format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Dual elliptic structures on $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$

Jean-Claude Sikorav

Abstract. We define the notion of tame elliptic structure $`E`$ on $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$, which generalizes an almost complex structure $`J`$ on which the standard symplectic form is positive. An $`E`$-curve is a surface in $`V`$ which is everywhere tangent to $`E`$ ($`J`$-holomorphic in the almost complex case), and an $`E`$-line is an $`E`$-curve of degree $`1`$. We show that the space $`V^{}`$ of $`E`$-lines is itself a complex projective plane with a tame elliptic structure $`E^{}`$. Moreover, to each $`E`$-curve one can associate its dual in $`V^{}`$, which is an $`E^{}`$-curve. This implies that the $`E`$-curves, and in particular the $`J`$-curves, satisfy the Plücker formulas, which restricts their possible sets of singularities.

AMS 32Q65, 53C15, 53C42, 53D35, 57R17, 58J60 Keywords: $`J`$-holomorphic curve, complex projective plane, dual curve, elliptic structure

Introduction

Let $`V`$ be a smooth oriented $`4`$-manifold, which is a rational homology $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$ (ie $`b_2(V)=1`$), and let $`J`$ be an almost complex structure on $`V`$ which is homologically equivalent to the standard structure $`J_0`$ on $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$. This means that there is an isomorphism $`H^{}(V)H^{}(\text{C}\text{P}^2)`$ (rational coefficients) which is positive on $`H^4`$ and sends the Chern class $`c_1(J)`$ to $`c_1(J_0)`$.

By definition, a $`J`$-line is a $`J`$-holomorphic curve ($`J`$-curve for short) of degree $`1`$. By the positivity of intersections \[McD2\], it is an embedded sphere. We denote by $`V^{}`$ the set of $`J`$-lines. Now assume that $`J`$ is tame, ie positive with respect to some symplectic form $`\omega `$, and also that $`V^{}`$ is nonempty. Then M. Gromov \[G\] (2.4.A) \[cf. also \[McD1\]) has proved that by two distinct points $`x,yV`$ there passes a unique $`J`$-line $`L_{x,y}V^{}`$, depending smoothly on $`(x,y)`$; also, for any given $`PGr_1^J(TV)`$, the Grassmannian of $`J`$-complex lines in $`TV`$, there exists a unique $`J`$-line $`L_PV^{}`$ tangent to $`P`$. Furthermore, $`V`$ is oriented diffeomorphic to $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$, $`\omega `$ is isomorphic to $`\lambda \omega _0`$ for some positive $`\lambda `$ so that $`J`$ is homotopic to $`J_0`$. Finally, $`V^{}`$ has a natural structure of compact oriented $`4`$-manifold; although it is not explicitly stated in \[G\], the above properties of $`V^{}`$ imply that it is also oriented diffeomorphic to $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$.

Later, Taubes \[T\] proved that the hypothesis that $`V^{}`$ be nonempty is unnecessary, so that all the above results hold when $`J`$ is tame. We shall call $`(V,J)`$ a tame almost complex projective plane. Following \[G, 2.4.E\], these facts can be extended to the case of an elliptic structure on $`V`$, ie one replaces $`Gr_1^J(TV)`$ by a suitable submanifold $`E`$ of the Grassmannian of oriented $`2`$-planes $`Gr_2TV`$. Such a structure is associated to a twisted almost complex structure $`J`$, which is a fibered map from $`TV`$ to itself satisfying $`J_v^2=\mathrm{Id}`$ but such that $`J_v`$ is not necessarily linear. An elliptic structure on $`V`$ gives rise to a notion of $`E`$-curve, ie a surface $`SV`$ (not necessarily embedded or immersed) whose tangent plane at every point is an element of $`E`$ (for the precise definitions, see section 2). It will be called tame it there exists a symplectic form $`\omega `$ strictly positive on each $`PE`$. In Gromov’s words, “all facts on $`J`$-curves \[proved in \[G\]\] extend to $`E`$-curves with an obvious change of terminology”. In particular, let $`V`$ be a rational homology $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$ equipped with a tame elliptic structure $`E`$ so that $`(V,E)`$ is homologically equivalent to $`(\text{C}\text{P}^2,Gr_1^\text{C}(T\text{C}\text{P}^2))`$. Then one can define the space $`V^{}`$ of $`E`$-lines ($`E`$-curves of degree $`1`$), and prove that all the above properties still hold (see section 3). In particular, $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are oriented diffeomorphic to $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$. We shall call $`(V,E)`$ with the above properties a tame elliptic projective plane. If $`CV`$ is an $`E`$-curve, we define its dual $`C^{}V^{}`$ by $`C^{}=\{L_{T_vC}vC\}`$. A more precise definition is given in section 4; note that one must require that no component of $`C`$ is contained in an $`E`$-line. The main new result of this paper is then the following.

Theorem. Let $`(V,E)`$ be a tame elliptic projective plane. Then there exists a unique elliptic structure $`E^{}Gr_2TV^{}`$ on $`V^{}`$ with the following property: if $`CV`$ is an $`E`$-curve, then its dual $`C^{}V^{}`$ is an $`E^{}`$-curve.

Furthermore, $`(V^{},E^{})`$ is again a tame elliptic projective plane. Finally, the bidual $`(V^{},E^{})`$ can be canonically identified with $`(V,E)`$, and $`C^{}=C`$ for every $`E`$-curve $`S`$.

If $`E`$ comes from an almost complex structure, one may wonder if this is also the case for $`E^{}`$, equivalently if the associated twisted almost complex structure $`J^{}`$ is linear on each fiber. We give an example showing that it is not true, which means that $`V^{}`$ has no natural almost complex structure. (Actually I believe that $`J^{}`$ is linear only if $`J`$ is integrable.)

Theorem 1 enables us to extend to $`J`$-curves in $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$ (for a tame $`J`$) some classical results obtained from the theory of dual algebraic curves. For instance, one immediately obtains the Plücker formulas, which restrict the possible sets of singularities of $`J`$-curves. Such results could be interesting for the symplectic isotopy problem for surfaces in $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$ \[Sik2\]. Maybe also, but this is more hypothetic, for the topology of symplectic $`4`$-manifolds, in view of the result of D. Auroux \[A\] showing that they are branched coverings of $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$. The reason why we say “hypothetic” is that the branch locus is not an honest $`J`$-curve (with nodes and cusps), but may admit negative nodes, although there is some some hope to dispense with them.

In sections 1 and 2, we give the main properties of elliptic structures and $`E`$-curves in dimension $`4`$. In section 3 we define and study tame elliptic projective planes. Most of the statements and all the ideas in these three sections are already in Gromov’s paper (see especially \[G,2.4.E and 2.4.A\]), except what regards singularities, where we give more precise results in the vein of \[McD2\] and \[MW\]. In section 4 we prove the main result: the structure $`E^{}`$ is defined in one line, but to prove its ellipticity we could not avoid some longish computation. The tameness and the duality property are easy.

In section 5 we give an example of a tame almost complex structure on $`V=\text{C}\text{P}^2`$ such that $`V^{}`$ has no natural almost complex structure. Finally in section 6 we prove the Plücker formulas for $`E`$-curves and in particular for $`J`$-curves.

Acknowledgment. This paper would not exist without the obstination of Stepan Orevkov, who asked me many times if something like an almost complex structure on $`V^{}`$ could not exist. I kept saying “no”, until I realized the existence of an elliptic struture, which is just as good!

Later comment. After the first version of this paper was posted, Benjamin McKay sent me his PhD thesis (“Duality and integrable systems of pseudoholomorphic curves”, Duke University, 1999), which contains (among many other things) the main result of this paper in a much more general setting. In it one can also find the proof of a strong version of my conjecture at the end of section 5: if two dual structures are almost complex near corresponding points, then they are integrable. It does not however contain the application to singularities.

1. Elliptic structures in dimension $`4`$

1.A. Surface of elliptic type in the Grassmannian $`Gr_2\text{R}^4`$. Let $`T`$ be an oriented real vector space of dimension $`4`$. We denote by $`G(T)=Gr_2T`$ the Grassmannian of oriented $`2`$-planes. Recall that for each $`PG(T)`$, the tangent plane $`T_PG(T)`$ is canonically identified with $`\mathrm{Hom}(P,T/P)`$. By definition, a surface of elliptic type in $`G(T)`$ is a smooth, closed, connected and embedded surface $`E`$ such that for every $`PE`$ one has

$$T_PE\{0\}\mathrm{Isom}_+(P,T/P).$$

This is equivalent to the existence of (necessarily unique) complex structures on $`T_PE`$, $`P`$, $`T/P`$, such that $`\mathrm{im}(\varphi )`$ is the space of complex morphisms from $`P`$ to $`T/P`$ and $`\varphi `$ is a complex morphism. We shall denote \- $`j_{E,P}`$ the structure on $`T_PE`$ \- $`j_P`$ and $`j_P^{}`$ the structures on $`P`$ and $`T/P`$.

1.B. Surfaces of elliptic type and complex structures. The first example of surface of elliptic type is a Grassmannian $`Gr_1^J(T)`$ of complex $`J`$-lines for a positive complex structure $`J`$ on $`T`$.

We now prove that every surface of elliptic type is deformable to such a $`Gr_1^J(T)`$. More precisely, denote by $`𝒥(T)`$ the space of positive complex structures, and $`(T)`$ the space of surfaces of elliptic type. Then the embedding $`𝒥(T)(T)`$ just defined admits a retraction by deformation. In particular, $`E`$ is always diffeomorphic to $`\text{C}\text{P}^1`$ and thus biholomorphic to $`\text{C}\text{P}^1`$.

To prove this, we fix a Euclidean metric on $`V`$ and replace $`𝒥(T)`$ by the subspace $`𝒥_0(T)`$ of isometric structures, to which it retracts by deformation. The space of $`2`$-vectors $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T`$ has a decomposition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T=\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2T\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2T`$ into self-dual and antiself-dual vectors. The Grassmannian $`G(T)`$ is identified with $`S_+^2\times S_{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2T\times \mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2T`$ by sending a plane $`P`$ to $`(\sqrt{2}(xy)_+,\sqrt{2}(xy)_{})`$ where $`(x,y)`$ is any positive orthonormal basis. We denote $`P=\varphi (u_+,u_{})`$ the plane associated to $`(u_+,u_{})`$. Identifying $`T/P`$ with $`P^{}`$, the canonical isomorphism

$$T_{u_+}S_+^2\times T_u_{}S_{}^2\mathrm{Hom}(P,P^{})$$

sends $`(\alpha _+,\alpha _{})`$ to $`A`$ such that

$$A.\xi =\iota _\xi (\alpha _++\alpha _{})$$

(interior product). This can be seen by working in a unitary oriented basis of $`T`$, $`(e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4)`$ such that $`u_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e_1e_2\pm e_3e_4)`$. This leads to unitary oriented bases of $`T_{u_+}S_+^2`$ and $`T_u_{}S_{}^2`$:

$$v^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e_1e_3e_2e_4),w^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e_1e_4\pm e_2e_3).$$

Still working in these bases, one gets

$$\mathrm{det}A=\alpha _+^2+\alpha _{}^2.$$

(beware the signs!). Thus an elliptic structure is given by a surface $`ES_+^2\times S_{}^2`$ such that the projections $`p_\pm :ES_\pm ^2`$ satisfy \- $`dp_{}`$ is an isomorphism at all points of $`E`$ \- $`dp_+(dp_{})^1<1`$ at all points of $`E`$. Since $`E`$ is closed and connected, $`p_{}`$ is a diffeomorphism from $`E`$ to $`S_{}^2`$ and $`E`$ is the set of points $`(a(u),u)`$, where $`a:S_{}^2S_+^2`$ is a smooth contraction. Thus $`(T)`$ is homeomorphic to the space of smooth contractions from $`S^2`$ to itself. This space retracts by deformation to the space of constant maps: to each map $`a`$ one associates its unique fixed point $`x_a`$ and writes $`a=\mathrm{exp}_{x_h}A`$ with $`A:S^2T_{x_a}S^2`$; the retraction is then $`h_t=\mathrm{exp}_{x_h}(tA)`$. Since a constant map $`S_{}^2S_+^2`$ corresponds to a Grassmannian $`Gr_1^J(T)`$ for some $`J𝒥_0(T)`$, this gives the retraction by deformation from $`(T)`$ to $`𝒥_0(T)`$.

1.C. Twisted complex structure associated to an elliptic surface. Let $`EG(T)`$ be an elliptic surface. Then we have the Proposition. The space $`T\{0\}`$ is the disjoint union $`_{PE}P\{0\}`$. Proof. We use the representation $`E=\{P_uuS_{}^2\}`$, with $`P_u=\varphi ((a(u),u)`$, $`a:S_{}^2S_+^2`$ being a smooth contraction. Let $`\xi T\{0\}`$ be given. Then $`\xi `$ belongs to $`P_u`$ if and only if $`\iota _\xi (a(u)+u)=0`$. We can identify $`\xi ^{}T`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2`$ in such a way that $`\iota _\xi (u)=u`$. Then $`\iota _\xi (a(u)+u)=u+b(u)`$, where $`b:S_{}^2S_{}^2`$ is a smooth contraction. Thus there exists a unique $`uS_{}^2`$ such that $`b(u)=u`$, ie a unique $`P=P_u`$ in $`E`$ containing $`\xi `$. Thus if $`u`$, $`v`$ are distinct points in $`S_{}^2`$, we have $`P_uP_v=\{0\}`$. In fact $`P_u`$ and $`P_v`$ are positively tranvserse (first occurrence of the positivity of intersection): indeed, the inequality $`da<1`$ implies $`a(u)a(v)^2<uv^2`$ ie

$$a(u),a(v)u,v>0,$$

which is precisely the positive transversality of $`P_u`$ and $`P_v`$. This enables us to put together the $`j_P`$, $`PE`$, to obtain a map $`J:TT`$ with the following properties:

(i)$`J^2=\mathrm{Id}`$

(ii) $`J`$ is continuous, and homogeneous of degree $`1`$

(iii) $`J`$ is smooth away from $`0`$ (by (ii), it is not differentiable at $`0`$ except if it is linear)

(iv) for every $`xT\{0\}`$, $`J(x)`$ is linearly independent of $`x`$, and $`J`$ is linear on the plane $`x,J(x)`$. Conversely, given $`J`$ satisfying (i)-(iv), we can define a smooth surface $`EG(T)`$ by

$$E=\{x,J(x)xT\{0\}\}.$$

A straightforward computation gives that $`E`$ is elliptic if and only if

(v) for every $`xT\{0\}`$ and $`\xi x,J(x)^{}\{0\})`$, $`(x,J(x),\xi ,dJ_x.\xi )`$ is an oriented basis of $`T`$.

1.D. Local form of a surface of elliptic type. Let $`E`$ be a surface of elliptic type in $`G(T)`$, and fix $`PE`$. Identify $`T`$ with $`\text{C}^2`$ such that (i) $`P`$ is sent to the horizontal plane $`H=\text{C}\times \{0\}`$ (ii) the identifications $`PH`$ and $`T/P\text{C}^2/H`$ are complex-linear for the complex structures defined in 1.A. Then $`E`$ is given near $`P`$ by a family of planes of the following form:

$$P_\lambda =\{(\delta z,\delta w)\text{C}^2\delta w=\lambda \delta z+h(\lambda )\overline{\delta z}\},$$

where $`h`$ is a smooth germ $`(\text{C},0)(\text{C},0)`$ such that $`h(0)=0`$. The tangent space $`T_{P_\lambda }E`$ is identified with the image of

$$\xi \text{C}\xi \mathrm{Id}+(dh(\lambda ).\xi )\sigma \mathrm{End}_\text{R}(\text{C}),$$

where $`\sigma `$ is the complex conjugation. Thus the ellipticity translates to the inequality $`dh<1`$. Property (ii) becomes $`dh(0)=0`$. Remark. Denote by $`J`$ the complex structure on $`T`$. Properties (i) and (ii) imply that $`PGr_1^JT`$ and $`T_PGr_1^J(TV)=T_PE`$, cf. \[G, 2.4.E\].

1.E. Elliptic structure on a $`4`$-manifold; twisted almost complex structure. Let $`V`$ be an oriented $`4`$-manifold, and let $`G=Gr_2TV`$ be the Grassmannian of oriented tangent $`2`$-planes, which is fibered over $`V`$ with fiber $`G_v=Gr_2(T_vV)`$. By definition, an elliptic structure on $`V`$ is a smooth compact submanifold $`EG`$ of dimension $`6`$, transversal to the fibration $`GV`$, such that each fiber $`E_v`$ is a surface of elliptic type in $`Gr_2T_vV`$. Denote $`(TV)`$ the space of elliptic structures on $`V`$ and $`𝒥(TV)`$ the space of positive almost complex structures on $`V`$. The map $`JGr_1^J(TV)`$ gives a natural embedding from $`𝒥(TV)`$ to $`(TV)`$. These are both spaces of sections of a bundle on $`V`$, with respective fibers $`(T_vV)`$ and $`𝒥(T_vV)`$. Since $`(T_vV)`$ retracts by deformation to $`𝒥(T_vV)`$, $`(TV)`$ retracts by deformation to $`𝒥(TV)`$. In particular, every elliptic structure defines a unique homotopy class of almost complex structures on $`V`$. Thus the Chern class $`c_1(E)=c_1(TV,J)H^2(V,\text{Z})`$ is well defined. Finally, the twisted structures $`J_v`$, $`vV`$, can be put together to give a twisted almost complex structure on $`V`$, ie a fiber-preserving map $`J:TVTV`$ such that all the $`J_v`$ have the properties (i)-(v) of 1.C. It is continuous on $`TV`$ \[in fact locally Lipschitz\], and smooth away from the zero section. Conversely, a map $`J`$ with all these properties clearly defines an elliptic structure.

2. Solutions of $`E`$, $`E`$-maps and $`E`$-curves

In this section we consider an oriented $`4`$-manifold $`V`$ equipped with an elliptic structure $`EG=Gr_2TV`$. If $`S`$ is an oriented surface and $`f:SV`$ is an immersion, we denote $`\gamma _f:SG`$ the associated Gauss map.

2.A. Immersed solutions. Local equation as a graph

Definition. An immersed solution of $`E`$ is a $`𝒞^1`$ immersion $`f:SV`$ where $`S`$ is an oriented surface and $`\gamma _f(S)E`$. Let $`vV`$ and $`PE_v`$ be fixed. We describe a local equation for germs of immersed solutions of $`E`$ which are tangent to $`P`$ at $`v`$, or more generally which have a tangent close enough to $`P`$. Choose a local chart $`(V,v)(\text{C}^2,0)`$ such that the properties of 1.D are satisfied for $`E_v`$ and $`P`$. Then the elliptic structure on $`E`$ near $`H`$ is given by a family of planes

$$P_{z,w,\lambda }=\{(\delta z,\delta w)\text{C}^2\delta w=\lambda \delta z+h(z,w,\lambda )\overline{\delta z}\}.$$

Here $`(z,w,\lambda )`$ belongs to a neighbourhood of $`0`$ in $`\text{C}^3`$, and $`P_{z,w,\lambda }`$ represents a plane tangent at the point of coordinates $`(z,w)`$. The map $`h`$ is a smooth germ $`(\text{C}^3,0)(\text{C},0)`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& D_3h(z,w,\xi )<1((z,w,\xi ))\hfill \\ & D_3h(0,0,0)=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1)`$
A germ of surface $`SV`$ passing through $`P`$ with a tangent plane close enough to $`P`$, can be written as a graph $`w=f(z)`$, where $`f:(\text{C},0)(\text{C},0)`$ satisfies

$$\frac{f}{\overline{z}}=h(z,f(z),\frac{f}{z}).$$
$`(2)`$
Remark. This equation with the property $`D_3h<1`$ is the general (resolved) form of an elliptic equation $`\text{C}\text{C}`$, cf. \[V\]. It implies the existence of a local immersed solution of $`E`$ with any given tangent plane, and even with an arbitrary “compatible” $`k`$-jet (an easy proof can be given by a suitable implicit function theorem, modifying slightly the proofs given in Chapter V or VI of \[AL\]), and also that each solution is of class $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$.

2.B. Conformal parametrization, $`E`$-maps. Let $`f:SV`$ be an immersed solution of $`E`$. Since every tangent plane $`P_z=df_z(T_zS)`$ has a well-defined complex structure $`j_{P_z},`$ this induces a canonical almost complex structure $`j_f`$ on $`S`$, ie a natural structure of Riemann surface. In other words, every (immersed) solution of $`E`$ admits a natural conformal parametrization. If $`S`$ is a Riemann surface, we say that an immersion $`f:SV`$ is a conformal solution of $`E`$ if it is a solution and $`j_f`$ is the canonical almost structure on $`S`$. This is equivalent to the equation

$$df_zi=J_{f(z)}df_z.$$
$`(3)`$
We can now eliminate the immersion condition and define an $`E`$-map as a $`𝒞^1`$ map $`f:SV`$, where $`S`$ is a Riemann surface, which is a solution of (3). Note that since $`J`$ is only Lipschitz, the fact that $`E`$-maps are smooth is not completely obvious at this stage. But the arguments of \[AL, chap. V or VI\] imply that if $`f`$ is a nonconstant local $`E`$-map, then $`df`$ has only isolated zeros and the Gauss map $`\gamma _f`$ can be extended continuously at these zeros. And also that there exist $`E`$-immersions with an arbitrary given $`2`$-jet, satisfying suitable compatibility conditions.

2.C. $`E`$-maps as pseudoholomorphic maps. We prove here that $`E`$-maps can be considered as pseudoholomorphic maps. For this, we define the $`4`$-dimensional holonomy distribution $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on $`E`$ by setting $`\mathrm{\Theta }_P=d\pi _P^1(P)`$, where $`\pi :GV`$ is the natural projection. It is characterized by the property that every Gauss map $`\gamma _f:SE`$ associated to an $`E`$-map (not locally constant), is tangent to $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The construction of \[G\],1.4 can be generalized to give the Proposition. There exists a unique almost complex structure $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, such that every Gauss map $`\gamma :SE`$ associated to an $`E`$-map is $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$-holomorphic (or is a $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$-map), ie it is $`𝒞^1`$ (or $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$), tangent to $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and satisfies

$$d\gamma _zi=\stackrel{~}{J}_{\gamma (z)}d\gamma _z.$$
$`(4)`$
Moreover, the differential $`d\pi _P:T_PGP`$ is complex linear on $`\mathrm{\Theta }_P`$ and the subbundle $`F`$ tangent to the fibers is $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$-invariant, and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_{P|F_P}=j_{E_v,P}`$ (notation of 1.A). Conversely, a $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$-map not locally contained in a fiber is the Gauss map associated to an $`E`$-map.  Sketch of proof. For every $`X\mathrm{\Theta }_PF_P`$ there is an $`E`$-map $`f:SV`$ and a vector $`uT_zS`$ such that $`d\gamma _z(u)=X`$ where $`\gamma `$ is the Gauss map. Thus necessarily $`\stackrel{~}{J}_P.X=d\gamma _z(iu),`$ which implies the uniqueness.

The existence of $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ can be proved in local coordinates. The equation (3) becomes

$$\frac{f}{y}=J_{f(z)}(\frac{f}{x}),$$
$`(5)`$
and the associated Gauss map is $`\gamma =(f,s)`$ with

$$s(z)=\frac{\frac{f}{x}(J_{f(z)}(\frac{f}{x}))}{\frac{f}{x}(J_{f(z)}(\frac{f}{x}))}.$$

By differentiating (3) and after some (straigthforward but tedious) computation, one can obtain an equation of the form $`\frac{\gamma }{y}=\stackrel{~}{J}.\frac{\gamma }{x}`$ and check that $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ has all the stated properties. The uniqueness implies that it is independent of the chart.

We know already that $`\gamma `$ is $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ away from singularities of $`f`$. If $`z`$ is such a singularity, then since $`\gamma `$ satisfies (4) away from $`z`$ and is continuous up to $`z`$, it is $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ up to $`z`$. Note that it implies that every $`E`$-map is $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$. Finally, if $`\gamma :SE`$ is a $`𝒞^1`$ map, tangent to $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and satisfying (4), the composed map $`f=\pi \gamma `$ satisfies (3). If $`\gamma `$ is not locally contained in a fiber, $`f`$ is not locally constant, thus its Gauss map $`\gamma _f`$ is well-defined and one has $`\gamma _f=\gamma `$. Remarks (i) One can view $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$-map as an ordinary pseudoholomorphic map by extending $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ arbitrarily to $`\widehat{J}`$ defined on $`TE`$ (using Riemannian metric for instance). Then a $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$-map is a $`\widehat{J}`$-map which is tangent to $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

(ii) If $`F`$ was totally real instead of being complex, the triple $`(\mathrm{\Theta },J,F)`$ would be (adding some partial integrability properties) what F. Labourie \[L\] calls a Monge-Ampère geometry. The main difference is that his compactness theorem requires to add “curtain surfaces”, ie $`\widehat{J}`$-curves satisfying $`\mathrm{dim}(TSF)1`$.

2.D. General $`E`$-curves, compactness theorem. Using the conformal parametrization, we can now define an $`E`$-curve as a $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$-curve $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ in $`E`$ which is “almost transverse” to $`F`$. To make this definition precise, we would have (i) to choose a definition of $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$-curve, for instance a stable $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$-curve in the sense of Kontsevich. (ii) to say what “almost transverse” means: essentially that no nonconstant component has an image contained in a fiber, or that it is transverse to $`F`$ except on a finite subset. We would then obtain topological spaces of $`E`$-curves. We shall not give any details here since the only spaces of $`E`$-curves we shall consider will consist of curves which are embedded (in $`V`$!). The space of embedded $`E`$-curves will be considered as a subspace of the space of smooth surfaces in $`V`$: recall that this is a Fréchet smooth manifold whose tangent space at $`S`$ is the space of sections of the normal bundle $`N(S,V)=T_SV/TS`$. We shall also use the following notions of individual $`E`$-curves: \- a primitive (or irreducible) $`E`$-curve is the image $`C=f(S)`$ where $`S`$ is a closed and connected Riemann surface, $`f`$ is an $`E`$-map which does not factor $`f=f_1\pi `$ with $`\pi `$ a nontrivial holomorphic covering. As in the case of $`J`$-curves, the image determines $`(S,f)`$ up to isomorphism \- an $`E`$-cycle (à la Barlet) $`C=n_iC_i`$ where the $`C_i`$ are distinct primitive $`E`$-curves and the $`n_i`$ are positive integers \- analogous local versions of these.

One expects a compactness theorem for $`E`$-curves, analogous to the one for pseudoholomorphic curves: roughly speaking, it should say that (if $`V`$ is compact) a set of $`E`$-curves is relatively compact if their areas in $`V`$ are uniformly bounded. If one replaces “areas in $`V`$” by “areas in $`E`$ of the Gauss maps”, then such a result follows from \- the compactness theorem for $`\widehat{J}`$ on $`TE`$ (cf. the remark (i) in 2.C)

\- the fact that the conditions “tangent to $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$” and “almost transverse to $`F`$” are closed conditions.

However, it is not clear that an area bound in $`V`$ gives an area bound in $`E`$. Gromov \[G, 2.4.E\] says that the Schwarz lemma is still valid for $`E`$-curves under an area bound in $`V`$, but I do not understand the proof. Anyhow, here we shall only need the compactness theorem for $`E`$-lines, which we shall prove in section 3.

2.E. Singularities of $`E`$-curves and positivity of intersections Here we extend to $`E`$-curves the result of M. Micallef and B. White \[MW\] (see also \[Sik1\]): we prove that a $`E`$-curve, possibly non reduced, is $`𝒞^1`$-equivalent to a germ of standard holomorphic curve in $`\text{C}^2`$. It implies the positivity of intersections for $`E`$-curves, in particular the genus and intersection formulas. Such a result could be proved by showing that such a surface is quasiminimizing in the sense of \[MW\], but we prefer to use more complex-analytic arguments as in \[Sik1\]. We use the chart of 2.A to write the equation in intrinsic form, ie as a graph over the tangent space. If the curve is non singular, this is the equation (2) where $`h`$ satisfies (1). Now, consider a germ of non-immersed $`E`$-map $`F:(\text{C},0)(\text{C}^2,0)`$ with horizontal tangent at the origin. Then equation (3) and the similarity principle \[Sik1\] (proposition 2; cf. also \[McD2\]) give the existence of $`a\text{C}^{}`$ and $`k\text{N}`$, $`k2`$, such that

$$f(z)=(az^k,0)+O_{2,1}(z^{k+1}).$$

Here we use some notation from \[MW\], \[Sik1\]: $`g(z)=O_{2,1}(z^{k+1})`$ means

$$\{\begin{array}{c}g(z)=O(z^{k+1}),dg(z)=O(z^k),d^2g(z)=O(z^{k1})\\ (\alpha <1)d^2g\text{is}\alpha \text{-Hölder with Hölder constant}O(|z|^{k1\alpha }).\end{array}$$

Thus we can reparametrize the curve by setting $`pr_1F(z)=t^k`$, where $`zt`$ is a $`𝒞^1`$ local diffeomorphism. We obtain a map $`t(t^k,F(t))`$ where $`F`$ is of class $`𝒞^{2,1}=_{\alpha <1}𝒞^{1,\alpha }`$, with $`F(t)=O_{2,1}(t^{k+1})`$ (cf. \[Sik1\], proposition 4). The fact that the image, viewed locally as a graph satisfies (1), means that $`F`$ satisfies

$$\frac{F}{\overline{t}}=k\overline{t}^{k1}h(t^k,F(t),\frac{1}{kt^{k1}}\frac{F}{t}).$$
$`(6)`$
Note that this makes sense also at the origin. Next, we show that the “difference” of two such germs satisfies the similarity principle. More precisely, we have the following generalization of \[Sik1\], prop. 5: Proposition. Assume that $`F`$ and $`G`$ satisfy (6) with the same value of $`k`$, and are not identical as germs. Then there exists $`a\text{C}^{}`$ and $`k\text{N}^{}`$ such that

$$F(t)G(t)=at^k+O_{1,1}(t^{k+1}).$$

Proof. Set $`u=FG`$, and take the difference of the two equations on $`F`$ and $`G`$. Using Taylor’s integral formula and setting

$$\gamma (t,s)=(t^k,G(t)+su(t),\frac{1}{kt^{k1}}(\frac{G}{t}+s\frac{u}{t})),$$

we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{u}{\overline{t}}& =A(t).u(t)+B(t).\frac{u}{t},\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A(t)& =_0^1k\overline{t}^{k1}D_2h(\gamma (t,s))𝑑s\hfill \\ \hfill B(t)& =_0^1\overline{k}t^{k1}D_3h(\gamma (t,s))𝑑s.\hfill \end{array}$$

The properties of $`h`$, $`F`$ and $`G`$ imply that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are of class $`𝒞^{1,1}`$, and $`B_L^{\mathrm{}}<1`$. Then the proposition follows from a variant of proposition 2 in \[Sik1\]. Finally, one proceeds exactly as in \[Sik1\] (inspired by \[MW\]) to deduce from this proposition the Proposition. Let $`E`$ be a germ of elliptic structure on $`\text{C}^2`$ near $`0`$ such that the horizontal plane $`H=\text{C}\times \{0\}`$ belongs to $`E_0`$. Let $`f_i:(\text{C},0)(\text{C}^2,0)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, be germs of $`E`$-maps, all tangent to $`H`$ at $`0`$. Then there exist

\- a local $`𝒞^1`$ diffeomorphism $`\varphi :(\text{C}^2,0)(\text{C}^2,0)`$, with support in an arbitrarily small sector

$$S_ϵ=\{(x,y)\text{C}^2|y|ϵ|x|\}$$

\- local diffeomorphisms $`u_i:(\text{C},0)(\text{C},0)`$, tangent to the identity, such that all the maps $`\varphi f_iu_i`$ are holomorphic.  If the tangents to the $`f_i`$ are not the same, we cannot in general expect to find a differentiable chart on $`V`$ in which the image become holomorphic: there is an obstruction already at the linear algebraic level. However, by superposing the diffeomorphisms given by the proposition we easily obtain a Lipschitz chart: Theorem. Let $`f_i:(\text{C},0)(V,v)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, be germs $`E`$-maps through the same point. Then there exists a germ of Lipschitz oriented homeomorphism $`\varphi :(V,v)(\text{C}^2,0)`$ such that all the maps $`\varphi f_iu_i`$ are holomorphic. Proof. We can assume that $`(V,v)=(\text{C}^2,0)`$. Let $`(P_j)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},r`$, be the different tangent planes to the $`f_i`$ at $`v`$, and let $`I_j\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$ be the indices corresponding to the branches with tangent $`P_j`$. The $`P_j`$ are not complex linear in general, but there exist a Lipschitz oriented homeomorphism $`h`$ of $`\text{C}^2`$ such that the $`h(P_j)`$ are complex linear, thus there exist a family of complex linear $`A_j`$ such that

$$(j)A_jh(P_j)=\text{C}\times \{0\}.$$

Furthermore, we can assume that $`h`$ is smooth \[even linear\] on a sector $`S_j`$ around $`P_j`$.

Then we can apply the proposition to $`A_jhf_i`$, $`iI_j`$: there exists a $`𝒞^1`$ diffeomorphism $`\varphi _j:\text{C}^2\text{C}^2`$, such that $`\varphi _jA_jhf_i`$ is holomorphic with horizontal tangent for $`iI_j`$. Moreover, we can assume that the support of $`\varphi _j`$ is contained in $`A_jh(S_j)`$. Then the desired homeomorphism is given by

$$\varphi =\{\begin{array}{c}A_j^1\varphi _jA_jh\mathrm{on}S_j\\ h\mathrm{elsewhere}.\end{array}$$

From this theorem, one deduces the positivity of intersections. More precisely, one can define \- a local intersection index $`(C,C^{})_v\text{N}^{}`$ for two germs $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ of $`E`$-cycles at the point $`v`$ without common component. It is equal to $`1`$ if and only if $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ are smooth at $`v`$, with distinct tangents \- a local self-intersection number $`\delta _v(C)\text{N}^{}`$ (number of double points in a generic deformation equitopological at the source). It is equal to $`1`$ if and only if $`C`$ is smooth at $`v`$. One then has the intersection and genus (or “adjunction”) formulas Theorem. (i) If $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ are two $`E`$-cycles without common components, then $`CC^{}`$ (intersection of the supports) is finite and the homological intersection is given by

$$C.C^{}=\underset{vCC^{}}{}(C,C^{})_v.$$

(ii) If $`C`$ is an irreducible $`E`$-curve of genus $`g`$, then it has a finite number of singularities, and its genus is given by

$$g=\frac{C.Cc_1(E).C}{2}+1\underset{v}{}\delta _v.$$

Assume that $`(V,E)`$ is homologically equivalent to $`(\text{C}\text{P}^2,E_0)`$. Thus there is a well defined degree map $`H_2(V;\text{Z})\text{Z}`$ (an isomorphism modulo torsion, but not necessarily an isomorphism at this stage). Define an $`E`$-line as a primitive $`E`$-curve $`CV`$ of degree $`1`$. Then Since an $`E`$-line satisfies $`C.C=1`$ and $`c_1(E).C=3`$, we get the Corollary. Every $`E`$-line is an embedded sphere, and two distinct $`E`$-lines intersect transversely in one unique point.

2.F. Linearization of the equation of $`E`$-curves; automatic genericity. We consider here embedded $`E`$-curves, ie smooth surfaces $`SV`$ satisfying $`\stackrel{~}{S}E`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is the Gaussian lift. Following \[G, 2.4.E\] we linearize this “equation” at $`S`$, obtaining an equation $`\overline{}_Ef=0`$ where $`\overline{}_E`$ acts on sections $`f:SN=T_SV/TS`$, the normal bundle, with values in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J^{0,1}(S,N)`$. Here $`J=j_{TS}^{}`$ (cf. 1.A) is the natural complex structure on $`N`$. One can obtain explicitly this equation by using the equation (2) in local coordinates. The compatibility of the complex structure on $`\text{C}^2`$ with the structure on $`N`$ means that $`D_3h(z,0,0)0`$. Thus the linearization of (2) has locally the form

$$\frac{f}{\overline{z}}D_2h.f=0,$$

ie the operator $`\overline{}_E`$ has the form $`\overline{}_E=\overline{}+R`$ where $`\overline{}`$ is associated to a holomorphic structure on $`N`$ and $`R`$ is of order $`0`$. Thus one can apply to it the arguments of \[G, 2.1.C\] (cf. also \[HLS\]): Proposition. If $`c_1(N)>2g2`$, ie $`c_1(E).S>0`$, then $`\overline{}_E`$ is onto. Thus the space $`M_A`$ of connected embedded $`E`$-curves in the class $`AH_2(V;\text{Z})`$, if nonempty, is a smooth manifold if $`c_1(E).A>0`$. Its real dimension is

$$2(c_1(N).S+1g)=2A.A+(c_1(E).AA.A)=A.A+c_1(E).A.$$

Also, $`M`$ is oriented since the homotopy $`\mathrm{ker}(\overline{}+R_t)`$ gives it a natural homotopy class of almost complex structure (not more than a homotopy class, as we prove in section 5!). Now assume that $`(V,E)`$ is homologically equivalent to $`(\text{C}\text{P}^2,E_0)`$. Then the space of $`E`$-lines is the disjoint union of the $`M_A`$ for all $`AH_2(V;\text{Z})`$ of degree $`1`$. For such classes, we have $`c_1(E).A=3`$ thus the proposition applies: Corollary. The space of $`E`$-lines $`V^{}`$, if nonempty, is naturally a smooth oriented $`4`$-manifold. Extensions. Since $`c_1(E).A=3`$ we can still impose on $`S`$ a condition of complex codimension $`1`$ or $`2`$, and keep the automatic genericity (cf. for instance \[B\]). In particular: (i) Let $`_v^{}`$ be the space of $`E`$-lines through a given $`vV`$: it is an oriented smooth surface in $`V^{}`$ when nonempty. Note that it can be identified with an open subset of the projective line $`G_1^J(T_vV)`$. Also, $`_v^{}`$ depends smoothly on $`v`$. (ii) Let $`_{v,w}^{}`$ be the space of $`E`$-lines through two given points $`v,wV`$: when nonempty, it is a point $`L_{v,w}`$ which depends smoothly on $`(v,w)`$. This is the case for some open subset $`U_1V\times V\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$. (iii) Let $`_P^{}=`$ be the space of $`E`$-lines with a given tangent plane $`PE`$: again, when nonempty, it is a point $`L_P`$ which depends smoothly on $`P`$. This is the case for some open subset $`U_2E`$.

3. Tame elliptic projective planes By definition, a tame elliptic projective plane $`(V,E)`$ is a $`4`$-manifold equipped with a tame elliptic structure, homologically equivalent to $`(\text{C}\text{P}^2,E_0)`$. Note that we do not require a priori $`V`$ to be diffeomorphic to $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$.

3.A. Proposition. Let $`(V,E)`$ be a tame elliptic projective plane. Then (i) by two distinct points $`x,yV`$ there passes a unique $`E`$-line $`L_{v,w}`$, and for any given $`PE`$ there exists a unique $`E`$-line $`L_P`$ tangent to $`P`$. (ii) $`V`$ is oriented diffeomorphic to $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$, $`E`$ is homotopic to $`E_0`$, and any taming $`\omega `$ is isomorphic to $`\lambda \omega _0`$ for some $`\lambda >0`$. Proof (i) It suffices to prove that $`V^{}`$ is compact: this will imply that that the open sets $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$ defined at the end of 2.F are also closed, so $`U_1=V\times V\mathrm{\Delta }_V`$ and $`U_2=E`$, which proves (i).

The compactness of $`V^{}`$ will follow from the compactness theorem for $`\widehat{J}`$. First, there exists a taming $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for $`\widehat{J}`$: as usual in the theory of symplectic bundles, we set $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\pi ^{}\omega +\alpha `$ where $`\alpha `$ is a closed $`2`$-form on $`E`$ which is positive on very fiber. Such a form exists since $`H^2(E)H^2(V)`$ is onto: this is true since it holds for in the standard case $`V=\text{C}\text{P}^2`$, $`E=E_0`$ and that our case is homologically standard. Furthermore, let $`AH_2(E;\text{Z})`$ be the homology class of the Gauss lift of $`E`$-lines. Then $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-indecomposable, ie not equal to a sum $`A=A_1+A_2`$ with $`\omega (A_i)>0`$. This can again be seen in the standard situation \[in that case, a holomorphic curve $`C`$ in the class $`A`$ is always a section $`s(L)`$ over a line $`L`$ in $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$; if $`C`$ is not the Gaussian lift of $`L`$, then there exists $`v_0\text{C}\text{P}^2L`$ such that $`s(v)`$ is the tangent to the line $`[v_0v]`$ for every $`vL`$\]. The $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-indecomposability and the compactness theorem of \[G\] imply that the space $`M`$ of rational $`\widehat{J}`$-curves in the class $`A`$ is compact, and since $`V^{}`$ is homeomorphic to a closed subset of $`M`$ it is also compact. (ii) Fix three lines $`L_0`$, $`L_1`$, $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$. We deform $`E`$ so that it remains tamed by $`\omega `$, the $`L_i`$ are still $`E`$-lines and $`E`$ comes from a complex structure isomorphic to the standard one near $`L_{\mathrm{}}^0`$. This is possible, using Darboux-Givental and the contraction $`_\omega 𝒥_\omega `$.

We shall find a diffeomorphism $`\varphi :V\text{C}\text{P}^2`$ which sends them to the $`x`$-axis $`L_0^0`$, the $`y`$-axis $`L_1^0`$ and the line at infinity $`L_{\mathrm{}}^0`$.

Denote $`v_0`$, $`v_1`$ the intersections $`L_0L_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`L_1L_{\mathrm{}}`$. Let $`vVL_{\mathrm{}}`$. Then the $`E`$-lines $`v_0v`$ and $`v_1v`$ meet $`L_0`$ and $`L_1`$ in $`x(v)`$ and $`y(v)`$ respectively. Identifying $`L_0`$ with $`L_0^0`$, $`L_1`$ with $`L_1^0`$, we define $`\varphi (v)`$ to be the intersection of $`v_0x(v)`$ and $`v_1y(v)`$. We obtain thus a smooth map $`\varphi :VL_{\mathrm{}}\text{C}\text{P}^2L_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ Exchanging the roles of $`V`$ and $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$, we obtain $`\psi :VL_{\mathrm{}}^0\text{C}\text{P}^2L_{\mathrm{}}`$ which is the inverse of $`\psi `$. Since everything is standard near $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$, one can extend $`\varphi `$ to $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\psi `$ to $`L_{\mathrm{}}^0`$. Finally, the fact that $`\omega `$ is isomorphic to $`\lambda \omega _0`$ results from Moser’s lemma.

3.B. Conversely, as shown by Gromov, one has the Proposition \[G, 2.4.A’\]. Assume that $`V^{}`$ is compact and nonempty. Then there exists a taming symplectic form $`\omega `$.

Proof. Using a positive volume form $`\nu `$ on $`V^{}`$ (identified with a smooth measure $`d\nu `$), define a $`2`$-form $`\omega `$ by Crofton’s formula:

$$_S\omega =_V^{}\mathrm{Int}(S,L)𝑑\nu (L)$$

for every oriented surface $`SV`$. Here, $`\mathrm{Int}(S,L)`$ is the algebraic intersection number, which is defined for almost all $`LV^{}`$. Let us give a more explicit definition of $`\omega `$. First, fix $`vV`$ and denote by $`_v^{}V^{}`$ the subset of $`E`$-lines containing a given $`vV`$, which is a submanifold diffeomorphic to $`\text{C}\text{P}^1`$.

Proposition. There is a canonical isomorphism between normal bundles, $`\nu :N_vLN_L_v^{}`$. Proof. Choose an $`E`$-line $`L^{}`$ different from $`L`$ at $`v`$. If $`\delta LT_LV^{}`$, let $`(L_t)`$ be a path such that $`\frac{d}{dt}_{t=0}L_t=\delta L`$, and set

$$\varphi (\delta L)=\left(\frac{d}{dt}\right)_{|t=0}(L_tL^{})T_vV.$$

Dually, choose a point $`wL`$ different from $`v`$. If $`\delta vT_vV`$, let $`(v_t)`$ be a path such that $`\frac{d}{dt}_{t=0}v_t=\delta v`$, and set

$$\psi (\delta v)=\left(\frac{d}{dt}\right)_{|t=0}L_{v_t,w}T_LV^{}.$$

Then clearly, $`\varphi `$ induces the desired isomorphism $`\nu `$ and $`\psi `$ its inverse. We can now define a morphism

$$s:T_vV\mathrm{\Gamma }(_v^{},N(_v^{},V^{}))$$

by composing

$$T_vVN_vLN_L_v^{},L_v^{}.$$

Thus for $`X,YT_vV`$ and $`LV_x^{}`$, $`s(X)(L)`$ and $`s(Y)(L)`$ are elements of $`N_L_v^{}`$. Lifting them to $`\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y}T_LV^{}`$, we see that

$$\nu (\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y})=\iota _{\stackrel{~}{X}}\iota _{\stackrel{~}{Y}}\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }^2T_L^{}V^{}$$

(interior products) is independent of the lifts. Varying $`L_v^{}`$, we obtain a $`2`$-form on $`_v^{}`$ which we denote by $`\nu (s(X),s(Y))`$, and we set

$$\omega (X,Y)=__v^{}\nu (s(X),s(Y)).$$

It is easy to see that it is positive on $`E`$ and satisfies Crofton’s formula.

4. Proof of the main result 4.A. Definition of $`E^{}`$. We set

$$E^{}=\{T_L_v^{}vV,L_v^{}\}.$$

This is clearly a submanifold fibered over $`V^{}`$, the fiber at $`L`$ being

$$E_L^{}=\{T_L_v^{}vL\}.$$

It is equipped with a natural distribution of codimension $`2`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_P^{}=d\pi ^1(P^{})`$. Note also that $`E^{}`$ is naturally diffeomorphic to $`E`$ via $`\varphi :T_vLT_L_v^{}`$, in fact both are naturally diffeomorphic to the incidence variety

$$I=\{(v,L)V\times V^{}vL\}=\{(v,L)V\times V^{}L_v^{}\}.$$

This variety is equipped with two natural fibrations $`p:IV`$, $`p^{}:IV^{}`$. It also has one natural distribution. Indeed, by differentiating the condition $`(v(t)L(t))`$, one obtains the Proposition. If $`(\delta v,\delta L)T_{v,L}I`$, then $`(\delta vT_vL\delta LT_L_v^{}).`$ Thus one can define the distribution $`DTI`$ by

$$D_{v,L}=dp^1(T_vL)=dp^1(T_LL_v^{}).$$

We then have a commutative triangle

$$\begin{array}{c}(I,D)\\ \\ \gamma \gamma ^{}\\ \\ \begin{array}{ccc}(E,\mathrm{\Theta })\hfill & ^\varphi \hfill & (E^{},\mathrm{\Theta }^{})\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$

where $`\gamma (v,L)=T_vL`$ and $`\gamma ^{}(v,L)=T_LL_v^{}`$.

4.B. Proof that $`E^{}`$ is ellipticLet us fix $`(v,L)`$ such that $`vL`$, and denote

$$P=T_vL,P^{}=T_L_v^{}.$$

Then there are natural embeddings

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i& :T_PE_v\mathrm{Hom}(T_vL,N_vL)\hfill \\ \hfill i^{}& :T_P^{}E_L^{}\mathrm{Hom}(T_L_v^{},N_L_v^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

By the ellipticity of $`E`$, $`i(p)`$ is an oriented isomorphism if $`p0`$. We want to prove the same property for $`i^{}(p^{})`$. This will follow from \- the existence of canonical isomorphisms $`T_PE_vP^{}`$, $`:T_P^{}E_L^{}P`$, $`N_vLN_L_v^{}`$ (this last we know already); thus $`i`$ and $`i^{}`$ become morphisms $`P^{}\mathrm{Hom}(P,N)`$ and $`P\mathrm{Hom}(P^{},N)`$ \- the formula

$$i^{}(p)(p^{})=i(p^{})(p).$$

To prove this, we define local charts on $`V`$, $`V^{}`$ and $`G`$: 1) We start with a chart $`\mathrm{\Psi }:VT_vL\times N_vL`$, such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Psi }(L)=T_vL\times \{0\}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Psi }(L^{})=\{0\}\times N_vL\hfill \\ & \mathrm{pr}_1d\mathrm{\Psi }_{v|T_vL}=\mathrm{Id}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{pr}_2d\mathrm{\Psi }_v=\text{natural projection}.\hfill \end{array}$$

2) We define a chart $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}:V^{}T_L_v^{}\times N_L_v^{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }^1(\alpha ,0)`$ passes through $`v`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^1(0,\beta )`$ is “horizontal”. More precisely, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^1(\alpha ,\beta )`$ is given in the chart $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by an equation

$$y=f_{\alpha ,\beta }(x),xT_vL,yN_vL,$$

such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f_{\alpha ,\beta }(0)& =\nu (\beta )\hfill \\ \hfill f_{\alpha ,0}(0)& =0\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{f_{\alpha ,0}}{x}(0)& =i(\alpha ).\hfill \end{array}$$

In the last equation, $`\alpha T_L_v^{}=P^{}`$ is interpreted as an element of $`T_PE_v`$, so that $`i(\alpha )\mathrm{Hom}(T_vL,N_vL)`$. 3) Finally, let $`P^{}Gr_2T_LV^{}`$ close to $`T_LV^{}`$, we define $`\chi (P^{})\mathrm{Hom}(T_L_v^{},N_L_v^{})`$ as the unique $`h`$ such that

$$d\mathrm{\Psi }_L^{}(P^{})=\mathrm{graph}(h).$$

End of the proof. Let $`w=\mathrm{\Psi }^1(x)`$ be an element of $`L`$ close to $`v`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Psi }^1(\alpha ,\beta )V_w^{}`$ if and only if $`f_{\alpha ,\beta }(x)=0`$, thus $`T_LV_w^{}`$ is given by

$$\{(\delta \alpha ,\delta \beta )\frac{f_{\alpha ,0}}{\alpha }(x).\delta \alpha +\frac{f_{0,\beta }}{\beta }(x).\delta \beta =0\},$$

ie

$$\frac{f_{\alpha ,0}}{\alpha }(x).\delta \alpha +\nu (\delta \beta )=0.$$

In other words

$$\chi (T_LV_w^{})=\nu ^1(\frac{f_{\alpha ,0}}{\alpha }(x))$$

Thus, the tangent space of $`E_L^{}`$ at $`T_L_v^{}`$ is identified with the image of the morphism

$$i^{}=\nu ^1\frac{^2f_{\alpha ,0}}{x\alpha }(0):T_vL\mathrm{Hom}(T_L_v^{},N_L_v^{}).$$

Since $`\frac{f}{x}(\alpha ,0,0)=i(\alpha )`$, one has

$$i^{}(\xi )(\alpha )=i(\alpha )(\xi ),(\xi ,\alpha )T_vL\times T_L_v^{}.$$

Since $`E_v`$ is elliptic, $`i(\alpha )`$ is invertible and orientation-preserving if $`\alpha 0`$. Thus one can identify the oriented planes $`T_L_v^{}`$, $`T_vL`$ and $`N_L_v^{}`$ with C so that $`i(\alpha )`$ is the multiplication by $`\alpha `$. Then $`i^{}(\xi )`$ is the multiplication by $`\xi `$, thus it is invertible and orientation-preserving if $`\xi 0`$, which means that $`E_L^{}`$ is elliptic.

4.C. Proof that $`V^{}`$ is oriented diffeomorphic to $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$. One could prove it similarly to the proof for $`V`$. The simplest proof however is to remark that the space of elliptic structures on $`V=\text{C}\text{P}^2`$ which are tamed by $`\omega _0`$ is contractible. For each $`E`$ in this space, we obtain an oriented manifold $`V_E^{}`$ which varies smoothly with $`E`$, thus keeps the same oriented diffeomorphism type. Since for $`E`$ associated to $`J_0`$ one has $`V_E^{}=\text{C}\text{P}^2`$ the standard dual projective plane, this proves the result.

4.D. Tameness of $`E^{}`$ and identification $`(V^{})^{}=V`$. For each $`vV`$, the surface $`_v^{}V^{}`$ is an $`E^{}`$-curve of degree $`1`$, ie an $`E^{}`$-line. Moreover, for two distinct points $`L,L^{}V^{}`$ there exists a unique $`vLL^{}`$, equivalently a unique $`_v^{}`$ containing $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$: this means that the $`E^{}`$-lines are precisely the $`_v^{}`$, and thus that $`E^{}`$ is tame and $`V^{}=V`$. The equivalence $`(vLL_v^{})`$ implies that $`E^{}`$ is identified to $`E`$.

4.E. Dual curves. Let $`𝒥`$ be the restriction to $`TI`$ of $`(J,J^{})`$, where $`J`$ and $`J^{}`$ are the twisted almost complex structures associated to $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$: it is an almost complex structure, whose images by $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$ (notations of 4.A) are $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{}`$, the complex structures on $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}`$ associated to $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$. Thus the map $`\varphi :(E,\mathrm{\Theta })(E^{},\mathrm{\Theta }^{})`$ is a $`(\stackrel{~}{J},\stackrel{~}{J}^{})`$-biholomorphism. Now let $`C=f(S)V`$ be an irreducible $`E`$-curve (or an irreducible germ) not contained in an $`E`$-line. Let $`\gamma :SE`$ be the Gauss map, which is $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$-holomorphic. Then $`\gamma ^{}=\varphi \gamma :SE^{}`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$-holomorphic and not locally constant, thus it is the Gauss map of an $`E^{}`$-map $`f^{}:SV^{}`$. By definition, $`C^{}=f^{}(S)`$ is the dual curve of $`C`$: it is again an irreducible $`E^{}`$-curve (or germ), not contained in an $`E^{}`$-line, and of course one has $`C^{}=C`$.

5. Inexistence of a natural almost complex structure on $`V^{}`$ Here we construct a tame almost complex structure $`J`$ on $`V=\text{C}\text{P}^2`$ such that the twisted almost complex structure $`J^{}`$ on $`V^{}`$ is non linear.

We impose on $`J`$ the following properties: \- it is standard outside

$$U_0=(\mathrm{\Delta }(2)\mathrm{\Delta }(1))\times \mathrm{\Delta }(2)\text{C}^2\text{C}\text{P}^2$$

\- it is $`\omega _0`$-positive \- for $`\alpha \text{C}`$ small enough, the $`J`$-line $`L(\alpha ,\alpha )`$ passing through the point $`(0,\alpha )`$ with the slope $`\alpha `$ has an intersection with $`U_0`$ given by the equation

$$y=f_{\alpha ,\alpha }(x)=\alpha +\alpha x+\frac{1}{5}\rho (x).\overline{\alpha }x^2,$$

where $`\rho :\text{C}[0,1]`$ takes the value $`1`$ on $`U_1=\mathrm{\Delta }(1)\times \mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$ and $`0`$ outside $`U_0`$. Note that the factor $`\frac{1}{5}`$ guarantees that $`\alpha f_{\alpha ,\alpha }(x)`$ is an embedding for $`|x|<2`$ near $`0`$. One can find such a $`J`$ under the form

$$J(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ b(x,y)\sigma & i\end{array}\right)$$

where $`b(x,y)\text{C}`$ and $`\sigma `$ is the complex conjugation. Then $`L(\alpha ,\alpha )U_0`$ is $`J`$-holomorphic if and only if

$$b(x,f_{\alpha ,\alpha }(x))=\frac{f_{\alpha ,\alpha }}{\overline{x}}(x).$$

Since $`\alpha f_{\alpha ,\alpha }(x)`$ is an embedding near $`0`$ for $`|x|<2`$ and the second member vanishes for $`x|`$ close to $`2`$, one can find a smooth $`b(x,y)`$ with support in $`U_0`$, satisfying the above equality for $`|x|<2`$ and $`\alpha `$ small enough. We now prove that $`J_L^{}`$ is not linear. Note that on $`U_1`$, we have $`J=J_0`$ and $`L(\alpha ,\alpha )U_1`$ is given by

$$y=f_{\alpha ,\alpha }(x)=\alpha +\alpha x+\frac{1}{5}\overline{\alpha }x^2.$$

Let $`L`$ be the $`J`$-line $`L(0,0)`$, which is the $`x`$-axis. Recall that for each $`vL`$ the subspace $`T_L_v^{}T_LV^{}`$ is preserved by $`J^{}L`$, which is linear on it. The global linearity of $`J_L^{}`$ is equivalent to the following:

$$\begin{array}{cc}(\xi ,\eta T_LV^{})& \xi +\eta T_L_v^{}J_L^{}(\xi )+J_L^{}(\eta )T_L_v^{}.\end{array}$$

Consider on $`L`$ the points $`v_0=0`$ and $`v_1=\mathrm{}`$. Then we have a direct sum $`T_LV^{}=T_L_0^{}T_LL_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$. Then fix $`\alpha 0`$ and consider the path $`t[0,1]\gamma (t)=L(t\alpha ,t\alpha )V^{}`$, and write its derivative at $`t=0`$ as

$$\dot{\gamma }=\xi +\eta ,\xi T_L_0^{},T_L_{\mathrm{}}^{}.$$

It belongs to $`T_L_v^{}`$ where $`v=lim_{t0}(\gamma (t)L)`$. Identifying $`L`$ with $`\text{C}\text{P}^1`$, this means that $`v`$ is the solution of the equation

$$\alpha +\alpha v+\frac{1}{5}\overline{\alpha }v^2=0.$$

If we change $`\alpha `$ to $`i\alpha `$, $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ are changed to $`J^{}(\xi )`$ and $`J^{}(\eta )`$ (essentially since $`J_0`$ is standard near $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, thus $`J_L^{}(\xi )+J_L^{}(\eta )T_L_w^{}`$ where $`w`$ is the solution of

$$\alpha +\alpha w\frac{1}{5}\overline{\alpha }w^2=0.$$

Thus $`wv`$, which means that $`J_L^{}`$ is not linear.

Conjecture. Let $`(V,J)`$ be a tame almost complex projective plane. Assume that the elliptic structure $`E^{}`$ on $`V^{}`$ comes from an almost complex structure $`J^{}`$ on $`V^{}`$. Then $`J`$ is integrable, thus $`(V,J)`$ is biholomorphic to $`(\text{C}\text{P}^2,J_0)`$. More precisely: if $`J_L^{}`$ is linear, then the Nijenhuis torsion of $`J`$ vanishes on $`L`$.

6. Plücker formulas for $`E`$-curves We follow the classical topological method in algebraic geometry, cf. for instance \[GH\] p.279. Let $`C=f(S)V`$ be an irreducible $`E`$-curve, not contained in an $`E`$-line, and let $`C^{}V^{}`$ be its dual. We compute the degree $`d^{}`$ of $`C^{}`$, which is the number of intersection points of $`C^{}`$ with an $`E^{}`$-line, ie the number of points of $`C`$ such that the tangent line $`L_vC`$ contains $`v`$. This number is to be interpreted algebraically, but for a generic $`v`$ it is equal to the set-theoretic number. Let $`L`$ be an $`E`$-line disjoint from $`v`$, then the central projection $`V\{v\}L`$ along $`E`$-lines through $`v`$ induces an “almost holomorphic” branched covering $`CL`$ of degree $`d`$, in the sense that each singularity has a model $`zz^k`$: this is a consequence of the positivity of intersections. Let $`S`$ be the normalization of $`C`$, then the number of branch points of the induced covering $`SL`$ is $`d^{}+\kappa `$ where $`\kappa `$ is the algebraic number of cusps, ie the algebraic number of zeros of $`df`$ if $`f`$ is a parametrization of $`C`$. Thus we have the Hurwitz formula $`22g=2d(d^{}+\kappa )`$, where $`g`$ is the genus of $`C`$, ie

$$d^{}=2d+2g2\kappa .$$

In particular, if $`C`$ has only $`\delta `$ nodes and $`\kappa `$ cusps, we have $`2g2=d(d3)2\delta 2\kappa `$ thus we get the first Plücker formula

$$d^{}=d(d1)2\delta 3\kappa .$$

As in the classical case, the other Plücker formulas follow from this and the genus formula, with the fact that an ordinary bitangent (resp. flex) of $`C`$ corresponds to a node (resp. cusp) of $`C^{}`$. This implies restrictions on the possible sets of singularities going beyond the genus formula. For instance, if $`C`$ has only nodes and cusps, then another form of Plücker formula is

$$\kappa =2g2+2dd^{}.$$

If $`d=5`$ and $`g=0`$ we get $`\kappa =8d^{}`$, and since $`d^{}3`$ we have $`\kappa 5`$: not all $`6`$ nodes of a generic rational curve can be transformed to cusps.

In general, if $`C`$ is rational with only nodes and cusps, we get $`\kappa =2d2d^{}<3d`$, which implies that the space of rational $`J`$-curves is, at the point $`C`$, a smooth manifold of the expected dimension (equal to $`d(d+3)`$ over R): this follows from the generalization of the automatic genericity proved in \[B\]. This could be interesting for the isotopy problem of symplectic surfaces \[Sik2\].

References

\[AL\] M. Audin and J. Lafontaine eds, Holomorphic curves in symplectic geometry, Progress in Math. 117, Birkhauser, 1994. \[Aur\] D. Auroux, Symplectic 4-manifolds as branched coverings of $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$, Invent. Math. 139 (2000), 551-602. \[B\] J.-F. Barraud, Nodal symplectic spheres in $`\text{C}\text{P}^2`$ with positive self-intersection, Intern. Math. Res. Not. 9 (1999), 495-508. \[G\] M. Gromov, Pseudo holomorphic curves in symplectic manifolds, Invent. Math. 82 (1985), 307-347. \[GH\] P. Griffiths and J. Harris, Principles of algebraic geometry, John Wiley $`\&`$ Sons, New York, 1978. \[HLS\] H. Hofer, V. Lizan, J.-C. Sikorav, On genericity for holomorphic curves in $`4`$-dimensional almost-complex manifolds, J. Geom. Anal. 7 (1998), 149-159. \[L\], F. Labourie, Problèmes de Monge-Ampère, courbes holomorphes et laminations, Geom. Funct. Anal. 7 (1997), 496-534. \[McD1\] D. McDuff, Rational and ruled symplectic $`4`$-manifolds, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 3 (1990), 679-712. \[McD2\] D. McDuff, The local behaviour of holomorphic curves in almost complex $`4`$-manifolds, J. Diff. Geom. 34 (1991), 143-164. \[MW\] M. Micallef and B. White, The structure of branched points in minimal surfaces and in pseudoholomorphic curves, Ann. of Math. 139 (1994), 35-85. \[Sik1\], J.-C. Sikorav, Singularities of $`J`$-holomorphic curves, Math. Z. 226 (1997), 359-373. \[Sik2\], J.-C. Sikorav, The gluing construction for normally generic $`J`$-holomorphic curves, preprint Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, UMPA, 264 (2000). \[T\] C. Taubes, $`\mathrm{SW}\mathrm{Gr}`$: from the Seiberg-Witten equations to pseudo-holomorphic curves, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 9 (1996), no. 3, 845–918. \[V\], I.N. Vekua, Generalized analytic functions, Pergamon Press, 1962.

Jean-Claude Sikorav

Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon,

Unité de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées

46, allée d’Italie

69364 Lyon cedex 07, FRANCE

sikorav@umpa.ens-lyon.fr


text:
# Decoherence in Nearly-Isolated Quantum Dots

## Abstract

Decoherence in nearly-isolated $`GaAs`$ quantum dots is investigated using the change in average Coulomb blockade peak height upon breaking time-reversal symmetry. The normalized change in average peak height approaches the predicted universal value of $`1/4`$ at temperatures well below the single-particle level spacing, $`T<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, but is greatly suppressed for $`T>\mathrm{\Delta }`$, suggesting that inelastic scattering or other dephasing mechanisms dominate in this regime.

The study of quantum coherence in small electronic systems has been the subject of intense theoretical and experimental attention in the last few years, motivated both by questions of fundamental scientific interest concerning sources of decoherence in materials Mohanty97 ; Pierre00 ; AGA ; HuibersDephasing ; SIA , as well as by the possibility of using solid state electronic devices to store and manipulate quantum information Loss98 ; Burkard99 .

Taking advantage of quantum coherence in the solid state requires a means of isolating the device from various sources of decoherence, including coupling to electronic reservoirs. In this context, we have investigated coherent electron transport through quantum dots weakly coupled to reservoirs via tunneling point-contact leads. In this nearly-isolated regime, it is expected theoretically that inelastic relaxation due to e-e interactions will vanish below a temperature that is parametrically larger than the mean quantum level spacing in the dot, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ Altshuler97 ; Silvestrov97 ; Leyronas98 .

It is not obvious, however, how to measure coherence in nearly-isolated electronic structures. In this Letter, we introduce a novel method, applicable in this regime, that uses the change in average Coulomb blockade (CB) peak height upon breaking time-reversal symmetry as the metric of quantum coherence within the dot. By comparing our data to a model of CB transport that includes both elastic and inelastic transport processes Beenakker00 , we find inelastic rates that are consistent with dephasing rates $`\tau _\phi ^1`$ in open quantum dots measured using ballistic weak localization HuibersDephasing . Extracting precise values for inelastic scattering rates using this method appears possible, but would require a quantitative theory of the crossover from elastic to inelastic tunneling Held01 .

When a quantum dot is connected to reservoirs (labeled 1,2) via leads with weak tunneling conductance, $`g_{1,2}1`$ (in units of $`e^2/h`$), transport is dominated by Coulomb blockade, which suppresses conduction except at specific voltages on a nearby gate. The result is a series of evenly-spaced, narrow conduction peaks as the gate voltage is swept, as seen in Fig. 1. In this regime, the usual techniques for extracting electron decoherence from transport measurements, for instance using weak localization AltshulerMeso ; Bergmann84 , are not applicable. Instead, we take advantage of an analog of weak localization that reflects a sensitivity of the spatial statistics of wave functions to the breaking of time-reversal symmetry. As in conventional weak localization, this effect changes the average conductance—or in the present context, the average CB peak height—upon breaking time-reversal symmetry with a weak magnetic field Beenakker00 ; Alhassid98 .

At low temperatures, CB peak heights fluctuate considerably, as seen in Fig. 1, reflecting a distribution of tunneling strengths between the quantum modes in the dot and the leads. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2kT\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1(2)}=g_{1(2)}\mathrm{\Delta }/2\pi `$ are the couplings to the leads, transport occurs via a single eigenstate of the dot. In this case, CB peaks are thermally broadened and have a height $`g_o=(\pi /2kT)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2))`$ Alhassid00 . For chaotic or disordered dots, universal spatial statistics of wave functions allow full distributions of CB peak heights to be calculated for both broken ($`B0`$) and unbroken ($`B=0`$) time-reversal symmetry Alhassid00 ; JSA . These distributions have been observed experimentally Chang96 ; Folk96 , with good agreement between theory and experiment.

Although not emphasized in these earlier papers, it is readily seen that the two distributions have different averages. Introducing a dimensionless peak height $`\alpha =(1/\mathrm{\Gamma })(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2))`$ and assuming equivalent leads, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, one finds $`\alpha _{B=0}=1/4`$ and $`\alpha _{B0}=1/3`$. The resulting difference in average CB peak heights for the two distributions, normalized by the average peak height at $`B0`$,

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}=\delta g_o/g_o_{B0}={\displaystyle \frac{g_o_{B0}g_o_{B=0}}{g_o_{B0}}},`$ (1)
is then given by $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}=(\alpha _{B0}\alpha _{B=0})/\alpha _{B0}=1/4`$. While the peak heights themselves are explicitly temperature dependent, this normalized difference, $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}`$, does not depend on temperature in the absence of inelastic processes Beenakker00 ; Alhassid98 .

The absence of explicit temperature dependence of $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}`$ is not limited to the regime $`kT\mathrm{\Delta }`$. As long as transport through the dot is dominated by elastic scattering ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$) is the broadening due to escape and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ includes all inelastic processes), the normalized difference in averages does not change even for $`kT\mathrm{\Delta }`$, i.e., the result $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}=1/4`$ is not affected by thermal averaging. This remains valid as long as $`kT<(E_{th},E_c)`$, where $`E_{th}\mathrm{}/\tau _{cross}`$ is the Thouless energy (inverse crossing time), and $`E_c`$ is the charging energy of the dot.

As discussed in Ref. Beenakker00 , the result $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}=1/4`$ is reduced when inelastic processes dominate transport. In particular, when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$, $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}(T)0`$ for $`kT_e/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$ (see Fig. 2(b)). The difference in temperature dependence of $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}`$ between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ arises because for inelastic transport, $`g_o\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ (the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s are averaged individually), whereas for elastic transport, $`g_o\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ (the entire fraction is averaged) Beenakker00 . It is this difference in behavior of $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}(T)`$ that we use to characterize the relative strength of inelastic processes.

Previous experiments investigating inelastic broadening of levels in nearly-isolated quantum dots have focussed on relaxation of excited states, identifying a transition from a discrete to a continuous level spectrum at $`ϵ>E_{th}`$ Sivan94 ; Ralph97 ; Davidovic99 . Other experiments using coupled quantum dots have investigated phonon-mediated inelastic scattering between dots Fujisawa98 . To our knowledge, the only experiment that has addressed the coherence of ground state transport in a single, nearly-isolated dot (i.e., at low bias, $`eV_{bias}<\mathrm{\Delta }`$) are the experiments of Yacoby et al Yacoby95  based on interference in an Aharonov-Bohm ring with a dot ($`N200`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }40\mu eV`$) in one arm. Because interference around the ring was observed, the authors inferred a value $`\tau _\phi >10ns`$ by assuming that the electron coherence time must be no shorter than the dwell time of an electron in the dot. This range for $`\tau _\phi `$ is somewhat longer than the values measured in open quantum dots using ballistic weak localization HuibersDephasing , suggesting that some enhancement of $`\tau _\phi `$ due to confinement may be occurring in the Yacoby experiment. However, since dot-in-ring measurements are rather different from weak-localization measurements, a direct comparison of values obtained in the two experiments may not be appropriate.

We report measurements for four different sized quantum dots formed in a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG), defined using Cr-Au lateral depletion gates on the surface of a $`GaAs/AlGaAs`$ heterostructure (see Table I). All dots were made from the same wafer, which has the 2DEG interface $`90nm`$ below the surface and a Si doping layer $`40nm`$ from the 2DEG. The electron density $`2.0\times 10^{11}cm^2`$ and bulk mobility $`1.4\times 10^5cm^2/Vs`$ yield a transport mean free path $`1.5\mu m`$, larger than or comparable to the lithographic dimensions of the dots, making transport predominantly ballistic within the devices. Measurements were performed in a dilution refrigerator with base mixing chamber temperature of $`25mK`$. Electron temperature, $`T_e`$, in the reservoirs was measured directly using the width of CB peaks KouwenhovenRev , indicating $`T_e=45mK`$ at base temperature.

CB peak heights were measured by sweeping one of the gate voltages, $`V_g`$, over many peaks while simultaneously trimming the gate voltages that control lead conductances to maintain a constant average transmission with balanced leads throughout the sweep. This allowed the collection of $`50`$ peaks in the smallest dot, and hundreds of peaks in larger dots (see Fig. 1). Additional ensembles were then collected by making small changes to the dot shape using other gates. Average peak heights, $`g_o`$, were extracted from these data, collected as a function of perpendicular magnetic field and normalized by their averages away from $`B=0`$. Figure 2(a) shows that the functional form for the normalized average peak height, $`\stackrel{~}{g_o}(B)=g_o(B)/g_o_{B0}`$, calculated within random matrix theory Alhassid98  agrees well with the experimental values. Note that the average peak height itself, dependent on temperature as well as the average lead transmissions, cannot be inferred from these normalized plots. $`\stackrel{~}{g_o}(B)`$ was measured at several temperatures in each device, and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}(T_e)`$ was extracted for each. These are presented in Fig. 2(b), together with the predicted temperature dependences for $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}(T_e)`$ when either elastic or inelastic transport dominate Beenakker00 . Except where otherwise noted, the point contacts were set to give $`g_o_{B0}0.05`$, though different dot shapes had average peak height that varied by up to 50%. The data in Fig. 2(b) represent averages over several ensembles at each temperature.

In the $`0.25\mu m^2`$ dot at $`T_e=45mK`$ and $`70mK`$, $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}`$ was consistent with $`1/4`$ as expected since $`kT_e\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for both temperatures. In this regime, one cannot distinguish between elastic and inelastic scattering since both mechanisms give $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}1/4`$. In the $`0.7\mu m^2`$ device at $`45mK`$, we again find $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}0.25`$. In this dot, however, $`45mK`$ corresponds to $`kT_e/\mathrm{\Delta }0.5`$. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}`$, a ratio $`kT_e/\mathrm{\Delta }0.5`$ gives a predicted value for the average peak height difference of $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}0.13`$ (see the dashed curve in Fig. 2(b)) whereas for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$, $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}=0.25`$ for all values of $`kT_e/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (solid line in Fig. 2(b)). We therefore conclude that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}<\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}`$ in the $`0.7\mu m^2`$ device at $`45mK`$, when the point contact transmissions are set so that $`g_o0.05`$. We can extract $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}`$ from average peak height $`g_o`$ using the equation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}g_o\mathrm{\Delta }`$, valid in the regime $`kT_e\mathrm{\Delta }`$ Alhassid00 . For $`g_o0.05`$ in the $`0.7\mu m^2`$ device, this gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}0.5\mu eV`$, and we therefore conclude $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}<0.5\mu eV`$ at $`45mK`$.

Similarly, we can observe for each dot (with different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$), at each temperature, whether transport is principally elastic or inelastic, or whether the two rates are comparable. Measurements of $`\stackrel{~}{g_o}(B)`$ in the $`0.7\mu m^2`$ device at $`45mK`$, $`70mK`$, and $`200mK`$ are shown in Fig. 3, with the extracted values of $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}(T)`$ shown in the inset. For the $`0.7\mu m^2`$ device, we find that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}>\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ at $`45mK`$ and $`70mK`$, whereas by $`200mK`$ the crossover to the lower curve $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}<\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in})`$ has begun, presumably because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ increases at higher temperature. We infer that a $`0.7\mu m^2`$ device at $`200mK`$ is in the crossover regime $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}0.5\mu eV`$.

We observe a similar crossover from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}>\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}<\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ by changing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}`$ at fixed temperature. Figure 4 shows $`\stackrel{~}{g_o}(B)`$ in the $`0.7\mu m^2`$ device at $`200mK`$ for three different settings of the point contacts, ranging from $`g_o_{B0}=0.016`$ to $`g_o_{B0}=0.057`$; the extracted values for $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}`$ are shown in the inset. Despite significant statistical uncertainty, it is clear that $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}`$ decreases as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}`$ decreases. We note that in the same device at $`45mK`$ and $`70mK`$ there is no difference in $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}`$ for the same of point contact transmissions, within experimental uncertainty. This is presumably because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ is lower at these temperatures, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}>\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ for all point contact transmissions measured.

Based on recent theoretical arguments, one expects inelastic scattering due to electron-electron interactions to be strongly suppressed in isolated quantum dots for $`kT<ϵ^{}`$, where $`ϵ^{}N^{1/4}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for ballistic chaotic dots containing $`N`$ electrons Altshuler97 ; Silvestrov97 ; Leyronas98 . Because this suppression is not expected to occur in open dots, it is useful to compare the constraints on inelastic rates discussed above for nearly-isolated dots with experimental values of the phase coherence time $`\tau _\phi `$ measured in open dots HuibersDephasing . Although there may be dephasing mechanisms that do not involve inelastic processes, the inelastic scattering rate should provide a lower bound for the dephasing rate $`\tau _\phi ^1`$. Dephasing rates extracted from weak localization in open quantum dots are found to be well described by the empirical relation $`\mathrm{}/\tau _\phi (T_e)0.04kT_e`$ over the range of temperatures $`70mK300mK`$, independent of dot size HuibersDephasing . For the closed dots we again may use $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}g_o\mathrm{\Delta }`$, giving a ratio of elastic scattering rate to dephasing rate in the corresponding open dots $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}/(\mathrm{}/\tau _\phi )(g_o/0.04)kT_e/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If, for the sake of comparison, we identify $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ with $`\mathrm{}/\tau _\phi `$, we would then expect for $`g_o_{B0}0.05`$ a ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}kT_e/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, suggesting a crossover between the curves in Fig. 2(b) for $`kT_e/\mathrm{\Delta }1`$. The data in Fig. 2(b) do show a crossover in the vicinity of $`kT_e/\mathrm{\Delta }1`$, consistent with the identification $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}^{(closed)}(\mathrm{}/\tau _\phi )^{(open)}`$. For a more quantitative comparison between dephasing in open dots and inelastic scattering through nearly-isolated dots, one would need a theoretical calculation of $`\delta \stackrel{~}{g_o}`$ in the regime $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ Held01 .

We do not see evidence for the predicted Altshuler97 ; Silvestrov97 ; Leyronas98  divergence of the coherence time for $`kT_e/\mathrm{\Delta }<N^{1/4}5`$. A possible explanation is that electron-electron interactions are not the primary dephasing mechanism in our system. Several other mechanisms have been proposed, including external radiation AGA ; Vavilov99 , two-level systems KondoDephasing , and nuclear spins Dyugaev00 . We cannot, however, rule out some enhancement of coherence due to confinement at a level reported in Yacoby95 . The lack of a quantitative theory in the crossover regime $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}`$ prevents us from extracting exact values for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ from our data.

In conclusion, we have developed a new method of measuring inelastic rates in a nearly-isolated quantum dot, using the change in average CB peak height upon breaking time-reversal symmetry. These measurements appear consistent with dephasing times previously measured in open ballistic quantum dots, however for a careful quantitative analysis of our data we await a theory treating the regime $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{el}`$.

We thank S. Patel for device fabrication and C. Duruöz for material growth. We acknowledge valuable discussions with I. Aleiner, Y. Alhassid, B. Altshuler, C. Beenakker, P. Brouwer, L. Glazman, and K. Held. This work was supported in part by the ARO under 341-6091-1-MOD 1 and DAAD19-99-1-0252. JAF acknowledges partial support from the DoD.


text:
# The Light-Cone Wave Function of the Pion

## 1 Introduction

A light–cone (LC) wave function is a localized (i.e. normalizable) stationary solution of the LC Schrödinger equation $`i_\tau |\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau )=H_{\mathrm{LC}}|\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau )`$, which describes the evolution of a state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau )`$ in LC time $`\tau x^+=x^0+x^3`$, conjugate to the LC Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{LC}}P^{}=P^0P^3`$ . In quantum field theory, a stationary solution $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has a LC Fock expansion which in principle does not terminate, as can be seen e.g. for the pion, $`|\pi =\psi _2|q\overline{q}+\psi _3|q\overline{q}g+\psi _4|q\overline{q}q\overline{q}+\mathrm{}`$. The LC wave functions are the amplitudes $`\psi _n`$ to find $`n`$ particles with momenta $`p_i`$ (quarks $`q`$, antiquarks $`\overline{q}`$ or gluons $`g`$) in a pion of momentum $`P`$, i.e. $`\psi _n(p_1,\mathrm{}p_n;P)n|\pi =p_1,\mathrm{},p_n|\pi (P)`$. We shall see in a moment that the momentum dependence of the $`\psi _n`$ is of a very peculiar nature.

Upon choosing LC rather than ordinary time one benefits from the following virtues. First of all, the field theory vacuum becomes ‘trivial’, in particular $`P^{}|0=0`$. As a result, disconnected vacuum contributions do not mix with the LC wave functions: $`0|P^{}|n=0`$. Unlike in ordinary ‘instant–form’ quantization, boosts become kinematical (interaction independent). This is closely related to a twodimensional Galilei invariance which leads to a separation of center–of–mass and relative coordinates. These features imply that the $`\psi _n`$ only depend on the frame independent relative momenta $`x_i=p_i^+/P^+`$ and $`\text{k}_i=x_i\text{P}_{}\text{p}_i`$.

As the number of difficulties is always conserved, the list of advantages goes along with a list of problems. There is the conceptual question how nontrivial condensates can arise in a trivial vacuum. The answer is crucial for understanding spontaneous symmetry breaking in the LC framework. Instead of boosts, rotations and parity become dynamical and thus complicated. There are also more technical problems. Due to the lack of explicit covariance and rotational invariance, renormalization becomes very difficult beyond one loop. There are simply not enough manifest symmetry principles providing a guideline. As a result, there is an abuncance of counterterms which can even become non–local ($`1/k^+`$). In addition, LC field theories are constrained systems. This makes their quantization nonstandard and somewhat involved. Finally, the LC Schrödinger equation in general represents an infinity of coupled, nonlinear integral equations for the amplitudes $`\psi _n`$. To solve them one has to resort to truncations. It should be noted that for an ab–initio calculation of LC wave functions basically all this problems have to be solved.

If it is so hard, then why should one calculate LC wave functions? It is worth the effort because their determination implies the knowledge of the entire hadron structure (just like the determination of the Coulomb wave functions implies the knowledge of the hydrogen structure). Unlike for nonrelativistic systems, however, there is a subtlety. The (relativistic) LC wave functions depend on a resolution scale $`Q`$, $`\psi _n=\psi _n(Q)`$. It is well known that there are two basic regimes, a ‘soft’ and a ‘hard’ one. In the hard regime, one has $`Q\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ so that perturbative QCD is applicable. The LC wave functions describe the distribution of partons. If the resolution scale $`Q`$ is of the order of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, in the soft regime, perturbation theory no longer works. Hadrons are believed to consist of effective constituent quarks which should again be reflected in the nature of the LC wave functions. Low–energy effective field theories seem to provide a reasonable description of the soft regime, at least as far as spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking ($`\chi `$SB) is concerned. Chiral quark models, in particular, with explicit quark degrees of freedom, should yield soft LC wave functions describing hadrons as bound states of a few constituent quarks. Such a description should be valid for $`Q`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 1 GeV. Whether these expectations are true will be examined in this contribution.

## 2 Formalism

It turns out that most of the difficulties mentioned in the introduction can be circumvented using a particular chiral quark model originally due to Nambu and Jona-Lasinio . For two flavors the Lagrangian is

$$=\overline{\psi }(i/m_0)\psi G[(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2+(\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5𝝉\psi )^2].$$
(1)
The model is not renormalizable whence it requires a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the value of which is fixed by phenomenology. Beyond a critical coupling $`G_c`$ one has spontaneous $`\chi `$SB together with dynamical mass generation, $`m_0m0|\overline{\psi }\psi |0`$. The current quarks thus become constituent quarks with a mass proportional to the chiral condensate. As a constituent picture is realized one expects a truncation of the LC Schrödinger equation to work reasonably well. We avoid to solve complicated constraint equations  by using a Schwinger–Dyson approach as pioneered by ‘t Hooft . It consists of two steps. First one solves the Schwinger–Dyson equation for the quark self–energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in mean–field approximation (equivalent to the large–$`N_C`$ limit). This yields the gap equation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=const=m0|\overline{\psi }\psi |0_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. To make sense of the quadratically divergent expression for the condensate one uses an invariant–mass cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ satisfying $`M_0^2(k_{}^2+m^2)/x(1x)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, $`xk^+/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (for an alternative, see ). It regulates the divergence of the condensate both for $`x0,1`$ and $`k_{}\mathrm{}`$, and is related to the 3–vector cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3|\text{k}|`$ by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=4(\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^2+m^2)`$. Accordingly, the result for the condensate agrees with the usual one .

Knowing the effective quark mass $`m`$ one performs the second step in the program and solves the Bethe–Salpeter equation in the pseudoscalar channel (using ladder approximation/large–$`N_C`$). The LC wave function of the pion is obtained by three–dimensional reduction (integrating over LC energy). In the chiral limit, the result is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\psi _2& \psi _2\\ \psi _2& \psi _2\end{array}\right)=\frac{N}{k_{}^2+m^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}2mk_{}& m^2k_{}^2\\ k_{}^2m^2& 2mk_+\end{array}\right)\theta (\mathrm{\Lambda }^2M_0^2),$$
(2)
where we have defined $`k_\pm k_1\pm ik_2`$ corresponding to the $`L_z=\pm 1`$ components of the wave function. $`N`$ is a normalization constant to be determined later. The step function implements the invariant–mass–cutoff. It is only for this cutoff that the wave function becomes normalizable.

## 3 Results

With the pion wave function at hand one can go on and calculate observables. To make life simple I will always work in the chiral limit $`m_0=0=M_\pi `$. Due to this limit the wave function (2) does not depend on $`x`$ (apart from the cutoff). Further simplifications arise in the large–cutoff limit (LCL). This amounts to keeping only the leading order in $`ϵ^2m^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. As a result one can find analytic expressions for all observables111The same logic is used in the context of the instanton model  where $`ϵ^2`$ corresponds to the ‘packing fraction’ of instantons in the vacuum.. The LC wave function (2) simplifies to $`\psi _2=\psi _2=0`$ and $`\psi _2=\psi _2=N\theta (\mathrm{\Lambda }^2M_0^2)`$. The nontrivial components of the wave function thus just become step functions . We are thus left with two parameters, $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which are determined by normalizing $`\psi _2`$ to unity (enforcing a constituent picture) and using the pion decay constant $`f_\pi `$. The latter is basically given by the wave function ‘at the origin’ . This results in $`N=\sqrt{3}/f_\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=4\pi f_\pi 1.16`$ GeV. The value for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ exactly coincides with the Georgi–Manohar scale  below which chiral effective theories make sense. It is also consistent with the constraint on the wave function stemming from $`\pi ^02\gamma `$ ,

$$𝑑x\psi _2(x,\text{0}_{})=\sqrt{3}/f_\pi N.$$
(3)
With all parameters determined one can use the Drell–Yan formula as discussed e.g. in  and calculate the pion charge radius. The result, $`r_\pi ^2=3/4\pi ^2f_\pi ^2`$ (0.60 fm)2, agrees with those obtained in a covariant Bethe–Salpeter approach  and the instanton model . The slight difference compared to the experimental value of 0.66 fm stems from the use of the LCL.

A pole fit to the form factor data of Amendolia et al.  is shown in the left–hand part of Fig. 1. The momentum space wave function (2) readily yields the r.m.s. transverse momentum, $`k_{}^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/10`$ (370 MeV2), which makes it obvious that the pion is a highly relativistic system.

The valence quark distribution $`f^v`$ (or pion structure function) is given by the square of the wave function integrated over $`k_{}`$ resulting in $`f^v(x)=6x(1x)`$. This coincides with the results of  and qualitatively agrees with the empirical parton distributions of  if the relevant scale is defined as $`Q^2x(1x)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ (600 MeV)2, the mean $`x`$ being 1/2.

The transition form factor for the process $`\gamma \gamma ^{}\pi ^0`$ can be calculated according to . One finds the pole formula

$$F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}\pi }(Q^2)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2f_\pi }\frac{1}{1+Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2},$$
(4)
which is displayed in the right–hand part of Fig. 1. The low–$`Q^2`$ behavior is fixed by (3) and thus fine. The behavior for $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ is off by a factor of two, which, however, is not bothersome as this regime is way beyond where the NJL model makes sense. One can fix the large–$`Q^2`$ behavior by introducing an effective, spin–averaged wave function . This simply amounts to replacing $`N2N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/2`$ in (2) and (4). In this case, (3) cannot be maintained and the logic based on low–energy chiral dynamics does no longer apply.

The pion distribution amplitude $`\varphi _{\mathrm{NJL}}`$ is given by the $`k_{}`$–integral of the wave function. As the square of a step function is again a step function the distribution amplitude coincides with $`f^v`$ and hence with the asymptotic distribution amplitude, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{NJL}}(x)=6x(1x)\varphi _{\mathrm{as}}(x)`$. Recently this quantity has been measured at Fermilab . At a rather low momentum scale of $`Q`$ 3 GeV $`\varphi `$ turns out to be close to asymptotic. This provides further evidence that the approach presented above makes sense.

## 4 Conclusions

I have analytically determined the LC wave function of the pion within a simple field theoretic model (NJL) which is known to yield a good description of $`\chi `$SB. With the pion wave function at hand I was able to calculate a number of observables which were accurate to within 10 %, consistent with the estimated limitations of the LCL employed. Particularly important is the result that a constituent picture does make sense: higher Fock states seem to be unimportant. If one wants to go beyond the LCL, one faces a fine–tuning problem in $`ϵ^2`$. Delicate numerical fits will thus be necessary. It would be interesting to refine the presented method by choosing more realistic models. Possibilities would be (i) the instanton vacuum  which is more closely related to QCD, (ii) an elaborate Schwinger–Dyson approach with more realistic kernels and propagators , or (iii) an effective field theory approach in terms of constituent quarks which, at the moment, is still in its infancy .

## Acknowledgments

I cordially thank the organizers S. Bielefeld, L. Hollenberg and H.-C. Pauli for their efforts which resulted in such a stimulating meeting.