text:
# 𝐶^∗ algebras and Differential Geometry 11footnote 1This paper appeared in March 1980 as A. Connes, 𝐶^∗ algèbres et géométrie differentielle. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. A-B , 290, 1980.

## Introduction

The theory of $`C^{}`$ algebras is a natural extension of the topology of locally compact spaces. A large portion of the theory has been dealing with the analogue of Radon measures. Among the invariants of algebraic topology it is $`K`$ theory which is easiest to adapt to the framework of $`C^{}`$ algebras. The study of the analogue of a differentiable structure on the locally compact space $`X`$ was proposed in  as the investigation of derivations of a $`C^{}`$ algebra $`A`$. In this note we shall develop the basic notions of differential topology in the special case where the differential structure is obtained through a Lie group $`G`$ of automorphisms of $`A`$. We extend the notions of connection on a bundle, of curvature and Chern classes and construct, given a $`G`$-invariant trace $`\tau `$, a morphism $`\mathrm{ch}_\tau `$ from $`K_0(A)`$ to $`H_R^{}(G)`$, (the cohomology of left invariant differential forms on $`G`$). We then extend the Atiyah-Singer index theorem. All this study is motivated by a simple example, that of the irrational rotation $`C^{}`$ algebra $`A_\theta `$ of angle $`\theta `$. This algebra is highly noncommutative, being simple and non type I, and Pimsner and Voiculescu computed $`K(A_\theta )`$ . We first endow $`A_\theta `$ with the differential structure coming from the obvious action of the compact group $`T^2`$, $`T=\{zC,|z|=1\}`$, we then show that the space of smooth ($`C^{\mathrm{}}`$) sections of the vector bundle of dimension $`\theta `$ on $`A_\theta `$ is identical with the Schwartz space $`𝒮(R)`$, on which $`A_\theta `$ acts by finite difference operators. The following operators

$$D_1f=\frac{d}{dt}f\text{and}D_2f=\frac{2\pi it}{\theta }f$$

then define a connection (of constant curvature $`1/\theta `$) and the index theorem allows to compute the index (integer valued) of polynomials in $`D_1`$, $`D_2`$ with finite difference operators as coefficients.

Let $`(A,G,\alpha )`$ be a $`C^{}`$ dynamical system, where $`G`$ is a Lie group. We shall say that $`xA`$ is of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ class iff the map $`g\alpha _g(x)`$ from $`G`$ to the normed space $`A`$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$. The involutive algebra $`A^{\mathrm{}}=\{xA,x\text{of class}C^{\mathrm{}}\}`$ is norm dense in $`A`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a finite projective module on $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$, (we shall write it as a right module) ; $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0=\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}_A^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`A`$ is then a finite projective module on $`A`$.

###### Lemma 1

For every finite projective module $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ on $`A`$, there exists a finite projective module $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$, unique up to isomorphism, such that $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}_A^{\mathrm{}}A`$.

In the sequel we let $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a finite projective module on $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$. An hermitian structure on $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$ is given by a positive hermitian form $`\xi ,\eta A^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\xi ,\eta \mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that

$$\xi x,\eta y=y^{}\xi ,\eta x,\xi ,\eta \mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}},x,yA^{\mathrm{}}.$$

For $`nN`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}C^n`$ is a finite projective module on $`M_n(A^{\mathrm{}})=A^{\mathrm{}}M_n(C)`$, this allows, replacing $`A`$ by $`M_n(A)=AM_n(C)`$ (and the $`G`$-action by $`\alpha \mathrm{id}`$) to assume the existence of a selfadjoint idempotent $`eA^{\mathrm{}}`$ and of an isomorphism $`F`$ with the module $`eA^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$. We then endow $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$ with the following hermitian structure :

$$\xi ,\eta =F^1(\eta )^{}F^1(\xi )A^{\mathrm{}}.$$

Let $`\delta `$ be the representation of Lie$`G`$ in the Lie-algebra of derivations of $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ given by

$$\delta _X(x)=\underset{t0}{lim}\frac{1}{t}(\alpha _{g_t}(x)x),\text{where}\dot{g}_0=X,xA^{\mathrm{}}.$$

###### Definition 2

Let $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a finite projective module on $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$, a connection (on $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$) is a linear map $``$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{Lie}G)^{}`$ such that, for all $`X\mathrm{Lie}G`$ and $`\xi \mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`xA^{\mathrm{}}`$ one has

$$_X(\xi x)=_X(\xi )x+\xi \delta _X(x).$$

We shall say that $``$ is compatible with the hermitian structure iff :

$$_X\xi ,\xi ^{}+\xi ,_X\xi ^{}=\delta _X\xi ,\xi ^{},\xi ,\xi ^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}},X\text{Lie}G.$$

Every finite projective module, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$, on $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ admits a connection ; on the module $`eA^{\mathrm{}}`$ the following formula defines the Grassmannian connection

$$_X^0(\xi )=e\delta _X(\xi )eA^{\mathrm{}},\xi eA^{\mathrm{}},X\text{Lie}G.$$

This connection is compatible with the hermitian structure

$$\xi ,\eta =\eta ^{}\xi A^{\mathrm{}},\xi ,\eta eA^{\mathrm{}}.$$

To the representation $`\delta `$ of Lie $`G`$ in the Lie-algebra of derivations of $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ corresponds the complex $`\mathrm{\Omega }=A^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\text{Lie}G)^{}`$ of left-invariant differential forms on $`G`$ with coefficients in $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$. We endow $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with the algebra structure given by the tensor product of $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ by the exterior algebra of $`(\text{Lie}G)_C^{}`$ (we use the notation $`\omega _1\omega _2`$ for the product of $`\omega _1`$ with $`\omega _2`$, one no longer has, of course, the equality $`\omega _2\omega _1=(1)^{\omega _1\omega _2}\omega _1\omega _2`$). The exterior differential $`d`$ is such that :

* for $`aA^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`X\text{Lie}G`$ one has $`X,da=\delta _X(a)`$ ;
* $`d(\omega _1\omega _2)=d\omega _1\omega _2+(1)^p\omega _1d\omega _2`$, $`\omega _1\mathrm{\Omega }^p`$, $`\omega _2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ;
* $`d^2\omega =0`$, $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$.

As $`A^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a bimodule on $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Every connection on $`eA^{\mathrm{}}`$ is of the form $`_X(\xi )=_X^0(\xi )+\theta _X\xi `$, $`\xi eA^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`X\text{Lie}G`$, where the form $`\theta e\mathrm{\Omega }^1e`$ is uniquely determined by $``$, one has $`\theta _X^{}=\theta _X`$, $`X\text{Lie}G`$ iff $``$ is compatible with the hermitian structure of $`eA^{\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Definition 3

Let $``$ be a connection on the finite projective module $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}`$ (on $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$), the curvature of $``$ is the element $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of $`\mathrm{End}_A^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{Lie}G)^{}`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(X,Y)=_X_Y_Y_X_{[X,Y]}\mathrm{End}_A^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}),X,Y\mathrm{Lie}G.$$

We identify $`\mathrm{End}(eA^{\mathrm{}})`$ with $`eA^{\mathrm{}}eA^{\mathrm{}}`$, the curvature $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ of the grassmannian connection is the 2-form $`e(dede)\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$, the curvature of $`=^0+\theta `$ is equal to $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0+e(d\theta +\theta \theta )e\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$.

###### Lemma 4

With the above notations one has

$$e(d\mathrm{\Theta })e=\mathrm{\Theta }\theta \theta \mathrm{\Theta }.$$

Let now $`\tau `$ be a finite $`G`$-invariant trace on $`A`$. For all $`kN`$, there exists a unique $`k`$-linear map from $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times \underset{k\mathrm{times}}{\underset{}{\mathrm{}}}\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\text{Lie}G)_C^{}`$ such that,

$$\tau ^k(a_1\omega _1,\mathrm{},a_k\omega _k)=\tau (a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_k)\omega _1\mathrm{}\omega _k$$

###### Proposition 5

With the above notations the following invariant differential form on $`G`$, $`\tau ^k(\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2k}(\text{Lie}G)_C^{}`$ is closed and its cohomology class only depends on the finite projective module $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{}}=eA^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$.

We let $`H_R^{}(G)`$ be the cohomology ring of left invariant differential forms on $`G`$, for $`e`$ as above we let

$$\mathrm{Ch}_\tau (e)=\text{class of}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi i}\right)^k\frac{1}{k!}\tau ^k(\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Theta })H_R^{}(G).$$

One thus obtains a morphism $`\mathrm{ch}_\tau `$ from the group $`K_0(A)`$ to $`H_R^{}(G)`$. Replacing $`(A,G,\alpha )`$ by $`(AC(S^1),G\times R,\alpha ^{})`$, where $`\alpha _{g,s}^{}(xf)=\alpha _g(x)f_s`$ and $`f_s(t)=f(ts)`$, $`tS^1=R/Z`$ one extends $`\mathrm{ch}_\tau `$ to a morphism from $`K(A)=K_0(A)K_1(A)`$ to $`H_R^{}(G)`$.

## Special cases

(a) Let $`(\alpha _t)_{tR}`$ be a one parameter group of automorphisms of $`A`$, $`\delta `$ the corresponding derivation, then for $`UA`$, invertible and of class $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ one has $`\mathrm{ch}_\tau ([U])=(1/2i\pi )\tau (\delta (U)U^1)`$. (The non-triviality of this expression was known, cf. .)

(b) Let $`(\alpha _{t_1,t_2})_{t_1,t_2R}`$ be a two parameter group of automorphisms of $`A`$, $`\delta _1`$, $`\delta _2`$ the corresponding derivations of $`A`$ and $`\epsilon ^1`$, $`\epsilon ^2`$ the canonical basis of $`(\text{Lie}G)^{}`$, where $`G=R^2`$. For every orthogonal projection $`e`$ in $`A`$ one has $`\mathrm{ch}_\tau (e)=\tau (e)+c_1(e)\epsilon ^1\epsilon ^2H_R^{}(G)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\text{Lie}G)^{}`$, where $`c_1(e)`$ is computed for $`e`$ of class $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ by the formula

$$c_1(e)=\frac{1}{2i\pi }\tau (e(\delta _1(e)\delta _2(e)\delta _2(e)\delta _1(e))).$$

In particular $`c_1(e)=0`$ if $`e`$ is equivalent to an orthogonal projection fixed by a one parameter subgroup.

Let us now give a concrete example, let $`\theta [0,1]\backslash Q`$ and $`A_\theta `$ the $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by two unitaries $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$ such that $`U_1U_2=\lambda U_2U_1`$, $`\lambda =\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \theta )`$. The theorem of Pimsner and Voiculescu  determines $`K_0(A_\theta )=Z^2`$ and shows that the unique trace $`\tau `$ \[with $`\tau (1)=1`$\] on $`A_\theta `$ defines an isomorphism of $`K_0(A_\theta )`$ on $`Z+\theta ZR`$. Moreover the construction of Powers and Rieffel  exhibits an idempotent $`eA_\theta `$ with $`\tau (e)=\theta `$ ; let $`\rho `$ be the isomorphism of $`C(S^1)`$, $`S^1=R/Z`$ in $`A_\theta `$ which to the function $`t\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi t)`$ associates $`U_1`$. One has $`e_0=\rho (g)U_2+\rho (f)+(\rho (g)U_2)^{}`$, the conditions on $`f`$, $`gC(S^1)`$ are fulfilled if $`f(s)=1`$, $`s[1\theta ,\theta ]`$, $`f(s)=1f(s\theta )`$, $`s[\theta ,1]`$ and $`g(s)=0`$ if $`s[0,\theta ]`$, $`g(s)=(f(s)f^2(s))^{1/2}`$ if $`s[\theta ,1]`$.

Let us endow $`A_\theta `$ with the action of $`T^2`$, where $`T=\{zC,|z|=1\}`$ such that $`\alpha _{z_1,z_2}(U_j)=z_jU_j`$, $`j=1,2`$ the corresponding derivations fulfill $`\delta _k(U_k)=2\pi iU_k`$, $`\delta _j(U_k)=0`$ if $`jk`$. The algebra $`A_\theta ^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the space of sequences with rapid decay $`(s_{n,m})_{n,mZ^2}`$ the associated element of $`A_\theta `$ being $`\mathrm{\Sigma }s_{n,m}U_1^nU_2^m`$. For $`f`$ and $`g`$ of class $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ one has $`e_0A_\theta ^{\mathrm{}}`$ and the computation shows that $`c_1(e_0)=6g^2f^{}𝑑t=6_0^1(\lambda \lambda ^2)𝑑\lambda =1`$. One then concludes that if $`eA_\theta `$ is an idempotent such that $`\tau (e)=|pq\theta |`$, one has

$$c_1(e)=\pm q.$$

This example shows the non-triviality of $`c_1`$, the integrality property of $`c_1Z`$ will be explained later (th. 10), let us now concretely realise the finite projective module $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{p,q}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of dimension $`|pq\theta |`$ on $`A_\theta ^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Let $`𝒮(R)`$ be the Schwartz space of $`R`$, we view $`𝒮(R)C^q`$ as the space of sections of the trivial bundle with fiber $`C^q`$ on $`R`$, so that $`\xi (s)C^q`$, $`\xi 𝒮(R)C^q`$, $`sR`$. Let $`W_1`$, $`W_2`$ be two unitaries in $`C^q`$ such that $`W_1W_2=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi /q)W_2W_1`$. We view $`𝒮(R)C^q`$ as a right $`A_\theta ^{\mathrm{}}`$-module letting :

$$(\xi U_1)(s)=W_1\xi (s\epsilon ),sR,\text{where}\epsilon =\frac{p}{q}\theta ,$$

$$(\xi U_2)(s)=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi s)W_2^p\xi (s)sR.$$

###### Theorem 6

The $`A_\theta ^{\mathrm{}}`$ module thus defined is projective of finite type, of dimension $`|pq\theta |`$, the equalities

$$(_1\xi )(s)=\frac{d}{ds}\xi (s)\text{and}(_2\xi )(s)=\frac{2\pi is}{\epsilon }\xi (s)$$

define a connection of constant curvature equal to $`1/(\theta p/q)`$.

One thus obtains another way to compute $`c_1`$, indeed the integral of the curvature is $`|pq\theta |/(\theta (p/q))=\pm q`$.

In this example of $`A_\theta `$ the $`C^{}`$-algebra is far from trivial (it is not of type I), the differential structure coming from the derivations $`\delta _1`$, $`\delta _2`$ is however as regular as for a compact smooth manifold, in particular :

* with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\delta _1^2+\delta _2^2`$ the operator $`(1\mathrm{\Delta })^1`$ from $`A_\theta `$ to $`A_\theta `$ is a compact operator (in the usual sense) ;
* the space $`A_\theta ^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a nuclear space (in the sense of Grothendieck).

To elaborate on these facts and tie them with the integrality of the coefficient $`c_1`$, let us first remark that (cf. ) the crossed product of $`A_\theta `$ by the above action of $`T^2`$ is the elementary $`C^{}`$-algebra $`k`$ of compact operators in Hilbert space, and let us then go back to the general case of a $`C^{}`$ dynamical system $`(A,G,\alpha )`$, with as a goal the study of elliptic differential operators of the form (with $`G=R^n`$) $`D={\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |k}{}}a_j\delta ^j`$, where $`j=(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)`$, $`a_jA^{\mathrm{}}`$ and where for all $`\xi =(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n)R_n`$, $`\sigma (\xi )=i^k{\displaystyle \underset{|j|=k}{}}a_j\xi ^j`$ is invertible in $`A`$.

## Pseudo differential calculus and $`C^{}`$ dynamical systems

To simplify let us assume that $`G=R^n`$, let $`B`$ be the crosed product $`B=A\times _\alpha R^n`$, $`AM(B)`$ the canonical isomorphism of $`A`$ as a subalgebra of the multiplier algebra $`M(B)`$ of $`B`$ and $`sV_s`$ the canonical unitary representation of $`R^n`$ on $`M(B)`$ such that $`V_sxV_s^{}=\alpha _s(x)`$, $`xA`$.

We endow the involutive algebra $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ with the family of semi-norms : $`p_i(a)=\delta _1^{i_1}\mathrm{}\delta _n^{i_n}a`$, where $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_nN`$ and let $`𝒮(R^n,A^{\mathrm{}})`$ be the corresponding Schwartz space : the map $`sa(s)`$ from $`R^n`$ to $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ is in $`𝒮`$ iff for all multi-indices $`i,j`$ the function $`p_i((/s)^ja(s))`$ is of rapid decay.

The $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B=A\times _\alpha R^n`$ is the norm closure of the involutive algebra

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left\{a(s)V_s𝑑s,a𝒮(R^n,A^{\mathrm{}})\right\}.$$

We now construct multipliers of $`B`$ of the form $`a(s)V_s𝑑s`$, where $`a`$ is a distribution with values in $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ with singular support contained in $`\{0\}R^n`$.

###### Definition 7

Let $`mZ`$, $`R_n=(R^n)^{}`$ the dual of $`R^n`$, and $`\rho `$ a map of class $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ from $`R_n`$ to $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$. We shall say that $`\rho `$ is a symbol of order $`m`$, $`\rho S^m`$ iff :

* for all multi-indices $`i,j`$, there exists $`C_{ij}<\mathrm{}`$ such that

$$p_i\left(\left(\frac{}{\xi }\right)^j\rho (\xi )\right)C_{ij}(1+|\xi |)^{m|j|};$$
* there exists $`\sigma C^{\mathrm{}}(R_n\backslash \{0\},A^{\mathrm{}})`$ such that when $`\lambda +\mathrm{}`$ one has $`\lambda ^m\rho (\lambda \xi )\sigma (\xi )`$ $`[`$for the topology of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(R_n\backslash \{0\},A^{\mathrm{}})]`$.

Let $`\rho S^m`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }`$ its Fourier transform in the sense of distributions \[by hypothesis $`\rho 𝒮^{}(R_n,A^{\mathrm{}})`$\], it is a distribution with values in $`A^{\mathrm{}}`$ given by the oscillating integral

$$\widehat{\rho }(s)=\rho (\xi )e^{is\xi }𝑑\xi .$$

Its singular support is contained in $`\{0\}R^n`$. Moreover $`\widehat{\rho }𝒮(R^n,A^{\mathrm{}})`$ iff $`\rho `$ is of order $`\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proposition 8

* For all $`\rho S^m`$ the equality $`P_\rho =\widehat{\rho }(s)V_s𝑑s`$ defines a multiplier $`P_\rho `$ of the involutive algebra $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.
* Let $`m_1,m_2Z`$, $`\rho _jS^{m_j}`$, $`j=1,2`$. There exists $`\rho S^{m_1+m_2}`$ such that $`P_\rho =P_{\rho _1}P_{\rho _2}`$.
* If $`\rho S^0`$, then $`P_\rho `$ extends as a multiplier of $`B=A\times _\alpha R^n`$.
* The norm closure $``$ of $`\{P_\rho ,\rho S^0\}`$ is a sub $`C^{}`$-algebra of $`M(B)`$.
* Let $`S_{n1}`$ be the space of half rays $`R^+\xi `$, $`\xi R_n\backslash [0\}`$ and $`P`$, there exists $`\sigma (P)AC(S^{n1})`$ such that

$$\sigma (P)(R_+\xi )=\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}\widehat{\alpha }_{\tau \xi }(P).$$
* The sequence $`0A\times _\alpha R^n\stackrel{j}{}\stackrel{T}{}AC(S^{n1})0`$ is exact.

In (e) we use the simple norm convergence of multipliers (viewed as operators in $`B`$), and $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ is the dual action. In (f), $`j`$ is the canonical inclusion of $`B`$ in $`M(B)`$ and $`\sigma `$ the principal symbol as defined in (e).

To the exact sequence (f) corresponds a six terms exact sequence involving $`K(B)`$, $`K()`$ and $`K(AC(S^{n1}))`$. In the particular case where $`G=R^n`$ as above, one can explicitly compute the index, i.e. the map from $`K_1(AC(S^{n1}))`$ to $`K_0(B)`$. One has indeed the Thom isomorphism of $`\phi _A`$, of $`K(A)`$ on $`K(B)=K(A\times _\alpha R^n)`$, defined by induction on $`n`$ by iterating the isomorphism described in .

Let $`0`$ be a point of $`S^{n1}`$ and $`\lambda `$ the canonical generator of $`K(S^{n1}\backslash \{0\})`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$ the corresponding isomorphism of $`K(A)`$ with $`K(AC_0(S^{n1}\backslash \{0\}))`$.

###### Theorem 9

(index theorem for flows) One has

$$\mathrm{Index}P=\phi _A\mathrm{\Psi }_A^1(\tau (P)),P,$$

$`\sigma (P)`$ invertible.

On the one hand this theorem is finer than the index theorem for foliations with transverse measures in the case of flows, since it computes the $`K_0(C^{}(V,))`$-valued index and not only its composition with the trace. In particular, it shows that the image of $`K_0(C^{}(V,))`$ by the trace is equal to the image by the Ruelle-Sullivan cycle $`[C]`$ of the subgroup of $`H^{}(V,R)`$ range of $`K(V)`$ by the chern character Ch. Thus, if $`H^n(V,R)=0`$ this range is zero (cf.  for an application in the case $`n=1`$).

On the other hand, if $`\tau `$ is a finite $`\alpha `$-invariant trace on $`A`$ and $`\widehat{\tau }`$ is the dual trace, theorem 9 allows to compute $`\widehat{\tau }\mathrm{Ind}`$. For $`D`$ elliptic, one defines $`\mathrm{ch}_\tau (\sigma _D)`$ as in the classical case as the composition of the map $`\mathrm{ch}_\tau `$ defined above with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A^1`$, one then has :

###### Theorem 10

One has $`\widehat{\tau }\mathrm{Index}D=\mathrm{ch}_\tau (\sigma _D),v`$, where $`v=\epsilon _1\mathrm{}\epsilon _n`$ is the unique element of the canonical basis of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nR^n`$.

Theorem 10 remains valid when one replaces $`R^n`$ by a Lie group $`G`$, in particular let $`A=A_\theta `$, $`G=T^2`$ acting on $`A_\theta `$ as above, then the crossed product $`A_\theta \times T^2`$ is isomorphic to the elementary $`C^{}`$-algebra $`k`$, the dual trace $`\widehat{\tau }`$ being the standard trace on $`k`$ which shows the integrality of $`\widehat{\tau }\mathrm{Ind}`$, as in the case of ordinary compact manifolds.

Let us consider $`𝒮(R)`$ as the right $`A_\theta ^{\mathrm{}}`$-module $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{(0,1)}`$ described in theorem 6, then $`\mathrm{End}(𝒮(R))`$ is the algebra of finite difference operators of the form $`(\mathrm{\Delta }F)(s)=\phi _n(s)F(sn)`$, where the $`\phi _n`$ are periodic smooth functions of period $`\theta `$ and where the sequence $`\phi _n`$ is of rapid decay. Thus $`\mathrm{End}(𝒮(R))`$ is isomorphic to $`A_\theta ^{}^{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`\theta ^{}=1/\theta E(1/\theta )`$. Taking for instance $`f`$ and $`g`$ periodic with period 1 fulfilling the above conditions relative to $`\theta ^{}`$, $`h(s)=g(s\theta )`$, $`k(s)=12f(s\theta )`$, the index of the operator

$$P:(PF)(s)=h(s)F^{}(s1)+h(s+1)F^{}(s+1)+k(s)F^{}(s)+sF(s)$$

is equal to $`1+E(1/\theta )`$, hence the existence of nonzero solutions of equations $`PF=0`$, $`F𝒮(R)`$, $`F0`$.

Remark. Let $`V`$ be a compact $`n`$-dimensional smooth manifold, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ a diffeomorphism of $`V`$ and $`A`$ the crossed-product $`C^{}`$-algebra of $`C(V)`$ by the automorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}f=f\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$ be the complex of smooth differential forms on $`V`$. One can define, essentially as the crossed-product of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$ by the action of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, a complex $`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\mathrm{\Omega }^k`$. The dense involutive subalgebra $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ of $`A`$, has properties similar to the complex $`\mathrm{\Omega }=A^{\mathrm{}}\times \mathrm{\Lambda }(\text{Lie}G)`$ discussed above. The differentable structure thus defined does not in general correspond to derivations of $`A`$.

The original paper appeared as A. Connes, $`C^{}`$ algèbres et géométrie differentielle. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. A-B , 290, 1980. The above references appeared respectively as,  Adv. in Math. 39 (1981) 31-55.  J. Operator theory 3 (1980) 237-269.  J. Operator Theory 4 (1980), 93-118.  Comm. Math. Phys. 74 (1980), 281-295.  Short comm. I.C.M., 1978.  Adv. Math. Suppl. Stud. 78 Academic Press (1983) 155-163.


format: text

text:
# HIP-2000-42/TH Single superparticle production via 𝛾𝛾 collision with explicit R-parity violation 11footnote 1The authors thank the Academy of Finland (project numbers 163394 and 48787) for financial support.

ABSTRACT

We study the single production of scalar neutrinos or charginos via $`\gamma \gamma `$ collision in an R-parity ($`R_p`$) violating supersymmetric model. It may be possible to detect a sneutrino or a chargino at a Linear Collider (LC) in $`\gamma \gamma `$ operation mode, as a test of supersymmetry and $`R_p`$-violation. Because of the clean background in LC, stringent constraints on $`R_p`$ violating parameters can be obtained even if the process cannot be observed at the future Linear Collider.

I. Introduction

One of the main aims of a Linear Collider (LC) is detecting supersymmetry . Because of its clean background compared with hadron colliders, LC can efficiently probe new physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). In addition to the $`e^+e^{}`$ collider mode, the LC can, with the advent of new collider techniques, produce highly coherent laser beams being back-scattered with high luminosity and efficiency at the $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders . In this paper we will concentrate on $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions.

The R-parity ($`R_p=(1)^{3B+L+2S}`$, where $`B`$, $`L`$ and $`S`$ denote the baryon number, lepton number and spin), which is introduced to guarantee the $`B`$\- and $`L`$-conservation automatically, is conserved in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM . With the discrete symmetry the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is stable and superparticles can only be pair produced. However, $`R_p`$ is not necessary in order to forbid fast proton decay . Since in the $`R_p`$-violating ($`\text{/}R_p`$) models superparticles can be singly produced and neutrinos get masses and mix , it is a significant source of new physics. Especially after the first signals for neutrino oscillations from atmospheric neutrinos were observed in Super-Kamiokande , $`R_p`$-violation became a good candidate to explain those experimental results.

The $`R_p`$-violation will introduce many processes forbidden in the Standard Model. Thus, it is limited by the low energy experiments . Since the single production of superparticles is admitted in the $`R_p`$-violating model, it can lower superparticle production threshold. If Nature favors the $`R_p`$-violation, then the single production of superparticles may be the first sign of supersymmetry. In this work we will consider the single production of scalar neutrinos and the lightest chargino in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions.

Detection of $`R_p`$-violation at the lepton colliders has been considered both indirectly  and directly by detecting the $`R_p`$-violating decay of superparticles produced at the lepton colliders , and by producing superparticles singly . The single production of scalar neutrinos from $`e^+e^{}`$ collision has been considered in , where the $`L`$-violating parameters $`\lambda `$ involving light flavors will dominate the process. The processes $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0\nu ,\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm l^{}`$ were also considered in . However, $`\gamma \gamma `$ collision could introduce the $`R_p`$-violating parameters involving heavy flavors. These parameters could be much larger than those involving light flavors with an assumption of family symmetry , and also introduce other $`L`$-violating parameters $`\lambda ^{^{}}`$ in the processes. A $`\gamma \gamma `$ resonance can be probed over a wide mass region, even before production in direct $`e^+e^{}`$ collision, which is only sensitive at the center of mass energy (c.m. energy) of colliders. The resonant sneutrino production at Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has already been considered in Ref. .

In section 2, the cross section of the process $`\gamma \gamma (\stackrel{~}{\nu })\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm +ł^{}`$ is calculated. In section 3 the signals of the processes

$$\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{\nu },$$
$`(1.1)`$
$$\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm +ł^{}$$
$`(1.2)`$
are considered. Our conclusions are given in section 4 and some details of the expressions are listed in the appendix.

2. Production of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm `$ with explicit R-parity violation

All renormalizable supersymmetric $`\text{/}R_p`$ interactions can be introduced in the superpotential :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}W_{\text{/}R_p}\hfill & =\frac{1}{2}\lambda _{[ij]k}L_i.L_j\overline{E}_k+\lambda _{ijk}^{^{}}L_i.Q_j\overline{D}_k+\frac{1}{2}\lambda _{i[jk]}^{^{\prime \prime }}\overline{U}_i\overline{D}_j\overline{D}_k+ϵ_iL_iH_u.\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $`L_i`$, $`Q_i`$ and $`H_u`$ are SU(2) doublets containing lepton, quark and Higgs superfields respectively, $`\overline{E}_j`$ ($`\overline{D}_j`$, $`\overline{U}_j`$) are singlet lepton (down-quark and up-quark) superfields, and $`i,j,k`$ are generation indices. Square brackets on them denote antisymmetry in the bracketted indices.

We will consider only trilinear terms in this paper. In order to avoid fast proton decay, it is necessary that

$$|(\lambda \mathrm{or}\lambda ^{^{}})\lambda ^{^{\prime \prime }}|<10^{10}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{100\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^2,$$
$`(2.2)`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is the mass of a squark or a slepton. We will consider only the $`L`$-violating terms in our calculations. We also assume that the parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{^{}}`$ are real.

One-loop corrections (the ones corresponding to $`\lambda `$ terms are shown in Fig.1, and contributions from $`\lambda ^{^{}}`$ terms are similar) to $`\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}l^+`$ can be split into the following components:

$$M=\delta M_s+\delta M_v+\delta M_b,$$
$`(2.3)`$
where $`\delta M_s`$, $`\delta M_v`$ and $`\delta M_b`$ are the one-loop amplitudes corresponding to the self-energy, vertex, and box correction diagrams, respectively. Since the proper vertex counterterm should cancel with the counterterms of the external legs in this case, we do not need to deal with the ultraviolet divergence. We simply sum over all (unrenormalized) reducible and irreducible diagrams and the result is finite and gauge invariant.

Thus, we can get the amplitude of $`\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }^+l^{}`$. Collecting the terms together, we obtain the total cross section for the subprocess $`\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm l^{}`$:

$$\widehat{\sigma }(\widehat{s})=\frac{1}{16\pi \widehat{s}^2}_{\widehat{t}^{}}^{\widehat{t}^+}𝑑\widehat{t}\overline{}_{spins}|M|^2,$$
$`(2.4)`$
where $`\widehat{t}^\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left[(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }^2+m_l^2\widehat{s})\pm \sqrt{\widehat{s}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }^4+m_l^42\widehat{s}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }^22\widehat{s}m_l^22m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }^2m_l^2}\right]`$, and the bar over summation means averaging over initial spins. In order to obtain the observable cross section of single chargino production via $`\gamma \gamma `$ fusion in an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, we need to fold the cross section of $`\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm l^{}`$ with the photon luminosity,

$$\sigma (s)=_{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }+m_l)/\sqrt{s}}^{x_{max}}𝑑z\frac{dL_{\gamma \gamma }}{dz}\widehat{\sigma }(\widehat{s}),$$
$`(2.5)`$
where $`\widehat{s}=z^2s`$, $`\sqrt{s}`$ and $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ are the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ c.m. energies respectively. $`\frac{dL_{\gamma \gamma }}{dz}`$ is the photon luminosity, which is defined as

$$\frac{dL_{\gamma \gamma }}{dz}=2z_{z^2/x_{max}}^{x_{max}}\frac{dx}{x}F_{\gamma /e}(x)F_{\gamma /e}(z^2/x),$$
$`(2.6)`$
where the energy spectrum of the back-scattered photon is given by

$$F_{\gamma /e}(x)=\frac{1}{D(\xi )}[1x+\frac{1}{1x}\frac{4x}{\xi (1x)}+\frac{4x^2}{\xi ^2(1x)^2}],$$
$`(2.7)`$
and  $`\xi =4.8`$, $`x_{max}=0.83`$ and $`D(\xi )=1.8`$.

3. Numerical results

Let us first consider the production of sneutrinos. The cross section will only depend on the $`\text{/}R_p`$ couplings and masses of sneutrinos, but not on the other sparticle masses. With an assumption of family symmetry discussed in , $`R_p`$-violating couplings involving heavy flavors will be larger than those involving light flavors. Thus, we will consider mainly couplings $`\lambda _{23i}`$, $`\lambda _{22i}^{}`$, $`\lambda _{23i}^{}`$, and $`\lambda _{3ij}^{}`$. These are also experimentally least bounded. The productions of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3`$ differ qualitatively. In the case of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2`$, the production via both $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ terms are important, since either $`\tau `$-lepton or $`b`$-quark can circulate in the loop. In the case of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3`$ only $`\lambda ^{}`$ term with $`b`$-quark in the loop is significant.

We plot in Fig. 2 cross sections for the single production of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3`$, using the largest allowed values  of the relevant couplings, as well as using the close to smallest values observable for the couplings. In Fig. 2 (a), we show the cross section of $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{\nu }_2`$ as a function of the mass of the sneutrino $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2`$ for c.m. energy 500 GeV. The solid line corresponds to $`\lambda _{233}=0.1`$ and the dashed line to $`\lambda _{233}=0.01`$, respectively. It can be seen that the cross section is still 0.005 fb for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}=400`$ GeV with $`\lambda _{233}=0.1`$, which is almost the present upper limit for $`\lambda _{233}`$ . Even with a much smaller $`R_p`$-violating coupling, $`\lambda _{233}=0.01`$, the sneutrino production cross section for sneutrinos lighter than 95 GeV222The present lower limits for sneutrino masses are $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2}>84`$ GeV and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3}>86`$ GeV . remains above 0.002 fb (corresponding to one event per year with the luminosity 500 fb-1 at c.m. energy 500 GeV). Similarly, in Fig. 2 (b), we plot the cross section of $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{\nu }_2`$ with the coupling $`\lambda _{233}^{^{}}=0.15`$ (present upper limit), corresponding to the solid line, and $`\lambda _{233}^{^{}}=0.03`$ corresponding to the dashed line. If $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}=90`$ GeV and $`\lambda _{233}^{^{}}=0.15`$, a few tens of events are produced per year with 500 fb-1 luminosity. The cross section remains above 0.002 fb with $`\lambda _{233}^{^{}}=0.15`$ for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ less than 400 GeV. In Fig. 2 (c), we plot the cross section of $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{\nu }_3`$ as a function of the sneutrino $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3`$ mass for c.m. energy $`500`$ GeV with the coupling of $`\lambda _{333}^{^{}}=0.45`$ (present limit). Since $`\lambda _{333}^{^{}}`$ can be much larger than $`\lambda _{233}^{^{}}`$, the cross section of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3`$ production could be larger within the present limits.

Next we consider the possible single production of charginos with $`\text{/}R_p`$ couplings. We assume here the minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) model, where we take as our reference point $`m_0=100`$ GeV, $`A_0=100`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$ and $`sign(\mu )=+`$. The masses of sneutrinos and charginos increase when we change $`m_{1/2}`$ from 100 GeV to 500 GeV, see Table 1. Increasing $`m_0`$ would increase the masses of stau and sneutrino and at the same time decrease the cross section to an unobservable level.

We plot the cross section of $`\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm l^{}`$ as a function of the chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ for the c.m. energy 500 GeV in Figs. 3. In Fig. 3 (a) we have $`l=\mu `$ and $`\lambda _{233}=0.1`$ and in Fig. 3 (b) $`l=\mu `$ and $`\lambda _{233}^{^{}}=0.15`$. In Fig. 3 (c) $`l=\tau `$ and $`\lambda _{333}^{^{}}=0.45`$. It is seen in the cases (a) and (c) that with the luminosity 500 fb-1 at least one chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ is produced if mχ~1±

<

200

<

subscript𝑚superscriptsubscript~𝜒1plus-or-minus200m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}200 GeV. Compared with the cross section of pair production of charginos and neutralinos at the lepton colliders , the results are smaller if the charginos are light. However, the single production of charginos can lower the threshold of production and can provide us with a possible way to detect heavier charginos at lepton colliders.

In order to detect the signal events, the decays of sneutrinos and charginos are of prime importantance. In the following we consider the possible decay modes.

Decay of sneutrinos. We consider here two essentially different possibilities for the sneutrino decay: it may be the LSP, in which case the $`\text{/}R_p`$ decays dominate, or it may be that one or more of the neutralinos and charginos are lighter than the sneutrino.

If a sneutrino is the LSP, it will decay through $`R_p`$-violating terms. Assuming only one nonvanishing $`R_p`$ violating coupling, we can conclude from the diagrams in Fig. 1 that there are no nondiagonal decays of sneutrinos if a sneutrino has been produced. However, the decays with even small nondiagonal couplings may be experimentally important, since they induce flavor-changing decay modes and thus provide spectacular final states.

With nonzero $`\lambda _{233}`$ coupling, the sneutrino $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2`$ will decay to $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, and with nonvanishing $`\lambda _{233}^{^{}}(\lambda _{333}^{^{}})`$ coupling, the sneutrino $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2(\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3)`$ will decay to $`b\overline{b}`$. If the nondiagonal $`\lambda _{23i}=\lambda _{32i}`$ are also nonvanishing, the decays

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2\tau \mu ,\tau e,\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3\tau \mu ,\mu e$$

would be possible, or if the nondiagonal couplings $`\lambda _{23i}^{^{}}`$ or $`\lambda _{3ij}^{^{}}`$ exist, the decay channels

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2b\overline{s},\overline{b}s,b\overline{d},\overline{b}d$$

would be open.

If one of the lightest neutralinos $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2}^0`$ or the chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ are lighter than sneutrinos, then the $`R_p`$-conserving decay is also possible. The possible decay channels are as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm l_i^{},\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2}^0\nu _i.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.1)`$
If kinematic space admits, sneutrino can also decay as follows

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i\stackrel{~}{l}_{iL}^\pm W^{}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.2)`$
In our case, with sparticle masses shown as in Table 1, only the decays in (4.1) are allowed. In Figs. 4 and 5, we show the branching ratios of the sneutrinos with parameters $`\lambda _{23i}`$ and $`\lambda _{33i}^{^{}}`$ (with $`\lambda _{32i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$) dominating, respectively. (The branching ratio of sneutrinos with parameters $`\lambda _{233}^{^{}}`$ and $`\lambda _{222}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ dominating will be the same as in Fig.5). We can see from the figures that the $`R_p`$-violating decay of sneutrinos will be important for $`\lambda _{23i}=\lambda _{2i3}=0.1`$, and even dominate when $`\lambda _{333}^{^{}}(\lambda _{322}^{^{}})=0.45`$.

If it turns out that the Higgs boson mass is close to the sneutrino mass, and mh

<

2mW

<

subscript𝑚2subscript𝑚𝑊m_{h}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}2m_{W}, the sneutrino cannot be distinguished from the Higgs boson. To see this explicitly, we have plotted in Fig. 6 the $`\sigma \times Br(\gamma \gamma hb\overline{b},\tau \overline{\tau },s\overline{s})`$. The cross section for the $`b\overline{b}`$ final state for a 100 GeV Higgs boson is more than 10 fb and for the $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$ final state is around 0.7 fb, which are both larger than the sneutrino production cross section. If the $`h`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i`$ masses are clearly different, or if the Higgs mass is above $`2m_W`$ (in which case it decays dominantly to a pair of gauge bosons) the situation changes, and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ or $`b\overline{b}`$ would provide good signals of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{2,3}`$. In the case of nondiagonal decay modes there is no background from the Higgs decay. Thus, it is worth emphasizing that for similar mass sneutrinos and the Higgs boson, the sneutrino decay modes $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }\tau \mu ,\tau e,bs`$ are essential in order to detect sneutrinos.

However, we need consider other decay modes if the $`R_p`$-violating parameters are very small. In Fig. 4, we can see that $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+\nu `$ will dominate if we take $`\lambda _{233}=0.01`$. In this case, we should detect $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ with its $`R_p`$-violating decay. From the $`\lambda `$ terms, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^02l+\nu `$ will dominate, and in the $`\lambda ^{^{}}`$ case, we have $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^02jets+(\nu ,lepton)`$, as shown in Fig.7 (a).

Decay of charginos $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$. The lightest chargino can decay directly to sneutrinos or sleptons if it is heavier than the corresponding thresholds. In our case, chargino decay to the lightest neutralino and $`W`$ boson (real or virtual) will dominate with chargino mass below 200 GeV, as shown in Fig. 7 (b). Combined with the neutralino decay (shown in Fig. 7), the chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$, which is produced with other lepton, could be detected at the LC with multi-lepton signals.

4. Conclusion

We have studied the single production and decay of sneutrino and the lightest chargino in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions. The cross section for the production of sneutrinos with mass below 400 GeV in the future LC experiments with c.m. energy 500 GeV is above 0.005 fb with $`\lambda _{233}=0.1`$ and 0.05 fb with $`\lambda _{333}^{^{}}=0.45`$, allowed by experimental limits. If we cannot find any signals from the experiments, we could improve the present upper bounds on $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{^{}}`$ or exclude sneutrino with mass below 400 GeV.

The single production of charginos in photon colliders through $`R_p`$ violating couplings is observable only if sneutrino and stau are light. The nondiagonal decay channels are important for detection. The cross section for the processes are at the observable level when the chargino is lighter than 200 GeV assuming the present $`R_p`$-violating limits.

Acknowledgement

Z.-H. Yu thanks the World Laboratory, Lausanne, for the scholarship.

Appendix

A. Loop integrals:

We adopt the definitions of two-, three-, and four-point one-loop Passarino-Veltman integral functions of reference . The integral functions are defined as follows:

The two-point integrals are:

$$\{B_0;B_\mu ;B_{\mu \nu }\}(p,m_1,m_2)=\frac{(2\pi \mu )^{4n}}{i\pi ^2}d^nq\frac{\{1;q_\mu ;q_\mu q_\nu \}}{[q^2m_1^2][(q+p)^2m_2^2]},$$
$`(A.a.1)`$
The function $`B_\mu `$ should be proportional to $`p_\mu `$:

$$B_\mu (p,m_1,m_2)=p_\mu B_1(p,m_1,m_2)$$
$`(A.a.2)`$
Similarly we get:

$$B_{\mu \nu }=p_\mu p_\nu B_{21}+g_{\mu \nu }B_{22}$$
$`(A.a.3)`$
We denote $`\overline{B}_0=B_0\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\overline{B}_1=B_1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\overline{B}_{21}=B_{21}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }`$. with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{2}{ϵ}\gamma +\mathrm{log}(4\pi )`$, $`ϵ=4n`$. $`\mu `$ is the scale parameter. The three-point and four-point integrals can be obtained similarly.

The numerical calculation of the vector and tensor loop integral functions can be traced back to the four scalar loop integrals $`A_0`$, $`B_0`$, $`C_0`$ and $`D_0`$ in Ref. ,  and the references therein.

B. Sparticle masses

The supersymmetric parameters which we use in our calculations are shown in the following table as well as the resulting sparticle masses:

Table 1  We take here $`m_0=100`$ GeV, $`A_0=100`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$ and $`sign(\mu )=+`$. The masses are given in GeV units.

| $`m_{1/2}`$ | $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ | $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}`$ | $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ | $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ | $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 200 | 515 | 179 | 163 | 78 | 140 |
| 250 | 613 | 208 | 195 | 100 | 185 |
| 260 | 633 | 214 | 201 | 105 | 194 |
| 300 | 713 | 239 | 228 | 122 | 229 |
| 350 | 815 | 271 | 261 | 144 | 273 |
| 400 | 917 | 304 | 295 | 166 | 316 |
| 450 | 1021 | 337 | 329 | 187 | 359 |
| 500 | 1125 | 371 | 364 | 208 | 402 |


text:
# THE NEAR-HORIZON GEOMETRY OF DILATON-AXION BLACK HOLES

## References


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 An overview

The origin of charge has long been a mystery to physical theory, perhaps even more illusive than the concept of inertial mass. A major objective of this article is to examine the conjecture that the charge-current density of electromagnetism may have its origins in the differential geometry and topology of curvature and torsion, in a sense similar to the idea that mass density and gravity have their origins in the concept of curvature. The curvatures of interest are not those generated by a symmetric metric, but instead are those similarity invariants associated with a generalized implicit hypersurface. The generalized implicit hypersurfaces considered may not admit a global foliation as their normal fields need not satisfy the Frobenius integrability conditions. Hence such generalized hypersurfaces can support topological torsion as well as curvature.

An arbitrary 1-form of Action, $`A_0,`$whose coefficient functions may be considered as a set of electromagnetic potentials, when suitably scaled, can also play the role of the normal field to a generalized implicit hypersurface. The closure of the exterior differential system, $`F_0dA_0=0`$, always generates a system of PDE’s which contain the Maxwell-Faraday equations. When the 1-form of Action is rescaled by use of a Holder norm, $`\lambda ,`$ such that resulting 1-form $`A=A_0/\lambda ,`$is homogeneous of degree zero in its coefficient functions, the curvature features of the implicit hypersurface are completely specified in terms of the similarity invariants of the Jacobian matrix constructed from the components of $`A.`$ The curvature similarity invariant of highest degree (N-1) is defined as the Adjoint curvature, and is equal to the trace of the Jacobian Adjoint matrix.

It is now well known that given any non-closed 1-form, $`A_0,`$of twice differentiable functions, it is possible to deduce a 2-form of field intensities, $`F_0,`$ and to show that the Maxwell-Faraday equations are always satisfied. However, without additional assumptions, to produce or define a globally closed charge-current density is another matter. An algorithm from implicit surface theory will be used herein to construct, from the intrinsic properties of the implicit surface, such a globally closed N-1 form charge current density. The techniques thereby demonstrate the connection between implicit surface theory and the theory of electromagnetism. Although the Jacobian matrix to be constructed is globally singular, it is always possible to construct algebraically the matrix of cofactors transposed, defined as the Jacobian Adjoint matrix. Remarkably, multiplication of the covariant components of $`A`$ by this singular Adjoint matrix yields an N-1 form density, or current, $`J_s`$, which is globally closed. The result is universally valid if the coefficients of the 1-form, $`A,`$ are homogeneous of degree zero in its component functions. The global closure implies that there exists an N-2 form $`G_s`$such that $`J_sdG_s=0.`$ The conclusion is valid for any Holder norm of any signature, of arbitrary isotropic index p, and of homogeneity index n =1. The PDE’s associated with this exterior differential system are known to contain the Maxwell-Ampere equations.

These two Maxwell exterior differential systems lead to another N-1 form density, previously defined  in the four dimensional case as Topological Spin, $`A\mathrm{^}G_s.`$ This N-1 form always satisfies the equation

$$d(A\mathrm{^}G_s)=F\mathrm{^}G_sA\mathrm{^}J_s,$$
(1)
and demonstrates that twice the difference between the magnetic and electric energy densities of the field is cohomologous with the interaction energy density, $`A\mathrm{^}J_s`$, generated by interaction of the Potentials and the Charge-Current density. If the Holder norm used to make the initial 1-form homogeneous of degree 1 in its component functions is specialized to be of euclidean signature, isotropic index p = 2, and homogeneity index n =1 (which defines the Gauss map), then the N-1 form $`J_s`$ is uniquely determined. It is a major result of this article to show that interaction energy density, $`A\mathrm{^}J_s,`$ is then always proportional to Adjoint curvature of the implicit hypersurface constructed from the 1-form of Action Potentials. On a four dimensional variety, $`A\mathrm{^}J_s`$ is cubic in the principle curvatures.

With respect to a process defined by the induced charge-current density, Cartan’s magic formula of topological evolution demonstrates a formal correspondence to the first law of thermodynamics. The internal energy density of the physical system described by the 1-form, $`A_0,`$ evolving in the direction field of the closed charge-current density, $`J_s`$, is exactly the coefficient of the Interaction energy N-form, $`A\mathrm{^}J_s.`$ This coefficient is exactly equal to the Adjoint curvature of the implicit surface. Hence a correspondence is established between the curvature theory of implicit hypersurfaces, the charge-current density interaction, and the internal energy of a thermodynamic system.

The implicit hypersurfaces can be put into equivalence classes depending upon the Pfaff dimension or class of the generating 1-form. Examples indicate that, depending upon the Pfaff dimension, the charge current densities are proportional to the adjoint curvatures and/or the topological torsion induced by the generalized implicit hypersurface.

It is important to realize that the method to be discussed involves curvatures, torsion and energy densities, but does not depend explicitly upon a metric, gauge constraints, or the Einstein field equations. In section 2 some topological and thermodynamic features of electromagnetism will be discussed. In section 3, the theory of generalized implicit hypersurfaces will be developed. In section 4 a number of examples will be summarized for generalized implicit hypersurfaces in N=3 and N=4 dimensions, demonstrating the claim that an intrinsic current exists, and that the intrinsic charge-current interaction with the potentials is equal to the N-1 similarity invariant of the hypersurface. The Maple programs that generated the examples can be downloaded from the internet .

### 1.2 Some Topological and Geometrical Features of Electromagnetism

#### 1.2.1 Charge counting, conductors and insulators

From experience it is known that a given electromagnetic charge-current density $`J`$ is conserved: $`dJ=0`$ (the 4 vector density has zero divergence). However, a more important result is the observation of global charge neutrality, which can be attributed to a topological idea. As $`dJ=0,`$ is a global statement, there exists an N-2 form, $`G,`$ such that $`JdG=0`$. This exterior differential system  is equivalent to the Maxwell-Ampere system of partial differential equations. The integral of $`G`$ over a closed cycle in domains where $`dG=0`$yields values whose ratios are rational (Gauss’ law of counting charges). When the closed integration domain is a boundary, the net charge enclosed is zero, yielding charge neutrality. These topological aspects can be used to distinguish insulators from conductors. Three dimensional insulators can be separated in the presence of an external $`𝐄`$ field into two physical components with each component interior enclosed by a two dimensional boundary. The external field distorts the internal charge distribution to produce a dipole field. Each physical component remains charge neutral when the external field is removed. Similarly three dimensional conductors can be separated into two physical components, but the presence of a remnant exterior electromagnetic field between the components indicates that the closed two dimensional varieties of each component are cycles, not necessarily boundaries. The components are said to be charged.

#### 1.2.2 Domains of support

It has long been respected that physical work is required to produce charge separation, and that such charge separation leads to a potential difference between the charged components that can be used to produce useful work. In fact, the conventional physics approach to understanding electromagnetism is to start with some given distribution of charge currents and compute by some set of rules the associated potentials. In this article, the opposite procedure is exploited. The starting point will be given in terms of a set of potentials (functions), which can be used to construct a 1-form of Action, $`A_0,`$on a variety of independent variables. For C2 functions, exterior differentiation generates the exterior differential system, $`F0dA_0=0.`$ The closure of this system is always equivalent to the system of PDE’s that are known as the Maxwell-Faraday equations. The Maxwell-Faraday exterior differential system indicates that the domain of support for the 2-form of field intensities is usually open, or compact with boundary. The only possible exceptions are the torus and the Klein bottle. However these exceptions fail if the 2-form is of rank 4.

In this article an algorithm is presented whereby the potentials will lead to a well defined set of charge-currents, a procedure which is opposite to the conventional methods. However, the new method exploited herein has geometric and topological significance. The 1-form of Action Potentials will be made homogeneous of degree zero by division by a suitable Holder norm, $`\lambda ,`$ leading to the expression, $`A=A_0/\lambda `$. The Jacobian matrix of $`A`$ will be constructed, as well as its Adjoint (matrix of cofactors transposed). In this sense, the components of 1-form $`A`$ can be interpreted as the normal field to an implicit hypersurface. The similarity invariants of the Jacobian matrix determine the important curvature features of the hypersurface. The Jacobian matrix so constructed will always be singular and often is of maximal rank, N-1. The similarity invariant of highest degree, N-1, is equal to the trace of the Adjoint Jacobian matrix, and is therefor defined herein as the Adjoint curvature. The adjoint curvature plays a dominant part in the discussion that follows.

Multiplication of the components of $`A`$ by the Adjoint matrix permit the construction of a closed N-1 form density, which will play the role of a deduced electromagnetic charge current density, $`J_s.`$ The notation (with a subscript $`s`$) is such as to remind the reader that this current density was created from the singular Adjoint matrix generated from the 1-form of Potentials. As this N-1 form is closed (has zero divergence globally) there exists a $`G_s`$ such that $`J_sdG_s=0.`$ The PDE’s created by this exterior differential system are equivalent to the Maxwell-Ampere equations. In a space of 4 dimensions the properties of the N-2=2 form $`G_s`$ are not the same as the properties of the 2-form $`F_0.`$ The domain of support for the 2-form $`F_0`$ is not compact without boundary, while the domain of support for $`G_s`$ can be compact without boundary.

#### 1.2.3 Interaction energy density

In addition, the interaction energy density, defined as the N-form density,

$$A\mathrm{^}J_s=F\mathrm{^}G_sd(A\mathrm{^}G_s),$$
(2)
will be computed. The term $`A\mathrm{^}G`$ in electromagnetic systems has been previously defined as ”Topological Spin”  for it has the physical dimensions of joule-s in electromagnetic systems. The term $`F\mathrm{^}G`$ represents twice the difference between magnetic and electric energy density and changes sign from a plasma to an electrostatic state. The equation is a statement of the cohomology of the two forms of energy density. In regions where $`A\mathrm{^}G`$ is closed, the closed 3 dimensional integrals of $`A\mathrm{^}G`$ have values whose ratios are rational  and are therefore countable. It will be demonstrated below that this interaction density is precisely equal to the Adjoint curvature of the hypersurface whose normal field is generated by the 1-form, $`A.`$ On a variety of four dimensions, this result implies that interaction energy between the 4 potentials and the deduced (or intrinsic) charge current density is related to a cubic polynomial of the hypersurface curvatures, while the Gaussian sectional curvature (and therefor mass energy density) is quadratic in the surface curvatures. When the Jacobian matrix is of maximal rank N-2, the interaction energy vanishes. Note that if the interaction energy density is zero, the charge current density need not be zero. A special case exists such that if $`J_s`$ is proportional to the Topological Torsion 3 form, $`A\mathrm{^}dA,`$ then the interaction energy density vanishes due to orthogonality of its two components. This special case will be discussed further below.

#### 1.2.4 Topological evolution and internal energy density

Given a 1-form of Action $`A`$ and a closed charge current density $`J,`$ it is possible to use Cartan’s magic formula  of topological evolution to demonstrate a correspondence between the implicit surface theory and the first law of thermodynamics. For evolutionary processes in the direction of the charge current density, Cartan’s magic formula becomes

$$L(J)A=i(J)dA+d(i(J)A)=W+dU=Q$$
(3)
Using electromagnetic notation, on a variety $`\{x,y,z,t\}`$ the (virtual) work 1-form becomes

$$W=i(J)dA=(\rho 𝐄+𝐉\times 𝐁)_kdx^k+(𝐉𝐄)dt$$
(4)
which is recognized as the product of the Lorentz force density times the differential displacement plus the dissipative power density times the increment dt.

In certain cases the induced charge current density, $`J_s`$ will be proportional to the Topological Torsion field, $`A\mathrm{^}dA=i(T)dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{^}dt.`$ (An example of this case is presented below). In such cases, it follows that the evolution of the implicit surface is given by the expression,

$$L_{(J)}A=L_{(T)}A=i(T)dA+0=(\mathrm{\Gamma })A=(𝐄𝐁)A=Q.$$
(5)
It follows that the heat 3 form and the Topological Torsion 3 form are proportional:

$$Q\mathrm{^}dQ=(𝐄𝐁)^2A\mathrm{^}dA.$$
(6)
From classical thermodynamics, when the process produces a heat 1-form $`Q`$ which does not admit an integrating factor, such a process is thermodynamically irreversible. If the coefficient (the second Poincare invariant which is related to the 4 form $`F\mathrm{^}F)`$ is not zero, then irreversible processes exist when the topological torsion of the implicit surface is not zero. In order for $`Q`$ to admit an integrating factor, the Frobenius integrability condition must be satisfied, or $`Q\mathrm{^}dQ=0.`$ But if the surface 1-form is of Pfaff dimension 4, then $`A\mathrm{^}dA0`$ , and $`𝐄𝐁0.`$ It follows $`Q\mathrm{^}dQ0,`$ and such irreversible processes are artifacts of 4 dimensions.

Similarly, evaluation of the internal energy density for a process defined by the dynamics of the charge-current density becomes

$$U=(i(J)A)=𝐀𝐉\rho \varphi .$$
(7)
which in classical field theory is defined as the interaction energy density. From the discussion above it is apparent that internal energy density is equivalent to the coefficient of the N form $`A\mathrm{^}J`$, and at the same time is equal to the Adjoint curvature of the implicit hypersurface. It appears that the charge current interaction energy density, the thermodynamic internal energy density, and the adjoint curvature of the implicit surface generated by the 1-form of potentials are equivalent concepts.

#### 1.2.5 Gauge constraints are not used.

It is to be noted that given an N-1 form, $`J_s,`$ the N-2 form $`G_s`$ that satisfies the exterior differential system $`J_sdG_s=0`$ is not unique. Any closed N-2 form, $`q,`$such that $`dq=0`$, may be added to $`G_s`$ without changing the result of the exterior differential system. The same can be said for the 2-form $`F_0;`$ there are many closed 1-forms $`\gamma ,`$ such that $`d\gamma =0`$, that can be added to the 1-form $`A_0`$ and yet the exterior differential system yields the same values for $`F_0.`$ It is the closed integrals of the closed but not exact components of $`q`$ that determine the quantized charges. It is the closed integrals of closed but not exact components of $`\gamma `$ that determine the quantized flux quanta. These concepts of ambiguity and non-uniqueness are often parlayed into specific theories, called gauge theories, where the non-uniqueness is restricted in form to some equivalence class. These problems of specific gauge equivalence class are not pertinent herein, for the results are formulated to be valid without a specification of gauge.

Classic Maxwell theory, as written in terms of the fields $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ only, is often said to be a U(1) gauge theory. However, when written in the language of exterior differential forms, Maxwell theory is not a U(1) gauge theory. It is well behaved with respect to the general linear group, and with respect to differentiable maps without inverse. It is the imposition of zero charge current density (no interaction energy density) and the Lorentz constitutive constraint that reduces the general Maxwell theory to a U(1) gauge group theory . The usual constraints are such that the both $`F\mathrm{^}G`$and $`A\mathrm{^}J`$ vanish simultaneously. The constitutive constraints typically imposed are of the form $`𝐁=\mu 𝐇`$and $`𝐃=ϵ𝐄`$with the understanding that $`ϵ\mu c^2=1`$ and $`𝐁𝐁𝐄𝐄/c^2=0.`$ An alternate formulation by Bateman  and Whittaker leads to the constitutive constraint, $`𝐃=\alpha 𝐁`$and $`𝐇=\beta 𝐄,`$ with the understanding that $`(\alpha \beta )`$ ($`𝐄𝐁)=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, The first case can be extended to include birefringence and Faraday rotation, while the second case generalizes to include rotational acceleration (Sagnac) effects and Optical Activity. Both simple formulations lead to the result that $`F\mathrm{^}G=0,`$ which implies that the N-1 form $`A\mathrm{^}G`$ is closed. Hence (subject to the constraints) over closed N-1 manifolds which are cycles, the integrals of the Topological Spin N-1=3 form can have ratios which are rational. The closed integrals are evolutionary deformation invariants, and thereby carry topological information.

#### 1.2.6 Dissipation

It is of some importance to note, in certain topological circumstances, that the Jacobian induced currents, $`J_s,`$ occur without the presence of $`𝐄`$ or $`𝐁`$ fields, (when $`dA_0=F_0=0)`$ or for other situations where $`𝐄`$ or $`𝐁`$ fields are present (where $`F_00),`$ but where the dissipation coefficient $`𝐉𝐄`$ is zero. The implicit hypersurface method thereby seems to offer an alternative, non-quantum mechanical, understanding of what otherwise would be called superconducting currents. In the first case, the $`𝐁`$ field is excluded (Meisner effect) from the superconducting region, and in the second case (Hall effect) a large $`𝐁`$ field is present along with a non-dissipative current.

If the adjoint curvature of the generalized hypersurface is zero, then either the charge current density is zero, or the charge current density resides in the hypersurface, and thereby is orthogonal to the surface normal. In the latter special case, the direction field of the charge current density is proportional to the Topological Torsion vector  generated by the 3-form $`A\mathrm{^}dA`$. Examples below indicate that there is a correlation between non-zero adjoint curvature and/or topological torsion and the existence of a charge current density.

## 2 Implicit Hypersurfaces

The algebra of the processes to be described can be staggering, especially for older folks who do not see too well. Hence a Maple program  has been provided to make the computation of examples a bit faster.

### 2.1 The normal and tangent fields

The classic implicit surface is generated by assigning a constant value to a function, $`\varphi (x,y,z..).`$ It is important to recall that an implicit surface, in contrast to a parametric surface, can consist of more than one disconnected components. The gradient field to the given function represents a normal field to the surface, and tangent vectors which reside on the surface are orthogonal to the normal field at all points. As the normal field for the classic implicit surface is a gradient field, its associated 1-form is exact. If this normal gradient field is rescaled by a factor such that is homogeneous of degree zero in its functional arguments, then the Jacobian matrix of the rescaled normal field can be used to generate the curvatures of the implicit surface.

This procedure can be extended to the study of generalized implicit surfaces whose normal field is not representable by an exact 1-form. The 1-form representing the normal field can have arbitrary Pfaff dimension. If the Pfaff dimension of the 1-form is greater than 2, then the implicit surface can support topological torsion, $`A\mathrm{^}dA0.`$ It is necessary that the Pfaff dimension be greater than 2 if the implicit surface admits an envelope. A N-1 tangent vector basis can be constructed algebraically from the 1-form that represents the normal field. In the language of exterior differential forms, the tangent vectors, $`𝐞`$, have been described as the associate vectors relative to the 1-form $`A_0`$, and satisfy the equation, $`i(𝐞)A_0=0.`$ The array of tangent vectors and the normal field can be used to form a ND basis at any point in the implicit surface.

In fact it follows that starting from an arbitrary 1-form, defined herein as the Action 1-form of Potentials, $`A_0,`$ on a variety of independent variables $`(x,y,z,\mathrm{}),`$ it is possible to develop the curvature properties of the generalized implicit surface algebraically after admitting only one differentiation process. The components of $`A_0`$ will play the role of the normal field.

### 2.2 The homogeneous Holder norm and similarity curvature invariants.

After division by a suitable function of the coefficient potentials, $`\lambda ,`$the original 1-form of Action

$$A_0=(U(x,y,z,\mathrm{})dx+V(x,y,z,\mathrm{})dy+W(x,y,z,\mathrm{})dz\mathrm{}),$$
(8)
can be made homogeneous of degree zero in terms of those coefficient functions that define the potentials. It is to be emphasized that the homogeneity condition is not on the arguments of the coefficients, but on the coefficient functions themselves. The scaling function of choice, $`\lambda ,`$is a Holder norm and is defined in terms of the covariant coefficients of the 1-form:

$$\lambda =(aU^p+bV^p+cW^p+\mathrm{})^{n/p}.$$
(9)
The index $`n`$ will be defined as the homogeneity index; the index $`p`$ will be described herein as the isotropic index, and the constants $`(a,b,c\mathrm{})`$ are constant scale factors whose signs determine the signature. By choosing the index $`n`$ to be unity, $`n=1`$, the 1-form, $`A`$, defined as

$$A=A_0/\lambda =(Udx+Vdy+Wdz\mathrm{})/\lambda =A_kdx^k$$
(10)
becomes homogeneous of degree zero in its coefficients. That is if every coefficient function is increased by a factor $`\beta `$ then the coefficient function $`A_k`$ does not change. This homogeneous degree zero 1-form, $`A_0/\lambda ,`$ is used to define an implicit hypersurface in the variety, whose geometrical properties can be expressed classically in terms of the similarity invariants of the associated singular Jacobian dyadic (or matrix). Classically these similarity invariants are ”symmetric” functions of the surface curvatures. Examples are given below.

The doubly covariant Jacobian dyadic of coefficients is defined as the matrix of functions

$$Jacobian(A)=\left[A_m/x^n\right]=[JAC(A)]_{mn}=\left[𝕁\right]$$
(11)
The determinant of the Jacobian matrix so constructed ($`n=1`$, any $`a,b,c\mathrm{},p`$) ) is always zero, indicating the existence of at least one zero eigen value (curvature or reciprocal radius). Hence the Jacobian matrix so constructed is singular, and induces a singular metric on the variety via the pullback $`[g]=[𝕁]^{^{Transpose}}[𝕁].`$ The zero determinant result also implies the existence of a global N-1 dimensional variety which in effect defines the implicit (hyper) surface. It is a standard geometrical procedure to construct the symmetric similarity invariants of the Jacobian matrix by forming the Cayley-Hamilton characteristic polynomial. Note that the induced symmetric metric $`[g]`$ does not carry the complete story of the surface properties inherent in the Jacobian dyadic, for the Jacobian matrix is not necessarily symmetric. As pointed out by Brand , the anti-symmetric components of the Jacobian dyadic also have important invariance properties. These additional invariants are developed in terms of the 2-form $`F=dA.`$

### 2.3 A globally closed current from the adjoint matrix

Next construct the doubly contravariant matrix $`\left[\widehat{𝕁}\right]`$ equal to the adjoint (matrix of co-factors transposed) of the doubly covariant Jacobian matrix. This adjoint matrix exists algebraically, even though the inverse of the singular Jacobian matrix, and the inverse of the induced singular metric does not. Use the adjoint matrix to construct the contravariant vector current, $`|𝐉_s,`$

$$|𝐉_s=[ADJ(A)]^{nm}|𝐀=[\widehat{𝕁}]^{nm}|𝐀,$$
(12)
and the N-1 form density, $`J_s:`$

$$J_s=i(𝐉_s)dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{}$$
(13)
Remarkably for any Holder norm with $`n=1`$, arbitrary signature, arbitrary scale factors, and arbitrary exponent p, the N-1 form, $`J_s`$, is closed.

$$dJ_s=0forn=1$$
(14)
As this closure result is global, it follows that $`J_sdG_s=0,.`$ which is equivalent to the Maxwell-Ampere equations. The subscript $`s`$ is used to distinguish the fact that $`J_s`$ has been deduced from the singular Jacobian matrix, and does not explicitly depend upon the field intensities, $`F_0=dA_0`$ and some arbitrary constitutive constraint between $`F`$ and $`G.`$ Note that given a $`J_s`$ the corresponding $`G_s`$ is not uniquely determined. The N-2 form density, $`G_s,`$ may have closed and exact components as well as closed non-exact components, neither of which contribute to a specific Charge-Current.

It is to be noted the induced metric is singular and therefor cannot be used to define a raising tensor as an inverse metric. Yet a raising tensor field $`[\widehat{𝕁}]^{nm}`$ can be functionally well defined in terms of the Adjoint of the Jacobian matrix. This raising tensor field, unlike a non-singular metric inverse field, is not symmetric. Moreover the Adjoint method applies to 1-forms (and therefor hypersurfaces) that do not satisfy the Frobenius condition of unique integrability. Hence, topological torsion, defined as the 3-form, $`A_0\mathrm{^}dA_0,`$ need not be zero. It will be demonstrated below that when the Holder norm is specialized to the Gauss map, $`a=b=c=\mathrm{}=1,p=2,n=1,`$ then the coefficient of the interaction N form density, $`A\mathrm{^}J_s,`$ is equal to the ($`N1)^{th}`$ similarity invariant of the Jacobian field. For all implicit surfaces, simple or not, this similarity invariant is equal to the trace of the Jacobian Adjoint matrix and is equal to the sum of all possible products of degree N-1 of the eigen values of the Jacobian matrix. This similarity invariant will be defined as the Adjoint Curvature of the implicit surface. In 3 dimensions the Adjoint curvature of simple implicit surfaces is equal to the Gauss sectional curvature.

### 2.4 The adjoint curvature and the interaction energy

In summary, a well defined procedure has been implemented to deduce a consistent exterior differential system in Maxwell - Electromagnetic format, starting from a set of potentials that define the coefficients of a 1-form of Action, $`A_0.`$ It follows that the exterior differential system $`FdA=0`$ is always equivalent to the system of PDE’s known as the Maxwell-Faraday equations. The induced system described above, $`J_sdG_s=0,`$ generates the system of PDE’s known as the Maxwell-Ampere equations. Note that no constitutive or duality constraints have been subsumed. It is known that the two combined exterior differential systems lead to a N-1 form, previously defined as topological spin, $`A\mathrm{^}G,`$and a third exterior differential system, $`d(A\mathrm{^}G)F\mathrm{^}G+A\mathrm{^}J=0.`$ The last term, defined as the interaction energy and equal to $`A\mathrm{^}J_s,`$ can be evaluated in terms of the curvature invariants of the implicit hypersurface generated by the 1-form of Action Potentials. It is remarkable that the term $`A\mathrm{^}J_s`$ is equal to the volume element multiplied by the ($`N1)^{th}`$ similarity invariant, defined as the $`Trace[\widehat{𝕁}].`$

$$Interaction\mathrm{\_}energy=A\mathrm{^}J_s=Trace[\widehat{𝕁}]dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{}$$
(15)
As the ($`N1)^{th}`$ similarity invariant can be interpreted in terms of a polynomial cubic in the curvatures of the hypersurface in 4D, it would appear that concept of the interaction energy between the charge current density and the potentials can be related to an expression cubic in the curvatures of the associated hypersurface.

## 3  <br>Examples

The following examples will display some of the features of the theory of generalized implicit hypersurfaces in 3 and 4 dimensions. The 3D examples can be of two physically interesting categories based on the coordinate sets $`\{x,y,z\}`$ and $`\{x,y,t\}`$ From an electromagnetic interpretation, the first category has the properties of a 3D plasma. The second category admits an $`𝐄`$ field as well as a $`𝐁`$ field. Each of these 3D categories can be viewed as special cases of the 4D category based on coordinate variables of the type $`\{x,y,z,t\}`$ In addition there is a topological refinement of the categories which depend upon the Pfaff dimension of the 1-form, $`A_0,`$ used to model the normal direction field of the implicit hypersurface. Most classical developments of implicit simple surface theory study those cases where the Pfaff dimension of the 1-form,.$`A`$, is unity. Such spaces do not support topological torsion. A rotating spherical surface does not support torsion. An expanding spherical surface does not support torsion. However an expanding and rotating spherical surface does support topological torsion.

Make sure you are aware that symbolic math programs using Maple programs  have been provided for you to check the details and extend the examples presented below.

### 3.1 Simple surfaces of one component in 3D.

For simplicity, consider those surfaces generated by fixed values assigned to functions of the form $`\varphi =f(x,y)z.`$ Such surfaces are of a single component and do not support a non-zero 2-form The differential of the function $`\varphi `$ generates the exact 1-form

$$A_0=(\varphi /x)dx+(\varphi /y)dy+(\varphi /z)dz=(f/x)dx+(f/y)dydz$$
(16)
The 1-form associated with such surfaces is of Pfaff dimension 1. Choose the Holder norm equivalent to the Gauss map

$$\lambda =\{(f/x)^2+(f/y)^2+1\}^{1/2}.$$
(17)
and construct the homogenous of degree zero 1-form

$$A=A_0/\lambda .$$
(18)
The homogeneous 1-form, $`A`$, can be of Pfaff dimension 2. Form the Jacobian matrix, $`\left[A_m/x^n\right]=\left[𝕁\right],`$ of the covariant components of the 1-form, $`A,`$and construct the similarity invariants, and the induced current. For this simple surface it is assumed that $`\varphi `$ is linear in $`z`$. The determinant of the Jacobian matrix vanishes, which implies that the Jacobian matrix is singular and has no inverse. The remaining similarity invariants are:

$`Mean\mathrm{\_}Curvature`$ $`=`$ $`1/2\{(^2f/x^2)(1+(f/y)^2)+(^2f/y^2)(1+(f/x)^2)`$ (19)
$`2(f/x)(f/y)^2f/xy\}/\lambda ^3`$
and

$`Adjoint\mathrm{\_}Gauss\mathrm{\_}Curvature`$ $`=`$ $`Trace[\widehat{𝕁}]`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\{(^2f/x^2)(^2f/y^2)(^2f/xy)^2\}/\lambda ^4`$
The induced current is of the form, $`[0,0,J_z]`$ where

$$J_z=\{(^2f/x^2)(^2f/y^2)(^2f/xy)^2\}/\lambda ^3.$$
(21)
It follows that the N-form $`A\mathrm{^}J`$ becomes

$`A\mathrm{^}J_s`$ $`=`$ $`(Adjoint\mathrm{\_}Gauss\mathrm{\_}Curvature)dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\{(^2f/x^2)(^2f/y^2)(^2f/xy)^2\}dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz/\lambda ^4`$
and the coefficient of the interaction is precisely equal to the Adjoint curvature, which is equivalent to the classic Gauss curvature of the implicit surface in the 3 dimensional variety.

For exact 1-forms, the 2-form $`F_0=dA_0`$ vanishes. Hence the general formula

$$A_0\mathrm{^}J_s=F_0\mathrm{^}G_sd(A_0\mathrm{^}G_s)$$
(23)
becomes

$$A\mathrm{^}J_s=d(A_0\mathrm{^}G_s)/\lambda .$$
(24)
This result is equivalent to the Chern statement of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem: the Gauss curvature is integrable .

The singular induced (pullback) metric is given by the expression,

$$\left[g\right]=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}(^2f/x^2)^2+(^2f/xy)^2\hfill & (^2f/xy)(^2f/x^2+^2f/y^2)\hfill & 0\hfill \\ (^2f/xy)(^2f/x^2+^2\varphi /y^2)\hfill & (^2f/y^2)^2+(^2f/xy)^2\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right]/\lambda ^2,$$
(25)
and can be used to construct a line element, $`(ds)^2`$ on the two dimensional subspace.

### 3.2 Classical Implicit Surfaces with more than one component in 3D.

The classic implicit surface is defined by fixed values assigned to non-linear functions of the form $`\varphi (x,y,z).`$ The differential of the function $`\varphi `$ generates the exact 1-form of Pfaff dimension 1:

$$A_0=(\varphi /x)dx+(\varphi /y)dy+(\varphi /z)dz.$$
(26)
As before, choose the Holder norm equivalent to the Gauss map

$$\lambda =\{(\varphi /x)^2+(\varphi /y)^2+(\varphi /z)^2\}^{1/2}.$$
(27)
and construct the homogenous of degree zero 1-form (which can be of Pfaff dimension 2):

$$A=A_0/\lambda .$$
(28)
Create the Jacobian matrix, $`\left[A_m/x^n\right],`$ of the covariant components of the 1-form, $`A,`$and construct the similarity invariants, and the induced current. Note that the Jacobian matrix is symmetric. The determinant of the Jacobian vanishes indicating the matrix is singular and without inverse. Then the remaining similarity invariants are constructed from the trace of the Jacobian matrix and the trace of the Adjoint matrix. The curvature formulas are best computed via a symbolic math program such as Maple .

The mean curvature becomes

$`MeanCurvature`$
$`=`$ $`\{2(\varphi /x)(\varphi /y)(^2\varphi /xy)^2\varphi /z^2((\varphi /y)^2+(\varphi /x)^2)`$
$`+2(\varphi /y)(\varphi /z)(^2\varphi /zy)^2\varphi /x^2\left((\varphi /y)^2+(\varphi /z)^2\right)`$
$`+2(\varphi /z)(\varphi /x)(^2\varphi /xz)^2\varphi /y^2((\varphi /x)^2+(\varphi /z)^2)\}/3\lambda ^3`$
and the Adjoint - Gauss curvature becomes

$`AdjointGaussCurvature`$
$`=`$ $`\{2(\varphi /x)(\varphi /y)(^2\varphi /xy)(^2\varphi /z^2)(^2\varphi /y^2)(^2\varphi /x^2)(\varphi /z)^2`$
$`+2(\varphi /y)(\varphi /z)(^2\varphi /zy)(^2\varphi /x^2)(^2\varphi /z^2)(^2\varphi /y^2)(\varphi /x)^2`$
$`+2(\varphi /z)(\varphi /x)(^2\varphi /xz)(^2\varphi /y^2)(^2\varphi /x^2)(^2\varphi /z^2)(\varphi /y)^2`$
$`+(\varphi /x)^2(^2\varphi /yz)^2+(\varphi /y)^2(^2\varphi /zx)^2+(\varphi /z)^2(^2\varphi /xy)^2`$
$`2(\varphi /x)(\varphi /y)(^2\varphi /zx)(^2\varphi /zy)`$
$`2(\varphi /y)(\varphi /z)(^2\varphi /xy)(^2\varphi /xz)`$
$`2(\varphi /z)(\varphi /x)(^2\varphi /xy)(^2\varphi /xz)\}/\lambda ^4`$
The induced current $`J_s`$ may be computed by multiplying the components of $`A`$ with the Adjoint matrix relative to the Jacobian matrix, and it may be shown that the interaction N form is precisely equal to the volume element multiplied by the trace of the Adjoint matrix.

$$A\mathrm{^}J_s=(Adjoint\mathrm{\_}Gauss\mathrm{\_}Curvature)dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz$$
(31)
### 3.3 Implicit surfaces of the Bateman type

A generalized implicit surface generated by a 1-form which is of Pfaff dimension 2 has a representation of the Bateman type. That is, $`A_0=\alpha (x,y,z)db(x,y,z).`$ The procedures are the same as above. Choose a Holder norm in the form of a Gauss map such that

$$\lambda =\alpha \{(\beta /x)^2+(\beta /y)^2+(\beta /z)^2\}^{1/2}.$$
(32)
Compute the Jacobian matrix which now can have an anti-symmetric part

### 3.4  Non integrable 2-surfaces in 3D

The procedure is the same as above, except now the 1-form $`A_0`$ has arbitrary coefficients,

$$A_0=U(x,y,z)dx+V(x,y,z)dy+W(x,y,z)dz=$$
(33)
As before, choose the Holder norm equivalent to the Gauss map

$$\lambda =\{(U)^2+(V)^2+(W)^2\}^{1/2}.$$
(34)
and construct the homogenous of degree zero 1-form

$$A=A_0/\lambda .$$
(35)
Form the Jacobian matrix, $`\left[A_m/x^n\right],`$ of the covariant components of the 1-form, $`A,`$and construct the similarity invariants, and the induced current. The results are the same for the interaction N-form $`A\mathrm{^}J.`$:

$$A\mathrm{^}J_s=(Adjoint\mathrm{\_}Curvature)dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz$$
(36)
It should be remarked that the same procedures are valid in dimension N. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$is the N dimensional differential volume element, then in N dimensions,

$$A\mathrm{^}J_s=(Adjoint\mathrm{\_}Curvature)\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(37)
The computations can be lengthy, and it is advised that the symbolic math program provided be used .

### 3.5 An interpretation in terms of Electromagnetism

#### 3.5.1 The 3-D Variety is Spatial: (x,y,z)

In this example, the variety of independent variables $`\{x,y,z\},`$ is presumed to be independent of time. Given the 1-form $`A_0=Udx+Vdy+Wdz,`$ it is possible to construct the field intensities, $`F_0=dA_0`$on the presumption that the 1-form is the 1-form of Action potentials for an electromagnetic field. By construction there is no time dependence and no scalar potential on the 3 D spatial domain. The 2-form $`F`$ of field intensities consists of 3 components related to the curl of the vector potential, $`𝐀_0=[U,V,W]:`$

$$𝐁_0=curl𝐀_0.$$
(38)
By computing the Jacobian matrix of the rescaled 1-form, $`A,`$ which is homogeneous of degree 0, the above procedures lead to a divergence free current. This current is a globally closed N-1=2-form, and so is related to the exterior derivative of some N-2=1-form. In this example, the 1-form of field excitations is defined by the symbolism,

$$G=H^xdx+H^ydy+H^zdz=𝐇\mathrm{𝐝𝐫}.$$
(39)
It follows that the induced current is of the form

$$𝐉_s=curl𝐇,$$
(40)
but although there is a current there is no analogue to a charge density distribution for the time independent 3 dimensional format.

The interaction N=3-form becomes

$`A\mathrm{^}J_s`$ $`=`$ $`(Adjoint\mathrm{\_}Gauss\mathrm{\_}Curvature)dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`(𝐀𝐉_s)dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz`$
The topological Spin N–1=2 form becomes

$$A_0\mathrm{^}G=i(𝐀_0\times 𝐇)dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz$$
(42)
and has a divergence equal to the first ”Poincare” invariant,

$$d(A_0\mathrm{^}G)=\{(𝐁_0𝐇)(𝐀_0𝐉_s)\}dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz.$$
(43)
(The symbol $`i(𝐀_0\times 𝐇)`$ is used for interior product operator and should not be confused with the imaginary $`\sqrt{1}`$). The result is remarkable for it implies that the closed integral of the magnetic energy density $`(𝐁_0𝐇)`$ minus the Gaussian curvature times $`\lambda ,`$$`(or𝐀_0𝐉_s)`$ of the surface created by the non-exact 1-form, $`A_0`$, is an invariant of any steady flow process on the variety $`\{x,y,z\}.`$

Note that it is not apparent nor true that $`𝐁_0`$ is linearly related to $`𝐇`$, where curl $`𝐇`$ is the source of the Adjoint closed current. As the 1-form is not necessarily integrable, the helicity $`𝐀_0𝐁_0`$ is not necessarily zero. In hydrodynamics, the spatial parts of the Action 1-form can be related to the fluid dynamics velocity field, and the $`𝐁_0`$ field is the fluid vorticity. In the integrable case the two direction fields associated with $`𝐀_0`$ and $`𝐁_0`$ form a surface (the Lamb surface).

Note that for the non-exact hypersurfaces in 3 dimensions, the similarity invariant is no longer a perfect differential, but is modified by the presence of the enstrophy (sqaure of the vorticity or $`𝐁_0`$ field). This example and others are displayed in .

#### 3.5.2 The 3D Variety is 2+1 time dependent (x,y,t)

In this example, the variety of independent variables $`\{x,y,t\},`$ is presumed to consist of two spatial variables and time. Given the 1-form $`A_0=Udx+VdY\varphi dt,`$ it is possible to construct the field intensities, $`F_0=dA_0`$on the presumption that the 1-form is the 1-form of Action potentials for an electromagnetic field. Each of the component functions can be functions of $`\{x,y,t\}`$ and $`\varphi (x,y,t)`$will play the role of the scalar potential. The 2-form of field intensities, $`F`$consists of one magnetic component, orthogonal to the xy plane (which means that it is in the $`t`$ direction), and two electric components. In engineering format:

$$𝐁_t=V/xU/y𝐄_x=U/t\varphi /x𝐄_y=V/t\varphi /y$$
(44)
By computing the Jacobian matrix of the rescaled 1-form which is homogeneous of degree 0, the above procedures lead to a divergence free current. This divergence free current is a globally closed N-1=2-form, and so is related to the exterior derivative of some N-2=1-form. In this example, the 1-form of field excitations is defined in terms of the symbols,

$$G_s=D^ydxD^xdy+H^tdt.$$
(45)
It follows that, in engineering notation, the induced close current has the classic format,

$`𝐉_s`$ $`=`$ $`[H^t/y+D^x/t,H^t/x+D^y/t,+D^x/x+D^x/x]`$
$`=`$ $`[curl𝐇^t+𝐃/t]`$
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`div𝐃.`$ (47)
In contrast to the previous example, it is now apparent that this time dependent system can have a non-zero charge distribution as well as a current. Note that the format for $`G_s`$ is the canonical form of the Heisenberg system.

The interaction N=3-form becomes as before,

$`A\mathrm{^}J_s`$ $`=`$ $`(Adjoint\mathrm{\_}Gauss\mathrm{\_}Curvature)dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`(𝐀𝐉_s\rho \varphi )dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz.`$
The topological Spin N–1=2 form becomes in component form,

$$A_0\mathrm{^}G_s[𝐀_0H^t+𝐃\varphi ,𝐀_0𝐃],$$
(49)
and has a divergence equal to the first ”Poincare” invariant,

$$d(A_0\mathrm{^}G_s)=\{(B_tH^t𝐃𝐄)(𝐀_0𝐉_s\rho \varphi _0)\}dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz.$$
(50)
The result is remarkable for it implies that the closed integral of the Lagrangian energy density $`(B_tH^t𝐃𝐄)`$ minus the Gaussian curvature times $`\lambda ,`$$`(or𝐀_0𝐉_s\rho \varphi _0)`$ of the surface created by the non-exact 1-form, $`A_0`$, is an invariant of any flow process on the variety $`\{x,y,t\}.`$For details see .

### 3.6 Four Dimension Hypersurfaces

In four dimensions, the analysis above continues to be true, with the fundamental result that the interaction density is related to the Adjoint curvature of the hypersurface defined by the 1-form of Action with coefficients that are homogeneous of degree zero. However, in 4 dimensions, it is possible to distinguish between the mean curvature, $`Mean`$, the Gauss sectional curvature, $`Gauss`$, and the Adjoint curvature, $`Kubic`$. The set $`\{H,M,K\}`$ are known as the similarity invariants of the Jacobian matrix. The Mean curvature, $`Mean`$, is proportional to the sum of the eigen values. The Sectional Gauss curvature $`Gauss`$ is related to the sum of the three paired products of the eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix For the 1-form which has been made homogeneous of degree zero in its component functions, the Adjoint curvature $`Kubic`$ is the unique product of the three non-zero eigen values of the Jacobian matrix. . Again the interaction energy density N=4 form, $`A\mathrm{^}J_s`$ has a coefficient exactly equal to the Adjoint similarity invariant, if the Holder norm is equivalent to the Gauss map with isotropic index p=2 and homogeneity index n = 1.

This observation yields a remarkable difference between mass energy density (related to Gaussian sectional second order curvature) and interaction energy density between the charge current density and the potentials (related to the Adjoint third order curvature). There are three situations of interest: Case 1, the charge-current density is zero, so that $`J_s=0`$ and $`A\mathrm{^}J_s=0`$; Case 2, the charge-current density is not zero, so that $`J_s0`$ and $`A\mathrm{^}J_s=0`$ because of orthogonality; Case 3, the charge current density is not zero and not orthogonal to 1-form of Action, such that $`A\mathrm{^}J_s0`$, and $`J_s0.`$ On a space of N = 4 dimensions there are 3 direction fields that are orthogonal to the one form of potentials. If the 1-form $`A`$ is of Pfaff dimension 4, then there is a unique vector direction field $`V`$ such that $`i(V)dA=\mathrm{\Gamma }A,`$ and yet $`V`$ is orthogonal to $`A.`$ This direction field is determined by the topological torsion vector $`A\mathrm{^}dA,`$with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ proportional to the coefficient of the 4 form of topological parity, $`dA\mathrm{^}dA.`$ When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$, the Pfaff dimension is three, and the direction field generated by the topological torsion 3-form, $`A\mathrm{^}dA,`$ becomes a characteristic vector field of the 1-form $`A.`$ Characteristic vector fields are homeomorphisms that preserve topology.

Examples indicate that Case 1, $`J_s=0,`$ is satisfied if the scalar potential is zero (any vector potential) or if the vector potential is zero (any scalar potential), for then the charge current density does not exist and the Adjoint curvature vanishes. The case which admits only a Scalar potential yields a system with $`𝐄`$ fields and no $`𝐁`$ fields. A time independent Vector potential without a scalar potential yields the opposite situation with $`𝐁`$ fields and no $`𝐄`$ fields. The Time dependent vector field case admits both $`𝐁`$ fields and $`𝐄`$ fields.

Examples indicate that Case 3 is usually satisfied if the 1-form of potentials has both a scalar and vector components which are both time and space dependent. A special situation occurs if the potentials are not explicitly time dependent, for then the spatial current density is zero but the charge density is not zero. The Adjoint curvature is not zero, and the interaction energy density does not vanish. This example gives credence to the suggestion that the origin of charge density is cubic curvature. The time independent case can support non zero topological Torsion and non-zero topological Parity.

In the examples presented below, it appears that if a charge current density exists, and it does not describe an irreversible process, then it is related to the third order curvature invariants of the implicit surface defined by the 1-form of Potentials. The algebra is a bit formidable. Hence a Maple program is presented  for which the reader can verify the computations, and modify the program to check his own hierarchy of examples. Only the results of the computations are described here. Only the isotropic Holder norm equivalent to the Gauss map, where p = 2, n =1 and with euclidean signature, is utilized in the examples presented below unless specified otherwise

#### 3.6.1 4D Example 1, Time dependent Scalar potential only

When applied to a 1-form that consists of a single (time and spatially dependent) scalar potential,

$$A_0=\varphi (x,y,z,t)dt,$$
(51)
it follows that the implicit surface is flat. All of the curvature similarity invariants vanish. First, renormalize $`A_0`$by dividing through by a Holder norm, $`\lambda ,`$such as to make the new 1-form homogeneous of degree 0. Then construct the Jacobian matrix of the components of $`A=A_0/\lambda `$. It follows for the example that all of the curvature similarity invariant vanish.

$`Mean`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (52)
$`Gauss`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (53)
$`Kubic`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (54)
There is zero induced charge current density;.$`J_s=0.`$ There can be an electric field, $`𝐄`$, but no magnetic field, $`𝐁`$. The interaction energy as well as the Adjoint curvature are zero; $`A\mathrm{^}J_s=0`$. The Pfaff dimension of the 1-form is at most 2. The hypersurface may be considered to be a 3-plane orthogonal to the time coordinate. If the scalar potential is independent from time, the problem is related to classical electrostatics. The implicit surface is flat, without bending or tension. The Coulomb potential falls into this class of examples.

#### 3.6.2 4D Example 2, Time dependent or time independent Vector potentials only

In this example,the 1-form is presumed to be of the form

$$A_0=A_x(x,y,z,t)dx+A_y(x,y,z,t)dy+A_z(x,y,z,t)dz,$$
(55)
The time dependent potentials admit both a magnetic field $`𝐁`$ and an electric field $`𝐄,`$ and the time independent potentials only admit a $`𝐁`$ field.. The invariant Adjoint Jacobian technique indicates that a charge current density is not induced, $`J_s=0,`$ and the interaction energy is identically zero, $`A\mathrm{^}J_s=0`$. The time dependent potentials are of Pfaff dimension 4, and can support non-zero Helicity and non-zero Parity without inducing a charge current density. The time independent potentials are Pfaff dimension 3, hence the topological parity, $`F\mathrm{^}F,`$ is zero and the closed integrals of topological torsion have rational ratios. The Gaussian curvature and the mean curvature are not necessarily zero, although the Adjoint curvature is always zero; $`A\mathrm{^}J_s=0`$. Hence the 3D hypersurface has degenerated into a 2 dimensional surface in 4 dimensions.

$`Mean`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (56)
$`Gauss`$ $``$ $`0`$ (57)
$`Kubic`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (58)
#### 3.6.3 4D Example 3, Vector and Scalar Potentials without explicit time dependence.

In this example,the 1-form is presumed to be of the form

$$A_0=A_x(x,y,z)dx+A_y(x,y,z)dy+A_z(x,y,z)dz\varphi (x,y,z)dt.$$
(59)
The results of the formalism indicate that there is no spatial current density, but there can exist a charge density. The adjoint curvature is not necessarily zero, $`A\mathrm{^}J_s0`$ .

$`Mean`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (60)
$`Gauss`$ $``$ $`0`$ (61)
$`Kubic`$ $``$ $`0.`$ (62)
The Pfaff dimension can be as high as 4, with the 1-form supporting both a Helicity 3-form and a Parity 4 form.

#### 3.6.4 4D Example 4, Bateman - Whittaker solutions

In this example,the 1-form is presumed to be of the form

$$A_0=\alpha (x,y,z,t)d\beta (x,y,z,t).$$
(63)
The results of the formalism indicate that there can be both a current density and a charge density, $`J_s0`$. The Pfaff dimension is 2 or less. The Helicity 3 form and the Parity 4-form vanish. The $`𝐄`$ field and $`𝐁`$ field are always orthogonal. However, if the function $`\beta `$ is independent from time (but $`\alpha `$ remains explicitly time dependent) then the Adjoint curvature and the induced charge current density also vanish. The 3D hypersurface reduces to a 2D hypersurface that supports mean and Gauss curvature, but not cubic curvature invariants, $`A\mathrm{^}J_s=0`$.

$`Mean`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (64)
$`Gauss`$ $``$ $`0`$ (65)
$`A\mathrm{^}J_sKubic`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (66)
$`Top\mathrm{\_}Torsion`$ $``$ $`0`$ (67)
$`J_s`$ $``$ $`0`$ (68)
This result corresponds to what are called time harmonic solutions in the engineering literature, and gives yet more credence to the idea that charge current densities can be related to cubic curvatures.

#### 3.6.5 4D Example 5, A Hopf map solution.

In this example,the Hopf 1-form is presumed to be of the form

$$A_0=b(ydx.xdy)+a(tdzzdt).$$
(69)
The 1-form of Potentials depends on the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ which are presumed to take on values $`\pm 1.`$ There are two cases corresponding to left and right handed ”polarizations”: $`a=b`$ or $`a=b`$. What is remarkable for this solution, is that both the mean curvature and the Adjoint curvature of the implicit hypersurface in 4D vanish, for any choice of a or b. The Gauss curvature is non-zero, positive real and is equal to the square of the radius of a 4D euclidean sphere. The cubic interaction energy density is zero.

$`Mean`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (70)
$`Gauss`$ $`>`$ $`0`$ (71)
$`A\mathrm{^}J_sKubic`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (72)
$`Top\mathrm{\_}Torsion`$ $``$ $`0`$ (73)
$`J_s`$ $``$ $`0`$ (74)
This situation occurs when the three curvatures of the implicit 3-surface are $`\{0,0,+i\omega ,i\omega ).`$. The Hopf surface is a 3D imaginary minimal surface in 4D and has two non-zero imaginary curvatures! Strangely enough the charge-current density is not zero, but it is proportional to the topological Torsion vector that generates the 3 form $`A\mathrm{^}F.`$ The topological Parity 4 form is not zero, and depends on the sign of the coefficients a and b. In other words the ’handedness’ of the different 1-forms determines the orientation of the normal field with respect to the implicit surface. This set of circumstances corresponds to the Case 3 situation described above where the charge current interaction density is zero, but the charge current density is not zero. It is known that a process described by a vector proportional to the topological torsion vector in a domain where the topological parity is non-zero is thermodynamically irreversible .

This example demonstrates that in special cases the charge-current density is not proportional to the adjoint curvature of the implicit minimal surface. However, the case corresponds to the special situation where the interaction energy, alias the internal energy relative to the given process, is zero, and yet the process is non-zero, but thermodynamically irreversible.

## 4 Summary and applications to p-brane theories

Every Pfaffian 1-form whose coefficients are functionally homogeneous of degree zero can be used to describe the normal field to an implicit surface. The curvature similarity invariants can be computed from the Jacobian matrix of the homogeneous 1 form. For those p-branes which are 3 dimensional implicit surfaces in 4 dimensions, it is possible to deduce an electromagnetic interpretation with an intrinsic charge current density. The interaction energy density of this charge current density and the potentials that define the implicit surface is exactly the cubic curvature similarity invariant of the implicit hypersurface. As the curvature radii get smaller and smaller, the electromagnetic interaction energy being proportional to the cube of the curvatures could conceivably prevent if not impede gravitational collapse. Certainly such terms should be included in the dynamics of collapsing mass systems. This effect, like the Bohm-Aharanov effect, does not depend explicitly upon the field strengths, $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$. Such a possibility appears to have been neglected in metric based curvature theories.

## 5 Acknowledgments

This work is dedicated to Pucky (alias Elie Cartan), a constant and devoted companion, who died on December 7, 2000.

## 6 References

 The importance of the N-1 form A^H (now written as A^G) was first anticipated in: R. M. Kiehn and J. F. Pierce, An Intrinsic Transport Theorem Phys. Fluids 12, 1971. The concept was further employed in R. M. Kiehn, Periods on manifolds, quantization and gauge, J. of Math Phys 18 no. 4 p. 614 (1977), and with applications described in R. M. Kiehn, Are there three kinds of superconductivity, Int. J. Mod. Phys B 5 1779. (1991)

 R. M. Kiehn, The Photon Spin and other Topological Features of Classical Electromagnetism in Vigier2000, edited by V. Amoroso and J. Hunter, ((Kluwer, Dordrecht 2001 to appear)

R. M. Kiehn, Topological Evolution of classical electromagnetic fields and the photon, in ”The Photon and the Poincare Group, edited by V. Dvoeglazov, (Nova Science Publishers, NY 1999)

 E. J. Post, ”Quantum Reprogramming, (Kluwer, Dordrecht 1995)

 R. M. Kiehn, Topological Torsion and Topological Spin as Coherent Structures in Plasmas

http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/plasma3.pdf

 M. Gockler and T, Schucker, ”Differential geometry, gauge theories and gravity”, Cambridge University Press, (1990) p.44-45.

 H. Bateman, Electrical and Optical Wave Motion, (Dover, New York, 1914, 1955) p.12.

 L. Brand, ”Vector and Tensor Analysis”, (Wiley NY, 1962) p. 150.

 Chern, S. S., ”A Simple intrinsic proof of the Gauss -Bonnet formula for Closed Riemannian Manifolds”, Annals of Math. 45, (1944), p. 747- 752. also see Chern, S.S. , ”Historical Remarks on Gauss-Bonnet”, MSRI 04808-88, Berkeley, CA (1988).

 R. M. Kiehn, Holder Norms (3D),

http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/holder3d.pdf

R. M. Kiehn, Holder Norms (4D),

http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/holder4d.pdf

R. M. Kiehn, Implicit surfaces,

http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/implinor.pdf

 R. M. Kiehn, Dissipation, Irreversibility and Symplectic Lagrangian Systems on Thermodynamic Space of Dimension 2n+2,

http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/irrev1.pdf

>