format: text

text:
# Cosphere bundle reduction in contact geometry

## 1. Introduction

One of the main results concerning symplectic reduction with many applications in geometric mechanics states that, in the presence of a “good” action of a finite dimensional Lie group $`G`$ on an arbitrary differentiable manifold $`Q`$, the cotangent bundle of the quotient, $`T^{}(Q/G)`$, is symplectomorphic with $`(T^{}Q)_0`$, the reduced space at $`0`$ of the cotangent bundle. More generally, the reduction $`T^{}(Q/G)_\mu `$ at $`\mu 0`$ of $`T^{}Q`$ is symplectomorphic with a vector subbundle of $`T^{}(Q/G_\mu )`$ endowed with a magnetic symplectic form (see , §4.3; the result for $`\mu =0`$ is due to Satzer ); $`G_\mu `$ denotes the coadjoint isotropy subgroup at $`\mu `$.

The aim of this note is to prove an analogue of this result in contact geometry. Again we start with an arbitrary manifold $`Q`$ supporting a “good” action of a Lie group $`G`$. The role of the cotangent bundle will be played by the cosphere bundle that will be described in section 2 (cf. also ). It is a contact manifold. We shall prove that its reduced space at $`0`$ is contactomorphic with the cosphere bundle of $`Q/G`$. Even though the result for $`\mu =0`$ could probably be obtained by “diagram chasing”, we prefer to provide an explicit proof, identifying all contactomorphisms. More generally, we prove that its reduced space at $`\mu 0`$ embeds in a contact manner onto a subbundle of the cosphere bundle of $`Q/G_\mu `$.

We briefly review, following , , the reduction method at $`0`$ for contact manifolds.

Recall that a contact structure on a smooth $`(2n+1)`$–dimensional manifold $`N`$ is a codimension one smooth distribution $`HTN`$, locally given by the kernel of a one-form $`\eta `$ such that $`\eta (d\eta )^n0`$. Such an $`\eta `$ is called a (local) contact form. Any two proportional contact forms underly the same contact structure. A contact structure which is the kernel of a global contact form is called exact or co-orientable. If $`\eta `$ is a one form of an exact contact structure, the pair $`(N,\eta )`$ is called an exact contact manifold. On an exact contact manifold $`N`$ there is a unique vector field $`R`$, called the Reeb vector field, characterized by the conditions $`\eta (R)=1`$ and $`d\eta (R,)=0`$. The flow of the Reeb vector fields preserves the contact form $`\eta `$. The Reeb vector field is nowhere vanishing and it generates the one-dimensional distribution $`\mathrm{ker}d\eta =\{vTNd\eta (v,)=0\}`$.

A finite dimensional connected Lie group $`G`$ is said to act by contactomorphisms on a contact manifold if it preserves the contact structure $`H`$. For an exact contact manifold $`(N,\eta )`$, this means that $`g^{}\eta =f_g\eta `$ for a smooth, real-valued, nowhere zero function $`f_g`$. $`G`$ acts by strong contactomorphisms on $`N`$, if $`g^{}\eta =\eta `$, $`i.e.`$ $`G`$ preserves the contact form, not only the contact structure. A $`G`$–action by strong contactomorphisms on $`(N,\eta )`$ admits an equivariant momentum map $`J:N𝔤^{}`$ given by evaluating the contact form on fundamental fields: $`J,\xi =\eta (\xi _N)`$.

Throughout this paper we shall denote by $`𝔤`$ the Lie algebra of $`G`$, by $`,:𝔤^{}\times 𝔤`$ the natural pairing between $`𝔤^{}`$ and $`𝔤`$, and by $`\xi _N`$ the fundamental vector field (or infinitesimal generator) defined by $`\xi 𝔤`$. For simplicity, we shall work exclusively with free proper actions, although the extensions of our results to locally free actions is routine; in that case the relevant quotient spaces will be orbifolds instead of manifolds. For a smooth map $`f:AB`$ between the manifolds $`A`$ and $`B`$, $`T_af:T_aAT_{f(a)}B`$ denotes its derivative, or tangent map, at $`aA`$.

The momentum map $`J`$ is constant on the flow of the Reeb vector field. In addition,

$$T_nJ(v),\xi =d\eta (n)(v,\xi _N(n))$$

for any $`nN`$, $`vT_nN`$, and $`\xi 𝔤`$. This immediately implies

$$\left[\mathrm{im}(T_nJ)\right]^{}=\{\xi 𝔤d\eta (n)(\xi _N(n),)=0\},$$

which is the contact analogue of the bifurcation lemma from the usual theory of momentum maps on Poisson manifolds; the term on the left is the annihilator of the subspace in parentheses. For this (contact) momentum map, $`0𝔤^{}`$ is a regular value if and only if the fundamental fields induced by the action do not vanish on the zero level set of $`J`$. Moreover, if this is the case, the pull back of the contact form to $`J^1(0)`$ is basic. Let $`\pi _0:J^1(0)J^1(0)/G`$ and $`\iota _0:J^1(0)N`$ be the canonical projection and inclusion respectively. The reduction theorem asserts the existence of a unique contact form $`\eta _0`$ on $`J^1(0)/G`$ such that $`\pi _0^{}\eta _0=\iota _0^{}\eta `$.

Regarding contact reduction at $`\mu 0`$, up to now there are two versions available: one due Albert  and a very recent one due to Willett .

Albert’s method . Let $`(N,\eta )`$ be an exact contact manifold with Reeb vector field $`R`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a “good” action of a Lie group by strong contactomorphisms. For $`\mu 𝔤^{}`$, denote by $`G_\mu `$ the isotropy group at $`\mu `$ of the coadjoint action and by $`𝔤_\mu `$ its Lie algebra. If $`\mu 0`$ is a regular value of $`J`$ the restriction of the contact form to $`J^1(\mu )`$ is not basic. This problem is overcome by Albert by changing the infinitesimal action of $`𝔤_\mu `$ on $`J^1(\mu )`$ as follows: $`\xi \xi _N\mu ,\xi R`$, where $`R`$ is the Reeb vector field. In general, this infinitesimal action cannot be integrated to an action of $`G_\mu `$. However, if $`R`$ is complete, this $`𝔤_\mu `$–action is induced by an action of the universal covering group $`\widehat{G}_\mu `$ (if $`G_\mu `$ is connected) given by

$$(e^{t\xi },n)\varphi _{e^{t\xi }}(\rho _{t\mu ,\xi }^1(n)),$$

where $`\rho _t`$ is the flow of the Reeb vector field. Albert defines the reduced space as $`J^1(\mu )/\widehat{G}_\mu `$ $`via`$ this new action and shows it is naturally a contact manifold.

Willett’s method . The idea is to expand $`\mu `$ and to shrink $`G_\mu `$. As above, $`G`$ is a Lie group that acts smoothly on an exact contact manifold $`(N,\eta )`$ preserving the contact form $`\eta `$. Let $`\mu 𝔤^{}`$. Willett calls the *kernel group of $`\mu `$*, the connected Lie subgroup $`K_\mu `$ of $`G_\mu `$ with Lie algebra $`𝔨_\mu =\mathrm{ker}(\mu |_{𝔤_\mu })`$. It is easy to see that $`𝔨_\mu `$ is an ideal in $`𝔤_\mu `$ and therefore $`K_\mu `$ is a connected normal subgroup of $`G_\mu `$. Contact reduction (or the contact quotient) of $`N`$ by $`G`$ at $`\mu `$ is defined by Willett as

$$N_\mu :=J^1(_+\mu )/K_\mu .$$

Assume that $`K_\mu `$ acts freely and properly on $`J^1(_+\mu )`$. Then $`J`$ is transversal to $`_+\mu `$ and the pull back of $`\eta `$ to $`J^1(_+\mu )`$ is basic relative to the $`K_\mu `$–action on $`J^1(_+\mu )`$ and thus induces a one form $`\eta _\mu `$ on the quotient $`N_\mu `$. If, in addition, $`\mathrm{ker}\mu +𝔤_\mu =𝔤`$ then the form $`\eta _\mu `$ is also a contact form. It is characterized, as usual, by the identity $`\pi _\mu ^{}\eta _\mu =i_\mu ^{}\eta `$, where $`\pi _\mu :J^1(_+\mu )N_\mu `$ is the canonical projection and $`i_\mu :J^1(_+\mu )N`$ is the canonical inclusion.

It is to be noted that for $`\mu =0`$, Albert’s and Willett’s quotients coincide.

Notations: Throughout the paper we shall denote by $`\pi _G:QQ/G`$, $`\pi _{Q/G}:T^{}(Q/G)Q/G`$, $`\pi _Q:T^{}QQ`$ the respective canonical projections. The Liouville one-forms of $`T^{}Q`$ and $`T^{}(Q/G)`$ will be denoted respectively by $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The naturally lifted action of $`G`$ on $`T^{}Q`$ admits an equivariant momentum map $`J_{ct}:T^{}Q𝔤^{}`$ given by $`J_{ct}(\alpha _q),\xi =\alpha _q(\xi _Q(q))`$, where $`\alpha _qT_q^{}Q`$, $`\xi 𝔤`$, and $`\xi _Q`$ denotes the fundamental vector field defined by the $`G`$–action on $`Q`$.

## 2. The cosphere bundle and its contact structure

Let $`Q`$ be a differentiable manifold of real dimension $`n`$, $`\pi _Q:T^{}QQ`$ its cotangent bundle, and $`0`$ the Liouville form on $`T^{}Q`$. We shall denote by $`\alpha _q`$, $`\beta _q`$ etc. the elements of $`T^{}Q`$.

Let $`G`$ be a finite dimensional Lie subgroup of $`\mathrm{Diff}(Q)`$ and denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }:G\times QQ`$ a free, proper action of $`G`$ on $`Q`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}:G\times T^{}QT^{}Q`$ its natural lift to the cotangent bundle of $`Q`$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is still free and proper and preserves the Liouville form $`0`$ and thus the canonical symplectic structure $`d0`$ of $`T^{}Q`$.

Consider the action of the multiplicative group $`_+=]0,+\mathrm{}[`$ by dilations on the fibers of $`T^{}Q\{0\}`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

The cosphere bundle $`S^{}Q`$ of $`Q`$ is the quotient manifold $`(T^{}Q\{0\})/_+`$. Denote by $`\kappa :[\alpha _q]S^{}QqQ`$ the associated canonical projection.

The construction described below is standard (see $`e.g.`$ ).

Let $`\pi :T^{}Q\{0\}S^{}Q`$ be the canonical projection. The elements of the cosphere bundle are classes that we denote with $`[\alpha _q]`$. Of course, $`(\pi ,_+,T^{}Q\{0\},S^{}Q)`$ is a $`_+`$–principal bundle. As such, it always has global sections: it is enough to choose a Riemannian metric on $`Q`$ (supposed paracompact), to identify $`T^{}Q`$ with $`TQ`$, $`S^{}Q`$ with the unit sphere bundle $`T^1Q`$ of $`TQ`$, and to consider the canonical inclusion $`T^1QTQ`$. Let then $`\sigma :S^{}QT^{}Q\{0\}`$ be a global section. The equation

$$\sigma \pi =f_\sigma 1_{T^{}Q\{0\}},$$

where $`1_{T^{}Q\{0\}}`$ denotes the identity map of $`T^{}Q\{0\}`$, defines a function $`f_\sigma :T^{}Q\{0\}_+`$ with the following property of compatibility with respect to the action of $`_+`$:

(2.1)
$$f_\sigma (r\alpha _q)=\frac{1}{r}f_\sigma (\alpha _q),r_+,\alpha _qT^{}Q\{0\}.$$

Indeed, $`\sigma ([\alpha _q])=f_\sigma (\alpha _q)\alpha _q=\sigma ([r\alpha _q])=f_\sigma (r\alpha _q)r\alpha _q.`$ The following statement is now clear.

###### Lemma 2.1.

The set of global sections of $`\pi :T^{}Q\{0\}S^{}Q`$ is in bijective correspondence with the set of $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions $`f:T^{}Q\{0\}_+`$ satisfying (2.1).

We pull back by $`\sigma `$ the restriction of the Liouville form and obtain the one-form $`0_\sigma =\sigma ^{}0`$ on $`S^{}Q`$. One has:

(2.2)
$$\pi ^{}0_\sigma =f_\sigma 0.$$

Indeed, $`\pi ^{}0_\sigma =\pi ^{}\sigma ^{}0=(\sigma \pi )^{}0=(f_\sigma 1_{T^{}Q\{0\}})^{}0=f_\sigma 0.`$ Now, for another global section $`\rho `$, with associated function $`f_\rho `$, we have

$$0_\sigma =\sigma ^{}0=(\sigma \pi \rho )^{}0=\rho ^{}\pi ^{}0_\sigma =\rho ^{}(f_\sigma 0)=(f_\sigma \rho )0_\rho ,$$

and hence we obtain

(2.3)
$$0_\sigma =g_{\sigma \rho }0_\rho ,\text{with}g_{\sigma \rho }=f_\sigma \rho .$$

Note also that $`g_{\sigma \rho }\pi =f_\sigma /f_\rho `$. From (2.3) we easily derive that *$`0_\sigma `$ is a contact form on $`S^{}Q`$ if and only if $`0_\rho `$ is one*. But it was proved in  that if $`\sigma `$ is defined using a Riemannian metric on $`Q`$, as explained above, then $`0_\sigma `$ is a contact form. Thus we have proved:

###### Lemma 2.2.

$`0_\sigma `$ is a global contact form on $`S^{}Q`$ for any global section $`\sigma `$.

It is also clear from (2.3) that all these contact forms have the same null space, so that the contact structure does not depend on the choice of $`\sigma `$.

###### Remark 2.1.

Let $`𝒞(S^{}Q)=S^{}Q\times _+`$ be the symplectic cone over $`S^{}Q`$, endowed with the symplectic form $`d(t0_\sigma )`$. Then one can easily see that $`T_\sigma :𝒞(S^{}Q)T^{}Q`$ given by $`T_\sigma ([\alpha _q],t)=tf_\sigma (\alpha _q)\alpha _q`$ is a well defined symplectic diffeomorphism, that is, a symplectomorphism.

## 3. The action of $`G`$ on the cosphere bundle and its associated momentum map

We shall now lift the free proper action of $`G`$ to the cosphere bundle and compute the associated momentum map. The action $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ lifts to an action $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ on $`T^{}Q`$ by setting

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(g,\alpha _q):=T_{\mathrm{\Phi }(g,q)}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{g^1}\alpha _q,$$

for $`gG`$, $`\alpha _qT_q^{}Q`$, and where the upper star denotes the dual map of the linear map to which it is applied. It is clear that the cotangent bundle projection $`\pi _Q:T^{}QQ`$ is equivariant relative to the actions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. If the action $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is free and proper, this equivariance immediately shows that the action $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is also free and proper.

Denote by $`\kappa _Q:[\alpha _q]S^{}QqQ`$ the canonical cosphere bundle projection.

###### Lemma 3.1.

The action $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ induces a free proper action $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{}:G\times S^{}QS^{}Q`$.

###### Proof.

Define

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{}(g,[\alpha _q])=[\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(g,\alpha _q)].$$

As $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{}(g,[r\alpha _q])=[\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(g,r\alpha _q)]=[r\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(g,\alpha _q)]=[\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(g,\alpha _q)]`$, the definition is correct. Note also that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ covers $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, that is, $`\kappa _Q\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{}=\mathrm{\Phi }\kappa _Q`$. This immediately proves that freeness (respectively properness) of the $`G`$ action on $`Q`$ implies freeness (respectively properness) of the action $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{}`$ on $`S^{}Q`$. Clearly $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_g)^{}0_\sigma `$ is a multiple of $`0_\sigma `$ and the proof is complete. ∎

###### Lemma 3.2.

The action $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{}:G\times S^{}QS^{}Q`$ is by contactomorphisms and the scale factors are all positive.

###### Proof.

By direct computation and using (2.2) in the last equality, we have:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_g^{}0_\sigma ([\alpha _q])(v_{[\alpha _q]})& =0_\sigma \left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_g([\alpha _q])\right)\left(T_{[\alpha _q]}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_g(v_{[\alpha _q]})\right)\hfill \\ & =0\left((\sigma \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_g)([\alpha _q])\right)\left(T_{[\alpha _q]}(\sigma \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_g)(v_{[\alpha _q]})\right)\hfill \\ & =(\sigma \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_g)([\alpha _q])\left(T_{[\alpha _q]}(\pi _Q\sigma \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_g)(v_{[\alpha _q]})\right)\hfill \\ & =f_\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi }_g(\alpha _q))\mathrm{\Phi }_g(\alpha _q)\left(T_{[\alpha _q]}(\pi _Q\sigma \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_g)(v_{[\alpha _q]})\right)\hfill \\ & =f_\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi }_g(\alpha _q))\alpha _q\left(T_{[\alpha _q]}(\mathrm{\Phi }_g^1\pi _Q\sigma \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_g)(v_{[\alpha _q]})\right)\hfill \\ & =f_\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi }_g(\alpha _q))\alpha _q\left(T_{[\alpha _q]}(\pi _Q\sigma )(v_{[\alpha _q]})\right)\hfill \\ & =f_\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi }_g(\alpha _q))0(\alpha _q)\left(T_{[\alpha _q]}(\sigma )(v_{[\alpha _q]})\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{f_\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi }_g(\alpha _q))}{f_\sigma (\alpha _q)}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_\sigma ([\alpha _q])(v_{[\alpha _q]}).\hfill \end{array}$$

To construct a momentum map associated to this action, we need to work with a *strong* action, that is, we need it to preserve not only the contact structure, but the contact form. This can be achieved by adapting Palais’ argument (or, if $`G`$ is compact, by averaging). Indeed, owing to Lemma 3.1, we may apply Proposition 2.8 in  asserting that for a proper action by contactomorphisms, there always exist an invariant contact form. (The proof of this is a straightforward modification of the classical proof of Palais for the existence of invariant Riemannian metrics on paracompact manifolds endowed with a proper Lie group action.) As every contact form on the cosphere bundle is obtained $`via`$ a global section as above, we shall chose once and for all a section $`\sigma `$ for which $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_g)^{}0_\sigma =0_\sigma `$. Relative to this contact form the induced action on the cosphere bundle is by strong contactomorphisms.

The associated momentum map $`J_{0_\sigma }`$ will be denoted for simplicity by $`J`$ since in what follows no other contact form different from $`0_\sigma `$ will be used. Let $`(S^{}Q)_0=J^1(0)/G`$ be the reduced space corresponding to the regular value $`0𝔤^{}`$.

Similar considerations apply to the manifold $`Q/G`$ proving that its cosphere bundle is a contact manifold. As above, the contact structure can be described as the kernel of a contact form of the type $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:S^{}(Q/G)T^{}(Q/G)\{0\}`$ is a global section and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Liouville form of $`T^{}(Q/G)`$.

## 4. The main results

We are now ready to prove:

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`G`$ be a finite dimensional Lie group, acting freely and properly on a differentiable manifold $`Q`$. Then $`(S^{}Q)_0`$, the reduced space at the regular value zero of the cosphere bundle of $`Q`$, is contact-diffeomorphic with the cosphere bundle $`S^{}(Q/G)`$.

###### Remark 4.1.

Suppose $`(N,\eta )`$ is a contact manifold on which a Lie group $`G`$ acts by strong contactomorphisms. The action can be naturally lifted to the symplectic cone $`(𝒞(N),d(t\eta ))`$ by letting $`G`$ act trivially on $`_+`$; one obtains an action by symplectomorphisms. It is well known that, in this situation, the reduced symplectic space at $`0`$ is the symplectic cone over the contact reduced space at $`0`$: $`𝒞(N_0)(𝒞(N))_0`$. This can be applied to $`N=S^{}Q`$ and combined with the cotangent bundle reduction theorem it should lead to a “diagram chasing” proof of the theorem. However, we prefer to make the maps involved in the proof precise.

###### Proof.

A first key observation is that the actions of $`G`$ and $`_+`$ on $`T^{}Q\{0\}`$ commute, so that there exists the diffeomorphism:

(4.1)
$$\lambda :(S^{}Q)/G=(T^{}Q\{0\}/_+)/G(T^{}Q\{0\}/G)/_+.$$

Second, applying the cotangent bundle reduction theorem to $`T^{}Q`$, we have the symplectic diffeomorphism (see , , or )

(4.2)
$$\phi _0:J_{ct}^1(0)/GT^{}(Q/G),\text{given  by}\phi _0(\widehat{\alpha }_q)\left(T_q\pi _G(v_q)\right):=\alpha _q(v_q),$$

where $`v_qT_qQ`$, $`\alpha _qJ_{ct}^1(0)T_q^{}Q`$, $`\widehat{\alpha }_qJ_{ct}^1(0)/G`$ is its class in the reduced space at zero, and $`\pi _G:QQ/G`$ is the projection. Denote by $`p_0:J_{ct}^1(0)J_{ct}^1(0)/G`$ the canonical projection, that is, $`p_0(\alpha _q)=\widehat{\alpha }_q`$ for all $`\alpha _qJ_{ct}^1(0)`$.

We want to relate the zero level sets of the contact momentum map $`J`$ and of the symplectic momentum map $`J_{ct}`$. The definition of the (contact) momentum map $`J`$, the $`\pi `$ relatedness of $`\xi _{T^{}Q}`$ and $`\xi _{S^{}Q}`$, formula (2.2), the definition of the Liouville form on $`T^{}Q`$, and finally the $`\pi _Q`$ relatedness of $`\xi _{T^{}Q}`$ and $`\xi _Q`$ yield for any $`\xi 𝔤`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}J([\alpha _q]),\xi \hfill & =& 0_\sigma ([\alpha _q])\left(\xi _{S^{}Q}([\alpha _q])\right)\hfill \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{}\\ & =& 0_\sigma (\pi (\alpha _q))(T_{\alpha _q}\pi (\xi _{T^{}Q}(\alpha _q))\hfill \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{}\\ & =& (\pi ^{}0_\sigma )(\alpha _q)\left(\xi _{T^{}Q}(\alpha _q)\right)\hfill \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{}\\ & =& f_\sigma (\alpha _q)0(\alpha _q)\left(\xi _{T^{}Q}(\alpha _q)\right)\hfill \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{}\\ & =& f_\sigma (\alpha _q)\alpha _q\left(T_{\alpha _q}\pi _Q(\xi _{T^{}Q}(\alpha _q))\right)\hfill \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{}\\ & =& f_\sigma (\alpha _q)\alpha _q\left(\xi _Q(q)\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

that is,

(4.3)
$$J([\alpha _q])=f_\sigma (\alpha _q)\alpha _q.$$

Since $`f_\sigma >0`$, this implies that

$$J^1(0)=\{[\alpha _q]\alpha _q(\xi _Q(q))=0,\text{ for all }\xi 𝔤\}.$$

However, $`J_{ct}(\alpha _q),\xi =\alpha _q(\xi _Q(q))`$ for any $`\xi 𝔤`$, which shows that $`J^1(0)\pi (J_{ct}^1(0))`$. The converse inclusion being obvious, we conclude that $`J^1(0)=\pi (J_{ct}^1(0))`$ and hence

(4.4)
$$(S^{}Q)_0:=J^1(0)/G=(J_{ct}^1(0)\{0\}/_+)/G.$$

Denote by

(4.5)
$$\overline{\lambda }:(S^{}Q)_0(J_{ct}^1(0)\{0\}/G)/_+$$

the diffeomorphism obtained by restricting the diffeomorphism $`\lambda `$ defined in (4.1) to $`(S^{}Q)_0`$ and denote by $`\overline{0}_\sigma `$ the reduced contact form on $`(S^{}Q)_0`$.

The definition of the diffeomorphism $`\phi _0:J_{ct}^1(0)/GT^{}(Q/G)`$ defined in (4.2) shows that $`\widehat{0}_qJ_{ct}^1(0)/G`$ is mapped to the zero element of $`T_{\pi _G(q)}^{}(Q/G)`$ and that $`\phi _0`$ commutes with the $`_+`$–actions on $`J_{ct}^1(0)/G`$ and on $`T^{}(Q/G)`$ respectively. Thus $`\phi _0`$ induces a smooth map

(4.6)
$$\widehat{\phi }_0:(J_{ct}^1(0)\{0\}/G)/_+(T^{}(Q/G)0)/_+=S^{}(Q/G)$$

given by

(4.7)
$$\widehat{\phi }_0([\widehat{\alpha }_q]):=[\phi _0(\widehat{\alpha }_q)],$$

where $`[\widehat{\alpha }_q](J_{ct}^1(0)/G)/_+`$ denotes the class of $`\widehat{\alpha }_qJ_{ct}^1(0)/G`$. The same reasoning applied to $`\phi _0^1`$ shows that it induces a smooth map $`S^{}(Q/G)(J_{ct}^1(0)\{0\}/G)/_+`$ which is easily verified to be the inverse of $`\widehat{\phi }_0`$, that is, $`\widehat{\phi }_0`$ is a diffeomorphism.

The theorem will be proved if it is shown that $`\widehat{\phi }_0\overline{\lambda }:(S^{}Q)_0S^{}(Q/G)`$ is a contactomorphism. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:S^{}(Q/G)T^{}(Q/G)\{0\}`$ be a global section and let $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be the contact form on $`S^{}(Q/G)`$ associated to this section, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Liouville form on $`T^{}(Q/G)`$. From the discussion in Section 2, we know that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is one of the possible contact forms underlying the contact structure of the cosphere bundle $`S^{}(Q/G)`$. Thus, to show that $`\widehat{\phi }_0\overline{\lambda }`$ is a contactomorphism, it will be enough to verify that $`(\widehat{\phi }_0\overline{\lambda })^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is proportional to $`\overline{0}_\sigma `$, the proportionality factor being a strictly positive function on $`(S^{}Q)_0`$. To this end, let $`\pi _0:J^1(0)J^1(0)/G=(S^{}Q)_0`$, $`\iota _0:J^1(0)S^{}Q`$ be the canonical projection and the canonical inclusion, respectively. From the contact reduction theorem at zero (reviewed in the Introduction), we know that $`\overline{0}_\sigma `$ is characterized by the relation $`\pi _0^{}\overline{0}_\sigma =\iota _0^{}0_\sigma `$. Thus, it suffices to show that $`(\widehat{\phi }_0\overline{\lambda }\pi _0)^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is proportional to $`\iota _0^{}0_\sigma `$ with a strictly positive function on $`J^1(0)`$ as proportionality factor.

The commutative diagram below is needed in the proof that follows. All vertical arrows are projections. The maps in this diagram have all been defined with the exception of $`\mathrm{\Pi }:T^{}(Q/G)\{0\}S^{}(Q/G)`$ which is the cosphere bundle projection associated to the manifold $`Q/G`$ and $`\overline{\pi }:(J_{ct}^1(0)\{0\})/G((J_{ct}^1(0)\{0\})/G)/_+`$ which is associates to each point in $`(J_{ct}^1(0)\{0\})/G`$ its $`_+`$–orbit.

We begin with the computation of $`(\widehat{\phi }_0\overline{\lambda }\pi _0\pi )^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. From the commutative diagram we have

$$\widehat{\phi }_0\overline{\lambda }\pi _0\pi =\mathrm{\Pi }\phi _0p_0\text{and}\pi _{Q/G}\phi _0p_0=\pi _G\pi _Q$$

so that using (2.2) with base manifold $`Q/G`$, the definition (4.2) of $`\phi _0`$, and the global formula of the Liouville form on $`T^{}(Q/G)`$, we get for any $`\alpha _qJ_{ct}^1(0)\{0\}`$ and any $`vT_{\alpha _q}(J_{ct}^1(0)\{0\})`$

$`\left((\widehat{\phi }_0\overline{\lambda }\pi _0\pi )^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)(\alpha _q)(v)=\left((\mathrm{\Pi }\phi _0p_0)^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)(\alpha _q)(v)`$
$`=\left((\phi _0p_0)^{}(\mathrm{\Pi }^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma })\right)(\alpha _q)(v)=\left((\phi _0p_0)^{}(f_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Theta })\right)(\alpha _q)(v)`$
$`=(f_\mathrm{\Sigma }\phi _0p_0)(\alpha _q)(\phi _0p_0)(\alpha _q)\left(T_{\alpha _q}(\pi _{Q/G}\phi _0p_0)(v)\right)`$
$`=(f_\mathrm{\Sigma }\phi _0p_0)(\alpha _q)(\phi _0p_0)(\alpha _q)\left(T_{\alpha _q}(\pi _G\pi _Q)(v)\right)`$
(4.8) $`=(f_\mathrm{\Sigma }\phi _0p_0)(\alpha _q)\alpha _q\left(T_{\alpha _q}\pi _Q(v)\right).`$
On the other hand, since $`\iota _0:J^1(0)S^{}Q`$ is the inclusion, from (2.2) and the definition of the Liouville form on $`T^{}Q`$, we get

(4.9)
$$\left((\iota _0\pi )^{}0_\sigma \right)(\alpha _q)(v)=(f_\sigma 0)(\alpha _q)(v)=f_\sigma (\alpha _q)\alpha _q\left(T_{\alpha _q}\pi _Q(v)\right).$$

The two identities (4) and (4.9) show that on $`J_{ct}^1(0)\{0\}`$ we have the equality

(4.10)
$$\pi ^{}(\widehat{\phi }_0\overline{\lambda }\pi _0)^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{f_\mathrm{\Sigma }\phi _0p_0}{f_\sigma }\pi ^{}\iota _0^{}0_\sigma .$$

Formula (2.1) shows that the strictly positive proportionality factor in (4.10) drops to a strictly positive function $`F`$ on the quotient $`J^1(0)`$. Since $`\pi `$ is a surjective submersion, (4.10) implies that $`(\widehat{\phi }_0\overline{\lambda }\pi _0)^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=F\iota _0^{}0_\sigma `$ where the function $`F>0`$, which is the desired identity. ∎

The first two examples below use parallelizable manifolds $`Q`$. Note that for an $`n`$-dimensional parallelizable manifold $`Q`$, the cosphere bundle is $`S^{}Q=Q\times S^{n1}`$.

###### Example 4.1.

Let $`Q=𝕋^n`$ and $`G=S^1`$ acting by multiplication on the first factor of the torus and trivially on the other ones. Then $`Q/G=𝕋^{n1}`$ and $`S^{}(𝕋^n)=𝕋^n\times S^{n1}`$. Hence, by Theorem 4.1, we find that $`(𝕋^n\times S^{n1})_0`$ is contactomorphic with $`𝕋^{n1}\times S^{n2}`$.

###### Example 4.2.

Let $`Q=^n`$ and $`G=^n`$ acting by translations on each factor. Then $`Q/G=𝕋^n`$, $`S^{}(Q/G)=𝕋^n\times S^{n1}`$, $`S^{}(^n)=^n\times S^{n1}`$, hence we obtain the contactomorphism $`(^n\times S^{n1})_0𝕋^n\times S^{n1}`$.

###### Example 4.3.

Let $`Q=S^3`$ and $`G=S^1`$ acting by multiplication (of unitary quaternions by unit complex numbers). Then $`Q/G=S^2`$, the base of the Hopf fibration. It is well known (see, e.g. , Exercise 1.2-4) that $`S^{}(S^2)`$ is diffeomorphic with $`SO(3)`$. On the other hand, $`S^{}(S^3)=S^2\times S^3`$. We thus obtain the contact diffeomorphism $`(S^2\times S^3)_0SO(3)`$.

If we want to carry out the cosphere bundle reduction at a point $`\mu 0`$, we have *a priori* two choices: to use Albert’s or Willett’s reduction methods.

Regarding Albert’s reduction method (see its description in the Introduction), nothing will guarantee that the action of the universal cover $`\widehat{G}_\mu `$ on $`S^{}Q`$ is induced by an action on $`Q`$. Example II in  describes precisely such a situation. It refers (without naming it explicitly) to the cosphere bundle $`S^{}𝕋^n`$ of the $`n`$-dimensional torus $`𝕋^n`$. The group is $`G=𝕋^n`$ which acts trivially on itself. For a non-zero regular value $`\mu `$ of norm $`1`$, Albert applies his construction with $`\widehat{G}_\mu =^n`$ and obtains the standard circle $`S^1`$ as the reduced space. But the action of $`^n`$ on $`S^{}𝕋^n`$ does not come from an action of $`^n`$ on $`T^n`$! Thus, Albert’s method cannot be used to do contact reduction of the cosphere bundle at a non zero value of the momentum map.

However, Willett’s method can be applied, as we shall show below. Contact reduction at a non zero value of the momentum map will embed in a certain cosphere bundle. The precise statement is the following. Recall that $`K_\mu `$ denotes the connected normal Lie subgroup of $`G_\mu `$ whose Lie algebra is the ideal $`𝔨_\mu :=\mathrm{ker}(\mu |_{𝔤_\mu })`$ in $`𝔤_\mu `$.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`Q`$ be a differentiable manifold of real dimension $`n`$, $`G`$ a finite dimensional Lie subgroup of $`\mathrm{Diff}(Q)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }:G\times QQ`$ a smooth action of $`G`$ on $`Q`$. Assume that $`K_\mu `$ acts freely and properly on $`J^1(_+\mu )`$ and that $`\mathrm{ker}\mu +𝔤_\mu =𝔤`$. Then the contact reduction

$$(S^{}Q)_\mu =J^1(_+\mu )/K_\mu $$

is embedded by a map preserving the contact structures onto a subbundle of $`S^{}(Q/K_\mu )`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the cosphere bundle $`S^{}Q`$ endowed with the contact form $`0_\sigma `$ preserved by the $`G`$–action. Willett  §3 proves that $`J`$ is transversal to $`_+\mu `$ if and only if the $`K_\mu `$–action on $`J^1(_+\mu )`$ is locally free. Our hypothesis is that this action is in fact free, so the transversality hypothesis in Willett’s reduction theorem is satisfied. Together with the other two stated hypotheses, these are precisely the assumptions of Willett’s reduction theorem reviewed in the Introduction. Thus $`(S^{}Q)_\mu =J^1(_+\mu )/K_\mu `$ is an exact contact manifold whose contact form, denoted by $`\overline{0}_{\sigma ,\mu }`$, is characterized by the identity $`\iota _\mu ^{}0_\sigma =\pi _\mu ^{}\overline{0}_{\sigma ,\mu }`$, where $`\iota _\mu :J^1(_+\mu )S^{}Q`$ is the inclusion and $`\pi _\mu :J^1(_+\mu )J^1(_+\mu )/K_\mu =(S^{}Q)_\mu `$ is the canonical projection.

As in the proof of Theorem 4.1, $`J^1(_+\mu )=\pi (J_{ct}^1(_+\mu ))`$ and, consequently,

$$(S^{}Q)_\mu :=J^1(_+\mu )/K_\mu =(J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\}/_+)/K_\mu .$$

Since the actions of $`K_\mu `$ (by cotangent lift) and $`_+`$ (by dilation in each fiber) on $`J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )`$ commute, there is a diffeomorphism

$$\overline{\lambda }_\mu :(S^{}Q)_\mu (J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\}/K_\mu )/_+$$

characterized by the property

$$\overline{\lambda }\pi _\mu \pi =\overline{\pi }_\mu p_\mu ,$$

where

$$\overline{\pi }_\mu :(J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\})/K_\mu [(J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\})/K_\mu ]/_+$$

and

$$p_\mu :J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\}T^{}Q\{0\}(J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\})/K_\mu $$

are the canonical projections. If $`\alpha _qJ_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\}T^{}Q`$, denote by $`\widehat{\alpha }_q=p_\mu (\alpha _q)`$ its class in $`(J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\})/K_\mu `$.

Define the map

$$\psi _\mu :(J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\})/K_\mu T^{}(Q/K_\mu )\{0\}$$

by

(4.11)
$$\psi _\mu (\widehat{\alpha }_q)(T_q\pi _{K_\mu }(v_q))=\alpha _q(v_q),$$

where $`\pi _{K_\mu }:QQ/K_\mu `$ is the canonical projection. To show that $`\psi _\mu `$ is well defined, observe that for all $`\alpha _q^{}=T_{\varphi (g,q)}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{g^1}\alpha _q`$ with $`q^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }(g,q)`$, $`v_q^{}=T_{\mathrm{\Phi }(g,q)}\mathrm{\Phi }_g(v_q+\xi _Q(q))`$, and $`\xi 𝔨_\mu `$ identity (4.3) implies that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha _q^{}(v_q^{})\hfill & =& T_{\mathrm{\Phi }(g,q)}^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{g^1}\alpha _q,T_{\mathrm{\Phi }(g,q)}\mathrm{\Phi }_g(v_q+\xi _Q(q))\hfill \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{}\\ & =& \alpha _q\left(v_q+\xi _Q(q)\right)=\alpha _q(v_q)+\alpha _q(\xi _Q(q))\hfill \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{}\\ & =& \alpha _q(v_q)+\frac{1}{f_\sigma (\alpha _q)}J([\alpha _q]),\xi \hfill \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{}\\ & =& \alpha _q(v_q)+\frac{1}{f_\sigma (\alpha _q)}\mu ,\xi =\alpha _q(v_q)\hfill \end{array}$$

since $`\xi 𝔨_\mu `$. This shows that $`\psi _\mu `$ is well defined. It is routine to check that $`\psi _\mu `$ is smooth. In addition, $`\psi _\mu `$ is equivariant relative to the $`_+`$–actions on $`J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\}/K_\mu `$ and $`T^{}(Q/K_\mu )\{0\}`$ respectively and thus it induces a smooth map on the quotients

$$\widehat{\psi }_\mu :[(J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\})/K_\mu ]/_+S^{}(Q/K_\mu )$$

given by

$$\widehat{\psi }_\mu ([\widehat{\alpha }_q])=[\psi _\mu (\widehat{\alpha }_q)],$$

where $`[\widehat{\alpha }_q]:=\overline{\pi }_\mu (\widehat{\alpha }_q)`$, for $`\overline{\pi }_\mu :(J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\})/K_\mu [(J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\})/K_\mu ]/_+`$ is the canonical projection.

Next we show that $`\widehat{\psi }_\mu `$ is injective. If $`\widehat{\psi }_\mu ([\widehat{\alpha }_q])=\widehat{\psi }_\mu ([\widehat{\beta }_q])`$, then there exists $`r_+`$ with $`\psi _\mu (\widehat{\alpha }_q)=r\psi _\mu (\widehat{\beta }_q)`$, so using (4.11), $`\alpha _q(v_q)=r\beta _q(v_q)`$ for every $`v_qT_qQ`$. This means that $`\widehat{\alpha }_q=r\widehat{\beta }_q`$ since the $`K_\mu `$ and $`_+`$ actions commute, that is, $`[\widehat{\alpha }_q]=[\widehat{\beta }_q]`$ showing that $`\widehat{\psi }_\mu `$ is injective.

We need to show that $`\widehat{\psi }_\mu \overline{\lambda }_\mu :(S^{}Q)_\mu S^{}(Q/K_\mu )`$ preserves the contact structures. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:S^{}(Q/K_\mu )T^{}(Q/K_\mu )\{0\}`$ be a global section and let $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be the contact form on $`S^{}(Q/K_\mu )`$ associated to this section, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Liouville form on $`T^{}(Q/K_\mu )`$. The form $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is one of the possible contact forms underlying the contact structure of the cosphere bundle $`S^{}(Q/K_\mu )`$. Thus, to show that $`\widehat{\psi }_\mu \overline{\lambda }_\mu `$ preserves the contact structures, it will be enough to verify that $`(\widehat{\psi }_\mu \overline{\lambda }_\mu )^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is proportional to $`\overline{0}_{\sigma ,\mu }`$, the proportionality factor being a strictly positive function on $`(S^{}Q)_\mu `$. Willett’s contact reduction theorem at $`\mu 0`$ states that $`\overline{0}_{\sigma ,\mu }`$ is characterized by the relation $`\pi _\mu ^{}\overline{0}_{\sigma ,\mu }=\iota _\mu ^{}0_\sigma `$. Thus, it suffices to show that $`(\widehat{\psi }_\mu \overline{\lambda }_\mu \pi _\mu )^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is proportional to $`\iota _\mu ^{}0_\sigma `$ with a strictly positive function on $`J^1(_+\mu )`$ as proportionality factor. To carry this out, we shall need a commutative diagram analogous to the one considered in Theorem 4.1.

As in the proof of Theorem 4.1, we begin with the computation of $`(\widehat{\psi }_\mu \overline{\lambda }_\mu \pi _\mu \pi )^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Since

$$\widehat{\psi }_\mu \overline{\lambda }_\mu \pi _\mu \pi =\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu \psi _\mu p_\mu \text{and}\pi _{Q/K_\mu }\psi _\mu p_\mu =\pi _{K_\mu }\pi _Q,$$

using (2.2) with base manifold $`Q/K_\mu `$, the definition (4.11) of $`\psi _\mu `$, and the global formula of the Liouville form on $`T^{}(Q/K_\mu )`$, we get for any $`\alpha _qJ_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\}`$ and any $`vT_{\alpha _q}(J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\})`$

$`\left((\widehat{\psi }_\mu \overline{\lambda }_\mu \pi _\mu \pi )^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)(\alpha _q)(v)=\left((\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu \psi _\mu p_\mu )^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)(\alpha _q)(v)`$
$`=\left((\psi _\mu p_\mu )^{}(\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma })\right)(\alpha _q)(v)=\left((\psi _\mu p_\mu )^{}(f_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Theta })\right)(\alpha _q)(v)`$
$`=(f_\mathrm{\Sigma }\psi _\mu p_\mu )(\alpha _q)(\psi _\mu p_\mu )(\alpha _q)\left(T_{\alpha _q}(\pi _{Q/K_\mu }\psi _\mu p_\mu )(v)\right)`$
$`=(f_\mathrm{\Sigma }\psi _\mu p_\mu )(\alpha _q)(\psi _\mu p_\mu )(\alpha _q)\left(T_{\alpha _q}(\pi _{K_\mu }\pi _Q)(v)\right)`$
(4.12) $`=(f_\mathrm{\Sigma }\psi _0p_\mu )(\alpha _q)\alpha _q\left(T_{\alpha _q}\pi _Q(v)\right).`$
On the other hand, since $`\iota _\mu :J^1(_+\mu )S^{}Q`$ is the inclusion, from (2.2) and the definition of the Liouville form on $`T^{}Q`$, we get

(4.13)
$$\left((\iota _\mu \pi )^{}0_\sigma \right)(\alpha _q)(v)=(f_\sigma 0)(\alpha _q)(v)=f_\sigma (\alpha _q)\alpha _q\left(T_{\alpha _q}\pi _Q(v)\right).$$

The two identities (4) and (4.13) show that on $`J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )\{0\}`$ we have the equality

(4.14)
$$\pi ^{}(\widehat{\psi }_\mu \overline{\lambda }_\mu \pi _\mu )^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{f_\mathrm{\Sigma }\psi _\mu p_\mu }{f_\sigma }\pi ^{}\iota _\mu ^{}0_\sigma .$$

Formula (2.1) shows that the strictly positive proportionality factor in (4.14) drops to a strictly positive function $`F_\mu `$ on the quotient $`J^1(_+\mu )`$. Since $`\pi `$ is a surjective submersion, (4.14) implies that $`(\widehat{\psi }_\mu \overline{\lambda }_\mu \pi _\mu )^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=F_\mu \iota _\mu ^{}0_\sigma `$ where the function $`F_\mu >0`$, which is the desired identity. This proves that $`\widehat{\psi }_\mu \overline{\lambda }_\mu `$ preserves the respective contact structures.

That $`\widehat{\psi }_\mu `$ is an immersion can be proved as in the embedding version of the cotangent bundle reduction theorem (see , §4.3 or , p. 82). Indeed, we observe that $`\mu ^{}=\mu |_{𝔨_\mu }=0`$, hence considering the action restricted to $`K_\mu `$, the corresponding momentum map $`J^{}`$ is the restriction of $`J`$. We are thus in the conditions of our Theorem 4.1 and obtain a contact-diffeomorphism between $`J_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(_+\mu ^{})/K_\mu =J_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(0)/K_\mu `$ and $`S^{}(Q/K_\mu )`$. Composing this with the natural inclusion of $`J^1(_+\mu )/K_\mu `$ in $`J_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(_+\mu ^{})/K_\mu `$, we arrive at the desired contact embedding.

This ends the proof of the theorem. ∎

###### Example 4.4.

We look again at Albert’s example discussed above. We have $`Q=𝕋^n`$, $`G=𝕋^n`$ acting naturally on itself. Take $`\mu (^n)^{}`$ to be the projection on the last factor: $`\mu (x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=x_n`$. Then $`\mathrm{ker}\mu =^{n1}`$, $`K_\mu =𝕋^{n1}`$ and $`J^1(_+\mu )𝕋^n`$. Hence $`(S^{}Q)_\mu =𝕋^n/𝕋^{n1}S^1`$ and $`Q/K_\mu S^1`$. Our theorem yields $`S^1S^{}(S^1)`$, the inclusion being the zero section in $`T^{}S^1`$ followed by the canonical projection.

###### Example 4.5.

We let $`Q=^{3(n+1)}`$ and $`\phi `$ be the natural action of $`G=(^3,+)`$ on $`Q`$ by translations. The lifted action to the cotangent bundle is again by translations: $`(𝐱,(𝐪_i,𝐩^i))(𝐱+𝐪_i,𝐩^i)`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},n`$. The symplectic momentum map (the linear momentum, see e.g. ) has values in $`^3`$ (which is identified with its dual $`(^3)^{}`$ by the usual dot product) and is given by:

$$J_{ct}(𝐪_i,𝐩^i)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}𝐩^j.$$

Fix now $`𝐯^3\{0\}`$ and define $`\mu :^3`$ by $`\mu (\xi )=𝐯\xi `$. Then we have:

$$J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )=\{(𝐪_i,𝐩^i)\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}𝐩^i_+𝐯\}.$$

As $`G`$ is Abelian, we have $`𝔨_\mu =\mathrm{ker}\mu =𝐯^{}^2`$. Hence $`K_\mu ^2`$. Define the map $`f:^{3(n+1)}^{3n+1}`$ by

$$f(𝐪_0,\mathrm{},𝐪_n):=(𝐪_1𝐪_0,\mathrm{},𝐪_n𝐪_{n1},𝐪_0𝐯/𝐯^2).$$

Clearly $`f`$ is smooth, surjective, invariant under the $`K_\mu `$-action, and $`f(𝐪_0,\mathrm{},𝐪_n)=f(𝐪_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{},\mathrm{},𝐪_{}^{}{}_{n}{}^{})`$ if and only if $`𝐪_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}=𝐪_i+𝐱`$, for all $`i=0,\mathrm{},n`$, where $`𝐱𝐯^{}`$. In addition, the kernel of the derivative of $`f`$ at every point equals the tangent space the $`K_\mu `$-orbit. Hence $`f`$ induces a diffeomeorphism $`Q/K_\mu =^{3(n+1)}/^2^{3n+1}`$. We thus have:

$$S^{}(Q/K_\mu )=S^{}^{3n+1}^{3n+1}\times S^{3n}.$$

On the other hand,

$$J_{ct}^1(_+\mu )/K_\mu ^{3n+1}\times \{(𝐩^0,\mathrm{},𝐩^n)\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}𝐩^i_+𝐯\}$$

since the $`K_\mu `$-action does not affect $`𝐩^0,\mathrm{},𝐩^n`$. Applying Theorem 4.2 we have :

$$(S^{}Q)_\mu ^{3n+1}\times \left[S^{3n+2}\{(𝐩^0,\mathrm{},𝐩^n)\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}𝐩^i_+𝐯\}\right].$$

So Theorem 4.2 asserts the existence of a contact structure on the above manifold, induced from that of $`^{3n+1}\times S^{3n}`$. Note that it is not obvious how to construct directly a contact structure on $`^{3n+1}\times \left[S^{3n+2}\{(𝐩^0,\mathrm{},𝐩^n)_{i=0}^n𝐩^i_+𝐯\}\right]`$.

###### Remark 4.2.

Observe that $`\widehat{\psi }_\mu `$ may no longer be surjective (as the corresponding map of the symplectic case). In fact, since $`\widehat{\psi }_\mu `$ maps fibers of $`J^1(_+\mu )/K_\mu `$ in fibers of $`S^{}(Q/K_\mu )`$, if it were surjective it would be so on each fiber, but a simple count of dimensions proves this is impossible. On the other hand, conditions like $`G=K_\mu `$ or $`𝔤=𝔤_\mu `$, which ensure surjectivity in the symplectic case, here lead to $`\mu =0`$ (because of the condition $`\mathrm{ker}\mu +𝔤_\mu =𝔤`$).

###### Remark 4.3.

There is a significant difference between the reduced spaces for $`\mu 0`$ in the cotangent bundle reduction theorem and for the cosphere bundle. The symplectic quotient is symplectically embedded (only in the particular case of $`G`$ Abelian or $`G=G_\mu `$ one obtains a diffeomorphism) in $`T^{}(Q/G_\mu )`$ endowed with a perturbed symplectic form (the canonical one minus a magnetic term), while the contact quotient is always contactly embedded in $`S^{}(Q/K_\mu )`$ with a non perturbed contact form. Thus, in contact geometry, the cases $`\mu 0`$ and $`\mu =0`$ are similar and the explanation is Willett’s choice of the kernel group of $`\mu `$ instead of the coadjoint isotropy group of $`\mu `$. Explicitly, it is the Lie algebra of this kernel group that assures the existence of a well-defined map preserving the contact structure exactly as in the $`\mu =0`$ case.

###### Remark 4.4.

One may relax the assumptions on the action of $`G`$ (and $`K_\mu `$) by allowing fixed points and working in the category of orbifolds.

Acknowledgment. L.O. is a member of EDGE, partially supported by the European Contract “Human Potential Programme Research Training Network” HPRN-CT-2000-00101 and by the Swiss NSF through the SCOPES Program during a one month visit at the EPFL. T.S.R. was partially supported by the European Commission and the Swiss Federal Government through funding for the Research Training Network *Mechanics and Symmetry in Europe* (MASIE) as well as the Swiss National Science Foundation. We would like to thank P. Birtea, I. Marshall, J.-P. Ortega, T. Schmah for many useful conversations during the elaboration of this work.


text:
# Ramsey fringes in a Bose-Einstein condensate between atoms and molecules

## Abstract

In a recent experiment, a Feshbach scattering resonance was exploited to observe Ramsey fringes in a 85Rb Bose-Einstein condensate. The oscillation frequency corresponded to the binding energy of the molecular state. We show that the observations are remarkably consistent with predictions of a resonance field theory in which the fringes arise from oscillations between atoms and molecules.

Interest in the physics of ultracold molecules has been growing considerably in the past few years . One of the goals has been the creation of a molecular Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC). In a recent experiment at JILA, performed by Donley et al. , a coherence between atoms and molecules was demonstrated in a BEC of 85Rb atoms. In this experiment, two magnetic field pulses were applied to the condensate, and oscillations observed in the population of two spatially distinguishable components as a function of the pulse separation time. One of the components, the ‘remnant’ atoms, had a similar spatial profile to the original BEC. This was in contrast to a second component, the ‘burst’ atoms, which moved away from the remnant having gained a considerable amount of energy. In addition, there was a missing fraction of atoms unaccounted for after the pulse sequence. Significantly, the frequency of the population oscillations corresponded to the binding energy of the highest lying molecular state.

This observation followed other remarkable experiments carried out in the same group. The collapse of a BEC was studied when a Feshbach resonance was used to create a large negative scattering length . Because of the rather violent destruction of the collapsing condensate, this effect was dubbed a ‘Bosenova’ in analogy to a supernova explosion. In a precursor experiment to the one we consider here, a single strong-coupling field pulse was applied, and there remnant and burst atoms were also observed .

In this letter, we describe the most recent JILA experiment by a resonance field theory that has been developed over the last two years . This mean-field theory of dilute atomic gases goes beyond the level of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation  to include the essential pairing physics necessary to describe resonances in the two-body scattering. In the case of a Fermi gas it was applied to describe superfluidity close to a Feshbach resonance. Here, however, we are able for the first time to compare this approach with experimental data, and we obtain remarkable agreement with the observations.

A critical ingredient of the theory is the description of the Feshbach resonance. Such a resonance arises when a bound state (molecular state) lies near the threshold of the collision continuum. This bound state belongs effectively to a channel which is energetically closed. In a system of two rubidium atoms, the position of this bound state depends on magnetic field, due to hyperfine and Zeeman interactions. The Feshbach resonance gives rise to a dispersive behavior of the scattering length, that can be formulated accurately as

$$a(B)=a_{\mathrm{bg}}\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{BB_0}\right).$$
(1)
Here $`a_{\mathrm{bg}}`$ is the background scattering length, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ the width of the resonance, and $`B_0`$ the field value where the scattering length is infinity. The magnetic field can be easily converted into an energy detuning of the molecular state from threshold by the relation $`\nu _0=(BB_0)\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ is the difference in magnetic moments of the energetically open and closed channels. In our theory, we treat the closed channel explicitly by using molecular field operators and ascribing a coupling to the continuum for this molecular state.

The Hamiltonian for the resonance system is given by

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝒙\left(\widehat{\psi }_a^{}(𝒙)H_a(𝒙)\widehat{\psi }_a^{}(𝒙)+\widehat{\psi }_m^{}(𝒙)H_m(𝒙)\widehat{\psi }_m^{}(𝒙)\right)}`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^3𝒙_1d^3𝒙_2[\widehat{\psi }_a^{}(𝒙_1)\widehat{\psi }_a^{}(𝒙_2)V(𝒙_1𝒙_2)\widehat{\psi }_a^{}(𝒙_2)\widehat{\psi }_a^{}(𝒙_1)`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`(\widehat{\psi }_m^{}({\displaystyle \frac{𝒙_1+𝒙_2}{2}})g(𝒙_1𝒙_2)\widehat{\psi }_a^{}(𝒙_2)\widehat{\psi }_a^{}(𝒙_1)+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)],`$ (4)
where the field operators $`\widehat{\psi }_a^{}(𝒙)`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }_m^{}(𝒙)`$ create an atom or molecule at position $`𝒙`$, and H.c. denotes the Hermitian conjugate. The free Hamiltonians $`H_a(𝒙)=\mathrm{}^2^2/2m`$ and $`H_m(𝒙)=\mathrm{}^2^2/4m+\nu `$ for atoms with mass $`m`$ and molecules with mass $`2m`$ include the detuning $`\nu `$. Atom-molecule collisions and molecule-molecule collisions give higher order corrections. The potential terms $`V(𝒙_1𝒙_2)`$ and $`g(𝒙_1𝒙_2)`$ have to be chosen such that both the scattering physics and the molecular binding energies are correctly described. We verify this by noting that the scattering equations are included in this resonance mean-field theory . Although unnecessary here, it is important from a fundamental perspective that the above Hamiltonian can be further generalized by the inclusion of more scattering resonances to systematically improve the description of the two-body scattering physics to any desired precision.

Starting from this Hamiltonian we obtain the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) equations of motion. We define expectation values for the atomic and molecular condensates $`\varphi _a(𝒙)=\widehat{\psi }_a^{}`$ and $`\varphi _m(𝒙)=\widehat{\psi }_m^{}`$. Moreover, we define a $`2\times 2`$ density matrix for the fluctuating components of the atomic field operators $`\widehat{\chi }_a^{}=\widehat{\psi }_a^{}\widehat{\psi }_a^{}`$, that describe the noncondensed atoms:

$$𝒢(𝒙,𝒚)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\chi }_𝒶^{}(𝒚)\widehat{\chi }_𝒶^{}(𝒙)& \widehat{\chi }_𝒶^{}(𝒚)\widehat{\chi }_𝒶^{}(𝒙)\\ \widehat{\chi }_𝒶^{}(𝒚)\widehat{\chi }_𝒶^{}(𝒙)& \widehat{\chi }_𝒶^{}(𝒚)\widehat{\chi }_𝒶^{}(𝒙)\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
The elements of this matrix can be given in terms of the normal density $`G_N(𝒙,𝒚)=\widehat{\chi }_a^{}(𝒚)\widehat{\chi }_a^{}(𝒙)`$ and the anomalous density $`G_A(𝒙,𝒚)=\widehat{\chi }_a^{}(𝒚)\widehat{\chi }_a^{}(𝒙)`$ .

To begin with, we consider a gas which is homogeneous and isotropic, which results in a translationally invariant system. This implies that the single particle fields are constant in space, and that the two-particle fields depend on the coordinate difference $`r=|𝒙𝒚|`$ only. We substitute local interactions for the potential terms: $`V(r)=V\delta (r)`$ and $`g(r)=g\delta (r)`$, where $`V`$ and $`g`$ are constants. The HFB equations for the density matrix $`𝒢`$ and for the condensate fields $`\varphi _a`$ and $`\varphi _m`$ are obtained from the Heisenberg equations for the field operators, having taken expectation values and applied Wick’s theorem:

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _a}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`V(|\varphi _a|^2+2G_N(0))\varphi _a+(VG_A(0)+g\varphi _m)\varphi _a^{},`$ (6)
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _m}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}(\varphi _a^2+G_A(0))+\nu \varphi _m,`$ (8)
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{dG_N(r)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left[V(\varphi _a^2+G_A(0))G_A^{}(r)+g\varphi _mG_A^{}(r)\right],`$ (9)
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{dG_A(r)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{2\mu }}G_A(r)+4V(|\varphi _a|^2+G_N(0))G_A(r)`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`[V(\varphi _a^2+G_A(0))+g\varphi _m](2G_N(r)+\delta (r)),`$ (11)
with $`\mu `$ the reduced mass. This is the complete closed set of equations to be dynamically solved. As emphasized earlier, the binary collision physics encapsulated in the HFB equations is extracted by setting the density dependent shifts to zero

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}𝒫(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{2\mu }}+V\delta (r)\right]𝒫(r)+g\delta (r)\varphi _m,`$ (12)
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\varphi _m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}𝒫(0)+\nu \varphi _m,`$ (13)
where $`𝒫(r)=\varphi _a^2+G_A(r)`$ is the total pairing field, leaving the two coupled two-body scattering equations with contact interactions .

The local potentials in Eqns. (6)-(11) give rise to an ultraviolet divergence, which can be properly treated by renormalization. This must be done in such a way as to maintain the correct underlying two-body resonance physics for any momentum cutoff $`K`$ in the field theory. One should consider the delta function interactions to be appropriate zero range limits of nonlocal potentials (e.g. square well potentials), and the properties of these potentials can then be chosen such that the microscopic low energy two-body physics around a Feshbach resonance is correctly described. This renormalization procedure amounts to replacing the coupling constants in the Hamiltonian by parameters which depend on $`K`$. The required parameters can be concisely summarized by the complete relations $`V=\mathrm{\Gamma }U`$, $`g=\mathrm{\Gamma }g_0`$, and $`\nu =\nu _0+\alpha gg_0/2`$, where $`U=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{\mathrm{bg}}/m`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(1\alpha U)^1`$, $`\alpha =mK/(2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2)`$, and $`g_0`$ is determined from the field dependence of the binding energy as we now explain.

A big advantage for this system is that the rubidium two-body interactions are extremely well known. Typical scattering lengths can be calculated to at least the 1% level . For this experiment, where the fringe frequency is determined by the energy of the highest bound state, accurate knowledge of the binding energy is crucial. In Fig. 1 we show the binding energy as a function of magnetic field using a full coupled channels calculation . This calculation consists of all relevant rubidium two-body interactions including hyperfine and Zeeman interactions and electron-spin dependent singlet and triplet potentials. In order to reproduce exactly the result of the full coupled-channels calculation, we would need to go beyond the single resonance formulation we have presented. However, in spite of the complexity of the real rubidium system, the field theory with one resonance state allows a remarkably good approximation to the binding energy over the field range of interest. This comparison is shown in Fig. 1 and determines the value of $`g_0`$ used in our following simulations.

The outcome of the experiment of Donley et al.  closely resembles the seminal experiments on Ramsey fringes in atomic beam physics . The starting point is a condensate of 85Rb atoms in the $`|f,m_f=|2,2`$ state, at a magnetic field where the scattering length is close to zero. Two magnetic field pulses are applied (a schematic is shown in Fig. 2), each of which brings the condensate close to resonance. The two pulses are separated by a free evolution interval $`t_{\mathrm{evolve}}`$, during which time the magnetic field is increased to move the system further away from resonance. After this pulse sequence, the remaining number of atoms in the condensate is measured, which is then called the remnant. Also a burst of noncondensate atoms is observed. The populations of the remnant and the burst both show oscillations as function of $`t_{\mathrm{evolve}}`$ at a frequency that corresponds to the binding energy of the molecular state at the intermediate field. The sum of the populations of the remnant and burst do not add up to the initial number, implying a missing component. The theoretical solutions which follow in this Letter can be directly compared with the results presented in the figures of Donley et al. .

In spite of the fact that the mean-field Eqns. (6)-(11) were derived for a homogeneous system, we may apply our theory to a trapped gas. At the highest energy scales reached during the evolution, the velocity of the atoms is sufficient to move only one hundredth of the oscillator ground state size in the tightest direction during the full evolution time. Therefore, a complete quantum description of the oscillator levels is not required. Instead, we use a local density approximation and perform a Gaussian average over the densities of the gas. For each value of the density, we solve the time-dependent equations modifying the detuning according to the time-dependent field given in Fig. 2. In Fig. 3 we show a time evolution of the atomic condensate, and the corresponding time evolution of the molecular condensate. At the end of the first pulse about 25% of the condensate atoms have been converted into other components. The growth of population in the molecular condensate takes place mostly during the final ramp. It is notable that the fraction of molecules does not account for the missing atoms. In fact, the atoms are mainly transfered to the normal and anomalous densities which are ascribed to the noncondensate component.

The growth of the noncondensate component can been seen in Fig. 4. The function $`G_N(r=0)`$ represents the density of noncondensate atoms, which can be seen to oscillate out of phase with the atomic condensate during $`t_{\mathrm{evolve}}`$. It is remarkable that in spite of the fact that the Ramsey fringes occur at the molecular binding energy with significant visibility, the population of the molecular condensate remains small. A much larger fraction is converted into strongly correlated atom pairs, encapsulated by the normal and anomalous densities. Interestingly, the anomalous density is the same aspect of the field theory which accounts for Cooper pairing in a nonideal Fermi gas and gives rise to superfluidity at temperatures below the critical value. The explanation for the observed growth of the pairing field rather than the molecular condensate is due to the close proximity of the bound state to threshold. The range of the molecular bound state stretches in this case to very large internuclear distances, something which has much more overlap with the delocalized $`G_A`$ pairing field than with the localized closed channel state.

In Fig. 5 we show the population of atomic condensate and noncondensate atoms, obtained at the end of the pulse sequence, as a function of the evolution time $`t_{\mathrm{evolve}}`$. The sum of these two numbers (squares) equals the total number of initial condensate atoms minus twice the number of molecular condensate atoms due to particle conservation. The frequency of the oscillations agrees with the binding energy of the renormalized potential, given by the open squares in Fig. 1. When we compare these curves with Fig. 5 of Donley et al. , we see that we can clearly identify the remnant observed in the experiment as the atomic condensate component of the quantum field theory. The experimental data closely resembles the solid curve both in offset and in amplitude. Similarly, the noncondensate atoms can be identified as the burst atoms. Since $`G_N(r)`$ is a correlation function, it is straightforward to determine the energy of the noncondensed atoms which are produced. This manifests as the spatial decay rate of the correlation function in the $`r`$-direction, which can be converted into an average energy. The energy which results is comparable to the experimentally determined energy range for the burst. The missing atoms are also elucidated. Note that there is a large time interval between the final ramp and the time at which the atomic absorption imaging takes place. These weakly bound molecules may decay to lower vibrational states via a collision with a third atom, resulting in large kinetic energies for both scattering partners. Such atoms would not be observed.

We have repeated our calculation for a different experimental situation  with a factor 10 larger density, and a different time-dependence of the field. Here the number of remnant atoms is lower than the burst atoms, so that the position of the fringes shown in Fig. 5 are switched and show indications of damping. We again get good agreement with the experiment, and the appearance of damping of the Ramsey fringes in the theory is due to density-dependent inhomogeneous dephasing. This effect is due to a relatively small shift in the oscillation frequency that shows a strong dependence on density. Finally we note that both theory and experimental data exhibit a notable phase-shift between the position of the fringes of the atomic condensate and the noncondensate atoms.

In conclusion, we have used a resonance effective field theory which includes an accurate description of the two-body bound state and scattering physics to describe a recent experiment at JILA. Because of the complexity of the mean-field physics relevant to Feshbach resonance scattering, it has not been possible previously to provide this kind of quantitative comparison. We are able to unambiguously identify the observed remnant and burst. The pairing field associated with the noncondensate atoms plays a crucial role in our calculated evolution. This pairing field is analogous to the formation of Cooper pairs in a superfluid Fermi gas. The ability to determine the coupling constants from known two-body rubidium physics allows us to make these comparisons with experimental data with no adjustable parameters.

We thank J. Cooper, J. Milstein, E. Donley, N. Claussen, S. Thompson, E. Cornell and C. Wieman, for stimulating discussions. Support is acknowledged for S.K. from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences via the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division, and for M.H. from the National Science Foundation.