format: text

text:
# Possibility of ΛΛ pairing and its dependence on background density in relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov model

## I Introduction

Pairing correlation in hadronic matter has been attracting attention due to close relationship between properties of neutron stars and its interior superfluidity. Superfluidity inside neutron stars affects, for instance, heat capacity and neutrino emissivity. These quantities relate to the cooling processes of neutron stars.

In neutron stars, several types of baryon pairing appear. It is strongly believed that neutrons form the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ pair in the inner crust region Takatsuka and Tamagaki (1993); Wambach et al. (1993); Chen et al. (1993). At the corresponding density $`10^3\rho _0\rho _B0.7\rho _0`$, where $`\rho _0`$ is the saturation density of symmetric nuclear matter, the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ partial wave of the nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction is attractive: In infinite matter an attraction, no matter how weak it is, brings about the BCS instability to the ground state. This type of pairing has been most extensively studied for decades using various models. Also important is the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ neutron pairing in the outer core region up to $`\rho _B2\rho _0`$. The $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ partial wave of the NN interaction is attractive enough there for neutrons to be in a superfluid state Takatsuka and Tamagaki (1993); Elgarøy et al. (1996a). On the other hand, the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ partial wave would become repulsive there so that the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ neutron pairs would disappear. Instead, the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ proton pairing is expected to be realized owing to its small fraction Takatsuka and Tamagaki (1993); Chen et al. (1993).

In the inner core region, baryon density becomes much larger ($`\rho _B2\rho _0`$) and various hyperons may appear Glendenning (2000). Some are expected to form pairs in the same way as the NN pairing owing to the attractive $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ partial wave of the hyperon-hyperon (YY) interaction. Moreover, interspecies pairing such as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-neutron pairing may be realized at the total baryon densities higher than $`\rho _B4\rho _0`$ where fractions of the two kinds of baryon are expected to be comparable. These kinds of pairings affect the properties of neutron stars through, say, suppression of the hyperon direct URCA processes. Whether $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons are in a super state or not plays a decisive role for the microscopic understanding of neutron stars: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons in a normal state would lead to too rapid cooling of them and force one to modify the cooling scenarios. Conversely, one can extract information on baryonic force and inner structure of neutron stars from these phenomena. Studying neutron stars thus is the driving forces for the study on baryon superfluidity.

Despite the situations, magnitude of the hyperon pairing gaps is still uncertain. More studies are needed exploiting available information from various sources such as the hypernuclear spectroscopy, direct observation of neutron stars, and so on.

Our aim of this study is twofold. One is to explore an effect of Dirac effective mass of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing correlations in binary mixed matter composed of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons and nucleons. In this respect, recognizing the significance of covariant representation led to the remarkable developments in nuclear/hadron physics for the last three decades. As is well known nowadays, cancellation between large Lorentz scalar and vector fields provides a proper saturation mechanism of nuclear matter on the whole. Typical examples are the phenomenological relativistic mean field (RMF) model and the microscopic Dirac-Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (DBHF) approach. Especially in the latter, selfconsistent treatment of a nucleon spinor with a bare NN interaction brings the saturation points predicted by the nonrelativistic BHF approach towards the empirical one by a repulsive relativistic effect. This selfconsistency is the key ingredient of the relativistic models. Then, we would like to ask a following question: What does the selfconsistency bring to superfluidity in the composite hadronic matter? This is an important issue on studying neutron star matter that has complex composition of baryons using relativistic models.

The other is to investigate an impact of the recent experimental finding on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing. The KEK-PS experiment E373, especially the “NAGARA” event Takahashi et al. (2001) may explode the “old” information of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction which has ruled hypernuclear systems for three decades. The event unambiguously determined the binding energy of the two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ in $`\begin{array}{c}6\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\end{array}`$He. Most importantly, it suggests that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction is weaker than it was thought before. If this is confirmed, the new information ought to have a significant impact on the microscopic understanding of the properties of neutron stars.

Unlike the NN pairing, there are only a few studies on the hyperon pairing. It was first studied in a nonrelativistic framework by Balberg and Barnea Balberg and Barnea (1998). Then their results were applied to the study on cooling of neutron stars Schaab et al. (1998). They obtained the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing gap in symmetric nuclear matter using an interaction based on the G-matrix in symmetric nuclear matter and an approximation of nonrelativistic effective mass obtained from single-particle energies with first order Hartree-Fock corrections, though their motive was application to the physics of neutron stars. Their conclusion was that the maximal pairing gap became larger as the background density increased; at the same time, the effective mass of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons became smaller. Since smaller effective mass generally leads to smaller pairing gap, this conclusion is against general expectations. Takatsuka and Tamagaki subsequently studied the problem using two types of bare $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interactions and of hyperon core models Takatsuka and Tamagaki (1999). Aiming at a better approximation of neutron star matter, they used the nonrelativistic effective mass which was obtained from the G-matrix calculation for composite matter of neutrons and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons, and was dependent on a total baryon density and a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fraction. Their gaps were somewhat smaller than Balberg and Barnea’s due to smaller effective mass and appropriate choice of the interaction. They also showed that the result had considerable dependence on the interactions and the hyperon core models owing to related uncertainties. An important thing in common to these past studies is use of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interactions that are too attractive considering the consequence of the NAGARA event, which was unavailable at that time.

Therefore, we study the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing in binary mixed matter of nucleons and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons using relativistic interactions that reflects the new experimental information for the first time. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons are immersed in pure neutron matter or symmetric nuclear matter that is treated as a background. We use the relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov (RHB) model in which density-dependence of the interaction is automatically taken into account via the Lorentz structure. The density-dependence that is an inherent mechanism in relativistic models may lead to novel behavior of the pairing gap: Since pairs are formed in medium, medium effects on a particle-particle (p-p) channel interaction should be considered. In the RHB model, bare baryon masses are reduced by the scalar mean field. This decreased mass is the Dirac effective mass Jaminon and Mahaux (1989); Glendenning (2000). The mass decrease may change the pairing gap to some extent in comparison with that obtained with the bare masses. Although the two preceding studies also introduced the medium effects, each had a purely nonrelativistic origin. It has nothing to do with the Lorentz structure and the Dirac effective mass. We thus intend to compare with the results of the first study by Balberg and Barnea neglecting, for the time being, complexity of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ mixing that probably occurs in asymmetric nuclear matter; this mixing will be discussed in Sec. III.5. Besides, other constituents predicted to exist in neutron stars and equilibration like chemical equilibrium of neutron star matter are ignored so that we narrow down arguments to the impact of the revision on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing properties. Such a plain treatment should be taken as the very first step of our study on the hyperon pairing with the recently revised interactions in neutron star matter.

This paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we illustrate the Lagrangian of the system and the gap equation for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing. In Sec. III, we present results of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing properties in the binary hadronic matter. Section IV contains a summary.

## II Model

### II.1 Lagrangian

Our starting model Lagrangian of the system has the following expression:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & =\underset{B=N,\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\overline{\psi }_B(i\gamma _\mu ^\mu M_B)\psi _B\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \sigma )(^\mu \sigma )\frac{1}{2}m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}m_\omega ^2\omega _\mu \omega ^\mu \hfill \\ & \underset{B=N,\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}g_{\sigma B}\overline{\psi }_B\sigma \psi _B\underset{B=N,\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}g_{\omega B}\overline{\psi }_B\gamma _\mu \omega ^\mu \psi _B\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \sigma ^{})(^\mu \sigma ^{})\frac{1}{2}m_\sigma ^{}^2\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{4}S_{\mu \nu }S^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}m_\varphi ^2\varphi _\mu \varphi ^\mu \hfill \\ & g_{\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma ^{}\psi _\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }}\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _\mu \varphi ^\mu \psi _\mathrm{\Lambda },\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \omega _\nu _\nu \omega _\mu `$ and $`S_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \varphi _\nu _\nu \varphi _\mu `$. The symbols $`M_N`$, $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`m_\sigma `$, $`m_\omega `$, $`m_\sigma ^{}`$, and $`m_\varphi `$ are the mass of nucleons, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons, $`\sigma `$ bosons, $`\omega `$ mesons, $`\sigma ^{}`$ bosons, and $`\varphi `$ mesons, respectively. Table 1 displays these masses, coupling constants and their ratios used in this study. This model Lagrangian was used in the study of binding energy of double $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei with the RMF model Marcos et al. (1998), and originally proposed by Schaffner et al. in the study of multiply strange hadronic systems including baryon species $`N`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ Schaffner et al. (1993, 1994). The parameter set was determined by Marcos et al. to reproduce the bulk properties of hadronic matter and finite nuclear systems including double $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei according to the old information. In Ref. Marcos et al. (1998), the original nucleon Lagrangian HS (an abbreviation of Horowitz-Serot) with “$`\sigma `$-$`\omega `$” Lagrangian for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ sector, which is called “model 1,” was supplemented with two additional boson fields. One is a scalar-isoscalar boson $`\sigma ^{}`$ (975 MeV) and the other is a vector-isoscalar meson $`\varphi `$ (1020 MeV). The Lagrangian that contains $`\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\varphi `$ is referred to as “model 2.” Following Ref. Schaab et al. (1998), we call the model Lagrangian Eq. (1) “HS-m2” in short from now on. Details of the model 1 and the model 2 are described in Ref. Schaffner et al. (1994). These additional bosons were originally introduced to achieve strong attraction between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons. Since it is, however, probable now that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction is weaker than it was considered as mentioned above, we regard $`\sigma ^{}`$ as the device for controlling the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ attraction in this study. As a rough guide, we refer to Fig. 1 of Ref. Marcos et al. (1998) that shows the dependence of the bond energy,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}=B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\begin{array}{c}A\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\end{array}Z)2B_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\begin{array}{c}A1\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }\end{array}Z),$$
(2)
on the coupling ratio $`\alpha _\sigma ^{}=g_{\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}/g_{\sigma N}`$. Contrary, the ratio $`\alpha _\varphi =g_{\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }}/g_{\omega N}`$ is fixed by the $`SU(6)`$ relations.

### II.2 gap equation

Next, we explain the gap equation for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing. The equations of motion are solved by the procedure illustrated in Ref. Schaffner and Mishustin (1996), except that pairing correlation is introduced by the Gor’kov factorization and hyperons other than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are absent in the present study. The Fock contribution is neglected and the so-called no-sea approximation is employed. This is the RHB model. As for the pairing gap, the gap equation,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(k)}{\sqrt{(E_k^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}E_{k_\mathrm{F}}^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })})^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k)}}}`$ (3)
$`\times \overline{v}(M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{};p,k)k^2dk,`$
is solved numerically, where $`E_k^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$ is the single-particle energy of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons and $`\overline{v}(M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{};p,k)`$ is the p-p channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction. Although the quality of bare $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interactions on the market is steadily getting higher, they still have room for improvement mainly due to sparsity of experimental data. Hence, also does predictability of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing properties. Following the same prescription as in our previous studies of NN pairing Tanigawa and Matsuzaki (1999); Matsuzaki and Tanigawa (2001), we therefore use the phenomenological interaction to study the possibility of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing and its dependence on the density of background matter. We adopt to the p-p channel interaction the one-boson-exchange (OBE) interaction obtained from an RMF parameter set with the help of form factors. For convenience, we refer to this OBE interaction as “RMF interaction” in this study. The antisymmetrized matrix element of the RMF interaction $`V`$ is defined by

$$\overline{v}(M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{};𝐩,𝐤)=𝐩s^{},\stackrel{~}{𝐩s^{}}|V|𝐤s,\stackrel{~}{𝐤s}𝐩s^{},\stackrel{~}{𝐩s^{}}|V|\stackrel{~}{𝐤s},𝐤s,$$
(4)
where tildes denote time reversal. Since $`\overline{v}`$ depends on the Dirac effective mass of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons in a baryon spinor, its dependence is explicitly indicated in Eqs. (3) and (4). Integration with respect to the angle between $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐤`$ has been performed in Eq. (3) to project out the S-wave component. Moreover, the form factors are included in $`\overline{v}`$ to regulate its high-momentum contributions. We use a Bonn-type form factor:

$$f(𝐪^2)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}^2m_i^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}^2+𝐪^2},$$
(5)
where $`𝐪`$ is three-momentum transfer and $`m_i`$ ($`i=\sigma `$, $`\omega `$, $`\sigma ^{}`$, and $`\varphi `$) are the meson masses. The cutoff mass $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}`$ is $`7.26`$ fm<sup>-1</sup> for all the mesons employed, which value was determined in our study of the NN pairing for a form factor of a type different from Eq. (5Matsuzaki and Tanigawa (2001); an effect of varying the cutoff mass will be examined later. We thereby aim at phenomenological construction of the effective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction usable in hadronic matter with a finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fraction, like the Gogny force in the nucleon sector. Note that the form factors are applied only to the p-p channel since we respect the fact that the Hartree part is unaffected by a monopole form factor (Eq. (9) shown later) with which the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}`$ was determined in our study of the NN pairing.

Combining the equations for the Dirac effective mass of nucleons

$`M_N^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M_N+g_{\sigma N}\sigma ,`$ (6)
that of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons

$`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }+g_{\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }}\sigma +g_{\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sigma ^{},`$ (7)
and Eq. (3), we obtain the coupled equations to be solved numerically.

Concerning choice of the p-p channel interaction, it has been still open to argument whether the G-matrix or a bare interaction is suitable for the gap equation. The p-p channel interaction in Ref. Balberg and Barnea (1998) is classified into the former and that in Ref. Takatsuka and Tamagaki (1999) into the latter. As described in Ref. Migdal (1967), the gap equation itself handles short range correlations which the G-matrix also does; this is the well-known double-counting of the correlations. Takatsuka and Tamagaki also argued that use of the G-matrix itself or the interaction based on it in the gap equation cannot be justified Takatsuka and Tamagaki (1999). Thus it is widely received to use a bare interaction in the gap equation with regard to NN pairing in infinite matter.

Meanwhile, from a practical viewpoint such as application to finite nuclei, the Gogny force is often used as the p-p channel interaction as well as the particle-hole channel interaction: While it is regarded as a reasonable parameterization of the G-matrix in the sense that it gives saturation properties of symmetric nuclear matter, it can reproduce the pairing gaps obtained from bare NN interactions. In fact, the Gogny force imitates bare interactions in the low-density limit Bertsch and Esbensen (1991); Garrido et al. (1999). With reference to practical usage, Matsuzaki and Tanigawa solved the gap equation of NN pairing using the RMF interactions Tanigawa and Matsuzaki (1999); Matsuzaki and Tanigawa (2001). In Ref. Matsuzaki and Tanigawa (2001), phenomenological form factors were introduced to the p-p channel, with the Hartree part unchanged, so that the constructed interactions reproduced the results obtained from the *bare* Bonn potential. They successfully adjusted cutoff masses to reproduce both the pairing gaps and the coherence lengths at the same time. The cutoff masses independent of density were qualitatively similar to those of the Bonn potential. This shows the usefulness of the prescription. Nonetheless, we do not use the same procedure in the present study since we have no model of the YY interactions to follow and our primary interest is behavior of the gap; we use the cutoff mass for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction obtained from the study of the NN pairing Matsuzaki and Tanigawa (2001) instead, which is qualitatively similar to those of the YY interactions on the market.

Last but not least, we neglect effects beyond the mean-field approximation such as the dispersive effects Bożek (1999); Baldo and Grasso (2000) and the polarization effects Ainsworth et al. (1989); Schulze et al. (1996) to concentrate on the effects which stem from the binary character of the matter. Both are, however, very important for the NN pairing since they turned out to reduce the pairing gap. Work in this direction is necessary in future.

## III Results and discussions

### III.1 Effect of Dirac effective mass decrease

Figure 1 shows the resulting $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing gap at the Fermi surface in pure neutron matter of densities $`\rho _N`$ at $`0`$, $`\rho _0`$, $`2.5\rho _0`$, and $`5\rho _0`$, with $`\alpha _\sigma ^{}=0.5`$ chosen. This value of the coupling ratio can reproduce the bond energy, Eq. (2), of about $`1`$ MeV in the RMF model, which is suggested by the NAGARA event. Contrary to the results obtained by Balberg and Barnea, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing gap becomes suppressed as the neutron density increases. At $`\rho _N=2.5\rho _0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons already appear in some models of neutron stars Schaffner and Mishustin (1996), the maximal pairing gap is about $`0.15`$ MeV. Since there are probably no $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons at $`\rho _N=0`$ and $`\rho _0`$ in neutron star matter, the pairing gaps at these densities are quite hypothetical.

Figure 2 shows the density dependence of baryon effective masses, $`M_N^{}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, as functions of the total baryon density $`\rho _B`$. The background neutron densities are fixed here, so that variations in $`\rho _B`$ correspond to those in the Fermi momentum of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons. Since we ignore the chemical equilibrium here, curves of the effective masses have discontinuous jumps; each piece corresponds to the fixed neutron densities, $`\rho _N=0`$, $`\rho _0`$, $`2.5\rho _0`$, and $`5.0\rho _0`$. Consideration of the chemical equilibrium should connect them with each other. Nevertheless, we obtain the values qualitatively similar to the ones shown in, for example, Fig. 4 of Ref. Schaffner and Mishustin (1996). It is therefore concluded that in-medium property of the phenomenological $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction used in this study is justifiable. The effective mass of neutrons decreases steeply as the total baryon density increases, while mildly does the effective mass of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons due to the weaker coupling of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons to the scalar bosons than the coupling of nucleons.

For the p-p channel, we use the RMF interaction as stated above. The interaction contains the Dirac effective mass of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons, Eq. (7), through which the medium effects are introduced; the coupling of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons to $`\sigma `$ bosons, to which nucleons also couple, brings about the dependence on the background density. Figure 3 represents the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ RMF interaction derived from the parameter set HS-m2. It is shown that increasing the background neutron density suppresses attractive contribution from low momenta. This is the main reason why the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing gap is smaller in denser background.

This new mechanism of the suppression is inherent in relativistic models which respect the Lorentz structure as shown in Eq. (7). It is shown that the decrease of the effective baryon mass plays an indispensable role when it is used selfconsistently in the baryon spinor.

What is important is that relativistic models naturally lead to a density-dependent interaction through a selfconsistent baryon spinor where the bare mass in a free spinor is replaced with the Dirac effective mass. An apt example is the saturation of symmetric nuclear matter in the DBHF approach Machleidt (1989). Requirement of the selfconsistency for the nucleon spinor, that is, use of the Dirac effective mass in the nucleon spinor effectively gives repulsion to the binding energy of symmetric nuclear matter. Consequently, it pushes the saturation points predicted by nonrelativistic models toward the empirical one. It seems that our finding is similar to this repulsive effect. Furthermore, the mechanism is apparently not restricted to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairs. It is probable that other kinds of YY pairs have the same trend.

### III.2 Effect of NAGARA event

Next we explore the effect of the NAGARA event on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing. With relation to the revised information on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction, we vary the ratio $`\alpha _\sigma ^{}=g_{\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}/g_{\sigma N}`$ between 0.4 and 0.6, referring to Fig. 1 of Ref. Marcos et al. (1998): Thereby we control the attractive component of the interaction. Figure 4 represents the maximal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing gap at the Fermi surface of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons as a function of the strength of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ attraction and the background density of pure neutron matter. From this figure as well as Fig. 1, one reads that the suppression of the gap occurs in denser background of neutrons. Moreover, it may even vanish in the end (though the result depends on the choice of RMF parameter sets and a cutoff mass as will be shown later). This varying $`\alpha _\sigma ^{}`$ reveals likely closing of the gap at smaller $`\alpha _\sigma ^{}`$ (i.e. weaker $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ attraction) and its strong suppression in the denser neutron background. This result implies that the aforementioned mechanism acts in concert with the weakened attraction for closing the gap. Hence, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing correlation in dense pure neutron matter becomes less likely than before. The result is almost the same with the background of symmetric nuclear matter.

In the light of the neutron star cooling, the absence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing might call for the pairing of other hyperonic species and a modification of its scenarios. More realistic approximation of the internal composition of neutron stars needs a condition of chemical equilibrium which plays a decisive role. Under the condition, other hyperons will emerge as the background density increases. Takatsuka et al. studied the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ pairings and shown their possibility Takatsuka et al. (2001a). Nevertheless, the possibility of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing in neutron star matter with the concerted mechanism in this model stands unsettled due to complex composition of particles inside neutron stars.

### III.3 Comparison with nonrelativistic study

Now we make a comparison between relativistic and nonrelativistic predictions. For the comparison with the nonrelativistic results of Balberg and Barnea Balberg and Barnea (1998), we calculate the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing gap in symmetric nuclear matter. Figure 5 represents our result. Slightly smaller gap than that obtained from the calculation of pure neutron matter (Fig. 1) reflects the smaller Dirac effective mass of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons in symmetric nuclear matter than that in pure neutron matter.

We would like to note two remarkable differences between their result and ours. One difference is the dependence of the gap on the background density. Strikingly, ours is opposite to theirs (cf. Fig. 4 of Ref. Balberg and Barnea (1998)). This is brought about *directly* and *indirectly* by decrease of the Dirac effective mass. We intend by the word ‘directly’ that we can grasp the decrease of the gap through an expression in the weak-coupling approximation,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k_\mathrm{F})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{N(k_\mathrm{F})|\overline{v}(k_\mathrm{F},k_\mathrm{F})|}\right],$$
(8)
where $`N(k_\mathrm{F})=E_{k_\mathrm{F}}^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}k_\mathrm{F}/2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2`$ is the density of states at the Fermi surface. Equation (8) shows that the smaller the Dirac effective mass becomes, the smaller the density of states does, which makes the gap smaller. Note that we use the approximation for rough estimation here and the full integration of the gap equation (3) is done throughout the present study. Meantime, we intend by the word ‘indirectly’ that the gap decreases as the density increases due to gradual weakening of the attraction in the p-p interaction which is shown in Fig. 3. The other difference is the region of the Fermi momentum of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons where the gaps are open. While the regions in their result are similar in all densities presented, Fig. 5 shows that the regions in our result narrow as the background density increases.

Finally, the result at $`\rho _N=\rho _0`$ may have relevance to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing correlation around the center of hypernuclei Takatsuka et al. (2001b): We obtain the maximal gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_\mathrm{F}=0.9\mathrm{fm}^1)0.5`$ MeV.

Prior to the present study, Elgarøy et al. studied Elgarøy et al. (1996b) relativistic effects on the neutron and proton pairing in neutron star matter and made a comparison with a nonrelativistic result Elgarøy et al. (1996c). Their result shows a large effect of “minimal relativity” Brown et al. (1969) on the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ neutron pairing while a small one on the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ proton pairing. They explained that using DBHF single-particle energies and factors of the minimal relativity are the causes of much smaller neutron pairing gap. As for our model, the factor corresponding to the minimal relativity is already included in the p-p interaction owing to the normalization of the Dirac spinor, $`u^{}u=1`$.

### III.4 Choice of form factor

Also noteworthy is a form factor: In this subsection, we investigate a dependence of the gap on the cutoff mass for each type of the form factor. We use the purely phenomenological form factor at each $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon-meson vertex to regulate the high-momentum components of the p-p interaction as in Ref. Matsuzaki and Tanigawa (2001). We have chosen the Bonn-type form factor, Eq. (5), with the cutoff mass $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}=7.26`$ fm<sup>-1</sup> thus far in this paper. In contrast to the NN pairing, there has yet been no proper guide to determine the cutoff mass in the form factors for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing. We hence resort to borrow the value from our previous study of the NN pairing Matsuzaki and Tanigawa (2001).

However, the type of the form factor and the value of the cutoff mass significantly affect the magnitude of the pairing gap. We therefore calculate the dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing gap at the Fermi surface on the cutoff mass $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}`$ in the form factors of Bonn-type, Eq. (5). The cutoff mass is taken to be larger than $`5`$ fm<sup>-1</sup>, which roughly corresponds to mass of the heaviest meson employed (namely $`\varphi `$), otherwise the interaction is unphysical. The result is shown in Fig. 6, in which the Fermi momenta of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons are fixed to $`k_\mathrm{F}=0.90`$, $`0.80`$, and $`0.75`$ fm<sup>-1</sup> for background density of pure neutron matter $`\rho _N=\rho _0`$, $`2.5\rho _0`$, and $`5.0\rho _0`$, respectively. As expected, varying the cutoff mass changes the gaps steeply since it changes the balance of the attraction and the repulsion of the interaction. The peaks around $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}5`$ fm<sup>-1</sup> are due to consecutive suppression of the attraction ($`\sigma ^{}`$ boson) and the repulsion ($`\varphi `$ meson) by the form factor. Nonetheless, the importance of this result lies in the fact that the gaps become smaller in denser background for *any* cutoff mass. Thus the arbitrariness does not alter our conclusions.

On the other hand, a form factor of monopole type,

$$f(𝐪^2)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{c}^2+𝐪^2},$$
(9)
with moderate cutoff masses does not give a finite pairing gap in our model with the HS-m2 set; using other RMF parameter sets may give finite gaps and their gentle dependence on the cutoff mass is expected in the manner similar to the NN pairing Matsuzaki and Tanigawa (2001).

We would like to stress that we do not intend to provide the optimal parameter sets for the description of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing for the time being; or rather we intend to present its general trend of density dependence within the present model irrespective of a given set of parameters. Determining them precisely is inevitably deferred until the guide can be available.

### III.5 Lambda-Sigma mixing

Before concluding the discussions, we present relevant issues for further study. We have employed pure neutron matter and symmetric nuclear matter as background in this study. Physics of neutron stars requires isospin asymmetricity of the background matter which should be considered in the next study. In connection with this, coherent and incoherent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ couplings should be mentioned. Reference Akaishi et al. (2000) argued that they are important to understand s-shell hypernuclei and, in particular, resolve the longstanding problem of overbinding in $`\begin{array}{c}5\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }\end{array}`$He. Furthermore, the coherent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ coupling predicts the coherent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ mixing in dense neutron-rich infinite matter Shinmura et al. (2002). As a consequence, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ mixing shall come into play in asymmetric nuclear matter, which may change the critical density of hyperon emergence and eventually scenarios of the evolution of neutron stars. It is therefore important to introduce it into the models of dense hadronic matter. Concerning relativistic models, the introduction into both infinite and finite systems has been performed using the quantum hadrodynamics along with the concept of effective field theory Müller (1999); Müller and Shepard (2000); these works also show the importance of the mixing. On the other hand, the QCD sum rules predict that relatively weak mixing would be realized for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ of the positive energy state while strong for the negative Yagisawa et al. (2002). Hence, room for argument over this issue still remains and the effect of the mixing on the pairing is unknown so far. In all cases, we have ignored the mixing since it is beyond our scope of this study.

## IV Summary

We have investigated the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing in binary mixed matter of nucleons and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons. Our theoretical framework is the RHB model combined with the RMF interaction both in the particle-hole and the particle-particle channels; we have used it to naturally incorporate the medium effect into the latter, as well as the former, via the Dirac effective mass of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ spinor. Two noteworthy conclusions are thereby drawn. First, we have found that the value of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing gap decreases as the background nucleon density increases. This result is opposite to that reported in Ref. Balberg and Barnea (1998). It should be emphasized again that the origin of the medium effects is different from each other. Second, in concert with the effect of increasing the background density, the weaker the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ attraction becomes, the more the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing gap gets suppressed: The present model shows the possibility that it may disappear in the sequel. Reluctantly, some arbitrariness of the form factors still remains since it has yet been virtually difficult to determine the cutoff mass precisely. The magnitudes of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing gap consequently remain uncertain because they have the strong dependence on the cutoff mass. We, however, have shown the essential result that the denser background reduces them gradually to be unchanged for different values of the cutoff mass. For transparency of the investigation, we have ignored the chemical equilibrium. This should be considered in future. Unfortunately, our knowledge of the hyperon-hyperon interaction is somewhat limited at the moment. We notwithstanding expect that qualitative trends presented in this study will survive in more refined models, and also in pairing of another hyperonic species.

One of us (T.T.) is grateful to the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for research support and the members of the research group for hadron science at the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) for fruitful discussions and their hospitality.


text:
# Different approaches to describe depletion regions in first order phase transition kinetics

## 1 Numerical results

We have calculated the worst situation when $`v_v/v_p=10`$ for vapor-liquid transition. Here we have taken $`G=13`$ which is the minimal value for macroscopic description of the critical embryo. when $`v_v/v_l`$ and $`G`$ increase the accuracy of approach (6) and partially the accuracy of approach (15. The accuracy of (1) decreases because the error in (1) depends mainly on the property of relative stationarity which has no connection with values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It isn’t so evident that the property $`v_v/v_l1`$ also has no influence on the error of (1) because here only the relative variation of radius is important. But when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ increases it means that the main important region of solution now corresponds to the asymptote where the quakitative behavior of (1) is wrong. So, we came to conclusion that it isn’t possible to use (1). The error produced by (1) is seen already at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=13`$. Figure 1 illustrates the behavior of different profiles in this situation. One can see four lines there. One line is apart from all other and it has the different asymptotic behavior. This is solution (1). Other lines are solutions of diffusion problem and some approximations. One of them (the highest) is thick because actually there are two formally coinciding solutions: precise solution and approximation (15). The coincidence is formal. In the middle of this group one can find numerical solution with prescribed law of droplet radius growth $`R=At^{1/2}`$ (it is obtained by linear extrapolation of results of precise solution). The difference between these curve and precise self consistent solution is caused by numerical errors and corrections on radius growth. the lowest curve in this group is approximation (6). One can see that both (6) and (15) give good results. for natural situations with big values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`v_v/v_l`$ the accuracy will even increase.

Figure 1.

Different approximations for the form of density profile.


text:
# Generalized Hantzsche-Wendt flat manifolds

## 1. Introduction

A flat manifold is a closed Riemannian manifold with zero sectional curvature. From Bieberbach theorems, it is known that in each dimension there is only a finite number of such manifolds, up to affine equivalence, and the problem of classifying them is important. Recently, this has been achieved up to dimension six (cf.), but it is not possible to do it in general. Hence some interesting families of flat manifolds have been considered, as for instance those with first Betti number zero or those with holonomy group $`_2_2`$.

The purpose of this article is to study another special class of flat manifolds, namely those of dimension $`n`$ with holonomy group isomorphic to $`_2^{n1}`$. In dimension two the Klein bottle belongs to this family and in dimension three there are three such manifolds: a classical flat manifold first considered by Hantzsche and Wendt  (now called didicosm, see last section) and two non-orientable ones.

Though here they are considered for first time together, these manifolds have been studied partially in , , , , , mainly in the oriented case, where we shall call them Hantzsche-Wendt manifolds (HW manifolds for short; respectively HW (Bieberbach) groups, if we consider their fundamental groups, which are Bieberbach groups). They have many interesting properties, for instance, there are pairs of isospectral HW manifolds non homeomorphic to each other (cf. ). Moreover, HW manifolds have the $``$-homology of spheres (cf. ) and hence they are geometrically formal (cf. ).

We shall call the manifolds in our family generalized Hantzsche-Wendt manifolds (GHW manifolds for short; respectively GHW (Bieberbach) groups).

One of the main results in this article is that the integral holonomy representation of a GHW manifold is of diagonal type (Theorem 3.1). This simplifies the study of this family. An immediate consequence is that the HW manifolds are exactly those considered in .

Another interesting property of these manifolds, or their fundamental groups, is given by the relations between them in different dimensions. In fact we show that every GHW group has a subgroup isomorphic to a GHW group of one lower dimension (Corollary 3.4). Moreover, from Theorem 5.1, any $`n`$-dimensional GHW group is a subgroup of some $`(n+1)`$-dimensional one. With these observations we define a graph, whose vertices correspond to GHW groups, connecting the family, which we draw up to dimension four in the last section.

It is clear that the number of non-oriented GHW flat manifolds is much greater than the number of oriented ones (see for instance the table in Section 4). In the non-oriented case, there are two types of GHW groups, depending on whether the first Betti number equals one or zero. We show that the case with first Betti number one (as well as the oriented case) has only one holonomy representation, which is completely determined. Hence it makes sense to carry out the calculation of the $``$-homology (see Theorem 4.2).

The situation in the non-oriented case with first Betti number zero is much more complicated since the holonomy representation is not unique. We find the exact number of integral representations occurring in this subclass and show that it grows linearly with the dimension. This follows as a consequence of Theorem 5.1, which asserts that every diagonal integral representation can be realized as the integral holonomy representations of a flat manifold. In Section 6 we consider some examples in this subclass which are similar to the HW manifolds from . In Section 7 we study some symmetries of GHW manifolds. In particular, we determine the outer automorphism groups of certain subfamily of GHW groups with non-trivial center. Moreover a general upper bound of the order of the outer automorphism group of GHW groups is given.

There are some problems and questions which we formulate at the end.

We would like to thank Wim Malfait for discussions regarding Section 7.

## 2. Preliminaries and Notations

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a Bieberbach group of dimension or rank $`n`$. By definition it is a torsion-free, discrete, cocompact subgroup of the group $`\mathrm{E}(n)=\mathrm{O}(n)^n`$ of rigid motions of the $`n`$-dimensional Euclidean space. The multiplication in $`\mathrm{E}(n)`$ is given by

$$(B,b)(C,c)=(BC,Bc+b),$$

where $`B,C\mathrm{O}(n)`$ and $`b,c^n`$. The translation part $`c`$ of an isometry $`(C,c)\mathrm{E}(n)`$ shall sometimes be denoted by $`s(C)`$. If a flat manifold $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is oriented then by definition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is oriented. From Bieberbach theorems (cf. ), the translation subgroup $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^n`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is normal, maximal abelian, of finite index. Then there is a short exact sequence of groups

(1)
$$0\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }G0,$$

where $`G`$ is finite and isomorphic to the holonomy group of the manifold $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, thus we call it the holonomy group of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ It is well known that any extension as (1) defines an element $`\alpha H^2(G,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, where the $`G`$-module structure of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is defined by conjugation in (1). We denote by $`\rho `$ this integral representation and call it the integral holonomy representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (or of $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$).

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a Bieberbach group of dimension $`n`$. A flat manifold $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called generalized Hantzsche-Wendt manifold if its holonomy group is $`_2^{n1}`$. In this case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called a generalized Hantzsche-Wendt group.

###### Definition 2.2.

We say that a Bieberbach group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is diagonal or of diagonal type if its corresponding lattice of translations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has an orthogonal basis in which the integral holonomy representation $`\rho `$ diagonalizes. We will also call diagonal the corresponding flat manifold $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Remark 2.3.

In , the previous definition was done with the (slightly more restrictive) assumption that the basis of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is orthonormal. We recall that diagonal manifolds have necessarily the holonomy group isomorphic to $`_2^k`$ for some $`k`$.

Consider

(2)
$$C_i:=\left[\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& & 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1& & 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\end{array}\right],\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}in,$$

where the $`1`$ is placed in the $`(i,i)`$ entry. For brevity we will denote $`C_i=\text{diag}(1,\mathrm{},1,\underset{i}{\underset{}{1}},1,\mathrm{},1)`$, for $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}in`$. The product of two of these is

(3)
$$C_iC_j=\mathrm{diag}(1,\mathrm{},1,\underset{i}{\underset{}{1}},1,\mathrm{},1,\underset{j}{\underset{}{1}},1,\mathrm{},1),\text{ for every }i<j.$$

The elements in (3) generate the group $`\mathrm{D}^+(n):=\mathrm{D}(n)\mathrm{SL}(n,)`$, of cardinality $`2^{n1}`$, and of index two in the group $`\mathrm{D}(n)`$ of diagonal $`n\times n`$ matrices with entries $`\pm 1`$ in the diagonal.

In the oriented case with holonomy group $`_2^{n1}`$, the rationalization of the integral holonomy representation $`\rho `$ (i.e. to consider $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as a $``$-module instead of a $``$-module), gives a unique representation $`\rho _{}`$ whose image, in an appropriate basis, is exactly $`\mathrm{D}^+(n)`$. Hence, when $`n`$ is even there are no HW manifolds, since $`\mathrm{D}^+(n)`$ contains $`Id`$, which always corresponds to an element of torsion.

## 3. Diagonal Structure of GHW Manifolds

To start with, we present an important structural property of the class of GHW manifolds.

###### Theorem 3.1.

The fundamental group of a Generalized Hantzsche-Wendt manifold is diagonal.

For the proof we start with two lemmas.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`\rho :_2^{n1}\mathrm{GL}(n,)`$ be a diagonal faithful integral representation with $`Id\mathrm{Im}(\rho )`$. Then there is $`g_2^{n1}`$ such that $`\rho (g)=\mathrm{diag}(1,\mathrm{},1,1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$. Moreover, if furthermore $`\mathrm{Im}(\rho )\mathrm{SL}(n,)`$ then there is $`g_2^{n1}`$ such that $`\rho (g)=\mathrm{diag}(1,\mathrm{},1,1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$.

###### Proof.

First, we regard $`\mathrm{D}(n)`$, $`\mathrm{D}^+(n)`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}(\rho )`$ as $`_2`$-vector spaces, of dimensions $`n`$, $`n1`$ and $`n1`$ respectively. Also, $`\mathrm{D}(n)=\mathrm{Im}(\rho )(Id)\mathrm{Im}(\rho )`$. Since the $`C_i`$’s, for $`1in`$, are linearly independent, they cannot lie all in $`\mathrm{Im}(\rho )`$ simultaneously, thus there is at least one of them in $`(Id)\mathrm{Im}(\rho )`$, or equivalently, there is a $`C_i`$ in $`\mathrm{Im}(\rho )`$, as claimed.

The last assertion in the statement follows from a similar argument. ∎

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a $`n`$-rank Bieberbach group with translation lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Suppose that $`(B,b)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`B`$ has eigenvalues $`1`$, $`1`$, with corresponding eigenspaces $`V^+`$ and $`V^{}`$ of dimensions $`1`$ and $`n1`$ respectively. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\mathrm{\Lambda }V^+)(\mathrm{\Lambda }V^{})`$, and the orthogonal projection of $`b`$ onto $`V^+`$ lies in $`\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }V^+)(\mathrm{\Lambda }V^+)`$

###### Proof.

We have

(4)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(B,b+\lambda )^2=(Id,(B+Id)(b+\lambda )),\text{ for every }\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

The torsion-free condition implies that $`0(B+Id)(b+\lambda )\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, for every $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Now, $`\frac{1}{2}(B\pm Id)`$ is the orthogonal projection onto $`V^\pm `$. If we suppose that for some $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\frac{1}{2}(B+Id)(b+\lambda )=\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, then $`(B+Id)(b+\lambda \mu )=(B+Id)(b+\lambda )(B+Id)(\mu )=2\mu 2\mu =0`$, a contradiction. Hence, the orthogonal projection of $`b`$ (and also of $`b+\lambda `$ for every $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$) onto $`V^+`$ lies in $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The fact that $`V^+`$ is one-dimensional now implies that the orthogonal projection of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ onto $`V^+`$ is exactly $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V^+`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ splits into the direct sum of two lattices, and the lemma follows. ∎

Proof of Theorem 3.1. We proceed by induction on the dimension $`n`$. If $`n`$ is small, it is known that the theorem holds. Let $`\rho `$ be the integral representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defined on $`G=_2^{n1}`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^n`$ be the lattice of translations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The nature of the holonomy group $`G`$ implies that each $`\rho _{}(g)`$ diagonalizes, and since they commute, they diagonalize simultaneously, i.e., there is a $``$-basis $``$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`\left[\rho _{}(g)\right]_{}`$ is diagonal for every $`gG`$ (and the elements in the diagonal are $`\pm 1`$’s). Then, Lemma 3.2 applied to these integral matrices implies that $`g_0_2^{n1}`$ such that $`\left[\rho _{}(g_0)\right]_{}=\text{diag}(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ (after reordering $``$). Hence, $`\rho (g_0)`$ has eigenvalues $`+1`$ and $`1`$ with multiplicities $`1`$ and $`n1`$ respectively. Now we can a apply Lemma 3.3, and thus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ splits into a direct sum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ where dim$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=1`$ and dim$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=n1`$. Also $`\text{span}_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ (resp. $`\text{span}_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$) is the eigenspace of $`\rho (g_0)`$ with eigenvalue $`1`$ (resp. $`1`$) and the orthogonal projection of the translational part corresponding to $`\rho (g_0)`$ lies in $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$. Since $`\rho (g_0)\rho (g)=\rho (g)\rho (g_0)`$ for every $`g_2^{n1}`$, we have that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ are stable under the action of $`\rho (g)`$, thus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ is a $`_2^{n1}`$-module decomposition. Hence we have that $`\rho =\chi \rho ^{}`$, where $`\chi `$ is a character and $`\rho ^{}`$ has rank $`n1`$, both defined on the same domain as $`\rho `$. Thus, $`g_2^{n1}`$

|  | $`\chi (g)`$ |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\rho (g)=`$ |  |  |  | and |  | $`\rho (g_0)=`$ |  |  |
|  |  | $`\rho ^{}(g)`$ |  |  |  |  |  | $`Id`$ |

We may conjugate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by $`(Id,\mu )`$ with $`\mu \frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and obtain that $`p_1(b)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ for every $`(B,b)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`p_1`$ is the orthogonal projection onto span$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1}^{}`$ (cf. , Lemma 1.4).

We define a character $`\psi :\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{n1}_2=\{0,1\}`$ by

$$\psi ((B,b))=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{ if }p_1(b)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1;\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ if }p_1(b)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1.\hfill \end{array}$$

It is well defined since all the elements $`(B,b)`$ in the same class in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have the same $`p_1(b)`$ mod $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$. Now we consider

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{r}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{\psi }{}_2,$$

where $`r`$ is the canonical projection. Set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}:=\mathrm{ker}(\psi r)`$. It is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of index 2 and its elements $`(B,b)`$ have the property that $`p_1(b)0(\text{mod }\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)`$. The last fact shows that if we take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }:=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}`$ (i.e. the restriction to the last $`(n1)`$ coordinates of $`B`$’s and $`b`$’s), it is still a Bieberbach group, it has rank $`n1`$ and holonomy group isomorphic to $`_2^{n2}`$. (Alternatively, we could have considered the subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0:=\{(B,b)\mathrm{\Gamma }:b_1=0\}`$, where $`b=(b_1,b_2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, and observed that the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ to $`\text{span}_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ gives an isomorphism between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }`$.) Then we can apply induction to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }`$, hence it is diagonal. By the relation between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }`$ it is clear that therefore $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is diagonal. ∎

In the proof, the group denoted by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }`$ is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (in the abstract sense, i.e., there is a monomorphism from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }`$ into $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$). This gives a way of going from one dimension to the previous one within the class of GHW manifolds, which will be used in Section 8. In other words we have

###### Corollary 3.4.

Every GHW group has a subgroup isomorphic to a GHW group of one lower rank.

In the oriented case, the existence of these manifolds in each odd dimension was proved in  and one realization in each odd dimension was shown in . In  the oriented flat manifolds with (orthonormal) diagonal holonomy and holonomy group $`_2^{n1}`$ were studied and they were parametrized by certain directed graphs; also lower bounds for their cardinality were shown, growing rapidly with $`n`$.

###### Remark 3.5.

(i) A direct consequence of Theorem 3.1 is that in the oriented case, the above definition of generalized Hantzsche-Wendt manifolds coincides with the Hantzsche-Wendt manifolds considered in .

(ii) Generalized Hantzsche-Wendt manifolds are of minimal dimension among those with holonomy group $`_2^k,k`$ fixed and $`1`$ (cf. ). Furthermore they are the only existing closed Riemannian $`n`$-manifolds with holonomy group $`_2^{n1}`$, since manifolds with finite holonomy group must be flat, by a theorem of Cartan-Ambrose-Singer (see , Cor. 3.4.7).

(iii) For every $`k`$, $`1<k<n1`$, there are flat manifolds with holonomy group $`_2^k`$ not of diagonal type. Examples of this situation are easy to construct (see end of Section 6).

(iv) Somehow opposite to diagonal manifolds are flat manifolds having indecomposable holonomy representation. We recall that there are many of them, and for example, for holonomy group $`_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, they have been classified and the set of their dimensions is unbounded (cf. ).

## 4. Non-Oriented GHW Flat Manifolds

The class of non-oriented GHW manifolds includes two subclasses, depending on whether the first Betti number $`\beta _1=0`$ or 1, or equivalently (cf. ), the classes of Bieberbach groups with trivial or non-trivial center.

Let us consider first the case with non-trivial center. From Theorem 3.1 and a similar observation as at the end of Section 2 for HW manifolds, this subclass have the integral holonomy representation uniquely determined. A simple example is the following (cf. ). Let $`K_n`$ be the subgroup of $`\mathrm{E}(n)`$ generated by the set {$`(C_i,s(C_i)):0in1\}`$, where $`C_0=I`$ and $`C_i=\text{diag}(1,\mathrm{},1,\underset{i}{\underset{}{1}},1,\mathrm{},1)`$ are the $`n\times n`$ orthogonal matrices defined in (2). Moreover $`s(C_0)=e_1`$ and $`s(C_i)=e_{i+1}/2`$ for other $`i`$. Here $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_n`$ denote the canonical basis of $`^n`$. In  it was proved that $`K_n`$ is a Bieberbach group and that there exists the following short exact sequence of groups

(5)
$$0K_{n1}K_n0,$$

where the epimorphism $`K_n`$ is given by the composition

$$K_nK_n/[K_n,K_n].$$

However in general we have the following proposition.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a Generalized Hantzsche-Wendt group of dimension $`n`$ with non-trivial center. Then the kernel of the composition $`f:\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }/[\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ can be an oriented or a non-oriented Generalized Hantzsche-Wendt group.

###### Proof.

First, it is not difficult to observe that $`\mathrm{ker}f`$ is a Bieberbach group (cf. ). From the assumptions, the abelian group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/[\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }]F`$ where $`F`$ is a finite group (cf. ). Let $`f((A,a))`$ be a generator for some $`(A,a)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We can assume, by using Lemma 3.2, that $`A`$ has eigenvalues $`1,1`$, with corresponding eigenspaces $`V^+`$ and $`V^{}`$ of dimensions $`1`$ and $`n1`$ respectively. Moreover we have an isomorphism $`\mathrm{ker}f/(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ker}f)\mathrm{ker}f/(\mathrm{\Lambda }V^{})_2^{n2}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the translation lattice of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We have to show that $`_2^{n2}`$ is the holonomy group of the Bieberbach group $`\mathrm{ker}f`$. But this follows from the assumptions and Lemma 3.3. To finish the proof we observe that for odd $`n`$, every $`\mathrm{ker}f`$ is non-oriented. On the other hand, using semidirect product $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}_\alpha `$ with the integers, for any HW group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ of dimension $`n`$, we can define a $`(n+1)`$-rank GHW group with non-trivial center such that the kernel of the map onto $``$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Here $`\alpha :\mathrm{Out}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})`$ is a homomorphism which send $`1`$ to $`Id\mathrm{Out}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}).`$

As mentioned above, the holonomy representation of GHW manifolds with $`\beta _1=1`$ is always equivalent to that of the above example, hence all these manifolds have the same rational homology, namely

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`M`$ be a Generalized Hantzsche-Wendt flat manifold of dimension $`n`$ with first Betti number one. Then

$$H_j(M,)\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{if }j=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1};\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

From the definition and assumptions we have a short exact sequence

$$0^n\pi _1(M)_2^{n1}0,$$

where the action of $`_2^{n1}`$ on $`^n`$ is given by the matrices $`C_i`$, $`1in1.`$ This defines a representation $`\rho :_2^{n1}\mathrm{GL}(n,).`$ Using a similar method as in  we have a character $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`\rho `$ given by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\chi _i,$$

where $`\chi _i=\chi _0^{}\mathrm{}\chi _0^{}\chi _1^{}\chi _0^{}\mathrm{}\chi _0^{},1in1`$ with $`\chi _1^{}`$ the $`i`$-th of the $`(n1)`$ factors in the product, and $`\chi _n=(\chi _0^{})^{n1}.`$ Here $`\chi _0^{},\chi _1^{}`$ denote respectively a trivial and a non-trivial character of the involution group $`_2`$. From

$$H_j(M,)[\mathrm{\Lambda }^j(^n)]^{_2^{n1}}.$$

From its definition, the representation of $`_2^{n1}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^j(^n)`$ has the following character

(6)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^j(\rho )=\underset{1i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_jn}{}\chi _{i_1}\chi _{i_2}\mathrm{}\chi _{i_j}.$$

We have

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^j(\rho )=\chi _1\underset{2i_2<\mathrm{}<i_jn}{}\chi _{i_2}\mathrm{}\chi _{i_j}+\underset{2i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_jn}{}\chi _{i_1}\chi _{i_2}\mathrm{}\chi _{i_j}.$$

Hence by induction and an immediate calculation the result follows. ∎

According to  the number of isomorphism classes of GHW manifolds and their holonomy representations in dimensions up to 6 are as in the following table.

|  | number of GHW manifolds. | | | | | number of |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| dim | $`\beta _1=0`$ | $`\beta _1=1`$ | total | orient. | non-orient. | holon. repr. |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 4 | 2 | 10 | 12 | 0 | 12 | 2 |
| 5 | 23 | 100 | 123 | 2 | 121 | 3 |
| 6 | 352 | 2184 | 2536 | 0 | 2536 | 3 |

There are 62 HW manifolds in dimension 7 and more that 1000 in dimension 9 (cf. ).

## 5. Holonomy Representations

If we consider the case of non-oriented generalized Hantzsche-Wendt Bieberbach groups with trivial center then we have many more possibilities for the holonomy representation. Let us start establishing the following general result.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`\rho :_2^k\mathrm{GL}(n,)`$ be a diagonal faithful integral representation with $`Id\mathrm{Im}(\rho )`$ and $`k<n`$. Then there is a Bieberbach group whose integral holonomy representation is $`\rho `$.

###### Proof.

It suffices to prove the case $`k=n1`$, since in the cases $`k<n1`$ we can use the lemma below to induce from $`\rho `$ a new representation defined on $`_2^{n1}`$; then apply the result for $`n1`$ to obtain a diagonal Bieberbach group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the new integral holonomy representation; and finally, choose the appropriate proper subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of index $`2^{n1k}`$ corresponding to the original integral representation $`\rho `$. Note that this chosen subgroup has the same lattice of translations as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and by construction, it is always a diagonal Bieberbach group.

###### Lemma 5.2.

If $`\sigma :_2^k\mathrm{GL}(n,)`$ is a diagonal faithful integral representation with $`Id\mathrm{Im}(\sigma )`$ and $`k<n1`$, then there exists an integral representation $`\tau :_2^{k+1}\mathrm{GL}(n,)`$ with the same properties as $`\sigma `$ and containing properly $`\sigma `$, i.e., $`\tau _{_2^k\times \{0\}}=\sigma `$.

###### Proof.

Denote $`\sigma ^{}:=Id\sigma `$, i.e. $`\sigma ^{}(g):=(\sigma (g))`$. Since $`Id\mathrm{Im}(\sigma )`$, we have $`\mathrm{Im}(\sigma )\mathrm{Im}(\sigma ^{})=\mathrm{}`$. Since $`2\times 2^k<2^n`$, there is $`B\mathrm{D}(n)(\mathrm{Im}(\sigma )\mathrm{Im}(\sigma ^{}))`$. Now define $`\tau :_2^{k+1}\mathrm{D}(n)`$ as the unique representation satisfying $`\tau _{_2^k\times \{0\}}=\sigma `$ and $`\tau _{\{0\}^k\times _2}=B`$ (here we are identifying $`B`$ with the representation of $`_2`$ in $`^n`$ whose nontrivial element acts by $`B`$). Since $`B\mathrm{Im}(\sigma )`$, $`\tau `$ is a faithful representation; since $`B\mathrm{Im}(\sigma ^{})`$, $`Id\mathrm{Im}(\tau )`$, and therefore $`\tau `$ has the desired properties. ∎

(continuation of the proof of Theorem 5.1) We continue the proof by induction on $`n`$. If $`n=2,3`$, it is easy to prove it. If $`\mathrm{Im}(\rho )\mathrm{SL}(n,)`$, then $`n`$ must be odd and we know that there are manifolds with $`\rho `$ as its integral representation, namely the Hantzsche-Went manifolds as in , , . Otherwise $`\mathrm{Im}(\rho )`$ contains elements of determinant $`1`$, then by Lemma 3.2, there is $`C_i\mathrm{Im}(\rho )`$, that after reordering the coordinates we may assume to be $`C_1=\text{diag}(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$. Denote $`p_1`$ the projection onto the first coordinate and $`p_r`$ the projection onto the last $`n1`$ coordinates. Next, consider $`\mathrm{ker}(p_1\rho )`$, which is a subgroup of $`_2^{n1}`$ of index 2. Denote the inclusion $`\mathrm{ker}(p_1\rho )\stackrel{\iota }{}_2^{n1}`$, and define $`\rho ^{}:=p_r\rho \iota `$. Then $`\rho ^{}`$ is faithful, diagonal and $`Id\mathrm{Im}(\rho ^{})`$, however it is of rank $`n1`$ and defined from a group isomorphic to $`_2^{n2}`$. By induction, there is a Bieberbach group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ whose integral holonomy representation is $`\rho ^{}`$. Moreover, we may assume that all the elements in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ are of the form $`(B^{},b^{})`$ with $`B^{}\mathrm{Im}(\rho ^{})`$ and $`b^{}\frac{1}{2}^{n1}`$ (see Lemma 1.4 in ).

To complete the proof one might use previous known results, as in , but we prefer the following explicit method, since it is elementary and provides a method which will be useful in Section 8.

| 1 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 1 | $`1`$ | $`1`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`1`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |
|  | $`𝚪^{}`$ |  |  |  | $`𝚪^{}`$ |  |
|  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |

The previous picture gives an idea of the Bieberbach group we are constructing. In the middle column is placed $`C_1`$. We need a vector $`c^n`$ to form a torsion-free element $`(C_1,c)`$. We choose $`c=e_2/2`$ (any other choice $`c=e_i/2`$ for $`i>2`$ would work well too). Now we define new elements by using the elements in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ in the following way: if $`(B^{},b^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$, then we define $`(B,b)`$ by $`B:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& \\ & B^{}\end{array}\right]`$ and $`b:=(b_1^{},0,b_2^{},\mathrm{},b_{n1}^{})`$, where $`b_i^{}`$, $`1in`$, are the coordinates of $`b^{}`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}:=(B,b):(B^{},b^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{};L_{e_i}:1in`$ is an $`n`$-rank Bieberbach group with holonomy group $`\mathrm{ker}(p_1\rho )`$ (it is torsion-free since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is so). We claim that $`(B,b)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}},(C_1,c)`$ is a Bieberbach group with integral holonomy representation $`\rho `$. It is clear that its integral representation is $`\rho `$, so the only point to be explained is that it is torsion-free. This condition is clear for elements in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}`$ and for $`(C_1,c)`$. Now the products $`(B,b)(C_1,c)`$ are of the forms $`(D,d)`$ with $`D=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& B^{}\end{array}\right]`$ and $`d=(,\frac{1}{2},b_2^{},\mathrm{},b_{n1}^{})`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is torsion-free, then the elements $`(D,d)`$ are torsion-free too. ∎

Now we are interested in the holonomy representations of GHW groups.

###### Theorem 5.3.

The total number of inequivalent integral holonomy representations occurring in Generalized Hantzsche-Wendt Bieberbach groups of dimension $`n`$ equals $`n/2`$ for $`n`$ even and $`(n+1)/2`$ for $`n`$ odd.

###### Proof.

By definition, each holonomy representation is defined by a hyperplane in $`_2^n`$. From linear algebra, it is the kernel of a linear map with matrix $`[x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, where $`x_i_2=\{0,1\}`$. Hence, we have the following $`n`$ classes of diagonal representations:

$$[1,0,\mathrm{},0],[1,1,0,\mathrm{},0],\mathrm{},[1,1,\mathrm{},1,0],[1,1,\mathrm{},1].$$

Since we are considering torsion-free groups, all the hyperplanes corresponding to holonomy representations do not have the vector $`[1,1,\mathrm{},1]`$, since $`Id`$ corresponds to an element of torsion. Hence we have to consider only vectors with an odd number of nonzero elements. We claim that diagonal holonomy representations defined by such vectors are all inequivalent. In fact, let us consider a hyperplane (representation) as the set of $`n\times n`$ diagonal matrices. It suffices to count the number of matrices $`A`$ such that the group of fix points $`(^n)^A`$ of the action of $`A`$ is isomorphic to the integers $``$, i.e. matrices of the form $`A=\mathrm{diag}(1,\mathrm{},1,1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$. It is not difficult to see that for different hyperplanes, the number of such $`A`$’s is different. Summing up we have for $`n`$ even, $`n/2`$ and for $`n`$ odd, $`(n+1)/2`$ possibilities, which indeed occur by Theorem 5.1. ∎

As a consequence, the number of integral representations occurring in non-oriented GHW groups with trivial center is $`(n/2)1`$ for $`n`$ even and $`((n+1)/2)2`$ for $`n`$ odd.

## 6. Examples

In this section we present an explicit example of GHW groups with trivial center in each dimension $`n`$. In the notation of the proof of Theorem 5.3, its holonomy representation corresponds to hyperplanes $`[1,1,\mathrm{},1,1]`$ in the odd case and to $`[1,1,\mathrm{},1,1,0]`$ in the even case. For $`n2`$, let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ be the subgroup of $`\mathrm{E}(n)`$ generated by the set $`\{(B_i,s(B_i)=x_i):1in1\}.`$ Here $`B_i`$’s are the $`n\times n`$ orthogonal matrices:

(7)
$$B_i:=C_i=\text{diag}(1,\mathrm{},1,\underset{i}{\underset{}{1}},1,\mathrm{},1)$$

and

$`x_i=s(B_i)=e_i/2+e_{i+1}/2`$ for $`1in1`$.

These groups have trivial center for $`n3`$. In  (see also ) it was proved that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ are Bieberbach groups for odd $`n`$. For even $`n`$ the groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ are also Bieberbach groups (one might also use Proposition 2.1 in  to prove it) in particular because we have

###### Proposition 6.1.

For $`n2,`$ there is a monomorphism $`\varphi _n:\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n+1}`$ of groups. Moreover $`\varphi _n(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n)`$ is not a normal subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n+1}`$.

###### Proof.

Let {$`(B_i,x_i):1in1\}`$ be a set of generators of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n.`$ We have an inclusion $`k:^n^{n+1}`$, where $`b^n`$ is mapped to $`k(b)=(b,0)^{n+1}.`$ Next, we consider the $`(n+1)\times (n+1)`$ matrices $`\overline{B_i}:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}B_i& 0\\ & \\ 0& 1\end{array}\right],\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}in.`$ We define

$$\varphi _n((B_i,x_i))=(\overline{B_i},k(x_i)).$$

Finally, it suffices to conjugate by the translation $`(Id,(0,\mathrm{},0,1))`$ an element $`\varphi _n((B_1,(1/2,1/2,0,\mathrm{},0))`$ to show that the image of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ is not a normal subgroup. ∎

By analogy with  we have.

###### Theorem 6.2.

For $`n2`$,

$$H_j(^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_n,)\{\begin{array}{ccc}& \text{ if }j=0\hfill & \\ & \text{ if }n\text{ is even and }j=n1\hfill & \\ & \text{ if }n\text{ is odd and }j=n\hfill & \\ 0& \text{otherwise}\hfill & \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

For odd $`n`$ it was proved in . The proof for $`n=2k`$ follows the same structure as the proof of Theorem 4.2. We have just to replace $`n`$ by $`2k`$, $`M`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2k1}`$, and the action of matrices $`C_i`$ by the action of $`B_i`$ as in (7), thus the characters change accordingly. Now from the equivalent to formula (6), an immediate calculation shows that no summand is trivial there, then dim$`{}_{}{}^{}[\mathrm{\Lambda }^j(^{2k})]_{}^{_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}k1}}=0`$ for each $`j`$, $`1j2k2`$. Moreover

$$\underset{g_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}k1}}{}\frac{1}{2^{2k1}}\underset{1i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_{2k1}2k}{}\chi _{i_1}\chi _{i_2}\mathrm{}\chi _{i_j}(g)=$$

$$=\underset{g_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}k1}}{}\frac{1}{2^{2k1}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2k}{}}\chi _1\mathrm{}\widehat{\chi _i}\mathrm{}\chi _{2k}(g)=\frac{1}{2^{2k1}}\underset{i=0}{\overset{2k1}{}}(2k2i)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2k1}{i}\right)=1.$$

Here $`\chi _1\mathrm{}\widehat{\chi _i}\mathrm{}\chi _{2k}`$ denotes the product of characters $`\chi _1\mathrm{}\chi _i\mathrm{}\chi _{2k}`$ without the character $`\chi _i.`$ Hence dim$`{}_{}{}^{}[\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2k1}(^{2k})]_{}^{_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}k1}}=1.`$ Finally, one can calculate that

$$\underset{g_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}k1}}{}\chi _1\chi _2\mathrm{}\chi _{2k}(g)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{2k1}{}}(1)^i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2k1}{i}\right)=0.$$

In the formulas above we use the definition of characters on the elements of $`_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}k1}`$ considered as elements of $`_2`$-vector space. ∎

A small modification to the groups $`K_n`$ defined in Section 4 produces examples as required in Remark 3.5(iii): we replace the $`(1,1)`$ entries in matrices $`C_i`$ by $`2\times 2`$ matrices of the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \hfill J:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right]& \text{if the entry is a }1\text{; and}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{the }2\times 2\text{ identity }& \hfill \left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]& \text{if the entry is a 1}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now the dimension increases by one, while the holonomy group remains the same. For example, for $`n=2`$, we had for $`K_2`$ (the Klein bottle group), matrix $`C_1=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]`$ and vector $`s(C_1)=\frac{e_2}{2}`$; and now we have a $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}J& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]`$ and vector $`\frac{e_3}{2}`$ to obtain a 3-dimensional Bieberbach group which is not of diagonal type.

Hence these are, as claimed, non-diagonal examples in the case that $`k+2`$ equals the dimension (where $`_2^k`$ is the holonomy group). The verification that these are indeed Bieberbach groups is easy, and analogous to that for $`K_n`$. The smaller the $`k`$ (with fixed dimension), the easier the construction of these examples.

## 7. Outer Automorphism Groups

In this section we give an estimate for the order of the outer automorphism group of GHW Bieberbach groups. In the case of the groups $`K_n`$ considered in Section 4, we prove that the group $`\mathrm{Aut}(K_n)/\mathrm{Inn}(K_n)=:\mathrm{Out}(K_n)_2^n.`$ We denote by $`|A|`$ the order of a group $`A`$.

###### Theorem 7.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a Generalized Hantzsche-Wendt group of dimension $`n`$. Then we have $`|\mathrm{Out}(\mathrm{\Gamma })|2^{n+1}n!`$. Moreover in the case with non-trivial center we have $`|\mathrm{Out}(\mathrm{\Gamma })|2^n(n1)!.`$

###### Proof.

Let $`N`$ denote the normalizer in $`\mathrm{GL}(n,)`$ of the holonomy group $`_2^{n1}`$. Then $`N`$ acts in a natural way on $`H^2(_2^{n1},^n)`$.

Let $`\alpha H^2(_2^{n1},^n)`$ denote the cohomology class giving rise to the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ and let $`N_\alpha `$ denote its stabilizer in $`N`$. Then $`_2^{n1}`$ is a normal subgroup of $`N_\alpha `$ and we have a short exact sequence (cf. , )

(8)
$$0H^1(_2^{n1},^n)\mathrm{Out}(\mathrm{\Gamma })N_\alpha /_2^{n1}0.$$

From  for HW groups, $`N=S_n_2`$ is semidirect product of the symmetric group $`S_n`$ and $`_2^n`$. For a non-oriented GHW group with non-trivial center, $`N=_2\times (S_{n1}_2)`$. In fact, the normalizer $`N_2N_1`$ because the image of the holonomy representation contains a unique element having as its diagonal entries only one 1 and the remaining are all $`1`$’s, (see Lemma 3.2). Moreover $`N_1S_{n1}_2.`$ In the case of non-oriented $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with trivial center we can write the diagonal group $`_2^n`$ in the group $`\mathrm{GL}(n,)`$ as a sum of a holonomy group $`_2^{n1}`$ and a set $`(Id)_2^{n1}`$. Hence $`N_{\mathrm{GL}(n,)}(_2^{n1})N_{\mathrm{GL}(n,)}(_2^n)S_n_2`$. From (8) we only have to prove that $`|H^1(_2^{n1},^n)|`$ equals $`2^n`$ in the case of trivial center and $`2^{n1}`$ in case of non-trivial center. But this is proved in . ∎

###### Corollary 7.2.

For $`n2`$, $`\mathrm{Out}(K_n)_2^n.`$

###### Proof.

From above the normalizer $`N`$ of the holonomy representation is equal to $`_2\times S_{n1}_2,`$ where the permutation group acts on the first $`(n1)`$ coordinates. Let $`sH^2(_2^{n1},^n)`$ be a cocycle which corresponds to the group $`K_n`$ of Section 4. Then $`N_s=_2^n.`$ In fact it is enough to observe that for any non-trivial $`\sigma S_{n1}`$, $`\sigma ss.`$ We have

$$(\sigma s)(B_i)=\sigma s(\sigma ^1B_i\sigma )=\sigma s(B_{\sigma ^1(i)}),$$

for any generator $`B_i_2^{n1}`$ and $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n1,`$ see . We are looking for the permutation $`\sigma S_{n1}`$ such that the cocycle $`\sigma ss`$ is trivial. We have two cases. First assume that $`\sigma ^1(i)+1<n.`$ Hence $`\sigma ^1(i)+1=\sigma ^1(i+1).`$ From $`\sigma ^1(i)+1=n`$ it follows that $`i=n1.`$ Summing up we have $`\sigma N_s`$ if and only if, for $`i<(n1)`$, $`\sigma (i+1)=\sigma (i)+1`$ and $`\sigma (n1)=n1.`$ Hence for $`i=n2`$ we have $`\sigma (n2)=n2`$ and by induction $`\sigma `$ is identity. To finish the proof we observe that $`N_s/_2^{n1}=_2`$ and it is generated by the image of $`Id`$. Now it is enough to apply the short exact sequence (8). ∎

###### Remark 7.3.

From , for GHW manifolds $`M^n`$ of dimension $`n`$ with first Betti number $`\beta _1`$, the group Aff$`(M^n)/(S^1)^{\beta _1}`$ of affine diffeomorphisms of $`M^n`$ is isomorphic to the group $`\mathrm{Out}(\pi _1(M^n)).`$

## 8. A Graph Connecting the GHW Manifolds

In this section we start the discussion of relations between the generalized Hantzsche-Wendt manifolds of different dimensions. For manifolds with first Betti number one we have relations from E. Calabi’s construction (see Proposition 4.1 and , p. 125). But we have also a lot of links between GHW groups of different dimensions in the case when one of them has trivial center. We must say that this subject needs further research and we want to come back to it in the future. Most of the observations in this section are corollaries from previous ones, and we shall omit some proofs.

Let us start defining a graph G as follows:

* The vertices of G are the GHW groups (or manifolds).
* We say that a vertex has dimension $`n`$ if it corresponds to a GHW manifold of dimension $`n`$.
* Edges are defined only between vertices in consecutive dimensions.
* There is an edge between two vertices (in consecutive dimensions) if one of the corresponding GHW groups is a subgroup of the other (in an abstract sense, i.e. there is a monomorphism from one into the other).

From Corollary 3.4 we see that in G there is always (at least) an edge ‘down’ from each vertex. As a direct consequence we have

###### Corollary 8.1.

(i) The fundamental group of the Klein bottle is a subgroup of every GHW group.
(ii) The graph $`𝐆`$ is connected.

Moreover from Figure 1 we see that G is not a tree.

On the other hand, from the method in the proof of Theorem 5.1 it is possible to deduce that any GHW group in dimension $`n`$ is subgroup of a GHW group in dimension $`n+1`$. Moreover, we can prove that it is indeed subgroup of at least two different GHW groups in dimension $`n+1`$ (we omit the proof for brevity). In the graph $`𝐆`$ this means that from any vertex there are at least two edges ‘up’.

In Figure 1, a point $``$ (resp. a bullet $``$) denotes a GHW manifold with first Betti number zero (resp. one); $`K`$ is the Klein bottle; $`+a2`$ and $`a2`$ are the first and second amphidicosm respectively, they are the two non-oriented GHW manifolds of dimension 3; $`c22`$ is the didicosm (or the oriented Hantzsche-Wendt 3-dimensional flat manifold). The new names are due to a proposal by John H. Conway to name the ten flat 3-manifolds according to their properties, which we adopt (this terminology is introduced in ).

Other edges in Figure 1 are obtained by extensions to the methods of theorems 3.1 and 5.1.

There are many other properties of $`𝐆`$ to be explored. For instance, a distance between vertices can be defined in the standard way for graphs.

In dimension 5 there are only two HW manifolds (cf. ). With the method of Theorem 3.1, it is not difficult to prove that they have both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4`$ (defined in Section 6) as a subgroup, and therefore the distance between them is just two. We also have

###### Proposition 8.2.

The fundamental group of the didicosm (or Hantzsche-Wendt 3-manifold) is a subgroup of every GHW group with trivial center.

###### Proof.

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the given GHW group. By Lemma 3.2 there is $`(B,b)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that (after permuting coordinates) $`B=\text{diag}(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ and $`b=(\frac{1}{2},,\mathrm{},)`$, where each $``$ is in $`\{0,\frac{1}{2}\}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has trivial center there is another element $`(C,c)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`C=\text{diag}(1,1,1,\pm 1,\mathrm{},\pm 1)`$ and the second coordinate of $`c`$ equals $`1/2`$. Now the integral representation corresponding to $`B,C,BC`$ is the direct sum of the three non-trivial characters of $`_2_2`$ (with certain multiplicities). Then it is not difficult to check that the subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generated by $`(B,b)`$ and $`(C,c)`$ is isomorphic to the fundamental group of the didicosm. ∎

In , the analogous result was proved for Bieberbach groups with holonomy group $`_2_2`$ (instead of GHW groups) and trivial center (see also ).

By (5) the groups $`K_n`$, $`n2`$, form an infinite chain in G. Also the groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$, $`n`$, $`n3`$ from Section 6 form an infinite chain by Proposition 6.1.

Finally, we remark that the edges in G sometimes correspond to normal subgroups and sometimes not (or they can correspond to both simultaneously). For instance, the chain obtained by Proposition 6.1 is not normal. Also, $`\pi _1(K)`$ can be injected as a normal and as a non-normal subgroup in $`\pi _1(+a2)`$ and in $`\pi _1(a2)`$ but it is never a normal subgroup of $`\pi _1(c22)`$.

Some problems and questions:

* Are there relations between Fibonacci groups and the fundamental groups of Hantzsche-Wendt manifolds? (cf. )
* Are there other geometric structures on oriented GHW manifolds? Is it possible to introduce some invariants on them? (in analogy with three dimensional rational homology sphere as Casson-Walker and Seiberg-Witten invariants)
* Is it possible to improve the upper bound given in Theorem 7.1? Could the factor $`n!`$ be replaced by $`n`$?
* What are the geometrical and topological properties of the ‘graph’ of GHW manifolds?


text:
# Theorem 1

Continuity Equation in Nonlinear Quantum
Mechanics and the Galilei Relativity Principle

Wilhelm I. FUSHCHYCH  and Vyacheslav M. BOYKO

Institute of Mathematics of the National Ukrainian Academy of Sciences,
3 Tereshchenkivska Str. 3, Kyiv 4, 01601 Ukraina

URL: http://www.imath.kiev.ua/~appmath/wif.html

URL: http://www.imath.kiev.ua/~boyko/ E-mail: boyko@imath.kiev.ua

## Abstract

Classes of the nonlinear Schrödinger-type equations compatible with the Galilei relativity principle are described. Solutions of these equations satisfy the continuity equation.

The continuity equation is one of the most fundamental equations of quantum mechanics

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{j}=0.$$
(1)
Depending on definition of $`\rho `$ (density) and $`\stackrel{}{j}=(j^1,\mathrm{},j^n)`$ (current), we can construct essentially different quantum mechanics with different equations of motion, which are distinct from classical linear Schrödinger, Klein–Gordon–Fock, and Dirac equations.

In this paper we describe wide classes of the nonlinear Schrödinger-type equations compatible with the Galilei relativity principle and their solutions satisfy the continuity equation.

1. At the beginning we study a symmetry of the continuity equation considering $`(\rho ,\stackrel{}{j})`$ as dependent variables related by (1).

###### Theorem 1

The invariance algebra of equation (1) is an infinite-dimensional algebra with basis operators

$$X=\xi ^\mu (x)\frac{}{x_\mu }+\left(a^{\mu \nu }(x)j^\nu +b^\mu (x)\right)\frac{}{j^\mu },$$
(2)
where $`j^0\rho `$; $`\xi ^\mu (x)`$ are arbitrary smooth functions; $`x=(x_0=t,x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)𝐑^{n+1}`$; $`a^{\mu \nu }(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^\mu }{x_\nu }}\delta _{\mu \nu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^i}{x_i}}+C\right)`$; $`C=\mathrm{const}`$, $`\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the Kronecker delta; $`\mu ,\nu ,i=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$, $`(b^0(x),b^1(x),\mathrm{},b^n(x))`$ is an arbitrary solution of equation (1).

Here and below we imply summation over repeated indices.

###### Corollary 1

The generalized Galilei algebra

$$AG_2(1,n)=<P_\mu ,J_{ab},G_a,D^{(1)},A>$$
(3)
is a subalgebra of algebra (2).

###### Corollary 2

The conformal algebra

$$AP_2(1,n)=AC(1,n)=<P_\mu ,J_{ab},J_{0a},D^{(2)},K_\mu >$$
(4)
is a subalgebra of algebra (2).

We use the following designations in (3) and (4)

$$\begin{array}{c}P_\mu =_\mu ,J_{ab}=x_a_bx_b_a+j^a_{j^b}j^b_{j^a},(a<b)\hfill \\ G_a=x_0_a+\rho _{j^a},J_{0a}=x_a_0+x_0_a+j^a_\rho +\rho _{j^a},\hfill \\ D^{(1)}=2x_0_0+x_a_an\rho _\rho (n+1)j^a_{j^a},D^{(2)}=x_\mu _\mu n\rho _\rho nj^a_{j^a},\hfill \\ A=x_0^2_0+x_0x_a_anx_0\rho _\rho +(x_a\rho (n+1)x_0j^a)_{j^a},\hfill \\ K_\mu =2x_\mu D^{(2)}x_\nu x^\nu g_{\mu i}_i2x^\nu S_{\mu \nu },S_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu i}j^\nu _{j^i}g_{\nu i}j^\mu _{j^i},\hfill \\ g_{\mu \nu }=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1,& \mu =\nu =0\hfill \\ \hfill 1,& \mu =\nu 0\hfill \\ \hfill 0,& \mu \nu ,\hfill \end{array}\mu ,\nu ,i=0,1\mathrm{},n;a,b=1,2,\mathrm{},n.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Corollary 3

The continuity equation satisfies the Galilei relativity principle as well as the Lorentz–Poincare–Einstein relativity principle.

Thus, depending on the definition of $`\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{}{j}`$, we come to different quantum mechanics.
2. Let us consider the scalar complex–valued wave functions and define $`\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{}{j}`$ in the following way

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho =f(uu^{}),j^k=\frac{1}{2}ig(uu^{})\left(\frac{u}{x_k}u^{}u\frac{u^{}}{x_k}\right)+\frac{\phi (uu^{})}{x_k},k=1,2,\mathrm{},n.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where $`f,g,\phi `$ are arbitrary smooth functions, $`f\mathrm{const}`$, $`g0`$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $`fuu^{}`$.

Let us describe all functions $`g(uu^{})`$, $`\phi (uu^{})`$ for continuity equation (1), (5) to be compatible with the Galilei relativity principle, defined by the following transformations:

$$tt^{}=t,x_ax_a^{}=x_a+v_at.$$

Here we do not fix transformation rules for the wave function $`u`$.

###### Theorem 2

If $`\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{}{j}`$ are defined according to formula (5), then the continuity equation (1) is Galilei–invariant iff

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho =uu^{},j^k=\frac{1}{2}i\left(\frac{u}{x_k}u^{}u\frac{u^{}}{x_k}\right)+\frac{\phi (uu^{})}{x_k},k=1,2,\mathrm{},n.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
The corresponding generators of Galilei transformations have the form

$$G_a=x_0_a+ix_a\left(u_uu^{}_u^{}\right),a=1,2,\mathrm{},n.$$

If in (6)

$$\phi =\lambda uu^{},\lambda =\mathrm{const},$$
(7)
then the continuity equation (1), (6), (7) coincides with the Fokker–Planck equation

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{j}+\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\rho =0,$$
(8)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho =uu^{},j^k=\frac{1}{2}i\left(\frac{u}{x_k}u^{}u\frac{u^{}}{x_k}\right),k=1,2,\mathrm{},n.\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
The continuity equation (1), (6), (7) was considered in .

Let us invistigate the symmetry of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation

$$iu_0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }u+i\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\phi (uu^{})}{2uu^{}}u=F(uu^{},(\stackrel{}{}(uu^{}))^2,\mathrm{\Delta }(uu^{}))u,$$
(10)
where $`F`$ is an arbitrary real smooth function.

For the solutions of equation (10), equation (1), (6) is satisfied and is compatible with the Galilei relativity principle. Schrödinger equations in the form of (10), when $`\phi (uu^{})=\lambda uu^{}`$ for fixed function $`F`$, were considered in .

In terms of the phase and amplitude $`\left(u=R\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Theta })\right)`$, equation (10) has the form

$$\begin{array}{c}R_0+R_k\mathrm{\Theta }_k+\frac{1}{2}R\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{1}{2R}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Theta }_0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }_k^2\frac{1}{2R}\mathrm{\Delta }R+F(R^2,\left(\stackrel{}{}\left(R^2\right)\right)^2,\mathrm{\Delta }R^2)=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
###### Theorem 3

The maximal invariance algebras for system (11), if $`F=0`$, are the following:

$$1.<P_\mu ,J_{ab},Q,G_a,D>$$
(12)
when $`\phi `$ is an arbitrary function;

$$2.<P_\mu ,J_{ab},Q,G_a,D,I,A>$$
(13)
when $`\phi =\lambda R^2`$, $`\lambda =\mathrm{const}`$.

In (12) and (13) we use the following designations:

$$\begin{array}{c}P_\mu =_\mu ,J_{ab}=x_a_{x_b}x_b_{x_a},a<b,\hfill \\ G_a=x_0_{x_a}+ix_a_\mathrm{\Theta },Q=_\mathrm{\Theta },D=2x_0_{x_0}+x_a_{x_a},I=R_R,\hfill \\ A=x_0^2_{x_0}+x_0x_a_{x_a}\frac{n}{2}x_0R_R+\frac{1}{2}x_a^2_\mathrm{\Theta },\hfill \\ \mu =0,1,\mathrm{},n;a,b=1,2,\mathrm{},n.\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
Algebra (13) coincides with the invariance algebra of the linear Schrödinger equation.

###### Corollary 4

System (11), (7) is invariant with respect to algebra (13) if

$$F=R^1\mathrm{\Delta }RN\left(\frac{R\mathrm{\Delta }R}{(\stackrel{}{}R)^2}\right),$$

where $`N`$ is an arbitrary real smooth function.

3. Let us consider a more general system than (10)

$$iu_0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }u=(F_1+iF_2)u,$$
(15)
where $`F_1,F_2`$ are arbitrary real smooth functions,

$$F_m=F_m(uu^{},(\stackrel{}{}(uu^{}))^2,\mathrm{\Delta }(uu^{}))u,m=1,2.$$
(16)
The structure of functions $`F_1,F_2`$ may be described in form (16) by virtue of conditions for system (15) to be Galilei-invariant.

In terms of the phase and amplitude, equation (15) has the form

$$\begin{array}{c}R_0+R_k\mathrm{\Theta }_k+\frac{1}{2}R\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }RF_2=0,\mathrm{\Theta }_0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }_k^2\frac{1}{2R}\mathrm{\Delta }R+F_1=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
where $`F_m=F_m(R^2,\left(\stackrel{}{}\left(R^2\right)\right)^2,\mathrm{\Delta }R^2),m=1,2`$.

###### Theorem 4

System (17) is invariant with respect to the generalized Galilei algebra
$`AG_2(1,n)=<P_\mu ,J_{ab},G_a,Q,\stackrel{~}{D},A>`$ if it has the form

$$\begin{array}{c}R_0+R_k\mathrm{\Theta }_k+\frac{1}{2}R\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }R^{1+4/n}M(\frac{(\stackrel{}{}R)^2}{R^{2+4/n}};\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R^{1+4/n}})=0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Theta }_0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }_k^2\frac{1}{2R}\mathrm{\Delta }R+R^{4/n}N(\frac{(\stackrel{}{}R)^2}{R^{2+4/n}};\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R^{1+4/n}})=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`N,M`$ are arbitrary real smooth functions. The basis operators of the algebra $`AG_2(1,n)`$ are defined by (14) and $`\stackrel{~}{D}=D{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}I`$.

###### Theorem 5

System (17) is invariant with respect to algebra (13) if it has the form

$$\begin{array}{c}R_0+R_k\mathrm{\Theta }_k+\frac{1}{2}R\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Delta }RM\left(\frac{R\mathrm{\Delta }R}{(\stackrel{}{}R)^2}\right)=0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Theta }_0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }_k^2\frac{1}{2R}\mathrm{\Delta }R+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}N\left(\frac{R\mathrm{\Delta }R}{(\stackrel{}{}R)^2}\right)=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
where $`N,M`$ are arbitrary real smooth functions.

System (18) written in terms of the wave function has the form

$$iu_0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }u=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }|u|}{|u|}\left(N\left(\frac{|u|\mathrm{\Delta }|u|}{(\stackrel{}{}|u|)^2}\right)+iM\left(\frac{|u|\mathrm{\Delta }|u|}{(\stackrel{}{}|u|)^2}\right)\right)u.$$
(19)
Equation (19) is equivalent to the following equation

$$iu_0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }u=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(uu^{})}{(uu^{})}\left(\stackrel{~}{N}\left(\frac{(uu^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(uu^{})}{(\stackrel{}{}(uu^{}))^2}\right)+i\stackrel{~}{M}\left(\frac{(uu^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(uu^{})}{(\stackrel{}{}(uu^{}))^2}\right)\right)u.$$

Thus, equation (18) admits an invariance algebra which coincides with the invariance algebra of the linear Schrödinger equation with the arbitrary functions $`M,N`$.

###### Note 1

With certain particular $`M`$ and $`N`$ the symmetry of system (18) can be essentially extended. E.g., if in (18) $`N={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$, then the second equation of the system (equation for the phase) will be the Hamilton–Jacobi equation .

Let us consider some forms of the continuity equation (1) for equation (18).

Case 1. If $`M=0`$, then for solutions of equation (18) equation (1) holds true, where the density and current can be defined in the classical way (9).

Case 2. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }RM=\lambda \left(\mathrm{\Delta }R+{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{}R)^2}{R}}\right)`$, then for solutions of equation (18), the continuity equation (1), (6), (7) (or the Fokker–Planck equation (8), (9)) is valid.

Case 3. If $`M`$ is arbitrary then for solutions of equation (18), the continuity equation is valid, where the density and current can be defined by the conditions

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho =uu^{},\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{j}=\frac{}{x_k}\left(\frac{1}{2}i\left(\frac{u}{x_k}u^{}u\frac{u^{}}{x_k}\right)\right)2|u|\mathrm{\Delta }|u|M\left(\frac{|u|\mathrm{\Delta }|u|}{(\stackrel{}{}|u|)^2}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, we constructed wide classes of the nonlinear Schrödinger-type equations which is invariant with respect to algebra (13) (maximal invariance algebra of the linear Schrödinger equation) and for whose solutions the continuity equation (1) is valid.