format: text

text:
# On Fundamental Principle of Quantum Theory

## 1 Introduction

We start our paper with the citation from the work of A. Zeilinger :

‘It so happened that almost all relativistic equations which appear in Einstein’s publication of 1905 were known already before, mainly through Lorentz, Fitzgerald and Poincare - simply as an attempt to interpret experimental data quantitatively. But only Einstein created the conceptual foundations, from which, together with the constancy of the velocity of light, the equations of the relativity arise. He did this by introducing the principle of relativity…’– .

A. Zeilinger was looking for a new quantum paradigm. He correctly underlines that the situation in quantum theory, especially large diversity of interpretations, is not so natural, see also e.g. . That in the opposite to e.g. theory of relativity, there is no quantum analogue of the fundamental principle. Following to A. Zeilinger , we are looking for an analogue of the fundamental principle that would play the role of Einstein’s relativity principle.

In this paper I try to propose a candidate for such a “quantum fundamental principle”. We start with the remark that quantum formalism is the statistical theory; a theory that deals with probabilities of events222However, as we have already discussed, the existence of such a probabilistic description does not imply the impossibility realistic ontic description, .. Therefore any “fundamental quantum principle” (if it exists at all) should be a statement about probabilities. So we are looking for a fundamental statistical principle that would induce quantum formalism.

Our statistical analysis of foundations of quantum theory is based on a so called contextual approach to quantum probabilities, see , , cf. L. Ballentine –, L. Gudder –.333I also remark that my contextual investigations were initially stimulated by investigations of E. Prugovecki ,  on the role of statistical and individual errors in quantum and classical measurements.

We also remark that ideas which are similar to Zeilinger’s idea to find a ‘quantum fundamental principle’ (or principles) are intensively discussed by many authors. In particular, extended discussions took place at the Växjö-Conference on foundations of quantum theory, see . I would like to mention papers of C. Fuchs, L. Hardy and J. Summhammer in , see also papers , .

## 2 General statistical measurement theory

We start with consideration of general statistical measurement theory. This theory is based on the following experimental fact:

(CP) All observed probabilities depend on complexes of experimental physical conditions, contexts.

This principle of contextuality of probabilities is very general. It is also more or less evident (at least after it has been formulated).444The notion of context is closely related to so called preparation procedure, see e.g. , . However, we prefer context, since context need not be prepared by somebody. A context (e.g., the physical space) can be prepared by Nature. It seems that it would be impossible to derive some concrete theoretical results starting with only this principle. But it is not so. I was surprised by myself that many important consequences can be derived by using only this principle, (CP), see , , cf. Ballentine - and Gudder -. In this paper we would not like to go deeply in technical derivations, see ,  for the details. We just formulate consequences of the principle (CP).

We are interested in transformations of probabilities for physical observables due to the transition from one context to another. In general statistical measurement theory a context plays the role of a system of coordinates (statistical coordinates). So we are looking for transformations of statistical coordinates.

To escape technical complications, we consider two physical observables A and B that are dichotomic: $`A=a_1,a_2`$ and $`B=b_1,b_2,`$ see , p. 9967 for the general case of discrete multi valued observables. We consider some complex of physical conditions, context, $`𝒮`$ (‘a system of coordinates’). By using $`𝒮`$ we can prepare a large ensemble $`S`$ of physical systems. By performing the $`A`$-measurement over elements of $`S,`$ we get probabilities (a kind of vector for ‘context-coordinate system’):

$$p_j^a=𝐏_𝒮(A=a_j),j=1,2.$$

We now consider contexts $`𝒮_i^b,i=1,2,`$ that realize filtrations with respect to the values $`B=b_i`$ of the $`B`$-observable. Let $`S_i^b,i=1,2,`$ be corresponding ensembles of physical systems. By performing the $`A`$-measurement over elements of $`S_i^b,`$ we get probabilities

$$p_{ij}^{a/b}=𝐏_{𝒮_i^b}(A=a_j),i,j=1,2.$$

We would like to predict the probabilities $`p_j^a`$ for the $`A`$-measurement for an arbitrary context $`𝒮`$ by knowing the probabilities $`p_{ij}^{a/b}`$ of the $`A`$-measurement for contexts $`𝒮_i^b,i=1,2,`$ corresponding to fixed values $`B=b_i`$ of the $`B`$-observable.

We have found ,  that such a prediction rule can always be represented in the form of the transformation:

$$p_j^a=p_1p_{1j}^{a/b}+p_2p_{2j}^{a/b}+2\sqrt{p_1p_2p_{1j}^{a/b}p_{2j}^{a/b}}\lambda _j,j=1,2.$$
(1)
Here $`p_i=𝐏(𝒮𝒮_i^b),i=1,2,`$ are filtration probabilities. They are computed in the following way. By applying $`B=b_i`$ filtration to the ensemble $`S`$ (prepared on the basis of the complex of physical conditions $`𝒮`$) we get ensembles $`S_i^b.`$ Then

$$p_i\frac{|S_i^b|}{|S|},i=1,2.$$

when $`N\mathrm{},`$ where $`N`$ is the number of elements in $`S.`$ We use the symbol $`|O|`$ to denote the number of elements in the set $`O`$.

In transformation (1) the coefficients $`\lambda _j=\lambda _j(𝒮𝒮_i^b,A)`$ are context transition parameters. They give the measure of perturbation of probabilities for the observable $`A=a_j`$ due to transitions from context $`𝒮`$ to contexts $`𝒮_i^b.`$

Remark 1. (Stochasticity of the matrix of transition probabilities). We note that we always have:

$$p_{11}+p_{12}=1\mathrm{and}p_{21}+p_{22}=1,$$
(2)
since $`p_{i1}+p_{i2}=𝐏_{𝒮_i^b}(A=a_1)+𝐏_{𝒮_i^b}(A=a_2)`$ and, for probabilities corresponding to the fixed complex of physical conditions (in our case $`𝒮_i^b`$), we use the standard rule for the addition of probabilities of alternatives (in our case $`A=a_1`$ or $`A=a_2).`$ A matrix $`𝐏=(p_{ij}^{a/b})`$ satisfying (2) is called stochastic matrix, see, e.g. .

In ,  we classified statistical measurement theories with respect to magnitudes of context transition parameters $`\lambda _j(𝒮𝒮_i^b;A):`$

a) trigonometric theory: $`|\lambda _j|1,j=1,2,`$ so these parameters can be represented as $`\lambda _j=\mathrm{cos}\theta _j,\theta _j[0,2\pi ];`$

b) hyperbolic theory: $`|\lambda _j|>1,j=1,2,`$ so $`\lambda _j=\pm \mathrm{cosh}\theta _j,\theta _j(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{});`$

c) hyper-trigonometric theories: $`|\lambda _1|1`$ and $`|\lambda _2|>1`$ or $`|\lambda _1|>1`$ and $`|\lambda _2|1,`$ so $`\lambda _1=\mathrm{cos}\theta _1,\lambda _2=\pm \mathrm{cosh}\theta _2`$ or $`\lambda _1=\pm \mathrm{cosh}\theta _1,\lambda _2=\mathrm{cos}\theta _2.`$

We are interested in trigonometric statistical theories. Here we study context transitions that produce relatively small perturbations of probabilities:

$$|\lambda _j(𝒮𝒮_i^b;A)|1,j=1,2.$$
(3)
In particular, we can consider a statistical measurement theory that operates with classes of contexts and observables such that all coefficients $`\lambda _j=0.`$ Such statistical theories of measurement we call classical statistical theories. In classical theories general transformation, (1), of probabilities corresponding to context transitions is reduced to the well known (especially in statistics, see, e.g. ) formula of total probability

$$p_j^a=p_1p_{1j}^{a/b}+p_2p_{2j}^{a/b}$$
(4)
This formula can easily be derived by using Bayes’ formula for conditional probabilities. In classical statistical theories we need not pay attention to context dependence of probabilities. In the mathematical theory we can use one fixed Kolmogorov probability space,  (see the book  on extended analysis of possible modifications of the theory of statistical physical measurements if we use non-Kolmogorovean frameworks to describe statistics of measurements mathematically - e.g. the framework with context dependent Kolmogorov spaces or von Mises’ frequency framework). Moreover, we need not pay attention under which complex of physical conditions a measurement of $`A`$ is performed. If you like, you can say that $`A`$ is an objective property of a physical system. Thus classical statistical theories are realist statistical theories.

Remark 2. (The formula of total probability in the conventional probabilistic formalism). Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },,𝐏)`$ be Kolmogorov’s probability space , see e.g. . Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the space of elementary events, $``$ is the $`\sigma `$algebra of events and $`𝐏`$\- probability measure. Physical observables $`A=a_1,a_2`$ and $`B=b_1,b_2`$ are represented by random variables $`A(\omega ),B(\omega ),\omega \mathrm{\Omega }.`$ Conditional probability is defined by Bayes’ formula:

$$𝐏(A=a_j/B=b_i)=\frac{𝐏(A=a_j,B=b_i)}{𝐏(B=b_i)}.$$

By using additivity of probability we get the formula of total probability:

$$𝐏(A=a_j)=𝐏(B=b_1)𝐏(A=a_j/B=b_1)+𝐏(B=b_2)𝐏(A=a_j/B=b_2)$$
(5)
Here $`p_j^a=𝐏(A=a_j),p_i=𝐏(B=b_i),p_{ij}^{a/b}=𝐏(A=a_j/B=b_i).`$ Here the complex of physical conditions $`𝒮_i^b`$ can be mathematically represented as an element of the $`\sigma `$-algebra of events $`S_i^b=H_i=\{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }:B(\omega )=b_i\}.`$

In statistics events $`𝒮_i^b`$ are considered as statistical hypothesis. Formula (5) is used for prediction of the probability of the event $`E_j=\{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }:A(\omega )=a_j\}`$ if we know probabilities of this event under statistical hypothesis $`H_i𝐏(E_j/H_i):`$

$$𝐏(E_j)=𝐏(H_1)𝐏(E_j/H_1)+𝐏(H_2)𝐏(E_j/H_2).$$
(6)
However, if perturbations of probabilities corresponding to context transitions

$$𝒮𝒮_i^b$$

are relatively large, namely, $`\lambda _i0,`$ we can not use, the standard Bayes’ rule to predict the probability $`𝐏_𝒮(A=a_j)`$ of the event $`E_j=\{A=a_j\}`$ under the context $`𝒮`$ on the basis of probabilities $`𝐏_{𝒮_i^b}(A=a_j)`$ of the event $`E_j`$ under contexts $`𝒮_i^b.`$

Remark 3. (Contextual Statistics.) It seems natural from the general statistical viewpoint to develop an analogue of Bayesian statistical analysis, see Remark 2, for statistical hypothesis $`H_i`$ that could not be represented mathematically as elements of one fixed $`\sigma `$algebra $``$ of events. I tried to find such a statistical formalism in literature; unfortunately, I could not…

In particular in a trigonometric statistical theory, see (3), the standard prediction rule (4) is modified:

$$p_j^a=p_1p_{1j}^{a/b}+p_2p_{2j}^{a/b}+2\sqrt{p_1p_2p_{1j}^{a/b}p_{2j}^{a/b}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _j.$$
(7)
Here ‘phases’ $`\theta _j=\theta _j(𝒮𝒮_i^b;A)`$ have a purely probabilistic meaning. These are simply convenient reparametrizations (see further considerations) of perturbation probabilistic coefficients $`\lambda _j.`$ The reader has already recognized in (7) the form of the quantum rule for interference of probabilities. So quantum statistical theory is simply one of trigonometric statistical theories of measurement.

However, transformation (7) is too general for conventional quantum theory (Dirac-von Neumann formalism). If you perform calculations in the Hilbert space of quantum states, 555The origin of the Hilbert space formalism will be discussed later. you will see that quantum transformations (7) are characterized by the very special choice of matrices $`𝐏=(p_{ij}^{a/b})`$ of transition probabilities. Matrices produced by quantum formalism are so called double stochastic matrices,  see e.g. A. Peres  for the details; see (8) for the definition.

## 3 The principle of statistical balance in nature

As we have seen, we could not derive quantum theory only by using the principle of contextuality of probabilities, (CP). Well, quantum theory of measurement is one of the statistical theories of measurement. We have to find additional conditions that specify quantum statistical theory among all possible statistical theories of measurement. So, we have to find some specific quantum principles - additional to the general statistical principle, (CP). We already know that quantum statistical theory belongs to the class of trigonometric theories. These are theories describing classes of contexts and physical observables such that transitions from one context to other produce relatively small perturbations of probabilities, $`|\lambda _i|1.`$

We can formulate this as a principle of relatively small perturbations, (SP).

However, (SP) is not, in fact, a physical principle. This is the principle on human investigation of nature. We would like to consider theories giving as small as possible errors in prediction. In principle, we can study some measurements over elementary particles described by the hyperbolic or hyper-trigonometric statistical theory. It would simply mean that we consider some observables that are essentially more sensible to context transitions than quantum observables (we shall discuss this question later in more details).

In fact, the crucial quantum point is double stochasticity of the matrix of transition probabilities, see , . The fundamental problem of quantum theory is not interference of probabilities, but:

Why do we have for quantum observables and contexts not only stochasticity condition, (2), but also double stochasticity condition?

Namely,

$$p_{11}+p_{21}=1\mathrm{and}p_{12}+p_{22}=1.$$
(8)
As we have seen, stochasticity is easily explained on the basis of general probabilistic arguments. But double stochasticity?

$$𝐏_{𝒮_1^b}(A=a_1)+𝐏_{𝒮_2^b}(A=a_1)=1$$
(9)
$$𝐏_{𝒮_1^b}(A=a_2)+𝐏_{𝒮_2^b}(A=a_2)=1$$
(10)
Why? I think that equations (9), (10) should be interpreted as statistical balance equations. If $`B=b_1`$ preparation produces too much $`A=a_1`$ property, then $`B=b_2`$ preparation should produce just little $`A=a_1`$ property: if $`𝐏_{𝒮_1^b}(A=a_1)`$ is large, then $`𝐏_{𝒮_2^b}(A=a_1)`$ must be small. And vice versa.

We underline that we need not consider A(or B) as an objective property, the property of an object-physical system. The $`A`$(or $`B)`$ is a statistical property, probability for its values are assigned to statistical ensembles corresponding to various contexts.

Equations (9), (10) are simply the mathematical representation of the great law of nature: The law of statistical balance.

By this law in the process of ‘preparations’ for e.g. $`B=b_1,b_2`$ (that occur randomly in nature) the balance between $`A=a_1`$ and $`A=a_2`$ properties could not be violated. If the law of statistical balance be violated e.g. in the favour of $`A=a_1,`$ then after some period, the $`A=a_1`$ property would strongly dominate over $`A=a_2`$ property and, finally, $`A=a_2`$ property would disappear. Thus $`A`$ will be not more a physical observable.

It seems (at least for me) that quantum theory is a statistical measurement theory that is based on the principle of statistical balance:

(SB) Creation of physical properties by ‘preparations’ that randomly occur in nature does not violate statistical balance of physical properties.

On one hand, (SB) is the fundamental principle of quantum theory, the special theory of statistical measurements. On the other hand, (SB) is the law of nature. This is the very special feature of quantum theory, theory that describes the most fundamental ‘preparations’ of physical properties. Such ‘preparations’ are performed on the level of elementary particles. The violation of the law of statistical balance on such a level for some property $`A`$ would imply that such a property should sooner or later disappear on micro-level and, as a consequence, on macro-level. There could be such properties at the initial stage of the evolution of the universe. However, they should disappear. Therefore at the present time we observe only physical properties of elementary particles that follow to the law of statistical balance.

Of course, the law of statistical balance in nature can be violated for some contexts and (or) observables that are not of the fundamental character. Moreover, we can find observables that would follow to non-trigonometric transformation laws under the transition from one context to another. In particular, see , hyperbolic rule appears naturally for some generalized observables represented by POV-measures.

Conclusion: Quantum theory is a statistical theory of measurement 666with relatively small perturbations of probabilities corresponding to context transitions based on the principle of statistical balance in nature.

Of course, we do not forget about Planck’s constant $`h`$. This is the constant of energy that could not be changed by varying the system of ‘statistical coordinates’ - context (=complex of physical conditions). This is an analogue of the constant velocity of light in Einstein’s theory.

We formulated quantum theory in the way similar to Einstein’s formulation of general relativity:

Quantum theory of measurement is a theory about systems of statistical coordinates, contexts, and physical observables that are measured in such systems. Numerically these statistical coordinates for observables are given by probabilities $`p_j^a=𝐏_𝒮(A=a_j).`$

This theory gives the possibility to change statistical coordinates by using transformation (7). The trigonometric form of this transition law is a consequence of the fact that quantum theory concerns relatively small perturbations of statistical coordinates corresponding to transitions from one system of coordinates to other system.

The fundamental principle of quantum theory is the principle of statistical balance in nature. This principle implies that transition-matrices corresponding to transformations of statistical coordinates are double stochastic ones.

It seems that by using this principle and the constancy of the level of discretization of energy, Planck constant - we can derive the whole quantum formalism. In papers ,  we demonstrated that the Hilbert space probabilistic calculus can be derived by starting from trigonometric transformation (4).777As we have remarked, (4) can be derived in the purely contextual framework - without to apply to superposition or wave arguments. The lifting to linear spaces is based on the recognition in (4) of the well known theorem from elementary geometry – the (4) is nothing than well known parallelogram theorem:

$$c^2=a^2+b^2+2ab\mathrm{cos}\theta $$

with $`c^2=p_j^a,a^2=p_1p_{1j}^{a/b},b^2=p_2p_{2j}^{a/b}.`$ Typically the Hilbert space probabilistic calculus is called quantum probabilistic calculus. However, it would be more natural to call it simply contextual probabilistic calculus. In general it is not coupled rigidly to statistical experiments with elementary particles. In principle, it could be discovered in purely mathematical investigations a few hundreds years ago. It is pity that it was discovered only in connection with the creation of quantum statistical formalism.888As it was rightly remarked by D. Bohm, it was not so natural at all to call this formalism – ‘mechanics.’ The main quantum discovery – first experimental and then theoretical was the discovery of the law of statistical balance in nature or more precisely – understanding that there were found fundamental physical observables that should follow to this law. Unfortunately, this fundamental fact (as we have seen based on the straightforward probabilistic contextual analysis) was not recognized at the stage of creating of quantum formalism.

Remark 4. I would like to underline again that our aim was not to derive the mathematical formalism of quantum theory. I tried to find fundamental principles of quantum theory. For me quantum statistical physics is concentrated in principles (CP), (SP) and (SB). Manipulations with vectors of Hilbert space is merely mathematics - powerful machinery for calculations of probabilities.

In this paper we formulated the “fundamental principle” of quantum theory by using dichotomous observables. Of coures, if observables take more than two values we could not reduce the distinguishing features of quantum probability to double stochasticity of matrices of transition probabilities. However, it seems that in formulating of a “fundamental principle” we could restrict ourselves by considering only dichotomous observables – questions in terminology of G. Mackey, see  for detail; see also an extended literature on foundations of quantum mechanics from the viewpoint of quantum logic, e.g., .

I would like to remark that I started to be interested in finding of the fundamental quantum principle after my visit to Atominstitut, Wien, 1997, and intensive discussions with H. Rauch and J. Summhammer. The important role was played by discussions with A. Zeilinger during the conference in Venice, 2001, and with C. Fuchs during my visit to Bell’ Lab., 2001, and I. Volovich during my visit to Steklov Math. Institute, 2002, as well as Email exchanges with L. Ballentine, J. Bub, S. Gudder, L. Hardy, A. Plotnitsky, W. De Baere, W. De Muynck.

References.

1. A. Zeilinger, On the interpretation and philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics. in Vastakohtien todellisuus. Festschrift for K.V. Laurikainen. U. Ketvel et al. (eds), Helsinki Univ. Press, 1996.

2. A. Einstein, Relativity. The special and general theory. New York, Henry Holt, 1920.

3. W. De Muynck, W. De Baere, H. Marten, Found. of Physics, 24, 1589–1663 (1994).

4. A. Yu. Khrennikov, Linear representations of probabilistic transformations induced by context transitions. J. Phys.A: Math. Gen., 34, 9965-9981 (2001); quant-ph/0105059

A. Yu. Khrennikov, Ensemble fluctuations and the origin of quantum probabilistic rule. Reports MSI, Växjö University, 90, October (2000).

5. A. Yu. Khrennikov, Ensemble fluctuations and the origin of quantum probabilistic rule. J. Math. Phys., 43, N. 2, 789-802 (2002).

A. Yu. Khrennikov, Contextual viewpoint to quantum stochastics. Proc. of Conf. ”Quantum Theory: Reconsideration of Foundations, series Math. Modeling, 2 , Växjö Univ. Press, 2002;hep-th/0112076.

 L. E. Ballentine, Probability theory in quantum mechanics. American J. of Physics, 54, 883-888 (1986).

 L. E. Ballentine, Interpretations of probability and quantum theory. Proc. Conf. Foundations of Probability and Physics. Q. Prob. White Noise Anal., 13, 71-84, WSP, Singapore (2001).

 L. E. Ballentine, Quantum mechanics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989.

 S. P. Gudder, Special methods for a generalized probability theory. Trans. AMS, 119, 428-442 (1965).

 S. P. Gudder, Axiomatic quantum mechanics and generalized probability theory. Academic Press, New York (1970).

 S. P. Gudder, An approach to quantum probability. Proc. Conf. Foundations of Probability and Physics, ed. A. Khrennikov. Quantum Prob. White Noise Anal., 13, 147-160, WSP, Singapore (2001).

 E. Prugovecki, J. Math. Phys., 7, 1054-1069 (1966).

 E. Prugovecki, Canadian J. Phys., 45, 2173-2219 (1967).

 Proc. of Conf. ”Quantum Theory: Reconsideration of Foundations”. Ed. A. Khrennikov, series Math. Modeling, 2 , Växjö Univ. Press, 2002;

 J. Summhammer, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 33, 171 (1994) .

 L. Hardy (2001), Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms. Preprint quant-ph/0101012.

 P. Busch, M. Grabowski, P. Lahti, Operational Quantum Physics. Springer Verlag, 1995.

 A. N. Shiryayev, Probability. Springer, Heidelberg, 1991.

 H. Cramer, Mathematical theory of statistics. Univ. Press, Princeton, 1949.

 A. N. Kolmogoroff, Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1933); reprinted: Foundations of the Probability Theory. (Chelsea Publ. Comp., New York, 1956).

 A.Yu. Khrennikov, Interpretations of Probability. VSP Int. Sc. Publishers, Utrecht/Tokyo, 1999.

 A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods (Kluwer Academic Publishers) 1994.

 A. Yu. Khrennikov, E. Loubents, On relations bewteen probabilities under quantum and classical measurements. Reports MSI, Växjö University, March 2002; quant-ph/0204001.

 G. W. Mackey, Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. W. A. Benjamin INc, New York (1963).

 E. Beltrametti and G. Cassinelli, The logic of Quantum mechanics. (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1981).

 A. Khrennikov, Växjö interpretation of quantum mechanics. Preprint quant-ph/0202107.


text:
# Generalization of Boltzmann Equilibration Dynamics

(July 25, 2002)

## Abstract

We propose a novel approach in the study of transport phenomena in dense systems or systems with long range interactions where multiple particle interactions must be taken into consideration. Within Boltzmann’s kinetic formalism, we study the influence of other interacting particles in terms of a random distortion of energy and momentum conservation occurring when multi-particle interactions are considered as binary collisions. Energy and momentum conservation still holds exactly but not in each model binary collision. We show how this new system differs from the Boltzmann system and we note that our approach naturally explains the emergence of Tsallis-like equilibrium statistics in physically relevant systems in terms of the long since neglected physics of interacting and dense systems.

The Boltzmann equation Bol64  for a spatially independent system of particles describes the evolution of the one particle momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ distribution $`f(\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ of a “foreground” particle with mass $`m`$ subject to interactions (here assumed to be number conserving) with $`N`$ “background” particles $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$ with masses $`m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_N`$. In classical, non-relativistic regimes, the Boltzmann equation takes the form

$$\frac{f(\stackrel{}{p},t)}{t}=\left[W(\stackrel{}{p}^{},\stackrel{}{p})f(\stackrel{}{p}^{},t)W(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{})f(\stackrel{}{p},t)\right]d^3\stackrel{}{p}^{},$$
(1)
where we have suppressed a possible time dependence in the transition rate $`W(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{})`$, the rate per unit time of the foreground particle making a momentum transition from $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ to $`\stackrel{}{p}^{}`$ due to interactions with the background particles.

In applications, the Boltzmann equation is restricted to sufficiently rarefied systems with short range interactions so that only two particle interactions (two body or binary collisions) are incorporated into the transition rate Uhl73 . For these systems, the transition rate is given by Kam81

$`W(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{})={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[{\displaystyle }d^3\stackrel{}{q_j}{\displaystyle }d^3\stackrel{}{q}_j^{}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q_j}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{q}_j^{})`$
$`\times \delta (\text{E}_p+\text{E}_{q_j}\text{E}_p^{}\text{E}_{q_j^{}})(\sigma v)_jb_j(\stackrel{}{q}_j,t)],`$ (2)
where the energies are given by $`\text{E}_p=|\stackrel{}{p}|^2/2m`$ and $`\text{E}_{q_j}=|\stackrel{}{q_j}|^2/2m_j`$, $`b_j(\stackrel{}{q_j},t)`$ is the momentum $`\stackrel{}{q_j}`$ distribution for background particle $`j`$, and $`(\sigma v)_j`$ is the differential cross section for the scattering of the foreground particle with a background particle $`j`$.

No satisfactory generalization of the transition rates has been given to describe transport phenomena in dense systems or systems with long range interactions, that is, in systems where multiple particle interactions must be taken into consideration Coh73 . The natural generalization of the transition rates is to assume that the transition rate is proportional to the sum over collections of background particles of 1) the expectation of a collision between the foreground particle and a collection of background particles and 2) the expectation of the conservation of energy and momentum constraint. However, there is no clear way of systematically generalizing the Boltzmann equation by adding successive multi-particle-interaction correction terms (which are generally divergent). Attempts to generalize the Boltzmann equation for even “moderately” dense systems have largely been abandoned.

In dense systems or systems with long range interactions, for the transition $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}`$ of the foreground particle to be physically possible in an interaction, we need the initial and final momenta and energies to satisfy

$`\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}_1+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{}{q}_N`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{p}^{}+\stackrel{}{q}_1^{}+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{}{q}_N^{}`$ (3)
$`\text{E}_p+\text{E}_{q_1}+\mathrm{}+\text{E}_{q_N}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{E}_p^{}+\text{E}_{q_1^{}}+\mathrm{}+\text{E}_{q_N^{}}`$ (4)
by the conservation of momentum and energy. Singling out the dominant role that a single background particle $`j`$ plays in making the transition physically possible, we write the above constraints as

$`\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}_j`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{p}^{}+\stackrel{}{q}_j^{}+\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ (5)
$`\text{E}_p+\text{E}_{q_j}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{E}_p^{}(2\gamma 1)+\text{E}_{q_j^{}}.`$ (6)
The latter form of the constraints appears arbitrary. However, when combined with Eqs. (3) and (4), it serves as a defining relation for the variables $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ and $`\gamma `$. The above form is chosen here as such for mathematical convenience.

Thus, in dense systems or systems with long range interactions, for the transition to be “due” to an interaction with particle $`j`$, we need a foreground-background binary interaction as before, but with modified energy and momentum constraints. The transition rates for dense systems or systems with long range interactions are then given by simply replacing the $`\delta `$-functions appearing in Eq. (2) according to:

$`\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q_j}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{q_j}^{})`$ $``$ $`\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q_j}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{q_j}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ})_\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ (7)
$`\delta (\text{E}_p+\text{E}_{q_j}\text{E}_p^{}\text{E}_{q_j^{}})`$ $``$ $`\delta [\text{E}_p+\text{E}_{q_j}\text{E}_p^{}(2\gamma 1)\text{E}_{q_j^{}}]_\gamma .`$ (8)
So far, we have pushed all of the complexity of computing multiple scattering transition rates into computing the distributions of the random vector $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ and the random variable $`\gamma `$. However, the form of the transition rate is now familiar and many aspects of the distributions are immediately clear from their definitions. As the density of a system and/or the range of interactions decrease, $`\gamma _\gamma 1`$, $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_\stackrel{}{ϵ}\stackrel{}{0}`$ and $`\text{Var}(\gamma )0`$, $`\text{Var}(\stackrel{}{ϵ})\stackrel{}{0}`$ for only two particle collisions are increasingly present. Clearly, our transition rates simplify to the usual binary transition rates for rarefied systems with short range interactions and thus, incorporate the successes of the Boltzmann equation in describing transport phenomena in these systems.

However, as the density of a system and/or as the range of interactions increase, $`\text{Var}(\gamma )`$ and $`\text{Var}(\stackrel{}{ϵ})`$ increase. For such physically relevant systems, the success of our proposed generalization to the Boltzmann equation will be made evident by indicating how our generalization determines generalized equilibration dynamics which differ from canonical equilibration dynamics and how our generalization very naturally reproduces experimentally measured equilibrium transport phenomena.

In an interaction involving a foreground particle and a background particle $`j`$ we can interpret the presence of other interacting background particles in dense systems or systems with long range interactions as providing a mechanism for carrying off or providing the additional momentum and/or energy necessary to make transitions physically possible. We can also interpret the above transition rate as the usual transition rate in a system in which only binary collisions occur which do not necessarily conserve kinetic energy and momentum, as is the case for inelastic collisions.

Not only do these two interpretations aid us in understanding the nature of the $`\gamma `$ and $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ distributions, but we see that by extending our original definitions of $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ and $`\gamma `$, the form of our transition rates is applicable to a very large class of systems: with elastic and/or inelastic interactions (here defined generally to incorporate all interactions which do not conserve energy and momentum), with low or high number densities, with short and/or long range interactions, and with any mechanisms which can carry off or provide additional momentum and energy to particles.

Indeed, for general systems, the calculation of the $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ and $`\gamma `$ distributions has become even more complicated. Before proceeding, it is helpful to note that the expectation of the parameters of our generalization appearing in the delta functions of Boltzmann’s formalism has the effect of widening or broadening the delta functions. Thus, the existence of our parameters with some fluctuation is guaranteed in that no exact delta function exists in nature. As such, the importance of our proposed generalization to physically relevant systems depends on the extent to which systems exhibit fluctuations in the parameters $`\gamma `$ and $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$.

It is natural to expect that systems with large number densities, long range interactions, inelastic interactions, and other such mechanisms (such as quantum mechanical interactions) exhibit sufficient fluctuations to, and indeed as they are known to, require a generalized formalism. Thus, to verify the necessity of generalizing Boltzmann’s formalism to a system requires extensive theoretical calculations and/or precise experimental measurements of the $`\gamma `$ and $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ parameters of that system. One such theoretical calculation has already been given by H. Haug and C. Ell Hau92 , whose derivation of a semiclassical Boltzmann equation for Coulomb quantum kinetics in a dense electron gas suggests, in the limit of completed collisions, an asymptotic and approximate distribution of gamma given by a peaked distribution about $`\gamma =1`$: $`f_\gamma (\gamma )=2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\text{E}_p^{}\right)/\left[(\gamma 1)^2+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\text{E}_p^{}\right)^2\right],`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the sum of the collision dampening coefficients.

In the absence of other such calculations or measurements of the distributions of $`\gamma `$ and $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ in various physical systems, we may still proceed in the verification of our theory since the precise form of our proposed generalization can be verified by comparing the consequences of our proposal with well established and currently unexplained phenomena. For instance, we can study transport phenomena within our formalism which result from certain classes of $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ and $`\gamma `$ distributions which we expect to be present in many physically relevant systems.

In many systems, we expect $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ and $`\gamma `$ to be peaked distributions about $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ and $`\gamma =1`$ and approximately independent of the incoming and outgoing momenta and energies (so that we interpret the influence of other interacting particles, unaccounted interaction processes and mechanisms as producing a random noise distortion of the conservation of energy and momentum constraints). In particular, we might expect $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ to have a spherically symmetric distribution about $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}=\stackrel{}{0}`$. Moreover, since the family of Gamma distributions has a rich variety of shapes and can approximate many classes of distributions, in many systems we expect the peaked distribution of $`\gamma `$ to be well approximated by a Gamma distribution with parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\lambda `$, chosen so that the distribution is peaked about $`\gamma =1`$:

$$f_\gamma (\gamma )=\lambda (\lambda \gamma )^{\alpha 1}e^{\lambda \gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha ),$$
(9)
where the average and variance of $`\gamma `$ are $`\text{Avg}(\gamma )\gamma _\gamma =\alpha /\lambda `$ and $`\text{Var}(\gamma )\gamma ^2_\gamma \gamma _\gamma ^2=\alpha /\lambda ^2`$.

The form of the distribution of $`\gamma `$ as a Gamma distribution is chosen here for mathematical convenience and to analytically recover the precise form of Tsallis’ proposed equilibrium distribution in the following example, but we emphasize that any peaked distribution of $`\gamma `$ about $`\gamma =1`$ will yield a Tsallis-like distribution, i.e., a deviation from the Boltzmann equilibrium distribution. Numerical calculations with the distribution of gamma suggested by the work of Haug and Ell resulted in Tsallis-like equilibrium distributions for a large range of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the Boltzmann equation was recovered as the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$.

To analytically illustrate some immediate results of our proposed generalization, we consider a system of $`N`$ classical background particles denoted by $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$ with mass $`m_j`$. Suppose further that the interactions are completely elastic and that the number density of the system and the range of the interactions are sufficiently small to guarantee that the momentum distribution of the background particle $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$ approaches the Boltzmann equilibrium distribution with a common temperature $`T`$ (measured in units of energy): $`b_j^{\text{eq}}(q_j)=C_j\mathrm{exp}\left(q_j^2/2m_jT\right)`$ where $`C_j`$ is a normalization constant. After the $`N`$ particles are sufficiently equilibrated, we inject a foreground particle with mass $`mm_j`$ for all background particles $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$ and an initial distribution $`f(\stackrel{}{p},t=0)`$. Suppose that multi-particle collisions between the foreground and background particles occur (for instance, as the diameter of the foreground particle is much larger than the diameter of the background particles or if the range of interaction is larger for a foreground-background interaction than for a background-background interaction) and/or that the interactions are inelastic. Thus, the distributions of $`\gamma `$ and $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ exhibit variation. Further, suppose $`(\sigma v)_j`$ is constant as in the case of hard sphere interactions. We also suppose that the background particles are sufficient in extent (i.e., the background is an ideal heat bath) so that we may assume that the background approximately remains in equilibrium during the evolution of the foreground particle. Therefore, the time dependent distribution $`f(\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ satisfies Eq. (1), where the transition rate is

$`W(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{q_j}d^3\stackrel{}{q}_j^{}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q_j}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{q}_j^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ})_\stackrel{}{ϵ}}`$ (10)
$`\times \delta [\text{E}_p+\text{E}_{q_j}\text{E}_p^{}(2\gamma 1)\text{E}_{q_j^{}}]_\gamma `$
$`\times (\sigma v)_jb_j^{\text{eq}}(\stackrel{}{q}_j).`$
Interchanging the order of integration and using the $`\delta ^3`$-function to integrate out $`\stackrel{}{q}_j^{}`$ (so that $`\stackrel{}{q}_j^{}=\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$), we obtain

$`W(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{})={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle }q_j^2dq_jd(\mathrm{cos}\theta _j)d\varphi _j\delta ({\displaystyle \frac{p^2+p^2}{2m}}`$
$`\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}|^2}{2m_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}|q_j\mathrm{cos}\theta _j}{m_j}})`$
$`\times (\sigma v)_jC_je^{{\displaystyle \frac{q_j^2}{2m_jT}}}_{\stackrel{}{ϵ},\gamma }`$ (11)
where we have introduced spherical coordinates $`(q_j,\theta _j,\varphi _j)`$ for the integration over $`\stackrel{}{q}_j`$. Note that we have chosen $`\theta _j`$ to measure the angle between $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ so that the integration over $`\varphi _j`$ is trivial and yields a factor of $`2\pi `$. We can now integrate over $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _j`$ using the remaining delta function. A required transformation introduces a factor $`(|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}|q_j)^1m_j`$ and the single zero of the delta function uniquely determines $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _j`$:

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _j=(\frac{p^2+p^2}{2m}\gamma \frac{p^2}{m}\frac{|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}|^2}{m_j})\frac{m_j}{|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}|q_j}.$$
(12)
The result is

$`W(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{})={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑q_j\frac{2\pi q_jm_j(\sigma v)_jC_j}{|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}|}e^{{\displaystyle \frac{q_j^2}{2m_jT}}}}_{\stackrel{}{ϵ},\gamma }`$ (13)
where the integration over $`q_j`$ is taken over all positive $`q_j`$ which satisfy $`1\mathrm{cos}\theta _j1`$. Solving this constraint implies that

$`q_j^2{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}|^2}{4}}+(p^2\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{p^2+p^2}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{m_j}{m}}`$ (14)
to first order in $`m_j/m`$. The remaining integral over $`q_j`$ is trivial and one obtains

$`W(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{})={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi m_j^2T(\sigma v)_jC_je^{{\displaystyle \frac{\text{E}_p+\text{E}_p^{}}{2T}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{e^{{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}|^2}{8m_jT}}}}{|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}|}}_\stackrel{}{ϵ}e^{{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \text{E}_p^{}}{T}}}_\gamma .`$ (15)
The final form of transition rate indicates that the distribution of $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ determines the rate of equilibration, while the distribution of $`\gamma `$ determines the shape of the resulting equilibrium. Now, if $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ is symmetrically distributed about $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ (as we suggested above), we have that

$$\frac{e^{{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}|^2}{8m_jT}}}}{|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}|}_\stackrel{}{ϵ}=\frac{e^{{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}+\stackrel{}{ϵ}|^2}{8m_jT}}}}{|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}+\stackrel{}{ϵ}|}_\stackrel{}{ϵ}.$$
(16)
Multiplying Eq. (15) by $`\mathrm{exp}(\gamma E_p/T)_\gamma `$, interchanging $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{}`$ and making use of Eq. (16), we see that

$$W(\stackrel{}{p}^{},\stackrel{}{p})e^{{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \text{E}_p^{}}{T}}}_\gamma =W(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{})e^{{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \text{E}_p}{T}}}_\gamma .$$
(17)
Note that this is a detailed balance equation Kam81 , implying

$$f^{\text{eq}}(\stackrel{}{p})=Ce^{{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \text{E}_p}{T}}}_\gamma $$
(18)
is a time-independent solution of Eq. (1), where $`C`$ is a normalization constant. This is easily verified by substituting $`f^{\text{eq}}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ in Eq. (18) for $`f(\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ in Eq. (1) and by making use of Eq. (17). If the distribution of $`\gamma `$ is well approximated by a Gamma distribution with parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\lambda `$ (as suggested above), we find that

$$f^{\text{eq}}(\stackrel{}{p})=C\left(1+\frac{\text{E}_p}{T}\lambda \right)^\alpha .$$
(19)
Thus, interpreting the Tsallis Tsa88  nonextensitivity parameter $`q_\text{T}`$ as

$$q_\text{T}=1+\frac{1}{\alpha }=\frac{\gamma ^2_\gamma }{\gamma _\gamma ^2}$$
(20)
and the inverse temperature of the foreground particle $`\beta _\text{F}=1/T_\text{F}`$ as $`\beta _\text{F}=\frac{\alpha }{\lambda }\beta =\gamma _\gamma \beta `$, we have that the equilibrium distribution of the foreground particle is a Tsallis equilibrium distribution with nonextensitivity parameter $`q_\text{T}`$, inverse foreground temperature $`\beta _F=1/T_\text{F}`$, and normalization constant $`C`$:

$$f^{\text{eq}}(\stackrel{}{p})=C\left[1\beta _\text{F}(1q_\text{T})\text{E}_p\right]^{\frac{1}{1q_\text{T}}}.$$
(21)
The Tsallis equilibrium distribution is often successfully used to model equilibrium distributions exhibiting power-tail behavior. Furthermore, Tsallis-like distributions are extensively measured in many physical systems, especially in systems with long range interactions and in turbulent flows Bec01 .

We note that our approach differs from Lim01  in that our “natural” generalization does not up-front introduce exact Tsallis equilibration and, moreover, we retain the intuitive statistical form of Boltzmann’s molecular chaos hypothesis, transport equation, and transition rates. Our proposal compliments the approach taken by C. Beck Bec2 , which generates Tsallis equilibrium statistics by considering fluctuations in the parameters of the Langevin equation. We incorporate the approach taken by G. Wilk and Z. Wlodarczyk Wil00 , which generates Tsallis equilibrium statistics from fluctuations in background temperatures in the Boltzmann exponential factor, by incorporating these fluctuations into our distribution of $`\gamma `$.

Concluding, we have proposed a generalization of Boltzmann equilibration dynamics to model transport phenomena in general, non-equilibrium systems. Our generalization resulted from our interpretation of the influence of other interacting particles as a random distortion of energy and momentum conservation occurring when multiple interactions are considered as binary collisions. As it turns out this also explains the appearance of Tsallis distribution in Fokker-Planck dynamics Wal00 , where local energy conservation was not maintained.

In outlook, we noted that our formalism is applicable to many different and large classes of systems: with elastic and/or inelastic interactions, with low or high number densities, with short and/or long range interactions, and with any mechanisms which can carry off or provide additional momentum and energy to particles. We also indicated how the result of our proposed generalization can be determined in systems by studying classes of reasonable distributions for the proposed parameters of our generalization. Although we have only considered a simple example where we could easily and explicitly determine some immediate results, our approach is easily extended to more general systems. We already have similar results for a relativistic, quantum mechanical foreground particle scattering in a thermal background of light relativistic particles, and it is clear that the general situation is similar.

Acknowledgments: Work supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, DE-FG03-95ER40937. Travis Sherman was in part supported by a UA/NASA Space Grant Undergraduate Research Internship Program.


text:
# Homotopy groups of 𝐾-contact toric manifolds

## 1. Introduction

In this paper I compute the first and second homotopy groups of certain toric symplectic cones or, equivalently, of certain contact toric manifolds. The main result of the paper is Theorem 1.1 (the terms used in the statement are explained below):

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`G`$ be a torus with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ and integral lattice $`_G=\mathrm{ker}\{\mathrm{exp}:𝔤G\}`$. Let $`(B,\xi =\mathrm{ker}\alpha )`$ be a contact toric $`G`$-manifold of Reeb type with moment cone $`C𝔤^{}`$, which is a strictly convex rational polyhedral cone. Let $``$ denote the sublattice of $`_G`$ generated by the normal vectors to the facets of $`C`$. The fundamental group of $`B`$ is the finite abelian group $`_G/`$. The second homotopy group of $`B`$ is a free abelian group of rank $`NdimG`$ where $`N`$ is the number of facets of the cone $`C`$.

Let us recall the necessary definitions (see \[L\] for more details; see also \[LS\]). A manifold $`B`$ with a contact structure $`\xi =\mathrm{ker}\alpha `$ ($`\alpha `$ is a contact form) is a toric $`G`$-manifold if there exists an effective action of a torus $`G`$ on $`B`$ preserving $`\xi `$ with $`dimB+1=2dimG`$. By averaging over the group, if necessary, one can always assume that the torus $`G`$ preserves a contact form $`\alpha `$ defining $`\xi `$. Given an action of a Lie group $`G`$ on a manifold $`B`$ preserving a contact form $`\alpha `$, the corresponding $`\alpha `$-moment map $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha :B𝔤^{}`$ ($`𝔤^{}`$ denotes the vector space dual of the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ of $`G`$) is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (b),X=\alpha _b(X_B(b))$$

for all $`bB`$, all $`X𝔤`$. As usual $`,`$ denotes the canonical paring between $`𝔤^{}`$ and $`𝔤`$, and $`X_B`$ denotes the vector field on $`B`$ induced by $`X`$. If $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(B)^G`$ is an invariant function, then $`\alpha ^{}=e^f\alpha `$ is another contact form defining the same contact distribution $`\xi `$ as $`\alpha `$. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{e^f\alpha }=e^f\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$, so the moment map is an invariant of the contact form and not of the contact distribution. On the other hand the subset $`C(\mathrm{\Psi })=C(\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha )`$ of $`𝔤^{}`$ for an $`\alpha `$-moment map $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha :B𝔤^{}`$ defined by

$$C(\mathrm{\Psi })=\{t\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (b)t0,bB\}$$

depends only on the action of $`G`$ on $`B`$ and on the contact distribution $`\xi `$ but not on the contact form $`\alpha `$ per se. We will refer to $`C(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ as the moment cone of the action. Since a moment map $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha :B𝔤^{}`$ completely encodes the action of $`G`$ on $`(B,\alpha )`$ we regard a contact toric $`G`$-manifold as a triple $`(B,\xi =\mathrm{ker}\alpha ,\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha :B𝔤^{})`$. Note that the symplectization $`(M,\omega ):=(B\times ,d(e^t\alpha ))`$ $`(t)`$ is a noncompact symplectic toric manifold with moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }(b,t)=e^t\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (b)`$. Remark that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M)\{0\}=C(\mathrm{\Psi })`$. Conversely, if a symplectic toric $`G`$-manifold $`(M,\omega ,\mathrm{\Phi }:M𝔤^{})`$ is a symplectic cone, i.e., if there is a free proper action $`\{\rho _t\}`$ of $``$ on $`M`$ commuting with the action of $`G`$ such that $`\rho _t^{}\omega =e^t\omega `$, then $`M/`$ is naturally a contact toric manifold.

A contact manifold $`(B,\xi =\mathrm{ker}\alpha )`$ with an action of a torus $`G`$ preserving $`\alpha `$ is Reeb type if there is $`X𝔤`$ such that the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ,X=\iota (X_B)\alpha `$ is strictly positive. By a result of Boyer and Galicki \[BG\] (see also Theorem 4.3 in \[LS\]), the moment cone of a contact toric $`G`$ manifold of Reeb type is a strictly convex rational polyhedral cone. “Strictly convex” means that the moment cone contains no linear subspaces of positive dimension, i.e., it’s a cone on a polytope. “Rational polyhedral” means that there exist vectors $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$ in the integral lattice $`_G:=\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{exp}:𝔤G)`$ of the torus $`G`$ such that

$$C(\mathrm{\Psi })=\{\eta 𝔤^{}\eta ,\mu _j0,j=1,\mathrm{},N\}.$$

There are several reasons for wanting to compute the homotopy groups of contact toric manifolds of Reeb type.
1. All contact manifolds of Reeb type are $`K`$-contact (see Proposition 3.1 below), hence the title of the paper. In fact contact toric manifolds of Reeb type are Sasakian, as proved by Boyer and Galicki (Theorem 5.3 in \[BG\]). Methods recently developed by Boyer, Galicki, Mann and others use Sasakian structures to obtain explicit positive Einstein metrics.
2. A classification of contact toric manifolds \[L\] shows that contact toric manifolds not diffeomorphic to the ones of Reeb type are easy to understand: they are either $`S^2\times S^1`$, or products $`𝕋^k\times S^{k+2l1}`$ ($`k>1`$, $`l0`$) or principal $`𝕋^3`$ bundles over $`S^2`$. So if one wants to understand the topology of contact toric manifolds, the manifolds of Reeb type are the ones to concentrate on.
3. One motivation for studying the topology of contact toric manifolds is their apparent difference from (topological) toric manifolds. Recall that in 1991 Davis and Januszkiewiecz defined (topological) toric manifolds as manifolds with torus action locally modeled on the standard action of $`𝕋^n`$ on $`^n`$ and having a simple polytope as the orbit space \[DJ\]. Such a manifold is determined by a polytope and a characteristic function, a function that assigns a 1-parameter subgroup of the torus to every facet of the polytope. They proved a beautiful formula for the integral cohomology ring of a toric manifold; it is the Stanley-Reisner ring of the polytope modulo an ideal determined by the characteristic function (for smooth projective toric varieties the formula is known as the Danilov-Jurkiewicz theorem). In particular the cohomology ring is generated by elements of degree two, odd dimensional cohomology vanishes and there is no torsion. They also proved that such manifolds are simply connected. In contrast, the odd dimension cohomology of a contact toric manifold need not vanish (cf. $`P^3`$), there is torsion and the fundamental group need not be trivial.
4. Another motivation comes from the study of completely integrable geodesic flows. According to Toth and Zelditch \[TZ\], a geodesic flow on a manifold $`Q`$ is toric integrable if there exists a homogeneous completely integrable action of a torus on the punctured cotangent bundle $`T^{}QQ`$ which preserves the geodesic flow. Naturally in this case the co-sphere bundle $`S(T^{}Q)`$ is a contact toric manifold. It would be interesting to find a topological obstruction to the existence of a toric integrable geodesic flow on a compact manifold $`Q`$ and for that one needs to understand the topology of contact toric manifolds.

We now outline the proof of Theorem 1.1.

1) Since a contact manifold $`B`$ is homotopy equivalent to its symplectization $`M=B\times `$, we compute the homotopy groups of the symplectization.

2) The symplectization $`M`$ of $`B`$ is the symplectic quotient at 0 of $`^N\{0\}`$ by a compact abelian group $`T`$ with $`\pi _0(T)=_G/`$ and $`dimT=NdimG`$. That is to say, $`M=(\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\})/T`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T:^N𝔱^{}`$ denotes the $`T`$-moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T:^N𝔱^{}`$ for the linear action of $`T`$ on $`^N`$.

3) The set $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\}`$ has the homotopy type of $`^N(V_1V_2\mathrm{}V_r)`$ where each $`V_j^N`$ is a linear subspace of complex codimension at least 2. Hence $`\pi _0(\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\})=\pi _1(\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\})=\pi _2(\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\})=`$.

4) Since the group $`T`$ acts freely on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\}`$, we see from the long exact sequence of homotopy groups for the fibration $`T(\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\})M`$ that

$$\pi _1(M)=\pi _0(T)\text{and}\pi _2(M)=\pi _1(T).$$

The details of the argument are the subject of the next section. In the last section we explain the connection between torus actions of Reeb type and being $`K`$-contact.

### A note on notation

Throughout the paper the Lie algebra of a Lie group denoted by a capital Roman letter will be denoted by the same small letter in the fraktur font: thus $`𝔤`$ denotes the Lie algebra of a Lie group $`G`$ etc. The natural pairing between $`𝔤`$ and its vector space dual $`𝔤^{}`$ is denoted by $`,`$. If $`A:VW`$ is a linear map, we denote the corresponding map on the dual spaces by $`A^{}`$, $`A^{}:W^{}V^{}`$.

When a Lie group $`G`$ acts on a manifold $`M`$ we denote the action by an element $`gG`$ on a point $`xM`$ by $`gx`$; $`Gx`$ denotes the $`G`$-orbit of $`x`$ and so on. The vector field induced on $`M`$ by an element $`X`$ of the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ of $`G`$ is denoted by $`X_M`$. Thus $`X_M(m)=\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}(\mathrm{exp}tX)m`$.

For us a torus is a compact connected abelian group. If $`G`$ is a torus, we denote its weight lattice by $`_G^{}`$, it is a subgroup of $`𝔤^{}`$. The dual lattice of $`_G^{}`$ is the integral lattice $`_G`$. Recall that $`_G=\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{exp}:𝔤G)`$. Thus $`G=𝔤/_G`$.

### Acknowledgments

I thank Charles Boyer, Sue Tolman and Bill Graham for a number of useful conversations.

## 2. Proof of the main result, Theorem 1.1

It was proved in \[L\] that the moment cone $`C(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ of a (compact connected) contact toric $`G`$-manifold $`(B,\xi =\mathrm{ker}\alpha ,\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha :B𝔤^{})`$ of Reeb type is a good cone. This means the following. Let $`\{F_i\}`$ denote the set of facets (codimension one faces) of $`C(\mathrm{\Psi })`$. Since $`C(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is rational, each facet is of the form

$$F_i=\{\eta C(\mathrm{\Psi })\eta ,\mu _i=0\}$$

for some primitive vector $`\mu _i`$ in the integral lattice $`_G`$ of $`G`$. Then

1. every codimension $`\mathrm{}`$, $`0<\mathrm{}<dimG`$, face $`F`$ of $`C(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ can be written uniquely as

$$F=F_{i_1}\mathrm{}F_i_{\mathrm{}}$$

where $`F_{i_j}`$’s are the facets containing $`F`$, and
2. the $``$-module generated by the normals to the facets $`F_{i_1},\mathrm{},F_i_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a direct summand of $`_G`$ of rank $`\mathrm{}`$.

We have a uniqueness result \[L\]: if $`(B,\xi =\mathrm{ker}\alpha ,\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha )`$ and $`(B^{},\xi ^{}=\mathrm{ker}\alpha ^{},\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{})`$ are two (compact connected) contact toric manifolds of Reeb type and the moment cones are equal then the contact toric manifolds are equivariantly contactomorphic.

There is also a corresponding existence result. Given a good polyhedral cone $`C𝔤^{}`$ (where $`𝔤^{}`$ is the dual of the Lie algebra of a torus $`G`$) there exists a compact connected contact toric $`G`$-manifold $`(B_C,\xi _C=\mathrm{ker}\alpha _C,\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha _C})`$ with the moment cone $`C(\mathrm{\Psi }_C)`$ equal to $`C`$ (Theorem 2.18(4) of \[L\]). Moreover $`(B_C,\xi _C=\mathrm{ker}\alpha _C,\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha _C})`$ can be constructed as a contact quotient of the standard odd dimensional sphere. In fact it is more convenient to construct the symplectization $`(M_C,\omega _C,\mathrm{\Phi }_C:M_C𝔤^{})`$ of $`(B_C,\alpha _C,\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha _C}:B_C𝔤^{})`$. Then for any contact toric $`G`$-manifold $`(B^{},\xi ^{}=\mathrm{ker}\alpha ^{},\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{})`$ with $`C(\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{})=C`$ we have

$$\pi _1(M_C)=\pi _1(B^{}),\pi _2(M_C)=\pi _2(B^{})$$

and so on. Note that the moment map image $`\mathrm{\Phi }_C(M_C)`$ is $`C\{0\}`$.

Recall from \[L\] the construction of the symplectic toric manifold $`(M_C,\omega _C,\mathrm{\Phi }_C:M_C𝔤^{})`$. As above let $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N_G`$ denote the primitive inward normals to the facets of the good strictly convex cone $`C`$. Since $`C`$ is strictly convex and has non-empty interior, span$`{}_{}{}^{}\{\mu _i\}=𝔤`$. Hence the abelian group $`_G/`$, where $`=\text{span}_{}\{\mu _i\}`$, is finite. Consider the $``$-linear map

(2.1)
$$\varpi :^N_G,\varpi (a_1,\mathrm{},a_N)=a_i\mu _i.$$

Its cokernel is $`_G/`$. It extends to a surjective $``$-linear map

(2.2)
$$\stackrel{~}{\varpi }:^N𝔤,\stackrel{~}{\varpi }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_N)=a_i\mu _i,$$

which drops down to a surjective Lie group homomorphism

$$\overline{\varpi }:𝕋^N=^N/^N𝔤/_G=G,\overline{\varpi }([a_1,\mathrm{},a_N])=\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{\varpi }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_N))=\mathrm{exp}(a_i\mu _i).$$

Here $`[a_1,\mathrm{},a_N]`$ denotes the class of $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_N)^N`$ in $`𝕋^N`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}:𝔤G`$ denotes the exponential map. Let $`T=\mathrm{ker}\overline{\varpi }`$; it is a closed by not necessarily connected subgroup of $`𝕋^N`$. The standard linear action of $`𝕋^N`$ on $`^N`$ preserving the standard symplectic form $`\sqrt{1}dz_jd\overline{z}_j`$ gives rise to a linear symplectic action of $`T𝕋^N`$. Denote the corresponding homogeneous moment map by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$; $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T:^N𝔱^{}`$. The moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:^N(^N)^{}`$ for the standard action of $`𝕋^N`$ on $`^N`$ is given by the formula

(2.3)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)=|z_j|^2e_j^{}$$

where $`e_1^{},\mathrm{},e_N^{}`$ is the standard basis of $`(^N)^{}`$. Hence, if $`\iota :𝔱^N`$ denotes the inclusion of the Lie algebra $`𝔱`$ of $`T`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T=\iota ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ We recall from \[L\]:

###### Lemma 2.1.

We use the notation above. The set $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\}`$ is a manifold. The group $`T`$ acts freely on this manifold. The symplectic manifold $`M:=(\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\})/T`$ is the desired $`G=𝕋^N/T`$ symplectic manifold, that is, it is a symplectic cone and the image of the $`G`$-moment map is $`C\{0\}`$. In particular $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0))=\stackrel{~}{\varpi }^{}(C)`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\varpi }^{}:𝔤^{}(^N)^{}`$ is dual to $`\stackrel{~}{\varpi }`$ (cf. (2.2)).

Our proof of Theorem 1.1 is based on two lemmas. The first one describes the group $`\pi _0(T)`$ of connected components of $`T`$:

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`T𝕋^N`$ be as above. Then $`\pi _0(T)=_G/`$ where, as above, $``$ is the sublattice of the integral lattice $`_G`$ spanned by the primitive normals to the facets of the cone $`C`$.

The second lemma shows that the manifold $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\}`$ has the homotopy type of $`^N(V_1\mathrm{}V_r)`$ where $`V_j^N`$ are complex linear subspaces of complex codimension at least 2. In fact the subspaces $`V_j`$ being deleted are determined by the combinatorics of the polyhedral cone $`C`$. To make this precise we need a few definitions. For a subset $`I\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ define the corresponding coordinate subspace $`V_I`$ by

$$V_I:=\{z^NjIz_j=0\}=\underset{jI}{}\{z_j=0\}.$$

For each $`j\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ the $`j`$th facet $`F_j`$ of the cone $`C`$ satisfies

$$F_j=C\{\eta 𝔤^{}\eta ,\mu _j=0\}.$$

Now consider the set

$$𝒰:=\{I\{1,\mathrm{},N\}\underset{jI}{}F_j=\{0\}\},$$

the collection of subsets $`I`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ such that the facets indexed by the elements of $`I`$ intersect only at the vertex.

###### Lemma 2.3.

The manifold $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\}`$ has the same homotopy type as

(2.4)
$$^N\underset{I𝒰}{}V_I.$$

Let us assume the lemmas for a moment and prove the main theorem, Theorem 1.1.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.1.

As was remarked previously, it is enough to prove that the symplectic toric manifold $`M_C=M=(\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\})/T`$ has the properties that $`\pi _1(M)=_G/`$ and that $`\pi _2(M_C)=^d`$ where $`d=NdimG`$. Since $`T`$ acts freely on $`Z:=\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\}`$, we have a long exact sequence of homotopy groups

(2.5)
$$\mathrm{}\pi _2(Z)\pi _2(M)\pi _1(T)\pi _1(Z)\pi _1(M)\pi _0(T)\pi _0(Z)\pi _0(M).$$

Since every facet $`F_j`$ of $`C`$ is not $`\{0\}`$, the set $`𝒰`$ contains no singletons. Since $`dim_{}V_I=N|I|`$, it follows that for any $`I𝒰`$, $`codim_{}V_I=|I|2`$. Hence by Lemma 2.3 $`Z`$ is connected and the homotopy groups $`\pi _2(Z)`$, $`\pi _1(Z)`$ are trivial. It follows from (2.5) that

$$\pi _2(M)=\pi _1(T)\text{ and }\pi _1(M)=\pi _0(T).$$

By Lemma 2.2 $`\pi _0(T)=_G/`$. Clearly $`\pi _1(T)=^d`$, $`d=dimT=dim𝕋^NdimG`$. ∎

###### Proof of Lemma 2.2.

This is a simple application of Snake lemma. Consider the commuting diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & ^N& & ^N& \stackrel{\mathrm{exp}}{}& 𝕋^N& & 1\\ & & \varpi & & \stackrel{~}{\varpi }& & \overline{\varpi }& & \\ 0& & _G& & 𝔤& \stackrel{\mathrm{exp}}{}& G& & 1\end{array}$$

By Snake lemma we have a long exact sequence

$$\mathrm{ker}\varpi \mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{\varpi }\mathrm{ker}\overline{\varpi }coker\varpi coker\stackrel{~}{\varpi }coker\overline{\varpi }.$$

By construction $`\stackrel{~}{\varpi }`$ is onto, hence $`coker\stackrel{~}{\varpi }=0`$. On the other hand $`coker\varpi =_G/`$. By definition $`\mathrm{ker}\overline{\varpi }=T`$, $`\mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{\varpi }=𝔱`$ and the map $`\mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{\varpi }\mathrm{ker}\overline{\varpi }`$ is simply the exponential map $`\mathrm{exp}:𝔱T`$. Since $`coker(\mathrm{exp}:𝔱T)`$ is $`\pi _0(T)`$ we get $`\pi _0(T)_G/`$. ∎

###### Proof of Lemma 2.3.

We keep the notation of the discussion above. The proof is an elementary application of the correspondence between symplectic quotients and Geometric Invariant Theory (GIT) quotients as developed by Mumford, Guillemin, Sternberg, Kirwan, Neeman, Sjamaar and others. The key point is that the GIT quotient $`^N//T^{}`$ and the symplectic quotient $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)/T`$ are isomorphic as stratified spaces. It will be most convenient for us to quote \[S\] where Kirwan’s results on the isomorphism between symplectic and GIT quotients were suitably refined.

(1) By Lemma 2.1 the group $`T`$ acts freely on the manifold $`Z=\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\}`$.
(2) By Example 2.3 of \[S\], $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ is admissible in the sense of \[S\] p. 109, and the set of analyticly semi-stable points $`(^N)^{ss}`$ for the action of $`T`$ on $`^N`$ is all of $`^N`$.
(3) By Proposition 1.6 of \[S\] for any point $`z^N`$ the stabilizer in the complexified group is the complexification of the stabilizer:

$$(T^{})_z=(T_z)^{}.$$

Hence by (1), $`(T^{})_z`$ is trivial for all $`zZ`$.
(4) By Proposition 2.4(ii) of \[S\] the orbit $`T^{}z`$ is closed in $`(^N)^{ss}=^N`$ if and only if $`T^{}z\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\mathrm{}`$. Thus

(2.6)
$$\{z^NT^{}z\text{ is closed }\}=\{0\}T^{}Z.$$

(5) Since the actions of $`(𝕋^N)^{}`$ and $`T^{}`$ commute, the union (2.6) of closed $`T^C`$ orbits is $`(𝕋^N)^{}`$ invariant. Hence, since $`\{0\}`$ is fixed by $`(𝕋^N)^{}`$, the set

$$S:=T^{}Z$$

is $`(𝕋^N)^{}`$ invariant.
(6) Proposition 2.4(iii) of \[S\] implies that $`(T^{}Z)/T^{}=Z/T`$. Combining this with (3) we see that $`S`$ is a $`T^{}/T`$-bundle over $`Z`$. Since $`T^{}/T`$ is diffeomorphic to the Lie algebra $`𝔱`$ of $`T`$, the manifolds $`S`$ and $`Z`$ are homotopy equivalent.
(7) For any subset $`I`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ define

$$\stackrel{˚}{V}_I=\{zV_Iz_j0\text{ for }jI\},$$

the “interior” of the coordinate subspace $`V_I`$. The set $`\stackrel{˚}{V}_I`$ is a single $`(𝕋^N)^{}`$ orbit. It satisfies

$$\stackrel{˚}{V}_I=V_I\underset{I^{}I,I^{}I}{}V_I^{}.$$

We claim that

(2.7)
$$\stackrel{˚}{V}_IS\underset{jI}{}F_j\text{ is a nonzero face of }C.$$

###### Proof of (2.7).

Note that since $`S`$ is $`(𝕋^N)^{}`$ invariant and $`\stackrel{˚}{V}_I`$ is a $`(𝕋^N)^{}`$ orbit, $`\stackrel{˚}{V}_IS`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{˚}{V}_IS\mathrm{}`$. Also, since $`zST^{}zZ\mathrm{}`$ and since $`S`$ is $`(𝕋^N)^{}`$ invariant, we have

$$zS(𝕋^N)^{}zZ\mathrm{}.$$

As before let $`\mu _j_G`$ denote the (primitive inward pointing) normal to the facet $`F_j`$ of $`C`$. Suppose $`F_I:=_{jI}F_j`$ is a nonzero face of $`C`$. Pick a point $`\eta `$ in the relative interior of $`F_I`$. Then $`\eta ,\mu _k>0`$ for all $`kI`$. Let $`z_j^\eta =\sqrt{\eta ,\mu _j}`$; $`z^\eta :=(z_1^\eta ,\mathrm{},z_N^\eta )`$ satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z^\eta ),e_j=|z_j^\eta |^2=\eta ,\mu _j=\eta ,\stackrel{~}{\varpi }(e_j)=\stackrel{~}{\varpi }^{}(\eta ),e_j$$

for all $`j`$, where, as before, $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_N`$ is the standard basis of $`^N`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }:^N(^N)^{}`$ is the moment map for the standard action of $`𝕋^N`$ on $`^N`$ (see (2.3)) and $`\stackrel{~}{\varpi }:^N𝔤`$ is the surjective map defined earlier by (2.2). Hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z^\eta )=\stackrel{~}{\varpi }^{}(\eta )`$, so $`z^\eta \mathrm{\Phi }^1(\stackrel{~}{\varpi }^{}(eta))`$. Since $`\eta 0`$ we have

$$\mathrm{}T^{}z^\eta (\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\stackrel{~}{\varpi }^{}(C))\{0\})=T^{}z^\eta Z,$$

where we used the fact that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\stackrel{~}{\varpi }^{}(C))=Z\{0\}`$. Also $`z^\eta \stackrel{˚}{V}_I`$ since $`|z_j^\eta |^2=\eta ,\mu _j`$ for all $`j`$ and $`\eta ,\mu _j>0`$ for $`jI`$. This proves that if the intersections $`_{jI}F_j`$ is a nonzero face of $`C`$ then $`\stackrel{˚}{V}_IZ\mathrm{}`$. Hence $`\stackrel{˚}{V}_IS\mathrm{}`$ and therefore $`\stackrel{˚}{V}_IS`$.

Conversely, suppose $`\stackrel{˚}{V}_IS`$. Then $`\stackrel{˚}{V}_IZ\mathrm{}`$. For any $`z\stackrel{˚}{V}_IZ`$ we have: $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)\stackrel{~}{\varpi }^{}(C)`$, $`|z_j|^20`$ for $`jI`$, $`|z_j|^2=0`$ for $`jI`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\stackrel{~}{\varpi }^{}(\eta )`$ for some $`\eta C`$ and $`\eta ,\mu _j0`$ for all $`jI`$, $`\eta ,\mu _j=0`$ for all $`jI`$. Hence

$$\eta \left(\underset{jI}{}\{\eta 𝔤^{}\eta ,\mu _j>0\}\right)\left(\underset{jI}{}\{\eta 𝔤^{}\eta ,\mu _j=0\}\right).$$

Thus $`F_I=_{jI}F_j`$ is a nonzero face of $`C`$. This proves (2.7). ∎

(8) If $`_{jI}F_j=\{0\}`$ then for any $`I^{}I`$, $`_{jI^{}}F_j=\{0\}`$ as well. Since $`V_I=_{I^{}I}\stackrel{˚}{V}_I^{}`$, (2.7) implies that

$$S=^N\underset{I𝒰}{}V_I.$$

By (6) $`Z=\mathrm{\Phi }_T^1(0)\{0\}`$ is homotopy equivalent to $`S=^N_{I𝒰}V_I`$ and the result follows. ∎

## 3. Reeb type and $`K`$-contact

In this section we prove a version of Proposition 2.1 of Yamazaki \[Y\] that relates torus actions and $`K`$-contactness. Recall that the Reeb vector field $`R_\alpha `$ on a contact manifold $`(B,\alpha )`$ is the unique vector field defined by the equations

$$\iota (R_\alpha )d\alpha =0,\iota (R_\alpha )\alpha =1.$$

The Reeb vector field defines a splitting of the tangent bundle of $`B`$:

(3.1)
$$TB=\xi R_\alpha ,$$

where $`\xi =\mathrm{ker}\alpha `$ is the contact distribution. Since $`(\xi ,d\alpha |_\xi )`$ is a symplectic vector bundle, there exists a complex structure $`J`$ on $`\xi `$ compatible with $`d\alpha |_\xi `$ so that $`g_\xi =d\alpha |_\xi (,J)`$ is a metric on $`\xi `$. Using (3.1) we may extend $`g_\xi `$ by zero to all of $`TB`$. Then $`g=g_\xi \alpha \alpha `$ is a Riemannian metric on $`B`$ in which $`\xi `$ and $`R_\alpha `$ are orthogonal and the length of the Reeb vector field is 1. The metric $`g`$ is said to be adapted to the contact form $`\alpha `$. If additionally the Reeb vector field is Killing with respect to an adapted metric $`g`$, i.e., if $`L_{R_\alpha }g=0`$, then the pair $`(\alpha ,g)`$ is called a $`K`$-contact structure on $`B`$. If given a contact distribution $`\xi `$ on a manifold $`B`$ there exists a $`K`$-contact structure with $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha =\xi `$ we will say that $`(B,\xi )`$ admits a $`K`$-contact structure.

Note that if a Lie group $`G`$ acts on $`B`$ preserving a contact form $`\alpha `$ then it preserves the Reeb vector field $`R_\alpha `$, the contact distribution $`\xi =\mathrm{ker}\alpha `$ and the symplectic structure $`d\alpha |_\xi `$. Therefore if $`G`$ is compact we may choose the complex structure $`J`$ (and hence the adapted metric $`g`$) to be $`G`$-invariant.

###### Proposition 3.1.

A compact contact manifold $`(B,\xi =\mathrm{ker}\alpha )`$ admits the structure of a $`K`$-contact manifold if and only if there exists an action of a torus $`G`$ on $`B`$ preserving $`\alpha `$ and a vector $`X𝔤`$ such that the function $`\iota (X_B)\alpha =\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ,X`$ is strictly positive, i.e., the $`G`$ action is of Reeb type. Here as before $`X_B`$ denotes the vector field on $`B`$ induced by $`X𝔤`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$ denotes the $`\alpha `$-moment map.

###### Proof.

Suppose the action of a torus $`G`$ on $`(B,\xi =\mathrm{ker}\alpha )`$ is of Reeb type, i.e., suppose there is a vector $`X𝔤`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ,X`$ is strictly positive (note that this is a condition on the co-oriented contact distribution $`\xi `$ and not just on the contact form $`\alpha `$). We then can multiply $`\alpha `$ by a positive $`G`$-invariant function $`f`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{f\alpha },X=1`$ ( take $`f=1/\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ,X`$). Therefore it is no loss of generality to assume that $`\alpha (X_B)=\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ,X=1`$. Since $`G`$ action preserves $`\alpha `$, we have $`0=L_{X_B}\alpha =d\iota (X_B)\alpha +\iota (X_B)d\alpha =d1+\iota (X_B)d\alpha `$. Therefore $`X_B`$ is the Reeb vector field of $`\alpha `$. Now choose an $`G`$-invariant metric $`g`$ adapted to $`\alpha `$. Then, since $`\alpha `$ is $`G`$-invariant, $`L_{X_B}g=0`$, and so $`(\alpha ,g)`$ is a $`K`$-contact structure on $`(B,\xi )`$.

Conversely suppose $`(\alpha ,g)`$ is a $`K`$-contact structure on $`B`$. Since $`B`$ is compact, the group of isometries of $`(B,g)`$ is a compact Lie group $`H`$. Take the closure inside $`H`$ of the flow of the Reeb vector field $`R_\alpha `$. The closure is a compact abelian group $`G`$, i.e., a torus. Since the flow of $`R_\alpha `$ preserves the contact form $`\alpha `$, the action of $`G`$ preserves $`\alpha `$ as well. By construction $`R_\alpha =X_B`$ for some vector $`X`$ in the Lie algebra of $`G`$. Since $`R_\alpha `$ is a Reeb vector field we have $`1=\iota (R_\alpha )\alpha =\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ,X`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha :B𝔤^{}`$ is the moment map for the action of $`G`$ on $`(B,\alpha )`$. Hence the action of $`G`$ on $`(B,\xi =\mathrm{ker}\alpha )`$ is of Reeb type. ∎