text:
# Loop homology algebra of a closed manifold

## Abstract

The loop homology of a closed orientable manifold $`M`$ of dimension $`d`$ is the ordinary homology of the free loop space $`LM=M^{S^1}`$ with degrees shifted by $`d`$, i.e. $`_{}(LM)=H_{+d}(LM)`$. M. Chas and D. Sullivan have defined a loop product on $`_{}(LM)`$ and an intersection morphism $`I:_{}(LM)H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)`$. The algebra $`_{}(LM)`$ is commutative and $`I`$ is a morphism of algebras. In this paper we produce, for any field $`lk`$, a chain model that computes the algebra $`_{}(LM;lk)`$ and the morphism $`I`$. We show that the kernel of $`I`$ is a nilpotent ideal and that the image of $`I`$ is contained in the center of $`H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M;lk)`$, which is in general quite small.

AMS Classification : 55P35, 54N45,55N33, 17A65, 81T30, 17B55

Key words : free loop space, loop homology, Hochschild cohomology, Gerstenhaber product.

Let $`M`$ be a simply connected closed oriented $`d`$-dimensional (smooth) manifold and $`lk`$ be a principal ideal domain. In (), Chas and Sullivan have constructed a product on the desuspension, $`_{}(LM;lk)=H_{+d}(LM;lk)`$, of the ordinary homology of the free loop space on $`M`$. This product, called the loop product, is defined at the chain level using both intersection product on the chains on $`M`$ and loop composition. (See 2.2 for more details). The loop homology of $`M`$ is the commutative graded algebra $`_{}(LM;lk)`$. Our first result consists in producing an explicit model, which allows to compute the loop product (Theorem 4.4) for any field $`lk`$.

In their paper Chas and Sullivan construct also a morphism of graded algebras, called the intersection morphism,

$$I:_{}(LM;lk)H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M;lk),$$

where $`H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M;lk)`$ is the usual (non commutative) Pontryagin

algebra. Using a description at the chain level of the morphism $`I`$, we prove

Theorem A. (Theorem 5.2) For any field $`lk`$,

a) the kernel of $`I`$ is a nilpotent ideal of nilpotency index less than or equal to $`d/2`$,

b) the image of $`I:_{}(LM;lk)H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M;lk)`$ lies in the center of $`H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M;lk)`$.

Theorem A shows that the image of $`I`$ is in general very small comparatively to the expected growth of $`H_{}(LM;lk)`$. When $`lk`$ is a field of characteristic zero, Theorem A becomes more precise. Let us recall that an element $`x\pi _q(M)`$ is called a Gottlieb element (-p.377), if the map $`xid_M:S^qMM`$ extends to the product $`S^q\times M`$. These elements generate a subgroup $`G_{}(M)`$ of $`\pi _{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)`$ via the isomorphism $`\pi _{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)\pi _{+1}(M)`$. Finally, we denote by cat $`M`$ the Lusternik-Schnirelmann category of $`M`$ normalized so that cat $`S^n`$=1.

Theorem B. (Theorem 6.3) If $`lk`$ is a field of characteristic zero then

a) the kernel of $`I`$ is a nilpotent ideal of nilpotency index less than or equal to cat $`M`$.

b) (Im $`I`$) $`(\pi _{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)lk)=G_{}(M)lk`$.

c) $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}`$ dim (Im $`IH_i(\mathrm{\Omega }M;lk)Cn^k`$, some constant $`C>0`$ and $`k`$ cat $`M`$.

Chas and Sullivan have proved that $`I`$ is surjective when $`M`$ is a Lie group, and in (), Cohen, Jones and Yan have computed the algebra $`_{}(LM;lk)`$ and the homomorphism $`I`$ when $`M`$ is a sphere or a complex projective space. Using our model we perform their results, proving in particular:

Theorem C. (Theorem 7.5) The intersection morphism $`I:_{}(LM;)H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M;)`$ is surjective if and only if $`M`$ has the rational homotopy type of a product of odd dimensional spheres.

The starting point of our work is the Cohen-Jones isomorphism

$$f_{}:_{}(LM;lk)\stackrel{}{}HH^{}(𝒞^{}M;𝒞^{}M)$$

which identifies the loop product with the Gerstenhaber product on $`HH^{}(𝒞^{}M;𝒞^{}M)`$ (see 1.5) when $`M`$ is a 1-connected closed oriented manifold of dimension $`d`$ ().

The Cohen-Jones ring isomorphism depends a priori on the smooth structure because its construction uses in an essential way the normal bundle of the embedding of the manifold into some $`^n`$. So even though $`HH^{}(𝒞^{}M,𝒞^{}M)`$ is a homotopy invariant, there is no evidence that the ring isomorphism $`f_{}`$ is independent of the smooth structure, and that, for a homotopy equivalence $`g:MM^{}`$, the induced map $`g_{}:_{}(LM)_{}(LM^{})`$ is a ring isomorphism. Anyway this problem does not affect our results that only depend on the existence of a ring isomorphism and not on the isomorphism itself.

Denote by $`\epsilon :𝒞^{}(M)lk`$ the augmentation associated to the inclusion $`\{m_0\}M`$. Then the following result provides us a description of the intersection morphism in terms of Hochschild cohomology.

Theorem D. (Theorem 3.5) There is a commutative diagram of algebras

$$\begin{array}{ccc}HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M);𝒞^{}(M))& \stackrel{HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M);\epsilon )}{}& HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M);lk)\\ f_{}& & \\ _{}(LM;lk)& \stackrel{I}{}& H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M;lk),\end{array}.$$

To prove Theorem A we also use the following algebraic result concerning the center of the enveloping algebra of a graded Lie algebra.

Theorem E. (Theorem 6.2) Let $`L`$ be a finite type graded Lie algebra defined on a field of characteristic zero, then the center of $`UL`$ is contained in the enveloping algebra on the radical of $`L`$.

The paper is organized as follows:

1 - Hochschild cohomology and Gerstenhaber product.

2 - Loop product and Hochschild cohomology.

3 - The intersection morphism $`I:_{}(LM)H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)`$.

4 - A chain model for computing the loop product and $`I`$.

5 - The kernel and the image of $`I`$.

6 - Determination of $`I`$ when $`lk`$ is a field of characteristic zero.

7 - Examples and applications.

8 - Hochschild cohomology and Poincaré duality.

We would like to thank the referee for helpful comments that have considerably improve the paper.

1 - Hochschild cohomology and Gerstenhaber product

In this section we fix some notations and recall the standard definitions of Hochschild cohomology and of Gerstenhaber product.

1.1. Let $`lk`$ be a principal ideal domain; modules, tensor product, linear homomorphism,… are defined over $`lk`$. For notational simplicity, we avoid to mention $`lk`$. If $`V`$ is a lower or upper graded module ($`V_i=V^i`$) the suspension $`s`$ is defined by $`(sV)_n=V_{n+1},(sV)^n=V^{n1}`$.

1.2. Let $`(A,d)`$ be a differential graded augmented cochain algebra and $`(N,d)`$ be a differential graded $`A`$-bimodule, $`A=\{A^i\}_{i0},N=\{N^j\}_j`$ and $`\overline{A}=`$ ker$`(\epsilon :Alk)`$. The two-sided normalized bar construction,

$$\overline{IB}(N;A;N)=NT(s\overline{A})N,\overline{IB}_k(N;A;N)=NT^k(s\overline{A})N,$$

is defined as follows: For $`k1`$, a generic element $`m[a_1|a_2|\mathrm{}|a_k]n\overline{IB}_k(N;A;N)`$ has degree $`|m|+|n|+_{i=1}^k(|sa_i|)`$. If $`k=0`$, we write $`m[]n=m1nNT^0s\overline{A}N`$. The differential $`d=d_0+d_1`$ is defined by:

$$d_0:\overline{IB}_k(N;A;N)\overline{IB}_k(N;A;N),d_1:\overline{IB}_k(N;A;N)\overline{IB}_{k1}(N;A;N),$$

with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill d_0(m[a_1|a_2|\mathrm{}|a_k]n)& =d(m)[a_1|a_2|\mathrm{}|a_k]n\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^{ϵ_i}m[a_1|a_2|\mathrm{}|d(a_i)|\mathrm{}|a_k]n\hfill & \\ & +(1)^{ϵ_{k+1}}m[a_1|a_2|\mathrm{}|a_k]d(n)\hfill & \\ \hfill d_1(m[a_1|a_2|\mathrm{}|a_k]n)& =(1)^{|m|}ma_1[a_2|\mathrm{}|a_k]n+\underset{i=2}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^{ϵ_i}m[a_1|a_2|\mathrm{}|a_{i1}a_i|\mathrm{}|a_k]n\hfill & \\ & (1)^{ϵ_k}m[a_1|a_2|\mathrm{}|a_{k1}]a_kn\hfill & \end{array}$$

Here $`ϵ_i=|m|+_{j<i}(|sa_j|)`$.

1.3. For any differential graded algebra $`A`$, let $`A^{op}`$ be the opposite graded algebra, $`a^{op}b=(1)^{|a|.|b|}ba`$, and $`A^e=AA^{op}`$ be the enveloping algebra. Any differential graded $`A`$-bimodule $`N`$ is a differential graded $`A^e`$-module.

Let $`A`$ and $`N`$ as in 1.2. The Hochschild cochain complex $`𝐂^{}(A;N)`$ of $`A`$ with coefficients in $`N`$ is the differential graded module (,):

$$𝐂^{}(A;N)=\text{Hom}_{A^e}(\overline{IB}(A;A;A),N),𝐂^n(A,M)=\underset{pq=n}{}\text{Hom}_{A^e}(\overline{IB}(A,A,A)^p,N^q),$$

equipped with the standard differential $`D`$ defined by $`Df=df(1)^{|f|}fd`$. The cohomology of the complex $`𝐂^{}(A;N)`$ is called the Hochschild cohomology of $`A`$ with values in $`N`$ , and is denoted $`HH^{}(A;N)`$.

This definition extends the classical one since:

1.4. Lemma (-Lemma 4.3) If $`A`$ is a differential graded algebra such that $`A`$ is a $`lk`$-free graded module then the multiplication in $`A`$ extends in a semi-free resolution of $`A^e`$-modules

$$m:\overline{IB}(A,A,A)A.$$

This means that $`m`$ is a quasi-isomorphism of differential graded $`A`$-bimodules which well behaves with quasi-isomorphisms of differential graded $`A`$-bimodules. In particular, we have the following lifting lemma

Lifting Homotopy Lemma. For any quasi-isomorphism $`\phi :A^{}A`$ there exists a unique (up to homotopy in the category of differential graded bimodules) quasi-isomorphism $`\widehat{m}:\overline{IB}(A,A,A)A^{}`$ such that $`m\phi \widehat{m}`$.

1.5. Recall that $`\overline{IB}(A)=\overline{IB}(lk;A;lk):=(T(s\overline{A}),d)`$ is a differential graded coalgebra with

$$d([a_1|a_2|\mathrm{}|a_k])=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^{ϵ_i}[a_1|a_2|\mathrm{}|d(a_i)|\mathrm{}|a_k]+\underset{i=2}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^{ϵ_i}[a_1|a_2|\mathrm{}|a_{i1}a_i|\mathrm{}|a_k].$$

The canonical isomorphism of graded modules $`\text{Hom}_{A^e}(\overline{IB}(A;A;A),N)=\text{Hom}(T(s\overline{A}),N),`$ carries on $`\text{Hom}(T(s\overline{A}),N)`$ a differential $`D^{}`$. Observe that the differential $`D^{}`$ is not the canonical differential $`D`$ of $`\text{Hom}(\overline{IB}(A),N)`$ except when $`N`$ is the trivial bimodule $`lk`$.

If $`N=A`$, Gerstenhaber  has proved that the usual cup product on $`\text{Hom}(T(s\overline{A}),A)`$ makes $`(\text{Hom}(T(s\overline{A}),A),D^{})`$ a differential graded algebra such that the induced product on $`HH^{}(A;A)`$, called the Gerstenhaber product, is commutative.

2 - Loop product and Hochschild cohomology

In this section, for the reader convenience and in order to precise notations, we recall the definition of the loop product defined by Chas and Sullivan, the interpretation given by Cohen and Jones and the relation between the loop product and the Gerstenhaber product.

Let $`X`$ be topological space and $`𝒞_{}(X)`$ be the singular chain coalgebra (coefficients in $`lk`$) with coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_X`$:

$$𝒞_k(X)\stackrel{\text{diagonal}}{}𝒞_k(X\times X)\stackrel{AW}{}\begin{array}{c}\\ k_1+k_2=k\end{array}𝒞_{k_1}(X)𝒞_{k_2}(X),c\underset{i}{}c_ic_i^{},$$

where $`AW`$ denotes the usual Alexander-Whitney chain equivalence.

The singular cochain algebra on $`X`$ is the differential graded algebra $`𝒞^{}(X):=\left(𝒞_{}(X)\right)^{}`$ with product (cup product),

$$:𝒞^p(X)𝒞^q(X)𝒞^{p+q}(X),(fg)(c)=\underset{i}{}(1)^{|c_i||g|}f(c_i)g(c_i^{}).$$

Observe that the choice of a point $`x_0`$ in $`X`$ determines an augmentation $`\epsilon :𝒞^{}(X)lk`$.

2.1. Let $`M`$ be a 1-connected $`lk`$-Poincaré duality space of formal dimension $`d`$, i.e., $`M`$ is 1-connected with a class $`[M]H_d(M)`$ such that cap product with $`[M]`$ induces an isomorphism

$$[M]:H^{}(M)H_d(M).$$

(We restrict to 1-connected spaces in order to simplify the definition. In this case the formal dimension $`d`$ does not depend on $`lk`$.) Every simply-connected closed oriented $`d`$-dimensional manifold is a $`lk`$-Poincaré duality space.

Let us denote also by $`[M]`$ a cycle in $`𝒞_d(X)`$ representing the class $`[M]H_d(M)`$, and denote by $`𝒫:H_{}(M)H^d(M)`$ the linear isomorphism, inverse of $`[M]`$.

The intersection product of two homology classes of $`M`$ is nowadays defined from the cup product in the following way:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_k(M)H_l(M)& \stackrel{}{}& H_{k+ld}(M)\\ 𝒫𝒫& & \left[M\right]\\ H^{dk}(M)H^{dl}(M)& \stackrel{}{}& H^{2d(k+l)}(M)\end{array}$$

The intersection product makes $`_{}(M)=H_{+d}(M)`$ a commutative graded algebra with unity $`[M]_0(M)`$. Originally, the intersection product was defined for a polyhedron. In their paper () Cohen and Jones uses the following point of view. Let $`i:M^{n+d}`$ be the embedding of $`M`$ into a codimension $`n`$ euclidean space. We denote by $`\nu ^nM`$ the normal bundle of this embedding, and by $`Th(\nu ^n)`$ the associated Thom space, which is Spanier-Whitehead dual to $`M_+`$, i.e. $`M`$ with a disjoint base point. More precisely, denote by $`M^{TM}`$ the spectrum

$$M^{TM}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n+d)}Th(\nu ^n).$$

Then the diagonal map $`\mathrm{\Delta }:MM\times M`$ induces a map of spectra $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}:M^{TM}M^{TM}M^{TM}`$ that makes $`M^{TM}`$ into a ring spectrum. When $`M`$ is orientable, the ring structure is compatible, via the Thom isomorphism, with the intersection product:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_q(M^{TM})H_r(M^{TM})& & H_{q+r}(M^{TM})\\ \tau \tau & & \tau \\ H_{q+d}(M)H_{r+d}(M)& \stackrel{\text{intersection}}{}& H_{q+r+d}(M).\end{array}$$

2.2. The loop product has been defined geometrically by Chas and Sullivan ( in the following way. Consider again the evaluation map $`\text{ev}:LMM`$ and let $`\sigma :\mathrm{}^nLM`$ and $`\tau :\mathrm{}^mLM`$ be singular simplices. Then $`\text{ev}\sigma `$ and $`\text{ev}\tau `$ are singular simplices of $`M`$. At each point $`(s,t)\mathrm{\Delta }^n\times \mathrm{\Delta }^m`$ where $`q\sigma (s)=q\tau (t)`$, the composition of the loops $`\sigma (s)`$ and $`\tau (t)`$ can be defined. If we assume that the map $`(\text{ev}\sigma ,\text{ev}\tau ):\mathrm{}^n\times \mathrm{}^mM\times M`$ is transverse to the diagonal map $`MM\times M`$ then (as shown by Chas and Sullivan) this defines a chain $`\sigma \tau C_{n+md}(LM)`$, and produces a commutative and associative multiplication

$$_q(LM)_r(LM)_{q+r}(LM),abab,$$

whose unity is the image of $`[M]`$ via the homomorphism induced by the canonical section.

A homological presentation of the loop product in the smooth case goes as follows. Let $`NM`$ be the normal bundle to the inclusion $`\mathrm{\Delta }:MM\times M`$ and $`(ev)^{}(N)`$ the pull back bundle on $`LM\times _MLM`$. We write $`N_D,N_S,(ev)^{}(N)_D,(ev)^{}(N)_S`$ for the corresponding disk and sphere bundles. We have homotopy equivalences

$$\phi _1:(N_D,N_S)(V,V)$$

$$\phi _2:((ev)^{}(N)_D,(ev)^{}(N)_S)((ev)^1(V),(ev)^1(V)),$$

where $`V`$ is a tubular neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M)`$ into $`M\times M`$. The map $`\phi _1`$ is the usual exponential map and $`\phi _2`$ is defined by

$$\phi _2(x,v,c)=\gamma (x,v)^1c\gamma (x,v),$$

with $`x\mathrm{\Delta }(M),vN_x,cLM\times _MLM`$ and where $`\gamma (x,v)`$ denotes the geodesic ray of length $`v`$ starting from $`x`$ with tangent vector $`v`$. Then the Chas-Sullivan loop product can be defined as the composite

$$\begin{array}{c}H_q(LM)H_r(LM)H_{q+r}(LM\times LM,(ev)^1(M\times M\backslash \mathrm{\Delta }(M)))\hfill \\ \stackrel{(1)}{}H_{q+r}((ev)^1(V),(ev)^1(V))H_{q+r}((ev)^{}(N)_D,(ev)^{}(N)_S)\hfill \\ \stackrel{(2)}{}H_{q+rd}(LM\times _MLM)\stackrel{\text{composition}}{}H_{q+rd}(LM),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`(1)`$ is usual excision and $`(2)`$ the Thom isomorphism for an oriented fiber bundle.

2.3. In (), Cohen and Jones give another description of the Chas-Sullivan product. Since we need relative versions of their construction we recall here the main steps of their construction. Using the notations of 2.1, let $`Th(ev^{}(\nu ^n))`$ be the Thom space of the pull back bundle $`ev^{}(\nu ^n)LM`$ and define the Thom spectrum

$$LM^{TM}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n+d)}Th(ev^{}(\nu ^n)).$$

2.4. Theorem. (, Theorem 1.3) $`LM^{TM}`$ is a ring spectrum whose multiplication

$$\mu :LM^{TM}LM^{TM}LM^{TM}$$

is compatible with the Chas-Sullivan product in the sense that the following diagram commutes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_q(LM^{TM})H_r(LM^{TM})& \stackrel{\mu ^{}}{}& H_{q+r}(LM^{TM})\\ \tau & & \tau \\ H_{q+d}(LM)H_{r+d}(LM)& \stackrel{}{}& H_{q+r+d}(LM),\end{array}$$

where $`\tau `$ denotes the Thom isomorphism.

2.5. Theorem. (, Theorem 3) $`LM^{TM}`$ is the geometric realization of a cosimplicial spectrum $`(𝕃_M)_{}`$. The $`k`$-simplices are given by

$$(𝕃_M)_k=(M^k)_+M^{TM}$$

and the ring structure is realized on the cosimplicial level by pairings

$$\mu _k:((M^k)_+M^{TM})((M^r)_+M^{TM})(M^{k+r})_+M^{TM}$$

defined by

$$\mu _k((x_1,\mathrm{},x_k;a)(y_1,\mathrm{},y_r;b))=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k,y_1,\mathrm{},y_r;\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(ab))$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is the ring structure defined on $`M^{TM}`$ in 2.1.

2.6. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$ be the standard $`k`$-simplex

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^k=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_k1\}$$

and consider the maps

$$f_k:\mathrm{\Delta }^k\times LMM^{k+1},f_k((x_1,\mathrm{},x_k),c)=(c(0),c(x_1),\mathrm{},c(x_k)).$$

Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{f}_k:LM\text{Map}(\mathrm{\Delta }^k,M^{k+1})`$ the adjoint of $`f_k`$. The product of the $`\stackrel{~}{f}_k`$ induces an homeomorphism

$$f:LM\text{Map}_\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{},M^{+1})(\text{[3]}),$$

which induces, when $`M`$ is simply connected, a linear isomorphism in homology

$$_{}(LM)\stackrel{}{}HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M))\text{[3]}.$$

Pulling back the normal bundle $`\nu ^nM`$ along the maps $`ev`$ and $`p_1`$ in the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }^k\times LM& \stackrel{f_k}{}& M^{k+1}\\ ev& & p_1\\ M& =& M,\end{array}$$

we get maps of Thom spectra

$$f_k:(\mathrm{\Delta }^k)_+LM^{TM}M^{TM}(M^k)_+.$$

By gluing together the adjoint maps, we get a map of spectra

$$f:LM^{TM}\underset{k}{}\text{Map}((\mathrm{\Delta }^k)_+,M^{TM}(M^k)_+).$$

Now, using the homotopy equivalence $`𝒞_{}(M^{TM})𝒞^{}(M_+)`$, and taking singular chains we get a morphism connecting $`𝒞_{}(LM^{TM})`$ to the Hochschild cochains on $`𝒞^{}(M)`$,

$$f_{}:𝒞_k(LM^{TM})𝐂^k(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M)).$$

The commutativity of $`f_{}`$ with the differentials is not a trivial point. One reason is that, on the spectrum level, the Atiyah duality map $`M^{TM}\text{Map}(M,S^0)`$ is a map of ring spectra and of bimodules of spectra ().

2.7. Theorem. (, Theorem 12) Let $`M`$ be a compact simply connected manifold. Then the morphism $`f_{}`$ is a quasi-isomorphism and the following diagram of chain complexes is commutative

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒞_{}(LM^{TM})𝒞_{}(LM^{TM})& \stackrel{\mu _{}}{}& 𝒞_{}(LM^{TM})\\ f_{}f_{}& & f_{}\\ 𝐂^{}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M))𝐂^{}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M))& \stackrel{}{}& 𝐂^{}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M))\end{array}$$

3 - The intersection morphism $`I:_{}(LM)H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)`$

3.1. Let $`i:NM`$ be the injection of an open set in $`M`$. We define the mapping space $`L_NM`$ as the pullback

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L_NM& \stackrel{i^{}}{}& LM\\ & & ev\\ N& \stackrel{i}{}& M\end{array}$$

The space $`L_NM`$ is the space of loops that originate in $`N`$. By restriction, the loop product induces a product on $`_{}(L_NM)`$ so that the morphism $`H_{}(i^{}):_{}(L_NM)_{}(LM)`$ becomes a multiplicative morphism.

We will now follow verbatim the lines of the Cohen-Jones construction in order to compute $`_{}(L_NM)`$ in terms of Hochschild cohomology. With the notation of section 2.3, we define the Thom ring spectra

$$L_NM^{TM}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n+d)}Th(i^{}ev^{}(\nu ^n)).$$

The Thom map $`\tau `$ is then a multiplicative isomorphism

$$H_{}(\tau ):H_{}(L_NM^{TM})\stackrel{}{}H_{+d}(L_NM).$$

The morphisms $`f_k`$ restrict naturally to morphisms

$$f_k:L_NM^{TM}\mathrm{\Delta }^kN^{TM}(M^k)_+$$

that induce, exactly in the same way as in the original case $`N=M`$, a multiplicative isomorphism

$$H_{}(L_NM^{TM})\stackrel{}{}HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞_{}(N^{TM})).$$

Now by the Spanier-Whitehead duality, there is a homotopy equivalence

$$𝒞_{}(N^{TM})𝒞^{}(M,M\backslash N)),$$

and the map $`f_{}`$ restricts naturally to a quasi-isomorphism

$$f_{}^N:𝒞_k(L_NM^{TM})𝐂^k(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M,M\backslash N)).$$

We therefore have

3.2. Theorem. When $`M`$ and $`N`$ are simply connected, there is a commutative diagram of algebras in which horizontal lines are isomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\phi _N:& _{}(L_NM)& \stackrel{}{}& H_{}(L_NM^{TM})& \stackrel{}{}& HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M,M\backslash N))\\ & H_{}(i^{})& & & & \\ \phi _M:& _{}(LM)& \stackrel{}{}& H_{}(LM^{TM})& \stackrel{}{}& HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M)),\end{array}$$

where, as usual, $`_p=H_{p+d}`$.

In the same way, working in the relative case, we get

3.3. Theorem. There is a sequence of isomorphisms of algebras

$$\begin{array}{cc}\phi _{M,N}:_{}(LM,L_NM)\stackrel{\tau }{}\hfill & H_{}(LM^{TM},L_NM^{TM})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{}{}HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M\backslash N))\hfill \end{array}$$

making commutative the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{}(L_NM)& \stackrel{\phi _N}{}& HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M,M\backslash N))\\ & & \\ _{}(LM)& \stackrel{\phi _M}{}& HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M))\\ & & \\ _{}(LM,L_NM)& \stackrel{\phi _{M,N}}{}& HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M\backslash N))\end{array}$$

3.4. In , Chas and Sullivan define the intersection morphism $`I:_{}(LM)H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)`$ by associating to an $`q`$-cycle in $`LM`$ its intersection with the space of based loops at $`m_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M,m_0)=\mathrm{\Omega }M`$, viewed as a codimension $`d`$-submanifold. It follows directly from the definition that $`I`$ transforms the loop product into the Pontryagin product.

A slightly different exposition of the intersection morphism works as follows. Fix a Riemannian metric on $`M`$, choose a geodesic disc $`D^d`$ centered at the base point $`m_0`$ and consider the map

$$\mu :D^d\times \mathrm{\Omega }MLM,\mu (x,\omega )=\gamma _x^1(\omega \gamma _x),$$

where $`\gamma _x`$ denotes the geodesic ray from $`m_0`$ to $`x`$, and $``$ denotes the composition of paths. Let us denote by $`E`$ the subspace $`L_{M\backslash \{m_0\}}M`$. We consider the commutative diagram of complexes

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}𝒞_{}(D^d)𝒞_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)& \stackrel{EZ}{}& 𝒞_{}(D^d\times \mathrm{\Omega }M)& \stackrel{𝒞_{}(\mu )}{}& 𝒞_{}(LM)\\ \alpha id& & & & \alpha \\ 𝒞_{}(D^d,D^d)𝒞_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)& & \stackrel{\psi }{}& & 𝒞_{}(LM,E)\end{array}$$

where $`EZ`$ means the Eilenberg-Zilber map, $`\alpha `$ the canonical surjections, and $`\psi `$ is the quotient map. Clearly $`H_{}(\psi ):H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)_{}(LM,E)`$ is an isomorphism of algebras. The intersection morphism $`I`$ coincides with the composition $`H(\psi )^1H(\alpha )`$:

$$H_q(LM)\stackrel{H(\alpha )}{}H_q(LM,E)\stackrel{H(\psi )}{}\left(H_{}(D^d,D^d)H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)\right)_qH_{qd}(\mathrm{\Omega }M).$$

Our next result describes the homomorphism $`I`$ in terms of Hochschild cohomology. Denote by $`\epsilon :𝒞^{}(M)lk`$ the augmentation induced by the inclusion $`\{m_0\}M`$. We then have:

3.5 Theorem. Let $`M`$ be a simply connected closed oriented $`d`$-dimensional manifold. There exists an isomorphism of graded algebras $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ that makes commutative the following diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M);𝒞^{}(M))& \stackrel{HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M);\epsilon )}{}& HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M);lk)\\ f_{}& & \mathrm{\Theta }\\ _{}(LM)& \stackrel{I}{}& H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M).\end{array}$$

Proof. We take $`N=M\backslash \{m_0\}`$ in Theorem 3.3. We remark that the map $`HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M);\epsilon )`$ is the composite

$$HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M))HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M\backslash N))\stackrel{\overline{\epsilon }}{}HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M),lk),$$

where $`\overline{\epsilon }`$ is an isomorphism. We define the isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ to be the composition

$$H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)\stackrel{H_{}(\psi )}{}_{}(LM,E)\stackrel{\phi _{M,M\backslash \{m_0\}}}{}HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M\backslash N))\stackrel{\overline{\epsilon }}{}HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M),lk).$$

With these definitions, the above diagram commutes trivially. $`\mathrm{}`$

4 - A chain model for computing the loop product and $`I`$.

In this section we construct, for any field of coefficients $`lk`$, an explicit model for the loop product at the chain level.

4.1. Recall the Adams Cobar construction $`\mathrm{\Omega }C`$ on a coaugmented differential graded coalgebra $`C=lk\overline{C}`$. This is the differential graded algebra $`(T(s^1\overline{C}),d)`$, where $`d=d_1+d_2`$ is the unique derivation determined by:

$$d_1s^1c=s^1dc,\text{ and }d_2s^1c=\underset{i}{}(1)^{|c_i|}s^1c_is^1c_i^{},c\overline{C},$$

where the reduced coproduct of $`c\overline{C}`$ is written $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}c=_ic_ic_i^{}`$. For sake of simplicity we put $`x_1|x_2|\mathrm{}|x_n:=s^1x_1\mathrm{}s^1x_n.`$

4.2. Assume $`lk`$ is a field, and $`M`$ is a $`1`$-connected compact $`d`$-dimensional manifold. Denote by $`f:(T(V),d)𝒞^{}(M)`$ a free minimal model for the singular cochain algebra on $`M`$ (), i.e. $`(T(V),d)`$ is a differential graded algebra, $`f`$ is a quasi-isomorphism of differential graded algebras, and $`d(V)T^2(V)`$. The differential graded algebra $`(T(V),d)`$ is uniquely defined, up to isomorphism, by the above properties. Moreover, $`V^pH^{p1}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)`$, (). Denote by $`S`$ a complement of the vector space generated by the cocycles of degree $`d`$. The differential graded ideal $`J=(T(V))^{>d}S`$ is acyclic and the quotient algebra $`A=T(V)/J`$ is a finite dimensional graded differential algebra.

4.3. Since $`A`$ is finite dimensional, the dual algebra $`A^{}`$ is a differential graded coalgebra and we consider the differential graded algebra

$$\mathrm{\Omega }A^{}=(T(W),d),$$

with in particular, $`W\text{Hom}(s\overline{A},lk)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }A^{}=\text{Hom}(\overline{IB}A,lk)=(\text{Hom}(T(s\overline{A}),lk),D)`$ (see 1.5).

We choose a homogeneous linear basis $`e_i`$ for $`\overline{A}`$, and its dual basis $`w_i`$ for $`W`$. This determines the constants of structure $`\alpha _{ij}^k`$ and $`\rho _i^j`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill w_i,se_k& =(1)^{|w_i|}\delta _{ik},e_ie_j=_k\alpha _{ij}^ke_k,d(e_i)=_j\rho _i^je_j\hfill \\ \hfill d(w_i)& =_{jk}a_i^{jk}w_jw_k+_j\beta _i^jw_j,a_i^{jk}=(1)^{|e_j|+|e_je_k|}\alpha _{jk}^i,\beta _i^j=(1)^{|w_j|}\rho _j^i.\hfill \end{array}$$

4.4 Theorem. Let $`lk`$ be a field and $`M`$ be a 1-connected closed oriented manifold of dimension $`d`$. With notation introduced above

a) the derivation $`D`$ uniquely defined on the tensor product of graded algebras $`AT(W)`$ by

$$\{\begin{array}{c}D(a1)=d(a)1+_j(1)^{|a|+|e_j|}[a,e_j]w_j,aA,\hfill \\ D(1b)=1d(b)_j(1)^{|e_j|}e_j[w_j,b],bTW,\hfill \end{array}$$

is a differential. Here $`[,]`$ denotes the Lie bracket in the graded algebras $`A`$ and $`T(W)`$.

b) the graded algebra $`H_{}(AT(W),D)`$ is isomorphic to the loop algebra $`_{}(LM)`$.

Proof.

a) is proved by a direct but laborious computation.

b) is a direct consequence of theorem 2.7. $`\mathrm{}`$

Observe that this model is dual to those constructed by one of us, .

4.5 Proposition. Let $`lk`$ be a field and $`M`$ be a 1-connected closed oriented manifold of dimension $`d`$. There is a cohomology spectral sequence of graded algebras such that

$$E_2=HH^{}(H^{}(M),H^{}(M))_{}(LM).$$

Proof. The spectral sequence is obtained by filtering the complex $`(\text{Hom}(T(s\overline{A},A),D^{})`$ by the differential ideals $`\text{Hom}(T^p(s\overline{A}),A)`$ (see 1.5). Since $`H^{}(A)=H^{}(M)`$, it follows that $`E_1=\text{Hom}(\overline{IB}(H^{}(M)),lk)H^{}(M)`$ and $`E_2=H^{}(\text{Hom}(\overline{IB}(H^{}(M)),lk)H^{}(M),D).`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

4.6 Example. If $`M`$ is a formal space, (for instance $`M`$ is a simply connected compact Kähler manifold for $`lk=`$, ), one can choose $`A=H^{}(M)`$ and thus the algebras $`HH^{}(H^{}(M);H^{}(M))`$ and $`_{}(LM)`$ are isomorphic graded vector spaces. If we put $`H^{}=H^{}(M)`$ and $`H_{}=H_{}(M)`$ the loop algebra $`_{}(LM)`$ is isomorphic to the graded algebra $`H(H^{}T(s\overline{H}_{}),D)`$ with $`D(a1)=0`$, $`aH^{}`$ and $`D(1b)=_J(i)^{|e_j|}e_j[w_j,b]`$, $`b\overline{H}_{}`$.

4.7. The commutative case. Suppose that the algebra $`𝒞^{}(M)`$ is connected by a sequence of quasi-isomorphisms to a commutative differential graded algebra $`(A,d)`$. This is the case if either $`lk`$ is of characteristic zero, or else if $`lk`$ is a field of characteristic $`p>d`$ (, Proposition 8.7). We can also suppose that $`A`$ is finite dimensional, $`A^0=lk`$, $`A^1=0`$, $`A^{>d}=0`$ and $`A^d=lk\omega `$. Then formulas of Theorem 4.4 simplify as:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}D(a1)=d(a)1,\hfill \\ D(1b)=1d(b)_j(1)^{e_j}e_j[w_j,b].\hfill \end{array}$$

We can now interpret the intersection morphism in terms of models.

4.8 Theorem. Let $`lk`$ be a field and $`M`$ be a 1-connected closed oriented manifold of dimension $`d`$. There is a commutative diagram of algebras

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{}(LM)& \stackrel{}{}& H_{}(AT(W),D)\\ I& & H\left(\epsilon _A1\right)\\ H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)& \stackrel{}{}& H_{}(T(W),d).\end{array}$$

Proof. Recall that Hochschild cohomology $`HH^{}(A;M)`$ is covariant in $`M`$ and contravariant in $`A`$. Moreover, if $`f:AB`$ is a quasi-isomorphism of differential graded algebras and $`g:MM^{}`$ is a quasi-isomorphism of $`A`$-bimodules, we have isomorphisms

$$HH^{}(B;M)\stackrel{}{}HH^{}(A;M)\stackrel{}{}HH^{}(A;M^{}).$$

Starting with Theorem 3.5, we obtain the following commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}_{}(LM)& \stackrel{}{}& HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M);𝒞^{}(M))& \stackrel{}{}& HH^{}(A;A)& \stackrel{}{}& H_{}(AT(W),D)\\ I& & HH^{}(𝒞^{}\left(M\right),\epsilon )& & HH^{}(A,\epsilon _A)& & H\left(\epsilon _A1\right)\\ H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)& \stackrel{}{}& HH^{}(𝒞^{}(M);lk)& \stackrel{}{}& HH^{}(A;lk)& \stackrel{}{}& H_{}(T(W),d)\end{array}.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

5 - The kernel and the image of $`I`$

5.1. If $`J`$ is an ideal of an algebra $`A`$, we put $`J^1=J`$ and $`J^{n+1}=JJ^n,n1`$ and, in the case $`J`$ is nilpotent, we define $`\text{Nil}(J)=\text{sup}\{n|J^n0\}`$.

5.2 Theorem. Let $`lk`$ be a field and $`M`$ be a simply connected closed oriented $`d`$-dimensional manifold.

a) The kernel of the intersection morphism $`I`$ is nilpotent and $`\text{Nil}(\text{Ker}I)d/2`$.

b) The image of $`I`$ is contained in the center of $`H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)`$.

Proof. a) By Theorem 4.8, the kernel of $`I`$ is generated by the classes of cocycles in $`\overline{A}T(W)`$. Since $`A^1=0`$ and $`A^{>d}=0`$, the nilpotency of the kernel of $`I`$ is less than or equal to $`d/2`$.

b) Let $`e_i`$ and $`w_i`$ be the elements defined in 4.3 and $`[\alpha ]`$ be an element in the image of $`H(ϵ_Aid)`$. Then $`\alpha `$ is a cocycle in $`T(W)`$ and there exist elements $`\alpha _i`$ in $`T(W)`$ such that $`\overline{\alpha }=1\alpha +_ie_i\alpha _i`$ is a cycle in $`AT(W)`$. A short calculation shows that the component of $`e_i`$ in $`d(\overline{\alpha })`$ is

$$(1)^{|e_i|}\left(d(\alpha _i)[w_i,\alpha ]+\underset{j}{}\beta _i^j\alpha _j+\underset{j,k}{}a_i^{j,k}(1)^{|u||w_k|}\alpha _jw_k+\underset{j,k}{}a_i^{kj}(1)^{|w_k|}w_k\alpha _j\right).$$

Since this component must be $`0`$, by Lemma 5.3 below there exists a surjective morphism

$$H(T(W),d)lk[u]H(T(W),d)$$

that maps $`u`$ to $`[\alpha ]`$. This implies that $`[\alpha ]`$ is in the center of $`H(T(W),d)H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

5.3 Lemma  Assume $`lk`$ is a field. Let $`\alpha `$ be a cycle in $`(T(W),d)`$ and let $`u`$ be a variable in the same degree. Then with the notations of 4.3 and 4.4, we have:

1. There exists a surjective quasi-isomorphism

$$\phi :(T(w_i,u,w_i^{}),D)(T(W),d)(lk[u],0),|w_i^{}|=|u|+|w_i|+1,$$

such that $`\phi (u)=u`$, $`\phi (w_i)=w_i`$ and $`\phi (w_i^{})=0`$, and with $`D`$ defined by

$$D(w_i^{})=[w_i,u]\underset{j}{}\beta _i^jw_j^{}\underset{j,k}{}a_i^{j,k}(1)^{|u||w_k|}w_j^{}w_k\underset{j,k}{}a_i^{kj}(1)^{|w_k|}w_kw_j^{}.$$
2. There exists a morphism of differential graded algebras $`\rho :(T(w_i,u,w_i^{}),D)(T(W),d)`$ such that $`\rho (u)=\alpha `$ and $`\rho (w_i)=w_i`$ if and only if there are elements $`\alpha _iT(W)`$ satisfying

$$d(\alpha _i)=[w_i,\alpha ]\underset{j}{}\beta _i^j\alpha _j\underset{j,k}{}a_i^{j,k}(1)^{|u||w_k|}\alpha _jw_k\underset{j,k}{}a_i^{kj}(1)^{|w_k|}w_k\alpha _j.$$

Proof. We define $`D(w_i^{})`$ by the above formula. Proving that $`D^2=0`$ is an easy and standard computation. The morphism

$$\phi :(T(w_i,u,w_i^{}),D)(T(w_i),d)(lk[u],0)$$

defined by $`\phi (w_i)=w_i`$, $`\phi (u)=u`$ and $`\phi (w_i^{})=0`$ is a surjective homomorphism of differential graded algebras. To prove that $`\phi `$ is a quasi-isomorphism, we filter each differential graded algebra by putting $`u`$ in filtration degree $`0`$ and the other variables in filtration degree one. We are then reduced to prove that

$$\overline{\phi }:(T(w_i,u,w_i^{}),D)(T(w_i),0)(lk[u],0),d(w_i)=0,d(w_i^{})=[w_i,u],$$

is a quasi-isomorphism. Denote by $`K`$ the kernel of $`\overline{\phi }`$ and consider the short exact sequence of complexes

$$0(KE,D)(T(w_i,u,w_i^{})E,D)\stackrel{\overline{\phi }1}{}((T(w_i)lk[u])E,\overline{D})0,$$

where $`E`$ is the linear span of the elements $`1,sw_i,su`$ and $`sw_i^{}`$, and where $`D`$ is defined by

$$D(sw_i)=w_i1,D(su)=u1,D(sw_i^{})=w_i^{}(1)^{|w_i|}w_isu+(1)^{|u||w_i^{}|+|u|}usw_i.$$

By construction, $`(T(w_i,u,w_i^{})E,D)`$ and $`(T(w_i)lk[u]E,\overline{D})`$ are contractible and therefore quasi-isomorphic. Now a non-zero cocycle of lowest degree in $`K`$ remains a non-trivial cocycle in the complex $`(KE,D)`$. Therefore $`H_{}(K)=0`$ and $`\phi `$ is a quasi-isomorphism.

Part (2) of the Lemma follows directly from the expression of $`D`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

6 - Determination of $`I`$ when $`lk`$ is a field of characteristic zero

In this section $`lk`$ is a field of characteristic zero.

6.1. By Theorem 5.2, the image of $`I`$ is contained in the center of $`H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)`$. On the other hand, by the Milnor-Moore theorem (e.g -Theorem 21.5), $`H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)`$ is the universal enveloping algebra of the homotopy Lie algebra $`L_M=\pi _{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)lk`$ (-p.294).

Let $`L`$ be any graded algebra. The center, $`Z(UL)`$, of the universal enveloping algebra $`UL`$ contains the universal enveloping algebra of the center of the Lie algebra, $`UZ(L)`$. However the inclusion can be strict. Consider for instance the Lie algebra $`L=𝕃(a,b)/([b,b],[a,[a,b]])`$, with $`|a|=2`$ and $`|b|=1`$. The element $`(abba)b`$ is in the center of $`UL`$, but not in $`UZ(L)`$. We denote by $`R(L)`$ the sum of all solvable ideals in $`L`$, (-p.495).

6.2 Theorem. If $`L=\{L_i\}_{i1}`$ is a graded Lie algebra over a field of characteristic zero satisfying $`dimL_i<\mathrm{}`$ then $`Z(UL)UR(L)`$.

Proof. It is well known that in characteristic zero, $`UL`$ decomposes into a direct sum

$$UL=\begin{array}{c}\\ k0\end{array}\mathrm{\Gamma }^k(L)$$

where the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^k(L)`$ are sub-vector spaces that are stable for the adjoint representation of $`L`$ on $`UL`$: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(L)=lk`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1(L)=L`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^n(L)`$ is the sub-vector space generated by the elements $`\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_n}\epsilon _\sigma x_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}x_{\sigma (n)},x_iL`$. The coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`UL`$ respects the decomposition, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:\mathrm{\Gamma }^n(L)\begin{array}{c}\\ p+q=n\end{array}\mathrm{\Gamma }^p(L)\mathrm{\Gamma }^q(L).$$

If we denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ the component of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^p(L)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{np}(L)`$ then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_p(\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_n))=\underset{\tau Sh_p}{}\epsilon _\tau \phi (x_{\tau (1)},\mathrm{},x_{\tau (p)})\phi (x_{\tau (p+1)},\mathrm{},x_{\tau (n)}),$$

where $`Sh_p`$ denotes the set of $`p`$-shuffles of the set $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. This implies that the composition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^n(L)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^p(L)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{np}(L)\stackrel{\mathrm{multiplication}}{}UL`$ is the multiplication by $`\left(\begin{array}{c}n\hfill \\ p\hfill \end{array}\right)`$. We then consider the composite $`c`$

$$c:\mathrm{\Gamma }^n(L)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}{}L\mathrm{\Gamma }^{n1}(L)\stackrel{1\mathrm{\Delta }_1}{}LL\mathrm{\Gamma }^{n2}(L)\mathrm{}L^^n.$$

Let $`\alpha UL`$ be an element in the center of $`UL`$, $`\alpha =_{i=1}^n\alpha _i`$ with $`\alpha _i\mathrm{\Gamma }^i(L)`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^i(L)`$ is stable by adjunction, each $`\alpha _i`$ is in the center of $`UL`$. Therefore we can assume that $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^n(L)`$. We write $`c(\alpha )`$ as a sum of monomials $`x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_n}`$. Since $`\mathrm{mult}c:\mathrm{\Gamma }^n(L)UL`$ is the multiplication by $`n!`$, the element $`\alpha `$ belongs to the Lie algebra generated by the $`x_{i_j}`$. Suppose that in the decomposition of $`c(\alpha )`$ the number of monomials is minimal, then for each $`r`$, $`1rn`$, the elements $`x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_{r1}}x_{i_{r+1}}\mathrm{}x_{i_n}`$ are linearly independent. Since $`[\alpha ,x]=0`$, $`xL`$, we obtain the equation:

$$0=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\underset{i}{}(1)^{|x|(|x_{i_1}|+\mathrm{}+|x_{i_{k1}}|)}x_{i_1}\mathrm{}[x,x_{i_k}]\mathrm{}x_{i_n}\right).$$

Let us assume that the $`x_{i_k}`$are ordered by increasing degrees then the elements $`x_{i_k}`$ with maximal degree belong to $`Z(L)`$. The above equation shows also that $`[x_{i_k},x]`$ belongs to the subvector space generated by the elements $`x_{i_l}`$ with higher degree. A decreasing induction on the degree shows that all the $`x_{i_k}`$ belong to $`R(L)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

6.3. Denote by $`X_0`$ the $`0`$-localization of a simply connected space $`X`$. The Lusternik-Schnirelmann category of $`X_0`$, cat $`X_0`$, is less than or equal to the Lusternik-Schnirelmann of $`X`$, cat $`X`$. Moreover the invariant cat $`X_0`$ is easier to compute than cat $`X`$, (-$`\mathrm{\S }`$-27).

Theorem. Let $`M`$ be a simply connected oriented closed manifold and $`lk`$ is a field of characteristic zero then

a) The kernel of $`I`$ is a nilpotent ideal and Nil( Ker ($`I`$)) $``$ cat $`M_0`$ .

b) (Im $`I`$) $`(\pi _{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)lk)=G_{}(M)lk`$.

c) $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}`$ dim ( Im$`IH_i(\mathrm{\Omega }M;lk))Cn^k`$, some constant $`C>0`$ and $`k`$ cat $`M_0`$.

Proof. a) By (-Theorems 29.1 and 28.5), $`𝒞^{}(M;)`$ is connected by a sequence of quasi-isomorphisms to a connected finite dimensional commutative differential graded algebra $`(A,d)`$ satisfying Nil $`(\overline{A})n`$ for $`n>\text{cat}M_0`$. Thus we conclude as in the proof of theorem 5.2).

b) The differential graded algebra $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A^{})=(T(W),d)`$ is the universal enveloping algebra on the graded Lie algebra $`_M=(𝕃(W),d)`$, and the differential graded algebra $`(T(WlkuW^{}),D)`$ is the universal enveloping algebra of the differential graded Lie algebra $`_M^1=(𝕃(WkuW^{}),D)`$, (e.g -p.289), with

$$\{\begin{array}{c}d(w_i)=_j\beta _i^jw_j+_{j,k}\frac{1}{2}a_i^{jk}[w_j,w_k],\hfill \\ D(w_i^{})=[w_i,u]_j\beta _i^jw_j^{}_{j,k}a_i^{kj}(1)^{|w_k|}[w_k,w_j^{}].\hfill \end{array}$$

By construction $`_M`$ is a free Lie model for $`M`$ and $`_M^1`$ is a free Lie model for $`M\times S^n`$ with $`n=|u|+1`$, (-$`\mathrm{\S }`$24). Moreover there exists a bijection between homotopy classes of maps:

$$[X\times S^n,X][(𝕃(WlkuW^{}),D),(𝕃(W),d)].$$

Therefore a homomorphism $`\phi :(𝕃(WlkuW^{}),D)(𝕃(W),d)`$ such that $`\phi (u)=\alpha `$ and $`\phi (w)=w`$, $`wW`$, corresponds to a map $`f:M\times S^nM`$ which extends $`id_Mg:M\times S^nM`$, such that $`[g]=\alpha `$ modulo the identifications $`\pi _n(M)lk\pi _{n1}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)lkH_{n1}(𝕃(W),d)`$. This means exactly that $`\mathrm{Image}I(\pi _{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)lk)=G_{}(M)lk`$.

c) By, Theorems 36.4, 36.5 and 35.10 of  we know that if $`L=\pi _{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)lk`$ then $`R(L)`$ is finite dimensional and $`\text{ dim}R(L)_{\mathrm{even}}\text{cat}M_0`$. We conclude using the graded Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt theorem (-Theorem 21.1): $`Z(UL)UR(L)\mathrm{\Lambda }(R(L)_{\text{odd}})lk[(R(L)_{\text{even}}]`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

7 - Examples and applications

In this section we assume that $`lk`$ is a field.

7.1 The spheres $`S^n`$. The loop homology of spheres has been computed by Cohen, Jones and Yan using a spectral sequence similar to those obtained in 4.5. Our model leads to a direct computation of the loop homology and the intersection homomorphism $`I`$.

Since the differential graded algebra $`𝒞^{}(S^n)`$ is quasi-isomorphic to $`(H^{}(S^n),0)=(u/u^2,0)`$, $`|u|=n`$, by Example 4.6, $`_{}(LS^n)`$ is isomorphic as an algebra to

$$H^{}(uT(v),D),|v|=n1,|u|=n,D(u)=0,D(v)=u[v,v].$$

When $`n`$ is odd, $`D=0`$, $`_{}(LS^n)uT(v)`$ and $`I=\epsilon 1:uT(v)T(v)`$. When $`n`$ is even, $`D(v^{2n})=0`$, $`D(v^{2n+1})=2uv^{2n+2}`$. Therefore a set of generators of $`_{}(LS^n)`$ is given by the elements $`c=1v^2,b=uv,a=u1`$ and,

$$_{}(LS^n)(b)lk[a,c]/(2ac,a^2,ab),|a|=n,|b|=1,|c|=2n2.$$

The homomorphism $`I:_{}(LS^n)H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }S^n)=T(v)`$ is given by: $`I(c)=v^2`$, $`I(a)=I(b)=0`$.

7.2 An example where $`I`$ is the trivial homomorphism. Let $`M`$ be the connected sum $`M=(S^3\times S^3\times S^3)\mathrm{\#}(S^3\times S^3\times S^3)`$. The wedge $`N=(S^3\times S^3\times S^3)(S^3\times S^3\times S^3)`$ is then obtained by attaching a $`9`$-dimensional cell to $`M`$ along the homotopy class determined by the collar between the two components of $`M`$. Recall that

$$\pi _{}(\mathrm{\Omega }N)Ab(a,b,c)Ab(e,f,g),$$

where $`Ab(u,v,w)`$ means the abelian Lie algebra generated by $`u`$, $`v`$ and $`w`$ considered in degree 2. The inclusion $`i:MN`$ induces a surjective map $`\pi _{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)\pi _{}(\mathrm{\Omega }N)`$, This means that the attachment of the cell is inert in the sense of -p.503. Therefore, (-Theorem 38.5),

$$\pi _{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)Ab(a,b,c)Ab(e,f,g)𝕃(x)$$

with $`|x|=7`$. In particular $`R(L)`$ is zero, and by Theorems 5.2 and 6.2, when $`lk`$ is of characteristic zero, the homomorphism $`I`$ is trivial.

7.3 Product of two manifolds. If $`A`$ and $`B`$ are differential graded algebras, we have a natural isomorphism of algebras

$$HH^{}(AB,AB)HH^{}(A,A)HH^{}(B,B).$$

Therefore, from Theorem 2.7, for closed oriented simply connected manifolds $`M`$ and $`N`$, the isomorphism

$$_{}(L(M\times N))_{}(LM)_{}(LN)$$

respects the Chas-Sullivan product. Moreover the intersection homomorphism $`I_{M\times N}`$ identifies to $`I_MI_N`$.

7.4. Lie groups. Let $`lk`$ be a field of characteristic zero and $`G`$ be a connected Lie group. Since $`G`$ has the rational homotopy type of a product of odd dimensional spheres, we obtain

$$_{}(LG;)(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)𝕋(v_1,\mathrm{},v_n),$$

and $`I_G`$ is onto. This example generalizes in:

7.5 Theorem. Let $`lk`$ be a field of characteristic zero and $`M`$ be a simply connected closed oriented $`d`$-dimensional manifold. The intersection homomorphism $`I:_{}(LM)H_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)`$ is surjective if and only if $`M`$ has the rational homotopy type of a product of odd dimensional spheres.

Proof. When $`M`$ has the rational homotopy type of the product of odd dimensional spheres, then $`I`$ is clearly surjective. Conversely, if $`I`$ is surjective, then $`\pi _{}(\mathrm{\Omega }M)=G_{}(M)`$. Thus, $`\pi _{}(M)=G_{\mathrm{odd}},`$ (, Proposition 29.8). Let $`\{f_i:S^{n_i}M`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r\}`$ represent a given linear basis of $`\pi _{}(M)`$, and let $`\phi _i:S^{n_i}\times MM`$ be maps that restrict to $`f_iid_M`$ on $`S^{n_i}M`$. Then the composition

$$S^{n_1}\times \mathrm{}\times S^{n_r}S^{n_1}\times \mathrm{}\times S^{n_r}\times M\stackrel{1\times \phi _r}{}S^{n_1}\times \mathrm{}\times S^{n_{r1}}\times M\stackrel{1\times \phi _{r1}}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{1\times \phi _1}{}M$$

induces an isomorphism on the homotopy groups. Therefore, $`M`$ has the rational homotopy type of a product of odd dimensional spheres. $`\mathrm{}`$

8 - Hochschild cohomology and Poincaré duality

When two $`A`$-bimodules $`M`$ and $`N`$ are quasi-isomorphic as bimodules, then the Hochschild cohomologies $`HH^{}(A;M)`$ and $`HH^{}(A;N)`$ are isomorphic. In this section we relate the Hochschild cohomology of the singular cochains algebra on $`X`$ with coefficients in itself and with coefficients in the singular chains on $`X`$ when $`X`$ is a Poincaré duality space. The usual cap product with the fundamental class is not a bimodule morphism. However the cohomology $`HH^n(𝒞^{}(M);𝒞_{}(M))`$ and $`HH^{nd}(𝒞^{}(M);𝒞^{}(M))`$ are shown to be isomorphic. This point is not directly related to the constructions built in sections 4 to 8, but has its own importance. For this reason we have added this point in the last section of this paper.

8.1. Let $`V`$ be a graded module, then $`V^{}`$ denotes the graded dual, $`V^{}=\text{Hom}_{lk}(V,lk)`$, and $`;:V^{}Vlk`$ denotes the duality pairing. We denote by $`\lambda _V:VV^{}`$ the natural inclusion defined by $`\lambda _V(v),\xi =(1)^{|\xi |}\xi ,v`$.

8.2. Let $`X`$ be topological space. The $`𝒞^{}(X)`$-bimodule structures on $`𝒞_{}(X)`$ and $`𝒞^{}(X)^{}`$ are explicitly defined by:

$$\begin{array}{c}fcg:=(1)^{|c|(|f|+|g|)+|f|+|f||g|}(gidf)(\mathrm{\Delta }_Xid)\mathrm{\Delta }_X(c),c𝒞_{}(X),\hfill \\ f\alpha g;h:=(1)^{|f|}\alpha ;ghf,f,g,h𝒞^{}(X),\alpha 𝒞^{}(X)^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Remark that the associativity properties of $`AW`$ and of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_X`$ imply directly that $`𝒞_{}(X)`$ is a graded $`𝒞^{}(X)`$-bimodule.

Let $`1𝒞^0(X)`$ be the $`0`$-cochain which value is $`1`$ on the points of $`X`$. The usual cap product is then defined by

$$𝒞^p(X)𝒞_k(X)𝒞_{kp}(X),fcfc=fc1=\underset{i}{}(1)^{|c_i||f|}c_if(c_i^{}).$$

The cap product with a cycle $`x𝒞_k(X)`$ is a well defined homomorphism of differential graded modules, but is not a “degree $`k`$ homomorphism” of $`𝒞^{}(X)`$-bimodules. However,

8.3. Theorem. Let $`X`$ be a path connected space and $`c𝒞_{}(X)`$ be a cycle of degree $`k>0`$. Then there exists a (degree $`k`$) morphism of $`𝒞^{}(X)`$-bimodules

$$\gamma _c:\overline{IB}(𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X))𝒞_{}(X)$$

such that

1. $`\gamma _c(1[]1)=c`$,
2. $`H(\gamma _c)H(m)^1:H^{}(X)H_{}(X)`$ is the cap product by $`[c]`$, $`m`$ is the quasi-isomorphism of $`𝒞^{}(X)`$-module defined in 1.4.

Recall that $`\gamma _c`$ is a degree $`k`$ morphism of $`𝒞^{}(X)`$-bimodules means that the following two properties are satisfied:

a) $`d\gamma _c=(1)^k\gamma _cd`$,

b) $`\gamma _c(f\alpha g)=(1)^{|f|k}f\gamma _c(\alpha )g`$,
for $`f,g𝒞^{}(X)`$ and $`\alpha \overline{IB}(𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X))`$.

Proof. For simplicity we denote by $`A^e`$ the enveloping algebra of $`A=𝒞^{}(X)`$ and by $`B`$ the differential graded $`𝒞^{}(X)`$-bimodule $`\overline{IB}(𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X))`$.

Recall the loop space fibration ev : $`X^{S^1}X`$, $`\gamma \gamma (0)=\gamma (1)`$ with the canonical section $`\sigma :XX^{S^1},x`$ the constant loop at $`x`$. Jones defined a quasi-isomorphism of differential graded modules ( Theorem 8),

$$J_{}:B_{A^e}A𝒞^{}(X^{S^1})$$

making commutative the following diagram of differential graded modules

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill B_{A^e}A& \stackrel{J_{}}{}& 𝒞^{}(X^{S^1})& & & \\ \hfill i& & 𝒞^{}\left(\text{ev}\right)& & & \\ & 𝒞^{}(X)& & & & \end{array}$$

where $`i:𝒞^{}(X)B_{A^e}𝒞^{}(X),f1[]1f`$, denotes the canonical inclusion. Let $`\rho `$ be the composite $`𝒞^{}(\sigma )J_{}`$ then $`\rho `$ is a retraction of $`i`$: $`\rho i=id`$.

Let $`u𝒞^k(X)^{}`$, $`k>0`$, be a cycle. Using the canonical isomorphism of differential graded modules

$$\mathrm{\Psi }:\text{Hom}(B_{A^e}A,lk)\text{Hom}_{A^e}(B,A^{}),\left(\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )(\alpha )\right)(f)=\theta (\alpha f),$$

we define the map

$$\theta _u:\overline{IB}(𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X))(𝒞^{}(X))^{},\theta _u=\mathrm{\Psi }(u\rho ).$$

The element $`\theta _u`$ is a $`k`$-cycle in $`\text{Hom}_{A^e}(B,A^{})`$ and for any $`fA`$, $`\theta _u(1[]1)(f)=u\rho (1[]1f)=u\rho i(f)=u(f).`$

Since the linear map

$$\lambda :𝒞_{}(X)𝒞^{}(X)^{}$$

is a morphism of differential graded $`𝒞^{}(X)`$-bimodules, for a cycle $`c𝒞_k(X)`$, we have a morphism

$$\theta _{\lambda (c)}:\overline{IB}(𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X))(𝒞^{}(X))^{}$$

with $`\theta _{\lambda (c)}(1[]1)=\lambda (c)`$.

Since $`\overline{IB}(𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X))`$ is semifree, we deduce from the lifting homotopy property (cf. 1.4) a morphism of $`𝒞^{}(X)`$-bimodules

$$\gamma _c:\overline{IB}(𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X))𝒞_{}(X)$$

making commutative, up to homotopy, the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{IB}(𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X))& \stackrel{\theta _{\lambda (c)}}{}& 𝒞^{}(X)^{}\\ & & \lambda \\ \overline{IB}(𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X))& \stackrel{\gamma _c}{}& 𝒞_{}(X)\end{array}$$

and such that $`\gamma _c(1[]1)=c`$.

The equality $`H(\gamma _c)H(m)^1=[c]`$ comes from the commutativity of the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{IB}_0(𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X),𝒞^{}(X))& \stackrel{\theta _{\lambda (c)}}{}& 𝒞^{}(X)^{}\\ m& & \lambda \\ 𝒞^{}(X)& \stackrel{c}{}& 𝒞_{}(X)\end{array}$$

i.e., for any $`f,g,h𝒞^{}(X)`$, we have $`\theta _{\lambda (c)}(f[]g),h=\lambda (c)m(f[]g),h.`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

As a special case, we deduce:

8.4. Theorem. Let $`M`$ be a 1-connected $`lk`$-Poincaré duality space of formal dimension $`d`$. Then there are quasi-isomorphisms of $`𝒞^{}(M)`$-bimodules

$$𝒞^{}(M)\stackrel{m}{}\overline{IB}(𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M),𝒞^{}(M))\stackrel{\gamma }{}𝒞_{}(M)$$

where $`m`$ is defined in lemma 1.3 and $`\gamma =\gamma _{[M]}`$ with $`[M]H_d(M)`$ a fundamental class of $`M`$. In particular, the composite, $`H(m)H(\gamma )^1`$ is the Poincaré isomorphism $`𝒫:H_{}(M)H^d(M)`$.

Applying Hochschild cohomology, we obtain

8.5 Theorem. Let $`M`$ be a 1-connected $`lk`$-Poincaré duality space of formal dimension $`d`$ then there exist natural linear isomorphisms

$$D:HH^n(𝒞^{}(M);𝒞_{}(M))\stackrel{}{}HH^{nd}(𝒞^{}(M);𝒞^{}(M)).$$

Proof. Let $`\phi :NN^{}`$ be a homomorphism of differential graded $`A`$-bimodules and assume that $`A`$ is a $`lk`$-module. Then we deduce from 1.4 (see  for more details) that $`\phi `$ induces an isomorphism of graded modules

$$HH^{}(A;N)HH^{}(A;N^{}).$$

Theorem 8.5 follows directly from Theorem 8.4 when one observes that the suspended map $`s^d\gamma `$ is a quasi-isomorphism of differential graded $`𝒞^{}(X)`$-bimodules. $`\mathrm{}`$

| felix@math.ucl.ac.be | jean-claude.thomas@univ-angers.fr | vigue@math.univ-paris13.fr |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Département de mathématique | Département de mathématique | Département de mathématique |
| Université Catholique de Louvain | Faculté des Sciences | Institut Galilée |
| 2, Chemin du Cyclotron | 2, Boulevard Lavoisier | Université de Paris-Nord |
| 1348 Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium | 49045 Angers, France | 93430 Villetaneuse, France |


format: text

text:
# On future geodesic completeness for the Einstein-Vlasov system with hyperbolic symmetry

## 1 Introduction

Consider the Einstein-Vlasov system with hyperbolic symmetry. For background information on this system which describes the evolution of a collisionless gas in general relativity we refer to , for the notion of hyperbolic symmetry we refer to . As shown in  the corresponding spacetime manifold can be covered by areal coordinates in which the metric takes the form

$$ds^2=e^{2\mu }dt^2+e^{2\lambda }d\theta ^2+t^2(d\psi ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\psi d\varphi ^2),$$
(1.1)
where $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ are functions of $`t`$ and $`\theta `$, periodic in $`\theta `$ with period $`1`$, and the areal time coordinate $`t`$ takes all values in $`]R_0,\mathrm{}[`$ for some $`R_00`$. The main motivation of the latter investigation was to provide a set-up in which the global properties of solutions of the Einstein equations with hyperbolic symmetry coupled to a matter field, in this case a collisionless gas, can be studied. In the present note we give sufficient conditions on initial data such that the spacetime manifold is timelike and null geodesically complete towards the future, i. e., in the expanding direction. In the contracting direction such a spacetime has a spacetime singularity, cf.  or . In the spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat case of the Einstein-Vlasov system geodesic completeness was obtained in  for small data. No analogous result exists for cosmological models.

The geodesic equations for a metric of the form (1.1) imply that along geodesics the variables $`t,\theta ,p^0`$, and

$$w:=e^\lambda p^1,L:=t^4((p^2)^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\psi (p^3)^2)$$

satisfy the following system of differential equations:

$$\frac{d\theta }{d\tau }=e^\lambda w,\frac{dw}{d\tau }=\lambda _tp^0we^{2\mu \lambda }\mu _\theta (p^0)^2,\frac{dL}{d\tau }=0,$$
(1.2)
$$\frac{dt}{d\tau }=p^0,\frac{dp^0}{d\tau }=\mu _t(p^0)^22e^\lambda \mu _\theta p^0we^{2\mu }\lambda _tw^2e^{2\mu }t^3L.$$
(1.3)
For a particle with rest mass $`m`$ moving forward in time $`p^0`$ can be expressed by the remaining variables,

$$p^0=e^\mu \sqrt{m^2+w^2+L/t^2}>0,$$

and the corresponding geodesic as well as the solution of (1.2), (1.3) can be reparameterized by coordinate time $`t`$. Consider an ensemble of such particles, all with rest mass equal to unity. Due to the symmetry their density on the mass shell

$$\{g^{\alpha \beta }p^\alpha p^\beta =1,p^0>0\}$$

can be written as

$$f=f(t,\theta ,w,L),$$

cf. . In these variables the Einstein-Vlasov system takes the form

$$_tf+\frac{e^{\mu \lambda }w}{\sqrt{1+w^2+L/t^2}}_\theta f\left(\lambda _tw+e^{\mu \lambda }\mu _\theta \sqrt{1+w^2+L/t^2}\right)_wf=0,$$
(1.4)
$`e^{2\mu }(2t\lambda _t+1)1`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi t^2\rho ,`$ (1.5)
$`e^{2\mu }(2t\mu _t1)+1`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi t^2p,`$ (1.6)
$$\mu _\theta =4\pi te^{\mu +\lambda }j,$$
(1.7)
$$e^{2\lambda }\left(\mu _{\theta \theta }+\mu _\theta (\mu _\theta \lambda _\theta )\right)e^{2\mu }\left(\lambda _{tt}+(\lambda _t+1/t)(\lambda _t\mu _t)\right)=4\pi q,$$
(1.8)
where

$`\rho (t,\theta )`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{t^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{1+w^2+L/t^2}f(t,\theta ,w,L)𝑑L𝑑w,`$ (1.9)
$`p(t,\theta )`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{t^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{w^2}{\sqrt{1+w^2+L/t^2}}}f(t,\theta ,w,L)𝑑L𝑑w,`$ (1.10)
$`j(t,\theta )`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{t^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}wf(t,\theta ,w,L)𝑑L𝑑w,`$ (1.11)
$`q(t,\theta )`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{t^4}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\sqrt{1+w^2+L/t^2}}}f(t,\theta ,w,L)𝑑L𝑑w.`$ (1.12)
The characteristics of the Vlasov equation (1.4) along which $`f`$ is constant are the solutions of

$$\dot{\theta }=\frac{e^{\mu \lambda }w}{\sqrt{1+w^2+L/t^2}},\dot{w}=\lambda _twe^{\mu \lambda }\mu _\theta \sqrt{1+w^2+L/t^2},\dot{L}=0$$
(1.13)
where the dot denotes differentiation with respect to coordinate time $`t`$ and the relation with (1.2), (1.3) is obvious.

Initial data are prescribed at some time $`t=t_0>0`$:

f(t0,θ,w,L)=

f
(θ,w,L),λ(t0,θ)=

λ
(θ),μ(t0,θ)=

μ
(θ).formulae-sequence𝑓subscript𝑡0𝜃𝑤𝐿

f
𝜃𝑤𝐿formulae-sequence𝜆subscript𝑡0𝜃

λ
𝜃𝜇subscript𝑡0𝜃

μ
𝜃f(t_{0},\theta,w,L)=\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.38885pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$f$}}\!\,(\theta,w,L),\ \lambda(t_{0},\theta)=\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.3333pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$\lambda$}}\!\,(\theta),\ \mu(t_{0},\theta)=\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.41014pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$\mu$}}\!\,(\theta).
If these data are $`C^1`$ and periodic in $`\theta `$ with period $`1`$, if  $``$ $`f`$  is compactly supported with respect to $`w`$ and $`L`$, and if the data satisfy the constraint equation (1.7), then the corresponding solution exists for all future areal time $`tt_0`$, cf. . To save a little notation let $`t_0=1`$.

In the next section a bound on $`w`$ along characteristics of (1.4) is established for restricted data. In Section 3 the lapse function $`e^\mu `$ is estimated, again for restricted data. In the last section both estimates are combined to obtain future geodesic completeness.

## 2 An estimate along characteristics

Let

$`w_0`$ $`:=`$ sup{|w|(r,w,L)supp

f
}<,supremumconditional𝑤𝑟𝑤𝐿supp

f
\displaystyle\sup\left\{\left|w\right|\mid(r,w,L)\in\mbox{\rm supp}\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.38885pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$f$}}\!\,\right\}<\infty,
$`L_0`$ $`:=`$ sup{L(r,w,L)supp

f
}<;supremumconditional-set𝐿𝑟𝑤𝐿supp

f
\displaystyle\sup\left\{L\mid(r,w,L)\in\mbox{\rm supp}\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.38885pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$f$}}\!\,\right\}<\infty;
without loss of generality $`w_0>0,L_0>0`$. For $`t1`$ define

$`P_+(t)`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{0,\mathrm{max}\left\{w(r,w,L)\text{supp}f(t)\right\}\},`$
$`P_{}(t)`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{min}\{0,\mathrm{min}\left\{w(r,w,L)\text{supp}f(t)\right\}\}.`$
We claim that if

4π2(1+L0)L0

f
<14superscript𝜋21subscript𝐿0subscript𝐿0subscriptnorm

f
14\pi^{2}(1+L_{0})L_{0}\|\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.38885pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$f$}}\!\,\|_{\infty}<1 (2.1)
then

$$P_+(t)w_0\sqrt{t},P_{}(t)w_0\sqrt{t},t1.$$
(2.2)
Assume the estimate on $`P_+`$ were false for some $`t`$. Define

$$t_0:=sup\{t1|P_+(s)w_0\sqrt{s},1st\}$$

so that $`1t_0<\mathrm{}`$ and $`P_+(t_0)=w_0\sqrt{t_0}>0`$. Choose $`ϵ]0,1[`$ such that

4π2(1+L0)L0

f
(1ϵ)2.4superscript𝜋21subscript𝐿0subscript𝐿0subscriptnorm

f
superscript1italic-ϵ24\pi^{2}(1+L_{0})L_{0}\|\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.38885pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$f$}}\!\,\|_{\infty}\leq(1-\epsilon)^{2}.
By continuity, there exists some $`t_1>t_0`$ such that the following holds:

$$(1ϵ)P_+(s)>0,s[t_0,t_1],$$

and if for some characteristic curve $`(\theta (s),w(s),L)`$ in the support of $`f`$, that is, with (θ(1),w(1),L)supp

f
𝜃1𝑤1𝐿supp

f
(\theta(1),w(1),L)\in\mbox{\rm supp}\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.38885pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$f$}}\!\,, and for some $`t]t_0,t_1]`$ the estimate

$$(1ϵ/2)P_+(t)w(t)P_+(t)$$
(2.3)
holds, then

$$(1ϵ)P_+(s)w(s)P_+(s),s[t_0,t];$$
(2.4)
note that the estimates on $`w`$ from above hold by definition of $`P_+`$ in any case.

Let $`(\theta (s),w(s),L)`$ be a characteristic in the support of $`f`$ satisfying (2.3) for some $`t]t_0,t_1]`$ and thus (2.4) on $`[t_0,t]`$. Then on $`[t_0,t]`$,

$`\dot{w}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{s}}e^{2\mu }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{w}\sqrt{1+w^2+L/s^2}w\sqrt{1+\stackrel{~}{w}^2+\stackrel{~}{L}/s^2}\right)f𝑑\stackrel{~}{L}𝑑\stackrel{~}{w}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{2\mu }}{2s}}w`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{s}}e^{2\mu }{\displaystyle _0^{P_+(s)}}{\displaystyle _0^{L_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{w}^2(1+w^2+L/s^2)w^2(1+\stackrel{~}{w}^2+\stackrel{~}{L}/s^2)}{\stackrel{~}{w}\sqrt{1+w^2+L/s^2}+w\sqrt{1+\stackrel{~}{w}^2+\stackrel{~}{L}/s^2}}}f𝑑\stackrel{~}{L}𝑑\stackrel{~}{w}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{2\mu }}{2s}}w`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{s}}e^{2\mu }{\displaystyle _0^{P_+(s)}}{\displaystyle _0^{L_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{w}(1+L)}{w}}f𝑑\stackrel{~}{L}𝑑\stackrel{~}{w}+{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{2\mu }}{2s}}w`$
$``$ 4π2L0(1+L0)

f
e2μ2sP+2(s)1w+1e2μ2sw4superscript𝜋2subscript𝐿01subscript𝐿0subscriptnorm

f
superscript𝑒2𝜇2𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑃2𝑠1𝑤1superscript𝑒2𝜇2𝑠𝑤\displaystyle 4\pi^{2}L_{0}(1+L_{0})\|\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.38885pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$f$}}\!\,\|_{\infty}\frac{e^{2\mu}}{2s}P_{+}^{2}(s)\frac{1}{w}+\frac{1-e^{2\mu}}{2s}w
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mu }}{2s}}\left((1ϵ)P_+(s)\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{2\mu }}{2s}}w{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mu }}{2s}}w+{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{2\mu }}{2s}}w={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}w.`$
Thus

$$w(t)w(t_0)\sqrt{t/t_0}P_+(t_0)\sqrt{t/t_0}=w_0\sqrt{t}$$

by assumption on $`t_0`$. This estimate holds only for characteristics which satisfy (2.3), but this is sufficient to conclude that

$$P_+(t)w_0\sqrt{t},t[t_0,t_1],$$

in contradiction to the choice of $`t_0`$. The estimate on $`P_+`$ is now established.

The analogous arguments for characteristics with $`w<0`$ yield the assertion for $`P_{}`$, and we have shown:

###### Proposition 2.1

For any solution of the Einstein-Vlasov system with hyperbolic symmetry written in areal coordinates and with initial data as above,

$$|w|w_0\sqrt{t},(\theta ,w,L)\text{supp}f(t),t1,$$

provided the data satisfy the size restriction

4π2(1+L0)L0

f
<1.4superscript𝜋21subscript𝐿0subscript𝐿0subscriptnorm

f
14\pi^{2}(1+L_{0})L_{0}\|\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.38885pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$f$}}\!\,\|_{\infty}<1.
Remark: The estimate above is sufficient to show that all geodesics which correspond to characteristics in the support of $`f`$ exist for all proper time in the expanding direction, but geodesic completeness requires the same to hold for timelike geodesics in general.

## 3 An estimate for the lapse function

We reconsider some of the estimates in  from the point of view of getting a better bound on $`e^\mu `$ for restricted data. First recall that by integration of the field equation (1.6) and since $`p`$ is non-negative,

e2μ(t,θ)te2

μ
(θ)1+ttc01+t,t1,formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑒2𝜇𝑡𝜃𝑡superscript𝑒2

μ
𝜃1𝑡𝑡subscript𝑐01𝑡𝑡1e^{2\mu(t,\theta)}\geq\frac{t}{e^{-2\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.18097pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\mu}$}}\!(\theta)}-1+t}\geq\frac{t}{c_{0}-1+t},\ t\geq 1, (3.1)
where

c0:=maxθ[0,1]e2

μ
(θ).assignsubscript𝑐0subscript𝜃01superscript𝑒2

μ
𝜃c_{0}:=\max_{\theta\in[0,1]}e^{-2\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.6871pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$\mu$}}\!\,(\theta)}.
Next we recall that by a lengthy computation,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle _0^1}e^{\mu +\lambda }\rho (t,\theta )𝑑\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}{\displaystyle _0^1}e^{\mu +\lambda }\left[2\rho +q{\displaystyle \frac{\rho +p}{2}}(1e^{2\mu })\right]𝑑\theta `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}{\displaystyle _0^1}e^{\mu +\lambda }\left[2\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\rho +p}{2}}\right]𝑑\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_01+t}}{\displaystyle _0^1}e^{\mu +\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{\rho +p}{2}}𝑑\theta `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{c_1+t}}{\displaystyle _0^1}e^{\mu +\lambda }\rho 𝑑\theta `$
where

$$c_1:=\mathrm{max}\{0,c_01\}.$$

Thus

01eμ+λρ(t,θ)𝑑θ(c1+1)201e

μ
+

λ

ρ
(θ)𝑑θt2,t1.formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript01superscript𝑒𝜇𝜆𝜌𝑡𝜃differential-d𝜃superscriptsubscript𝑐112superscriptsubscript01superscript𝑒

μ

λ

ρ
𝜃differential-d𝜃superscript𝑡2𝑡1\int_{0}^{1}e^{\mu+\lambda}\rho(t,\theta)\,d\theta\leq(c_{1}+1)^{2}\int_{0}^{1}e^{\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.18097pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\mu}$}}\!+\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.14331pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\lambda}$}}\!}\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.06802pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$\rho$}}\!\,(\theta)\,d\theta\;t^{-2},\ t\geq 1. (3.2)
By (3.1) and since $`p\rho `$,

teμλ=eμλ[4πte2μ(pρ)+1e2μt]eμλ(1t1e2

μ
1+t)𝑡superscript𝑒𝜇𝜆superscript𝑒𝜇𝜆delimited-[]4𝜋𝑡superscript𝑒2𝜇𝑝𝜌1superscript𝑒2𝜇𝑡superscript𝑒𝜇𝜆1𝑡1superscript𝑒2

μ
1𝑡\frac{\partial}{\partial t}e^{\mu-\lambda}=e^{\mu-\lambda}\left[4\pi te^{2\mu}(p-\rho)+\frac{1-e^{2\mu}}{t}\right]\leq e^{\mu-\lambda}\left(\frac{1}{t}-\frac{1}{e^{-2\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.18097pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\mu}$}}\!}-1+t}\right)
which implies that

eμ(t,θ)λ(t,θ)e

μ
(θ)

λ
(θ)e2

μ
(θ)te2

μ
(θ)1+te|

μ
(θ)|

λ
(θ),t1,θ[0,1].formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑒𝜇𝑡𝜃𝜆𝑡𝜃superscript𝑒

μ
𝜃

λ
𝜃superscript𝑒2

μ
𝜃𝑡superscript𝑒2

μ
𝜃1𝑡superscript𝑒

μ
𝜃

λ
𝜃formulae-sequence𝑡1𝜃01e^{\mu(t,\theta)-\lambda(t,\theta)}\leq e^{\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.18097pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\mu}$}}\!(\theta)-\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.14331pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\lambda}$}}\!(\theta)}\frac{e^{-2\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.18097pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\mu}$}}\!(\theta)}t}{e^{-2\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.18097pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\mu}$}}\!(\theta)}-1+t}\leq e^{|\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.18097pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\mu}$}}\!(\theta)|-\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.14331pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\lambda}$}}\!(\theta)},\ t\geq 1,\ \theta\in[0,1]. (3.3)
Now we estimate the average of $`\mu (t)`$, using (3.1), (3.2), (3.3):

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}\mu (t,\theta )𝑑\theta `$ $`=`$ 01

μ
(θ)𝑑θ+1t01μt(s,θ)𝑑θ𝑑ssuperscriptsubscript01

μ
𝜃differential-d𝜃superscriptsubscript1𝑡superscriptsubscript01subscript𝜇𝑡𝑠𝜃differential-d𝜃differential-d𝑠\displaystyle\int_{0}^{1}\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.41014pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$\mu$}}\!\,(\theta)\,d\theta+\int_{1}^{t}\int_{0}^{1}\mu_{t}(s,\theta)\,d\theta\,ds
$`=`$ 01

μ
(θ)𝑑θ+4π1ts01eμλeμ+λp𝑑θ𝑑s+1t12s01(1e2μ)𝑑θ𝑑ssuperscriptsubscript01

μ
𝜃differential-d𝜃4𝜋superscriptsubscript1𝑡𝑠superscriptsubscript01superscript𝑒𝜇𝜆superscript𝑒𝜇𝜆𝑝differential-d𝜃differential-d𝑠superscriptsubscript1𝑡12𝑠superscriptsubscript011superscript𝑒2𝜇differential-d𝜃differential-d𝑠\displaystyle\int_{0}^{1}\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.41014pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$\mu$}}\!\,(\theta)\,d\theta+4\pi\int_{1}^{t}s\int_{0}^{1}e^{\mu-\lambda}e^{\mu+\lambda}p\,d\theta\,ds+\int_{1}^{t}\frac{1}{2s}\int_{0}^{1}(1-e^{2\mu})\,d\theta\,ds
$``$ C+4πmaxθ[0,1]e|

μ
(θ)|

λ
(θ)(c1+1)201e

μ
+

λ

ρ
𝑑θlnt𝐶4𝜋subscript𝜃01superscript𝑒

μ
𝜃

λ
𝜃superscriptsubscript𝑐112superscriptsubscript01superscript𝑒

μ

λ

ρ
differential-d𝜃𝑡\displaystyle C+4\pi\max_{\theta\in[0,1]}e^{|\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.18097pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\mu}$}}\!(\theta)|-\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.14331pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\lambda}$}}\!(\theta)}(c_{1}+1)^{2}\int_{0}^{1}e^{\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.18097pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\mu}$}}\!+\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.14331pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\lambda}$}}\!}\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.06802pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$\rho$}}\!\,\,d\theta\ \ln t
where the constant $`C>0`$ depends in a complicated but irrelevant way on the initial data. If the data satisfy the size restriction

4πmaxθ[0,1]e|

μ
(θ)|

λ
(θ)(c1+1)201e

μ
+

λ

ρ
𝑑θ124𝜋subscript𝜃01superscript𝑒

μ
𝜃

λ
𝜃superscriptsubscript𝑐112superscriptsubscript01superscript𝑒

μ

λ

ρ
differential-d𝜃124\pi\max_{\theta\in[0,1]}e^{|\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.18097pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\mu}$}}\!(\theta)|-\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.14331pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\lambda}$}}\!(\theta)}(c_{1}+1)^{2}\int_{0}^{1}e^{\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.18097pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\mu}$}}\!+\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.14331pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\lambda}$}}\!}\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.06802pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$\rho$}}\!\,\,d\theta\leq\frac{1}{2} (3.4)
then the estimate above becomes

$$_0^1\mu (t,\theta )𝑑\theta C+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}t,t1.$$

Since

$$\left|\mu (t,\theta )_0^1\mu (t,\sigma )𝑑\sigma \right|Ct^1,t1,\theta [0,1],$$

cf. \[1, Eqn. 3.14\], it follows that

$$\mu (t,\theta )C+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}t,t1.$$

###### Proposition 3.1

For any solution of the Einstein-Vlasov system with hyperbolic symmetry written in areal coordinates and with initial data as above,

$$e^{\mu (t,\theta )}C\sqrt{t},t1,\theta [0,1],$$

with $`C>0`$ depending on the initial data, provided they satisfy the size restriction

4πmaxθ[0,1]e|

μ
(θ)|

λ
(θ)max{1,maxθ[0,1]e4

μ
(θ)}01e

μ
+

λ

ρ
𝑑θ12.4𝜋subscript𝜃01superscript𝑒

μ
𝜃

λ
𝜃1subscript𝜃01superscript𝑒4

μ
𝜃superscriptsubscript01superscript𝑒

μ

λ

ρ
differential-d𝜃124\pi\max_{\theta\in[0,1]}e^{|\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.18097pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\mu}$}}\!(\theta)|-\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.14331pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\lambda}$}}\!(\theta)}\;\max\{1,\max_{\theta\in[0,1]}e^{-4\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.18097pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\mu}$}}\!(\theta)}\}\;\int_{0}^{1}e^{\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.18097pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\mu}$}}\!+\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 1.14331pt $\kern-2.45004pt{\scriptscriptstyle\circ}$}
\hbox{${\scriptstyle\lambda}$}}\!}\vbox{\hbox{\hskip 2.06802pt\tiny$\circ$}\hbox{$\rho$}}\!\,\,d\theta\ \leq\frac{1}{2}.
## 4 Geodesic completeness

Let $`]\tau _{},\tau _+[\tau (x^\alpha (\tau ),p^\beta (\tau ))`$ be a geodesic whose existence interval is maximally extended and such that $`x^0(\tau _0)=t(\tau _0)=1`$ for some $`\tau _0]\tau _{},\tau _+[`$. We want to show that for timelike and null geodesics which move forward in time, $`\tau _+=+\mathrm{}`$. Consider first the case of a timelike geodesic, i. e.,

$$g_{\alpha \beta }p^\alpha p^\beta =m^2,p^0>0$$

with $`m>0`$. Since $`dt/d\tau =p^0>0`$ the geodesic can be parameterized by the coordinate time $`t`$. With respect to coordinate time the geodesic exists on the interval $`[1,\mathrm{}[`$ since on bounded $`t`$-intervals the Christoffel symbols are bounded and the right hand sides of the geodesic equations written in coordinate time are linearly bounded in $`p^1,p^2,p^3`$. Along the geodesic we define $`w`$ and $`L`$ as above. Then the relation between coordinate time and proper time along the geodesic is given by

$$\frac{dt}{d\tau }=p^0=e^\mu \sqrt{m^2+w^2+L/t^2},$$

and to control this we need to control $`w`$ as a function of coordinate time. Consider first the case where $`w(t)>0`$ for some $`t>1`$ and define $`t_01`$ minimal with the property that $`w(s)>0`$ for $`s]t_0,t]`$. We argue similarly to Section 2, making use of the additional estimates which we have established under the size restrictions on the initial data, cf. Props. (2.1) and (3.1):

$`\dot{w}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{s}}e^{2\mu }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{w}\sqrt{m^2+w^2+L/s^2}w\sqrt{1+\stackrel{~}{w}^2+\stackrel{~}{L}/s^2}\right)f𝑑\stackrel{~}{L}𝑑\stackrel{~}{w}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{2\mu }}{2s}}w`$
$``$ $`C{\displaystyle _0^{P_+(s)}}{\displaystyle _0^{L_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{w}^2(m^2+w^2+L/s^2)w^2(1+\stackrel{~}{w}^2+\stackrel{~}{L}/s^2)}{\stackrel{~}{w}\sqrt{m^2+w^2+L/s^2}+w\sqrt{1+\stackrel{~}{w}^2+\stackrel{~}{L}/s^2}}}f𝑑\stackrel{~}{L}𝑑\stackrel{~}{w}+{\displaystyle \frac{w}{2s}}`$
$``$ $`C{\displaystyle _0^{P_+(s)}}{\displaystyle _0^{L_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{w}(m^2+L)}{w}}f𝑑\stackrel{~}{L}𝑑\stackrel{~}{w}+{\displaystyle \frac{w}{2s}}{\displaystyle \frac{Cs}{w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{w}{2s}}`$
or

$$\frac{d}{ds}w^2Cs+\frac{1}{s}w^2.$$

This implies that

$$w^2(t)\frac{t}{t_0}w^2(t_0)+Ct(tt_0).$$

Now either $`t_0>0`$ in which case $`w(t_0)=0`$ or $`t_0=1`$. In both cases $`w(t)Ct`$ where the positive constant $`C`$ depends on the initial data of the solution of the Einstein-Vlasov system and on the initial data of the particular geodesic. An analogous argument applies if $`w(t)<0`$ for some $`t>1`$. Thus along the geodesic,

$$\frac{d\tau }{dt}=\frac{e^\mu }{\sqrt{m^2+w^2+L/t^2}}\frac{C}{\sqrt{m^2+Ct^2+L}}.$$

Since the integral of the right hand side over $`[1,\mathrm{}[`$ diverges, $`\tau _+=+\mathrm{}`$ as desired.

Now consider a null geodesic which moves forward in time initially, i. e., $`m=0`$ and $`p^0(\tau _0)>0`$. The quantity $`L`$ is again conserved. In particular, if $`L>0`$ then $`p^0`$ remains positive on the maximal existence interval of the geodesic. If $`L=0`$ the same is true since otherwise $`p^0(\tau )=0`$ and necessarily also $`p^1(\tau )=0`$ at some $`\tau `$ which by uniqueness of the solutions of the geodesic equations implies that $`p^0=p^1=0`$ always, a contradiction. The argument can now be carried out exactly as before, implying that $`\tau _+=+\mathrm{}`$.

###### Theorem 4.1

If the initial data of a solution of the Einstein-Vlasov system with hyperbolic symmetry, written in areal coordinates, satisfy the size restrictions stated in Props. (2.1) and (3.1), then the corresponding spacetime is timelike and null geodesically complete in the expanding direction.

Final remarks. In , conditions on the spacetime metric, the gradient of the lapse, and the extrinsic curvature are given which imply that the spacetime is timelike and null geodesically complete. These conditions seem stronger than what we needed to establish geodesic completeness in the present note. Among other things, in  the lapse function needs to be uniformly bounded from above and away from zero which is more than what our estimates provide.

The control on the $`w`$ component of the support of $`f`$ obtained in Section 2 implies the following estimates for the source terms in the field equations:

$$\rho (t,\theta ),p(t,\theta ),|j(t,\theta )|Ct^1,q(t,\theta )Ct^{7/2},t1,\theta [0,1].$$

If $`R_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^\delta `$ denotes the Riemann curvature tensor then the quantity

$$K(t,\theta ):=\left(R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }R^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\right)(t,\theta )$$

is known as the Kretschmann scalar. In  it was shown that

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`4\left(e^{2\lambda }\left(\mu _{\theta \theta }+\mu _\theta (\mu _\theta \lambda _\theta )\right)e^{2\mu }\left(\lambda _{tt}+\lambda _t(\lambda _t\mu _t)\right)\right)^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{t^2}}\left(e^{4\mu }\lambda _t^2+e^{4\mu }\mu _t^22e^{2(\lambda +\mu )}\mu _\theta ^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{t^4}}\left(e^{2\mu }1\right)^2`$
and a lower bound for this quantity was established which is positive and blows up as $`t0`$. Using the bounds established above one can show that $`K`$ decays like $`t^2`$ for $`t\mathrm{}`$.

The question whether the spacetime is geodesically complete for data without a size restriction remains open.

Acknowledgement: The auther acknowledges support by the Wittgenstein 2000 Award of P. A. Markowich.


text:
# Fourth SM Family Manifestations at CLIC

## I Introduction

Today, the mass and mixing patterns of the fundamental fermions are the most mysterious aspects of particle physics. Even, the number of fermion generations is not fixed by the Standard Model (SM). In this sense, SM may be deliberated as an effective theory of fundamental interactions rather than fundamental particles. The statement of the flavor democracy (or, in other words, the Democratic Mass Matrix (DMM) approach), which is quite natural in the SM framework, may be considered as the interesting step in the true direction . It is intriguing that, flavor democracy favors the existence of the fourth standard model family . The lower limits to masses of the fourth family fermions are : $`m_{\nu _4}50`$ GeV from LEP 1, $`m_{l_4}100`$ GeV from LEP 2, $`m_{d_4}>199`$ GeV (neutral current decays, $`d_4qZ`$) and $`m_{d_4}>128`$ GeV (charged current decays, $`d_4qW`$) from FNAL (Tevatron Run I).

Recently  it is shown that a single extra chiral family with a constrained spectrum is consistent with latest presicion data without requiring any other new physics source. Then, as quoted from a recent paper : ”It is shown that additional chiral generations are not excluded by the latest electroweak precision data if one assumes that there is no mixings with the known three generations. In the case of ”heavy extra generations”, when all four new particles are heavier than Z boson, quality of the fit for the one new generation is as good as for zero new generations (Standard Model)”. It should be noted that, a degenerate fourth SM family is still disfavored by the data. Although the number of families for degenerate case ($`T=U=0`$) is $`2.97\pm 0.30`$, this restriction can be relaxed by allowing $`T0`$ (which means either non-degenerate extra generations or a new physics), for example, $`N_{fam}=3.27\pm 0.45`$ for $`T=0.10\pm 0.11`$

The fourth family quarks will be copiously produced at the LHC  if their masses are less than $`1`$ TeV. Concerning the Tevatron Run II, its higher luminosity will increase the discovery limits of $`d_4`$ quarks with respect to Tevatron Run I data approximately 50 %. In addition, the Higgs boson ”golden mode” ($`HZZ4l`$, where $`l=e,\mu `$) will be observable at the upgraded Tevatron for $`125<m_H<165`$ GeV and $`175<m_H<300`$ GeV with more than $`3`$ $`\sigma `$ significance , provided that the fourth SM family exists. For same reasons, the SM Higgs boson could be seen at the LHC via the ”golden mode” even with an integral luminosity of only a few fb-1. Therefore, the presumed fourth family quarks will be discovered at LHC well before getting CLIC into operation. The same statement is valid for pseudoscalar quarkonia ($`\eta _4`$) formed by the fourth family quarks . Observation of the fourth family leptons at LHC is problematic due to large backgrounds from the production of real W and Z bosons, both singly and in pairs, that submerge these heavy lepton signals . For these reasons, lepton colliders will be advantageous for investigation of the fourth SM family leptons and vector ($`\psi _4`$) quarkonia. The potential of muon colliders in this context was analyzed in . With this paper we complete general overlook of the subject by considering the potential of CLIC .

## II Flavor Democracy and the Standard Model

It is usefull to consider three different bases:

\- Standard Model basis $`\left\{f^0\right\}`$,

\- Mass basis $`\left\{f^m\right\}`$,

\- Weak basis $`\left\{f^w\right\}`$.

According to the three family SM, before the spontaneous symmetry breaking quarks are grouped into following SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) multiplets:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}u_L^0\\ d_L^0\end{array}\right)\text{}u_R^0\text{}d_R^0\text{}\left(\begin{array}{c}c_L^0\\ s_L^0\end{array}\right)\text{}c_R^0\text{}s_R^0\text{}\left(\begin{array}{c}t_L^0\\ b_L^0\end{array}\right)\text{}t_R^0\text{}b_R^0\text{ }$$
(1)
In one family case all bases are equal and, for example, d-quark mass is obtained due to Yukawa interaction

$$L_Y^{(d)}=a_d\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{u}_L& \overline{d}_L\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi ^+\\ \phi ^{}\end{array}\right)d_R+h.c.L_m^{(d)}=m_d\overline{d}d$$
(2)
where $`m_d=a_d\eta `$, $`\eta =\phi ^0249`$ GeV. In the same manner $`m_u=a_u\eta `$, $`m_e=a_e\eta `$ and $`m_{\nu _e}=a_{\nu _e}\eta `$ (if neutrino is Dirac particle). In $`n`$ family case

$$L_Y^{(d)}=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_{ij}^d\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{u}_{Li}^0& \overline{d}_{Li}^0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi ^+\\ \phi ^{}\end{array}\right)d_{Rj}^0+h.c.=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_{ij}^d\overline{d}_i^0d_j^0\text{}m_{ij}^d=a_{ij}^d\eta $$
(3)
where $`d_1^0`$ denotes $`d^0`$, $`d_2^0`$ denotes $`s^0`$ etc. The diagonalization of mass matrix of each type of fermions, or in other words transiton from SM basis to mass basis, is performed by well-known bi-unitary transformation. Then, the transition from mass basis to weak basis result in CKM matrix

$$U_{CKM}=\left(U_L^u\right)^+U_L^d$$
(4)
which contains 3(6) observable mixing angels and 1(3) observable CP-violating phases in the case of three(four) SM families.

Before the spontaneous symmetry breaking all quarks are massless and there are no differences between $`d^0`$, $`s^0`$ and $`b^0`$, fermions with the same quantum numbers are indistinguishable. This leads us to the first assumtion , namely, Yukawa couplings are equal within each type of fermions:

$$a_{ij}^da^d\text{}a_{ij}^ua^u\text{}a_{ij}^la^l\text{}a_{ij}^\nu a^\nu $$
(5)
The first assumtion result in $`n1`$ massless particles and one massive particle with $`m=na^F\eta `$ $`\left(F=u\text{}d\text{}l\text{}\nu \right)`$ for each type of the SM fermions.

Because there is only one Higgs doublet which gives Dirac masses to all four types of fermions (up quarks, down quarks, charged leptons and neutrinos), it seems natural to make the second assumption , namely, Yukawa constants for different types of fermions should be nearly equal:

$$a^da^ua^la^\nu a$$
(6)
Taking into account the mass values for the third generation, the second assumption leads to the statement that according to the flavor democracy the fourth SM family should exist.

In terms of the mass matrix above arguments mean

$$M^0=a\eta \left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)M^m=4a\eta \left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
Now, let us make the third assumption, namely, $`a`$ is between $`e=g_w\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$ and $`g_w/\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$. Therefore, the fourth family fermions are almost degenerate, in good agreement with experimental value $`\rho =0.9998\pm 0.0008`$ , and their common mass lies between $`320`$ GeV and $`730`$ GeV. The last value is clouse to upper limit on heavy quark masses, $`m_Q700`$ GeV, which follows from partial-wave unitarity at high energies . It is interest that with preferable value $`ag_w`$ flavor democracy predicts $`m_48m_W640`$ GeV.

The masses of the first three family fermions, as well as an observable interfamily mixings, are generated due to the small deviations from the full flavor democracy .

## III
Pair Production

As a result of the DMM approach, the SM is extended to include a fourth generation of fundamental fermions, with masses typically in the range from 300 GeV to 700 GeV. Therefore, CLIC with 1-3 TeV center of mass energy will give opportunity to search the alleged fourth SM family fermions and quarkonia in details.

### A $`e^+e^{}`$ option

The annihilation of $`e^+e^{}`$ is a classic channel to produce and study new heavy fermions, because the cross sections are relatively large compared with backgrounds . The cross section for the process $`e^+e^{}f`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{f}`$ has the well-known form

$$\sigma =\frac{2\pi \alpha ^2}{3s}\xi \beta \left\{Q_f\left(Q_f2\chi _1vv_f\right)\left(3\beta ^2\right)+\chi _2\left(1+v^2\right)\left[v_f^2\left(3\beta ^2\right)+2\beta ^2a_f^2\right]\right\}$$
(8)
where

$`\chi _1=\frac{1}{16\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}\frac{s\left(sM_Z^2\right)}{\left(sM_Z^2\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2M_Z^2}`$

$`\chi _2=\frac{1}{256\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _W}\frac{s^2}{\left(sM_Z^2\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2M_Z^2}`$

$`v=1+4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$

$`a_f=2T_{3f}`$

$`v_f=2T_{3f}4Q_f\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$

$`\beta =\sqrt{14m_Q^2/s}`$.

$`T_3=\frac{1}{2}`$ for $`\nu _4`$ and $`u_4`$, $`T_3=\frac{1}{2}`$ for $`l_4`$ and $`d_4`$

$`\xi =1`$ for leptons, $`\xi =3`$ for quarks.

Obtained cross section values for pair production of the fourth SM family fermions with $`m_4=320`$ ($`640)`$ GeV and corresponding number of events per working year ($`10^7`$ s) are given in Table I (Table II). Event signatures are defined by the mass pattern of the fourth family and $`4\times 4`$ Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements. According to scenario given in , dominant decay modes are $`u_4b`$ $`W^{}`$, $`d_4t`$ $`W^+`$, $`l_4\nu _\tau W^{}`$ and $`\nu _4\tau ^{}W^+`$.

We have mentioned in the introduction that the fourth family quarks with $`m_4<1`$ TeV will be discovered at LHC. However, CLIC will raise an opportunity to investigate their properties in details due to sufficiently large event numbers and clean environment. The observation of the fourth family leptons at hadron colliders is not very promising because of low statistics and large background. The charged $`l_4`$ lepton will have clear signature at CLIC. For example, if produced $`W^\pm `$ bosons decay leptonically, one deals with two acoplanary opposite charge leptons and large missing energy. Pair production of the neutral $`\nu _4`$ leptons will lead to more complicated event topology. In this case, $`\tau `$ tagging will be helpfull in identification of events. Indeed, produced $`\tau `$ leptons will decay at the distance 1-2 cm from interaction point, which can be easily measured by vertex detector.

In addition, polarization of electron and positron beams should help to experimentally determine axial and vector neutral current coupling constants of the fourth family fermions. Note that hadron colliders can not provide sufficient information about them. This subject is under study.

### B $`\gamma \gamma `$ option

It is well known that linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders will give opportunity to construct TeV energy $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders on their basis . The fourth SM family quarks and charged leptons will be copiously produced at $`\gamma \gamma `$ machines. The cross section for $`\gamma \gamma f\overline{f}`$ at fixed $`\widehat{s}`$ has the form

$$\widehat{\sigma }=\frac{2\xi \pi \alpha _{em}^2Q_f^4}{\widehat{s}(1+\beta ^2)}\left[2\beta (\beta ^4\beta ^22)+(\beta ^6+\beta ^43\beta ^23)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1\beta }{1+\beta }\right)\right]$$
(9)
where $`\beta =\sqrt{14m^2/\widehat{s}}`$. Since Compton backscattered photons are not monochromatic, one should perform further integrations over the photon spectrum to obtain the outcame cross section

$$\sigma =\underset{\tau _{\mathrm{min}}}{\overset{(0.83)^2}{}}𝑑\tau \underset{\tau /0.83}{\overset{0.83}{}}\frac{dx}{x}f_\gamma \left(\frac{\tau }{x}\right)f_\gamma \left(x\right)\widehat{\sigma }\left(\tau s\right)$$
(10)
where $`\tau _{\mathrm{min}}=4m^2/s`$ and $`\widehat{s}=\tau s`$. The energy spectrum of the high energy photons obtained through Compton backscattering of laser photons on the high energy electron beam has the form

$$f_\gamma (y)=\frac{1}{1.84}\left[1y+\frac{1}{1y}\frac{4y}{\zeta (1y)}+\frac{4y^2}{\zeta ^2(1y)^2}\right]$$
(11)
with $`\zeta =4.8`$. For $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}=1`$ TeV ($`3`$ TeV), which corresponds to $`\sqrt{s_{\gamma \gamma }}^{\mathrm{max}}=0.83\sqrt{s_{ee}}=0.83`$ TeV ($`2.5`$ TeV), the obtained values of cross section and event number per year are presented in Tables I (Table II).

## IV Quarkonium Production

The condition for forming $`(Q\overline{Q})`$ quarkonia states with new heavy quarks is

$$m_Q(125\text{ }GeV)\text{ }\left|V_{Qq}\right|^{2/3}$$
(12)
where $`q=d,s,b`$ for $`Q=u_4`$ and $`q=u,c,t`$ for $`Q=d_4`$. Differing from t quark, fourth family quarks will form quarkonia because $`u_4`$ and $`d_4`$ are almost degenerate and their decays are suppressed by small CKM mixings . Below, we consider resonance productions of $`\psi _4`$ quarkonia at $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\eta _4`$ quarkonia at $`\gamma \gamma `$ options of CLIC.

### A $`e^+e^{}`$ option

The cross section for the formation of the fourth family quarkonium is given with the well-known relativistic Breit-Wigner equation

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}\left(Q\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{Q}\right))=\frac{12\pi \left(s/M^2\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\left(sM^2\right)^2+M^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2},$$
(13)
where $`M`$ is the mass, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}`$ is the partial decay width to $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the total decay width of the fourth family quarkonium. Using corresponding formulas from  in the framework of Coulomb potential model, we obtain decay widths for the main decay modes of $`\psi _4(u_4\overline{u_4})`$ and $`\psi _4(d_4\overline{d_4})`$, which are given in Table III. One can see that dominant decay mode for both $`\psi _4(u_4\overline{u_4})`$ and $`\psi _4(d_4\overline{d_4})`$ quarkonia is $`\psi _4W^+W^{}`$. Next important decay modes are $`\psi _4\gamma Z`$ and $`\psi _4\gamma H`$.

In order to estimate the number of produced quarkonium states, one should take into account the luminosity distrubition at CLIC which is influenced from energy spread of electron and positron beams and beamstrahlung. In our calculations we use GUINEA-PIG simulation code . For illustration, we assume that $`m_{\psi _4}1`$ TeV. The estimated event numbers per year for $`\psi _4`$ production, as well as, $`\psi _4\gamma H`$ and $`\psi _4ZH`$ decay channels are presented in Table IV. In our opinion, $`\gamma H`$ decay mode of $`\psi _4(u_4\overline{u_4})`$ quarkonium is promising for investigation of Higgs boson properties, especially if energy spread of electron and positron beams about $`10^3`$ could be managed succesfully.

Since quarkonia are produced at resonance ($`\sqrt{s}m_{\psi _4}`$) and the mass of the fourth family quarks are close to $`m_{\psi _4}/2`$, the uncertainity in measurement of quarks’ masses is determined by energy spread of the colliding beams. Therefore, if $`m_4=500`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=5`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E=10^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=0.5`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E=10^3`$. For comparision at LHC $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=22`$ GeV for $`m_4=320`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=36`$ GeV for $`m_4=640`$ GeV .

### B $`\gamma \gamma `$ option

Pseudoscalar $`\eta _4`$ quarkonia formed by the fourth SM family quarks will be copiously produced at LHC . Decay widths for main decay modes of $`\eta _4(u_4\overline{u_4})`$ and $`\eta _4(d_4\overline{d_4})`$ are given in Table V. As seen from the table, the dominant decay mode is $`\eta _4ZH`$. One can estimate $`\gamma \gamma \eta _4`$ production cross section approximately by using following relation :

$$\sigma 50\text{fb}(1+\lambda _1\lambda _2)\left(\frac{\text{Br}_{\gamma \gamma }}{4\times 10^3}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}}{1\text{ MeV}}\right)\left(\frac{200\text{ GeV}}{M_\eta }\right)^3$$
(14)
where Brγγ is the branching ratio of $`\eta _4\gamma \gamma `$ decay mode, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}`$ is the quarkonium total decay width and $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ are helicities of initial photons. Assuming $`\lambda _1\lambda _2=1`$, we obtain total event numbers of $`\eta _4`$ production, as well as numbers of $`\eta _4ZH`$ events, which are given in Table VI. The advantage of $`\eta _4(u_4\overline{u_4})`$ with respect to $`\eta _4(d_4\overline{d_4})`$ is obvious.

## V Conclusion

We have shown that both fourth family fermions and quarkonia will be copiously produced at CLIC. If the fourth SM family exists, CLIC will be excellent place for investigation of fourth family quarkonia and leptons. Formation of the fourth SM family quarkonia will give a new opportunity to investigate Higgs bosons properties especially due to $`e^+e^{}\psi _4\gamma H`$ channel. In addition, masses of $`u_4`$ and $`d_4`$ quarks will be measured with high accuracy.

It is possible that other lepton colliders such as NLC, TESLA or JLC can get into operation before CLIC. Of course, the fourth family fermions can be produced at these machines of kinematically allowed. The first stage of all of them (including CLIC) is designed with $`\sqrt{s}=0.5`$ TeV. The second stage is thought of $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ TeV with the exception of TESLA (with $`\sqrt{s}=0.8`$ TeV). Our result presented in Tables I, IV and VI are applicable for second stage NLC and JLC with a suitable scaling factors coming from luminosity and energy spread. Therefore, all linear electron-positron colliders are almost equal as long as kinematics allows. Finally, obvious advantage of CLIC is $`3`$ TeV option.

## VI Acknowledgements

Authors are grateful to E. Arık, O. Çakır, S. A. Çetin, A. De Roeck, D. Schulte, V. I. Telnov and Ö. Yavaş for useful discussions. This work is supported in part by Turkish Planning Organization (DPT) under the Grant No 2002K120250.