text:
# The X-ray Halo of GX 13+1

## 1 Introduction

X-ray halos are created by the small-angle scattering of X-rays passing through dust grains in the interstellar medium. The spectral and spatial characteristics of X-ray halos are determined by the size, line of sight distribution, and composition of dust grains, with a bias towards larger dust grains which are the primary sites for X-ray scattering. These larger grains hold much of the mass that is in dust grains and they are difficult to detect in other wavebands. In this paper, we will describe how observations of the halo around GX 13+1 can be used to place limits on dust grain models, specifically on the population of larger grains.

GX 13+1, a low-mass X-ray binary (LMXB), is a bright highly-absorbed X-ray source. IR spectral observations by Bandyopadhyay et al. (1999) show that the secondary star is likely a K5 giant, and they calculate a distance of $`7\pm 1`$ kpc for the system. GX 13+1 has been classified as an atoll source (Hasinger & van der Klis 1989), although it belongs to the small subclass of atoll sources that are persistently bright. The X-ray halo around GX 13+1 was first described by Catura (1983), who used Einstein HRI data and measured a total halo flux equal to $`0.18\pm 0.02`$ of the source flux in the HRI band (0.1-6 keV). However, Catura noted that systematic uncertainties in the observation probably lead to an underestimate of the halo strength. Subsequently, Mauche & Gorenstein (1986) used Einstein IPC observations of GX 13+1 to measure a halo fraction of $`0.17\pm 0.01`$ in the IPC band (0.1-6.4 keV). In 1995, Predehl & Schmitt measured the X-ray halo of GX 13+1 using only 47 seconds of observations from the ROSAT All-Sky Survey. They found a much brighter X-ray halo, $`0.37\pm 0.04`$ of the source flux in the PSPC band (0.08-2.9 keV). The discrepancy between the Einstein and ROSAT observations has not been discussed, but we will show it is due to the different energy bands of the instruments.

Measurements of X-ray halos have been used to place limits on the dust grain density (Mathis et al. 1995), as well as the dust size distribution (Witt, Smith & Dwek 2001). The Chandra observations provide the far higher angular and energy resolution than has been available, so we can extract the halo fraction as a function of off-axis angle and energy. By comparing the observed halo fraction to a selection of dust models, we put limits on the density of the dust and the relative population of large grains.

## 2 Theoretical Background

The theory of X-ray halos was first discussed in an astrophysical context by Overbeck (1965), and has since been refined by a number of authors (Mauche & Gorenstein 1986; Mathis & Lee 1991; Smith & Dwek 1998). We briefly review the theory here.

The fundamental quantity is the differential scattering cross section $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which can be calculated using either the exact Mie solution or the Rayleigh-Gans (RG) approximation; see Smith & Dwek (1998) for a discussion. The RG approximation is derived by assuming each volume $`dV`$ in the dust scatters X-rays via Rayleigh scattering, and then integrating the result over the grain volume. Analytically, this gives

$$\frac{d\sigma (\theta _{\mathrm{sca}})}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=1.1\text{cm}^2\text{sr}^1\left(\frac{2Z}{M}\right)^2\left(\frac{\rho }{3\text{g\hspace{0.17em}cm}^3}\right)^2a_{\mu \mathrm{m}}^6\left(\frac{F(E)}{Z}\right)^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2(\theta _{\mathrm{sca}})$$
(1)
where $`a`$ is the grain radius, $`Z`$ is the mean atomic charge, $`M`$ the mean atomic weight (in amu), $`\rho `$ the mass density, $`E`$ the X-ray energy in keV, $`F(E)`$ the atomic scattering factor (Henke 1981), $`\theta _{\mathrm{sca}}`$ the scattering angle, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2(\theta _{\mathrm{sca}})`$ the scattering form factor (Mathis & Lee 1991). For homogeneous spherical grains, the form factor is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^2(\theta _{\mathrm{sca}})=3(\mathrm{sin}uu\mathrm{cos}u)/u^3$$
(2)
where $`u=4\pi a\mathrm{sin}(\theta _{\mathrm{sca}}/2)/\lambda 2\pi a\theta _{\mathrm{sca}}E/hc`$.

Smith & Dwek (1998) showed that the RG approximation will overestimate the total scattering if the energy of the X-rays (in keV) is not substantially larger than the size of the dust grains (in $`\mu `$m), and suggested 2 keV as a minimum energy for most ISM dust models.

By integrating the scattering cross section over the line of sight geometry, the source spectrum, and the dust size distribution we get (considering single scatterings only) the halo surface brightness at angle $`\theta `$ from the source:

$$I_{\mathrm{sca}}(\theta )=F_XN_H𝑑ES(E)𝑑an(a)_0^1𝑑x\frac{f(x)}{(1x)^2}\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}$$
(3)
where $`F_X`$ is the total source flux, $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ is the hydrogen column density, $`S(E)`$ is the (normalized) X-ray spectrum, and $`n(a)da`$ is the dust grain size distribution. Here $`f(x)`$ is the density of hydrogen at distance $`xD`$ from the observer divided by the line of sight average density, where $`D`$ is the distance to the source (Mathis & Lee 1991).

Of course if the column density is sufficiently large, individual X-rays may be scattered multiple times. Mathis & Lee (1991) showed that for $`\tau _{\mathrm{sca}}>1.3`$, multiple scatterings dominate over single scattering, tending to broaden the halo. The scattering cross section depends upon the X-ray energy and the dust model; Table 1 of Mathis & Lee (1991) shows that $`\sigma _{\mathrm{sca}}=9.03\times 10^{23}E_{\mathrm{keV}}^2`$ for dust models such as Mathis, Rumpl & Nordsieck (1977; MRN) or Draine & Lee (1984). For $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`2.9\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 (see §3.1), this corresponds to $`\tau _{\mathrm{sca}}=2.6E_{\mathrm{keV}}^2`$. Above 2 keV, therefore, multiple scattering should not be a significant effect. Below 2 keV, we can expect that the RG approximation will somewhat overestimate the total halo intensity and the single scattering approximation will underestimate the radial extent of the halo.

## 3 Observations and Analysis

GX 13+1 was observed with the Chandra ACIS-I array (chips I0-3, S2, S3) for 9.74 ksec on August 7th, 2000. GX 13+1 was at the aimpoint, and as can be seen in Figure 1, a bright halo was observed although as expected the source itself suffered from severe pile-up. We processed the data using the Chandra data system software version R4CU5UPD14.1, and used CIAO version 2.2 for our analysis.

The ACIS-I CCDs were damaged early in the Chandra mission by low-energy protons. As a result the energy resolution decreased; at 1.5 keV, the FWHM on ACIS-I3 now varies from $`100`$ eV to $`150`$ eV, depending on the distance from the CCD readout. Based on this resolution and the quantity of data, we decided to bin the data into 100 eV and 200 eV bins (for energies less than and greater than 2 keV, respectively).

### 3.1 Spectral Analysis

The X-ray halo is directly proportional to the source spectrum, so any uncertainties in the spectral analysis will be reflected in the halo analysis. Ideally, the spectral measurement would be high-resolution and contemporaneous; for this observation, however, we have only the ACIS-I data, which are heavily affected by pileup. In CCD detectors such as the ACIS-I, pileup occurs when two or more photons impact the same or adjacent pixels within a single 3.2 second frame. This can mimic a single photon with energy equal to the sum of the photon energies, or it can change the event “grade” from a good X-ray detection (grades 0, 2, 3, 4, or 6) to a rejected likely cosmic-ray event (grade 7) (Chandra Proposers’ Observatory Guide, Rev. 4.0, p 106). In GX 13+1, the core pileup was large enough that all photons within a $`3^{\prime \prime }`$ of the source migrated to grade 7 and were automatically rejected; nearby regions somewhat further off-axis were also contaminated by pile-up.

Despite this, the source spectrum can be extracted from the “transfer streak,” which appears as a line connecting the detector aimpoint and the chip readout in Figure 1. During the 42 ms frame transfer of the ACIS CCDs, X-rays from the source continue to arrive at the aimpoint and are as a result “mis-positioned” along the axis of the transfer by the Chandra processing software. In 9.74 ksec of observing, the ACIS spends $`128`$ seconds in frame transfer mode. We extracted $`31,000`$ events in an $`11\times 908`$ pixel strip around this streak (avoiding the near-aimpoint region which will be affected to a lesser degree by pileup). We were also concerned about pileup in the transfer streak. However, the streak has only $`10.3\pm 3.2`$ counts per 3.2 second CCD frame spread over a 11x908 pixel region, so pileup there is not significant.

The in-flight spectral response of the ACIS-I detectors during frame transfer is not yet specifically calibrated. We assumed all the events in the transfer streak originated on-axis with the normal effective area in calculating the detector response, but there is a known effect that slightly reduces the quantum efficiency of the CCDs for photons above 3-4 keV (M. Bautz 2002 private communication). We also found that the ratio of grade 0 (single-pixel) events to all good events (grades 0,2,3,4, and 6) in the transfer streak was significantly lower than elsewhere on the ACIS-I chips. This may or may not affect the spectrum; the ACIS calibration team is working on the problem.

Other non-contemporaneous X-ray observations of GX 13+1 exist. GX 13+1 is regularly observed by the RXTE All-sky Monitor (ASM), although unfortunately it was not observed for a period of $`10`$ days surrounding the Chandra observation. The long-term ASM lightcurve shows that the luminosity in the 1.3-12.1 keV bandpass is relatively constant, with intrinsic variations of $`50\%`$ (Homan et al. 1998). GX 13+1 was also observed by ASCA for 18.8 ksec in September 1994. We extracted the GIS data, which have nearly $`10^6`$ counts; the source was blocked out in the SIS detectors. The flux observed by ASCA in the 1-10 keV band is $`25`$% larger than was observed by Chandra, likely due to fluctuations in the source itself.

The observed halo intensity at energy $`E`$ is proportional to the observed source flux at energy $`E`$ and the column density of dust along the line of sight. To estimate these we fit a range of spectral models and examined the results. Intrinsically, the X-ray spectra of LMXBs vary widely due to the many possible viewing angles and emission mechanisms. We therefore considered a number of different models, following the Christian & Swank (1997) analysis of the X-ray emission for a sample of LMXBs. We used blackbody (BB), power law (PL), and thermal bremsstrahlung (TB) models, along with a disk blackbody (DBB; see Mitsuda et al. 1984, Makishima et al. 1986) model. In addition, we fit the spectrum using a series of top-hat functions, roughly matching the ACIS-I resolution by using 100 eV spacing from 1-2 keV and 200 eV spacing from 2-4 keV. This approach measures the observed flux (with errors) in each 100 or 200 eV band without reference to any specific model.

All of these models led to a formally acceptable value of $`\chi ^2`$, due to the low count rate and energy resolution in the transfer streak data. We calculated the X-ray flux as a function of energy for each of these models, as shown in Figure 2. The summed top-hat model results in similar fluxes as the different spectral models, and the errors on the top-hat amplitudes are on the same scale as the variations in the spectral models. We will use the top-hat fluxes and errors for the following analysis.

The best-fit column density for these models varied from 1.99 to 4.17$`\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 depending on the source model used. Given the issues with the transfer streak detector response, we decided not to use these $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ results. The absorption column density has been measured with other X-ray satellites; Ueda et al. (2001) found $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`=2.9\pm 0.1\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 from ASCA GIS and SIS observations (with $`>10^6`$ counts), which agrees with the value found by Schulz, Hasinger & Trümper (1989) from EXOSAT ME data. Garcia et al. (1992) placed an upper limit of $`A_V14.4`$ based on measurements in the J, H, and K bands and assuming the spectrum rose no faster than the Jeans tail of a blackbody. Using the conversion from $`N_\mathrm{H}`$/$`A_V=1.9\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2/mag (Seward 2000), this is equivalent to $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`2.7\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2.

### 3.2 Imaging Analysis

Measuring the radial profile of GX 13+1 is a multi-step process. We began by removing any serendipitous sources from the image. We then selected an energy and a radial grid, based on the instrumental response and the quantity of data available. We filtered the data using the CCD energy measurement, and extracted the counts in the radial profile using concentric annuli centered on the source. Then we made exposure maps for each energy band. After filtering out the regions with serendipitous sources, we extracted the effective “radial exposure” using the same concentric annuli, for each energy band. Dividing the radial profile of the counts in each band by the effective area and exposure time gave us the corrected radial profile in units of photons cm-2 s-1 arcmin-2 per energy band. We then divided this by the observed source flux in each band to get the fractional radial profile in units of source fraction arcmin-2. This result is really the X-ray halo convolved with the Chandra PSF, plus the PSF from the source itself. However, the Chandra PSF is small enough that we will neglect any scattering of the X-ray halo by the telescope.

We searched for sources in the field of view using the CIAO tool celldetect. Since removing a false source merely reduces the signal to noise slightly, while including a source mistakenly would add a systematic error, we decided to accept any source found with significance greater than $`4\sigma `$. This resulted in six sources, listed in Table 1. A search using Simbad showed no known sources with $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ of these positions. The Simbad search found 39 objects in the field of view, including stars, IRAS objects, and a supernova remnant (G13.5+0.2). None of these sources could be detected in the data, although we note source D is inside the remnant.

The X-ray halo of GX 13+1 fills the ACIS-I field of view, as can be seen in Figure 1. However, the central $`3^{\prime \prime }`$ region around the source has no data due to severe pileup, so the source position must be inferred. We estimated the source position by assuming it was on the line defined by the transfer streak and centering using the contours of the data. We found the position of GX 13+1 to be RA,Dec = 18:14:31.065, -17:09:26.02 (J2000), with an estimated error of $`0.3^{\prime \prime }`$. This is $`0.3^{\prime \prime }`$ distant from the position measured by Berendsen et al. (2000) using radio observations of GX 13+1 with the ATCA. The halo appears to be radially symmetric about the source, as expected from previous observations. We confirmed this by examining the data in various radial bins as a function of azimuthal angle. The data showed no significant variation as a function of angle. We were therefore justified in extracting the radial profile of the X-ray halo by summing the data in annular rings in our selected energy bands.

Pileup substantially affects the central radial bins, so we had to determine where it drops off. This is difficult to estimate a priori, since pileup can occur not only when two X-rays strike the same pixel within a single frame time, but also when the two X-rays hit adjacent pixels. Depending on the details of the interaction of the X-ray in the CCD, pileup may lead to events not being recognized, or being rejected, or being identified with the wrong energy and/or a modified grade. We therefore estimated the pileup rate phenomenologically by examining the radial profiles of different grade events. When the count rate is low, the ratio of event grades should tend to a constant which depends on the spectrum. In Figure 3(a) we plot the radial profile of good (grade 0,2,3,4, and 6) events, along with the profile of just grade 0 (single-pixel), and grade 6 (four-pixel) events. Figure 3(b) shows the ratio of grade 0 and grade 6 events to the total as a function of radius, along with the limiting ratio found far from the source. This is not a perfect estimate of the ratio close to the source since the X-ray halo will have some spectral differences from the source, but we do not expect the difference to be substantial. As Figure 3(b) shows, pileup/grade migration is a noticeable effect as far as $`50^{\prime \prime }`$ from the source. We can derive a similar result analytically as well. According to the Chandra proposers’ guide, a pileup fraction of 10% will impact the resulting image or spectrum. Using the 3.2 second ACIS frame time and a poisson-distributed count rate, 10% pileup (or two photons in a single $`3\times 3`$ pixel grid in one frame) corresponds to a rate of 0.0037 cts s-1 pixel-1. As Figure 3 shows, this is the rate found within $`20^{\prime \prime }`$ of the source, where the effect of pileup is most severe. To avoid contamination by pileup, we limited our halo fits to angles beyond $`50^{\prime \prime }`$.

Before extracting the radial profile of GX 13+1, we had to select the energy and radial binning. To limit complications due to multiple scattering and problems with the RG approximation, we decided to use only the X-rays above 2 keV. We divided the dataset into 10 energy bands, spaced every 0.2 keV from 2.0-4.0 keV in order to match the ACIS-I resolution. To effectively use Chandra’s angular resolution while also roughly equalizing the number of counts in each annulus, we used 99 log-spaced annuli from $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ to $`600^{\prime \prime }`$ (plus one from 0-$`10^{\prime \prime }`$). After extracting the radial profiles of the data, we calculated the exposure maps for each energy band and used the same annuli to extract the total effective area at each energy and radius. The serendipitous sources were removed both from the data and the exposure maps, so the results are self-consistent. We then divided the radial profile of event data by that of the exposure map to get a result in physical units of photons cm-2 s-1 arcmin-2. This approach does not take into account the varying response of the CCDs. On-axis at 1.5 (4.5) keV, the FWHM is $`160`$ ($`300`$) eV, while at the chip readouts, it is $`80`$ ($`130`$) eV. Due to the physical layout of the ACIS-I CCDs, small off-axis angles are all far from the chip readouts, while large off-axis angles will contain points both near and far from the chip readouts (Chandra Proposers’ Observatory Guide, Rev. 4.0, pp. 74, 86). As a result, there will be a systematic effect in the “average” ACIS response as a function of off-axis angle. Using energies between 2-4 keV summed in broad 200 eV bands will minimize these effects.

The final stage of the analysis is to remove the Chandra PSF, which was extremely complicated. The CIAO tool mkpsf only models the core of the PSF and is not useful here since we are interested in the PSF $`1^{}`$ or more from the source. With the help of the CXC calibration team, we ran the Chandra raytrace model “SAOsac,” (release as of 9/18/01) at a number of energies. SAOsac matches the observed core of the PSF well, but underestimates the wings of the PSF (T. Gaetz, 2002, private communication). The exact amount of the disagreement depends on the X-ray energy and the angle from the source; $`500^{\prime \prime }`$ from the source it varies from a factor of 2 at 1.5 keV to a factor of 6 at 4.5 keV, comparing the pre-flight calibration data to the model111Chapter 15 of the XRCF report, http://hea-www.harvard.edu/MST/simul/xrcf/report/index.html.

Unfortunately, the systematic underestimate of the scattering power beyond $`50^{\prime \prime }`$ led to serious problems in interpretation. To address this, the Chandra calibration team observed the bright, lightly-absorbed X-ray binary Her X-1 for 50 ksec on July 1, 2002. Her X-1 is lightly reddened, with $`E(BV)=0.05`$ magnitudes (Liu, van Paradijs, & van den Heuvel 2001), which corresponds to a column density $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`3\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2, although some of this may be internal. The total Galactic column density in the direction of Her X-1 is $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`=1.8\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2 (Dickey & Lockman 1990). As a result, the dust-scattered halo is more than $`100\times `$ weaker than in GX 13+1, and the telescope PSF dominates the radial profile. This Her X-1 image, which clearly shows vignetting from the mirror support structures, confirms this; in GX 13+1, these features are blurred by the X-ray halo.

The Her X-1 data are being analyzed in detail by the CXC calibration team. We did a preliminary analysis using the same procedure as used for the GX 13+1 data, extracting the spectrum from the transfer streak and fitting the flux in 100 eV and 200 eV bands. The observation was done with Her X-1 on ACIS-S3 (a back-illuminated (BI) chip), along with the front-illuminated (FI) I2, I3, and S2 chips. We extracted the radial profile for the BI and FI chips separately, and compared them to each other and to the SAOsac PSFs. The FI and BI profiles agreed with each other at all off-axis angle, and with the SAOsac values for off-axis angles less than $`50^{\prime \prime }`$ (see Figure 4). As expected however, beyond $`50^{\prime \prime }`$ off-axis, the SAOsac PSF underestimated the data by factors of 2-10, depending on the angle and the X-ray energy. Background appeared to be negligible since the FI and BI profiles match each other even at large angles, despite the significant differences in the background rates on the two types of chips. We summed the FI and BI datasets to get the best measurement of the PSF at each energy.

## 4 Results

We have now measured the radial profile, in units of fraction of source flux per square arcminute, for both GX 13+1 and Her X-1. Since the source flux has been factored out, subtracting the Her X-1 profile (the best-available point source) from the GX 13+1 profile gives the halo’s surface brightness relative to the source flux as a function of energy and off-axis angle, or the “halo fraction” $`H_f(E,\theta )`$. We can then calculate the total observed X-ray halo fraction as a function of energy:

$$I(E)=_{50^{\prime \prime }}^{600^{\prime \prime }}H_f(\theta ,E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)\times 2\pi \theta 𝑑\theta $$
(4)
which is also shown for GX 13+1 in Figure 5. Figure 5, which strongly increases at low energies, shows why ROSAT (with a 0.08-2.9 keV bandpass) measured a larger total halo fraction (34%) for GX 13+1 than either of the Einstein (with a 0.1-6 keV bandpass) measurements of 17-18%.

Using the RG approximation, this result be directly compared to the observable dust grain parameters. As discussed in Mauche & Gorenstein (1986), the total scattering due to dust grains is simply $`𝑑an_{gr}(a)\sigma (a)D`$, where $`n_{gr}(a)`$ is the number density of grains of size $`a`$, $`D`$ is the source distance, and $`\sigma (a)`$ is the total scattering cross section, which can be found by integrating Equation (1) over all angles. The final result is

$$I(E)0.2\left(\frac{2Z}{M}\right)^2\left(\frac{\rho }{3\text{g cm}^3}\right)^2\left[\frac{F(E)}{Z}\right]^2D_{\text{kpc}}E_{\text{keV}}^2𝑑an(a)\left(\frac{a}{0.1\mu \text{m}}\right)^4\left(\frac{n_{gr}(a)}{10^{12}\text{cm}^3}\right)$$
(5)
We can approximate some terms in Equation (5), as $`2Z/M1`$ and for $`E>2`$ keV, $`F(E)Z`$. With some manipulation, we then get:

$$I(E)=80.7\left(\frac{N_\mathrm{H}}{10^{22}\text{cm}^2}\right)\left(\frac{\rho }{3\text{g cm}^3}\right)E_{\text{keV}}^2𝑑an(a)\left(\frac{a}{0.1\mu \text{m}}\right)\frac{m_{gr}(a)}{m_\mathrm{H}}$$
(6)
where $`m_{gr}(a)`$ is the mass of a grain of radius $`a`$. Any dust grain model must include the dust to gas mass ratio ($`m_{gr}/m_H`$), the grain density $`\rho `$, and the size distribution of the grains $`n(a)`$. Therefore, given a dust model and a column density $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ we can calculate the coefficient term in Equation (6) directly. Since we used the total cross section for scattering, this result is independent of the position of the dust along the line of sight.

We can measure the coefficient term directly from the results we found using Equation (4) by fitting a function with the $`E^2`$ energy dependence of Equation (5). We found, for GX 13+1,

$$I(E)=H_fE_{\text{keV}}^2=0.939\pm 0.028E_{\text{keV}}^2$$
(7)
which is also plotted in Figure 5; the error purely statistical, and does not include any systematic errors. This halo coefficient $`H_f`$ is an underestimate, since we only include scattering for $`50^{\prime \prime }<\theta <600^{\prime \prime }`$. We experimented by changing the upper and lower limits, and found reducing the upper limit by 50% to $`400^{\prime \prime }`$ changed $`H_f`$ only slightly, to $`0.89\pm 0.02`$. However, increasing the lower limit by 50% to $`75^{\prime \prime }`$ led to $`H_f=0.73\pm 0.02`$, a more significant change. We therefore tried reducing the lower limit, although this increases systematic errors due to pileup. A lower limit of $`20^{\prime \prime }`$ led to $`H_f=1.28\pm 0.04`$, and a lower limit of $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ gave $`1.41\pm 0.04`$; within $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ of the source the data are visibly affected by pileup. We did a linear extrapolation to the lower limit of $`0^{\prime \prime }`$ based on these results and found $`H_f=1.5_{0.1}^{+0.5}`$. These errors are not statistical, but rather are estimated from the variation with the lower limit on the angle. We used a large positive error term because we must assume that the scattered surface brightness within $`10^{\prime \prime }`$, which we cannot measure directly, does not increase significantly.

Since the X-ray halo is a function of the size, position, and composition of the dust grains, as well as the source flux and absorption column, to go further in the analysis we must make some assumptions about the dust grains. We first consider the smoothly-distributed dust model, where the dust grain number density is constant along the line of sight. We compare three dust grain models: the MRN model, the Weingartner & Draine (2001; WD) model, and the “extended” MRN model (hereafter the XMRN model) described by Landgraf et al. (2000) and used by Witt, Smith, & Dwek (2001). This model is based on the in situ measurements made by Ulysses and Galileo in the heliosphere, and has the same total mass as the MRN model, but extends the MRN size distribution to $`2.0\mu `$m, with a break at $`0.5\mu `$m from a $`3.5`$ power law to $`4.0`$ for larger grains.

In Figure 6 we show our best-fit results at three energies, using the MRN, WD, and the XMRN dust grain models. The only free parameter in these fits is the total dust grain column, which we allowed to vary independently in each energy band. A number of features are immediately apparent in these results. First, the XMRN model is consistently poor, overestimating the halo at small angles and underestimating it at large angles. At 2.1 keV, this could be partially due to the RG approximation breaking down, but RG should be adequate at 3.7 keV where it is still clearly a poor fit. Although we cannot rule out models such as the XMRN, this dataset certainly does not require them. Secondly, we see that the MRN and WD models both match the halo profile quite well, although the MRN model tends to be the better fit. Including all 10 energies from 2-4 keV, and allowing the column density $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ to vary with energy, for the MRN model we found $`\chi _{red}^2=1.6`$, and for the WD model $`\chi _{red}^2=5.2`$ (with 590 degrees of freedom). If we require the column density to be constant, there are 599 degrees of freedom and the best fit for the MRN model is $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`=2.22\pm 0.01\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 with $`\chi _{red}^2=2.1`$. For the WD model, it is $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`=1.65\pm 0.01\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 with $`\chi _{red}^2=5.8`$.

We can check this by comparing the measured halo coefficient of $`H_f1.5`$ to the values calculated using Equation (6) and $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`=2.9\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2. For the MRN, WD, and XMRN models, we calculated halo coefficients of $`1.9`$, $`2.8`$, and $`13.1`$ respectively. As expected, if we use the best-fit $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ values for the MRN and WD models, we get much better results: 1.5 and 1.6, respectively. This also shows that the best-fit column density found by fitting the X-ray halo using the MRN model will generally be $`45`$% larger than fits using the WD model.

The best-fit column density $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ shows a slight increase with the X-ray energy for the MRN and WD models, and a significant one for the XMRN model (see Figure 7). The errors shown in Figure 7 are dominated by the errors in the flux measurement. Since we fix each energy band width at 200 eV and do not consider the effect of the varying energy resolution of the ACIS chips, these errors may be somewhat underestimated. It is also possible the quantum efficiency of transfer streak may be lower than expected (M. Bautz, 2002, private communication). If true, this would mean we underestimated the true flux, which would lead us to a larger $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ to compensate. For the XMRN model, however, the energy dependence is much steeper over the entire 2-4 keV energy range. The source of the problem could be our use of the RG model, or or possibly it is just an artifact caused by the poor overall fit of the XMRN model. We expect to investigate this in a future paper, including applying a full Mie solution to the XMRN model.

### 4.1 Molecular clouds

We have assumed that the dust grains were smoothly distributed along the line of sight (i.e. $`f(x)1`$). We can relax this restriction and assume instead that dust grains are found in clumps along the line of sight. This is probably a more realistic model, as the sightline to GX 13+1 crosses two or three spiral arms (Caswell & Haynes 1987; Taylor & Cordes 1993), spaced at about 20%, 40%, and 60% of the distance to GX 13+1. In Figure 8 we show the profiles for E=2.1, 2.9, and 3.7 keV along with fits using MRN dust and four “clouds” placed 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of the distance to GX 13+1. The amount of dust in each cloud was allowed to vary independently, but was fixed to be the same value for each X-ray energy.

These fits show one result similar to the smoothly-distributed dust case: as the energy increases, the model tends to underpredict the total halo. Since the amount of dust in each cloud was not allowed to vary with energy, the best-fit result ($`\chi _{red}^2=2.0`$) slightly exceeds the data at low energies and underestimates at high energies. In addition, the total amount of dust used ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`=2.15\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2) is similar to the value for the smoothly distributed MRN model.

We also experimented with models using one or two clouds with variable locations and column densities. We could not find an adequate fit with a single cloud model. The lowest $`\chi _{red}^2=5.2`$ for the MRN model had a cloud at $`x=0.39`$ and column density $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`=1.65\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2. Fitting two clouds with variable positions and column densities, however, we found a minimum $`\chi _{red}^2=2.31`$, nearly as good a fit as Galactic arm model with four fixed clouds. The best-fit cloud parameters are $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ = $`1.15\pm 0.01\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 at $`x=0.204\pm 0.007`$ and $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ = $`1.19_{0.45}^{+0.02}\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 at $`x=0.80\pm 0.08`$.

These fits show that two or three “dust clouds” can fit the data nearly as well as the smoothly-distributed case. One cloud must be near GX 13+1 to reproduce the scattering seen at $`\theta <100^{\prime \prime }`$ and the second cloud must be near the observer to cause the more extended scattering. In the four fixed cloud model, the clouds 40% and 60% of the distance to GX 13+1 have the smallest column densities; in the two cloud model, the data tend to the 20% and 80% positions naturally. This suggests that the nearest spiral arm contains substantial dust, along with material near the Galactic center.

## 5 Conclusions

The high angular resolution of the Chandra telescope provides the best data to date of any X-ray halo, while the energy range and resolution allow us to explore the halo’s behavior as a function of energy with moderate resolution. Although we limited our investigation to off-axis angles greater than $`50^{\prime \prime }`$ to avoid any possible contamination by pileup, our models tended to fit reasonably well for smaller angles and we may be able to relax this in the future. We also limited our analysis to energies higher than 2 keV, to allow the use of the RG model and to avoid the difficulties involved in including multiple X-ray scattering. These issues can be addressed with improved modeling techniques, which we plan to include in a future paper.

We were able to measure, for the first time, the halo coefficient $`H_f=1.5_{0.1}^{+0.5}`$ by fitting the total halo intensity (relative to the source intensity) as a function of energy to the equation $`I(E)=H_fE_{\text{keV}}^2`$. Physically, $`H_f`$ is the halo fraction at 1 keV, but using the RG approximation it can be compared directly to dust model parameters via a simple calculation (see Eq. (6)). The large errors in our measurement are due largely to pileup; more X-ray halo measurements are clearly needed to get more halo coefficients. We expect this will soon provide a tight constraint for dust models for the ISM.

We have found that models with low density “fluffy” dust are not supported by these data. The X-ray halo surface brightness is proportional to $`N_\mathrm{H}\times \rho _{dust}^2`$. For the MRN and WD models, we found $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`=2.22\pm 0.01\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 and $`1.65\pm 0.01\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2, respectively. The true column density to GX 13+1 is difficult to measure, but we infer from infrared observations that $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`2.7\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 and from the ASCA data that $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ $`=2.9\pm 0.1\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2. So at most, the true column density to GX 13+1 is only twice the lowest value determined from the halo observations, which allows for a dust grain density at most 30% lower than the nominal value, and likely less. A “fluffy” dust model may exist that matches the observations, but it would have to include substantially more dust grains to maintain the total scattering cross section. For example, an MRN-type model with $`\rho =\rho _{\mathrm{MRN}}/5`$ would need 25 times more dust grains to achieve the same total scattering.

At the same time, the large dust grain model used in Witt, Smith & Dwek (2001) is also not supported by these data, in agreement with the results of Predehl & Schmitt (1995). The large dust grains cause the scattering at very small observed angles ($`<100^{\prime \prime }`$) to increase dramatically. The ROSAT PSPC data used by Witt, Smith & Dwek (2001) had only one point at $`100^{\prime \prime }`$, which drove the fit to prefer the large dust grain model. Chandra’s superior angular and energy resolution (and range) show that for this line of sight at least, large dust grains are not significant. Finally, we also found that the data are better fit by the MRN model than the WD model, although enough potential calibration issues remain to keep this an open issue.

We would like to thank Terry Gaetz for obtaining the Her X-1 calibration observations, Diab Jerius for helping us with SAOsac, and the entire CXC calibration team for their substantial contribution to this project. We also thank Eli Dwek for many helpful discussions, and the referee Peter Predehl for his comments and suggestions which greatly improved this paper. This work was supported by the Chandra X-ray Science Center (NASA contract NAS8-39073) and NASA Chandra observation grant GO0-1107X.


format: text

text:
# 1 Illustration of the effective two-quark spin-spin correlation mediated by an effective gluon exchange between the two quarks. The top vertex is the photon quark vertex.

Quark-Quark Correlations and Baryon Electroweak Observables
H. Høgaasen111 E-mail address: hallstein.hogasen@fys.uio.no,
Fysisk Institutt, University of Oslo, Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway
Kuniharu Kubodera222 E-mail address : kubodera@sc.edu, and Fred Myhrer333 E-mail address : myhrer@sc.edu
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, SC 29208, USA

## Abstract

The simple independent quark models have difficulties explaining simultaneously the totality of the known hyperon magnetic moments and hyperon semi-leptonic decay rates. We show that both the Goldstone boson loop contributions and two-quark effective exchange currents are essential in explaining these observables.

Chiral symmetry, one of the basic symmetries of QCD, plays an important role in hadron physics. A key point is that chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken, resulting in the generation of Goldstone bosons, and these Goldstone bosons have strong influence on the static properties of hadrons and low-energy interactions among hadrons. These effects have been explored with much success in, e.g., chiral quark models and chiral perturbation theory. The existence of the Goldstone bosons leads to a natural picture of a baryon consisting of a quark core plus a surrounding Goldstone boson cloud, with the coupling between the core and the cloud dictated by chiral symmetry. It is to be noted that loop diagrams involving the Goldstone bosons give rise to non-analytic corrections to the hadric observables and that these non-analytic contributions are determined model-independently from chiral symmetry. This feature has recently been exploited by Thomas et al.  in a calculation of the baryon magnetic moments.

Apart from the Goldstone boson loop corrections, another important effect is expected from QCD; viz., the effective spin-dependent quark-quark interaction \[denoted by $`V_{qq}(\text{spin-spin})`$ \] arising from gluon exchange is expected to affect spin-depedent hadronic observables significantly. Let $`𝑱`$ represent a current that describes the response of a baryon to an external electroweak probe; $`𝑱`$ can be an electromagnetic or weak current. In general, we expect the form, $`𝑱=_{i=1}^3𝑱_i^{(1)}+_{ij}𝑱_{ij}^{(2)}`$, where $`𝑱_i^{(1)}`$ is the 1-body current of the $`i`$-th quark, and $`𝑱_{ij}^{(2)}`$ is the two-body current involving the $`i`$-th and $`j`$-th quarks. In the simplest impulse approximation, one assumes $`𝑱=_{i=1}^3𝑱_i^{(1)}`$. Now, a point to be emphasized here is that the existence of $`V_{qq}(\text{spin-spin})`$ automatically engenders the corresponding two-body current, which we denote by $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$. In most work in the literature, however, the presence of $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ has been overlooked . The purpose of this communication is to illustrate an important role $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ can play in describing baryonic electroweak responses.

As a first example that clearly shows the importance of the $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ contributions, we consider what may be called the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ puzzle, which is concerned with the magnetic moments of the octet baryons, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Experimentally, $`\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }0.613\pm 0.004`$ n.m. and $`\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}0.6507\pm 0.0025`$ n.m., and hence $`R\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}/\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`1.062\pm 0.005`$. Thus, the experiments clearly indicate $`|\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}|>|\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$. Now, suppose we adopt a naive “additive” quark model; namely, we assume that the relevant current is given by $`𝑱=_{i=1}^3𝑱_i^{(1)}`$, and that the three quarks in the baryons are independent of each other apart from trivial spin-flavor factors. It can be shown that any additive quark model inevitably leads to

$$\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mu _s\mathrm{and}\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}=\mu _s+\frac{1}{3}\left(\mu _s\mu _d\right),$$
(1)
where $`\mu _s`$ and $`\mu _d`$ are the magnetic moments of the $`s`$\- and $`d`$-quarks, respectively. Then, to explain the experimental fact $`|\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}|>|\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$, we must require $`|\mu _d|<|\mu _s|`$; recall that $`\mu _s`$ and $`\mu _d`$ are both negative numbers. In the language of the standard non-relativistic quark model, this requirement implies that the constituent mass of the $`d`$ quark must be larger than that of the $`s`$ quark, an obviously untenable conclusion. Meanwhile, according to , the inclusion of Goldstone boson loops only slightly changes the value of $`R`$. Cloet et al. has very recently developed “chiral phenomenology” to refine the simplest quark model, and has reported that, partly due to the Goldstone-boson cloud, $`R`$ can be increased from $`R=0.8`$ (the simplest quark-model value) to $`R=0.99`$. Yet this latest result still leaves unexplained the experimental fact, $`|\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}|>|\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$.

We now discuss the role of $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ puzzle. The origin of $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ is analogous to that of the nuclear exchange current due to a nucleon “Z-graph”, which arises from a relativistic correction to the nucleon propagator. It is well known in nuclear physics that the nucleon “Z-graph” give significant contributions to electroweak observables of nuclei. A “Z-graph” relevant to $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ involves gluon exchange and quark-antiquark excitation, as depicted in Fig. 1. We note that $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ contributing to the baryon magnetic moment is essentially determined by $`V_{qq}(\text{spin-spin})`$ arising from gluon exchange, and that the strength of $`V_{qq}(\text{spin-spin})`$ can be monitored by the octet-decuplet mass splitting (e.g., the $`N`$-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mass difference). To show the effects of $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ explicitly, we use here the results obtained in the cloudy-bag or chiral-bag model. According to , the inclusion of the $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ contribution changes $`\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }`$ as

$$\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mu _s+\frac{1}{3}G\mathrm{and}\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}=\frac{4}{3}\mu _s\frac{1}{3}\mu _d\frac{2}{3}G,$$
(2)
where $`G`$ 0.2 n.m. Thus the addition of the $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ contributions gives a natural explanation of the inequality: $`|\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }|<|\mu _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}|`$.

The $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ contributions affect the magnetic moments of the other baryons as well. We show here that the $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ contribution is also helpful to resolve the “$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ problem”, a problem first pointed out by Lipkin and further discussed by Thomas and Krein. Consider the magnetic moment ratio $`R^{}`$ defined by

$$R^{}\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}+2\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}{\mu _\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(3)
The naive “additive” quark model gives $`R^{}=1`$, in glaring disagreement with the experimental value, $`R^{}0.23`$ . Thomas and Krein have made a detailed study of the Goldstone-boson (pion) contributions to $`R^{}`$, using chiral perturbation theory as well as chiral quark models, and emphasized the importance of a proper treatment of the pionic contributions. The leading non-analytic expression for the pion-loop corrections was found to change $`R^{}`$ significantly. We show here that there are additional important contributions from $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ and that these two effects combined lead to a dramatic reduction of $`|R^{}|`$. Here again we demonstrate our point using the results obtained in the cloudy bag model . When the contributions from the Goldstone boson cloud and $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ are included, $`R^{}`$ is given as

$`R^{}=`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{4}{3}\mu _u\frac{1}{3}\mu _s+\frac{1}{2}\delta \mu _\pi +2\left(\frac{4}{3}\mu _d\frac{1}{3}\mu _s\frac{1}{2}\delta \mu _\pi \frac{2}{3}G\right)}{\mu _s+\frac{1}{3}G}}`$ (4)
$``$ $`(1)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mu _\pi }{\mu _s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{G}{\mu _s}}\right)(1{\displaystyle \frac{G}{3\mu _s}}+\mathrm{})`$
Here $`\delta \mu _\pi =0.59`$ n.m.  is the contribution from the pion-loop corrections and $`G=0.2`$ n.m. representing the $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ contribution has already appeared in eq.(2). The value of $`G/\mu _s`$ consistent with eq.(1) is $`G/\mu _s1/3`$. Eq.(4) shows that both $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ and the pion-cloud contributions substantially reduce the magnitude of $`R^{}`$, and their combined effects essentially resolve the “$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ problem”.

For the nucleon magnetic moments, the pion cloud contribution is an iso-vector contribution and hence cannot explain the observed value, $`\mu _n/\mu _p2/3`$. It has been demonstrated  that the inclusion of the $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ contributions leads to the observed value of $`\mu _n/\mu _p`$.

As mentioned, the effects of $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ can appear in weak-interation observables as well. As an example, we discuss the ratio,

$`R^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{g_A/g_V(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}n)}{g_A/g_V(\mathrm{\Lambda }p)}},`$ (5)
where $`g_A/g_V(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}n)`$ and $`g_A/g_V(\mathrm{\Lambda }p)`$ are determined from measurements of the semileptonic decays of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ particles. Experimentally, $`R^{\prime \prime }=0.473\pm 0.026`$, whereas the additive quark model gives $`R^{\prime \prime }=1/3`$. Lipkin discussed this problem in combination with the above-mentioned “$`R^{}`$ problem”, and stressed that it is impossible to simultaneously explain the observed values of $`R^{}`$ and $`R^{\prime \prime }`$. The argument in , however, is based on the essential assumption that the $`s`$\- to $`u`$-quark conversion can be described in the simplest “additive” quark picture. We therefore examine here to what extent the $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ current changes $`R^{\prime \prime }`$ from the naive “additive” quark model value. According to cloudy bag calculations , the $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ current changes $`R^{\prime \prime }`$ as

$`R^{\prime \prime }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}2{\displaystyle \frac{G^{}}{B^{}}}0.47.`$ (6)
In the model used here, wherein the quarks are relativistic ($`m_u=m_d10`$ MeV), the ratio $`g_A/g_V`$ depends on the two integrals, $`B^{}`$ and $`G^{}`$, involving the quark wave functions of the baryons; these wave function were calculated in Ref. . The term with $`G^{}`$ is the contribution of $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ . It is found that this contribution changes $`R^{\prime \prime }`$ in the right direction and can explain the experimental value of $`R^{\prime \prime }`$. Thus, what was presented as a serious problem in Ref. can be easily resolved by including the chiral corrections due to the pion cloud and the correction due to the $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ current.

We have shown in this note the insufficiency of the naive “additive” quark models. The $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ current presented here gives important contributions to both the baryon magnetic moments and the hyperon beta decays. It should be noted that $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ also gives an important contribution to the nucleon spin content  and leads to the result consistent with the Bjorken sum rule. In conclusion, both the Goldstone-boson loop corrections and $`\widehat{𝑱}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ contributions play a significant role in resolving the outstanding puzzles regarding baryonic electroweak observables, a feature indicating the importance of quark-quark spin-spin correlations inside baryons.


text:
# On the Kähler angles of Submanifolds To the memory of Giorgio Valli

## 1 Introduction

Let $`(N,J,g)`$ be a Kähler-Einstein manifold of complex dimension $`2n`$, complex structure $`J`$, Riemannian metric $`g`$, and $`F:M^{2n}N^{2n}`$ be an immersed submanifold $`M`$ of real dimension $`2n`$. We denote by $`\omega (X,Y)=g(JX,Y)`$ the Kähler form and by $`R`$ the scalar curvature of $`N`$, that is, the Ricci tensor of $`N`$ is given by $`Ricci=Rg`$. The cosine of the Kähler angles $`\{\theta _\alpha \}_{1\alpha n}`$ are the eigenvalues of $`F^{}\omega `$. If the eigenvalues are all equal to 0 (resp. 1), $`F`$ is a Lagrangian (resp. complex) submanifold. A natural question is to ask if $`N`$ allows submanifolds with arbitrary given Kähler angles and mean curvature. An answer is that, the Kähler angles and the second fundamental form of $`F`$, and the Ricci tensor of $`N`$ are interrelated. Conditions on some of these geometric objects have implications for the other ones. There are obstructions to the existence of minimal Lagrangian submanifolds in a general Kähler manifold, but these obstructions do not occur in a Kähler-Einstein manifolds, where such submanifolds exist with abundance (\[Br\]). This is the reason we choose Kähler-Einstein manifolds as ambient spaces. An example how the sign of the scalar curvature of $`N`$ determines the Kähler angles is the fact that if $`F`$ is a totally geodesic immersion and $`N`$ is not Ricci-flat, then either $`F`$ has a complex direction, or $`F`$ is Lagrangian (\[S-V,1\]). A relation among the $`\theta _\alpha `$, $`_{}dF`$, and $`R`$ can be described through a formula on the Laplacian of a locally Lipschitz map $`\kappa `$, symmetric on the Kähler angles of $`F`$, where the Ricci tensor of $`N`$ and some components of the second fundamental form of $`F`$ appear. Such kind of formula was used for minimal immersions in \[W,1\] for $`n=1`$, and in \[S-V,1,2\] for $`n2`$.

A natural condition for $`n2`$ is to impose equality on the Kähler angles. Products of surfaces immersed with the same constant Kähler angle $`\theta `$ into Kähler-Einstein surfaces of the same scalar curvature $`R`$, give submanifolds immersed with constant equal Kähler angle $`\theta `$ into a Kähler-Einstein manifold of scalar curvature $`R`$. The slant submanifolds introduced and exhaustively studied by B-Y Chen (see e.g. \[Che,1,2\], \[Che-M\], \[Che-T,1,2\]) are just submanifolds with constant and equal Kähler angles. Examples are given in complex spaces form, some of them via Hopf’s fibration \[Che-T,1,2\]. A minimal 4-dimensional submanifold of a Calabi-Yau manifold of complex dimension 4, calibrated by a Cayley calibration, also called Cayley submanifold, is just the same as a minimal submanifold with equal Kähler angles (\[G\]). Existence theory of such submanifolds in $`lC^4`$, with given boundary data, is guaranteed by the theory of calibrations of Harvey and Lawson \[H-L\].

Submanifolds with equal Kähler angles have a role in 4 and 8 dimensional gauge theories. For example, each of such Cayley submanifolds in $`lC^4`$ carries a 21-dimensional family of (anti)-self-dual $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills fields \[H-L\]. Recentely, Tian \[T\] proved that blow-up loci of complex anti-self-dual instantons on Calabi-Yau 4-folds are Cayley cycles, which are, except for a set of 4-dimensional Hausdorff measure zero, a countable union of $`C^1`$ 4-dimensional Cayley submanifolds.

If $`N`$ is an hyper–Kähler manifold of complex dimension 4 and hyper-Kähler structure $`(J_x)_{xS^2}`$, any submanifold of real dimension 4 that is $`J_x`$-complex for some $`xS^2`$, is a minimal submanifold with equal Kähler angles of each $`(N,J_y,g)`$ (\[S-V,2\]), and the common Kähler angle is given by $`\mathrm{cos}\theta (p)=(J_yX)^{}`$, where $`X`$ is any unit vector of $`T_pM`$. A proof of this assertion is simply to remark that, if $`\{X,J_xX,Y,J_xY\}`$ is an o.n. basis of $`T_pM`$, then the matrix of the Kähler form $`\omega _y`$ w.r.t. $`J_y`$, restricted to this basis, is just a multiple of a matrix in $`IR^4`$ that represents an orthogonal complex structure of $`IR^4`$, i.e. of the type $`aI+bJ+cK`$, where $`I,J,K`$ defines the usual hyper-Kähler structure of $`IR^4`$, and $`a^2+b^2+c^2=1`$. The square of this multiple is given by $`x,y^2+J_yX,Y^2+J_{x\times y}X,Y^2=(J_yX)^{}^2`$. This example suggests us a way to build examples of (local) submanifolds with equal Kähler angles. Let $`(N,I,g)`$ be a Kähler manifold of complex dimension 4, and $`UN`$ an open set where an orthornormal frame of the form $`\{X_1,IX_1,X_2,IX_2,Y_1,IY_1,Y_2,IY_2\}`$ is defined. If for each $`pU`$, we identify $`T_pN`$ with $`IR^4\times IR^4`$, through this frame, we are defining a family of local $`g`$-orthogonal almost complex structures $`J_x=ai\times i+bj\times j+ck\times k`$, for $`x=(a,b,c)S^2`$, where $`i,j,k`$ denotes de canonical hyper-Kähler structure of $`IR^4`$. Then any almost $`J_x`$-complex 4-dimensional submanifold $`M`$ is a submanifold with equal Kähler angles of the Kähler manifold $`(N,I,g)`$. It may not be minimal, because $`J_x`$ may not be a Kähler structure, or not even integrable.

Such a condition on the Kähler angles, turns out to be more restrictive for submanifolds of non Ricci-flat manifolds, or if $`M`$ is closed, that is, compact and orientable. A combination of the formula of $`\mathrm{}\kappa `$ for minimal immersions with equal Kähler angles, with the Weitzenböck formula for $`F^{}\omega `$, lead us in \[S-V,2\] to the conclusion that the Kähler angle must be constant, and in general it is either $`0`$ or $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$. Namely, we have:

###### Theorem 1.1

Let $`F:M^{2n}N^{2n}`$ be a minimal immersion with equal Kähler angles.
$`(i)(`$\[W,1\]$`)`$ If $`n=1`$, $`M`$ is closed, $`R<0`$, and $`F`$ has no complex points, then $`F`$ is Lagrangian.
$`(ii)(`$\[S-V,2\], \[G\]$`)`$ If $`n=2`$ and $`R0`$, then $`F`$ is either a complex or a Lagrangian submanifold.
$`(iii)(`$\[S-V,2\]$`)`$ If $`n3`$, $`M`$ is closed, and $`R<0`$, then $`F`$ is either a complex or a Lagrangian submanifold.
$`(iv)(`$\[S-V,2\]$`)`$ If $`n3`$, $`M`$ is closed, $`R=0`$, then the common Kähler angle must be constant.

If $`n=2`$ and $`R=0`$ we cannot conclude the Kähler angle is constant. It is easy to find examples of minimal immersions with constant and non-constant equal Kähler angle, for the case of $`M`$ not compact and $`N`$ the Euclidean space. Namely, the most simple family of submanifolds with constant equal Kähler angle of $`lC^{2n}`$ can be given by the vector subspaces defined by a linear map $`F:IR^{2n}lC^{2n}(IR^{2n}\times IR^{2n},J_0)`$, $`F(X)=(X,aJ_\omega X)`$, where $`a`$ is any real number and $`J_\omega `$ is a $`g_0`$-orthogonal complex structure of $`IR^{2n}`$, and where $`g_0`$ is the Euclidean metric and $`J_0(X,Y)=(Y,X)`$. These are totally geodesic submanifolds with constant equal Kähler angle $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{2|a|}{1+a^2}`$, and $`F^{}\omega (X,Y)=\mathrm{cos}\theta F^{}g_0(\pm J_\omega X,Y)`$, with $`F^{}g_0`$ a $`J_\omega `$-hermitian euclidean metric. In (\[D-S\]) we have the following example of non-constant Kähler angle well away from $`0`$. The graph of the anti-$`i`$-holomorphic map $`f:IR^4IR^4`$ given by $`f(x,y,z,w)=(u,v,u,v)`$, where

$$\begin{array}{c}u(x,y,z,w)=\varphi (x+z)\xi ^{}(y+w),\hfill \\ v(x,y,z,w)=\varphi ^{}(x+z)\xi (y+w)\hfill \\ \varphi (t)=\mathrm{sin}t,\xi (t)=\mathrm{sinh}t,\hfill \end{array}$$

defines a minimal complete submanifold of $`lC^4`$ with equal Kähler angles satisfying

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{2\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2(x+z)+\mathrm{sinh}^2(y+w)}}{1+4(\mathrm{cos}^2(x+z)+\mathrm{sinh}^2(y+w))}.$$

This graph has no complex points, for $`0\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{1}{2}`$, and the set of Lagrangian points is a infinite discrete union of disjoint 2-planes,

$$=\underset{\mathrm{}k+\mathrm{}}{}span_{IR}\{(1,0,1,0),(0,1,0,1)\}+(0,0,(\frac{1}{2}+k)\pi ,0).$$

In this paper we present a formula for $`\mathrm{}\kappa `$, but now not assuming minimality of $`F`$, obtaining some extra terms involving the mean curvature $`H`$ of $`F`$. We will see that the above conclusions still hold for $`F`$ not minimal, but under certain weaker condition on the mean curvature of $`F`$. These conclusions show how rigid Kähler-Einstein manifolds are with respect to the Kähler angles and the mean curvature of a submanifold, leading to some non-existence of certain types of submanifolds, depending on the sign of the scalar curvature $`R`$ of $`N`$ and on the dimension $`n`$.

We summarize the main results of this paper:

###### Theorem 1.2

Assume $`n=2`$, and $`M`$ is closed, $`N`$ is non Ricci-flat, and $`F:MN`$ is an immersion with equal Kähler angles, $`\theta _\alpha =\theta \alpha `$. If

$$RF^{}\omega ((JH)^{},\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )0$$
(1.1)
then $`F`$ is either a complex or a Lagrangian submanifold. This is the case when $`F`$ has constant Kähler angle.

###### Corollary 1.1

Let $`n=2`$, $`R<0`$, and $`F:MN`$ be a closed submanifold with parallel mean curvature and equal Kähler angles. If $`H^2\frac{R}{8}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, then $`F`$ is either a complex or a Lagrangian submanifold.

###### Theorem 1.3

Assume $`M`$ is closed, $`n3`$, and $`F:MN`$ is an immersion with equal Kähler angles.
$`(A)`$ If $`R<0`$, and if $`\delta F^{}\omega ((JH)^{})0`$, then $`F`$ is either complex or Lagrangian.
$`(B)`$ If $`R=0`$, and if $`\delta F^{}\omega ((JH)^{})0`$, then the Kähler angle is constant.
$`(C)`$ If $`F`$ has constant Kähler angle and $`R0`$, then $`F`$ is either complex or Lagrangian.

In case $`n=1`$ we obtain:

###### Proposition 1.1

If $`M`$ is a closed surface and $`N`$ is a non Ricci-flat Kähler-Einstein surface, then any immersion $`F:MN`$ either has complex or Lagrangian points. In particular, if $`F`$ has constant Kähler angle, then $`F`$ is either a complex or a Lagrangian submanifold.

This generalizes a result in \[M-U\], for compact surfaces immersed with constant Kähler angle (and so orientable, if not Lagrangian) into $`lCIP^2`$.
For $`M`$ not necessarily compact we have the following proposition:

###### Proposition 1.2

If $`F:MN`$ is an immersion with constant equal Kähler angle $`\theta `$ and with parallel mean curvature, then:
(1) If $`R=0`$, $`F`$ is either Lagrangian or minimal.
(2) If $`R>0`$, $`F`$ is either Lagrangian or complex.
(3) If $`R<0`$, $`F`$ is either Lagrangian, or $`H^2=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{4n}R.`$
(4) If $`H=0`$, then $`R=0`$ or $`F`$ is either Lagrangian or complex.

Note that (4) of the above proposition is an improvement of Theorem 1.3 of \[S-V,2\], for, compactness is not required now. We also observe that from Corollary 1.1, if $`n=2`$ and $`M`$ were closed, that later case of (3) implies as well $`F`$ to be complex or Lagrangian. Compactness of $`M`$ is a much more restrictive condition. In \[K-Z\] it is shown that, if $`n=1`$ and $`N`$ is a complex space form of constant holomorphic sectional curvature $`4\rho `$ and $`M`$ is a surface of non-zero parallel mean curvature and constant Kähler angle, then either $`F`$ is Lagrangian and $`M`$ is flat, or $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =\sqrt{\frac{8}{9}}`$, $`\rho =\frac{3}{4}H^2`$ and $`M`$ has constant Gauss curvature $`K=\frac{H^2}{2}`$. These values of $`\theta `$ and $`\rho `$ ($`R=6\rho `$) are according to our relation in (3) of Proposition 1.2. Chen in \[Che,2\] and \[Che-T,2\] shows explicitly all possible examples of such (non-compact) surfaces of the 2-dimensional complex hyperbolic spaces. In \[K-Z\] it is also shown all examples of surfaces immersed into $`lCIH^2`$ with non-zero parallel mean curvature and non-constant Kähler angle. In case (1), if $`F`$ is not minimal, then $`(JH)^{}`$ defines a global nonzero parallel vector field on $`M`$ (see Proposition 3.6 of section 3).

###### Theorem 1.4

Let $`F`$ be a closed surface immersed with parallel mean curvature into a non Ricci flat Kähler-Einstein surface . If $`F`$ has no complex points and if $`\frac{F^{}\omega }{Vol_M}0`$ (or $`0`$) on all $`M`$, then $`F`$ is Lagrangian. If $`F`$ has no Lagrangian points, then $`F`$ is minimal.

## 2 Some formulas on the Kähler angles

On $`M`$ we take the induced metric $`g_M=F^{}g`$, that we also denote by $`,`$. We denote by $`_{}`$ both Levi-Civita connections of $`M`$ and $`N`$, and by $`_XdF(Y)=_{}dF(X,Y)`$ the second fundamental form of $`F`$, a symmetric tensor on $`M`$ with values on the normal bundle $`NM=(dF(TM))^{}`$ of $`F`$. The mean curvature of $`F`$ is given by $`H=\frac{1}{2n}trace_{}dF`$. At each point $`pM`$, let $`\{X_\alpha ,Y_\alpha \}_{1\alpha n}`$ be a $`g_M`$-orthonormal basis of eigenvectors of $`F^{}\omega `$. On that basis, $`F^{}\omega `$ is a $`2n\times 2n`$ block matrix

$$F^{}\omega =\underset{0\alpha n}{}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{cos}\theta _\alpha \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta _\alpha & 0\end{array}\right],$$

where $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _n0`$, are the corresponding eigenvalues ordered in decreasing way. The angles $`\{\theta _\alpha \}_{1\alpha n}`$ are the Kähler angles of $`F`$ at $`p`$. We identify the two form $`F^{}\omega `$ with the skew-symmetric operator of $`T_pM`$, $`(F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}:T_pMT_pM`$, using the musical isomorphism with respect to $`g_M`$, that is, $`g_M((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}(X),Y)`$ $`=F^{}\omega (X,Y)`$, and we take its polar decomposition, $`(F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}=|(F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}|J_\omega `$, where $`J_\omega :T_pMT_pM`$ is a partial isometry with the same kernel $`𝒦_\omega `$ as of $`F^{}w`$, and where $`|(F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}|=\sqrt{(F^{}\omega )^\mathrm{}2}`$. On $`𝒦_\omega ^{}`$, the orthogonal complement of $`𝒦_\omega `$ in $`T_pM`$, $`J_\omega :𝒦_\omega ^{}𝒦_\omega ^{}`$ defines a $`g_M`$-orthogonal complex structure. On a open set without complex directions, that is $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\alpha <1`$ $`\alpha `$, we consider the locally Lipschitz map

$$\kappa =\underset{1\alpha n}{}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _\alpha }{1\mathrm{cos}\theta _\alpha }\right).$$

For each $`0kn`$, this map is smooth on the largest open set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{2k}^0`$, where $`F^{}\omega `$ has constant rank $`2k`$. On a neighbourhood of a point $`p_0\mathrm{\Omega }_{2k}^0`$, we may take $`\{X_\alpha ,Y_\alpha \}_{1\alpha n}`$ a smooth local $`g_M`$-orthonormal frame of $`M`$, with $`Y_\alpha =J_\omega X_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha k`$, and where $`\{X_\alpha ,Y_\alpha \}_{\alpha k+1}`$ is any $`g_M`$-orthonormal frame of $`𝒦_\omega `$. Moreover, we may assume that this frame diagonalizes $`F^{}\omega `$ at $`p_0`$. Following the computations of the appendix in \[S-V,2\], without requiring now minimality, we see that the components of the mean curvature of $`F`$ appear three times in the formula for $`\mathrm{}\kappa `$. Namely, when we compute $`(5.9)`$ and $`(5.10)`$ of \[S-V,2\], we get respectively, the extra terms $`ig(\frac{n}{2}_\mu H,JdF(\overline{\mu }))`$ and $`ig(\frac{n}{2}_{\overline{\mu }}H,JdF(\mu ))`$, and when we sum $`_\beta R^M(\mu ,\overline{\beta },\beta ,\overline{\mu })R^M(\overline{\mu },\overline{\beta },\beta ,\mu )`$ we obtain the extra term $`ng(H,_\mu dF(\overline{\mu }))`$. Then, we have to add in the final expression for $`_\beta Hess\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \overline{\mu }}(\beta ,\overline{\beta })`$ of Lemma 5.4 of \[S-V,2\] the expression $`_\beta ig(\frac{n}{2}_\mu H,JdF(\overline{\mu }))ig(\frac{n}{2}_{\overline{\mu }}H,JdF(\mu ))+\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu ng(H,_\mu dF(\overline{\mu }))`$. Introducing these extra terms in the term $`_{\beta ,\mu }\frac{32}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mu }Hess\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \overline{\mu }}(\beta ,\overline{\beta })`$ of $`(5.7)`$ of \[S-V,2\], we obtain our more general formula for $`\mathrm{}\kappa `$:

###### Proposition 2.1

For any immersion $`F`$, at a point $`p_0`$ on a open set where $`F^{}\omega `$ has constant rank $`2k`$ and no complex directions, we have

$`\mathrm{}\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`4i{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}Ricci^N(JdF(\beta ),dF(\overline{\beta }))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\beta ,\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{32}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mu }}Im(R^N(dF(\beta ),dF(\mu ),dF(\overline{\beta }),JdF(\overline{\mu })+i\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu dF(\overline{\mu })))`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta ,\mu ,\rho }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{64(\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu +\mathrm{cos}\theta _\rho )}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mu \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\rho }}Re\left(g(_\beta dF(\mu ),JdF(\overline{\rho }))g(_{\overline{\beta }}dF(\rho ),JdF(\overline{\mu }))\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\beta ,\mu ,\rho }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{32(\mathrm{cos}\theta _\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu )}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mu \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\rho }}(|g(_\beta dF(\mu ),JdF(\rho ))|^2+|g(_{\overline{\beta }}dF(\mu ),JdF(\rho ))|^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\beta ,\mu ,\rho }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{32(\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu +\mathrm{cos}\theta _\rho )}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mu }}\left(|_\beta \mu ,\rho |^2+|_{\overline{\beta }}\mu ,\rho |^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{8n}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mu }}\left(ig(_\mu H,JdF(\overline{\mu })\right)ig(_{\overline{\mu }}H,JdF(\mu ))+2\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu g(H,_\mu dF(\overline{\mu })))`$
where $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\alpha \mathrm{"}=Z_\alpha =\frac{X_\alpha iY_\alpha }{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\overline{\alpha }\mathrm{"}=\overline{Z_\alpha }`$.

Projecting $`JH`$ on $`dF(TM)`$, we define a vector field $`(JH)^{}`$ on $`M`$, and we denote by $`((JH)^{})^{\mathrm{}}`$ the corresponding 1-form, $`((JH)^{})^{\mathrm{}}(X)`$ $`=g_M((JH)^{},X)`$ $`=g(JH,dF(X))`$. If $`F`$ is a Lagrangian immersion, the above formula on $`\mathrm{}\kappa `$ leads to a well-known result:

###### Corollary 2.1

(\[W,2\]) If $`F`$ is a Lagrangian immersion, then $`((JH)^{})^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a closed 1-form on $`M`$.

A proof of this corollary will be given in section 3. The formula (2.1) is considerably simplified when $`F`$ is an immersion with equal Kähler angles. Now we recall the Weitzenböck formula for $`F^{}\omega `$, that we used in \[S-V,2\]

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}F^{}\omega ^2=\mathrm{}F^{}\omega ,F^{}\omega +_{}F^{}\omega ^2+SF^{}\omega ,F^{}\omega ,$$
(2.2)
where $`,`$ denotes the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product for 2-forms, and $`S`$ is the Ricci operator of $`^2T^{}M`$, and $`\mathrm{}=d\delta +\delta d`$ is the the Laplacian operator on forms. $`F^{}\omega `$ is a closed 2-form. If it is also co-closed, that is $`\delta F^{}\omega =0`$, then it is harmonic. If $`M`$ is compact,

$$_M\mathrm{}F^{}\omega ,F^{}\omega Vol_M=_M\delta F^{}\omega ^2Vol_M$$
(2.3)
We will use this formula when $`F`$ has equal Kähler angles.

## 3 Immersions with equal Kähler angles

In this section we recall some formulas for immersions with equal Kähler angles. $`F`$ is said to have equal Kähler angles, if all the angles are equal, $`\theta _\alpha =\theta `$ $`\alpha `$. In this case, $`(F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{cos}\theta J_\omega `$, and $`J_\omega `$ is a smooth almost complex structure away from the set of Lagrangian points $`=\{pM:\mathrm{cos}\theta (p)=0\}`$. Let $`^0`$ denote the largest open set of $``$, $`𝒞=\{pM:\mathrm{cos}\theta (p)=1\}`$ the set of complex points, and $`𝒞^0`$ its largest open set. Recall that $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ is smooth on all $`M`$, while $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ is only locally Lipschitz on $`M`$, but smooth on $`^0(M)`$. For immersions with equal Kähler angles, any local frame of the form $`\{X_\alpha ,Y_\alpha =J_\omega X_\alpha \}_{1\alpha n}`$ diagonalizes $`F^{}\omega `$ on the whole set where it is defined. We use the letters $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mu ,\mathrm{}`$ to range on the set $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and the letters $`j,k,\mathrm{}`$ to range on $`\{1,\mathrm{},2n\}`$. As in the previous section, we denote by $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\alpha \mathrm{"}=Z_\alpha =\frac{X_\alpha iY_\alpha }{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\overline{\alpha }\mathrm{"}=\overline{Z_\alpha }=\frac{X_\alpha +iY_\alpha }{2}`$, defining local frames on the complexifyied tangent space of $`M`$.

On tensors and forms we use the Hilbert-Shmidt inner product. We denote by $`\delta `$ the divergence operator on (vector valued) forms, and by $`div_M`$ the divergence operator on vector fields over $`M`$. The $`(1,1)`$-part of $`_{}dF`$ with respect to $`J_\omega `$, is given by $`(_{}dF)^{(1,1)}(X,Y)=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(_{}dF(X,Y)+_{}dF(J_\omega X,J_\omega Y))`$. This tensor is defined away from Lagrangian points, and it vanish on $`𝒞^0`$, for, on that set, $`F`$ is a complex submanifold of $`N`$, and $`J_\omega `$ is the induced complex structure.

###### Proposition 3.1

\[S-V,2\] On $`(M)^0`$,

$`F^{}\omega ^2`$ $`=`$ $`n\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$
$`_{}F^{}\omega ^2`$ $`=`$ $`n\mathrm{cos}\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{}J_\omega ^2`$
$`\delta (F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\delta F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}=(n2)J_\omega (\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$
$`\delta F^{}\omega ^2`$ $`=`$ $`(n2)^2\mathrm{cos}\theta ^2`$
$`\mathrm{cos}\theta \delta J_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`(n1)J_\omega (\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$
and on $`\left(M(𝒞)\right)^0𝒞^0`$,

$$(1n)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =16\mathrm{cos}\theta Re\left(i\underset{\beta ,\mu }{}\left(g(_{\overline{\mu }}dF(\mu ),JdF(\beta ))g(_{\overline{\mu }}dF(\beta ),JdF(\mu ))\right)\overline{\beta }\right).$$

In particular, for $`n2`$, $`J_\omega (\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^2`$, $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{}J_\omega ^2`$, and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \delta J_\omega `$ can be smoothly extended to all $`M`$. Furthermore, for $`n2`$, there is a constant $`C>0`$ such that on $`M`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ^2C\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta (_{}dF)^{(1,1)}^2`$.

The estimate on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ^2`$ given above follows from the expression on $`(1n)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ and the following explanation. From Schwarz inequality, $`|g(_XdF(Y),JdF(Z))|=|g(_XdF(Y),\mathrm{\Phi }(Z))|_XdF(Y)\mathrm{\Phi }(Z)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(Z)=(JdF(Z))^{}`$, and $`()^{}`$ denotes the orthogonal projection onto the normal bundle. But (cf \[S-V,2\]) $`JdF(Z)=\mathrm{\Phi }(Z)+dF((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}(Z))`$. An elementary computation shows that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(Z)^2=g(JdF(Z)dF((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}(Z)),JdF(Z)dF((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}(Z)))=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta Z^2$$

Obviously the formula on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ as well the estimate on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ^2`$, are still valid on all complex and Lagrangian points, since those points are critical points for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, and at complex points $`JdF(TM)TM`$ . Also

###### Corollary 3.1

If $`n=2`$, $`F^{}\omega `$ is an harmonic 2-form. If $`n2`$, $`F^{}\omega `$ is co-closed iff $`\theta `$ is constant. For any $`n2`$, if $`(M,J_\omega ,g_M)`$ is Kähler, then $`\theta `$ is constant and $`F^{}\omega `$ is parallel.

Following chapter $`4`$ of \[S-V,2\] and using the new expression for $`\mathrm{}\kappa `$ of Proposition $`2.1`$, with the extra terms involving the mean curvature $`H`$, and noting that now both $`(4.4)`$ and $`(4.7)+(4.5)`$ of \[S-V,2\] have extra terms involving $`H`$, we obtain:

###### Proposition 3.2

Away from complex and Lagrangian points,

$`\mathrm{}\kappa =`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(2nR+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta ,\mu }{}}R^M(\beta ,\mu ,\overline{\beta },\overline{\mu })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}_{}J_\omega ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8(n1)}{\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }}\mathrm{cos}\theta ^2\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{16n}{\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }}\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}d\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(ig(H,JdF(\beta ))\overline{\beta }ig(H,JdF(\overline{\beta }))\beta \right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8n}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\left(ig(_\mu H,JdF(\overline{\mu }))ig(_{\overline{\mu }}H,JdF(\mu ))\right).`$
Let us denote by $`_{}^{}`$ the usual connection in the normal bundle, and denote by $`(JH)^{}`$ the vector field of $`M`$ given by

$$g_M((JH)^{},X)=g(JH,dF(X))XTM.$$

###### Lemma 3.1

$`X,YT_pM`$,

$$\begin{array}{cccc}(i)\hfill & \hfill g(_XH,JdF(Y))& =& _X(JH)^{},Yg(H,J_XdF(Y))(\text{on}M)\hfill \\ & & =& g(H,_XdF((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}(Y)))+g(_X^{}H,JdF(Y))(\text{on}M)\hfill \\ (ii)\hfill & \hfill (\frac{1}{2}J_\omega ((JH)^{})& =& _\beta ig(H,JdF(\beta ))\overline{\beta }ig(H,JdF(\overline{\beta }))\beta (\text{on }M)\hfill \end{array}$$

$`(iii){\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}2ig(_\mu H,JdF(\overline{\mu }))2ig(_{\overline{\mu }}H,JdF(\mu ))=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}4Im_\mu (JH)^{},\overline{\mu }={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}2id((JH)^{})^{\mathrm{}}(\mu ,\overline{\mu })(\text{on}M)`$
$`=`$ $`2n\mathrm{cos}\theta H^24{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}Im\left(g(_\mu ^{}H,JdF(\overline{\mu }))\right)(\text{on}M)`$
$`=`$ $`div_M(J_\omega ((JH)^{}))+(JH)^{},\delta J_\omega (\text{on }M).`$
(iv) $`div_M((JH)^{})=_\mu 4Re\left(g(_\mu ^{}H,JdF(\overline{\mu }))\right)(\text{on }M)`$.

Proof. Assume that $`_{}Y(p)=0`$. Then we have at the point $`p`$

$`g(_XH,JdF(Y))`$ $`=`$ $`d\left(g(H,JdF(Y))\right)(X)g(H,_X(JdF(Y)))`$
$`=`$ $`d(JH)^{},Y(X)g(H,J_XdF(Y))`$
$`=`$ $`_X(JH)^{},Yg(H,J_XdF(Y)).`$
On the other hand, from $`JdF(Y)=dF((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}(Y))+(JdF(Y))^{}`$, we get the second equality of $`(i)`$. For $`pM`$, since $`J_\omega \beta =i\beta `$, and $`J_\omega \overline{\beta }=i\overline{\beta }`$,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}ig(H,JdF(\beta ))\overline{\beta }ig(H,JdF(\overline{\beta }))\beta =`$
$`\begin{array}{ccc}& =& _\beta g(H,JdF(J_\omega \beta ))\overline{\beta }+g(H,JdF(J_\omega \overline{\beta }))\beta \hfill \\ & =& _\beta g(JH,dF(J_\omega \beta ))\overline{\beta }g(JH,dF(J_\omega \overline{\beta }))\beta \hfill \\ & =& _\beta (JH)^{},J_\omega \beta \overline{\beta }(JH)^{},J_\omega \overline{\beta }\beta \hfill \\ & =& _\beta J_\omega ((JH)^{}),\beta \overline{\beta }+J_\omega ((JH)^{}),\overline{\beta }\beta \hfill \\ & =& \frac{1}{2}J_\omega ((JH)^{}),\hfill \end{array}`$
and $`(ii)`$ is proved. From the first equality of $`(i)`$,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}ig(_\mu H,JdF(\overline{\mu }))ig(_{\overline{\mu }}H,JdF(\mu ))=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}i_\mu (JH)^{},\overline{\mu }+i_{\overline{\mu }}(JH)^{},\mu ={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}2Im\left(_\mu (JH)^{},\overline{\mu }\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}id((JH)^{})^{\mathrm{}}(\mu ,\overline{\mu }).`$
On the other hand, from second equality of $`(i)`$

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}g(_\mu H,JdF(\overline{\mu }))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}g(H,_\mu dF(\mathrm{cos}\theta J_\omega (\overline{\mu })))+g(_\mu ^{}H,JdF(\overline{\mu }))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ni}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta g(H,H)+{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}g(_\mu ^{}H,JdF(\overline{\mu })).`$
Hence

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}ig(_\mu H,JdF(\overline{\mu }))ig(_{\overline{\mu }}H,JdF(\mu ))=`$
$`=`$ $`n\mathrm{cos}\theta H^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}2Im\left(g(_\mu ^{}H,JdF(\overline{\mu }))\right).`$
Similarly, from $`div_M((JH)^{})=_\mu 2_\mu (JH)^{},\overline{\mu }+2_{\overline{\mu }}(JH)^{},\mu `$ and $`(i)`$ we get $`(iv)`$.
Finally, using the symmetry of $`_{}dF`$ and that $`_ZJ_\omega (X),Y=_ZJ_\omega (Y),X`$ (cf. \[S-V,2\])

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}ig(_\mu H,JdF(\overline{\mu }))ig(_{\overline{\mu }}H,JdF(\mu ))=`$
$`\begin{array}{cc}& =_\mu _\mu (JH)^{},J_\omega (\overline{\mu })+_{\overline{\mu }}(JH)^{},J_\omega (\mu )\hfill \\ & =_\mu J_\omega (_\mu (JH)^{}),\overline{\mu }J_\omega (_{\overline{\mu }}(JH)^{}),\mu \hfill \\ & =_\mu _\mu (J_\omega (JH)^{})_\mu J_\omega ((JH)^{}),\overline{\mu }_{\overline{\mu }}(J_\omega (JH)^{})_{\overline{\mu }}J_\omega ((JH)^{}),\mu \hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}div_M(J_\omega (JH)^{})+_\mu _\mu J_\omega ((JH)^{}),\overline{\mu }+_{\overline{\mu }}J_\omega ((JH)^{}),\mu \hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}div_M(J_\omega (JH)^{})+_\mu (JH)^{},_\mu J_\omega (\overline{\mu })(JH)^{},_{\overline{\mu }}J_\omega (\mu )\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}div(J_\omega (JH)^{})+(JH)^{},\frac{1}{2}\delta J_\omega .\text{ }\mathbf{}\hfill \end{array}`$
Using $`div(fX)=fdiv(X)+df(X)`$, with $`f=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }`$, and $`X=J_\omega ((JH)^{})`$, and that $`2\mathrm{cos}\theta d\mathrm{cos}\theta =d\mathrm{cos}^2\theta =d\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, we obtain applying Lemma $`3.1`$ to Proposition 3.2

###### Proposition 3.3

Away from complex and Lagrangian points

$`\mathrm{}\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(2nR+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta ,\mu }{}}R^M(\beta ,\mu ,\overline{\beta },\overline{\mu })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}_{}J_\omega ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8(n1)}{\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }}\mathrm{cos}\theta ^2\right)`$
$`div_M\left(J_\omega \left({\displaystyle \frac{4n(JH)^{}}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}\right)\right)+g_M(\delta J_\omega ,{\displaystyle \frac{4n(JH)^{}}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}).`$
If $`n=1`$ then $`(M,J_\omega ,g)`$ is a Kähler manifold (away from Lagrangian points), and so, $`\delta J_\omega =_{}J_\omega =0`$. Obviously the curvature term on $`M`$ in the expression of $`\mathrm{}\kappa `$ vanishes. Then, $`\mathrm{}\kappa `$ reduces to:

###### Corollary 3.2

If $`n=1`$, away from complex and Lagrangian points

$$\mathrm{}\kappa =2R\mathrm{cos}\theta 4div_M(J_\omega \left(\frac{(JH)^{}}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\right).)$$
(3.3)
Now we compute $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ from $`\mathrm{}\kappa `$ of Proposition 3.3 and applying Proposition 3.1, following step by step the proof of Proposition 4.2 of \[S-V, 2\]. Recall that, if $`F`$ has equal Kähler angles at $`p`$, then, at $`p`$ (cf.\[S-V,2\])

$$SF^{}\omega ,F^{}\omega =16\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \underset{\rho ,\mu }{}R^M(\rho ,\mu ,\overline{\rho },\overline{\mu }),$$

where $`SF^{}\omega `$ is the Ricci operator applied to $`F^{}\omega `$, appearing in the Weitzenböck formula $`(2.2)`$. If $`(M,J_\omega ,g_M)`$ is Kähler in a neighbourhood of $`p`$, then $`SF^{}\omega ,F^{}\omega =0`$ at $`p`$.

###### Proposition 3.4

Away from complex and Lagrangian points:

$`n\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ $`=`$ $`2n\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta R+2SF^{}\omega ,F^{}\omega +2_{}F^{}\omega ^2`$ (3.4)
$`+4(n2)|\mathrm{sin}\theta |^24ndiv_{g_M}\left((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}((JH)^{})\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4n(2+(n4)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,J_\omega ((JH)^{})`$
The last term $`(3.2)`$ can be written, for $`n=2`$ as

$$(3.2)=8F^{}\omega ((JH)^{},\mathrm{log}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )$$
(3.5)
and for $`n3`$,

$$(3.2)=\frac{4n(2+(n4)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (n2)}\delta F^{}\omega ((JH)^{})$$
(3.6)
The expressions in (3.3) and (3.4) come from Proposition $`3.1`$ and the fact that $`(F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{cos}\theta J_\omega `$.
Remark 1. Let $`\omega ^{}=\omega _{|NM}`$ be the restriction of the Kähler form $`\omega `$ to the normal vector bundle $`NM`$, and $`\omega ^{}=|\omega ^{}|J^{}`$ be its polar decomposition, when we identify it with a skew-symmetric operator on the normal bundle, using the musical isomorphism. Let $`\mathrm{cos}\sigma _1\mathrm{cos}\sigma _2\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}\sigma _n0`$ be the eigenvalues of $`\omega ^{}`$. The $`\sigma _\alpha `$ are the Kähler angles of $`NM`$. If $`\{U_\alpha ,V_\alpha \}`$ is an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors of $`\omega ^{}`$ at $`p`$, then $`\omega ^{}=_\beta \mathrm{cos}\sigma _\beta U_{}^\beta V_{}^\beta `$. For each $`p`$, $`CD(F)=_{\alpha :\mathrm{cos}\theta _\alpha =1}span\{X_\alpha ,Y_\alpha \}`$ defines the vector subspace of complex directions, or equivalently, the largest $`J`$-complex vector subspace contained in $`T_pM`$. Similarly we define $`CD(NM)`$, the largest $`J`$-complex subspace of $`NM`$ at $`p`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F^{}\omega & =& \omega _{|CD(F)}+_{\mathrm{cos}\theta _\alpha <1}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\alpha X_{}^\alpha Y_{}^\alpha \hfill \\ \omega ^{}& =& \omega _{|CD(NM)}+_{\mathrm{cos}\sigma _\alpha <1}\mathrm{cos}\sigma _\alpha U_{}^\alpha V_{}^\alpha \hfill \end{array}$$

We define the following morphisms between vector bundles of the same dimension $`2n`$, where $`()^{}`$ and $`()^{}`$ denote the orthogonal projection onto $`TM`$ and $`NM`$ respectively,

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\mathrm{\Phi }:TM& & NM\mathrm{\Xi }:NM& & TM& \\ X& & (JdF(X))^{}U& & (JU)^{}& \end{array}$$

Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)=CD(F)`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^1(0)=CD(NM)`$. Note that $`X,YTM`$ and $`U,VNM`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}(JdF(X))^{}=dF((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}(X))& (JU)^{}=\omega ^{}(U),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }(X)=JdF(X)dF((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}(X))& \mathrm{\Xi }(U)=JU\omega ^{}(U).\hfill \end{array}$$

A simple computation shows that, if $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\alpha 1`$, we may take $`U_\alpha =\mathrm{\Phi }(\frac{Y_\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\theta _\alpha })`$, and $`V_\alpha =\mathrm{\Phi }(\frac{X_\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\theta _\alpha })`$. Moreover, $`CD(NM)=CD(F)^{}NM`$ and $`dimCD(F)=dimCD(NM)`$. Then $`\omega ^{}`$ and $`F^{}\omega `$ have the same eigenvalues, that is $`NM`$ and $`F`$ have the same Kähler angles. We also define $`LD(F)=KerF^{}\omega =𝒦_\omega `$, $`LD(NM)=Ker\omega ^{}`$ the vector subspaces of Lagrangian directions of $`F`$ and $`NM`$ respectively. Then we have $`J(LD(F))=LD(NM)`$. Furthermore, $`J^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }J_\omega `$$`J_\omega \mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Xi }J^{}`$$`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Phi }=Id_{TM}+((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}})^2`$$`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Xi }=Id_{NM}+(\omega ^{})^2`$. Considering the Hilber-Smidt norms, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2=\mathrm{\Xi }^2=2_\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\alpha `$. If $`F`$ has equal Kähler angles, $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta Id_{TM}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta Id_{NM}`$, and

$$g(\mathrm{\Phi }(X),\mathrm{\Phi }(Y))=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta X,Y\mathrm{\Xi }(U),\mathrm{\Xi }(V)=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta g(U,V).$$

If $`F`$ has equal Kähler angles, since $`NM`$ and $`F`$ have the same Kähler angles, we see that, at a point $`pM`$ such that $`H0`$, $`(JH)^{}=0`$ iff $`p`$ is a complex point of $`F`$. We also note that, from lemma 3.1(iv), if $`F`$ has parallel mean curvature $`(JH)^{}`$ is divergence-free, or equivalentely, $`((JH)^{})^{\mathrm{}}`$ is co-closed.

In \[S-V,2\] we have defined non-negative isotropic scalar curvature, as a less restrictive condition than non-negative isotropic sectional curvature of \[Mi-Mo\]. If such curvature condition on $`M`$ holds, then $`_{\rho ,\mu }R^M(\rho ,\mu ,\overline{\rho },\overline{\mu })0`$, where $`\{\rho ,\overline{\rho }\}_{1\rho n}`$ is the complex basis of $`T_p^cM`$ defined by a basis of eigenvectors of $`F^{}\omega `$. Hence, if $`F`$ has equal Kähler angles $`SF^{}\omega ,F^{}\omega 0`$. A simple application of the Weitzenbök formula (2.2) shows in next proposition, that such curvature condition on $`M`$, implies the angle must be constant. No minimality is required.

###### Proposition 3.5

(\[S-V,2\]) Let $`F`$ be a non-Lagrangian immersion with equal Kähler angles of a compact orientable $`M`$ with non-negative isotropic scalar curvature into a Kähler manifold $`N`$. If $`n=2`$, $`3`$ or $`4`$, then $`\theta `$ is constant and $`(M,J_\omega ,g_M)`$ is a Kähler manifold. For any $`n1`$ and $`\theta `$ constant, $`F^{}\omega `$ is parallel, that is, $`(M,J_\omega ,g_M)`$ is a Kähler manifold.

Finally, before we prove Corollary 2.1, we state a more general proposition. Let $`F:MN`$ be an immersion with equal Kähler angles, and let $`M^{}=\{pM:H=0\}`$ be the set of minimal points of $`F`$. On $`M𝒞`$ a 1-form is defined

$$\sigma =\frac{2n}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }((JH)^{})^{\mathrm{}}+\frac{\delta F^{}\omega }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }$$

Following the proof of \[G\], but now neither requiring $`n=2`$ nor $`\delta F^{}\omega =0`$, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma (X)\hfill & =& trace\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }g(_{}dF(,X),JdF())\hfill \\ d\sigma (X,Y)\hfill & =& Ricci^N(JdF(X),dF(Y))=RF^{}\omega (X,Y)\hfill \end{array}$$

We note that this form $`\sigma `$ is well known (see e.g \[Br\], \[Che-M\], \[W,2\]). Now we have:

###### Proposition 3.6

If $`n=2`$, or if $`n2`$ and $`\theta `$ is constant, then $`\sigma =\frac{2n}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }((JH)^{})^{\mathrm{}}`$ and does not vanish on $`M(M^{}𝒞)`$. Moreover, if $`R=0`$, then $`d\sigma =0`$. Thus, if $`\theta `$ is constant $`0`$, $`\sigma H^1(M,IR)`$, and in particular, if $`F`$ has non-zero parallel mean curvature, and $`R=0`$, then $`F`$ is Lagrangian and $`\sigma `$ is a non-zero parallel 1-form on $`M`$.
For any immersion with constant equal Kähler angles, the following equalities hold

$$R\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta =\underset{\beta }{}2d((JH)^{})^{\mathrm{}}(X_\beta ,Y_\beta )=4n\mathrm{cos}\theta H^2\underset{\mu }{}8Im\left(g(_\mu ^{}H,JdF(\overline{\mu }))\right),$$

where $`\{X_\alpha ,Y_\alpha \}`$ is any basis of eigenvalues of $`F^{}\omega `$.

Proof of Proposition 3.6 and Corollary 2.1. We start by proving Corollary 2.1. For a Lagrangian immersion, the formula on $`\mathrm{}\kappa `$ (valid on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^0`$), reduces to

$$0=\mathrm{}\kappa =\underset{\mu ,\beta }{}32Im\left(R^N(dF(\beta ),dF(\mu ),dF(\overline{\beta }),JdF(\overline{\mu }))\right)\underset{\mu }{}16nIm(g(_\mu H,JdF(\overline{\mu })\left)\right).$$

Applying Codazzi equation to the curvature term and noting that $`JdF(TM)`$ is the orthogonal complement of $`dF(TM)`$, and that $`_\beta _\mu _{}dF(\beta ,\overline{\beta })=\frac{n}{2}_\mu ^{}H`$, we get

$$0=\underset{\beta ,\mu }{}Im(g(_\beta _{}dF(\mu ,\overline{\beta }),JdF(\overline{\mu })\left)\right).$$
(3.7)
Note that, since $`F`$ is Lagrangian, we can choose arbitrarily the orthonormal frame $`X_\alpha ,Y_\alpha `$. Then we may assume they have zero covariant derivative at a given point $`p`$. Since $`F`$ is a Lagrangian immersion $`g(_{}dF(\beta ,\overline{\mu }),JdF(\mu ))=g(_{}dF(\overline{\mu },\mu ),JdF(\beta ))`$ (see e.g \[S-V,2\]). Taking the derivative of this equality at the point $`p`$ in the direction $`\overline{\beta }`$ we obtain

$`g(_{\overline{\beta }}_{}dF(\beta ,\overline{\mu }),JdF(\mu ))+g(_{}dF(\beta ,\overline{\mu }),J_{}dF(\overline{\beta },\mu ))=`$
$`g(_{\overline{\beta }}_{}dF(\overline{\mu },\mu ),JdF(\beta ))+g(_{}dF(\overline{\mu },\mu ),J_{}dF(\overline{\beta },\beta )).`$
Taking the summation on $`\mu ,\beta `$ and the imaginary part, we obtain from (3.5)

$$\underset{\beta }{}Im\left(g(_{\overline{\beta }}H,JdF(\beta ))\right)=\underset{\beta }{}Im\left(g(_{\overline{\beta }}^{}H,JdF(\beta ))\right)=0.$$

From Lemma 3.1 we conclude,

$$\frac{1}{2}i\underset{\beta }{}d((JH)^{})^{\mathrm{}}(X_\beta ,Y_\beta )=\underset{\beta }{}d((JH)^{})^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\beta },\beta )=\underset{\beta }{}2iImg_M(_{\overline{\beta }}(JH)^{},\beta )=0.$$

From the arbitrarity of the orthonormal frame, we may interchange $`X_1`$ by $`X_1`$, obtaining $`d((JH)^{})^{\mathrm{}}(X_1,Y_1)=0`$. Hence $`d((JH)^{})^{\mathrm{}}=0`$.
Now we prove Proposition 3.6. The first part is an immediate conclusion from the expressions for $`\sigma `$, $`d\sigma `$, and the fact that, under the above assumptions, $`\delta F^{}\omega =0`$ (see Corollary 3.1), besides the considerations on the zeroes of $`(JH)^{}`$ in the previous remark. The conclusion that $`F`$ is Lagrangian and $`\sigma `$ is parallel, under the assumption of non-zero parallel mean curvature and $`R=0`$, comes from the equalities stated in the proposition, which we prove now, and from Lemma 4.1 of next section . It is obviously true if $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =1`$, that is for complex immersions, and it is true for $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$, as we have seen above. Now, if $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ is constant and different from $`0`$ or $`1`$, from Proposition 3.3,

$`0=\mathrm{}\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(2nR+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta ,\mu }{}}R^M(\beta ,\mu ,\overline{\beta },\overline{\mu })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}_{}J_\omega ^2\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4n}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}div_M\left(J_\omega \left((JH)^{}\right)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4n}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}g(\delta J_\omega ,(JH)^{}).`$
Since $`F^{}\omega `$ is harmonic (see Corollary 3.1), Weitzenböck formula (2.2) with $`\theta `$ constant reduces to

$$16\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \underset{\beta ,\mu }{}R^M(\beta ,\mu ,\overline{\beta },\overline{\mu })=SF^{}\omega ,F^{}\omega =_{}F^{}\omega ^2=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{}J_\omega ^2$$

Thus, from lemma 3.1

$`\frac{1}{2}R\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ $`=`$ $`div_M\left(J_\omega \left((JH)^{}\right)\right)+g_M(\delta J_\omega ,(JH)^{})`$
$`=`$ $`2n\mathrm{cos}\theta H^24{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}Im\left(g(_\mu ^{}H,JdF(\overline{\mu }))\right).\text{ }\mathbf{}`$
## 4 Proofs of the main results

Proof of Proposition 1.1. Assume $`𝒞=\mathrm{}`$. Then the formula in Corollary 3.2 is valid on all $`M`$ with all maps involved smooth everywhere. By applying Stokes we get $`_MR\mathrm{cos}\theta Vol_M=0`$, where $`\mathrm{cos}\theta >0`$, which is impossible if $`R0`$. $`\mathbf{}`$
Proof of Proposition 1.2. Follows immediately from Proposition 3.6.  $`\mathbf{}`$
Proof of Theorem 1.4. In case $`n=1`$, $`F^{}\omega `$ is a multiple of the volume element of $`M`$, that is $`F^{}\omega =\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }Vol_M`$. This $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ is the genuine definition of Kähler angle given by Chern and Wolfson \[Ch-W\]. Our is just $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =|\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }|`$. While $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ is smooth on all $`M`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ may not be $`C^1`$ at Lagrangian points. But we see that the formula $`(3.1)`$ is also valid on $`M𝒞`$ replacing $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ by $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ and the corresponding replacement of $`\kappa `$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ by $`\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ and $`J_\omega `$ by $`J_M`$, the natural $`g_M`$-orthogonal complex structure on $`M`$, defining a Kähler structure. We denote this new formula by $`(3.1)^{}`$. Note that on $`M`$, $`J_\omega =\pm J_M`$, the sign being $`+`$ or $``$ according to the sign of $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$. Hence a change of the sign of $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ will give a change of sign on $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ and on $`J_\omega `$ (w.r.t. $`J_M`$). The formula $`(3.1)^{}`$ is in fact also valid on $`^0`$. To see this we use the following lemma, as an immediate consequence of Lemma $`3.1(i)`$:

###### Lemma 4.1

If $`F:M^{2n}N^{2n}`$ is a submanifold with parallel mean curvature, then $`(JH)^{}`$ is a parallel vector field along $``$, that is $`_{}(JH)^{}(p)=0`$ $`p`$.

Now it follows that $`div_M(J_M((JH)^{}))=0`$ on $``$. Hence, the formula $`(3.1)^{}`$ on $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ is valid on $`^0`$, that is, at interior Lagrangian points. If we assume $`𝒞=\mathrm{}`$, then $`(3.1)^{}`$ is valid over all $`M`$, because now $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$, $`J_M`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ are smooth everywhere and $`^0`$ is a set of Lagrangian points with no interior. Integrating and using Stokes, $`2R_M\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }=0`$. Hence if $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ is non-negative or non-positive everywhere, and if $`R0`$, then $`F`$ is Lagrangian. If $`F`$ has no Lagrangian points, from Lemma 3.1 $`(iii)`$, since $`\delta J_\omega =0`$,

$$div_M\left(J_\omega (JH)^{}\right)=2\mathrm{cos}\theta H^2$$

is valid on $`M`$. Integration leads to $`H=0`$.  $`\mathbf{}`$.
Proof of Theorem 1.2. If $`n=2`$, using (3.3) in the expression of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ in Proposition 3.4, we get an expression that is smooth away from complex points, and valid at interior Lagrangian points, and hence on all $`M𝒞`$. Then, following the same steps in the proofs of \[S-V,2\] chapter 4, combining the formulae for $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ of Proposition 3.4 and the Weitzenbök formula (2.2), and applying Proposition 3.1, we get, away from complex points

$$sin^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta R=2div_M((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}((JH)^{}))+2F^{}\omega ((JH)^{},\mathrm{log}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )$$
(4.1)
Set $`P=sin^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta R+2div_M((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}((JH)^{}))`$. This map is defined and smooth on all $`M`$ and vanishes on $`𝒞^0`$. If $`R>0`$ (resp. $`R<0`$), and under the assumption $`(1.1)`$, we have from (4.1) that $`P0`$ (resp. $`0`$) on $`M𝒞`$. Since the remaining set $`𝒞𝒞^0`$ is a set of empty interior, then $`P0`$ (resp. $`0`$) is valid on all $`M`$. In fact, from Proposition 3.1, $`|F^{}\omega ((JH)^{},\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )|\sqrt{C}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta H(_{}dF)^{(1,1)}`$. Since $`(_{}dF)^{(1,1)}`$ vanishes on $`𝒞^0`$, and so also on $`\overline{𝒞^0}`$, we can smoothly extend to zero $`F^{}\omega ((JH)^{},\mathrm{log}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )`$ on $`\overline{𝒞^0}`$. This we can also get from (4.1). Moreover, such equation tells us we can smoothly extend the last term to all complex points, giving exactly the value $`2div_M((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}((JH)^{}))`$ at those points. Integration of $`P0`$ (respectively $`0`$) and applying Stokes, we have

$$_M\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta RVol_M0\text{ (resp. }0)$$

and conclude that $`F`$ is either complex or Lagrangian.  $`\mathbf{}`$
Proof of Corollary 1.1. Instead of using Stokes on the term $`div_M((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}((JH)^{})))`$, to make it disapear as we did in the proof of theorem 1.2, we develop it into

$`div_M((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}((JH)^{})))`$ $`=`$ $`div_M(\mathrm{cos}\theta J_\omega ((JH)^{})))`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta div_M(J_\omega ((JH)^{})))+d\mathrm{cos}\theta (J_\omega ((JH)^{}))),`$
and use Lemma 3.1 to give, away from complex and Lagrangian points,

$`sin^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta R`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{cos}\theta div_M(J_\omega ((JH)^{}))2J_\omega ((JH)^{}),\mathrm{cos}\theta `$
$`+2F^{}\omega ((JH)^{},\mathrm{log}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )`$
$`=`$ $`8\mathrm{cos}^2\theta H^2+2F^{}\omega ((JH)^{},\mathrm{log}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ).`$
Hence, away from complex and Lagrangian points

$$\mathrm{sin}^4\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta R+8\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta H^2=2F^{}\omega ((JH)^{},\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ).$$

Obviously, this equality also holds at Lagrangian and complex points, for, those points are critical points for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$. The corollary now follows immediately from Theorem 1.2.  $`\mathbf{}`$
Proof of Theorem 1.3. If $`n3`$ we set

$$P=n\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +4ndiv_M((F^{}\omega )^{\mathrm{}}((JH)^{}))+2n\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta R2_{}F^{}\omega ^22SF^{}\omega ,F^{}\omega .$$

This map is defined on all $`M`$ and is smooth. From Proposition (3.4) and using (3.4), on $`M𝒞`$

$$P=\frac{4n(2+(n4)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )}{(n2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\delta F^{}\omega ((JH)^{})+4(n2)|\mathrm{sin}\theta |^2$$

In $`(A)`$ and $`(B)`$, by assumption, $`P0`$ on $`M𝒞`$, because for $`n3`$, $`(2+(n4)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )0`$. But on $`𝒞^0`$, $`P=0`$, for $`(M,J_\omega ,g_M)`$ is a complex submanifold, and so, $`(JH)^{}=0`$ and $`SF^{}\omega ,F^{}\omega =0`$. Thus, $`P0`$ on all $`M`$. Integrating $`P0`$ on $`M`$ we obtain using Stokes, Weitzenböck formula (2.2), and (2.3)

$$_M2nR\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta Vol_M_M2\delta F^{}\omega ^2Vol_M.$$

Thus, if $`R<0`$ we conclude $`F`$ is either complex or Lagrangian, and if $`R=0`$ we conclude that $`\delta F^{}\omega =0`$, which implies, by Corollary 3.1, that $`\theta `$ is constant. This last reasoning proves $`(C)`$ as well. $`\mathbf{}`$
Remark 2. In Theorem 1.3 we can replace the condition $`\delta F^{}\omega ((JH)^{})0`$ by a weaker condition

$$\delta F^{}\omega ((JH)^{})\frac{(n2)^2}{4n(2+(n4)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ^2$$

to achieve the same conclusion. This condition is sufficient to obtain $`P0`$ in the above proof. Then we can obtain for $`n3`$ a corollary similar to Corollary 1.1, by requiring

$$4n^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta H^2+n\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta R(n2)^2\mathrm{cos}\theta ^22n\delta F^{}\omega ((JH)^{}).$$

References
\[Br\] R.L. Bryant, Minimal Lagrangian submanifolds of Kähler-Einstein manifolds , in Differential Geometry and Differential Equations (Shangai, 1985), Lecture Notes is Math. 1255, Springer, Berlin, (1987), 1-12.
\[Che,1\] B-Y. Chen, Geometry of slant submanifolds, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1990
\[Che,2\] B-Y. Chen,Special slant surfaces and a basic inequality, Results Math.33(1998),65-78.
\[Che-M\] B-Y. Chen & J-M. Morvan, Cohomologie des sous-variétés $`\alpha `$-oblique, C.R. Acad. Sci.Ṗaris 314 (1992), 931-934.
\[Che-T,1\] B-Y. Chen & Y. Tazawa, Slant submanifolds in complex Euclidean spaces, Tokyo J. Math. 14 (1991) 101-120.
\[Che-T,2\] B-Y. Chen & Y. Tazawa, Slant submanifolds of complex projective and complex hyperbolic spaces,Glasgow Math. J. 42 (2000) 439-454.
\[Ch-W\] S.S. Chern & J.G. Wolfson, Minimal surfaces by moving frames, Amer. J. Math. 105 (1983), 59-83.
\[D-S\] D.M. Duc & I.M.C. Salavessa, Graphs with equal Kähler angles, in preparation.
\[G\] A. Ghigi, A generalization of Cayley submanifolds, IMRN 15 (2000), 787-800.
\[H-L\] F.R. Harvey & H.B. Lawson Jr, Calibrated geometries, Acta Math. 148 (1982), 47-157.
\[K-Z\] K. Kenmotsu & D. Zhou, The classification of the surfaces with parallel mean curvature vector in two-dimensional complex space forms, Amer. J. Math. 122 (2000), 295–317.
\[Mi-Mo\] M.J. Micallef & J.D. Moore, Minimal two-spheres and the topology of manifolds with positive curvature on totally isotropic two-planes, Annals of Math. 127 (1988), 199-227.
\[M-U\] S. Montiel & F. Urbano, A Willmore functional for compact surfaces of complex projective plane, preprint arXiv:math.DG/0002155
\[S-V,1\] I.M.C. Salavessa & G. Valli, Broadly-Pluriminimal Submanifolds of Kähler-Einstein Manifolds, Yokohama Math. J. 48 (2001), 181-191.
\[S-V,2\] I.M.C. Salavessa & G. Valli, Minimal submanifolds of Kähler-Einstein manifolds with equal Kähler angles, To appear in Pacific J. Math. (a previous version: e-print no. math.DG/0002050).
\[T\] G. Tian, Gauge theory and calibrated geometry, I, Annals of Math.151 (2000), 193-268.
\[W,1\] J.G. Wolfson, Minimal Surfaces in Kähler Surfaces and Ricci Curvature, J. Diff. Geo. 29 (1989), 281–294.
\[W,2\] J.G. Wolfson, Minimal Lagrangian Diffeomorphisms and the Monge-Ampère Equation, J. Diff. Geom. 46 (1997), 335-373.
Centro de Física das Interacções Fundamentais,
Instituto Superior Técnico,
Edifício Ciência,
Piso 3, 1049-001 LISBOA, Portugal;
e-mail: isabel@cartan.ist.utl.pt