text:
# Diffeomorphism type of the Berger space SO(5)/SO(3)

## Introduction

There has been renewed interest in Riemannian structures of non-negative or positive curvature on the total spaces of $`𝐒^3`$-bundles over $`𝐒^4`$. These bundles have been of interest to topologists since Milnor showed that if the Euler class of such a bundle is $`\pm 1`$, then the total space is a homotopy sphere. Until recently there was only one exotic sphere, the so called Gromoll-Meyer sphere (cf. \[GM74\]), which was known to admit a metric of non-negative curvature. Then in their paper \[GZ00\], K. Grove and W. Ziller showed that every $`𝐒^3`$-bundle over $`𝐒^4`$ admits infinitely many complete metrics of non-negative curvature. In particular, all the exotic Milnor spheres admit such metrics. Which of course begs the question: which exotic spheres, or more generally, which $`𝐒^3`$-bundles over $`𝐒^4`$ admit metrics of positive sectional curvature?

The Berger space, $`M^7=\mathrm{SO}(5)/\mathrm{SO}(3)`$, was first described by M. Berger as a manifold that admits a (normal) homogeneous metric of positive sectional curvature. The embedding of $`\mathrm{SO}(3)`$ in $`\mathrm{SO}(5)`$ is maximal and irreducible (cf. \[Wo68\]), it is a rational homology sphere with $`H^4(M,𝐙)=𝐙_{10}`$ (cf. \[Ber61\]) and it has the cohomology ring of an $`𝐒^3`$-bundle over $`𝐒^4`$. In \[GZ00\], K. Grove and W. Ziller asked whether the Berger space is topologically or differentially equivalent (as a manifold) to an $`𝐒^3`$-bundle over $`𝐒^4`$. Part of this was settled in \[KiSh01\] where it was shown that the Berger space is $`PL`$-homeomorphic to such a bundle. To settle the diffeomorphism question requires computing the Eells–Kuiper invariant $`\mathrm{ek}(M)`$. The original definition of $`\mathrm{ek}(M)`$ in \[EK62\] requires that $`M^7`$ be written as the boundary of an eight dimensional spin manifold. Since the cobordism group $`\mathrm{\Omega }_7`$ is known to be trivial, one knows that any closed, 2-connected, 7-manifold admits a spin coboundary. However, an explicit coboundary for the Berger space has not been found.

Instead, we use the analytic formula (2.1) for the Eells–Kuiper invariant due to Donnelly \[Don75\] and Kreck–Stolz \[KS88\], which is based on the Atiyah–Patodi–Singer index theorem \[APS75\]. This formula expresses $`\mathrm{ek}(M)`$ in terms of the $`\eta `$-invariants of the signature operator and the untwisted Dirac operator. To determine these $`\eta `$-invariants, we follow the first named author’s approach in \[Go97\], \[Go99\], \[Go02\]; we first replace the operators $`B`$ and $`D`$ that are associated to the Levi-Civita connection on $`M`$ by operators of the kind $`D^{\frac{1}{3}}`$. These operators are particularly well adapted to representation theoretic methods, which was first noticed by Slebarski in \[Sle87\], and later exploited in \[Go97\], \[Go99\] and \[Kos99\]. In particular, we use the explicit formula for $`\eta `$-invariants from \[Go02\]. As a consequence of this approach, we can employ the reductive connection on $`M`$ to compute the secondary Pontrjagin number in (2.1) which is easier than using the Levi-Civita connection. This is accomplished by exploiting the existence of an equivariant $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ structure on the tangent bundle $`TM`$. Our main result is:

###### Theorem 1.

Depending on the orientation the Eells-Kuiper invariant (EK-invariant) of the Berger space $`M=\mathrm{SO}(5)/\mathrm{SO}(3)`$ is

$$\mathrm{ek}(M)=\pm \frac{27}{1120}.$$

Note that for our choice of orientation (which descends from a choice of orientation on the octonions) the exact value we obtain is $`\mathrm{ek}(M)=\frac{27}{1120}`$. By \[KiSh01\] we know that the Berger space may be given an orientation so as to have the oriented $`PL`$-type of some $`𝐒^3`$-bundle $`M_{m,10}`$ over $`𝐒^4`$ with Euler class $`10`$ and Pontrijagin class $`2(10+2m)𝐙H^4(𝐒^4)`$ with respect to the standard generator (in the notation of \[CE00\]). In fact, because the value of the $`PL`$-invariant $`s_1(M)=28\mathrm{ek}(M)𝐐/𝐙`$ of \[KS88\] equals $`\frac{13}{40}`$, it follows from Theorem 1.2 of \[CE00\] by an explicit computation of all possible values of $`s_1(M_{m,10})`$ that the Berger space $`M`$ is orientation preserving (reversing) $`PL`$-equivalent to $`M_{m,10}`$ if and only if $`m\pm 2`$ ($`m\pm 1`$) modulo $`10`$.

Given a pair of 2-connected, 7-manifolds $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, they are $`PL`$-homeomorphic to each other if and only if there exists an exotic sphere $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ so that $`M_1\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Sigma }=M_2`$. This is a consequence of the fact that $`PL/O`$ is 6-connected (cf. \[MM79\]). Moreover, the $`EK`$-invariant is additive with respect to connected sums and attains 28 distinct values on the group of exotic 7-spheres. The previous two facts were used in \[CE00\] to do the diffeomorphism classification of $`𝐒^3`$-bundles over $`𝐒^4`$. Hence, $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are oriented diffeomorphic if and only if they are $`PL`$-homeomorphic and have the same $`EK`$-invariant. Comparing this with the values of $`\mathrm{ek}(M_{m,n})`$ in \[CE00\], we obtain the following corollary.

###### Corollary 2.

The Berger space is diffeomorphic to $`M_{1,\pm 10}`$, the $`𝐒^3`$-bundle over $`𝐒^4`$ with Euler class $`\pm 10`$ and first Pontrjagin class equal to $`\pm 16`$ times the generator in $`H^4(𝐒^4)`$ with respect to the standard choice of orientation on $`𝐒^4`$.

###### Remark.

In general, any $`𝐒^3`$-bundle over $`𝐒^4`$ with non-vanishing Euler class $`n𝐙H^4(𝐒^4)`$ is diffeomorphic to infinitely many other $`𝐒^3`$-bundles over $`𝐒^4`$ with the same Euler class. It follows from Corollary 1.6 in \[CE00\] that the Berger space with the orientation specified in (2.4) is orientation reversing diffeomorphic to $`M_{m,n}`$ (orientation preserving diffeomorphic to $`M_{m,n}`$) if and only if $`n=10`$ and $`m`$ is congruent modulo $`140`$ to $`1`$, $`9`$, $`29`$ or $`19`$; this was pointed out to us by C. Escher. Note that there is no space $`M_{m,10}`$ that is orientation reversing diffeomorphic to $`M_{1,10}`$.

We also mention another consequence of Theorem 1. It is a natural question to ask: what is the largest degree of symmetry for $`𝐒^3`$-bundles over $`𝐒^4`$? The degree of symmetry of a Riemannian manifold is the dimension of its isometry group. For instance, it is well known that the maximal degree of symmetry for exotic 7-spheres is 4 (cf. \[Str94\]). However, some $`𝐒^3`$-bundles over $`𝐒^4`$ admit actions of larger groups. It follows from \[On66, Theorem 4\] (see also \[Kla88\]), that apart from the trivial bundle $`𝐒^4\times 𝐒^3`$, the only seven dimensional homogeneous manifolds that have the cohomology of an $`𝐒^3`$-bundle over $`𝐒^4`$ are $`𝐒^7=\mathrm{SO}(8)/\mathrm{SO}(7)`$, $`T_1𝐒^4=\mathrm{Sp}(2)/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{Sp}(1)`$, the unit tangent bundle of $`𝐒^4`$, the Berger space $`M=\mathrm{SO}(5)/\mathrm{SO}(3)`$, as observed by K. Grove and W. Ziller in \[GZ00\]. The spaces $`𝐒^4\times 𝐒^3`$, $`𝐒^7`$ and $`T_1𝐒^4`$ are diffeomorphic to principal $`𝐒^3`$-bundles over $`𝐒^4`$. On the other hand, it was shown in \[GZ00\] that the Berger space is not diffeomorphic (or even homeomorphic) to a principal $`𝐒^3`$-bundle over $`𝐒^4`$ (since its first Pontrjagin class does not vanish), but it is homotopy equivalent to a principal $`𝐒^3`$-bundle over $`𝐒^4`$.

###### Corollary 3.

Up to diffeomorphism, the only total spaces of $`𝐒^3`$-bundles over $`𝐒^4`$ that are homogeneous are the trivial bundle, the Hopf bundle, the unit tangent bundle of $`𝐒^4`$, and the Berger space $`\mathrm{SO}(5)/\mathrm{SO}(3)`$.

The paper is organized as follows: in Section 1 we motivate the question of the diffeomorphism type from problems in the geometry of positive curvature. In Section 2 we compute the EK-invariant for the Berger space using spectral theory. In Section 3 we discuss the existence of independent vector fields on 2-connected 7-manifolds.

The first named author would like to thank Marc v. Leeuwen for his generous help with the computer program LiE \[CLL99\]. We would also like to thank Wolfgang Ziller for useful comments.

## 1. Motivation

It is a general problem in Riemannian geometry to find and describe closed manifolds that admit a metric of positive sectional curvature. There are few known obstructions and frustratingly, few known examples. The difficulty stems from the fact that all known examples arise as quotients of Lie groups — as homogeneous spaces or as biquotients (double coset manifolds). Simply connected, homogeneous manifolds with positive curvature were classified by Berger, Wallach and Berard-Bergery in the sixties and seventies. The Berger space evidently appears in the classification of normal homogeneous manifolds of positive curvature due to M. Berger \[Ber61\]. Other than the homogeneous spaces of positive curvature there are some examples in low dimensions, but in dimensions 25 and up the only known examples are the compact, rank one, symmetric spaces.

The only way we know to construct examples of positively curved manifolds is to look at quotients of compact Lie groups. By the Gray-O’Neill curvature formulas, submersions are curvature non-decreasing. So one looks for positive curvature at the base of a Riemannian submersion. However, all known examples of positively curved manifolds, except the Berger space, fit into a fibration sequence, like the Hopf fibration of spheres over projective spaces. Fibrations may provide us with another way to construct examples of positively curved manifolds by the following method: Given a principal $`G`$-bundle, $`GPB`$, a connection metric on $`P`$ is a choice of principal connection $`\omega `$ i.e., a choice of horizontal space $`_G`$ in $`P`$ invariant under $`G`$ such that the map $`PB`$ is a Riemannian submersion with totally geodesic fibers. The fibers are all isometric to each other and the metric on any fiber is isometric to $`(G,,)`$ for some choice of left invariant metric on $`G`$. By Hermann \[He60\], every submersion metric on $`P`$ with totally geodesic fibers must be of this form. Now we look at associated bundles $`G/HM=P\times _GG/HB`$ with fiber $`G/H`$. We declare the fibers to be orthogonal to the horizontal spaces $``$, where $``$ in $`M`$ is the image of $`_g\times \{0\}T(P\times G/H)`$. The metric on the total space is taken to be the orthogonal sum of the metrics on the fibers, where each fiber is isometric to $`G/H`$ with a normal homogeneous metric (or more generally a left invariant metric), and the pullback of the metric on the base.

If we have a fibration with a connection metric, then the fiber $`G/H`$, which is totally geodesic, must be a circle or a normal homogeneous space of positive curvature. All known homogeneous spaces of positive curvature fit into fibrations with connection metrics, except the Berger space. Furthermore, Derdzinski and Rigas have shown in \[DR81\] that for $`𝐒^3`$-bundles over $`𝐒^4`$, the only bundle that admits a connection metric of positive curvature is the Hopf bundle whose total space is the round sphere. Since we now know that the Berger space is diffeomorphic to the total space of an $`𝐒^3`$-bundle over $`𝐒^4`$, it follows that its metric is not a connection metric. If one could find an explicit smooth submersion to $`𝐒^4`$, then we could check whether the positive curvature metric is a submersion metric. At the very least it makes plausible the suggestion that there are more general metrics of positive curvature on bundles with large degree of symmetry that are not connection metrics.

## 2. The Eells-Kuiper invariant of $`\mathrm{SO}(5)/\mathrm{SO}(3)`$

To compute the Eells-Kuiper invariant we use the formula

(2.1)
$$\mathrm{ek}(M)=\frac{\eta (B)}{2^5\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}+\frac{\eta (D)+h(D)}{2}\frac{1}{2^7\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}_Mp_1(M,^{\mathrm{LC}})h(M,^{\mathrm{LC}})𝐐/𝐙$$

due to Donnelly \[Don75\] and Kreck-Stolz \[KS88\]. Here $`B`$ and $`D`$ are the odd signature operator and the untwisted Dirac operator on $`M`$, and $`h(M,^{\mathrm{LC}})\mathrm{\Omega }^3(M)`$ is a form whose exterior differential is the first Pontrjagin form $`p_1(M,^{\mathrm{LC}})`$ with respect to the Levi-Civita connection. Equation (2.1) has the advantage that we do not need to find an explicit zero spin bordism for $`M`$.

Now we perform all the computations necessary to determine a numerical value for the Eells-Kuiper invariant $`\mathrm{ek}(M)`$ for $`M=\mathrm{SO}(5)/\mathrm{SO}(3)`$ using the methods of \[Go97\], \[Go99\], \[Go02\]. In Section 2.1 we recall the $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-structure on $`TM`$, which will be important for calculations throughout this chapter. In Section 2.2 we control the spectral flow of the deformation of the odd signature operator to Slebarski’s $`\frac{1}{3}`$-operator. In Section 2.3 we determine the $`\eta `$-invariants of the Dirac operator and the odd signature operator on $`M`$ up to a local correction. In Section 2.4 we adapt (2.1) to our situation. Finally in Section 2.5 we compute the remaining local correction term and obtain the value of $`\mathrm{ek}(M)`$.

### 2.1. The $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-structure on $`TM`$

Using Schur’s lemma, we exhibit a $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-structure on the tangent bundle of $`M=\mathrm{SO}(5)/\mathrm{SO}(3)`$. Using this structure, we will be able to simplify several explicit calculations needed to control both the equivariant spectral flow from the Riemannian signature operator $`B`$ to its reductive (or “cubical”) deformation $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, and the Chern-Simons correction term. We will also use some branching rules for $`\mathrm{SO}(3)\mathrm{G}_2`$; these can be checked using a suitable computer program like LiE \[CLL99\].

To facilitate computations, let $`e_{ij}𝔰𝔬(n)`$ for $`ij`$ denote the endomorphism that maps the $`j`$-th vector $`e_j`$ of the standard orthonormal base of $`𝐑^n`$ to the $`i`$-th vector $`e_i`$ and $`e_i`$ to $`e_j`$, and vanishes on all other vectors. Then $`e_{ji}=e_{ij}`$ and $`[e_{ij},e_{jk}]=e_{jk}`$ unless $`i=k`$. We fix the scalar product $`A,B=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}(AB)`$ on $`𝔰𝔬(5)`$, so that the basis $`e_{ij}`$ of $`𝔰𝔬(5)`$ becomes orthonormal. We fix an embedding $`\iota :𝔰𝔬(3)𝔰𝔬(5)`$ with

(2.2) $`e_{12}\iota _{12}`$ $`=2e_{12}+e_{34},`$
$`e_{23}\iota _{23}`$ $`=e_{23}e_{14}+\sqrt{3}e_{45},`$
$`\text{and }e_{13}\iota _{13}`$ $`=e_{13}+e_{24}+\sqrt{3}e_{35}.`$
Then the vectors $`\iota _{ij}`$ of $`𝔥𝔰𝔬(3)`$ are orthogonal and of length $`\sqrt{5}`$. Let $`𝔭`$ be the orthogonal complement of $`𝔥=\iota (𝔰𝔬(3))`$ in $`𝔤=𝔰𝔬(5)`$.

The embedding of $`H=\mathrm{SO}(3)`$ in $`\mathrm{SO}(5)`$ for the Berger space is given by the conjugation action of $`\mathrm{SO}(3)`$ on real, $`3\times 3`$ symmetric matrices of trace zero. The isotropy representation $`\pi `$ of $`H`$ on $`𝔭`$ is the seven-dimensional irreducible representation of $`\mathrm{SO}(3)`$ and so the Berger space is isotropy irreducible (cf. \[Wo68\]). It is well known that the seven-dimensional, irreducible, orthogonal representation of $`\mathrm{SO}(3)`$ factors through the groups $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{Spin}(7)`$,

$$\mathrm{SO}(3)\mathrm{G}_2\mathrm{Spin}(7)\mathrm{SO}(7).$$

The second factorization is due to the fact that $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ is simply connected; it implies that $`M`$ admits an $`\mathrm{SO}(5)`$-equivariant spin structure. The first factorization is more important, since it allows us to identify $`𝔭`$ with the space of imaginary octonions $`𝐈`$; here we write Cayley’s octonions $`𝐎=𝐑𝐈`$ as split into their real and imaginary parts. Let $``$ denote the Cayley product, and let $`_𝐈`$ denote its projection onto $`𝐈`$. Note that $`𝐎`$ carries a natural scalar product $`p,q`$ given by the real part of $`p\overline{q}`$, and that $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ and $`H`$ preserve the decomposition $`𝐎=𝐑𝐈`$ as well as $``$ and $`,`$.

###### Lemma 2.1.

With a suitable isometric, $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-equivariant identification of $`𝔭`$ with the imaginary octonions, one has

$$[v,w]_𝔭=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}v_𝐈w\text{ for all }v\text{}w𝔭\text{.}$$

###### Proof.

Schur’s lemma implies that $`[v,w]_𝔭=cv_𝐈w`$ for some real constant $`c`$, because $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝔭`$ splits $`\mathrm{SO}(3)`$-equivariantly into the irreducible real $`\mathrm{SO}(3)`$-representations $`\kappa _1`$, $`\kappa _3`$ and $`\kappa _5`$ of dimensions $`3`$, $`7`$ and $`11`$, each of multiplicity one. On the other hand, $`\kappa _3`$ is just the restriction of the standard representation of $`\mathrm{G}_2`$, which leaves “$`_𝐈`$” invariant.

To determine $`c`$, we pick two orthogonal unit vectors $`v`$, $`w𝔭`$. Because then $`vw𝐈`$, we have $`vw=1`$ and $`[v,w]_𝔭=|c|`$. For example with $`v=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}(e_{12}2e_{34})`$ and $`w=e_{25}𝔭`$, we find $`[v,w]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}e_{15}𝔭`$, so

$$\pm c=[v,w]_𝔭=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}.$$

Because $`𝔭`$ is irreducible, an isometric, $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-equivariant identification $`𝐈𝔭`$ is unique up to sign, and we may pick the sign so that $`c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}`$. ∎

For later use, we explicitly identify $`𝔭𝐈`$ as in Lemma 2.1. We are also interested in the decomposition of $`𝔭𝐂`$ into weight spaces for the $`H`$-representation $`\pi `$. Recall that $`𝐈`$ admits an orthonormal base $`e_1`$, …, $`e_7`$ such that

(2.3)
$$e_ie_{i+1}=e_{i+3}$$

for all $`i\{1,\mathrm{},7\}`$, where the indices $`i+1`$ and $`i+3`$ are to be understood modulo $`7`$. We identify these imaginary octonions with $`𝔭`$ with an orthonormal basis given by

(2.4) $`e_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}}e_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}}e_{34},`$ $`e_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{5}}}e_{45}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{10}}}(e_{23}e_{14}),e_3=e_{25},`$
$`e_4={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{5}}}e_{35}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{10}}}(`$ $`e_{13}+e_{24}),e_5={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(e_{24}e_{13}),`$
$`e_6={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(`$ $`e_{23}+e_{14}),\text{and}e_7=e_{15}.`$
We leave it to the reader to check that indeed $`[e_i,e_{i+1}]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}e_{i+3}`$ where the indices are taken modulo $`7`$.

Let us also compute the action of $`𝔥`$ on $`𝔭`$. If $`\iota _{12}`$, $`\iota _{13}`$ and $`\iota _{23}`$ are given by (2.1), then $`f_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\iota _{12}`$, $`f_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\iota _{23}`$ and $`f_3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\iota _{13}`$ form an orthonormal base of $`𝔥`$. For $`k=1`$, …, $`3`$, we define an element of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2TM`$ by

$$\alpha _k=f_k,[,]=\pi _{f_k}(),,$$

so

(2.5) $`\alpha _1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}}e^2e^4+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}}e^3e^7{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{5}}}e^5e^6,`$
$`\alpha _2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}}{\sqrt{5}}}e^1e^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e^2e^7{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e^3e^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{10}}}e^3e^5+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{10}}}e^6e^7,`$
$`\text{and }\alpha _3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}}{\sqrt{5}}}e^1e^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e^2e^3+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{10}}}e^3e^6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e^4e^7{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{10}}}e^5e^7.`$
Note that the map $`\alpha `$ has no $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-symmetry.

With a similar trick as in Lemma 2.1, we can identify Clifford multiplication on spinors with Cayley multiplication. Recall that a quotient $`M=G/H`$ of compact Lie groups is equivariantly spin if and only if the isotropy representation $`\pi :H\mathrm{SO}(𝔭)`$ factors over the spin group $`\mathrm{Spin}(𝔭)`$. In this case, the equivariant spinor bundle $`𝒮M`$ is constructed as the fibered product

$$𝒮=G\times _{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}SM,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is the pull-back to $`H`$ by $`\pi `$ of the spin representation of $`\mathrm{Spin}(𝔭)`$ on the spinor module $`S`$. Since Clifford multiplication $`𝔭\times SS`$ is $`\mathrm{Spin}(𝔭)`$-equivariant, it is in particular $`H`$-equivariant, so there is a fiber-wise Clifford multiplication $`TM\times 𝒮𝒮`$.

Note that if $`𝔭`$ is odd-dimensional, Clifford multiplication with vectors is uniquely defined only up to sign. To remove this ambiguity, let

$$\omega =i^{\left[\frac{n+1}{2}\right]}e_1\mathrm{}e_n\mathrm{Cl}(𝔭)𝐂$$

be the complex Clifford volume element, which satisfies $`\omega ^2=1\mathrm{Cl}(𝔭)`$. If $`𝔭`$ is odd-dimensional, then $`\omega `$ commutes with Clifford multiplication, and we require that $`\omega `$ acts on $`S`$ as $`+1`$.

The spinor module $`S`$ of $`\mathrm{Spin}(7)`$ is of dimension $`2^{\left[\frac{7}{2}\right]}=8`$. Because the smallest representations of $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ are the trivial representation and the seven-dimensional representation on the imaginary octonions $`𝐈`$, and because $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is non-trivial, it is clear that there is a $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-equivariant isomorphism $`𝐎𝐑𝐈S`$.

###### Lemma 2.2.

We identify $`𝔭𝐈`$ as in Lemma 2.1. With respect to a suitable isometric, $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-equivariant identification $`S𝐎`$ and a suitable orientation of $`𝔭`$, Clifford multiplication $`𝔭\times SS`$ equals Cayley multiplication $`𝐈\times 𝐎𝐎`$ from the right.

In other words, the Clifford algebra $`\mathrm{Cl}(𝔭)\mathrm{End}(S)\mathrm{End}_𝐑(𝐎)`$ is generated by the endomorphisms $`c_v`$ given by right multiplication with some element of $`𝔭𝐈`$. Since $`𝐎`$ is not associative, we do not have the identity $`c_vc_w=c_{vw}`$ in general. For the same reason, right multiplication on $`𝐎`$ does not commute with left multiplication, which agrees with the fact that $`S`$ is an irreducible $`\mathrm{Cl}(𝔭)`$-module.

###### Proof.

We fix a $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-equivariant orthogonal identification $`S𝐎=𝐑𝐈`$. Clifford multiplication $`𝔭\times (𝐑𝐈)(𝐑𝐈)`$ splits into four components. By Schur’s lemma, the component $`𝔭\times 𝐑𝐑`$ vanishes. Because multiplication with a unit vector is an isometry on $`S`$, we have $`v1=\pm v𝐈`$ for $`1𝐑S`$, and we choose the identification $`S𝐑𝐈`$ such that $`v1=v`$.

Again by Schur’s lemma, the component of $`vs`$ in $`𝐑`$ is $`cv,s`$ for some constant $`c`$. Since $`v(vc)=v^2c`$, it is easy to see that $`vv=v^2=vv𝐑`$ for $`v𝐈`$.

Finally, for orthogonal imaginary elements $`v`$, $`w𝐈`$ we must have $`vw=vw=wv`$, so $`vw=\pm wv`$. To check that the correct sign is $`+`$, we calculate using (2.3);

(2.6)
$$\omega s=\left(\mathrm{}(se_7)\mathrm{}\right)e_1=s.$$

### 2.2. The spectra of some deformed Dirac operators

We use the explicit formulas for Clifford multiplication and the tangential part of the Lie bracket obtained in the previous section to estimate the spectrum of the family of deformed odd signature operators $`B^{\lambda ,3\lambda 1}`$. We take the orthonormal base $`e_1`$, …, $`e_7`$ of $`𝔭𝐈`$ as in (2.2). Let $`c_i`$ and $`\widehat{c}_i`$ denote Clifford multiplication with $`e_i`$ on the first and second factor of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{ev}}𝔭SS𝐎𝐎`$. Then the Clifford volume elements

$$\omega =c_1\mathrm{}c_7\text{ and }\widehat{\omega }=\widehat{c}_1\mathrm{}\widehat{c}_7$$

act as $`1`$ by (2.6).

We extend $`e_1`$, …, $`e_7`$ to an orthonormal base $`e_1`$, …, $`e_{10}`$ of $`𝔤`$, and let $`c_{ijk}=[e_i,e_j]_𝔭,e_k`$, so for example $`c_{124}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}`$ by Lemma 2.1 and (2.3). We define two symbols $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}_𝔭`$ and $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}}_𝔭:𝔤\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{ev}}𝔭\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{ev}}𝔭`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}_{𝔭,i}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}_{𝔭,e_i}=\frac{1}{4}\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{m}{}}c_{ijk}c_jc_k\text{ and }\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}}_{𝔭,i}=\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}}_{𝔭,e_i}=\frac{1}{4}\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{m}{}}c_{ijk}\widehat{c}_j\widehat{c}_k.$$

Then $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}_𝔭|_𝔥`$ and $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}=\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}}_𝔭|_𝔥`$ are the differentials of the representations of $`H`$ on the two factors of $`SS`$ that induce the bundle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{ev}}TMM`$.

We consider a family $`D^\lambda `$ of $`G`$-equivariant deformed Dirac operators on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒮)`$ and a family $`B^{\lambda ,\mu }`$ of $`G`$-equivariant deformed odd signature operators on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{ev}}TM)`$ as in \[Go97\]. Using Frobenius reciprocity and the Peter-Weyl theorem, we will write

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒮)`$ $`=\overline{{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma \widehat{G}}{}}V^\gamma \mathrm{Hom}_H(V^\gamma ,S)}`$
$`\text{ and }\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{ev}}(M)`$ $`=\overline{{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma \widehat{G}}{}}V^\gamma \mathrm{Hom}_H(V^\gamma ,SS)}.`$
Since $`D^\lambda `$ and $`B^{\lambda ,\mu }`$ are $`G`$-equivariant, they preserve these decompositions. Moreover, for each summand above, we may write

$`D^\lambda |_{V^\gamma \mathrm{Hom}_H(V^\gamma ,S)}`$ $`=\mathrm{𝑖𝑑}_{V^\gamma }^\gamma D^\lambda `$
$`\text{ and }B^{\lambda ,\mu }|_{V^\gamma \mathrm{Hom}_H(V^\gamma ,SS)}`$ $`=\mathrm{𝑖𝑑}_{V^\gamma }^\gamma B^{\lambda ,\mu }.`$
Let $`\gamma _i`$ denote the action of $`\gamma _{e_i}^{}`$ on the dual of the representation space $`V^\gamma `$. With this notation, the operators above take the form

(2.7) $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }D_{}^{\lambda }`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{7}{}}}c_i\left(\gamma _i+\lambda \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}_{𝔭,i}\right)`$
$`\text{ and }^\gamma B^{\lambda ,\mu }`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{7}{}}}c_i\left(\gamma _i+\lambda \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}_{𝔭,i}+\mu \widehat{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}}_{𝔭,i}\right).`$
Note that $`D=D^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`B=B^{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}`$ are respectively the Dirac operator and the odd signature operator associated to the Levi-Civita connection on $`M`$. On the other hand, $`\stackrel{~}{D}=D^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}=B^{\frac{1}{3},0}`$ are reductive operators in the terminology of \[Go97\], \[Go99\] and \[Go02\].

We now consider the one-parameter family $`B^{\lambda ,3\lambda 1}`$ for $`\lambda [\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}]`$. We write

(2.8)
$$^\gamma B^{\lambda ,3\lambda 1}=^\gamma \stackrel{~}{B}+\mu \underset{i=1}{\overset{7}{}}c_i(\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}_{𝔭,i}+\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}}_{𝔭,i})$$

for $`\mu =3\lambda 1[0,\frac{1}{2}]`$. Let us define

(2.9)
$$B_0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{7}{}}c_i\left(\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}_{𝔭,i}+\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ad}}}_{𝔭,i}\right).$$

The square of $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{B}`$ has been computed in \[Go97\], \[Go99\] as

(2.10)
$$^\gamma \stackrel{~}{B}^2=\gamma +\rho _G^2c_H^{\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}}\rho _H^2.$$

Here $`\rho _H`$ and $`\rho _G`$ are half sums of positive roots, and $`c_H^{\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}}`$ is the Casimir operator of $`H`$ associated to the representation $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$, taken with respect to the norm on $`𝔥`$ that is induced by the embedding $`\iota `$ of (2.2) and a fixed Ad-invariant scalar product on $`𝔤`$.

Let $`𝔰𝔱`$ be the Cartan subalgebras of $`𝔥𝔤`$ spanned by $`\iota _{12}`$ and by $`e_{12}`$ and $`e_{34}`$, respectively. The weights of $`𝔥`$ and $`𝔤`$ are of the form

(2.11)
$$ik\iota _{12}^{}=\frac{ik}{5}(2e_{12}^{}+e_{34}^{})i𝔰^{}\text{ and }ipe_{12}^{}+iqe_{34}^{}i𝔱^{}$$

with $`k`$, $`p`$, $`q𝐙`$. We will pick the Weyl chambers

(2.12)
$$P_H=\{it\iota _{12}^{}t0\}i𝔰^{}\text{ and }P_G=\{ixe_{12}^{}+iye_{34}^{}xy0\}.$$

With respect to these Weyl chambers, the dominant weights of $`G`$ and $`H`$ are the weights in (2.11) with $`k0`$ and $`pq0`$, respectively. Then we find

(2.13)
$$\rho _H=\frac{i}{2}\iota _{12}^{}=\frac{i}{10}(2e_{12}^{}+e_{34}^{})\text{ and }\rho _G=\frac{i}{2}(3e_{12}^{}+e_{34}^{}).$$

Let $`\gamma _{(p,q)}`$ denote the irreducible $`G`$-representation with highest weight $`ipe_{12}^{}+iqe_{34}`$, where $`pq0`$ are integers. Let $`\kappa _k`$ denote the irreducible $`H`$-representation with highest weight $`ik\iota _{12}^{}`$, then the dimension of $`\kappa _k`$ is $`2k+1`$. We have seen above that the isotropy representation $`\pi `$ on $`𝔭`$ is isomorphic to $`\kappa _3`$, while $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ on $`S𝐑𝐈`$ is isomorphic to $`\kappa _0\kappa _3`$. We conclude that for $`\gamma =\gamma _{(p,q)}`$, we have

(2.14)
$$^\gamma \stackrel{~}{B}^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _{(p,q)}+\rho _G^2\rho _H^2=p^2+3p+q^2+q+\frac{49}{20}\hfill & \text{on }\mathrm{Hom}_H(V^\gamma ,S𝐑)\text{, and}\hfill \\ \gamma _{(p,q)}+\rho _G^2\kappa _3+\rho _H^2=p^2+3p+q^2+q+\frac{1}{20}\hfill & \text{on }\mathrm{Hom}_H(V^\gamma ,S𝐈)\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

We now calculate the spectral radii of the various components of the operator $`B_0`$. Since the operator $`B_0`$ evidently commutes with the action of $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ on $`SS`$ by its definition in (2.9), we can restrict our attention to the $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-isotypic components of $`B_0`$. Let $`𝔲𝔤_2`$ be a Cartan subalgebra containing $`𝔰`$. We introduce a basis of $`i𝔲^{}𝔲^{}_𝐑𝐂`$ such that $`(1,0)`$ and $`(0,1)`$ describe a long and a short root of $`𝔤_2`$ respectively, which belong to the closure of a fixed Weyl chamber in $`i𝔲^{}`$. In this basis, the dominant weights of $`𝔤_2`$ are given precisely by pairs of non-negative integer coordinates. Let $`\phi _{(a,b)}`$ denote the irreducible $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-representation with highest weight $`(a,b)`$ for $`a`$, $`b𝐙`$ with $`a`$, $`b0`$. It is easy to check that $`\phi _{(0,1)}`$ denotes the standard representation of $`𝔤_2`$ on $`𝐈`$, that $`\phi _{(1,0)}`$ is the adjoint representation, and that $`\phi _{(0,2)}`$ is the 27-dimensional non-trivial part of the symmetric product $`S^2𝐈`$.

Using the computer program LiE, we see that $`SS`$ splits into $`\mathrm{G}_2`$\- and $`H`$-isotypical components as:

(2.15)
$$\begin{array}{cccccc}& 𝐑𝐑& _{\mathrm{G}_2}& \phi _{(0,0)}& _H& \kappa _0,\\ \\ & 𝐈𝐑& _{\mathrm{G}_2}& \phi _{(0,1)}& _H& \kappa _3,\\ \\ & 𝐑𝐈& _{\mathrm{G}_2}& \phi _{(0,1)}& _H& \kappa _3,\\ \\ \text{and }& 𝐈𝐈& _{\mathrm{G}_2}& \begin{array}{c}\phi _{(0,0)}\phi _{(0,1)}\phi _{(1,0)}\\ \phi _{(0,2)}\end{array}& _H& \begin{array}{c}\kappa _0\kappa _3(\kappa _1\kappa _5)\\ (\kappa _2\kappa _4\kappa _6).\end{array}\end{array}$$

Note that no two $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-representations involved have a common isomorphic $`H`$-subrepresentation.

Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 give us an explicit formula for $`B_0`$. Using a computer program, we can calculate the eigenvalues of $`B_0`$ on each $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-isotypical component $`B_0^{(p,q)}`$. A basis for the trivial component is given by

$$11\text{ and }\frac{1}{\sqrt{7}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{7}{}}e_ie_i.$$

With respect to this basis, one has

(2.16)
$$B_0^{(0,0)}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{5}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}7& 3\sqrt{7}\\ 3\sqrt{7}& 5\end{array}\right).$$

In particular, the eigenvalues of $`B_0^{(0,0)}`$ are $`\frac{7}{\sqrt{5}}`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}`$.

The representation $`\phi _{(0,1)}`$ has multiplicity $`3`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{ev}}𝔭`$. We pick three vectors that equivariantly span the isotypical component, and that correspond to $`e_1𝐈`$, namely

$$e_11,1e_1,\text{ and }\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\underset{i=2}{\overset{7}{}}e_i(e_1e_i).$$

By equivariance, $`B_0^{(0,1)}`$ preserves the $`3`$-dimensional subspace $`V\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{ev}}𝔭`$ spanned by these vectors. We find

(2.17)
$$B_0^{(0,1)}|_V=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{5}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 3& 3\sqrt{6}\\ 3& 7& \sqrt{6}\\ 3\sqrt{6}& \sqrt{6}& 4\end{array}\right).$$

The eigenvalues of $`B_0^{(0,1)}`$ are readily computed to be $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}`$ and $`\pm \sqrt{5}`$.

Finally, the $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-isotypical components isomorphic to $`\phi _{(1,0)}`$ and $`\phi _{(0,2)}`$ both have multiplicity $`1`$, and we have

(2.18)
$$B_0^{(1,0)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\text{ and }B_0^{(0,2)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}.$$

The calculations above lead to the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.3.

The operator $`D^\lambda `$ has no kernel for $`\lambda [\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}]`$. For $`\lambda [\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}]`$ and $`\gamma \widehat{G}`$, the operator $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }B_{}^{\lambda ,3\lambda 1}`$ has a non-zero kernel only if $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\gamma =\gamma _{(0,0)}`$ is the trivial representation. For $`\gamma =\gamma _{(0,0)}`$, the operator $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }B_{}^{\lambda ,3\lambda 1}`$ has a positive and a negative eigenvalue if $`\lambda [\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2})`$, and only the negative eigenvalue vanishes at $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$.

###### Proof.

The claim about $`D^\lambda `$ follows from the proof of Lemma 4.6 in \[Go99\] (see also Bemerkung 1.20 in \[Go97\]).

Let us now check that for no non-trivial representation $`\gamma `$ of $`G`$ and no $`\lambda [\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}]`$, the operator $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }B_{}^{\lambda ,3\lambda 1}`$ can have a kernel. This is because by (2.14), all eigenvalues of $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{B}`$ belong to $`𝐑(\frac{9}{2\sqrt{5}},\frac{9}{2\sqrt{5}})`$, where $`\pm \frac{9}{2\sqrt{5}}`$ is attained on $`\mathrm{Hom}_H(V^\gamma ,S𝔭)`$ for $`\gamma =\gamma _{(1,0)}`$. On the other hand, the spectral radius of $`\mu B_0`$ is $`\frac{7\mu }{\sqrt{5}}`$, which is smaller than $`\frac{9}{2\sqrt{5}}`$ for $`\mu [0,\frac{1}{2}]`$.

Now, consider the operator $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{B}`$ for the trivial representation $`\gamma =\gamma _{(0,0)}`$. Clearly, $`\mathrm{Hom}_H(V^\gamma ,SS)`$ is isomorphic to the trivial $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-isotypical component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{ev}}𝔭`$. Another machine computation shows that in the basis of (2.16), the operator $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{B}`$ takes the form

$${}_{}{}^{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{B}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{5}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}7& \\ & 1\end{array}\right).$$

The eigenvalues of the operator

$${}_{}{}^{\gamma }B_{}^{\frac{\mu +1}{3},\mu }=^\gamma \stackrel{~}{B}+\mu B_0=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{5}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}7+7\mu & 3\mu \sqrt{7}\\ 3\mu \sqrt{7}& 5\mu 1\end{array}\right)$$

are precisely $`\frac{1}{2\sqrt{5}}\left(6\mu +3\pm \sqrt{64\mu ^2+8\mu +16}\right)`$. Since $`6\mu +3<\sqrt{64\mu ^2+8\mu +16}`$ except at $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ where one gets equality, the claims in the proposition follow. ∎

### 2.3. Computing the $`\eta `$-invariants.

Next we compute the $`\eta `$-invariants $`\eta (B)`$ and $`\eta (D)`$ for the Dirac operators considered in the previous subsection, up to a local correction term. We will use the formula of \[Go02\].

We fix Weyl chambers $`P_G`$ and $`P_H`$ as in (2.12). Then $`\rho _G`$ and $`\rho _H`$ are given by (2.13). The choices of $`P_G`$ and $`P_H`$ also determine orientations on $`𝔤/𝔱`$ and $`𝔥/𝔰`$. If $`\alpha _1`$, …, $`\alpha _li𝔱^{}`$ are the positive roots of $`𝔤`$ with respect to $`P_G`$, then we can choose a complex structure on $`𝔤/𝔱`$ and a complex basis $`z_1`$, …, $`z_n`$ such that $`\mathrm{ad}|_{𝔱\times (𝔤/𝔱)}`$ takes the form

$$\mathrm{ad}_X=\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _1(X)\\ & \mathrm{}\\ & & \alpha _l(X)\end{array}\right)\text{ for all }X𝔱\text{.}$$

Then we declare the real basis $`z_1`$, $`iz_1`$, $`z_2`$, …, $`iz_l`$ to be positively oriented.

Having fixed orientations on $`𝔭=𝔤/𝔥`$ by a choice of an orthonormal base in (2.4) and orientations on $`𝔤/𝔱`$ and $`𝔥/𝔰`$ as above, there is a unique orientation on $`𝔱/𝔰`$ such that the orientations on

$$𝔤/𝔰𝔭(𝔥/𝔰)(𝔤/𝔱)(𝔱/𝔰)$$

agree. Let $`E𝔱/𝔰𝔰^{}𝔱`$ be the positive unit vector, and let $`\delta i𝔱^{}`$ be the unique weight such that

$$i\delta (E)>0\text{ and }\delta (X)2\pi i𝐙e^XS$$

for all $`X𝔱`$. Then one can check that

(2.19)
$$E=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\left(e_{12}2e_{34}\right)\text{ and }\delta =i\left(e_{12}^{}2e_{34}^{}\right)$$

are compatible with the orientations fixed above.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{(k)}`$ be the reductive Dirac operator acting on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒮V^\kappa M)`$, where $`\kappa `$ is the $`H`$-representation with highest weight $`\kappa _k=ik\iota _{12}^{}`$. Then we note that

$$\stackrel{~}{D}=\stackrel{~}{D}^{(0)}\text{ and }\stackrel{~}{B}=\stackrel{~}{D}^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{D}^{(3)}.$$

We have to find the unique weights $`\alpha _ki𝔱^{}`$ of $`𝔤`$ such that

$$\alpha _k|_𝔰=ik\iota _{12}^{}+\rho _H\text{ and }i(\alpha _k\delta )(E)<0i\alpha _k(E).$$

By (2.19) we have

$$\alpha _0=i\left(\frac{1}{2}e_{12}^{}\frac{1}{2}e_{34}^{}\right)\text{ and }\alpha _3=i\left(\frac{3}{2}e_{12}^{}+\frac{1}{2}e_{34}^{}\right).$$

Note that $`\alpha _0(E)`$, $`\alpha _3(E)0`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+=\{ie_{12}^{}+ie_{34}^{},ie_{12}^{}ie_{34}^{},ie_{12}^{},ie_{34}^{}\}`$ denote the set of positive roots with respect to $`P_G`$. Let $`\widehat{A}`$ denote the map, $`z\frac{z}{2\mathrm{sinh}(z/2)}`$.

We also need some equivariant characteristic differential forms. Note that we will eventually evaluate these forms only at $`X=0`$, so that we may actually forget the equivariant formalism in a moment. Let $`\widehat{A}_X(M,)`$ be the total equivariant $`\widehat{A}`$-form, and $`\widehat{L}_X(M,)=2\widehat{A}_X(M,)\mathrm{ch}_X(𝒮,)`$ be a rescaled equivariant $`L`$-form, both taken with respect to a connection $``$ on $`TM`$ and the induced connection on $`𝒮`$. If $`p_k=p_k(M,)\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔤^{4k}(M)`$ denotes the $`k`$-th equivariant Pontrjagin form of $`M`$, then

$$\widehat{A}_X(M,)=1\frac{p_1}{24}+\frac{7p_1^24p_2}{2^7\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}}+\mathrm{}\text{ and }\widehat{L}_X(M,)=16+\frac{4p_1}{3}+\frac{7p_2p_1^2}{45}+\mathrm{}$$

So in particular,

(2.20)
$$\widehat{A}_X(M,)+\frac{\widehat{L}_X(M,)}{2^5\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}=\frac{15}{14}\frac{p_1(M,)}{28}+\frac{p_1(M,)^2}{2^7\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}+\mathrm{}$$

For different connections $``$, $`^{}`$ let $`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{A}}(M,,^{})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{L}}(M,,^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔤^{}(M)/d_𝔤\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔤^{}(M)`$ denote the corresponding equivariant Chern-Simons classes with

$$d\stackrel{~}{\widehat{A}}(M,,^{})=\widehat{A}_X(M,^{})\widehat{A}_X(M,)\text{ and }d\stackrel{~}{\widehat{L}}(M,,^{})=\widehat{L}_X(M,^{})\widehat{L}_X(M,).$$

We will work with the reductive connection $`^0`$ and the Levi-Civita connection $`^{\mathrm{LC}}`$ on $`TM`$.

We can now compute the eta-invariants of $`D`$ and $`B`$ using the formula for infinitesimal equivariant $`\eta `$-invariants computed in \[Go02\].

###### Theorem 2.4.

The $`\eta `$-invariants of $`D`$ and $`B`$ are the values at $`X=0𝔱`$ of the following:

(1) $`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \eta _X(D)& =2{\displaystyle \underset{wW_G}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sign}(w)}{\delta (wX)}}({\displaystyle \underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+}{}}\widehat{A}\left(\beta (wX)\right)\widehat{A}\left(\delta (wX)\right)e^{\left(\alpha _0\frac{\delta }{2}\right)(wX)}\hfill \\ & {\displaystyle \underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+}{}}\widehat{A}\left(\beta (wX|_𝔰)\right)e^{\rho _H(wX|_𝔰)}){\displaystyle }_{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta (X)}}\hfill \\ & +{\displaystyle _M}\stackrel{~}{\widehat{A}}_X(TM,^0,^{\mathrm{LC}}),\hfill \end{array}`$
(2) $`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \eta _X(B)& =2{\displaystyle \underset{wW_G}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sign}(w)}{\delta (wX)}}({\displaystyle \underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+}{}}\widehat{A}\left(\beta (wX)\right)\widehat{A}\left(\delta (wX)\right)(e^{\left(\alpha _0\frac{\delta }{2}\right)(wX)}+e^{\left(\alpha _3\frac{\delta }{2}\right)(wX)})\hfill \\ & {\displaystyle \underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+}{}}\widehat{A}\left(\beta (wX|_𝔰)\right)(e^{\rho _H(wX|_𝔰)}+e^{(\kappa _3+\rho _H)(wX|_𝔰)})){\displaystyle }_{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta (X)}}\hfill \\ & +1+{\displaystyle _M}\stackrel{~}{\widehat{L}}_X(TM,^0,^{\mathrm{LC}}).\hfill \end{array}`$
###### Proof.

This follows immediately from \[Go02\], Theorem 2.33 and Corollary 2.34, and from Proposition 2.3. ∎

A machine calculation now gives numerical values up to the local correction term.

###### Corollary 2.5.

We have the formulae

$`\eta (D)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{12923}{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}3}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}^6}}+{\displaystyle _M}\stackrel{~}{\widehat{A}}_X(TM,^0,^{\mathrm{LC}}),`$
$`\text{and }\eta (B)`$ $`=1{\displaystyle \frac{12923}{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}3}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{277961}{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}3}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}^6}}+{\displaystyle _M}\stackrel{~}{\widehat{L}}_X(TM,^0,^{\mathrm{LC}})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4817}{3^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}^6}}+{\displaystyle _M}\stackrel{~}{\widehat{L}}_X(TM,^0,^{\mathrm{LC}}).`$
###### Remark 2.6.

One might be tempted to conjecture that $`\eta (\stackrel{~}{D})`$ has the value $`\frac{12923}{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}3}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}^6}`$ (from above) because $`\stackrel{~}{D}^2`$ involves the Laplacian on $`𝒮`$ with respect to the reductive connection $`^0`$. However, the equivariant $`\eta `$-invariant $`\eta _G(\stackrel{~}{D})`$ has been calculated in \[Go97\] and in particular $`\eta (\stackrel{~}{D})=\frac{207479}{2^5\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}^6}\frac{12923}{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}3}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}^6}=\frac{206768}{2^5\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}^6}`$.

### 2.4. Equivariant $`\eta `$-invariants and the Eells-Kuiper invariant.

We compute the Eells-Kuiper invariant of $`M=\mathrm{SO}(5)/\mathrm{SO}(3)`$ using Donnelly’s formula \[Don75\]; see also \[KS88\] which involves the non-equivariant $`\eta `$-invariants of the Dirac operator $`D`$ and the signature operator $`B`$ on $`M`$. Using the methods of \[Go02\], we determine $`\eta (B)`$ and $`\eta (D)`$ from their equivariant counterparts computed in Theorem 2.4 above for those group elements that act freely.

Recall that the Eells-Kuiper invariant is defined as (see Section 2.1)

$$\mathrm{ek}(M)=\frac{\eta (B)}{2^5\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}+\frac{\eta (D)+h(D)}{2}\frac{1}{2^7\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}_Mp_1(M,^{\mathrm{LC}})h(M,^{\mathrm{LC}})𝐐/𝐙,$$

(see (2.1)). Note that the form $`h(M,^{\mathrm{LC}})`$ exists because $`H^4(M,𝐑)=0`$, and is unique up to exact forms because $`H^3(M,𝐑)=0`$. Moreover, we may choose $`h(M,^{\mathrm{LC}})`$ to be $`G`$-invariant.

As above, let $`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{A}}(M,,^{})\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(M)/d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(M)`$ denote the Chern-Simons class that interpolates between the $`\widehat{A}`$-forms constructed from two connections $``$ and $`^{}`$. If $`h=h()\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(M)/d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(M)`$ is a class such that $`dh=p_1(M,)`$ is the first Pontrjagin form of $`TM`$, then the class $`h(^{})=h()+\stackrel{~}{p}_1(M,,^{})`$ satisfies $`dh(^{})=p_1(M,^{})`$. In particular

(2.21) $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^7\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}}{\displaystyle _M}(p_1(M,^{})h(M,`$ $`^{})p_1(M,)h(M,))`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^7\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}}{\displaystyle _M}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}_1(M,,^{})p_1(M,)+p_1(M,^{})\stackrel{~}{p}_1(M,,^{})\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle _M}\left(\stackrel{~}{\widehat{A}}(M,,^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^5\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}}\stackrel{~}{\widehat{L}}(M,,^{})\right)`$
by (2.20). As an immediate consequence of Corollary 2.5, (2.1) and (2.21), we get

(2.22) $`\mathrm{ek}(M)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{12923}{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}3}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{4817}{2^5\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}7}3^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}^6}}+{\displaystyle _M}\left(\stackrel{~}{\widehat{A}}(M,^0,^{\mathrm{LC}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^5\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}7}}}\stackrel{~}{\widehat{L}}(M,^0,^{\mathrm{LC}})\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^7\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}}{\displaystyle _M}p_1(M,^{\mathrm{LC}})h(M,^{\mathrm{LC}})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{16189}{2^5\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}^5\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^7\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}}{\displaystyle _M}p_1(M,^0)h(M,^0).`$
Here we have used that $`D`$ has no kernel by Proposition 2.3, so $`h(D)=0`$.

### 2.5. Computing the Eells-Kuiper invariant.

It remains to evaluate the integral of the secondary class $`p_1(M,^0)h(M,^0)`$ over $`M`$. This is again done with the help of the results of Section 2.1.

Let $`V`$, $`W`$ be vector fields on $`M`$. Then there exist $`H`$-equivariant functions $`\widehat{V}`$, $`\widehat{W}:G𝔭`$ such that

$$V(gH)=[g,\widehat{V}(g)]\text{ and }W(gH)=[g,\widehat{W}(g)]TM=G\times _\pi 𝔭.$$

The reductive connection $`^0`$ and its curvature $`R^0`$ satisfy

$$\widehat{_V^0W}=\widehat{V}\left(\widehat{W}\right)\text{ and }\widehat{R_{V,W}^0}=\pi _{[\widehat{V},\widehat{W}]_𝔥}.$$

Because $`p_1(M,^0)`$ is $`G`$-invariant, it must be given by an $`H`$-invariant $`\widehat{p}_1(M,^0)\mathrm{\Lambda }^4𝔭^{}`$. Then $`\widehat{p}_1(M,^0)`$ is in fact $`\mathrm{G}_2`$-invariant by (2.15), and hence, it must be a multiple the Poincaré dual $`\lambda _4`$ of the three form $`\lambda _3`$ where

(2.23) $`\lambda _3`$ $`=_𝐈,={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{7}{}}}e^ie^{i+1}e^{i+3},`$
$`\text{so }\lambda _4`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{7}{}}}e^ie^{i+1}e^{i+2}e^{i+5}.`$
It is thus sufficient to compute $`\widehat{p}_1(M,^0)(e_2,e_4,e_5,e_6)`$. Using (2.5), one can check that $`[e_2,e_5]`$, $`[e_2,e_6]`$, $`[e_4,e_5]`$, $`[e_4,e_6]𝔭`$, and

$`\widehat{p}_1(M,^0)(e_2,e_4,e_5,e_6)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{tr}(\widehat{R}^0)^2)(e_2,e_4,e_5,e_6)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}\mathrm{tr}(\pi _{[e_2,e_4]_𝔥}\pi _{[e_5,e_6]_𝔥})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{20\pi ^2}}\mathrm{tr}\left(\pi _{f_1}^2\right)={\displaystyle \frac{21}{25\pi ^2}}.`$
This implies that

(2.24)
$$\widehat{p}_1(M,^0)=\widehat{p}_1(M,^0)(e_2,e_4,e_5,e_6)\lambda _4=\frac{21}{25\pi ^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{7}{}}e^ie^{i+1}e^{i+2}e^{i+5}.$$

Clearly, (2.24) gives an $`H`$-invariant element of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4𝔭^{}`$. By equivariance, we can write $`p_1(M,^0)=dh(M,^0)`$ for some $`G`$-invariant form $`h(M,^0)`$, which is again given by an $`H`$-invariant $`\widehat{h(M,^0)}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3𝔭^{}`$. Thus, $`h(M,^0)`$ must be a multiple of the form $`\lambda _3`$ of (2.23). By Cartan’s formula for the exterior derivative and Lemma 2.1, we have

$`\widehat{d\lambda _3}(\widehat{V}_0,\mathrm{},\widehat{V}_3)`$ $`=\widehat{\lambda }_3([\widehat{V}_0,\widehat{V}_1],\widehat{V}_2,\widehat{V}_3)+\widehat{\lambda }_3([\widehat{V}_0,\widehat{V}_2],\widehat{V}_1,\widehat{V}_3)\mathrm{}\widehat{\lambda }_3([\widehat{V}_2,\widehat{V}_3],\widehat{V}_0,\widehat{V}_1)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{6}{\sqrt{5}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{7}{}}}e^ie^{i+1}e^{i+2}e^{i+5},`$
so $`\widehat{h}(M,^0)=\frac{7}{10\sqrt{5}\pi ^2}\lambda _3`$. In particular, $`p_1(M,^0)h(M,^0)`$ is given by

$$\frac{7}{10\sqrt{5}}\lambda _3\frac{21}{25\pi ^2}\lambda _4=\frac{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.33em}7}^3}{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}5}^{\frac{7}{2}}\pi ^4}e^1\mathrm{}e^7.$$

Because $`\mathrm{vol}\left(\mathrm{SO}(3)\right)=8\pi ^2`$, $`\mathrm{vol}\left(\mathrm{SO}(5)\right)=\frac{2^7\pi ^6}{3}`$, $`\mathrm{vol}(H)=5^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{vol}\left(\mathrm{SO}(3)\right)`$, the volume of $`M`$ is $`\frac{16\pi ^4}{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.33em}5}^{\frac{3}{2}}}`$. We can now calculate the last contribution to $`\mathrm{ek}(M)`$ as

(2.25)
$$\frac{1}{2^7\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}_Mp_1(M,^0)h(M,^0)=\frac{1}{2^7\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}7}}\frac{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.33em}7}^3}{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}5}^{\frac{7}{2}}\pi ^4}\frac{16\pi ^4}{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.33em}5}^{\frac{3}{2}}}=\frac{49}{\mathrm{50\hspace{0.17em}000}}.$$

Together with (2.22), this completes the proof of Theorem 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3. Vector fields on 2-connected 7-manifolds

In this section we prove some general results about smooth, oriented, $`2`$-connected $`7`$-manifolds. In particular, we determine the maximal number of independent vector fields on such a manifold in terms of the first spin characteristic class. We will describe these results after some general remarks about the homotopy type of $`2`$-connected $`7`$-manifolds.

Let $`M`$ be a closed, oriented, $`2`$-connected $`7`$-manifold. From the structure of $`H^{}(M)`$, we see that $`M`$ is homotopy equivalent to a $`CW`$-complex with cells in dimension $`0,3,4`$ and $`7`$. Furthermore, it follows from Poincaré duality that the number of cells in dimension $`3`$ equals the number of cells in dimension $`4`$, and that there is a unique cell in dimensions $`0`$ and $`7`$. Let $`M_k`$ denote the $`k`$-skeleton of $`M`$. We will denote by $`M_k/M_{k1}`$ the space obtained by pinching off the $`(k1)`$-skeleton from $`M_k`$. Hence, $`M_k/M_{k1}`$ is equivalent to a one-point union of $`k`$-spheres.

###### Proposition 3.1.

The following composite map is null homotopic

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}𝐒^6& & M_4& & M_4/M_3,\end{array}$$

where the first map is the attaching map for the $`7`$-cell and the next map is the pinch map.

###### Proof.

Since $`M`$ is $`2`$-connected, it admits a spin structure. The argument given on page 32 of \[MM79\] shows that the above map is trivial for any seven dimensional spin manifold. ∎

Any oriented, $`2`$-connected manifold admits a unique compatible spin structure. Let $`\beta H^4(M)`$ be the first spin characteristic class. The class $`\beta `$ is related to the first Pontrjagin class by the relation $`2\beta =p_1`$. The relation to the Stiefel Whitney classes is given by $`\beta w_4(mod2)`$. We now recall the definition of the Wu classes.

###### Definition 3.2.

For an $`n`$-manifold $`M`$, we define the Wu classes $`\mathrm{Wu}_iH^i(M,𝐅_2)`$ by the property $`\mathrm{Wu}_ix=Sq^i(x)`$ for all $`xH^{ni}(M,𝐅_2)`$, where $`Sq^i`$ denotes the $`i`$-th Steenrod operation.

Let $`\mathrm{Wu}_t=1+\mathrm{Wu}_1t+\mathrm{Wu}_2t^2+\mathrm{}`$, be the total Wu class. Then the total Wu class is related to the total Stiefel Whitney class by the relation $`\mathrm{Wu}_tSW_t=1`$.

###### Proposition 3.3.

If $`M`$ is a $`2`$-connected $`7`$-manifold, then all of its Stiefel Whitney classes are trivial.

###### Proof.

By the relation between the Stiefel Whitney classes and the Wu classes, it is sufficient to show that the total Wu class is trivial. Since the Steenrod operations are unstable cohomology operations, it follows that $`\mathrm{Wu}_i=0`$ for $`i>3`$. By the sparseness of $`H^{}(M,𝐅_2)`$, it follows that $`\mathrm{Wu}_1=\mathrm{Wu}_2=0`$. Finally, one uses the Adem relation $`Sq^3=Sq^1Sq^2`$ to see that $`\mathrm{Wu}_3=0`$. ∎

###### Corollary 3.4.

The class $`\beta H^4(M)`$ is $`2`$-divisible. In other words, there is some (not necessarily unique) class $`\gamma `$ such that $`2\gamma =\beta `$.

###### Proof.

We know that $`\beta w_4(mod2)`$. Since $`w_4=0`$, $`\beta 0(mod2)`$ which says that $`\beta `$ is $`2`$ divisible. ∎

We now proceed to use the above facts to study the vector fields on $`M`$.

###### Theorem 3.5.

Any smooth, oriented, $`2`$-connected $`7`$-manifold is parallelizable if and only if $`\beta =0`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`f:MB_{\mathrm{Spin}(7)}`$ be the map that classifies the tangent bundle of $`M`$. We would like to show that $`f`$ is homotopic to the trivial map. The obstructions to constructing the null homotopy lie in the groups $`H^{i+1}(M,\pi _i(\mathrm{Spin}(7)))`$. The primary obstruction lies in $`H^4(M,\pi _3(\mathrm{Spin}(7)))=H^4(M)`$ and is none other than the class $`\beta `$ which we assumed to be trivial. Since $`\pi _6(\mathrm{Spin}(7))=0`$, there are no further obstructions to constructing the null homotopy. ∎

###### Theorem 3.6.

Any non-parallelizable smooth, oriented, $`2`$-connected $`7`$-manifold admits exactly $`4`$ independent vector fields. In other words, the structure group of $`M`$ may be reduced to $`\mathrm{Spin}(3)`$ and no further.

###### Proof.

Let us first see that the structure group cannot be reduced further than $`\mathrm{Spin}(3)`$. Suppose we could reduce the structure group to $`\mathrm{Spin}(2)`$. Since $`\mathrm{Spin}(2)=S^1`$, any map from $`M`$ to $`B_{\mathrm{Spin}(2)}`$ is classified by $`H^2(M)`$. But $`M`$ is $`2`$-connected so any such map is trivial. Hence, a reduction of the structure group to $`\mathrm{Spin}(2)`$ would mean that the manifold is parallelizable.

It remains to show that we can always reduce the structure group to $`\mathrm{Spin}(3)`$. This corresponds to lifting the map $`f:MB_{\mathrm{Spin}(7)}`$ to the space $`B_{\mathrm{Spin}(3)}`$. The obstructions to constructing this lift lie in the groups $`H^{i+1}(M,\pi _i(\mathrm{Spin}(7)/\mathrm{Spin}(3)))`$. The primary obstruction lies in the group $`H^4(M,𝐅_2)`$ and is, by naturality, the element $`\beta (mod2)`$. Since $`\beta `$ is $`2`$ divisible, this element is zero. Hence, we can construct the lift on $`M_4`$, the $`4`$-skeleton of $`M`$. One now has the following commutative diagram:

where the vertical maps on the left form a cofibration sequence and those on the right form a fibration sequence. Let $`g`$ denote the map $`𝐒^6\mathrm{Spin}(7)/\mathrm{Spin}(3)`$. In order to complete the lift to all of $`M`$, we require that the map $`g`$ is null homotopic. Consider the composite $`𝐒^6\mathrm{Spin}(7)/\mathrm{Spin}(3)B_{\mathrm{Spin}(3)}`$. Since $`B_{\mathrm{Spin}(3)}`$ is $`3`$-connected, this composite factors through the map $`𝐒^6M_4/M_3`$, which we know is trivial. Hence, we know that $`g`$ lifts to $`\mathrm{Spin}(7)`$. But $`\pi _6(\mathrm{Spin}(7))=0`$, and so $`g`$ is null homotopic. ∎

###### Remark 3.7.

From the above discussion, the Berger space admits precisely four independent vector fields.


format: text

text:
# Steps in the negative-differential-conductivity regime of a superconductor

## Abstract

Current-voltage characteristics were measured in the mixed state of Y1Ba2Cu3O7-δ superconducting films in the regime where flux flow becomes unstable and the differential conductivity $`dj/dE`$ becomes negative. Under conditions where its negative slope is steep, the $`j(E)`$ curve develops a pronounced staircase like pattern. We attribute the steps in $`j(E)`$ to the formation of a dynamical phase consisting of the successive nucleation of quantized distortions in the local vortex velocity and flux distribution within the moving flux matter.

In a type II superconductor, a magnetic field $`H`$ above the lower critical value $`H_{c1}`$ introduces flux vortices containing an elementary quantum of flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_o=h/2e`$, and interactions between the vortices tend to align them into a uniform lattice . Extrinsic forces due to impurity pinning, thermal fluctuations, or dynamic melting can result in a disordered solid or liquid state instead of a crystalline lattice ; however, long-range repulsions between the vortices will still enforce a relatively uniform density. The system under study consists of a superconducting film in a perpendicular applied flux density $`B_o`$ along $`\widehat{z}`$, with a transport electric current density $`j`$ and electric field $`E`$ along $`\widehat{y}`$ in the plane of the film. The transverse component of $`E`$ is negligible for this discussion and the vortices move with velocity $`v_\varphi `$ predominantly along $`\widehat{x}`$.

A transport current exerts a Lorentz driving force $`𝐅_𝐋=𝐣\times 𝚽_𝐨`$ on the vortices and the motion is opposed by a viscous drag $`𝐅_𝐝`$$`=\eta `$$`𝐯_\varphi `$, where $`\eta `$ is the coefficient of viscosity. If we assume that pinning forces $`𝐅_𝐩`$ are negligible (because $`F_LF_p`$) then the steady state motion reflects a balance between driving ($`F_L`$), drag ($`F_d`$), and elastic forces ($`F_e`$) on each vortex. For a perfectly uniform distribution, the net elastic force on each vortex vanishes resulting in free flux flow . Then $`j\mathrm{\Phi }_o=\eta v_\varphi `$ producing an Ohmic response approximated by : $`\rho _f/\rho _nB/H_{c2}(T)`$.

A different scenario prevails at ultra high dissipation levels and electric fields sufficient to alter the electronic distribution function and/or the electronic temperature. Here $`j(E)`$ becomes non-linear and can develop an unstable region with negative differential conductivity (NDC) (region “C” in Fig. 1). Such unstable behavior and NDC has been predicted by Larkin and Ovchinnikov (LO) for the regime near $`T_c`$ , and has been experimentally well established . In the LO mechanism, a non-equilibrium electronic distribution function leads to shrinkage of the vortex core by removal of quasiparticles from its vicinity . In the opposite regime of $`TT_c`$ we have observed a qualitatively different type of instability  that seems to result from a temperature differential between the electronic system and lattice while maintaining an equilibrium-like distribution function (because electron-electron scattering is more rapid than electron-phonon scattering at low $`T`$). In our low-temperature instability the vortex expands rather than shrinks, and viscous drag is reduced because of a softening of gradients of the vortex profile rather than a removal of quasiparticles. The standard LO instability near $`T_c`$ occurs at values $`j^{}`$ and $`v^{}`$=$`E^{}`$/$`B`$ (see Fig. 1) that are $`B`$ independent, whereas in our low-temperature instability $`j^{}`$ and $`v^{}`$ have a $`1/\sqrt{B}`$ dependence. This plays an important role in the appearance of a staircase at low temperatures but not at the higher temperatures of the previously well studied LO phenomenon. Theoretical and experimental details of the low-temperature instability are discussed elsewhere .

Fig. 1 suggests a qualitative picture of how the drag component ($`\eta v`$) of the $`j(E)`$ response might vary with $`E`$ over its entire range. After the first “hump” (regions A, B, and C) because of a reduction in $`\eta `$ by the mechanisms mentioned above, $`j(E)`$ will rise again when $`v_\varphi `$ reaches some limiting value such as $`v_{\mathrm{}}\xi /\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\xi =1.5`$ nm is the coherence length and $`\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }4.7\times 10^{14}s`$ is the order-parameter relaxation time. If the vortex density is non-uniform, an additional elastic term appears in $`j`$, namely $`j=(\eta vF_e)/\mathrm{\Phi }_o`$. We shall refer to the $`j(E)`$ curve of Fig. 1 as the primitive curve, which applies to a hypothetical ensemble of uniformly packed vortices moving with identical velocities; an actual $`j(E)`$ will not follow this behavior since, upon encountering a negative slope, the flux matter will become unstable and undergo a phase transition, such that at any given time there exist multiple vortex velocities (resulting in a composite response) and a non-uniform vortex density (resulting in elastic corrections). In effect some vortices will be travelling on the second positive slope “E” of Fig. 1 with $`v_\varphi `$ $``$ $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ (in regions with reduced vortex density) and the rest will be travelling at a reduced velocity $`v_1`$ $`<`$ $`v^{}`$ resulting in restabilization. Below we calculate the expected composite response for one particular flux structure and show that it leads to a staircase in a natural way in rough agreement with the data.

The samples are c-axis oriented epitaxial films of Y1Ba2Cu3O7-δ on (100) LaAlO3 substrates with $`T_c`$’s around 90K and of thickness $`t90`$ nm. Electron-beam and optical-projection lithographies, together with wet etching in $``$ 1 % phosphoric acid, were used to pattern bridges of widths $`w`$ 4 $`\mu `$m and lengths $`l`$ 90 $`\mu `$m. At the end of the lengthy fabrication, each microbridge is inspected by a variety of high-resolution optical probes for uniformity of width to ensure high reproducibility. Altogether ten samples were studied at 12 temperatures (1.6, 2.2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 20, 27, 35, 42, 50, 80 K) and at 11 flux densities (0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 10, 11, 13, 13.5, 14 T). We always observe an instability with steps in the NDC region for all temperatures below $`T_c`$/2 and for $`B`$ values in the 1–14 T range. The electrical transport measurements were made with a pulsed constant voltage source, preamplifier circuitry, and a digital storage oscilloscope. The pulse rise times are about 100 ns with a duty cycle of about 1 ppm, resulting in effective thermal resistances of order 1 nK.cm3/W. The ability to hold the voltage constant across the sample allows investigation of the $`j(E)`$ curve in the NDC region; however, once $`dj/dE`$ becomes negative there will be a jump in the voltage until the chordal resistance of the sample has risen above the source impedance of the voltage source (including the resistance of the leads and contacts) allowing a stable steady state. Such forbidden gaps in $`E`$ are visible in the last data plot at the onset of NDC. Each $`j(E)`$ curve typically consists of 1000 separate points and each point requires averaging over several hundred pulses to obtain an adequate signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), so that a single curve takes several days to measure. Note that the $`j`$ values in the experiment are an order of magnitude lower than the depairing current density . Further details about the experimental techniques are discussed elsewhere .

Fig. 2 shows some examples of measured staircase patterns in the NDC regime. We found such patterns to be ubiquitous under most conditions of $`B_o`$ and $`T`$ (not close to $`T_c`$). Fig. 2(a) shows the behavior at 11T and 27K. The main step features are seen to be reproducible between curves measured a week apart in opposite directions of changing $`E`$. Panel (b) shows 50-K 1-T $`j(E)`$ curves for two different samples (sample X was measured 23 days after sample Z). Within the scatter and uncertainity in the absolute $`j`$ values (due to uncertainity in the sample widths used to calculate $`j`$ from $`I`$), there apears to be some consistency in the main step features. The steepest NDC and most pronounced staircase patterns were observed at temperatures around one half of $`T_c`$ and flux densities around 1 Tesla (where the intervortex separation $`a\sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }_o/B}`$ becomes comparable to the penetration depth). Fig. 2(c) shows 50K curves for sample X at three $`B`$ values over an extended range of $`E`$. The solid line fit indicates linearity in $`1/E`$ over the steep NDC portion. Other observed features are a convergence of curves in their NDC regions for different $`B_o`$’s (at fixed $`T`$) and a growth in horizontal step size with increasing $`E`$.

Let us now consider the nature of the transition in the flux matter when the imposed electric field $`E_o`$ exceeds $`E^{}`$ and enters the NDC region “C” of the primitive curve (Fig. 1). Since all the vortices could not be moving uniformly with $`v_\varphi `$ = $`E_o/B_o`$ (for they would all be unstable) the flux matter must reorganize itself by the creation of moving defects in the regular vortex structure. The exact nature of the defects will depend on the vortex state. In a vortex solid there can be pairs of edge dislocations of different signs, or defect-interstitial pairs that conserve the total flux. If the moving vortex system is a liquid, the defect can be a finite magnetic spot or domain with a different flux density, since redistribution of a magnetic flux in a vortex liquid does not involve significant energy barriers . In this Letter we present a simple calculation based on the magnetic domain approach, in order to provide a simple physical explanation of the effect. A detailed and more rigorous approach, which considers the distinction among the different possibilities listed above, will be presented elsewhere. In the reorganized flux structure some vortices at any given time will move on the second positive slope “E” with $`v_\varphi `$ $``$ $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ while others move on the first slope “A” with $`v_1<`$ $`v^{}`$, such that the composite macroscopic electric field across a sample length averages to $`E_o`$. The reorganized flux structure is influenced by several conditions: (1) The ends of the sample are at a fixed potential difference so the average electric field along any longitudinal path is close to the applied $`E_o`$; (2) the current density integrated along any longitudinal path is approximately constant due to phase coherence (allowing for small variations in the vector potential); (3) the average flux density in the sample must equal the applied value $`B_o`$, otherwise the demagnetizing fields would diverge — this means that if defects are formed that have a suppressed local $`B`$, the flux density $`B_1`$ in the outside bulk will increase to conserve the total flux so as to maintain $`<B>=B_0`$; (4) extended low $`B`$ defects will tend to be stationary to reduce circulating electric fields around them, which would violate the first condition; (5) elastic forces between adjacent vortices — along with asymmetry in demagnetization (since $`lw`$) — will tend to discourage relative side-by-side motion and promote modulations in $`v_\varphi `$ and $`B`$ that traverse the entire length of the sample; and (6) bulk elastic forces within the vortex matter will discourage continuous growth of defects but instead favour discontinuous nucleation of uniformly spaced defects of the smallest possible size ($``$ 1 lattice constant).

Considering the above guidelines, we estimate below the composite $`j(E)`$ response for one simplified static scenario of the defect structure. We would like to emphasize that this is not presented as a comprehensive or unique solution to the vortex reorganization problem, but only used to provide a simple physical explanation of the observed staircase behavior. Referring to Fig. 1, let the applied electric field just exceed the peak value $`E^{}`$. The functional form of the primitive $`j(E)`$ curve in the peak region is given by  $`j(\sigma _nH_{c2}/B)E/[1+(E/E^{})^2]`$ with $`E^{}=\sqrt{2\rho _nBn\mathrm{\Delta }/(H_{c2}\tau _ϵ)}`$ and $`j^{}=\sqrt{n\mathrm{\Delta }H_{c2}/(2\rho _nB\tau _ϵ)}`$. Some vortices are forced to move at higher velocity in order to restore stability. For the purpose of obtaining a rough estimate, let’s assume that vortices move at $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ when they cross a longitudinal channel with reduced local $`B`$ and enlarged flux lattice spacing $`A`$ (The actual structure may consist of an array of smaller entities that nucleate at the sample edges and migrate inward.) The smallest width of this channel, consistent with continuity of flux and constancy of longitudinal $`E`$, is a single lattice spacing $`A=a(v_{\mathrm{}}`$/$`v_1`$), where $`a`$ and $`v_1`$ are the lattice spacing and velocity of the “bulk” vortex matter outside the channels. As soon as the first defect is nucleated, the flux density $`B_1`$ in the bulk increases discontinuously ***These estimates neglect the relatively small flux
($`B_1`$$`Al`$$`v_1`$$`v_{\mathrm{}}`$) through the defects, which, however, is included in the numerically calculated curves of Fig. 3(b). from $`B_o`$ to $`B_o`$$`w/(wA)`$ and $`v_1`$ drops from $`E_o`$/$`B_o`$ to $`E_o`$($`wA`$)/($`B_o`$$`w`$). This immediately stabilizes flux flow in the bulk since $`E^{}`$ $`\sqrt{B}`$ increases and these vortices drop back on the positive slope “A” (in Fig. 1). As the applied $`E_o`$ is increased further nothing more happens until $`v_1`$ reaches the new peak value $`E^{}`$/$`B_1`$. Then a second defect is nucleated and the process keeps repeating itself until the defects fill about half the sample area, at which point it becomes energetically favourable to continuously expand existing defects. The top of each step corresponds to $`j=`$$`j^{}`$($`B_1`$) for each new $`B_1`$ . Since $`j^{}`$ $`1/\sqrt{B}`$ and $`E^{}`$ $`\sqrt{B}`$, the staircase shows an overall downward trend with $`j1/E`$ dependence that does not depend on $`B_o`$ (causing curves with different applied $`B_o`$ to converge). Both of these behaviors can be seen in Fig. 2(c). Fig. 3 shows experimental and numerically computed $`j(E)`$ curves at $`T`$=50K and $`B`$=1, 1.5, and 2 Tesla. The two sets of curves show similar qualitative trends and have roughly comparable magnitudes. Note: The curves computed from the model have no adjustable parameters — the values for $`1/\sigma _n\rho _n=57\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$-cm and $`H_{c2}=120`$ T come from the literature  and $`E^{}`$ = 35 V/cm (at one value of $`B=1.5`$ T) is taken from the measurement.

To summarize, we have investigated the transport response of a superconductor into the regime of negative differential conductivity beyond the low-temperature instability. A qualitatively new behavior was observed in the form of steps in the $`j(E)`$ curve. The observed behavior is consistent with the restabilization of a moving vortex distribution by the formation of a dynamical phase with distortions in the local flux density and vortex velocity. While we do not undertake a detailed theoretical investigation of the exact nature of the dynamical phase, we hope our experimental results will stimulate such further work. Recently other interesting but separate effects have been seen in the highly driven vortex state by the Huebener group, which include time dependent oscillations and hysteretic steps resulting from tunneling between neighbouring vortices. The steps in our effect are time-independent and non-hysteretic, and are analogous to the Gunn effect in semiconductors, where electric-charge modulations lead to steps in $`j(E)`$ in the NDC regime.

The authors acknowlege useful discussions and other assistance from D. K. Christen, J. M. Phillips, M. Geller, A. Koshelev, R. P. Huebener, N. Schopohl, J. Blatter, and V. Geshkenbein. This work was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy through grant number DE-FG02-99ER45763.