text:
# Osserman Conjecture in dimension 𝑛≠{8,16}

## 1 Introduction

An algebraic curvature tensor $`R`$ in a Eucliean space $`^n`$ is a $`(3,1)`$ tensor having the same symmetries as the curvature tensor of a Riemannian manifold. For $`X^n`$, the Jacobi operator $`R_X:^n^n`$ is defined by $`R_XY=R(X,Y)X`$ . The Jacobi operator is symmetric and $`R_XX=0`$ for all $`X^n`$. Throughout the paper, ”eigenvalues of the Jacobi operator” refers to eigenvalues of the restriction of $`R_X`$, with $`X`$ a unit vector, to the subspace $`X^{}`$.

###### Definition 1.

An algebraic curvature tensor $`R`$ is called Osserman if the eigenvalues of the Jacobi operator $`R_X`$ do not depend of the choice of a unit vector $`X^n`$.

###### Definition 2.

A Riemannian manifold $`M^n`$ is called pointwise Osserman if its curvature tensor is Osserman. If, in addition, the eigenvalues of the Jacobi operator are constant on $`M^n`$, the manifold $`M^n`$ is called globally Osserman.

Two-point homogeneous spaces ($`^n,P^n,S^n,H^n,P^n,H^n,P^n,H^n,ayP^2`$, and $`ayH^2`$) are globally Osserman, since the isometry group of each of this spaces is transitive on its unit sphere bundle. Osserman  conjectured that the converse is also true:

Osserman Conjecture. A globally Osserman manifold is two-point homogeneous.

For manifolds of dimension $`n4k,k2`$ the Osserman Conjecture is proved by Chi . Further progress was made in . We refer to  for results on Osserman Conjecture in semi-Riemannian geometry. The characterization of $`p`$-Osserman manifolds (the averaging of the Jacobi operator over any $`p`$-plane has constant eigenvalues) was given by Gilkey in : any $`p`$-Osserman Riemannian manifold with $`2pn2`$ has constant sectional curvature.

Our main result is the following Theorem.

###### Theorem 1.

A globally Osserman manifold of dimension $`n8,16`$ is two-point homogeneous. A pointwise Osserman manifold of dimension $`n2,4,8,16`$ is two-point homogeneous.

Note that in dimension two, any Riemannian manifold is pointwise Osserman, but globally Osserman manifolds are the ones having constant Gauss curvature.

In dimension four, the Osserman Conjecture is proved in . However, there exist pointwise Osserman four-dimensional manifolds that are not two-point homogeneous (see \[9, Corollary 2.7\]).

A (pointwise or globally) Osserman manifold of dimension eight is known to be two-point homogeneous in each of the following cases: (i) the Jacobi operator has an eigenvalue of multiplicity at least $`5`$ \[9, Theorem 7.1\], \[11, Theorem 1.2\]; (ii) the Jacobi operator has no more than two distinct eigenvalues \[12, Theorem 2\].

In dimensions sixteen, we have the following Theorem.

###### Theorem 2.

A (pointwise or globally) Osserman manifold $`M^{16}`$ is two-point homogeneous if the Jacobi operator has no eigenvalues of multiplicity $`7,8`$ and $`9`$.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we consider algebraic curvature tensors with Clifford structure. All of them have the Osserman property, and, in the most cases, the converse is also true. This is the key statement of the paper (Proposition 1). Moreover, in the cases covered by the Theorems, the existence of the Clifford structure on a manifold implies that the manifold is two-point homogeneous (Proposition 2). Further in Section 2, we give the proof of the both Theorems assuming Proposition 1. Section 3 contains the proof of Proposition 1 modulo Propositions 3, 4 which are proved in Sections 4 and 5, respectively.

## 2 Manifolds with Clifford structure. Proof of the Theorems

Osserman algebraic curvature tensors with Clifford structure were introduced by Gilkey , Gilkey, Swann, Vanhecke :

###### Definition 3.

An algebraic curvature tensor $`R`$ in $`^n`$ has a $`\mathrm{Cliff}(\nu )`$-structure if

$$\begin{array}{c}R(X,Y)Z=\lambda _0(X,ZYY,ZX)\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{s=1}{\overset{\nu }{}}\frac{1}{3}(\mu _s\lambda _0)(2J_sX,YJ_sZ+J_sZ,YJ_sXJ_sZ,XJ_sY),\end{array}$$
(1)
where $`J_1,\mathrm{},J_\nu `$ are skew-symmetric orthogonal operators satisfying the Hurwitz relations $`J_sJ_q+J_qJ_s=2\delta _{qs}I_n`$ and $`\mu _s\lambda _0`$.

A Riemannian manifold $`M^n`$ has a $`\mathrm{Cliff}(\nu )`$-structure if its curvature tensor does.

For skew-symmetric operators $`J_1,\mathrm{},J_\nu `$ the Hurwitz relations are equivalent to the fact that $`J_sX,J_qX=\delta _{sq}X^2`$ for all $`X^n`$. Note that some of the $`\mu _s`$’s in (1) can be equal.

The Jacobi operator of the algebraic curvature tensor $`R`$ with the Clifford structure given by (1) has the form

$$R_XY=\lambda _0(X^2YY,XX)+\underset{s=1}{\overset{\nu }{}}(\mu _s\lambda _0)J_sX,YJ_sX,$$
(2)
and the tensor $`R`$ can be reconstructed from (2) using polarization and the first Bianchi identity.

For any unit vector $`X`$, the Jacobi operator $`R_X`$ given by (2) has constant eigenvalues $`\lambda _0,\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p`$, where $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p`$ are the $`\mu _s`$’s without repetitions. The eigenspace corresponding to the eigenvalue $`\lambda _\alpha ,\alpha 0`$ is $`E_{\lambda _\alpha }(X)=\mathrm{Span}_{s:\mu _s=\lambda _\alpha }(J_sX)`$, and the $`\lambda _0`$-eigenspace is $`E_{\lambda _0}(X)=(\mathrm{Span}(X,J_1X,\mathrm{},J_\nu X))^{},`$ provided $`\nu <n1`$. Hence a $`\mathrm{Cliff}(\nu )`$ algebraic curvature tensor (manifold) is Osserman (pointwise Osserman, respectively).

We will show that, at the most cases, the converse is also true. Note however, that there exists at least one Osserman algebraic curvature tensor having no Clifford structure, namely the curvature tensor of the Cayley projective plane and, up to a sign, of its hyperbolic dual (see the Remark at the end of Section 3).

For a unit vector $`X`$, the vectors $`J_1X,\mathrm{},J_\nu X`$ are linearly independent (even orthonormal) and are tangent to the unit sphere $`S^{n1}^n`$ at $`X`$. From the Adams Theorem  it follows that $`\nu \rho (n)1`$, where $`\rho (n)`$ is the Radon number, defined as follows: for $`n=2^{4a+b}c`$ with $`c`$ odd integer and $`0b3,\rho (n)=2^b+8a`$. Moreover, for every $`\nu \rho (n)1`$, there exist the operators $`J_1,\mathrm{},J_\nu `$ with the required properties , and so there exist algebraic curvature tensors in $`^n`$ having a $`\mathrm{Cliff}(\nu )`$-structure.

In  the following approach to the Osserman Conjecture was suggested:

* show that Osserman algebraic curvature tensors have Clifford structure;
* classify Riemannian manifolds having curvature tensor as in (i).

Following this scheme, we derive Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 from two Propositions below. We show that by topological reasons, the Jacobi operator of an Osserman algebraic curvature tensor must always have an eigenvalue of multiplicity $`mn\rho (n)`$. Denote the sum of multiplicities of all the other eigenvalues by $`\nu =n1m\rho (n)1`$ (we use the same notation $`\nu `$ as in Definition 3 aiming to find a $`\mathrm{Cliff}(\nu )`$-structure for $`R`$). Our proof works when the number $`\nu `$ is small enough compared to $`n`$. When $`n8,16`$ this is guaranteed by the fact that $`\rho (n)`$ is small, but for $`n=16`$ we need to impose extra conditions on the spectrum of the Jacobi operator, as in Theorem 2.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`R`$ be an Osserman algebraic curvature tensor in $`^n`$. Let $`m`$ be the maximal multiplicity of the eigenvalues of its Jacobi operator and $`\nu =n1m`$. If

$$n3\nu \text{and}n>\frac{(\nu +1)^2}{4},$$

then $`R`$ has a $`\mathrm{Cliff}(\nu )`$-structure.

###### Proposition 2 (, Theorem 1.2).

A Riemannian manifold $`M^n`$ with a $`\mathrm{Cliff}(\nu )`$-structure is two-point homogeneous, provided that

* $`n2,4,8,16`$, or
* $`n=8,\nu <3`$, or
* $`n=16,\nu 8`$.

###### Proof of Theorem 1 and Theorem 2.

Both Theorems follow from Propositions 1 and 2 directly, if we can show that the number $`\nu `$ defined in Proposition 1 satisfies the inequalities $`n3\nu ,n>\frac{(\nu +1)^2}{4}`$.

These inequalities follow from the fact that $`\nu \rho (n)1`$. Indeed, as the formula for $`\rho (n)`$ shows, for all $`n2,4,8,16,n3(\rho (n)1),n>\frac{\rho (n)^2}{4}`$. For $`n=16`$, we get $`\nu 8`$. The hypothesis of Theorem 2 then implies that $`\nu 5`$, and so $`3\nu 16,\frac{(\nu +1)^2}{4}<16`$.

Hence it remains to show that $`\nu \rho (n)1`$. Let $`M^n`$ be a pointwise Osserman manifold. Locally, in a neighbourhood of a generic point $`xM^n`$, the Jacobi operator has a constant number of eigenvalues, with constant multiplicities. Let the Jacobi operator have $`p+1`$ distinct eigenvalues, with multiplicities $`m_0,m_1,\mathrm{},m_p`$, respectively, $`m_0+m_1+\mathrm{}+m_p=n1`$. Let $`m=m_0`$ be the maximal multiplicity and $`\nu =n1m`$.

For a unit vector $`XT_xM^n`$, the eigenspaces of the Jacobi operator are mutually orthogonal subspaces of $`T_XS^{n1}`$, of dimension $`m_0,m_1,\mathrm{},m_p`$. This gives $`p+1`$ continuous plane fields in the tangent bundle $`TS^{n1}`$ of the unit sphere $`S^{n1}T_xM^n`$.

We follow the arguments of \[15, p. 216\]. Let $`f:S^{n2}\mathrm{SO}(n1)`$ be the clutching map for the tangent bundle $`TS^{n1}`$, and $`[f]\pi _{n2}\mathrm{SO}(n1)`$ its homotopy class. The bundle $`TS^{n1}`$ admits $`p+1`$ continuous orthogonal plane fields of dimension $`m_0,m_1,\mathrm{},m_p`$, iff $`[f]`$ lies in the subgroup $`\pi _{n2}(\mathrm{SO}(m_0)\times \mathrm{SO}(m_1)\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{SO}(m_p))`$ of $`\pi _{n2}\mathrm{SO}(n1)`$ defined by the inclusion map $`i:\mathrm{SO}(m_0)\times \mathrm{SO}(m_1)\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{SO}(m_p)\mathrm{SO}(n1)`$. Similarly, the bundle $`TS^{n1}`$ admits $`\nu =nm_01`$ continuous orthonormal vector fields, iff $`[f]`$ lies in the subgroup $`\pi _{n2}\mathrm{SO}(m_0)`$ of $`\pi _{n2}\mathrm{SO}(n1)`$ defined by the inclusion map $`i^{}:\mathrm{SO}(m_0)\mathrm{SO}(n1)`$.

But the image of $`i_{}`$ lies in the image of $`i_{}^{}`$ since $`\mathrm{SO}(m_0)`$ is the largest of the $`\mathrm{SO}(m_\alpha )`$, and so every $`\mathrm{SO}(m_\alpha )`$ can be homotoped in $`\mathrm{SO}(n1)`$ to lie inside $`\mathrm{SO}(m_0)`$.

Hence there exist $`\nu `$ vector fields on $`S^{n1}`$, and the Adams Theorem  gives $`\nu \rho (n)1`$. ∎

The remaining part of the paper is devoted to the proof of Proposition 1.

## 3 Proof of Proposition 1

Let $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ be an Osserman algebraic curvature tensor in $`^n`$ such that the corresponding Jacobi operator has $`p+1`$ distinct eigenvalues $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_0,\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_p`$ with multiplicities $`m_0,m_1,\mathrm{},m_p`$, respectively, $`m_0+m_1+\mathrm{}+m_p=n1`$. Let $`m_0`$ be the maximal multiplicity and $`\nu =n1m_0`$, the sum of all the other multiplicities.

Consider an algebraic curvature tensor $`R=\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_0R^1`$, where $`R^1`$ is the curvature tensor of the unit sphere. Then $`R`$ is still Osserman, with the Jacobi operator having eigenvalues $`\lambda _\alpha =\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_0`$ with multiplicities $`m_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},p`$, respectively, and the eigenvalue $`0`$ with multiplicity $`m_0`$. To prove Proposition 1 it is sufficient to show that $`R`$ has a $`\mathrm{Cliff}(\nu )`$-structure.

Let $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _\nu `$ be the $`\lambda _\alpha `$’s counting the multiplicities, that is, $`\mu _1=\mathrm{}=\mu _{m_1}=\lambda _1,\mu _{m_1+1}=\mathrm{}=\mu _{m_1+m_2}=\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\mu _{\nu m_p+1}=\mathrm{}=\mu _\nu =\lambda _p`$. In a Euclidean space $`^\nu `$, choose an orthonormal basis $`e_1,\mathrm{}e_\nu `$ and define the operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:^\nu ^\nu `$ by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }e_s=\mu _se_s,s=1,\mathrm{},\nu `$. The matrix of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is then $`\mathrm{diag}\{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _\nu \}`$.

Proposition 1 follows from the two Propositions below.

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`R`$ be an Osserman algebraic curvature tensor in $`^n`$. Let $`0`$ be the eigenvalue of its Jacobi operator with the maximal multiplicity $`m`$, and $`\nu =n1m`$.

Assume that $`n3\nu `$. Then there exists a linear map $`M:^n\mathrm{Hom}(^\nu ,^n),XM_X`$ such that the Jacobi operator admits the following linear decomposition:

$$R_X=M_X\mathrm{\Lambda }M_X^t.$$
(3)
The map $`XM_X`$ is determined uniquely up to a precomposition $`XM_XN`$ with an element $`N`$ from the group $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{N:N\mathrm{\Lambda }N^t=\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$.

###### Proposition 4.

Let $`R`$ be an Osserman algebraic curvature tensor in $`^n`$ with the Jacobi operator having the form (3). Assume that $`n>\frac{(\nu +1)^2}{4}`$. Then $`R`$ has a $`\mathrm{Cliff}(\nu )`$-structure.

Proposition 3 is proved in Section 4. Using the Osserman property we successively show that for $`k=1,2,3,n`$ the following holds: for almost any set of $`k`$ orthonormal vectors $`E_1,\mathrm{},E_k`$ in $`^n`$, there exist linear operators $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_k:^\nu ^n`$ such that $`R_{x_1E_1+\mathrm{}+x_kE_k}=(x_1M_1+\mathrm{}+x_kM_k)\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_1M_1+\mathrm{}+x_kM_k)^t`$ for all $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k`$. Then for a vector $`X=x_1E_1+\mathrm{}+x_nE_n`$ we define $`M_X=x_1M_1+\mathrm{}+x_nM_n`$.

Proposition 4 is proved in Section 5. We show that, with an appropriate choice of the basis $`e_1,\mathrm{}e_\nu `$ in $`^\nu `$, the operators $`J_s`$ in $`^n`$ defined by $`J_sX=M_Xe_s`$ give the Clifford structure for $`R`$.

###### Remark.

The claim of Proposition 1 fails to be true at least in the case when $`n=16,\nu =7`$, since the curvature tensor of the Cayley projective plane $`ayP^2`$ (and of its hyperbolic dual $`ayH^2`$) has no Clifford structure.

This follows from the fact that, unlike the holonomy groups of $`P^n`$ and $`P^n`$, the holonomy group $`\mathrm{Spin}(9)`$ of the Cayley projective plane has no proper normal subgroups . The nonexistence of the Clifford structure is also confirmed by the following octonionic computation based on the formula for the curvature tensor of $`ayP^2`$ \[4, Theorem 6.1\].

Identify a tangent space to $`ayP^2`$ with $`ayay`$. Then for orthogonal vectors $`X=(a,b),Y=(c,d)`$ the Jacobi operator has the form

$$R_XY=\frac{\alpha }{4}((4a^2+b^2)c+3(ab)d^{},(4b^2+a^2)d+3c^{}(ab)),$$

where  is the octonion conjugation and $`a^2=aa^{},a,b=\frac{1}{2}(ab^{}+ba^{})`$.

It follows that for any unit vector $`X`$ the Jacobi operator $`R_X`$ has two eigenvalues: $`\alpha `$, of multiplicity $`7`$, with the eigenspace

$$E_\alpha (X)=\{(c,d):ad=cb,a,c=b,d=0\},$$

and $`\frac{\alpha }{4}`$, of multiplicity $`8`$, with the eigenspace

$$E_{\frac{\alpha }{4}}(X)=\{(c,d):a(b^2db,db)=(a^2ca,ca)b\}.$$

As it follows from (2), the existence of a Clifford structure would imply the existence of seven (respectively, eight) linear operators $`J_i`$ such that $`E_\alpha (X)=\mathrm{Span}(J_1X,\mathrm{},J_7X)`$ (respectively, $`E_{\frac{\alpha }{4}}(X)=\mathrm{Span}(J_1X,\mathrm{},J_8X)`$).

However, it is not difficult to see that there is no nonzero $``$-linear operator $`J:ayayayay`$ such that for all $`X,JXE_\alpha (X)`$. With some calculation, one can show that the same is true for $`E_{\frac{\alpha }{4}}(X)`$, as well.

Thus the curvature tensor of $`ayP^2`$ admits neither $`\mathrm{Cliff}(7)`$-, nor $`\mathrm{Cliff}(8)`$\- structure, hence no Clifford structure at all.

## 4 Proof of Proposition 3

The proof goes by the following plan. First, in Lemma 1, we show that for any vector $`X`$, there exists an operator $`M_X`$ satisfying (3). Next, in Lemma 3, we prove that for almost any two vectors $`X,Y`$, the operators $`M_X`$ and $`M_Y`$ can be chosen accordingly, that is, in such a way that $`R_{xX+yY}=(M_Xx+M_Yy)\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_Xx+M_Yy)^t`$ for all real $`x,y`$. In Lemma 4 we extend this result to the case of three vectors. Then we show that the existence of the linear decomposition of the form (3) for almost any three vectors already implies the existence of the global decomposition.

Let $`R`$ be an Osserman algebraic curvature tensor in $`^n`$, with the Jacobi operator having $`p`$ distinct nonzero eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _p`$ of multiplicities $`m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_p`$, respectively, and the eigenvalue $`0`$ of multiplicity $`n1\nu `$.

For a nonzero vector $`X`$, the subspaces $`\mathrm{Ker}R_X`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}R_X`$ are orthogonal and have dimension $`n\nu `$ and $`\nu `$, respectively. By the Rakic̀ duality principle , for two orthonormal vectors $`X,Y`$, the following holds: $`Y`$ is an eigenvector of $`R_X`$, if and only if $`X`$ is an eigenvector of $`R_Y`$ (with the same eigenvalue). For the eigenvalue $`0`$, we get

$$Y\mathrm{Ker}R_X\text{iff}X\mathrm{Ker}R_Y.$$
(4)
We will use a slight modification of the duality principle, noting that for the eigenvalue $`0`$ the assumption of orthonormality of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ can be dropped. Indeed, let $`\psi 0,\frac{\pi }{2},\pi `$ be the angle between unit vectors $`X,Y`$, and let $`Z`$ be a unit vector in $`\mathrm{Span}(X,Y)`$ orthogonal to $`X`$ and such that $`Y=\mathrm{cos}\psi X+\mathrm{sin}\psi Z`$. Assume that $`Y\mathrm{Ker}R_X`$. Since $`X\mathrm{Ker}R_X`$, we have $`Z\mathrm{Ker}R_X`$, and so $`X\mathrm{Ker}R_Z`$. Then $`R_YX=R_{\mathrm{cos}\psi X+\mathrm{sin}\psi Z}X=\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\psi R(Z,X)X+\mathrm{sin}^2\psi R_ZX=0`$, that is, $`X\mathrm{Ker}R_Y`$.

We first show that the decomposition claimed in the Proposition exists for every single operator $`R_X`$.

###### Lemma 1.

For any unit vector $`X`$, there exists a linear operator $`M_X:^\nu ^n`$ such that

$$R_X=M_X\mathrm{\Lambda }M_X^t.$$

The operator $`M_X`$ is determined uniquely up to a precomposition with an element $`N\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{N:N\mathrm{\Lambda }N^t=\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{Im}R_X=\mathrm{Im}M_X`$ and $`M_X^tM_X=N^tN`$ for some $`N\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`E_1,\mathrm{},E_\nu `$ be an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors of $`R_X`$ with nonzero eigenvalues. For a vector $`y=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_\nu )^\nu `$ define $`M_Xy=y_1E_1+\mathrm{}+y_\nu E_\nu `$. The symmetric operators $`R_X`$ and $`M_X\mathrm{\Lambda }M_X^t`$ acting in $`^n`$ have the same eigenvectors and the same eigenvalues, hence $`R_X=M_X\mathrm{\Lambda }M_X^t`$. Moreover, $`M_X^tM_X=I_\nu `$, since for any $`y,z^\nu `$ we have $`M_Xy,M_Xz=y,z`$.

If $`\stackrel{~}{M}_X:^\nu ^n`$ is another operator such that $`R_X=\stackrel{~}{M}_X\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{M}_X^t`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{M}_X\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{M}_X^t=M_X\mathrm{\Lambda }M_X^t`$, and so $`\stackrel{~}{M}_X=M_X\mathrm{\Lambda }M_X^t\stackrel{~}{M}_X(\stackrel{~}{M}_X^t\stackrel{~}{M}_X)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ (the operator $`\stackrel{~}{M}_X^t\stackrel{~}{M}_X`$ is nonsingular since $`\mathrm{rk}\stackrel{~}{M}_X=\mathrm{rk}R_X=\nu `$). Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{M}_X=M_XN`$, for some operator $`N`$ in $`^\nu `$ and $`M_X(\mathrm{\Lambda }N\mathrm{\Lambda }N^t)M_X^t=0`$. Since $`\mathrm{rk}M_X=\nu ,N\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. ∎

Next we need the following generic position Lemma. Denote $`V_k(^n)`$ the Stiefel manifold of $`k`$-tuples of orthonormal vectors in $`^n`$.

###### Lemma 2.

1. Let $`n2\nu `$. Then the set $`S_2=\{(X,Y)V_2(^n):\mathrm{Im}R_X\mathrm{Im}R_Y=0\}`$ is open and dense in $`V_2(^n)`$.

2. Let $`n3\nu `$. Then the set $`S_3=\{(X,Y,Z)V_3(^n):dim(\mathrm{Im}R_X+\mathrm{Im}R_Y+\mathrm{Im}R_Z)=3\nu \}`$ is open and dense in $`V_3(^n)`$.

3. If $`(X,Y,Z)S_3`$, then for any unit vector $`U\mathrm{Span}(Y,Z)`$ the pair $`(X,U)`$ is in $`S_2`$.

###### Proof.

The proof of 1. and 2. is quite similar and is based on the dimension count. Both $`S_2`$ and $`S_3`$ are open. We claim that they are also dense.

1. Let $`X`$ be a unit vector in $`^n`$, and $`S^{n2}`$ be the unit sphere in the subspace $`X^{}`$. We want to show that for an open dense set of vectors $`YS^{n2},dim(\mathrm{Ker}R_X\mathrm{Ker}R_Y)=n2\nu `$.

Let $`S`$ be the unit sphere in the subspace $`\mathrm{Ker}R_X,dimS=n\nu 1`$, and let $`E`$ be a vector bundle with the base $`S`$ and the fiber $`F_Z=\mathrm{Ker}R_ZX^{}`$ over a point $`ZS`$ ($`dimF_Z=n\nu 1`$ since $`X\mathrm{Ker}R_Z`$ by the duality principle (4)). Then $`SE`$, the corresponding unit sphere bundle, is a compact analytic manifold of dimension $`2n2\nu 3`$.

Define the projection map $`\pi :SES^{n2}`$ by $`\pi (Z,Y)=Y`$. By the duality principle, for any $`YS^{n2},\pi ^1(Y)=\{(Z,Y)SE:Z\mathrm{Ker}R_Y\}`$. The map $`\pi `$ is differentiable (even analytic) since the subspace $`\mathrm{Ker}R_Z`$ viewed as a point of the corresponding Grassmannian depends analytically on $`Z`$.

Now if $`n=2\nu `$, then $`2n2\nu 3<n2`$, and so for every $`Y`$ from the open dense subset $`S^{n2}\pi (SE)`$ of $`S^{n2},\mathrm{Ker}R_Y\mathrm{Ker}R_X=0`$.

If $`n>2\nu `$, then $`\mathrm{Ker}R_Y\mathrm{Ker}R_X0`$ for any $`Y`$, hence the map $`\pi `$ is surjective. By the Sard Theorem, for an open dense set of the $`Y`$’s in $`S^{n2},d\pi `$ has the maximal rank $`n2`$ at all the points of $`\pi ^1(Y)`$. For such points $`\pi ^1(Y)=(S_Y^{n2\nu 1},Y)`$, where $`S_Y^{n2\nu 1}`$ is the unit sphere in $`\mathrm{Ker}R_X\mathrm{Ker}R_Y`$. So $`dim(\mathrm{Ker}R_X\mathrm{Ker}R_Y)=n2\nu `$.

2. Let $`(X,Y)S_2`$, and let $`S^{n3}`$ be the unit sphere in the subspace $`X^{}Y^{}`$. We show that for an open dense set of vectors $`ZS^{n3},dim(\mathrm{Ker}R_X\mathrm{Ker}R_Y\mathrm{Ker}R_Z)=n3\nu `$.

Let $`S`$ be the unit sphere in the subspace $`\mathrm{Ker}R_X\mathrm{Ker}R_Y,dimS=n2\nu 1`$, and let $`E`$ be a vector bundle with the base $`S`$ and the fiber $`F_U=\mathrm{Ker}R_U(X^{}Y^{})`$ over a point $`US`$ ($`dimF_U=n\nu 2`$ since $`X,Y\mathrm{Ker}R_U`$). Then $`SE`$, the corresponding unit sphere bundle, is a compact analytic manifold of dimension $`2n3\nu 4`$.

The projection map $`\pi :SES^{n3}`$ defined by $`\pi (U,Z)=Z`$ is also analytic. By the duality principle, for any $`ZS^{n3},\pi ^1(Z)=\{(U,Z)SE:U\mathrm{Ker}R_Z\}`$.

If $`n=3\nu `$, then the image of $`\pi `$ does not cover $`S^{n3}`$, and we can take any $`Z`$ from its complement.

Otherwise, $`\pi `$ is surjective. Applying the Sard Theorem, we find an open dense set of points $`ZS^{n3}`$, such that $`\pi ^1(Z)=(S_Z^{n3\nu 1},Z)`$, where $`S_Z^{n3\nu 1}`$ is the unit sphere in $`\mathrm{Ker}R_X\mathrm{Ker}R_Y\mathrm{Ker}R_Z`$. So $`dim(\mathrm{Ker}R_X\mathrm{Ker}R_Y\mathrm{Ker}R_Z)=n3\nu `$.

3. By the duality principle (4), $`\mathrm{Ker}R_U(\mathrm{Ker}R_Y\mathrm{Ker}R_Z)`$, and so $`\mathrm{Im}R_U(\mathrm{Im}R_Y+\mathrm{Im}R_Z)`$. Then $`\mathrm{Im}R_U\mathrm{Im}R_X(\mathrm{Im}R_Y+\mathrm{Im}R_Z)\mathrm{Im}R_X=0`$, since $`(X,Y,Z)S_3`$. ∎

We now show that the operator $`R_X`$ admits the linear decomposition (3) on almost every two-plane in $`^n`$. Define the symmetric operator $`R_{XY}`$ by $`R_{XY}Z=\frac{1}{2}(R(X,Z)Y+R(Y,Z)X)`$.

###### Lemma 3.

Suppose that $`n2\nu `$. Then for any pair of orthonormal vectors $`(X,Y)S_2`$, there exist linear operators $`M_1,M_2:^\nu ^n`$ such that for all $`x,y`$,

$$R_{xX+yY}=(M_1x+M_2y)\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_1x+M_2y)^t.$$

Moreover, the operators $`M_1,M_2`$ are determined uniquely up to a precomposition $`M_1N,M_2N`$ with an element $`N\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The uniqueness part can be rephrased as follows: once $`M_1`$ with the property $`M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t=R_X`$ is chosen, then there exists a unique $`M_2`$ such that the pair $`M_1,M_2`$ satisfies the equation of Lemma 3.

###### Proof.

We have $`R_{xX+yY}=R_Xx^2+Cxy+R_Yy^2`$, with a symmetric operator $`C=2R_{XY}`$. The claim is equivalent to the fact that

$$R_X=M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t,R_Y=M_2\mathrm{\Lambda }M_2^t,C=M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }M_2^t+M_2\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t.$$

By Lemma 1 we can find two operators, $`M_1,M_2:^\nu ^n`$, such that $`R_X=M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t,R_Y=M_2\mathrm{\Lambda }M_2^t`$, and so our goal is to show that they can be chosen in such a way that $`C=M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }M_2^t+M_2\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t`$.

By the Osserman property, the operator $`R_{\mathrm{cos}\varphi X+\mathrm{sin}\varphi Y}`$ is isospectral, for all $`\varphi `$. Its eigenspaces (viewed as the curves in the corresponding Grassmannians) are analytic with respect to $`\varphi `$. Locally, in a neighbourhood of the point $`\varphi =0`$, there exists an analytic orthogonal transformation $`U(\varphi )`$ such that $`U(0)=I_n`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{cos}\varphi X+\mathrm{sin}\varphi Y}=U(\varphi )R_XU(\varphi )^t`$. Let $`U(\varphi )=I_n+K\varphi +(\frac{1}{2}K^2+K_1)\varphi ^2+o(\varphi ^3)`$ be the Taylor expansion at $`\varphi =0`$, with $`K`$ and $`K_1`$ skew-symmetric operators.

Then we have

$$C=[K,R_X],R_Y=R_X+\frac{1}{2}[K,C]+[K_1,R_X],$$
(5)
and so $`C=\stackrel{~}{M}_2\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t+M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{M}_2^t`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{M}_2=KM_1`$.

Similar arguments applied at the point $`\varphi =\pi /2`$ show that $`C=\stackrel{~}{M}_1\mathrm{\Lambda }M_2^t+M_2\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{M}_1^t`$ for some operator $`\stackrel{~}{M}_1:^\nu ^n`$. Equating the expressions for $`C`$ we get

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_1\mathrm{\Lambda }M_2^t+M_2\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{M}_1^t=\stackrel{~}{M}_2\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t+M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{M}_2^t.$$
(6)
Let $`Z\mathrm{Ker}R_X\mathrm{Ker}R_Y`$. Then $`M_1^tZ=M_2^tZ=0`$. Acting on the vector $`Z`$ by the both sides of (6) we get $`M_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{M}_2^tZ)=M_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{M}_1^tZ)`$. The pair $`(X,Y)`$ was chosen in $`S_2`$, so the subspaces $`\mathrm{Im}M_1=\mathrm{Im}R_X`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}M_2=\mathrm{Im}R_Y`$ have zero intersection in $`^n`$. It follows that $`\stackrel{~}{M}_2^tZ=\stackrel{~}{M}_1^tZ=0`$. Hence $`\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{M}_1,\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{M}_2\mathrm{Im}M_1\mathrm{Im}M_2`$. In other words, there exist linear operators $`S_1,S_2,S_3,S_4:^\nu ^\nu `$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_1=M_1S_1+M_2S_3,\stackrel{~}{M}_2=M_1S_2+M_2S_4.$$

Substituting this back to (6) we get

$$\begin{array}{c}M_2(S_3\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Lambda }S_3^t)M_2^t+M_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }S_1^tS_4\mathrm{\Lambda })M_1^t\hfill \\ \hfill M_1(S_2\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Lambda }S_2^t)M_1^t+M_1(S_1\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }S_4^t)M_2^t=0.\end{array}$$

Using again the fact that $`\mathrm{Im}M_1\mathrm{Im}M_2=0`$ we find that $`S_2\mathrm{\Lambda },S_3\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are skew-symmetric operators in $`^\nu `$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }S_1^t=S_4\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Then

$$C=M_2S_4\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t+M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }S_4^tM_2^t.$$

Take a vector $`Z`$ in $`\mathrm{Ker}R_X`$. Then $`M_1^tZ=0`$, and $`M_1^tKZ=(S_2^tM_1^t+S_4^tM_2^t)Z=S_4^tM_2^tZ`$ since $`\stackrel{~}{M}_2=KM_1=M_1S_2+M_2S_4`$. Acting on $`Z`$ by the both sides of the second equation of (5), and then taking the inner product with $`Z`$, we obtain $`R_YZ,Z=\frac{1}{2}[K,C]Z,Z=CKZ,Z`$ since $`R_XZ=0`$. Substituting $`R_Y=M_2\mathrm{\Lambda }M_2^t,C=M_2S_4\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t+M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }S_4^tM_2^t`$ we find

$$\begin{array}{c}M_2\mathrm{\Lambda }M_2^tZ,Z=(M_2S_4\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t+M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }S_4^tM_2^t)KZ,Z\hfill \\ \hfill =M_2S_4\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^tKZ,Z\mathrm{\Lambda }S_4^tM_2^tKZ,M_1^tZ=M_2S_4\mathrm{\Lambda }S_4^tM_2^tZ,Z,\end{array}$$

and so $`(S_4\mathrm{\Lambda }S_4^t\mathrm{\Lambda })(M_2^tZ),(M_2^tZ)=M_2(S_4\mathrm{\Lambda }S_4^t\mathrm{\Lambda })M_2^tZ,Z=0`$ for all $`Z\mathrm{Ker}R_X`$.

The restriction of the operator $`M_2^t`$ to $`\mathrm{Ker}R_X`$ is epimorphic (otherwise the images of $`R_X`$ and $`R_Y`$ would have a nonzero intersection), so $`M_2^t(\mathrm{Ker}R_X)=^\nu `$. Hence the symmetric operator $`S_4\mathrm{\Lambda }S_4^t\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ vanishes. It follows that $`S_4\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Now replace $`M_2`$ by $`\widehat{M}_2=M_2S_4`$. Then $`\widehat{M}_2\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{M}_2^t`$ is still $`R_Y`$, and $`C=M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{M}_2^t+\widehat{M}_2\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t`$. So $`M_1,\widehat{M}_2`$ is the sought pair of operators.

To finish the proof it remains to show the uniqueness. Suppose that for operators $`M_1,M_2,M_3,M_4:^\nu ^n`$,

$$R_{xX+yY}=(M_1x+M_2y)\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_1x+M_2y)^t=(M_3x+M_4y)\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_3x+M_4y)^t.$$

By Lemma 1, there exist $`N_1,N_2\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`M_3=M_1N_1,M_4=M_2N_2`$. Equating the terms with $`xy`$ we then obtain

$$M_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }N_1\mathrm{\Lambda }N_2^t)M_2^t+M_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }N_2\mathrm{\Lambda }N_1^t)M_1^t=0.$$

Since $`\mathrm{Im}M_1\mathrm{Im}M_2=0`$, it follows that $`N_1\mathrm{\Lambda }N_2^t=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, hence $`N_1=N_2`$. ∎

The next step is to show that $`R_X`$ admits the linear decomposition (3) on almost every three-space in $`^n`$.

###### Lemma 4.

Suppose that $`n3\nu `$. Then for any triple of orthonormal vectors $`(X,Y,Z)S_3`$, there exist linear operators $`M_1,M_2,M_3:^\nu ^n`$ such that for all $`x,y,z`$,

$$R_{xX+yY+zZ}=(M_1x+M_2y+M_3z)\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_1x+M_2y+M_3z)^t.$$

###### Proof.

Since the triple $`(X,Y,Z)`$ is in $`S_3`$, every pair $`(X,\mathrm{cos}\varphi Y+\mathrm{sin}\varphi Z)`$ must be in $`S_2`$ by 3. of Lemma 2. Then for any $`\varphi `$, we can find the operators $`M_1,M_2(\varphi )`$ such that

$$R_{xX+y(\mathrm{cos}\varphi Y+\mathrm{sin}\varphi Z)}=(M_1x+M_2(\varphi )y)\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_1x+M_2(\varphi )y)^t,$$
(7)
(the fact that $`M_1`$ can be chosen independent of $`\varphi `$ follows from Lemma 1).

Denote $`M_2=M_2(0),M_3=M_2(\pi /2)`$. Then

$$R_X=M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t,R_Y=M_2\mathrm{\Lambda }M_2^t,R_Z=M_3\mathrm{\Lambda }M_3^t.$$

Let $`P(\varphi )=M_2(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}\varphi M_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi M_3`$. We want to show that $`P(\varphi )=0`$.

The terms with $`xy`$ of (7) give $`M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }P(\varphi )^t+P(\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t=0`$, and so $`P(\varphi )=M_1S(\varphi )`$, with $`S(\varphi )=\mathrm{\Lambda }P(\varphi )^tM_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^tM_1)^1`$ linear operator in $`^\nu `$. Substituting $`P(\varphi )=M_1S(\varphi )`$ in the terms of (7) with $`y^2`$, and dividing by $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}M_1(S(\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }M_2(\varphi )^t(\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\varphi )^1)+M_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }P(\varphi )^t/\mathrm{sin}\varphi )\hfill \\ \hfill +M_3(\mathrm{\Lambda }P(\varphi )^t/\mathrm{cos}\varphi )=2R_{YZ}M_2\mathrm{\Lambda }M_3^tM_3\mathrm{\Lambda }M_2^t.\end{array}$$

The fact that $`(X,Y,Z)S_3`$ means that the images $`\mathrm{Im}M_1=\mathrm{Im}R_X,\mathrm{Im}M_2=\mathrm{Im}R_Y`$, and $`\mathrm{Im}M_3=\mathrm{Im}R_Z`$ span a subspace of dimension $`3\nu `$ in $`^n`$. It follows that the operator $`M_1M_2M_3:^\nu ^n`$ is one-to-one and so operators $`S(\varphi )\mathrm{\Lambda }M_2(\varphi )^t/(\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\varphi ),\mathrm{\Lambda }P(\varphi )^t/\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }P(\varphi )^t/\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ are independent of $`\varphi `$. In particular, both $`P(\varphi )/\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ and $`P(\varphi )/\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ must be constant. This is only possible when $`P(\varphi )`$ vanishes identically.

Then $`M_2(\varphi )=\mathrm{cos}\varphi M_2+\mathrm{sin}\varphi M_3`$ and the claim follows from (7). ∎

With Lemma 4, we can finish the proof of the Proposition as follows.

Choose an orthonormal basis $`E_1,\mathrm{},E_n`$ in $`^n`$ in such a way that every triple $`(E_i,E_j,E_k)`$ is in $`S_3`$ and every pair $`(E_i,E_j)`$ is in $`S_2`$. The set of such bases is open and dense in the Stiefel manifold $`V_n(^n)=\mathrm{O}(n)`$.

For every $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$, let $`M_1,M_i`$ be the operators constructed as in Lemma 3 on the vectors $`E_1,E_i`$ (by Lemma 1 we can take $`M_1`$ the same for all the $`i`$’s). Then for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$

$$M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t=R_1,M_i\mathrm{\Lambda }M_i^t=R_i,M_1\mathrm{\Lambda }M_i^t+M_i\mathrm{\Lambda }M_1^t=2R_{1i},$$

where $`R_k=R_{E_k},R_{kl}=R_{E_kE_l}`$.

By Lemma 4, for any pair $`ij,i,j2`$ there exist operators $`\stackrel{~}{M}_i,\stackrel{~}{M}_j`$ satisfying

$$R_{xE_1+yE_i+zE_j}=(M_1x+\stackrel{~}{M}_iy+\stackrel{~}{M}_jz)\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_1x+\stackrel{~}{M}_iy+\stackrel{~}{M}_jz)^t.$$
(8)
In particular, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_i\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{M}_j^t+\stackrel{~}{M}_j\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{M}_i^t=2R_{ij}`$. On the other hand, taking $`z=0`$ in (8) and applying the uniqueness part of Lemma 3 we get $`\stackrel{~}{M}_i=M_i`$. Similarly, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_j=M_j`$. It follows that $`M_i\mathrm{\Lambda }M_j^t+M_j\mathrm{\Lambda }M_i^t=2R_{ij}`$.

Now for an arbitrary vector $`X=x_1E_1+\mathrm{}+x_nE_n`$, define the operator $`M_X:^\nu ^n`$ by

$$M_X=x_1M_1+\mathrm{}+x_nM_n.$$

Then $`M_X\mathrm{\Lambda }M_X^t=_{i=1}^nR_ix_i^2+_{i<j}2R_{ij}x_ix_j=R_X`$.

The fact that the map $`XM_X`$ is determined uniquely up to a precomposition with a fixed element from $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ follows from Lemma 2.

## 5 Proof of Proposition 4

We are given an Osserman algebraic curvature tensor $`R`$ in $`^n`$ with the Jacobi operator having $`p+1`$ distinct eigenvalues, $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _p`$, and $`0`$, of multiplicities $`m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_p`$, and $`n1\nu `$, respectively. The number $`\nu `$ satisfies the inequality

$$n>\frac{(\nu +1)^2}{4}.$$
(9)
In the Euclidean space $`^\nu `$, with the fixed orthonormal basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_\nu `$, the linear operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is defined by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }e_s=\mu _se_s,s=1,\mathrm{},\nu `$, where $`\mu _1=\mathrm{}=\mu _{m_1}=\lambda _1,\mu _{m_1+1}=\mathrm{}=\mu _{m_1+m_2}=\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\mu _{\nu m_p+1}=\mathrm{}=\mu _\nu =\lambda _p`$.

The Jacobi operator of $`R`$ has the form

$$R_X=M_X\mathrm{\Lambda }M_X^t,$$
(10)
where $`M:^n\mathrm{Hom}(^\nu ,^n),XM_X`$ is a linear map determined uniquely up to a precomposition with an element $`N`$ from the group $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{N:N\mathrm{\Lambda }N^t=\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$.

The central role in the proof is played by a quadratic map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:^n\mathrm{Hom}(^\nu ,^\nu )`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(X)=M_X^tM_X,X^n.$$

In terms of the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the Osserman property of $`R`$ has the following form.

###### Lemma 5.

For every unit vector $`X`$,

1. the operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X):^\nu ^\nu `$ is similar to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; in particular, it has the same spectrum as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$;

2. there exists $`N\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`N^t\mathrm{\Phi }(X)N=I_\nu `$.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 1, for every unit vector $`X`$, there exists an element $`N`$ (depending on $`X`$) in the group $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(X)=N^tN`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)=\mathrm{\Lambda }N^tN=N^1\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$. ∎

The proof of the Proposition goes by induction by $`p`$, the number of distinct nonzero eigenvalues of the Jacobi operator.

Base. Let $`p=1`$, that is, the Jacobi operator has only two eigenvalues: $`\lambda _1`$ with multiplicity $`\nu `$, and $`0`$ with multiplicity $`n1\nu `$. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda _1I_\nu `$ and by 1. of Lemma 5

$$M_X^tM_X=\mathrm{\Phi }(X)=X^2I_\nu .$$

Define the operators $`J_s:^n^n,s=1,\mathrm{},\nu `$ by $`J_sX=M_Xe_s`$. Then for all $`X,Y^n`$,

$$R_XY=\lambda _1M_XM_X^tY=\lambda _1\underset{s=1}{\overset{\nu }{}}M_X^tY,e_sM_Xe_s=\lambda _1\underset{s=1}{\overset{\nu }{}}J_sX,YJ_sX,$$

that is, the Jacobi operator has the required form ((2), with $`\lambda _0=0`$).

Moreover, for any nonzero $`X`$, the vectors $`J_1X,\mathrm{},J_\nu X`$ are linearly independent (otherwise $`\mathrm{rk}R_X<\nu `$), and so all the operators $`J_s`$ are skew-symmetric since $`R_XX=0`$.

We also have $`J_sJ_q+J_qJ_s=2\delta _{qs}I_n`$ for all $`1q,s\nu `$, since for any vector $`X,J_sX,J_qX=M_Xe_s,M_Xe_q=M_X^tM_Xe_s,e_q=X^2\delta _{qs}`$.

Thus the Jacobi operator has the form (2), with the skew-symmetric orthogonal operators $`J_1,\mathrm{},J_\nu `$ satisfying the Hurwitz relations.

Step. The plan of proof is the following. Suppose that we already know that for $`p=k1`$ any Osserman algebraic curvature tensor has a Clifford structure. Let $`R`$ be an Osserman curvature tensor with $`p=k+1`$ distinct nonzero eigenvalues of the Jacobi operator.

For every unit vector $`X`$, the $`\lambda _\alpha `$-eigenspace of $`R_X`$ is $`E_{\lambda _\alpha }(X)=\{M_Xu:u^\nu ,R_X(M_Xu)=\lambda _\alpha (M_Xu)\}`$. This defines a subspace $`S_{\lambda _\alpha }(X)^\nu `$ of dimension $`m_\alpha `$, the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $`\lambda _\alpha `$, consisting of vectors $`u^\nu `$ satisfying $`R_X(M_Xu)=\lambda _\alpha (M_Xu)`$.

The key step is to show that, with a particular choice of $`\lambda _\alpha `$, the subspace $`S_{\lambda _\alpha }(X)`$ is independent of $`X`$ (Lemma 7), that is, there exists a fixed subspace $`S^\nu ,dimS=m_\alpha `$ such that $`E_{\lambda _\alpha }(X)=M_XS`$ for all unit vectors $`X^n`$. We then choose a basis $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{m_\alpha }`$ in $`S`$ and define the operators $`J_s:^n^n,s=1,\mathrm{},m_\alpha `$ by

$$J_sX=M_Xu_s.$$

For every unit vector $`X`$ and for every $`s,J_sX`$ is an eigenvector of $`R_X`$ with the eigenvalue $`\lambda _\alpha `$. In particular, $`J_sX,X=0`$ and so all the $`J_s`$’s are skew-symmetric. In Lemma 8 we show that the basis $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{m_\alpha }`$ can be chosen in such a way that the operators $`J_s`$ are also orthogonal and satisfy the Hurwitz relations.

Introduce an algebraic curvature tensor $`\widehat{R}`$ defined by its Jacobi operator as

$$\widehat{R}_XY=\lambda _\alpha \underset{s=1}{\overset{m_\alpha }{}}J_sX,YJ_sX.$$
(11)
Then $`\widehat{R}`$ is Osserman, with the Jacobi operator having two eigenvalues, $`\lambda _\alpha `$ and $`0`$.

Moreover, for every unit vector $`X`$, the $`\lambda _\alpha `$-eigenspace of $`R_X`$ and $`\widehat{R}_X`$ is the same: $`\mathrm{Span}(J_1X,\mathrm{},J_{m_\alpha }X)`$. It follows that the algebraic curvature tensor $`R\widehat{R}`$ is also Osserman. Its Jacobi operator $`R_X\widehat{R}_X`$, for any unit vector $`X`$, has constant eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{\alpha 1},\lambda _{\alpha +1},\mathrm{},\lambda _{k+1},0`$ with constant multiplicities (in fact, the $`\lambda _\beta `$-eigenspaces of $`R_X\widehat{R}_X`$ are the same as that of $`R_X`$, and $`\mathrm{Ker}(R_X\widehat{R}_X)=\mathrm{Ker}R_XE_{\lambda _\alpha }(X)`$).

The number of nonzero eigenvalues of the Jacobi operator of $`R\widehat{R}`$ is one less than that for $`R`$, and so by the induction assumption the algebraic curvature tensor $`R\widehat{R}`$ has a Clifford structure:

$$(R_X\widehat{R}_X)Y=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\nu m_\alpha }{}}\mu _iJ_iX,YJ_iX$$
(12)
for all $`X,Y^n`$, with skew-symmetric orthogonal operators $`J_i`$ satisfying the Hurwitz relations. Together with (11) this gives a $`\mathrm{Cliff}(\nu )`$-structure for $`R`$, provided the operators $`J_s`$ in (11) and the operators $`J_i`$ in (12) satisfy the Hurwitz relations $`J_iJ_s+J_sJ_i=0`$. This is indeed the case, since for any $`X^n,J_sX`$ and $`J_iX`$ are eigenvectors of $`R_X`$ which correspond to different eigenvalues, and so are orthogonal.

This proves the inductive step and hence Proposition 4.

Following the above plan, we choose an eigenvalue $`\lambda _\alpha `$ such that $`\lambda _\alpha ^1`$ is the smallest from among $`\lambda _\beta ^1,\beta =1,\mathrm{},p`$. Then for every unit vector $`X`$, the symmetric operator $`\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1\mathrm{\Phi }(X)`$ is semidefinite. Indeed, from Lemma 5, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(X)=N^tN`$ for $`NO_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{N:N\mathrm{\Lambda }N^t=\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$. Then $`\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1\mathrm{\Phi }(X)=\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1N^tN=N^t(\lambda _\alpha N^{1t}\mathrm{\Lambda }^1N^1I_\nu )N=N^t(\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1I_\nu )N`$. The operator $`\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1I_\nu `$ is diagonal in the basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_\nu `$, with diagonal entries $`\frac{\lambda _\alpha }{\lambda _\beta }1=\lambda _\alpha (\lambda _\beta ^1\lambda _{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{1})`$. All these numbers have the same sign for $`\beta \alpha `$.

The $`\lambda _\alpha `$-eigenspace of the Jacobi operator $`R_X`$ is $`E_{\lambda _\alpha }(X)=\{M_Xu:u^\nu ,R_X(M_Xu)=\lambda _\alpha (M_Xu)\}`$. In view of (10) the condition $`R_X(M_Xu)=\lambda _\alpha (M_Xu)`$ is equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)u=\lambda _\alpha u`$, that is, to the fact that $`u`$ is a $`\lambda _\alpha `$-eigenvector of the operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)`$.

Introduce an algebraic set $`𝒰^n\times ^\nu `$ as follows:

$`𝒰`$ $`=\{(X,u)^n\times ^\nu :R_XM_Xu=X^2\lambda _\alpha M_Xu\}`$
$`=\{(X,u)^n\times ^\nu :\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)u=X^2\lambda _\alpha u\}.`$
Let $`p_1:𝒰^n,p_2:𝒰^\nu `$ be the projections, $`p_1((X,u))=X,p_2((X,u))=u`$. For every $`X0p_2p_1^1(X)`$ is the set of vectors $`u^\nu `$ satisfying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)u=X^2\lambda _\alpha u`$, that is, a linear space of dimension $`m_\alpha `$, the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $`\lambda _\alpha `$. So $`dim𝒰=n+m_\alpha `$. It appears that, with our choice of $`\lambda _\alpha `$, for every $`u^\nu `$ the subset $`p_1p_2^1(u)^n`$ is also a linear subspace.

###### Lemma 6.

Let $`\lambda _\alpha `$ be the eigenvalue such that $`\lambda _\alpha ^1=\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _1^1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p^1\}`$. Then for every $`u^\nu `$ the set

$$p_1p_2^1(u)=\{X^n:\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)u=X^2\lambda _\alpha u\}$$

is a linear subspace.

###### Proof.

The claim is trivial if $`u=0`$. Let $`u0`$. The set $`p_1p_2^1(u)`$ is a cone and so it is sufficient to prove that for any two unit nonparallel vectors $`X,Y`$, the set $`p_1p_2^1(u)`$ contains the unit circle in the two-plane $`\mathrm{Span}(X,Y)`$. Let $`Z`$ be a unit vector in $`\mathrm{Span}(X,Y)`$ orthogonal to $`X`$, and $`\theta `$ be the angle between $`X`$ and $`Y`$, so that $`Y=X\mathrm{cos}\theta +Z\mathrm{sin}\theta `$.

Introduce a unit vector function $`X_t=\mathrm{cos}tX+\mathrm{sin}tZ`$. Then $`X=X_0,Y=X_\theta `$ and we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)u=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X_\theta )u=\lambda _\alpha u`$. As $`\mathrm{\Phi }(X_\theta )=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{\Phi }(X)+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{\Phi }(Z)+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta (M_X^tM_Z+M_Z^tM_X)`$ we find

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(Z)u=\lambda _\alpha u\mathrm{cot}\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }(M_X^tM_Z+M_Z^tM_X)u.$$
(13)
Let $`u_t`$ be a $`\lambda _\alpha `$-eigenvector of the operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X_t)`$ twice differentiable at $`t=0`$ and such that $`u_0=u`$. Denote $`\dot{u}=du_t/dt_{|t=0},\ddot{u}=d^2u_t/dt_{|t=0}^2`$. Differentiating

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X_t)u_t& =(\mathrm{cos}^2t\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)+\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{cos}t\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_X^tM_Z+M_Z^tM_X)\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{sin}^2t\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(Z))u_t=\lambda _\alpha u_t\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
at $`t=0`$ we get $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_X^tM_Z+M_Z^tM_X)u+\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)\dot{u}=\lambda _\alpha \dot{u}`$ and so

$$(M_X^tM_Z+M_Z^tM_X)u=(\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1\mathrm{\Phi }(X))\dot{u}.$$
(15)
The second derivative of (14) at $`t=0`$ has the form

$$(2\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)+2\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(Z))u+2\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_X^tM_Z+M_Z^tM_X)\dot{u}+\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)\ddot{u}=\lambda _\alpha \ddot{u}.$$

Substituting the expression for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(Z)u`$ from (13) we obtain

$$2\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_X^tM_Z+M_Z^tM_X)(\dot{u}\mathrm{cot}\theta u)+\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)\ddot{u}=\lambda _\alpha \ddot{u}.$$

Acting on both sides by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ and taking the inner product with $`u`$ we get

$$2(M_X^tM_Z+M_Z^tM_X)u,(\dot{u}\mathrm{cot}\theta u)+(\mathrm{\Phi }(X)\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1)u,\ddot{u}=0.$$

Substituting $`(M_X^tM_Z+M_Z^tM_X)u`$ from (15) we obtain

$$2(\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1\mathrm{\Phi }(X))\dot{u},\dot{u}+(\mathrm{\Phi }(X)\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1)u,\ddot{u}+2\mathrm{cot}\theta \dot{u}=0.$$

The second term on the left hand side vanishes since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)u=\lambda _\alpha u`$, hence we get

$$(\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1\mathrm{\Phi }(X))\dot{u},\dot{u}=0.$$

With our choice of $`\lambda _\alpha `$, the symmetric operator $`\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1\mathrm{\Phi }(X)`$ is semidefinite. It follows that $`(\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1\mathrm{\Phi }(X))\dot{u}=0`$, which implies $`(M_X^tM_Z+M_Z^tM_X)u=0`$ by (15). Then by (13) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(Z)u=\lambda _\alpha u`$, and so

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X_t)u`$ $`=(\mathrm{cos}^2t\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)+\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{cos}t\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_X^tM_Z+M_Z^tM_X)`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2t\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(Z))u=\lambda _\alpha u`$
for all $`t`$. It follows that $`X_t=\mathrm{cos}tX+\mathrm{sin}tZp_1p_2^1(u)`$ for all $`t`$, that is, $`p_1p_2^1(u)`$ contains the unit circle in the two-plane $`\mathrm{Span}(X,Y)`$. ∎

###### Lemma 7.

The subspace $`p_2p_1^1(X)^\nu `$ is the same for all $`X0`$. In other words, the $`\lambda _\alpha `$-eigenspace of the operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)`$ does not depend of the choice of a unit vector $`X^n`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is based on the dimension count. For every point $`u^\nu `$ let $`d(u)`$ be the dimension of the linear space $`p_1p_2^1(u)`$.

For every set of $`m_\alpha +1`$ linearly independent vectors $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{m_\alpha +1}`$ in $`^\nu `$, we must have

$$d(u_1)+\mathrm{}+d(u_{m_\alpha +1})m_\alpha n.$$
(16)
Indeed, if the inequality (16) is violated, then the subspaces $`p_1p_2^1(u_1),\mathrm{},p_1p_2^1(u_{m_\alpha +1})`$ have a nonzero intersection in $`^n`$. It follows that for a unit vector $`X`$ from this intersection, the equation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)u=\lambda _\alpha u`$ has at least $`m_\alpha +1`$ linearly independent solutions, while the $`\lambda _\alpha `$-eigenspace of the operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)`$ has dimension $`m_\alpha `$ by 1. of Lemma 5.

Now let $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{m_\alpha }`$ be a set of $`m_\alpha `$ linearly independent vectors in $`^\nu `$ such that $`d(u_1)+\mathrm{}+d(u_{m_\alpha })`$ takes the maximal possible value.

Let $`S=\mathrm{Span}(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{m_\alpha }),dimS=m_\alpha `$. For every point $`uS`$, we have $`d(u)+_{i=1}^{m_\alpha }d(u_i)m_\alpha n`$ by (16), and $`d(u)d(u_i)`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},m_\alpha `$ by the construction of the set $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{m_\alpha }`$. So $`d(u)\frac{m_\alpha }{m_\alpha +1}n`$.

Now the subset $`p_2^1(^\nu S)𝒰`$ is projected by $`p_2`$ to a subset of $`^\nu S`$, of dimension not greater than $`\nu `$, with the fibers being linear subspaces of dimension not greater than $`\frac{m_\alpha }{m_\alpha +1}n`$. If $`p_2^1(^\nu S)`$ has a nonempty interior in $`𝒰`$, then $`\frac{m_\alpha }{m_\alpha +1}n+\nu dim𝒰=n+m_\alpha `$, and so

$$n(\nu m_\alpha )(m_\alpha +1).$$

This contradicts to (9), since for $`1m_\alpha \nu `$ the maximal value of the right hand side is $`\frac{1}{4}(\nu +1)^2`$.

It follows that the closed subset $`p_2^1(S)𝒰`$ must have a nonempty interior in $`𝒰`$. In a neighbourhood of a generic point from the interior of $`p_2^1(S)`$, the projection $`p_2`$ is a fibration, so the subspace $`S`$ contains an open subset $`S^{}`$ such that for all $`uS^{},dimp_2^1(u)=dim𝒰dimS=n`$. Then $`p_1p_2^1(u)=^n`$. So for every $`X^n`$, the $`\lambda _\alpha X^2`$-eigenspace of the operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)`$ contains an open subset of $`S`$, hence coincides with $`S`$. ∎

In Lemma 7, we constructed an $`m_\alpha `$-dimensional subspace $`S^\nu `$ such that for all $`X^n`$ and all $`uS`$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X)u=\lambda _\alpha X^2u.$$

Following our plan, we take a basis $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{m_\alpha }`$ in $`S`$ and define linear operators $`J_s:^n^n,s=1,\mathrm{},m_\alpha `$ by

$$J_sX=M_Xu_s.$$

For every unit vector $`X`$, the $`J_sX`$’s span $`E_{\lambda _\alpha }(X)`$, the $`\lambda _\alpha `$-eigenspace of $`R_X`$. Then $`J_sX,X=0`$ and so all the operators $`J_s`$ are skew-symmetric.

To prove the induction step (and hence to prove the Proposition) it remains to show that, with an appropriate choice of the basis $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{m_\alpha }`$, the operators $`J_s`$ are also orthogonal and satisfy the Hurwitz relations.

###### Lemma 8.

There exist a basis $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{m_\alpha }`$ in $`S`$ such that the operators $`J_s`$ defined by $`J_sX=M_Xu_s`$ satisfy

$$J_sJ_q+J_qJ_s=2\delta _{qs}I_n.$$

for all $`s,q=1,\mathrm{},m_\alpha `$.

###### Proof.

Since the operators $`J_s`$ are skew-symmetric, the condition $`J_sJ_q+J_qJ_s=2\delta _{qs}I_n`$ is equivalent to the fact that for all $`X^n`$,

$$J_sX,J_qX=\delta _{qs}X^2.$$
(17)
To construct the required basis we pick an arbitrary unit vector $`X_0`$ and find an element $`N_0\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`N_0^t\mathrm{\Phi }(X_0)N_0=I_\nu `$ according to Lemma 5. For any $`uS`$ we have $`\lambda _\alpha u=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }(X_0)u=\mathrm{\Lambda }N_0^{1t}N_0^1u=N_0\mathrm{\Lambda }N_0^1u`$, since $`N_0\mathrm{\Lambda }N_0^t=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(N_0^1u)=\lambda _\alpha (N_0^1u)`$, that is, $`N_0^1u`$ lies in the $`\lambda _\alpha `$-eigenspace of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the coordinate subspace $`\mathrm{Span}(e_{m^{}+1},\mathrm{},e_{m^{}+m_\alpha })^\nu ,m^{}=m_1+\mathrm{}+m_{\alpha 1}`$. Define

$$u_s=N_0e_{m^{}+s},s=1,\mathrm{},m_\alpha .$$

The operators $`J_s`$ constructed from this basis satisfy (17). Indeed, for any unit vector $`X`$, we have

$`J_sX,J_qX`$ $`=M_Xu_s,M_Xu_q=\mathrm{\Phi }(X)u_s,u_q=\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1u_s,u_q`$
$`=\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1N_0e_{m^{}+s},N_0e_{m^{}+q}=\lambda _\alpha N_0^t\mathrm{\Lambda }^1N_0e_{m^{}+s},e_{m^{}+q}`$
$`=\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^1e_{m^{}+s},e_{m^{}+q}=e_{m^{}+s},e_{m^{}+q}=\delta _{sq}.`$


format: text

text:
# REFERENCES

Running Waves in the Mixed State of Type II Superconductors N.A. Taylanov, G.B. Berdiyorov
Theoretical Physics Department, Institute of Applied Physics,
National University of Uzbekistan,
E-mail: taylanov@iaph.tkt.uz

Abstract

Nonlinear dynamics of the thermal and electromagnetic instabilities of the mixed state in type II superconductors has been analysed taking into account the effect of dissipation and dispersion. The existance of nonlinear running waves describing the final stage of evolution of the thermomagnetic instability in superconductors is demonstrated analitically.

The evolution of the thermal $`(T)`$ and electromagnetic $`(\stackrel{}{E},\stackrel{}{H})`$ perturbations is described by the nonlinear equation of the thermal conductivity

$$\nu \frac{dT}{dt}=[\kappa T]+\stackrel{}{j}\stackrel{}{E},$$
(1)
by the Maxwell equations

$$rot\stackrel{}{E}=\frac{1}{c}\frac{d\stackrel{}{H}}{dt},$$
(2)
$$rot\stackrel{}{H}=\frac{4\pi }{c}\stackrel{}{j}$$
(3)
and by the equation of the resistive state

$$\stackrel{}{j}=\stackrel{}{j}_c(T,\stackrel{}{H})+\stackrel{}{j}_r(\stackrel{}{E}),$$
(4)
where $`\nu =\nu (T)`$ and $`\kappa =\kappa (T)`$ are the heat capacity and the thermal conductivity respectively; $`\stackrel{}{j}_c`$ is the critical current density and $`\stackrel{}{j}_r`$ is the resistance current density.

The above system is essentially nonlinear because the right-hand part of Eq.(1) contains a term describing the Joule heat evolution in the region of the resistive phase. Such a set (1)-(4) of nonlinear parabolic differential equations in partial derivatives has no exact analytical solution.

Let us consider a planar semi-infinite sample $`(x>0)`$ placed in external magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{H}=(0,0,H_e)`$ growing at a constant rate $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{H}}{dt}}=const`$. According to the Maxwell equation (2), there is a vortex electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}=(0,E_e,0)`$ in the sample, directed parallel to the current density $`\stackrel{}{j}`$: $`\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{j}`$; where $`H_e`$ is the amplitude of the external magnetic field and $`E_e`$ is the amplitude of the external electric field.

The solution of the system of equations (1)-(4) may be presented as a function of new automodel variable $`\xi (x,t)`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}T=T[\xi (x,t)],\hfill \\ \\ E=E[\xi (x,t)],\hfill \\ \\ j=j[\xi (x,t)].\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
Substituting (5) into the system (1)-(4) gives, as a result of simple differentation, the following system

$$\frac{d\xi }{dt}\left[\nu \frac{dT}{d\xi }\right]=\kappa \left\{\frac{d^2\xi }{dx^2}\frac{dT}{d\xi }+\left(\frac{d\xi }{dx}\right)^2\frac{d^2T}{d\xi ^2}\right\}+[j_c(T)+j_r(E)]E,$$
(6)
$$\frac{d^2\xi }{dx^2}\frac{dE}{d\xi }+\left(\frac{d\xi }{dx}\right)^2\frac{d^2E}{d\xi ^2}=\frac{4\pi }{c^2}\left[\frac{dj_c}{dT}\frac{dT}{d\xi }+\frac{dj_r}{dE}\frac{dE}{d\xi }\right]\frac{d\xi }{dt}.$$
(7)
In order the system (6),(7) was only function from $`\xi `$ at the substation (5) it is required carrying out the following conditions:

$$\frac{d\xi }{dt}=A(\xi ),$$
(8)
$$\left(\frac{d\xi }{dx}\right)^2=B(\xi )\frac{d\xi }{dt}=G(\xi ),$$
(9)
$$\frac{d^2\xi }{dx^2}=C(\xi )\frac{d\xi }{dt},$$
(10)
where $`A,C,G`$ are functions from $`\xi `$, the type of which will be determined below. Solving first two system of equations (8)-(10) we have a relation

$$G(\xi )\frac{dA}{d\xi }=A(\xi )\frac{dG}{d\xi }.$$
(11)
Whence just fllows relationship between $`G`$ and $`A`$

$$G(\xi )=\frac{1}{u}A(\xi ),$$
(12)
where $`u`$ is a free constant of integrating of the equation (11). From (8) and (9) follows that $`\xi (x,t)`$ must satisfy single-line equation in private derivation

$$\frac{d\xi }{dt}=u\frac{d\xi }{dx}$$
(13)
the only solution of which is the function

$$\xi (x,t)=F(xut).$$
(14)
Using (14) we can immediately obtain

$$G(\xi )=1,A(\xi )=Fu,C(\xi )=0.$$
(15)
It is possible to ensure $`F=1`$ by the transformation of coordinates and time. Thereby, we find final automodel substitution

$$\xi =xut,$$
(16)
corresponding to solution of running type wave .

For the automodelling solution of the form (16), describing a running wave moving at a constant velocity $`v`$ along the $`x`$ axis, the system of equations (1)-(4) takes the following form

$$v\left[N(T)N(T_0)\right]=\kappa \frac{dT}{d\xi }\frac{c^2}{4\pi v}E^2,$$
(17)
$$\frac{dE}{d\xi }=\frac{4\pi v}{c^2}j,$$
(18)
$$E=\frac{v}{c}H.$$
(19)
The thermal and electrodynamic boundary conditinos for equations (17)-(19) are as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}T(\xi +\mathrm{})=T_0,\frac{dT}{d\xi }(\xi \mathrm{})=0,\hfill \\ \\ E(\xi +\mathrm{})=0,E(\xi \mathrm{})=E_e,\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
where $`T_0`$ is the temperature of the cooling medium.

Let us consider the Bean-London model of the critical state for the dependence $`j_c(T,H)`$

$$j_c(T)=j_0[1a(TT_0)]$$
(21)
where $`j_0`$ is the equilibtium current density, $`a`$ is the thermal haet softening coefficient of the magnetic flux pinning force. The characteristical field dependence of $`j_r(E)`$ in the region of sufficiently strong electric field $`(E>E_f)`$ can be aproximated by the piecewise linear function $`j_r\sigma _fE`$, where $`\sigma _f={\displaystyle \frac{\eta c^2}{H\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}\sigma _nH_{c_2}/H`$ is the effictive conductivity in the flux flow regime; $`\eta `$ is the viscous coefficient,$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0={\displaystyle \frac{\pi hc}{2e}}`$ is the magnetic flux quantum, $`\sigma _n`$ is the conductivity in the normal state; $`E_f`$ is the boundary of the linear area in the voltage-current characteristics of the sample.

Excluding variables $`T(\xi )`$ and $`H(\xi )`$ from Eqs.(17) and (19) , and taking into account the boundary conditions (20), we obtain an equation describing the electric field $`E(\xi )`$ distribution ($`E`$-wave):

$$\frac{d^2E}{d\xi ^2}+\left[\frac{4\pi v}{c^2}\frac{dj_r}{dE}\frac{dE}{d\xi }+\frac{4\pi v^2a}{c^2}\frac{N(T)N(T_0)}{\kappa (T)}\right]\frac{aE^2}{2\kappa (T)}=0,$$
(22)
where the dependency $`T=T(E,{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{d\xi }})`$ is defined by expression (2), (4) and have the form

$$T=T(E,\frac{dE}{d\xi })=T_0+\frac{1}{a}\left[j_0+j_r(E)+\frac{4\pi v}{c^2}\frac{dE}{d\xi }\right].$$
(23)
Here $`N(T)=\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}\nu (T)𝑑T`$.

The analysis of the phase plane ($`E,{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{d\xi }}`$) of Eq.(22) shows that there are two equilibrium points: $`E_0=0`$, $`T=T_0`$ is the stabile node and $`E=E_e`$, $`T=T=T(E_e,0)`$ is the saddle. The solution may be representedof in the form of the shock-wave-type with amplitude $`E_e`$, by joining these two equilibrium points. The velocity of $`E`$-wave is determined by the Eq. (22) with account of the boundary conditions (20):

$$v_E^2=\frac{c^2}{8\pi }\frac{E_e^2}{N\left[T_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}[j_c(T)+j_r(E)]\right]N(T_0)}.$$
(24)
Using Eqs. (19) and (22) we find the expression for distribution of the magnetic field $`H`$ in the case of $`H`$-wave :

$$\frac{d^2H}{d\xi ^2}+\frac{4\pi v}{c^2}\left[\frac{dj_r}{dE}|_{E={\displaystyle \frac{v}{c}}H}\frac{dH}{d\xi }+ca\frac{N(T)N(T_0)}{\kappa (T)}\right]\frac{av}{2c}\frac{H^2}{\kappa (T)}=0.$$
(25)
The velocity of $`H`$ wave is connected with its amplitude by the following expression

$$N(T)N(T_0)=\frac{H_e^2}{8\pi }.$$
(26)
The condition (26) reflects the adiabatical character of the wave propagation: the magnetic field energy transferred by the wave ensures local heating of the sample in the close vicinity of the wave front. Thereby, depending on the external conditions at the sample surfase there may exist two kinds of thermomagnetic waves.

The system of Eqs. (1)-(4) is invariant with respect to an arbitrary translation. Therefore, the wave propagation conditions can be found for an arbitrary critical current density depending on $`T`$ and $`H`$. The results can also be obtained for an arbitrary temperature dependence of thermophysical parameters $`\nu `$ and $`\kappa `$ of superconducting material and for an arbitrary function $`j_r(E)`$.

Reference

NIZAM A.TAYLANOV

| Address: |
| --- |
| Theoretical Physics Department, |
| Institute of Applied Physics, |
| National University of Uzbekistan, |
| Vuzgorodok, 700174, Tashkent, Uzbekistan |
| Telephone:(9-98712)-461-573 |
| fax: (9-9871)-144-77-28 |
| e-mail: taylanov@iaph.tkt.uz |


text:
# Probing physics beyond the standard model from lepton sector

## 1 Introduction

The Standard Model (SM) is the most successful model to explain physics below the weak scale. The recent results for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ or $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$ by Belle  and Babar  are converging, and they are consistent with the Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanism . Also, the precision measurements of the electroweak parameters suggest the light SM Higgs boson such as $`m_{h}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}196`$GeV (95%CL) . Now we are waiting for signature of physics beyond the SM.

We have the clue for the physics beyond the SM in the neutrino oscillation experiment results. The atmospheric neutrino result by the superKamiokande experiment is established . The combined result of the superKamiokande  and SNO  experiments shows a strong evidence for the appearance of $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$ in the solar neutrino. At present, the large-angle MSW solution is the most favored, which will be checked by the Kamland experiment soon . These neutrino oscillation results can be explained by introduction of small neutrino masses.

Introduction of small neutrino masses gives us a new scenery for physics beyond the SM. While the promising candidate for origin of the small neutrino masses is the see-saw mechanism  by introduction of the right-handed neutrinos, the atmospheric neutrino result implies that the right-handed neutrino mass should be smaller than $`10^{15}`$GeV, which is much smaller than the Planck scale. This is a good motivation for introduction of Supersymmetry (SUSY). A quadratically-divergent contribution to the Higgs boson mass proportional to the right-handed neutrino masses should be canceled even if the correction proportional to the Planck mass is vanishing by some mysterious physics.

Nowadays, the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) is one the most promising extension of standard model (SM), and many experiments are searching for the possible evidence of the low-energy supersymmetry. In this review we discuss the possibilities in physics of charged lepton, paying attention to the dipole-moment operators;

$``$ $`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle \frac{m_{l_j}}{2}}\overline{l_i}\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }(L_{ij}P_L+R_{ij}P_R)l_j`$ (1)
where $`P_{R/L}=(1\pm \gamma _5)/2`$, and $`i,j`$ are for the generation. These operators are sensitive to physics beyond the SM. The real diagonal parts of $`L_{ij}`$ and $`R_{ij}`$ contributes to the anomalous magnetic moments of charged leptons, $`a_{l_i}((g_{l_i}2)/2))=m_{l_i}^2(R_{ii}+L_{ii})`$. They are sensitive to structure of the Higgs sector, since the operator (1) is violating the lepton chiral symmetry and the SU(2)$`{}_{L}{}^{}\times `$U(1)Y symmetry. In fact, the MSSM may predict the larger correction to it than the electroweak correction since the MSSM has two doublet Higgs bosons.

If non-vanishing $`L_{ij}`$ or $`R_{ij}`$ ($`ij`$) exits, the charged lepton-flavor violating (LFV) processes, such as $`\mu e\gamma `$, are predicted; $`Br(\mu e\gamma )(|R_{\mu e}|^2+|L_{\mu e}|^2)`$. Now we know from the neutrino oscillation results that the lepton-flavor symmetry is not exact in nature, and the problem is how large is the charged LFV. The small neutrino masses themselves, expected from the neutrino oscillation results, cannot give any prediction for the charged LFV processes accessible in near future. In the MSSM, the charged LFV is supplied by the SUSY breaking masses of sleptons, and the magnitude depends on the origin of the SUSY breaking and interaction beyond the MSSM, such as in see-saw mechanism or the supersymmetric grand unified models (SUSY GUTs).

When diagonal parts of $`L_{ij}`$ and/or $`R_{ij}`$ have imaginary part, CP is violating and the electric dipole moments (EDM) are predicted; $`d_{l_i}=em_{l_i}\mathrm{Im}(R_{ii}L_{ii})`$. The EDMs are also supplied by the SUSY breaking slepton masses in the MSSM.

We organize this review as follows. In the next section we summarize the current status of the muon $`(g2)`$. In section 2 we discuss dependence of the charged LFV processes on the SUSY breaking models, and show the branching ratios of the charged LFV processes in the supersymmetric see-saw model, using the neutrino oscillation data. Section 3 is for the EDMs of charged leptons. Section 4 is summary.

## 2 Muon anomalous magnetic moment

The latest result for the anomalous magnetic moment of muon (BNL’98&’99+CERN’77 ) is $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}=(\mathrm{116\; 592\; 023}\pm 151)\times 10^{11}`$, while the SM prediction is $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}=(\mathrm{116\; 592\; 768}\pm 65)\times 10^{11}.`$ The contents of the SM contribution are listed in Table 1. The deviation of the measurement from the SM prediction is $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{NP}}(a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}})=255\pm 164\times 10^{11}`$, and it is $`1.6\sigma `$ away. At present the significance of the deviation is small. The experimental error is expected to be improved by a factor 2 in BNL’00 data, and the ultimate goal may be $`40\times 10^{11}`$.

Before going to the SUSY contribution to the muon $`g2`$, we review the error in the SM prediction. The largest ambiguities in the SM prediction come from the leading hadronic vacuum polarization contribution $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}`$(VP1) and the hadronic light-by-light (LbyL) scattering contribution $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}`$(LbyL). The $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}`$(VP1) in Table 1 is derived by M. Davier and A. Hocker  from the $`e^+e^{}`$ hadronic cross section and the hadronic $`\tau `$ decay data, including perturbative QCD calculation in the high $`q^2`$ part.111 See also Refs.  for discussion of the estimation of the leading hadronic vacuum polarization contribution.  This estimation will be further improved by high quality data for the $`e^+e^{}`$ hadronic cross section by CMD2 in Novosibirsk , KLOE in Fascati , and BES in Beijing . The Babar may contribute to it by measurement via the initial state radiation of hard photon . The CLEO and LEP data for the tau decay are also important.

On the other hand, the estimate of the LbyL scattering contribution relies on the model calculation. The LbyL contribution comes from three type diagrams in Fig. 1, and the value in Table 1 is the average value for the latest results of Refs.  and ;

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}\text{(LbyL)}`$ $`=`$ $`(89.6\pm 15.4)\times 10^{11}\text{[14]},`$ (2)
$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}\text{(LbyL)}`$ $`=`$ $`(83\pm 32)\times 10^{11}\text{[15]}.`$ (3)
The dominant contribution in $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}\text{(LbyL)}`$ comes from the pion-pole diagram. This diagram was reevaluated by several groups , and the sign problem has been fixed now. However, still they rely on the model calculation since the diagram is divergent. They are based on the chiral perturbation or the ENJL model. The vector-meson dominance is assumed and the phenomenological parametrization of the pion form factor $`\pi \gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ is introduced in order to regularize the divergence.

In Ref.  the pion-pole contribution is evaluated in a model-dependent way, based on the chiral perturbation theory. The result is following;

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Had}}\text{(LbyL)}|_{\pi ^0\mathrm{pole}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{F_\pi }}\right)^2`$
$`\times \left\{\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_\mu }}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\chi 0.17)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_\mu }}+\stackrel{~}{C}\right\},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the ultraviolet cutoff ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }4\pi F_\pi `$). The largest term proportional to $`\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_\mu `$ is fixed by the gauge invariance and chiral anomaly. $`\chi `$ is a counter term to regularize the two-loop diagram. While it can be determined by the leptonic decay of the psuedescalar mesons, the sensitivity is low at present. Furthermore, $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$, which is a piece not enhanced by $`\mathrm{log}`$, cannot be evaluated without explicit models. The uncertainty due to $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is $`\delta a_\mu =31\times 10^{11}\stackrel{~}{C}`$.

While the model-dependent calculations (2) and (3) seem to be converged, we do not have a strategy to derive the pion-pole contribution precisely enough in a model-dependent way. Also, we have a subtle problem in the light-by-light contribution, whether the inclusion of the quark loop is double-counting or not. Thus, the calculation of the light-by-light contribution on base of QCD is strongly desired.

If the hadronic contribution is well-controlled, the muon $`g2`$ is so sensitive to physics beyond the SM , as mentioned in Introduction. Before closing this section, we discuss it from a viewpoint of the MSSM. The nature of two Higgs doublet model in the MSSM can enhance the contribution, and the contribution proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ , which comes from Fig. (2), is given as

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5\alpha _2+\alpha _Y}{48\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_\mathrm{S}^2}}\mathrm{tan}\beta `$
$``$ $`1.3\times 10^9\left({\displaystyle \frac{100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}{m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}}}\right)^2\mathrm{tan}\beta .`$
Here, all relevant SUSY breaking parameters are assumed to be common to $`m_S`$. Thus, it may be larger than the electroweak correction in the SM and the deviation from the SM in the MSSM may reach to $`10^8`$.

If the sizable deviation is observed, it will supply a big impact on the model building and the phenomenology of the MSSM. After “observation” of $`2.6\sigma `$ deviation of the muon $`g2`$, there were so many activities for it. Here we summarize them briefly.

First is for the mass spectrum of the SUSY particles in the MSSM. If the deviation is observed, relatively lighter slepton and chargino or larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ will be favored . Especially, when the Higgs mass constraint is included, the SUSY particle spectrum is more constraint, since it prefers to the large stop mass and/or large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ . In the decoupling solution for the FCNC problem , the first and second generation sfermions are much heavier than the weak scale. In these models, even if the slepton mixing between the second and third generations is introduced, the deviation of the muon $`g2`$ can reach to $`10^9`$ at most .

Second is related to sign of the Higgsino mass parameter $`\mu `$. The muon $`g2`$ contribution in the MSSM is proportional to $`\mu M_2`$ in the broad parameter space. Here $`M_2`$ is the SU(2)L gaugino mass. Now $`bs\gamma `$ favors $`\mu A_t>0`$, where $`A_t`$ is the $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$-$`\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$-Higgs trilinear coupling. If the SUSY breaking in the MSSM comes from physics at high energy scale, such as the minimal supergravity model, $`A_tM_3`$ where $`M_3`$ is the SU(3)C gaugino mass. If sign of the two gaugino masses is required to have the same sign, the anomaly mediated SUSY breaking model  will be disfavored . The consistency of the muon $`g2`$ and the Yukawa unification ($`Y_t=Y_b=Y_\tau `$) at the GUT scale is also interesting since the Yukawa unification favors $`\mu M_3<0`$ .

Third is the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ enhanced processes. If the muon $`g2`$ deviation is observed, it will give normalizations of the processes induced by dipole operators. Especially, the LFV processes, such as $`\mu e\gamma `$, have a direct relation to it . The processes generated by the Yukawa coupling may be also enhanced. For example, the counting rate of the neutralino dark matter would be enhanced .

## 3 Lepton-flavor violation in the charged-lepton sector

While the lepton-flavor violation is observed in the neutrino oscillation experiments, this does not mean sizable LFV processes in the charged-lepton sector exit. The charged LFV processes induced by the small neutrino masses, expected from the neutrino oscillation results, are suppressed by the GIM mechanism, as $`Br(\mu e\gamma )_{}^<10^{48}(m_\nu /1\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^4`$, even if the neutrino mixing is maximal. On the other hand, if the SM is supersymmetrized, the situation is changed. The SUSY breaking slepton masses are not necessary aligned to the lepton masses, and it may lead to sizable lepton-flavor violating.

Let us asuume that $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{12}`$ in the left-handed slepton mass matrix is non-vanishing. In this case, $`\mu e\gamma `$ is generated by diagrams in Fig. (3), and the approximate formula is given as $`Br(\mu e\gamma )3\times 10^5(a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}/10^9)^2((m_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{12}/m_S^2)^2`$ . The diagrams in Fig (3) are so similar to the diagrams in Fig. (2) contributing to the muon $`g2`$, and the muon $`g2`$ gives the normalization of the branching ratio of $`\mu e\gamma `$.

In Table 2 we summarize the current experimental bounds to the charged LFV processes, the sensitivities in the present activities, and prospects in the future experiments such as the PRISM project  and the front ends of neutrino factories under consideration at CERN . The charged LFV processes are radiative-induced in the MSSM as far as the R party is not broken. Thus, the branching ratio of $`\mu 3e`$ and the $`\mu `$-$`e`$ conversion rate in nuclei are approximately given as $`Br(\mu 3e)/Br(\mu e\gamma )7\times 10^3`$ and $`R(\mu ^{}\mathrm{Ti}(\mathrm{Al})e^{}\mathrm{Ti}(\mathrm{Al}))/Br(\mu e\gamma )5(3)\times 10^3`$. (See the detailed calculation of the $`\mu `$-$`e`$ conversion rate in nuclei is given in Refs. .) From these simple formulas, the naive current bound on $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{12}/m_S^2`$ is $`_{}^<6\times 10^4(\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}/10^9)^1`$, and PSI and MECO/BNL (PRISM and NuFACT) may reach to $`10^5(10^6)`$. These experiments are stringent tests of the lepton-flavor symmetry in the MSSM.

The charged LFV in the MSSM depends on the origin of the SUSY breaking term in the MSSM and the interaction of physics beyond the MSSM. The SUSY breaking model is classified to two types by degeneracy or non-degeneracy of the sfermion masses. The later may predict the large LFV rates and sometimes the broad parameter region has been excluded already. Here, we will concentrate on the SUSY breaking models where the degeneracy of the sfermion masses is predicted by assuming the hidden sector, such as the gravity- , gauge- , anomaly- , gaugino-mediation  models.

The magnitude of the charged LFV processes in these models depends on the scale of the SUSY breaking mediation ($`M_M`$) and the scale of the physics with LFV interaction ($`M_{LFV}`$). The well-motivated candidates for the physics with LFV interaction are the SUSY GUTs and the see-saw mechanism. If $`M_{M}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}M_{LFV}`$, such as in the gravity-mediation model, the LFV slepton masses are radiatively generated by the LFV interaction and they depend on $`\mathrm{log}M_M/M_{LFV}`$. The LFV processes may have observable rates in this case .

In the gaugino-mediation model, where $`M_M`$ is the reduced Planck scale or the GUT scale, the scalar masses at $`M_M`$ are vanishing, and they are generated through the gaugino loops. The LFV slepton masses are induced at higher order and suppressed. However, the suppression of the LFV processes is at most a factor 10. In Fig. (4) the dependence of $`Br(\mu e\gamma )`$ on the universal scalar mass $`m_0`$ in the gravity-mediation model. The two lines are for $`M_M`$ the GUT scale or the reduced Planck scale. Here, the the SU(2)L gaugino mass $`M_2`$ is 200GeV, and the supersymmetric see-saw model is assumed. See Ref.  for the other input parameters. The branching ratio is maximum at $`M_2m_0`$. When $`m_0`$ is zero (the gaugino-mediation limit), the branching ratio is suppressed, however it is only a factor 10.

When $`M_{M}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}M_{LFV}`$, such as in the low-energy gauge-mediation model, the radiative correction is suppressed by a power of $`M_M/M_{LFV}`$, and the effect tends to be invisible. The anomaly-mediation model is exceptional. While $`M_M`$ is the gravitational scale, the SUSY breaking parameters are determined by only the particle contents and interactions in the MSSM in the original anomaly-mediation model (the UV insensitivity), and the LFV slepton masses are suppressed. On the other hand, the model has the problem of tachyonic sleptons. Then, the LFV slepton masses in this model depends on how to care of the problem. For example, in the minimal anomaly-mediation model , where the universal scalar mass $`m_0`$ is added to the anomaly-mediation contribution, the LFV slepton masses are generated and proportional to $`m_0^2`$.

Next, we will discuss the charged LFV processes in the supersymmetric see-saw model using the the neutrino oscillation results. We assume the gravity-mediation model. The atmospheric neutrino result suggests the large mixing of left-handed stau and smuon, and it may imply the large branching ratio of $`\tau \mu \gamma `$. In Fig. (5) we present $`Br(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ in this model. Here, we use $`m_{\nu _\tau }^2=2\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`U_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}`$, and asuume that the large mixing comes from the neutrino Yukawa coupling and that the Yukawa unification of the tau-neutrino and top-quark Yukawa couplings is imposed at the reduced Planck scale. These assumptions make $`Br(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ enhanced. For the SUSY breaking parameters, we take $`m_0<500`$GeV, the U(1)Y gaugino mass $`<500`$GeV, and the universal A parameter $`A_0`$ zero. While a parameter region is excluded, the branching ratio tends to be smaller than the reach of the KEK Belle. If the large deviation from the SM prediction in the muon $`g2`$, such as $`10^9`$, is observed, the branching ratio may be larger than $`10^9`$.

Now the large-angle MSW solution is the most favored in the solar neutrino problem, and this may lead to the large branching ratio of $`\mu e\gamma `$. In Fig. (6) we show $`\mu e\gamma `$, using the atmospheric neutrino result and the large-angle MSW solution; $`m_{\nu _\mu }^2=7.5\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`U_{12}=1/\sqrt{2}`$. Here we take $`m_{\nu _e}=0`$ and assume the canonical generational structure for the right-handed neutrino masses. For the SUSY breaking parameters, the universal gaugino mass $`M_{1/2}=200`$GeV, $`m_0=200`$GeV, and $`A_0=200`$GeV. The horizontal line is for the right-handed tau neutrino mass $`M_{N_\tau }`$. A broad region has been excluded already, and the future experiments may cover almost the region above $`M_{N_\tau }^{}{}_{}{}^{>}10^{11}`$GeV. If $`M_{N_\tau }^{}{}_{}{}^{<}`$O($`10^{11}`$)GeV, the Dirac mass for the tau neutrino is smaller than O(1)GeV, which is much smaller than the top quark mass.

In this section we discussed the charged LFV. After the SUSY particles are discovered at LHC or lepton colliders, the LFV slepton decay is important . The $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider and muon collider have sensitivity for the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$-$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ mixing beyond the current proposed $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ search.

## 4 EDMs

In this section we discuss the EDMs of charged leptons. The current experimental bounds and the sensitivities of the future experiments are listed in Table 3. While the EDMs are suppressed in the SM as $`d_e(d_\mu )<10^{40}(10^{38})e\mathrm{cm}`$, they are sensitive to the MSSM. The relative phases of the $`F`$-term SUSY breaking parameters, the $`A`$ and $`B`$ terms and the gaugino masses, contribute to the EDMs. In this section, we assume for simplicity that the sfermion masses are flavor-independent and the CP-violating phases of the SUSY breaking parameters are zero at the SUSY-breaking mediation scale, and consider the EDMs radiatively-induced in physics beyond the MSSM.

In the minimal SUSY SU(5) GUT, the predicted EDMs are very small. The quark and lepton masses are given by the up-type and down-type quark Yukawa couplings at the GUT scale. As the result, the EDMs of electron and muon are proportional to a Jarskog invariant, $`f_b^2f_c^2f_t^4\mathrm{Im}[V_{11}V_{12}^{}V_{22}V_{21}^{}]`$, where $`V`$ is the CKM matrix at the GUT scale. This situation is similar to the SM. Thus, the EDMs are suppressed so much.

We know that the minimal SUSY SU(5) GUT cannot explain the quark and lepton masses for the first and second generations, and the extension is needed. Also, it does not have the right-handed neutrinos. These extension may change the prediction for the EDM drastically . Let us consider that the SUSY SU(5) GUT with the right-handed neutrinos. In this case, the EDM of electron (muon) may be proportional to a Jarskog invariant, $`f_{\nu _\tau }^2f_t^2\mathrm{Im}[V_{31(2)}V_{33}^{}U_{1(2)3}U_{33}^{}]`$. Here, we assume for simplicity that the right-handed neutrino masses are degenerate and $`U`$ is the MNS matrix at the GUT scale. The relative phases between $`U`$ and $`V`$ contribute to the EDMs. In Fig. (7) we show the $`Br(\mu e\gamma )`$ and the EDMs of electron and muon. We asuume the maximal CP violating phases. See Ref.  for the input parameters in this figure. Since the left-handed and right-handed sleptons get the LFV masses as $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{ij}U_{i3}U_{j3}^{}`$ and $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{E}}^2)_{ij}V_{3i}V_{3j}^{}`$, $`Br(\mu e\gamma )`$ and the EDMs have a strong correlation. From this figure it is found that the prediction may be accessible in the future experiments, and $`U_{13}`$ is an important parameter for the electron EDM.

In the supersymmetric see-saw model, if the right-handed neutrino masses are exactly degenerate, the EDMs of charged leptons are also suppressed, similar to the minimal SUSY SU(5) GUT. The non-degeneracy of the right-handed neutrino masses may enhance the EDMs drastically , and the muon (electron) EDM can reach to $`10^{26}(10^{31})e`$ cm.

Other CP violating observable in the lepton sector is the T-odd asymmetry in the polarized muon decay to $`3e`$. While it comes from interference between the photon-penguin diagram and the $`Z`$ penguin and box diagrams, the photon-penguin diagram tends to be dominant in the $`\mu 3e`$ process and the T-odd asymmetry is suppressed. In the minimal SUSY SU(5) GUT and the supersymmetric see-saw model the T-odd asymmetry may reach to 10% if the photon-penguin contribution is suppressed .

## 5 Summary

In this review we discuss physics of the lepton sector from viewpoints of the minimal supersymmetric standard and the extensions. While the muon $`g2`$ is sensitive to the MSSM, the understanding of the systematic error in the the SM prediction, especially the light-by-light contribution, is very serious when the experimental error is reduced furthermore. The charged LFV processes depends on the SUSY breaking models and the LFV interaction beyond the MSSM. The current neutrino data is encouraging. The interesting future experiments may give suggestion for the model discrimination. The EDMs of charged leptons are sensitive to the extension of the SUSY GUTs, and they may be accessible in the future experiments.

Acknowledgment
JH thanks Prof. S. Ohta for comment on the lattice calculation of the light-by-light contribution to the muon $`g2`$.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Langlands-Shahidi method uses information from spectral theory on non-compact spaces to obtain the functional equations and many analytic properties of L-functions, in particular several important examples of Langlands L-functions. The reason for the connection to spectral theory is that L-functions arise in the Fourier expansions of Eisenstein series. The simplest example of this phenomenon occurs already on $`SL_2()\backslash `$ for the non-holomorphic Eisenstein series

$$E(x+iy,s)=\underset{\stackrel{m,n}{(m,n)=1}}{}\frac{y^s}{|m(x+iy)+n|^{2s}},$$

which has the Fourier expansion

$$E(x+iy,s)=\underset{n}{}a_n(y,s)e^{2\pi inx},$$
(1.1)
$$a_0(y,s)=y^s+\frac{\xi (2s1)}{\xi (2s)}y^{1s},$$

$$a_n(y,s)=\frac{2|n|^{s1/2}\sigma _{12s}(|n|)\sqrt{y}K_{s1/2}(2\pi |n|y)}{\xi (2s)},n0,$$

where $`\xi (s)=\pi ^{s/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s/2)\zeta (s)=\xi (1s)`$ is the completed Riemann $`\zeta `$ function, $`\sigma _s(n)=_{d|n}d^s,`$ and $`K_s(y)`$ is the K-Bessel function. One can deduce from the functional equation $`\xi (s)=\xi (1s)`$ that

$$E(z,s)=\frac{\xi (2s1)}{\xi (2s)}E(z,1s).$$
(1.2)
The main point of using spectral theory here is Maass’ Lemma, which ultimately implies that because $`E(z,s)`$ and $`E(z,1s)`$ both have Laplace eigenvalue $`s(1s)`$, the two must be multiples of each other. The ratio can be found from the constant term $`a_0(y,s)`$, and so the functional equation (1.2) can be proven without knowing the functional equation $`\xi (s)=\xi (1s)`$.

Many results from functional analysis have been used to generalize the analytic continuation and functional equation of Eisenstein series, starting with Selberg and continued by Langlands \[L1\]. Their spectral methods in general do not assume any information about the L-functions (generalizing $`\zeta (s)`$) that are involved. In his Yale Monograph Euler Products (\[L2\]), Langlands obtained the meromorphic continuation of a wide variety of L-functions using the theory of the constant term. His calculations led to the definition of the L-group, and ultimately to the formulation of his functorality conjectures.

Furthermore, the functional equation (1.2) can be turned around to gain information about the symmetries of the terms in the Fourier expansion (1.1). In particular, an analysis of the first Fourier coefficient readily gives the functional equation $`\xi (s)=\xi (1s)`$. This latter observation has been developed by Shahidi; in conjunction with Langlands’ constant term theory, he has applied an analysis to the non-constant terms of general Eisenstein series to obtain the functional equations and meromorphic continuation (with only a finite number of poles between $`1/2`$ and 1) of the L-functions which occur in the Fourier expansions of Eisenstein series.

In general it has been a difficult challenge to prove the L-functions are entire. Kim has applied the following idea from representation theory to rule out the poles on the real axis between $`1/2`$ and 1 in many cases. These potential poles are also singularities of Eisenstein series, and their residues are $`L^2`$-automorphic forms, which always correspond to unitary representations that can be explicitly described by the Eisenstein series they came from. Kim remarked that known results about the unitary dual show that many of these representations do not occur, allowing one to conclude the holomorphy of the Eisenstein series and the L-functions at these points! When combined with \[G-S\], \[Sh2\], and \[Sh3\], this has recently led to new examples of entire L-functions with breakthrough applications to the Langlands functorality conjectures (\[CKPSS\],\[K-S\]).

## 2 An Outline of the Method

The following is a brief sketch of the main points of the method; a fuller introduction with more definitions and detailed examples can be found in \[Sh1\]. Detailed examples of constant term calculations can be found in many places, e.g. \[L2\],\[L3\],\[G-S\], and \[M\]. Though it is possible to describe the method without adeles (as was done in the introduction), their use is key in higher rank for factoring infinite product expansions into L-functions.

Let $`F`$ be a field, $`𝔸=𝔸_F`$ its ring of adeles, and $`G`$ a split group over $`F`$. Much carries over to quasi-split case as well, and we will highlight the technical changes needed for this at the end. Fix a Borel (= a maximal connected solvable) subgroup $`BG`$, and a standard maximal parabolic $`PB`$ defined over $`F`$.222The theory can be extended to non-maximal parabolics, but this does not yield any extra information about L-functions. Decompose $`B=TU,`$ where $`T`$ is a maximal torus. The parabolic can be also decomposed as $`P=MN`$, where the unipotent radical $`NU`$, and $`M`$ is the unique Levi component containing $`T`$. Denote by $`{}_{}{}^{L}G,^LM,^LN,`$ etc. the Langlands dual L-groups (see \[Sh1\]).

One of the key aspects of this method is that it uses many possibilities of parabolics of different groups, especially exceptional groups. This is simultaneously a strength (in that there is a wide range of possibilities) and a limitation (in that there are only finitely many exceptional groups).

### 2.1 Cuspidal Eisenstein Series

Recall that an automorphic form in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G)`$ is associated to a (unitary) automorphic representation of $`G`$ mapping $`\varphi (h)\varphi (hg)`$. Let $`\pi =_v\pi _v`$ be a cuspidal automorphic representation of $`M(𝔸)`$; we may assume that almost all components $`\pi _v`$ are spherical unitary representations (meaning that they have a vector fixed by $`G(O_v)`$, where $`O_v`$ is the ring of integers of the local field $`F_v`$). For these places $`v`$ the equivalence class of the unitary representation $`\pi _v`$ is determined by a semisimple conjugacy class $`t_v{}_{}{}^{L}G`$, the L-group. This conjugacy class is used to define the L-functions below in (2.3).

A maximal parabolic has a modulus character $`\delta _P`$, which is the ratio of the Haar measures on $`MN`$ and $`NM`$. It is related to the simple root of $`G`$ which does not identically vanish on $`P`$. For any automorphic form $`\varphi `$ in the representation space of $`\pi `$, we can define the Eisenstein series

$$E(\pi ,s,g)=\underset{\gamma P(F)\backslash G(F)}{}\varphi (\gamma g)\delta _P(\gamma g)^s,$$
(2.1)
and their constant terms

$$c(\pi ,s,g)=_{N^{}(F)\backslash N^{}(A)}E(\varphi ,s,ng)𝑑n,$$
(2.2)
where $`N^{}`$ is the opposite parabolic to N (it is related by the longest element in the Weyl group).

### 2.2 Langlands L-functions

If $`\rho `$ is a finite-dimensional complex representation of $`{}_{}{}^{L}M`$ and $`S`$ is a finite set including the archimedean and ramified places, then the partial Langlands L-function is

$$L_S(s,\pi ,\rho )=\underset{vS}{}det(I\rho (t_v)q_v^s)^1.$$
(2.3)
Here $`q_v`$ is the cardinality of the residue field of $`F_v`$, a prime power. The full, completed, L-function involves extra factors for places in $`S`$, whose definition is technical and in general difficult.

### 2.3 The Constant Term Formula

The constant term formula involves the sum of two terms. The first, which only occurs when the parabolic is its own opposite, is essentially just $`\varphi (g)`$. Langlands showed that the map to the second term is given by an operator

$$M(s,\pi )=\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{L(a_js,\stackrel{~}{\pi },r_j)}{L(1+a_js,\stackrel{~}{\pi },r_j)}\right)_{vS}A(s,\pi _v),$$
(2.4)
where $`A(s,\pi _v)`$ are a finite collection of operators, $`r`$ the adjoint action of $`{}_{}{}^{L}M`$ on the lie algebra of $`{}_{}{}^{L}N`$, $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_m`$ the irreducible representations it decomposes into, and $`a_j`$ integers which are multiples of each other (coming from roots related to the $`r_j`$). See \[Sh1\] for a fuller discussion along with an example for the Lie group $`G_2`$ and the symmetric cube L-function. Tables listing Lie groups and the representations $`r_j`$ occurring for them can be found in \[L2\] and \[Sh3\].

### 2.4 The Non-Constant Term: Local Coefficients

We must now make a further restriction on the choice of $`\pi `$ involved, namely that it be generic, i.e. have a Whittaker model. This means that if $`\psi `$ is a generic unitary character of $`U(F)\backslash U(A)`$, we need to require

$$W_v(g,\psi )=_{U_M(F)\backslash U_M(𝔸)}\varphi (ng)\overline{\psi (n)}𝑑n0,U_M=UM$$

for some $`\varphi `$ and $`g`$.

Shahidi’s formula uses the Casselman-Shalika formula for Whittaker functions to express the non-constant term as

$$_{N^{}(F)\backslash N^{}(A)}E(ng)\overline{\psi (n)}𝑑n=\underset{vS}{}W_v(1)\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{1}{L(1+a_js,\stackrel{~}{\pi },r_j)}.$$
(2.5)
Applying the functional equation of the Eisenstein series (which has the constant-term ratio involved), one gets the “crude” functional equation for the product of $`m`$ L-functions

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}L_S(a_js,\stackrel{~}{\pi },r_j)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}L_S(1a_js,\pi ,r_j)\underset{vS}{}\left(\text{local factors}\right).$$
(2.6)
Shahidi’s papers \[Sh2\] and \[Sh3\] match all the local factors above to the desired L-functions (as in the remark after (2.3)). This gives the full functional equation for these $`m`$ L-functions, but only when multiplied together. His 1990 paper \[Sh3\] uses an induction to isolate each of the $`m`$ factors above separately.

### 2.5 Analytic Properties and the Quasi-Split Case

It remains to prove that the L-functions are entire, except perhaps at $`s=0`$ and 1 where the order of the poles is understood. The theory of Eisenstein series provides this full analyticity except for when $`\pi `$ satisfies a self-duality condition; even in this case, it can be shown that the L-functions have only a finite number of poles, all lying on the real axis between $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and 1. Kim’s observation of using the unitary dual has worked in many cases. It is also always possible to remove the potential poles by twisting by a highly-ramified $`GL(1)`$ character of $`𝔸_F`$; this has been crucial for applications to functorality by the converse theorem \[CPS\].

The main difference in the quasi-split case is that the action of the Galois group $`G_F`$ is no longer trivial. The L-groups are potentially disconnected as a semi-direct product of a connected component and $`G_F`$. Also, the representation $`\rho `$ used to define the Langlands L-functions may also depend on the place $`v`$.