text:
# NONLINEAR EFFECTS IN MODELS OF THE GALAXY: 1. MIDPLANE STELLAR ORBITS IN THE PRESENCE OF 3D SPIRAL ARMS

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Modeling of spiral galaxies with sophisticated computational techniques has become the usual way to study systems of this nature. One of the important structures, which is in fact the one that gives the name to this type of galaxies, is the spiral pattern. In the spiral density wave theory (Lin & Shu 1964), the spiral structure of galaxies was modeled as a periodic perturbation term to the axisymmetric potential in the disk plane. This is known as the tight-winding or WKB approximation (e.g., Binney & Tremaine 1994) for small pitch angles. In the case of a two-armed spiral pattern it gives a potential in the galactic plane of the form:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_s(R,\phi )=f(R)cos[2\phi +g(R)];$$
(1)
The function $`f(R)`$ is the amplitude of the perturbation, $`g(R)`$ provides the geometry of the spiral pattern, and $`R`$, $`\phi `$ are cylindrical coordinates in the non-inertial reference frame of the arms (rotating with a given angular velocity).

All studies of spiral galaxies we know of, even in cases of large pitch angle in the spiral pattern, have used a spiral potential of the form in Eq. (1), e.g. Contopoulos & Grosbøl (1986, 1988; hereafter C&G86 and C&G88); Patsis, Contopoulos, & Grosbøl (1991, hereafter PC&G), and in particular in our Galaxy the models of Amaral & Lépine (1997, hereafter A&L) and Lépine, Mishurov, & Dedikov (2001). Self-consistency of the proposed spiral pattern has been analyzed by C&G86, C&G88, PC&G, and A&L.

The dependence of the spiral potential on $`z`$ (perpendicular distance to the galactic plane) has been accounted for by Patsis & Grosbøl (1996) as a $`sech^2(z/z_s)`$ factor of a function of the form in Eq. (1), with $`z_s`$ a scaleheight. Martos & Cox (1998), in numerical MHD simulations, considered an exponential z-factor of an approximate local spiral potential in the galactic plane.

In barred galaxies the approach is analogous to that given above for spiral galaxies: the usual approximation for the potential in the galactic plane due to the bar is a function of the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }_b(R,\phi )=f(R)cos(2\phi )`$. Instead of taking an ad hoc dependence on the z coordinate, an alternative way to consider the extension to a 3D-bar potential is to begin directly with a 3D mass distribution representing the bar. This method has been considered by Athanassoula et al. (1983) and Pfenniger (1984). From a comparison on the galactic plane between their 3D-bar potential and a potential of the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }_b(R,\phi )=f(R)cos(2\phi )`$, Athanassoula et al. (1983) found important differences in the corresponding force fields. However, the consequences of this result were not pursued.

In this paper, rather than using a simple ad hoc model for a 3D spiral perturbation, we consider a procedure whose essence is exactly the same as the modeling of a barred galaxy made by Athanassoula et al. (1983): instead of using a spiral potential of the form given by Eq. (1), we propose a 3D mass distribution for the spiral arms and derive their gravitational potential and force fields from previously known results in potential theory. Grand design galaxies with a very prominent spiral structure in red light suggest to us that such structure should be considered an important galactic component and are worthy of a modeling effort beyond a simple perturbing term. This approach amounts to little more than admitting the possibility that there is no simple formula that fits the spiral perturbation at all $`R`$.

In our model we use Schmidt’s (1956) analytical expression for the potential of an inhomogeneous oblate spheroid and model the spiral mass distribution as a series of such components settled along a spiral locus. The overlapping of spheroids allows a smooth distribution, resulting in a continuous function for the gravitational force. The basic parameters of the excess density distribution contributing to the spiral perturbation include a description of the spiral locus, the dimensions and density law of the spheroids, the central density in the spheroids as a function of galactocentric distance, the total mass of the spiral arms, and the angular velocity of the spiral pattern.

Our aim in this work is to make a preliminary study of stellar orbits in the Galactic plane $`z`$ = 0 in a potential resulting from the superposition of our 3D-spiral mass distribution and the axisymmetric Galactic mass distribution considered by Allen & Santillán (1991, hereafter A&S). Also, we compare the potential and force fields produced by the 3D-spiral mass distribution with a tight-winding approximation in Eq. (1). The resulting differences may have important consequences on the stellar and gaseous dynamical behavior in a potential of this type. An expected difference in the force field is the effect of the self-gravitation of the mass of the spiral arms, which is not accounted for in a potential like that of Eq. (1).

Detailed orbital studies have been made in barred and spiral galaxies (e.g. Contopoulos 1983, Athanassoula et al. 1983, Pfenniger 1984, Teuben & Sanders 1985). In this work our analysis of stellar motion in the Galactic plane, under the proposed Galactic potential, follows the usual technique of Poincaré diagrams. However, we propose an alternative interpretation of Poincaré diagrams which has not been previously considered. This interpretation is based on defining the orbital sense of motion (prograde or retrograde) in the Galactic inertial reference frame, joined to the usual definition in the non-inertial reference frame (e.g. Athanassoula et al. 1983) in which the spiral arms (and/or a bar) are at rest. This leads to Poincaré diagrams (meaningful only in the non-inertial reference frame) revealing two sharply separated regions: one corresponding to prograde orbits and the other to retrograde orbits. Our orbital analysis emphasizes the properties of the Galactic spiral arms for which some orbits may show stochastic behavior. These properties and the resulting stellar behavior should be applicable to similar types of galaxies.

The structure of this paper is the following: in Section 2 we present our Galactic model for the 3D spiral arms, with a discussion of the required parameters. In Section 3 we give the preliminary self-consistency tests that we have made of the proposed spiral arms, and establish a line of attack that must be followed to improve the model. In section 4 we make a comparison between the potential and force fields given by our model and those given by a tight-winding approximation. We show the importance of the self-gravitation of the spiral arms. In Section 5 we present an orbital analysis on the Galactic plane for differing spiral arms properties including the total mass in the spiral arms, the number of arms, and the angular velocity of the spiral pattern. In Section 5.1 we clarify the distinction between prograde and retrograde motion and the importance of the frame of reference to establish the essential difference between the two classes of orbits in Poincaré diagrams through the zero angular momentum separatrix, a concept we introduce in this section. We show here that our definition provides a direct connection between sense of orbital motion and chaotic motion. In the same subsection, Poincaré diagrams for a number of families labeled by their Jacobi integral $`E_J`$ are shown. An estimation of the required strength of the spiral perturbation for which the nonlinear effects are important is given, and we discuss the range of parameters explored and those we deem plausible for our Galaxy. In Section 5.2 we investigate the onset of chaos using Lyapunov exponents, and the comparison of resonances for prograde and retrograde motion. In Section 6 we discuss our results and give some conclusions, including the possible response of the interstellar gas to the Galactic potential.

## 2 THE MODEL

We use a Galactic model consisting of two mass distributions: the A&S axisymmetric model, and a 3D spiral model given by a superposition of oblate inhomogeneous spheroids along a given locus. The A&S Galactic model assembles a bulge and a flattened disk proposed by Miyamoto & Nagai (1975), with a massive spherical halo extending to a radius of 100 kpc. The model is mathematically simple, with closed expressions for the potential and continuous derivatives, which makes it particularly suitable for numerical work. The model satisfies quite well observational constraints such as the Galactic rotation curve and the perpendicular force at the solar circle. The main adopted parameters are $`R_0=8.5`$ kpc as the Sun’s galactocentric distance, and $`V_0(R_0)=220`$ km s-1 as the circular velocity at the Sun’s position. The total mass is $`9\times 10^{11}M_{}`$, and the local escape velocity is 536 km s-1. The local total mass density is $`\rho _0=0.15M_{}`$ pc-3. The resulting values for Oort’s constants are $`A=12.95`$ km s-1 kpc-1 and $`B=12.93`$ km s-1 kpc-1.

As a first step to model the spiral mass distribution, we need the spiral locus. The optical spiral structure in our Galaxy has been studied by means of luminous HII regions (e.g, Georgelin & Georgelin 1976, Caswell & Haynes 1987). In the solar neighborhood the local inclination (pitch angle) of this spiral pattern has been inferred from the direction of the magnetic field lines (Heiles 1996), assumed to be aligned with the spiral arms (see reviews by Beck 1993, and Heiles 1995, on magnetic fields in spiral galaxies). In a recent study, Drimmel (2000) presents evidence for a two-armed spiral in our Galaxy as observed in the K band, which is associated with a non-axisymmetric component in the old stellar population. Figure 1 reproduces Fig. 2 of Drimmel (2000); the black squares trace the position of the four optical arms, and the open squares represent his 15.5 pitch-angle fit for the two arms in the K band. The continuous line shows the first of three spiral loci we considered to model the spiral arms. These loci are obtained with a function $`g(R)`$ (see Eq. 1) of the form given by Roberts, Huntley & van Albada (1979),

$$g(R)=(\frac{2}{N\mathrm{tan}i_p})\mathrm{ln}[1+(R/R_s)^N]$$
(2)
with $`i_p`$ the pitch angle at $`R`$ $`\mathrm{}`$. In Figure 1 we take N=100, thus making the arms start at a distance $`R_s`$ and at right angles to a line passing through the Galactic center, $`i_p`$=11, $`R_s`$=3.3 kpc, and we consider an orientation such that the two arms start on a line making an angle of 20 with the Sun-Galactic center line (this is the approximate direction of the Galactic bar, e.g. Freudenreich 1998). This first two-armed spiral locus approximates the position of both optical and K-band arms.

As a second spiral locus, we take the two-armed, K-band locus itself. In Figure 2 the black and open squares give the K-band arms in Figure 1. The continuous line is obtained with the function $`g(R)`$ in Eq. (2), taking N = 100, $`i_p`$ = 15.5, and $`R_s`$ = 2.6 kpc. We consider the effective starting distance of the spiral arms in this second locus as the distance 3.3 kpc taken in the first locus; the inner black squares in Figure 2 mark this position.

An important spiral locus is the one given by the four optical arms. Vallée (2002) shows in his Fig. 2 his fit to these optical arms, taking a pitch angle of 12 and $`R_0`$ = 7.2 kpc for the Sun’s galactocentric distance. Figure 3 shows our fit with N = 100, $`i_p`$ = 12, and $`R_s`$ = 3.54 kpc in Eq. (2), and $`R_0`$ = 8.5 kpc. Drimmel (2000) has suggested that the four optical arms in our Galaxy trace the response of the gas to the two-armed, K-band, stellar spiral arms in Figure 2. Thus, we take the third spiral locus for the spiral arms in our Galaxy as the superposition of the two-armed, K-band and four-armed, optical spiral loci. Galactic models using a superposition of two- and four-armed spirals have been proposed by A&L and Lépine, Mishurov, & Dedikov (2001).

Our set of models for the spiral mass distribution consist of a superposition of oblate inhomogeneous spheroids along each of the three proposed spiral loci. The minor axis of each spheroid is perpendicular to the Galactic plane. Each spheroid has a similar mass distribution, i.e., surfaces of equal density are concentric spheroids of constant semi-axis ratio. We consider a linear density law $`\rho (a)=p_0+p_1a`$ in the spheroids, with $`a`$ the major semi-axis of a similar surface, and the coefficients $`p_0`$, $`p_1`$ being functions of the galactocentric distance of the spheroid’s center. Schmidt (1956) has given the expressions for the potential and force fields for a spheroid with this density law.

With respect to the dimensions of the spheroids, Kennicutt & Hodge (1982) have analyzed a sample of spiral galaxies; from their Fig. 4, the average width of the spiral arms is around 1 kpc. Thus, considering the linear fall in the density within the spheroids, and taking the vertical extension of the spiral arms as the mean scaleheight (the vertical structure of the arms is discussed in Martos & Cox 1998), in most models we take the minor ($`c_0`$) and major ($`a_0`$) semi-axes of the oblate spheroids as 0.5 kpc and 1.0 kpc, respectively, with a separation of spheroid centers along the spiral locus of 0.5 kpc. We found no significant change in our results if we decrease this separation (thus increasing the smoothness of the spiral mass distribution). Each spheroid has zero density at its boundary; thus the coefficients $`p_0`$, $`p_1`$ in a given spheroid satisfy $`p_0`$(R) = -$`a_0`$$`p_1`$(R), with R the galactocentric distance of the spheroid’s center. The function $`p_0`$(R) is discussed below.

The superposition of spheroids begins at the distance $`R_i`$ = 3.3 kpc in the first and second spiral locus given above, and at $`R_i`$ = 3.5 kpc in the third locus. The spiral arms are truncated, i.e., the superposition of spheroids ends, at a distance $`R_f`$. The analyses of C&G86, C&G88, and PC&G establish that for strong spirals nonlinear effects make self-consistent spirals terminate at the 4/1 resonance, in contrast with weak spirals in which linear theory predicts they can extend up to or beyond the corotation resonance (e.g., Vauterin & Dejonghe 1996; Kikuchi, Korchagin, & Miyama 1997). According to PC&G, strong spirals are those in which the force produced by the spiral perturbation is greater than 6$`\%`$ of the background force. We will consider models around and above this limit, and hence the distance $`R_f`$ should be taken in accordance with these results. However, our main criterion to set the value of $`R_f`$ is the maximum radial extent of the observed spiral arms shown in Figure 1. In all models we take the value $`R_f`$ = 12 kpc; in Figures 1-3 the continuous lines end at this distance.

In our models we consider two functions $`p_0(R)`$ for the central density in the spheroids, defined in the interval $`R_iRR_f`$ : (1) a linear fall to zero $`p_0(R)=p_{01}(R_fR)/(R_fR_i)`$, and (2) an exponential fall $`p_0(R)=p_{02}e^{(RR_i)/R_L}`$, with $`R_L=2.5`$ kpc the approximate radial scalelength of the near-infrared Galactic disk (Freudenreich 1998). We compare the linear fall to the exponential one; the latter being the form generally employed in studies of spiral galaxies (e.g., C&G86, C&G88, PC&G, A&L, Patsis & Grosbøl 1996, Englmaier & Gerhard 1999).

The values of the coefficients $`p_{01}`$, $`p_{02}`$ are

$$p_{01}=\frac{3M_s(R_fR_i)}{2\pi a_0^2c_0_{j=1}^{N_t}(R_fR_j)}$$
(3)
$$p_{02}=\frac{3M_s}{2\pi a_0^2c_0_{j=1}^{N_t}e^{(R_jR_i)/R_L}}$$
(4)
with $`M_s`$ the total mass in the spiral arms, $`N_t`$ the total number of spheroids in each arm, and $`R_j`$ the galactocentric distance of spheroids’ centers. The sums are only over one arm. In a model with four arms we multiply the terms on the right by a factor 1/2.

With the above expressions of $`p_0`$(R), and $`p_1`$(R) = -$`p_0`$(R)/$`a_0`$, Schmidt’s (1956) equations give the potential and force produced by a spheroid at any point in space; the corresponding total potential and force are obtained by summing over all spheroids in all the arms.

The ratio of the total mass in the spiral arms to the mass of the disk (MD = $`8.56\times 10^{10}`$ M) in the A&S Galactic model is taken to be $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.0175, 0.03, and 0.05. In the next section some properties of the models based on these values are analyzed.

A final parameter in the models is the angular velocity of the spiral arms, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, which we assume to be rigidly rotating. The Galactic model of A&L favors the value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 20 km s-1 kpc-1, but the hydrodynamical calculations of Englmaier & Gerhard (1999) and Fux (1999), giving the gaseous response in the Galactic disk to a Galactic barred potential, suggest that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ might be as large as 60 km s-1 kpc-1. However, Englmaier & Gerhard (1999) point out that the Galactic spiral arms and the Galactic bar might not have the same pattern speed. Thus, in our models we take a clockwise rotation, and consider $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 20, 60 km s-1 kpc-1 as two possible values for the pattern speed of the spiral arms. For comparison, we have also included computations with a plausible smaller value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ =15 km s-1 kpc-1 (see discussions in Martos & Cox 1998; Gordon 1978; Palous et al. 1977; Lin, Yuan, & Shu 1969). Figure 4 gives some resonance curves in the A&S Galactic model. In the case of a two-armed spiral pattern, and with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 15 km s-1 kpc-1, the inner Lindblad resonance is at 3.5 kpc, corotation at 14.3 kpc, the external Lindblad resonance at 23.2 kpc, and the 4/1 resonance at 9.5 kpc. The corresponding values with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 20, 60 km s-1 kpc-1 are 2.8, 10.9, 17.7, and 7 kpc; 1.36, 3.38, 6.28, and 2.21 kpc.

## 3 SELF-CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

The self-consistency of a stationary spiral pattern, as the one here proposed, must be addressed. PC&G constructed self-consistent models for twelve normal spiral galaxies. The sample included Sa, Sb, and Sc types. Their conclusion is that for the Sb and Sc galaxies, the best self-consistent model is a nonlinear one in which the 4/1 resonance determines the distance beyond which the response density does not enhance the spiral, that is, the extent of the spiral pattern. Figure 15 of PC&G shows an approximate correlation in self-consistent models between the pitch angle of the spiral arms, $`i_p`$, and the relative radial force perturbation (absolute value of the ratio of radial forces produced by the spiral arms and the background, both evaluated at each point). According to that figure, our Galaxy, with $`i_p`$ $``$ 15, would require for a self-consistent model a relative force perturbation between 5 and 10$`\%`$. In our models the ratio $`M_S/M_D`$ was chosen within limits suggested by PC&G result. We take $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.0175, 0.03, and 0.05, which imply a peak relative force perturbation of approximately 6, 10, and 15$`\%`$, and average values over $`R`$ 111Notice that the force is a sensitive function of $`R`$. See Section 6 for a discussion on the consequences of that fact of approximately 3, 6, and 10$`\%`$, respectively.

Figure 5 plots the radial force produced by the spiral arms in our model and the corresponding relative force perturbation, as functions of galactocentric distance R. In this figure the mass ratio is $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.0175 and $`p_0`$(R) has the exponential fall with a scalelength of 2.5 kpc; similar results are found with the linear fall of $`p_0`$(R). In the left frames of the figure the model has the spiral locus in Figure 1; in the right frames the spiral locus is that of Figure 2. In each case, the radial force (scaled by the absolute value of the force given by the A&S model at the Solar position) and the relative force perturbation are given along two radial lines (we call these two lines the $`x^{}`$ and $`y^{}`$ axes, respectively; see Figure 10): the line passing through the starting points of the spiral arms (continuous curves in the figure), and the line at right angles (dotted curves in the figure). The radial force, in the upper frames, shows the sign changes along the two chosen radial directions. The relative force perturbation is shown in the lower frames. Similar figures are obtained in the cases $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.03 and 0.05, showing the corresponding peak values quoted above for the relative force perturbation.

We made a preliminary study of self-consistency in the models of Figure 5, using the two values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, 15 km s-1 kpc-1 and 20 km s-1 kpc-1. We followed the method of C&G86 to obtain the density response to the given spiral perturbation. This method assumes that the stars with orbits trapped around an unperturbed circular orbit, and with the sense of rotation of the spiral perturbation, are also trapped around the corresponding central periodic orbit in the presence of the perturbation. Thus, we computed a series of central periodic orbits, and found the density response along their extension, using the conservation of mass flux between any two successive orbits. The initial circular orbits were taken with a separation of 0.25 kpc. For more details see C&G86.

We found the position of the maxima density response along each periodic orbit, and thus the positions of the response maxima on the Galactic plane are known. These positions are to be compared with the center of the assumed spiral arms, i.e. the spiral locus.

Figure 6 illustrates some results. This figure shows the positions of the response maxima (black squares), along with the spiral arms (open squares), and the periodic orbits used in the method. Cases (a), (b), (c) have the spiral locus of Figure 2, and case (d) the spiral locus of Figure 1. The value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is 15 km s-1 kpc-1 in case (a), and 20 km s-1 kpc-1 in cases (b), (c), (d). The mass ratio is $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.0175 in cases (a), (b), (d), and $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.00875 in case (c).

Figure 6 shows that mostly the response maxima lag behind the spiral arms, as the galactocentric distance increases. This behavior has already been discussed by C&G88 and PC&G: the response maxima may lag behind or ahead the spiral arms, depending on its radial scalelength and strength, among other parameters. PC&G give a nonlinear self-consistent model for the spiral galaxy NGC 1087, in which the response maxima lag behind, and claim that this is consistent with observations. C&G88 show that if they consider a dispersion of velocities around the central periodic orbits, the displacement between the response maxima and the spiral arms diminishes, obtaining a better self-consistency.

Once we found the positions of the response maxima, with the density response along each central periodic orbit we computed the average density response $`\rho _{resp}`$ around each one of these positions, taking a circular vicinity of radius equal to the semi-axis $`a_0`$ of the spheroids in the model. We then compared $`\rho _{resp}`$ with the imposed density, i.e. the one proposed by the model. This imposed density, $`\rho _{mod}`$, is the sum of the A&S disk density on the Galactic plane and the central density of the spiral arms. $`\rho _{mod}`$ is computed $`along`$ the arms. The densities $`\rho _{resp}`$ and $`\rho _{mod}`$ are compared at a same galactocentric distance $`R`$, but the corresponding positions on the Galactic plane may differ in azimuth, as shown in Fig. 6.

Following C&G88 and A&L, we computed the ratio $`\rho _{resp}`$/$`\rho _{mod}`$ to analyze the self-consistency of the assumed spiral perturbation. This ratio should be close to 1. Figure 7 shows the value of this ratio for each case in Fig. 6. Figure 7(a), with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 15 km s-1 kpc-1, shows a high density response in the inner region where the spiral arms begin. This behavior has been discussed by C&G86 and C&G88. However, Figures 7(b),(c),(d), with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 20 km s-1 kpc-1, show a lower response in the inner region, making the ratio $`\rho _{resp}`$/$`\rho _{mod}`$ be closer to 1. Thus, in this preliminary analysis, we favor $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 20 km s-1 kpc-1. In contrast, A&L found (for their model) that the density response could not favor a specific value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$.

Case (c) in Fig. 7 shows a better self-consistency than case (b), which has twice the mass in the spiral arms. In both cases the density response differs strongly from the imposed density in the region around the distance (7 kpc) of the corresponding 4/1 resonance. Case (d), with the spiral locus of Fig. 1, appears to give an acceptable density response, even in the region of the 4/1 resonance.

The approximately self-consistent four models (a)-(d) of Figs. 6 and 7 have mass in the spiral arms seemingly in the lower limit of the interval (from Fig. 15 of PC&G) which an Sb galaxy like ours needs to sustain a nonlinear, self-consistent spiral perturbation. The analysis for self-consistency is also needed around the upper limit of the mass ratio $`M_S/M_D`$. As the method of C&G86 gives only approximate results (C&G88), this analysis and the preliminary results given above need to be reconsidered using the suggested improvements for self-consistency found by C&G88: it may be necessary to account for a population of orbits around the periodic orbits, with an appropriate velocity dispersion, and perhaps also the inclusion of four-armed spirals (A&L, Lépine, Mishurov, & Dedikov 2001). In a study currently underway, we are exploring the self-consistency of our models considering these components, with the mass ratio $`M_S/M_D`$ in the suggested interval, with other density laws in the oblate spheroids, and taking the dimensions $`a_0`$, $`c_0`$ as functions of galactocentric distance. A 3D orbital analysis as the one made by Patsis & Grosbøl (1996) would be also relevant in this procedure.

## 4 A COMPARISON WITH THE TIGHT-WINDING APPROXIMATION

In the tight-winding approximation for the spiral arms (e.g., Binney & Tremaine 1994), the potential at a given point is determined by the properties of the spiral arms in a small vicinity around the point. This approximation is given by Eq. (1) in the case of a two-armed spiral pattern. In our model, the potential at any point in space is obtained by summing the contributions of every element of mass along the spiral arms. Thus, a comparison of our model with the tight-winding model has some interest.

In Figure 8 we give the potential and radial force, scaled by the absolute value of the potential and radial force of the A&S model at the Solar position, of a model (continuous line) with the spiral locus in Figure 2, a mass ratio $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.0175, and an exponential fall of the central density in spheroids, $`p_0`$(R), with a radial scalelength of 2.5 kpc. We plot the potential and radial force of the spiral arms along three radial lines: the positive $`x^{}`$ axis (upper frames), and the lines at 60 (middle frames) and 120 (lower frames) from the $`x^{}`$ axis (in the direction toward the $`y^{}`$ axis). The dotted line shows the corresponding potential and radial force of a tight-winding model, i.e., Eq. (1), with the same spiral locus as in our model (Fig. 1), and with an amplitude f(R) (Eq. (1)) of the form considered by C&G86: f(R) = -AR$`e^{ϵ_sR}`$. In Figure 8 we take A = 450 km2 s-2 kpc-1 and $`ϵ_s`$ = 1/2.5 kpc-1 (that is, the same radial scalelength as in our model). The high 15.5 pitch angle of the spiral locus is not suitable for a rigorous comparison, but we see that our model cannot be well-approximated by a tight-winding model. Notice, for instance, in the upper right frame of Figure 8 the effect of the mass in the spiral arms inner to $``$ 8 kpc: the attraction of the whole spiral pattern requires that the point at which the radial force changes from negative to positive needs to be closer to the spiral arm around 8 kpc than in the tight-winding model. This accumulated negative radial force shifts the net force toward negative values in the outer regions.

In Figure 9 we compare the radial forces along the positive $`x^{}`$ axis, for models with a 3 pitch-angle, two-armed, spiral locus starting at 3.3 kpc. The continuous line gives our model with $`a_0`$ = 0.1 kpc, $`c_0`$ = 0.05 kpc, separation of spheroids’ centers of 0.05 kpc, a low mass ratio $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.001, and an exponential fall of $`p_0`$(R) with a radial scalelength of 2.5 kpc. The dashed line results from a tight-winding model with A = 9 km2 s-2 kpc-1 and $`ϵ_s`$ = 1/2.5 kpc-1. Both models are similar in the inner region, but as the galactocentric distance increases the effect mentioned above begins to be important. Even in this low-mass case, the attraction of all the mass in the spiral arms makes the radial force in the outer regions asymmetric around zero; in fact, at large distances this force (per unit mass) is -$`GM_S/R^2`$. In Section 6 we discuss briefly some consequences of these results, which must have important consequences to the gas dynamics.

## 5 ORBITAL ANALYSIS

As an application of our model, we have made a brief study of stellar orbits in the Galactic plane. Poincaré diagrams are presented, and discussed from the perspective of the sense of orbital motion defined in the Galactic inertial frame and its connection to the onset of stochastic motion. To investigate further the nature of chaotic motion apparent in Poincaré diagrams, we utilized additionally Lyapunov exponents (Wolf 1984).

### 5.1 Poincaré Diagrams and the Separatrix of Zero Angular Momentum

The orbital analysis is made in the non-inertial reference frame attached to the spiral pattern, labeled as the primed system of Cartesian coordinates $`(x^{},y^{},z^{})`$. As defined in Section 3, the $`x^{}`$ axis is taken as the line passing through the inner starting points of the spiral arms; the $`z^{}`$ axis is perpendicular to the Galactic plane, with its positive sense toward the north Galactic pole, and the $`y^{}`$ axis is such that the $`(x^{},y^{},z^{})`$ axes form a right-hand system. The angular velocity of the spiral arms, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, points in the negative direction of the $`z^{}`$ axis, i.e., a clockwise rotation.

In the Galactic plane the effective potential in the non-inertial frame is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}(x^{},y^{})=\mathrm{\Phi }_{AS}(x^{},y^{})+\mathrm{\Phi }_s(x^{},y^{})(1/2)\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2(x^2+y^2),$$
(5)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{AS}`$ the A&S potential and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s`$ the potential due to the spiral arms.

Figure 10 shows some equipotential curves $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}`$ = const. for the model with $`M_S/M_D=0.0175`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 20 km s-1 kpc-1, exponential fall of $`p_0`$(R), and the spiral locus in Figure 2 (i.e., $`i_p`$=15.5). Both figures 2 and 10 have the same orientation of the spiral pattern. The inertial $`x,y`$ and non-inertial $`x^{},y^{}`$ axes are shown in Figure 10. Each square traces the center of an oblate spheroid, and the islands in the equipotential curves appear at the corotation distance (10.9 kpc in this case).

A known integral of stellar motion in the non-inertial system is Jacobi’s expression $`E_J`$ = $`(1/2)\mathrm{v}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}`$, with $`𝐯^{}`$ the velocity in this system. Then the equipotential curves are curves of zero velocity for corresponding values of $`E_J`$. Figure 11 plots the value $`E_J`$ = $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}`$ on the positive $`x^{}`$ axis, for the model in Figure 10.

Poincaré diagrams were constructed following the usual procedure. We found the crossing points with the $`x^{}`$ axis of orbits with a given value of $`E_J`$, and made Poincaré diagrams $`x^{}`$ vs $`v_x^{}`$ for the crossing points having $`v_y^{}>0`$ . All the crossing points with $`v_y^{}<0`$ were incorporated in the $`v_y^{}>0`$ diagrams taking $`x^{}x^{}`$ , $`v_x^{}v_x^{}`$. We studied several models with a two-armed spiral pattern, taking combinations of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ (15 or 20 km s-1 kpc-1), $`i_p`$ (11 or 15.5), $`M_S/M_D`$ (0.0175, 0.03, or 0.05), and the function $`p_0`$ (linear or exponential). Also, we studied models with the $`six`$ spiral arms in Figure 3, taking combinations of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 20, 60 km s-1 kpc-1, $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.0175, 0.05, and an exponential function $`p_0`$. In all cases the orbits were computed with a Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm (Press et al. 1992), with a mean maximum error $`|(E_{J_{final}}E_{J_{initial}})/E_{J_{initial}}|`$ of order $`10^{12}`$, in runs with elapsed physical times of $`10^9`$ to $`10^{11}`$ years.

In this subsection we present Poincaré diagrams for models with the lower mass ratio $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.0175; results with $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.05 are presented in the next section.

Figure 12 shows Poincaré diagrams for the model of Figures 10 and 11, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 20 km s-1 kpc-1 and the spiral locus in Figure 2 ($`i_p`$=15.5). Values of $`E_J`$ were selected in the interval \[-1.8, -1.2\]$`\times `$ $`10^5`$ km2 s-2. In this and following figures each diagram was constructed with approximately fifty orbits. The boundary of the permitted region begins to open at the value $`E_J`$ of the island around the corotation distance (see Figure 10) to which the $`x^{}`$ axis is tangent. This value of $`E_J`$ is the maximum of the curve in Figure 11.

Figure 13 gives four Poincaré diagrams for a model with the six spiral arms in Figure 3, and again $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 20 km s-1 kpc-1. In this example the mass ratio for the two, K-band, spiral arms is $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.0175, and the total mass in the four optical arms has this same ratio; i.e. the total mass in the four optical arms is equal to the total mass in the two K-band arms.

In the two Poincaré diagrams shown in Figures 14 and 15, we keep the same spiral pattern arms as in Figure 13, but take the high pattern speed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 60 km s-1 kpc-1. Figure 16 shows some $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}`$ = const. curves for this case. The black squares give the four optical arms, and the open squares the two K-band arms. The $`x^{}`$ axis in this case of six arms is the starting line of the two K-band arms. The islands in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}`$ = const. curves appear at a lower corotation distance (c.f., Figure 10). Figure 17 gives $`E_J`$ = $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{eff}`$ on the positive $`x^{}`$ axis.

The orbital structure of Poincaré diagrams shown in Figures 12 to 15, is the usual structure obtained in studies of stellar orbits in spiral and barred galaxies (e.g., Contopoulos 1983, Athanassoula et al. 1983, Teuben & Sanders 1985). A dominant periodic orbit appears in the $`x^{}>0`$ side of each diagram, and in some cases (i.e., for a certain range in $`E_J`$) there is also a dominant periodic orbit on the $`x^{}<0`$ side. Rather than a detailed analysis of the orbital structure, what we wish to emphasize in these diagrams is the clear separation of two regions, each one containing orbits with a definite sense of rotation, prograde or retrograde, defined in the Galactic inertial frame. In our situation the spiral pattern moves in the clockwise sense; so the usual definition in the non-inertial frame (e.g., Athanassoula et al. 1983) would call prograde orbits those orbits crossing the $`x^{}<0`$ side, and retrograde orbits those crossing the $`x^{}>0`$ side. This definition is ambiguous, because the azimuthal velocity in the non-inertial frame may change sign along a given orbit. Thus, an orbit may be both prograde and retrograde (Contopoulos 1983). On the other hand, in the inertial frame, and for the considered range of strengths of the spiral perturbation, orbits maintain the sign of their azimuthal velocities, with the exception of orbits with angular momentum close to zero (as computed in this frame).

We define the sense of orbital rotation in the inertial frame, as follows: prograde if the azimuthal velocity is always of the same sign as the angular velocity of the spiral pattern, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$; and retrograde if the azimuthal velocity always has the opposite sign of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. With this definition, Poincaré diagrams show a sharp separation between the regions of prograde and retrograde orbits by a “curve” that we call the separatrix of zero angular momentum, which corresponds to orbits with nearly vanishing angular momentum in the inertial frame. In Figures 12 to 15, the separatrix is shown with darker spots. The orbits forming this “curve” would need to be computed over a longer time to fill it in the diagrams where it appears to be discontinuous.

The definition of sense of orbital motion in the inertial frame reveals that all orbits inside the region bounded by the separatrix are retrograde. Prograde orbits are outside this region. Prograde orbits may have points on both the $`x^{}>0`$ and $`x^{}<0`$ sides of a Poincaré diagram. Another way of saying this is that only prograde orbits may change their sense of motion in the rotating frame. The separatrix is the transition region between prograde and retrograde orbits in the inertial reference frame.

In Figure 15 the prograde region has orbits with appreciable chaotic motion. This behavior is discussed in more detail in the next subsection.

We have stressed above that the definition of sense of orbital rotation in the Galactic inertial frame is useful, as long as the strength of the spiral perturbation is not too high. From our study, the correlation chaos-prograde motion seems valid to our Galaxy. In the next section we analyze the orbital structure in the case of the higher mass ratio $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.05 still applicable to our Galaxy in our framework. We will see that the separatrix increases its width, i.e., the number of orbits which are both prograde and retrograde in the inertial frame increases. However, our definition still provides a clear separation of prograde and retrograde orbits. An interesting situation in which this definition apparently loses its usefulness is the case of lopsided galaxies considered by Noordermeer, Sparke, & Levine (2001). In this case it is expected that even in the inertial frame there is a wide region of orbits that are both prograde and retrograde.

Defining the sense of orbital motion in the inertial frame has a more physical connection with the character of orbits affected by a spiral perturbation. As we will see in the next section, the analysis of Poincaré diagrams based on this definition shows a connection with the onset of chaotic motion.

### 5.2 Exploring the Nature of Orbital Chaos

Orbital chaos has been found in potentials including spiral or bar perturbations (e.g., Contopoulos 1983, Athanassoula et al. 1983, Pfenniger 1984, Teuben & Sanders 1985, Fux 2001), and in other non-axisymmetric potentials (e.g., Alvarellos 1996; Noordermeer, Sparke, & Levine 2001). In this subsection we present some results related with the onset of chaotic stellar motion in our model, taking the higher mass ratio $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.05, which we consider applicable in our Galaxy. We find that as the mass ratio $`M_S/M_D`$ increases, the onset of orbital chaos always occurs outside the region bounded by the separatrix defined in the previous section, i.e., the prograde region. Furthermore, within the plausible range of $`M_S/M_D`$, chaos is entirely confined to the prograde region.

In Figure 18 we give a Poincaré diagram with $`E_J=1630\times 10^2\mathrm{km}^2\mathrm{s}^2`$, (previously shown in Figure 12, with $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.0175), and in Figure 19 a diagram with the same value of $`E_J`$, but now with $`M_S/M_D`$ = 0.05. In both cases the pattern speed is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 20 km s-1 kpc-1. A comparison of the two figures shows that increasing the strength of the spiral perturbation causes the separatrix to increase in width, and also some chaotic motion begins to appear on the $`x^{}<0`$ side in Figure 19, i.e., outside the region bounded by the separatrix.

To investigate the orbital chaos which appears in Figure 19, we did a Lyapunov exponents analysis following Wolf (1984), by calculating individual orbits in the diagram in Figure 19. The first Lyapunov exponent was calculated to classify orbits as chaotic or non-chaotic by applying the usual criterion for chaos, namely $`\lambda >0`$ for chaotic motion (which means that two orbits with very close initial conditions, will increase their relative distance as $`e^{\lambda t}`$, with $`t`$ the time), and $`\lambda 0`$ for regular motion (where the relative distance will be constant or decrease exponentially to zero). We found that the exponent $`\lambda `$ in the prograde region, in the scattered-points subregions, such as that marked with the number 1 in Figure 19, is always positive ($`.4`$) for each pair of orbits we tried, as expected for conservative chaos. On the other hand, this exponent is less than zero for orbits in the regular regions of the Poincaré diagram for both prograde and retrograde orbits (marked with numbers 2 and 3, respectively). Thus, chaotic motion is entirely confined to the prograde orbits (seen from the inertial frame) for plausible parameters for the spiral arms in the Galaxy.

If we further increase the mass ratio $`M_S/M_D`$, we find that chaotic motion is important for a range of values of $`E_J`$, and it spreads from the prograde region toward the retrograde region; This behavior was seen in previous orbital studies (e.g. Contopoulos 1983, Athanassoula et al. 1983, Teuben & Sanders 1985), although not linked with the sense of orbital motion defined in the inertial frame.

Figure 20 shows the effect which produces the addition of the four optical arms to the two K-band arms considered in Figure 19, the total mass in the optical arms being the same as the mass in the K-band arms. There are structural similarities between both diagrams (Figs. 19 and Fig. 20), but the main difference is the wider separatrix in Figure 20. In the separatrix the Lyapunov exponent is negative; thus, chaos is still confined to the prograde region.

In Figure 21 we give four Poincaré diagrams for the model with six spiral arms in Figure 20, but now with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 60 km s-1 kpc-1. The prograde and retrograde regions are separated by a narrow separatrix. The first three diagrams show non-chaotic motion within corotation distance (see Figures 4 and 16). The fourth diagram, in the lower right frame, shows pervasive chaos in a wide zone in the prograde region. This corresponds to stellar motion that can surpass the corotation barrier. The same behavior is obtained in the case shown in Figure 15, with a lower mass in the six spiral arms. This transition from regular to chaotic motion was also obtained by Fux (2001), who considered the Galactic bar as the perturbating agent.

All these results show that the onset of chaotic motion starts in the prograde region. The prime cause for chaotic motion is the onset of bifurcations and resonance interactions (Contopoulos 1967, Martinet 1974, Athanassoula et al. 1983, Athanassoula 2001). Regarding the resonance interactions, Figure 22 shows some important resonance curves for nearly circular retrograde orbits in the A&S Galactic model; in particular, with the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 20 km s-1 kpc-1 line given in the figure (corresponding to the pattern speed of a spiral perturbation rotating in the prograde sense), the corresponding resonance positions can be read on the R axis. Thus, resonances for retrograde orbits are more widely separated, as compared with the resonances for prograde orbits, some of which are shown in Figure 4; i.e., resonance interactions are more important in prograde orbits.

## 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We present a 3D model for a spiral mass distribution, consisting of inhomogeneous oblate spheroids superposed along a given spiral locus. The model is applied in particular to our Galaxy, but can easily be applied to spiral galaxies in general. Furthermore, it allows to look with a deeper physical insight into details that are inaccessible to the classical treatment of the spiral perturbation, which models it as a simple periodic function. Our model of oblate spheroids is physically simple and plausible, with continuous derivatives and density laws.

In our Galaxy, the model parameters, such as the number of spiral arms, its pitch angle, its radial extent, the pattern speed, the dimensions and mass density of the spheroids, and the total mass in the arms, were taken in a range of possibilities suggested by observations and theory.

In principle, the dimensions and mass density of the oblate spheroids will depend on the type of spiral arms which are modeled, gaseous or stellar. In this first work the adopted dimensions resemble those of gaseous spiral arms (Kennicutt & Hodge 1982), and a linear density law in the spheroids has been considered. We assembled Galactic models with two-armed spirals, such as the 15.5 pitch-angle, stellar arms discussed by Drimmel (2000), and with $`six`$ spiral arms: adding the four 12 pitch-angle, optical arms, delineated by luminous HII regions. From a range of possibilities, we considered three values of the pattern speed: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 15, 20, and 60 km s-1 kpc-1, and the ratio of the mass in the spiral arms to the disk’s mass in the A&S axisymmetric Galactic model, $`M_S/M_D`$, in the range 0.0175 to 0.05 . In this range of masses the average force due to the spiral arms is between 5 and 10 $`\%`$ of the background axisymmetric force.

In an effort to achieve a self-consistent model of the spiral perturbation in our Galaxy, we have used the well-known, approximate method of C&G86 to analyze the density response to this imposed perturbation. We have computed the density response in a Galactic potential with two spiral arms, taking the pattern speed as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ = 15 and 20 km s-1 kpc-1, and the mass ratio $`M_S/M_D`$ around the lower limit given above. Our nearly self-consistent models favor the pattern speed of 20 km s-1 kpc-1. However, this preliminary analysis must be improved at least accounting for (a) a hot stellar population around the central periodic orbits, (b) a four-armed, stellar, spiral pattern in the density response, in addition to the main two-armed component (A&L), and (c) a properly modeling of the dimensions of two-armed stellar spirals, as the K-band arms given by Drimmel (2000); this type of arms is azimuthally broad (Rix & Zaritsky 1995), thus an increase with galactocentric distance of the major semi-axis $`a_0`$ of spheroids would be appropriate. This analysis will be presented in a future work.

Modeling of the gravitational potential produced by a spiral perturbation has usually been based on the tight-winding approximation (TWA, Eq. 1). We have compared the potential and force fields of a two-armed spiral perturbation given by our model with a TWA model. We found that the self-gravity of the spiral pattern (i.e. contributions to the potential from the entire pattern), which is not accounted for in the TWA (which acts more like a local approximation), cause the local spiral potential to adopt shapes that are not correctly fit by the simple perturbing term that has been traditionally invoked to represent the local spiral potential. This fact may have far-reaching consequences; for instance, in the gas response to the spiral perturbation. We have performed modest 1D MHD simulations (Franco, Martos & Pichardo 2001) with the code Zeus to show the differences in the gas response using the conventional model of a cosine for the potential and the model presented in this work. These simulations show that shocks do not leave the arm downstream as in previous calculations (Baker & Barker 1974, Martos & Cox 1998) for a plausible range of entry speeds. And, in correspondence with observational expectations, shocks seek the upstream edge of the arm, i.e. the concave side inside corotation marked in optical observations of galaxies for accumulations of dust in the inner part of the spiral arms. The inclusion of the magnetic field is essential to this effect. In this manner, results based on the TWA should be revised: the gas response depends strongly on the position in the Galaxy. A potential “well” in the arm may disappear as such at a different segment of the arm.

In the analysis of Poincaré diagrams we found it is quite fruitful to use an inertial frame to define the prograde or retrograde sense of orbital motion around the Galactic center along with the usual definition in the non-inertial system, where the Poincaré diagrams are defined. In the inertial frame the sense of motion is preserved with time for almost every orbit in our experiments exception being orbits with nearly zero angular momentum. This property relies upon the parameters we consider plausible for our Galaxy. If we include information of the inertial system in the non-inertial one, Poincaré diagrams reveal that prograde and retrograde orbits, as defined in the inertial frame, occupy sharply separated regions, through a separatrix corresponding, loosely, to nearly zero angular momentum orbits in this system.

The definition of sense of orbital motion in the inertial frame goes beyond a mere matter of semantics, for it has a simple physical meaning and it appears to be intimately connected to the onset of chaos. Based on an analysis of Poincaré diagrams and the first Lyapunov exponent we find that, within plausible amplitudes and pitch angles of the spiral arms for a Galaxy such as the Milky Way (and independently of the number of arms chosen), if there is chaos, only prograde orbits can exhibit it, and for a sufficiently weak perturbation, as it seems to be the case in our Galaxy, the separatrix is a well-defined narrow curve. The onset and extension of chaotic subregions of the prograde region, depends on two main parameters that are the mass in the spiral arms or the relative force; and the angular velocity. We stress out the point that the standard definition in the rotating frame, which calls the $`x^{}>0`$ of the diagram the retrograde side, and $`x^{}<0`$ the prograde side (for a spiral pattern moving clockwise), would not have shed light onto the connection chaos-prograde motion, since the same orbit (ordered or chaotic) can occupy both sections of Poincaré diagrams. The different behavior regarding the onset of chaos of prograde and retrograde orbits, as defined in the inertial system, could be attributed to the overlapping of resonances (Contopoulos 1967, Athanassoula 2001). Figures 4 and 22 show that the spacing of the main resonances is wider for retrograde orbits, and is even smaller if we take higher angular velocities for the spiral pattern. In cases with the lower spiral masses ($`M_S/M_D.03`$), we do not find chaos for angular speeds of the spiral pattern lower than 20 km s-1 kpc-1. We have also computed some orbital families with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=60`$ km s-1 kpc-1 since n-body models predict thoses velocities (that corresponds to the bar), and we find that, even for the lowest spiral mass we considered, chaos appears for some families (Fig. 21, $`E_J=2150\times 10^2`$ km2 s-2), where almost all the prograde region is chaotic but chaos do not invade retrograde region. The inclusion of more than two spiral arms does not seem change dramatically the results (Figs. 19 for two arms and 20 for 6 arms). A minimum strength of the perturbation is required for the appearance of stochastic motion in the models with the lowest angular speeds (15 and 20 km s-1 kpc-1). We find that the amplitude of approximately 6$`\%`$ (in average) of the axisymmetric radial force is required (that corresponds in our model to a $`M_S/M_D.05`$ for a pitch angle of 15.5). For cases of very strong spiral perturbations (relative forces higher than 15$`\%`$) the separatrix is no longer a well-defined curve and chaos is pervasive. However we don’t think this spiral forcing is proper for a Sb galaxy.

It is worth noticing that our results are valid in the plausible range of parameters (and even in unrealistic cases with maximum relative forces for the spiral arms up to 15$`\%`$) in a galaxies similar to the Milky Way, with 2, 4 or 6 arms. However, our results will surely be altered by the influence of the Galactic bar. We are currently studying this effect.

## Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) under DGAPA-PAPIIT grants IN130698 and IN114001. Calculations were carried out using the Origin Silicon Graphics supercomputer of DGSCA-UNAM. We thank INAOE in Tonatzintla, México, for hosting the Guillermo Haro International Workshop 2001 (and very specially to our host, I. Puerari), where many discussions enriched this paper, and conversations with: P. Grosbøl, E. Athanassoula, M. Bureau, W. Dehnen, P. Teuben, J. Franco, H. Dottori, E. Alfaro and F. Masset. We are also indebted to comments from L. Sparke, D. Cox, G. Gómez-Reyes, C. Allen, I. King and S. Kurtz.


format: text

text:
# The Lie algebra cohomology of jets11footnote 1MSC subject classification 17B56, 17B65. Written while holding a research fellowship at the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy and the Max-Planck Institut für mathematik, Bonn, Germany.

## 1 Introduction

Let g be a complex semi-simple Lie algebra. In this paper, we shall calculate the cohomology of the Lie algebra $`z\text{g}[[z]]`$ of formal power series (with vanishing constant term) by an infinite dimensional analog of the method described in the paper by B. Kostant .

The Lie algebras of interest in Kostant’s paper are nilpotent Lie subalgebras n of a finite dimensional semi-simple Lie algebra g. Kostant identifies the cohomology of n with the kernel of the Laplace operator on the cochains of n. The cochains of n can be identified with a summand in the cochains of the larger algebra g, and Kostant defines an operator $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ on the cochains of g which restricts to the Laplace operator on the cochains of n. Calculating the kernel of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$, which turns out to be easier than a direct calculation of the Laplacian on the Lie algebra cochains of the nilpotent Lie algebra, yields the cohomology of the Lie subalgebra.

The Lie algebra $`\text{a}=z\text{g}[[z]]`$ with which we are concerned, is an infinite dimensional topologically nilpotent subalgebra of the algebra $`\text{g}[[z]][z^1]`$ of formal loops in g. We would like to emulate Kostant’s method in the following way. First we will define and describe a graded complex of “semi-infinite forms”. On this complex, we will define an operator $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$. The Lie algebra cochains of a will be shown to be a subcomplex of the semi-infinite forms. It will be proved that the operator $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ restricts to the Laplacian on the subcomplex. We will then give an explicit formula for $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$, which will finally enable us to calculate its kernel and give a description of the cohomology of a.

The final result of this paper follows already from the theorem of H. Garland and J. Lepowsky . However, they make use of the weak Berstein-Gelfand-Gelfand resolution and do not concern themselves with an explicit description of the Laplacian on the Lie algebra cochains. The calculation in this paper gives us an explicit formula, and is also useful in connection with the smooth cochain cohomology of loop groups, which I hope to discuss in a separate paper. The discussion also relates the cohomology to semi-infinite cohomology which is of independent interest. Finally, I believe the translation of Kostant’s result into an infinite dimensional setting is appealing in itself, because it illustrates the power of his method.

To be precise, we will describe the Lie algebra a in the following way: let $`G`$ be a compact connected simply connected real Lie group. Let g denote the Lie algebra of $`G`$. Consider the Lie algebra A consisting of Laurent polynomials of the form

$$\underset{p𝐙}{}A_pz^p$$

where $`p`$ runs over the integers, $`A_p`$ is in the complexification $`\text{g}_𝐂`$ of g, and such that $`A_p=0`$ for all but finite number of $`p`$’s. Given $`A={\displaystyle \underset{p𝐙}{}}A_pz^p`$ and $`B={\displaystyle \underset{p𝐙}{}}B_pz^p`$, the Lie bracket is

$$[A,B]=\underset{p,q𝐙}{}[A_p,B_q]z^{p+q}.$$

Note that A can be decomposed as

$$\text{A}=\overline{\text{a}}\text{g}_𝐂\text{a}$$

where $`\overline{\text{a}}`$ is the Lie algebra consisting of elements of the form $`{\displaystyle \underset{k<0}{}}A_kz^k`$, and a is the Lie algebra consisting of elements of the form $`{\displaystyle \underset{k>0}{}}A_kz^k`$. We would like to calculate the cohomology of a where we consider the $`p`$th degree cochains $`A^{}(\text{a})`$ of the Lie algebra to be complex multi-linear continuous maps

$$\text{a}\times \mathrm{}\times \text{a}𝐂.$$

The Lie algebra a can be related to the real Lie algebra quotient J of the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{\Omega }\text{g}`$ of based loops in g by those whose derivatives vanish to infinite order. The Lie algebra J can be identified with the Lie algebra of jets of loops at the based point. The cochains on the complexification of J is a subspace of the cochains on a and the inclusion induces an isomorphism on the level of cohomology. We will come back to all this with some more detail at the end of this paper.

In Section 2 we will describe the semi-infinite forms on A and introduce an operator $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ on these forms. We will also prove that $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ restricts to the Laplacian on the cochains of a. Then, in section 3, we will write down an explicit formula for $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$, which will enable us to calculate the kernel of the Laplacian. Section 4 will summarise the results following from the formula for the Laplacian. Finally, in section 5, we will discuss the relationship between a and the loop group of $`G`$.

Before, beginning the next section, I would like to make a comment on notation. There will be many infinite sums in this paper. To avoid ambiguity, every effort has been made to keep track of indices over which the sum is to be taken. However, it is to be understood that, as a rule, repeated indices will be summed overthe integers unless a restriction has been indicated.

## 2 Semi-infinite forms

We will first define the cochain complex of “semi-infinite forms” on A. This definition follows the one found in  (Section 1).

Let $`c`$ be the coxeter number of g. Let $`,`$ be the $`\frac{1}{2c}`$ times the Killing form. Choose an orthonormal basis $`\{\alpha _i\}_i`$ of $`\text{g}_𝐂`$ with respect to $`,`$. Let $`e_{i,k}=\alpha _iz^k`$. Then $`\{e_{i,k}\}_{i,k}`$ form a basis of A. Denote by $`e^{i,k}`$ the basis element of the dual $`\text{A}^{}`$. Let us order the basis elements $`e^{i,k}`$ lexicographically, i.e.

$$e^{i,k}<e^{j,l}\text{ if }k<l,\text{ or }k=l\text{ and }i<j.$$

For temporary convenience, let us use this ordering to re-index the basis elements by a single index $`\{e_i\}`$ and the dual basis $`\{e^i\}`$.

Define the space $`_{\mathrm{}}^d(\text{A})`$ of semi-infinite forms of degree $`d`$ as the space spanned by formal symbols of the form $`\omega =e^{i_1}e^{i_2}\mathrm{}e^{i_p}\mathrm{}`$ such that there exist $`N(\omega )𝐙`$ for each $`\omega `$, so that, for all $`p>N(\omega )`$, $`i_p=pd`$ and such that

$$e^{i_1}e^{i_2}\mathrm{}e^{i_{p1}}e^{i_{p+1}}e^{i_p}e^{i_{p+2}}\mathrm{}$$

$$=e^{i_1}e^{i_2}\mathrm{}e^{i_p}\mathrm{}.$$

Note that elements in $`_{\mathrm{}}^{}=_d_{\mathrm{}}^d`$ are bi-graded: besides the grading by the degree there is a second grading by the energy where the energy of $`\omega `$ is defined as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p(i_pp+d)`$.

Given any $`x={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_ie_i`$ in A and $`x^{}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_ie^i`$ in $`\text{A}^{}`$, we can define operators $`\iota (x)`$ and $`ϵ(x^{})`$ by

$$\iota (x)(e^{i_1}\mathrm{}e^{i_p}\mathrm{})$$

$$=\underset{p,i}{}(1)^{p1}x_ie^{i_p}(e_i)e^{i_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{e}^{i_p}\mathrm{}$$

where $`\widehat{e}^{i_p}`$ means that the term will be omitted, and

$$ϵ(\underset{i}{}x_ie^i)(e^{i_1}\mathrm{}e^{i_p}\mathrm{})$$

$$=\underset{i}{}x_ie^ie^{i_1}\mathrm{}e^{i_p}\mathrm{}.$$

In order to simplify the notation, we will write $`\iota (e_{i,k})`$ and $`ϵ(e^{i,k})`$ as $`\iota _{i,k}`$ and $`ϵ^{i,k}`$ respectively. These operators serve to define $`_{\mathrm{}}^{}(\text{A})`$ as a module of the Clifford algebra on $`\text{A}\text{A}^{}`$ associated to the pairing $`<x,x^{}>`$ for $`x\text{A}`$ and $`x^{}\text{A}^{}`$. That is, the anti-commutator $`[\iota _{i,k},ϵ^{j,m}]_+=\delta _{ij}\delta _{km}`$, where $`\delta _{ij}=0`$ if $`ij`$ and $`\delta _{ii}=1`$.

Let

$$:\iota _{i,k}ϵ^{j,m}:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\iota _{i,k}ϵ^{j,m}\hfill & \text{ if }k0,\hfill \\ ϵ^{j,m}\iota _{i,k}\hfill & \text{ if }k>0\hfill \end{array}$$

For each $`x\text{Lg}_𝐂`$, there is an operator $`(x)`$ on $`_{\mathrm{}}^{}(\text{A})`$, defined by

$$(e_{i,k})=C_{iq}^p:\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,sk}:$$

where $`C_{iq}^p`$ are the structure constants with respect to the basis $`\{\alpha _p\}`$, i.e.,

$$[\alpha _i,\alpha _q]=\underset{p}{}C_{iq}^p\alpha _p.$$

Since we had taken an orthonormal basis with respect to the killing form, the structural constants $`C_{iq}^p`$ are anti-symetric in the three indexes $`i,p,q`$. This, along with the identity $`[\iota _{i,k},ϵ^{j,m}]_+=\delta _{ij}\delta _{km}`$, implies that we could just as well have written $`(e_{i,k})={\displaystyle C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,sk}}`$. Again, we will simplify $`(e_{i,k})`$ to $`_{i,k}`$. Note

###### Proposition 2.1

The commutator $`[\iota _{j.m},_{i,k}]`$ is given by

$$[\iota _{j,m},_{i,k}]=\underset{p}{}C_{ij}^p\iota _{p,m+k}.$$

Proof: Note that

$$[\iota _{j,m},_{i,k}]=[\iota _{j,m},\underset{q,p,s}{}C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,sk}]$$

$$=\underset{p,q,s}{}C_{iq}^p[\iota _{j,m},\iota _{p,s}]_+ϵ^{q,sk}\underset{p,q,s0}{}C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}[\iota _{j,m},ϵ^{q,sk}]_+$$

$$=\underset{p,q,s0}{}C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}\delta _{jq}\delta _{m(sk)}$$

$$\underset{p,q,s>0}{}C_{iq}^p\delta _{jq}\delta _{m(sk)}\iota _{p,s}$$

$$=\underset{p}{}C_{ij}^p\iota _{p,k+m}$$

Likewise, it is just as easy to see that $`[ϵ^{j,m},_{i,k}]={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}C_{iq}^jϵ^{q,mk}`$. Although we have written simply $`(e_{i,k})={\displaystyle C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,sk}}`$ in the proof above, note that one must becareful when calculating commutators of infinite sums: given a infite sum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{\mathrm{}}a_i`$ which converges, its commutator with an element $`b`$ may not be $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{\mathrm{}}[a_i,b]`$ because the latter may not converge. This is why in Lemma 2.1 below, we have re-introduced the normal ordering.

###### Proposition 2.2

The operators $`_{i,k}`$ define a projective representation of A on $`_{\mathrm{}}^{}(\text{A})`$.

Proof of Proposition 2.2: This follows immediately from the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.1

The commutator $`[_{i,k},_{j,m}]`$ is given by

$$[_{i,k},_{j,m}]=([e_{i,k},e_{j,m}]),$$

if $`mk`$, and,

$$[_{i,k},_{j,k}]=([e_{i,k},e_{j,k}])+2c\delta _{ij}k.$$

Proof: Assume that $`m0`$(if $`m0`$, we merely need to replace $`m`$ by $`m`$). Note that

$$[_{i,k},_{j,m}]=[\underset{q,p,s}{}C_{iq}^p:\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,sk}:,_{j,m}]$$

$$=[\underset{s>0}{}C_{iq}^pϵ^{q,sk}\iota _{p,s},_{j,m}]+[\underset{s0}{}C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,sk},_{j,m}]$$

$$=\underset{s>0}{}C_{iq}^p[ϵ^{q,sk},_{j,m}]\iota _{p,s}\underset{s>0}{}C_{iq}^pϵ^{q,sk}[\iota _{p,s},_{j,m}]$$

$$+\underset{s0}{}C_{iq}^p[\iota _{p,s},_{j,m}]ϵ^{q,sk}+\underset{s0}{}C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}[ϵ^{q,sk},_{j,m}]$$

$$=\underset{s>0}{}C_{iq}^pC_{jn}^qϵ^{n,skm}\iota _{p,s}+\underset{s>0}{}C_{iq}^pC_{jp}^nϵ^{q,sk}\iota _{n,s+m}$$

$$\underset{s0}{}C_{iq}^pC_{jp}^n\iota _{n,s+m}ϵ^{q,sk}+\underset{s0}{}C_{iq}^pC_{jn}^q\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{n,skm}$$

$$=\underset{p,q,n}{}C_{iq}^pC_{jn}^q:\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{n,skm}:\underset{p,q,n}{}C_{in}^qC_{jq}^p:\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{n,skm}:$$

$$\underset{0<sm}{}C_{in}^qC_{jq}^p[\iota _{p,s},ϵ^{n,skm}]_+$$

(Recall $`m0`$. Note that the last term vanishes if $`m=0`$.) Since $`[e_{i,k},e_{j,m}]=[\alpha _i,\alpha _j]z^{k+m}`$, we have

$$([e_{i,k},e_{j,m}])=\underset{q}{}C_{ij}^q_{q,k+m}$$

$$=\underset{p,q,s}{}C_{ij}^qC_{qn}^p:\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{n,skm}:.$$

In terms of structure constants, the Jacobi identity for $`\text{g}_𝐂`$ translates into

$$\underset{q}{}(C_{ij}^qC_{qn}^p+C_{jn}^qC_{qi}^p+C_{ni}^qC_{qj}^p)=0.$$

Then

$$[_{i,k},_{j,m}]([e_{i,k},e_{j,m}])=\underset{p,q,n}{}C_{iq}^pC_{jn}^q:\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{n,skm}:$$

$$\underset{p,q,n}{}C_{in}^qC_{jq}^p:\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{n,skm}:\underset{0<sm}{}C_{in}^qC_{jq}^p[\iota _{p,s},ϵ^{n,skm}]_+$$

$$\underset{p,q,n}{}C_{ij}^qC_{qn}^p\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{n,skm}$$

$$=\underset{0<sm}{}C_{in}^qC_{jq}^p[\iota _{p,s},ϵ^{n,skm}]_+.$$

This shows that, unless $`p=n`$ and $`k=m`$,

$$[_{i.k},_{j,m}]([e_{i,k},e_{j,m}])=0,$$

and, when $`k=m`$, $`p=n`$, we have

$$[_{i,k},_{j,k}]([e_{i,k},e_{j,k}])=k\underset{q,n}{}C_{in}^qC_{jq}^n.$$

But, $`{\displaystyle \underset{q,n}{}}C_{in}^qC_{jq}^n=2c\alpha _i,\alpha _j`$. The identity obviously does not depend on the assumption that $`m>0`$.

Since we had chosen an orthonormal basis with respect to $`,`$, $`{\displaystyle \underset{q,n}{}}C_{in}^qC_{jq}^n`$ is only non-zero when $`i=j`$, and

$$([e_{i,k},e_{i,k}])=0.$$

Thus

$$[_{i,k},_{i,k}]=2ck.$$

This concludes the proof of Lemma 2.1.

###### Remark 2.1

Note that the projective representation of A, when restricted to g, becomes a genuine representation which determines an action of $`G`$. There is also a natural rotation action of the circle $`𝐓`$ on loops which defines an action of $`𝐓\times G`$ on the semi infinite forms.

Define $`d:_{\mathrm{}}^{}_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ which increases degree by $`1`$ by

$$d=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,k}{}_{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}.$$
(1)
Although $`d`$ is expressed as a sum over all integers $`k`$, as an operator on any element of $`_{\mathrm{}}^{}(\text{A})`$, only finite number of its terms will be non zero, because, for any element $`\omega `$ in $`_{\mathrm{}}^{}(\text{A})`$, there is an integer $`N`$ such that $`\omega `$ will be annihilated by $`ϵ^{i,k}`$ for $`k<N`$. Also, note that because of our choice of basis $`_{i,k}`$ and $`ϵ^{i,k}`$ commutes, hence it doesn’t matter in which order we write it. Consider the $`twisted`$ operator

$$\stackrel{~}{d}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,k}{}s_k_{i,k}ϵ^{i,k},$$

where $`s_k=1`$ when $`k>0`$ and $`s_k=1`$ when $`k0`$. Take the adjoint $`\stackrel{~}{d}^{}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ and let $`\stackrel{~}{L}=\stackrel{~}{d}^{}d+d\stackrel{~}{d}^{}`$. Define

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=e^{n,0}e^{n1,0}\mathrm{}e^{1,0}e^{n,1}\mathrm{}$$

(recall that $`n`$ is the dimension of $`\text{g}_𝐂`$). Call this the vacuum vector of $`_{\mathrm{}}^{}(\text{A})`$. The Lie algebra cochains $`A^{}(\text{a})`$ can be identified with a subspace of $`_{\mathrm{}}^{}(\text{A})`$ by the map $`aϵ(a)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The main statement of this section is the following.

###### Proposition 2.3

The operator $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ restricts to the ordinary Laplacian $`L=d^{}d+dd^{}`$ on $`A^{}(\text{a})`$.

Proof: The proposition follows from the following two lemmas.

###### Lemma 2.2

The operator $`d`$ restricts to the ordinary Lie algebra differential (which we will also denote $`d`$) on the subspace $`A^{}(\text{a})_{\mathrm{}}^{}(\text{A})`$.

###### Lemma 2.3

The adjoint $`\stackrel{~}{d}^{}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ restricts to the adjoint $`d^{}`$ of the ordinary Lie algebra differential $`d`$ on $`A^{}(\text{a})_{\mathrm{}}^{}(\text{A})`$.

Proof of Lemma 2.2: We need only prove two things. First we will prove that

$$d(\alpha \omega )=d(\alpha )\omega \pm \alpha d(\omega )$$
(2)
for $`\alpha ^{}(\text{a}^{})`$ and $`\omega _{\mathrm{}}^{}(\text{A})`$, where the sign depends on the degree of $`\alpha `$. Then we will prove that

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }=0.$$
(3)
This will give us Lemma 2.2 since it will prove that, for $`\alpha ^{}(\text{a})`$,

$$d(ϵ(\alpha )\mathrm{\Omega })=ϵ(d(\alpha ))\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

Identity 2 follows, with a bit of calculation, from the fact that $`ϵ^{i,k}`$ anti commutes with any other $`ϵ^{j,m}`$ and the fact that $`[ϵ^{j,m},_{i,k}]={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}C_{iq}^jϵ^{q,mk}`$. On the other hand,

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,k}{}_{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

By the definition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the only possible non-zero terms are the ones for which $`k>0`$. Recall that $`_{i,k}`$ and $`ϵ^{i,k}`$ commutes, so, all we need to show is that $`_{i,k}\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ for $`k>0`$. But,

$$_{i,k}=\underset{p,q,s}{}C_{iq}^p:\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,sk}:$$

$$=\underset{s0,p,q}{}C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,sk}$$

$$\underset{s>0,p,q}{}C_{iq}^pϵ^{q,sk}\iota _{p,s}$$

is zero on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ since $`ϵ^{q,sk}`$ is zero on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if $`s0`$ and $`\iota _{p,s}`$ is zero on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if $`s>0`$. This concludes the proof of Lemma 2.2.

Proof of Lemma 2.3: For $`c_1A^{}(\text{a})`$ and $`c_2_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{d}^{}(c_1\mathrm{\Omega }),c_2=c_1\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{~}{d}(c_2)$$

$$=c_1\mathrm{\Omega },\frac{1}{2}\underset{k0}{}_{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}(c_2)+\frac{1}{2}\underset{k>0}{}_{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}(c_2)$$

Since all other terms will be killed, we may assume that $`c_2`$ is a linear combination of elements of type $`c_3\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and elements of type $`c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m}`$ is the vacuum vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`e^{j,m}`$ missing and $`c_3,c_4^{}(\text{a}^{})`$. It is enough to show that

$$\stackrel{~}{d}^{}(c_1\mathrm{\Omega }),c_3\mathrm{\Omega }=d^{}(c_1)\mathrm{\Omega },c_3\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(4)
and that

$$\stackrel{~}{d}^{}(c_1\mathrm{\Omega }),c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m}=0.$$

For $`k0`$, $`_{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}(c_3\mathrm{\Omega })=0`$ and

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{k>0}{}_{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}(c_3\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k>0}{}C_{iq}^p:\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,sk}:ϵ^{i,k}(c_3\mathrm{\Omega })$$

The sum is over all $`p,q,s,i`$ as well as $`k>0`$. Note that, since $`k>0`$, the terms, for which $`s0`$, are zero (the operator $`ϵ^{q,sk}`$ is zero on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$). So,

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{k>0}{}_{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}(c_3\mathrm{\Omega })=d(c_3\mathrm{\Omega })$$

Hence,

$$\stackrel{~}{d}^{}(c_1\mathrm{\Omega }),c_3\mathrm{\Omega }=d^{}(c_1\mathrm{\Omega }),c_3\mathrm{\Omega }=d^{}(c_1)\mathrm{\Omega },c_3\mathrm{\Omega }$$

(the last equality follows from identity 2 and identy 3), which proves the identity 4. On the other hand,

$$\stackrel{~}{d}(c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m})$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k0}{}_{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}(c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m})+\frac{1}{2}\underset{k>0}{}_{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}(c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m})$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k0}{}_{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}(c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m})+\frac{1}{2}\underset{k>0}{}_{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}(c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m})$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k0,s>0}{}C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,s+k}ϵ^{i,k}(c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m})+\frac{1}{2}\underset{k>0,s>0}{}C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,sk}ϵ^{i,k}(c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m}).$$

Note that, if $`s0`$ then the only non-zero terms in $`{\displaystyle \underset{k>0}{}}C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,s+k}ϵ^{i,k}(c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m})`$ or in
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k>0}{}}C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,sk}ϵ^{i,k}(c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m})`$ which are in $`A^{}(\text{a})`$ are the ones where $`p=q`$ or $`p=i`$. Since we have chosen an orthonormal basis of g, these terms are zero. Now,

$$\underset{k>0,s>0}{}C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,sk}ϵ^{i,k}(c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m})$$

$$=\underset{s>0}{}\underset{k>s}{}C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,k}ϵ^{i,s+k}(c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m})$$

Therefore,

$$\stackrel{~}{d}(c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m})=\underset{s>0}{}\underset{0>k>s}{}C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,k}ϵ^{i,s+k}(c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m})$$

But, for $`s<k0`$, $`\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,k}ϵ^{i,s+k}(c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m})`$ can not be contained in $`A^{}(\text{a})`$, because $`c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m}`$ is missing $`e^{i,k}`$ for some $`k<0`$ and $`\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,k}ϵ^{i,s+k}`$ can not replace this missing element. Hence,

$$\stackrel{~}{d}^{}(c_1\mathrm{\Omega }),c_4\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,m}=0,$$

concluding the proof of Lemma 2.3.

The results in this section show that, to calculate the Lie algebra cohomology of a, we need only find the kernel of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$. Since the semi-infinite forms are acted on by $`𝐓\times G`$ (Remark 2.1), we know that the cochains of a are acted on by $`𝐓\times G`$. In fact we will shortly see that $`_{i,0}`$ for each $`i`$ commutes with the operator $`d`$ and, hence, the action of $`𝐓\times G`$ on the cochains induces an action on the cohomology. It follows that the cohomology can be written as a sum of irreducible representations of $`𝐓\times G`$. The exact nature of the decomposition will follow from the explicit formula for $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ which will be given in the next section.

## 3 The calculation for the operator $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$

The main aim of this section is to find a convenient expression of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ which will enable us to calculate its kernel.

###### Proposition 3.1

The Laplacian $`[d,\stackrel{~}{d}^{}]_+`$ is given by

$$[d,\stackrel{~}{d}^{}]_+=\underset{k>0}{}ckϵ^{i,k}\iota _{i,k}\underset{k<0}{}ck\iota _{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}_{i,0}^2.$$

Proof\* of Proposition 3.1: First note that

$$[d,\stackrel{~}{d}^{}]_+=[d,\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,k}{}s_k\iota _{i,k}_{i,k}]_+$$

$$=[d,\frac{1}{2}(\underset{k>0}{}\iota _{i,k}_{i,k}\underset{i,k<0}{}\iota _{i,k}_{i,k}\underset{i}{}\iota _{i,0}_{i,0})]_+$$

This is equal to

$$\frac{1}{2}(\underset{k>0}{}[d,\iota _{i,k}]_+_{i,k}\underset{k>0}{}\iota _{i,k}[d,_{i,k}])$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}(\underset{k<0}{}[d,\iota _{i,k}]_+_{i,k}\underset{k<0}{}\iota _{i,k}[d,_{i,k}])$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}(\underset{i}{}[d,\iota _{i,0}]_+_{i,0}\underset{i}{}\iota _{i,0}[d,_{i,0}])$$
(5)
To resolve this equation, it is just a matter of identifying $`[d,\iota _{i,k}]_+`$ and $`[d,_{i,k}]`$. Given a Lie group and its Lie algebra, the infinitesimal action of the Lie algebra on the Lie group can be expressed as the Lie derivative which can be written as the anti-commutator of the differential and the interior product with respect to the vector fields in the Lie algebra. The operator $`_{i,k}`$, with the given basis, on the semi-infinite forms can likewise be expressed as $`_{i,k}=[\iota _{i,k},d]_+`$. This easily follows from the definition of $`d`$ and the anti-commutators and commutators calculated in the previous section. Substituting this into $`[_{i,k},d]`$, and using the Jacobi identity, it is an easy calculation to see that

$$[_{i,k},d]=[\iota _{i,k},d^2].$$

We claim that

###### Lemma 3.1

The square $`d^2`$ can be expressed as

$$d^2=\underset{k>0,i}{}2ckϵ^{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}$$

Lemma 3.1 would imply that

$$[_{i,k},d]=2ckϵ^{i,k}.$$

From this, we see that

$$[d,_{i,k}]=2ckϵ^{i,k}.$$
(6)
Substituting 6 and the identity for $`[\iota _{i,k},d]_+`$ in 5, we have

$$[d,\stackrel{~}{d}^{}]_+$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k>0}{}(_{i,k}_{i,k}2ck\iota _{i,k}ϵ^{i,k})$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\underset{k<0}{}(_{i,k}_{i,k}2ck\iota _{i,k}ϵ^{i,k})$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}_{i,0}_{i,0}$$

Using the commutation rules for $`_{i,k},\iota _{i,k}`$ and $`ϵ_{i,k}`$, we have

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{k>0}{}(_{i,k}_{i,k}k\iota _{i,k}ϵ^{i,k})$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k>0}{}(2ck+_{i,k}_{i,k}2ck+2ckϵ^{i,k}\iota _{i,k})$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k>0}{}(_{i,k}_{i,k}+2ckϵ^{i,k}\iota _{i,k})$$

Hence,

$$[d,\stackrel{~}{d}^{}]_+=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k<0}{}_{i,k}_{i,k}\frac{1}{2}\underset{k>0}{}_{i,k}_{i,k}$$

$$\underset{k>0}{}ckϵ^{i,k}\iota _{i,k}\underset{k<0}{}ck\iota _{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}_{i,0}_{i,0}$$

$$=\underset{k>0}{}ckϵ^{i,k}\iota _{i,k}\underset{k<0}{}ck\iota _{i,k}ϵ^{i,k}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}_{i,0}^2.$$

To complete the proof of Proposition 3.1, we need only prove Lemma 3.1.

Proof of Lemma 3.1: First of all, we will prove that $`d^2`$ is a homomorphism on the $`^{}(\text{a})`$ module $`_{\mathrm{}}^{}(\text{A})`$. To see this, all we need to show is that

$$[d^2,ϵ(\alpha )]=0$$

for any $`\alpha (\text{a})`$. In fact,

$$[d,ϵ(\alpha )]_+=\text{ multiplication by }d(\alpha )$$

so,

$$[d,[d,ϵ(\alpha )]_+]=\text{ multiplication by }d(d(\alpha )).$$

(Note, $`d(d(\alpha ))=0`$.) But

$$[d^2,ϵ(\alpha )]=\frac{1}{2}[d,[d,\alpha ]_+]=0$$

Now let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ be the element in $`_{\mathrm{}}=_{\mathrm{}}^{}(\text{A})`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_k=e^{1,k}\mathrm{}e^{n,k}e^{1,k1}\mathrm{}e^{n,k1}\mathrm{}$$

($`n`$ is the dimension of $`\text{g}_𝐂`$) and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denote the exterior algebra $`(\text{A})`$. Then

$$_{\mathrm{}}\text{ }=\underset{k}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_k,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ denotes all elements of the form $`ϵ(\alpha )\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Let $`I_k`$ be ideal of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ generated by the elements $`e^{a,m}`$ for $`mk`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/I_k`$ module. Hence, $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ is actually a $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ module where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is the direct limit of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/I_k`$ as $`k`$ runs over the positive integers. We will prove the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.2

If $`T`$ is an even degree homomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules then $`T`$ is multiplication by an element $`\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ of even degree.

Proof: Note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ consists of all the elements $`\xi `$ of $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`ϵ(\alpha )\xi =0`$ for all $`\alpha I_k`$. This shows that $`T(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_k)\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }`$, because $`T`$ is a homomorphism on a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/I_k`$ module $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ and therefore, for all $`\alpha I_k`$

$$ϵ(\alpha )T(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_k)=T(ϵ(\alpha )\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_k)=0.$$

In fact, for each $`k`$, $`T`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ as multiplication by an element $`\alpha _k\mathrm{\Lambda }/I_k`$, where

$$T(\mathrm{\Omega }_k)=\alpha _k\mathrm{\Omega }_k.$$

But,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_k=\omega _k\mathrm{\Omega }_{k1},$$

where $`\omega _k=e^{1,k}\mathrm{}e^{n,k}`$. So,

$$\alpha _k\mathrm{\Omega }_k$$

$$=T(\mathrm{\Omega }_k=T(\omega _k\mathrm{\Omega }_{k1})=\omega _kT(\mathrm{\Omega }_{k1})=\omega _k\alpha _{k1}\mathrm{\Omega }_{k1}$$

$$=\alpha _{k1}\omega _k\mathrm{\Omega }_{k1}=\alpha _{k1}\mathrm{\Omega }_k.$$

That means that $`\alpha _k=\alpha _{k1}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/I_k`$. So $`\{\alpha _k\}`$ defines an element of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, concluding the proof of the lemma.

The lemma proves that $`d^2`$ is multiplication by some element $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. But,

$$[\iota _{i,k},[\iota _{j,m},d^2]]_+=[\iota _{i,k},(_{j,m}dd_{j,m}]$$

$$=[\iota _{i,k},_{j,m}]d+_{j,m}_{i,k}_{i,k}_{j,m}+d[\iota _{i,k},_{j,m}]$$

$$=\underset{p}{}C_{ij}^p_{p,k+m}[_{i,k},_{j,m}]$$

$$=\delta _{ij}\delta _{k,m}2ck.$$

Suppose $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }={\displaystyle \underset{s,t,u,v}{}}f_{s,t,u,v}e^{s,u}e^{t,v}`$. With a bit of calculation we will be able to see that

$$[\iota _{i,k},[\iota _{j,m},ϵ(\stackrel{~}{\omega })]]_+=2f_{ijkm}.$$

So,

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }=cke^{i,k}e^{i,k}$$

$$=\underset{k>0}{}2cke^{i,k}e^{i,k}.$$

The formula of Proposition 3.1 shows that $`_{i,0}`$ commutes with the Laplacian. This proves that on an irreducible representations of g the Laplacian acts by a scalar. Hence, we need only check how it acts on lowest weight vectors, which bring us to the main theorem of the paper.

###### Theorem 3.1

The twisted Laplacian $`\stackrel{~}{L}=[d,\stackrel{~}{d}^{}]_+`$ defined above acts on a irreducible representation $`VA^q(\text{a})`$ of $`𝐓\times G`$($`𝐓`$ is the group of rotations) with lowest weight $`\lambda `$ by

$$\rho ,\lambda +\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\frac{1}{2}2ck$$

where $`k`$ is the energy of the lowest weight vector, and $`\rho `$ is the half sum of the positive roots of $`G`$.

Proof: Given the identity 2, to determine how $`[d,\stackrel{~}{d}^{}]`$ acts on $`A^{}(\text{a})`$, it is enough to calculate it on a vector of the form $`v=e^{l,k}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We know from Proposition 3.1 that

$$\stackrel{~}{L}(v)$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}_{i,0}^2(v)\underset{m>0}{}cmϵ^{i,m}\iota _{i,m}(v)\underset{m<0}{}cm\iota _{i,m}ϵ^{i,m}(v).$$

It is obvious that the third term is zero on $`v`$. The second term is also easily seen to be

$$ck(v),$$

while to calculate the first term, note that

$$_{i,0}=\underset{p,q,s}{}C_{iq}^p:\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,s}:.$$

Then, since $`{\displaystyle \underset{p,q,s0}{}}C_{iq}^p\iota _{p,s}ϵ^{q,s}`$ kills anything of the form $`\beta \mathrm{\Omega }`$,

$$_{i,0}^2(v)$$

$$=_{i,0}\{\underset{p,q,s>0}{}C_{iq}^pϵ^{q,s}\iota _{p,s}(v)\}$$

$$=_{i,0}\{\underset{q}{}C_{iq}^le^{q,k}\mathrm{\Omega }\}$$

$$=\underset{q,r}{}C_{iq}^lC_{ir}^qe^{r,k}\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

But,

$$\underset{q,r}{}C_{iq}^lC_{ir}^q$$

$$=\underset{q,r}{}C_{ir}^q[\alpha _i,\alpha _q],\alpha _l$$

$$=\underset{r}{}[\alpha _i,[\alpha _i,\alpha _r]],\alpha _l$$

$$=\underset{r}{}[\alpha _i,[\alpha _i,\alpha _l]],\alpha _r$$

(the last equality holds because of the Jacobi identity and the fact that $`[x,y],z=x,[y,z]`$). That is, $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle _{i,0}^2}`$ acts as $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\alpha _i^2=(\text{Casmir of }\text{g})`$ (note that the minus sign comes in because we are acting on the dual space). The action of the Casmir on a lowest weight vector has been already worked out (e.g. Section 9.4 )and has the form

$$\underset{i}{}_{i,0}^2(v)$$

$$=\{\rho ,\lambda +\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\}(v),$$

where $`\lambda `$ is the lowest weight for the representation and $`\rho `$ is the half sum of all positive roots of $`G`$. This concludes the proof of Theorem 3.1.

From Theorem 3.1 it immediately follows that the cohomology of a in any degree is finite dimensional. To see this, first note that the cochain complex $`A^{}(\text{a})`$ of a can be divided up according to the energy grading, so that $`A^p(k)(\text{a})`$ are the $`p`$th cochains of energy $`k`$. The differential does not change the energy of the cochain, hence, $`A^{}(k)(\text{a})`$ is a subcomplex of $`A^{}(\text{a})`$. The cochain complex $`A^p(k)(\text{a})=0`$ if $`p>k`$, i.e. the cohomology $`H^{}(k)(\text{a})`$ of $`A^{}(k)(\text{a})`$ is finite dimensional. The cohomology $`H^{}(k)(\text{a})`$ is the part of $`H^{}(\text{a})`$ which is of energy $`k`$. On the other hand, the energy level of the cochains of any one degree is bounded. To prove this, let us write $`H^{}(k)(\text{a};𝐂)`$ as a sum of irreducible representations $`V_\lambda `$ of $`G`$ with lowest weight $`\lambda `$. Theorem 3.1 shows us that the Casmir operator of $`G`$ acts on $`V_\lambda `$ by $`P(\lambda )=ck`$. Notice that we can choose the basis of a so that any weight of $`G`$ which occurs in $`^p\text{a}^{}`$ is a sum of $`p`$ roots of $`G`$. This means that only a finite number of irreducible representations of $`G`$ occur in the cohomology of degree $`p`$. We conclude that $`H^p(k)(\text{a};𝐂)=0`$ if $`k>2\text{ sup }P(\lambda )`$ where the supremum is taken over the lowest weight $`\lambda `$ of irreducible representations that might occur in $`H^p(\text{a};𝐂)`$.

The above argument does not show that there is only one copy of any one irreducible representation in the sum. But this follows from the results of the next section.

## 4 Conclusion

Based on the results in the previous sections, we will summarise the conclusion of this paper in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.1

The $`p`$th degree cohomology of a can be written as a direct sum of irreducible representations of $`𝐓\times G`$,

$$H^p(\text{a})=_wV_w,$$

where the sum ranges over elements $`w`$ of length $`p`$ in the the quotient $`\frac{𝒲_{af}}{𝒲}`$ of the affine Weyl group $`𝒲_{af}`$ by the Weyl group of the finite dimensional Lie group $`G`$. By length of an element in the quotient we mean the length of the shortest representative.

Proof: If $`\text{g}_𝐂`$ is semi-simple, $`\text{g}_𝐂=\text{g}_1\mathrm{},\text{g}_p`$ for some $`p`$ and where each $`\text{g}_i`$ is simple. Then

$$\text{a}=\text{a}_1\mathrm{}\text{a}_p$$

where $`\text{a}_i`$ is the corresponding Lie subalgebra of A associated to $`\text{g}_i`$. Then

$$H^{}(\text{a})=H^{}(\text{a}_1)\mathrm{}H^{}(\text{a}_p).$$

Hence, it is enough to calculate the cohomology when $`\text{g}_𝐂`$ is simple. In this case the formula for the Laplacian given in 3.1 can be re-written in a much tidier and familiar form.

Recall Remark 2.1. There is an action of $`𝐓\times G`$ and any weight of $`𝐓\times G`$ can be described by a triple $`\lambda =(n_1,\lambda ,0)`$, where $`n_1`$ is a number coming from the action of $`𝐓`$ as rotation and $`\lambda `$ is a weight of the $`G`$ action and the last component is the weight of the central extention corresponding to the projective representation of A. Recall that $`c`$ denotes the coxeter number of g. And, let $`𝝆`$ denote the weight $`(0,\rho ,c)`$ where $`\rho `$ is a half sum of the positive roots of $`G`$. Define

$$(n_1,\lambda _1,b_1),(n_2,\lambda _2,b_2)=n_2b_1n_1b_2+\lambda _1,\lambda _2,$$

where $`,`$ on the right-hand side is the inner product induced by the killing form on $`\text{g}_𝐂`$. Then the formula in Theorem 3.1 for the Laplacian translates into

$$\stackrel{~}{L}=\frac{1}{2}(𝝀𝝆^2𝝆^2),$$
(7)
on a irreducible representation with lowest weight $`𝝀=(k,\lambda ,0)`$ where $`\lambda `$ is a lowest weight of $`G`$ and $`k`$ denotes the energy of the lowest weight vector. Note that the basis could have been chosen to be orthonormal on the subspace $`A^{}(\text{a})`$ of $`_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$, consisting of Lie algebra cochains on a. We want to find the kernel of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$.

Note that $`\lambda `$, as the lowest weight of a representation of g on $`A^{}(\text{a})`$ can be expressed as a sum of roots (not necessarily all negative or positive) of $`\text{g}_𝐂`$. Since a is spanned by $`e_{i,k}`$ where $`k>0`$, the circle acts non-trially and the energy $`k`$ must always be positive. Hence, $`𝝀`$ has to be a sum of positive affine roots which are not roots of $`\text{g}_𝐂`$. Given this, the rest of the proof for Theorem 4.1follows from Lemma 4.1 below.

###### Proposition 4.1

Let $`𝛌`$ be a sum of positive affine roots. The expression 7 is zero if and only if the positive affine roots in the sum $`𝛌`$ are exactly the set of positive affine roots turned negative by the shortest representative of a coset in $`\frac{𝒲_{af}}{𝒲}`$.

Proof: First assume that equation 7 is zero. Let $`𝒫`$ denote the positive alcove. We can choose $`w`$ in the affine Weyl group $`𝒲_{af}`$ so that $`w(𝝆𝝀)𝒫`$. Since $`𝝀`$ can be written as a sum of positive affine roots, $`𝝆w(𝝆𝝀)`$ is also a sum of positive affine roots, i.e., $`𝝆w(𝝀𝝆)`$ is positive or zero on anything in the positive alcove. Since $`𝝆𝒫`$ and $`w(𝝆𝝀)𝒫`$, $`𝝆+w(𝝆𝝀)𝒫`$. In fact, because $`𝝆`$ is in the interior of the positive alcove $`𝒫`$, so is $`𝝆+w(𝝆𝝀)`$. Hence,

$$𝝆^2𝝆𝝀^2$$

$$=𝝆w(𝝆𝝀),𝝆+w(𝝆𝝀)0$$

This is only equal to zero if and only if $`𝝆w(𝝆𝝀)=0`$, and that happens if $`𝝀=𝝆w^1𝝆`$. Now, it is already known that $`𝝆w^1𝝆`$ is the sum $`s(𝝀)`$ of all the positive affine roots which become negative under the action of $`w^1`$(see  p280). Furthermore, no other sum of positive affine roots can equal $`𝝀`$. Suppose such a sum $`𝜶_1+\mathrm{}+𝜶_k`$ existed. Then $`w^1(s(𝝀))=w^1(𝜶_1)+\mathrm{}+w^1(𝜶_k)`$. The $`w^1(s(\widehat{\lambda }))`$ is a sum of negative roots by construction, but some of of the $`w^1(𝜶_i)`$ whould be positive roots. Those which have turned negative are in the sum $`w^1(s(𝝀))`$ and can be canceled from each side, so we will be left with an identity for which the left-hand side is a sum of negative roots and the right-hand side is a sum of positive roots. This is not possible. Hence, the positive affine roots in $`𝝀`$ have to be exactly the set of positive affine roots which turn negative by some $`w^1`$ in $`𝒲_{aff}`$. Recall that $`𝝀`$ is a sum of positive affine roots which are not roots of $`G`$ (see Remark LABEL:second\_remark. Hence, $`w^1`$ has to be a representative of a coset in $`\frac{𝒲_{aff}}{calW}`$. Since any other element of $`𝒲_{aff}`$ which belong to the same coset would turn roots of $`G`$ negative, $`w^1`$ is the shortest representative.

On the other hand, assume that $`𝝀=𝜶_1+\mathrm{}+𝜶_k`$ for positive affine roots $`𝜶_i`$ and that there exists an element $`w𝒲`$ such that $`𝜶_1,\mathrm{},𝜶_k`$ are exactly the positive roots which become negative by $`w`$, then

$$𝝆𝝀=w^1(𝝆),$$

i.e.,

$$𝝆𝝀^2=w^1(𝝆)^2=𝝆^2.$$

In other words, $`P(𝝀)=0`$, concluding the proof of Proposition 4.1.

## 5 Comment

Given a finite dimensional Lie group $`G`$, the loop group of $`G`$ is the infinite dimensional Lie group of maps from the circle to $`G`$. The Lie algebra of the loop group, which we will call the loop algebra, is a vector space of maps from the circle to the Lie algebra g of $`G`$. In this section we wish to make a short comment on the relationship between the Lie algebra a and the loop algebra. Choose a base point $`0`$ on the circle $`S^1`$. Note first that given a loop in g which vanishes at $`0`$, we can associate to it its Taylor series at $`0`$ which could be represented by an infinite formal series

$$a_1t+\frac{1}{2}a_2t^2+\mathrm{}$$

where $`a_i`$ represents the $`i`$th derivative of the loop at $`0`$. Denote the vector space of formal series J. We will refer to it as the jet algebra for obvious reasons. It is a Lie algebra. The Taylor series map is an injective map on the quotient of the loop algebra by the subalgebra consisting of loops whose derivative vanish to infinite order at $`0`$. It is not trivial but a known fact that this map is also surjective (see  p390 thm 38.1). Let $`\text{J}_N`$ denote the vector space of polynomials

$$a_0+a_1t+\frac{1}{2}a_2t^2+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{N!}a_N,$$

with product topology. Take the topology of J to be the inverse limit topology induced by the topology on $`\text{J}_N`$. We can show that the Taylor series map takes the quotient Lie algebra isomorphically, as topological vector spaces, to J. Now take the complexification $`\text{J}_𝐂`$ of J. There is a map

$$\text{a}\stackrel{\psi }{}\text{J}_𝐂$$

which induces a map

$$H^{}(\text{J}_𝐂;𝐂)\stackrel{\psi ^{}}{}H^{}(\text{a};𝐂)$$

in cohomology. Since J is inverse limit of $`\text{J}_N`$, this map is injective. Each Lie algebra cochain has an energy level. This energy level is represented by the sum $`k_i`$ in the formula for the Laplacian in the last section. This energy level is not changed by the differential, and therefore, we may compare the two cohomologies above on each energy level. Restricted to any one energy level, $`\psi `$ is an isomorphism. The formula for the Laplacian again shows that, for any one cohomology degree, only finite number of energy levels are involved. Hence, $`\psi `$ is an isomorphism.