text:
# 1 fig

NTZ 19/2000

NRCPS-HE-2000-20

Electromagnetic scattering on D3-brane spikes111Dedicated to the memory of Professor Gurgen Sahakian
http://server.physdep.r.am/ gsahak/

Roland Kirschnera and George K. Savvidya,b

Naturwissenschaftlich-Theoretisches Zentrum

Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Leipzig,

Augustusplatz 10, D-04109 Leipzig, Germany

National Research Center Demokritos,

Ag. Paraskevi, GR-15310 Athens, Hellenic Republic

Abstract

We consider scattering of electromagnetic plane waves on a D3-brane spike which emanates normal to D3-barne in the extra space direction. We are interested in studying physical effects on D3-brane which are produced by a spike attached to D3-brane. We have observed that the spike sucks almost all electromagnetic radiation and therefore acts like a black hole. This is because absorption cross section for j=1 tends to a constant at low energy limit. This behaviour is appealing for a string interpretation of the spike soliton because the propagation of $`j=1`$ mode is indeed distinctive. Instead, the scattered part of the radiation on a D3-brane tends to zero demonstrating non-Thompson behaviour.

Introduction. The Dp-brane is a dynamical extended object which can fluctuate in shape and position and these fluctuations are described by open string massless modes . For a single Dp-brane they are massless vector and spinor states of ten-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetric $`U(1)`$ gauge theory. The massless field $`A_\mu (x^\nu ),\mu ,\nu =0,\mathrm{},p`$ propagates as gauge bosons on the p-brane worldvolume, while the other components of the vector potential $`A_{p+1}(x^\nu ),\mathrm{},A_9(x^\nu )`$ describe the transverse deviations of the Dp-brane $`x_{p+1}\varphi _{p+1},\mathrm{},x_9\varphi _9`$.. The low energy effective action for these fields is the Dirac-Born-Infeld action .

Callan and Maldacena  showed that the Dirac-Born-Infeld action supports solitonic configurations describing F(fundamental)-strings and D(Dirichlet)-strings growing out of the original D3-brane. These configurations have nonzero world-volume gauge field and transverse scalar field excited. The gauge field describes a point electric or magnetic charge arising from the end-point of the attached string and the scalar field represents a deformation of the D3-brane in the form of infinite spike (see Figure 1). These spike configurations are protruding from D3-brane universe into extra space directions and it is interesting to study physical effects which they produce on D3-brane. In particular it is interesting to consider electromagnetic scattering on D3-brane spike.

The spike soliton, F-string, which satisfies 1/2-BPS conditions of the $`D=4`$ $`N=4`$ supersymmetric electrodynamics is ,

$$\stackrel{}{E}=\frac{e^2}{r^2}\stackrel{}{e_r},\stackrel{}{}x_9=\frac{e^2}{r^2}\stackrel{}{e_r},x_9=\frac{e^2}{r},$$
(1)
where $`2e^2=g_s`$ is a unit charge. Here the scalar field represents a geometrical spike, and the electric field insures that the string carries uniform NS charge along it. It was demonstrated in  that the infinite electrostatic energy of the point charge can be reinterpreted as being due to the infinite length of the attached string. The energy per unit length comes from the electric field and corresponds exactly to the fundamental string tension. If one replace $`e^2`$ by $`Ne^2`$ in the above solution, then it will describe $`N`$ superposed strings ending on a single D3-brane. Strict validity of the Born-Infeld action requires that derivatives of the field strengths, measured in units of $`\alpha ^{^{}}`$, should be small, that is when $`Ne^21`$. In addition to ignore gravitational effects one should also require $`e^4N1`$, that is $`e^21/Ne^4`$ .

As it was shown in  small fluctuations which are normal to both the string and the brane are mostly reflected back with a $`phaseshift\pi `$ thus realizing dynamically Polchinski’s open string Dirichlet boundary condition. In  it was also demonstrated that P-wave excitations (j=1) which are coming down the string with a polarization along a direction parallel to the brane are almost completely reflected just as in the case of all-normal excitations, but now the end of the string moves freely on the 3-brane. This corresponds to the reflection of the geometrical fluctuation with a $`phaseshift0`$, thus realizing dynamically Polchinski’s open string Neumann boundary condition. The results obtained seems to have a larger regime of validity and can partly be understood in light of the fact that BPS spike is a solution to the full equations of motion following from string theory .

In  it was also observed the electromagnetic dipole radiation which escapes to infinity from the place where the string is attached to the D3-brane. It was shown that in the low energy limit $`R\omega 0`$ ($`R^2=e^2(2\pi \alpha ^{^{}})`$), i.e. for wavelengths much larger than the string scale a small fraction $`\omega ^4`$ of the energy escapes to infinity in the form of electromagnetic dipole radiation (j=1). The physical interpretation was that a string attached to the D3-brane manifests itself as an electric charge, and waves on the string cause the end point of the string to freely oscillate and produce electromagnetic dipole radiation in the asymptotic outer region of the D3-brane. Thus dynamics of the spike, as probed through small fluctuations, agree with existing string behaviour.

The propagation of higher angular momentum modes has been analyzed in , where authors came to the conclusion that they also propagate along the spike, which means that not only dipole radiation with $`j=1`$ but also higher modes travel along the spike and hence demonstrate that the spike remains effectively $`3+1`$ dimensional. This fact causes problem with a string interpretation of the spike soliton because only $`j=1`$ mode should propagate on a fundamental string. A proposal to solve this puzzle was suggested in  where authors consider noncommutative solution describing N coincident D-strings attached to a D3-brane in nonabelian world-volume theory. This solution accurately describes the physics at the core of the spike, very far from the D3-brane, and coincides with the above spike soliton in abelian world-volume theory in the large N limit. The analysis shows that on noncommutative spike the mode spectrum is truncated at $`l_{max}=N1`$ .

In this article we are interested in studying physical effects which are produced on D3-brane by a spike which emanates normal to D3-brane world in the extra space direction. Our aim is to consider scattering of electromagnetic plane waves on D3-brane spike using Dirac-Born-Infeld theory. Here one should take cake about the applicability of the results obtained in this effective theory and as we have seen much what this theory tell us is correct and we will take an uncritical attitude towards the validity of this approximation, to see how far we can get. Specifically we are interested in studying reflected radiation produced by a spike attached to our D3-brane world. We have observed that the spike sucks almost all electromagnetic radiation and therefore acts like a black hole222The entire process in ten-dimensional $`U(1)`$ gauge theory is clearly unitary, but for the observer on the submanifold, on D3-brane, it is obviously not!. This is because absorption cross section for $`j=1`$ tends to a constant at low energy limit ($`R\omega 0`$)

$$\sigma _1^{abs}R^2Const,\sigma _j^{abs}R^2(R\omega )^{4j4}0,j=2,3,\mathrm{}$$

This behaviour is appealing for a string interpretation of the spike soliton because it is a constant for $`j=1`$ and tends to zero for higher $`j>1`$, therefore the propagation of $`j=1`$ mode is indeed distinctive 333The apparent difference between this result and  is that computing cross sections we have divided the scattered flux of radiation by the incident flux of electromagnetic field, which is proportional to $`\omega ^2`$ .. Instead, the scattered part of radiation on a D3-brane tends to zero for all $`j=1,2,..`$

$$\sigma _1^{scat}R^2(R\omega )^20,\sigma _j^{scat}R^2(R\omega )^{8j6}0,j=2,3,..$$

demonstrating non-Thompson behaviour of the cross section $`\sigma _1^{scat}`$, universal for point like charged objects in electrodynamics. We formulate the comparison with the standard Thompson cross section in terms of the dynamical mass of the spike

$$M_{dyn}^2=\frac{e^4}{R^2(R\omega )^2}.$$

This dynamical mass just describes the response of an $`extended`$ object to a perturbation of a wave length $`\lambda =\frac{1}{\omega }`$. It is finite for nonzero $`R\omega `$, demonstrating that dynamical mass involved in the process is finite and is of order of the wave length $`1/\omega `$. In the limit $`\omega 0`$ it tends to infinity demonstrating that static mass of the spike is infinite. Indeed our spike solution is infinitely long and has infinite mass by virtue having a constant energy per unit length. The small electromagnetic fluctuations on the static solution propagate with the $`finite`$ velocity of light , therefore dynamical mass involved in the process is finite and depends on the wave length of the perturbation. 444The similar effect can be observed with the infinitely long strip of metal on one end of which acts mechanical perturbation. The crucial point is that the perturbation propagates with the finite velocity on an $`extended`$ object).

The Lagrangian and the equations.  The nonlinear Dirac-Born-Infeld Lagrangian which contains both electric and magnetic fields, plus the scalar $`x_9\varphi `$ is

$`L={\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{Det}}whereDet=1+\stackrel{}{B}^2\stackrel{}{E}^2(\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{B})^2(_0\varphi )^2(1+\stackrel{}{B}^2)+`$
$`+(\stackrel{}{}\varphi )^2+(\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{}\varphi )^2(\stackrel{}{E}\times \stackrel{}{}\varphi )^2+2_0\varphi (\stackrel{}{B}[\stackrel{}{}\varphi \times \stackrel{}{E}]).`$ (2)
and can also be written in a covariant form

$$Det=1+\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi (\frac{1}{8}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\lambda \rho })^2+(\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }F_{\nu \lambda }_\rho \varphi )^2.$$

The full set of field equations can be obtained by variation

$`_\mu \{{\displaystyle \frac{F^{\mu \nu }(1_\rho \varphi ^\rho \varphi )\frac{1}{32}(F_{\lambda \rho }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\lambda \rho })\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }+F^{\mu \rho }_\rho \varphi ^\nu \varphi +^\mu \varphi _\rho \varphi F^{\rho \nu }}{Det^{1/2}}}\}=0,`$ (3)
$`_\mu \{{\displaystyle \frac{^\mu \varphi (1F_{\lambda \rho }F^{\lambda \rho })+2F^{\mu \nu }F_{\nu \lambda }^\lambda \varphi }{Det^{1/2}}}\}=0,ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }_\nu F_{\lambda \rho }=0,`$ (4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }F^{\lambda \rho }`$.

We have to consider now small fluctuations around the background field configuration of spike soliton (1) :

$$\stackrel{}{E}=\stackrel{}{E}_0+\delta \stackrel{}{E},\stackrel{}{B}=\delta \stackrel{}{B},\varphi =\varphi _0+\eta .$$

Then keeping only terms in the $`Det`$ which are linear and quadratic in the fluctuation one can get the resulting quadratic Lagrangian : $`2L_q=\delta \stackrel{}{E}^2(1+(\stackrel{}{}\varphi )^2)\delta \stackrel{}{B}^2+(_0\eta )^2(\stackrel{}{}\eta )^2(1\stackrel{}{E_0}^2)+\stackrel{}{E_0}^2(\stackrel{}{}\eta \delta \stackrel{}{E}).`$ Let us introduce the gauge potential for the fluctuation part of the e.m. field as $`(A_0,\stackrel{}{A})`$ and substitute the values of the background fields from (1)

$`2L_q=(_0\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{}A_0)^2(1+{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{r^4}})(\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A})^2`$ (5)
$`+(_0\eta )^2(\stackrel{}{}\eta )^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{r^4}})+{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{r^4}}(_0\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{}A_0)\stackrel{}{}\eta ,`$
where we restore the dimensions of the fields and $`R^2=e^2(2\pi \alpha ^{^{}})`$. The equations that follow from this Lagrangian contain dynamical equations for the vector potential and for the scalar field, and a separate equation which represents a constraint. These equations in the Lorenz gauge $`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{A}=_0A_0`$ are

$`_0^2\stackrel{}{A}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{r^4}})+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{A}+{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{r^4}}\stackrel{}{}_0(A_0+\eta )=0`$ (6)
$`_0^2A_0+\mathrm{\Delta }A_0+\stackrel{}{}{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{r^4}}\stackrel{}{}(A_0+\eta )\stackrel{}{}{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{r^4}}_0\stackrel{}{A}=0`$ (7)
$`_0^2\eta +\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \stackrel{}{}{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{r^4}}\stackrel{}{}(A_0+\eta )+\stackrel{}{}{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{r^4}}_0\stackrel{}{A}=0`$ (8)
Equation (7) is a constraint: the time derivative of the lhs is zero, as can be shown using the equation of motion (6). One can choose $`A_0=\eta `$ which is compatible with the field equations because the second and the third equations imply that $`A_0+\eta `$ obeys the free wave equation. With this condition the equations (7) and (8) become the same, and the first equation is also simplified :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{A}(1+\frac{R^4}{r^4})\ddot{\stackrel{}{A}}=0,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \ddot{\eta }+\stackrel{}{}(\frac{R^4}{r^4}\dot{\stackrel{}{A}})=0,$$
(9)
where $`\dot{\stackrel{}{A}}`$ denotes time derivative. This should be understood to imply that once we obtain a solution, $`A_0`$ is determined from $`\eta `$, but in addition we are now obliged to respect the gauge condition which goes over to $`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{A}=\dot{\eta }`$.

In the next section we shall consider the scattering of plane waves on a spike soliton (1). It is always possible to choose the plane wave to be a 1/2-BPS configuration. For that one should take the plane wave solution of the equations (3),(4) in the form:

$$A_\mu =e_\mu \varphi _0e^{ikx},\varphi =\varphi _0e^{ikx},$$
(10)
where $`e_\pm ^\mu =(\omega ,\stackrel{}{e}_\pm +\stackrel{}{k})`$$`\stackrel{}{e}_\pm \stackrel{}{k}=0`$, and in addition we have $`_\mu A^\mu =0,A_0+\varphi =0`$.

Electromagnetic scattering on a spike soliton.  Below we shall consider stationary scattering with definite energy (frequency $`\omega `$), therefore from (9) we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{A}+\omega ^2(1+\frac{R^4}{r^4})\stackrel{}{A}=0,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta +\omega ^2\eta \stackrel{}{}(\frac{i\omega R^4}{r^4}\stackrel{}{A})=0,$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{A}=i\omega \eta `$. Let us consider following expansion for the vector potential : $`\stackrel{}{A}=\stackrel{}{e}_lY_{l0}(\theta )\zeta _l,`$ where $`\stackrel{}{e}`$ is the constant polarization vector and $`\zeta _l`$ are the partial waves. From (9) one can get equation which they should satisfy

$$_r^2\zeta _l+\frac{2}{r}_r\zeta _l+[\omega ^2(1+\frac{R^4}{r^4})\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}]\zeta _l=0.$$
(12)
With the substitution similar to the one used in  $`r=Re^z,\zeta _l=e^{z/2}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_l`$ it can be transformed into the form

$$[_z^2+2(R\omega )^2ch2z(l+1/2)^2]\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_l=0.$$
(13)
This is the well known Mathieu’s equation. The known mathematics of Mathieu’s equation  allows to calculate a systematic expansion of solution in all orders in $`(R\omega /2)`$. The formulas needed for our purposes are summarized in . There are two asymptotic regions in our case: the first one $`zln(R\omega )`$ (I) where we have

$$[_z^2+(R\omega )^2e^{2z}(l+1/2)^2]\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_l=0$$
(14)
and the second one $`zln(R\omega )`$ (II) where

$$[_z^2+(R\omega )^2e^{2z}(l+1/2)^2]\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_l=0.$$
(15)
The solutions in these two regions are known functions

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_l^I=H_{l+1/2}^{(1)}(R\omega e^z),\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_l^{II}=A_{\mathrm{}}J_{l+1/2}(R\omega e^z)+B_{\mathrm{}}N_{l+1/2}(R\omega e^z).$$
(16)
The two regions overlap in the interval $`ln(R\omega )zln(R\omega )`$ if $`R\omega 1`$. In this interval we can use the following expansion of the functions:

$`H_{l+1/2}^{(1)}(\xi )(\xi /2)^{l+1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+3/2)}}+i(\xi /2)^{l1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{l+1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1/2)}},`$
$`J_{l+1/2}(\xi )(\xi /2)^{l+1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+3/2)}},N_{l+1/2}(\xi )(\xi /2)^{l1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{l+1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1/2)}}`$
and thus to impose matching condition

$`({\displaystyle \frac{R\omega }{2}})^{l+1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(l+1/2)z}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+3/2)}}+i(1)^{l+1}({\displaystyle \frac{R\omega }{2}})^{l1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(l+1/2)z}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1/2)}}`$ (17)
$`A_{\mathrm{}}({\displaystyle \frac{R\omega }{2}})^{l+1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(l+1/2)z}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+3/2)}}+B_{\mathrm{}}(1)^{l+1}({\displaystyle \frac{R\omega }{2}})^{l1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(l+1/2)z}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1/2)}}.`$
From this one can find coefficients $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$

$`A_{\mathrm{}}=i(1)^{l+1}({\displaystyle \frac{R\omega }{2}})^{2l1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+3/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1/2)}},B_{\mathrm{}}=(1)^{l+1}({\displaystyle \frac{R\omega }{2}})^{2l+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+3/2)}}.`$ (18)
Using the asymptotic expansion for $`H_\nu ^{(1)}(\xi )`$, $`J_\nu (\xi )`$ and $`N_\nu (\xi )`$ when $`\xi \mathrm{}`$ and the formulas (13) we can recover the asymptotic behaviour of the solution at the origin where the spike is attached to the D3-brane

$$r0\zeta _l\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi R\omega }}e^{i\pi (l+1)/2}e^{\frac{i\omega R^2}{r}},$$
(19)
and at infinity from the origin

$`r\mathrm{}\zeta _l{\displaystyle \frac{R}{2r}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi R\omega }}}e^{i\pi (l+1)/2}(A_{\mathrm{}}+iB_{\mathrm{}})[e^{i\omega r}+R_le^{i\omega r}].`$ (20)
The first asymptotic (19) describes absorption waves which penetrate through the potential barrier and propagate along the spike, the second one (20) describes the scattered radiation. Thus the transmission and reflection amplitudes are equal to:

$$T_l=\frac{e^{i\pi (l+1)/2}}{\frac{R}{2}e^{+i\pi (l+1)/2}(A_{\mathrm{}}+iB_{\mathrm{}})}=i(\frac{2}{R})(\frac{R\omega }{2})^{2l+1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+3/2)},$$
(21)
$$R_l=\frac{e^{i\pi (l+1)/2}(A_{\mathrm{}}iB_{\mathrm{}})}{e^{+i\pi (l+1)/2}(A_{\mathrm{}}+iB_{\mathrm{}})}=(1)^{l+1}[12(\frac{R\omega }{2})^{4l+2}(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+3/2)})^2].$$
(22)
For the lower partial waves they are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}T_0=2i\omega ,\hfill & & R_0=1+2(R\omega )^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
and for the higher partial waves they behave as: $`T_l\omega (R\omega )^{2l},R_l(1)^{l+1}(R\omega )^{4l+2}.`$

Cross Sections. The asymptotic behaviour of the wave function can be represented in the form:

$`\stackrel{}{A}=\stackrel{}{e}(e^{ikz}+{\displaystyle \frac{f(\theta )}{r}}e^{ikr}+g(\theta )e^{ikR^2/r})=`$ (24)
$`=\stackrel{}{e}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{4\pi (2l+1)}}{2ik(1)^{l+1}}}Y_{l0}(\theta )[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}e^{ikr}+(1)^{l+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(1+2ikf_l)e^{ikr}+(1)^{l+1}2ikg_le^{ikR^2/r}],`$
where $`f(\theta )=_{l=0}^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{4\pi (2l+1)}Y_{l0}(\theta )f_l`$ and comparing this with the asymptotic solution (19), (20) and (21), (22) we can find that $`R_l=(1)^{l+1}(1+2i\omega f_l)`$ and $`T_l=(1)^{l+1}2i\omega g_l`$ and therefore:

$$f_l=\frac{i}{\omega }(\frac{R\omega }{2})^{4l+2}(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+3/2)})^2,g_l=(1)^l\frac{1}{R\omega }(\frac{R\omega }{2})^{2l+1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+3/2)}.$$
(25)
In particular for low $`l`$ they are equal to $`f_0=iR(R\omega ),f_1=\frac{i}{9}R(R\omega )^5,g_0=1,g_1=\frac{1}{3}(R\omega )^2.`$

If $`dI`$ is the energy radiated by the system into spherical angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and incident electromagnetic plane wave has Pointing vector $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ then the cross section is equal to $`d\sigma =\frac{dI}{S}.`$ The Pointing vector $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ for the incident plane wave $`\stackrel{}{e}e^{ikz}`$ is equal to $`\stackrel{}{S}_{in}=\frac{1}{4\pi }B_{in}^2\stackrel{}{e}_z=\frac{\omega ^2}{4\pi }\stackrel{}{e}_z.`$ For the scattered radiation $`\stackrel{}{e}\frac{f(\theta )}{r}e^{ikr}`$ and absorption $`\stackrel{}{e}g(\theta )e^{ikR^2/r}`$ waves it is $`\stackrel{}{S}_{scat}=\stackrel{}{n}\frac{1}{4\pi }B_{scat}^2,\stackrel{}{S}_{abs}=\stackrel{}{n}\frac{1}{4\pi }B_{abs}^2,\stackrel{}{n}=\frac{\stackrel{}{k}}{k}.`$ Thus we have to find $`\stackrel{}{B}_{scat}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}_{abs}`$, $`\stackrel{}{B}_{scat}=\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}=i[\stackrel{}{k}\times \stackrel{}{e}]\frac{f(\theta )}{r}e^{ikr},\stackrel{}{B}_{abs}=i[\stackrel{}{k}\times \stackrel{}{e}]g(\theta )\frac{R^2}{r^2}e^{ikR^2/r},`$ and then the $`\stackrel{}{S}_{scat}=\stackrel{}{n}\frac{\omega ^2}{4\pi }|\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{e}|^2\frac{|f(\theta )|^2}{r^2},`$ and $`\stackrel{}{S}_{abs}=\stackrel{}{n}\frac{\omega ^2}{4\pi }|\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{e}|^2|g(\theta )|^2\frac{R^4}{r^4}.`$ The radiated energy into the spherical angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ thus will be

$$dI_{scat}=\frac{\omega ^2}{4\pi }|\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{e}|^2|f(\theta )|^2d\mathrm{\Omega },dI_{abs}=\frac{\omega ^2}{4\pi }|\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{e}|^2|g(\theta )|^2\frac{R^4}{r^2}d\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(26)
Finally for the cross sections we have expressions:

$$\frac{d\sigma _{scat}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=|\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{e}|^2|f(\theta )|^2,\frac{d\sigma _{abs}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{^{}}}=R^2|\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{e}|^2|g(\theta )|^2.$$
(27)
In the last formula for the absorption cross section we used the symmetry of the system $`(r^{^{}}R^2/r)`$ mentioned in  and replaced the spherical angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }(R^2/r^2)`$ into $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^{^{}}`$ simply because $`dr^{^{}}(R/r)^2dr`$

We can also find the corresponding cross sections for the scalar field $`\varphi `$ using the fact that $`i\omega \varphi =\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{A}`$. Thus we have:

$$\frac{d\sigma _{scat}^\varphi }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=|\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{e}|^2|f(\theta )|^2,\frac{d\sigma _{abs}^\varphi }{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{^{}}}=R^2|\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{e}|^2|g(\theta )|^2.$$
(28)
The total cross section of electromagnetic and scalar fields is the sum $`\sigma +\sigma ^\varphi `$. As it is easy to see the total absorption and scattering cross sections do not depend on polarization vector  because $`|\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{e}|^2+|\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{e}|^2=1.`$ To evaluate the integral we have to calculate the vector product $`|\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{e}|^2=cos^2\theta cos^2\phi +sin^2\phi ,`$ therefore for the total cross section we get

$$\sigma =\frac{1}{2}(1+cos^2\theta )|f(\theta )|^2𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(29)
Using the formulas $`cos^2\theta =\frac{4\pi }{3}Y_{10}Y_{10}^{}`$ and expanding the product $`\sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{3}}Y_{10}Y_{lm}`$ over $`Y_{l+1m}`$ and $`Y_{l1m}`$ one can evaluate completely the integration in (27) and get expression for the cross section

$$\sigma _{scat}=4\pi \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(3l^2+3l2)}{(2l1)(2l+3)}(2l+1)|f_l|^2+2\pi \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(l+1)(l+2)}{(2l+3)}(f_lf_{l+2}^{}+f_{l+2}f_l^{})$$
(30)
Using the expression for the amplitudes $`f_l`$ we can find the lowest term in the scattering cross section

$$\sigma _1^{scat}=\frac{8\pi }{3}|f_0|^2=\frac{8\pi }{3}R^2(R\omega )^2.$$
(31)
We have to compare this cross section with the Thompson cross section and for that reason we shall rewrite our result in the Thompson from:

$$\sigma _T=\frac{8\pi }{3}\frac{e^4}{M_{dyn}^2}$$

where $`M_{dyn}`$ is the frequency dependent dynamical mass of the extended charged object. The behaviour of these cross section (31) as a function of $`\omega `$ is essentially different and comes as a big surprise, because the cross section instead of approaching a constant tends to zero! The only way to explain this result is to analyze the dynamical mass of the extended spike

$$M_{dyn}^2=\frac{e^4}{R^2(R\omega )^2}.$$
(32)
We observe that it is finite for nonzero $`R\omega `$, demonstrating that dynamical mass involved in the process is finite and is of order of the wave length $`1/\omega `$. In the low energy limit it tends to infinity demonstrating that ”static” mass of the spike is infinite. Indeed the spike soliton is infinitely long and has infinite mass by virtue having a constant energy per unit length. The small electromagnetic fluctuations on this static solution propagate with the $`finite`$ velocity of light , therefore dynamical mass involved in the process is finite and depends on the wave length of the perturbation.

In the same way one can find that the absorption cross section

$$\sigma _1^{abs}=\frac{8\pi }{3}R^2|g_0|^2=\frac{8\pi }{3}R^2,$$
(33)
and contrary to the scattering one (31) tends to a constant! Thus we see that the spike soliton sucks almost all electromagnetic radiation and therefore acts like a black hole. This result corresponds to the dipole radiation when we consider electromagnetic perturbation propagating on the spike in the form of P-wave (j=1) which is coming down the spike with a polarization along a direction parallel to the brane .

We can also compute the corresponding cross sections for the scalar field, the only difference is in the coefficient: instead of $`8\pi /3`$ it is $`4\pi /3`$ and the total cross section $`\sigma +\sigma ^\varphi `$ comes with coefficient $`4\pi `$.

Partial electromagnetic waves. In previous section we used partial wave expansion, but it does not correspond to the physical expansion over total angular momentum of the electromagnetic field. To do so and to distinguish corresponding partial waves with definite parity we have to expand the vector potential over the vector spherical harmonics: $`\stackrel{}{Y}_{jm}^{el}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{j(j+1)}}_\stackrel{}{n}Y_{jm},P=(1)^j;\stackrel{}{Y}_{jm}^{mag}=[\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{Y_{jm}^{el}}],P=(1)^{j+1};\stackrel{}{Y}_{jm}^{lon}=\stackrel{}{n}Y_{jm},P=(1)^j,`$ where $`j=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ and the corresponding parity is shown. For any given angular momentum $`j`$ there is one even and one odd parity state. The fields carrying angular momentum $`j`$ and the parity $`(1)^j`$ are electric multipoles $`Ej`$ and the parity $`(1)^{j+1}`$ are magnetic multipoles $`Mj`$.

Using this basic functions we can rederive the expansion (24) in the form

$$\stackrel{}{A}_{scat}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1,\lambda =0\pm 1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{4\pi (2l+1)}(\stackrel{}{e}\stackrel{}{e}_\lambda ^{})\{f_{j\lambda }^{el}\stackrel{}{Y}_{j\lambda }^{el}+f_{j\lambda }^{mag}\stackrel{}{Y}_{j\lambda }^{mag}+f_{j\lambda }^{lon}\stackrel{}{Y}_{j\lambda }^{lon}\}\frac{e^{ikr}}{r}$$
(34)
where $`\stackrel{}{e}_0=\stackrel{}{e}_z`$$`\stackrel{}{e}_{\pm 1}=\stackrel{}{e}_x\pm \stackrel{}{e}_y`$ ($`\stackrel{}{e}\stackrel{}{e}_0=0`$) and

$$\begin{array}{cccc}f_{j\lambda }^{el}=\lambda \frac{jf_{j+1}+(j+1)f_{j1}}{2j+1},\hfill & \hfill \lambda =\pm 1;& f_{j\lambda }^{el}=\frac{\sqrt{j(j+1)}}{2j+1}(f_{j+1}+f_{j1}),\hfill & \hfill \lambda =0;\\ f_{j\lambda }^{mag}=if_j,\hfill & \hfill \lambda =\pm 1;& f_{j\lambda }^m=0,\hfill & \hfill \lambda =0;\\ f_{j\lambda }^{lon}=\lambda \frac{\sqrt{j(j+1)}}{2j+1}(f_{j+1}+f_{j1}),\hfill & \hfill \lambda =\pm 1;& f_{j\lambda }^{lon}=\frac{(j+1)f_{j+1}+jf_{j1}}{2j+1},\hfill & \hfill \lambda =0.\end{array}$$
(35)
In the last formula the amplitudes $`f_{j\lambda }^{el},f_{j\lambda }^{mag}`$ ($`\lambda =\pm 1`$) describe physical transverse degrees of freedom of electromagnetic field and using the fact that $`i\omega \varphi =\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{A}`$ we can identify the amplitude $`f^{lon}`$ as describing scattering of the scalar field.

The partial cross sections can be represented now in the form:

$$\sigma _j^{scat}=2\pi (2j+1)|f_j^{(\delta )}|^2,$$
(36)
where index $`\delta =el,mag`$ describes electric or magnetic multipoles. For the electric dipole, quadruple and higher multipoles the amplitudes are: $`f_1^{el}=\frac{2f_0+f_2}{3},f_2^{el}=\frac{3f_1+2f_3}{5},f_j^{el}\frac{j+1}{2j+1}f_{j1}`$ and the corresponding scattering cross sections are:

$$\sigma _1^{el}=6\pi |f_1^{el}|^2,\sigma _2^{el}=10\pi |f_2^{el}|^2,\sigma _j^{el}=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{(j+1)^2}{(2j+1)}(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+3/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1/2)})^4R^2(R\omega /2)^{8j6}.$$
(37)
For the magnetic dipole and quadruple radiation we have

$$\sigma _1^{mag}=6\pi |f_1|^2,\sigma _2^{mag}=10\pi |f_2|^2,\sigma _j^{mag}=\frac{\pi (2j+1)}{2}(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+3/2)})^4R^2(R\omega /2)^{8j+2}.$$
(38)
Similar formulas are valid for the absorption amplitude $`\stackrel{}{e}g(\theta )e^{ikR^2/r}`$, therefore for electric multipoles we have:

$$\sigma _j^{abs}=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{(j+1)^2}{(2j+1)}(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+3/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1/2)})^2R^2(R\omega /2)^{4j4}$$
(39)
and one can also get less dominant magnetic multipoles.

The general asymptotic behaviour of the partial scattering cross sections have the form:

$$\sigma _j^{scat}R^2(R\omega )^{8j6},j=1,2,3,..$$
(40)
This behaviour essentially differs from the one in electrodynamics being $`\omega ^{2j2}`$. The absorption cross section is:

$$\sigma _1^{abs}R^2Const,\sigma _j^{abs}R^2(R\omega )^{4j4},j=2,3,\mathrm{}$$
(41)
this behaviour is appealing for the string interpretation of the spike soliton because it is a constant for $`j=1`$ and tends to zero for higher $`j>1`$, therefore the propagation of $`j=1`$ mode is indeed distinctive.

We are grateful to H.Nielsen and P.Olesen for stimulating discussions. One of the authors (G.S.) is indebted to the Leipzig University for kind hospitality. This work was supported in part by the EEC Grant no. HPMF-CT-1999-00162.

Appendix.  In previous sections the scattering and absorption amplitudes have been calculated by solving equation (13) in lowest order in $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}R\omega `$ by standard continuity argument. The known mathematics of Mathieu’s equation  allows to calculate systematic expansion in all orders in $`\lambda `$. The formulae needed for our purpose have been summarized in  (see also ). The transition $`(T_l)`$ and reflection $`(R_l)`$ partial amplitudes are (instead of equations (21), (22))

$`T_{\mathrm{}}=2i\chi _0^1{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}[1+(1+\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{4k}\overline{\mu }_k)^2](1+\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{4k}\chi _k)^1}{[1+\chi _0^2(1+_1^{\mathrm{}}\lambda ^{4k}\chi _k)^2(1+_1^{\mathrm{}}\lambda ^{4k}\overline{\mu }_k)^2]}},`$ (42)
(43)
$`R_{\mathrm{}}=(1)^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{[1\chi _0^2(1+\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{4k}\chi _k)^2](1+\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{4k}\overline{\mu }_k)^1}{[1+\chi _0^2(1+_1^{\mathrm{}}\lambda ^{4k}\chi _k)^2(1+_1^{\mathrm{}}\lambda ^{4k}\overline{\mu }_k)^2]}}.`$ (44)
We have evaluated the first correction $`𝒪(\lambda ^4)`$ only: $`\chi _0=\lambda ^{(2\mathrm{}+1)}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+\frac{3}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{})},\mu _0=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2})\mu _1=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}}(\frac{1}{\mathrm{}+\frac{3}{2}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}}),\chi _1=2\mu _1[\psi (\mathrm{}+\frac{3}{2})+\psi (\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{})2\mathrm{ln}\lambda ]\frac{1}{(\mathrm{}+\frac{3}{2})^2}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2})^2}.`$ The first order correction changes the leading small $`R\omega `$ behaviour of the scattering amplitude $`R_{\mathrm{}}=18\lambda ^2\delta _{\mathrm{},0}+\lambda ^4(2\pi i\mu _1(\mathrm{})+32\delta _{\mathrm{},0})+𝒪(\lambda ^8,\lambda ^{4\mathrm{}+2}).`$ This implies that all partial scattering cross sections for $`j1`$ behave like

$$\sigma _j^{scatt}R^2(R\omega )^6$$
(45)
with a coefficient decreasing at large $`j`$ like $`j^5`$. This is an essential change compared to the one anticipated from the zero approximation, $`\sigma _j^{scatt}R^2(R\omega )^{8j6}`$.

The corrections to the transition amplitude are less significant $`T_{\mathrm{}}=2\lambda ^{2\mathrm{}+1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+\frac{3}{2})}(14\lambda ^2\delta _{\mathrm{},0}\lambda ^4(2\pi i\mu _1(\mathrm{})+\chi _1(\mathrm{}))+𝒪(\lambda ^8,\lambda ^{4\mathrm{}+2}).`$ The leading behaviour for $`R\omega 0`$ is really the one expected from zero approximation.


format: text

text:
# An integer valued SU(3) Casson invariant

## 1. Introduction

Any $`SU(n)`$ generalization of the Casson invariant for homology 3-spheres $`X`$ ought to be defined as a signed count of conjugacy classes of irreducible $`SU(n)`$ representations of $`\pi _1X`$. The difficulty is that, just as in the $`SU(2)`$ case, one must perturb the space of representations to make it generic and hence finite, but for $`n>2`$ the signed count depends on the perturbation.

In , Taubes introduced a technique for perturbing the flatness equations and gave a gauge-theoretic interpretation of Casson’s $`SU(2)`$ invariant as a signed count of gauge orbits of perturbed flat $`SU(2)`$ connections on $`X`$. In , an $`SU(3)`$ Casson invariant $`\lambda _{SU(3)}`$ for homology 3-spheres $`X`$ is defined using the perturbation approach of Taubes. For each generic perturbation $`h`$, an integer $`\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}(X,h)`$ is defined as a signed count of gauge orbits of irreducible, $`h`$-perturbed flat SU(3) connections,

(1)
$$\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}(X,h)=\underset{[A]_h^{}}{}(1)^{SF(\theta ,A)},$$

where $`_h^{}`$ is the moduli space of irreducible, $`h`$-perturbed flat $`SU(3)`$ connections, $`A`$ is a representative for the gauge orbit $`[A]`$, and $`SF`$ refers to the spectral flow of the odd signature operator $`K_A`$ acting on $`su(3)`$-valued forms.

The resulting integer $`\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}(X,h)`$ is not independent of the choice of the perturbation $`h`$. To extract a topological invariant, one needs to define a correction term. An analysis of the parametrized moduli space corresponding to a path joining two generic perturbations suggests that the correction term should be a signed sum of the form

(2)
$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{[A]_h^r}{}(1)^{SF(\theta ,A)}SF_𝔥^{}(A_0,A),$$

where $`_h^r`$ is the moduli space of reducible, $`h`$-perturbed flat connections (i.e., with holonomy reducing to $`S(U(2)\times U(1))`$) and $`A_0`$ is some fixed reducible connection. Here, the subscript on $`SF_𝔥^{}`$ indicates that the operator $`K_A`$ is acting on forms with coefficients in $`𝔥^{},`$ the orthogonal complement in $`su(3)`$ of the Lie subalgebra $`𝔥=s(u(2)\times u(1))`$.

In , $`A_0`$ was taken to be $`\theta `$, the trivial connection. Unfortunately, the quantity $`SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,A)`$ is not gauge invariant; it depends on the choice of representative $`A`$ for the gauge equivalence class $`[A]`$. In , it was shown how to restore gauge invariance by restricting to small perturbations and adding the Chern-Simons invariant of a flat connection $`\widehat{A}`$ near the representative $`A`$ to obtain the correction term:

$$\lambda _{SU(3)}^{\prime \prime }(X,h)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{[A]_h^r}{}(1)^{SF(\theta ,A)}(SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,A)4cs(\widehat{A})+2).$$

Then $`\lambda _{SU(3)}(X)=\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}(X,h)+\lambda _{SU(3)}^{\prime \prime }(X,h)`$ is independent of the choice of small perturbation $`h`$. In the recent preprint , Cappell, Lee and Miller develop a different technique for correcting the gauge ambiguity in (2).

In this paper, we construct a correction term $`\tau ^{\prime \prime }(X,h)`$ like (2) but without any gauge ambiguity. Setting

$$\tau (X)=\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}(X,h)+\tau ^{\prime \prime }(X,h)$$

gives an integer valued $`SU(3)`$ Casson invariant of homology 3-spheres. Like $`\lambda _{SU(3)}`$, the invariant $`\tau `$ enjoys properties (i) – (iii) of the following theorem, which is our main result.

Theorem 4. The quantity $`\tau (X)`$ is an integer valued invariant of homology 3-spheres. Furthermore,

1. If $`\tau (X)0,`$ then there exists an irreducible representation $`\rho :\pi _1XSU(3).`$
2. If $`\overline{X}`$ equals $`X`$ with the orientation reversed, then $`\tau (X)=\tau (\overline{X})`$.
3. If $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are homology 3-spheres, then
$`\tau (X_1\mathrm{\#}X_2)=\tau (X_1)+\tau (X_2)+4\lambda _{SU(2)}(X_1)\lambda _{SU(2)}(X_2).`$

The invariant $`\tau `$ has numerous advantages over $`\lambda _{SU(3)}`$, and we mention three. First, $`\tau (X)`$. (A priori $`\lambda _{SU(3)}(X)`$ takes values in $``$, although the conjectured rationality of the Chern-Simons invariants would imply $`\lambda _{SU(3)}(X)`$.) Secondly, because Casson’s invariant is a finite type invariant, one expects the same is true of the generalized Casson invariants. This is not the case for $`\lambda _{SU(3)};`$ the computations in  imply $`\lambda _{SU(3)}`$ is not a finite type invariant. Nevertheless, those same computations support the conjecture that $`\tau `$ is a finite type invariant. Thirdly and most importantly, $`\tau `$ is easier to compute than $`\lambda _{SU(3)}`$ and therefore seems more likely to satisfy a surgery formula.

To illustrate this last point, we suppose that the moduli space $``$ of unperturbed flat $`SU(3)`$ connections on $`X`$ is regular. This is equivalent to the topological assertion

$$\text{(}\text{)}H_\alpha ^1(X;su(3))=0\text{ for all representations }\alpha :\pi _1XSU(3).$$

(For example, every Brieskorn sphere of the form $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,p,q)`$ satisfies ($``$).) If $`X`$ satisfies ($``$), then $`\lambda _{SU(3)}(X)`$ can be computed directly from $``$ without resorting to the use of perturbations. (I.e., one can take $`h=0.`$) In this case, the correction term $`\lambda _{SU(3)}^{\prime \prime }`$ is simply a signed sum Atiyah-Patodi-Singer rho invariants, but computing $`\lambda _{SU(3)}^{\prime \prime }(X)`$ is somewhat involved (cf. the computations in ).

By contrast, whenever ($``$) holds the correction term $`\tau ^{\prime \prime }`$ vanishes. Hence, $`\tau (X)=\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}(X,0)`$ whenever $``$ is regular. This nice property of $`\tau `$ holds in the more general situation of homology 3-spheres satisfying

$$\text{(}\text{)}H_\alpha ^1(X;^2)=0\text{ for all representations }\alpha :\pi _1XSU(2).$$

The condition $`()`$ implies that $`\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}(X,h)`$ and $`\lambda _{SU(3)}^{\prime \prime }(X,h)`$ are each independent of $`h`$ small. In Lemma 7, we prove that, whenever ($``$) holds, $`\tau ^{\prime \prime }(X,h)=0`$ and $`\tau (X)=\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}(X,h)`$ for $`h`$ small.

Of course, many homology 3-spheres fail to satisfy ($``$); examples include Brieskorn spheres of the form $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,q,r)`$ with $`p,q,r>2`$. Thus the integer $`\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}(X,h)`$ will generally depend on the choice of $`h`$. Nevertheless, $`\tau (X)`$ agrees with $`\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}(X,h)`$ whenever the latter is independent of $`h`$. In this sense, $`\tau `$ is a topological invariant of homology 3-spheres which accounts for gauge orbits of reducible connections only when absolutely necessary.

Notation. Throughout this paper, $`X`$ will be a homology 3-sphere, i.e., a closed, oriented 3-manifold satisfying $`H_i(X;)=H_i(S^3;)`$. We denote by $`\overline{X}`$ the oppositely oriented homology 3-sphere.

Let $`\lambda _{SU(2)}(X)`$ be Casson’s original invariant, as normalized in  (so $`\lambda _{SU(2)}(X)2`$), and $`\lambda _{SU(3)}(X)`$ be the invariant defined in .

For convenience, we use the notation for differential forms whereby $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{0+1}=\mathrm{\Omega }^0\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$, and similarly for cohomology. Additionally, we use the shorthand $`h^i=dimH^i`$.

Given a path $`K_t,t[0,1]`$ of operators with discrete, real spectrum, we denote by $`SF(K_t)`$ the spectral flow of $`K_t`$ from $`t=0`$ to $`t=1`$ using the $`(ϵ,ϵ)`$ convention. Thus, $`SF(K_t)`$ is the oriented intersection number in $`[0,1]\times `$ of the spectrum of $`K_t`$ with the horizontal line segment $`(t,ϵ),t[0,1]`$ for all $`ϵ>0`$ sufficiently small. With this convention, spectral flow is additive under composition of paths.

## 2. Main results

We begin with a review of 3-manifold $`SU(3)`$ gauge theory. Let $`X`$ be a homology sphere, $`P=X\times SU(3)`$, and $`\theta `$ be the trivial (product) connection on $`P`$, with covariant derivative $`d`$. We denote the space of smooth $`SU(3)`$ connections on $`P`$ by

$$𝒜=\{d+AA\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X;su(3))\}$$

and the gauge group of smooth bundle automorphisms by

$$𝒢\{g:XSU(3)\}.$$

This group acts on $`𝒜`$ by $`d+Ad+gAg^1+gdg^1`$ with quotient $`=𝒜/𝒢`$, the space of gauge orbits. We refer to the connection $`d+A`$ simply as $`A`$ when no confusion can arise and use $`[A]`$ to denote the $`𝒢`$ orbit of $`A𝒜.`$

Let $`𝒢_0`$ be the identity component of $`𝒢`$ and set $`\stackrel{~}{}=𝒜/𝒢_0.`$ Given $`A𝒜,`$ we denote its $`𝒢_0`$ orbit by $`[[A]].`$ Since $`𝒢_0`$ is the kernel of $`\mathrm{deg}:𝒢`$ (see Prop. 4.2 in ), the natural projection $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is a nontrivial connected $``$-cover (in fact the universal cover).

The Chern-Simons function $`cs:𝒜`$ is defined by the formula

$$cs(A)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_Xtr(AdA+\frac{2}{3}AAA).$$

Since $`cs(gA)=cs(A)+\mathrm{deg}(g)`$, the Chern-Simons function is a well-defined $``$-valued function on $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, whereas on $``$ it takes values in $`/.`$

The situation for the spectral flow is similar. Choose a Riemannian metric on $`X`$. Let $``$ denote the space of admissible perturbation functions (see  for details). To each pair $`(A,h)𝒜\times `$ we associate a self-adjoint, Fredholm operator $`K_{A,h}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{0+1}(X;su(3))`$ defined by the formula

(3)
$$K_{A,h}(\xi ,a)=(d_A^{}a,d_A\xi +d_Aa4\pi \mathrm{Hess}h(A)a).$$

If $`h=0`$, then $`K_{A,0}=K_A`$ is simply the odd signature operator coupled to the connection. If $`A`$ is flat, then the Hodge and de Rham theorems identify $`\mathrm{ker}K_A`$ with the twisted cohomology $`H_\alpha ^{0+1}(X;su(3))`$, where $`\alpha =\mathrm{ℎ𝑜𝑙}_A:\pi _1XSU(3)`$ is the holonomy representation of $`A`$. Hereafter, this cohomology will be denoted by $`H_A^{0+1}(X;su(3))`$. More generally, when $`A`$ is $`h`$-perturbed flat, we can decompose $`\mathrm{ker}K_{A,h}`$ by degree and write

$$\mathrm{ker}K_{A,h}=H_A^0(X;su(3))H_{A,h}^1(X;su(3)).$$

Note that $`H_A^0(X;su(3))=\mathrm{ker}(d_A:\mathrm{\Omega }^0(X;su(3))\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X;su(3))`$ is independent of $`h`$ and can be identified with the Lie algebra of the stabilizer of $`A`$ in $`𝒢`$.

Given $`(A_t,h_t),0t1,`$ in $`𝒜\times `$, the spectral flow of the path of self-adjoint operators $`K_{A_t,h_t},0t1,`$ is an integer-valued invariant of the homotopy class of the path rel endpoints. We use the $`(ϵ,ϵ)`$ convention throughout this article. Because $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are simply connected, this spectral flow depends only on the endpoints $`(A_0,h_0)`$ and $`(A_1,h_1)`$.

To avoid cumbersome notation, we will adopt the following conventions. If $`A_0`$ and $`A_1`$ are flat connections, then $`SF(A_0,A_1)`$ will always mean the spectral flow of $`K_{A_t,0}`$ for $`A_t,t[0,1]`$ a path from $`A_0`$ to $`A_1`$. If $`A_0`$ is flat (e.g. $`A_0`$ is the trivial connection $`\theta `$) and $`A_1`$ is $`h`$-perturbed flat for a fixed perturbation $`h`$, then $`SF(A_0,A_1)`$ will always denote the spectral flow of $`K_{A_t,h_t}`$ for $`A_t,t[0,1]`$ a path of connections from $`A_0`$ to $`A_1`$ and $`h_t`$ a path of perturbations from $`h_0=0`$ to $`h_1=h`$, i.e. the spectral flow of the path of self-adjoint operators from $`K_{A_0,0}`$ to $`K_{A_1,h}`$. In all other contexts the choice of the path $`h_t`$ will be specified (or obvious) and $`SF(A_0,A_1)`$ will denote the spectral flow of $`K_{A_t,h_t}`$.

Given a connection $`A`$ and a gauge transformation $`g`$, the index theorem implies that the spectral flow of $`K_{A_t,0}`$ along a path $`A_t`$ from $`A_0=A`$ to $`A_1=gA`$ equals $`12`$ deg $`g`$ (for a demonstration of this, see ). Thus the function $`ASF(\theta ,A)`$ on connections descends to a well-defined function $`\stackrel{~}{}=\stackrel{~}{}\times \{0\}`$ or to a function $`=\times \{0\}_{12}`$.

Let $`F_A=dA+AA`$ be the curvature of the connection A and $``$ the moduli space of flat $`SU(3)`$ connections

$$=\{A𝒜F_A=0\}/𝒢.$$

Note that $``$ is a compact subset of $``$ since it is homeomorphic to the space of conjugacy classes of $`SU(3)`$ representations of $`\pi _1X`$. Its preimage in $`𝒜`$ is precisely the set of critical points of the Chern-Simons function. Given an admissible perturbation $`h`$ (see Definition 2.1 of ), a connection $`A`$ is called $`h`$-perturbed flat if it is critical point of the function $`cs+h:𝒜`$. We denote the moduli space of $`h`$-perturbed flat connections by $`_h`$; it is compact by Lemma 8.3 of . The moduli spaces of $`𝒢_0`$ orbits of flat connections and $`h`$-perturbed flat connections are denoted $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_h`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is a $``$-cover, neither $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ nor $`\stackrel{~}{}_h`$ is compact.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A=\{g𝒢gA=A\}`$ be the isotropy group of $`A𝒜`$ and define the subsets

$$𝒜^{}=\{A𝒜\mathrm{\Gamma }_A_3\}\text{ and }𝒜^r=\{A𝒜\mathrm{\Gamma }_AU(1)\},$$

of irreducible connections and reducible, nonabelian connections, respectively. Since $`X`$ is a homology sphere, $``$ decomposes as the disjoint union

$$=\{[\theta ]\}^r^{}.$$

We denote by $`𝒜_{S(U(2)\times U(1))}`$ the subset of $`𝒜`$ consisting of connections $`A`$ whose holonomy reduces to the standard $`S(U(2)\times U(1))`$ subgroup. For such connections, $`K_{A,h}`$ acts diagonally with respect to the splitting

(4)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{0+1}(X;su(3))=\mathrm{\Omega }^{0+1}(X;𝔥)\mathrm{\Omega }^{0+1}(X;𝔥^{})$$

associated to the splitting $`su(3)=𝔥𝔥^{}`$, where $`𝔥=s(u(2)\times u(1))`$ and $`𝔥^{}^2`$ is its orthogonal complement. For any $`A_0,A_1𝒜^r,`$ choose a path in $`𝒜^r`$ between them ($`𝒜^r`$ is path connected) and gauge transform so the path lies in $`𝒜_{S(U(2)\times U(1))}.`$ Then the spectral flow splits according to the decomposition of (4) as

$$SF(A_0,A_1)=SF_𝔥(A_0,A_1)+SF_𝔥^{}(A_0,A_1).$$

If, in addition, $`A`$ is $`h`$-perturbed flat, then we have decompositions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_A^0(X;su(3))& =H_A^0(X;𝔥)H_A^0(X;𝔥^{}),\hfill \\ \hfill H_{A,h}^1(X;su(3))& =H_{A,h}^1(X;𝔥)H_{A,h}^1(X;𝔥^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

(In this case, it is not hard to show that $`H_A^0(X;𝔥)`$ and $`H_A^0(X;𝔥^{})=0.`$)

###### Proposition 1.

On any component $`\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{}^r,`$ the function $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ defined by $`[[A]]SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,A)`$ is bounded above and below.

###### Proof.

Since the Chern-Simons function is constant on components of flat connections and since $`cs:/`$ classifies the $``$-cover $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is the trivial $``$-cover. Thus, every such $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is a homeomorphic copy of a component of $`^r`$ and is therefore compact.

Choose $`[A]^r`$. Then $`A`$ is nonabelian, and we can assume after gauge transformation that $`A𝒜_{S(U(2)\times U(1))}`$. The zeroth cohomology $`H_A^0(X;su(3))`$ then consists of 0-forms which are constant diagonal matrices of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ia& 0& 0\\ 0& ia& 0\\ 0& 0& 2ia\end{array}\right).$$

In particular, this implies that $`H_A^0(X;𝔥^{})=0`$ and $`H_A^1(X;𝔥^{})`$ is identified with the kernel of $`K_{A,h}`$ acting on $`𝔥^{}`$-valued forms.

Since the dimension of the kernel of a continuous family of Fredholm operators is upper semicontinuous, $`h_A^1(X;𝔥^{})`$ is a bounded function on the compact set $`^r.`$ Since we are using the $`(ϵ,ϵ)`$ convention, it follows that every $`[[A]]\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is contained in a neighborhood $`U`$ such that

$$SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,A)h_A^1(X;𝔥^{})SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,A^{})SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,A)$$

for all $`A^{}U`$. Taking one such neighborhood for each $`[[A]]\stackrel{~}{C}`$ gives an open covering of $`\stackrel{~}{C}.`$ Using compactness to pass to a finite subcover, we conclude that the function $`[[A]]SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,A)`$ is bounded above and below. ∎

For the remainder of this paper, we denote by $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_n`$ the connected components of $`^r`$ and by $`U_1,\mathrm{},U_n`$ disjoint open sets of $`^r=𝒜^r/𝒢`$ with $`C_iU_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{}n.`$ Since the Chern-Simons function $`cs:^r/`$ is constant along the components $`C_i,`$ we can choose $`U_i`$ small enough so that $`cs(U_i)`$ is a proper subset of $`/`$. This condition guarantees that the restriction of $`p:\stackrel{~}{}^r^r`$ to $`p^1(U_i)`$ is the trivial $``$-cover.

Proposition 3.7 of  insures that for $`h`$ sufficiently small, we have $`_h^r_{i=1}^nU_i`$. If $`[A_0],[A_1]U_i`$, there is an unambiguous way to define $`𝔥^{}`$ spectral flow between them by choosing gauge representatives in the same component of $`p^1(U_i)`$. (Which component of $`p^1(U_i)`$ they lie in does not matter, since $`SF_𝔥^{}(A_0,A_1)=SF_𝔥^{}(gA_0,gA_1)`$.) In this situation, we will call the representatives $`A_0,A_1`$ of $`[A_0],[A_1]`$ compatible with one another. Any time we refer to $`𝔥^{}`$ spectral flow between nontrivial reducible connections, we assume the connections are compatible.

Proposition 1 has the following consequence.

###### Corollary 2.

There exist $`[\widehat{A}_i^+],[\widehat{A}_i^{}]C_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n,`$ such that for all $`[A]C_i`$ and any mutually compatible representatives $`A,\widehat{A}_i^+,\widehat{A}_i^{}`$,

(5)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,A)SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,\widehat{A}_i^+),\hfill \\ & SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,\widehat{A}_i^{})h_{\widehat{A}_i^{}}^1(X;𝔥^{})SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,A)h_A^1(X;𝔥^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

For generic small $`h`$, $`_h`$ is regular, i.e., for all $`[A]_h`$ the condition $`H_{A,h}^1(X;su(3))=0`$ holds. (See Section 3 of  for details.) Regularity implies that $`_h`$ consists of only finitely many points.

###### Proposition 3.

Suppose $`h`$ is a small, generic perturbation. Define

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \tau ^{\prime \prime }(X,h)=\frac{1}{4}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{[A]_h^rU_i}{}& (1)^{SF(\theta ,A)}(SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{A}_i^+,A)\hfill \\ & +SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{A}_i^{},A)+h_{\widehat{A}_i^{}}^1(X;𝔥^{})).\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`\tau ^{\prime \prime }(X,h)`$ is an integer and depends only on the perturbation $`h`$ and the manifold $`X`$; in particulalr it is independent of the choice of $`\widehat{A}_i^\pm .`$

###### Proof.

We first prove that $`\tau ^{\prime \prime }(X,h)`$ depends only on the perturbation $`h`$. Since we have already seen that the spectral flow terms are gauge invariant, we just need to show that $`\tau ^{\prime \prime }(X,h)`$ is independent of the choices of $`[\widehat{A}_i^+],[\widehat{A}_i^{}]C_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$ Suppose then that $`[\widehat{B}_i^+],[\widehat{B}_i^{}]C_i`$ also satisfy Corollary 2. Taking lifts $`\widehat{B}_i^+,\widehat{B}_i^{}`$ compatible with $`\widehat{A}_i^+,\widehat{A}_i^{},`$ it follows from additivity of spectral flow and Corollary 2 that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{A}_i^+,A)& =SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{B}_i^+,A),\hfill \\ \hfill SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{A}_i^{},A)+h_{\widehat{A}_i^{}}^1(X;𝔥^{})& =SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{B}_i^{},A)+h_{\widehat{B}_i^+}^1(X;𝔥^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

for all $`A𝒜^r`$. This shows $`\tau ^{\prime \prime }(X,h)`$ is independent of the choice of $`[\widehat{A}_i^+],[\widehat{A}_i^{}]C_i`$ satisfying Corollary 2.

To show $`\tau ^{\prime \prime }(X,h)`$, we claim that

(6)
$$SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{A}_i^{},A)+SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{A}_i^+,A)+h_{\widehat{A}_i^{}}^1(X;𝔥^{})$$

is divisible by 4 for all $`[A]^r.`$ Additivity of the spectral flow gives that (6) equals

$$2SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{A}_i^{},A)SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{A}_i^{},\widehat{A}_i^+)+h_{\widehat{A}_i^{}}^1(X;𝔥^{}).$$

We claim that each of these three terms is divisible by 4.

Divisibility of the first term follows because the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_AU(1)`$ action on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{0+1}(X;𝔥^{})`$ gives rise to a complex structure with which $`K_{A_t,h_t}`$ commutes for each t, where $`(A_t,h_t)`$ is a path from $`(\widehat{A}_i^{},0)`$ to $`(A,h)`$. This implies $`SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{A}_i^{},A)`$ is even.

Divisibility of the second and third terms is a consequence of the following claim.

Claim. If $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are $`SU(2)\times \{1\}`$ connections, then $`SF_𝔥^{}(A_1,A_2)`$ and $`h_{A_i}^1(X;𝔥^{})`$ are divisible by four.

To see this, identify $`SU(2)`$ with $`Sp(1),`$ the unit quaternions, and $`𝔥^{}^2`$ with $``$, the quaternions. The regular representation of $`SU(2)`$ on $`^2`$ can then be viewed as left multiplication in $``$, and it follows that right multiplication in $``$ endows each eigenspace of $`K_A`$ with a quaternionic structure. This proves the claim. ∎

The following theorem is our main result.

###### Theorem 4.

Suppose $`h`$ is a small generic perturbation. Set

$$\tau (X)=\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}(X,h)+\tau ^{\prime \prime }(X,h),$$

where $`\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}(X,h)`$ is defined in equation (1) and $`\tau ^{\prime \prime }(X,h)`$ is given in Proposition 3. Then $`\tau (X)`$ is an integer valued invariant of homology 3-spheres which agrees with $`\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}`$ on homology 3-spheres satisfying ($``$). Furthermore

1. If $`\tau (X)0,`$ then there exists an irreducible representation $`\rho :\pi _1XSU(3).`$
2. $`\tau (X)=\tau (\overline{X})`$.
3. If $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are homology 3-spheres, then
$`\tau (X_1\mathrm{\#}X_2)=\tau (X_1)+\tau (X_2)+4\lambda _{SU(2)}(X_1)\lambda _{SU(2)}(X_2).`$

## 3. Proofs

Although it is possible to give a direct proof of Theorem 4 based on the arguments of , it is in fact easier and more informative to study the difference between $`\lambda _{SU(3)}`$ and $`\tau `$. This is the approach we take in proving Theorem 4. The principal result is Lemma 6, where we identify $`\lambda _{SU(3)}\tau `$ in terms of the following more general construction.

###### Proposition 5.

Recall that $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_n`$ are the connected components of $`^r`$ with disjoint neighborhoods $`U_1,\mathrm{},U_n`$ in $`^r`$. Given any $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n,`$ the quantity

(7)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{[A]_h^rU_i}{}(1)^{SF(\theta ,A)}\alpha _i,$$

is independent of choice of generic small perturbation $`h`$.

###### Proof.

Notice that if $`\alpha _i=1`$ for all $`i`$, the quantity (7) equals $`\lambda _{SU(2)}(X)`$ by . The following argument is a simple generalization of that fact.

Suppose $`\rho =h_t,0t1,`$ is a generic, 1-parameter family of perturbations. Let

$$W_\rho =\underset{t[0,1]}{}_{h_t}\times \{t\}$$

be the parameterized moduli space. Recall that $`W_\rho ^r`$ is a smooth 1-manifold. If all the perturbations $`h_t`$ in the path are sufficiently small, then $`W_\rho ^r_{i=1}^nU_i`$, hence for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, $`W_\rho ^rU_i`$ gives a 1-dimensional cobordism from $`_{h_0}^rU_i`$ to $`_{h_1}^rU_i`$ with orientations given by the spectral flow. Thus each sum $`_{[A]_h^rU_i}(1)^{SF(\theta ,A)}`$ is independent of $`h`$, which proves the proposition. ∎

The numbers $`\alpha _i`$ we use to analyze the difference $`\lambda _{SU(3)}\tau `$ are easiest to describe in terms of the Atiyah-Patodi-Singer rho invariants. Since $`X`$ is a homology 3-sphere, every $`[A]^r`$ can be represented by a flat $`SU(2)\times \{1\}`$ connection. Given such a connection $`A`$ on $`X`$, the rho invariant of $`A`$ with respect to the regular representation of $`SU(2)`$ on $`^2`$ can be defined by the formula (cf. Theorem 5.7, )

(8)
$$\varrho (A)=SF_^2(\theta ,A)4cs(A)+2\frac{1}{2}h_A^1(X;^2).$$

Equivalently, we can replace $`^2`$ coefficients by the subspace of $`su(3)`$ which we have been denoting by $`𝔥^{}`$. The rho invariant $`\varrho (A)`$ depends only on the gauge orbit $`[A]`$, not the representative.

For $`i=1,\mathrm{},n,`$ we define numbers

(9)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha _i^+& =\underset{[A]C_i}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{\varrho (A)+\frac{1}{2}h_A^1(X;𝔥^{})\right\},\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha _i^{}& =\underset{[A]C_i}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{\varrho (A)\frac{1}{2}h_A^1(X;𝔥^{})\right\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

It is often useful to let $`C_0=\{[\theta ]\}`$ be the component containing the trivial connection and to set $`\alpha _0^+=0=\alpha _0^{}.`$

Remark. For each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n,`$ the connection $`[\widehat{A}_i^+]`$ can be characterized in a gauge invariant way as a global maximum point for the function $`C_i`$ defined by $`[A]\varrho (A)+\frac{1}{2}h_A^1(X;𝔥^{}).`$ This follows by comparing equation (8) and the inequalities (5) since the Chern-Simons function is constant on path components of flat connections. Similarly, $`[\widehat{A}_i^{}]`$ is a global minimum for the function $`C_i`$ defined by $`[A]\varrho (A)\frac{1}{2}h_A^1(X;𝔥^{})`$. Combining this observation with equations (8) and (9) shows that

$`\alpha _i^+`$ $`=`$ $`SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,\widehat{A}_i^+)4cs(\widehat{A}_i^+)+2,`$
$`\alpha _i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,\widehat{A}_i^{})4cs(\widehat{A}_i^{})+2h_{\widehat{A}_i^{}}^1(X;𝔥^{}).`$
###### Lemma 6.

$`\tau (X)`$ is a topological invariant of homology 3-spheres.

###### Proof.

Since invariance of $`\lambda _{SU(3)}`$ is proved in , we only need to prove that $`\lambda _{SU(3)}\tau `$ is independent of all choices made. Now

$$\lambda _{SU(3)}^{\prime \prime }(X,h)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{[A]_h^r}{}(1)^{SF(\theta ,A)}(SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,A)4cs(\widehat{A})+2),$$

where $`\widehat{A}`$ is a reducible flat $`SU(3)`$ connection close to $`A`$. Of course $`[\widehat{A}]C_i`$ for some $`i`$, and making compatible choices for $`\widehat{A}_i^+`$ and $`\widehat{A}_i^{}`$, we see that

$`\lambda _{SU(3)}(X)\tau (X)=\lambda _{SU(3)}^{\prime \prime }(X,h)\tau ^{\prime \prime }(X,h)`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{[A]_h^rU_i}{}}(1)^{SF(\theta ,A)}(2SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,A)8cs(\widehat{A})+4`$
$`SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{A}_i^+,A)SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{A}_i^{},A)h_{\widehat{A}_i^{}}^1(X;𝔥^{}))`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{[A]_h^rU_i}{}}(1)^{SF(\theta ,A)}(SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,\widehat{A}_i^+)4cs(\widehat{A}_i^+)`$
$`+SF_𝔥^{}(\theta ,\widehat{A}_i^{})4cs(\widehat{A}_i^{})+4h_{\widehat{A}_i^{}}^1(X;𝔥^{}))`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{[A]_h^rU_i}{}}(1)^{SF(\theta ,A)}\left(\alpha _i^++\alpha _i^{}\right).`$
The third step follows by additivity of the spectral flow together with the fact that $`cs(\widehat{A})=cs(\widehat{A}_i^+)=cs(\widehat{A}_i^{})`$, since the Chern-Simons function is constant along connected components of flat connections. Now letting $`\alpha _i=\alpha _i^++\alpha _i^{}`$ and applying Proposition 5 completes the proof. ∎

###### Lemma 7.

If $`X`$ satisfies ($``$), then $`\tau (X)`$ equals $`\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}(X,h)`$ for any small generic perturbation $`h`$.

###### Proof.

We show that $`\tau ^{\prime \prime }(X,h)=0`$ for sufficiently small $`h`$ whenever ($``$) holds, i.e., whenever $`H_A^1(X;𝔥^{})=0`$ for all $`[A]^r`$. This cohomology assumption implies $`H_{A,h}^1(X;𝔥^{})`$ also vanishes for every $`[A]_h^r`$ for any small $`h.`$ (Note that the assumption of smallness of $`h`$ here is stronger than the assumption needed to define $`\tau .`$) Thus $`SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{A}_i^+,A)=0=SF_𝔥^{}(\widehat{A}_i^{},A)`$ and $`H_{\widehat{A}_i^{}}^1(X;𝔥^{})=0`$ for all $`[A]_h^rU_i`$. This shows that each summand in the definition of $`\tau ^{\prime \prime }(X,h)`$ vanishes for $`h`$ sufficiently small. ∎

###### Lemma 8.

$`\tau (\overline{X})=\tau (X)`$.

###### Proof.

In , it is proved that $`\lambda _{SU(3)}(\overline{X})=\lambda _{SU(3)}(X)`$. So, the lemma follows once we show that $`\lambda _{SU(3)}(X)\tau (X)`$ satisfies the same formula.

Reversing the orientation of $`X`$ changes the sign of the Chern-Simons function but has no effect on the perturbations. Therefore, there is a natural correspondence between the flat moduli spaces $`_h(X)`$ and $`_h(\overline{X})`$. Obviously, if $`_h(X)`$ is regular, then so is $`_{SU(3),h}(\overline{X})`$.

The odd signature operator $`K_{A,h}^X`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{0+1}(X;su(3))`$ by

$$K_{A,h}^X=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& d_A^{}\\ d_A& d_A4\pi \mathrm{Hess}h(A)\end{array}\right].$$

Changing the orientation of $`X`$ changes the sign of the Hodge star operator. Replacing $`h`$ by $`h`$ as well, we see that

$$K_{A,h}^{\overline{X}}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& d_A^{}\\ d_A& d_A+4\pi \mathrm{Hess}h(A)\end{array}\right].$$

Hence, if $`K_{A,h}^X(\xi ,\eta )=\lambda (\xi ,\eta )`$, then $`K_{A,h}^{\overline{X}}(\xi ,\eta )=\lambda (\xi ,\eta ).`$ Thus switching orientations and replacing $`h`$ by $`h`$ reflects the spectrum through zero. The following formula is a consequence of the $`(ϵ,ϵ)`$ convention:

$$SF_{\overline{X}}(K_{A_t,h_t})=SF_X(K_{A_t,h_t})+dim\mathrm{ker}K_{A_1,h_1}dim\mathrm{ker}K_{A_0,h_0}.$$

Now suppose $`h`$ is a small perturbation and $`_h(X)`$ is regular. If $`[A]_h^r`$ then $`H_A^0(X;su(3))`$ and $`H_{A,h}^1(X;su(3))=0`$ and so

$$SF_{\overline{X}}(\theta ,A)=SF_X(\theta ,A)+18.$$

In this formula, on the left the spectral flow is taken from $`(\theta ,0)`$ to $`(A,h)`$, and on the right it is from $`(\theta ,0)`$ to $`(A,h)`$.

Further, if $`\widehat{A}`$ is flat and reducible, then it is a simple exercise to prove $`\varrho _{\overline{X}}(\widehat{A})=\varrho _X(\widehat{A})`$. Equation (9) then implies that

$`\alpha _i^+(\overline{X})`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{[\widehat{A}]C_i}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{\varrho _{\overline{X}}(\widehat{A})+\frac{1}{2}h_{\widehat{A}}^1(X;𝔥^{})\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{[\widehat{A}]C_i}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{\varrho _X(\widehat{A})+\frac{1}{2}h_{\widehat{A}}^1(X;𝔥^{})\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{[\widehat{A}]C_i}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{\varrho _X(\widehat{A})\frac{1}{2}h_{\widehat{A}}^1(X;𝔥^{})\right\}=\alpha _i^{}(X).`$
Similarly $`\alpha _i^{}(\overline{X})=\alpha _i^+(X)`$. Thus

$`\lambda _{SU(3)}(\overline{X})\tau (\overline{X})`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{[A]_h^r(\overline{X})U_i}{}}(1)^{SF_{\overline{X}}(\theta ,A)}\left(\alpha _i^+(\overline{X})+\alpha _i^{}(\overline{X})\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{[A]_h^r(X)U_i}{}}(1)^{SF_X(\theta ,A)+1}\left(\alpha _i^{}(X)\alpha _i^+(X)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda _{SU(3)}(X)\tau (X).`$
###### Lemma 9.

If $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are homology 3-spheres, then
$`\tau (X_1\mathrm{\#}X_2)=\tau (X_1)+\tau (X_2)+4\lambda _{SU(2)}(X_1)\lambda _{SU(2)}(X_2).`$

###### Proof.

Since $`\lambda _{SU(3)}`$ was shown to satisfy a similar formula in , it suffices to show additivity of $`\lambda _{SU(3)}\tau `$ under connected sum. We first claim that the numbers $`\alpha _i^+`$ and $`\alpha _i^{}`$ are additive under connected sum.

To make this precise, we need to set up the notation. Set $`X=X_1\mathrm{\#}X_2.`$ Then every connection $`A`$ on $`X`$ is of the form $`A=A_1\mathrm{\#}_\sigma A_2`$, where $`A_i`$ is a connection on $`X_i`$ and $`\sigma `$ is the gluing parameter. Furthermore, if $`A`$ is reducible and flat, then so are $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$.

For $`k=1,2`$, let $`C_0(X_k),\mathrm{},C_{n_k}(X_k)`$ be the components of $`^r(X_k)`$, where $`C_0(X_k)=\{[\theta _k]\}`$ is the component containing the trivial connection. The components of $`^r(X)`$ are then given by the sets

$$C_{i,j}(X)=\{[A=A_1\mathrm{\#}_\sigma A_2]A_1C_i(X_1)\text{ and }A_2C_j(X_2)\}.$$

for $`0in_1`$ and $`0jn_2`$. Note that $`C_{0,0}(X)`$ is now the component containing the trivial connection. For each $`i,j`$, we also choose an open set $`U_{i,j}(X)^r(X)`$ containing $`C_{i,j}(X)`$ so the collection $`\{U_{i,j}(X)0in_1,0jn_2\}`$ is disjoint.

For $`k=1,2`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{},n_k,`$ let $`\alpha _i^+(X_k)`$ and $`\alpha _i^{}(X_k)`$ be the quantities defined by equation (9). Writing $`\alpha _{i,j}^+(X)`$ and $`\alpha _{i,j}^{}(X)`$ for same numbers defined with respect to the components $`C_{i,j}(X)`$ for $`X=X_1\mathrm{\#}X_2`$, we claim that

(10)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha _{i,j}^+(X)& =\alpha _i^+(X_1)+\alpha _j^+(X_2),\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha _{i,j}^{}(X)& =\alpha _i^{}(X_1)+\alpha _j^{}(X_2).\hfill \end{array}$$

To see this, suppose $`A=A_1\mathrm{\#}_\sigma A_2`$ is a reducible flat connection. Adding a 1-handle to $`\left(X_1X_2\right)\times [0,1]`$ gives a flat cobordism from $`(X_1,A_1)(X_2,A_2)`$ to $`(X_1\mathrm{\#}X_2,A)`$. Since this cobordism has no 2-handles, its signature and twisted signature vanish, and so the Atiyah-Patodi-Singer index theorem implies that

(11)
$$\varrho _{X_1\mathrm{\#}X_2}(A)=\varrho _{X_1}(A_1)+\varrho _{X_2}(A_2).$$

In addition, the Mayer-Vietoris principle implies

(12)
$$H_A^1(X_1\mathrm{\#}X_2;𝔥^{})=H_{A_1}^1(X_1;𝔥^{})+H_{A_2}^1(X_2;𝔥^{}).$$

Equations (10) now follow by applying (11) and (12) above to the definition (9).

Suppose $`h_k`$ is a small admissible perturbation on $`X_k`$ for $`k=1,2`$, so that $`_{h_k}(X_k)`$ is regular. Viewing $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ as perturbations on $`X=X_1\mathrm{\#}X_2,`$ set $`h_0=h_1+h_2`$ and assume the perturbations are chosen small enough so that $`_{h_0}^r(X)_{i,j}U_{i,j}(X).`$

Given $`[A]_{h_0}^r(X)`$, we can write $`A=A_1\mathrm{\#}_\sigma A_2`$ where $`A_1`$ is an $`h_1`$-perturbed flat reducible connection on $`X_1`$ and $`A_2`$ is an $`h_2`$-perturbed flat reducible connection on $`X_2.`$ Then $`_{h_0}^r(X)`$ consists of two types of components :

1. $`SO(3)`$ components of the form $`C=\{[A_1\mathrm{\#}_\sigma A_2]\},`$ where $`[A_k]_{h_k}^r(X_k)`$ for $`k=1,2`$ and $`\sigma `$ is a gluing parameter with $`A_1\mathrm{\#}_\sigma A_2`$ reducible.
2. Point components of the form $`C=\{[\theta _1\mathrm{\#}A_2]\}`$ or $`\{[A_1\mathrm{\#}\theta _2]`$}, where $`\theta _k`$ is the trivial $`SU(3)`$ connection over $`X_k`$ and $`[A_k]_{h_k}^r(X_k)`$ for $`k=1,2`$.

Note that the intersection $`_{h_0}^r(X)U_{i,j}(X)`$ consists entirely of components of type (i) unless $`i=0`$ or $`j=0`$, in which case it consists of point components.

We first argue that components of type (i) do not contribute to $`\lambda _{SU(3)}(X)\tau (X)`$. To see this, suppose $`C`$ is a component of type (i). Then $`CU_{i,j}(X)`$ for fixed $`i,j>0`$. Let $`h=h_0+tg`$ be a perturbation so that the restriction of $`g`$ to $`C`$ is Morse. (The existence of such functions is shown in .) Then, for small $`t`$, the contribution of $`C`$ to $`\lambda _{SU(3)}(X)\tau (X)`$ is given by

$$\left(\alpha _{i,j}^+(X)+\alpha _{i,j}^{}(X)\right)\underset{p\mathrm{Crit}(g|_C)}{}(1)^{\mathrm{ind}_p(g|_C)},$$

which vanishes since the sum evaluates to the Euler characteristic $`\chi (C)`$ and $`CSO(3)`$. (This is similar to the proof of Proposition 8 in .)

Thus, dropping all the $`(i,j)`$ terms with $`i,j>0`$ from the following sum and applying equation (10) to the remaining terms, we conclude that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda _{su(3)}& (X)\tau (X)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{4}\underset{i,j}{}\underset{[A]_h^r(X)U_{i,j}(X)}{}(1)^{SF_X(\theta ,A)}\left(\alpha _{i,j}^+(X)+\alpha _{i,j}^{}(X)\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{4}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_1}{}}\underset{[A_1]_{h_1}^r(X_1)U_i(X_1)}{}(1)^{SF_{X_1}(\theta _1,A_1)}\left(\alpha _i^+(X_1)+\alpha _i^{}(X_1)\right)\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{4}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n_2}{}}\underset{[A_2]_{h_2}^r(X_2)U_j(X_2)}{}(1)^{SF_{X_2}(\theta _2,A_2)}\left(\alpha _j^+(X_2)+\alpha _j^{}(X_2)\right)\hfill \\ & =\lambda _{SU(3)}(X_1)\tau (X_1)+\lambda _{SU(3)}(X_2)\tau (X_2).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`\lambda _{SU(2)}(X)2`$, Lemma 9 has the following corollary.

###### Corollary 10.

The mod 16 reduction of $`\tau `$ is additive with respect to connected sum of homology 3-spheres.∎

Proof of Theorem 4. Lemmas 6 and 7 show that $`\tau (X)`$ determines an integer valued invariant of homology spheres $`X`$ which agrees with $`\lambda _{SU(3)}^{}(X)`$ for homology 3-spheres satisfying ($``$). Part (i) of Theorem 4 follows since $`\tau (X)0`$ implies the existence of an irreducible $`SU(2)`$ or $`SU(3)`$ representation of $`\pi _1X`$, but any irreducible $`SU(2)`$ representation produces an irreducible $`SU(3)`$ representation via mapping $`SU(2)SO(3)SU(3).`$ Part (ii) follows from Lemma 8 and part (iii) from Lemma 9. ∎

Below are some computations of $`\tau `$ from . For these examples, observe that $`\tau (X)`$ is divisible by 2.

The invariant $`\tau `$ for Brieskorn spheres $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,p,q)`$

| Brieskorn sphere | The invariant $`\tau (X)`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,3,6k\pm 1)`$ | $`3k^2\pm k`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,5,10k\pm 1)`$ | $`33k^2\pm 9k`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,5,10k\pm 3)`$ | $`33k^2\pm 19k+2`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,7,14k\pm 1)`$ | $`138k^2\pm 26k`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,7,14k\pm 3)`$ | $`138k^2\pm 62k+4`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,7,14k\pm 5)`$ | $`138k^2\pm 102k+16`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,9,18k\pm 1)`$ | $`390k^2\pm 58k`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,9,18k\pm 5)`$ | $`390k^2\pm 210k+24`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,9,18k\pm 7)`$ | $`390k^2\pm 298k+52`$ |

Concluding remarks and open questions. To better understand the relationship between $`\lambda _{SU(3)}`$ and $`\tau ,`$ it is helpful to compare them to the $`SU(2)`$ invariants $`\lambda _W`$ and $`\lambda _{BN}`$ of rational homology spheres defined by Kevin Walker  and by Boyer and Nicas , respectively. Under suitable hypotheses, the difference $`\lambda _W\lambda _{BN}`$ can be expressed as a sum of Atiyah-Patodi-Singer rho invariants of $`U(1)`$ representations . A similar statement is true of $`\lambda _{SU(3)}\tau `$, and so it is natural to ask whether $`\tau `$ is the $`SU(3)`$ analog of the Boyer-Nicas invariant. The answer is no, and we now explain why not.

The Boyer-Nicas approach works more generally for arbitrary compact Lie groups $`G`$. Their idea is to define a Casson-like invariant by incorporating only compact components of the variety of irreducible representations $`\rho :\pi _1XG`$. For that reason, no correction term is required. In the $`SU(3)`$ case, their approach would yield an integer valued invariant that presumably agrees with $`\tau `$ on homology 3-spheres satisfying ($``$).

However, $`\tau `$ and the $`SU(3)`$ Boyer-Nicas invariant are not identical; $`\tau `$ involves a correction term whereas the Boyer-Nicas invariant does not. In truth, $`\tau `$ incorporates contributions from the reducible components in only a very limited way. The proof of Lemma 7 shows that only those components of $`^r`$ which contain gauge orbits $`[A]`$ with $`H_A^1(X;𝔥^{})0`$ contribute to the correction term. These are precisely the components which, from first order considerations, may contain limit points of the irreducible stratum. The corresponding components of the irreducible stratum would therefore be excluded in the Boyer-Nicas approach on the grounds that it is not compact. This illustrates the fundamental difference between $`\tau `$ and the $`SU(3)`$ Boyer-Nicas invariant.

We conclude this paper with five open problems.

1. Is $`\tau (X)`$ divisible by 2 for all homology 3-spheres? If not, is $`\tau `$ mod $`2`$ a homology cobordism invariant?
2. Is $`\tau `$ a finite-type invariant?
3. Find a Dehn surgery formula for $`\tau `$.
4. Compute $`\tau `$ for homology spheres that do not satisfy ($``$), e.g., Brieskorn spheres $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,q,r)`$ with $`p,q,r>2.`$
5. Develop an $`SU(3)`$ Floer theory and relate its Euler characteristic to $`\tau .`$