text:
# 1 Difference between the nuclear structure functions of 3He and 3H (at 𝑄²=10 GeV2). The solid (dashed) [dotted] curves show the total (valence) [sea] contributions. The thin, solid curve presents the difference between the free proton and neutron structure functions (CTEQ5 []).

ADP-00-27/T410

PCCF RI 00-12

Deep inelastic scattering on asymmetric nuclei

K. Saito1***ksaito@nucl.phys.tohoku.ac.jp, C. Boros2cboros@physics.adelaide.edu.au, K. Tsushima2ktsushim@physics.adelaide.edu.au, F. Bissey2,4§§§fbissey@physics.adelaide.edu.au,
I.R. Afnan3I.R.Afnan@flinders.edu.au and A.W. Thomas2athomas@physics.adelaide.edu.au
1 Tohoku College of Pharmacy, Sendai 981-8558, Japan

2 Department of Physics and Mathematical Physics, and

Special Recearch Center for the Subatomic Structure of Matter,

University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, Australia

3 School of Chemistry Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University,

GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, Australia

4 Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire, Université Blaise Pascal,

CNRS/IN2P3, 24 avenue des Landais, 63177 Aubière Cedex, France

## Abstract

We study deep inelastic scattering on isospin asymmetric nuclei. In particular, the difference of the nuclear structure functions and the Gottfried sum rule for the lightest mirror nuclei, 3He and 3H, are investigated. It is found that such systems can provide significant information on charge symmetry breaking and flavor asymmetry in the nuclear medium. Furthermore, we propose a new method to extract the neutron structure function from radioactive isotopes far from the line of stability. We also discuss the flavor asymmetry in the Drell-Yan process with isospin asymmetric nuclei.

PACS numbers: 25.30.Mr, 21.45.+v, 24.85.+p, 24.80.+y
Keywords: nuclear structure function, isospin asymmetric nuclei, flavor asymmetry, few-body system

The distributions of quarks in a nucleus differ significantly from those in the free nucleon. This became clear when, nearly two decades ago, the European Muon Collaboration (EMC) measured the ratio of structure functions of iron and deuterium (D) in the deep inelastic scattering (DIS) of muons . Since then many experiments have been performed to investigate the distributions of partons in nuclei , and a large amount of data on (flavor) singlet nuclear structure functions has been collected. However, relatively less attention has been paid to the nonsinglet structure functions of a nucleus. Measurements of the nonsinglet part of nuclear structure functions could shed light on many phenomena involving non-perturbative QCD in nuclei, such as SU(3) symmetry breaking, the flavor asymmetry and so on.

It is therefore very interesting and important to measure the structure functions of nuclei with large asymmetry in proton (p) and neutron (n) numbers ($`ZN`$). In particular, if DIS with high energy electrons on neutron or proton rich nuclei (for example, the RIKEN-MUSES project ) could be realized in the future, it would be possible to get interesting information on the non-perturbative quark structure of nuclei. In this paper, we study structure functions of nuclei with $`ZN`$, including the radioactive isotopes (RI) which will be studied at RIKEN .

Until recently it was usually assumed (see however Ref. ) that the sea quark distributions in the (free) nucleon were flavor symmetric. However, the New Muon Collaboration (NMC) at CERN  and the E866 Drell-Yan experiments at Fermilab , in particular, have revealed a clear asymmetry in the sea distributions by using proton and deuteron targets. If the quark and antiquark pairs in the sea are created perturbatively and charge symmetry breaking (CSB) effects ($`m_d>m_u`$ 5MeV) are very small  in the free nucleon, it is not possible to explain the measured flavor asymmetry. This fact strongly suggests that non-perturbative QCD process, such as chiral symmetry breaking or the Pauli exclusion principle, must play an important role in the flavor asymmetry .

The flavor asymmetry in the sea was observed in the difference between the structure functions of the free proton and neutron, $`F_2^pF_2^n`$, and it is simply expressed in terms of the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark distributions, $`u(x)`$ and $`d(x)`$, and the anti-quark distributions, $`\overline{u}(x)`$ and $`\overline{d}(x)`$, in the free proton as

$$F_2^p(x)F_2^n(x)=\frac{1}{3}x[u(x)d(x)]+\frac{1}{3}x[\overline{u}(x)\overline{d}(x)],$$
(1)
where we assume charge symmetry in the parton distributions . (The structure functions and distributions depend on the 4-momentum transfer squared, $`Q^2`$, which is suppressed here.) Then, the difference gives the Gottfried sum, $`I_G^N`$, for the nucleon as

$$I_G^N(z)=_z^1𝑑x\frac{1}{x}[F_2^p(x)F_2^n(x)].$$
(2)
Using the normalization condition for the valence quark distributions, we finally find

$$I_G^N(0)=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{2}{3}_0^1𝑑x[\overline{u}(x)\overline{d}(x)],$$
(3)
which provides a measure of flavor asymmetry. If the sea were flavor symmetric, namely $`\overline{u}(x)=\overline{d}(x)`$, the Gottfried sum rule (GSR) is given by $`I_G^N(0)=1/3`$. However, the experimental value measured by NMC was $`I_G^N(0)=0.235\pm 0.026`$ (at $`Q^2=4`$ GeV2, which is clearly less than $`1/3`$, and implies that $`\overline{d}(x)`$ overcomes $`\overline{u}(x)`$ in the free proton :

$$_0^1𝑑x[\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)]=0.148\pm 0.039.$$
(4)
The origin of the flavor asymmetry in the proton may be attributed to either the pion cloud required by chiral symmetry  or to the Pauli-exclusion principle at quark level  (or both) – since the proton consists of $`uud`$ quarks, $`u\overline{u}`$ pair creation may be suppressed by the Pauli-exclusion effect more than $`d\overline{d}`$ pair creation.

It is a very interesting problem to see how the GSR changes in a nucleus. Studying the flavor asymmetry of a bound nucleon may provide an opportunity to learn details about the non-perturbative structure of the nucleon inside nuclear matter. To this end we consider DIS of an electron or muon off a pair of mirror nuclei. We consider the “nuclear Gottfried sum” defined by

$$I_G^{AA^{}}(z)=_z^A\frac{dx}{x}[F_2^A(x)F_2^A^{}(x)],$$
(5)
where ($`A`$, $`A^{}`$) is a pair of mirror nuclei: $`A=Z+N(Z>N)`$ (proton rich) and $`A^{}=Z^{}+N^{}(N^{}>Z^{})`$ (neutron rich).

We now turn to the simplest example of this kind, namely the lightest mirror nuclei, 3He and 3H. The fact that these are mirror nuclei means that the nuclear corrections are very similar and this has already been exploited in a proposal to extract $`F_{2p}/F_{2n}`$ from a measurement of $`F_2(^3\mathrm{He})/F_2(^3\mathrm{H})`$ . The three-body system offers the advantage that it can be treated exactly by solving the Faddeev equations . However, since it is not easy to handle the Coulomb interaction in the full Faddeev approach, we treat it approximately by adjusting the strength of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ nucleon-nucleon potential so as to fit the observed binding energies: $`E_b=7.72`$ and $`8.48`$ MeV for 3He and 3H, respectively .

Using the spectral function given by the solution of the Faddeev equation with the PEST potential , we have calculated the difference between the nuclear structure functions of 3He and 3H (at $`Q^2=10`$ GeV2), which is shown in Fig. 1. For the free nucleon structure function we have used the CTEQ5 parametrization which incorporates the measured flavor asymmetry in the free nucleon . We do not show the structure functions below $`x=0.1`$ because in the small $`x`$ region we should include nuclear shadowing . Since we want to keep the present discussion simple in order to emphasize the key physics ideas, for the present we concentrate on the nuclear structure functions in the region $`x>0.1`$. We may expect that since the difference between the nuclear structure functions is (isovector) nonsinglet the nuclear shadowing effect should not be large – the pomeron does not directly couple to the isovector, nonsinglet part.

The effect of CSB in nuclei  is to break the nuclear Gottfried sum rule (NGSR):

$$I_G^{AA^{}}(0)=Y\times I_G^N(0),$$
(6)
with $`Y(=ZN=N^{}Z^{})`$ the excess proton number in $`A`$. (Eq.(6) holds if the nuclear environment does not affect the flavor asymmetry at all.) In the present calculation we find that, at $`Q^2=10`$ GeV2, $`I_G^N(0.1)=0.152`$ (from CTEQ5 ), while $`I_G^{He,H}(0.1)=0.150`$, which may imply that CSB in the $`A=3`$ system gives very little change in the distribution of $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$. (See also Ref. .)

While the major source of CSB is the Coulomb force, the main physics interest is in the possible additional sources of flavor asymmetry in nuclei, such as:

1. the probability of finding pions in the in-medium nucleon may be different from that in free space. It is certainly natural to expect that hadronic properties should change in a nuclear medium . For example, the distribution of virtual pions per bound nucleon may change, leading to a different flavor asymmetry in nuclei . The nuclear structure functions of mirror nuclei far from the line of stability may provide us significant information on flavor asymmetry and pion dynamics in nuclei. There will be many possible candidates for such mirror nuclei at facilities such as the proposed radioactive ion beam collider at RIKEN : for example, (22Mg, 22Ne, $`Y=2`$), (13O, 13B, $`Y=3`$), (17Ne, 17N, $`Y=3`$), (20Mg, 20O, $`Y=4`$) etc. Those neutron rich or proton rich nuclei give rise to a large asymmetry in the $`N/Z`$ ratio.
2. there is the much anticipated possibility of finding exotic configurations, such as 6-quark states, in nuclei. As one consequence, the effect of the Pauli exclusion principle at the quark level may be different because of quark percolation. In the naive counting estimate the ground state of the free proton has 4 vacant states for $`u`$ quarks and 5 vacant states for $`d`$ quarks. Thus, the expected flavor asymmetry is $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}5/4`$ . However, in a nuclear medium there may be some probability for two nucleons to overlap. Suppose that the valence quarks from two protons are put into one confining potential. In this case, there are 2 vacant states (in the lowest energy level) for $`u`$ quarks and 4 vacant states for $`d`$ quarks. Then, the asymmetry becomes $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}2`$, which implies that the flavor asymmetry would be enhanced in nuclei. It may be possible to investigate these nonperturbative phenomena by measuring the nuclear structure functions of mirror nuclei.

DIS off mirror nuclei with large isospin asymmetry should be possible in the future. Our calculation for $`A=3`$ represents the standard calculation without any of the possible new contributions. The observation of some deviation from the calculations shown here would stimulate a great deal of work which may eventually lead to genuinely new information on the dynamics of nuclear systems.

We would like to add some comments on isospin asymmetric nuclei (or nuclei far from the line of stability). First, it is very important to extract the neutron structure function from nuclear experimental data. The system traditionally used for this is the deuteron but the A=3 case is also being seriously considered now . The proposed MUSES project at RIKEN  will provide a number of attractive alternatives for extracting the neutron structure function using radioactive ions rich in neutrons.

As an example, let us consider a series of Li nuclei. There exist five RI observed at RIKEN: 6Li, 7Li, 8Li, 9Li, 11Li. Then, we shall consider a ratio

$$R_n(i)=\frac{F_2(^i\text{Li})F_2(^{i1}\text{Li})}{F_2^DF_2^p},$$
(7)
where $`F_2(^i\text{Li})`$ is the structure function of iLi, and $`i`$ runs from 7 to 9. (For $`i=11`$, we may take $`[F_2(^{11}\text{Li})F_2(^9\text{Li})]/2`$ as the numerator of the ratio.) This $`R_n(i)`$ means the ratio of the neutron structure function bound in the Li nucleus to that in D (if those were the same the ratio would be unity). We suppose that the deuteron structure function itself is already understood.

Varying the atomic number $`i`$ successively (i.e., varying the binding effect on the neutron in Li) and comparing the $`i`$-series of those ratios, we may get useful information on the neutron structure function, its nuclear binding effect (shell structure dependence)  and the off-mass shell effect . In particular, the last neutron in the halo nuclei (like 11Li) is bound very weakly – some hundred keV , which is much weaker than in D. The RI series of Be, B, C, O, Na and Mg  are also of great interest.

Finally we turn to the nuclear Drell-Yan (DY) process as an alternative method to study the sea quark distributions . We first define the $`p`$-$`n`$ asymmetry, $`C_{DY}^N`$, in the free nucleon as

$$C_{DY}^N=\frac{2\sigma ^{pp}\sigma ^{pD}}{\sigma ^{pD}}\frac{\sigma ^{pp}\sigma ^{pn}}{\sigma ^{pp}+\sigma ^{pn}},$$
(8)
where $`\sigma ^{AB}`$ is the DY cross section for the lepton pair production of $`A+B\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}+X`$, and we assume that the nuclear binding effect in D can be neglected. Then, if we take a large $`x_F(=|x_Ax_B|)`$ the $`p`$-$`n`$ asymmetry becomes

$$C_{DY}^N\frac{[4u(x_A)d(x_A)][\overline{u}(x_B)\overline{d}(x_B)]}{[4u(x_A)+d(x_A)][\overline{u}(x_B)+\overline{d}(x_B)]},$$
(9)
where $`u(x_i)`$ ($`d(x_i)`$) is the $`u`$ ($`d`$) quark distribution with momentum fraction $`x_i`$ in $`i`$ ($`=A`$ or $`B`$). This ratio is sensitive to the flavor asymmetry in $`B`$.

In order to check the flavor asymmetry in a nucleus, we shall again use a pair of mirror nuclei, $`(A,A^{})`$, and define the $`p`$-$`n`$ asymmetry in nuclei as

$$C_{DY}^{AA^{}}=\frac{\sigma ^{pA}\sigma ^{pA^{}}}{\sigma ^{pD}}.$$
(10)
If $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$ simply consist of protons and neutrons and we assume that the nuclear binding effect is small, the $`p`$-$`n`$ asymmetry in nuclei becomes

$$C_{DY}^{AA^{}}=Y\times C_{DY}^N,$$
(11)
with the excess proton number $`Y`$. If we take the (double) ratio as

$$D_{DY}=\frac{C_{DY}^{AA^{}}}{C_{DY}^N}=Y,$$
(12)
it gives just $`Y`$ if the flavor asymmetry is not changed by the nuclear medium. The deviation from $`Y`$ in actual measurements should be a sensitive signature for the flavor asymmetry and nuclear binding in a nucleus.

Moreover, we can see the flavor asymmetry by using a single RI. We suppose a ratio

$$R_{DY}^A=\frac{2}{A}\left(\frac{\sigma ^{pA}}{\sigma ^{pD}}\right),$$
(13)
and again assume that the nucleus, $`A`$, is a simple collection of $`Z`$ protons and $`N`$ neutrons. We then find

$`R_{DY}^A`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{A}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z\sigma ^{pp}+N\sigma ^{pn}}{\sigma ^{pp}+\sigma ^{pn}}}\right),`$ (14)
$``$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{(NZ)}{A}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{pp}\sigma ^{pn}}{\sigma ^{pp}+\sigma ^{pn}}}\right),`$
$``$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{(NZ)}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{[4u(x_A)d(x_A)][\overline{u}(x_B)\overline{d}(x_B)]}{[4u(x_A)+d(x_A)][\overline{u}(x_B)+\overline{d}(x_B)]}},`$
for large $`x_F`$. This is also sensitive to the flavor asymmetry in the nucleus. In particular, nuclei far from the line of stability are very interesting because they give large asymmetries – i.e., large values of $`(NZ)/A`$.

In summary, we have studied the nuclear structure functions and the Gottfried sum rule for a pair of mirror nuclei which could give very significant information on CSB and flavor asymmetry in the nuclear medium. For the present we have restricted our study to the region $`x>0.1`$, in order to make the discussion simple. It will be very interesting to extend this work to calculate the nuclear structure functions including shadowing, in order to complete the discussion of the NGSR and flavor asymmetry in nuclei. Furthermore, we have proposed a new method to extract the neutron structure function from RI far from the line of stability, and discussed the flavor asymmetry in the nuclear DY process. If DIS with high energy electrons (or muons) off nuclei with large isospin asymmetry becomes possible in the future, we could get a lot of valuable information on the non-perturbative quark structure of atomic nuclei.

We would like to thank W. Melnitchouk for many useful discussions. K. S. would also like to thank J.T. Londergan for providing a lot of useful information on flavor asymmetry. This work was partly supported by the Australian Research Council.


format: text

text:
# Theta constants associated with the cyclic triple coverings of the complex projective line branching at six points 11footnote 1 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification Primary 32N15; Secondary 11F55, 14J15, 32G20.

## 1 Introduction

Let $`C(\lambda )`$ be the cyclic triple covering of the complex projective line $`^1`$ branching at six points $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _6:`$

$$C(\lambda ):w^3=\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}(z\lambda _i).$$

The moduli space of such curves with a homology marking can be regarded as the configuration space $`\Lambda `$ of ordered six distinct points on $`^1,`$ which is defined by

$$GL_2()\backslash \{\lambda =(\lambda _{ij})M(2,6)\lambda ij=\left|\begin{array}{cc}\lambda _{1i}& \lambda _{1j}\\ \lambda _{2i}& \lambda _{2j}\end{array}\right|0\}/(^{})^6.$$

Note that the symmetric group $`S_6`$ naturally acts on $`\Lambda .`$ It is shown in \[Yo2\] that the map

$$\iota :\Lambda \lambda [\mathrm{},y_{ij;kl;mn},\mathrm{}]=[\mathrm{},\lambda ij\lambda kl\lambda mn,\mathrm{}]^{14}$$

is an $`S_6`$-equivariant embedding and that its image is an open subset of $`Y`$ defined by linear and cubic equations.

The normalized period matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`C(\lambda )`$ with a homology marking belongs to the Siegel upper half space $`𝕊^4`$ of degree $`4.`$ By our assignment of a homology marking, $`\Omega `$ can be identified with an element of $`3`$-dimensional complex ball $`𝔹^3=\{x^3^t\overline{x}Hx<0\},`$ where $`H=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1).`$ In this way, we get a multi-valued map $`\psi :\Lambda 𝔹^3𝕊^4,`$ which is called the period map. Results in \[DM\] and \[Ter\] imply that the image of $`\psi `$ is an open dense subset of $`𝔹^3,`$ the monodromy group of $`\psi `$ is the principal congruence subgroup $`\Gamma (1\omega )`$ of level $`(1\omega )`$ of $`\Gamma =\{gGL_4([\omega ])^t\overline{g}Hg=H\},`$ and that the inverse of $`\psi `$ is single valued.

In this paper, we express the inverse of the period map $`\psi `$ in terms of fifteen theta constants. More precisely, for the two isomorphisms $`\psi :\Lambda \psi (\Lambda )/\Gamma (1\omega )`$ and $`\iota :\Lambda \iota (\Lambda )Y^{14},`$ we present an isomorphism $`\Theta :\psi (\Lambda )/\Gamma (1\omega )\iota (\Lambda )`$ such that the following diagram commutes:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\Lambda & \stackrel{\psi }{}& \psi (\Lambda )/\Gamma (1\omega )\\ & & \\ \iota & \Theta & \\ & & \\ \iota (\Lambda )Y^{14}.& & \end{array}$$
(1)
The map $`\Theta `$ is given by the ratio of the cubes of the fifteen theta constants on $`𝕊^4`$ which are invariant under the action of $`\Gamma (1\omega )`$ embedded in $`Sp(8,).`$ In particular, linear and cubic relations among the cubes of fifteen theta constants coincide with the defining equations of $`Y^{14}.`$

It is known that $`\Gamma /\Gamma (1\omega ),I_4`$ is isomorphic to $`S_6,`$ which naturally acts on $`\psi (\Lambda )/\Gamma (1\omega ).`$ The period map $`\psi `$ is $`S_6`$-equivariant. By considering the action $`S_6\Gamma /\Gamma (1\omega ),I_4`$ on the fifteen theta characteristics, we label fifteen theta constants as $`(ij;kl;mn),`$ where $`\{i,j,k,l,m,n\}=\{1,\mathrm{},6\}.`$ Then it turns out that the diagram (1) is $`S_6`$-equivariant.

An explicit expression of $`\psi ^1`$ is given in \[Gon\]. We want to know the combinatorial structure of $`\psi ^1`$ in order to study the inverse of the period map from a family of smooth cubic surfaces to the $`4`$-dimensional complex ball $`𝔹^4`$ in \[ACT\].

For a $`2`$-dimensional subfamily of ours defined by $`\lambda _5=\lambda _6,`$ the period map and its inverse are studied in \[Pic\] and \[Shi\].

Acknowledgments. The author is grateful to Professors H. Shiga and M. Yoshida for their valuable discussions.

## 2 Configuration space $`\Lambda `$ of six points on $`^1`$

Let $`M(m,n)`$ be the set of complex $`(m\times n)`$ matrices. We define the configuration space $`\Lambda `$ of ordered six distinct points on the complex projective line $`^1`$ as

$$\Lambda =GL_2()\backslash M^{}(2,6)/(^{})^6,$$

where

$$M^{}(2,6)=\{\lambda =(\lambda _{ij})M(2,6)\lambda kl=\left|\begin{array}{cc}\lambda _{1k}& \lambda _{1l}\\ \lambda _{2k}& \lambda _{2l}\end{array}\right|0(1kl6)\},$$

and $`GL_2()`$ and $`(^{})^6`$ (regarding as the group of $`(6\times 6)`$ diagonal matrices) act naturally on $`M^{}(2,6)`$ from the left and right, respectively. Note that we regard the column vectors of $`\lambda M^{}(2,6)`$ as the homogeneous coordinates of six points on $`^1`$ and the action of $`GL_2()`$ as the projective transformation. Six distinct points $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _6`$ on $``$ are expressed by an element of $`\Lambda `$ by $`(2\times 6)`$ matrix

$$\lambda =\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& 1& 1& 1& 1& 1\\ \lambda _1& \lambda _2& \lambda _3& \lambda _4& \lambda _5& \lambda _6\end{array}\right).$$

By normalizing $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)`$ as $`(\mathrm{},0,1),`$ matrices of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 1& 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 0& 1& \mathrm{}_1& \mathrm{}_2& \mathrm{}_3\end{array}\right),\mathrm{}_i0,1,\mathrm{}_j(1i<j3)$$

represent $`\Lambda .`$

We define a map $`\iota `$ from $`\Lambda `$ to the $`14`$-dimensional projective space $`^{14}`$ by

$$\iota :\Lambda \lambda [\mathrm{},y_{ij;kl;mn},\mathrm{}]=[\mathrm{},\lambda ij\lambda kl\lambda mn,\mathrm{}]^{14},$$

where $`\lambda `$ is a $`(2\times 6)`$ matrix represent of an element of $`\Lambda `$ and projective coordinates of $`^{14}`$ are labeled by $`I=ij;kl;mn`$ $`(\{i,j,k,l,m,n\}=\{1,\mathrm{},6\},i<j,k<l,m<n).`$ Since the image $`\iota (\lambda )`$ is invariant under the actions $`GL_2()`$ and $`(^{})^6,`$ this map is well defined. We use the following convention

$$y_{ij;kl;mn}=y_{kl;ij;mn}=y_{ij;mn;kl}=y_{ji;kl;mn}.$$

The image $`\iota (\Lambda )`$ is studied in \[Yo2\], it is described as the following.

###### Fact 2.1

The closure $`Y=\overline{\iota (\Lambda )}`$ of $`\iota (\Lambda )`$ is a subvariety of $`^{14}`$ defined by the linear and cubic equations

$$y_{ij;kl;mn}y_{ij;km;ln}+y_{ij;kn;lm}=0$$

$$y_{ij;kl;mn}y_{ik;jn;lm}y_{im;jl;kn}=y_{ij;kn;lm}y_{ik;jl;mn}y_{im;jn;kl}.$$

We define $`\widehat{\Lambda }`$ as the compactification of $`\Lambda `$ isomorphic to $`Y.`$

## 3 Period matrix of $`C`$

Let $`C=C(\lambda )`$ be the triple covering of $`^1`$ branching at six distinct points $`\lambda _i^{}`$s:

$$C(\lambda ):w^3=\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}(z\lambda _i);$$

this curve is of genus $`4.`$ Let $`\rho `$ be the automorphism of $`C`$ defined by

$$\rho :C(z,w)(z,\omega w)C,$$

where $`\omega =\frac{1+\sqrt{3}}{2}.`$ We give a basis of the vector space of holomorphic $`1`$-forms on $`C`$ as follows

$$\phi _1=\frac{dz}{w},\phi _2=\frac{dz}{w^2},\phi _3=\frac{zdz}{w^2},\phi _4=\frac{z^2dz}{w^2}.$$
(2)
For a fixed $`\lambda `$ such that $`\lambda _i,\lambda _1<\mathrm{}<\lambda _6,`$ we take a symplectic basis $`\{A_1,\mathrm{},A_4,B_1,\mathrm{},B_4\}`$ of $`H_1(C,)`$ (i.e., $`A_iA_j=B_iB_j=0,B_iA_j=\delta _{ij}`$) such that

$$\rho (B_i)=A_i(i=1,2,3),\rho (B_4)=A_4,$$
(3)
see Figure 1.

Put

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_{A_i}\phi _j}{_{B_i}\phi _j}\right)_{i,j}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\Omega _A}{\Omega _B}\right).$$

Let $`\phi `$ be the normalized basis of vector space of holomorphic $`1`$-forms so that $`\Omega _B`$ becomes $`I_4.`$ Note that the normalized period $`\Omega =\Omega _A\Omega _B^1`$ belongs to the Siegel upper half space $`𝕊^4`$ of degree $`4.`$ The next proposition shows that $`\Omega `$ can be expressed in terms of

$$x=^t(x_1,\mathrm{},x_4)=^t(_{A_1}\phi _1,\mathrm{},_{A_4}\phi _1).$$

###### Proposition 3.1

We have

$`\Omega `$ $`=`$ $`\omega [I_4(1\omega )(x^txH)/(^txHx)]H=\omega [H(1\omega )(x^tx)/(^txHx)]`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\omega & & & \\ & \omega & & \\ & & \omega & \\ & & & \omega \end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2x_4^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}x_1x_1& x_1x_2& x_1x_3& x_1x_4\\ x_2x_1& x_2x_2& x_2x_3& x_2x_4\\ x_3x_1& x_3x_2& x_3x_3& x_3x_4\\ x_4x_1& x_4x_2& x_4x_3& x_4x_4\end{array}\right),`$
where $`H=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{t}\overline{x}Hx<0.`$

Proof. Put $`\Omega _A=(x,b,c,d);`$ by (2) and (3), $`\Omega _B`$ can be expressed as

$$\Omega _B=(\omega Hx,\omega ^2Hb,\omega ^2Hc,\omega ^2Hd)=\omega ^2H\Omega _A+(\omega \omega ^2)H(x,O).$$

We have

$$\Omega ^1=\Omega _B\Omega _A^1=\omega ^2H+(\omega \omega ^2)H(x,O)\Omega _A^1.$$

Put

$$\Omega _A^1=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\xi }{}\right),\xi =(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _4);$$

note that

$$\xi x=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\xi _ix_i=1.$$

We have

$$H(x,O)\Omega _A^1=Hx\xi =\frac{1}{\xi x}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}x_1\xi _1& x_1\xi _2& x_1\xi _3& x_1\xi _4\\ x_2\xi _1& x_2\xi _2& x_2\xi _3& x_2\xi _4\\ x_3\xi _1& x_3\xi _2& x_3\xi _3& x_3\xi _4\\ x_4\xi _1& x_4\xi _2& x_4\xi _3& x_4\xi _4\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
which must be symmetric. Thus we have

$$x_i\xi _j=x_j\xi _i(1i<j3),x_i\xi _4=x_4\xi _i(i=1,2,3).$$

By eliminating $`\xi _i`$ in (4), we have

$$H(x,O)\Omega _A^1=(Hx^txH)/(^txHx).$$

Then

$$\Omega ^1=\omega ^2H[I_4(1\omega ^2)(x^txH)/(^txHx)].$$

It is easy to see that

$$[I_4(1\omega ^2)(x^txH)/(^txHx)]^1=I_4(1\omega )(x^txH)/(^txHx),$$

we have

$$\Omega =\omega [I_4(1\omega )(x^txH)/(^txHx)]H.$$

The imaginary part of $`\Omega `$ is $`\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}`$ times

$$Hx^tx/(^txHx)\overline{x}^t\overline{x}/(^t\overline{x}H\overline{x}),$$
(5)
which must be positive definite. If $`x_4=0`$ then the $`(4,4)`$ component of (5) is $`1,`$ which implies that (5) can not be positive definite. Thus we have $`x_40.`$ Put

$$\eta =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}x_4& 0& 0\\ 0& x_4& 0\\ 0& 0& x_4\\ x_1& x_2& x_3\end{array}\right);$$

note that $`(\eta ,x)GL_4()`$ and that $`{}_{}{}^{t}xH\eta =(0,0,0).`$ We have

$${}_{}{}^{t}\overline{(\eta ,x)H}\left(H\frac{x^tx}{{}_{}{}^{t}xHx}\frac{\overline{x}^t\overline{x}}{{}_{}{}^{t}\overline{x}H\overline{x}}\right)H(\eta ,x)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}{}_{}{}^{t}\overline{\eta }H\eta & 0\\ {}_{}{}^{t}0& ^t\overline{x}Hx\end{array}\right).$$

If

$$\overline{x}Hx=|x_1|^2|x_2|^2|x_3|^2+|x_4|^2>0$$

then the $`3\times 3`$ matrix

$${}_{}{}^{t}\overline{\eta }H\eta =|x_4|^2I_3\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{x}_1\\ \overline{x}_2\\ \overline{x}_3\end{array}\right)(x_1,x_2,x_3)$$

is positive definite. Hence the matrix (5) is positive definite if and only if

$${}_{}{}^{t}\overline{x}Hx=|x_1|^2+|x_2|^2+|x_3|^2|x_4|^2<0.[]$$

We embedded the domain $`𝔹^3=\{x^3^t\overline{x}Hx<0\}`$ in $`𝕊^4`$ by the map

$$ȷ:𝔹^3x\Omega =\omega [I_4(1\omega )(x^txH)/(^txHx)]H𝕊^4.$$

## 4 Monodromy

Let $`(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _6)`$ vary as an element in $`\Lambda ,`$ we have two multi-valued map

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\psi :& \Lambda & & 𝔹^3\\ & \lambda & & x=^t(_{A_1}\phi _1,\mathrm{},_{A_4}\phi _1),\\ & & \\ \stackrel{~}{\psi }=ȷ\psi :& \Lambda & & 𝕊^4\\ & \lambda & & \Omega =ȷ(\psi (\lambda )).\end{array}$$

We call them period maps. The map $`\psi `$ and its monodromy group were studied in \[DM\], \[Ter\], \[Yo1\] and \[Yo2\], the results are as follows.

###### Fact 4.1

The image of $`\psi `$ is open dense in $`𝔹^3.`$ The monodromy group of $`\psi `$ is conjugate to the congruence subgroup

$$\Gamma (1\omega )=\{g\Gamma gI_4\mathrm{mod}(1\omega )\}$$

of the modular group

$$\Gamma =\{gGL_4([\omega ])^t\overline{g}Hg=H\}.$$

The Satake compactification $`\widehat{𝔹}^3/\Gamma (1\omega )`$ of $`𝔹^3/\Gamma (1\omega )`$ is isomorphic to $`Y.`$

For a column vector $`v^4`$ such that $`{}_{}{}^{t}\overline{v}Hv0,`$ we define reflections $`R^\omega (v)`$ and $`R^\zeta (v)`$ with root $`v`$ and exponent $`\omega `$ and $`\zeta =\omega ^2,`$ respectively, as

$`R^\omega (v)`$ $`=`$ $`I_4(1\omega )v(^t\overline{v}Hv)^1{}_{}{}^{t}\overline{v}H,`$
$`R^\zeta (v)`$ $`=`$ $`I_4(1\zeta )v(^t\overline{v}Hv)^1{}_{}{}^{t}\overline{v}H.`$
It is shown in \[All\] that $`\Gamma (1\omega )`$ can be generated by fifteen reflections $`R_{ij}^\omega =R^\omega (v_{ij})`$ $`(1i<j6)`$ and that $`\Gamma `$ by $`I_4`$ and five reflections $`R_{i,i+1}^\zeta =R^\zeta (v_{i,i+1})`$ $`(1i5),`$ where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}v_{12}=^t(1,0,0,0),\hfill & v_{13}=^t(1,1,0,1),\hfill & v_{14}=^t(1,\omega ^2,0,1),\hfill \\ v_{15}=^t(\omega ^2,0,\omega ^2,1),\hfill & v_{16}=^t(\omega ^2,0,\omega ,1),\hfill & v_{23}=^t(\omega ^2,1,0,1),\hfill \\ v_{24}=^t(\omega ^2,\omega ^2,0,1),\hfill & v_{25}=^t(\omega ,0,\omega ^2,1),\hfill & v_{26}=^t(\omega ,0,\omega ,1),\hfill \\ v_{34}=^t(0,1,0,0),\hfill & v_{35}=^t(0,\omega ,\omega ,1),\hfill & v_{36}=^t(0,\omega ,1,1),\hfill \\ v_{45}=^t(0,1,\omega ,1),\hfill & v_{46}=^t(0,1,1,1),\hfill & v_{56}=^t(0,0,1,0).\hfill \end{array}$$

The reflections correspond to the following movements of $`\lambda _i`$’s. When $`\lambda _i`$ goes near to $`\lambda _j`$ in the upper half space and turns around $`\lambda _j`$ and returns, $`x`$ becomes $`R_{ij}^\omega x.`$ When $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\lambda _j`$ are exchanged in the upper half space, $`x`$ becomes $`R_{ij}^\zeta x.`$ Since $`R_{i,i+1}^\zeta `$’s are representations of braids, they satisfy

$$R_{i1,i}^\zeta R_{i,i+1}^\zeta R_{i1,i}^\zeta =R_{i,i+1}^\zeta R_{i1,i}^\zeta R_{i,i+1}^\zeta (2i5).$$

The embedding $`ȷ`$ induces the following homomorphism from $`U(3,1;)`$ to

$$Sp(8,)=\{gGL_8()^tgJg=J=\left(\begin{array}{cc}O& I_4\\ I_4& O\end{array}\right)\}:$$

$$\stackrel{~}{ȷ}:U(3,1;)P+\omega Q\left(\begin{array}{cc}P& QH\\ HQ& H(PQ)H\end{array}\right)Sp(8,),$$

where $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are real $`4\times 4`$ matrices. Note that

$`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}^1:Sp(8,)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}(U(3,1;))\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)`$
$``$ $`A+\omega BH=(HC+HDH)\omega HCU(3,1;).`$
Let us express the images of $`R^\omega (v)`$ and $`R^\zeta (v)`$ under the map $`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}.`$ The image of $`\omega I_4`$ under $`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}`$ is given by

$$W=\left(\begin{array}{cc}O& H\\ H& I_4\end{array}\right)Sp(8,).$$

For a column vector $`v=a+\omega b`$ $`(a,b^4),`$ define column vectors $`v_1=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{Hb}\right)`$ and $`v_2=Wv_1`$ and form a $`(8\times 2)`$ matrix $`V=(v_1,v_2).`$ Straightforward calculation shows the following.

###### Proposition 4.1

If $`{}_{}{}^{t}\overline{v}Hv0,`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}(R^\omega (v))=\stackrel{~}{R}^\omega (v)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}(R^\zeta (v))=\stackrel{~}{R}^\zeta (v)`$ are given by

$$I_8(I_8W)V(^tVJV)^1{}_{}{}^{t}VJ,I_8(I_8+W^2)V(^tVJV)^1{}_{}{}^{t}VJ,$$

respectively.

Systems of generators of $`\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }(1\omega )=\stackrel{~}{ȷ}(\Gamma (1\omega ))`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }=\stackrel{~}{ȷ}(\Gamma )`$ are given by $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}^\omega `$’s and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta `$’s.

## 5 Riemann theta constants

The Riemann theta function

$$\vartheta (z,\tau )=\underset{n=(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)^r}{}\mathrm{exp}[\pi \sqrt{1}(n\tau ^tn+2n^tz)]$$

is holomorphic on $`^r\times 𝕊^r`$ and satisfies

$$\vartheta (z+p,\tau )=\vartheta (z,\tau ),\vartheta (z+p\tau ,\tau )=\mathrm{exp}[\pi \sqrt{1}(p\tau ^tp+2z^tp)]\vartheta (z,\tau ),$$

where $`𝕊^r`$ is the Siegel upper half space of degree $`r`$ and $`p^r.`$ It is well known that for $`(z,\tau )\times ,`$ $`\vartheta (z,\tau )=0`$ if and only if $`z=\frac{1+\tau }{2}+p+q\tau (p,q).`$

The theta function $`\vartheta _{a,b}(z,\tau )`$ with characteristics $`a,b`$ is defined by

$`\vartheta _{a,b}(z,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[\pi \sqrt{1}(a\tau ^ta+2a^t(z+b))]\vartheta (z+a\tau +b,\tau )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n^n}{}}\mathrm{exp}[\pi \sqrt{1}((n+a)\tau ^t(n+a)+2(n+a)^t(z+b))],`$
where $`a,b^r.`$ Note that

$$\vartheta _{a,b}(z,\tau )=\vartheta _{a,b}(z,\tau ),\vartheta _{a+p,b+q}(z,\tau )=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}a^tq)\vartheta _{a,b}(z,\tau ).$$
(7)
The function $`\vartheta _{a,b}(\tau )=\vartheta _{a,b}(0,\tau )`$ of $`\tau `$ is called the theta constant with characteristics $`a,b.`$ If $`\tau `$ is diagonal, then this function becomes the product of Jacobi’s theta constants:

$$\vartheta _{a,b}(\tau )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\vartheta _{a_i,b_i}(\tau _i),$$

where

$$a=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_r),b=(b_1,\mathrm{},b_r),\tau =\mathrm{diag}(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _r).$$

The following transformation formula can be found in \[Igu\] p.176.

###### Fact 5.1

For any $`g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)Sp(2r,)`$ and $`(a,b)^{2r},`$ we put

$`g(a,b)`$ $`=`$ $`(a,b)g^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{dv}(C^tD),\mathrm{dv}(A^tB))`$
$`\varphi _{(a,b)}(g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a^tDB^ta2a^tBC^tb+b^tCA^tb)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a^tDb^tC)^t(\mathrm{dv}(A^tB)),`$
where $`\mathrm{dv}(A)`$ is the row vector consisting of the diagonal components of $`A.`$ Then for every $`gSp(2r,),`$ we have

$`\vartheta _{g(a,b)}((A\tau +B)(C\tau +D)^1)`$
$`=`$ $`\kappa (g)\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}\varphi _{(a,b)}(g))det(C\tau +D)^{\frac{1}{2}}\vartheta _{(a,b)}(\tau ),`$
in which $`\kappa (g)^2`$ is a $`4`$-th root of $`1`$ depending only on $`g.`$

###### Proposition 5.1

There are $`81=3^4`$ theta characteristics

$$(a,b)=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_4,b_1,\mathrm{},b_4)$$

such that

$$g(a,b)(a,b)\mathrm{mod}^8$$

for any $`g\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }(1\omega )Sp(8,);`$ they are given by

$$b=aH,a_i\{\frac{1}{6},\frac{3}{6},\frac{5}{6}\}(i=1,\mathrm{},4).$$
(8)
Proof. Since

$$W(a,b)=(a+bH,aH)+\frac{1}{2}(1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0),$$

we have

$$aHb,2a+\frac{1}{2}(1,1,1,1)a\mathrm{mod}^4.$$

Thus we have the condition (8). It is easy to check such theta characteristics are invariant under the action on $`15`$ reflections $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}^\omega .`$ \[\]

We label the $`81`$ characteristics $`a`$’s by combinatorics of six letters; they are classified to $`4`$ classes. The list of the correspondence between the label of $`a`$ and $`6a`$ is as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left(12;34;56\right)\pm (3,3,3,1)& \left(12;35;46\right)\pm (3,1,1,3)& \left(12;36;45\right)\pm (3,1,1,3)\\ & & \\ \left(13;24;56\right)\pm (1,1,3,3)& \left(13;25;46\right)\pm (1,1,1,1)& \left(13;26;45\right)\pm (1,1,1,1)\\ & & \\ \left(14;23;56\right)\pm (1,1,3,3)& \left(14;25;36\right)\pm (1,1,1,1)& \left(14;26;35\right)\pm (1,1,1,1)\\ & & \\ \left(15;23;46\right)\pm (1,1,1,1)& \left(15;24;36\right)\pm (1,1,1,1)& \left(15;26;34\right)\pm (1,3,1,3)\\ & & \\ \left(16;23;45\right)\pm (1,1,1,1)& \left(16;24;35\right)\pm (1,1,1,1)& \left(16;25;34\right)\pm (1,3,1,3)\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(1^22)(1,3,3,3)& (1^23)(5,1,3,5)& (1^24)(5,5,3,5)\\ & & \\ (1^25)(5,3,1,1)& (1^26)(5,3,5,1)& (2^23)(1,1,3,5)\\ & & \\ (2^24)(1,5,3,5)& (2^25)(1,3,1,1)& (2^26)(1,3,5,1)\\ & & \\ (3^24)(3,1,3,3)& (3^25)(3,5,1,5)& (3^26)(3,5,5,5)\\ & & \\ (4^25)(3,1,1,5)& (4^26)(3,1,5,5)& (5^26)(3,3,1,3)\end{array}$$

$$(ij^2)a\mathrm{for}(i^2j)1i<j6,$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(123)(3,1,3,5)& (124)(3,5,3,5)& (125)(3,3,1,1)\\ & & \\ (126)(3,3,5,1)& (134)(1,3,3,1)& (135)(1,1,1,3)\\ & & \\ (136)(1,1,5,3)& (145)(1,5,1,3)& (146)(1,5,5,3)\\ & & \\ (156)(1,3,3,5)& (lmn)a\mathrm{for}(ijk)& \{i,j,k,l,m,n\}=\{1,\mathrm{},6\}\end{array}$$

$$(123456)(3,3,3,3).$$

The first class is characterized by $`(6a)H^t(6a)2\mathrm{mod}24`$ and the characteristics $`(a,aH)`$ with label $`(ij;kl;mn)`$ is invariant under the actions $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}^\zeta ,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{kl}^\zeta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{mn}^\zeta ;`$ the second class is characterized by $`(6a)H^t(6a)10\mathrm{mod}24`$ and the characteristics $`(a,aH)`$ with label $`(i^2j)`$ is invariant under the actions $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{kl}^\zeta `$ $`(\{i,j\}\{k,l\}=\mathrm{})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}^\zeta (a,aH)`$ is $`(a,aH)`$ with label $`(ij^2);`$ the third class is characterized by $`(6a)H^t(6a)18\mathrm{mod}24`$ and the characteristics $`(a,aH)`$ with label $`(ijk)`$ is invariant under the actions $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{lm}^\zeta `$ $`(\{i,j,k\}\{l,m\}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{or}\{l,m\}).`$

We denote $`\vartheta _{a,aH}(\Omega )`$ by $`\vartheta _{[6a]}(\Omega )`$ or $`\vartheta (ij;kl;mn),`$ $`\vartheta (i^2j),`$ $`\vartheta (ijk)`$ and $`\vartheta (123456)`$ for corresponding characteristics $`a.`$ Note that for $`p,q^4,`$

$`\vartheta (a(\Omega H)+p\Omega +q,\Omega )`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[\pi \sqrt{1}(p\Omega ^tp+2p(\Omega H)^ta)]\vartheta (a(\Omega H),\Omega )`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[\pi \sqrt{1}(p\Omega ^tp+2p(\Omega H)^ta+a\Omega ^ta2aH^ta)]\vartheta _{a,aH}(\Omega )`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[2\pi \sqrt{1}(a+p)H^t(a+p)]\mathrm{exp}[\pi \sqrt{1}(a+p)\Omega ^t(a+p)]\vartheta _{[a]}(\Omega ).`$
###### Proposition 5.2

The theta constants $`\vartheta (i^2j),`$ $`\vartheta (ijk)`$ and $`\vartheta (123456)`$ are identically zero on $`ȷ(𝔹^3).`$ The theta constants $`\vartheta (ij;kl;mn)`$ are not identically zero on $`ȷ(𝔹^3).`$

Proof. We apply Fact 5.1 for

$$\tau =\Omega =ȷ(x),g=W=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& H\\ H& I_4\end{array}\right),(a,b)=(a,aH).$$

Note that

$$W\Omega =\Omega ,W(a,aH)=(a(3a\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{diag}(H)),aH)$$

and that

$$\varphi _{(a,aH)}(W)=\frac{3}{2}aH^ta=\frac{1}{24}(6a)H^t(6a),det(C\Omega +D)=\omega .$$

Since $`\kappa (W)`$ is an $`8`$-th root of $`1,`$ the sufficient condition for

$$\kappa (W)\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}\varphi _{(a,b)}(W))det(C\Omega +D)^{\frac{1}{2}}=1$$
(9)
is $`(6a)H^t(6a)2`$ $`\mathrm{mod}24.`$ If $`(6a)H^t(6a)2`$ $`\mathrm{mod}24,`$ then $`\vartheta _{a,aH}(\Omega )`$ vanishes. Thus the theta constants $`\vartheta (i^2j),`$ $`\vartheta (ijk)`$ and $`\vartheta (123456)`$ are identically zero on $`ȷ(𝔹^3).`$

For $`a=(\frac{1}{6},\mathrm{},\frac{1}{6})`$ and $`x=(0,0,0,1),`$ $`\vartheta _{a,aH}(\Omega )`$ reduces to

$$\vartheta _{(\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{6})}(\omega )^3\vartheta _{(\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{6})}(\omega ^2),$$

which does not vanish. Hence $`\vartheta (ij;kl;mn)`$’s survive. Note that $`\kappa (W)^2=1`$ by (9). \[\]

###### Proposition 5.3

We have

$`\vartheta (i,i+1;kl;mn)(\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta ȷ(x))^3`$ $`=`$ $`\chi (\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta )\vartheta (i,i+1;kl;mn)(ȷ(x))^3,`$
$`\vartheta (ik;i+1,l;mn)(\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta ȷ(x))^3`$ $`=`$ $`\chi (\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta )\vartheta (il;i+1,k;mn)(ȷ(x))^3,`$
where

$$\chi (\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta )=\left(\frac{{}_{}{}^{t}(R_{i,i+1}^\zeta x)H(R_{i,i+1}^\zeta x)}{{}_{}{}^{t}xHx}\right)^{3/2},$$

which takes $`1`$ on the mirror of $`R_{i,i+1}^\zeta .`$

Proof. For $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right),`$ straightforward calculation shows

$$det(Cȷ(x)+D)=\frac{{}_{}{}^{t}(R_{i,i+1}^\zeta x)H(R_{i,i+1}^\zeta x)}{det(R_{i,i+1}^\zeta )^txHx}=\frac{{}_{}{}^{t}(R_{i,i+1}^\zeta x)H(R_{i,i+1}^\zeta x)}{\omega ^2{}_{}{}^{t}xHx}.$$

By computing $`\varphi _{a,b}(\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta )`$ in Fact 5.1 and using (7), we have

$`\vartheta (i,i+1;kl;mn)(\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta ȷ(x))^3`$ $`=`$ $`c\chi (\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta )\vartheta (i,i+1;kl;mn)(ȷ(x))^3,`$
$`\vartheta (ik;i+1,l;mn)(\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\omega ȷ(x))^3`$ $`=`$ $`c\chi (\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta )\vartheta (il;i+1,k;mn)(ȷ(x))^3,`$
where $`c`$ is a certain constant depending only on $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta .`$ If we restrict $`ȷ(x)`$ on the mirror of $`R_{i,i+1}^\zeta ,`$ we have

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta ȷ(x)=ȷ(x),\chi (\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta )=\left(\frac{{}_{}{}^{t}(R_{i,i+1}^\zeta x)H(R_{i,i+1}^\zeta x)}{{}_{}{}^{t}xHx}\right)^{3/2}=1.$$

Since $`\vartheta (i,k;i+1,l;mn)=\vartheta (i,l;i+1,k;mn)`$ on the mirror of $`R_{i,i+1}^\zeta `$ and it does not vanish, the constant $`c`$ must be $`1.`$ \[\]

Since $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{pq}^\zeta `$ can be expressed in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{i,i+1}^\zeta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{pq}^\omega =(\stackrel{~}{R}_{pq}^\zeta )^2,`$ we have the following two propositions.

###### Proposition 5.4

We have

$$\vartheta (ij;kl;mn)(\stackrel{~}{R}_{pq}^\omega ȷ(x))^3=\chi (\stackrel{~}{R}_{pq}^\omega )\vartheta (ij;kl;mn)(ȷ(x))^3,$$

where

$$\chi (\stackrel{~}{R}_{pq}^\omega )=\left(\frac{{}_{}{}^{t}(R_{pq}^\omega x)H(R_{pq}^\omega x)}{{}_{}{}^{t}xHx}\right)^{3/2},$$

which takes $`1`$ on the mirror of $`R_{pq}^\omega .`$

###### Proposition 5.5

The function $`\vartheta (ij;kl;mn)(ȷ(x))`$ vanishes on the $`\Gamma (1\omega )`$ orbits of the mirrors of $`R_{ij}^\omega ,`$ $`R_{kl}^\omega `$ and $`R_{mn}^\omega .`$

Proof. By Proposition 5.3, when we restrict $`ȷ(x)`$ on the mirrors of $`R_{12}^\omega ,`$ $`R_{34}^\omega `$ and $`R_{56}^\omega ,`$ we have

$$\vartheta (12;34;56)(ȷ(x))^3=\vartheta (12;34;56)(ȷ(x))^3=0.$$

For the $`\Gamma (1\omega )`$ orbits, use the previous proposition. In oder to show for general $`\vartheta (ij;kl;mn)(ȷ(x))`$’s, use Proposition 5.3. \[\]

## 6 The inverse of the period map

###### Proposition 6.1

Let $`\Omega `$ be the period matrix of

$$C(\lambda ):w^3=z(z1)(z\mathrm{}_1)(z\mathrm{}_2)(z\mathrm{}_3)$$

given in Proposition 3.1. We have

$`\mathrm{}_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta ^3(13;24;56)(\Omega )}{\vartheta ^3(14;23;56)(\Omega )}},`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{}_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta ^3(13;25;46)(\Omega )}{\vartheta ^3(15;23;46)(\Omega )}},`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{}_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta ^3(13;26;45)(\Omega )}{\vartheta ^3(16;23;45)(\Omega )}}.`$ (12)
###### Proposition 6.2

For the period matrix $`\Omega `$ of $`C(\lambda ),`$ linear and cubic relations among $`\vartheta ^3(ij;kl;mn)(\Omega )`$ coincide with the defining equations of $`Y^{14}:`$

$$\vartheta ^3(ij;kl;mn)(\Omega )\vartheta ^3(ik;jl;mn)(\Omega )+\vartheta ^3(il;jk;mn)(\Omega )=0,$$
(13)
$`\vartheta ^3(ij;kl;mn)(\Omega )\vartheta ^3(ik;jn;lm)(\Omega )\vartheta ^3(im;jl;kn)(\Omega )`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\vartheta ^3(ij;kn;lm)(\Omega )\vartheta ^3(ik;jl;mn)(\Omega )\vartheta ^3(im;jn;kl)(\Omega ).`$
Propositions 6.1 and 6.2 imply the following.

###### Theorem 6.1

Let $`\Theta `$ be the map from $`𝔹^3/\Gamma (1\omega )`$ to $`Y`$ defined by

$$x[\mathrm{},y_{ij;kl;mn},\mathrm{}]=[\mathrm{},\vartheta ^3(ij;kl;mn)(ȷ(x)),\mathrm{}].$$

We have the following $`S_6`$-equivariant commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\Lambda & \stackrel{\psi }{}& 𝔹^3/\Gamma (1\omega )\\ & & \\ \iota & \Theta & \\ & & \\ Y^{14}.& & \end{array}$$

In order to prove Propositions 6.1, 6.2, we state two facts in \[Mum\]; the one is Riemann’s theorem and the other is Abel’s theorem.

###### Fact 6.1

We suppose $`z`$ is a fix point on the Jacobi variety $`Jac(R)`$ of a Riemann surface $`R`$ of genus $`r.`$ The multi-valued function $`\vartheta (z+_{P_0}^P\phi ,\tau )`$ of $`P`$ on $`X`$ has $`r`$ zeros $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_r`$ provided not to be constantly zero, where $`\phi =(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _r)`$ is the normalized basis of the vector space of holomorphic $`1`$-forms on $`R`$ such that $`(_{B_i}\phi _j)_{ij}=I_r`$ for a symplectic basis $`\{A_1,\mathrm{},A_r,B_1,\mathrm{},B_r\}`$ of $`H_1(R,),`$ and $`\tau =(_{A_i}\phi _j)_{ij}.`$ Moreover, there exists a point $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`Jac(R)`$ called Riemann’s constant such that

$$z=\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}_{P_0}^{P_i}\phi .$$

###### Fact 6.2

Let $`R`$ be a Riemann surface of genus $`r`$ with an initial point $`P_0.`$ Suppose $`_{i=1}^dP_i`$ and $`_{i=1}^dQ_i`$ be effective divisors of degree $`d`$ satisfying

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}_{P_0}^{P_i}\phi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}_{P_0}^{Q_i}\phi ,$$
(15)
where $`\phi `$ is the normalized basis of vector space of holomorphic $`1`$-forms on $`R.`$ Then there exists a meromorphic function $`f`$ on $`R`$ such that

$$(f)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}Q_i\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}P_i;$$

$`f`$ can be expressed as

$$f(P)=c\frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}\vartheta (e+_{Q_i}^P\phi ,\tau )}{_{i=1}^d\vartheta (e+_{P_i}^P\phi ,\tau )},$$

where $`c`$ is a constant, $`\tau `$ is the period matrix of $`R,`$ $`e`$ satisfies $`\vartheta (e)=0,`$

$$\vartheta (e+_{P_i}^P\phi ,\tau )0,\vartheta (e+_{Q_i}^P\phi ,\tau )0,$$

as multi-valued functions of $`P`$ on $`R,`$ and paths from $`P_i`$ and $`Q_i`$ to $`P`$ are the inverse of the paths in (15) followed by a common path from $`P_0`$ to $`P.`$

Proof of Proposition 6.1. We take $`R`$ as

$$C:w^3=z(z1)(z\mathrm{}_1)(z\mathrm{}_2)(z\mathrm{}_3)$$

with the initial point $`P_0=(0,0)`$ and put

$$P_{\mathrm{}}=(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}),P_1=(1,0),P_\mathrm{}_i=(\mathrm{}_i,0)(i=1,2,3).$$

Let us define a meromorphic function $`f`$ on $`C`$ by $`C(z,w)z,`$ then

$$(f)=3P_03P_{\mathrm{}}.$$

We construct a meromorphic function on $`C`$ with poles $`3P_{\mathrm{}}`$ and zeros $`3P_0`$ by following the recipe given in Fact 6.2. Let $`\gamma _i(z_1,z_2)`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ be a path in $`C`$ from $`(z_1,w_1)`$ to $`(z_2,w_2)`$ in the $`i`$-th sheet. Since $`\omega ^2+\omega +1=0,`$ we have

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_{\gamma _i(0,\mathrm{})}\phi =(0,0,0,0)=3_{P_0}^{P_0}\phi $$

for three paths $`\gamma _i(0,\mathrm{})`$ from $`P_0`$ to $`P_{\mathrm{}}.`$ We give the following table:

$`{\displaystyle _{\gamma _1(\mathrm{},0)}}\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _{A_1B_1}}\phi ,{\displaystyle _{\gamma _2(\mathrm{},0)}}\phi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _{2A_1B_1}}\phi ,`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\gamma _3(\mathrm{},0)}}\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _{A_1+2B_1}}\phi ,{\displaystyle _{\gamma _1(0,1)}}\phi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _{2A_1+A_2A_4B_1+2B_2+2B_4}}\phi ,`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\gamma _2(0,1)}}\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _{A_1+A_2A_4+2B_1B_2B_4}}\phi ,`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\gamma _3(0,1)}}\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _{A_12A_2+2A_4B_1B_2B_4}}\phi ,{\displaystyle _{\gamma _1(1,\mathrm{}_1)}}\phi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _{A_2B_2}}\phi ,`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\gamma _1(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)}}\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _{2A_2+A_3+2A_4B_2+2B_3B_4}}\phi ,{\displaystyle _{\gamma _1(\mathrm{}_2,\mathrm{}_3)}}\phi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _{A_3B_3}}\phi .`$
Put

$$e=\frac{1}{6}_{3A_1+A_2+3A_3+5A_43B_1B_23B_3+5B_4}\phi ,$$

corresponding to the characteristic $`\frac{1}{6}(3,1,3,5)`$ with label $`(123),`$ and define a meromorphic function $`F`$ of $`P=(z,w)`$ on $`C`$ as

$$F(P)=\frac{\vartheta (e+_{\gamma _1(0,z)}\phi ,\Omega )^3}{_{i=1}^3\vartheta (e+_{\gamma _i(\mathrm{},0)+\gamma _1(0,z)}\phi ,\Omega )},$$
(16)
where $`\Omega `$ is the period matrix of $`C.`$ Since $`\vartheta (123)`$ vanishes, we have $`\vartheta (e)=0.`$ We check that neither the denominator nor the numerator of $`F`$ identically vanishes. We put $`P=P_\mathrm{}_1,P_\mathrm{}_2,P_\mathrm{}_3`$ and use (5) and (7), then we have

$`F(P_\mathrm{}_1)=cf(P_\mathrm{}_1)=c\mathrm{}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \sqrt{1}}{3}}(2\Omega _{11}+1)]{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _{[1,1,3,3]}^3(\Omega )}{\vartheta _{[1,1,3,3]}^3(\Omega )}},`$
$`F(P_\mathrm{}_2)=cf(P_\mathrm{}_2)=c\mathrm{}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \sqrt{1}}{3}}(2\Omega _{11}+1)]{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _{[1,1,1,1]}^3(\Omega )}{\vartheta _{[1,1,1,1]}^3(\Omega )}},`$
$`F(P_\mathrm{}_3)=cf(P_\mathrm{}_3)=c\mathrm{}_3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \sqrt{1}}{3}}(2\Omega _{11}+1)]{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _{[1,1,1,1]}^3(\Omega )}{\vartheta _{[1,1,1,1]}^3(\Omega )}},`$
where $`c`$ is a constant depending on $`\Omega .`$ By Proposition 5.2, neither the denominator nor the numerator of $`F`$ identically vanishes.

We put $`P=P_{\mathrm{}},P_0,P_1;`$ the denominator and the numerator of $`F`$ vanish at these points by Proposition 5.2. Since $`(F)=3P_03P_{\mathrm{}},`$ $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`P_0`$ are zeros of higher order of the denominator and numerator of $`F,`$ respectively. The number of zeros of the denominator and numerator of $`F`$ are $`4`$ by Fact refRiemann, thus $`P_1`$ is a simple zero. We consider $`lim_{PP_1}F(P).`$ Let $`t`$ be a local coordinate for $`P`$ around $`P_1`$ and $`z(t)`$ be $`_{P_1}^P\phi .`$ We have

$$F(P)=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{\pi \sqrt{1}}{3}(2\Omega _{11}2)]\frac{\vartheta _{[1,3,3,3]}^3(z(t),\Omega )}{\vartheta _{[1,3,3,3]}^3(z(t),\Omega )}.$$

When $`PP_1,`$ we have $`t0`$ and $`z(t)(0,0,0,0).`$ Since $`t=0`$ is simple zero, we have

$$\underset{t0}{lim}\frac{\vartheta _{[1,3,3,3]}^3(z(t),\Omega )}{\vartheta _{[1,3,3,3]}^3(z(t),\Omega )}=\underset{t0}{lim}\frac{\vartheta _{[1,3,3,3]}^3(z(t),\Omega )}{\vartheta _{[1,3,3,3]}^3(z(t),\Omega )}=1,$$

which implies $`c=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{\pi \sqrt{1}}{3}(2\Omega _{11}+1)].`$ Hence we have the expressions (10), (11) and (12). \[\]

Proof of Proposition 6.2. In order to obtain a cubic relation among $`\vartheta ^3(ij;kl;mn)`$’s, put

$$e=\frac{1}{6}_{3A_1+5A_2+3A_3+5A_43B_15B_23B_3+5B_4}\phi ,$$

corresponding to the characteristic $`\frac{1}{6}(3,5,3,5)`$ with label $`(124),`$ then $`\vartheta (e)=0;`$ and define a meromorphic function $`F`$ by (16). We have

$`F(P_1)=cf(P_1)=c`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \sqrt{1}}{3}}(2\Omega _{11}+1)]{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _{[1,1,3,3]}^3(\Omega )}{\vartheta _{[1,1,3,3]}(\Omega )}},`$
$`F(P_\mathrm{}_2)=cf(P_\mathrm{}_2)=c\mathrm{}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \sqrt{1}}{3}}(2\Omega _{11}+1)]{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _{[1,1,1,1]}^3(\Omega )}{\vartheta _{[1,1,1,1]}^3(\Omega )}},`$
$`F(P_\mathrm{}_3)=cf(P_\mathrm{}_3)=c\mathrm{}_3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \sqrt{1}}{3}}(2\Omega _{11}+1)]{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _{[1,1,1,1]}^3(\Omega )}{\vartheta _{[1,1,1,1]}^3(\Omega )}},`$
and

$`c\mathrm{}_1=cf(P_\mathrm{}_1)=\underset{PP_\mathrm{}_1}{lim}F(P)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \sqrt{1}}{3}}(2\Omega _{11}2)]{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _{[1,3,3,3]}^3(_{P_\mathrm{}_1}^P\phi ,\Omega )}{\vartheta _{[1,3,3,3]}^3(_{P_\mathrm{}_1}^P\phi ,\Omega )}}=\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \sqrt{1}}{3}}(2\Omega _{11}+1)].`$
These imply

$`\mathrm{}_1={\displaystyle \frac{cf(P_\mathrm{}_1)}{cf(P_1)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta ^3(13;24;56)(\Omega )}{\vartheta ^3(14;23;56)(\Omega )}},`$
$`\mathrm{}_2={\displaystyle \frac{cf(P_\mathrm{}_2)}{cf(P_1)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta ^3(14;25;36)(\Omega )\vartheta ^3(13;24;56)(\Omega )}{\vartheta ^3(15;24;36)(\Omega )\vartheta ^3(14;23;56)(\Omega )}},`$
$`\mathrm{}_3={\displaystyle \frac{cf(P_\mathrm{}_3)}{cf(P_1)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta ^3(14;26;35)(\Omega )\vartheta ^3(13;24;56)(\Omega )}{\vartheta ^3(16;24;35)(\Omega )\vartheta ^3(14;23;56)(\Omega )}}.`$
Compare with the above expression of $`\mathrm{}_2`$ and (11), we have a cubic relation among the $`\vartheta ^3(ij;kl;mn)`$’s. By letting $`\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }`$ act on theta constants, we have more cubic relations among $`\vartheta ^3(ij;kl;mn)`$’s.

Let us lead a linear relation among the $`\vartheta ^3(ij;kl;mn)`$’s. We start with the meromorphic function $`f^{}:(z,w)z1;`$ note that $`(f^{})=3P_13P_{\mathrm{}}.`$ Put

$$e=\frac{1}{6}_{3A_1+A_2+3A_3+5A_43B_1B_23B_3+5B_4}\phi ,$$

corresponding to the characteristic $`\frac{1}{6}(3,1,3,5)`$ with label $`(123),`$ and define a meromorphic function $`F^{}`$ of $`P=(z,w)`$ on $`C`$ as

$$F^{}(P)=\frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\vartheta (e+_{\gamma _i(1,0)+\gamma _1(0,z)}\phi ,\Omega )}{_{i=1}^3\vartheta (e+_{\gamma _i(\mathrm{},0)+\gamma _1(0,z)}\phi ,\Omega )}.$$

Since $`\vartheta (123)`$ vanishes, we have $`\vartheta (e)=0.`$ We consider $`lim_{PP_0}F^{}(P)`$ and put $`P=P_\mathrm{}_1`$ then we have

$`F^{}(P_0)`$ $`=`$ $`cf^{}(P_0)=c=\underset{PP_0}{lim}K\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \sqrt{1}}{3}}]{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _{[5,1,3,5]}^3(_{P_0}^P\phi ,\Omega )}{\vartheta _{[5,1,3,5]}^3(_{P_0}^P\phi ,\Omega )}}`$
$`F^{}(P_\mathrm{}_1)`$ $`=`$ $`cf^{}(P_\mathrm{}_1)=c(\mathrm{}_11)=K\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \sqrt{1}}{3}}]{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _{[3,3,3,1]}^3(\Omega )}{\vartheta _{[1,1,3,3)}^3(\Omega )}},`$
where

$$K=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{2\pi \sqrt{1}}{3}e^{}\Omega ^t(e^{}e_1)+\frac{4\pi \sqrt{1}}{3}e^{}H^t(e^{}e_1)]$$

and $`e^{}=(1,1,0,1).`$ Now we have the expression

$$\mathrm{}_11=\frac{\vartheta ^3(12;34;56)(\Omega )}{\vartheta ^3(14;23;56)(\Omega )}.$$

Since we had in (10)

$$\mathrm{}_1=\frac{\vartheta ^3(13;24;56)(\Omega )}{\vartheta ^3(14;23;56)(\Omega )},$$

we get a relation

$$\frac{\vartheta ^3(12;34;56)(\Omega )}{\vartheta ^3(14;23;56)(\Omega )}\frac{\vartheta ^3(13;24;56)(\Omega )}{\vartheta ^3(14;23;56)(\Omega )}+1=0,$$

which is equivalent to

$$\vartheta ^3(12;34;56)(\Omega )\vartheta ^3(13;24;56)(\Omega )+\vartheta ^3(14;23;56)(\Omega )=0.$$

Action of $`\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }`$ produces other the linear relations among the $`\vartheta ^3(ij;kl;mn)`$’s. \[\]

## 7 Appendix

In this section, we give a geometrical meaning of the label of $`a`$’s. In order to do this, we determine Riemann’s constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }.`$

###### Fact 7.1

Riemann’s constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m+r1}{}}_{P_0}^{P_i}\phi \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}_{P_0}^{Q_j}\phi $$
(17)
for a certain divisor $`D_0=_{i=1}^{m+r1}P_i_{j=1}^mQ_j`$ such that $`2D_0`$ is linearly equivalent to the canonical divisor of $`R.`$ It is easy to see that Riemann’s constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a half period on $`Jac(R)`$ if and only if $`(2r2)P_0`$ is a canonical divisor.

For our case, Riemann’s constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a half period on $`Jac(C(\lambda ))`$ since we have $`6P_0=(\phi _4)`$ for any $`C(\lambda ).`$

###### Proposition 7.1

Riemann’s constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is invariant under the action of the monodromy group $`\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }(1\omega ).`$ Hence we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=(\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2}).$$

Proof. Let $`\gamma `$ be a closed path in $`\Lambda `$ and $`g\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }(1\omega )`$ be its representation. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a half period point of $`Jac(C(\lambda )),`$ it is expressed by $`c=(c_1,\mathrm{},c_8)`$ $`(c_i\{0,1/2\}).`$ When $`\lambda `$ moves a little, this vector is invariant and presents $`\mathrm{\Delta }.`$ By the continuation along $`\gamma ,`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is presented by the vector $`c`$ with respect to the transformed homology basis by $`g;`$ i.e., it is presented by $`gc`$ with respect to the initial homology basis.

On the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is invariant as a point of $`Jac(C(\lambda ))`$ under the continuation along $`\gamma `$ with respect to the initial basis by the expression (17). Thus we have $`gc=c.`$ There is only one half characteristic $`(\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2})`$ invariant under $`\stackrel{~}{\Gamma }(1\omega ).`$ \[\]

By straightforward calculation, we have the following proposition giving a geometrical meaning of the label of $`a`$’s.

###### Proposition 7.2

The points $`(a,aH)`$ of $`Jac(C)`$ for $`a`$ with label $`(ijk)`$ and $`(i^2j)`$ are expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle _{P_0}^{P_{\lambda _i}}}\phi {\displaystyle _{P_0}^{P_{\lambda _j}}}\phi {\displaystyle _{P_0}^{P_{\lambda _k}}}\phi ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }2{\displaystyle _{P_0}^{P_{\lambda _i}}}\phi {\displaystyle _{P_0}^{P_{\lambda _j}}}\phi ,`$
respectively.

We have the necessary and sufficient condition for $`\vartheta (z,\tau )=0.`$

###### Fact 7.2

For a period matrix $`\tau `$ of Riemann’s surface $`R`$ of genus $`r,`$ $`\vartheta (z,\tau )=0`$ if and only if there exists an effective divisor $`_{i=1}^{r1}P_i`$ such that

$$z=\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{i=1}{\overset{r1}{}}_{P_0}^{P_i}\phi .$$

###### Proposition 7.3

The theta constant $`\vartheta (ij;kl;mn)(ȷ(x))`$ vanishes only on the $`\Gamma (1\omega )`$ orbit of the mirrors of $`R_{ij}^\omega ,`$ $`R_{kl}^\omega `$ and $`R_{mn}^\omega .`$

Proof. The function $`\vartheta (13;24;56)(ȷ(x))`$ is a non-zero constant times

$$\vartheta (\mathrm{\Delta }_{P_0}^P_{\mathrm{}}\phi _{P_0}^{P_0}\phi _{P_0}^{P_1}\phi +_{P_0}^{P_\mathrm{}_1}\phi ,ȷ(x)).$$

By the previous fact, $`\vartheta (13;24;56)(ȷ(x))=0`$ if and only if there exists an effective divisor $`Q_1+Q_2+Q_3`$ such that

$$Q_1+Q_2+Q_3P_{\mathrm{}}+2P_0+P_1P_\mathrm{}_1=E.$$

By the Riemann-Roch theorem, the dimension of vector space of meromorphic functions $`f`$ such that $`(f)+E0`$ is equal to that of meromorphic $`1`$-forms $`\varphi `$ such that

$$(\varphi )E0.$$
(18)
Since we have

$$(\phi _1)=P_{\mathrm{}}+P_0+P_1+P_\mathrm{}_1+P_\mathrm{}_2+P_\mathrm{}_3,(\phi _2)=6P_{\mathrm{}},$$

$$(\phi _3)=3P_{\mathrm{}}+3P_0,(\phi _4)=6P_0,$$

there does not exist a meromorphic $`1`$-from satisfying (18). Thus if $`\lambda \Lambda `$ then no effective divisor $`Q_1+Q_2+Q_3`$ such that $`Q_1+Q_2+Q_3E.`$

The zeros of theta constants on mirrors are studied in \[Shi\], which yields this proposition. \[\]


text:
# Nucleon Resonances in Meson Nucleon Scattering with Strangeness Production

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The study of nucleon resonances continues to challenge the field of hadronic physics. The interest in this field has grown significantly in the last few years because of new data from experimental facilities such as Jefferson Lab, ELSA, MAMI, and Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Nucleon resonances are usually identified in $`\pi N`$ partial waves analyses, where they are labeled by the approximate mass and the $`\pi N`$ quantum numbers, which are the relative orbital angular momentum $`L`$, the total isospin $`T`$ and the total angular momentum $`J`$. For example, the $`D_{13}(1520)`$ resonance has a mass of about $`1520`$ MeV, isospin $`T=1/2`$, total angular momentum $`J=3/2`$ and decays into an $`L=2`$ $`\pi N`$ state.

There are about 20 $`N^{}(T=1/2)`$ and 20 $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T=3/2)`$ resonance states in the 1998 PDG publication . Some of these have well established properties, while for others there are still large discrepancies between different analyses. One example is the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ state. Even though this state has been given a 4-star label from PDG  the extracted total and partial widths of this state differ widely for different analyses .

The study of nucleon resonances generally takes place in two theoretical arenas. There are model studies using the assumption that nucleons and their excited states are composed primarily of three valence quarks . In recent years, lattice QCD calculations have been extended to predict masses of the low-lying baryons . Although lattice QCD calculations are powerful to determine mass spectra they are more difficult to apply to decay widths. In order to provide a link between the new and improved data on the one side and the results from lattice QCD and quark models on the other side, dynamical descriptions using hadronic degrees of freedom are required to analyze the data in the various asymptotic reaction channels, like $`\gamma N,\pi N,\pi \pi N,\eta N,K\mathrm{\Lambda },K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and others.

Clearly, the principal problem faced in this undertaking is the number of open channels. With more than one open channel in a meson production reaction the unknown couplings, masses and widths of the resonances can only be obtained if all open channels are treated simultaneously, thus maintaining unitarity.

In order to study the structure of nucleon resonances in the higher energy region, one needs to include strangeness production channels like $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Usually models that study these channels  neglect the hadronic final state interaction, performing calculations at tree level. Clearly, this leads to a violation of unitarity. Unitarity can only be maintained dynamically if we solve the coupled channels system including all possible channels, such as $`\eta NK\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, for which no experimental data are available.

In this study we extend the model of Feuster and Mosel  by including the previously neglected $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ final state. We furthermore extend the energy range to $`\sqrt{s}2.0`$ GeV, thus including several additional resonanes between $`1.9`$ GeV $`\sqrt{s}2.0`$ GeV. All $`2\pi `$ final states like $`\rho N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ continue to be parametrized through the coupling to a scalar, isovector $`\zeta `$-meson with mass $`m_\zeta =2m_\pi `$.

## 2 Model for Meson Nucleon Scattering

In general, the scattering amplitude of meson nucleon scattering can be written in terms of a Bethe-Salpeter equation

$`T_{\phi ,\phi }=V_{\phi ,\phi }(k^{},q,P)+i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k\mathrm{"}}{(2\pi )^4}V_{\phi ,\phi }(k^{},k\mathrm{"},P)G_{BS}(k\mathrm{"},P)T_{\phi ,\phi }(k\mathrm{"},q,P)}`$ (1)
where $`\phi `$ stands for $`\pi ,\eta ,\pi \pi ,`$ or $`K`$, and $`V_{\phi \phi }(k^{},q,P)`$ is the driving potential. The four momenta for the incoming, outgoing, and intermediate nucleons are $`p,p^{},`$ and $`p\mathrm{"}`$, of the outgoing and intermediate mesons are $`k^{}`$ and $`k\mathrm{"}`$, and of the incoming meson is $`q`$, so that $`P=p+q=p^{}+k^{}=p\mathrm{"}+k\mathrm{"}`$ is the total four-momentum. $`G_{BS}(k,P)`$ is the full Feynman meson-baryon propagator and is defined as follows

$`G_{BS}(k,P)={\displaystyle \frac{m+P/k/}{(\mu ^2k^2iϵ)(m^2(Pk)^2iϵ)}}.`$ (2)
In principle, one needs to solve the Bethe-Salpeter equation in its four-dimensional integral form. In practice, approximations are used to obtain solutions.

### 2.1 The K-matrix approximation

The Bethe-Salpeter equation can always be decomposed into two equations:

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`V+V\mathrm{Re}(G_{BS})K,`$
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`K\mathrm{i}K\mathrm{Im}(G_{BS})T.`$ (3)
If we choose to put the intermediate particle on-shell, i.e. neglecting the real part of $`G_{BS}`$, we get

$`iG_\mathrm{K}`$ $`=`$ $`2i(2\pi )^2m_N\delta (k_N^2m_N^2)\delta (k_m^2m_m^2)\times \theta (k_N^0)\theta (k_m^0)(k/_N+m_N)`$ (4)
from which we obtain $`K=V`$ and thus the $`K`$-matrix Born approximation.

$$\left[T_K\right]=\left[V+\mathrm{i}VT_K\right]=\left[\frac{V}{1\mathrm{i}V}\right],$$
(5)
where the brackets denote that we have to deal with matrices containing all allowed final state combinations.

### 2.2 Background contributions

Our model contains contributions from the standard Born terms, the $`t`$channel exchange via $`\rho ,a_0,`$ and $`K^{}`$ and the resonance contributions in the $`s`$ and $`u`$channels. The potential $`V`$ is calculated from the interaction Lagrangian below. For the Born and $`t`$-channel couplings we have:

$`_{NR}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\phi NN}}{2m_N}}\overline{N}\gamma _5\gamma _\mu (^\mu \phi )Ng_{sNN}s(\overline{N}N)g_{s\phi \phi }s(\phi ^{}\phi )`$ (6)
$``$ $`g_{vNN}\overline{N}\left(\gamma _\mu v^\mu \kappa _v{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mu \nu }}{4m_N}}v^{\mu \nu }\right)Ng_{v\phi \phi }\left[\phi \times (_\mu \phi )\right]v^\mu ,`$
$`\phi `$ denotes the asymptotic mesons $`\pi ,\eta ,`$ and $`K`$. A coupling to the $`\zeta `$-meson is not taken into account. $`s`$ and $`v`$ are the intermediate scalar and vector mesons ($`a_0,\rho ,K_0^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$) and $`v^{\mu \nu }=^\nu v^\mu ^\mu v^\nu `$ is the field tensor of the vector mesons. $`N`$ is either a nucleon, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, or a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ spinor. For $`I=1`$ mesons ($`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$) $`\phi `$ and $`v^\mu `$ need to be replaced by $`𝝉\mathbf{}𝝋`$ and $`𝝉\mathbf{}𝒗^\mu `$ in the $`\phi ,vNN`$-couplings.

## 3 Results of the Fits to Hadronic Data

We performed a fit to all hadronic data for the reactions $`\pi N\pi N`$, $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$, $`\pi N\eta N`$, $`\pi NK\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`\pi NK\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ up to an energy of W = 2.0 GeV. The results of the Born couplings are displayed in table 2. We point out that the $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$ and $`g_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }N}`$ couplings are in accordance with approximate SU(3), in contrast to ref.  which found a much smaller $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$ coupling constant. In addition to ref.  we allow contributions from the $`S_{31}(1900),P_{31}(1910)`$ and $`P_{33}(1920)`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances. Our best fit results in three $`D_{13}`$ excitations, the well-known $`D_{13}`$(1520) state, the 3-star $`D_{13}`$(1700) state and a new $`D_{13}`$ state at 1945 MeV with a large width of 583 MeV. As discussed in detail in refs. , it is at present not clear if this $`D_{13}`$ state corresponds to the 2-star resonance $`D_{13}`$(2080) listed in the Particle Data Table. A closer examination of the literature reveals that there has been some evidence for two resonances in this partial wave between 1800 and 2200 MeV ; one with a mass centered around 1900 MeV and another with mass around 2080 MeV. It is the former which has been seen prominently in two separate $`p(\pi ^{},K^0)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ analyses .

We now focus our discussion on the role of background versus nucleon resonant contributions in the $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ channel at different energies. All resonance parameters we have extracted are given in table 1 which shows that nucleon resonances with the largest decay width into the $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ channel are the $`P_{11}(1710),P_{13}(1720),S_{31}(1900),`$ and $`P_{31}(1910)`$ states.

Figure 1 shows that the structure of the differential cross section for $`\pi NK\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is dominated by resonances. At higher energies we find forward peaking behavior from the $`t`$channel $`K^{}`$ exchange. This can be seen especially in the $`p(\pi ^+,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ reaction. This confirms what has been found in reference  about the role of vector meson $`t`$channel exchange at higher energies.

In fig. 2 we examine the role of nucleon resonances in the low energy region. Since the extracted partial widths for $`P_{11}(1710)`$ and $`P_{13}(1720)`$ into the $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ channel are $`32`$ and $`73`$ MeV, one expects these resonances to have an important contribution in this energy region. For the $`K^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ reactions, we find that the main contribution at low energies indeed comes from these two resonances. For the $`p(\pi ^{},K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ reaction, it can be seen clearly that the $`P_{11}(1710)`$ gives backward peaking behavior while the $`P_{13}(1720)`$ is responsible for forward peaking behavior. The role of the $`P_{11}(1710)`$ is consistent with recent studies of kaon photoproduction  and of $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ production in $`NN`$-scattering , $`NNNK\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where the $`P_{11}(1710)`$ state was identified as a major contribution. Figure 2 also demonstrates that very close to threshold ($`W_{threshold}=1690`$ MeV for $`K^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ production) at $`W_{cm}=1694`$ MeV, the structure of the differential cross section of the $`p(\pi ^{},K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ reaction comes mainly from the $`S_{11}(1650)`$ state. The extracted mass of this resonance is $`1689`$ MeV, the total width is $`341`$ MeV and the coupling constant to the $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ channel is $`0.98`$. Even though this resonance lies below the threshold of the $`p(\pi ^{},K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ reaction, it is clearly its proximity to the $`K^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ production threshold that leads to its dominating influence on the threshold cross section.

Now we come to the most interesting reaction in the $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ channel, which is $`p(\pi ^+,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$. This reaction is a pure isospin $`3/2`$ process. Therefore, as expected, we do not see any effects of the $`P_{11}(1710)`$ and $`P_{13}(1720)`$ states. Fig. 2 shows that the effects of the $`P_{33}(1600)`$ and $`D_{33}(1700)`$ states are large in the low-energy region. The extracted masses for the $`P_{33}(1600)`$ and $`D_{33}(1700)`$ are $`1677`$ MeV and $`1672`$ MeV, respectively, but their total widths are $`296`$ MeV and $`583`$ MeV which leads to broad resonance tails and significant influence on the cross section. From fig. 2 it is clear that the $`D_{33}(1700)`$ gives the largest contribution which interferes destructively with a smaller signal from the $`P_{33}(1600)`$.

In fig. 3 the $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ channel is studied at higher energies. The three $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ states, the $`S_{31}(1900),P_{31}(1910)`$, and $`P_{33}(1920)`$ are important in both isospin $`1/2`$ and $`3/2`$ channels.

For the $`K^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ reaction, we find that the $`S_{31}(1900),P_{31}(1910),`$ and $`P_{33}(1920)`$ contribute only at forward angles. At backward angles we find that the main contribution to the cross section of this reaction comes from the $`D_{13}(1900)`$. For the $`K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ reaction, we find that the $`S_{31}(1900)`$ and $`P_{31}(1910)`$ supply the main contributions to the structure of the cross section. For the $`K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ reaction, all three $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances build up the cross section. Even though the $`P_{33}(1920)`$ has only a small partial width into this channel ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }}=593`$ keV), its role is significant in the backward angle region. The main contribution to the cross section comes from the $`S_{31}(1900)`$ and $`P_{31}(1910)`$. However, the model cannot reproduce the structure of the differential cross section data. This structure might come from high-spin $`N^{}`$ resonance contributions (such as spin $`5/2`$ or $`7/2`$) or different background mechanisms not included in the model.

## 4 Conclusion

We have investigated the role of nucleon resonances within a coupled channels framework. In the $`K`$matrix approximation and with five allowed asymptotic states, $`\pi N,\pi \pi N,`$ $`\eta N,K\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ and $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we fit the hadronic data in the energy range $`\pi N`$ threshold up to $`W_{cm}=2`$ GeV.

Focussing on the $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ channel we find that the structure of the differential cross section comes purely from resonance contributions. We also find that $`P_{11}(1710)`$ and $`P_{13}(1720)`$ give the main contributions to the cross section in the low energy region of the $`p(\pi ^{},K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`p(\pi ^{},K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ reactions. At higher energies, the $`D_{13}(1900)`$ dominates the $`p(\pi ^{},K^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ reaction while the $`S_{31}(1900)`$ and $`P_{31}(1900)`$ dominate the cross section for the $`p(\pi ^{},K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ reaction. For the $`p(\pi ^+,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ reaction, we find no satisfactory mechanism in the high energy region, even though the $`S_{31}(1900)`$ and $`P_{31}(1900)`$ states play an important role in this regime. As the next step the photoproduction reaction $`\gamma NK\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will be studied along with the hadronic production reactions discussed here.

This work was supported by DOE grant DE-FG02-95ER-40907 (AW, CB, and HH), DFG and GSI Darmstadt (GP and UM), and a University Research for Graduate Education (URGE) grant (TM).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In General Relativity familiar observables like energy or (angular) momentum, which are related to space-time symmetries, can be defined only in special regimes because in the general situation there is no reference frame with respect to which those symmetries could be defined. The usual procedure then is to introduce boundaries which are endowed with additional structure determined by suitable boundary conditions. Using the structure at the boundary, observables can be defined as functionals of the boundary values of the gravitational field.

As an example, recall the situation of angular momentum defined at spatial infinity of a space-time. Classically, one has to fix an asymptotic Cartesian frame carrying an $`SO(3)`$-symmetry with respect to which angular momentum can be defined for an asymptotically flat space-time satisfying appropriate fall-off conditions. One can then read off the components of angular momentum by comparing the asymptotically flat metric with the fixed flat one or, in a Hamiltonian formulation, construct generators of rotations along the Killing vector fields of the flat metric . In either way, one needs to fix a reference frame which is regarded as being non-rotating, and to specify fall-off conditions for asymptotically flat metrics, which build the subclass of space-times for which angular momentum at spatial infinity can be defined.

Asymptotic boundary conditions for gravity in Ashtekar’s formulation have been discussed in Ref. . In a connection formulation with its internal $`SU(2)`$-gauge group, boundary conditions at spatial infinity not only involve specifying the fall-off of dynamical fields but also fixing an internal direction in $`SU(2)`$-space because gauge transformations are frozen at spatial infinity. In polar coordinates $`(r,\vartheta ,\phi )`$ of the fixed reference frame of a non-compact space manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the fall-off conditions for the connection state that all its components fall off at least with an order of $`r^2`$ at spatial infinity. Fixing the internal direction of the radial component $`A_r^i`$, which is the only one we need for the present purpose, is more crucial because, as we will see, it relates the internal spin to angular momentum. (At first sight it may seem alarming to relate angular momentum to operations in an internal gauge group, even more so because this is possible only if the internal group coincides with the group $`SU(2)`$ of rotations which could be a mere coincidence. Note, however, that in our case the internal gauge group of gravity is the local group of dreibein rotations which at the boundary are fixed and tied to global rotations by the phase space structure. In this context it is quite natural to have a relation between internal spins at the boundary and angular momentum.) The simplest choice may be to choose a constant internal direction (independent of $`\vartheta `$, $`\phi `$), but this is inappropriate for an asymptotically flat connection which, as discussed in Ref. , should have odd parity of its leading order term. We thus are lead to an asymptotic radial component of the connection having the form

$$A_r^i=r^2An_r^i(\vartheta ,\phi )+O(r^3)$$
(1)
where $`A`$ is independent of the polar coordinates and $`n_r:=(\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{sin}\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )`$.

In light of our discussion above it is also worth mentioning that one can reverse the argumentation: starting from a boundary which topologically is a two-sphere but carries no additional structure, a suitable fixed internal direction (which should have mapping degree one) provides a bijective map $`\mathrm{\Sigma }S^2`$ which can be used to endow the boundary with an $`SO(3)`$-action and thereby with a reference frame with respect to which angular momentum is to be defined. This view demonstrates why the fixed internal direction will play a prominent role in our definition of an angular momentum operator.

We next have to find a quantum formulation of the asymptotic structure by giving conditions for states to be considered as being asymptotically flat. Recalling that the kinematical Hilbert space of loop quantum gravity is a space of (cylindrical) functions on the space of generalized connections, the fall-off conditions can be imposed by constraining the support of an asymptotically flat state to only asymptotically flat connections. This immediately leads to the tangle property, which has been assumed in Ref.  in order to quantize the ADM energy, of asymptotically flat spin network states: an allowed spin network state has only transversal edges intersecting the boundary at infinity; for a family of holonomies $`h_r`$ each lying in an orbit at radius $`r`$ converges to unity for $`r\mathrm{}`$ because of the $`r^2`$ fall-off of the connection components, and a spin network state cannot depend non-trivially on this trivial holonomy.

It is, however, not immediate to see how the reference frame, with respect to which angular momentum will be defined, is realized in the spin network quantization. In order to illustrate its role we will first discuss possible standard approaches to a quantization of angular momentum. First, one can try to start from a classical expression of angular momentum, e.g. that of Ref.

$$L_{\mathrm{ADM}}[N^a]=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{d}^2yn_aN^{[b}E_i^{a]}K_b^i$$

associated with an asymptotic rotation generated by the vector field $`N^a`$, and then follow standard quantization steps. However, this expression contains the extrinsic curvature which would be quantized to a commutator of the volume operator with the Euclidean Hamiltonian constraint  resulting in a very complicated operator.

A second procedure could be to start from the simple action of rotations on spin networks (simply rotating the graph; this is the usual action of the diffeomorphism group where, however, rotations are not included in the gauge group of diffeomorphisms because those have to be asymptotically trivial) and to determine angular momentum as their generators by differentiation. However, this does not work because as with the diffeomorphism constraint the action used on the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of cylindrical functions is not strongly continuous and so its generators do not exist \[5, Appendix C\].

## 2 The Angular Momentum Operator

Our proposal to remedy this situation is to use spherically symmetric states  which are distributional states in the kinematical Hilbert space of loop quantum gravity being exactly symmetric with respect to a given action of the rotation group (classified by a conjugacy class $`[\lambda ]`$ of homomorphisms from the $`U(1)`$-isotropy group of a general point in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to the gauge group $`SU(2)`$). All those symmetric states, which are defined as distributions being supported on the space of rotationally invariant connections, can be identified with cylindrical functions of connections and scalar fields on a radial manifold $`B`$. Roughly, this comes from the decomposition (up to gauge transformations)

$`A(r,\vartheta ,\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`A_1(r)n_r^i\tau _i\mathrm{d}r+2^{\frac{1}{2}}(A_2(r)n_\vartheta ^i+(A_3(r)\sqrt{2})n_\phi ^i)\tau _i\mathrm{d}\vartheta `$
$`+2^{\frac{1}{2}}(A_2(r)n_\phi ^i(A_3(r)\sqrt{2})n_\vartheta ^i)\tau _i\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{d}\phi `$
of an invariant connection into a reduced connection given by $`A_1`$ and scalar fields $`A_2`$, $`A_3`$; for details we refer to Ref. . Vice versa, any cylindrical state in the full theory can be mapped (“averaged”) to a distributional state in the reduced formulation giving rise to a map $`\rho _{[\lambda ]}:\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}`$ denoting the topological dual to the space of cylindrical functions on the space of generalized connections and scalar fields in $`B`$. This map is defined by viewing a given cylindrical function $`f\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as a function defined only on the subspace of invariant connections, and can be considered as a pull back of cylindrical functions to the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}`$. Employing $`\rho _{[\lambda ]}`$ and the pull back to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}`$ of general states serves two purposes: On the one hand, evaluated in an invariant connection all holonomies to rotated asymptotic edges, which are transversal to the orbits owing to the tangle property, are gauge equivalent because connections in the support of the pull backs are invariant under rotations up to gauge. This implies that rotated spin networks are gauge equivalent rather than orthonormal, and so infinitesimal generators of rotations exist being related to generators of internal rotations by the fixed asymptotic internal directions. On the other hand, by using the map $`\rho _{[\lambda ]}`$, which is a central ingredient in specifying symmetric states with respect to an action of $`SO(3)`$, we introduce a reference frame with respect to which angular momentum will be defined.

Denoting the action of a rotation by an angle $`\delta `$ around some given axis $`v`$ as $`R(v,\delta )`$, the derivative $`\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\delta }R(v,\delta )T_I`$ of the action on a spin network state $`T_I`$ does not exist. Instead, we are going to define an angular momentum operator $`\widehat{L}_v`$ by

$$\rho _{[\lambda ]}(\widehat{L}_vT_I):=i\mathrm{}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\delta }\rho _{[\lambda ]}(R(v,\delta )T_I)\right)|_{\delta =0}$$
(2)
using a different ordering of the pull back $`\rho _{[\lambda ]}`$ and the derivative in order to render the derivative existing.

To derive the action of $`\widehat{L}_v`$ explicitly, we write a spin network state as $`T_I^{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n}`$ which has $`n`$ punctures at the sphere at infinity, each carrying an index $`a_p`$ in the representation with label $`j_p`$ of the intersecting edge (all edges are assumed to be outgoing at infinity). Note that internal gauge transformations are frozen at the asymptotic boundary, and therefore each state is a vector valued function on the space of generalized connections taking values in the tensor product $`j_1\mathrm{}j_n`$. For the pull back to invariant connections only the radial part of an asymptotic holonomy, which is transversal due to the tangle property, matters and has the form

$$h_e=\mathrm{exp}\left(_edrA(r)n_r^i(\vartheta ,\phi )\tau _i\right).$$

After a rotation by an angle $`\delta `$ around the polar axis $`v_3`$ of the coordinates it changes by conjugation to

$$h_e^{}=\mathrm{exp}\left(_edrA(r)n_r^i(\vartheta ,\phi +\delta )\tau _i\right)=\mathrm{exp}(\delta \tau _3)h_e\mathrm{exp}(\delta \tau _3).$$

The exponential at the left hand side of $`h_e`$ corresponds to an $`SU(2)`$-transformation at the puncture at infinity, whereas the exponential at the right hand side corresponds to an inner vertex and is absorbed due to gauge invariance. We, therefore, have

$$\rho _{[\lambda ]}\left(R(v_3,\delta )T_I^{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n}\right)=\pi ^{j_1}\left(\mathrm{exp}(\delta \tau _3)\right)_{b_1}^{a_1}\mathrm{}\pi ^{j_n}\left(\mathrm{exp}(\delta \tau _3)\right)_{b_n}^{a_n}\rho _{[\lambda ]}\left(T_I^{b_1,\mathrm{},b_n}\right)$$

because the $`p`$-th index is in the representation $`\pi ^{j_p}`$.

This expression can easily be differentiated with respect to $`\delta `$ yielding by inspection of the general definition (2)

$$\widehat{L}_3T_I=i\mathrm{}(\pi ^{j_1}(\tau _3)\mathrm{}\pi ^{j_n}(\tau _3))T_I$$
(3)
as the third component of the angular momentum operator generating rotations around the $`z`$-axis (which has been used as axis for the polar coordinates). A rotation around an arbitrary axis given by the direction $`v^i`$ in $`S^2`$ leads to a conjugation of asymptotic holonomies with $`\mathrm{exp}(\delta v^i\tau _i)`$ and the angular momentum with respect to this direction is

$$\widehat{L}_vT_I=i\mathrm{}(\pi ^{j_1}(v^i\tau _i)\mathrm{}\pi ^{j_n}(v^i\tau _i))T_I.$$
(4)
Taking the three components $`\widehat{L}_1`$, $`\widehat{L}_2`$, $`\widehat{L}_3`$ corresponding to rotations around Cartesian axes, this immediately implies the correct commutation relations (which, of course, directly come from the relation of rotations to internal rotations) of an angular momentum:

$$[\widehat{L}_i,\widehat{L}_j]=i\mathrm{}ϵ_{ijk}\widehat{L}_k.$$
(5)
Furthermore, we can determine the angular momentum spectrum: we just have to decompose the tensor product of all representations associated with punctures at infinity into irreducible ones by building appropriate linear combinations of the components $`T_I^{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n}`$ which transform under one irreducible subrepresentation. Any component of angular momentum then has eigenvalues $`\mathrm{}m`$ where $`m=_im_i\frac{1}{2}`$ is given by a sum over all punctures each of which transforms like a state in the $`j_i`$-representation given by $`m_i`$. Also the absolute value has the usual eigenvalues $`L^{(j)}=\mathrm{}\sqrt{j(j+1)}`$, $`j\frac{1}{2}_0`$ with eigenstates being given by spin network states. In particular, the absolute value of the angular momentum operator and the area operator are simultaneously diagonalizable. Furthermore, for a given spin network having a set of spins $`\{j_p\}`$ labeling its punctures at infinity, an upper bound for the angular momentum eigenvalues is given by

$$L\mathrm{}\sqrt{_pj_p\left(_pj_p+1\right)}.$$
(6)
## 3 Inequalities between Angular Momentum and Area

As argued in Ref. , an inequality like the last one has an immediate application to extremal black holes which are classically defined as saturating the “no naked singularity” condition $`L(8\pi G)^1A`$ between angular momentum and horizon area of a Kerr black hole. Because the author of Ref.  had no angular momentum operator at his disposal, he assumed (without any concrete justification) the angular momentum eigenvalues to be given by the spins of a spin network satisfying the inequality $`L\mathrm{}_pj_p`$ (although not noted explicitly, it has also been assumed that angular momentum and area are simultaneously diagonalizable). Using that, for a given set of punctures, the area eigenvalues $`A=8\pi \gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2_p\sqrt{j_p(j_p+1)}`$ are bounded from below by $`8\pi \gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2_pj_p`$, an inequality $`L(8\pi \gamma G)^1A`$ for the eigenvalues was derived which resembles the classical relation. Because the area eigenvalue for a given $`_pj_p`$ is minimal if there is only one puncture with spin $`_pj_p`$, this one-puncture case was identified with an extremal black hole.

We will now see what the situation looks like when using our angular momentum operator. However, there is the important caveat that the operator (3) has been defined at infinity and not, as needed in Krasnov’s argumentation, at the horizon. Noting that all we needed for our definition of the angular momentum operator was the asymptotic form of a connection and the fact that an internal direction of mapping degree one is fixed at the boundary, we can immediately apply our discussion of spatial infinity to the case of an isolated horizon: the isolated horizon boundary conditions also can be used to fix an internal direction of mapping degree one at the horizon two-sphere (see, e.g., Refs. ). Although internal gauge transformations are no longer frozen at an inner boundary, the boundary punctures of a bulk spin network are the same as used above because they are coupled to a Chern–Simons state at the boundary which restores gauge invariance. All the remaining steps of the derivation of the angular momentum operator then go through unaltered.

Now we can compare the eigenvalues of angular momentum and horizon area. First, we have a larger upper bound for angular momentum than assumed in Ref. , given by Eq. (6). However, the lower bound for the area eigenvalues associated with a set of punctures $`\{j_p\}`$ can be refined by using the inequality

$`\sqrt{(j_1+j_2)(j_1+j_2+1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{j_1^2+j_2^2+2j_1j_2+j_1+j_2}`$
$``$ $`\sqrt{j_1(j_1+1)+2\sqrt{j_1(j_1+1)j_2(j_2+1)}+j_2(j_2+1)}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{j_1(j_1+1)}+\sqrt{j_2(j_2+1)}`$
and induction over the number of punctures. This again leads to an inequality

$$\mathrm{}^1L\sqrt{_pj_p\left(_pj_p+1\right)}(8\pi \gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2)^1A$$
(7)
which is saturated for one-puncture states and differs from the classical relation only by the factor $`\gamma `$. Note that only the area spectrum is affected by this parameter, whereas the spectrum of angular momentum is protected against a rescaling by the commutation relations.

## 4 Non-Rotating and Rotating Isolated Horizons

As another application of the angular momentum operator, we check whether the non-rotating horizon geometry derived in Ref.  corresponds to zero angular momentum as seen from the quantum theory. Recall that non-rotating isolated horizons are defined classically by suitable boundary conditions which then are used to select a sector of space-times to be quantized. Classically the condition of being non-rotating is implemented by requiring the intrinsic geometry of the horizon to be spherically symmetric. After quantization, the quantum horizon geometry is described by a “punctured sphere” where a spin network in the bulk (outside the horizon) pierces the horizon in isolated punctures thereby providing the horizon two-sphere with geometry. Note, incidentally, that the quantum geometry of a non-rotating horizon is no longer spherically symmetric which coincides with the observation  that exactly spherically symmetric states only exist in the sense of distributions: the quantum horizon geometry of a realistic black hole cannot be spherically symmetric even if it is non-rotating. Even finest approximations of a symmetric distribution by ordinary states will break the symmetry by introducing a discrete set of punctures.

In the framework of Ref.  the boundary degrees of freedom of a non-rotating isolated horizon are described by a Chern–Simons theory which is “glued” to the bulk spin network by a boundary condition. A bulk state is labeled by the spins $`j=(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)(\frac{1}{2})^n`$ of the punctures together with half-integers $`m=(m_1,\mathrm{},m_n)(\frac{1}{2})^n`$ which determine a state in the product of all representations labeling the punctures, i.e., they are subject to the conditions $`m_i\{j_i,j_i+1,\mathrm{},j_i\}`$. Given such a combination of spin labels of the bulk state, a permissible boundary state of the Chern–Simons theory is determined by numbers $`a=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)_k^n`$ fulfilling $`a_i2m_imodk`$ and $`_ia_i0modk`$ where $`k=\frac{a_0}{4\pi \gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2}`$ is the level of the Chern–Simons theory and related to the classical horizon area $`a_0`$ (a prescribed parameter). The first condition on $`a`$ describes how the bulk states labeled by $`(j,m)`$ are glued to a Chern–Simons state labeled by $`a`$, and the second condition arises from gauge invariance in Chern–Simons theory and can be interpreted as saying that the sum of all deficit angles introduced by the punctures vanishes modulo $`4\pi `$ .

Using our angular momentum operator, we can see another interpretation of the condition $`_ia_i0`$ if we first transfer it via the gluing conditions to the bulk labels resulting in $`_im_i=0`$. Here we ignored the fact that the sum of the $`a_i`$ vanishes only modulo $`k`$ which can be seen only in the Chern–Simons boundary theory. However, for any combination of labels $`m_i`$ subject to the condition $`_im_i=0`$ we can find a permissible set of labels $`a_i`$. The condition $`_im_i=0`$ in turn says that the bulk state can be associated with the trivial representation in the tensor product of all puncture representations and so has vanishing angular momentum as measured with the operator (3). Thus, the condition $`_ia_i0`$ on the non-rotating quantum horizon state can be interpreted naturally as saying that the classical property of being non-rotating is preserved after quantization.

Our interpretation of the boundary states also indicates how the quantum geometry of non-rotating horizons could be generalized to rotating ones. In fact, on a bulk state we just have to replace the condition $`_im_i=0`$ by a condition $`_im_i=l_00`$ where $`l_0`$ is a given (analogously to the classical horizon area $`a_0`$) value of the angular momentum. However, this argument tells nothing about how to generalize the Chern–Simons boundary theory to rotating isolated horizons which could only be derived by a Hamiltonian analysis using more general boundary conditions.

Assuming that the generalization to rotating horizons is correct we can check whether the successful calculation of the entropy of non-rotating black holes (possibly charged and non-extremal)  remains valid for rotating black holes. In fact, it is quite easy to see that this is the case for rotating black holes not too close to extremality ($`(8\pi \gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2)^1a_0l_0`$) using the methods of Ref. : First, a lower bound for the number of states with prescribed area around $`a_0`$ and angular momentum around $`\mathrm{}l_0`$ can be derived by using configurations $`j`$ with $`j_1=\mathrm{}=j_{n1}=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`j_n=l_0`$ together with $`m_1=\mathrm{}=m_{n1}=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ and $`m_n=l_0`$. The condition $`_{i=1}^nm_i=l_0`$ then is equivalent to $`_{i=1}^{n1}m_i=0`$ and results in a number

$$N_{\mathrm{bh}}\frac{2^{n\frac{1}{2}}}{\sqrt{\pi (n1)}}$$

of states (just replace $`n`$ with $`n1`$ in the corresponding formula of Ref. ). Taking the logarithm and using the condition of not being near-extremal we obtain the same lower bound for the entropy

$$S_{\mathrm{bh}}\frac{\mathrm{log}2}{4\pi \sqrt{3}\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2}a_0o(a_0)$$

as in Ref. . Because the derivation of an upper bound for the entropy in Ref.  did not make use of the condition $`_ia_i0`$, we can immediately transfer it to the rotating case and arrive at our result that the recent calculations of black hole entropy in loop quantum gravity remain valid without changes also for rotating (possibly charged but far from extremal) black holes:

$$S_{\mathrm{bh}}=\frac{\mathrm{log}2}{4\pi \sqrt{3}\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2}a_0+o(a_0).$$
(8)
In particular, the Bekenstein–Hawking formula can be obtained with the correct numerical factor not only for charged but also for rotating black holes by fixing the Immirzi parameter to be

$$\gamma _0=\frac{\mathrm{log}2}{\pi \sqrt{3}}.$$
(9)
For near-extremal rotating black holes, however, the entropy is reduced. In the extremal case we have $`a_0=8\pi \gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2\sqrt{l_0(l_0+1)}`$ and according to Ref.  the boundary state has a single $`l_0`$-puncture with at most $`2l_0+1`$ values for $`m`$. This results in $`S_{\mathrm{extr}}\mathrm{log}((4\pi \gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2)^1a_0)`$ being at most logarithmic in the area.

To conclude, we note that as demonstrated here the methods developed in Ref.  are not only applicable in the study of reduced models but also provide tools for direct applications to the full theory.

## Acknowledgements

The author thanks H Kastrup for discussions and the DFG-Graduierten-Kolleg “Starke und elektroschwache Wechselwirkung bei hohen Energien” for a PhD fellowship.