text:
# AN INDEX FOR CLOSED ORBITS IN BELTRAMI FIELDS

## 1. Introduction and summary

Consider the class of Beltrami fields — the volume-preserving eigenfields of the curl operator. Such vector fields are the source of numerous interesting phenomena in inviscid fluids and plasmas. For example, Beltrami fields are the only steady three-dimensional Euler flows which admit chaotic Lagrangian dynamics. Beltrami fields are also common approximations to the magnetic field lines in large-scale structures within the solar corona.

Despite their importance and inherent intricacy, very little is known about the dynamics of Beltrami fields apart from numerical simulation  and Melnikov analyses of near-integrable Beltrami fields  – an important but extremely small class of solutions. We consider the subtle problem of understanding how much and what kinds of dynamics Beltrami fields are forced to possess given the underlying topological features of the fluid domain.

In a series of papers , the authors develop techniques for determining forced behaviors in steady inviscid fluids via the topology of contact structures, the odd-dimensional analogues of symplectic structures (see, e.g.,  for an introduction to contact geometry). In this paper, we give an application of these techniques to Beltrami fields on solid tori. One of the features of our topological approach is that it is independent of the Riemannian metric and is furthermore robust with respect to perturbations of the vector field, without resorting to any hyperbolicity or nondegeneracy assumptions usually required to preserve closed orbits.

We restrict attention to Beltrami fields on Riemannian solid tori, such as would occur in the case of a force-free plasma in a containment device. In , it is shown using techniques from contact topology and pseudo-holomorphic curves that steady Euler fields on an invariant solid torus always possess a closed orbit, independent of the Riemannian structure and volume form:

Theorem: () Any steady real-analytic solution to the Euler equations (2.2) on any invariant Riemannian solid torus possesses a closed orbit.

Since every Beltrami field is a steady Euler field, the result holds true for all Beltrami fields. The restrictive smoothness assumption is necessary for using singularity theory arguments for the integrable Euler fields — in the setting of pure Beltrami fields, the techniques are valid up to smoothness class $`C^2`$ .

In this paper, we define an integer-valued index for detecting the presence of contractible closed orbits — those closed orbits which can be shrunk to a point within the solid torus. Thus, we are not primarily concerned with the class of Beltrami fields which possess a cross-section (and hence trivially have a closed non-contractible orbit by the Brouwer fixed point theorem). In cases where no section exists, it is very difficult to determine the existence of closed orbits. Indeed, the recent examples of fixed-point-free vector fields on a solid torus without any periodic orbits (constructible via  in the real-analytic case, and by  in the $`C^1`$ volume-preserving case), demonstrate the delicacy of the problem.

A related scenario to which our results apply is that of a Beltrami field on a long tube $`D^2\times \text{}`$ which is periodic in the third variable. The problem of finding contractible closed orbits in the solid torus obtained by quotienting out the periodicity is precisely the problem of finding an orbit which is closed in the long tube.

The index we construct is a type of linking number with respect to a contact structure — the so-called self-linking number of a transverse knot, well-known to contact topologists. The data required to compute the index is minimal: one needs information about the Beltrami field along some (arbitrary) meridional disc in the solid torus. The principal contribution of this note is to retool the contact-topological index in a form which requires no knowledge of the contact structure per se. Since contact structures are very stable with respect to perturbation, the vector field need only be known approximately ($`C^1`$) along the disc. Hence, this index can be computed numerically with full rigor.

Sections 2 through 4 assemble the relevant ingredients. Section 5 presents the technical result on contact structures used to define the index and prove its major properties. The section §6 gives a very simple method for computing this index from a minimal amount of data: one need simply know what the vector field $`X`$ approximately looks like near some finite number of points on a meridional disc of the solid torus. It is our hope that this computability may allow for utilization of this index in the analysis of experimental data.

## 2. Beltrami fields on Riemannian manifolds

Let $`M`$ be an arbitrary 3-manifold with Riemannian metric $`g`$ and (arbitrary) volume form $`\mu `$. Given a vector field $`X`$ on $`M`$, one can consider the dual 1-form $`g(X,)`$ to $`X`$ that pairs with a vector $`Y`$ to give the inner product $`g(X,Y)`$. In this general setting, the curl of a vector field $`X`$ on $`M`$ is the unique vector field $`\times X`$ satisfying

(2.1)
$$\mu (\times X,,)=d(g(X,)),$$

where $`d`$ denotes the exterior derivative on forms. The curl operator is linear and its $`\mu `$-preserving eigenfields are known as the Beltrami fields. In other words, $`X`$ is Beltrami if and only if it is volume-preserving and $`\times X=\lambda X`$ for some constant $`\lambda `$. One can also consider the class of eigenfields with scalar fields as eigenvalues: $`\times X=fX`$ for $`f:M\text{}`$. Our techniques are adaptable to this more general format, but we restrict to pure eigenfields here for simplicity.

Beltrami fields arise in several contexts:

1. Beltrami fields are always steady solutions to the Euler equations for an inviscid incompressible fluid

(2.2)
$$\frac{u}{t}+_uu=p;_u\mu =0,$$

where $`_uu`$ is the covariant derivative of the velocity field $`u`$ along itself, and $`p:M\text{}`$, the pressure function, can be chosen to be $`\frac{1}{2}u^2`$. The Lie derivative $`_u\mu `$ of the volume form along $`u`$ vanishing is equivalent to $`u`$ being divergence-free.
2. Beltrami fields also yield steady solutions to the ideal MHD equations

$$\frac{u}{t}+_uu=p+(\times B)\times B$$

(2.3)
$$\frac{B}{t}\times (u\times B)=0$$

$$_u\mu =_B\mu =0,$$

where $`B`$ denotes the magnetic field. In this context, Beltrami fields are known as force-free fields.
3. Beltrami fields are all extrema of the $`L^2`$ energy functional

(2.4)
$$u_2:=\frac{1}{2}_Mu^2𝑑\mu $$

under the action of the volume-preserving diffeomorphism group of $`M`$. Eigenfields of curl having the smallest nonzero eigenvalue globally minimize the energy .

Beltrami fields also play a role in the analysis of the stability of matter  and in the formation of dynamos .

The topology and dynamics of Beltrami fields are subtle: witness the complex dynamics of the well-known ABC fields on the Euclidean 3-torus . The existence of fixed-point-free Beltrami fields on general Riemannian 3-manifolds is highly nontrivial , as is the presence of closed orbits within such fields .

## 3. Contact structures and topology

Contact structures are the natural complements to Beltrami fields. Loosely put, a contact structure on a odd-dimensional manifold $`M`$ is a hyperplane field which is maximally nonintegrable. More specifically, on a three-dimensional manifold, a contact structure is a smoothly-varying plane field (a choice of a two-dimensional subspace $`\xi _p`$ in each tangent space $`T_pM`$) which cannot be stitched together into leaves of a foliation, not even at a point. Locally, every contact structure $`\xi `$ is the kernel of a differential 1-form $`\alpha `$ satisfying the contact condition:

(3.1)
$$\alpha d\alpha 0.$$

Otherwise said, $`\alpha d\alpha `$ is locally a volume form on $`M`$. Any 1-form satisfying (3.1) is called a contact form. If $`\alpha d\alpha `$ is a globally defined volume form on $`M`$, then the contact structure is said to be cooriented: all contact structures which arise in connection with Beltrami fields are of necessity cooriented, and we will restrict entirely to this category.

A contact form $`\alpha `$ on an oriented three-manifold $`M`$ is said to be positive if the sign of $`\alpha d\alpha `$ is positive with respect to the orientation of $`M`$. Otherwise, $`\alpha `$ is said to be negative. The sign is a property of the contact structure and is independent of the defining 1-form.

Canonical examples of positive contact forms on $`\text{}^3`$ include $`dz+xdy`$, $`dz+r^2\mathrm{sin}rd\theta `$, and $`\mathrm{cos}rdz+r\mathrm{sin}rd\theta `$, the latter two being given in cylindrical coordinates.

Much of the current interest in contact structures arises from fairly recent elucidations of their topological and dynamical properties (see, e.g., ). Studying contact structures by means of characteristic foliations is most fruitful. Given a two-dimensional surface $`S`$ embedded in $`M`$, the characteristic foliation of $`S`$, $`S_\xi `$, is the \[singular\] one-dimensional foliation generated by the intersections of the tangent planes of $`T_pS`$ with the contact planes $`\xi _p`$ in $`T_pM`$. For all intents and purposes, $`S_\xi `$ may be thought of as a vector field on $`S`$ generated by $`\xi `$ (by orienting the foliation). The singularities which arise on a characteristic foliation are generically saddles or spiral sources/sinks: pure centers cannot ever appear from a contact structure — the plane field twists too much for this.

The dynamical properties of $`S_\xi `$ are closely related to the topological classification of contact structures. A contact structure $`\xi `$ is said to be overtwisted if there exists an embedded disc $`DM`$ such that $`D_\xi `$ possesses a limit cycle — a closed orbit along which nearby orbits accumulate \[see Figure 1\]. A contact structure is said to be tight if there are no such overtwisted discs anywhere in $`M`$. The contact structures for $`dz+xdy`$ and $`dz+r^2d\theta `$ are tight , while that of $`\mathrm{cos}rdz+r\mathrm{sin}rd\theta `$ is overtwisted (e.g., at the disc $`\{r1,z=r^2\}`$).

It is by no means apparent that the above definition is at all helpful: but in fact, the entire topological theory hangs on this dichotomy. Many major questions about contact structures are solved in the overtwisted category and unknown in the tight category (or, if known, then only recently and then by great skill and effort). For example, while overtwisted contact structures have been completely classified up to isotopy , the classification of tight structures appears \[from what is presently known\] to be delicate at best, intractable at worst .

## 4. Contact dynamics

The connection between contact structures and Beltrami fields is, in the present context, quite straightforward. Given any fixed-point-free Beltrami field $`X`$ on $`M`$, the Beltrami condition states that

(4.1)
$$\mu (\lambda X,,)=d(g(X,)).$$

¿From this one can derive the crucial observation that the plane field orthogonal to any nonvanishing Beltrami field is indeed a contact structure as follows. Witness the 1-form $`\alpha :=g(X,)`$ dual to $`X`$ via $`g`$. The kernel of this 1-form represents the orthogonal plane field $`\xi `$ to $`X`$. This form $`\alpha `$ is a contact form on $`M`$ since

(4.2)
$$\alpha d\alpha :=\lambda g(X,)\mu (X,,),$$

which, for $`\lambda 0`$, is nowhere vanishing, as one can easily check by evaluating on local orthogonal coordinate bases of the form $`(e_1:=X/X,e_2,e_3)`$.

A little more is in fact true: a Beltrami field annihilates the exterior derivative of the associated contact form, since

(4.3)
$$(d\alpha )(X,)=\mu (X,X,)=0.$$

Such vector fields are classical objects known as Reeb fields. The Reeb field of a contact form $`\alpha `$ is the unique vector field $`Z`$ such that $`d\alpha (Z,)=0`$ and $`\alpha (Z)=1`$. We have thus observed that any Beltrami field $`X`$ (nonsingular with nonzero eigenvalue) is a Reeb field for a contact form, after a possible rescaling to force $`\alpha (X)=1`$. In , a broader version of this result was demonstrated: namely, that the class of nonsingular Beltrami fields on $`M`$ (up to scaling, for any Riemannian structure and volume form) is identical to the class of Reeb fields (up to scaling, for any contact form).

This theorem allows one to build “custom” solutions to the steady Euler equations of very high regularity. For example,  builds a single Beltrami field on a Riemannian $`\text{}^3`$ which possesses closed orbits of all possible knot and link types simultaneously. This can be viewed as a rigorous manifestation of the delightful results of Moffatt on knotting in the Euler equations .

In the present context, we will use this simple correspondence between Beltrami and Reeb fields to import technology from contact dynamics. Most specifically, we are interested in the utility of the tight/overtwisted dichotomy in describing the dynamics of Beltrami fields. One extremely important result in contact dynamics is the following theorem of Hofer : Let $`\xi `$ be an overtwisted contact structure on $`M`$ a compact 3-manifold without boundary. Then the Reeb field of any contact form associated to $`\xi `$ possesses a closed orbit, some multiple of which bounds a disc in $`M`$.

Loosely speaking, a closed orbit (limit cycle) in the characteristic foliation of a disc in $`M`$ implies the existence of a closed Reeb orbit which bounds a disc in $`M`$. The proof relies on the delicate techniques of pseudo-holomorphic curves in symplectic manifolds. One indication of the implicit nature of the proof is that the location of the overtwisted disc has little to no correlation with the location of the implicated Reeb orbit.

It follows from well-known properties of pseudo-holomorphic curves that the proof of Hofer’s theorem remains valid for a three-manifold with invariant boundary (see  for details). Thus, for the solid torus, it follows that an overtwisted Reeb field must possess a contractible periodic orbit (since the fundamental group of the solid torus contains no elements of finite order except the identity).

## 5. Definition of 𝕀

¿From Hofer’s theorem, then, one way to force a contractible orbit in a Beltrami field is by finding an overtwisted disc in the orthogonal contact structure. This is far from trivial, since it requires searching for overtwisted discs among all possible embedded discs in $`M`$: not a computationally feasible task, even if the vector field were known analytically (which, in the context of an experimentally generated flow is not generally the case).

The classification of contact structures has been successfully completed only on a selected class of three-manifolds. The classification of contact structures on the solid torus is quite recent and subtle . In particular, it is known that on the solid torus there are tight contact structures which are “stably overtwisted” — taking some finite covering space of the solid torus and lifting the tight contact structure downstairs yields an overtwisted contact structure on the cover  (see Theorem 5.2). While this is a complication for contact topologists, it is a benefit to dynamicists.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Any Beltrami field transverse to a tight contact structure, some cover of which is overtwisted, must possess a contractible closed orbit.

Proof: Assume that $`\xi `$ is a tight contact structure, some finite cover $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ of which is overtwisted. Then, given any Beltrami field $`X`$ associated to $`\xi `$, lift this to a Beltrami field $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ on the overtwisted cover. Applying Hofer’s theorem to the cover implies the existence of a contractible periodic orbit for $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$; however, since a covering space projection takes orbits to orbits, the closed orbit upstairs (along with the disc that it bounds) must project to a contractible closed orbit of the original Beltrami field $`X`$. ∎

Thus, our goal is to effectively determine the existence of an overtwisted or stably (with respect to coverings) overtwisted structure on a solid torus given the least amount of information about a Beltrami field transverse to it.

To do so, we recall a common index used in contact topology (see  for an introduction). Given a contact structure $`\xi `$ on a three-manifolds $`M`$, a simple closed curve (knot) is called transverse if its tangents are everywhere transverse to the contact planes. Assume that $`\gamma `$ is an oriented simple closed curve in $`M`$ which bounds a compact oriented surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`M`$. Then the self-linking number of $`\gamma `$ with respect to $`\xi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is defined as follows. Choose any vector field $`Z`$ on a neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which has no fixed points and which is always tangent to $`\xi `$. That this is possible is a simple argument involving the classification of plane bundles. Then, flow $`\gamma `$ for a small amount of time under $`Z`$ to obtain a “push-off” curve $`\gamma _Z`$. The self-linking number of $`\gamma `$, $`s\mathrm{}k(\gamma )`$ is then defined as the intersection number of $`\gamma _Z`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$i.e., the number of transverse intersections, counted algebraically using the orientations. This integer, which can be shown to be independent of the vector field $`Z`$ chosen, is an invariant of transverse curves up to isotopy through transverse curves . On $`S^3`$, the self-linking number is also independent of the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ chosen so long as it bounds $`\gamma `$.

The following recent result allows for an application of this index to Beltrami fields.

###### Theorem 5.2 ().

Assume $`\alpha `$ is a positive contact form on a solid torus $`V`$ whose Reeb field is tangent to the boundary $`V`$. Choose any transverse curve $`\gamma `$ on the boundary torus $`V`$ which bounds a meridional disc in $`V`$. If the self-linking number $`s\mathrm{}k(\gamma )`$ of this meridian is not equal to $`1`$, then the pullback of $`\alpha `$ under some finite cover is an overtwisted contact form.

It known from the inequality of  that if the initial contact structure is tight, the self linking number must satisfy $`s\mathrm{}k\chi (D)=1`$. Thus, any self-linking number greater than $`1`$ automatically implies an overtwisted structure (which is of course preserved under covers). The nontrivial result of this theorem is that for a tight structure, a self-linking number less than $`1`$ implies an overtwisted cover. The techniques used in the proof of this theorem are a combination of perturbing characteristic foliations, manipulating singularities of characteristic foliations, and using dynamical properties of the characteristic foliation on $`V`$.

###### Remark 5.3.

It is necessary to distinguish between positive and negative contact structures. In the case of a negative contact form (one for which $`\alpha d\alpha <0`$) on an invariant solid torus, the structure possesses an overtwisted cover if and only if the self-linking number of a transverse meridian is not equal to $`+1`$. It is an easy exercise to show that the sign of the contact form dual to a curl eigenfield is precisely the sign of the eigenvalue.

¿From these ingredients the following index may be defined:

###### Definition 5.4.

Given a nonsingular Beltrami field $`X`$ on an invariant Riemannian solid torus $`V`$, define the index 𝕀 as follows.

1. If the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ of $`X`$ with respect to the curl operator is zero, define $`\text{𝕀}:=0`$.
2. Otherwise, consider the characteristic foliation $`(V)_\xi `$ of the contact structure orthogonal to $`X`$ on $`V`$. If possible, choose $`\gamma `$ any meridional curve on $`V`$ transverse to $`V_\xi `$ and define

(5.1)
$$\text{𝕀}:=\text{Sign}(\lambda )\left(s\mathrm{}k(\gamma )\right)+1.$$
3. If no transverse curve $`\gamma `$ exists, define $`\text{𝕀}:=\text{Sign}(\lambda )`$.

###### Theorem 5.5.

Any $`C^2`$ or smoother nonvanishing Beltrami field on an invariant Riemannian solid torus $`V`$ having nonzero index 𝕀 possesses a contractible closed orbit.

Proof: Assume that $`\lambda >0`$ as the negative case follows similarly. Since $`\text{𝕀}0`$, we are either in the case where there is a transverse meridian on the boundary of $`V`$ with self-linking number not equal to $`1`$, or there is no transverse meridian. In the case where the transverse meridian exists, some finite cover of the Beltrami field has a contractible closed orbit which is preserved by the covering projection.

If there does not exist a closed transversal, then a basic result in foliation theory implies that either (1) the characteristic foliation $`(V)_\xi `$ is entirely by meridional curves; or (2) the characteristic foliation $`(V)_\xi `$ possesses a Reeb component, illustrated in Figure 2. In the former case, the contact structure is clearly overtwisted: any meridional disc in general position which spans one of these meridional curves has this boundary curve as a limit cycle in its characteristic foliation. The existence of a periodic orbit then follows as earlier.

In the latter case, where a Reeb component exists in $`(V)_\xi `$, the following argument eliminates this possibility as a Beltrami field. Consider the Reeb field $`Z`$ associated to the contact form $`\alpha `$ dual to $`X`$. Since $`Z`$ preserves the contact structure $`\xi `$ and the boundary tours $`V`$, it must likewise preserve the characteristic foliation $`(V)_\xi `$. Thus, if $`(V)_\xi `$ contains a closed curve, then, since $`Z`$ is everywhere transverse to $`(V)_\xi `$, the entire boundary torus is swept out by forward images of this curve under the flow of $`Z`$, and $`(V)_\xi `$ is a foliation by closed curves. Thus, a Reeb component (which always possesses both closed and open curves as in the illustration) cannot arise as the characteristic foliation on an invariant solid torus. ∎

## 6. Computation of 𝕀

Given a contact structure $`\xi `$ on a 3-manifold $`M`$, the determination of whether it is a tight or overtwisted structure is a difficult question in general. By the Darboux Theorem (see, e.g., ), every contact structure in dimension three is locally equivalent to the kernel of $`dz+xdy`$, which is a tight structure . Thus, on the one hand, the property of being overtwisted is a decidedly global feature. However, the process of Lutz twisting  allows one to change a tight structure into an overtwisted structure by means of a $`C^0`$ alteration on an arbitrarily small open set in $`M`$. Thus, given a Beltrami field $`X`$ on $`M`$, determining whether the contact structure orthogonal to $`X`$ is overtwisted is computationally intractable. Determining whether the universal cover is overtwisted is no less difficult.

However, to compute the index 𝕀, one does not need information about the vector field on the entire three-dimensional regime, but rather on some (arbitrary) two-dimensional meridional disc. We outline a method for easily computing 𝕀 from a $`C^1`$ approximation to $`X`$ along a two-dimensional slice of the solid torus.

Choose a meridional disc $`D`$ with boundary curve $`\gamma `$. Orient $`\gamma `$ so that the contact form $`\alpha :=g(X,)`$ evaluates to a positive number on the tangents to $`\gamma `$: i.e., $`\gamma `$ points in roughly the same direction as $`X`$. This orientation on $`\gamma `$ induces in the usual way an orientation on the disc $`D`$. Denote by $`X_D`$ the projection of the vector field $`X`$ on to $`D`$ by orthogonal projection onto the tangent planes (orthogonal with respect to the metric $`g`$).

###### Proposition 6.1.

If the vector field $`X_D`$ is generic (possesses a finite number of nondegenerate rest points), the index 𝕀 of the Beltrami field $`X`$ can be computed by

(6.1)
$$\text{𝕀}=\text{Sign}(\lambda )\left(1+\underset{p:X_D(p)=0}{}\sigma (p)\text{Ind}(X_D;p)\right)$$

where for every rest point $`p`$ of $`X_D`$, $`\sigma (p)`$ is defined to be the sign $`(+/)`$ of the dot product of $`X(p)`$ with the positive normal vector to $`D`$ at $`p`$, and the term $`\text{Ind}(X_D;p)`$ denotes the standard Euler-Poincaré index of the planar vector field $`X_D`$ at $`p`$.

Proof: Assume that the characteristic foliation $`D_\xi `$ is generic in the above sense: there are a finite number of singular points $`p`$ at which the contact structure $`\xi `$ is tangent to $`D`$, and the characteristic foliation about these points appears locally as a source/sink or a saddle. Following , there is a standard formula for computing the self-linking number of the transverse curve $`\gamma =D`$:

(6.2)
$$s\mathrm{}k(\gamma )=\underset{p:D_\xi (p)=0}{}\text{sign}(T_pD,\xi _p)\text{Ind}(D_\xi ;p)$$

Here, the sign of $`(T_pD,\xi _p)`$ is $`+1`$ when the orientations on the contact plane $`\xi `$ and the orientations on the tangent plane to disc $`D`$ at $`p`$ agree. Otherwise the sign is $`1`$. However, we only know the Beltrami field $`X`$ and the disc $`D`$ — not the characteristic foliation. Determining the indices of the rest points of the characteristic foliation $`D_\xi `$ is accomplished via the projected field $`X_D`$ as follows. Since the contact structure for $`X`$ is the plane field $`\xi `$ orthogonal to $`X`$, the characteristic foliation at every point $`qD`$ is given by

$$D_\xi (q):=\xi _qT_qD=(X_D(q))^{},$$

the line field orthogonal to $`X_D`$ at $`q`$. The proposition is proved by noting (1) fixed points of $`X_D`$ occur exactly at fixed points of $`D_\xi `$; (2) the Euler-Poincaré index of $`D_\xi `$ at a fixed point $`p`$ is unchanged by looking at the orthogonal vector field, as illustrated in Figure 3. ∎

Computationally, this is extremely simple as $`D`$ can be chosen almost arbitrarily (one presumably chooses a $`D`$ which is “nice” in coordinates) and information about $`X`$ is required only on $`D`$ itself. The local index calculation is the most delicate portion of the computation: the location of the orthogonal point $`p`$ is easy and the sign $`\sigma (p)`$ merely measures whether $`X`$ agrees with the oriented normal to $`D`$, which is trivial to determine.

An example of a characteristic foliation $`D_\xi `$ and the resulting self-linking number is given in Figure 4.

## 7. Conclusions

The index 𝕀 is an unusual object in that one inputs information about the vector field which is strictly two-dimensional, yet one obtains data about the dynamics which is fully three-dimensional. In Figure 4, the only information about the Beltrami field known is that (1) it is orthogonal to the disc $`D`$ at five points; (2) locally near those five points the projected field is either source/sink or saddle type; and (3) at those five points the field points out or in as illustrated. From this data, it is inevitable that somewhere in the flow there exists a contractible closed flowline. This is a corollary of the contact-topological methods used — the moral of the story is that the Beltrami condition hides within it certain constraints on the dynamics which couple the dynamics of the vector field to the topology of the orthogonal plane field.

A deficiency of our theory is that it is not sharp. It is certainly possible for a Beltrami field to have the value $`\text{𝕀}=0`$ and yet still have a contractible periodic orbit: indeed, any tight contact structure which has been Lutz twisted along a contractible closed curve necessarily has trivial index as well as a contractible orbit. It appears certain (due to this mechanism of arbitrarily small Lutz twists) that no completely sharp computable index can be defined. What 𝕀 does, however, is detect if there are contractible orbits forced by the presence of non-localized overtwisted discs, and in this regime it is efficacious.

It would be interesting to find a sharp lower bound on the number of periodic orbits present in the case of $`\text{𝕀}0`$ (cf. the recent body of theory surrounding the contact homology of Eliashberg, Givental, and Hofer ).


format: text

text:
# Inhibition of Decoherence due to Decay in a Continuum

## Abstract

We propose a scheme for slowing down decay into a continuum. We make use of a sequence of ultrashort $`2\pi `$-pulses applied on an auxiliary transition of the system so that there is a destructive interference between the two transition amplitudes - one before the application of the pulse and the other after the application of the pulse. We give explicit results for a structured continuum. Our scheme can also inhibit unwanted transitions.

One of the fundamental causes of noise at the optical frequencies is the intrinsic spontaneous emission. It is well known that the performance of many systems is limited by spontaneous emission. For example the noise figure of an amplifier is determined by spontaneous emission. One of the challenges therefore is to find ways in which spontaneous emission noise can be reduced if not totally inhibited. Several proposals exist in literature for reducing spontaneous emission noise. These include - placing of atoms in a photonic bandgap structure , use of external fields  and quantum interferences . As is well known, spontaneous emission noise arises from considerations based on the interaction of an atom with the vacuum of the electromagnetic field. The vacuum acts like a zero temperature bath. It may be noted that the question of inhibiting the effects of a heat bath is being extensively studied and several new proposals exist for such an inhibition . For example, for a spin system interacting with a bath the decoherence can be slowed  by applying a sequence of $`\pi `$ pulses applied at invervals of a short period $`\tau `$ which is less than the bath correlation time.

In this letter we consider the case of spontaneous emission from an excited atom. One has considerably more freedom with atoms than with spins as in the former case we could use a different transition to control spontaneous emission. We propose a scheme to suppress spontaneous emission on (say) the emission from the state $`|e`$ to $`|g`$ by using an auxiliary transition $`|g`$ to $`|f`$. We apply a sequence of ultrashort $`2\pi `$-pulses separated by an interval $`\tau `$. We demonstrate how a destructive interference between the evolution from $`t_o`$ to $`t_o+\tau `$ and $`t_o+\tau `$ to $`t_o+2\tau `$ can lead to suppression of decoherence. It should be borne in mind that the decoherence time scale is generally proportional to the decay time. The destructive interference is related to the very remarkable property that after the application of a $`2\pi `$ pulse the state $`|g`$ acquires a phase shift of $`\pi `$. An important by-product of our investigation is the possibility of suppressing undesirable weak transitions.

We first consider a simple case which is adequate to describe the main idea and which by itself is very relevant to the subject of quantum computation. Consider a quantum system which can make an unwanted weak transition from the state $`|g`$ to $`|e`$ as a result of a perturbation $`v`$. Let $`\delta `$ be the detuning i.e. the perturbation need not be resonant with the transition $`|g|e`$. The interaction Hamiltonian in the interaction picture is

$$H_1(t)=\mathrm{}v|eg|e^{i\delta t}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(1)
The perturbation theory leads to the probability of transition

$$p_{eg}=|v|^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\delta t/2)}{(\delta /2)^2}.$$
(2)
We next demonstrate how this unwanted transition could be inhibited by applying a sequence of very short $`2\pi `$-pulses  on the transition $`|g|l`$ \[Fig.1\]. We thus divide the total time interval into a large number $`2N`$ of short intervals $`\tau `$.The system evolves under $`v`$ from $`t_o`$ to $`t_o+\tau `$. At $`t_o+\tau `$ we apply an ultra-short $`2\pi `$-pulse on the transition $`|g|l`$. The system evolves from $`t_o+\tau `$ to $`t_o+2\tau `$ under $`v`$. At the instant $`t_o+2\tau `$ the $`2\pi `$-pulse is applied again. This process is repeated $`N`$ number of times. The system then evolves as follows:- For $`t_o<t<t_o+\tau ,`$ we have

$$|\psi (t)|giv|e\left(X(tt_o)/(i\delta )\right)e^{i\delta t_o};X(t)=(e^{i\delta t}1).$$
(3)
At time $`t_o+\tau `$ after the application of $`2\pi `$-pulse, the state of the system is

$$|\psi =|giv|eX(\tau )e^{i\delta t_o}/(i\delta ).$$
(4)
At a time $`t_o+2\tau `$ just before the application of the second pulse the state would evolve into

$$|\psi =|giv|e(X(\tau )/(i\delta ))e^{i\delta t_o}+iv|e(X(\tau )/(i\delta ))e^{i\delta (t_o+\tau )}+0(v^2),$$
(5)
which on application of the second $`2\pi `$-pulse changes to

$$|\psi |g+iv|e(X(\tau ))^2e^{i\delta t_o}/(i\delta )+0(v^2).$$
(6)
The transition amplitude $`\chi _{eg}`$ at the end of one cycle consisting of evolution of the system from $`t_o`$ to $`t_o+2\tau `$ but with $`2\pi `$ -pulses applied at $`t_o+\tau `$ and $`t_o+2\tau `$ will be

$$\chi _{eg}=iv(X(\tau ))^2e^{i\delta t_o}/(i\delta )+0(v^2).$$
(7)
The transition amplitude at the end of $`N`$ such cycles will be

$$\chi _{eg}=iv\frac{(X(\tau ))^2}{(i\delta )}\underset{p=0}{\overset{N1}{}}e^{2i\delta \tau pi\delta t_o},$$
(8)
which leads to the following result for the net transition probability

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_{eg}=|v|^2\mathrm{tan}^2\left(\frac{\delta \tau }{2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\delta }{2}(2\tau N)\right)}{\left(\delta /2\right)^2}.$$
(9)
On using (2) we have one of our key results

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_{eg}=\mathrm{tan}^2\left(\frac{\delta \tau }{2}\right)p_{eg}.$$
(10)
We have thus proved that the application of a sequence of $`2\pi `$-pulses on an auxiliary transition leads to the suppression of an unwanted transition provided that the small interval and the detuning $`\delta `$ are chosen such that

$$\mathrm{tan}^2(\frac{\delta \tau }{2})1.$$
(11)
The suppression arises from a destructive interference of the transition amplitudes (second and third terms in Eq.(5)). This distructive interference is due to a phase change of the state $`|g`$ (and not of $`|e`$) by $`\pi `$ due to the application of the $`2\pi `$-pulse. This also explains our choice of an auxiliary transition for the application of the $`2\pi `$-pulse as we selectively want to produce a phase change so that the interference can occur. One might think that the procedure we describe is just the quantum Zeno effect . We emphasize that it is not as we do not carry out repeated measurements. However it can be considered at best an analog of Zeno effect in the spirit of , though collapse of the state is considered to be an essential ingredient for quantum Zeno effect .

We next demonstrate how the above procedure can be used to possibly inhibit spontaneous emission. We show the procedure schematically in Fig 2. The atom makes a transition from the excited state $`|e`$ to the ground state $`|g`$ by emitting a photon. The photon can be emitted in any mode $`\omega _k`$ of the vacuum of the radiation field. The polarization of the emitted photon will be determined by the direction of the dipole matrix element. The interaction Hamiltonian in the interaction picture is .

$`H_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|eg|g_ka_ke^{i\delta _kt}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c};`$ (12)
$`\delta _k`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _k\omega _{eg}.`$ (13)
For brevity, we do not display the polarization $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}s\mathrm{"}`$ and vectorial indices of the mode. Thus $`k`$ really stands for $`(k,s)`$. In (12), $`a_k`$ is the annihilation operator for the mode $`k`$ of the radiation field. We now follow the precedure leading to Eq.(9). We quote the results of calculations for the transition probabilities with $`(\stackrel{~}{p}_{ge})`$ and without $`(p_{ge})`$ the application of $`2\pi `$-pulses

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_{ge}=\underset{k}{}|g_k|^2\mathrm{tan}^2\left(\frac{\delta _k\tau }{2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\delta k}{2}2\tau N\right)}{\left(\delta _k/2\right)^2},$$
(14)
$$p_{ge}=\underset{k}{}|g_k|^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\delta k}{2}2\tau N\right)}{\left(\delta _k/2\right)^2}.$$
(15)
We first note how (14) leads to the standard result and how the Einstien A-coefficient emerges. If $`t=2N\tau `$, then

$$p_{ge}/t=\underset{k}{}2|g_k|^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}\delta _kt}{\delta _k}$$
(16)
which, under the assumption that the observation time $`t`$ is large compared to the width of $`(\delta _k)`$ values (which is of the order of $`\omega _{eg}`$ for spontaneous emission in free space), reduces to the standard expression for the Einstein A-coefficient

$$p_{ge}/t=2\pi |g_k|^2\delta (\omega _k\omega _{eg})A.$$
(17)
We next examine the conditions under which the presence of the quantum interference term $`\mathrm{tan}^2\left(\delta _k\tau /2\right)`$ in Eq. (13) can lead to the suppression of spontaneous emission. Let us consider a kind of one dimensional model in which we can replace (13) by

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_{ge}_{\omega _{eg}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\mathrm{tan}^2\left(\frac{x\tau }{2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{x}{2}2\tau N)}{(x/2)^2}\rho (x),$$
(18)
where $`\rho (x)`$ is the density of states for the one dimensional vacuum. For $`\rho (x),`$ we can choose any of the functions like the Lorentzian or the exponential

$$\rho (x)=\frac{\rho _o\mathrm{\Gamma }/\pi }{(x^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)}or,\rho (x)=\frac{\rho _o}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}e^{|x|/\mathrm{\Gamma }}$$
(19)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega _{eg}`$ and where $`\rho _o`$ is related to the square of the dipole matrix element. Note that these choices correspond to what are known as the “structured” vacuua. Thus we are essentially asking the question - under what conditions the emission into structured vacuua can be inhibited. We use the exponential model in (17) and show a typical result in Fig.3. For comparison we also show the result $`p_{ge}`$. On comparing the two results we see that the use of a sequence of $`2\pi `$-pulses applied in the manner shown in Fig.2 can suppress to a large extent, the decay into a structured continuum.

We next consider briefly the question of spontaneous emission in free space. We convert (13) into an integral using the standard expressions for $`g_k`$ and by letting the quantization volume go to infinity. The transition probabity $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{ge}`$ depends on the following integral

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x(x+1)^3\mathrm{tan}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{x\tau }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{x}{2}2\tau N)}{(x/2)^2}},`$ (20)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`(\omega \omega _{eg})/\omega _{eg},\tau \omega _{eg}\tau .`$ (21)
Note that the sine function is sharply peaked at $`x=0`$ if $`2N\tau `$ is large. This is what enabled us to simplify the expression for $`p_{ge}`$ leading to (16). However, we now have the interference factor $`\mathrm{tan}^2\left(x\tau /2\right)`$ which starts growing as $`x\tau /2\pi /2`$. Thus the idea of $`2\pi `$\- pulse induced slowing down of decoherence will obviously work if the bath has a cut-off such that $`\mathrm{tan}^2(x\tau /2)`$ remains much smaller than unity. In order to examine further the question of slowing down of the decoherence we analyse the integrand $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$ in (19). We can rewrite the integrand in the form

$`\stackrel{~}{I}(x+1)^3{\displaystyle \frac{16\mathrm{sin}^4(x\tau /2)}{x^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(x\tau N)}{\mathrm{sin}^2(x\tau )}}\right].`$ (22)
Note that the integrand oscillates very rapidly due to the term $`\mathrm{sin}^2(x\tau N).`$ Though it has no singularities as the term in the square bracket is well behaved, it still grows as $`N^2`$ whenever $`x\tau =n\pi `$. Such a growth problem can be avoided if the vacuum mode frequencies are such that $`x\tau \pi `$. If $`x`$ is chosen to be of the order of unity, then the pulses have to be applied at intervals much smaller than $`\omega _{eg}^1`$, which is a difficult task in the optical domain though not for Rydberg transitions. Note that with pulses applied at intervals less than $`\omega _{eg}^1`$, the details of spontaneous emission become sensitive to the structure of the bath as shown in the Fig.4. We note that Vitali and Tombesi  have examined the damping of a harmonic oscillator interacting with a broad band bath and have reached similar conclusions. The nature of the integrand in (19) also suggests that if the interval $`\tau >\omega _{eg}^1`$, then we have the possibility of accelerating spontaneous emission (Fig.4; curves for $`\omega _{eg}\tau =\pi )`$ which is suggestive of an effect that is an analog of recently discovered quantum anti-Zeno effect .

In conclusion, we have shown how a sequence of $`2\pi `$-pulses applied on an auxiliary transition in a system can slow down considerably the decay into a continuum . The same scheme also enables one to inhibit unwanted transitions.

The authors thank K. Kapale and S. Menon for preparing the figures.


text:
# Spatially selective Bragg scattering: a signature for vortices in Bose-Einstein condensates.

## Abstract

We demonstrate that Bragg scattering from a condensate can be sensitive to the spatial phase distribution of the initial state. This allows preferential scattering from a selected spatial region, and provides a robust signature for a vortex state. We develop an analytic model which accurately describes this phenomenon and we give quantitative predictions for current experimental conditions.

Bragg scattering of matter waves from laser beams is a well known phenomenon in atom optics \[e.g. \] and has proved to be an effective tool for manipulating and analysing Bose condensates. In that context it has been used in experiments to coherently split a condensate , and to perform momentum and phonon spectroscopy . Theoretical calculations show it may be used to extract quasiparticle amplitudes from weakly excited condensates . Two groups have constructed Mach-Zehnder type interferometers  using sequences of Bragg pulses to probe condensate phase . In all of those cases the Bragg scattering process is most easily understood in terms of a momentum space process in which the Bragg fields transfer momentum $`\mathrm{}𝐪`$ to each atom. In a beam-splitter, half the initial amplitude is translated in momentum space by $`\mathrm{}𝐪`$, while in momentum spectroscopy a selected narrow group of momentum components is translated by $`\mathrm{}𝐪`$. The spatial structure of the initial condensate plays no particular role in the Bragg process for those cases.

A major interest in condensates however, is that their macroscopic wavefunctions may be engineered into specific spatial structures. For example, the vortex state, which has been recently observed by two groups , has a phase circulation of $`2\pi `$ about a vortex core. The most direct means for observing such a phase distribution is by interference with a separate well characterised matter field \[e.g. \], but this may not always be experimentally convenient. In this paper we show that under appropriate conditions Bragg scattering is sensitive to the spatial phase distribution of the initial condensate and therefore allows preferential scattering from a selected spatial region. In the case of a vortex, this gives a distinctive signature which we illustrate in Fig. 1. There the density distribution of a trapped condensate vortex state is shown following application of Bragg pulse chosen according to criteria developed later in this paper.

In Fig. 1(a) the streaming output emerges from only one side of the initial condensate, and gives an asymmetric density pattern which should be detectable with current experimental technology. In Fig. 1(b) where the frequency difference of the laser fields has been changed, the streaming output field has a density node that is an order of magnitude wider than the vortex core itself (i.e. the healing length in the centre of the original condensate). In the following we develop a treatment of such spatially selective Bragg scattering which explains the behaviour in terms of the underlying spatial phase sensitive mechanism and we give analytic solutions appropriate to 3D condensates. We treat the process of Bragg scattering from a condensate using a previously developed formalism , in which the condensate mean-field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (in an interaction picture) evolves in a far detuned light-field grating formed by two plane-wave laser beams, according to the equation

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2+V_T(𝐫)+w|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}V(t)\mathrm{cos}(𝐪𝐫\omega t)\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (2)
Here $`V_T(𝐫)`$ is the trap potential (assumed to be harmonic in the examples of this paper) and $`w`$ $`(`$ $`=4N\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m)`$ is the usual nonlinearity parameter of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation. The final term in Eq. (2) describes the interaction with the Bragg grating: $`\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{}𝐪`$ are the two-photon detuning and recoil momentum respectively and $`V(t)=|\mathrm{\Omega }(t)|^2/2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is twice the ac-stark shift at the intensity peaks. For the scattering to be in the Bragg regime the pulse length $`T_p`$ of the lasers must be long enough that the Bragg resonance is resolved (i.e. $`T_p\omega _q^1`$, where $`\omega _q=\mathrm{}q^2/2m`$ is the recoil frequency). In order to obtain spatially selective Bragg scattering it is also necessary that the average value of $`V`$ is sufficiently small that the total amount of condensate scattered in time $`T_p`$ is small compared to the unscattered amount. In addition we assume the Bragg pulse length (and the time of observation) is shorter than a quarter trap period, to avoid the trap forces significantly altering the momentum of the scattered beam.

Equation (2) can be directly numerically simulated, as for example we have shown in the two dimensional case of Fig. 1. We have also obtained an analytic solution, which provides detailed insight into the underlying physics and enables us to provide quantitative calculations over a wide range of parameters in the three dimensional case. For the analytic solution, we assume that the recoil momentum $`\mathrm{}𝐪`$ of the Bragg grating is much larger than the momentum width of the initial condensate (which is centred about zero momentum), and also assume that the detuning $`\omega `$ is close to the Bragg resonance. This means the scattered wavepacket is well separated in momentum space from the initial state and a slowly varying envelope approximation can be made  so that we write

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)=\psi _0(𝐫,t)+\psi _1(𝐫,t)e^{i(𝐪𝐫\omega t)}.$$
(3)
In Eq. (3) $`\psi _1`$ is the scattered wavepacket while $`\psi _0`$, which we call the mother condensate, represents a condensate with a momentum wavepacket centered on zero. At $`t=0`$, $`\psi _0`$ is exactly the initial condensate. Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (2) and projecting into orthogonal regions of momentum space, we obtain to first order in $`\psi _1`$ the coupled equations

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\psi _0`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2+V_T+w|\psi _0|^2\right]\psi _0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}V(t)}{2}}\psi _1,`$ (4)
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2\mathrm{}\delta i\mathrm{}𝐐\mathbf{}+V_T`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`2w|\psi _0|^2]\psi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}V(t)}{2}}\psi _0,`$ (6)
where $`𝐐=\mathrm{}𝐪/m`$ is the velocity of the scattered atoms, $`\delta =\omega \omega _q`$ and we have neglected the rapidly oscillating term $`\psi _0^2\psi _1^{}`$. Our interest is in the scattered state $`\psi _1`$ which is assumed to be small, so we can neglect the scattering from $`\psi _1`$ back to $`\psi _0`$ (i.e. $`V(t)\psi _1`$ in Eq. (4)). This means that $`\psi _0`$ then evolves according to the usual Gross-Pitaevskii equation, and typically we choose $`\psi _0`$ to be an eigenstate of that equation. We can also ignore the $`^2`$ term in Eq. (5) which describes momentum diffusion about the centre of momentum $`𝐪`$ of the $`\psi _1`$ packet, and is small on the time scales we consider. Eq. (5) can now be solved to give

$$\psi _1(𝐫,t)=\frac{i}{2}𝑑se^{iK(𝐫,t,s)}V(s)\psi _0(𝐫+𝐐(st),s),$$
(7)
where

$`K(𝐫,t,s)`$ $`=`$ $`(st)\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _s^t}ds^{}[V_T(𝐫+𝐐(s^{}t))`$ (9)
$`+2w|\psi _0(𝐫+𝐐(s^{}t),s^{})|^2].`$
Eq. (7) allows us to visualise the formation of the scattered state as follows. As the scattered packet moves across the mother condensate, the amplitude $`\psi _1`$ at a given point (stationary in the frame moving with velocity $`𝐐`$ ) is built up from the sum of contributions coupled in from successive points along the mother condensate. The contribution coupled in at time $`s`$ from a position $`𝐫+𝐐(st)`$ on the mother condensate evolves to time $`t`$ with the propagator $`\mathrm{exp}(iK(𝐫,t,s)).`$ The scattered state at $`𝐫`$ and $`t`$ will be appreciable only if the contributions constructively interfere. Writing $`\psi _0(𝐫,s)`$ in terms of amplitude and phase $`A_0(𝐫,s)\mathrm{exp}(iS_0(𝐫,s))`$, then the condition for an appreciable scattered state to form is that the phase $`\mathrm{\Theta }(𝐫,t,s)=K(𝐫,t,s)+S_0(𝐫+𝐐(s^{}t))`$ be stationary. We take $`\psi _0`$ to be a stationary eigenstate, i.e $`\psi _0(𝐫,s)=A_0(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(i(S_0(𝐫)\mu _0s)),`$ where $`\mu _0`$ is the eigenvalue of the mother condensate. Furthermore we make use of the Thomas Fermi solution $`w[A_0]^2=\mu _0+V_T`$ so then

$$K(ts)(\mu _0\delta )+\frac{w}{\mathrm{}}_s^t𝑑s^{}\left[A_0(𝐫+𝐐(s^{}t))\right]^2.$$
(10)
The condition for stationary phase $`d\mathrm{\Theta }(𝐫,t,s)/ds=0`$ then gives the generalised Bragg resonance condition

$$\delta \left[\frac{w}{\mathrm{}}\left[A_0(𝐑)\right]^2+_𝐑S_0(𝐑)𝐐\right]_{𝐑=𝐫+𝐐(st)}.$$
(11)
If $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ has sufficiently large spatial curvature, one particular time $`s`$ may dominate the stationary phase contribution. However for the cases of a ground or vortex initial state, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ varies sufficiently slowly that most contributions from along the line $`𝐑=𝐫+𝐐(st)`$ on the initial condensate can be in phase. For an initial ground state, Eq. (11) reduces in the linear case to the usual Bragg resonance condition $`\delta =0`$ , while for the nonlinear case, $`\delta =\left\{w|\psi _0(𝐑)|^2/\mathrm{}\right\}`$ in which the braces indicate that the precise value of the shift is obtained by a suitable average along the path $`𝐑`$ . For a general initial state the second term in Eq. (11), which can be interpreted as a Doppler condition, must be included.

The full spatial solution for the scattered state contains a great deal of information, but we can extract a useful and compact signature by considering the steady-state density profile of the scattered beam at the edge of the initial condensate. In the 2D simulation of Fig. 1 for example, the steady-state density profile could be measured along the dashed line. For definiteness, we shall take the case where $`𝐪`$ is in the $`y`$ direction. We define the steady-state density profile of the scattered state to be

$$𝒟_q(x,z,\omega )=|\psi _1(x,y=R,z,\tau _S)|^2,$$
(12)
where the distance $`R`$ is sufficiently large that the density of the mother condensate in the plane $`(x,y=R,z)`$ is negligible (i.e $`𝒟_q|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$). For strongly interacting condensates it is suitable to use $`R=R_{TF}`$, where $`R_{TF}`$ is the Thomas-Fermi radius (in the $`x`$$`y`$-plane). $`\tau _S`$, the time to reach steady state can be estimated as $`2R/Q`$, i.e the time for the scattered state to traverse the mother condensate. Since experiments would usually measure the density projected along the $`z`$ axis (the line of viewing), we define the projected steady-state density profile

$$D_q(x,\omega )=𝑑z𝒟_q(x,z,\omega ),$$
(13)
to characterise the results of the Bragg scattering.

We begin by considering the case of two spatial dimensions, which contains the essence of the physics.

Fig. 2 shows $`D_q(x,\omega )`$ calculated from the full 2D numerical solution of Eq. (2), for cases where the initial state is (a) a noninteracting ground state (b) a condensate ground state, (c) a condensate vortex state. In Fig. 2 (d)-(f) we provide the comparison to the analytic solutions for the same cases, and it is apparent that agreement is very good. We note that in the analytic solutions a Thomas Fermi approximation is made for $`\psi _0`$. For vortex states, the additional centrifugal potential $`m^2/(x^2+y^2)`$ is included and the phase is $`S_0(𝐫)=m\mathrm{arctan}(y/x)`$.

The results for the noninteracting ground state (Fig. 2(a) or (d)) show, as expected, that the scattered beam is greatest (i.e. Bragg scattering is resonant) when $`\omega =\omega _q`$ (i.e. $`\delta =0`$). The frequency width of $`D_q(x,\omega )`$ can be estimated using a simple Fourier analysis on the integral in Eq. (7), to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }_DQ/R_{TF}`$. In Fig. 2(b) \[or (e)\] the effects of the condensate nonlinearity appear. At the centre of the scattered profile ($`x=0`$) the resonant frequency for Bragg scattering has been shifted by $`.84\mu `$ which is close to the value of $`\left\{w|\psi _0(𝐑)|^2/\mathrm{}\right\}`$ averaged along the centre line of the mother condensate ($`=`$$`4\mu _0/5`$). The shift at the spatial edges of the scattered beam ($`x=\pm R_{TF}`$) is less, because the mother condensate has lower average density along the appropriate lines $`𝐑=𝐫+𝐐(st)`$, and so $`D_q(x,\omega )`$ has a crescent shape. The frequency width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$ (at $`x=0`$) is smaller than for the noninteracting ground state case (a), due mainly to the increased spatial width $`R_{TF}`$ of the mother condensate. The most significant result for this paper is Fig. 2(c), namely the vortex signature. At the ‘resonant’ frequency (indicated by the dashed line), the scattered density profile is essentially spatially symmetric (see also Fig. 1(b)), but at other frequencies the scattering is spatially asymmetric. This asymmetry, which we emphasize arises from the spatial phase asymmetry of the vortex, is robust, being present for a wide range of frequencies. The density node at the centre of the beam ($`x=0`$) at the resonant frequency also arises from the phase asymmetry: as the scattered wavepacket passes over the vortex core, the contributions from the mother condensate change phase sharply by $`\pi `$ and thus cancel.

Our results can also be extended into three dimensions by using the analytic solution Eq. (7). In Fig. 3 we present the behaviour of $`D_q(x,\omega )`$ from a vortex condensate of $`2\times 10^5`$ Rubidium atoms in both oblate and prolate traps. The features discussed in the previous paragraphs are unchanged in three dimensions. It is worth noting that our results can be readily connected to the well known dynamic structure factor $`S(𝐪,\omega )`$ which has been previously used to characterise the results of Bragg scattering . One can show, within perturbation theory, that

$$S(𝐪,\omega )𝑑xD_q(x,\omega ).$$
(14)
In other words, the dynamic structure factor simply projects out all the spatial information of the steady-state density profile.

Although we have concentrated on the steady state density profile our analytic solution contains other interesting results. For example, with a Bragg pulse of length $`T_p\tau _s`$, the scattered state is itself a vortex, and a sequence of such pulses would produce a sequence of vortices streaming out from the mother condensate, until it becomes too depleted.

In summary we have shown that under appropriate conditions Bragg scattering is sensitive to the spatial phase dependence of the initial matter field state, and therefore allows preferential scattering from a selected spatial region. We have developed an analytic model which accurately describes this phenomenon and explains the underlying mechanisms. When applied to a vortex state, a robust signature is obtained, for both oblate and prolate traps.

This research was supported by the Marsden Fund of New Zealand under contract PVT902. RJB is grateful for the hospitality of the Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Innsbruck, where part of this research was carried out, and for the support of the Austrian Science Foundation.


text:
# Koszul Duality for modules over Lie algebras

## 1 Introduction

Let $`G`$ be a compact Lie group. Set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{^{_{}}}=H_{}(G)`$ and $`S^{^{_{}}}=H^{}(BG)`$. The coefficients are in $`𝐑`$ or $`𝐂`$. Suppose $`G`$ acts on a reasonable space $`X`$. In the paper \[GKM\] Goresky, Kottwitz and MacPherson established a duality between the ordinary cohomology which is a module over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{^{_{}}}`$ and equivariant cohomology which is a module over $`S^{^{_{}}}`$. This duality is on the level of chains, not on the level of cohomology. Koszul duality says that there is an equivalence of derived categories of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{^{_{}}}`$–modules and $`S^{^{_{}}}`$–modules. One can lift the structure of an $`S^{^{_{}}}`$–module on $`H_G^{}(X)`$ and the structure of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{^{_{}}}`$–module on $`H^{}(X)`$ to the level of chains in such a way that the obtained complexes correspond to each other under Koszul duality. Equivariant coefficients in the sense of \[BL\] are also allowed. Later, Allday and Puppe (\[AP\]) gave an explanation for this duality based on the minimal Brown-Hirsh model of the Borel construction. One should remark that Koszul duality is a reflection of a more general duality: the one described by Husemoller, Moore and Stasheff in \[HMS\].

Our goal is to show that this duality phenomenon is a purely algebraic affair. We will construct it without appealing to topology. We consider a reductive Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ and a complex of vector spaces $`M^{^{_{}}}`$ on which $`𝐠`$ acts via two kinds of actions: $`i_\lambda `$ and $`_\lambda `$. These actions satisfy the same identities as contraction and Lie derivative do in the case of the action on the differential forms of a $`G`$–manifold. Such differential $`𝐠`$–modules were already described by Cartan in \[Ca\]; see also \[AM\], \[GS\]. We do not assume that $`M^{^{_{}}}`$ is finite dimensional nor semisimple. We also wish to correct a small inaccuracy in the proof of Lemma 17.6, \[GKM\]. The distinguished transgression plays a crucial role in our construction. This is a canonical identification between the space of primitive elements of $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{})^𝐠H^{}(𝐠)`$ with certain generators of $`(S𝐠^{})^𝐠`$.

The results of the present paper were obtained with the help and assistance of Marcin Chałupnik. It is a part of joint work. Our aim is to describe Koszul duality in a much wider context. We thank the referee for careful corrections.

## 2 Category

Let $`𝐠`$ be a reductive Lie algebra over a field $`k`$ of characteristic 0. We consider differential graded vector spaces $`M^{^{_{}}}`$ over $`k`$ equipped with linear operations $`i_\lambda :M^{^{_{}}}M^{}_{}{}^{_{}}1`$ of degree $`1`$ for each $`\lambda 𝐠`$. We define

$$_\lambda =di_\lambda +i_\lambda d:M^{^{_{}}}M^{^{_{}}}.$$

We assume that $`i_\lambda `$ is linear with respect to $`\lambda `$ and for each $`\lambda ,\mu 𝐠`$ the following identities are satisfied:

$$i_\lambda i_\mu =i_\mu i_\lambda ,$$

$$[_\mu ,i_\lambda ]=i_{[\mu ,\lambda ]}.$$

Then $``$ is a representation of $`𝐠`$ in $`M^{^{_{}}}`$. The category of such objects with obvious morphisms will be denoted by $`K(𝐠)`$.

###### Example 2.1

Let $`G`$ be a group with Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ and let $`X`$ be a $`G`$-manifold. Then the space of differential forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{^{_{}}}(X)`$ equipped with the contractions with fundamental vector fields is an example of an object from $`K(𝐠)`$.

###### Example 2.2

Another example of an object of $`K(𝐠)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}`$, the exterior power of the dual of $`𝐠`$. The generators of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}`$ are given the gradation 1. This is a differential graded algebra with a differential $`d_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ induced by the Lie bracket. The operations $`i_\lambda `$ are the contractions with $`𝐠`$.

###### Example 2.3

For a representation $`V`$ of $`𝐠`$ define the invariant subspace

$$V^𝐠=\{vV:\lambda 𝐠_\lambda v=0\}.$$

Then $`V^𝐠`$ with trivial differential and $`i_\lambda `$’s is an object of $`K(𝐠)`$. In particular we take $`V=S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}`$, the symmetric power of the dual of $`𝐠`$. The generators of $`S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}`$ are given the gradation 2.

###### Example 2.4

Suppose there are given two objects $`M^{^{_{}}}`$ and $`N^{^{_{}}}`$ of $`K(𝐠)`$. Then $`M^{^{_{}}}N^{^{_{}}}`$ with operations $`i_\lambda `$ defined by the Leibniz formula is again in $`K(𝐠)`$.

Note that the objects of $`K(𝐠)`$ are the same as differential graded modules over a dg–Lie algebra $`C𝐠`$ (the cone over $`𝐠`$) with

$$C𝐠^0=C𝐠^1=𝐠C𝐠^{1,0}=0.$$

The elements of $`C𝐠^0`$ are denoted by $`_\lambda `$ and the elements of $`C𝐠^1`$ are denoted by $`i_\lambda `$. They satisfy the following identities:

$$di_\lambda =_\lambda ,[_\lambda ,_\mu ]=_{[\lambda ,\mu ]},[_\lambda ,i_\mu ]=i_{[\lambda ,\mu ]},[i_\lambda ,i_\mu ]=0.$$

The enveloping dg–algebra of $`C𝐠`$ is the Chevaley–Eilenberg complex $`V(𝐠)`$ (\[Wei\] p. 238) which is a free $`U(𝐠)`$–resolution of $`k`$. Thus the objects of $`K(𝐠)`$ are just the dg–modules over $`V(𝐠)`$.

###### Example 2.5

Suppose that a Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ acts on a graded commutative $`k`$-algebra $`A`$ by derivations. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_kA`$ be the algebra of forms; it is generated by symbols $`a`$ and $`da`$ with $`aA`$. The cone of $`𝐠`$ acts by derivations. The action on generators is given by

$$i_\lambda a=0,_\lambda a=\lambda a,i_\lambda da=\lambda a,_\lambda da=d\lambda a.$$

Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_kA`$ is in $`K(𝐠)`$.

Another point of view (as in \[GS\]) is that the objects of $`K(𝐠)`$ are the representations of the super Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝐠}=C𝐠k[1]`$ (where $`k[1]`$ is generated by $`d`$) with relations:

$$[d,d]=0,[d,x]=dx\mathrm{for}xC𝐠.$$

## 3 The twist

We will describe a transformation, which plays the role of the canonical map

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{\Phi }:& G\times X& & G\times X& \\ & (g,x)& & (g,gx)& \end{array}$$

for topological $`G`$-spaces.

We define a linear map $`𝐢:\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}}`$ by the formula:

$$𝐢(\xi m)=\underset{k}{}\xi \lambda ^ki_{\lambda _k}m,$$

where $`\{\lambda _k\}`$ is a basis of $`𝐠`$ and $`\{\lambda ^k\}`$ is the dual basis. It commutes with $`_\lambda `$. The operation $`𝐢`$ is nilpotent. Define an automorphism $`𝐓:\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}}`$ (which is not in $`K(𝐠)`$):

$$𝐓=\mathrm{exp}(𝐢)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{n!}𝐢^n,$$

$$𝐓(\xi m)=\underset{I=\{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_n\}}{}(1)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}\xi \lambda ^Ii_{\lambda _I}m.$$

It satisfies (\[GHV\], Prop. V, p.286, see also \[AM\])

$$i_\mu (𝐓(\xi m))=𝐓((i_\mu \xi )m),$$

$$d𝐓(\xi m)=𝐓\left(d(\xi m)+\underset{k}{}\lambda ^k\xi _{\lambda _k}m\right).$$

###### Remark 3.1

Note that for the self-map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`G\times X`$ we have

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\omega (1,x)=\left(d\omega +\underset{k}{}p^{}\lambda ^k_{\lambda _k}\omega \right)(1,x),$$

where $`p:G\times XX`$ is the projection and $`xX`$.

The twist on the level of the Weil algebra has already been used by Cartan \[Ca\] and later by Mathai and Quillen \[MQ\]. From another point of view, for a d.g.vector space to be an object of $`K(𝐠)`$ is equivalent to having such a twist which satisfies certain axioms. We will not state them here. We just remark that understanding of this twist allows to develop a theory of actions of $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebras.

## 4 Weil algebra

Following \[GHV\], Chapter VI, p.223 we define the Weil algebra

$$W(𝐠)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}(C𝐠)^{}=S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}.$$

The generators of $`S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}`$ are given the gradation 2 whereas the generators of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}`$ are given the gradation 1. The differential in $`W(𝐠)`$ is the sum of three operations:

$$d_W(ab)=ad_\mathrm{\Lambda }b+\underset{k}{}\lambda ^kai_{\lambda _k}b+\underset{k}{}ad_{\lambda _k}^{}a\lambda ^kb,$$

where $`\{\lambda _k\}`$ is a basis of $`𝐠`$.

The differential $`d_W`$ satisfies Maurer–Cartan formula

$$d_W(1\xi )1d_\mathrm{\Lambda }\xi =\xi 1,$$

for $`\xi 𝐠^{}`$.

The operations $`i_\lambda `$ are contractions with the second term. The resulting action $`_\lambda =d_Wi_\lambda +i_\lambda d_W`$ is induced by the co-adjoint action on $`S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}`$, \[GHV\], rel. (6.5), p.226. With this structure $`W(𝐠)`$ becomes an object of $`K(𝐠)`$.

The cohomology of $`W(𝐠)`$ is trivial except in dimension 0, where it is $`k`$, \[GHV\], Prop. I, p.228. There are given canonical maps in $`K(𝐠)`$:

* inclusion $`(S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{})^𝐠(S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{})^𝐠1W(𝐠)`$,
* restriction $`W(𝐠)-\to \mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}`$, which sends all the positive symmetric powers to 0.

The Weil algebra is a model of differential forms on $`EG`$ and the sequence of morphisms in $`K(𝐠)`$

$$(S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{})^𝐠⸦-\to W(g)-\to \mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}$$

is a model of

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{^{_{}}}(BG)⸦-\to \mathrm{\Omega }^{^{_{}}}(EG)-\to \mathrm{\Omega }^{^{_{}}}(G).$$

###### Remark 4.1

It is easy to see that $`W(𝐠)=\mathrm{\Omega }_k\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}`$. Thus for any commutative d.g-algebra A

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{gcomm}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{},A)=\mathrm{Hom}_{d.gcomm}(W(𝐠),A).$$

## 5 The distinguished transgression

The invariant algebra $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{})^𝐠`$ is the exterior algebra spanned by the space of primitive elements $`P^{^{_{}}}`$, whereas $`(S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{})^𝐠`$ is the symmetric algebra spanned by some space $`\stackrel{~}{P}^{^{_{}}}`$. The point is that $`\stackrel{~}{P}^{^{_{}}}`$ can be canonically chosen.

###### Proposition 5.1

\[GHV\] Prop. VI, p.239. Suppose $`\xi P^{^{_{}}}`$ is a primitive element. Then there exist an element $`\omega W(𝐠)^𝐠`$ such that

$$\omega _{|\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}}=\xi ,$$

$$i_\lambda \omega =i_\lambda (1\xi )forall\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠)^𝐠$$

$$d_W(\omega )=\stackrel{~}{\xi }1.$$

The element $`\omega `$ is not unique, but $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ is. The set of $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ for $`\xi P^{}`$ is the distinguished space of generators of $`(S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{})^𝐠`$.

## 6 Example – $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}_2`$

The algebra $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}_2`$ is spanned by $`𝐢`$, $`𝐣`$ and $`𝐤`$ with relation $`[𝐢,𝐣]=2𝐤`$ and its cyclic transposition. In $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}`$ we have

$$d_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐢^{}=2𝐣^{}𝐤^{}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{cycl}.$$

In the Weil algebra we have

$$d_W(1𝐢^{})=12𝐣^{}𝐤^{}+𝐢^{}1\mathrm{and}\mathrm{cycl}.,$$

$$d_W(𝐢^{}1)=2(𝐤^{}𝐣^{}𝐣^{}𝐤^{})\mathrm{and}\mathrm{cycl}.$$

The primitive elements in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}`$ are spanned by $`\xi =𝐢^{}𝐣^{}𝐤^{}`$. As $`\omega `$ of Proposition 5.1 we take

$$\omega =1𝐢^{}𝐣^{}𝐤^{}+\frac{1}{2}(𝐢^{}𝐢^{}+cycl.)$$

Then

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }1=d_W(\omega )=\frac{1}{2}(𝐢_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+𝐣_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})1,$$

whereas

$$d_W(1\xi )=𝐢^{}𝐣^{}𝐤^{}+cycl.$$

## 7 Invariant cohomology and equivariant cohomology

Denote $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠)^𝐠`$ by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{^{_{}}}`$. Let $`D(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{^{_{}}})`$ be the derived category of graded differential $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{^{_{}}}`$–modules. For $`M^{^{_{}}}K(𝐠)`$ the invariant submodule $`(M^{^{_{}}})^𝐠`$ is a differential module over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{^{_{}}}`$. We obtain an object in $`D(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{^{_{}}})`$. We call it the invariant cohomology of $`M^{^{_{}}}`$.

###### Remark 7.1

Let $`X`$ be a manifold on which a compact group $`G`$ acts. Let $`𝐠`$ be the Lie algebra of $`G`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{^{_{}}}(X)`$ is a $`𝐠`$-module. The invariants of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠`$ act on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{^{_{}}}(X)`$, but this action does not commute with the differential in general. We have $`[d,i_\lambda ]\omega =_\lambda \omega `$. To obtain an action which commutes with the differential one restricts it to $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^{^{_{}}}(X))^𝐠`$. Fortunately the resulting cohomology does not change. We obtain a complex with an action of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{^{_{}}}=H_{}(G)`$, which is quasi-isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{^{_{}}}(X)`$. The cohomology is equal to $`H^{}(X)`$.

Denote $`(S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{})^𝐠`$ by $`S^{^{_{}}}`$. Let $`D(S^{^{_{}}})`$ be the derived category of graded differential $`S^{^{_{}}}`$–modules. Following \[Ca\] we define:

$$(M^{^{_{}}})_𝐠:=(S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}})^𝐠$$

with differential

$$d_{M,𝐠}(am)=ad_Mm\underset{k}{}\lambda ^kai_{\lambda _k}m.$$

It is a differential $`S^{^{_{}}}`$–module. We obtain an object $`(M^{^{_{}}})_𝐠`$ in $`D(S^{^{_{}}})`$. We call it the equivariant cohomology of $`M^{^{_{}}}`$.

For an object $`N^{^{_{}}}`$ of $`K(𝐠)`$ we define horizontal elements

$$(N^{^{_{}}})_{hor}=\{nN^{^{_{}}}:\lambda 𝐠i_\lambda n=0\}.$$

Then define basic elements

$$(N^{^{_{}}})_{basic}=(N^{^{_{}}})_{hor}^𝐠=\{nN^{^{_{}}}:\lambda 𝐠i_\lambda n=0,i_\lambda dn=0\},$$

which form a complex.

The following Lemma can be found in \[Ca\], but we need to have an explicit form of the isomorphism, as in \[AM\] §4.1.

###### Lemma 7.2

\[Ca\] The map $`\psi _0`$ is an isomorphism of differential graded $`S^{^{_{}}}`$–modules:

$$\psi _0=1𝐓_{|1M^{^{_{}}}}:(M^{^{_{}}})_𝐠\left(W(𝐠)M^{^{_{}}}\right)_{basic}.$$

Proof. The elements of $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}}\right)_{hor}`$ are of the form

$$𝐓(1m)=1m\underset{k}{}\lambda ^ki_{\lambda _k}m\underset{k<l}{}\lambda ^k\lambda ^li_{\lambda _k}i_{\lambda _l}m\pm \mathrm{},$$

thus they are determined by $`m`$. The conclusion follows since

$$\left(W(𝐠)M^{^{_{}}}\right)_{hor}=S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}}\right)_{hor}.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 7.3

From the above description we see that $`(M^{^{_{}}})_𝐠`$ is an analog of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{^{_{}}}(EG\times _GX)`$. Let $`X`$ and $`𝐠`$ be as in 7.1. The construction of the equivariant cohomology presented here is the so-called Cartan model of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{^{_{}}}(EG\times _GX)`$. We obtain a complex with an action of $`S^{^{_{}}}=H^{}(BG)`$. The cohomology is equal to $`H_G^{}(X)`$.

## 8 Koszul duality

By \[GKM\], §8.5 the following functor $`h:D^^+(S^{^{_{}}})D^^+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{^{_{}}})`$ is an equivalence of categories:

$$h(A^{^{_{}}})=\mathrm{Hom}_k(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{^{_{}}},A^{^{_{}}})=(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{})^𝐠A^{^{_{}}}$$

with differential

$$d_h((\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n)a)=$$

$$=\underset{j}{}(1)^{j+1}(\xi _1\mathrm{}^j\mathrm{}\xi _n)\stackrel{~}{\xi }_ja+(1)^n(\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n)da,$$

where $`\xi _j`$’s are primitive.

###### Theorem 8.1 (Koszul Duality)

Let $`𝐠`$ be a reductive Lie algebra. Suppose $`M^{^{_{}}}`$ is an object of $`K^^+(𝐠)`$ then in $`D^^+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{^{_{}}})`$

$$h((M^{^{_{}}})_𝐠)(M^{^{_{}}})^𝐠.$$

Proof. The action of $`𝐠`$ on $`H^{}(W(𝐠))`$ is trivial and, since $`𝐠`$ is reductive, $`W(𝐠)`$ is semisimple. Thus by \[GHV\], Th. V, p.172 the inclusion

$$k(M^{^{_{}}})^𝐠=W(𝐠)^𝐠(M^{^{_{}}})^𝐠(W(𝐠)M^{^{_{}}})^𝐠$$

is a quasi-isomorphism. We want to construct a quasi-isomorphism $`\psi `$ from

$$h((M^{^{_{}}})_𝐠)=(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{})^𝐠(S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}})^𝐠$$

to

$$(W(𝐠)M^{^{_{}}})^𝐠=(S^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}})^𝐠.$$

First we choose a linear map $`\omega :P^{}W(𝐠)`$ satisfying the conditions of Proposition 5.1. We construct $`\psi `$ by the formula extending $`\psi _0`$ of Lemma 7.2 with help of the distinguished transgression of §5.

$$\psi ((\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n)m)=\omega (\xi _1)\mathrm{}\omega (\xi _n)\psi _0(m).$$

It is well defined since $`\left(W(𝐠)M^{^{_{}}}\right)^𝐠`$ is $`W(𝐠)^𝐠`$–module and

$$\psi _0(m)\left(W(𝐠)M^{^{_{}}}\right)_{basic}$$

$$\omega (\xi _1)W(𝐠)^𝐠.$$

The map $`\psi `$ commutes with $`i_\lambda `$ since the image of $`\psi _0`$ is horizontal. It commutes with the differential because $`d_W(\omega (\xi ))=\stackrel{~}{\xi }1`$. This corrects an error in the proof of Lemma 17.6, \[GKM\], where $`\psi `$ does not commute with the differential unless $`𝐠`$ is abelian.

We will check that $`\psi `$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Let’s filter both sides by $`S^i(𝐠^{})`$. Then the corresponding quotient complexes are

$$Gr_i^S\psi :(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{})^𝐠(S^i𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}})^𝐠(S^i𝐠^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}})^𝐠.$$

The differential on the LHS is just $`ϵ1d_M`$ (where $`ϵ=(1)^{\mathrm{deg}\xi }`$) and the differential on the RHS is

$$1d_\mathrm{\Lambda }1+\underset{k}{}ad_{\lambda _k}^{}\lambda ^k1+1ϵd_M.$$

The map $`Gr_i^S\psi `$ equals $`1(1𝐓_{|1M^{^{_{}}}})`$. When we untwist it (i.e. we apply $`\mathrm{exp}(𝐢)=𝐓^1`$ to the RHS) the differential takes the form

$$1d_\mathrm{\Lambda }1+\underset{k}{}ad_{\lambda _k}^{}\lambda ^k1+1ϵd_M+\underset{k}{}1\lambda ^k_{\lambda _k}.$$

Since we stay in the invariant subcomplex the differential equals

$$1d_\mathrm{\Lambda }1\underset{k}{}1\lambda ^kad_{\lambda _k}^{}1+1ϵd_M.$$

Moreover $`_k1\lambda ^kad_{\lambda _k}^{}=2d_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, thus the differential on the RHS is

$$1d_\mathrm{\Lambda }1+1ϵd_M.$$

The cohomology of the LHS is

$$H^{}\left(\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}\right)^𝐠\left(S^i𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}}\right)^𝐠\right)=\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}\right)^𝐠H^{}\left(\left(S^i𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}}\right)^𝐠\right)$$

and the cohomology of the RHS is

$$H^{}\left(\left(S^i𝐠^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}}\right)^𝐠\right)=H^{}\left(\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}\right)^𝐠\right)H^{}\left(\left(S^i𝐠^{}M^{^{_{}}}\right)^𝐠\right)$$

again by \[GHV\], Th. V, p.172, since the action on $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{})`$ is trivial and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{_{}}}𝐠^{}`$ is semisimple. Thus cohomology of the graded complexes are the same. The conclusion of 8.1 follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 8.2

Let $`X`$ and $`𝐠`$ be as in 7.1. Following \[GKM\] let us explain the meaning of Koszul duality. The invariant and the equivariant cohomology of $`X`$ are defined on the level of derived categories. Theorem 8.1 gives a procedure to reconstruct the invariant cohomology from the equivariant cohomology. Since this duality is an isomorphism of categories the invariant cohomology determines the equivariant cohomology as well. The corresponding statement on the level of graded modules over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{^{_{}}}`$ and $`S^{^{_{}}}`$ is not true as an easy example in \[GKM\] shows. One cannot recover $`H_G^{}(X)`$ from $`H^{}(X)`$ with an action of $`H_{}(G)`$ even in the case $`X=S^3`$, $`G=S^1`$.