text:
# Eigenvalue Estimates for the Dirac-Schrödinger Operators

## 1. Introduction

In this paper, we start by comparing the hypersurface spinor bundle $`S`$ of a hypersurface $`M`$ to the fundamental spinor bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ of $`M`$. The hypersurface spinor bundle $`S`$ is obtained by restricting the spinor bundle of the ambient space $`N`$ to $`M`$. If $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ is a section of this bundle, the energy-momentum tensor $`Q^\phi `$ associated with $`\phi `$ is defined on the complement of its zero set, by

$$Q_{ij}^\phi =\frac{1}{2}(e_i\nu _j\phi +e_j\nu _i\phi ,\phi /|\phi |^2),$$

where $`\nu `$ is a unit normal vector field globally defined along $`M`$, $`e_i,e_j`$ are vectors of a local orthonormal frame of $`M`$, and where $`_i\phi `$ stands for the covariant derivative of the spinor field $`\phi `$ in the direction of $`e_i`$ . Then the Schrödinger-Lichnerowicz formula for the classical Dirac operator $`D`$ on $`M`$ leads to the following result (compare with ):

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`M^n(N^{n+1},\stackrel{~}{g})`$ be a compact hypersurface of a Riemannian spin manifold $`N`$. Let $`\lambda `$ be any eigenvalue of the hypersurface Dirac operator $`D_H=D\frac{H}{2}`$ , associated with an eigenspinor $`\phi `$. Assume that $`R+4|Q^\phi |^2>H^2>0`$, then one has

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M}{inf}\left(\sqrt{R+4|Q^\phi |^2}|H|\right)^2.$$
(1)
where $`R`$ and $`H`$ are respectively the scalar curvature and the mean curvature of $`M`$, and $`Q^\phi `$ is the energy-momentum tensor associated with $`\phi `$.

In fact, we see that if $`M`$ is a minimal hypersurface, the hypersurface Dirac operator corresponds to the classical Dirac operator. Therefore, in this case, this estimate is exactly the one given by O. Hijazi in .

We then discuss the limiting case of equation (1) and that given by X. Zhang in .

As in  and , we then prove

###### Theorem 1.2.

Under the same conditions as in Theorem 1.1, suppose that $`\overline{R}e^{2u}+4|Q^\phi |^2>H^2>0`$, where $`\overline{R}`$ is the scalar curvature of $`M`$ for some conformal metric $`\overline{g}=e^{2u}\stackrel{~}{g}`$, with $`du(\nu )_M0`$, then

$`\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\underset{M}{inf}\left(\sqrt{\overline{R}e^{2u}+4|Q^\phi |^2}|H|\right)^2.`$ (2)
The discussion of the limiting case in this inequality and that proved in  is similar to that of (1). As a conclusion, we observe that these inequalities correspond to a generalization of the classical estimates in terms of the Dirac-Schrödinger operator $`D_f=D\frac{f}{2}`$, for a real function $`f`$ on $`M`$.

We would like to thank Oussama Hijazi for pointing out this problem, as well as Nicolas Ginoux and Xiao Zhang for helpful discussions.

## 2. Preliminaries

### 2.1. Restriction of Spinors to the Hypersurface

In this paper we will consider an oriented compact hypersurface $`(M^n,g)`$ of a Riemannian spin manifold $`(N^{n+1},\stackrel{~}{g})`$, with a spin structure $`\mathrm{Spin}N`$. The metric $`g`$ is the induced metric on $`M`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$. The possibility to define globally a unit normal vector field $`\nu `$ on $`M`$ allows to induce from $`\mathrm{Spin}N`$ a spin structure on $`M`$, denoted by $`\mathrm{Spin}M`$. For this, we can associate to every oriented orthonormal frame $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ on $`M`$ an oriented orthonormal frame $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n,\nu )`$ of $`N`$ such that the principal $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$-bundle $`\mathrm{SO}_nM`$ of oriented orthonormal frames on $`M`$ is identified with a sub-bundle of $`\mathrm{SO}_{n+1}N_M`$. Such a map is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

Let $`l_n`$ be the $`n`$-dimensional complex Clifford algebra and $`l_n^0`$ its even part. Recall that there exists an isomorphism

$`\alpha :`$ $`l_n`$ $`l_{n+1}^0`$
$`e_i`$ $`e_i\nu .`$
Here, $`\nu `$ stands for the last vector of the canonical basis of $`^{n+1}`$.

In particular, $`\alpha `$ yields the following commutative diagram:

$$\text{},$$

where the inclusion of $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$ in $`\mathrm{SO}(n+1)`$ is that which fixes the last basis vector under the action of $`\mathrm{SO}(n+1)`$ on $`^{n+1}`$, and $`\mathrm{Ad}`$ the adjoint representation of $`\mathrm{Spin}(n)`$ on $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$, which is given by

$$\mathrm{Ad}_\eta (x)=\eta x\eta ^1$$

for all $`\eta \mathrm{Spin}(n)`$ and $`x^n`$.

This allows to pull back via $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the fiber bundle $`\mathrm{Spin}N_{|M}`$ on $`\mathrm{SO}M`$ as a spin structure for $`M`$, denoted by $`\mathrm{Spin}M`$. The projection of $`\mathrm{Spin}M`$ on $`\mathrm{SO}M`$, as well as the projection of $`\mathrm{Spin}N`$ on $`\mathrm{SO}N`$, is denoted is $`\pi `$. Thus, we have he following commutative diagram:

$$\text{},$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ be the spinor bundle on $`N`$, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }N=\mathrm{Spin}N\times _{\rho _{n+1}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1},$$

where $`\rho _{n+1}`$ is the restriction to $`\mathrm{Spin}(n+1)`$ of an irreducible representation of $`l_{n+1}`$ on the space of spinors $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1}`$, of dimension $`2^{[\frac{n+1}{2}]}`$ ($`[.]`$ denotes the integer part). Recall that if $`n+1`$ is odd, this representation is chosen so that the complex volume form acts as the identity on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1}`$.

Locally, by definition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$, if $`U`$ is an open subset of $`N`$ and $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }_U(\mathrm{\Sigma }N)`$ a local section of the spinor bundle, we can write

$$\psi =[\stackrel{~}{s},\sigma ]$$

where $`\sigma :U\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}:U\mathrm{Spin}N`$ are smooth maps, and $`[\stackrel{~}{s},\sigma ]`$ is the equivalence class with respect to the relation

$$[\stackrel{~}{s},\sigma ][\stackrel{~}{s}g,\rho _{n+1}(g^1)\sigma ],g\mathrm{Spin}(n+1).$$

Moreover, we can always assume that $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{s})`$ is a local section of $`\mathrm{SO}N`$ with $`\nu `$ for last basis vector. Then we have

$$\psi _{|M}=[(\stackrel{~}{s}_{|UM},\sigma _{|UM})]$$

where the equivalence class is reduced to elements of $`\mathrm{Spin}(n)`$.

It follows that one can realize the restriction to $`M`$ of the spinor bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ as

$$S:=\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{|M}=\mathrm{Spin}M\times _{\rho _{n+1}\alpha }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1}.$$

Remark. The inclusion of $`\mathrm{Spin}(n)`$ in $`\mathrm{Spin}(n+1)`$ given by $`\alpha `$ is the trivial one. But, this notation emphasizes that Clifford multiplication of a spinor field $`\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ by a vector $`X`$ tangent to $`M`$ is given by

$$(X,\varphi )X\nu \varphi .$$
(4)
This fact is crucial for the following identification (see , ).

### 2.2. Identification of $`S`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$

We now compare $`S`$ with the intrinsic spinor bundle of $`M`$,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }M=\mathrm{Spin}M\times _{\rho _n}\mathrm{\Sigma }_n.$$

For this, we have to examine the cases where $`n`$ is even or odd. First assume that $`n=2m`$ is even. From (2.1) and

$$l_{2m}(2^m),$$
(5)
it follows that the representation of $`l_{2m}`$ given by $`\rho _{2m+1}\alpha `$ is simply the restriction of $`\rho _{2m+1}`$ to $`l_{2m+1}^0`$. But this representation is irreducible (see ). The representation $`\rho _{2m+1}\alpha `$ is then an irreducible representation of $`l_{2m}`$ of dimension $`\mathrm{dim}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2m+1}=2^{[\frac{2m+1}{2}]}=2^m`$, as $`\rho _{2m}`$. Now, (5) implies that such a representation is unique, up to an isomorphism. So $`\rho _{2m}\rho _{2m+1}\alpha `$ and we can conclude that

$$S\mathrm{\Sigma }M.$$
(6)
Let $`\omega _{2m}=i^me_1\mathrm{}e_{2m}`$ be the complex volume form in even dimension. An easy calculation shows that $`\alpha (\omega )=\omega `$. The decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ into positive and negative parts is preserved under the isomorphism (6) and we have

$$S=S^+S^{}$$

where

$$S^\pm =\{\psi Si\nu \psi =\pm \psi \}\mathrm{\Sigma }M^\pm .$$

Indeed, because we choose $`\rho _{2m+1}`$ as the irreducible representation of $`l_{2m+1}`$ for which the complex volume form $`\omega _{2m+1}=i^{m+1}e_1\mathrm{}e_{2m}\nu `$ acts as the identity on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2m+1}`$, one has, for $`\psi S`$:

$$i\nu \psi =i\nu \omega _{2m+1}\psi =i^mi^2\nu e_1\mathrm{}e_{2m}\nu \psi =\omega _{2m}\psi .$$

Assume now that $`n=2m+1`$ is odd. Recall the following isomorphism:

$$l_{2m+1}=(2^m)(2^m).$$
(7)
As mentioned above, $`\rho _{2m+1}`$ corresponds to the irreducible representation of $`l_{2m+1}`$ for which the action of the complex volume form $`\omega _{2m+1}`$ is the identity. Because $`n+1=2m+2`$ is even, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ decomposes into positive and negative parts,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }N^\pm =\mathrm{Spin}N\times _{\rho _{2m+2}^\pm }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2m+2}^\pm .$$

If $`e_k`$ is a basis vector tangent to $`M`$, then

$`\alpha (e_k)\omega _{2m+2}`$ $`=`$ $`i^{m+1}e_k\nu e_1\mathrm{}e_{2m+1}\nu `$
$`=`$ $`i^{m+1}(1)^{2m+2}(1)^{2m+2}e_1\mathrm{}e_{2m+1}\nu e_k\nu `$
$`=`$ $`\omega _{2m+2}\alpha (e_k).`$
So $`\rho _{2m+2}\alpha `$ preserves the decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$, and

$$S=S^+S^{}$$

with

$$S^\pm =\mathrm{Spin}M\times _{\rho _{2m+2}^\pm \alpha }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2m+2}^\pm ,$$

and where $`\omega _{2m+2}`$ acts as $`\pm \mathrm{Id}`$ on $`S^\pm `$.

Moreover,

$$\alpha (\omega _{2m+1})=i^{m+1}(e_1\nu )\mathrm{}(e_{2m+1}\nu )=i^{m+1}e_1\mathrm{}e_{2m+1}\nu =\omega _{2m+2},$$

and then $`\rho _{2m+1}`$ and $`\rho _{2m+2}^+\alpha `$ are both irreducible representations of $`l_{2m+1}`$ of the same dimension, such that $`\rho _{2m+1}(\omega _{2m+1})`$ and $`\rho _{2m+2}^+\alpha (\omega _{2m+1})`$ are respectively the identity on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2m+1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2m+2}^+`$. Because such a representation is unique up to an isomorphism, we deduce that $`\rho _{2m+1}\rho _{2m+2}^+\alpha `$ and

$$S^+\mathrm{\Sigma }M.$$
(8)
Thus we have shown the following

###### Proposition 2.1.

If $`n`$ is even (resp. odd), there exists an identification of the hypersurface spinor bundle $`S`$ (resp. $`S^+`$) with the spinor bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ which sends every spinor $`\phi S`$ (resp. $`S^+`$) to the spinor denoted by $`\phi ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$. Moreover, with respect to this identification, Clifford multiplication by a vector field $`X`$, tangent to $`M`$, is given by

$$X\phi ^{}=(X\nu \phi )^{}.$$

### 2.3. The Spinorial Gauss Formula and the Hypersurface Dirac Operator

Let $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ be the Levi-Civita connection of $`(N^{n+1},\stackrel{~}{g})`$, and $``$ that of $`(M^n,g)`$. Let $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n,e_{n+1}=\nu )`$ be a local orthonormal basis for $`TM`$, then the Gauss formula says that for $`1i,jn`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{}_ie_j=_ie_j+h_{ij}\nu ,$$
(9)
where $`h_{ij}`$ are the coefficients of the second fundamental form of the hypersurface $`M`$. We are going to relate the associated connections on the corresponding spinor bundles. For this, consider $`\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }N)`$ and $`\phi =\varphi _M\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ its restriction to $`M`$. Recall now that locally, for $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{}_X\varphi =X(\varphi )+\frac{1}{2}\underset{1i<jn+1}{}\stackrel{~}{g}(\stackrel{~}{}_Xe_i,e_j)e_ie_j\varphi $$
(10)
and

$`_X\phi `$ $`=`$ $`X(\phi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{1i<jn}{}}g(_Xe_i,e_j)e_i\nu e_j\nu \phi `$
$`=`$ $`X(\phi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{1i<jn}{}}g(_Xe_i,e_j)e_ie_j\phi .`$
Therefore, by restricting both sides of equation (10) to $`M`$, and using the fact that $`X(\varphi )_M=X(\varphi _M)`$ for $`X`$ tangent to $`M`$, the Gauss formula (9) yields, for $`1kn`$,

$`(\stackrel{~}{}_k\varphi )_M`$ $`=`$ $`e_k(\phi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{1i<jn}{}}\stackrel{~}{g}(_ke_i+h_{ki}\nu ,e_j)e_ie_j\phi `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{1in}{}}\stackrel{~}{g}(_ke_i+h_{ki}\nu ,\nu )e_i\nu \phi `$
$`=`$ $`e_k(\phi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{1i<jn}{}}g(_ke_i,e_j)e_ie_j\phi `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{1in}{}}h_{ki}e_i\nu \phi `$
$`=`$ $`_k\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{1in}{}}h_{ki}e_i\nu \phi `$
Once again, from equation (10), it makes sense to write $`(\stackrel{~}{}_X\varphi )_M=\stackrel{~}{}_X\phi `$ when $`X`$ is tangent to $`M`$, and hence we proved the spinorial Gauss formula:

$$\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S),X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM),\stackrel{~}{}_X\phi =_X\phi +\frac{1}{2}h(X)\nu \phi .$$
(11)
(Here $`h`$ is seen as an endomorphism of the tangent bundle.)

It is known (see ) that there exists a positive definite Hermitian metric $`<.,.>`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ such that, if $`\tau `$ is a $`k`$-form on $`N`$,

$$<\tau \varphi ,\psi >=(1)^{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}<\varphi ,\tau \psi >,\varphi ,\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }N).$$
(12)
If we denote $`(.,.)`$ its real part, we have

$$(\stackrel{~}{X}\varphi ,\stackrel{~}{Y}\varphi )=\stackrel{~}{g}(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y})(\varphi ,\varphi ),(\stackrel{~}{X}\varphi ,\varphi )=0,\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y}\mathrm{\Gamma }(TN).$$
(13)
We simply restrict $`(.,.)`$ to $`M`$ to get a globally defined metric on $`S`$. Now, because $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is compatible with $`(.,.)`$, i.e.

$$X(\phi ,\psi )=(\stackrel{~}{}_X\phi ,\psi )+(\phi ,\stackrel{~}{}_X\psi ),\phi ,\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S),X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)$$

formula (11) easily implies that $``$ is also compatible with the metric. We remark that equation (2.3) implies that with respect to the identification of proposition 2.1, we have

$$(\varphi )^{}=\varphi ^{}$$
(14)
This leads to the metric $`(.,.)_{\mathrm{\Sigma }M}`$ on the intrinsic spinor bundle, with the same properties as $`(.,.)`$, and hence the two bundles are isometric.

Because Clifford multiplication of a spinor by a vector tangent to $`M`$ is given by (4), if $`n`$ is odd, $`S^+`$ is stable by $``$ and by Clifford multiplication. So the classical Dirac operator is simply defined on $`S`$ for $`n`$ even (resp. $`S^+`$ for $`n`$ odd) by

$$D=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}e_i\nu _i.$$

Now we define the hypersurface Dirac operator on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ as

$$D_H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}e_i\nu \stackrel{~}{}_i.$$

This definition is motivated by the following fact. Let

$$\stackrel{~}{D}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}e_i\stackrel{~}{}_i$$

be the hypersurface Dirac operator defined by Witten (see , ) to prove the positive energy conjecture in general relativity. Then $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is not formally self-adjoint with respect to the metric $`(.,.)`$. Indeed, it is proved in  that

$$D_H^2=\stackrel{~}{D}^{}\stackrel{~}{D},$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{}`$ is the formal adjoint of $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ w.r.t. $`(.,.)`$.

From formula (11), we see that for $`n`$ even (resp. odd), we have the following relations on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(S^+)`$) :

$`D_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e_i\nu _i+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e_i\nu {\displaystyle \frac{h(e_i)}{2}}\nu `$
$`=`$ $`D+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{ij}}{2}}e_ie_j`$
$`=`$ $`D+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{ij}}{4}}(e_ie_j+e_je_i)`$
$`=`$ $`D{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{ij}}{2}}\delta _{ij}`$
and hence, if $`H=_ih_{ii}`$ is the mean curvature of the hypersurface, we have

$$D_H=D\frac{H}{2}$$
(15)
In the following, we will not distinguish the cases where $`n`$ is even or odd. In fact, if $`n`$ is odd, $`D_H`$ preserves the decomposition of $`S`$ into positive and negative spinors, as well as Clifford multiplication (recall (4)), $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $``$. Indeed, if $`\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ is an eigenspinor of $`D_H`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$, it is the same for $`\varphi ^+`$, its positive part. So we only consider positive spinors. The notation becomes easier with this convention.

Now, it is easy to see from equation (15) that $`D_H`$ is formally self-adjoint with respect to the metric $`(.,.)`$ (see ). Finally, recall the well-known Schrödinger-Lichnerowicz formula on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)`$ which by the previous identification is also true on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$:

$$D^2=^{}+\frac{R}{4},$$
(16)
$`R`$ being the scalar curvature of $`M`$ and $`^{}`$ the formal adjoint of $``$ with respect to the metric $`(.,.)`$.

## 3. Proof of the Theorem 1.1

Now we give an estimate for the eigenvalues of $`D_H`$ in terms of the energy-momentum tensor (see ). For any spinor field $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$, we define the associated energy-momentum 2-tensor $`Q^\phi `$ on the complement of its zero set, by

$`Q_{ij}^\phi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e_i\nu _j\phi +e_j\nu _i\phi ,\phi /|\phi |^2).`$ (17)
###### Remark 3.1.

This definition corresponds to the one given in  if we note that with respect to the identification of $`S`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ of proposition 2.1,

$$Q_{ij}^\phi =\frac{1}{2}(e_i_j\phi ^{}+e_j_i\phi ^{},\phi ^{}/|\phi ^{}|^2)_{\mathrm{\Sigma }M}.$$

If $`\phi `$ is an eigenspinor for $`D_H`$, $`Q^\phi `$ is well defined in the sense of distribution. For any real functions $`p`$ and $`q`$, consider the modified covariant derivative defined on $`S`$ by

$`_i^Q=_i+(p{\displaystyle \frac{H}{2}}+q\lambda )e_i\nu +{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}Q_{ij}^\phi e_j\nu .`$ (18)
###### Remark 3.2.

This connection is well defined on $`S^+`$ when $`n`$ is odd.

Using (13), we have

$`|^Q\phi |^2`$ $`=`$ $`|\phi |^2+n\left(p{\displaystyle \frac{H}{2}}+q\lambda \right)^2|\phi |^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}Q_{ij}^\phi Q_{ik}^\phi (e_j\nu \phi ,e_k\nu \phi )`$
$`+2\left(p{\displaystyle \frac{H}{2}}+q\lambda \right){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(_i\phi ,e_i\nu \phi )`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}Q_{ij}^\phi (_i\phi ,e_j\nu \phi )`$
$`+2\left(p{\displaystyle \frac{H}{2}}+q\lambda \right){\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}Q_{ij}^\phi (e_i\nu \phi ,e_j\nu \phi )`$
$`=`$ $`|\phi |^2+n\left(p{\displaystyle \frac{H}{2}}+q\lambda \right)^2|\phi |^2+|Q^\phi |^2|\phi |^2`$
$`2\left(p{\displaystyle \frac{H}{2}}+q\lambda \right)(D\phi ,\phi )2|Q^\phi |^2|\phi |^2`$
$`+2\left(p{\displaystyle \frac{H}{2}}+q\lambda \right)Tr(Q^\phi )|\phi |^2`$
but

$$Tr(Q^\phi )|\phi |^2=(D\phi ,\phi )$$

hence

$$|^Q\phi |^2=|\phi |^2+n\left(p\frac{H}{2}+q\lambda \right)^2|\phi |^2|Q^\phi |^2|\phi |^2.$$
(19)
Now, since $`D_H=D\frac{H}{2}`$, the Schrödinger-Lichnerowicz formula (16) on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle _M}|\phi |^2v_g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\left(|D\phi |^2{\displaystyle \frac{R}{4}}|\phi |^2\right)v_g`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\left((\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{H}{2}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{R}{4}}\right)|\phi |^2v_g`$
Therefore (19) and (20) imply

$`{\displaystyle _M}|^Q\phi |^2v_g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\left((1+nq^2)\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{R}{4}}|Q^\phi |^2\right)|\phi |^2v_g`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle _M}\left((1+np^2){\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{4}}+(1+npq)H\lambda \right)|\phi |^2v_g.`$
Now, assume that $`q`$ has no zeros so that we can choose $`p=\frac{1}{nq}`$. Then (21) becomes

$$_M|^Q\phi |^2v_g=_M(1+nq^2)\left[\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{R+4|Q^\phi |^2}{(1+nq^2)}\frac{H^2}{nq^2}\right)\right]|\phi |^2v_g$$
(22)
If $`R+4|Q^\phi |^2>H^2>0`$, we can take

$$nq^2=\frac{|H|}{\sqrt{R+4|Q^\phi |^2}|H|}$$
(23)
Then equation (22) becomes

$$_M|^Q\phi |^2v_g=_M(1+nq^2)\left[\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\left(\sqrt{R+4|Q^\phi |^2}|H|\right)^2\right]|\phi |^2v_g$$
(24)
Because the left hand side of this equation is positive and $`\lambda `$ is a constant, we get

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M}{inf}\left(\sqrt{R+4|Q^\phi |^2}|H|\right)^2.$$
(25)
###### Remark 3.3.

If $`M`$ is minimal, i.e. $`H=0`$, we can choose $`q0`$ in (18) so that (25) specializes to the inequality of Theorem A in .

###### Remark 3.4.

Note that our definition of the energy-momentum tensor $`Q^\phi `$ coincides with that in . The definition used in  and  gives a factor $`\frac{n}{n1}`$ in front of $`R+4|Q^\phi |^2`$ in inequality (25) but in this case, $`Q^\phi `$ has no canonical intrinsic meaning.

## 4. Limiting cases

First recall the inequality proved by X. Zhang :

###### Theorem 4.1 ().

Let $`M^nN^{n+1}`$ be a compact hypersurface of a riemannian spin manifold $`(N,\stackrel{~}{g})`$. Assume that $`n2`$ and $`nR>(n1)H^2>0`$. Then if $`\lambda `$ is any eigenvalue of the hypersurface Dirac operator $`D_H`$, one has

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M}{inf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}R}|H|\right)^2.$$
(26)
As in the proof of Theorem 1.1, the proof of Theorem 4.1 is based on the use of the modified connection

$$_i^\lambda =_i+(p\frac{H}{2}+q\lambda )e_i\nu .$$
(27)
Here, $`p`$ and $`q`$ are related by

$$p=\frac{1q}{1nq}$$
(28)
and

$$q=\frac{1}{n}\left(1\sqrt{\frac{(n1)|H|}{\sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}R}|H|}}\right)$$
(29)
or, in other terms,

$$(1nq)^2=\frac{(n1)|H|}{\sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}R}|H|}.$$
(30)
Equality holds in (26) for an eigenspinor $`\phi `$ of $`D_H`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ if and only if $`\sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}R}|H|`$ is constant and $`^\lambda \phi 0`$. But, with respect to the identification of proposition 2.1, and by (14), $`^\lambda \phi 0`$ is equivalent to

$$i=1,\mathrm{},n,_i\phi ^{}=\left(p\frac{H}{2}+q\lambda \right)e_i\phi ^{}$$
(31)
It is known (see ) that if such a section exists on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$, then $`p\frac{H}{2}+q\lambda `$ has to be constant (say $`\frac{\lambda _1}{n}`$ for instance) and that in this case $`M`$ is Einstein and $`R=4\frac{n1}{n}\lambda _1^2`$. So $`\phi `$ is a Killing spinor and we are in the limiting case of Friedrich’s inequality . Moreover, since $`\sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}R}|H|`$ is constant, $`H`$ has to be constant.

Therefore, since $`D\phi =\lambda _1\phi `$ and $`\lambda _1=\frac{\mathrm{sign}(\lambda _1)}{2}\sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}R}`$, the following equation must be satisfied (recall that $`D_H=D\frac{H}{2}`$)

$$\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{sign}(\lambda _1)}{2}\sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}R}\frac{H}{2}=\frac{\mathrm{sign}(\lambda _1)}{2}\sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}R}\mathrm{sign}(H)\frac{|H|}{2}$$
(32)
But equality case gives

$$\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{sign}(\lambda )}{2}\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}R}|H|\right),$$
(33)
So (32) and (33) imply that

$$\mathrm{sign}(\lambda )=\mathrm{sign}(\lambda _1)=\mathrm{sign}(H)$$
(34)
On the other hand, an easy calculation leads to

$`p{\displaystyle \frac{H}{2}}+q\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sign}(\lambda )}{2n}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n}{n1}}R}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{sign}(H)\mathrm{sign}(\lambda ))}{2n}}\left(1+\sqrt{(n1)(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n}{n1}}R}|H|)}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sign}(\lambda _1)}{2n}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n}{n1}}R}`$
and we recover the already known fact that $`p\frac{H}{2}+q\lambda =\frac{\lambda _1}{n}`$.

Indeed, (34) can be trivially observed because in the equality case, both $`R`$ and $`H`$ are constant, so we can think of the spectrum of $`D_H`$ as the shifting of the spectrum of $`D`$ by $`\frac{H}{2}`$. Then the condition $`nR>(n1)H^2>0`$ in Theorem 4.1 simply implies that the lowest eigenvalue of $`D_H`$ (in the sense of its absolute value) must have the sign of $`H`$. In particular, when $`n`$ is even, it shows how we lose the symmetry of the spectrum when passing from $`D`$ to $`D_H`$ (compare with the case where $`H=0`$).

Now we discuss the case of Theorem 1.1. The limiting case of inequality (1) holds for an eigenspinor $`\phi `$ of $`D_H`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ if and only if $`^Q\phi 0`$. First note that this implies that $`|\phi |`$ is constant. Then, with respect to the identification of proposition 2.1, and by (14), $`^Q\phi 0`$ is equivalent to

$$_i\phi ^{}=\left(p\frac{H}{2}+q\lambda \right)e_i\phi ^{}\underset{j}{}Q_{ij}^\phi e_j\phi ^{}$$
(35)
Let $`f=p\frac{H}{2}+q\lambda `$, then equation (35) can be written as

$$_i\phi ^{}=\underset{j}{}(Q_{ij}^\phi +f\delta _{ij})e_j\phi ^{}$$
(36)
Now let $`T_{ij}=Q_{ij}^\phi +f\delta _{ij}`$, taking Clifford multiplication by $`e_k`$ on both sides of equation (36), yields

$$e_k_i\phi ^{}=\underset{j}{}T_{ij}e_ke_j\phi ^{},$$

which gives

$$(e_k_i\phi ^{},\phi ^{})_{\mathrm{\Sigma }M}=\underset{j}{}T_{ij}(e_ke_j\phi ^{},\phi ^{})_{\mathrm{\Sigma }M},$$

and, because $`(e_ke_j\phi ^{},\phi ^{})_{\mathrm{\Sigma }M}=0`$ unless $`j=k`$ and $`T_{ij}`$ is symmetric, we proved

$$\frac{1}{2}(e_i_k\phi ^{}+e_k_i\phi ^{},\phi ^{}/|\phi ^{}|^2)_{\mathrm{\Sigma }M}=T_{ik}.$$

Hence

$$T_{ik}=Q_{ik}^\phi $$

and we can conclude that $`f=0`$. Equation (35) reduces to

$$_i\phi ^{}=\underset{j}{}Q_{ij}^\phi e_j\phi ^{}.$$
(37)
Such field equations have been studied, as well as their integrability conditions, by T. Friedrich and E. C. Kim in . Note that they allow a nice formulation of the theory of immersed surfaces in the euclidean 3-space (see ). We will call an EM-spinor (for Energy-Momentum spinor) a non trivial spinor field satisfying (37). If it is an eigenspinor for the Dirac operator, which is equivalent to the fact that $`\mathrm{tr}Q^\phi `$ is constant, it is called T-Killing spinor (see ). In fact, a T-Killing spinor is exactly a spinor field satisfying the limiting case in Hijazi’s inequality .

Now we have (see  or Lemma 4.1(iii) of )

$$(\mathrm{tr}Q^\phi )^2=\frac{R}{4}+|Q^\phi |^2$$
(38)
So (37) implies that

$$D\phi =F\phi $$

where $`F^2=\frac{R}{4}+|Q^\phi |^2`$. Whereas equality case in (1) gives $`\sqrt{R+4|Q^\phi |^2}|H|`$ is constant, we can’t conclude here that $`\frac{R}{4}+|Q^\phi |^2`$ and $`H`$ are constant as in the case of Zhang’s inequality. Nevertheless, we have the following

###### Corollary 4.2.

If $`H`$ is constant, then equality case in (1) holds if and only $`\phi `$ is a T-Killing spinor.

By hypothesis $`H`$ has constant sign and we can conclude that $`\lambda `$ has the same sign. Recall that $`p`$ and $`q`$ are related by

$$p=\frac{1}{nq}$$

and

$$nq^2=\frac{|H|}{\sqrt{R+4|Q^\phi |^2}|H|}.$$

Indeed, an easy calculation gives

$$0=f=\left(p\frac{H}{2}+q\lambda \right)=\frac{(\mathrm{sign}(\lambda )\mathrm{sign}(H))}{2\sqrt{n}}\sqrt{|H|(\sqrt{R+4|Q^\phi |^2}|H|)}.$$
(39)
Hence

$$\mathrm{sign}(\lambda )=\mathrm{sign}(H).$$

###### Remark 4.3.

Equality case of (26) is included in that of (1): if we assume that $`\phi `$ is a Killing spinor, then necessarily $`Q_{ij}^\phi =\frac{\lambda _1}{n}\delta _{ij}`$ and so $`(\mathrm{tr}Q^\phi )^2=\lambda _1^2=\frac{1}{4}\frac{n}{n1}R`$. Therefore equation (38) implies

$$4|Q^\phi |^2=\frac{n}{n1}RR$$

and we have

$$\lambda ^2=\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}R}|H|\right)^2.$$

###### Remark 4.4.

The previous remark shows that Theorem 1.1 improves Theorem 4.1. In particular, it does not require $`R`$ to be positive, and the limiting case does not imply that $`H`$ has to be constant.

## 5. Proof of the Theorem 1.2

Consider a conformal change of the metric $`\overline{g}=e^{2u}\stackrel{~}{g}`$ for any real function $`u`$ on $`N`$. For simplicity, let $`\overline{N}=(N,\overline{g})`$. The natural isometry between $`\mathrm{SO}N`$ and $`\mathrm{SO}\overline{N}`$ induced by this conformal change of the metric lifts to an isometry between the $`\mathrm{Spin}(n+1)`$-principal bundles $`\mathrm{Spin}N`$ and $`\mathrm{Spin}\overline{N}`$, and hence between the two corresponding hypersurface spinor bundles $`S`$ and $`\overline{S}`$. If $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$, denote by $`\overline{\phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{S})`$ its image by this isometry. Let $`(.,.)_{\overline{g}}`$ be the metric on $`\overline{S}`$ naturally defined as described in section 2. Then for $`\phi `$, $`\psi `$ two sections of $`S`$, we have

$$(\phi ,\psi )=(\overline{\phi },\overline{\psi })_{\overline{g}}\mathrm{and}\overline{X}\overline{}\overline{\psi }=\overline{X\psi }$$

We will also denote by $`\overline{g}=e_{}^{2u}{}_{M}{}^{}g`$ the restriction of $`\overline{g}`$ to $`M`$. By conformal covariance of the Dirac operator, we have, for $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$, (see )

$$\overline{D}\left(e^{\frac{(n1)}{2}u}\overline{\phi }\right)=e^{\frac{(n+1)}{2}u}\overline{D\phi },$$
(40)
where $`\overline{D}`$ stands for the Dirac operator w.r.t. to $`\overline{g}`$. On the other hand

$$\overline{H}=e^u\left(H+ndu(\nu )\right).$$
(41)
Therefore, if $`\overline{D}_{\overline{H}}`$ stands for the hypersurface Dirac operator w.r.t. to $`\overline{g}`$, equations (40) and (41) imply that,

$$\overline{D}_{\overline{H}}\left(e^{\frac{(n1)}{2}u}\overline{\phi }\right)=e^{\frac{(n+1)}{2}u}\left(\overline{D_H\phi }\frac{n}{2}du(\nu )\overline{\phi }\right).$$
(42)
###### Remark 5.1.

We see that if $`du(\nu )_M=0`$, $`D_H`$ is a conformal invariant operator. In this case, technics used in () can be applied for the eigenvalues of $`D_H`$. Indeed, such a conformal change of metric can be viewed as a intrinsic conformal change of the metric on $`M`$, when we omit the ambient space $`N`$ (See section 7).

From now on, we will only consider conformal changes of the metric $`\overline{g}=e^{2u}\stackrel{~}{g}`$ with $`du(\nu )=0`$ on $`M`$. They will be called regular conformal changes of metric as in .

For $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ an eigenspinor of $`D_H`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$, let $`\overline{\psi }:=e^{\frac{n1}{2}u}\overline{\phi }`$. Then (42) gives

$$\overline{D}_{\overline{H}}\overline{\psi }=\lambda e^u\overline{\psi }.$$
(43)
Recall that

$`\overline{}_i\overline{\phi }=\overline{_i\phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{e_i\mathrm{d}u\phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_i(u)\overline{\phi },`$ (44)
and $`\overline{e_i}=e^ue_i.`$ Now, as in , it is straightforward to get

$`\overline{Q}_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}^{\overline{\psi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{e_i}\overline{}\overline{\nu }\overline{}\overline{}_{\overline{e}_j}\overline{\psi }+\overline{e_j}\overline{}\overline{\nu }\overline{}\overline{}_{\overline{e}_i}\overline{\psi },\overline{\psi }/|\overline{\psi }|_{\overline{g}}^2)_{\overline{g}}`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^u(\overline{e_i}\overline{}\overline{\nu }\overline{}\overline{}_{e_j}\overline{\phi }+\overline{e_j}\overline{}\overline{\nu }\overline{}\overline{}_{e_i}\overline{\phi },\overline{\phi }/|\overline{\phi }|_{\overline{g}}^2)_{\overline{g}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^u(e_i\nu _{e_j}\phi +e_j\nu _{e_i}\phi ,\phi /|\phi |^2)`$
$`=`$ $`e^uQ_{ij}^\phi .`$
Hence,

$$|\overline{Q}^{\overline{\psi }}|^2=e^{2u}|Q^\phi |^2$$
(46)
Equation (22), which is also true on $`N`$, applied to $`\overline{\psi }`$ yields

$$_M|\overline{}^Q\overline{\psi }|^2v_{\overline{g}}=_M(1+nq^2)\left[\lambda ^2e^{2u}\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\overline{R}+4|\overline{Q}^{\overline{\psi }}|^2}{(1+nq^2)}\frac{\overline{H}^2}{nq^2}\right)\right]|\overline{\psi }|^2v_{\overline{g}}$$
(47)
which, because of (41) and (46) gives

$$_M|\overline{}^Q\overline{\psi }|^2v_{\overline{g}}=_M(1+nq^2)\left[\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\overline{R}e^{2u}+4|Q^\phi |^2}{(1+nq^2)}\frac{H^2}{nq^2}\right)\right]e^{2u}|\overline{\psi }|^2v_{\overline{g}}.$$
(48)
Taking

$$nq^2=\frac{|H|}{\sqrt{\overline{R}e^{2u}+4|Q^\phi |^2}|H|}$$

completes the proof of Theorem 1.2.

## 6. General limiting cases

We now discuss the limiting case in inequality (2). Equality holds if and only if $`\overline{}_{\overline{i}}^Q\overline{\psi }=0`$ for $`1in`$, which can be written as

$$0=\overline{}_{\overline{i}}\overline{\psi }+\left(p\frac{\overline{H}}{2}+qe^u\lambda \right)\overline{e}_i\overline{}\overline{\nu }\overline{}\overline{\psi }+\underset{j}{}\overline{Q}_{ij}^{\overline{\psi }}\overline{e}_j\overline{}\overline{\nu }\overline{}\overline{\psi }.$$

Since $`\overline{\psi }:=e^{\frac{n1}{2}u}\overline{\phi }`$, (44) and (46) yield

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{n1}{2}u}e^u[\overline{_i\phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{e_i\mathrm{d}u\phi }{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}e_i(u)\overline{\phi }`$ (49)
$`+(p{\displaystyle \frac{H}{2}}+q\lambda )\overline{e_i\nu \phi }+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}Q_{ij}^\phi \overline{e_j\nu \phi }].`$
With respect to the identification of proposition 2.1, and by (14), this last statement is equivalent to

$`_i\phi ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_i\mathrm{d}u\phi ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{d}u(e_i)\phi ^{}fe_i\phi ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}Q_{ij}^\phi e_j\phi ^{}.`$ (50)
where $`f:=p\frac{H}{2}+q\lambda `$. As in Section 4, let $`T_{ij}=Q_{ij}^\phi +f\delta _{ij}`$. It is then straightforward to prove that $`T_{ij}=Q_{ij}^\phi `$ and so $`f=0`$.

Taking the scalar product of (50) with $`\phi ^{}`$, it follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_i(|\phi |^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(_i\phi ^{},\phi ^{})_{\mathrm{\Sigma }M}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e_i\mathrm{d}u\phi ^{},\phi ^{})_{\mathrm{\Sigma }M}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{d}u(e_i)|\phi |^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)}{2}}\mathrm{d}u(e_i)|\phi |^2`$
Therefore,

$$\mathrm{d}u=\frac{\mathrm{d}|\phi |^2}{(n1)|\phi |^2}.$$
(51)
So we proved that equality holds in (2) if and only if the eigenspinor $`\phi `$ satisfies

$$_i\phi ^{}=\frac{1}{2}e_i\mathrm{d}u\phi ^{}+\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{d}u(e_i)\phi ^{}\underset{j}{}Q_{ij}^\phi e_j\phi ^{}$$

with $`u`$ satisfying (51). Such field equations have already been studied, as well as their integrability conditions, by T. Friedrich and E.C. Kim . We will call them WEM-spinors (for Weak Energy-Momentum spinors). If, they satisfy the Einstein-Dirac equation, they are called WK-spinors (for Weak Killing spinors). These are exactly the limiting case of Hijazi’s equality involving conformal change of the metric and the energy-momentum tensor , in which case, they are also eigenspinors for the classical Dirac operator.

In our situation, there are not eigenspinors for $`D`$. As a consequence, even if in the limiting case $`\sqrt{\overline{R}e^{2u}+4|Q^\phi |^2}|H|`$ has to be constant, we can’t conclude that both $`\sqrt{\overline{R}e^{2u}+4|Q^\phi |^2}`$ and $`H`$ are constant.

Nevertheless, as in the previous section, a simple calculation leads to

$$0=f=e^u\frac{(\mathrm{sign}(\lambda )\mathrm{sign}(H))}{2\sqrt{n}}\sqrt{|H|(\sqrt{\overline{R}e^{2u}+4|Q^\phi |^2}|H|)}.$$

Hence

$$\mathrm{sign}(\lambda )=\mathrm{sign}(H).$$

Now recall the inequality proved by O. Hijazi and X. Zhang :

###### Theorem 6.1 ().

Let $`M^nN^{n+1}`$ be a compact hypersurface of a Riemannian spin manifold $`(N,\stackrel{~}{g})`$. Assume that $`n2`$ and $`n\overline{R}e^{2u}>(n1)H^2>0`$ for some regular conformal change of the metric $`\overline{g}=e^{2u}\stackrel{~}{g}`$. Then if $`\lambda `$ is any eigenvalue of the hypersurface Dirac operator $`D_H`$, one has

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M}{inf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}\overline{R}e^{2u}}|H|\right)^2.$$
(52)
As in the proof of Theorem 1.2, Theorem 6.1 is obtained by using the modified connection defined by (27), on the manifold $`(N,\overline{g}=e^{2u}\stackrel{~}{g})`$.

As in the beginning of this section, it is then easy to see that equality holds in (52) if and only if

$`0=e^{\frac{n1}{2}u}e^u\left[\overline{_i\phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{e_i\mathrm{d}u\phi }{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}e_i(u)\overline{\phi }+\left(p{\displaystyle \frac{H}{2}}+q\lambda \right)\overline{e_i\nu \phi }\right].`$ (53)
With respect to the identification of proposition 2.1, and by (14), this last statement is equivalent to

$`_i\phi ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_i\mathrm{d}u\phi ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{d}u(e_i)\phi ^{}fe_i\phi ^{}.`$ (54)
where $`f:=p\frac{H}{2}+q\lambda `$. As in section 4, let $`T_{ij}=f\delta _{ij}`$. Then it is straightforward to prove that $`T_{ij}=Q_{ij}^\phi `$ and that spinors fields satisfying the equality case in Theorem 6.1 are particular WEM-spinors. Now, by (38) and by (45), we see that necessarily

$$f=\pm \frac{1}{n}\sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}\overline{R}e^{2u}}.$$
(55)
Hence, solutions of (54) correspond exactly to sections verifying the limiting case of inequality (5.1) in .

Recall that here, $`p`$ and $`q`$ are given by

$$p=\frac{1q}{1nq}$$
(56)
and

$$(1nq)^2=\frac{(n1)|H|}{\sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}\overline{R}e^{2u}}|H|}.$$
(57)
Therefore we can recover that $`\mathrm{sign}(\lambda )=\mathrm{sign}(H)`$ as made previously by computing explicitly $`p\frac{H}{2}+q\lambda `$. In fact, as in Remark 4.3, the consequence of equation (38) is that Theorem 1.2 improves Theorem 6.1.

## 7. Concluding remark

We conclude this paper by observing that all computations previously made could be done in an intrinsic way, considering a modified Dirac operator $`D_f=D\frac{f}{2}`$, and connections on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$:

$$_i^\lambda =_i+(p\frac{f}{2}+q\lambda )e_i$$

and

$$_i^Q=_i+(p\frac{f}{2}+q\lambda )e_i+Q_{ij}^\phi e_j,$$

with an appropriate choice of $`p`$ and $`q`$ (simply replace $`H`$ by $`f`$), in (28) and (30) .

The identification of the spinor bundles of section 2 allows to assert that computations will lead to the same results, but in a more general way, and so we proved

###### Proposition 7.1.

Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be a compact Riemannian spin manifold. Assume that $`n2`$ and $`nR>(n1)f^2>0`$, with $`f:M`$ a smooth function. Then for any eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ of the Dirac-Schrödinger operator $`D_f=D\frac{f}{2}`$, one has

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M}{inf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}R}|f|\right)^2.$$

Equality holds if and only if $`M`$ admits a Killing spinor and in this case $`(M^n,g)`$ is Einstein, $`f`$ constant, and

$$\mathrm{sign}(\lambda )=\mathrm{sign}(f).$$

Similarly, one has

###### Proposition 7.2.

Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be a compact Riemannian spin manifold. Let $`\lambda `$ be any eigenvalue of the Dirac-Schrödinger operator $`D_f=D\frac{f}{2}`$, associated with the eigenspinor $`\phi `$. Assume that $`R+4|Q^\phi |^2>f^2>0`$, then

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M}{inf}\left(\sqrt{R+4|Q^\phi |^2}|f|\right)^2.$$

where $`Q^\phi `$ the energy-momentum tensor associated with $`\phi `$.

If equality holds, $`M`$ admits an EM-spinor, and in this case,

$$\mathrm{sign}(\lambda )=\mathrm{sign}(f).$$

Now using a conformal change of the metric $`g`$, (see remark 5.1), we prove in the same way

###### Proposition 7.3.

Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be a compact Riemannian spin manifold. Let $`\lambda `$ be any eigenvalue of the Dirac-Schrödinger operator $`D_f=D\frac{f}{2}`$, associated with the eigenspinor $`\phi `$.
If $`\overline{R}e^{2u}+4|Q^\phi |^2>f^2>0`$, where $`\overline{R}`$ is the scalar curvature of $`M`$ for a conformal metric $`\overline{g}=e^{2u}g`$, then

$`\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\underset{M}{inf}\left(\sqrt{\overline{R}e^{2u}+4|Q^\phi |^2}|f|\right)^2.`$
If equality holds, $`M`$ admits an WEM-spinor, and in this case, the function $`u`$ is uniquely defined up to a constant by

$$u=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(|\phi |^2)}{(n1)}.$$

Moreover,

$$\mathrm{sign}(\lambda )=\mathrm{sign}(f).$$


format: text

text:
# Interference of Spin-2 Self-Dual Modes

## I Introduction

This paper is devoted to analyze and explore the effects of interference between the self and anti self-dual spin-2 modes of the linearized Einstein-Chern-Simons theory put forward by Aragone and Khoudeir  as a spin two extension of the self-dual models proposed by Townsend, Pilch and van Nieuwenhuizen  many years ago. This study is done in the context of the soldering technique that is dimensionally independent and designed to work with distinct manifestations of the dual symmetry .

Duality symmetry is being the focus of intense study both in physics and mathematics . The physical meaning of this well appreciated concept is being gradually clarified . In particular, the study of electromagnetic duality has been revived  and a natural self-dual structure identified . Although initialy explored in the context of 4D Maxwell theory to provide an explanation to charge quantization, its scope has been considerably enlarged and extended to other dimensions. The idea of self-duality has been extended outside the electromagnetic context and to all space-time dimensions, both even and odd. In the context of the latter, self dual models in three spacetime dimensions have been studied, and their mathematical structure closely related to global aspects of anomalies have been highlighted. The practical connection of self dual models as well as topologically massive models with the investigation of planar physics like quantum Hall effect and high $`\text{T}_c`$ superconductivity is well understood. More important to our studies, the extension of these theories to gravity has also been formulated . Much effort has been given in the analysis of several technical aspects of self-dual actions and analogies among such actions in different dimensions have been suggested .

On the other hand, the role of the soldering formalism as a quantitative technique is being progressively unveiled and its consequences in diverse dimensions explored. In two space-time dimensions a new interpretation for the phenomenon of dynamical mass generation, known as Schwinger mechanism , has been proposed which explores the ability of the soldering formalism to embrace interference effects . The effects of the interference have also been computed in a study of the chiral diffeomorphism algebra for the $`𝒲_2`$ and $`𝒲_3`$ gravities, in the separation of the no-mover mode of the Siegel chiral boson theory  and in some structures of the chiral WZW theory . Extensions of this mechanism to three  and four space-time dimensions have been examined recently . In particular, interference in three and four space-time dimensions, in the electromagnetic context, were also the object of a recent investigation .

The object of this work is to investigate certain structures of dualities that, as far as we are aware, have not been explored before. We clearly show the possibility to fuse or solder the self and anti self-dual massive degrees of freedom of the associated self-dual gravity into an effective action that naturally contains the two modes, in an explicitly massive form. Through the soldering operation, the self and anti self-dual field operators are then shown to correspond to the square root of the massive operator.

The soldering technique is developed in the next section in the context of the spin one three dimensional self-dual theory. Section 3 contains our main proposal. There the soldering formalism is applied to the case of spin two self-dual gravity generating a new and interesting result. We discuss the outcome of our studies in the last section.

## II Soldering of the spin one self-dual modes

This section is devoted to the analysis of the soldering process in the spin one self-dual theories. This is done to introduce the method and our notation. The three dimensional self-dual model, first discussed by Townsend, Pilch and van Nieuwenhuizen, is given by the following action,

$$S_\chi [f]=d^3x\left(\frac{\chi }{2m}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }f^\mu ^\nu f^\lambda +\frac{1}{2}f_\mu f^\mu \right),$$
(1)
where the signature of the topological terms is dictated by the sign of $`\chi `$. Here the mass parameter $`m`$ is inserted for dimensional reasons and $`ϵ_{012}=1`$.

### A Physical Spectrum

We will discuss now the propagating degrees of freedom of this model. To this end we use the Hamiltonian reduction technique put forward in  and . A first insight is given by the equations of motion which, in the absence of sources, is given by,

$$f_\mu =\frac{\chi }{m}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\nu f^\lambda .$$
(2)
¿From there the following relations may be easily verified,

$`_\mu f^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3)
$`\left(\mathrm{}+m^2\right)f_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
showing that only the tranverse sector of $`f_\mu `$ is a propagating mode. The counting of degrees of freedom can however be put in a more formal presentation. Let us rewrite (1) in a 2+1 decomposition that reads, after a global change of sign,

$$S_\chi [f]=d^3x\left(a_b^f\dot{f}^bV(f,f)\right).$$
(5)
where ($`a,b=1,2`$) and dot means time derivative, as usual. Our goal is to construct the symplectic matrix in an iterative fashion. By inspection the symplectic variables are identified as,

$$\xi _{\{I\}}=(f_0,f_1,f_2),$$
(6)
and the canonical one-form read,

$`a_0^f`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (7)
$`a_b^f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2m}}ϵ_{ab}f^a.`$ (8)
The symplectic potential, playing the role of Hamiltonian density is,

$$V(f,f)=\frac{1}{2}f_\mu f^\mu +\frac{\chi }{m}ϵ_{ab}f_0^af^b.$$
(9)
The symplectic matrix is defined by

$$_{\{I\},\{J\}}^{(0)}(x,y)=\frac{\delta a_{\{I\}}(x)}{\delta \xi _{\{J\}}(y)}\frac{\delta a_{\{J\}}(y)}{\delta \xi _{\{I\}}(x)},$$
(10)
and its value is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }_{\{I\},\{J\}}^{(0)}(x,y)=\begin{array}{cccccc}& & f_0& f_1& f_2& \\ f_0& (\mathrm{}& ^{f_0f_0}& ^{f_0f_1}& ^{f_0f_2}& )\mathrm{}\\ f_1& ^{f_1f_0}& ^{f_1f_1}& ^{f_1f_2}\\ f_2& ^{f_2f_0}& ^{f_2f_1}& ^{f_2f_2}\end{array},\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$`^{f_0f_0}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`^{f_0f_j}(x,y)=^{f_jf_0}(x,y)=0,`$ (11)
$`^{f_if_j}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{m}}ϵ^{ij}\delta (xy).`$ (12)
This operator has an obvious zero-mode,

$$d^3y_{\{I\},\{J\}}^{(0)}(x,y)𝒱_{\{J\}}(y)=0,$$
(13)
with,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }𝒱_{\{J\}}(y)=\left(\begin{array}{c}u(y)\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`u(y)`$ being an arbitrary function. This zero-mode selects a true symplectic constraint  as,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=d^3y\left[_{\{J\}}H_0\right]^T𝒱_{\{J\}}(y),$$
(14)
where $`T`$ stands for matrix transposition. A simple algebra shows,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=f_0+\frac{\chi }{2m}ϵ_{ab}^af^b.$$
(15)
Due to the iterative nature of this procedure, one may interpret this constraint as a secondary symplectic constraint. The first-iterated action now reads,

$$S_\chi ^{(1)}[f]=d^3x\left[a_i^f\dot{f}^i+a^\lambda (f)\dot{\lambda }V(f,f)\right].$$
(16)
where $`\lambda `$ is the symplectic multiplier and $`a^\lambda (f)=\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Notice that we have now an enlarged set of symplectic variables $`\xi \overline{\xi }=(\xi ,\lambda )`$ and canonical one-form $`a_I\overline{a}_I=(a_I,\mathrm{\Omega })`$. The first-iterated symplectic matrix, defined as,

$$_{\{I\},\{J\}}^{(1)}(x,y)=\frac{\delta \overline{a}_{\{I\}}(x)}{\delta \overline{\xi }_{\{J\}}(y)}\frac{\delta \overline{a}_{\{J\}}(y)}{\delta \overline{\xi }_{\{I\}}(x)},$$
(17)
now reads,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }_{\{I\},\{J\}}^{(1)}(x,y)=\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & f_0& f_1& f_2& \lambda & \\ f_0& (\mathrm{}& ^{f_0f_0}& ^{f_0f_1}& ^{f_0f_2}& ^{f_0\lambda }& )\mathrm{}\\ f_1& ^{f_1f_0}& ^{f_1f_1}& ^{f_1f_2}& ^{f_1\lambda }\\ f_2& ^{f_2f_0}& ^{f_2f_1}& ^{f_2f_2}& ^{f_2\lambda }\\ \lambda & ^{\lambda f_0}& ^{\lambda f_1}& ^{\lambda f_2}& ^{\lambda \lambda }\end{array},\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where the new elements are given by

$`^{f_0\lambda }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`^{\lambda f_0}(x,y)=\delta (xy),`$ (18)
$`^{f_1\lambda }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`^{\lambda f_1}(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2m}}_y\delta (xy),`$ (19)
$`^{f_2\lambda }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`^{\lambda f_2}(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2m}}_x\delta (xy),`$ (20)
$`^{\lambda \lambda }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (21)
Since this matrix is now invertible, the associated zero-mode is a trivial one, so that the model has no more constraints . The associate Dirac brackets are immediately obtained taking the inverse elements of (17). We are now in position the realize the counting of degrees of freedom. We have three symplectic variables ($`f_0,f_1\text{and}f_2`$ \- recall that $`\lambda `$ is a symplectic multiplier) and one constraint ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) resulting in two phase-space degrees of freedom or one configuration space degree of freedom. This result confirms our previous Lagrangian analysis (3).

### B Effects of Interference

It is useful to clarify the meaning of the self duality inherent in this action. A field dual to $`f_\mu `$ is defined as,

$$^{}f_\mu =\frac{1}{m}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\nu f^\lambda .$$
(23)
Repeating the dual operation, we find,

$$^{}\left(^{}f_\mu \right)=\frac{1}{m}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\nu ^{}f^\lambda =f_\mu ,$$
(24)
obtained by exploiting (3), thereby validating the definition of the dual field. Combining these results with (2), we conclude that,

$$f_\mu =\chi ^{}f_\mu ,$$
(25)
Hence, depending on the signature of $`\chi `$, the theory will correspond to a self-dual or an anti self-dual model. After this brief digression on the definition and meaning of self dual components, we start the discussion regarding the effects of their interference.

The technique of soldering  constitutes, essentially, in lifting simultaneously the gauging of the dual global symmetry of each component into a local version for the combined system, in this way defining the effective action. It must be stressed that the fusing process always needs that two opposite aspects of a symmetry are present and this is indifferent of the spacetime dimension. The crucial point is that the components are considered as functions of distinct variables. A naive addition of these (anti) self-duals actions, if considered as functions of the same variables, leads to a trivial result. In the same manner a direct sum of the actions also would not lead to anything new. It is exactly the soldering process that leads to a non trivial effective action.

Let us consider the self-dual and the anti self-dual models as,

$`S_+[f_\mu ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\left(\frac{1}{2m}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }f^\mu ^\nu f^\lambda +\frac{1}{2}f_\mu f^\mu \right)},`$ (26)
$`S_{}[g_\mu ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\left(\frac{1}{2m}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }g^\mu ^\nu g^\lambda +\frac{1}{2}g_\mu g^\mu \right)},`$ (27)
where $`f_\mu `$ and $`g_\mu `$ are the distinct bosonic vector fields. To effect the soldering we have to consider the gauging of the following symmetry,

$$\delta f_\mu =\delta g_\mu =ϵ_{\mu \rho \sigma }^\rho \alpha ^\sigma ,$$
(28)
which will be referred to as soldering symmetry. Under such transformations, the Lagrangians change as,

$$\delta _\pm =J_\pm ^{\rho \sigma }(h_\mu )_\rho \alpha _\sigma ;h_\mu =f_\mu ,g_\mu ,$$
(29)
where the corresponding antisymmetric Noether currents are,

$$J_\pm ^{\rho \sigma }(h_\mu )=ϵ^{\mu \rho \sigma }h_\mu \pm \frac{1}{m}ϵ^{\gamma \rho \sigma }ϵ_{\mu \nu \gamma }^\mu h^\nu .$$
(30)
Next we introduce the soldering field coupled with the antisymmetric currents. In the two dimensional case this was a vector. Its natural extension now is the antisymmetric second rank Kalb-Ramond tensor field $`B_{\rho \sigma }`$, transforming in the usual way,

$$\delta B_{\rho \sigma }=_\rho \alpha _\sigma _\sigma \alpha _\rho .$$
(31)
Then it is easy to see that the modified actions,

$$S_\pm ^{(1)}[h_\mu ]=S_\pm [h_\mu ]\frac{1}{2}d^3xJ_\pm ^{\rho \sigma }(h_\mu )B_{\rho \sigma },$$
(32)
transform as,

$$\delta S_\pm ^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}d^3x\delta J_\pm ^{\rho \sigma }B_{\rho \sigma },$$
(33)
under (28) and (31). The final modification consists in adding a term to ensure gauge invariance of the soldered Lagrangian. This is achieved by,

$$S_\pm ^{(2)}=S_\pm ^{(1)}+\frac{1}{4}d^3xB^{\rho \sigma }B_{\rho \sigma }.$$
(34)
A straightforward algebra shows that the following combination,

$`S_S(f,g,B)`$ $`=`$ $`S_+^{(2)}(f)+S_{}^{(2)}(g)`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`S_+(f)+S_{}(g){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\left[B^{\rho \sigma }\left(J_{\rho \sigma }^+(f)+J_{\rho \sigma }^{}(g)\right)+B^{\rho \sigma }B_{\rho \sigma }\right]},`$ (36)
is invariant under the gauge transformations (28) and (31). The gauging of the soldering symmetry is therefore complete. To return to a description in terms of the original variables, the ancillary soldering field is eliminated from (35) by using the equations of motion,

$$B_{\rho \sigma }=\frac{1}{2}\left(J_{\rho \sigma }^+(f)+J_{\rho \sigma }^{}(g)\right).$$
(37)
Inserting this solution in (35), the final soldered Lagrangian is expressed solely in terms of the currents involving the original fields,

$$S_{eff}(f,g)=S_+(f)+S_{}(g)\frac{1}{8}d^3x\left(J_{\rho \sigma }^+(f)+J_{\rho \sigma }^{}(g)\right)\left(J_+^{\rho \sigma }(f)+J_{}^{\rho \sigma }(g)\right).$$
(38)
It is now crucial to note that, by using the explicit structures for the currents, the above Lagrangian is no longer a function of $`f_\mu `$ and $`g_\mu `$ separately, but only on the invariant combination,

$$A_\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}m}\left(g_\mu f_\mu \right),$$
(39)
with,

$$S_{eff}(A_\mu )=d^3x\left[\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{m^2}{2}A_\mu A^\mu \right],$$
(40)
where,

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ,$$
(41)
is the usual field tensor expressed in terms of the basic entity $`A_\mu `$. Notice that the effective variable is an invariant combination (under the soldering transformations) of the original variables. The soldering mechanism has precisely fused the self and anti self-dual symmetries to yield a massive Maxwell theory that acommodates naturally the two degrees of freedom corresponding to these symmetries, thus preserving the degrees of freedom counting throughout its formalism. It is also interesting to observe that the nonivariant nature of the basic dual components under the ordinary gauge transformations has been preserved. Were the original systems pure gauge invariant systems (like Maxwell-Chern-Simons) the resulting soldered action would corresponds to the Stueckelberg-Proca action .

## III Soldering of the Spin-2 self-dual models

Now we pass to consider the higher spin case. Let us begin by examining the following first order Lagrangian, which describes a spin-2 self-dual model in $`𝒟=(2+1)`$ spacetime dimensions ,

$$S_\chi =d^3x\left[\frac{\chi }{2m}ϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta }\eta ^{\nu \lambda }h_{\mu \nu }_\alpha h_{\beta \lambda }\frac{1}{2}h_{\mu \nu }h^{\nu \mu }+\frac{1}{2}h^2\right],$$
(42)
where $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is a non-symmetric second order tensor, $`h\eta ^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }`$ and the mass parameter $`m`$ is introduced on dimensional basis. Our convention is $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }=\text{diag}(1,+1,+1)`$. The first term is the usual Chern-Simons term, whereas the last two form the Fierz-Pauli mass term. This Lagrangian is linearized about the dreinbein field $`e_{\mu \nu }`$ as $`e_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+\kappa h_{\mu \nu }`$. It can be shown  that the signature of $`\chi `$ determines the field’s helicity. So we can think of $`S_\pm `$ as describing theories of opposite helicities. The equivalence between this self-dual model (42) and the so-called (linearized) topologically massive gravity  is shown by means of an associated master action .

### A Physical Spectrum

In this subsection we discuss the physical content of this theory. To this end we use the Hamiltonian reduction technique put forward in  and  and briefly discussed for the spin one case in Subsection II.A. Some insight may be obtained already at the Lagrangian level allowing us to discuss the (propagating) spectrum of this theory. Independent variations of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ gives the field equations for the model,

$$h^{\nu \mu }\eta ^{\mu \nu }h=\frac{1}{m}ϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta }\eta ^{\nu \lambda }_\alpha h_{\beta \lambda }.$$
(43)
Taking the divergence and rotational of Eq.(43), leads to the following expression,

$`4m^2\left(h^{\nu \mu }\eta ^{\mu \nu }h\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{}\left(h^{\mu \nu }+h^{\nu \mu }\right)2^\mu ^\nu h+^\mu \left[_\lambda \left(2h^{\nu \lambda }+h^{\lambda \nu }\right)\right]`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`^\nu \left[_\lambda \left(2h^{\mu \lambda }+h^{\lambda \mu }\right)\right],`$ (45)
that only reduces to a Klein-Gordon equation for the symmetric, transverse and traceless sector of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$. This gives a clear indication of the non propagating nature of the anti-symmetric sector of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$. In this case we have a (massive) propagation mode (this result was also shown by evaluating the vacuum amplitude in the presence of an external source ) where the harmonic gauge condition

$$_\mu \left(h^{\mu \nu }\eta ^{\mu \nu }h\right)=0,$$
(46)
is naturally satisfied.

To confirm the prediction above we develop next a canonical analysis of this theory using the symplectic approach . This will permit a proper counting of the propagating degrees of freedom. Let us start writing (42) in a 2+1 decomposition,

$`S_\chi ={\displaystyle d^3x}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}[2h_{00}(\chi ϵ_{ij}_ih_{j0}+mh_{ii})+2h_{0k}(\chi ϵ_{ij}_ih_{jk}+mh_{k0})`$ (47)
$``$ $`\chi h_{ik}ϵ_{ij}\dot{h}_{jk}+\chi h_{i0}ϵ_{ij}\dot{h}_{j0}+m(h_{ii}h_{jj}h_{ij}h_{ji})],`$ (48)
where ($`i,j\text{and}k=1,2`$) and dot means time derivative. Next we introduce the following redefinition

$`n`$ $`=`$ $`h_{00},`$ (49)
$`N_i`$ $`=`$ $`h_{i0},`$ (50)
$`M_i`$ $`=`$ $`h_{0i},`$ (51)
$`H_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(h_{ij}+h_{ji}),`$ (52)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ij}h_{ij},`$ (53)
where we have separated the symmetric ($`H_{ij}`$) and anti-symmetric ($`V`$) parts of $`h_{ij}`$. After this, the action (47) assumes the form,

$`S_\chi ={\displaystyle d^3x}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}[2\chi \dot{H}_{ij}[\delta _{ij}V{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(ϵ_{ik}H_{kj}+ϵ_{jk}H_{ki})]\chi \dot{N}_iϵ_{ij}N_j`$ (54)
$``$ $`2n(\chi ϵ_{ij}_iN_j+H_{ii})+2M_k(\chi ϵ_{ij}_iH_{jk}+mN_k\chi _kV)`$ (55)
$``$ $`m(H_{ij}H_{ij}H_{ii}H_{jj})2mVV].`$ (56)
Notice that $`n`$ and $`M_k`$ are not true dynamical variables but just Lagrange multipliers enforcing the constraints

$`\psi `$ $``$ $`\chi ϵ_{ij}_iN_j+mH_{ii},`$ (57)
$`\psi _k`$ $``$ $`\chi ϵ_{ij}_iH_{jk}+mN_k\chi _kV.`$ (58)
As before we construct the symplectic matrix in an iterative fashion. Following the prescription of  we perform a further redefinition

$`n`$ $``$ $`\dot{\eta },`$ (59)
$`M_i`$ $``$ $`\dot{\mu }_i,`$ (60)
to obtain the (zeroth-iterated) action

$$S_\chi ^{(0)}[\xi ]=d^3x\left[a^\eta (\xi )\dot{\eta }+a_k^\mu (\xi )\dot{\mu }_k+a_{ij}^H(\xi )\dot{H}_{ij}+a_i^N(\xi )\dot{N}_iH_0\right].$$
(61)
Here $`\xi =H_{ij},N_i,V`$ are the symplectic variables and $`a_{\{I\}}(\xi )`$ are the canonical one-form defined by,

$`a^\eta (\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\psi ,`$ (62)
$`a_k^\mu (\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\psi _k,`$ (63)
$`a_{ij}^H(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{m}}[\delta _{ij}V{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(ϵ_{ik}H_{kj}+ϵ_{jk}H_{ki})],`$ (64)
$`a_i^N(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2m}}ϵ_{ij}N_j,`$ (65)
$`a^V(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (66)
and

$$H_0=2m\left(H_{ij}H_{ij}H_{ii}H_{jj}\right)+2m^2V^2.$$
(67)
The (zeroth-order) symplectic matrix, defined as

$$_{\{I\},\{J\}}^{(0)}(x,y)=\frac{\delta a_{\{I\}}(x)}{\delta \xi _{\{J\}}(y)}\frac{\delta a_{\{J\}}(y)}{\delta \xi _{\{I\}}(x)},$$
(68)
gives,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }_{\{I\},\{J\}}^{(0)}(x,y)=\begin{array}{cccccccc}& & \eta & \mu _l& H_{ln}& N_l& V& \\ \eta & (\mathrm{}& ^{\eta \eta }& _l^{\eta \mu }& _{ln}^{\eta H}& _l^{\eta N}& _l^{\eta V}& )\mathrm{}\\ \mu _i& _i^{\mu \eta }& _{i,l}^{\mu \mu }& _{i,ln}^{\mu H}& _{i,l}^{\mu N}& _{i,l}^{\mu V}\\ H_{ij}& _{ij}^{H\eta }& _{ij,l}^{H\mu }& _{ij,ln}^{HH}& _{ij,l}^{HN}& _{ij}^{HV}\\ N_i& _i^{N\eta }& _{i,l}^{N\mu }& _{i,ln}^{NH}& _{i,l}^{NN}& _{i,l}^{NV}\\ V& ^{V\eta }& _l^{V\mu }& _{ln}^{VH}& _l^{VN}& _l^{VV}\end{array},\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where the non-vanishing matrix elements read,

$`_{ln}^{\eta H}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\delta _{ln}\delta (xy),`$ (69)
$`_l^{\eta N}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{m}}ϵ_{lp}_p^x\delta (xy),`$ (70)
$`_{i,ln}^{\mu H}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{m}}\delta _{in}ϵ_{lp}_p^x\delta (xy),`$ (71)
$`_{i,l}^{\mu N}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{il}\delta (xy),`$ (72)
$`_i^{\mu V}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}_i^x\delta (xy),`$ (73)
$`_{ij}^{H\eta }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\delta _{ij}\delta (xy),`$ (74)
$`_{ij,l}^{H\mu }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{m}}\delta _{jl}ϵ_{ip}_p^y\delta (xy),`$ (75)
$`_{ij,ln}^{HH}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m}}\left[2ϵ_{il}\delta _{jn}+ϵ_{jl}\delta _{in}ϵ_{ni}\delta _{lj}\right]\delta (xy),`$ (76)
$`_{ij}^{HV}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\delta _{ij}\delta (xy),`$ (77)
$`_i^{N\eta }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{m}}ϵ_{ip}_p^y\delta (xy),`$ (78)
$`_{i,l}^{NN}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}ϵ_{il}\delta (xy),`$ (79)
$`_l^{V\mu }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{m}}_l^y\delta (xy),`$ (80)
$`_{ln}^{VH}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\delta _{ln}\delta (xy),`$ (81)
and

$`^{\eta \eta }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`_l^{\eta \mu }(x,y)=^{\eta V}(x,y)=_i^{\mu \eta }(x,y)=_{i,l}^{\mu \mu }(x,y)=_{ij,l}^{HN}(x,y)=0,`$ (82)
$`_{i,l}^{N\mu }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`_{i,ln}^{NH}(x,y)=_i^{NV}(x,y)=^{V\eta }(x,y)=_l^{VN}(x,y)=^{VV}(x,y)=0.`$ (83)
This is a singular matrix. The easiest way of seeing this is by noticing the presence of a zero-mode,

$$d^3y_{\{I\},\{J\}}^{(0)}(x,y),𝒱_{\{J\}}(y)=0,$$
(84)
with,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }𝒱_{\{J\}}(y)=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒱^\eta (y)\\ 𝒱_l^\mu (y)\\ 𝒱_{ln}^H(y)\\ 𝒱_l^N(y)\\ 𝒱^V(y)\end{array}\right),\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

whose explicit elements read,

$`𝒱^\eta (y)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒱_l^\mu (y)=0,`$ (85)
$`𝒱_{ln}^H(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m}}ϵ_{ln}u(y),`$ (86)
$`𝒱_l^N(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}_lu(y),`$ (87)
$`𝒱^V(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}u(y).`$ (88)
Here $`u(y)`$ is an arbitrary function satisfying proper boundary conditions. This zero-mode signalizes the presence of another constraint, given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=d^3y\left[_{\{J\}}H_0\right]^T𝒱_{\{J\}}(y),$$
(89)
where $`T`$ stands for matrix transposition. A simple algebra shows,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=V.$$
(90)
Due to the iterative nature of this procedure, one may interpret this constraint as a secondary symplectic constraint, in complete analogy with Dirac’s procedure . The first-iterated action now reads,

$$S_\chi ^{(1)}[\xi ]=d^3x\left[a^\eta (\xi )\dot{\eta }+a_k^\mu (\xi )\dot{\mu }_k+a_{ij}^H(\xi )\dot{H}_{ij}+a_i^N(\xi )\dot{N}_i+a^\lambda (\xi )\dot{\lambda }H_0\right],$$
(91)
where $`\lambda `$ is the symplectic multiplier and $`a^\lambda (\xi )=\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Notice that we have now an enlarged set of symplectic variables $`\xi \overline{\xi }=(\xi ,\lambda )`$ and momenta $`a_I\overline{a}_I=(a_I,\mathrm{\Omega })`$. The first-iterated symplectic matrix, defined as,

$$_{\{I\},\{J\}}^{(1)}(x,y)=\frac{\delta \overline{a}_{\{I\}}(x)}{\delta \overline{\xi }_{\{J\}}(y)}\frac{\delta \overline{a}_{\{J\}}(y)}{\delta \overline{\xi }_{\{I\}}(x)},$$
(92)
now reads,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }_{\{I\},\{J\}}^{(1)}(x,y)=\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & \eta & \mu _l& H_{ln}& N_l& V& \lambda & \\ \eta & (\mathrm{}& ^{\eta \eta }& _l^{\eta \mu }& _{ln}^{\eta H}& _l^{\eta N}& ^{\eta V}& ^{\eta \lambda }& )\mathrm{}\\ \mu _i& _i^{\mu \eta }& _{i,l}^{\mu \mu }& _{i,ln}^{\mu H}& _{i,l}^{\mu N}& _i^{\mu V}& _i^{\mu \lambda }\\ H_{ij}& _{ij}^{H\eta }& _{ij,l}^{H\mu }& _{ij,ln}^{HH}& _{ij,l}^{HN}& _{ij}^{HV}& _{ij}^{H\lambda }\\ N_i& _i^{N\eta }& _{i,l}^{N\mu }& _{i,ln}^{NH}& _{i,l}^{NN}& _i^{NV}& _i^{N\lambda }\\ V& ^{V\eta }& _l^{V\mu }& _{ln}^{VH}& _l^{VN}& ^{VV}& ^{V\lambda }\\ \lambda & ^{\lambda \eta }& _l^{\lambda \mu }& _{ln}^{\lambda H}& _l^{\lambda N}& ^{\lambda V}& ^{\lambda \lambda }\end{array},\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where the new $`\lambda `$-elements are given by

$`^{V\lambda }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\delta (xy),`$ (93)
$`^{\lambda V}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\delta (xy),`$ (94)
and

$`^{\eta \lambda }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`_i^{\mu \lambda }(x,y)=_{ij}^{H\lambda }(x,y)=_i^{N\lambda }(x,y)=^{\lambda \lambda }(x,y)=0,`$ (95)
$`^{\lambda \eta }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`_l^{\lambda \mu }(x,y)=_{ln}^{\lambda H}(x,y)=_l^{\lambda N}(x,y)=0.`$ (96)
By following the steps above, it can be shown that the corresponding zero-mode is trivial, so that there are no more constraints. It is now a simple task to perform the counting of degrees of freedom in this system. There are six true symplectic variables ($`H_{ij},N_i\text{and}V`$; we recall that $`\eta ,\mu _k\text{and}\lambda `$ are just multipliers) and four constraints ($`\psi ,\psi _k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) totalyzing two independent phase-space variables or one degree of freedom as discussed above.

### B Effects of Interference - Spin 2

Next we discuss the meaning of self and anti self-duality in this model. We define the duality transformation as

$${}_{}{}^{}h_{}^{\nu \mu }\frac{1}{m}ϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta }\eta ^{\nu \lambda }_\alpha h_{\beta \lambda }.$$
(97)
In order to give a sensible definition for self and anti self-duality, this operation must be idempotent. Indeed we can show that

$${}_{}{}^{}\left({}_{}{}^{}h_{}^{\nu \mu }\right)=h^{\nu \mu },$$
(98)
by using the equations of motion, guaranteeing the existence of self and anti-self dual solutions. Observe that this duality construction does not depend on considering $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ as a symmetric, tranverse and traceless field. It is valid also for a non-symmetrical field. Let us write explicitly the separated actions leading to these dual solutions in terms of two distinct and independent variables

$`S_+(f)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\left[\frac{1}{2m}ϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta }\eta ^{\nu \lambda }f_{\mu \nu }_\alpha f_{\beta \lambda }\frac{1}{2}f_{\mu \nu }f^{\nu \mu }+\frac{1}{2}f^2\right]},`$ (99)
$`S_{}(g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\left[\frac{1}{2m}ϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta }\eta ^{\nu \lambda }g_{\mu \nu }_\alpha g_{\beta \lambda }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }g^{\nu \mu }+\frac{1}{2}g^2\right]}.`$ (100)
Here $`S_\pm `$ represents the self-dual and anti self-dual theories, $`f_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ being their fields, respectively. This separation will be crucial below, when performing the soldering of these theories. Note that, since we are interested in propagating modes, we can safely put both $`f\eta ^{\mu \nu }f_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`g\eta ^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }`$ equal to zero.

Let us discuss next the soldering of the above actions. Consider the following local transformation

$$\delta h_{\mu \nu }^\pm =_\mu \xi _\nu ,$$
(101)
with $`\xi `$ being an infinitesimal parameter. As noted earlier $`h_{\mu \nu }^+f_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`h_{\mu \nu }^{}g_{\mu \nu }`$.

Under the field transformation (101), the self ($`S_+`$) and anti-self ($`S_{}`$) actions transform as

$$\delta S^\pm =d^3x_\mu \xi _\nu J_\pm ^{\nu \mu },$$
(102)
where the associated Noether currents are given by

$$J_\pm ^{\nu \mu }=\pm \frac{1}{m}ϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta }\eta ^{\nu \lambda }_\alpha h_{\beta \lambda }h_{\nu \mu }.$$
(103)
Although (101) is not a symmetry transformation for both $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$, the soldering formalism will enable us to find a non-trivial composite theory, which is invariant by (101). To proceed, we again make use of an iterative Noether procedure. Introducing an auxiliary field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ (the soldering field) which is coupled with the currents $`J_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ so that to act as a counter-term to establish the invariance, we get the following iterated Lagrangians,

$$S_\pm S_\pm ^{(1)}=S_\pm d^3xB_{\mu \nu }J_\pm ^{\nu \mu }.$$
(104)
If we impose the following transformation for $`B_{\mu \nu }`$

$$\delta B_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \xi _\nu ,$$
(105)
then it is possible to find an effective theory invariant by both transformations (101) and (105),

$$S_{eff}=S_+^{(1)}+S_{}^{(1)}+d^3xB_{\mu \nu }B^{\nu \mu }.$$
(106)
This action is written solely in terms of the original fields after the auxiliary field, $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ is eliminated by its equations of motion. In fact, by using the explicit structures for the currents (103), the effective Lagrangian (106) is no longer a function of the individual dual components $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`f_{\mu \nu }`$, but only on a combination, invariant under the soldering transformations (101)

$$A_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{m}\left(f_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }\right).$$
(107)
Indeed, after some algebra, we find

$$S_{eff}=d^3x\left[\frac{1}{4}F_{[\mu \nu ]\lambda }F^{[\mu \nu ]\lambda }+\frac{m^2}{2}A_{\mu \nu }A^{\mu \nu }\right],$$
(108)
where

$$F_{[\sigma \rho ]\tau }=_\sigma A_{\tau \rho }_\rho A_{\tau \sigma },$$
(109)
is the associated field tensor for the basic entity $`A_{\mu \nu }`$. We have succeeded in producing the fusion of the self and anti-self dual massive degrees of freedom into a massive, Maxwell like theory for a new entity $`A_{\mu \nu }`$, that naturally contains both massive propagations.

Let us next rewrite our result into two different forms that will help to further clarify the physical meaning of the soldered action. Firstly we observe that the effective Lagrangian (108) can be written in the following factorized form

$$S_{eff}=d^3x\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^+(A)\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\mu \nu }(A)\right],$$
(110)
with

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^\pm (A)=A_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2m}\left(\eta _{\nu \lambda }ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta }+\eta _{\mu \lambda }ϵ_{\nu \alpha \beta }\right)^\alpha A^{\lambda \beta }.$$
(111)
In this form it becomes clear that the soldered effective action indeed contains both the self and anti self dual solutions, but in terms of the gauge invariant field $`A_{\mu \nu }`$. By solving the equations of motion for (110), we get,

$$\left(\eta _{\mu \lambda }\eta _{\nu \beta }\frac{1}{2m}\left(\eta _{\nu \lambda }ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta }+\eta _{\mu \lambda }ϵ_{\nu \alpha \beta }\right)^\alpha \right)\left(\eta ^{\mu \sigma }\eta ^{\lambda \rho }\pm \frac{1}{2m}\left(\eta ^{\lambda \sigma }ϵ^{\mu \gamma \rho }+\eta ^{\mu \sigma }ϵ^{\lambda \gamma \rho }\right)_\gamma \right)A_{\rho \sigma }=0.$$

It can be appreciated from the above expression that the self and anti self dual operators, may be interpreted as the square-root operators of the massive Maxwell equations very much like the Dirac operator is interpreted as the square-root of the massive Klein-Gordon operator.

Finally, let us display the result in terms of a relation that includes the individual components through a Polyakov-Weigman like relation. Indeed, a simple algebra shows,

$$S_{eff}(hf)=S_{eff}(h)+S_{eff}(f)2d^3x\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^+(h)\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\mu \nu }(f).$$
(112)
This identity states that the gauge invariant action on the left hand side can be written in terms of the gauge variant components on the right hand side, but a contact term is necessary to restore the symmetry. This is the basic content of the (2D) Polyakov-Weigman identity. As our analysis shows, such identities will always occur whenever dual aspects of a symmetry are being soldered to yield an enlarged effective action. In that case it was the chiral symmetry, while here it is 3D self-duality.

## IV Conclusions

In this work we studied the effects of interference between the self-dual modes of both the spin 1 vector model and the linearized Einstein-Chern-Simons topological gravity. We reviewed the physical spectrum of these models, first at an heuristic Lagrangian way and finally at a more formal presentation using the symplectic Hamiltonian reduction. The constraints associated with these models were found, and their propagating degrees of freedom were shown to be a massive transverse field for the spin-1 model and massive, symmetric, transverse and traceless spin-2 mode for the self-dual gravity.

The appropriate duality transformations have been disclosed for both models and shown to led to a self-dual structure. The ideas and notions of the soldering formalism, were elaborated by considering the self and anti-self dual formulations of the models. In particular the constraint nature of the theory is not modified. Here the soldering of second-class self-dual models led to a second-class Proca-like theory but we had the opportunity to observe that the soldering of first-class systems leads to first-class systems as well. The important point of departure being that the new group of symmetry is not a mere direct product of the individual components. The interference between these opposite duality aspects has led to a nontrivial theory encompassing and extending the symmetries of both aspects in a single effective theory.

Moreover, the effective soldered theory is naturally provided with a discrete set of transformations that swaps the self and anti self dual components. This theory could be recast in a variety of different forms, illuminating the physical nature of the interference effects.

Acknowledgments: This work is partially supported by CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ and FUJB.