text:
# Decay Modes of Highly Excited String States and Kerr Black Holes

## 1 Introduction

String theory provides a very nontrivial regularization of ultraviolet phenomena in gravity. One of the many surprising features of this regularization is the fact that increasing the mass of a state does not necessarily lead to decreasing its lifetime; string theory dynamics seems to know how to suppress the kinematically allowed phase space crucially. We calculate the decay width and the mass-shift of a massive string state that displays this behaviour. As we are far outside the validity of a field theory analysis we have to consider all string theory corrections in the calculation at the same time, in order to see whether it really persists; the field theory limit is not enough.

We will perform the evaluation of the lifetime by means of a direct computation: We consider the one-loop contribution to the mass-shift of the massive state and evaluate its imaginary part in the Type-IIA or -IIB superstring theory. We will obtain the relevant amplitude by starting from the well known formula for the one-loop four graviton scattering amplitude in superstring theory, and extracting from it the residue of the singularity when the Mandelstam variable $`s`$ approaches the mass of the massive state. We have studied the case of the (unique, nondegenerate) maximal angular momentum state, which we can select by looking at the dependence on the scattering angle, fixing the normalization by comparing it with the residue at the pole of the same four graviton amplitude at tree-level. Since we work at one-loop level, we are considering the lifetime as the massive state is allowed to decay into two states only; this is the only possibility at the first nontrivial order in the perturbative expansion.

The analysis is rather subtle, because the resulting amplitude is expressed as an integral over tori: this boils down to integrating over a four real dimensional manifold that consists of both the torus surface and the fundamental domain of the complex modular parameter of the torus. This integral is formally divergent and, as usual in string theory, it must be given a meaning by analytic continuation. It is precisely this feature which gives rise to an imaginary part, as otherwise the result would be real, as the integrand is real positive. This is also very similar to what happens in standard Feynman loops, for instance in a convenient exponential parametric representation of the propagators: the resulting integral is convergent in the Euclidean domain, when the Mandelstam variable $`s`$ is space-like, and it is formally divergent if $`s`$ is time-like, which is relevant for the decay. The correct result is obtained by analytic continuation. In the case of string theory one cannot start from a naive off-shell configuration, as there are consistency requirements, such as preserving modular invariance, but the strategy is similar. We have first checked the method by computing the lifetime for the decay of the massive state into two massless string modes, which can be compared – and it agrees – with a direct computation of the decay into two gravitons. This can be done by extracting the tree-level coupling of the massive state to two gravitons from the tree-level four graviton amplitude. The result is that this decay channel is exponentially suppressed for our massive state (it goes like $`\mathrm{exp}\beta M^2`$ for $`\beta >0`$ a numerical constant).

The full investigation, including any two body channel, is based on the general method of saddle point analysis, although we also have to include contributions from more singular loci than saddle points in the integral: It turns out that the dominant behaviour arises in regions where the integrand has a conical singularity. Visualizing the behaviour of the integrand on sections of the manifold has required some numerical work. Happily, the numerical analysis confirms that the relevant configurations always correspond to points having particular geometrical and/or symmetrical meaning. In fact, it turns out that the number of relevant configurations is rather limited and that we could reliably follow the evolution of the integrand on them.

The final result is that the lifetime of our massive state is of order $`1`$, up to logarithmic corrections. It is interesting that also a physical picture emerges from our analysis: The dominant decay mode is seen to be rather asymmetric, corresponding to a radiative-like process, where the very massive state decays into an other very massive state emitting a light particle. The other configurations, where the massive state splits into two states, which are both massive or both light, are exponentially suppressed.

In  the behaviour of the four graviton fixed angle scattering was investigated. Their results are in qualitative agreement with ours in that they, too, find exponentially suppressed decay widths for decays into light particles, gravitons in their case. Also there the dominant contributions arise in geometrically significant points. In Ref.  the decays of open string excitations of D-branes were studied, for polarizations either parallel or transverse to the brane; for transverse polarizations the leading decays also arise from the emission of soft light particles. Ref.  deals with a similar problem to ours, though finding a somewhat different result. Related issues were considered in Ref. .

The fact that the dominant decay mode is the emission of massless particles is reminiscent of Hawking radiation. Also, it is expected that the collision of gravitons at very high energy may lead to the formation of a gravitationally collapsed intermediate state . We are thus lead to compare our results to black hole physics. The distinctive features of our state are its high angular momentum and the fact that it is in the range of validity of perturbative string theory. Therefore it should, somehow, correspond to an extrapolation of a Kerr black hole to the small string coupling region. However, the radiation rate we obtain is slightly higher than that of the Hawking radiation of a black hole. Indeed, the detailed analysis of Section 5 indicates that our state also extends beyond the horizon radius of the corresponding classical Kerr solution, when the string coupling is in the perturbative region. Requiring its characteristic length scale to be of the same order as the classical horizon turns out to be equivalent to requiring that the string coupling constant have the same – large – value as what results from the Correspondence Principle  (see also ). We are thus lead to expect that the extrapolation of a classical Kerr black hole to the quantum perturbative regime corresponds to a very massive string state of large angular momentum.

## 2 Formula for the lifetime

We start by considering the one-loop four-graviton amplitude in the Type IIA/B superstring theory

$`A_1=R^4{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\tau }{(\mathrm{Im}\tau )^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2z_i}{\mathrm{Im}\tau }\mathrm{e}^{2{\scriptscriptstyle k_ik_jP(z_{ij})}}},`$ (1)
where $`R^4`$ is a kinematical factor constructed from the tensor $`t_8`$  that contains the graviton polarizations. $`z_i`$ are the puncture insertion points of the graviton vertices, with $`z_{ij}=z_iz_j`$ and $`z_4=0`$, to be integrated over the torus surface. $`\tau `$ is the torus modulus to be integrated over the fundamental domain. $`P(z_{ij})`$ is the propagator of the world-sheet scalar

$`P(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _1(z|\tau )}{\theta _1^{^{}}(0|\tau )}}\right|^22\pi {\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{Im}z)^2}{\mathrm{Im}\tau }}.`$ (2)
For the entering graviton momenta $`k_i`$ the Mandelstam invariants are $`s=2k_1k_2=4E^2`$, $`t=2k_1k_3=2E^2(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, $`u=2k_1k_4=2E^2(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ where $`E`$ and $`\theta `$ are the graviton energy and the scattering angle in the CM frame. We work in units of $`\alpha ^{^{}}`$.

The amplitude $`A_1`$ has a double pole for $`sN`$ due to the propagator of a massive string state with $`M^2=N`$, produced by the collision of the two incoming gravitons entering into the loop (i.e. the torus), and another similar propagator emerging from the loop and decaying into the outgoing gravitons. The residue of this double pole is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^2`$, the mass-shift of the massive state: $`M^2M^2+\mathrm{\Delta }M^2`$. The imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^2`$ gives the inverse lifetime of the state.

In order to get $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^2`$ we divide the double pole residue of $`A_1`$ by the residue of the simple pole (for $`sN`$) of $`A_0`$, the tree-level four-graviton scattering amplitude. In fact,

$`A_1G_{\mathrm{in}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sN}}\mathrm{\Delta }M^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sN}}G_{\mathrm{out}},`$ (3)
where $`G_{\mathrm{in}(\mathrm{out})}`$ represent the coupling of the state to the incoming (resp. outgoing) gravitons, and

$`A_0G_{\mathrm{in}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sN}}G_{\mathrm{out}}.`$ (4)
The poles of $`A_1`$ for $`sN`$ occur as singularities of the integral over $`z_i`$ for $`z_{12}0`$ and $`z_{34}0`$. The integrand behaves as

$`|z_{12}|^{2s}|z_{34}|^{2s}F(z_{12},z_{34},z),`$ (5)
where $`z=(z_1+z_3)/2`$. In order to get the poles we have to look at the terms of the expansion of the remaining function $`F`$ that behave as $`|z_{12}|^{2(N1)}|z_{34}|^{2(N1)}`$. Let us now consider the string state with maximal angular momentum $`J=2N+2`$ and $`M^2=N`$, and thus look for the maximal power of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, or else of $`(tu)`$, in the residue. We find a unique term of that kind in the expansion of $`F`$, namely

$`F(z_{12},z_{34},z)`$ $``$ $`(E^2\mathrm{cos}\theta )^4(ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_4)\left({\displaystyle \frac{tu}{2}}\right)^{2N2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2N2)!}}\mathrm{e}^{2NP(z)}`$ (6)
$`|z_{12}|^{2N}|z_{34}|^{2N}((f^{\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{Im}\tau }})z_{12}z_{34}`$
$`+(\overline{f}^{\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{Im}\tau }})\overline{z}_{12}\overline{z}_{34}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{Im}\tau }}(z_{12}\overline{z}_{34}+\overline{z}_{12}z_{34}))^{2N2},`$
where the term $`(E^2\mathrm{cos}\theta )^4(ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_4)`$ arises from $`R^4`$, $`ϵ_i`$ being the graviton polarization tensor, and $`f^{\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}}=_z^2\theta (z|\tau )`$.

The residue of the double pole, for the maximal $`J`$, turns out to be

$`\mathrm{Res}A_1`$ $``$ $`(E^2\mathrm{cos}\theta )^4(ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_4){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2N2)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tu}{2}}\right)^{2N2}`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\tau }{(\mathrm{Im}\tau )^2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2z}{\mathrm{Im}\tau }}\mathrm{e}^{2NP(z)}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2N2)!}{(n!)^2(Nn1)!^2}}`$
$`\left|f^{\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{Im}\tau }}\right|^{2n}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{Im}\tau }}\right)^{2N2n}.`$
On the other hand, the residue at the pole for $`sN`$ of the tree-level amplitude for the maximal $`J`$ is obtained from the Veneziano amplitude for the closed superstring

$`A_0=R^4{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }(u)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+t)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+u)}}`$ (8)
and it is

$`\mathrm{Res}A_0`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{tu}{2}}\right)^{2N2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(N!)^2}}(E^2\mathrm{cos}\theta )^4(ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_4).`$ (9)
Finally, using a standard formula for the Legendre polynomial,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M^2`$ $``$ $`N^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\tau }{(\mathrm{Im}\tau )^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2z}{\mathrm{Im}\tau }\mathrm{e}^{2NP(z)}(\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{Im}\tau })^{2N}}`$ (10)
$`(Q1)^{N1}\mathrm{P}_{N1}({\displaystyle \frac{Q+1}{Q1}}),`$
where $`\mathrm{P}_n`$ is the Legendre polynomial of degree $`n`$ and $`Q=|f^{\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}}(z)\mathrm{Im}\tau /\pi +1|^2`$. The sign $``$ indicates here, and elsewhere in this article, that we have left out an $`N`$-independent normalization. As in this expression the combinations $`Q`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{exp}(P)/\mathrm{Im}\tau `$ are separately modular invariant the mass-shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^2`$ is well defined.

The inverse lifetime of the massive state is given by the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^2`$, divided by $`M=\sqrt{N}`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Delta }M^2}{\sqrt{N}}}.`$ (11)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^2`$ is expressed, formally, as an integral of a real quantity, but this integral is actually divergent. The imaginary part comes from the fact that this expression has a meaning in the sense of an analytic continuation.

## 3 Decay rate into gravitons

As a first investigation of the Physics of the decay of the massive string mode we compute its lifetime for decaying into two gravitons. This computation can be done in two ways:

* First, by extracting the coupling of the massive state to the gravitons by looking at the pole of the tree-level amplitude $`A_0`$ and then performing the integral over the phase space, or,
* Second, by extracting the contribution of the two graviton channel from the formula for the inverse lifetime we derived, starting by the double pole residue of the one-loop amplitude $`A_1`$. This can be done by looking at the dominant contribution in the pinching limit $`\mathrm{Im}\tau \mathrm{}`$ of the torus, corresponding to massless states circulating into the loop.

In the first strategy we start by recalling that

$`\mathrm{Res}A_0`$ $``$ $`(2p^2\mathrm{cos}\theta )^J{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(N!)^2}}(ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_4),`$ (12)
where the CM square space momentum is $`p^2=s/4`$. As said, $`J=2N+2`$ and we have taken the maximal power of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. On the other hand, the Feynman graph describing two incoming gravitons forming a massive state of angular momentum $`J`$ further emitting two outgoing gravitons would be (looking at the maximal power of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$)

$`A_0`$ $``$ $`(ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_4){\displaystyle \frac{g_J^2}{sM^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{V}{}}p^{r_1}\mathrm{}p^{r_J}V_{r_1\mathrm{}r_J}V_{s_1\mathrm{}s_J}p^{s_1}\mathrm{}p^{s_J}`$ (13)
$``$ $`(ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_4){\displaystyle \frac{g_J^2}{sM^2}}(p^2\mathrm{cos}\theta )^J,`$
where $`V_{r_1\mathrm{}r_J}`$ is the (symmetric and traceless) polarization tensor of the massive state, and the indices $`r_i`$ run over the $`d=9`$ space dimensions. By comparing the pole residue we get that (up to an $`N`$-independent coupling constant):

$`g_J^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{2N+2}}{(N!)^2}}.`$ (14)
Now we can directly compute the inverse lifetime for the decay into two gravitons. It is (up to $`N`$-independent numerical constants)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2\mathrm{g}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{v}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}g_J^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^dp}{p^2}\delta (p\frac{\sqrt{s}}{2})V_{r_1\mathrm{}r_J}p^{r_1}\mathrm{}p^{r_J}p^{s_1}\mathrm{}p^{s_J}V_{s_1\mathrm{}s_J}}`$ (15)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}g_J^2p^{d3}p^{2J}J^{\frac{d1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^JJ!^2}{(2J)!}}.`$
We have assumed the normalization $`V=1`$ and made use of the formula

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^d\widehat{p}\delta (\widehat{p}^21)V_{r_1\mathrm{}r_J}\widehat{p}^{r_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{p}^{r_J}\widehat{p}^{s_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{p}^{s_J}W_{s_1\mathrm{}s_J}}VWJ^{\frac{d1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^JJ!^2}{(2J)!}},`$ (16)
which holds for symmetric and traceless $`V`$ and $`W`$. The angular integration for large $`J`$ gives the factor $`J^{\frac{d1}{2}}`$.

Notice that the dependence on the dimensionality $`d`$ disappears in the final result. By using the Stirling formula for large $`N`$ and $`J=2N+2`$ and putting $`p^2=N/4`$, we get that the inverse lifetime for the decay into two gravitons is exponentially small:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2\mathrm{g}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{v}}`$ $``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}}{4}})^{2N}.`$ (17)
This is already a surprising result, because one would have expected the massive state to decay very rapidly due to the large phase-space. Instead, the indication is that the very high mass, very high angular momentum string states might have a long lifetime. We will see that that this is indeed true also when summing over all the two-body channels: The decay into two states of comparable mass is in general exponentially suppressed, although the dominant contribution coming from the decay into a massless and another very massive state is of order unity $`N^0`$, times logarithmic corrections.

For the moment we continue with the computation of the lifetime for decay into two massless particles by using now the second method, based on the one-loop (torus) amplitude and looking at the pinching limit of the torus.

We write $`\tau =\tau _1+i\tau _2`$ and $`z=x+y\tau `$. Thus $`x,y`$ vary between $`0`$ and $`1`$ whereas $`\tau `$ spans the fundamental domain. The relevant pinching limit corresponds to $`\tau _2\mathrm{}`$ with $`y0,1`$. In this limit we have, putting $`y=1/2+\eta `$,

$`\mathrm{e}^{2NP(z)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{N\pi \tau _2}}{(4\pi ^2)^{2N}}}\mathrm{e}^{4N\pi \tau _2\eta ^2}.`$ (18)
Further, in this limit $`Q1`$ and we get

$`\underset{Q1}{lim}(Q1)^{N1}P_{N1}({\displaystyle \frac{Q+1}{Q1}})={\displaystyle \frac{(2N2)!}{(N1)!^2}}.`$ (19)
In order to keep only the contribution of the two-massless particle channel, we replace the integrand with its pinching limit expression and get

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}}`$ $``$ $`N^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{(2N2)!}{(N1)!^2}}\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\tau }{\tau _2^5}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{N\pi \tau _2}}{(4\pi ^2)^{2N}}(\frac{\pi }{\tau _2})^{2N2}d\eta \tau _2\mathrm{e}^{4N\pi \tau _2\eta ^2}}.`$ (20)
After doing the Gaussian integral in $`\eta `$, we have to get the imaginary part of the integral over $`\tau `$, which is expected from the integral over $`\tau _2`$ extending up to infinity and formally divergent. We have thus to consider

$`\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle d\tau _2\tau _2^{2N21/2}\mathrm{e}^{N\pi \tau _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(N\pi )^{2N+1+1/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2N+2+1/2)}}.`$ (21)
This result is obtained by analytic continuation. A quick way of getting it is to look for the saddle point of the integrand: We find a minimum at $`\tau _2=(\frac{4}{\pi })^2`$ and thus expanding around it we get an inverted Gaussian which integrates to an imaginary result. By putting the various factors together we finally get

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}}{4}}\right)^{2N},`$ (22)
that is, up to a numerical factor, the same as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2\mathrm{g}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{v}}`$ computed directly by Feynman rules. Evidently the other possible massless channels beside the two gravitons give the same large $`N`$ behaviour.

## 4 Decay rate into string states

We shall now calculate the lifetime of the massive state when it is allowed to decay also to massive string excitations in addition to the massless gravitons considered above. This amounts, in principle, to performing the integral (10) over the full fundamental domain and the torus.

### 4.1 Saddle point analysis

As we are only interested in the large $`N`$ limit of the amplitude, the leading contributions should arise, at least if the integral were convergent, from where the integrand reaches its maximum. In the present case we shall have to deal with the difficulty that the integral is actually divergent: As we saw above, we could regularize it by analytically continuing one of the variables of integration into the complex plane; The correct leading contribution then came from near the point where the original integrand reached its minimum.

In this context, saddle point analysis is actually not just one of the many ways to regularize a divergent integral. The amplitudes here, as they are in field theory in general, are generically divergent: What actually is physically significant, is the behaviour of the integrals near the extrema of the integrands after an analytic continuation (Wick rotation) in the variables of integration. Hence, we should find the extrema of the integrand and to consider contributions coming from a Gaussian analysis near them. The integration contour along the parameters of the unstable directions should then be deformed in the complex plane to coincide with the imaginary axis in a local neighbourhood of the saddle point, so that the Gaussian integral could finally be calculated.

We should also consider separately all the singularities, orbifold points, and any other special points that one might run into in the integration region, as they will play the role of end points of integration. In our case, the integration manifold has no true boundaries, since it is described by two complex variables: the coordinate $`z`$ over the torus surface, which has no boundary, and the torus modulus parameter $`\tau `$, which runs over the fundamental domain folded into itself by modular transformations (we will recall below the most relevant facts). For the convergent case the reason for this is clear: one is supposed to calculate the contribution coming from these points and simply to find out if it might be the leading one or not. For the divergent case it is useful to think of these special points as kind of topological defects in the integration range.

The formula (10) for the mass-shift can be conveniently cast in the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M^2`$ $``$ $`N^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\tau }{(\mathrm{Im}\tau )^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2z}{\mathrm{Im}\tau }\left(\mathrm{e}^{P(z)}\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{Im}\tau }\right)^2t(z|\tau )^{2N2}g_N(\sqrt{Q})},`$ (23)
where

$`t(z|\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{P(z)}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{Im}\tau }}(\sqrt{Q}+1)`$ (24)
$`g_N(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{x1}{x+1}}\right)^{N1}\mathrm{P}_{N1}({\displaystyle \frac{x^2+1}{x^21}}).`$ (25)
The function $`g_N`$ behaves very mildly in the large $`N`$ limit: On the positive real axis it is bounded between $`1`$ and $`1/\sqrt{\pi (N1)}`$; in the large $`N`$ limit, for fixed $`Q0`$, it actually approaches  the value $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ except for $`Q`$ very near to $`0`$. By using the integral representation of the Legendre polynomial, it is seen that this also holds for $`Q`$ growing as a power of $`\mathrm{log}N`$ (up to $`\mathrm{log}N`$ corrections). We will see that this is the region where we get the maximal contribution. In our analysis we can hence safely approximate it with this value, and concentrate below on the function $`t(z|\tau )`$. The integral behaves therefore at $`N\mathrm{}`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^{3/2}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\tau }{(\mathrm{Im}\tau )^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2z}{\mathrm{Im}\tau }(Q^{3/4}+Q^{1/4})^1t(z|\tau )^{2N}}.`$ (26)
### 4.2 Critical Points

We can expect a priori that, due to the symmetry of the problem, the dominant contribution to the integral and, in particular, to its imaginary part comes from the neighbourhood of points that have a geometrical meaning. We will see that this is indeed the case. Also, it is important to keep in mind the physical meaning of the coordinate $`z`$: the double pole residue of the four graviton torus amplitude represents the amplitude of two vertices (of the massive state) inserted on the torus surface at the point $`z`$ and at the origin respectively.

Let us review some main features. The integrand $`t`$, and also $`Q`$ as well, are symmetric for $`zz`$ and their first derivatives in $`z`$ vanish for the points $`z=1/2`$, $`z=\tau /2`$ and $`z=1/2+\tau /2`$. These points are related using the modular transformations

$`T:\tau `$ $``$ $`1/\tau `$ (27)
$`S:\tau `$ $``$ $`\tau +1`$ (28)
in such away that $`T`$ interchanges $`z=1/2`$ and $`z=\tau /2`$ but maps $`z=1/2+\tau /2`$ back to itself, whereas $`S`$ interchanges $`z=1/2+\tau /2`$ and $`z=\tau /2`$ but maps $`z=1/2`$ back to itself. The point $`z=0`$ is invariant under the modular transformations.

Both $`t`$ and $`Q`$ are modular invariant and the complete integrand, including the measure, is also modular invariant. Therefore the integration over the modulus $`\tau `$ is restricted as usual to the fundamental domain: $`|\tau _1|1/2`$ and $`|\tau |1`$. From now on we denote $`\tau _1\mathrm{Re}\tau `$ and $`\tau _2\mathrm{Im}\tau `$.

Modular transformations relate, in general, points outside the fundamental domain to points inside it, but the two lines $`\tau _1=\pm 1/2`$ are identified by the transformation $`S`$, whereas the border segment $`|\tau |=1,\tau _1>0`$ is identified with $`|\tau |=1,\tau _1<0`$ by the transformation $`T`$. Thus there are two orbifold points of the fundamental domain that are mapped back to themselves under modular transformations: These are $`\tau =i`$ and $`\tau =1/2+i\sqrt{3}/2`$. This last point is invariant under the full modular group and, there, all the three points $`z=1/2`$, $`z=\tau /2`$ and $`z=1/2+\tau /2`$ are identified.

Of course, another special point is the pinching limit of the torus $`\tau \mathrm{}`$. In this limit the behaviour of the integrand depends on whether $`z`$ remains fixed or not:

* For $`z=1/2`$, we have $`t1`$ and $`Q\mathrm{}`$. In this case the integral is convergent.
* For both $`z=1/2+\tau /2`$ and $`\tau /2`$ we have

$`t\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi \tau _2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{4\pi ^2\tau _2}}`$ (29)
and $`Q1`$. In this case the integral is divergent.

Since the integrand is real positive, we can only expect an imaginary part from the fact that the integral, being formally divergent, has to be defined by analytic continuation. One would thus be tempted to exclude the point $`z=1/2`$, but since it is related to the other points by modular transformations it, too, can – and will – play a role.

As for the point $`z=0`$, there we have $`t=1`$, for any $`\tau `$, and the integral is convergent, and thus it does not give rise to an imaginary part. This point therefore contributes only a power dependence in $`N`$, and only to the real part. Indeed it represents the pinching limit where the relative distance of two vertices of the massive state coalesce: It corresponds to a tadpole correction to the massive propagator from which no imaginary part is expected.

It will be convenient to analyse the integral by choosing to perform it over some geometrically meaningful modular invariant variable. A good part of the investigation has been carried out numerically, by using the software Mathematica to visualize the shape of the integrand on various one- and two-dimensional sections. Actually this numerical insight confirms the expectation that the relevant contribution comes from the above discussed critical points.

### 4.3 Modular invariant analysis

Let us recall that $`Q=(|w|\mathrm{Im}\tau /\pi )^2`$, where

$`w`$ $`=`$ $`_z^2\theta _1(z|\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{Im}\tau }},`$ (30)
is a modular invariant quantity. In order to reveal its geometrical meaning we observe that

$`w(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}(z)+2\zeta ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{Im}(\tau )}},`$ (31)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\zeta `$ are the respective Weierstrass functions. It is instructive to consider the integration over the complex variable $`w`$ instead of $`z`$. Then the measure becomes

$`\mathrm{d}^2z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}w}{u}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\overline{w}}{\overline{u}}},`$ (32)
where $`w`$ and $`u=\mathrm{}^{}(z)`$ satisfy the equation of the torus

$`u^2`$ $`=`$ $`w^3+g_2(\tau )w+g_3(\tau )`$ (33)
in $`[w,u,1]P^2`$. When embedding the torus in the complex projective space, the new coordinate $`w`$ is therefore one of the projective coordinates, and the new integration measure is still the standard volume measure. This change of coordinates is invertible except exactly at the branching points $`z=1/2,\tau /2`$ and $`1/2+\tau /2`$ where $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ vanishes.

The exponential divergence of the integrand of Eq. (26) for $`\tau _2\mathrm{}`$ appears only for $`Q=1`$. This is because, putting $`z=x+y\tau `$, the integrand diverges only for $`y0`$ and in this case $`_z^2\theta _1(z|\tau )0`$. It might therefore be useful to consider the integral for a fixed value of $`Q`$, i.e. integrating over $`Q`$ last ($`Q`$ can take all the values from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$). As far as the imaginary part of the mass shift is concerned, we can write the integral (26) in the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M^2`$ $``$ $`N^{3/2}{\displaystyle dQ\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\tau }{(\mathrm{Im}\tau )^3}d\phi t^{2N}\right)},`$ (34)
where $`\mathrm{arg}w=2\pi \phi `$. This rearrangement is allowed because $`Q`$ is a modular invariant quantity. $`\phi `$ is not invariant, instead, but gets shifted in modular transformations. We observe that $`\phi 0`$ for $`\tau _2\mathrm{}`$.

Let us briefly state our procedure:

* We shall first identify where the dominant contributions arise for fixed $`Q`$ and $`\tau _2`$.
* We note that the imaginary unit appears, again, out of the integrations over $`\tau _2`$.
* We find the imaginary part for all values of $`Q`$ separately, and notice that, for different ranges of $`Q`$, the dominant contribution comes from different loci of the torus, thus corresponding to different physical processes.
* Finally, we notice that among these contributions the dominant one arises in a particular limit $`\tau _2\mathrm{}`$, and we deal, in detail, with the subtleties of taking the limit.

We are now in the position to go into more detail:

* We find the dominant contribution for fixed $`Q`$ and fixed $`\tau _2`$. This amounts to finding the maximum of the integrand $`t`$ as a function of $`\tau _1`$ and $`\phi `$. For large values of $`\tau _2`$ and $`\sqrt{Q}<1.6259`$ ($`\sqrt{Q}>1.6259`$) this always appears at $`\phi =0`$ (resp. at $`\phi =\pm 1/2`$). Decreasing $`\tau _2`$ this maximum decreases monotonically, until, finally, another maximum in the $`(\tau _1,\phi )`$-plane takes over.
* When $`\sqrt{Q}<1.6259`$ this dominant maximum on the $`(\tau _1,\phi )`$-plane turns out to correspond to the point $`z=1/2+\tau /2`$ on the torus. This maximum is actually a conical singularity: The first derivatives in $`\tau _1`$ and $`\phi `$ are discontinuous and do not vanish in this point. Following this maximum as a function of $`\tau _2`$ (for fixed $`Q`$), one finds that the value of the function fixed in the point corresponding to a maximum in $`\tau _1`$ and $`\phi `$, goes through a minimum in $`\tau _2`$ at the boundary of the fundamental domain $`|\tau |=1`$. The fact that we found a minimum as a function of $`\tau _2`$ relies on the fact that when we move over the boundary of the fundamental domain at $`|\tau |=1`$ we can map back to the fundamental domain using the modular transformation $`T:\tau 1/\tau `$ that maps the point $`z=1/2+\tau /2`$ back to itself.

This minimum is smooth: The first derivative in $`\tau _2`$ is zero, and we can therefore evaluate the inverted Gaussian integral that produces the imaginary part. We have thus found a “saddle point” contribution (for fixed $`Q`$) to the imaginary part of the mass-shift. This point is actually a conical maximum on the $`(\tau _1,\phi )`$-plane: integrating over $`\delta \tau _1,\delta \phi `$ and $`\delta \tau _2`$ around it would therefore contribute a factor proportional to $`iN^{5/2}`$. In this region the integrand $`t`$ is less than $`1`$, corresponding therefore to an imaginary part exponentially suppressed for large $`M^2=N`$.
* This procedure can be performed for all values of $`Q`$ separately, and we have to pick the dominant contribution. When decreasing $`Q`$, the integrand $`t`$ at the saddle point decreases, and reaches its minimum at $`Q=0`$, where it corresponds to $`\tau =i`$, which is a fixed orbifold point for $`z=1/2+\tau /2`$. When increasing $`Q`$ the value of the integrand $`t`$ at the saddle point increases. For $`\sqrt{Q}=1.6259`$ the location of the saddle point in the $`\tau `$-plane reaches the corner of the fundamental domain $`\tau =1/2\pm i\sqrt{3}/2`$ where the three points on the torus $`z=1/2+\tau /2`$,$`z=\tau /2`$ and $`z=1/2`$ are identified by modular transformations. When $`\sqrt{Q}`$ is increased above $`1.6259`$, this saddle point (corresponding to $`z=1/2+\tau /2`$) moves out of the fundamental domain (i.e. $`|\tau _1|>1/2`$), and local maxima – still conical singularities on the $`(\tau _1,\phi )`$-plane – corresponding to the points $`z=1/2`$ and $`z=\tau /2`$ move in. These points are interchanged under the modular transformation $`T`$.

There is no minimum in $`\tau _2`$ inside the fundamental domain for the conical point corresponding to $`z=\tau /2`$, whereas there is a smooth minimum in $`\tau _2`$ inside the fundamental domain for $`z=1/2`$. This minimum occurs for $`|\tau _1|=1/2`$. Thus, when $`\sqrt{Q}`$ passes through $`1.6259`$, the “saddle point” corresponding to $`z=1/2+\tau /2`$ is replaced continuously with the “saddle point” corresponding to $`z=1/2`$. We still get a factor $`iN^{5/2}`$ from integrating over the variations around it, but the integrand $`t`$ increases with increasing $`Q`$ and ultimately $`t1`$ for $`Q\mathrm{}`$. This is easy to check analytically, since for $`\tau _2\mathrm{}`$ we have that, for $`z=1/2`$, $`\sqrt{Q}`$ is proportional to $`\tau _2`$ and $`\theta _1(1/2|\tau )/\theta _1^{^{}}(0|\tau )1/\pi `$.
* The shape of the integrand flattens in the limit as $`t1O(\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \tau _2})`$. Therefore $`t^{2N}`$ goes down exponentially with $`N`$ until $`\tau _2`$ reaches the region $`\tau _2\mathrm{log}N/2\pi `$, where $`t^{2N}`$ begins to be of order $`1`$. Since the integral is convergent for $`t1`$, it is suppressed for $`\tau _2\mathrm{log}N/2\pi `$, and the conclusion is that the main contribution comes actually from $`\tau _2\mathrm{log}N/2\pi `$.

Thus, finally, this region dominates since for $`t1`$ there is no exponential suppression of the imaginary part. Rather, the imaginary part will behave as a power of $`N`$.

In order to find that power we have to have a closer look at the region where $`\tau _2\mathrm{}`$ and $`z=1/2+\zeta `$ with $`\zeta `$ small. In this region we can use an approximation for the theta functions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _1(z|\tau )}{\theta _1^{^{}}(0|\tau )}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\pi \zeta )}{\pi }}\left(1+4\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi \zeta )\mathrm{e}^{i2\pi \tau }\right)`$ (35)
up to terms further exponentially suppressed for $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \tau _2)0`$. In the same approximation we get

$`\sqrt{Q}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\tau _2}}\mathrm{e}^{i2\pi \varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi \zeta )}}8\pi ^2\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \zeta )\mathrm{e}^{i2\pi \tau }+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\tau _2}}.`$ (36)
This relation determines the values $`\tau _1^{}`$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ at $`\zeta =0`$, as functions of $`\sqrt{Q}`$ and $`\tau _2`$, in the region where both go to infinity. In particular, for $`\tau _2\mathrm{}`$ we get $`\varphi ^{}1/2`$. We want to investigate the behaviour of our integrand $`t(\zeta ,\tau )`$ as a function of $`\tau _1`$ and $`\varphi `$ around $`\tau _1^{}`$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ keeping fixed, and large, $`\sqrt{Q}`$ and $`\tau _2`$. We have thus to re-express the complex variable $`\zeta `$ as a function of $`\delta \tau _1\tau _1\tau _1^{}`$ and $`\delta \varphi \varphi \varphi ^{}`$. From the previous equation we find (neglecting further suppressed terms):

$`\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi \zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`i2\pi \left(\delta \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\pi \sqrt{Q}}{\tau _2}}\mathrm{e}^{i2\pi \varphi ^{}}+\delta \tau _18\pi ^2\mathrm{e}^{i2\pi \tau _1^{}}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \tau _2}\right).`$ (37)
We notice that the dependence on $`\delta \tau _1`$ is exponentially suppressed everywhere, both here and in the expression for the integration function $`t(\zeta ,\tau )`$. Therefore, the direction along $`\tau _1`$ is almost flat: $`t^{2N}\mathrm{exp}(cNe^{2\pi \tau _2}|\delta \tau _1|)`$ and thus, in the relevant region $`\tau _2\mathrm{log}N/2\pi `$, we do not get additional powers of $`N`$ from the integration over $`\delta \tau _1`$.

Along the other direction we will still have conical behaviour, since we get

$`\zeta ^2=i\delta \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{Q}}{\tau _2}}`$ (38)
from which we get that $`\mathrm{Re}(\zeta ^2)=0`$ and $`(\mathrm{Im}\zeta )^2=|\delta \varphi |\frac{\sqrt{Q}}{\tau _2}`$. Substituting in the approximate expression for the theta functions we get

$`t(\zeta ,\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{Q}}{\pi \tau _2}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \sqrt{Q}}{\tau _2^2}}|\delta \varphi |\right).`$ (39)
Therefore, integrating $`t(\zeta ,\tau )^{2N}`$ over $`\delta \varphi `$ we get a factor $`1/N`$.

The imaginary part of the result comes from the inverted Gaussian integration on $`\delta \tau _2`$ around the minimum in $`\tau _2`$ of $`t^{2N}`$ (as we said, for large $`Q`$ and $`z=1/2`$, this minimum occurs at the (large) value of $`\tau _2`$ corresponding to $`\varphi =\tau _1=1/2`$). Also in this case, we do not get additional powers of $`N`$ since this minimum is shallow: $`t^{2N}\mathrm{exp}(+cN\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \tau _2}(\delta \tau _2)^2)`$.

### 4.4 Conclusions

Finally, inserting in Eq. (26) the contribution of this “saddle point”, we get an imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^2`$ proportional to $`N^{1/2}`$, times some possible negative powers of $`\mathrm{log}N`$ coming from the final integration over $`Q`$, whose precise value depends on the details of the behaviour in $`Q`$ of the slopes of the saddle point.

It is interesting to note that although restricting ab initio the integration to the point $`z=1/2`$ we would not expect any imaginary part in the result, since for $`\tau _2\mathrm{}`$ we would get in this case a convergent integral of a real positive quantity, still this point on the torus enters into the game as, in a sense, the analytic continuation of the point $`z=1/2+\tau /2`$, for which the integral is divergent and the imaginary part is expected.

In conclusion, we have found that the lifetime of the massive state of maximal angular momentum behaves in the limit of large mass as a constant times $`\mathrm{log}N`$ corrections. The dominant contribution comes from the neighbourhood of the point $`z=1/2`$: This means that the two vertex insertions of the massive state on the torus remain fixed at fixed positions on the torus even in the limit $`\tau _2\mathrm{}`$ where the torus degenerates. Therefore, the dominant configuration corresponds to a very long, and thus thin, handle attached to the two vertices, which are joined also by the finite part of the torus. The dominant string states on the long handle are the light ones. Therefore the physical conclusion is that the dominant two-body decay mode of this state is asymmetrical: It resembles a radiative process where the very massive state decays into another very massive state of lower mass by the emission of some massless states. Instead the fission-like processes, where the very massive state would split into two more symmetrical fragments, maybe also of very small or even zero mass (as we have explicitly computed in Section 4.3), is exponentially suppressed.

## 5 Discussion

The result that the massive state decays by emitting low-mass particles suggests that it might be possible to interpret it as a black hole evaporating through Hawking radiation. After a charged black hole has stopped evaporating, the object that remains is believed to be a string theory bound state . The evidence for this has mainly come from comparing the geometric Beckenstein–Hawking entropy to the string theory degeneracy of various D-brane configurations, and finding perfect agreement . Indeed, according to the Correspondence Principle of Horowitz and Polchinski , when the size of the horizon drops below the size of the string the typical black hole state becomes a typical string theory bound state. It is therefore interesting to compare the massive state to a black hole at correspondence radius:

A massive state with mass $`M_0\sqrt{N}`$ can decay into a massive state with $`M_1\sqrt{Nn}`$ ($`N`$ large, $`n`$ finite) by emitting a massless particle of energy $`1/\sqrt{N}`$. As the probability per unit time of this happening behaves as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$, we get the radiation rate

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}E}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}.`$ (40)
Note, however, that though it is clear that the dominantly emitted particles are massless, it does not follow directly from the above analysis that they were also soft. However, a more detailed comparison with field theory reported in the Appendix indicates that the dominant radiation is soft, although one gets actually a bound on $`n`$, that is $`n/\sqrt{N}0`$. One can also analyse the decay to a massless state by a direct computation: a preliminary investigation indicates that the radiation is soft, with $`n`$ finite. We hope to return to this point in a future publication.

The length scale $`R_J`$ pertinent to the particular string theory state we are studying $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_J`$, for the maximal $`J`$, can be estimated by calculating the width of the state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_J|X^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_J=R_J^2M^2`$. The Correspondence Principle relates the string theory state to a black hole when the length scales are comparable; the radius of the corresponding Kerr black hole  would therefore also be $`M`$ and the area $`AM^{d1}`$. The Hawking radiation this black hole emits is that of a black body in temperature $`TM^1`$ , and the radiation rate is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}E}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $``$ $`AT^{d+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2}},`$ (41)
where $`d`$ is the number of space dimensions. The massive state radiates, therefore, with a stronger intensity (40) than a corresponding black hole. However, if one were to identify the massive state with a black hole, string theory would have to be strongly coupled, as we shall presently see, making a straight forward comparison of the radiation rates difficult.

The ADM mass is related to the radius of a black hole through $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}R_{\mathrm{BH}}^{d2}g_\mathrm{s}^2`$, where $`g_\mathrm{s}`$ is the string coupling. Recall that at correspondence the length scale of the black hole is of the same order as the length scale of the quantum state $`R_{\mathrm{BH}}R_J`$ and that in our system $`R_JM`$. Therefore, the string coupling where the ADM mass and the mass of the string theory state grow in the same way is

$`g_\mathrm{s}^2`$ $``$ $`N^{\frac{d3}{2}}.`$ (42)
This means that we cannot reach the correspondence radius and simultaneously maintain the validity of string perturbation theory, as the calculation is performed in $`d>3`$. Therefore, the massive state cannot be directly thought of as a black hole but is, really, to be described as a quantum mechanical state.

In $`d+15`$ there is an upper bound for the angular momentum of a black hole with given mass that arises from requiring that there be no naked singularities. As was noted in , in $`d+1>5`$ there is no such bound, and all Kerr solutions posses a protecting horizon. It is, however, amusing to note that from the simple requirement that the angular momentum arise from a mass distribution still inside the horizon, we get a bound $`J<R_{\mathrm{BH}}M`$, which reduces to an inequality

$`g_\mathrm{s}^2`$ $``$ $`N^{\frac{d3}{2}}.`$ (43)
This bound would be saturated at the correspondence radius (42): it seems, therefore, that in weak coupling, where we perform our calculations, a black hole interpretation is not feasible; On the other hand, when the black hole interpretation is adequate, the pertinent string theory is necessarily strongly coupled. Therefore, one could expect that varying the string coupling the system undergoes a phase transition, when the correspondence radius is reached. This suggests that the descriptions in terms of a quantum state and in terms of a black hole are complementary, rather than equivalent.

###### Acknowledgments.

We would like to acknowledge collaboration with Daniele Amati in the early stages of this work, and to thank him for proposing the study of excited string states at one-loop as a tool for investigating quantum gravity effects. We thank also Matteo Bertolini and Kristian Jenssen for discussions.

## Appendix A Appendix

In order to compare the results of Sections 4.3 and 4.4 with field theory, we consider the one-loop Feynman amplitude describing the radiative correction to the propagator of a particle of square energy $`p^2`$, in a theory with a three-point vertex. For simplicity, we consider spinless particles. The starting point is the Euclidean expression

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^Dk\frac{1}{k^2+m_a^2}\frac{1}{(pk)^2+m_b^2}}`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dadb{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^Dk\mathrm{e}^{a(k^2+m_a^2)b\left((pk)^2+m_b^2\right)}}`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`\pi ^{D/2}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau _2}{\tau _2^{D/21}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dy\mathrm{e}^{Ny(1y)\tau _2y\tau _2m_a^2(1y)\tau _2m_b^2}`$ (46)
We have made here the continuation to the Minkowski space $`p^2=N`$. Now, in the corner $`\tau _2\mathrm{},y0`$ (cf. Eq. (20)) the leading contribution comes from the massless case $`m_b^2=0`$, and

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^{D/2}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau _2}{\tau _2^{D/21}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dy\mathrm{e}^{Ny^2\tau _2+(Nm_a^2)y\tau _2}.`$ (47)
The dominant contribution comes from $`y=(Nm_a^2)/(2N)`$, therefore $`y=0`$ corresponds to $`n/N0`$ (taking $`m_a^2=Nn`$).

Moreover, let us now expand $`y=0+\eta `$ and compare the result with Eq. (39). Remember that $`\sqrt{Q}/\tau _21`$ and that $`|\delta \varphi |=(\mathrm{Im}\zeta )^2`$. Then taking $`\mathrm{Im}\zeta =\eta \tau _2`$ we see

$`t^N`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{e}^{2\pi N\eta ^2\tau _2}.`$ (48)
Since $`\tau _2\mathrm{ln}N`$ the relevant range is $`\eta 1/\sqrt{N}`$ neglecting $`\mathrm{ln}N`$ corrections. Furthermore, in Eq. (39) there is no linear term in $`\eta `$ in the exponent; it matches Eq. (47) if $`n/\sqrt{N}0`$. This implies that the energy of the massless particle is soft.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Hall Effect and Noncommutative Geometry

## Introduction

In , continuous and discrete magnetic Hamiltonians containing terms arising from a background hyperbolic geometry were introduced. These may be thought of as effective Hamiltonians for an analogue of the quantum Hall effect studied in a Euclidean model by Bellissard  and Xia . We interpret these Hamiltonians, following a suggestion of Bellissard, as modelling spinless electrons in a conducting material with a perturbation term arising from a background hyperbolic geometry. (In  we took the somewhat different view that the conducting material exhibited hyperbolic geometry.) They motivate constructing Fredholm modules associated in a natural way with Riemann surfaces and two dimensional orbifolds which give a higher genus analogue of the work of Bellissard (which is the genus one case) on the quantum Hall effect. In  we considered Hamiltonians invariant under a projective action of a Fuchsian group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We will only discuss groups whose actions on hyperbolic space are free here and refer the reader to  for the more general case. In this paper we allow in addition a random potential (which may be thought of as modelling impurities) so that the invariance of the Hamiltonian under the Fuchsian group is replaced by a type of ergodicity assumption. There is an analogue of the Connes-Kubo cocycle of the Euclidean case for the Hall conductance. This cocycle takes values which are integer multiples of a fundamental unit in the case of free actions and rational multiples for non-free actions. Integrality follows by showing that the cocycle gives the index of a certain Fredholm operator (the conductance may also be thought of in terms of a topological index). Thus the models in  fit the noncommutative geometry framework for magnetic Hamiltonians (see ).

We begin by reviewing the construction of magnetic Hamiltonians in a continuous model with a background hyperbolic geometry term. There are also discrete versions which are generalised Harper operators . Our model of hyperbolic space is the upper half-plane $``$ in $``$ equipped with its usual Poincaré metric $`(dx^2+dy^2)/y^2`$, and symplectic area form $`\omega _{}=dxdy/y^2`$. The group $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐋}(2,)`$ acts transitively on $``$ by Möbius transformations

$$x+iy=\zeta g\zeta =\frac{a\zeta +b}{c\zeta +d},\text{for }g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right).$$

Any Riemann surface of genus $`g`$ greater than 1 can be realised as the quotient of $``$ by the action of its fundamental group realised as a cocompact torsion-free discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐋}(2,)`$.

Pick a 1-form $`\eta `$ such that $`d\eta =\theta \omega _{}`$, for some fixed $`\theta `$. As in geometric quantisation we may regard $`\eta `$ as defining a connection $`=di\eta `$ on a line bundle $``$ over $``$, whose curvature is $`\theta \omega _{}`$. Physically we can think of $`\eta `$ as the electromagnetic vector potential for a uniform magnetic field of strength $`\theta `$ normal to $``$. Using the Riemannian metric the Hamiltonian of an electron in this field is given in suitable units by

$$H=H_\eta =\frac{1}{2}^{}=\frac{1}{2}(di\eta )^{}(di\eta ).$$

Comtet  has shown that $`H`$ differs from a multiple of the Casimir element for $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐋}(2,)`$, $`\frac{1}{8}𝐉.𝐉`$, $`J_1`$, $`J_2`$ and $`J_3`$ denote a certain representation of generators of the Lie algebra $`sl(2,)`$, satisfying $`[J_1,J_2]=iJ_3,`$ $`[J_2,J_3]=iJ_1,`$ $`[J_3,J_1]=iJ_2,`$ so that $`𝐉.𝐉=J_1^2+J_2^2J_3^2`$ is the quadratic Casimir element showing the underlying $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐋}(2,)`$-invariance of the theory. Comtet has computed the spectrum of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H_\eta `$, for $`\eta =\theta dx/y`$, to be the union of finitely many eigenvalues $`\{(2k+1)\theta k(k+1):k=0,1,2\mathrm{}<\theta \frac{1}{2}\}`$, and the continuous spectrum $`[\frac{1}{4}+\theta ^2,\mathrm{})`$. Any $`\eta `$ is cohomologous to $`\theta dx/y`$ (since they both have $`\omega _{}`$ as differential) and forms differing by an exact form $`d\varphi `$ give equivalent models: in fact, multiplying the wave functions by $`\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )`$ shows that the models for $`\eta `$ and $`\theta dx/y`$ are unitarily equivalent. This equivalence also intertwines the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-actions so that the spectral densities for the two models also coincide.

This Hamltonian can be perturbed by adding a potential term $`V`$. In , we took $`V`$ to be invariant under $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In  we allowed any smooth random potential function $`V`$ on $``$ using two general notions of random potential (in the literature random usually refers to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action on the disorder space being required to admit an ergodic invariant measure). The class of random potentials we consider here contains any smooth bounded potential $`V`$. The perturbed Hamiltonian $`H_{\eta ,V}=H_\eta +V`$ has unknown spectrum for such general $`V`$. However we are able to deduce some qualitative aspects of the spectrum of these Hamitonians by using a reduction (via Morita equivalence) to a simpler case: that of a discrete model.

In Section 2, we extend the hyperbolic Connes-Kubo formula for the Hall conductance for the continuous model in , to the non-periodic case. We show that this hyperbolic Connes-Kubo cocycle is cohomologous to another cyclic 2-cocycle which is the Chern character of a Fredholm module, from which we can deduce that the Hall conductance takes on integral values in $`2(g1)`$ ($`g>1`$ being the genus). This result has been generalized in  where for general cocompact Fuchsian groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, it is shown that the conductance takes on values in $`\varphi `$, where $`\varphi `$ denotes the orbifold Euler characteristic of the orbifold $`/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, i.e. the conductance can take on certain fractional values. In the Appendix we give a derivation of the hyperbolic Connes-Kubo formula for the Hall conductance, using the quantum adiabatic theorem and standard physical reasoning.

## 1. Continuous model

### 1.1. The geometry of the hyperbolic plane

The upper half-plane can be mapped by the Cayley transform $`z=(\zeta i)/(\zeta +i)`$ to the unit disc $`𝔻`$ equipped with the metric $`|dz|^2/(1|z|^2)^2`$ and symplectic form $`dzd\overline{z}/2i(1|z|^2)^2`$, on which $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐔}(1,1)`$ acts, and some calculations are more easily done in that setting. In order to preserve flexibility we shall work more abstractly with a Lie group $`G`$ acting transitively on a space $`XG/K`$. Although we shall ultimately be interested in the case of $`G=\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐋}(2,)`$ or $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐔}(1,1)`$, and $`K`$ the maximal compact subgroup which stabilises $`\zeta =i`$ or $`z=0`$ so that $`X=`$ or $`X=𝔻`$, those details will play little role in many of our calculations, though we shall need to assume that $`X`$ has a $`G`$-invariant Riemannian metric and symplectic form $`\omega _X`$. We shall denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a discrete subgroup of $`G`$ which acts freely on $`X`$ and hence intersects $`K`$ trivially.

We shall assume that $``$ is a hermitian line bundle over $`X`$, with a connection, $``$, or equivalently, for each pair of points $`w`$ and $`z`$ in $`X`$, we denote by $`\tau (z,w)`$ the parallel transport operator along the geodesic from $`_w`$ to $`_z`$. In $``$ with the line bundle trivialised and $`\eta =\theta dx/y`$ one can calculate explicitly that

$$\tau (z,w)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i_w^z\eta \right)=[(z\overline{w})/(w\overline{z})]^\theta .$$

For general $`\eta `$ we have $`\eta \theta dx/y=d\varphi `$ and

$$\tau (z,w)=\mathrm{exp}(i_w^z\eta )=[(z\overline{w})/(w\overline{z})]^\theta \mathrm{exp}(i(\varphi (z)\varphi (w))).$$

Parallel transport round a geodesic triangle with vertices $`z`$, $`w`$, $`v`$, gives rise to a holonomy factor:

$$\varpi (v,w,z)=\tau (v,z)^1\tau (v,w)\tau (w,z),$$

and this is clearly the same for any other choice of $`\eta `$, so we may as well work in the general case.

###### Lemma 1.1.

The holonomy can be written as $`\varpi (v,w,z)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\theta _\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{}\right)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denotes the geodesic triangle with vertices $`z`$, $`w`$ and $`v`$. The holonomy is invariant under the action of $`G`$, that is $`\varpi (v,w,z)=\varpi (gv,gw,gz)`$, and under cyclic permutations of its arguments. Transposition of any two vertices inverts $`\varpi `$. For any four points $`u`$ ,$`v`$, $`w`$, $`z`$ in $`X`$ one has

$$\varpi (u,v,w)\varpi (u,w,z)=\varpi (u,v,z)\varpi (v,w,z).$$

### 1.2. Algebra of observables and random or almost periodic potentials

The algebra of physical observables that we consider in the continuous model should include the operators $`f(H_{\eta ,V})`$ for any bounded continuous function $`f`$ on $``$ and for any smooth random potential function $`V`$ on $``$ with disorder space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We will see that the twisted $`C^{}`$-algebra of the groupoid $`𝒢=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash (X\times X\times \mathrm{\Omega })`$, twisted by $`\varpi `$, is large enough to contain all such operators. This algebra also turns out to be the twisted $`C^{}`$-algebra of the foliation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This $`C^{}`$-algebra is strongly Morita equivalent to the cross product $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\sigma `$ is a multiplier on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which is determined by $`\varpi `$.

Assumptions The disorder space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we assume to be compact, to admit a Borel probability measure $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; and that there is a continuous action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with a dense orbit.

The geometrical data described in the last subsection enables us to easily describe the first of the two $`C^{}`$algebras which appear in the theory. This twisted algebra of kernels, which was introduced by Connes  is the $`C^{}`$-algebra $``$ generated by compactly supported smooth functions on $`X\times X\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$ with the multiplication

$$k_1k_2(z,w,r)=_Xk_1(z,v,r)k_2(v,w,r)\varpi (z,w,v)𝑑v,$$

(where $`dv`$ is the $`G`$-invariant measure defined by the metric) and $`k^{}(z,w,r)=\overline{k(w,z,r)}`$. The trace on $``$ is given by, $`\tau _{}(k)=_{X\times \mathrm{\Omega }}k(z,z,r)𝑑z𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$. Observe that $`X\times X\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a groupoid with space of units $`X\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and with source and range maps $`s((z,w,r))=(w,r)`$ and $`r((z,w,r^{}))=(z,r^{})`$. Then the algebra of twisted kernels is the extension of the $`C^{}`$-algebra of the groupoid $`X\times X\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined by the cocycle $`((v,w,r),(w,z,r))\varpi (v,w,z)`$, .

###### Lemma 1.2.

The algebra $``$ has a representation $`\pi `$ on the space $``$ of $`L^2`$ sections of $`X\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined by

$$(\pi (k)\psi )(z,r)=_Xk(z,w,r)\tau (z,w)\psi (w,r)𝑑w.$$

We now pick out a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant subalgebra $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $``$. This condition reduces simply to the requirement that the kernel satisfies $`k(\gamma ^1z,\gamma ^1w,\gamma ^1r)=k(z,w,r)`$ for all $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As before, observe that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash (X\times X\times \mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a groupoid whose elements are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ orbits $`(x,y,v)_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{(\gamma x,\gamma y,\gamma v):\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ , with source and range maps $`s((x,y,v)_\mathrm{\Gamma })=(y,v)`$ and $`r((x,y,v)_\mathrm{\Gamma })=(x,v)`$. The space of units is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash (X\times \mathrm{\Omega })`$. Then the algebra of invariant twisted kernels $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the extension of the $`C^{}`$-algebra of the groupoid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash (X\times X\times \mathrm{\Omega })`$ defined by the cocycle $`((v,w,r),(w,z,r))\varpi (v,w,z)`$, . With our assumptions on the disorder space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, there is in general no trace on the algebra $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and there may not even be a weight on this algebra in general. However, we mention that under the additional assumption that the measure $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant, the natural trace $`\tau _^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for this algebra is given by the same formula as before except that the integration is now over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash (X\times \mathrm{\Omega })`$ rather than $`X\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$, where we have identified $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with a fundamental domain: $`\tau _^\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)=_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }}T(z,z,r)𝑑z𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }(r).`$ We also mention that under the additional assumption that the measure $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is quasi-$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant, the natural tracial weight $`\tau _^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for this algebra is given by $`\tau _^\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)=_{X\times \mathrm{\Omega }}f(z,r)^2T(z,z,r)𝑑z𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }(r),`$ where $`fC_c(X\times \mathrm{\Omega })`$ is such that $`_{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}(\gamma ^{}f)^2=1`$.

We now recall a notion due to Connes .

###### Definition 1.3.

A random or almost periodic potential on $`X`$ is a continuous family of smooth functions on the disorder space, $`\mathrm{\Omega }rV_rC^{\mathrm{}}(X)`$ where the following equivariance is imposed:

$$V_{\gamma r}=\gamma ^{}V_r\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma },r\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

###### Remarks 1.4.

If $`V`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant potential on $`X`$, then it is clearly random for any disorder space. More generally, if $`V`$ is a arbitrary smooth function on $`X`$ such that the set $`\{\gamma ^{}V:\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ has compact closure in the strong operator topology in $`B(L^2(X))`$, then $`V`$ is a random potential.

The reason the Hamiltonian can be accommodated within the algebra $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not hard to explain. Fix a base point $`u𝔻`$ and introduce:

$$\sigma (x,y)=\varpi (u,xu,xyu)$$

$$\varphi (z,\gamma )=\varpi (u,\gamma ^1u,\gamma ^1z)\tau (u,z)^1\tau (u,\gamma ^1z).$$

Then $`\sigma `$ is the group 2-cocycle in the projective action of $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐔}(1,1)`$ on $`L^2(𝔻)`$ defined by:

$$U(\gamma )\psi (z)=\varphi (z,\gamma )\psi (\gamma ^1z)$$

where $`\psi L^2(𝔻),\gamma \mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐔}(1,1)`$. Note that $`U`$ is constructed so that the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant algebra $`\pi (^\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is the intersection of $`\pi ()`$ with the commutant of $`U`$. Recall that the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H=H_\eta `$ commutes with the projective representation $`U`$ (cf. Lemma 4.9, ). So we see that $`H`$ is affiliated to the von Neumann algebra generated by the representation $`\pi `$ of $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (cf. Corollary 4.2 ).

A random potential $`V`$ can be viewed as defining an equivariant family of Hamiltonians $`\mathrm{\Omega }rH_{\eta ,V_r}=H+V_r\mathrm{Oper}(L^2(X)`$ where $`\mathrm{Oper}(L^2(X))`$ denotes closed operators on $`L^2(X)`$. Brüning and Sunada have proved an estimate on the Schwartz kernel of the heat operator for any elliptic operator, and in particular for $`\mathrm{exp}(tH_{\eta ,V_r})`$ for $`t>0`$, which implies that it is $`L^1`$ in each variable separately. Since this kernel is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-equivariant it follows (in exactly the same fashion as Lemma 4 of ) that this estimate implies that $`\mathrm{exp}(tH_{\eta ,V_r})`$ is actually in the algebra $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Lemma 1.5.

One has $`f(H_{\eta ,V})^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for any bounded continuous function $`f`$ on $``$ and for any random potential $`V`$ on $`X`$. In particular, the spectral projections of $`H_{\eta ,V}`$ corresponding to gaps in the spectrum lie in $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Following , but using our weaker assumptions we now have the

###### Theorem 1.6.

Let $`V`$ be a smooth bounded function on $`X`$. Then $`V`$ is a random potential for some disorder space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and therefore $`f(H_{\eta ,V})^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for any bounded continuous function $`f`$ on $``$.

Example. Let the Iwasawa decomposition of $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐔}(1,1)`$ be written $`KAN`$ then $`PSL(2,)`$ acts on $`𝔻=\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐔}(1,1)/K`$ by Möbius transformations so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }PSL(2,)`$ also acts. Let $`g_{\lambda ,w}(z)=\lambda \frac{1|z|^2}{|wz|^2}`$ where $`\lambda ^+A`$, $`wU(1)K`$ and $`z𝔻`$. Now let $`\gamma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \overline{\beta }& \overline{\alpha }\end{array}\right)`$ and we calculate

$$U(\gamma )g_{\lambda ,w}U(\gamma ^1)=g_{\lambda _{\gamma ,w}\lambda ,\gamma w}$$

where $`\lambda _{\gamma ,w}=|\overline{\beta }w+\overline{\alpha }|^2`$. The stabiliser of $`g_{1,1}`$ is $`\{\pm \left(\begin{array}{cc}1in& in\\ in& 1+in\end{array}\right):n\}.`$ This group is $`MN`$ where $`MAN`$ is the maximal parabolic subgroup. Thus we have the usual action of $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐔}(1,1)`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐔}(1,1)/MN`$ and hence a fortiori a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action which is known to be ergodic, cf. . Note that, regarding $`\{e^{g_{\lambda ,w}}\}`$ as a set of bounded multiplication operators on $`L^2(𝔻)`$, the strong closure of $`\{U(\gamma )e^{g_{\lambda ,w}}U(\gamma ^1)|\lambda ,wU(1)\}`$ is homeomorphic to $`S^2`$. (This is because taking the strong closure adds the zero and identity operator to the set.) Thus in this example the disorder space is $`S^2`$ which admits a dense orbit and a quasi-invariant ergodic probability measure.

### 1.3. Morita equivalence

Our ability to calculate the possible values of our generalised Connes-Kubo cocycle rests on a Morita equivalence argument due initially to . We use the twisted version, , . We have already noted that $``$ is the $`C^{}`$-algebra of an extension of the groupoid $`X\times X\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$ by a cocycle defined by $`\varpi `$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ invariance of $`\varpi `$ means that $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is likewise the $`C^{}`$-algebra of an extension of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash (X\times X\times \mathrm{\Omega })`$ by $`\varpi `$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash (X\times X\times \mathrm{\Omega })`$ denotes the groupoid obtained by factoring out the diagonal action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. More precisely, the groupoid elements are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ orbits $`(x,y,v)_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{(\gamma x,\gamma y,\gamma v):\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$, with source and range maps $`s((x,y,v)_\mathrm{\Gamma })=(y,v)`$ and $`r((x,y,v)_\mathrm{\Gamma })=(x,v)`$. Therefore $`(x_1,y_1,v_1)_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`(x_2,y_2,v_2)_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are composable if and only if $`y_1=\gamma x_2`$ and $`v_1=\gamma v_2`$ for some $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and then the composition is $`(x_1,\gamma y_2,\gamma v_2)_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We also note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a groupoid. The source and range maps are $`s((v,\gamma ))=\gamma v`$ and $`r((v,\gamma ))=v`$. Therefore the elements $`(v_1,\gamma _1)`$ and $`(v_2,\gamma _2)`$ are composable if and only if $`v_1=\gamma _2v_2`$, and the composition is $`(\gamma _2^1v_1,\gamma _1\gamma _2)`$.

###### Theorem 1.7.

The algebra $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is Morita equivalent to the twisted cross product algebra $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })_{\overline{\sigma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The proof is a consequence of:

###### Lemma 1.8.

The line bundle $``$ over $`X\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$ provides an equivalence (in the sense of  Definition 5.3) between the groupoid extensions $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash (X\times X\times \mathrm{\Omega }))^\varpi `$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash (X\times X\times \mathrm{\Omega })`$ defined by $`\varpi `$ and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }\times \mathrm{\Gamma })^\sigma `$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defined by $`\overline{\sigma }`$.

Using the orientation reversing diffeomorphism of the Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash X`$, one can show as in Proposition 7  that the algebra $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })_{\overline{\sigma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is isomorphic to $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\overline{\sigma }`$ denotes the complex conjugate of $`\sigma `$. Morita equivalence of algebras implies their $`K`$-groups are the same. It is possible to calculate the values taken by our cyclic cocycles for the continous model in terms those taken by explicit cocycles on $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })_{\overline{\sigma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The method uses generalisations of arguments first developed for the study of the Baum-Connes conjecture. Full details are in  and .

### 1.4. A hyperbolic Connes-Kubo formula, part I

The quotient $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a Riemann surface when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a cocompact torsion free subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐋}(2,)`$. On a Riemann surface it is natural to investigate changes in the potential corresponding to adding multiples of the real and imaginary parts of holomorphic 1-forms. (For the genus one case with an imaginary period this amounts to choosing forms whose integral round one sort of cycle vanishes but the integral around the other cycle is non-trivial. Physically this would correspond to putting a non-trivial voltage across one cycle and measuring a current round the other.)

We let $`a_j,j=1,2,\mathrm{},2g`$ be a normalized symplectic basis of harmonic 1-forms on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`a_{j+g}=a_j,j=1,2,\mathrm{},g,`$ and $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }a_ja_{j+g}=1`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},g.`$ We introduce the map from $``$ to $`^{2g}`$ given by $`\mathrm{\Xi }:z(_u^za_1,\mathrm{},_u^za_{2g})`$. It is the lift to $``$ of the Abel-Jacobi map,  (this map is usually regarded as mapping from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ to the Jacobi variety however we are thinking of it as a map between the universal covers of these spaces). Notice that $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ gives the period lattice in $`^{2g}`$ (that is the lattice determined by the periods of the harmonic forms $`a_j`$) to be the standard integer lattice $`^{2g}`$ so that $`J(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g)=^{2g}/^{2g}`$. We give $`^{2g}`$ the distinguished basis consisting of the vertices in this integer period lattice. We write for the corresponding coordinates $`u_1,u_2,\mathrm{}u_{2g}`$. Let $`\omega _J=_{j=1}^gdu_jdu_{j+g}`$ denote the symplectic form on $`^{2g}`$. The closed 1-forms $`c_j=\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(du_j)`$ are cohomologous to $`a_j`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},2g,`$ and therefore we have

###### Lemma 1.9.

In the notation above, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(\omega _J)`$ is cohomologous to $`_{j=1}^ga_ja_{j+g}.`$

Suppose that $`\alpha `$ is a kernel decaying rapidly. By this we mean that it satisfies an estimate

$$|\alpha (x,y,r)|\varphi (d(x,y)),r\mathrm{\Omega },$$

where $`\varphi `$ is a positive and rapidly decreasing function on $``$. Now define

$$\delta _j\alpha =[\mathrm{\Omega }_j,\alpha ],\text{i.e.}\delta _j\alpha (x,y,r)=(\mathrm{\Omega }_j(x)\mathrm{\Omega }_j(y))\alpha (x,y,r),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j(z)=i{\displaystyle _u^z}a_j`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j(\gamma .z)\mathrm{\Omega }_j(z)`$ is a constant depending only on $`\gamma `$ but independent of $`z`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_j(\gamma .z)\mathrm{\Omega }_j(z)|C||a_j||_{\mathrm{}}d(z,\gamma .z)C_j\mathrm{}(\gamma )`$, where $`a_j_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the supremum norm of $`a_j`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`d(z,\gamma .z)`$ is the Riemannian distance between $`z`$ and $`\gamma z`$, and $`\mathrm{}(\gamma )`$ is the word length of $`\gamma `$. It follows that $`\delta _j\alpha `$ lies in $``$ and therefore $`\delta _j`$ is a densely defined derivation on the algebra $``$, and hence also on $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ since clearly if $`\alpha `$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant, then so is $`\delta _j\alpha `$.

We may summarise the previous discussion as

###### Lemma 1.10.

For operators $`A_0,A_1,A_2`$ in $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ whose integral kernels are rapidly decaying we have cyclic cocycles defined by

$$c_{j,k}(A_0,A_1,A_2)=\mathrm{tr}_^\mathrm{\Gamma }(A_0[\delta _jA_1,\delta _kA_2])=\mathrm{tr}_^\mathrm{\Gamma }(A_0[\mathrm{\Omega }_j,A_1][\mathrm{\Omega }_k,A_2])$$

for $`j,k=1,\mathrm{},2g`$.

The cyclic cocycle $`c_{jk}`$ can be interpreted as the Kubo formula for the conductance due to currents in the $`k`$ direction induced by electric fields in the $`j`$ direction, as explained in the Appendix.

## 2. A Fredholm module

We shall now assume that $`X`$ has a spin structure, and we write $`𝒮`$ for the spin bundle. The representation of $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $``$ can then be extended to an action on $`𝒮`$. This module can be equipped with a Fredholm structure by taking $`F`$ to be Clifford multiplication by a suitable unit vector (to be explained below), and using the product of the trace on $``$ and the graded trace on the Clifford algebra. (If $`\epsilon `$ denotes the grading operator on the spinors then the graded trace is just $`\mathrm{tr}\epsilon `$.)

The same module can also be described more explicitly: it splits into $`𝒮^+𝒮^{}`$ (with the superscripted sign indicating the eigenvalue of $`\epsilon `$). Suppose that $`\phi `$ is a $`U(1)`$ valued function on the group, which satisfies $`\phi (kgh)=\chi _1(k)\phi (g)\chi _2(h)`$ for $`k`$ and $`h`$ in $`K`$ and some $`\sigma `$-characters $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ of $`K`$. The involution $`F`$ can be taken to be the matrix multiplication operator: $`F=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \phi ^{}\\ \phi & 0\end{array}\right).`$ We may take for $`\phi `$ the function used by Connes  which is essentially the Mishchenko element. In the next subsection we will see that the module is 2-summable for suitably decaying kernels. Since $`\phi `$ is invariant under similtaneous conjugation of both variables by elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`F`$ preserves the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant subspace.

###### Theorem 2.1.

There is a dense subalgebra $`_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ stable under the holomorphic functional calculus and a 2-summable Fredholm module $`(F,𝒮)`$ for $`_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with Chern character given by the cyclic 2-cocycle $`\tau _{c,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(A_0,A_1,A_2)`$ which is equal to

$$_{X_\mathrm{\Gamma }\times X\times X}\mathrm{\Phi }(z,x,y)\varpi (z,x,y)k_0(z,x,r)k_1(x,y,r)k_2(y,z,r)𝑑z𝑑x𝑑y,$$

$`r\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where the operators $`A_0,A_1,A_2`$ are in $`_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and whose Schwartz kernels are $`k_0,k_1,k_2`$ respectively. Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,x,y)=_\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{}`$ is the oriented hyperbolic area of a geodesic triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with vertices at $`x,y,z`$. Furthermore if $`P(r)`$ is a projection into a gap in the spectrum of the Hamiltonian $`H_{\eta ,V}`$. Then $`P(r)`$ lies in a 2-summable dense subalgebra $`_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and for almost any $`r\mathrm{\Omega }`$ one has

$$\mathrm{index}(P(r)FP(r))=\tau _{c,\mathrm{\Gamma }},[P(r)]2(g1).$$

### 2.1. Summability of the Fredholm module

The technical parts of the proof of the previous theorem rest on a lengthy calculation together with a key estimate on kernels $`k(z,w,r)`$ on $`\times \times \mathrm{\Omega }`$ which represent smooth functions of the resolvent of $`H+V`$. This estimate has the form

$`()`$
$$|k(z,w,r)|^2C_2\mathrm{exp}(C_3d(z,w)^2),$$

where $`C_2,C_3`$ are constants (note that the RHS is independent of $`r`$). This estimate is a result of . Since operators with kernels which have support in a band around the diagonal are dense in the algebra $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ so too is the set of operators with kernels satisfying (\**). We denote by $`_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the subalgebra consisting of operators $`A^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, with $`[F,A]`$ a Hilbert-Schmidt operator. Now $`_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is dense and by  $`_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is stable under the holomorphic functional calculus. The last claim of the corollary on the range of values taken by the cyclic cocycle follows using Morita equivalence with $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })_{\overline{\sigma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The details are in .

### 2.2. The hyperbolic Connes-Kubo formula, part II

We now have many cyclic 2-cocycles associated to our model. We combine the cyclic 2-cocycles of subsection 1.4 to produce a Connes-Kubo cocycle for the hyperbolic Hall conductance in Proposition 2.2, and our goal is to show that it is cohomologous to the Chern character of the Fredholm module $`\tau _{c,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ as given in Theorem 2.1.

For $`j=1,\mathrm{},g`$, consider $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j(z,x,y)`$ which is given by,

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_j(x)\mathrm{\Omega }_j(y))(\mathrm{\Omega }_{j+g}(y)\mathrm{\Omega }_{j+g}(z))(\mathrm{\Omega }_{j+g}(x)\mathrm{\Omega }_{j+g}(y))(\mathrm{\Omega }_j(y)\mathrm{\Omega }_j(z)).$$

We claim first that $`_{j=1}^g\mathrm{\Psi }_j(z,x,y)`$ is proportional to the ‘symplectic area’ of a triangle in $`^{2g}`$ with vertices $`\mathrm{\Xi }(x),\mathrm{\Xi }(y),\mathrm{\Xi }(z)`$. To prove this it suffices to assume that the base point in $``$ is one of the vertices of the triangle, say $`z`$. Consider the expression

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{g}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_j(z,x,y)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{g}{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_j(x)\mathrm{\Omega }_{j+g}(y)\mathrm{\Omega }_{j+g}(x)\mathrm{\Omega }_j(y)).$$

Let $`s`$ denote the symplectic form on $`^{2g}`$ given by: $`s(u,v)=_{j=1}^g(u_jv_{j+g}u_{j+g}v_j).`$ The ‘symplectic area’ of a triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ with vertices $`0,\mathrm{\Xi }(x),\mathrm{\Xi }(y)`$ is given by $`s(\mathrm{\Xi }(x),\mathrm{\Xi }(y))`$. To appreciate why this is so we need an argument from  (pp 333-336). The form $`s`$ is the two form on $`^{2g}`$ given by

$$\omega _J=\underset{j=1}{\overset{g}{}}du_jdu_{j+g}.$$

Now the symplectic area of a triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ in $`^{2g}`$ with vertices $`0,\mathrm{\Xi }(x),\mathrm{\Xi }(y)`$ is by definition the integral of $`\omega _J`$ over the triangle. A brief calculation reveals that this yields $`s(\mathrm{\Xi }(x),\mathrm{\Xi }(y))/2`$, proving our claim. We have now established the following result.

###### Proposition 2.2.

The higher genus analogue of the Connes-Kubo formula is given by the cyclic 2-cocycle $`\tau _K`$ on $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defined by

$$\tau _K(A_0,A_1,A_2)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{g}{}}\kappa c_{j,j+g}(A_0,A_1,A_2)$$

$$=\underset{j=1}{\overset{g}{}}_{X_\mathrm{\Gamma }\times X\times X}\kappa \mathrm{\Psi }_j(z,x,y)\varpi (z,x,y)k_0(z,x,r)k_1(x,y,r)k_2(y,z,r)𝑑z𝑑x𝑑y$$

for $`r\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Here the $`k_j`$ are the kernels of the $`A_j,j=0,1,2`$ (three exponentially decaying elements of $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) and $`_{j=1}^g\mathrm{\Psi }_j(z,x,y)`$ is proportional to the ‘symplectic area’ of the Euclidean triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ in $`^{2g}`$ with vertices $`\mathrm{\Xi }(x),\mathrm{\Xi }(y),\mathrm{\Xi }(z)`$. Here $`\kappa =4\pi (g1)/g`$ is a constant depending only on the genus $`g`$, where $`g>1`$.

The constant $`\kappa =4\pi (g1)/g`$ is justified in the discussion following Theorem 2.3 below. To compare the conductance cocycle $`\tau _K`$ with the Chern character cocycle $`\tau _{c,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, we begin by recalling the following Theorem 5.5.1, page 222 in .<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 Note that in  page 652, we used a different, incorrect argument at this point, and we thank Siye Wu for pointing this out to us.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a compact Riemann surface of genus $`g2`$ and $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _g`$ be a basis of holomorphic 1-forms on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then $`_{j=1}^g\alpha _j\overline{\alpha }_j`$ defines a Kähler metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ called the Bergman metric or the canonical metric, that has nonpositive curvature vanishing at most at a finite number of points on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

It follows from this theorem, which uses the Riemann-Roch theorem, that $`\omega _\alpha =\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2}_{j=1}^g\alpha _j\overline{\alpha }_j`$ is a volume form on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This is a subtle result as the holomorphic 1-form $`\alpha _j`$ cannot be nowhere zero, which follows by an application of the Hopf index theorem, where we observe that the Euler characteristic is nonzero. Therefore each term $`\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2}\alpha _j\overline{\alpha }_j`$ by itself cannot be a volume form on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$!

Next we recall the following basic fact relating holomorphic 1-forms and harmonic 1-forms on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. A (complex valued) 1-form $`\alpha `$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is holomorphic if and only if $`\alpha =a+\sqrt{1}a`$, where $`a`$ is a (real valued) harmonic 1-form on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`a`$ is the Hodge $``$ of $`a`$.

If $`a_j,j=1,\mathrm{}2g`$ is a symplectic basis of harmonic 1-forms on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`a_{j+g}=a_j,j=1,\mathrm{}g`$. Then $`\alpha _j=a_j+\sqrt{1}a_{j+g}`$ is a basis of holomorphic 1-forms on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By Theorem 2.3 and its consequence, we deduce that $`_{j=1}^ga_ja_{j+g}`$ is a volume form on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Now let $`\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denote the volume form on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ induced by the hyperbolic volume form $`\omega _{}`$ on $``$. Then there is a positive constant $`\kappa `$ such that $`\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\kappa _{j=1}^ga_ja_{j+g}`$ are cohomologous. To determine the constant $`\kappa `$, we integrate over the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to get

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }=\kappa _\mathrm{\Sigma }\underset{j=1}{\overset{g}{}}a_ja_{j+g}.$$

Now each term $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }a_ja_{j+g}=1`$ by our choice of normalized symplectic basis. By the Gauss-Bonnet theorem $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }=4\pi (g1)`$. Therefore $`\kappa =4\pi (g1)/g`$.

Thus by the argument above and Lemma 1.9, we see that the difference $`\omega _{}\kappa \mathrm{\Xi }^{}(\omega _J)=d\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant 1-form on $``$. More particularly for a geodesic triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with vertices at $`x,y,z`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{}\hfill & =& \kappa _\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(\omega _J)+_\mathrm{\Delta }𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill \\ & =& \kappa _{\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Delta })}\omega _J+_\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill \end{array}$$

Now $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ cannot map geodesic triangles to Euclidean triangles in $`^{2g}`$ as $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is a compact subset of a non-flat embedded two dimensional surface in $`^{2g}`$. Moreover as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j(z,x,y)=0`$ whenever the images of $`z,x,y`$ under $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ lie in a Lagrangian subspace (with respect to the symplectic form $`s`$) of $`^{2g}`$, $`\tau _K`$ and $`\tau _{c,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ are not obviously proportional.

Next we write $`\omega _J=d\theta `$. Considering the difference $`\tau _K\tau _{c,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ one sees that the key is to understand

$$_{\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Delta })}\omega _J_{\mathrm{\Delta }_E}\omega _J=_{\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Delta })}\theta _{\mathrm{\Delta }_E}\theta .$$

Now this difference of integrals around the boundary can be written as the sum of three terms corresponding to splitting the boundaries $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ into three arc segments each. We introduce some notation for this, writing

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{}(x,y))\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{}(y,z))\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{}(z,x)),$$

where $`\mathrm{}(x,y)`$ is the geodesic in $``$ joining $`x`$ and $`y`$ (with the obvious similar definition of the other terms). We also write

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_E=m(x,y)m(y,z)m(z,x),$$

where $`m(x,y)`$ is the straight line joining $`\mathrm{\Xi }(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }(y)`$ (and again the obvious definition of the other terms). Then we have

$`()`$
$$_{\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Delta })}\theta _{\mathrm{\Delta }_E}\theta =h(x,y)+h(y,z)+h(z,x)$$

where $`h(x,y)=_{\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{}(x,y))}\theta _{m(x,y)}\theta `$ with similar definitions for $`h(y,z)`$ and $`h(z,x)`$.

Notice that we have $`h(x,y)=_{D_{xy}}\omega _J`$ where $`D_{xy}`$ is a disc with boundary $`m(x,y)\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{}(x,y))`$. From this it is easy to see that $`h(\gamma x,\gamma y)=h(x,y)`$ for $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Now consider $`j(x,y)=_{\mathrm{}(x,y)}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant, it follows that $`j(\gamma x,\gamma y)=j(x,y)`$ for $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then by the computation done above, we see that

$$_\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{}=\kappa _{\mathrm{\Delta }_E}\omega _J+\kappa (h(x,y)+h(y,z)+h(z,x))+j(x,y)+j(y,z)+j(z,x)$$

We normalise $`_{j=1}^g\mathrm{\Psi }_j(z,x,y)`$ so that it equals $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }_E}\omega _J`$. Then,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y,z)=\kappa \underset{j=1}{\overset{g}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_j(z,x,y)+(\kappa h+j)(x,y,z)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y,z)={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }}\omega _{}.`$

Introduce the bilinear functional $`\tau _1`$ on $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\tau _1(A_0,A_1)\hfill & =& _{X_\mathrm{\Gamma }\times X}(h(x,y)+j(x,y))k_0(x,y)k_1(y,x)𝑑x𝑑y\hfill \\ & =& \mathrm{tr}_^\mathrm{\Gamma }(A_{\kappa h+j}A_1),\hfill \end{array}$$

where the operator $`A_j`$ has kernel $`k_j(x,y,r),j=0,1`$ and $`A_{\kappa h+j}`$ is the operator with kernel $`(\kappa h(x,y)+j(x,y))k_0(x,y,r)`$. So we have proved that formally the two cyclic 2-cocycles satisfy,

$$b\tau _1=\tau _K\tau _{c,\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$

where $`b`$ is the Hochschild boundary operator, so that they are cohomologous cyclic 2-cocycles. What remains is to understand the domain of the cochains, which is what is addressed next.

We want to see that $`\tau _1`$ is densely defined. By Theorem 1.5, one has an isomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_F:^\mathrm{\Gamma }C(\mathrm{\Omega })_{\overline{\sigma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒦(L^2(F)).$$

Here $`F`$ denotes a fundamental domain for the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ on $``$. Now any element $`x`$ in $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })_{\overline{\sigma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒦`$ can be written as a matrix $`(x_{ij})`$, where $`x_{ij}C(\mathrm{\Omega })_{\overline{\sigma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. So we can define

$$N_k(x)=(\underset{i,j}{}\nu (x_{ij})^2)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$

where

$$\nu (x_{ij})=(\underset{h\mathrm{\Gamma }_g}{}(1+\mathrm{}(h)^{2k})|x(h)|^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

and $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the word length function on the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$. Using a slight modification of the argument given in , III.5.$`\gamma `$, one can prove that there is a subalgebra $`_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which
(i) contains $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })_{\overline{\sigma },alg}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $``$ denotes the algebra of smoothing operators on $`F`$ and $`_{\overline{\sigma },alg}`$ denotes the algebraic twisted crossed product,
(ii) is stable under the holomorphic functional calculus, and
(iii) is such that $`N_k(x)<\mathrm{}`$ for all $`x_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`k`$.

Then, following , we have that the trace $`\tau \text{Tr}`$ on $`C(\mathrm{\Omega })_{\overline{\sigma },alg}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is continuous for the norm $`N_k`$, for $`k`$ sufficiently large, and thus extends by continuity to $`_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Note that elements in $`_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ have Schwartz kernels which have rapid decay away from the diagonal. The next result summarises the discussion above.

###### Proposition 2.4.

The algebra $`_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is dense in $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is closed under the holomorphic functional calculus and is contained in the ideal $``$ of $`^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consisting of operators with finite trace.

Now $`\tau _K`$ is defined on $`_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ while $`\tau _{c,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is defined on $`_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as we noted earlier. Both of these algebras contain the operators whose Schwartz kernels are supported in a band around the diagonal. Thus the subalgebra $`_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is dense and stable under the holomorphic functional calculus. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant, it is bounded, therefore $`|j(x,y)|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{}}d(x,y)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the supremum norm of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`d(x,y)`$ is the hyperbolic distance from $`x`$ to $`y`$. An explicit expression for $`\theta `$ shows that it grows linearly in terms of $`d(x,y)`$, so that $`h(x,y)`$ grows at worst like $`d(x,y)^2`$. (for more details, see ) Therefore if $`A_0_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ then so too does $`A_{\kappa h+j}`$. Hence we have $`\tau _1`$ defined on $`_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This section has proved our main theorem.

###### Theorem 2.5.

The Connes-Kubo cocycle $`\tau _K`$ and the Chern character cocycle $`\tau _{c,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ arising as the Chern class of the Fredholm module $`(F,𝒮)`$, are cohomologous as cyclic cocycles on $`_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

## 3. Appendix : On the Quantum Adiabatic Theorem (QAT)

One knows that the (time) evolution determined by a time independent Hamiltonian reduces to the spectral theory of the Hamiltonian. The QAT says that the (time) evolution of a slowly varying time dependent Hamiltonian reduces to the spectral theory of an associated family of adiabatic Hamiltonians. The setting for the QAT is as follows. Let $`sH(s)`$ be a smooth family of Hamiltonians (self-adjoint operators) $`\tau =\text{time scale}`$ and $`s=t/\tau =\text{scaled time}`$. Consider now the physical evolution

$$i_tU(t)=H(t/\tau )U(t),U(0)=1$$

or equivalently

(1)
$$i_sU_\tau (s)=\tau H_\tau (s)U_\tau (s),U_\tau (0)=1.$$

Let $`P(0)`$ denote the spectral projection onto a gap in the spectrum of $`H(0)`$, that is we have $`P(0)=\chi _{(\mathrm{},E]}(H(0))`$ where $`E`$ spectrum of $`(H(0))`$.

The adiabatic evolution is determined by the equation

(2)
$$P(s)=U_a(s)P(0)U_a(s)^{},U_a(0)=1$$

where $`P(s)`$ denotes spectral projection onto a gap in the spectrum of $`H(s)`$. Let $`H_a(s)`$ denote the generator of $`U_a(s)`$. It is also known as the adiabatic Hamiltonian and is given by

(3)
$$H_a(s)=\frac{i}{\tau }(_sU_a(s))U_a(s)^{}$$

###### Lemma 3.1.

The adiabatic Hamiltonian $`H_a(s)`$ satisfies the equation of motion

$$[H_a(s),P(s)]=\frac{i}{\tau }_sP(s)$$

Proof. Differentiating (2), we have

$`_sP(s)`$ $`=_sU_a(s)P(0)U_a(s)^{}+U_a(s)P(0)_sU_a(s)^{}`$
$`=_sU_a(s)P(0)U_a(s)^{}U_a(s)P(0)U_a(s)^{}_sU_a(s)U_a(s)^{}`$
$`=(_sU_a(s))U_a(s)^{}U_a(s)P(0)U_a(s)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{i}}P(s)H_a(s)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{i}}[H_a(s),P(s)]`$
###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`f`$ be a measurable function on $``$. Then $`H_a(s)=f(H(s))+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\tau }}[_sP(s),P(s)]`$ satisfies the equations of motion.

Proof. $`[f(H(s)),P(s)]0`$ and $`[[_sP(s),P(s)],P(s)]=_sP(s)`$ since $`P(s)^2=P(s)`$ and $`P(s)`$ is a spectral projection of $`H(s)`$. Define the adiabatic Hamiltonian as

(4)
$$H_a(s)=H(s)+\frac{i}{\tau }[_sP(s),P(s)]$$

Then equation (2) is satisfied and $`U_a(s):\mathrm{Range}P(0)\mathrm{Range}P(s)`$ i.e. the initial value problem

$$i_s\psi (s)=\tau H_a(s)\psi (s),\psi (0)\mathrm{Range}P(0)$$

has the property that $`\psi (s)\mathrm{Range}P(s)`$ $`s`$.

###### Theorem 3.3 (Quantum Adiabatic Theorem (QAT) ).

Let $`sH(s)`$ be a smooth family of self-adjoint Hamiltonians and $`sP(s)`$ be a smooth family of spectral projections as before such that

$$sup\{P(s)<\mathrm{}s[0,\mathrm{})\}$$

and the commutator equation $`[_sP(s),P(s)]=[H(s),X(s)]`$ has an operator-valued solution $`X(s)`$, such that $`X(s)`$ and $`_sX(s)`$ are bounded. Then one has

$$(U_\tau (s)U_a(s))P(0)\frac{1}{\tau }\underset{s[0,\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{max}}\{2X(s)P(s)+_s(X(s)P(s))P(s)\}$$

That is, the adiabatic evolution $`U_a(s)`$ approximates the physical evolution $`U_\tau (s)`$ as the adiabatic parameter $`\tau \mathrm{}`$. Equivalently, the adiabatic Hamiltonian $`H_a(s)`$ approximates the physical Hamiltonian $`H_\tau (s)`$ on the range of $`P`$, as the adiabatic parameter $`\tau \mathrm{}`$.

Note that the hypotheses on $`P(s)`$ are satisfied if $`P(s)`$ is a spectral projection onto a gap in the spectrum of $`H(s)`$ because one can then define

$$X(s)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_CR(z,s)_sP(s)R(z,s)dz$$

where $`C`$ is a contour in $``$ enclosing the spectrum in $`(\mathrm{},E]`$, $`E`$ $`\mathrm{spec}`$ $`(H(s))`$ and $`R(z,s)=(H(s)z)^1`$ is the resolvent.

## 4. Appendix: Conductance cocycles

In this subsection we present an argument which derives from physical principles the hyperbolic Connes-Kubo formula for the ‘Hall conductance’. Our reasoning is that the Hall conductance in the Euclidean situation is measured experimentally by determining the equilibrium ratio of the current in the direction of the applied electric field to the Hall voltage, which is the potential difference in the orthogonal direction. To calculate this mathematically we instead determine the component of the induced current that is orthogonal to the applied potential. The conductance can then be obtained by dividing this quantity by the magnitude of the applied field. In the hyperbolic case preferred directions. are obtained by interpreting the generators of the fundamental group as geodesics on hyperbolic space giving a family of preferred directions emanating from the base point. For each pair of directions it is therefore natural to imitate the procedure of the Euclidean case and mathematically this is done as follows.

The Hamiltonian $`H`$ in a magnetic field depends on the magnetic vector potential $`𝐀`$ and the functional derivative $`\delta _kH`$ of $`H`$ with respect to one of the components of $`𝐀`$, denoted $`A_k`$, gives the current density $`J_k`$, where we consider adiabatic variations within a one-parameter family $`A_k(s)`$, which we can choose without loss of generality to be bounded, since $`𝐀(0)=\theta \frac{dx}{y}`$ defines a bounded operator in the hyperbolic metric. The expected value of the current in a state described by a projection operator $`P`$ into a spectral gap of $`H`$ is therefore $`\mathrm{tr}(P\delta _kH)`$ (cf  equation (3.2)). (Note that an argument, using the fact that $`P`$ is a member of a family $`P(s)`$ of projections which correspond to gaps for small $`s`$, is required to see that $`P\delta _kH`$ is trace class.) The following lemma is not proved by a rigorous argument: one needs to check various analytical details as in  which we omit as they would take us too far afield. For this discussion $`\mathrm{tr}`$ will denote a generic trace.

###### Lemma 4.1.

In the adiabatic limit as the adiabatic parameter $`\tau \mathrm{}`$, the functional derivative of the adiabatic Hamiltonian $`\delta _kH_a(s)`$ approximates the functional derivative of the physical Hamiltonian $`\delta _kH_\tau (s)`$ on the range of $`P`$, and one has

$$\mathrm{tr}(P\delta _kH)=i\mathrm{tr}(P[_tP,\delta _kP]).$$

Proof. The first statement is the result of a calculation. It uses the explicit forms of $`\delta _k`$ and $`H_a(s)`$ and the fact that the family $`A_k(s)`$ is bounded to show that the norm of the difference $`\delta _kH_a(s)\delta _kH_\tau (s)`$ goes to zero as $`s0`$. By using the invariance of the trace under the adjoint action of operators and the equation of motion we see that

$`\mathrm{tr}(P[_tP,\delta _kP])`$ $`=\mathrm{tr}([P,\delta _kP]_tP)`$
$`=i\mathrm{tr}([P,\delta _kP][P,H_a])`$
$`=i\mathrm{tr}([P,[P,\delta _kP]]H_a).`$
Now $`\delta _kP=\delta _k(P^2)=P(\delta _kP)+(\delta _kP)P`$, whence $`P(\delta _kP)P=0`$ and we have

$`[P,[P,\delta _kP]]`$ $`=P(P(\delta _kP)(\delta _kP)P)(P(\delta _kP)(\delta _kP)P)P`$
$`=P(\delta _kP)+(\delta _kP)P=\delta _kP.`$
Consequently we may write

$$\mathrm{tr}(P[_tP,\delta _kP])=i\mathrm{tr}((\delta _kP)H_a)=i\mathrm{tr}(\delta _k(PH_a))i\mathrm{tr}(P(\delta _kH_a)),$$

and, assuming that the trace is invariant under variation of $`A_k`$, the first term vanishes. The result asserted follows by taking the limit as the adiabatic parameter $`\tau \mathrm{}`$. By following , one sees that in fact the limit of the lemma is true to all orders. We note further that if the only $`t`$-dependence in $`H`$ and $`P`$ is due to the adiabatic variation of $`A_j`$, a component distinct from $`A_k`$, then $`_t=A_j/t\times \delta _j`$. Working in the Landau gauge so that the electrostatic potential vanishes, the electric field is given by $`𝐄=𝐀/t`$, and so $`_t=E_j\delta _j`$. Combining this with the previous argument we arrive at the following result:

###### Corollary 4.2.

The conductance for currents in the $`k`$ direction induced by electric fields in the $`j`$ direction is given by $`i\mathrm{tr}(P[\delta _jP,\delta _kP])`$.

Proof. The expectation of the current $`J_k`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{tr}(P\delta _kH)=i\mathrm{tr}(P[_tP,\delta _kP])=iE_j\mathrm{tr}(P[\delta _jP,\delta _kP]),$$

from which the result follows immediately.