text:
# To what extent can dynamical models describe statistical features of turbulent flows?

## Abstract

Statistical features of ”bursty” behaviour in charged and neutral fluid turbulence, are compared to statistics of intermittent events in a GOY shell model, and avalanches in different models of Self Organized Criticality (SOC). It is found that inter–burst times show a power law distribution for turbulent samples and for the shell model, a property which is shared only in a particular case of the running sandpile model. The breakdown of self–similarity generated by isolated events observed in the turbulent samples, is well reproduced by the shell model, while it is absent in all SOC models considered. On this base, we conclude that SOC models are not adequate to mimic fluid turbulence, while the GOY shell model constitutes a better candidate to describe the gross features of turbulence.

PACS. 05.45.-a: Nonlinear dynamics and nonlinear dynamical systems

PACS. 05.65.+b: Self-organized systems

PACS. 52.35.Ra: Plasma turbulence

Turbulence in neutral and charged fluids exhibits bursty behaviour, power laws and $`1/f`$ spectra. Understanding the origin of the rich and complex dynamics underlying these properties, is a challenging and fascinating task. In the years different models have been proposed aimed to catch the fundamental mechanism of this phenomenology. Among them simplified models (”sandpiles”) based on Self–Organized Criticality (SOC)  and dynamical systems approach , are particularly suitable for this purpose. SOC has been proposed as a paradigm for some complex systems, such as earthquakes, solar flares, river floods, fusion plasmas, etc. Despite the very simple governing rules, these systems exhibit a rich dynamics showing bursty behaviour with impulsive events (”avalanches” in sandpiles) which remind a variety of natural phenomena, including turbulence. Power laws are observed for the total energy , the duration and the peak energy distributions of the bursts  and for the total energy frequency spectra . On the other hand models based on the dynamical systems approach have been developed by reducing the fluid equations, in order to isolate the basic mechanisms generating turbulence. An example of a model belonging to this class is the so called GOY shell model (see  and ref.s therein). This model describes a one dimensional fluid system by a set of ordinary differential equations of complex variables non linearly interacting through the coupling of the neighbour and next-neighbour modes.

To what extent these simplified models are good candidates to mimic turbulence is an intriguing question, reported, for example, in Ref.s . The present paper is aimed to contribute to clarify this issue by comparing the predictions of these different dynamical models with samples of turbulence in neutral and charged fluids. The comparison is carried out by discussing two basic properties of turbulence, namely the presence of long time correlations and intermittency. For this purpose two statistical analysis tools have been used: the Distribution of the Waiting Times (WTD) $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ between subsequent bursts  and the comparison of the Probability Distribution Function (pdf) of fluctuations resolved at different time scales . These methods have been applied to SOC and GOY models as well as to experimental data. In particular, concerning SOC models, we have analyzed succesive generalization of the original sandpile model (BTW model), made by Kadanoff et al.  which varied the underlying microscopic rules and by Hwa and Kardar  which included finite drive effects (the running sandpile).

It is worth noticing that the analysis of dynamical properties of these models requires a correct definition of the timescale, a point often neglected in SOC literature. For example Ref.  does not give any definition of the timescale, since it is focused on integral properties of avalanches, namely the total released energy and particles. With this in mind we choose to introduce in Kadanoff sandpile the same timescale definition proposed in Ref. . Accordingly in this case we built the signal of dissipated energy $`ϵ_K(t)`$ considering every avalanche as an istantaneous event, with an amplitude equal to the integral avalanche size and the time between two subsequent events proportional to the number of particles needed to put the system in the unstable state again. On the other hand in the case of the running sanpile  the dissipated energy signal and its timescale are clearly defined. In each temporal step the system is continuously fed at random with a certain finite deposition rate probability $`J_{in}`$ and the unstable sites are simultaneously updated. The dissipated energy signal $`ϵ_H(t)`$ in this case is taken as the total number of unstable sites at each step. The timescale of the previous model is recovered in the limit $`J_{in}0`$. In our simulation we consider a sandpile of size $`\mathrm{}`$, and associate to each lattice site $`n`$ the height of the pile $`h(n,t)`$. If there is any unstable site according to the rule $`h(n,t)h(n\pm 1,t)>\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the system is evolved by taking a fixed amount $`N_f`$ of sand from the unstable $`n`$ site and redistributing grains to the neighbouring $`n\pm 1`$ site (we set the threshold $`\mathrm{\Delta }=50`$ and $`N_f=20`$).

The WTD $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ for the Kadanoff model (right–hand panel of Fig. 1) shows a clear exponential decay. This behaviour, which is known to be associated to independent Poissonian events , indicates that no long term correlations are present between subsequent avalanches, as found in the standard BTW model .

In the case of running sanpile at small $`J_{in}`$, an exponential WTD was found (top right–hand panel of Fig. 2), recovering the behaviour of the Kadanoff sanpile. On the other hand, increasing the drive $`J_{in}`$ a tendency to a power law behaviour $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\mathrm{\Delta }t^{1.5}`$ emerges. In order to measure the waiting times, we note that while at $`J_{in}0`$ avalanches are isolated events so that waiting times coincide with quiescent intervals, at high $`J_{in}`$ there is a continuos activity. Thus to define the waiting times between subsequent events a threshold has been chosen applying the algorithm reported in . The waiting time corresponds to the time interval between two subsequent events with amplitude beyond this threshold. In the limit $`J_{in}0`$ this method correctly gives threshold $`0`$.

It is known that long range time correlations can be obtained by overlapping signals from uncorrelated avalanches . In order to test the origin of the power law above reported, following a procedure originally proposed in ref. , a signal has been generated by randomly overlapping isolated avalanches for the case $`J_{in}0`$, keeping an average dissipation rate equal to that for the case $`J_{in}=4`$. In this case an exponential decay of the WTD has been found. Thus we conclude that the origin of power law in the WTD of the Hwa–Kardar model is due to the interaction among the avalanches inside the system. The emerging of a power law behavior with exponent close to $`\beta 1.5`$ in the WTD is a common feature found for all Hwa–Kardar systems, indipendently from their size $`\mathrm{}`$.

In order to characterize the properties of the dynamics of these SOC systems, the energy fluctuations $`\delta ϵ_\tau =ϵ(t+\tau )ϵ(t)`$ at different scales $`\tau `$ of the energy signal $`ϵ(t)`$ defined above have been analysed. The increments $`\delta ϵ_\tau `$ of a stochastic process are self–similar with respect to the scaling transformation $`\tau \lambda \tau `$ (with $`\lambda >0`$) if $`\delta ϵ_\tau \lambda ^\alpha \delta ϵ_{\lambda \tau }`$ , which means that the cumulative distributions of the first and the second term coincide for a given scaling exponent $`\alpha `$. This can be translated on the relationship between density probability of increments at two different scales $`\tau `$, namely $`pdf(\delta ϵ_\tau )=\lambda ^\alpha pdf(\lambda ^\alpha \delta ϵ_{\lambda \tau })`$. Test for self–similarity of random processes can be made without actually assuming a value for $`\alpha `$. In fact it can be shown that pdfs of rescaled fluctuations $`\delta E_\tau =\delta ϵ_\tau /\sigma _ϵ(\tau )`$, where $`\sigma _ϵ(\tau )=\{[ϵ(t+\tau )ϵ(t)]^2\}^{1/2}`$ (brackets being time averages), are invariant in a self–similar process, say $`pdf(\delta E_\tau )=pdf(\delta E_{\lambda \tau })`$ .

The pdfs of the fluctuations $`\delta E_\tau `$ at different scales $`\tau `$ for the Kadanoff sandpile are shown on the left–hand panel of Fig. 1. The bursty appereance of SOC signals is reflected onto the shape with fat tails of the pdfs. However pdfs are invariant when plotted in the rescaled form, so the process turns out to be purely self–similar.

Concerning the running sandpile, in the case of small drive ($`J_{in}0`$) the result turns out to be close (upper–left panel of Fig. 2) to the Kadanoff model, confirming that in the above limit the two models are equivalent.

In the case of finite drive (bottom–left panel of Fig. 2), the shape of pdfs approaches a Gaussian shape due to the interaction of the avalanches, and, even more noticeable, the underlying process remains purely self–similar. These results are consistent with the intrinsic self–similar structure of SOC models , which is at the origin of its power law distributions and scaling properties . It is worth noticing that self similarity is observed even in the case of finite drive, despite the common belief that ” the true SOC behaviour arises only in the limit that the forcing rate approaches 0” .

The MHD GOY shell model  describes the dynamic of the energy cascade in turbulence. The wavevector space is divided in $`N`$ shells, each shell being characterised by a discrete wavevector $`k_n=2^nk_0`$ ($`n=0,1,\mathrm{},N`$), and by the (complex) dynamical variables, velocity $`u_n(t)`$ and magnetic field $`b_n(t)`$, which represent characteristic fluctuations across eddies at the scale $`\mathrm{}_nk_n^1`$. The dynamical behaviour of the model is described by the following set of ordinary differential equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{du_n}{dt}}=\nu k_n^2u_n+ik_n\{(u_{n+1}u_{n+2}b_{n+1}b_{n+2})`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(u_{n1}u_{n+1}b_{n1}b_{n+1}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(u_{n2}u_{n1}b_{n2}b_{n1})\}^{}+f_n`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{db_n}{dt}}=\eta k_n^2b_n+{\displaystyle \frac{ik_n}{6}}\{(u_{n+1}b_{n+2}b_{n+1}u_{n+2})`$ (3)
$`+(u_{n1}b_{n+1}b_{n1}u_{n+1})+(u_{n2}b_{n1}b_{n2}u_{n1})\}^{}`$ (4)
$`\nu `$ and $`\eta `$ are the kinematic viscosity and the resistivity respectively, and $`f_n`$ is an external forcing term. The nonlinear terms have been obtained by imposing quadratic nonlinear coupling between neighbouring shells and the conservation of three ideal invariants. Detailed informations on the model and on simulations can be found in Ref.s .

The model has a fixed point in the form of a Kolmogorov–like scaling $`u_nb_nk_n^{1/3}`$, and exibits a chaotic dynamics on a strange attractor in the phase space around the fixed point. This is due to the presence of the ideal invariants. What is interesting here is the fact that fluctuations of the degree of chaoticity in the model generate a multifractal probability measure on the attractor. As a consequence the statistics of a sample of turbulence coming from simulations of the system is characterised by multifractal scalings, and this manifest itself as a breakdown of self–similarity of the system. That is, at variance with sandpile models, pdfs of the rescaled variables $`\delta u_n=Real\{u_n\}/\sigma _{u_n}(\mathrm{}_n)`$ and $`\delta b_n=Real\{b_n\}/\sigma _{b_n}(\mathrm{}_n)`$ (see figure 3) strongly depend on the scale $`\mathrm{}_n`$. At large scales pdfs are gaussian, while they tend to develop fat tails for small $`\mathrm{}_n`$, towards the dissipative range. The departure from gaussianity visible at smaller scales, is due to bursts localised in time, which can be identified and extracted through an iterative procedure on $`|u_n|^2`$ and $`|b_n|^2`$, described extensively in Ref. . The WTD for these events is shown in the bottom panels of figure 3. We found a power law $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\mathrm{\Delta }t^\beta `$ over at least two decades (the scaling exponents $`\beta `$ are reported on the figures). Long–range correlations between bursts are the origin of the power law for waiting times.

We proceed now to investigate some samples of turbulent flows. First of all we consider a sample of turbulence as measured in the atmospheric boundary layer , where the longitudinal velocity field $`u(t)`$ is recorded. Then we consider two samples of magnetic field intensity $`B(t)`$ in plasmas as recorded both in a given low–speed stream of the solar wind by Helios II spacecraft , and in a laboratory device for thermonuclear fusion research (the RFX experiment ). Even if turbulent samples are collected in very different physical conditions, they show the same statistical properties. The rescaled fluctuations, namely $`\delta u_\tau =[u(t+\tau )u(t)]/\sigma _u(\tau )`$ and $`\delta B_\tau =[B(t+\tau )B(t)]/\sigma _B(\tau )`$, depend on the scale $`\tau `$ (figure 4). At large scales pdfs are gaussian, while they tend to develop fat tails as $`\tau 0`$, towards the dissipative range. The departure from gaussianity, which results in a correction to the usual Kolmogorov scaling laws, is due to ”intermittency in fully developed turbulence” (see Ref.  and references therein). Since at smaller scales the wings of pdfs increase, intermittency is represented by intense and localised fluctuations which accumulates at smaller scales. These ”events” are generated during the turbulent energy cascade, and can be interpreted as due to a non homogeneous breakdown of ”eddies” towards small scales . Their presence originates the departure from a pure self–similarity of fluctuations at the various scales. The time of occurrence of the events in a turbulent flow can be extracted through the procedure described in Ref. , and the distribution of waiting times between them is shown in the bottom panels of figure 4 for the different samples. A power law over two decades, with non universal scaling exponents $`\beta `$, is found in all samples.

To summarize, we found that turbulence and the GOY MHD shell model always show power law for WTD, while this property is shared only by a SOC model, namely the running sandpile in the “strong” feeding regime, far from BTW limit . Moreover pdfs of rescaled fluctuations in both BTW and other SOC models do not change shape with the scale $`\tau `$. On the contrary intermittency in turbulent flows manifests itself as a breakdown of a pure self–similarity, leading to increasingly non gaussian tails for pdfs as the scale becomes smaller. The same phenomenon is observed in the GOY shell model, and is due to ”time intermittency”. Non linear terms in the model, which conserve some few invariants, are responsible for the occurrence of bursts of chaoticity which are concentrated on the dissipative shells . Such typical behaviour in the shell model generates a breaking of the global scaling invariance of the model, and this results in a correction to the Kolmogorov–like scaling law. This correction has the same statistical effects of the corrections of the Kolmogorov scaling laws due to usual intermittency in real fluid flows. Then as far as the statistical properties we investigated are concerned, SOC models we examined do not adequately mimic neither fluid nor plasma turbulence. On the contrary time intermittency in the GOY shell model allows the model to capture the gross statistical features of real turbulence.


format: text

text:
# The stringy E-function of the moduli space of rank 2 bundles over a Riemann surface of genus 3

## 1 Statement of the main result

The stringy E-function is an invariant for singular varieties, due to Kontsevich, Batyrev, Denef and Loeser, which retains useful information about the singularities (See \[Bat, DL1, DL2, Cra, Loo\]).

Let $`X`$ be a variety with at worst *log-terminal* singularities, i.e.

* $`X`$ is $``$-Gorenstein
* for a resolution of singularities $`\rho :YX`$ such that the exceptional locus of $`\rho `$ is a divisor $`D`$ whose irreducible components $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_r`$ are smooth divisors with only normal crossings, we have

$$K_Y=\rho ^{}K_X+\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}a_iD_i$$

with $`a_i>1`$ for all $`i`$, where $`D_i`$ runs over all irreducible components of $`D`$. The divisor $`K_Y\rho ^{}K_X`$ is called the *discrepancy divisor*.

For each subset $`JI=\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}`$, define $`D_J=_{jJ}D_j`$, $`D_{\mathrm{}}=Y`$ and $`D_J^0=D_J_{jIJ}D_j`$. Then the stringy E-function of $`X`$ is defined by

$$E_{st}(X;u,v)=\underset{JI}{}E(D_J^0;u,v)\underset{jJ}{}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^{a_j+1}1}$$
(1)
where

$$E(Z)=\underset{p,q}{}\underset{k0}{}(1)^kh^{p,q}(H_c^k(Z;))u^pv^q$$

is the Hodge-Deligne polynomial for a variety $`Z`$.

The “change of variable formula” (Theorem 6.27 in \[Bat\], Lemma 3.3 in \[DL1\]) implies that the function $`E_{st}`$ is independent of the choice of a resolution. In particular, if $`\rho `$ is a crepant resolution (i.e. $`\rho ^{}K_X=K_Y`$) then $`E_{st}(X;u,v)=E(Y;u,v)`$.

A projective $``$-Gorenstein algebraic variety of dimension $`d`$ with at worst log-terminal singularities has the Poincaré duality

$$E_{st}(X;u,v)=(uv)^dE_{st}(X;u^1,v^1)$$
(2)
with $`E_{st}(X;0,0)=1`$. (Theorem 3.7 in \[Bat\].)

In this paper, we compute the stringy E-function of the moduli space $`𝒩`$ of rank 2 bundles of even degree over a Riemann surface of *genus $`3`$* with fixed determinant.222See \[New, Ses\] for general facts about the moduli space. Our main result is the following

###### Theorem 1.1

$$\begin{array}{cc}E_{st}(𝒩)\hfill & =\frac{(1u^2v)^3(1uv^2)^3(uv)^4(1u)^3(1v)^3}{(1uv)(1(uv)^2)}\frac{(uv)^2}{2}\left(\frac{(1u)^3(1v)^3}{1uv}\frac{(1+u)^3(1+v)^3}{1+uv}\right)\hfill \\ & +2^6(uv)^5(1+uv+(uv)^2)(1+(uv)^2)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2\hfill \end{array}$$

The stringy Euler number is

$$e_{st}(𝒩)=\underset{u,v1}{lim}E_{st}(𝒩)=31\frac{9}{25}.$$

The deepest singularities in the moduli space are the geometric invariant theory (GIT) quotient $`sl(2)^3//SL(2)`$ where the action is the diagonal adjoint action. This is a hypersurface singularity and that makes the genus $`3`$ case special. Batyrev asked (Question 5.5 in \[Bat\]) the following
Question (Batyrev): Let $`X`$ be a GIT quotient of $`^n`$ modulo a linear action of $`GSL(n)`$. Is it true that $`E_{st}(X;u,v)`$ is a polynomial?

He showed that this is true when $`G`$ is abelian or finite. A corollary of our computation is that the answer is NO in general.

###### Corollary 1.2

$$\begin{array}{cc}E_{st}(^9//SL(2))\hfill & =E([^9//SL(2)]^s)+\frac{(uv)^3(1+uv+(uv)^2)}{1+uv}\hfill \\ & +(uv)^5(1+uv+(uv)^2)(1+(uv)^2)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`[^9//SL(2)]^s`$ denotes the smooth part of $`^9//SL(2)`$.

Since $`E([^9//SL(2)]^s)`$ is a polynomial, we deduce that the stringy E-function of $`^9//SL(2)`$ is *not* a polynomial.

When the genus of the Riemann surface is 2, the moduli space is isomorphic to $`^3`$ and thus the E-function is $`1+uv+(uv)^2+(uv)^3`$. When the genus is greater than 3, the deepest singularities are no longer hypersurface singularities and it doesn’t seem possible to find the discrepancy divisor by explicit computation as in this paper.

In §2, we study the singularities of the moduli space $`𝒩`$. In §§3,4,5, we work out the blow-ups to get a desingularization of $`𝒩`$. We compute the discrepancy divisor in §6 and we prove Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.2 in §7. We conclude this paper with a formula for the stringy E-function of the moduli space $``$ of rank 2 bundles of even degree, without fixing determinant, over a Riemann surface of genus 3.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Tamas Hausel, Michael Thaddeus, Frances Kirwan and Jun Li for useful discussions. Also, I am grateful to the referee for comments and suggestions which led to improvement in exposition.

## 2 The moduli space

The moduli space $`𝒩`$ of rank 2 semistable bundles of degree $`0`$ with trivial determinant over a Riemann surface of genus $`g=3`$ is a singular projective variety of complex dimension $`6`$. The singularities are Gorenstein by Theorem A of \[DN\] and log-terminal as we will see in §6. We refer to \[New, Ses, Ki1\] for general results on the moduli space.

The singular locus in $`𝒩`$ is the Kummer variety $`𝒦`$, which corresponds to those rank 2 bundles $`LL^1`$ for some line bundle $`L`$ of degree $`0`$. The involution $`LL^1`$ gives us a $`_2`$ action on the Jacobian $`Jac_0`$ and the Kummer variety $`𝒦`$ is identified with $`Jac_0/_2`$. There are $`2^{2g}`$ fixed points $`_2^{2g}=\{[LL^1]:LL^1\}`$. Thus we have a stratification

$$𝒩=𝒩^s(𝒦_2^{2g})_2^{2g}.$$

The moduli space $`𝒩`$ is constructed as the GIT quotient of a smooth quasi-projective variety $``$, which is a subset of the space of holomorphic maps from the Riemann surface to the Grassmannian $`Gr(2,p)`$ of $`2`$-dimensional quotients of $`^p`$ where $`p`$ is a large even number, by the action of $`G=SL(p)`$. By deformation theory, the slice at a point $`h`$, which represents $`LL^1`$ where $`LL^1`$, is

$$H^1(End_0(LL^1))H^1(𝒪)sl(2)$$

where the subscript $`0`$ denotes the trace-free part. According to Luna’s slice theorem, there is a neighborhood of the point $`[LL^1]`$ with $`LL^1`$, isomorphic to $`H^1(𝒪)sl(2)//SL(2)`$ since the stabilizer of the point is $`SL(2)`$ (\[Ki1\] (3.3)). Because $`dimH^1(𝒪)=g`$, the deepest singularities are just

$$sl(2)^g//SL(2)=\mathrm{Spec}[z_1,\mathrm{},z_{3g}]^{SL(2)}.$$

By the classical invariant theory (see \[Wey\] or more precisely \[Hue\] 5.1), there is an explicit description of the generators and relations of the invariant subring $`[z_1,\mathrm{},z_{3g}]^{SL(2)}`$. The special feature of the case $`g=3`$ is that the quotient $`X:=sl(2)^g//SL(2)`$ is a hypersurface: For each $`(\stackrel{}{u}_1,\stackrel{}{u}_2,\stackrel{}{u}_3)sl(2)^3`$, let $`x_1=\stackrel{}{u}_1\stackrel{}{u}_1,x_2=\stackrel{}{u}_2\stackrel{}{u}_2,x_3=\stackrel{}{u}_3\stackrel{}{u}_3,x_4=\stackrel{}{u}_1\stackrel{}{u}_2,x_5=\stackrel{}{u}_1\stackrel{}{u}_3,x_6=\stackrel{}{u}_2\stackrel{}{u}_3,x_7=det(\stackrel{}{u}_1,\stackrel{}{u}_2,\stackrel{}{u}_3)`$. Then $`^9//SL(2)`$ is the hypersurface of $`^7=\mathrm{Spec}[x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_6,x_7]`$ given by the equation

$$f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)=x_1x_2x_3+2x_4x_5x_6x_1x_6^2x_2x_5^2x_3x_4^2x_7^2.$$

The locus of $`𝒦`$ in this neighborhood, as a set, is given by

$$x_7=0,x_1x_2x_4^2=0,x_1x_3x_5^2=0,x_1x_6x_4x_5=0$$
(3)
because a point in $`𝒦_X:=𝒦X`$ can be represented by the $`^{}`$-fixed points $`(\stackrel{}{u}_1,\stackrel{}{u}_2,\stackrel{}{u}_3)`$ with $`\stackrel{}{u}_i\{diag(a,a):a\}`$, $`i=1,2,3`$.

Next, we consider the middle stratum $`𝒦_2^{2g}`$. Once again, if we consider a point $`h`$ representing $`LL^1`$ with $`LL^1`$, the slice to the orbit is isomorphic to

$$H^1(End_0(LL^1))H^1(𝒪)H^1(L^2)H^1(L^2).$$
(4)
The stabilizer $`^{}`$ acts with weights $`0,2,2`$ respectively on the components. Hence, there is a neighborhood of the point $`[LL^1]𝒦_2^{2g}`$ in $`𝒩`$, isomorphic to

$$H^1(𝒪)(H^1(L^2)H^1(L^2)//^{}).$$

Notice that $`H^1(𝒪)`$ is the tangent space to $`𝒦`$ and hence

$$H^1(L^2)H^1(L^2)//^{}=^{2g2}//^{}$$

is the normal cone. The GIT quotient of the projectivization $`^{2g2}`$ by the induced $`^{}`$ action is $`^{g2}\times ^{g2}`$ and the normal cone $`^{2g2}//^{}`$ is obtained by collapsing the zero section of the line bundle $`𝒪_{^{g2}\times ^{g2}}(1,1)`$.

## 3 First blow-up

We will desingularize the moduli space $`𝒩`$ by blowing up three times. In this section, we describe the first blow-up.

Let $`𝒩_1`$ be the blow-up of $`𝒩`$ along the deepest strata $`_2^{2g}`$ and $`D_1^{}`$ be the exceptional divisor. Since the deepest singularities are all $`X:=^9//SL(2)`$, we consider only one of them. The GIT quotient $`X`$ is the hypersurface of $`^7`$ with the equation

$$f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)=x_1x_2x_3+2x_4x_5x_6x_1x_6^2x_2x_5^2x_3x_4^2x_7^2.$$

We blow up at the origin and denote the exceptional divisor also by $`D_1^{}`$. In terms of a local chart, the blow-up map is

$$(y_1,\mathrm{},y_7)(y_1,y_1y_2,\mathrm{},y_1y_7).$$
(5)
We have $`f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)=y_1^2g_1(y_1,\mathrm{},y_7)`$ where

$$g_1(y_1,\mathrm{},y_7)=y_1(y_2y_3+2y_4y_5y_6y_6^2y_2y_5^2y_3y_4^2)y_7^2.$$
(6)
Hence, the blow-up $`X_1`$ is the hypersurface given by $`g_1`$ and the exceptional divisor $`D_1^{}`$ is the subset $`y_1=0,y_7=0`$ in the local chart. Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X`$ be the proper transform of $`𝒦_X`$.

The singular set of $`X_1`$ in this chart is, by solving $`g_1=0`$, the union of

$$y_1=0,y_7=0,y_2y_3+2y_4y_5y_6y_6^2y_2y_5^2y_3y_4^2=0$$
(7)
and

$$y_7=0,y_2y_4^2=0,y_3y_5^2=0,y_6y_4y_5=0.$$
(8)
Notice that the second component of the singular set is just the proper transform $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X`$ in view of (3).

Now we switch to other charts. Since $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$ are symmetric, we consider, for instance,

$$(y_1,\mathrm{},y_7)(y_5y_1,y_5y_2,y_5y_3,y_5y_4,y_5,y_5y_6,y_5y_7).$$
(9)
In this chart, $`X_1`$ is given by the equation

$$g_5(y_1,\mathrm{},y_7)=y_5(y_1y_2y_3+2y_4y_6y_1y_6^2y_2y_3y_4^2)y_7^2.$$
(10)
and $`D_1^{}`$ by $`y_5=0,y_7=0`$. The singular locus in this chart is the union of

$$y_5=0,y_7=0,y_1y_2y_3+2y_4y_6y_1y_6^2y_2y_3y_4^2=0$$
(11)
and

$$y_7=0,y_1y_2y_4^2=0,y_1y_31=0,y_1y_6y_4=0.$$
(12)
Again the second component is $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X`$ by comparing with (3).333There is one more chart $`(y_1,\mathrm{},y_7)(y_1y_7,\mathrm{},y_6y_7,y_7)`$ but it doesn’t intersect with the exceptional divisor.

From the local descriptions (7), (11), we see that the first component of the singular set is the subvariety

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_X=\{(y_1:\mathrm{}:y_7)|y_7=0,y_1y_2y_3+2y_4y_5y_6y_1y_6^2y_2y_5^2y_3y_4^2=0\}$$

of the projective space $`^6`$.

###### Lemma 3.1

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_X^2\times ^2/_2.`$

Proof  Define a morphism $`^2\times ^2^6`$ by

$$((x:y:z),(p:q:r))(2xp:2yq:2zr:xq+yp:xr+zp:yr+zq:0).$$

In fact, this came from the identity

$$\begin{array}{cc}(xt+ys+zu)(pt+qs+ru)\hfill & =2xp\frac{t^2}{2}+2yq\frac{s^2}{2}+2zr\frac{u^2}{2}\hfill \\ & +(xq+yp)ts+(xr+zp)tu+(yr+zq)su.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`[t,s,u]`$ is a UFD, the morphism is a 2:1 map whose image is precisely $`\mathrm{\Delta }_X`$ as one can easily check.

The singular locus of $`X_1`$ is thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_X\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X`$. By direct computation, the singular locus $`^2`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_X`$ is the intersection $`\mathrm{\Delta }_X\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X`$ which is the exceptional divisor of the proper transform $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X𝒦_X`$. For instance, in terms of the local chart of (5), the singular locus of (7) is given by the equations of (7) and (8).

We denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the disjoint union of $`2^6`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_X`$’s in the exceptional divisor in $`𝒩_1`$ which has $`2^6`$ components. Then $`𝒩_1`$ is smooth away from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$.

## 4 Second blow-up

In this section, we consider the second blow-up. Namely, we blow up $`𝒩_1`$ along the proper transform $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$ of $`𝒦`$. This is particularly important because it is the partial desingularization of $`𝒩`$, defined in \[Ki3\].

Let $`𝒩_2`$ be the blow-up of $`𝒩_1`$ along $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$. Let $`D_2^{}`$ be the exceptional divisor and $`\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}`$ be the proper transform of $`D_1^{}`$ which has $`2^{2g}`$ connected components. We will describe $`𝒩_2`$ as the partial desingularization of $`𝒩`$. For more details on partial desingularization, we refer to \[Ki1\] and \[Ki3\].

Let $`H`$ be a reductive subgroup of $`G=SL(p)`$ and define $`Z_H^{ss}`$ as the set of semistable points in $``$ fixed by $`H`$. Let $`_1`$ be the blow-up of $`^{ss}`$ along the smooth subvariety $`GZ_{SL(2)}^{ss}`$. Then by Lemma 3.11 in \[Ki3\], the GIT quotient $`_1^{ss}//G`$ is the first blow-up $`𝒩_1`$. The $`^{}`$-fixed point set in $`_1^{ss}`$ is the proper transform $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{^{}}^{ss}`$ of $`Z_{^{}}^{ss}`$ and the quotient of $`G\stackrel{~}{Z}_{^{}}^{ss}`$ by $`G`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$. If we denote by $`_2`$ the blow-up of $`_1^{ss}`$ along the smooth subvariety $`G\stackrel{~}{Z}_{^{}}^{ss}=G\times _N^{^{}}\stackrel{~}{Z}_{^{}}^{ss}`$ where $`N^{^{}}`$ is the normalizer of $`^{}`$, the GIT quotient $`_2^{ss}//G`$ is our second blow-up $`𝒩_2`$ again by Lemma 3.11 \[Ki3\]. This is Kirwan’s partial desingularization of $`𝒩`$ (See §3 \[Ki1\]), which is an orbifold.

By applying the algorithm for Betti numbers described in \[Ki3\], the Poincaré series $`P(𝒩_2)=_{k0}t^kdimH^k(𝒩_2)`$ can be computed as follows. By \[Ki2\], the equivariant Poincaré series $`P^G(^{ss})=_{k0}t^kdimH_G^k(^{ss})`$ is given by the gauge theoretic computation of Atiyah and Bott in §11 of \[AB\] and we get

$$P^G(^{ss})=\frac{(1+t^3)^6t^8(1+t)^6}{(1t^2)(1t^4)}.$$

In order to get $`_1^{ss}`$ we blow up $`^{ss}`$ along $`GZ_{SL(2)}^{ss}`$ and delete the unstable strata. So we get

$$P^G(_1^{ss})=P^G(^{ss})+2^6\left(\frac{t^2+t^4+\mathrm{}+t^{16}}{1t^4}\frac{t^{10}(1+t^2+t^4)}{1t^2}\right).$$

Now $`_2^{ss}`$ is obtained by blowing up $`_1^{ss}`$ along $`G\stackrel{~}{Z}_{^{}}^{ss}`$ and deleting the unstable strata. Thus we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}P^G(_2^{ss})=P^G(_1^{ss})\hfill & +(t^2+t^4+t^6)\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{(1+t)^6}{1t^2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(1t)^6}{1+t^2}+2^6\frac{t^2+t^4}{1t^4}\right)\hfill \\ & \frac{t^4(1+t^2)}{1t^2}\left((1+t)^6+2^6(t^2+t^4)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Because the stabilizers of the $`G`$ action on $`_2^{ss}`$ are all finite, we have

$$H_G^{}(_2^{ss})H^{}(_2^{ss}/G)=H^{}(𝒩_2)$$

and hence we deduce that

$$\begin{array}{cc}P(𝒩_2)\hfill & =\frac{(1+t^3)^6t^8(1+t)^6}{(1t^2)(1t^4)}\hfill \\ & +2^6\left(\frac{t^2+t^4+\mathrm{}+t^{16}}{1t^4}\frac{t^{10}(1+t^2+t^4)}{1t^2}\right)\hfill \\ & +(t^2+t^4+t^6)\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{(1+t)^6}{1t^2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(1t)^6}{1+t^2}+2^6\frac{t^2+t^4}{1t^4}\right)\hfill \\ & \frac{t^4(1+t^2)}{1t^2}\left((1+t)^6+2^6(t^2+t^4)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
See \[Ki1\] for the Betti number computation of the partial desingularization of $``$, the moduli space without fixing determinant.

Furthermore, we can refine the above computation to get the Hodge-Deligne polynomial for $`𝒩_2`$ since the observation in §14 \[Ki4\] tells us that the morphisms involved in the above Betti number computation are strictly compatible with the mixed Hodge structures. By the gauge theoretic computation of \[AB\], the Hodge-Deligne series for the equivariant cohomology $`H_G^{}(^{ss})`$ is444The recent article \[EK\] by Earl and Kirwan contains detailed arguments for the Hodge number computation of the equivariant cohomology.,

$$\frac{(1u^2v)^3(1uv^2)^3(uv)^4(1u)^3(1v)^3}{(1uv)(1(uv)^2)}.$$

Blowing up along $`GZ_{SL(2)}^{ss}`$ and deleting unstable part amounts to adding

$$2^6\left(\frac{uv+(uv)^2+\mathrm{}+(uv)^8}{1(uv)^2}\frac{(uv)^5(1+uv+(uv)^2)}{1uv}\right)$$

and blowing up along $`G\stackrel{~}{Z}_{^{}}^{ss}`$ and deleting unstable points amounts to adding

$$\begin{array}{cc}& (uv+(uv)^2+(uv)^3)\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{(1u)^3(1v)^3}{1uv}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(1+u)^3(1+v)^3}{1+uv}+2^6\frac{uv+(uv)^2}{1(uv)^2}\right)\hfill \\ & \frac{(uv)^2(1+uv)}{1uv}\left((1u)^3(1v)^3+2^6(uv+(uv)^2)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore, we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}E(𝒩_2)\hfill & =\frac{(1u^2v)^3(1uv^2)^3(uv)^4(1u)^3(1v)^3}{(1uv)(1(uv)^2)}\hfill \\ & +2^6\left(\frac{uv+(uv)^2+\mathrm{}+(uv)^8}{1(uv)^2}\frac{(uv)^5(1+uv+(uv)^2)}{1uv}\right)\hfill \\ & +(uv+(uv)^2+(uv)^3)\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{(1u)^3(1v)^3}{1uv}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(1+u)^3(1+v)^3}{1+uv}+2^6\frac{uv+(uv)^2}{1(uv)^2}\right)\hfill \\ & \frac{(uv)^2(1+uv)}{1uv}\left((1u)^3(1v)^3+2^6(uv+(uv)^2)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Notice that (15) reduces to (14) if we put $`u=v=t`$.

In this context, $`D_1^{}`$ is the disjoint union of $`2^6`$ copies of $`(sl(2)^3)//SL(2)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}`$ is its partial desingularization. The algorithm in \[Ki3\] gives us

$$E(\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{})=2^6(1+uv+(uv)^2)(1+uv+(uv)^2+(uv)^3).$$
(16)
The normal bundle to $`G\stackrel{~}{Z}_{^{}}^{ss}`$ has rank $`2g2=4`$ as we saw in (4). As $`G\stackrel{~}{Z}_{^{}}^{ss}G\times _N^{^{}}\stackrel{~}{Z}_{^{}}^{ss}`$ from \[Ki3\] and the normal bundle can be written similarly, the quotient of the normal bundle by $`G`$ is the quotient of its restriction to $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{^{}}^{ss}`$ by the action of $`N^{^{}}`$. If we first take the quotient by the identity component $`N_0^{^{}}`$ of $`N^{^{}}`$, we get a $`^4//^{}`$-bundle over $`\stackrel{~}{Jac}`$, the blow-up of $`Jac`$ along $`_2^6`$, since $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{^{}}//N_0^{^{}}\stackrel{~}{Jac}`$. Hence there is a neighborhood of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$ in $`𝒩_1`$, which is isomorphic to the $`_2`$-quotient of the $`^4//^{}`$-bundle over $`\stackrel{~}{Jac}`$ because $`\pi _0(N^{^{}})=_2`$. As we mentioned at the end of §2, the normal cone $`^4//^{}`$ is obtained by collapsing the zero section of the line bundle $`𝒪_{^1\times ^1}(1,1)`$ and thus the exceptional divisor $`D_2^{}`$ is the $`_2`$ quotient of the $`^1\times ^1`$ bundle over $`\stackrel{~}{Jac}`$. Hence, the E-polynomial of $`D_2^{}`$ is

$$\begin{array}{cc}E(D_2^{})\hfill & =[\left((1u)^3(1v)^3+2^6(uv+(uv)^2)\right)(1+uv)^2]^_2\hfill \\ & =\left(\frac{1}{2}(1u)^3(1v)^3+\frac{1}{2}(1+u)^3(1+v)^3+2^6(uv+(uv)^2)\right)(1+uv+(uv)^2)\hfill \\ & +\left(\frac{1}{2}(1u)^3(1v)^3\frac{1}{2}(1+u)^3(1+v)^3\right)(uv)\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
where $`[]^_2`$ denotes the $`_2`$-invariant part. The intersection of the two divisors $`D_2^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}`$ has $`2^6`$ components, each of which is isomorphic to a bundle over $`^2`$ with fiber $`^2=^1\times __2^1`$.

Now, we can compute the E-function of the smooth part $`𝒩^s=𝒩𝒦=𝒩_2D_2^{}\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}`$. The E-polynomial of $`𝒩_2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}`$ are (15), (16) respectively. The E-polynomial of $`D_2^{}\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}`$ is

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left(\frac{1}{2}(1u)^3(1v)^3+\frac{1}{2}(1+u)^3(1+v)^32^6\right)(1+uv+(uv)^2)\hfill \\ & +\left(\frac{1}{2}(1u)^3(1v)^3\frac{1}{2}(1+u)^3(1+v)^3\right)(uv).\hfill \end{array}$$

by subtracting $`E(D_2^{}\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{})=2^6(1+uv+(uv)^2)^2`$ from (17). Therefore, the E-polynomial of $`𝒩^s`$ is

$$\begin{array}{cc}E(𝒩^s)\hfill & =E(𝒩_2)E(\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{})E(D_2^{}\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{})\hfill \\ & =\frac{(1u^2v)^3(1uv^2)^3(uv)^4(1u)^3(1v)^3}{(1uv)(1(uv)^2)}\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{2}(\frac{(1u)^3(1v)^3}{1uv}+\frac{(1+u)^3(1+v)^3}{1+uv}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
To end this section, we consider the singular locus of $`𝒩_2`$. At a point in $`D_2^{}\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}`$, $`𝒩_2`$ looks like a line bundle over $`^1\times ^1`$ times $`^3`$ and hence smooth. The singular locus thus lies in $`\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}`$ and so we restrict our concern to $`X_1`$, the blow-up of $`X=sl(2)^3//SL(2)`$. We know from the previous section that $`X_1`$ is smooth at points in $`D_1^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_X`$. Hence, the singular locus of $`𝒩_2`$ lies over $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We claim that the proper transform $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is precisely the singular locus in $`𝒩_2`$. To verify our claim, we return to the local chart description.

In terms of the local chart (5), $`X_1`$ is given by the equation (6) and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X`$ is by (8). We introduce new coordinates

$$w_1=y_1,w_2=y_2y_4^2,w_3=y_3y_5^2,w_4=y_4,w_5=y_5,w_6=y_6y_4y_5,w_7=y_7.$$

Then the equation of $`X_1`$ is $`w_1(w_2w_3w_6^2)w_7^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X`$ is given by $`w_2=w_3=w_6=w_7=0`$. The blow-up along $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X`$ can be now described locally as

$$(t_1,\mathrm{},t_7)(t_1,t_2,t_2t_3,t_4,t_5,t_2t_6,t_2t_7).$$
(19)
Since $`w_1(w_2w_3w_6^2)w_7^2=t_2^2\left(t_1(t_3t_6^2)t_7^2\right)`$ in this chart, $`X_2`$ is given by the equation

$$g_{12}(t_1,\mathrm{},t_7)=t_1(t_3t_6^2)t_7^2.$$
(20)
The singular locus is, from $`g_{12}=0`$,

$$t_1=0,t_7=0,t_3t_6^2=0$$
(21)
which is the proper transform of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_X`$ in view of the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_X`$ is $`w_1=w_7=0,w_2w_3w_6^2=0`$ from (7). Similarly, one can use other charts for the second blow-up to check that the proper transform $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_X`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_X`$ is the singular locus over the local chart (5).

In the local chart (9), $`X_1`$ is given by (10) and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X`$ is by (12) while $`\mathrm{\Delta }_X`$ is given by (11). Since we are interested in a neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_X\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X`$ where $`y_10`$, we may assume that $`y_10`$. We introduce new coordinates

$$\begin{array}{cc}& w_1=y_1,w_2=y_2y_4^2/y_1,w_3=y_31/y_1,w_4=y_4,\hfill \\ & w_5=y_5,w_6=y_6y_4/y_1,w_7=y_7.\hfill \end{array}$$

In terms of $`w`$-coordinates, $`X_1`$ is just $`w_1w_5(w_2w_3w_6^2)w_7^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X`$ is $`w_2=w_3=w_6=w_7=0`$. The blow-up map along $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X`$ can be written locally as (19) for instance. One can check again that the singular locus of $`𝒩_2`$ over the local chart (9) is precisely $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_X`$.

By a similar computation for each local chart for $`X_1`$, we deduce that the singular locus of $`𝒩_2`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ as claimed. Observe from the above that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}`$ are smooth.

## 5 Third blow-up

To obtain a desingularization $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ of $`𝒩`$, we blow up $`𝒩_2`$ along $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. Let $`D_3`$ be the exceptional divisor of this third blow-up and $`D_1,D_2`$ denote the proper transforms of $`\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{},D_2^{}`$ respectively.

In terms of the $`t`$-coordinates (19) of $`𝒩_2`$, one can readily deduce from (20) and (21) that the singularity along $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is just the $`(xy=z^2)`$-singularity in $`^3`$ and by blowing up along $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ we get a smooth variety. As one can check, the same is true for each local chart of $`𝒩_2`$. Hence, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ is smooth.

One can also explicitly check in terms of local coordinates that the divisors $`D_1,D_2,D_3`$ are smooth divisors with only normal crossings. For instance, consider the $`t`$-coordinates (19) for $`𝒩_2`$ again. Before blowing up, we introduce new coordinates $`r_1=t_1,r_2=t_2,r_3=t_3t_6^2,r_4=t_4,r_5=t_5,r_6=t_6,r_7=t_7`$. Then $`𝒩_2`$ is given by $`r_1r_3r_7^2=0`$ and the blow-up center is $`r_1=r_3=r_7=0`$. If we consider the local description of the third blow-up for instance

$$(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _6,\alpha _7)(\alpha _3\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3,\alpha _4,\alpha _5,\alpha _6,\alpha _3\alpha _7),$$

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ is $`\alpha _1\alpha _7^2=0`$, $`D_1`$ is $`\alpha _1=\alpha _7=0`$, $`D_2`$ is $`\alpha _2=0=\alpha _1\alpha _7^2`$ and $`D_3`$ is $`\alpha _3=0=\alpha _1\alpha _7^2`$. By repeating a simliar computation for each chart, we see that the divisors have only normal crossings.

The desingularization process we described can be schematically summarized in the above picture.

## 6 Canonical divisors

The purpose of this section is to prove the following.

###### Proposition 6.1

If $`\rho :\stackrel{~}{𝒩}𝒩`$ is the desingularization described above, then $`K_{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}=\rho ^{}K_𝒩+4D_1+D_2+4D_3.`$

We consider a differential

$$s=\frac{dx_1dx_2dx_3dx_5dx_6dx_7}{f/x_4}$$

on $`X=sl(2)^3//SL(2)`$. On the smooth part of $`X`$, $`s`$ is not vanishing and thus the divisor of $`s`$ is zero. (See (1.7) \[Rei\].) In terms of local coordinates, the first blow-up map $`\rho _1`$ is given by $`(y_1,\mathrm{},y_6,y_7)(y_1,y_1y_2,\mathrm{},y_1y_6,y_1y_7)`$ and we have a rational differential on $`X_1`$

$$s=y_1^4\frac{dy_1dy_2dy_3dy_5dy_6dy_7}{g_1/y_4}$$

where $`f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)=y_1^2g_1(y_1,\mathrm{},y_7)`$. Hence, $`K_{𝒩_1}=\rho _1^{}K_𝒩+4D_1^{}`$.

Now we switch to the $`w`$-coordinates $`w_1=y_1,w_2=y_2y_4^2,w_3=y_3y_5^2,w_4=y_4,w_5=y_5,w_6=y_6y_4y_5`$. Then $`g_1=w_1(w_2w_3w_6^2)w_7^2`$. The second blow-up, in terms of local coordinates, is $`(t_1,\mathrm{},t_7)(t_1,t_2,t_2t_3,t_4,t_5,t_2t_6,t_2t_7)`$ and we get a rational differential on $`X_2`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}s\hfill & =w_1^4\frac{dw_1dw_2dw_3dw_5dw_6dw_7}{g_1/w_3}\hfill \\ & =t_1^4t_2\frac{dt_1dt_2dt_3dt_5dt_6dt_7}{g_{12}/t_3}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`g_1(y_1,\mathrm{},y_7)=t_2^2g_{12}(t_1,\mathrm{},t_7)`$. Hence,

$$K_{𝒩_2}=\rho _2^{}\rho _1^{}K_𝒩+4\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}+D_2^{}.$$

We next use the $`r`$-coordinates $`r_1=t_1,r_2=t_2,r_3=t_3t_6^2,r_4=t_4,r_5=t_5,r_6=t_6,r_7=t_7`$. Then $`g_{12}=r_1r_3r_7^2`$. Finally, we blow up along $`r_1=r_3=r_7=0`$. In terms of local coordinates, the blow-up is $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _7)(\alpha _3\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3,\alpha _4,\alpha _5,\alpha _6,\alpha _3\alpha _7)`$ and $`g_{12}=\alpha _3^2(\alpha _1\alpha _7^2)`$. The equation for $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ in the $`\alpha `$-coordinates is thus $`g_{123}=\alpha _1\alpha _7^2`$ and we have a rational differential on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$

$$s=\alpha _1^4\alpha _2\alpha _3^4\frac{d\alpha _2d\alpha _3\mathrm{}d\alpha _7}{g_{123}/\alpha _1}.$$

By a similar computation for each chart, we deduce that

$$K_{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}=\rho ^{}K_𝒩+4D_1+D_2+4D_3.$$

## 7 The stringy E-function

We can now compute the stringy E-function of the moduli space $`𝒩`$.

The E-function of the smooth part is from §4

$$\begin{array}{cc}E(𝒩^s)\hfill & =E(𝒩_2)E(\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{})E(D_2^{}\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{})\hfill \\ & =\frac{(1u^2v)^3(1uv^2)^3(uv)^4(1u)^3(1v)^3}{(1uv)(1(uv)^2)}\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{2}(\frac{(1u)^3(1v)^3}{1uv}+\frac{(1+u)^3(1+v)^3}{1+uv}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Next, $`D_1^0=D_1(D_2D_3)`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}D_2^{}`$. Since each component of $`\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}D_2^{}`$ is a $`^2`$-bundle over $`^2`$ and each component of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}D_2^{}`$ is $`^2\times __2^2^2`$, $`E(D_1^0)`$ is (16) minus $`E(^2\times ^2)`$ and $`2^6[(1+uv+(uv)^2)^2]^_22^6(1+uv+(uv)^2)`$. Hence,

$$E(D_1^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}=2^6((uv)^5(uv)^2)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}.$$

Since $`D_2^0=D_2(D_1D_3)=D_2^{}\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}`$, the E-function of $`D_2^0`$ is (17) minus the E-function of $`D_2^{}\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}`$, $`2^6(1+uv+(uv)^2)^2`$. Hence,

$$\begin{array}{cc}E(D_2^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}\hfill & =\left(\frac{1}{2}(1u)^3(1v)^3+\frac{1}{2}(1+u)^3(1+v)^32^6\right)(1+uv+(uv)^2)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}\hfill \\ & +\left(\frac{1}{2}(1u)^3(1v)^3\frac{1}{2}(1+u)^3(1+v)^3\right)(uv)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}.\hfill \end{array}$$

As $`D_3D_1`$ is isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and a component of $`D_3D_2`$ is a $`^1`$-bundle over $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}D_2^{}`$, we see that the E-function of $`D_3^0`$ is $`2^6`$ times the E-function of a $`^1`$-bundle over $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ minus $`E(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ and $`2^6`$ times $`E((^1pt)\times ^1\times ^2)`$. Hence,

$$E(D_3^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}=2^6((uv)^3+(uv)^4+(uv)^5)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}.$$

Notice that $`D_{12}^0=D_1D_2D_3=\stackrel{~}{D}_1^{}D_2^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is the disjoint union of $`2^6`$ copies of a $`(^2^1)`$-bundle over $`^2`$. Hence,

$$E(D_{12}^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}=2^6((uv)^2+(uv)^3+(uv)^4)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}.$$

Also, $`D_{13}^0=D_1D_3D_2`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ minus $`2^6`$ $`^1`$-bundles over $`^2`$. Hence,

$$E(D_{13}^0)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2=2^6((uv)^2+(uv)^3+(uv)^4)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2.$$

Finally, a component of $`D_{23}^0=D_2D_3D_1`$ is a $`(^1pt)`$-bundle over a $`^1`$-bundle over $`^2`$ and a component of $`D_{123}^0=D_1D_2D_3`$ is a $`^1`$-bundle over $`^2`$. Therefore,

$$E(D_{23}^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}=2^6(uv+(uv)^2+(uv)^3)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}$$

and

$$E(D_{123}^0)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}=2^6(1+uv+(uv)^2)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2.$$

Putting together all the pieces above, we get from the formula (1) that

$$\begin{array}{cc}E_{st}(𝒩)\hfill & =\frac{(1u^2v)^3(1uv^2)^3(uv)^4(1u)^3(1v)^3}{(1uv)(1(uv)^2)}\frac{(uv)^2}{2}\left(\frac{(1u)^3(1v)^3}{1uv}\frac{(1+u)^3(1+v)^3}{1+uv}\right)\hfill \\ & +2^6(uv)^5(1+uv+(uv)^2)(1+(uv)^2)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2\hfill \end{array}$$

This satisfies the Poincaré duality (2) which serves as a check for our result. Notice that it is *not* a polynomial.

To prove Corollary 1.2, let $`D_{j,X}`$ be the divisors in $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ corresponding to $`D_j`$. Then from above, we have

$$E(D_{1,X}^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}=((uv)^5(uv)^2)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}$$

$$E(D_{2,X}^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}=((uv)^31)(1+uv+(uv)^2)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}$$

$$E(D_{3,X}^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}=((uv)^3+(uv)^4+(uv)^5)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}$$

$$E(D_{12,X}^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}=((uv)^2+(uv)^3+(uv)^4)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}$$

$$E(D_{13,X}^0)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2=((uv)^2+(uv)^3+(uv)^4)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2$$

$$E(D_{23,X}^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}=(uv+(uv)^2+(uv)^3)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}$$

and

$$E(D_{123,X}^0)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}=(1+uv+(uv)^2)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2.$$

By putting them together, we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}E_{st}(^9//SL(2))\hfill & =E([^9//SL(2)]^s)+\frac{(uv)^3(1+uv+(uv)^2)}{1+uv}\hfill \\ & +(uv)^5(1+uv+(uv)^2)(1+(uv)^2)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`[^9//SL(2)]^s`$ denotes the smooth part of $`^9//SL(2)`$.

###### Remark 7.1

If we denote by $``$ the moduli space of rank 2 semistable bundles of even degree over a Riemann surface of genus 3 (without fixing determinant), the stringy E-function is

$$\begin{array}{cc}E_{st}()\hfill & =(1u)^3(1v)^3\{\frac{(1u^2v)^3(1uv^2)^3(uv)^4(1u)^3(1v)^3}{(1uv)(1(uv)^2)}\hfill \\ & \frac{(uv)^2}{2}\left(\frac{(1u)^3(1v)^3}{1uv}\frac{(1+u)^3(1+v)^3}{1+uv}\right)\hfill \\ & +(uv)^5(1+uv+(uv)^2)(1+(uv)^2)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
We just sketch the computation and leave the details to the reader. The determinant map $`det:Jac`$ is a fibration with fiber $`𝒩`$ and $``$ has the same singularities as $`𝒩`$. So we need 3 blow-ups exactly as in §§3,4,5 and the discrepancy divisor is given as in Proposition 6.1. It is now easy to modify the computation to get

$$\begin{array}{cc}E(^s)\hfill & =(1u)^3(1v)^3[\frac{(1u^2v)^3(1uv^2)^3(uv)^4(1u)^3(1v)^3}{(1uv)(1(uv)^2)}\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{2}(\frac{(1u)^3(1v)^3}{1uv}+\frac{(1+u)^3(1+v)^3}{1+uv})].\hfill \end{array}$$

$$E(D_{1,}^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}=(1u)^3(1v)^3((uv)^5(uv)^2)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}E(D_{2,}^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}\hfill & =(1u)^3(1v)^3\hfill \\ & [(\frac{1}{2}(1u)^3(1v)^3+\frac{1}{2}(1+u)^3(1+v)^31)(1+uv+(uv)^2)\hfill \\ & +(\frac{1}{2}(1u)^3(1v)^3\frac{1}{2}(1+u)^3(1+v)^3)(uv)]\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}\hfill \end{array}$$

$$E(D_{3,}^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}=(1u)^3(1v)^3((uv)^3+(uv)^4+(uv)^5)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}$$

$$E(D_{12,}^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}=(1u)^3(1v)^3((uv)^2+(uv)^3+(uv)^4)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}$$

$$E(D_{13,}^0)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2=(1u)^3(1v)^3((uv)^2+(uv)^3+(uv)^4)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2$$

$$E(D_{23,}^0)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}=(1u)^3(1v)^3(uv+(uv)^2+(uv)^3)\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}$$

and

$$E(D_{123,}^0)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2\frac{uv1}{(uv)^21}=(1u)^3(1v)^3(1+uv+(uv)^2)\left(\frac{uv1}{(uv)^51}\right)^2.$$

Combining these we get (22).


text:
# On Unitary Time Evolution in Gowdy 𝑇³ Cosmologies

## I Introduction

In the search for a quantum theory of gravity within the canonical approach, it has been historically useful to consider symmetry reduced models. The most studied examples are homogeneous models, where the infinite dimensional system is reduced to a model with a finite number of degrees of freedom. These are known as mini-superspace models . Another class of symmetry reduced models where the resulting system is still a field theory with an infinite number of degrees of freedom are known as midi-superspace models (for a recent review see ). Recently, within this class, the models that have received special attention are the Einstein-Rosen waves and Gowdy cosmological models . One interesting feature of this type of models is that due to their spacetime symmetries, the classical dynamics turns out to be derivable from an equivalent complete integrable system, but they still possess an infinite number of degrees of freedom so that their quantization would lead to a true quantum field theory (in contrast to mini-superspace models with a finite number of degrees of freedom). In this work, we will consider the canonical quantization of the polarized Gowdy $`T^3`$ cosmological model . This is the simplest inhomogeneous, empty, spatially closed cosmological model. It was extensively studied in the 70’s , and subsequently re-examined by several authors . Of particular relevance is the recent work by Pierri, where definite progress was achieved in defining a rigorous quantization of the model . In this case, the quantization is based on the fact that the corresponding gravitational field can be equivalently treated as $`2+1`$ gravity coupled to a massless scalar field, defined on a $`2+1`$-dimensional manifold with topology $`T^2\times R`$.

One important aspect in the study of quantum cosmological models is dynamical evolution; that is the dynamics in which a physical quantum state evolves from an initial Cauchy surface to a final one. Recall that in general relativity there are no preferred foliations in spacetime and the dynamical evolution should consider all possible spacelike foliations in order to be in agreement with the requirement of general covariance. Furthermore, in the case in which the Cauchy surfaces are compact, dynamical evolution is pure gauge, so any interpretation of time evolution is normally through a deparametrization procedure which, in the Hamiltonian language, is normally achieved via “time dependent gauge fixing”. Thus, the dynamics to be considered in quantum cosmological models concerns the evolution of quantum states between Cauchy surfaces, defined by the particular gauge choice. Different choices of time parameters may lead to inequivalent quantizations. This fact is true even in the simple mechanical mini-superspace models. In the particular model we are interested, the system is partially gauge fixed at the classical level, and in particular a time function $`T`$ is chosen and interpreted as the time which defines “evolution”. The surfaces of constant $`T`$ are Cauchy surfaces of a fiducial flat background, so the model get reduced to a quantum scalar field on a flat background, equipped with a foliation of preferred surfaces which define “time evolution” in the corresponding quantum gravitational system.

At the classical level, this dynamical evolution of the field can be represented as a canonical transformation that acts on points of the corresponding phase space. The question is whether, at the quantum level, this canonical transformation can be implemented on the space of quantum states of the field by means of a unitary operator. This is a rather delicate problem that has been analyzed in detail only recently and for a few special cases , all of them concerning free scalar fields on flat or stationary spacetimes. Fortunately, the quantum polarized Gowdy $`T^3`$ cosmological models belong to this class, and so we will be able to investigate the question about the unitary implementability of these models within this approach. This is the main goal of the present work.

We will show that for the particular quantization performed in , time evolution is not implementable as a unitary evolution. Given that, at the classical level time evolution is pure gauge, and the particular choice of time is an ad-hock procedure to regain dynamics from a purely frozen formalism, one might argue that unitary implementability of this fictitious time evolution is not necessary for the consistency of the formalism. However, as we will argue, the implementability is needed in order to ask physically meaningful questions regarding, say, the initial singularity. That is, questions such as whether the initial singularity is smeared by quantum effects should have a definite answer within a consistent quantization. Thus, we shall conclude that we can not extract any physics out of these models as presently constructed.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we review the quantization of polarized Gowdy $`T^3`$ cosmological models as performed by Pierri . We show that the two different sets of creation and annihilation operators proposed in this quantization are related by means of a unitary Bogoliubov transformation. In Sec. III A we explicitly calculate the canonical (symplectic) transformation that represents the classical evolution of the system. In Sec. III B we prove that this canonical transformation is not unitarily implementable on the corresponding Fock space. We end with a discussion and some conclusions in Sec. IV.

## II Canonical quantization

The polarized Gowdy $`T^3`$ models are globally hyperbolic four-dimensional vacuum spacetimes, with two commuting hypersurface orthogonal spacelike Killing fields and compact spacelike hypersurfaces homeomorphic to a three-torus. Because this system can be equivalent treated as 2+1 gravity (minimally) coupled to an axi-symmetric massless scalar field, let us begin by considering the action

$$S[^{\text{(3)}}g,\psi ]=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{{}_{}{}^{\text{(3)}}M}d^3x\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{\text{(3)}}g}({}_{}{}^{\text{(3)}}R{}_{}{}^{\text{(3)}}g_{}^{ab}_a\psi _b\psi )$$
(1)
where $`{}_{}{}^{\text{(3)}}R`$ is the Ricci scalar of the $`3`$-d spacetime $`(^{\text{(3)}}M,^{\text{(3)}}g_{ab})`$, $`{}_{}{}^{\text{(3)}}M`$ is a $`3`$-d manifold with topology $`T^2\times 𝐑`$ and spacetime metric $`{}_{}{}^{\text{(3)}}g_{ab}^{}=h_{ab}+\tau ^2_a\sigma _b\sigma `$. The Killing field $`\sigma ^a`$ is hypersurface orthogonal and the field $`h_{ab}`$ is a metric of signature $`(,+)`$ on the $`2`$-manifold orthogonal to $`\sigma ^a`$; $`\tau `$ is the norm of $`\sigma ^a`$ and $`\sigma `$ is an angular coordinate with range $`0\sigma <2\pi `$ such that $`\sigma ^a_a\sigma =1`$.

Introducing a generic slicing by compact spacelike hypersurfaces labeled by $`t=const`$ the $`2`$-metric can be written as $`h_{ab}=\left(N^2+N^\theta N_\theta \right)_at_bt+2N_\theta _{(a}t_{b)}\theta +e^\gamma _a\theta _b\theta `$, where the lapse, $`N`$, the shift, $`N^\theta `$, and $`\gamma `$ are functions of $`\theta `$ and $`t`$. The angular coordinate $`\theta [0,2\pi )`$ is such that $`\widehat{\theta }^a_a\theta =1`$, where $`\widehat{\theta }^a`$ is the unit vector field within each slice orthogonal to $`\sigma ^a`$. Thus the system consists of five functions $`(N,N^\theta ,\gamma ,\tau ,\psi )`$ of $`t`$ and $`\theta `$ which are periodic in $`\theta `$. The function $`\psi `$ represents the zero rest mass scalar field.

Substituting the expression for $`{}_{}{}^{\text{(3)}}g_{ab}^{}`$ in the action (1) we pass to the Hamiltonian formulation

$$S=𝑑t\left(\left(p_\gamma \dot{\gamma }+p_\tau \dot{\tau }+p_\psi \dot{\psi }\right)\right)H[N,N^\theta ]$$
(2)
where the Hamiltonian $`H`$ is given by $`H[N,N^\theta ]=\left(NC+N^\theta C_\theta \right)`$ (here, the symbol $``$ denotes integration over $`\theta S^1`$) and the first class constraints $`C`$ and $`C^\theta `$ are

$`C=e^{\gamma /2}\left[2\tau ^{\prime \prime }\gamma ^{}\tau ^{}p_\gamma p_\tau +\tau \left({\displaystyle \frac{p_\psi ^2}{4\tau ^2}}+\psi ^2\right)\right]`$ (3)
$`C^\theta =e^\gamma \left(\gamma ^{}p_\gamma 2p_\gamma ^{}+\tau ^{}p_\tau +p_\psi \psi ^{}\right)`$ (4)
The lapse and shift are not dynamical variables, thus the phase space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consists of three canonically-conjugate pairs of periodic functions of $`\theta `$, $`(\gamma ,p_\gamma ;\tau ,p_\tau ;\psi ,p_\psi )`$ on a 2-d manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with topology $`T^2`$.

Because the Hamiltonian vanishes on the constraint surface there is no distinction between gauge and dynamics and therefore it is necessary to introduce a “deparametrization” procedure to discuss dynamics. From the infinite set of vector fields generated by the Hamiltonian constraints we select one to represent evolution and gauge fix the others. For gauge fixing let us demand

$$p_\gamma +p=0\text{and}\tau (\theta )^{}=0$$
(5)
where $`p`$ is a spatial constant that has zero Poisson bracket with all the constraints and hence it can not be removed by gauge fixing. The second condition will allow us to regard $`\tau (\theta )`$ as the time parameter.

The consistency of the formalism requires that the Poisson brackets $`\{\tau (\theta )^{},H[N,N^\theta ]\}`$ and $`\{p_\gamma +p,H[N,N^\theta ]\}`$ vanish. This can be achieved if the freely specifiable $`N`$ and $`N^\theta `$ are chosen as,

$$N=\frac{e^{\gamma /2}}{p}\text{and}N^\theta =0$$
(6)
therefore the coordinate condition (5) is acceptable. Indeed, for the special choice (6) we have that $`\dot{\tau }(\theta )=1`$ and $`\dot{p}_\gamma (\theta )=\dot{p}=0`$ and hence $`p`$ becomes a true constant that can be associated with a time scaling parameter in the original 3+1-spacetime. Thus, apart from a global degree of freedom, the true degrees of freedom will all reside in the field $`\psi `$. Solving the set of second class constraints $`(C,C^\theta ,p_\gamma +p,\tau ^{})`$ the result is

$$p_\tau =\frac{t}{p}\left(\frac{p_\psi ^2}{4t^2}+\psi ^2\right)$$
(7)
$$\gamma (\theta )=\frac{1}{p}_0^\theta 𝑑\theta _1p_\psi \psi ^{}+\gamma (0)$$
(8)
Since $`\gamma `$ is a smooth function of $`\theta `$, it must admit a Fourier series of the form $`\gamma =q+_{n0}\frac{e^{in\theta }}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\gamma _n`$, then $`_{n0}\left(\frac{e^{in\theta }1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\right)\gamma _n=\frac{1}{p}_0^\theta 𝑑\theta _1p_\psi \psi ^{}`$ and we can solve for all modes but the zero mode. i.e., we can solve (8) for $`\overline{\gamma }:=_{n0}\frac{e^{in\theta }}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\gamma _n`$ and we are left with the global degree of freedom $`q=\frac{1}{2\pi }\gamma `$ unsolved. This is consistent with the fact that a constant shift vector $`N^\theta =\mathrm{const}`$ would also be acceptable for preserving the conditions (5). Substituting (8) in (6) we obtain that $`N=N[q,p,\psi ,p_\psi ]`$. The spacetime metric is now completely determined by $`q`$, $`p`$, $`\psi `$ and $`p_\psi `$

$$^{\text{(3)}}g_{ab}=e^{q+\overline{\gamma }}(\frac{1}{p^2}_at_bt+_a\theta _b\theta )+t^2_a\sigma _b\sigma $$
(9)
The phase space variables are periodic functions of $`\theta `$, therefore $`\gamma (2\pi )\gamma (0)=0`$ defines via Eq.(8) the global constraint

$$P_\theta :=p_\psi \psi ^{}=0$$
(10)
The non-degenerate symplectic structure on the reduced phase space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r=\mathrm{\Gamma }_g\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ is coordinatized by the pair $`(q,p)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ by $`(\psi ,p_\psi )`$, is the pull-back of the natural symplectic structure defined on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus $`\{q,p\}=1`$ and $`\{\psi (\theta _1),p_\psi (\theta _2)\}=\delta (\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r`$.

Substituting (5) and (7) in (2) we obtain the reduced action

$$S=𝑑t\left(p\dot{q}+\left[p_\psi \dot{\psi }\frac{t}{p}\left(\frac{p_\psi ^2}{4t^2}+\psi ^2\right)\right]\right)$$
(11)
and the reduced Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{t}{p}\left[\frac{p_\psi ^2}{4t^2}+\psi ^2\right]$$
(12)
Varying the action (11) with respect to $`\psi `$ and $`p_\psi `$, the field equations are $`\frac{\psi }{T}=\frac{p_\psi }{2Tp}`$ and $`\frac{p_\psi }{T}=2Tp\psi ^{\prime \prime }`$, which is equivalent to the Klein-Gordon equation for the scalar field $`\psi `$ propagating on a fictitious flat background $`{}_{}{}^{\text{(f)}}g_{ab}^{}=_aT_bT+_a\theta _b\theta +T^2_a\sigma _b\sigma `$, with the further restriction that the field $`\psi `$ does not depend on $`\sigma `$. Here the constant rescaling $`T:=t/p`$ has been considered, in order to simplify the resulting dynamical equation for $`\psi `$. Hence the phase space $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, coordinatized by $`\phi :=\psi (\theta )`$ and $`\pi :=p_\psi (\theta )`$, corresponds to the symplectic vector space $`(V,\mathrm{\Omega }_V)`$ of smooth real solutions to the Klein-Gordon equation $`{}_{}{}^{\text{(f)}}g_{}^{ab}_a_b\psi =0`$, where the symplectic structure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_V(\psi _1,\psi _2)=T(\psi _2_T\psi _1\psi _1_T\psi _2)$$
(13)
Note that the choice of internal time $`T:\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐑`$, depends on the point of phase space, in particular, on the global degree of freedom $`p`$, making it a $`q`$number. Recall that in this case, one has deparametrized the system, that is, one has defined a fictitious time evolution with respect to the number $`t`$. Strictly speaking, from the canonical viewpoint one should choose a particular value $`t_0`$ of the time parameter in order to fix once and for all a single Cauchy surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. This would be the “frozen formalism” description, where only the true degrees of freedom are left and the notion of dynamics has been lost. However, for the purposes of quantization, it is convenient to exploit this deparametrization since this allows to complete the quantization in a rigorous fashion. However, in the quantum theory the role of $`T`$ is very different, namely the function $`T`$ does not have an a-priory meaning as a spacetime time parameter. At best, one might expect that if one chooses suitable semi-classical states, a classical notion of time might arise, which could be then compared to the function $`T`$. We shall come back to the issue of “frozen formalism vs. fake dynamics” in the discussion section.

Thus, the problem of quantization of the true degrees of freedom in this case reduces to a quantum theory of the massless scalar field $`\psi `$ on a fictitious background . There is a convenient way of writing the solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation,

$$\psi (\theta ,T)=\underset{m𝐙}{}f_m(\theta ,T)A_m+\overline{f_m(\theta ,T)}\overline{A_m},$$
(14)
where the bar denotes complex conjugation, the $`A_m`$’s are arbitrary constants and $`f_0(\theta ,T)=(1/2)\left(\mathrm{ln}Ti\right),f_m(\theta ,T)=(1/2)H_0^{(1)}(|m|T)e^{im\theta }`$ for $`m0`$, with $`H_0^{(1)}`$ the $`0`$th-order Hankel function of the first kind.

For the quantization of this system one can use the Fock procedure, starting from the one-particle Hilbert space $`_0`$ for which an appropriate complex structure $`J_V`$ is needed that must be compatible with the symplectic structure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$. It can be shown  that in this case the complex structure can be chosen as,

$$J_V(a\mathrm{ln}T):=a\mathrm{and}J_V(a):=a\mathrm{ln}T,$$
(15)
for $`m=0`$ and as,

$$J_V\left(J_0(|m|T)\right):=N_0(|m|T)\mathrm{and}J_V\left(N_0(|m|T)\right):=J_0(|m|T),$$
(16)
for $`m0`$, where $`a`$ is a constant. The (fiducial) Hilbert space can be represented as $`=_g\overline{}`$, where $`_g`$ is the Hilbert space in which the operators $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ are well defined, and $`\overline{}`$ is the symmetric Fock space (associated to the “one-particle” Hilbert space $`_0`$) in which the field operator $`\widehat{\psi }`$ can be written as,

$$\widehat{\psi }(\theta ,T)=\underset{m𝐙}{}f_m(\theta ,T)\widehat{A}_m+\overline{f_m(\theta ,T)}\widehat{A}_m^{},$$
(17)
in terms of the creation and annihilation operators. The space of physical states, $`_p`$, is the subspace of $``$ defined by

$$:\widehat{P}_\theta :|\mathrm{\Psi }_p=2\underset{m𝐙}{}m\widehat{A}_m^{}\widehat{A}_m|\mathrm{\Psi }_p=0.$$
(18)
Finally, the Hamilton operator can be expressed as,

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\pi }{2T}:\widehat{p}(\widehat{A}_0+\widehat{A}_0^{})^2:+\underset{n𝐙}{}\widehat{p}(\alpha _n\widehat{A}_n\widehat{A}_n+\overline{\alpha _n}\widehat{A}_n^{}\widehat{A}_n^{}+2\beta _n\widehat{A}_n^{}\widehat{A}_n)$$
(19)
where $`\alpha _n(T)=(T/4)n^2[(H_0^{(1)})^2+(H_1^{(1)})^2]`$ and $`\beta _n(T)=(T/4)n^2[H_1^{(1)}H_1^{(2)}+H_0^{(1)}H_0^{(2)}]`$ for $`n0`$. Although this Hamiltonian leaves $`_p`$ invariant, it has the disadvantage that the vacuum state is not an eigenvector of it with zero eigenvalue. In order to avoid this difficulty, a new set of creation and annihilation operators has been recently proposed :

$$\widehat{a}_0=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(\sqrt{3}\widehat{A}_0+\widehat{A}_0^{}),$$
(20)
and

$$\widehat{a}_n=\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n\widehat{A}_n+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_n\widehat{A}_n^{}),$$
(21)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n=\alpha _n/(|n|\stackrel{~}{\beta }_n)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_n=\sqrt{(\beta _n|n|/\pi )/|n|}`$. It should be noted that our choice differs from that in , which does not satisfy the relations $`[\widehat{a}_n,\widehat{a}_n^{}^{}]=\delta _{n,n^{}}`$. In this new set the Hamilton operator can be written as,

$$:\widehat{H}:=\frac{1}{T}\widehat{p}\widehat{P}_0^2+\frac{2}{\pi }\underset{n𝐙}{}|n|\widehat{p}\widehat{a}_n^{}\widehat{a}_n,$$
(22)
with $`\widehat{P}_0=i\sqrt{\pi }/(1+\sqrt{3})(\widehat{a}_0^{}\widehat{a}_0)`$. For this Hamiltonian, the vacuum state is in fact an eigenvector with zero eigenvalue. The question arises whether locally the two different sets of creation and annihilation operators lead to different quantizations. If so, one would need to investigate the problem of unitary implementability (to be treated in the next section) for both sets separately. To answer this question we have analyzed the coefficients that relate the old operators $`\widehat{A}_n`$ with the new ones $`\widehat{a}_n`$. A straightforward calculation shows that they satisfy the relationships,

$$\underset{k}{}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{mk}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}_{nk}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{mk}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}_{nk})=\delta _{m,n},$$
(23)
and

$$\underset{k}{}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{mk}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{nk}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{mk}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{nk})=0,$$
(24)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{mk}=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m\delta _{m,k}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{mk}=\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m\delta _{m,k}`$. Moreover, the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{mk}`$ are square-summable. To see this, let $`C(|m|T)=(\beta _m|m|/\pi )/|m|`$ and let $`N`$ be a positive integer such that $`NT>>1`$, then

$$\underset{m,n}{}|\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{nm}|^2=\underset{m}{}|\stackrel{~}{\beta }_m|^2=2\underset{m=1}{\overset{N1}{}}C(mT)+2\underset{m=N}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C(mT)$$
(25)
and the condition that the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{mk}`$ are square-summable is equivalent to

$$\underset{m=N}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C(mT)<\mathrm{}$$
(26)
Now, from the expansions for $`J_n(x)`$ and $`N_n(x)`$ ; i.e.,

$`J_n(x)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi x}}}\left[P_n(x)\mathrm{cos}\left(x{\displaystyle \frac{(n+\frac{1}{2})\pi }{2}}\right)Q_n(x)\mathrm{sin}\left(x{\displaystyle \frac{(n+\frac{1}{2})\pi }{2}}\right)\right],`$ (27)
$`N_n(x)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi x}}}\left[P_n(x)\mathrm{sin}\left(x{\displaystyle \frac{(n+\frac{1}{2})\pi }{2}}\right)+Q_n(x)\mathrm{cos}\left(x{\displaystyle \frac{(n+\frac{1}{2})\pi }{2}}\right)\right],`$ (28)
where

$`P_n(x)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{(4n^21)(4n^29)}{2!(8x)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(4n^21)(4n^29)(4n^225)(4n^249)}{4!(8x)^4}}\mathrm{},`$ (29)
$`Q_n(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(4n^21)}{1!(8x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(4n^21)(4n^29)(4n^225)}{3!(8x)^3}}+\mathrm{},`$ (30)
it is easy to see that

$$C(kT)=\frac{Tk}{4}\left[\frac{2}{\pi Tk}(P_1^2(kT)+P_0^2(kT)+Q_1^2(kT)+Q_0^2(kT))\right]\frac{1}{\pi }.$$
(31)
That is, for $`kT>>1`$ we obtain that

$$C(kT)=\frac{Tk}{4}\left[\frac{2}{\pi Tk}(2+O(1/(kT)^2))\right]\frac{1}{\pi }$$
(32)
where $`O(1/(kT)^2)`$ contains all the terms of the form $`\frac{c_i}{(kT)^n}`$, with $`c_i`$ some (real) constants and $`𝐍n2`$. Because $`_k\frac{c_i}{(kT)^n}`$ converges (the Riemann zeta function defined by $`\zeta (p)=_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}k^p`$ is divergent for $`p1`$ and convergent for $`p>1`$) then Eq. (32) implies Eq. (26) and therefore the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{mk}`$ are square-summable. Thus, the transformation between the two different sets of creation and annihilation operators is a unitary Bogoliubov transformation . Consequently, the second set of operators, $`\widehat{a}_n`$, corresponds only to the choice of a second complete set of modes $`\stackrel{~}{f}_n`$. Thus, we can equivalently choose any of these two sets of creation and annihilation operators given above. We will perform the analysis of the quantum implementability of the classical dynamical evolution in Sec. III, using the operators $`\widehat{A}_n`$ and the complex structure given above.

## III Functional Evolution

It is known that for a massless, free, real scalar field propagating on a $`(n+1)`$-dimensional static spacetime with topology $`T^n\times 𝐑`$, dynamical evolution along arbitrary spacelike foliations is unitarily implemented on the same Fock space as that associated with inertial foliations if $`n=1`$  and will not be, in general, unitarily implemented if $`n>1`$ . However, for the (special) case in which we consider time evolution of the Klein-Gordon field between any two flat spacelike Cauchy surfaces, dynamical evolution is unitarily implementable for all positive integers $`n`$. In this section we will see that this result actually does not extend to our case, where the spatial slices have the same topology (tori) but now they are expanding.

### A The symplectic transformation of classical dynamics

It is generally known that the phase space of a real, linear Klein-Gordon field propagating on a globally hyperbolic background spacetime $`(M\mathrm{\Sigma }\times 𝐑,g_{ab})`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a compact spacelike Cauchy surface, can be alternatively described by the space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of Cauchy data, that is $`\{(\phi ,\pi )|\phi :\mathrm{\Sigma }𝐑,\pi :\mathrm{\Sigma }𝐑;\phi ,\pi C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Sigma })\}`$, or by the space $`V`$ of smooth solutions to the Klein-Gordon equation which arises from initial data on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . Given an embedding $`E`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as a Cauchy surface $`E(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ in $`M`$, there is a natural isomorphism $`I_E:\mathrm{\Gamma }V`$, obtained by taking a point in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and evolving from the Cauchy surface $`E(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ to get a solution of $`(g^{ab}_a_bm^2)\psi =0`$. That is, the specification of a point in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is appropriate initial data for determining a solution to the equation of motion. The inverse map, $`I_E^1:V\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, takes a point $`\psi V`$ and finds the Cauchy data induced on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by virtue of the embedding $`E`$: $`\phi =E^{}\psi `$ and $`\pi =E^{}(\sqrt{h}\mathrm{\pounds }_n\psi )`$, where $`\mathrm{\pounds }_n`$ is the Lie derivative along the normal to the Cauchy surface $`E(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`h`$ is the determinant of the induced metric on $`E(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

It is worth pointing out that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`V`$ are equipped with a (natural) symplectic structure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$, respectively, that provides the space of classical observables, which are (alternatively) represented by smooth real valued functions on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ or $`V`$, with an algebraic structure via the Poisson bracket. On the space of solutions $`V`$, the symplectic structure is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_V(\psi _1,\psi _2)=_{E(\mathrm{\Sigma })}\sqrt{h}(\psi _2\mathrm{\pounds }_n\psi _1\psi _1\mathrm{\pounds }_n\psi _2)$$
(33)
while on the space of Cauchy data, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }((\phi _1,\pi _1),(\phi _2,\pi _2))=_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\phi _2\pi _1\phi _1\pi _2)$$
(34)
From Eqs(33)-(34) and the specification of the isomorphism $`I_E`$, it is obvious that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }=I_E^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$; i.e., $`I_E`$ is a symplectic map.

Now, let $`E_I(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`E_F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ be any given initial and final Cauchy surfaces, represented by embeddings $`E_I`$ and $`E_F`$. Time evolution from $`E_I(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ to $`E_F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ can be viewed as a bijection $`t_{(E_I,E_F)}:\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the space of Cauchy data : $`t_{(E_I,E_F)}:=I_{E_F}^1I_{E_I}`$. Thus, the recipe is: (a) take initial data on $`E_I(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, (b) evolve it to a solution of the Klein-Gordon equation, and (c) find the corresponding pair induced on $`E_F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ by this solution. Notice that this map also defines time evolution on the space of solutions, $`V`$, through the natural induced bijection $`T_{(E_I,E_F)}:=I_{E_I}t_{(E_I,E_F)}I_{E_I}^1`$. The three steps of the recipe are now: (a) take a solution to the field equation, (b) find the data induced on $`E_F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, and (c) take the data as initial data on $`E_I(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and find the resulting solution. It is straightforward to see, from the embedding independence of (33) and from (34), that each transformation is a symplectic isomorphism. i.e., $`t_{(E_I,E_F)}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`T_{(E_I,E_F)}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_V=\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$.

For our particular case, we shall construct dynamical evolution between any two flat Cauchy surfaces $`E_I(T^2):=(T_I,x^i)`$ and $`E_F(T^2):=(T_F,x^i)`$, where $`x^i=(\theta ,\sigma )(0,2\pi )`$ are coordinates on $`T^2`$ and $`T`$ is the smooth “time coordinate” on $`(MT^2\times 𝐑,^{\text{(f)}}g_{ab})`$ such that each surface of constant $`T`$ is a Cauchy surface. Let us denote by $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ the resulting solution from the action of $`T_{(E_I,E_F)}`$ on $`\psi `$. Following the prescription, we first have to find the induced data on $`E_F(T^2)`$:

In general $`\phi _F=E_F^{}\psi `$ and $`\pi _F=E_F^{}(\sqrt{h_F}\mathrm{\pounds }_{n_F}\psi )`$, since in our case $`E_F(T^2)=(T_F,x^i)`$ and $`\psi `$ depend on the coordinates $`T`$ and $`\theta `$ only, we thus have that $`\phi _F=\psi (\theta ,T_F)`$ and $`\pi _F=[T_T\psi (\theta ,T)]|_{T=T_F}`$. Thus, from the explicit form (14) for solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation, we have that

$$\phi _F=\mathrm{}(A_0)+\mathrm{}(A_0)\mathrm{ln}T_F+\underset{m0}{}\mathrm{}[B_mH_0^{(1)}(|m|T_F)]$$
(35)
$$\pi _F=\mathrm{}(A_0)T_F\underset{m0}{}|m|\mathrm{}[B_mH_1^{(1)}(|m|T_F)]$$
(36)
where $`B_m=A_me^{im\theta }`$.

The next step in the prescription is to take the pair $`(\phi _F,\pi _F)`$ as initial data on $`E_I(T^2)`$ and find the resulting solution $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$. That is, we have to solve for $`\{\stackrel{~}{A}_k,\overline{\stackrel{~}{A}}_k\}_{k𝐙}`$ the following system

$`\psi (\theta ,T_F)=\stackrel{~}{\psi }(\theta ,T_I)`$ (37)
$`[T_T\psi (\theta ,T)]|_{T=T_F}=[T_T\stackrel{~}{\psi }(\theta ,T)]|_{T=T_I}`$ (38)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(\theta ,T_I)=E_I^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ and $`[T_T\stackrel{~}{\psi }(\theta ,T)]|_{T=T_I}=E_I^{}(\sqrt{h_I}\mathrm{\pounds }_{n_I}\stackrel{~}{\psi })`$ are explicitly given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }(\theta ,T_I)=\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{A}_0)+\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{A}_0)\mathrm{ln}T_I+\underset{m0}{}\mathrm{}[\stackrel{~}{B}_mH_0^{(1)}(|m|T_I)]$$
(39)
$$[T_T\stackrel{~}{\psi }(\theta ,T)]|_{T=T_I}=\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{A}_0)T_I\underset{m0}{}|m|\mathrm{}[\stackrel{~}{B}_mH_1^{(1)}(|m|T_I)]$$
(40)
with $`\stackrel{~}{B}_m=\stackrel{~}{A}_me^{im\theta }`$.

Using the orthogonality property $`e^{i(nm)\theta }=2\pi \delta _{n,m}`$, the well-known relation $`H_0^{(1)}(x)\overline{H_1^{(1)}(x)}H_1^{(1)}(x)\overline{H_0^{(1)}(x)}=\frac{4i}{\pi x}`$ (where $`x>0`$) and the explicit expression for the fields, given by equations (35), (36), (39) and (40), it is not difficult to see that the system (37)-(38) is solved by

$$\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{A}_0)=\mathrm{}(A_0)$$
(41)
$$\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{A}_0)=\mathrm{}(A_0)+\mathrm{}(A_0)\mathrm{ln}(T_F/T_I)$$
(42)
for $`k=0`$, and

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_k=\frac{i\pi }{4}[F(y_k,x_k)\overline{F(x_k,y_k)}]A_k+\frac{i\pi }{4}[G(y_k,x_k)G(x_k,y_k)]\overline{A_k}$$
(43)
for all $`k0`$, where $`x_k:=|k|T_I`$, $`y_k:=|k|T_F`$, $`F(r,s):=rH_1^{(1)}(r)\overline{H_0^{(1)}(s)}`$ and $`G(r,s)=r\overline{H_1^{(1)}(r)}\overline{H_0^{(1)}(s)}`$.

Therefore, the symplectic transformation $`T_{(E_I,E_F)}`$ defines, and is defined by, a transformation of $`\overline{A_m}`$:

$$\overline{\stackrel{~}{A}_k}=\underset{l𝐙}{}\chi _{kl}A_l+\xi _{kl}\overline{A_l}$$
(44)
where

$$\chi _{k0}=\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{ln}(T_F/T_I)\delta _{k,0},\chi _{kl}=\frac{i\pi }{4}[\overline{G(x_l,y_l)}\overline{G(y_l,x_l)}]\delta _{l,k}(l0)$$
(45)
$$\xi _{k0}=[1\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{ln}(T_F/T_I)]\delta _{k,0},\xi _{kl}=\frac{i\pi }{4}[F(x_l,y_l)\overline{F(y_l,x_l)}]\delta _{l,k}(l0)$$
(46)
Obviously $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{A}_k}=\overline{A_k}`$ for all $`k𝐙`$ when $`T_I=T_F`$ (i.e., when $`T_{(E_I,E_F)}`$ is the identity map).

### B Quantum Implementability

The question we want to address in this part is whether or not classical evolution on the fictitious background is implementable at the quantum level. A particularly convenient approach to this issue is given by the algebraic approach of QFT, since the notion of implementability of symplectic transformations on a Hilbert space formulation is defined in a natural way . The main idea in the algebraic approach is to formulate the quantum theory in such a way that the observables become the relevant objects and the quantum states are “secondary”, they are taken to “act” on operators to produce numbers. The basic ingredients of this formulation are two, namely : (1) a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ of observables, and (2) states $`\omega :𝒜𝐂`$, which are positive linear functionals ($`\omega (A^{}A)0`$ $`A𝒜`$) such that $`\omega (\mathrm{𝟏})=1`$. The value of the state $`\omega `$ acting on the observable $`A`$ can be interpreted as the expectation value of the operator $`A`$ on the state $`\omega `$, i.e., $`A=\omega (A)`$.

For free (linear) fields it is possible to construct the Weyl algebra of quantum abstract operators from the elementary classical observables (equipped with an algebraic structure given by the Poisson bracket). The elements of this $`C^{}`$-algebra are taken to be the fundamental observables for the quantum theory, thus the (natural) algebra $`𝒜`$ for free fields is the Weyl algebra. Let $`(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)`$ be a symplectic vector space, each generator $`W(y)`$ of the Weyl algebra is the “exponentiated” version of the linear observable $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Y(y,)`$. These generators satisfy the Weyl relations<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*The CCR that correspond to operators $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Y(y,)`$ get now replaced by the quantum Weyl relations.:

$$W(y)^{}=W(y),W(y_1)W(y_2)=e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y(y_1,y_2)}W(y_1+y_2)$$
(47)
Given a symplectic transformation $`f`$ on $`Y`$, there is an associated $``$-automorphism of $`𝒜`$, $`\alpha _f:𝒜𝒜`$, defined by $`\alpha _fW(y):=W(f[y])`$. In particular, the symplectic transformation $`T_{(E_I,E_F)}`$ representing time evolution from $`E_I=(T_I,x^i)`$ to $`E_F=(T_F,x^i)`$ defines the $``$-automorphism $`\alpha _{(E_I,E_F)}`$. Thus, from the algebraic point of view, if we assign the state $`\omega `$ to the initial time as represented by the embedding $`E_I`$, the expectation value of the observable $`W𝒜`$ on $`E_I`$ is given by

$$W_{E_I}=\omega (W)$$
(48)
Let us consider the Weyl generator $`W(\psi )`$ labeled by $`\psi `$. Under the symplectic transformation $`T_{(E_I,E_F)}`$, the label goes to $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ and the relation between $`W(\psi )`$ and $`W(\stackrel{~}{\psi })`$ is given by $`\alpha _{(E_I,E_F)}W(\psi )=W(\stackrel{~}{\psi })`$. Since $`T_{(E_I,E_F)}`$ dictates time evolution at classical level, one can interpret the change $`W(\psi )\alpha _{(E_I,E_F)}W(\psi )`$ as a counterpart in the observables. That is, $`W(\psi )\alpha _{(E_I,E_F)}W(\psi )`$ is the mathematical representation of time evolution of observables in the Heisenberg picture. Thus, while in the Heisenberg picture the expectation value of the observable $`W(\psi )`$ at final time is given by $`W(\psi )_{E_F}=\omega (\alpha _{(E_I,E_F)}W(\psi ))`$, in the Schrödinger picture is $`W(\psi )_{E_F}=\omega _{E_F}(W(\psi ))`$. Therefore, the final state $`\omega _{E_F}`$, obtained by evolving the initial state $`\omega `$, is given by $`\omega \alpha _{(E_I,E_F)}`$.

Now, in order to know if time evolution between any two flat Cauchy surfaces is well defined in the framework of the Hilbert space formulation, we have to introduce the GNS construction that tells us how the quantization in the old sense (that is, a representation of the Weyl relations on a Hilbert space) and the algebraic approach are related:

Let $`𝒜`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra with unit and let $`\omega :𝒜𝐂`$ be a state. Then there exist a Hilbert space $``$, a representation $`\pi :𝒜L()`$ and a vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ such that, $`\omega (A)=\mathrm{\Psi }_0,\pi (A)\mathrm{\Psi }_0_{}`$. Furthermore, the vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is cyclic. The triplet $`(,\pi ,|\mathrm{\Psi }_0)`$ with these properties is unique (up to unitary equivalence).

With this in hand, we have a precise way to ‘go down’ transformations on the $`C^{}`$-algebra to a given Hilbert space representation. Thus, a symplectic transformation $`f:YY`$, with corresponding algebra automorphism $`\alpha _f:𝒜𝒜`$, is unitarily implementable  if there is a unitary transformation $`U:`$ on the Hilbert space $``$ such that, for any $`W𝒜`$, $`U^1\pi (W)U=\pi (\alpha _fW)`$.

Because $`\omega `$ and its transform $`\omega \alpha _f`$ will not always define unitarily equivalent Hilbert space representations, thus not all symplectic transformations $`f`$ will be implementable in field theory. In our case, we are interested on the implementability of $`f=T_{(E_I,E_F)}`$ on the symmetric Fock space $`\overline{}`$, constructed from the so-called “one-particle” Hilbert space, $`_0`$, which elements are the complex functions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{m𝐙}{}\overline{f_m(\theta ,T)}\overline{A_m}$$
(49)
determined by the natural splitting of $`V_𝐂`$, the complexification of $`V`$, on negative and positive parts through the complex structure $`J_V`$.

The continuousActually, it can be shown that there is a constant $`b`$ such that, for all $`\psi V`$, $`T_{(E_I,E_F)}\psi b\psi `$ in the norm $`\psi ^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_V(J_V\psi ,\psi )`$.  transformation (44) defines a pair of bounded linear maps $`\xi :_0_0`$ and $`\chi :_0\overline{_0}`$, where $`\overline{_0}`$ is the complex conjugate space to $`_0`$. With $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ given by (49), we have

$$\xi \mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{m,l𝐙}{}\overline{f_m(\theta ,T)}\xi _{ml}\overline{A_l}$$
(50)
and

$$\chi \mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{m,l𝐙}{}f_m(\theta ,T)\overline{\chi _{ml}}\overline{A_l}$$
(51)
The automorphism $`\alpha _{(E_I,E_F)}`$ associated with $`T_{(E_I,E_F)}`$ is unitarily implementable with respect to the Fock representation $`(\overline{}=_s(_0),\pi )`$ if and only if the operator $`\chi `$ is Hilbert-Schmidt . i.e., iff

$$\underset{m,l𝐙}{}|\chi _{lm}|^2<\mathrm{}$$
(52)
Since $`_{m,l𝐙}|\chi _{lm}|^2=|\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(T_F/T_I)|^2+_{l,m0}|\chi _{lm}|^2`$, then according to Eq.(45) condition (52) is equivalent to

$$\underset{m0}{}\left(\mathrm{}[g_m(x_m,y_m)]\right)^2<\mathrm{}\text{and }\underset{m0}{}\left(\mathrm{}[g_m(x_m,y_m)]\right)^2<\mathrm{}$$
(53)
where $`g_m(r,s):=\overline{G(r,s)}\overline{G(s,r)}`$. Using the definition of Hankel function in terms of Bessel and Neumann functions (for $`n=0`$ or $`1`$), the first condition in (53) can be written as follows

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_m[a,y_m]\right)^2<\mathrm{}$$
(54)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m[a,y_m]:=m[a(J_0(y_m)J_1(ay_m)N_0(y_m)N_1(ay_m))+N_1(y_m)N_0(ay_m)J_1(y_m)J_0(ay_m)]`$ and $`a:=T_I/T_F`$. In the asymptotic region $`x1`$ (for $`n=0`$ or $`1`$) the behavior of Bessel and Neumann functions is given by $`J_n(x)\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi x}}\mathrm{cos}\left(x\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{\pi }{2}\right)`$ and $`N_n(x)\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi x}}\mathrm{sin}\left(x\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{\pi }{2}\right)`$ respectively, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m[a,y_m]\frac{2m}{\sqrt{a}\pi y_m}(a1)\mathrm{cos}(y_m(1+a)\pi )`$ for $`m1`$ is the asymptotic behavior of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m[a,y_m]`$ and (54) becomes

$$\frac{4(1a)^2}{a\pi ^2T_F^2}\underset{m=N}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{cos}^2(T_F(1+a)m)<\mathrm{}$$
(55)
where $`N1`$. Notice that for the case $`a=1`$ this condition is trivially satisfied, as expected.

Thus, unitary implementability implies that (55) is satisfied for all $`a(0,1)`$ and hence, if there are particular values of $`T_F`$ ($`r_0>0`$) and $`a`$ ($`a_0(0,1)`$) such that $`_{m=N}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}^2(r_0(1+a_0)m)`$ diverges, then $`\alpha _{(E_I,E_F)}`$ will not be unitarily implemented. In particular, by choosing $`T_F=\frac{\pi }{1+a}`$ every integer $`mN`$ corresponds to a maximum of $`\mathrm{cos}^2(T_F(1+a)x)`$ and therefore the sum in (55) diverges. Thus, the transformation associated with $`T_{(E_I,E_F)}`$ is not unitarily implementable with respect to the Fock representation $`(_s(_0),\pi )`$ and hence classical time evolution, dictated by $`T_{(E_I,E_F)}`$, does not have a quantum analog in the Hilbert space formulation via a unitary operator. In this case, the Schrödinger picture is not available to describe functional evolution using the Fock space representation of the quantum theory, consequently the “Schrödinger equation” associated with the Hamilton operator $`\widehat{H}(T)`$ can not be interpreted as an evolution equation (on the fictitious background) for quantum states.

## IV Discussion and Conclusions

In this work we have analyzed the quantization of polarized Gowdy $`T^3`$ cosmological models as carried out by Pierri. We have found explicitly the symplectic transformation that determines the classical dynamical evolution $`T_{(E_I,E_F)}`$ given by the phase space function $`T`$. We have shown that this symplectic transformation does not have a quantum analog in the Hilbert space formulation via a unitary operator. This means that the classical dynamics of Gowdy $`T^3`$ cosmological models cannot be implemented in the context of Pierri’s quantization procedure. Let us now discuss the implications of this negative result for two related areas, namely for canonical quantum gravity and for quantization of fields on curved manifolds.

Canonical Quantum Gravity.

First of all let us recall that in canonical quantum gravity, the theory is defined over an “abstract” manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which in our case is given by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=T^2`$. There is no spacetime and therefore no notion of an embedding of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ into this spacetime. What we have is, in the gauge fixed scenario, a reduced phase space representing the true degrees of freedom, and, in the quantum theory, a Hilbert space of physical states and physical observables defined on it. This is the frozen formalism description. When the deparametrization procedure was introduced classically, an artificial notion of time evolution was created that allows to “evolve” any set of (physical) initial conditions on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ into a one parameter family of initial conditions with a precise spacetime interpretation. This one parameter family is generated via a canonical transformation generated by the reduced Hamiltonian. In quantum gravity, however, the parameter $`T`$ can not be thought, a priory, as a a time function in a spacetime for the only reason that a spacetime notion is absent. In which sense is then useful the parameter $`T`$? Recall from the discussion in Sec. III that the notion of time evolution in the algebraic formulation is well defined, giving rise to the Heisenberg picture: We have a unique state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{T_0}`$, defined on a preferred and fixed $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$, and operators acting on it which could be “time dependent”. This is the place where the parameter $`T`$ plays a central role. We can have, for instance, a one parameter family of observables, say $`\widehat{V}_T`$, corresponding to “the volume of the Universe at time $`T`$. In the standard formulation of quantum theory, where a unitary evolution operator $`\widehat{U}(T,T_0)`$ exists, we can relate the operators belonging to the family via unitary transformations. One can also construct the Schrödinger picture and have a one-parameter family of states that “evolve” in time $`T`$, using the standard construction. Canonical quantum gravity is most naturally constructed in the Heisenberg picture, where the physical operators correspond to the so called “evolving constants of the motion”. Therefore, any operator $`𝒪_T`$ labeled by the time $`T`$, if it is well defined (i.e. if it leaves the Hilbert space, or a dense subset of it, invariant), can be regarded as a physically meaningful object representing the classical observable at “time $`T`$”. What is lost in the absence of the operator $`\widehat{U}(T,T_0)`$, as is our case, is the “unitary equivalence” of the operators $`𝒪_T`$ for all values of $`T`$. In this sense, unitary time evolution and the Schrödinger picture are lost. Unitary evolution is one of the pillars of present quantum theory, and theories that do not satisfy this property suffer from the rejection of the community, since the theory becomes unable to make predictions due to the lack of conservation of probability. This would be the case, for instance, in the event of the evaporation of a black hole via Hawking radiation. Physicists have always tried to avoid such descriptions and look for explanations that are “unitary”. However, as we would like to argue, canonical quantum gravity is conceptually very different from the standard description of quantum theory with a preferred and external Newtonian time, so one should look for more involved arguments before dismissing a particular theory. In the Hamiltonian description, time evolution is pure gauge, so strictly speaking one should only meaningfully discuss physical observables on the reduced phase space. There is no time evolution and no dynamics. Any deparametrization is classically equivalent, giving rise to fictitious dynamics via canonical transformations. There is no compelling reason to expect that there is a preferred deparametrization that will be meaningful quantum-mechanically. Thus, there is no logical contradiction to the result that a particular choice can not be unitarily implemented.

Within this perspective, the parameter $`T`$ that was introduced artificially at the classical level bears no fundamental physical significance. The fact that the quantum theory does not endorse this choice should not be enough reason to dismiss it. However, it should be clear that the absence of unitary transformation reduces significantly the importance of this quantization, since the Heisenberg operators $`𝒪_T`$ are not well defined. That is, their spectra, expectation values, etc., depend on the choice of the value of $`T_0`$. Had we chosen a different value $`T=T_0^{}`$ and therefore different Heisenberg state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{T_0^{}}`$, we would get different operators $`𝒪_T^{}𝒪_T`$ (for the same value of $`T`$). A minimum requirement for the consistency of the quantization is that the operators $`𝒪_T^{}`$ and $`𝒪_T`$ be (unitary) equivalent. Thus, the quantization is physically unacceptable.

However, it is not completely clear whether this negative result holds for any choice of a set of creation and annihilation operators (or, equivalently, choice of complex structure $`J`$). The original choice in Ref.  seems natural from the viewpoint of the explicit form of the solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation, and the fact that is time independent and therefore there is no “particle creation”. However, further work is needed in order to understand whether there exist different choices of $`J`$ and therefore of representations of the CCR for which “time evolution” is a well defined concept. Unitary implementability might even be a criteria leading to a physically relevant quantization.

Quantum Fields on Curved Surfaces.

The issue of formulating time evolution between arbitrary Cauchy surfaces in the quantum theory of fields goes back to the work of Dirac . However, it is only recently that unitary implementability of arbitrary time evolution has been considered. Somewhat surprisingly, it has been recognized that even for free fields on Minkowski spacetime, time evolution between arbitrary Cauchy surfaces is not unitarily implementable in three and higher spacetime dimensions . The failure is in general attributed to the fact that time evolution between arbitrary surfaces is not generated by an isometry of the background metric . It is also known that in two dimensions, for the standard quantization coming from the symmetries of the system, time evolution is well defined for arbitrary Cauchy surfaces with topology of a circle. However, for our model, even when it is a truly two dimensional model ($`\psi `$ depends only on $`\theta `$ and $`T`$), it does not satisfy a free scalar equation (it is instead related to a Liouville model). Therefore, there is no contradiction with the fact that time evolution is not unitary. From the three dimensional perspective, the theory is given by a free scalar field on a flat background, but in which the vector field $`/T`$ that generates the natural time evolution is not an isometry of the background spacetime. Thus, it is interesting to see that in this case, even for the simplest Cauchy surfaces (flat and parallel in the given chart), time evolution is not implementable. It is also interesting to note that particle creation and non-unitary time evolution do not imply each other, as noted in . As previously mentioned, it is not clear whether different representations of the CCR would yield unitary quantum theories. Namely, is there a choice of $`J`$ that will render the theory unitary? Would it be unique? We shall leave these questions for future investigations.

Note added: After submitting this paper, we learned that similar results were independently found by Torre .

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the referee for helpful comments and C. Torre for correspondence. This work has been supported by DGAPA–UNAM grant No. IN-112401 and CONACYT grants 36581-E and J32754-E. This work was also partially supported by NSF grant No. PHY-0010061. J.C. was supported by a CONACYT-UNAM(DGEP) Graduate Fellowship.