k\text{}_k^n`$ is a smooth curve, either a complete intersection or a canonical curve (that is, the image of a curve $`C`$ of genus $`g`$ by the canonical embedding $`C\text{}_k^{g1}`$), then it lifts to a smooth curve $`C\text{}_R^n`$. In this case, the degree of the divisor $`D`$ is greater than that of $`D_0`$, we can choose $`v_iv_{0i}`$ for each $`i\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$ ; if moreover we assume $`p3`$, the maximum in proposition 4.6 is the first term, and as above the bound does not depend on the projective embedding :

Corollary 5.3. Let $`C`$ be the lift over $`\text{Spec}R`$ of either a canonical or a complete intersection curve. Assume $`p2`$. We can find a subset $`𝒯_\sigma U(R)`$ which is the image of a section of the map $`r_U:U(R)U_k(k)`$, and such that for $`f\mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒪_C(n_i(\mathrm{\Pi }_i)))`$ a nondegenerate function, we have the bound :

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Pi }𝒯_\sigma }{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2i\pi }{p^l}\text{Tr}(f(\mathrm{\Pi }))\right)B_fp^{\frac{m}{2}},$$

where

$$B_f=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}(p^{l1}(n_i+1)+1)\mathrm{deg}P_i+(2g2)(p^{l1}+1)+p^{l1}\frac{2g1}{p}$$


format: text

text:
# Variations of Alpha in Space and Time

## I Introduction

Elsewhere, , we have discussed the behaviour of a class of cosmologies in an exact theory in which the fine structure “constant” varies in time. This theory of Sandvik, Barrow and Magueijo is an extension, to include the self-gravitation of the dielectric medium, of Bekenstein’s prescription  for generalising Maxwell’s equations to incorporate varying electron charge. We will refer to it as the BSBM theory. The fine structure “constant” $`\alpha `$ varies through the space-time dynamics of a scalar “‘dielectric” field $`\psi ,`$ (where $`\alpha =\mathrm{exp}[2\psi ]`$) in these theories. However the overall behaviour is significantly affected by the form of the coupling. Even though the requirement that the energy in $`\psi `$ be positive definite fixes the sign of the coupling constant $`\omega `$ we find that $`\psi `$ is driven by a term of the form $`_{em}/\omega `$, where $`_{em}`$ is the electromagnetic Lagrangian. In general, $`_{em}`$ can be positive or negative, a fact we parameterize in terms of $`\zeta =_{em}/\rho `$, where $`\rho `$ is the energy density. The sign of $`\zeta `$ for the dark matter in the universe turns out to be of exceptional significance.

In our earlier studies  we have focussed on the case where $`\zeta <0`$ and the dark matter in the universe is dominated by magnetic field couplings. This was motivated by the discovery that $`\zeta <0`$ matter leads to a slow (logarithmic) increase in the value of $`\alpha `$ with cosmic time during the matter era of the universe and constant behaviour during any period in which the expansion is curvature dominated, accelerates, or is dominated by radiation in universes with a matter-radiation balance like our own. Thus for $`\zeta <0`$ we find slow time-evolution of the fine structure ’constant’ that is consistent with the observations of Webb et al  of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha =(0.72\pm 0.18)\times 10^5`$ at $`z=13.5.`$ They are also consistent with the low-redshift, $`z0.1`$, upper limits on time variation of $`\alpha `$ provided by Oklo ,and high-redshift constraints imposed by the microwave background temperature fluctuations , and primordial nucleosynthesis . Other hints of varying constants in astronomical studies have recently been reported by Ivanchik et al .

All of the studies described above have been performed in the context of an exact isotropic and homogeneous Friedmann universe. All variations in the fine structure “constant” therefore depend only on cosmic time. However, the rate of variation that is suggested by recent astronomical observations of quasar spectra, or allowed by geophysical data at recent times, is very small, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha 10^5,`$ and spatial variations in the rate of time variation could easily be of similar order . It is therefore important to determine if spatial variations in the rate of change of $`\alpha `$ are significant in the BSBM theory and whether they allow different modes of time variation to occur in addition to those studied in the purely homogeneous variations found in refs. .

## II The BSBM theory

There are a number of possible theories allowing for the variation of the fine structure constant, $`\alpha `$. In the simplest cases one takes $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ to be constants (see however ) and attributes variations in $`\alpha `$ to changes in the electron charge, $`e,`$ or the permittivity of free space (see ref.  for a discussion of the meaning of this choice). This is done by letting $`e`$ take on the value of a real scalar field which varies in space and time (for more complicated cases, resorting to complex fields undergoing spontaneous symmetry breaking, see the case of fast tracks discussed in ). Thus $`e_0e=e_0ϵ(x^\mu ),`$ where $`ϵ`$ is a dimensionless scalar field and $`e_0`$ is a constant denoting the present value of $`e`$. This operation implies that some well established assumptions, like charge conservation, must give way . Nevertheless, the principles of local gauge invariance and causality are maintained, as is the scale invariance of the $`ϵ`$ field (under a suitable choice of dynamics). In addition there is no conflict with local Lorentz invariance or covariance. With this set up in mind, the dynamics of our theory is then constructed as follows. Since $`e`$ is the electromagnetic coupling, the $`ϵ`$ field couples to the gauge field as $`ϵA_\mu `$ in the Lagrangian and the gauge transformation which leaves the action invariant is $`ϵA_\mu ϵA_\mu +\chi _{,\mu },`$ rather than the usual $`A_\mu A_\mu +\chi _{,\mu }.`$ The gauge-invariant electromagnetic field tensor is therefore

$$F_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{ϵ}\left((ϵA_\nu )_{,\mu }(ϵA_\mu )_{,\nu }\right),$$
(1)
which reduces to the usual form when $`ϵ`$ is constant. The electromagnetic part of the action is still

$$S_{em}=\frac{1}{4}d^4x\sqrt{g}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu },$$
(2)
and the dynamics of the $`ϵ`$ field are controlled by the kinetic term

$$S_ϵ=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{}c}{l^2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\frac{ϵ_{,\mu }ϵ^{,\mu }}{ϵ^2},$$
(3)
as in dilaton theories. Here, $`l`$ is the characteristic length scale of the theory, introduced for dimensional reasons. This constant length scale gives the scale down to which the electric field around a point charge is accurately of Coulomb type. The corresponding energy scale, $`\omega =\mathrm{}c/l,`$ has to lie between a few tens of $`MeV`$ and Planck scale, $`10^{19}GeV,`$ to avoid conflict with experiment.

Our generalisation of the scalar theory proposed by Bekenstein  described in ref.  includes the gravitational effects of $`\psi =\mathrm{log}ϵ`$. It gives the field equations:

$$G_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G\left(T_{\mu \nu }^m+T_{\mu \nu }^\psi +T_{\mu \nu }^{em}e^{2\psi }\right),$$
(4)
where the various $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ are the matter, $`\psi `$ and electromagnetic stress energy tensors. Recall the $`\psi `$ lagrangian is $`_\psi =\frac{\omega }{2}_\mu \psi ^\mu \psi `$ and the $`\psi `$ field obeys the equation of motion

$$\mathrm{}\psi =\frac{2}{\omega }e^{2\psi }_{em},$$
(5)
where we have defined the coupling constant $`\omega =(\mathrm{}c)/l^2`$. This constant is of order $`1`$ if, as in , the energy scale is similar to Planck scale. It is clear that $`_{em}`$ vanishes for a sea of pure radiation since then $`_{em}=(E^2B^2)/2=0`$. We therefore expect the variation in $`\alpha `$ to be driven by electrostatic and magnetostatic energy-components rather than electromagnetic radiation. In order to make quantitative predictions we need to know how much of the non-relativistic matter contributes to the RHS of Eqn. (5). This is parametrised by $`\zeta _{em}/\rho `$, where $`\rho `$ is the energy density, and for baryonic matter $`_{em}=E^2/2`$. For protons and neutrons $`\zeta _p`$ and $`\zeta _n`$ can be estimated from the electromagnetic corrections to the nucleon mass, $`0.63`$ MeV and $`0.13`$ MeV, respectively , . This correction contains the $`E^2/2`$ contribution (always positive), but also terms of the form $`j_\mu a^\mu `$ (where $`j_\mu `$ is the quarks’ current) and so cannot be used directly. Hence we take a guiding value $`\zeta _p\zeta _n10^4`$. Furthermore the cosmological value of $`\zeta `$ (denoted $`\zeta _m`$) has to be weighted by the fraction of matter that is non-baryonic, a point ignored in the literature . Hence, $`\zeta _m`$ depends strongly on the nature of the dark matter and can take both positive and negative values depending on which of Coulomb-energy or magnetostatic energy dominates the dark matter of the Universe. It could be that $`\zeta _{CDM}1`$ (superconducting cosmic strings, for which $`_{em}B^2/2)`$, or $`\zeta _{CDM}1`$ (neutrinos). BBN predicts an approximate value for the baryon density of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B0.03`$ with a Hubble parameter of $`h_00.6`$ , implying $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}0.3`$. Thus depending on the nature of the dark matter $`\zeta _m`$ can be virtually anything between $`1`$ and $`+1`$. The uncertainties in the underlying quark physics and especially the constituents of the dark matter make it difficult to impose more certain bounds on $`\zeta _m`$.

We should not confuse this theory with other similar variations. Bekenstein’s theory  does not take into account the stress energy tensor of the dielectric field in Einstein’s equations. Dilaton theories predict a global coupling between the scalar and all other matter fields. As a result they predict variations in other constants of nature, and also a different dynamics to all the matter coupled to electromagnetism. This model may be seen as a more conservative alternative to varying-speed-of-light scenarios . An interesting application of our approach has also recently been made to braneworld cosmology by Youm . Assuming a homogeneous and isotropic Friedmann metric with expansion scale factor $`a(t)`$ and curvature parameter $`k`$ in eqn. (4), we obtain the field equations ($`c1`$)

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3}}\left(\rho _m\left(1+\zeta _m\mathrm{exp}[2\psi ]\right)+\rho _r\mathrm{exp}[2\psi ]+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}\dot{\psi }^2\right)`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant. For the scalar field we have the propagation equation,

$$\ddot{\psi }+3H\dot{\psi }=\frac{2}{\omega }\mathrm{exp}[2\psi ]\zeta _m\rho _m,$$
(8)
where $`H\dot{a}/a`$ is the Hubble expansion rate. Note that the sign of the evolution of $`\psi `$ is dependent on the sign of $`\zeta _m`$. Since the observational data is consistent with a smaller value of $`\alpha `$ in the past, we will in this paper confine our study to negative values of $`\zeta _m`$, in line with our recent discussion in Ref.. The conservation equations for the non-interacting radiation and matter densities are

$`\dot{\rho _m}+3H\rho _m`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (9)
$`\dot{\rho _r}+4H\rho _r`$ $`=`$ $`2\dot{\psi }\rho _r.`$ (10)
and so $`\rho _ma^3`$and $`\rho _r`$ $`e^{2\psi }a^4,`$ respectively. If additional non-interacting perfect fluids satisfying equation of state $`p=(\gamma 1)\rho `$ are added to the universe then they contribute density terms $`\rho a^{3\gamma }`$ to the RHS of eqn. (7) as usual.

## III Inhomogeneous solutions with varying $`\alpha `$

The Friedmann models with varying $`\alpha `$ have shown that when $`\zeta _m<0`$ the homogeneous motion of the $`\psi `$ does not in general create significant metric perturbations at late times and we can safely assume that the expansion scale factor is that of the usual Friedmann universe for the appropriate fluid. The behaviour of $`\psi `$ then follows from a solution of the $`\psi `$ conservation equation in which the expansion scale factor is taken to be that of the Friedmann universe for matter with the same equation of state in general relativity ($`\psi =\zeta =0`$). Our earlier analyses found that $`\psi `$ is approximately constant during the radiation era, and $`\alpha `$ increases as $`2N\mathrm{ln}(t)`$ during the dust dominated era when spatial curvature is negligible, and tends to a constant in any subsequent era dominated by negative spatial curvature or a positive cosmological constant . When $`\zeta <0`$ we can use the same test-motion approach to investigate inhomogeneous variations in $`\psi `$ and $`\alpha `$ as the universe expands.

We assume that the expansion scale factor is that of the Friedmann model

$$a=t^n$$
(11)
and solve the wave equation in one of its appropriate forms:

$`\mathrm{}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\zeta }{\omega }}\rho _m\mathrm{exp}[2\psi ]`$ (12)
$`\ddot{\psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{3\dot{a}}{a}}\dot{\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}^2\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\zeta }{\omega }}\rho _m\mathrm{exp}[2\psi ]`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(\dot{\psi }a^3\right)a^2\psi `$ $`=`$ $`N\mathrm{exp}[2\psi ]`$ (15)
where $`N`$ is a constant, defined by

$`N{\displaystyle \frac{2\zeta _m}{\omega }}\rho _ma^3>0.`$

We can see in a general way that the effects of small inhomogeneities in the density of electromagnetically-coupled matter, will create a spatial variation in $`N(\stackrel{}{x})`$ and this will create small spatial variations in $`\alpha 2N(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{ln}t`$ during the dust era. It is also possible for inhomogeneity in $`N`$ to be created by variations in the value of $`\zeta `$ for the form of matter that dominates on any particular scale. Our assumption of $`\zeta _m<0`$ applies only to the dominant dark matter. On small scales the luminous matter might dominate and there will be a variation in the effective value (and even the sign) of $`\zeta `$ but we will not explore these possibilities further here.

We seek a general solution of (15) of the form

$$\psi =\psi _h+\delta (\stackrel{}{x},t)$$
(16)
where $`\psi _h(t)`$ is the solution to the space-independent problem ($`\psi 0`$), so by definition $`\psi _h(t)`$ is an exact solution of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(\dot{\psi }_ha^3\right)=N\mathrm{exp}[2\psi _h]`$

We note immediately an important general property of this equation, that applies to all Friedmann universes with varying $`\alpha :`$

No-oscillation theorem:  In the BSBM theory, $`\alpha `$ cannot display oscillatory behaviour in time in a Friedmann universe of any curvature.

The proof is simple: When $`N`$ is positive (negative) the right-hand side of equation (8) is positive (negative), $`\psi _{h\text{ }}`$cannot have an expansion maximum (minimum) since $`\dot{\psi }_h=0`$ and $`\ddot{\psi }_h<0`$ ($`>0`$) there. Therefore $`\psi _{h\text{ }}`$cannot oscillate in time and so neither can $`\alpha =\mathrm{exp}[2\psi ]`$.

We see that in the case of interest, when $`N>0`$, $`\psi `$ can have a minimum but thereafter it must always increase irrespective of the behaviour of the expansion scale factor. However, if the equation is linearised in $`\psi _h`$ this is no longer true if attention is not confined to the small $`\psi `$ regime where $`\mathrm{exp}[2\psi _h]12\psi _h>0`$ and spurious oscillations of $`\psi `$ (and $`\alpha `$) in time can appear to arise at late times if $`\psi `$ grows. It is of particular interest that this proof that $`\psi _h`$ cannot have a maximum applies to recollapsing universes ($`k=+1`$) as well as to ever-expanding universes ($`k0`$). It also means that oscillations of $`\alpha `$ with redshift should not be observed in Friedmann universe. This might prove an interesting prediction for future observations to test.

Substituting (16) into (15) we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(\dot{\delta }a^3\right)a^2\delta =N\mathrm{exp}[2\psi _h]\{\mathrm{exp}[2\delta ]1\}`$

So for small $`\delta `$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(\dot{\delta }a^3\right)a^2\delta =2N\delta \mathrm{exp}[2\psi _h]+O(\delta ^2)`$

Now look for separable solutions

$`\delta =T(t)D(\stackrel{}{x})`$

and we have

$$\frac{\ddot{T}}{T}a^2+3a\dot{a}\frac{\dot{T}}{T}+\frac{2N}{a}\mathrm{exp}[2\psi _h]=\mu ^2=\frac{^2D}{D}$$
(17)
where $`\mu ^2`$ is a separation constant with a sign chosen to ensure non-growing, oscillatory, inhomogeneity in $`D(\stackrel{}{x})`$ at spatial infinity$`.`$ In this equation we can always neglect $`2Na^1\mathrm{exp}[2\psi _h]`$ with respect to $`\mu ^2`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$ because $`\psi _h`$ never falls with time (in the dust era $`\psi _h`$ grows as $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}[2N\mathrm{ln}(t)]`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$, for example, ). This is an important feature of the variation of $`\psi `$, and $`\alpha `$, in BSBM varying-$`\alpha `$ theories when $`\zeta <0`$. It ensures that the kinetic term and the $`\zeta _m\mathrm{exp}[2\psi ]`$ terms can be neglected in the Friedmann equation asymptotically and the expansion scale factor can self-consistently be assumed to be of the same form as when $`\alpha `$ does not vary (this is not true if $`\zeta >0`$). Note that in the Friedmann case ($`\delta =0)`$ we can evaluate the corrections to the test-motion approximation by calculating the leading order corrections to the Friedmann equation if we use the solution for $`\psi `$ found from the solution of the wave equation. These are largest for the dust universe but even there we find that the next order correction to the first-order assumption that $`a(t)=t^{2/3}`$ is $`a(t)=t^{2/3}(\mathrm{ln}t)^{\left|\zeta \right|/3}`$ with $`\left|\zeta \right|/30.30.03`$ and so are small.

Hence, in this approximation we have

$$\ddot{T}+\frac{3\dot{a}}{a}\dot{T}+\frac{\mu ^2T}{a^2}=0$$
(18)
and

$`^2D=\mu ^2D`$

so we have the standard separable spherical oscillator solution in spherical polar coordinates:

$`D(r,\theta ,\phi )={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_{\mu ,\mathrm{}}Y_{\mathrm{}}(\theta ,\phi )r^{1/2}Z_{\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}}(\mu r)`$

where $`Z`$ is a cylindrical function and $`Y`$ the spherical harmonic function. If we specialise to spatially-flat cosmologies with perfect fluid equations of state for pressure $`p`$ and density $`\rho `$ of the form

$`p=(\gamma 1)\rho ,`$

then the expansion scale factor will have power law form

$$a=t^n$$
(19)
with $`n=2/3\gamma .`$ In these cases we have

$$t\ddot{T}+3n\dot{T}+\mu ^2Tt^{12n}=0$$
(20)
We are interested in inhomogeneous solutions which introduce new behaviour as a result of including inhomogeneity. Therefore we impose a boundary condition that $`T=0`$ for $`\mu =0`$ since when $`D=0`$ the time-dependent solution is already included in $`\psi _h(t).`$ Thus, for $`n<1:`$

$`T(t)`$ $`=`$ $`t^{(13n)/2}C_1Z_\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{1n}}t^{1n}\right),`$ (21)
$`\nu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left|13n\right|}{2(1n)}}`$ (22)
where $`Z(..)`$ is a cylindrical function, while for the curvature-dominated expansion with $`n=1:`$

$`T`$ $``$ $`t^q`$ (23)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`1\pm \sqrt{1\mu ^2}`$ (24)
and we choose the + solution to satisfy the boundary condition. The late-time behaviour is easily determined as $`t\mathrm{}`$:

$`T(t)`$ $``$ $`t^n\times oscillations;n1.`$ (25)
$`T(t)`$ $``$ $`t^{1+\sqrt{1\mu ^2}};n=1`$ (27)
and decays, $`Ta^1,`$ as $`t\mathrm{}.`$ However, as we have already pointed out the oscillatory behaviour is an artefact of the linearisation process and the Bessel-like oscillation are not reached by the solution for $`\psi .`$

In the radiation era we can find an solution of eqn. (17) for $`T(t)`$ without neglecting the term $`2Na^1\mathrm{exp}[2\psi _h]`$ since the radiation universe has the simple exact solution:

$$\psi _h=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}(8N)+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{log}(t)$$
(28)
Substituting (28) in eqn. (17) we find

$`T(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^{1/4}}}\{AJ_m(2\mu t^{1/2})+BJ_m(2\mu t^{1/2})\}`$

where

$`m={\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{3}}{2}}`$

and we see explicitly that there is agreement with the asymptote (25) of the approximated equation when $`n=1/2`$. The boundary condition for transition to the homogeneous problems requires that we put $`B=0`$ and again the late-time oscillations are recognised as arising purely from the linearisation process. Similar exact solutions can be found for all universes with $`1/3<n<2/3.`$

The cosmological constant case of $`\gamma =0`$ is distinct, with

$`a=\mathrm{exp}[H_0t]`$

which gives

$`0=\ddot{T}+3H_0\dot{T}+\mu ^2T\mathrm{exp}[2H_0t]\ddot{T}+3H_0\dot{T}`$

as $`t\mathrm{},`$ so

$`TT_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3H_0}}\mathrm{exp}[3H_0(t+t_0)]T_{\mathrm{}}`$

This behaviour is in accord with the expectations of a cosmic no hair theorem. It means that if a period of inflation occurs in the very early universe then large scale inhomogeneity will appear increasingly negligible with time within the event horizon of a geodesically moving observer. In the late stages of a universe like our own, which displays evidence of being accelerated by the presence of a positive cosmological constant, , it ensures that time variations in $`\alpha `$ will not grow. This is to be expected since the inhomogeneities in density are also prevented from growing by the effects of the cosmological constant.

## IV The case of $`\zeta >0`$

When the dark matter is dominated by electric field energy, we have $`\zeta >0`$, and the behaviour of eq. (8) is very different to that obtained when $`\zeta <0`$. Most crucially, the test-motion approximation used above to analyse the behaviour or (8) does not apply, even for the purely time-dependent $`\psi `$ evolution in a Friedmann universe. The solutions obtained for $`\psi `$ by assuming the scale factor evolution $`a=t^n`$ of general relativity (with constant $`\alpha `$) lead to solutions for $`\psi `$ (and $`\alpha )`$ which do not increase with time. For example, we have $`\alpha t^1`$ in the curvature era and $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}(t_0/t)`$ in the dust era. These contribute kinetic ($`\dot{\psi }^2`$) and magnetic contributions ($`\zeta \mathrm{exp}[2\psi ]`$) terms which dominate the underlying Friedmann equation, (7), at large times and the expansion of the universe is not well approximated by that obtained in general relativistic cosmologies with the same equation of state and constant $`\alpha `$ except over finite non-asymptotic intervals of time. This leads to problems accommodating observational constraints, notably the results of studies of the structure of the microwave background at last scattering  and big bang nucleosynthesis  in the radiation era because the value of $`\alpha `$ then is significantly different from today, unlike in the cases of $`\zeta <0`$. Cosmologies with $`\zeta >0`$ have been discussed in ref.  in a theory that is similar in structure to the BSBM theory discussed here. We will discuss the $`\zeta >0`$ version of the theory in more detail elsewhere. It is less well behaved and does not seem to provide the smooth and simple perturbation of the standard cosmology with constant $`\alpha `$ as seen in the negative $`\zeta `$ case.

## V Discussion

We have shown that the time-dependent solutions to the Friedmann model are stable against the effects of inhomogeneous motions of the $`\psi `$ field. In the case of inhomogeneous variation the cosmological solutions in universes with scale factor $`a(t)=t^n`$, to leading order take the form:

$`\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)=\psi _h(t)+C_1t^{(13n)/2}\left[J_\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{1n}}t^{1n}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_{\mu ,\mathrm{}}Y_{\mathrm{}}(\theta ,\phi )r^{1/2}Z_{\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}}(\mu r)`$

when $`n1`$, and

$`\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)=\psi _h(t)+At^{1+\sqrt{1\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_{\mu ,\mathrm{}}Y_{\mathrm{}}(\theta ,\phi )r^{1/2}Z_{\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}}(\mu r)`$

when $`n=1`$, while for the case of $`a=\mathrm{exp}[H_0t]:`$

$`\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)=\psi _h(t)+O(\mathrm{exp}[3H_0t]).`$

Thus in all cases we have

$`\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)\psi _h(t)`$

as $`t\mathrm{}`$ and at late times spatial variations in the fine structure constant decay as

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[2\psi _h]\{1+2t^n{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_{\mu ,\mathrm{}}Y_{\mathrm{}}(\theta ,\phi )r^{1/2}Z_{\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}}(\mu r)+..\}`$
for $`n1.`$ Hence, denoting $`\alpha _h\mathrm{exp}[2\psi _h],`$ the spatial variation in $`\alpha `$ decays in time in the $`n1`$ universes as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \alpha _h}{\alpha _h}}2t^n{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_{\mu ,\mathrm{}}Y_{\mathrm{}}(\theta ,\phi )r^{1/2}Z_{\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}}(\mu r)`$

Analogous expressions can be written down mutatis mutandis for $`\delta \alpha /\alpha `$ in the $`n=0,1`$ cases.

It is important to compare the evolution of the fine structure constant $`\alpha (t)`$ in the BSBM theory in the homogeneous case with that for the situation admitting inhomogeneous motions of the fine structure ’constant’, $`\alpha (t,\stackrel{}{x}),`$ here. To leading order, the overall pattern of time evolution studied in refs.  is unaffected by the presence of small inhomogeneities. However, small spatial variations of an oscillatory character are expected to exist in the value of the fine structure constant over astronomical scales, reflecting the non-linear self-interaction of the $`\alpha (\psi )`$ field which carries the variations in $`\alpha .`$ The spatial variation amplitudes, $`\delta \alpha /\alpha `$, are found to decay with time as the universe expands and will not be as significant as the overall variation in time of the mean value of $`\alpha (t)\mathrm{ln}(t)`$ during the dust-dominated phase of a spatially-flat universe. Inhomogeneous test motions of the $`\psi `$ field will have been decaying in amplitude throughout the period when the universe was dominated by dust if $`\zeta <0.`$ Therefore we would not expect any significant inhomogeneities to survive at the astronomically interesting epoch $`z14`$ where the value of the fine structure constant can be probed spectroscopically with high precision. However, our discussion has not considered three situations where more significant spatial variations might arise. The first is the situation within gravitationally bound matter inhomogeneities of large scale which separate out from the expansion of the Universe and collapse to form superclusters and clusters of galaxies. These behave in a manner similar to that expected of separate closed universes until deviations from spherical symmetry become significant. Our analysis is not applicable here because the dynamics of the bound inhomogeneities will differ significantly after they separate off from the background expansion. The second situation of interest is that in which perturbations of the Friedmann metric are included in the problem and allowed to couple to spatial variations in $`\psi ,`$ or $`\alpha .`$ This coupling will lead to small temperature fluctuations in the microwave background radiation. Finally, the variation in the value and sign of $`\zeta `$ with scale for the dominant form of matter could introduce a distinctive inhomogeneity. These problems will be discussed elsewhere.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank David Mota for discussions.