text:
# Magnetic effects on the viscous boundary layer damping of the r-modes in neutron stars

## I Introduction

Gravitational radiation emitted by the $`r`$-modes always tends to drive these modes unstable, while internal dissipation most likely completely suppresses this instablity in all stars except neutron stars  (see Lindblom  for a review). Understanding this instability in neutron stars is currently of great interest because unstable $`r`$-modes could emit gravitational radiation with an intensity that is detectable by gravitational-wave observatories, such as the proposed enhanced version of LIGO . A necessary step in determining the detectability of gravity waves from the $`r`$-modes is to find the critical angular velocity that triggers the onset of the instability as a function of temperature. This splits the problem into two temperature regimes: newborn hot young neutron stars , and cold old neutron stars spun up by accretion, such as in low-mass x-ray binary systems (LMXBs) . The reason for this split is that below approximately $`10^9\mathrm{K}`$, the interior of a neutron star is expected to contain regions of superfluid neutrons mixed with lower concentrations of superconducting protons and normal electrons . For fluid models, bulk viscosity is the dominant form of dissipation for $`T>10^9\mathrm{K}`$ ; while for $`T<10^9\mathrm{K}`$ shear viscosity dominates, and mutual friction due to electron scattering off quantized neutron vortices probably has little effect on the $`r`$-modes .

However, Bildsten and Ushomirsky  showed that when a solid crust is present, the shear dissipation in the viscous boundary layer (VBL) that forms at the crust-core interface is by far the most important suppression mechanism of the $`r`$-mode instability. Their work was extended by Andersson et al. , Rieutord , Levin and Ushomirsky , and Lindblom, Owen, and Ushomirsky . The state-of-the-art calculation now includes the effects of the Corelois force, angular structure, equation of state, and compressiblity on the VBL. However, magnetic effects on the neutron star VBL have not yet been published.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the effects of magnetic fields on the VBL in neutron stars and to investigate the VBL damping of the gravitational-radiation driven $`r`$-mode instability. Approximate solutions to the magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) equations valid in the VBL are found for ordinary-fluid neutron stars. Neutron stars are expected to form a solid crust for $`\rho 1.5\times 10^{14}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and for tempertures below an approximate melting temperature of $`T10^{10}\mathrm{K}`$ . Once the crust-core region cools below $`10^9\mathrm{K}`$ superfluid effects could become important. However, uncertainties exist in the quantum nature of the fluids, and it is possible either the protons, or the neutrons, or both fluids could be in the normal state at the location of the VBL (see Epstein  for a review of some of these uncertainties). Thus, this paper will focus on the case of an ordinary-fluid core. The crust is treated as a perfectly rigid, infinitely conducting solid.

In this paper, it is shown that magnetic fields above $`10^9`$ Gauss significantly change the structure of the VBL, and that magnetic fields decrease the VBL damping time. Furthermore, VBL damping completely suppresses the $`r`$-mode instability for $`B10^{12}\mathrm{Gauss}`$. Magnetic field strengths of hot young pulsars are typically similar to this lower bound. Cold old pulsars, however, tend to have fields less than $`10^{11}\mathrm{Gauss}`$. Thus, assuming interior fields are of a similar magnitude to external fields, magnetic fields will profoundly affect the VBL damping of the $`r`$-mode instability in hot young pulsars (that are cool enough to have formed a solid crust). One can speculate that magnetic fields can affect the VBL damping of this instability in LMXBs and other cold old pulsars (if they have sufficiently large internal fields). This possibility, and how superfluidity might effect it, are discussed further in the conclusion. Also, the results of long term magnetic evolution on the interior field need to be considered when applying the results in this paper . Finally, the complications associated with nonlinear magnetic effects, such as the azimuthal winding of field lines , should also be taken into account. Such effects are not likely to change the general conclusions presented here, though nonlinear effects are beyond the scope of this paper.

The next section reviews the MHD equations for neutron stars. Sec. III finds an approximate solution to the MHD equations valid in the VBL. Sec. IV discusses limits on the magnetic field and the VBL length scales. Sec. V presents the results of numerical calculations for the VBL damping times and the critical angular velocity for two models of the magnetic field. Checks on the self-consistency of the results are made at the ends of Secs. IV and V. Caveats about the approximations used to obtain the results are discussed, and comments on how this work could be extended, especially to include superfluid effects, are made in Sec. VI.

## II MHD Equations

The MHD equations for a mixture of superfluid neutrons, and ordinary-fluid protons and electrons were derived by Easson and Pethick . More recently, the MHD equations for a mixture of superfluid neutrons, type II superconducting protons, and ordinary-fluid electrons were derived by Mendell , based on the earlier work of Mendell and Lindblom , Mendell , and Lindblom and Mendell . To study the ordinary-fluid case, the ordinary-fluid limit of the equations in Mendell  is taken . In this limit, scattering between particles causes them to approximately flow as a single fluid. However, the presence of magnetic fields does allow small but finite electrical currents to exist. Thus, the relative velocity between the protons and electrons is not exactly zero, but nearly so. These currents are accounted for by the MHD approximation.

The ordinary-fluid limit of the equations is accomplished by defining the average velocity, $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, in terms of the mass densities and velocities of the neutron, $`\stackrel{}{v}_n`$, and the average velocity of the charged particles (the protons and electrons), $`\stackrel{}{u}`$, by

$`\rho \stackrel{}{v}=\rho _n\stackrel{}{v}_n+\rho _p\stackrel{}{u},`$ (1)
where $`\rho =\rho _n+\rho _p`$, and $`\rho _n`$ and $`\rho _p`$ are the mass densities of the neutrons and protons respectively. For simplicity, terms of order $`\rho _e/\rho _p`$ are ignored. The dynamic equation for $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is found by taking the equations in Mendell  for $`\stackrel{}{v}_n`$ and $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ and performing this averaging. Furthermore, ignoring small corrections due to electrical currents, it is a good approximation to replace the electron velocity with the average velocity in the resulting equations. Finally, quantized vortices do not occur in ordinary-fluids, and the forces associated with them are not included. Thus, for a star rotating uniformly in equilibrium with angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the equation for $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ for small perturbations can be written in the corotating frame as

$`_t\delta \stackrel{}{v}`$ $`+2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times \delta \stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{}\delta U`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{}{J}}{c}}\times \stackrel{}{B}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\stackrel{}{}(2\eta \delta \stackrel{}{\sigma }).`$
The only other independent vector degree of freedom in the MHD limit is the magnetic field, $`\stackrel{}{B}`$, given in the corotating frame by

$`_t\delta \stackrel{}{B}=\stackrel{}{}\times (\delta \stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{B}),`$ (4)
$`\stackrel{}{}\delta \stackrel{}{B}=0.`$ (5)
Equations (3)-(5) are the standard textbook MHD equations, except the major contribution to the mass density comes from the neutrons. Only the dominant dissipative effect due to the shear of the fluid, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$, is included. When magnetic diffusion is important, magnetic effects lead to Hartmann type boundary layers . However, note that Easson  calculates that the ratio of the magnetic diffusion time scale to the viscous diffusion time scale in a typical neutron star is roughly $`10^6(10^{10}\mathrm{K}/T)^4`$. Thus, the magnetic diffusion term has been ignored in Eq. (4). This means the magnetic effects on the VBL found here are quite different from the Hartmann case. Finally, note that $`\delta U=\delta p/\rho +\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$, where $`p`$ is the pressure and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the Newtonian gravitational potential (see  and references therein).

The MHD limit is valid for studies of oscillations with phase velocities much less than the speed of light, and frequencies much less than the plasma and cyclotron frequencies. Under these circumstances the above equations, along with the mass conservation laws and equations of state, completely determine the dynamics of the system. All the other vector fields of interest are determined in terms of $`\delta \stackrel{}{v}`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{}{B}`$. Specifically, for phase velocities much less than the speed of light, the displacement current can be ignored in Ampere’s law, and the current density is given by

$`\delta \stackrel{}{J}={\displaystyle \frac{c}{4\pi }}\stackrel{}{}\times \delta \stackrel{}{B}.`$ (6)
For an infinitely conducting crust, there will also be a surface current density at the crust-core interface, given by

$`\delta \stackrel{}{I}={\displaystyle \frac{c}{4\pi }}\left[\delta \stackrel{}{B}\times \widehat{r}\right]_{r=R_c},`$ (7)
where $`R_c`$ is the radius of the core. For finite constant conductivity, magnetic fields can diffuse into the crust via

$`_t\delta \stackrel{}{B}={\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{4\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }}}^2\delta \stackrel{}{B},`$ (8)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the conductivity. However, while Eq. (8) is not too difficult solve, in this paper it will only be necessary to use this equation to place bounds on the electron drift velocity and the rate of ohmic dissipation in the crust. Returning to the discusion of the quantities in the core, the equilibrium charge density is negligible (as is the perturbed charge density for frequencies much less than the plasma frequency), and thus the number densities of the electrons and protons are equal: $`n_e=n_p=\rho _p/m_p`$. Thus, the relative velocity between the protons and electrons is given by

$`\delta \stackrel{}{v}_p\delta \stackrel{}{v}_e={\displaystyle \frac{m_p}{e\rho _p}}\delta \stackrel{}{J}.`$ (9)
It will be shown near the end of Sec. IV that the fractional difference between the proton and electron velocity for the $`r`$-mode frequency is of the order $`10^{10}`$ for typical neutron numbers. This fact, along with the strong coupling between the protons and neutrons, justifies the approximation

$`\delta \stackrel{}{v}_e\delta \stackrel{}{v}_p\delta \stackrel{}{v}_n\delta \stackrel{}{v}.`$ (10)
Finally, when the above approximations hold and the conductivity is high, electrons (being the least massive charge carrier) respond to make the Lorentz force on them negligible. Thus, again ignoring small corrections due to the current density, the electric field is given by

$`\delta \stackrel{}{E}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{}{v}}{c}}\times \stackrel{}{B}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{c}}\times \delta \stackrel{}{B}.`$ (11)
## III Approximate Viscous Boundary Layer Solutions

Approximate solutions to the MHD equations are found in this section. The equilibrium magnetic field is assumed to be arbitrary (for now) except that it is static in the corotating frame, and it is restricted such that no equilibrium electrical currents exist. This implies the equilibrium structure of the star is unchanged by the presence of the magnetic field. To facilitate the manipulation of tensor quantites, a rotating spherical coordinate basis will be used, and indices will be raised and lowered using the metric tensor. In this basis, the equilibrium velocity is $`v^a=\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi ^a`$. Note that, following the notation of previous studies, Latin indices are space indices, except where it is understood that $`n`$, $`p`$, $`e`$, and $`c`$ refer to neutrons, protons, electrons, and the crust respectively.

Let $`\delta v^a`$ and $`\delta U`$ describe the nondissipative, lowest order (when expanded in powers of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$), $`r`$-mode solution ignoring magnetic fields. These solutions are valid in the bulk of the core where viscous and magnetic forces are small compared to the Coreolis force. However, because of viscosity, the no-slip boundary condition must be applied to the velocity at the crust-core interface. This causes a VBL to form. In the VBL, the magnitudes of the viscous, magnetic, and Coreolis forces become comparible. Thus, all these forces have effects on the structure of the VBL. Let $`\delta \stackrel{~}{v}^a`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{U}`$ describe the corrections that must be added to the standard r-mode solutions to enforce the no-slip boundary condition

$`\left[\delta v^a+\delta \stackrel{~}{v}^a\right]_{r=R_c}=0.`$ (12)
Finally, note that for the approximation of an infinitely conducting crust, the only boundary condition that must be applied to the magnetic field is that it gives the surface current density given by Eq. (7). The surface current density is small, and does not significantly change the no-slip boundary condition given by Eq. (12) (see near the end of Sec. IV). In this case, no magnetic diffusion takes place, and the details of what happens in the crust can be ignored.

It is possible to find approximate equations for the corrective quantities by taking the following steps. First, let all perturbed quantities in the corotating frame have time dependence $`\mathrm{exp}(i\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }t)`$. Second, note that since $`\delta v^r`$ vanishes everywhere, the boundary condition that the radial components of the velocity fields vanish at the crust-core boundary is satisfied if the radial component, $`\delta \stackrel{~}{v}^r`$, also vanishes. Finally, following the work of Lindblom, Owen, and Ushomirsky , and references therein, all angular derivatives of the corrective quantities are ignored. This is valid, since the no-slip boundary condition forces the corrective velocity to rapidly change in the radial direction. Thus, terms involving radial derivatives dominate all others. (For certain angles, certain caveats must be added to this statement. These angles are discussed in Secs. IV and VI.) Typically, the ratio of radial derivatives to angular derivatives is the ratio of the radius of the core to the boundary-layer thickness. Taking these steps, the resulting equations (expressed in a corotating spherical coordinate basis) are

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{B}^a={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}}B^r_r\delta \stackrel{~}{v}^a,`$ (13)
$`_r\delta \stackrel{~}{U}=i{\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{A}^2}{\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_r}{B}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^\theta }{B}}_r^2\delta \stackrel{~}{v}_\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{B^\varphi }{B}}_r^2\delta \stackrel{~}{v}_\varphi \right)`$ (14)
$`+2\mathrm{\Omega }r\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\varphi ,`$ (15)
$`i\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }\delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\theta 2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}\theta (\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\varphi )=_r^2\delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\theta ,`$ (16)
$`i\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\varphi )+2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}\theta \delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\theta =_r^2(\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\varphi ),`$ (17)
where

$`=i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{A}^2}{\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_r}{B}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{i\eta }{\rho }}\right].`$ (18)
In Eqs. (15) and (18) $`V_\mathrm{A}^2`$ is the square of the Alfvén wave speed, defined as

$`V_\mathrm{A}^2{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{4\pi \rho }},`$ (19)
and throughout this paper note that $`B=|\stackrel{}{B}|`$. Note that the magnetic effects on the VBL vanish if the radial component of the equilibrium field, $`B_r`$, vanishes. Also, Eq. (15) for the quantities $`\delta \stackrel{~}{U}`$ is included for completeness, but plays no further role in this paper. Finally, Mendell  has shown that Alfvén waves are replaced by cyclotron-vortex waves in a superfluid neutron, type II superconducting proton, ordinary-fluid electron plasma. Thus, it is possible to speculate on what happens when quantum fluids are present. This will be done in Sec. VI, where expected complications with the superconducting-superfluid case will also be discussed.

To find solutions to the equations, first note that the $`\varphi `$-component of the equations becomes identical to the $`\theta `$-component when

$`\pm i\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\varphi =\delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\theta .`$ (20)
The corrective boundary layer solution is then found by allowing all perturbative quantities to vary as $`\mathrm{exp}[ik(R_cr)]`$. It is then easy to show that solutions exist for

$`k_\pm =K_\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\frac{V_\mathrm{A}^2}{\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}\left(\frac{B_r}{B}\right)^2+\frac{i\eta }{\rho }}}},`$ (21)
where

$`K_\pm =\sqrt{\kappa \pm 2\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{s}\theta }.`$ (22)
Choosing solutions where $`\mathrm{Im}(k_\pm )0`$, so that the corrective quantities decay exponentially as $`r0`$, the general solution for the $`\theta `$-component of the velocity is

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\theta =[C_+e^{ik_+(R_cr)}+C_{}e^{ik_{}(R_cr)}]e^{i\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }t}.`$ (23)
The $`\varphi `$-component of velocities follows from Eq. (20).

If we apply the no-slip boundary condition given in Eq. (12) the constants $`C_\pm `$ are given by

$`C_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta v^\theta \pm i\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta v^\varphi ).`$ (24)
The components of the standard $`r`$-mode velocity in the corotating frame (with their time dependence cancelled) are

$`\delta v^\theta =iAr^{m1}\mathrm{sin}^{m1}\theta e^{im\varphi },`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta v^\varphi =Ar^{m1}\mathrm{sin}^{m1}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta e^{im\varphi }.`$ (26)
As shown in previous papers, the viscous damping rate is given by integrating the shear over the core:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _v}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2E}}{\displaystyle 2\eta \delta \sigma _{ab}^{}\delta \sigma ^{ab}d^3x},`$ (27)
where $`E`$ is the energy of the mode as defined in e.g., Lindblom, Mendell, and Owen , but limited to the core. The largest contribution to the integral comes from the radial derivatives of the corrective boundary layer velocity, so that

$`\delta \sigma _{ab}^{}\delta \sigma ^{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R_c^2(|_r\delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\theta |^2+|_r(\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\varphi )|^2),`$ (28)
ignoring terms smaller than these by a factor of the boundary layer thickness over the core radius. Thus, it can be shown that the solutions presented in this section give a VBL damping time of

$`\tau _v={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{m+3}(m+1)!}{m(2m+1)!!}}{\displaystyle _0^{R_c}}\rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{R_c}}\right)^{2m+2}𝑑r,`$ (29)
where

$`={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }[|k_+|^2d_+(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2`$ (30)
$`+|k_{}|^2d_{}(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2]\mathrm{sin}^{2m1}\theta d\theta d\varphi .`$ (31)
Using the definition

$`k_\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\lambda _\pm }}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{d_\pm }},`$ (32)
the boundary layer thicknesses in Eq. (31) and boundary layer oscillation wavelengths are defined by

$`\lambda _\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{Re}(k_\pm )}},`$ (33)
$`d_\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{Im}(k_\pm )}}.`$ (34)
The results given here then reduce to those given by Lindblom, Owen, and Ushomirsky  in the limit $`B0`$.

## IV Bounds on the magnetic field and boundary layer length scales

In this section, numerical estimates are made for the characteristic length scales that determine the properties of the VBL. A lower bound is placed on $`B`$, above which magnetic field effects are dominant. Towards these ends, let $`B_r=B`$ for this section.

The magnetic effects on the VBL are determined by examining Eq. (21). In this equation, if the magnetic term is larger than the viscous term, then magnetic effects on the VBL length scales will be important. Thus, the condition for this to happen is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{A}^2}{\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\rho }}.`$ (35)
Defining $`\rho _{1.5e14}=\rho /(1.5\times 10^{14}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3)`$, $`T_{10}=T/(10^{10}\mathrm{K})`$ (and so on for other numeric subscripts in cgs units thoughout the rest of this paper) the ordinary-fluid viscosity is given by

$`\eta =\left(2.73\times 10^{14}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{g}}{\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}}}\right)\rho _{1.5e14}^{9/4}T_{10}^2.`$ (36)
Using Eqs. (19) in Eq. (35) yields the following lower bound on the magnetic field, such that magnetic effects dominate the VBL properties:

$`B(4.6\times 10^9\mathrm{G})\kappa ^{1/2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{2000\pi }^{1/2}\rho _{1.5e14}^{9/8}T_{10}^1.`$ (37)
Note that hot young ordinary-fluid neutron stars have external fields much larger than the lower bound given above. Thus, magnetic fields will profoundly affect the VBLs in these stars if the internal fields are of a similar magnitude. Furthermore, note that the range of values of $`B`$ in LMXBs probably lie on either side of the lower bound given above. Thus, it is uncertain to what extent magnetic effects on the VBL are important in these stars or other cold old pulsars with weak magnetic fields. Further complications with interpreting the results presented here in cold old pulsars occur due to the likelyhood that the protons and neutrons condense into superconducting and superfluid states. It has already been pointed out that Alfvén waves are replaced by cyclotron-vortex waves in that case . More is said about how this might change the results in this paper for cold old pulsars in Sec. VI.

The characteristic length scales of the VBL are determined by examining Eq. (21) and the definitions of the length scales given in Eqs. (33) and (34). Dropping the “$`\pm `$” symbol for the purposes of this discussion, since the VBL damping rate is controlled by terms of the form $`\eta |k|^2d=\eta (4\pi /\lambda ^2+1/d^2)d`$, it would seem that the smallest length scales would determine the VBL damping rate. However, the ratio $`d/\lambda `$ turns out to be more important when magnetic effects are important. This point will be elaborated on in the next section. Also, only real frequencies, $`\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }`$, will be considered. This is valid either when the system is driven at a real frequency, or when the imaginary part of the frequency is small and can be ignored, except near certain special angles. The latter situation is the case for the r-modes and most other neutron star oscillations of interest. In this case, the coefficient $`K_\pm `$ is either purely real or purely imaginary depending on the angle $`\theta `$. The more complicated case that occurs near the special angles already mentioned is discussed at the end of this section and in Sec. VI. Also, to further simplify the discussion, it will always be assumed that $`\kappa >0`$.

Taylor expanding Eq. (21) for the case when $`B`$ is less than the lower bound given in Eq. (37), the viscous term dominates, and the boundary layer thicknesses and wavelengths are given to lowest order by

$`d_\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\eta }{2\pi }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|K_\pm |}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{\mathrm{\Omega }\rho }}}.`$ (38)
For typical neutron star numbers these length scales are

$`d_\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\eta }{2\pi }}={\displaystyle \frac{0.024\mathrm{cm}}{|K_\pm |}}\rho _{1.5e14}^{5/8}T_{10}^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{2000\pi }^{1/2}.`$ (39)
These equations agree in form with the standard result, but differ from previous results by numerical factors of order unity that are incorporated into $`|K_\pm |`$.

Taylor expanding Eq. (21) for the case when $`B`$ is greater than the lower bound given in Eq. (37), the magnetic terms dominate, and the wave number is given by

$`k_\pm =K_\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }^2}{V_\mathrm{A}^2}}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}{V_\mathrm{A}^2}}\right].`$ (40)
The problem now divides in two cases corresponding to when $`K_\pm `$ is real and imaginary respectively.

For the case of real $`K_\pm `$, the boundary layer length scales are given to lowest order by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _B}{2\pi }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|K_\pm |\kappa ^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{A}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}},`$ (41)
$`d_{B/\eta }={\displaystyle \frac{2}{|K_\pm |\kappa ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{A}^3\rho }{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\eta }}.`$ (42)
The subscripts indicate whether these quanties depend on purely magnetic, or a ratio of magnetic to viscous quantities. Substituting in values for the parameters gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _B}{2\pi }}={\displaystyle \frac{0.017\mathrm{cm}}{|K_\pm |\kappa ^{1/2}}}B_{4.6e9}\mathrm{\Omega }_{2000\pi }^1\rho _{1.5e14}^{1/2},`$ (43)
$`d_{B/\eta }={\displaystyle \frac{0.033\mathrm{cm}}{|K_\pm |\kappa ^{3/2}}}B_{4.6e9}^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{2000\pi }^2\rho _{1.5e14}^{11/4}T_{10}^2.`$ (44)
Obviously $`\lambda _B`$ and $`d_{B/\eta }`$ do not appear much different from what is given in Eq. (39) for the limiting field of $`B=4.6\times 10^9\mathrm{Gauss}`$. However, for a typical $`10^{12}\mathrm{Gauss}`$ field

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _B}{2\pi }}={\displaystyle \frac{3.7\mathrm{cm}}{|K_\pm |\kappa ^{1/2}}}B_{12}\mathrm{\Omega }_{2000\pi }^1\rho _{1.5e14}^{1/2},`$ (45)
$`d_{B/\eta }={\displaystyle \frac{3.4\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}}{|K_\pm |\kappa ^{3/2}}}B_{12}^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{2000\pi }^2\rho _{1.5e14}^{11/4}T_{10}^2.`$ (46)
Note that in Eq. (46) the boundary layer thickness is approaching $`30\%`$ the size of the star. Thus, the approximation that $`d/R_c`$ is small becomes less valid as the size of $`B`$ increases. For the case of imaginary $`K_\pm `$, the roles of $`\lambda `$ and $`d`$ become interchanged. Thus, for this case, the results are the same as for Eqs. (41) - (46) with

$`d{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2\pi }},`$ (47)
$`\lambda 2\pi d.`$ (48)
Two checks on the self-consistency of the solution can now be made. First, it can be shown that for the length scales presented here that the fractional difference between the proton and electron velocities is neglibible in the VBL, as has been assumed. Substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (6) and the result into Eq. (9) gives

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{v}_p^a\delta \stackrel{~}{v}_e^a=i\left({\displaystyle \frac{eB_r}{m_pc}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_p^2c^2k^2}{4\pi \kappa \mathrm{\Omega }\rho _pe^2}}\right)`$ (49)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\varphi ^a\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\varphi \theta ^a\right),`$ (50)
which for typical neutron star numbers gives

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{v}_p^a\delta \stackrel{~}{v}_e^a=i{\displaystyle \frac{[(1.3\times 10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^2)k^2]B_{12}}{\kappa \rho _{p13}\mathrm{\Omega }_{2000\pi }}}`$ (51)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{B_r}{B}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\varphi ^a\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta \stackrel{~}{v}^\varphi \theta ^a\right).`$ (52)
Thus, the fractional difference between these velocities is small as long as $`(10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^2)k^21`$, which is true for the length scales presented in this section. Second, at the boundary the electrons can slip to produce the surface current density given by Eq. (7). The surface current will actually be spread out over a thickness equal to the skin-depth, $`\zeta `$, that the magnetic field penetrates the crust. Examining Eq. (8), it can be seen that for the $`r`$-modes that $`\zeta `$ is given by

$`\zeta =\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{2\pi \kappa \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}.`$ (53)
The conductivity, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is given by ,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\times 10^{25}\mathrm{s}^1\rho _{p13}^{3/2}T_{10}^2,`$ (54)
and thus,

$`\zeta ={\displaystyle \frac{3.4\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}}{\sqrt{\kappa }}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{2000\pi }^{1/2}\rho _{p13}^{3/4}T_{10}.`$ (55)
Within the skin-depth region of the crust $`\delta \stackrel{~}{v}_e^a=(m_p/e\rho _p)\delta \stackrel{~}{J}^a`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{J}^a\delta \stackrel{~}{I}^a/\zeta `$ . Thus, the electron contribution to the average velocity at $`r=R_c`$, which is $`(\rho _e/\rho )\delta \stackrel{~}{v}_e^a`$, is negligible as long as $`(10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^2)(\rho _e/\rho )(k/\zeta )1`$, which also holds true for the length scales presented here. Ohmic dissipation within the skin-depth region is considered at the end of the next section, once the dominant VBL length scales are determined.

Finally, consider the special case that occurs near certain special angles, defined by

$`\kappa \pm 2\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{s}X_\pm =0.`$ (56)
For regions of the crust-core boundary where $`\theta `$ is near $`X_\pm `$, the small imaginary part of $`\kappa `$ becomes important. To understand this, make the replacement $`\kappa \kappa +i/(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _v)`$, and note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _v1`$ for the situations of interest. In this case, for $`\theta =X_\pm `$ the angular derivative $`k_\pm /\theta `$ becomes proportional to $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _v/i}`$, which is large (and infinite at $`X_\pm `$ when the imaginary part of $`\kappa `$ is ignored). However, these regions make little contribution to the VBL damping rate, since $`|k|^2d1/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _v}`$ is small near $`X_\pm `$. Thus corrections to the solutions near $`\theta =X_\pm `$ are not made in this paper, nor have they been made in previous studies.

## V Boundary Layer Damping Times and the Critical Angular Velocity

As shown in previous studies, gravitational radiation emitted by the r-modes always tends to drive these modes unstable. Of primary interest to this study is how magnetic fields change the onset of the instability of the r-modes via their effect on the VBL damping rate. Since the VBL damping rate dominates all other forms of dissipation, the onset occurs when this rate equals the gravitational-radiation growth rate. Thus, we can calculate the critical angular velocity for the onset of the gravitational-radiation instability by solving

$`\tau _v=\tau _{GR},`$ (57)
where $`\tau _v`$ is given by Eq. (29). It has been shown that $`\tau _{GR}`$ for the $`r`$-modes is given by

$`\tau _{GR}=\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{GR}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_o}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)^{2m+2},`$ (58)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o=\sqrt{\pi G\overline{\rho }}`$, and $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the average density of the star.

Attention is now restricted to the case used in previous studies: the $`m=2`$ r-mode for a $`1.4M_{}`$ $`n=1`$ polytrope, as described in, e.g., Lindblom, Owen, and Mendell , and Lindblom and Mendell . Adoption of this model allows easy comparison with previous studies. (Note also that the $`m=2`$ case is the most susceptible to the $`r`$-mode instability.) For this case, $`\kappa _0=2/3`$, the stellar radius is $`12.53\mathrm{km}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o=8413\mathrm{s}^1`$. Note that the maximum angular velocity, where mass shedding occurs at the equator, is roughly $`2\mathrm{\Omega }_o/3`$ (for any equation of state). The density at the crust-core boundary is given approximately by $`1.5\times 10^{14}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$ (see ). Using this density, the characteristic gravitational-radiation growth time is $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{GR}=4.25\mathrm{s}`$ , and the core radius is $`R_c=11.01\mathrm{km}`$. The viscosity is given in Eq. (36).

Two models of the magnetic field will be considered. For both models the overall magnitude of the equilibrium magnetic field, $`B`$, is taken to be a constant in the boundary layer. The models are defined by

$`\mathrm{Model}\mathrm{I}B_r=B=\mathrm{constant},`$ (59)
$`\mathrm{Model}\mathrm{II}B_r=B\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta },`$ (60)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the angle between the magnetic axis and the vector to the point $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$. This is given in terms of the location of this point by

$`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi +\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (61)
where the magnetic axis is chosen to lie in the $`xz`$ plane of the corotating frame, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the angle between this axis and the rotation axis. Note that the $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ components of the magnetic field cannot be zero for Model II if $`B`$ is constant. However, these components do not enter into the effects on the VBL.

Now note that the VBL damping time, $`\tau _v`$, is a function of the temperature, angular velocity, and magnetic field, but in general the dependence on these quantities cannot be factored out of Eq. (29) as they have been in previous studies (but see towards the end of this section). Still, one can numerically evaluate $`\tau _v`$ for various temperatures and models of the magnetic field. The results are presented in Table I for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_o`$. Note that the values of $`\tau _v`$ agree with the results of Lindblom, Owen, and Ushomirsky  in the $`B=0`$ case.

The temperature dependence of the critical angular velocity is presented in Figs. 1-3. In these figures, the horizontal dashed line corresponds to $`2\mathrm{\Omega }_o/3`$, which is the approximate maximum angular velocity for which mass-shedding occurs. Thus, the regions above this line are unphysical and are kept only to illustrate the dependence of the curves for the range of magnetic field magnitudes typically found in neutron stars. Also, the curves probably only apply for $`T>10^9\mathrm{K}`$, since only ordinary-fluid neutron stars are considered in this paper. They have been extended below this value to make comparison with other studies easier. This also makes allowances for uncertainties in the superfluid transition temperature at the crust-core boundary.

Figure 1 shows the temperature dependence of the critical angular velocities for Model I. Figure 2 shows a similar result for Model II when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\pi /2`$. Figure 3 compares the $`B=0`$ case with the Model I and Model II ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`\pi /2`$) $`B=10^{11}\mathrm{Gauss}`$ cases. (Results for other values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fall between the two Model II curves shown.) As would be expected, the angular dependence of the magnetic field for Model II reduces the overall effect of the magnetic field on the critical angular velocity, as compared with Model I. Overall, it is seen that for magnetic fields $`B10^{12}\mathrm{Gauss}`$ that the $`r`$-mode instability is completely suppressed in ordinary-fluid neutron stars.

Note that the critical angular velocity becomes temperature independent for high temperatures. This can be understood by considering the length scales from the last section. It is apparent that for large $`B`$ that the VBL damping rate varies as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _v}}\eta |k|^2d\eta {\displaystyle \frac{d_{B/\eta }}{\lambda _B^2}},`$ (62)
which implies for large $`B`$ that $`\tau _v`$ scales as

$`\tau _v=16.10\mathrm{s}B_{12}^1,`$ (63)
independent of temperature or angular velocity \[see Eqs. (36), (43)-(44)\]. The constant of proportionality was found by fitting the data in the table for Model I. Substituting this equation into Eq. (57) and using Eq. (58) gives the following results for Model I critical angular velocities

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_c}{\mathrm{\Omega }_o}}=0.80B_{12}^{1/6}.`$ (64)
The Model II result is identical to this, but with a coeffient of 0.72. This equation gives the exact numerical results for the regions where the critical angular velocity curves flatten out.

Thus, the temperature independence of the critical angular velocity for high fields is completely explained by the length-scale analysis done here. However, before accepting this result, one needs to check that the small imaginary part of the frequency does not significantly alter it, since the imaginary part of $`k_\pm `$ is also becoming small when the above equation holds true. Consider the replacement $`\kappa \kappa +i/(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _v)`$ in Eq. (40): the imaginary part of $`\kappa `$ can be ignored as long as

$`\tau _v>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{A}^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}.`$ (65)
Thus, the results presented here are self-consistent for

$`\tau _v>(9.3\mathrm{s})B_{12}^2T_{10}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_o}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)^2.`$ (66)
Finally, now that $`d_{B/\eta }`$ is seen as the relevant thickness of the VBL when magnetic fields are important, one can check that the ohmic dissipation rate within the skin-depth region of the crust is smaller than the shear dissipation rate within the VBL. Note that the ohmic disspipation rate scales as $`(\zeta /\mathrm{\Gamma })|\delta \stackrel{~}{J}|^2`$. For finite conductivity, the magnetic field at the boundary is continuous, and thus the derivative of the magnetic field in the crust, which gives the current, is proportional to $`(c/4\pi )\delta \stackrel{~}{B}/\zeta `$. Thus, the ohmic dissipation rate scales as $`[1/(\zeta \mathrm{\Gamma })]|c\delta \stackrel{~}{B}/(4\pi )|^2`$, and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{B}[Bk/(\kappa \mathrm{\Omega })]\delta \stackrel{~}{v}`$. On the other hand, the shear dissipation rate in the VBL scales as $`\eta |k\delta \stackrel{~}{v}|^2d_{B/\eta }`$. Substituting in typical numbers, the ratio of the ohmic to shear dissipation rates is $`10^6B_{12}^1T_{10}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Omega }_o}`$ \[see Eqs. (36), (46),(53)-(55)\], which justifies the neglect of ohmic dissipation in this paper.

## VI Conclusions

While perhaps not obvious at first, it should now be clear why the results found in this paper hold true. It has been shown that magnetic fields increase the thickness of the VBL, which would tend to increase the VBL damping time. However, vibrations of the magnetic field lines, corresponding to Alfvén waves, produce a larger shear than one would expect due to the VBL thickness alone. The wavelength of these vibrations is the distance the Alfvén waves travel in one period of the r-mode oscillation. This is a longer distance than viscous diffusion can travel in the same amount of time. Thus, the shear is smaller than when the magnetic field is zero, but because the VBL thickness is increased, the shear acts over a larger volume. The net result is that magnetic fields decrease the VBL damping time.

Before concluding this paper, some caveats need to be made about the validity of the approximations made in this paper. First, the assumption that angular derivatives are small needs some further comment. The last figure show the integrand that gives $``$ for $`\varphi =0`$ for two cases. This integrand determines the VLB damping rate. For the model used in the last section, the special angles discussed in Sec. IV, in radians, are located at $`X_{}=1.23`$ and $`X_+=1.91`$. It can be seen that the approximation that angular derivatives are small breaks down near $`X_\pm `$. However, correcting this should not greatly affect the results in this paper, since these regions make small contributions the VBL damping rate. However, future studies could consider correcting for the angular behavior near $`X_\pm `$. Second, future studies could consider cases where the imaginary part of the frequency influences the structure of the VBL, as when the bound in Eq. (66) is violated. Third, as noted after Eq. (46), the approximation $`d/R_c1`$ breaks down for $`B10^{12}\mathrm{Gauss}`$. Future studies could consider extending the results presented here to the case of fields larger than this bound. More importantly, future studies should explore the superconducting-superfluid case. Mendell  has shown that Alfvén waves are replaced by cyclotron-vortex waves in a superfluid neutron, type II superconducting proton, ordinary-fluid electron plasma. Since the square of cyclotron-vortex wave velocity scales linearly with $`B`$, one would speculate that the results for superfluid neutron stars would be similar to those presented in Eqs. (63) and (64) but with $`\tau _vB^{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c/\mathrm{\Omega }_oB^{1/12}`$, for large $`B`$. However, there are complications with applying the no-slip boundary condition when both the neutrons and protons form inviscid quantum condensates. In this case, in principle, both the neutrons and protons can slip at the crust-core boundary. The electrons can slip as well, since the crust is conducting. Instead, the boundary conditions are determined by pinning effects. In the strong pinning limit neither the neutrons or the protons can slip at the boundary. The pinning of proton vortices between neutron vortices, the possible expulsion of proton vortices during the spindown phase of a pulsar, and mutual friction effects due to the scattering of electrons off quantized neutron and proton vortices, are further effects that need to be considered. Thus, future work on the correct boundary conditions is needed before the superfluid case can be worked out.

In conclusion, this paper has shown that magnetic fields profoundly affect the VBL in neutron stars. Note that this paper treated the crust as perfectly rigid, while crustal motion increases the VBL damping rate by a factor between $`1`$ and $`400`$ . Thus, one should treat the results presented here as upper bounds on the critical angular velocity. (However, other effects not yet considered, like turbulance, could again increase the critical angular velocity.) Still, it is clear that magnetic fields of the magnitude typically found in neutron stars can substantially shorten the VBL damping time and, if sufficiently large, can suppress the $`r`$-mode instability.

###### Acknowledgements.

I wish to thank L. Lindblom for helpful discussions concerning this work. This research was supported by NSF grant PHY-9900767.


format: text

text:
# The Movable Fan of the Horrocks–Mumford Quintic

### Terminology: the movable fan

A *convex cone* in a real vector space is a convex subset closed under multiplication by positive real scalars.

For a normal complex projective variety $`X`$, we say that two divisors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ on $`X`$ are *$``$-algebraically equivalent* if some non-zero multiple of $`(D_1D_2)`$ is algebraically equivalent to $`0`$. For Cartier divisors, this is the same as numerical equivalence. We define

$$\stackrel{~}{N}^1(X)=\{\text{divisors on }X\text{, modulo }\text{-algebraic equivalence}\},$$

a finite-dimensional real vector space, and write $`N^1(X)`$ for the subspace generated by Cartier divisors. Intersection with a curve in $`X`$ gives a linear form on $`N^1(X)`$, but this does not extend naturally to a linear form on $`\stackrel{~}{N}^1(X)`$.

The *nef cone* of $`X`$, written $`\overline{𝒜\mathrm{mp}}(X)`$, is the closed convex cone in $`N^1(X)`$ consisting of all Cartier $``$-divisors that have non-negative intersection with every curve in $`X`$. It spans the space $`N^1(X)`$, and its relative interior is the *ample cone*, $`𝒜\mathrm{mp}(X)`$, the convex cone generated by ample divisors.

A divisor on $`X`$ is said to be *movable* if it is effective and moves in a linear system whose base locus is of codimension at least $`2`$. The *movable cone* of $`X`$, written $`\mathrm{ov}_+(X)`$, is the convex hull of the set of movable divisors on $`X`$; it is also a convex cone, which spans $`\stackrel{~}{N}^1(X)`$, and its interior, written $`\mathrm{ov}(X)`$, contains $`𝒜\mathrm{mp}(X)`$.

If $`Y`$ is another normal projective variety, a birational equivalence between $`X`$ and $`Y`$ is called an *isomorphism in codimension $`1`$* if it gives an isomorphism between open subsets of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ whose complements are of codimension at least $`2`$. Such a map gives an isomorphism of the divisor spaces $`\stackrel{~}{N}^1(X)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}^1(Y)`$. Under this isomorphism, $`\mathrm{ov}_+(X)`$ is carried to $`\mathrm{ov}_+(Y)`$, but $`𝒜\mathrm{mp}(X)`$ and $`𝒜\mathrm{mp}(Y)`$ coincide only if the birational equivalence is a biregular isomorphism, and are otherwise disjoint. For Calabi–Yau threefolds, it is known (from the existence and termination of flops: see ) that the ample cones of all codimension $`1`$ isomorphic models of $`X`$ form a locally finite disjoint cover of $`\mathrm{ov}(X)`$. This arrangement of ample cones of various dimensions covering the single movable cone is called the *movable fan*.

## 1. Horrocks–Mumford quintics

In this section we review the definitions and basic properties of the Horrocks–Mumford quintics. See , , and  for more details of these constructions.

We recall  that the *HorrocksMumford bundle*, $``$, is a rank-$`2`$ vector bundle on $`^4`$, of degree $`5`$. A generic section of $``$ vanishes on an Abelian surface, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }()`$ is $`4`$-dimensional.

If $`s`$ is a non-zero section of $``$, and $`p=[s]`$ the corresponding point in $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }())`$, we will write $`A_p`$ for the zero locus of $`s`$.

###### Definition.

Let $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ be two linearly independent sections of $``$. Then $`s_1s_2`$ is a non-zero section of $`^2𝒪(5)`$, and its zero-locus is a quintic threefold $`V`$; we call such a threefold a *HorrocksMumford quintic*, or an *HM quintic*.

The threefold $`V`$ is determined by the line $`L`$ through the two points $`[s_1]`$ and $`[s_2]`$ in $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }())`$, and is covered by the pencil of surfaces $`\{A_ppL\}`$, giving a rational map $`V-L`$. We can resolve the indeterminacy of this rational map by taking

$$\stackrel{~}{V}=\{(x,p)V\times LxA_p\}.$$
(1)
In \[5, §5\], it is shown that the fivefold

$$Z\text{:}=\{(x,p)^4\times (\mathrm{\Gamma }())xA_p\}$$

is non-singular. If $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ are two planes in $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }())`$ such that $`L=P_1P_2`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{V}=Z(^4\times P_1)(^4\times P_2)`$, and by Bertini’s theorem, this is non-singular for generic $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$, so $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is non-singular for generic $`L`$.

If $`xV`$, then the projection $`\stackrel{~}{V}V`$ is an isomorphism at $`x`$ unless both $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ vanish at $`x`$, in which case $`\{x\}\times L\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is a rational curve contracted by the projection. Thus the singular locus of $`V`$ is $`A_{[s_1]}A_{[s_2]}`$, which for generic $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ consists of $`100`$ nodes.

###### Definition.

Let $`ϵ=e^{2\pi i/5}`$, and define three elements of $`\mathrm{SL}_5`$ by

$$(\sigma x)_i=x_{i+1},(\tau x)_i=ϵ^ix_i,(\iota x)_i=x_i.$$

The *Heisenberg group* $`H_5`$ is the group of order $`125`$ generated by $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$.

The centre of $`H_5`$ is $`\mu _5`$, the group of $`5`$th roots of $`1`$, and $`H_5/\mu _5_5^2`$. Recall from  that the action of $`H_5,\iota `$ on $`^4`$ preserves each surface $`A_p`$, and so preserves $`V`$ and can be lifted to an action on $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$. Since $`\mu _5`$ acts trivially on $`^4`$, the $`100`$ nodes of $`V`$ form $`4`$ $`H_5`$-orbits of $`25`$ points, which pair up into $`2`$ $`H_5,\iota `$-orbits of $`50`$ points.

## 2. Determinantal quintics

This section considers determinantal quintics, of which Horrocks–Mumford quintics are a special case.

Let $`(a_{ijk})`$ be complex numbers, for $`i,j,k_5`$, and consider the matrix of linear forms

$$M_{ij}(x)=\underset{k}{}a_{ijk}x_k.$$

If $`detM(x)`$ does not vanish identically, the equation $`detM(x)=0`$ defines a quintic threefold $`W`$ in $`^4`$. Say that $`M`$ is *nice* if $`W`$ is regular in codimension $`1`$, $`\mathrm{rank}M(x)3`$ everywhere, and $`\mathrm{rank}M(x)=4`$ at all but finitely many points of $`W`$.

Let

$$X=\{(x,y)^4\times ^4i,\underset{j,k}{}a_{ijk}x_ky_j=0\}.$$

The projection $`\pi _1`$ takes $`X`$ to $`W`$, with $`\pi _1^1\{x\}=\{x\}\times (\mathrm{ker}M(x))`$, so if $`M`$ is nice, $`\pi _1`$ is a birational morphism, contracting finitely many rational curves on $`X`$.

We can construct two more matrices of linear forms from $`(a_{ijk})`$:

$$M_{ij}^{}(x)=\underset{k}{}a_{jki}x_k,$$

$$M_{ij}^{\prime \prime }(x)=\underset{k}{}a_{kij}x_k,$$

and the corresponding threefolds $`W^{}`$, $`X^{}`$, $`W^{\prime \prime }`$, and $`X^{\prime \prime }`$. Note that $`W^{}`$ is the image of $`X`$ under the other projection $`\pi _2`$; if $`M^{}`$ and $`M^{\prime \prime }`$ are also nice, we get a sequence of birational maps, all isomorphisms in codimension $`1`$:

XXX′′π1π2π1π2π1π2W

-
-
ϕW

-
-
ϕW′′

-
-
ϕ′′W\begin{array}[]{c*{12}{c@{}}cc}&&&X&&&&X^{\prime}&&&&X^{\prime\prime}&&&\\
\cdots&&\!\!{}^{\pi_{1}}\!\!\swarrow&&\searrow\!\!{}^{\pi_{2}}\!\!&&\!\!{}^{\pi_{1}}\!\!\swarrow&&\searrow\!\!{}^{\pi_{2}}\!\!&&\!\!{}^{\pi_{1}}\!\!\swarrow&&\searrow\!\!{}^{\pi_{2}}\!\!&&\cdots\\
&W&&\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\phi}}{{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}}&&W^{\prime}&&\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\phi^{\prime}}}{{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}}&&W^{\prime\prime}&&\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\phi^{\prime\prime}}}{{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}}&&W&\end{array} (2)
Let $`H`$, $`H^{}`$, and $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ be hyperplane sections of $`W`$, $`W^{}`$, and $`W^{\prime \prime }`$ respectively. We can define an infinite sequence of divisors on $`W`$:

$`\mathrm{}`$
$`D_2`$ $`=\varphi _{}^{\prime \prime }\varphi _{}^{}H^{}`$
$`D_1`$ $`=\varphi _{}^{\prime \prime }H^{\prime \prime }`$
$`D_0`$ $`=H`$
$`D_1`$ $`=\varphi ^{}H^{}`$
$`D_2`$ $`=\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}H^{\prime \prime }`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
###### Lemma 1.

For any $`i`$, the divisor $`D_{i1}+D_{i+1}`$ is linearly equivalent to $`4D_i`$. All the divisors $`\pi _1^{}D_i`$ on $`X`$ are Cartier. The cone in $`N^1(X)`$ generated by $`\pi _1^{}D_i`$ and $`\pi _1^{}D_{i+1}`$ is the nef cone of a marked model of $`X`$, isomorphic to $`X`$, $`X^{}`$, or $`X^{\prime \prime }`$ (according to the value of $`i`$ modulo $`3`$).

###### Proof.

(Here $``$ denotes linear equivalence.) In \[3, p. 24\], it is shown that $`D_1+D_1`$ (there called $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$) is the intersection of $`W`$ with a quartic. Therefore $`D_1+D_14H=4D_0`$. Applying the same result at other points in the sequence (2) gives $`D_{i1}+D_{i+1}4D_i`$ for all $`i`$.

Since $`\pi _1^{}D_0=\pi _1^{}H`$ and $`\pi _1^{}D_1=\pi _2^{}H^{}`$ are Cartier, this equation then implies that $`\pi _1^{}D_i`$ is Cartier for all $`i`$.

$`\pi _1^{}H`$ and $`\pi _2^{}H^{}`$ generate the nef cone of $`X`$; again, we can translate this along the sequence (2) to give the last statement of the theorem. ∎

Solving the difference equation $`D_{i1}4D_i+D_{i+1}=0`$, we get

$$D_i=\frac{1}{2}\left(D_0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(D_12D_0)\right)(2+\sqrt{3})^i+\frac{1}{2}\left(D_0\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(D_12D_0)\right)(2\sqrt{3})^i,$$

so the limits of the rays generated by $`D_i`$ as $`i\pm \mathrm{}`$ are generated by $`D_0\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(D_12D_0)`$; these rays then constitute the boundary of $`\overline{\mathrm{ov}}(X)N^1(X)`$. (For generic $`M`$, $`X`$ is smooth, so $`N^1(X)=\stackrel{~}{N}^1(X)`$ and these rays are the boundary of $`\overline{\mathrm{ov}}(X)`$.)

Now let $`y^5`$, and consider the matrix $`M_y`$, where

$$(M_y)_{i,j}(x)=x_{i+j}y_{ij},i,j_5,$$

and the corresponding varieties and maps

Wy

-
-
ϕyWy

-
-
ϕyWy′′

-
-
ϕy′′Wy.superscript

-
-
subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑦subscript𝑊𝑦subscriptsuperscript𝑊𝑦superscript

-
-
subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϕ𝑦subscriptsuperscript𝑊′′𝑦superscript

-
-
subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϕ′′𝑦subscript𝑊𝑦\cdots W_{y}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\phi_{y}}}{{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}}W^{\prime}_{y}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\phi^{\prime}_{y}}}{{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}}W^{\prime\prime}_{y}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\phi^{\prime\prime}_{y}}}{{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}}W_{y}\cdots. (3)
Because $`M_y^T=M_{\iota y}`$, this sequence can also be written as

Wιy

-
-
ϕιy′′Wιy′′

-
-
ϕιyWιy

-
-
ϕιyWιy.subscript

-
-
subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϕ′′𝜄𝑦subscript𝑊𝜄𝑦subscriptsuperscript𝑊′′𝜄𝑦subscript

-
-
subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϕ𝜄𝑦subscriptsuperscript𝑊𝜄𝑦subscript

-
-
subscriptitalic-ϕ𝜄𝑦subscript𝑊𝜄𝑦\cdots W_{\iota y}\mathrel{\mathop{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}\limits_{\phi^{\prime\prime}_{\iota y}}}W^{\prime\prime}_{\iota y}\mathrel{\mathop{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}\limits_{\phi^{\prime}_{\iota y}}}W^{\prime}_{\iota y}\mathrel{\mathop{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}\limits_{\phi_{\iota y}}}W_{\iota y}\cdots. (4)
From \[3, attributed there to R. Moore\] we see that, if $`V`$ is a sufficiently general HM quintic, and $`y`$ is any node of $`V`$, then $`V=W_y`$; also that there is an automorphism of the space of HM quintics, $`\beta `$, such that $`\beta V=W_y^{}`$.

Therefore, (3) and (4) can also be written as

V

-
-
ϕιy′′ϕyβV

-
-
ϕιyϕyβV

-
-
ϕιyϕy′′V.subscriptsuperscript

-
-
subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑦subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϕ′′𝜄𝑦𝑉𝛽𝑉subscriptsuperscript

-
-
subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϕ𝑦subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϕ𝜄𝑦𝛽𝑉subscriptsuperscript

-
-
subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϕ′′𝑦subscriptitalic-ϕ𝜄𝑦𝑉\cdots V\mathrel{\mathop{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}\limits^{\phi_{y}}_{\phi^{\prime\prime}_{\iota y}}}\beta V\mathrel{\mathop{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}\limits^{\phi^{\prime}_{y}}_{\phi^{\prime}_{\iota y}}}\beta V\mathrel{\mathop{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}\limits^{\phi^{\prime\prime}_{y}}_{\phi_{\iota y}}}V\cdots. (5)
## 3. The small resolutions of $`V`$

From now on all threefolds we consider will be isomorphic in codimension $`1`$ to a fixed sufficiently general HM quintic $`V`$. We can therefore identify corresponding divisors in any two of these threefolds. Any such divisor determines a point in the real vector space $`N=\stackrel{~}{N}^1(V)=N^1(\stackrel{~}{V})`$.

Choose representatives $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_4`$ (respectively, $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_4`$) of the four $`H_5`$-orbits of nodes of $`V`$ (respectively, of $`\beta ^1V`$), such that $`\iota y_1=y_3`$, $`\iota y_2=y_4`$, $`\iota z_1=z_3`$, and $`\iota z_2=z_4`$. Then $`V`$ fits into six different sequences of the form (5):

βV

-
-
ϕιyiϕyi′′V

-
-
ϕιyi′′ϕyiβV,i=1,2;formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript

-
-
subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϕ′′subscript𝑦𝑖subscriptitalic-ϕ𝜄subscript𝑦𝑖𝛽𝑉𝑉subscriptsuperscript

-
-
subscriptitalic-ϕsubscript𝑦𝑖subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϕ′′𝜄subscript𝑦𝑖𝛽𝑉𝑖12\displaystyle\cdots\beta V\mathrel{\mathop{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}\limits^{\phi^{\prime\prime}_{y_{i}}}_{\phi_{\iota y_{i}}}}V\mathrel{\mathop{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}\limits^{\phi_{y_{i}}}_{\phi^{\prime\prime}_{\iota y_{i}}}}\beta V\cdots,\quad i=1,2;
β1V

-
-
ϕιzi′′ϕziV

-
-
ϕιziϕziV,i=1,,4.formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript

-
-
subscriptitalic-ϕsubscript𝑧𝑖subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϕ′′𝜄subscript𝑧𝑖superscript𝛽1𝑉𝑉subscriptsuperscript

-
-
subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϕsubscript𝑧𝑖subscriptsuperscriptitalic-ϕ𝜄subscript𝑧𝑖𝑉𝑖14\displaystyle\cdots\beta^{-1}V\mathrel{\mathop{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}\limits^{\phi_{z_{i}}}_{\phi^{\prime\prime}_{\iota z_{i}}}}V\mathrel{\mathop{\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$\mathrel{\relbar\!\>\to}$}\hbox{$\mathrel{\leftarrow\!\>\relbar}$}}}}\limits^{\phi^{\prime}_{z_{i}}}_{\phi^{\prime}_{\iota z_{i}}}}V\cdots,\quad i=1,\ldots,4.
This gives us $`12`$ divisors on $`V`$:

* $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, the strict transform under $`\varphi _{y_i}`$ of a hyperplane section of $`\beta V`$.
* $`_i`$, the strict transform under $`\varphi _{\iota z_i}^{\prime \prime }`$ of a hyperplane section of $`\beta ^1V`$.
* $`_i^{}`$, the strict transform under $`\varphi _{z_i}`$ of a hyperplane section of $`V`$.

We also have $`H`$, a hyperplane section of $`V`$, and $`A`$, one of the pencil of Abelian surfaces on $`V`$. By Lemma 1, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i+\iota \mathrm{\Delta }_i_i+_i^{}4H`$.

We write $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ for the rational curve on $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ that is contracted to the node $`y_i`$ on $`V`$. Noting from  that a singular member of the pencil of surfaces $`\{A_p\}`$ is an elliptic scroll, we let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a line in one of these scrolls.

The following intersection numbers on $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ are computed in  ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_3,\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ are there called $`L_1,L_3,L_2,L_4`$—note the different order):

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc}& H& A& \mathrm{\Delta }_1& \mathrm{\Delta }_2& \mathrm{\Delta }_3& \mathrm{\Delta }_4& _1& _2& _3& _4& _1^{}& _2^{}& _3^{}& _4^{}\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }& 1& 0& 2& 2& 2& 2& 3& 3& 3& 3& 1& 1& 1& 1\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_1& 0& 1& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0& 1& 1\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_2& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0& 1\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_3& 0& 1& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_4& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0\end{array}$$
(6)
###### Corollary 2.

$`\{H,A,\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_2\}`$ is a basis for $`N`$; the group $`H_5`$ acts trivially on $`N`$; in particular, the classes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ do not depend on the choice of $`y_i`$ within its $`H_5`$-orbit. The class of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not depend on which of the singular fibres it is chosen from.

###### Proof.

In \[1, Proposition 2.2\] it is proved that $`dimN=4`$. The multiplication table above shows that $`H`$, $`A`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ are linearly independent, so they form a basis. All are fixed by $`H_5`$, so $`H_5`$ acts trivially. The intersections of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with these basis elements do not depend on the singular fibre used, so the numerical class of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not. ∎

###### Convention.

Following , we will use the basis

$$\{A,2H\mathrm{\Delta }_1,2H\mathrm{\Delta }_2,H\}$$
(7)
for $`N`$. The dual basis for $`N^{}`$ is $`\{\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_3),\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_3),\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_4),\mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$. The components of a divisor $`D`$ will be written $`(d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4)`$.

###### Corollary 3.

The birational automorphisms of $`V`$ that act trivially on $`N`$ are exactly the elements of $`H_5/\mu _5`$.

###### Proof.

Any such automorphism fixes $`H`$, and so comes from a projective automorphism of $`V^4`$. These are exactly $`H_5,\iota /\mu _5`$, and $`\iota `$ does not act trivially. ∎

We can now draw a picture of a neighbourhood of the ray generated by $`H`$ in $`N`$ (Figure 1), showing the structure of the movable fan there: taking the affine slice of the fan given by $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_3)D=2`$, we find that the four planes given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ divide the neigbourhood up in such a way that the vertex figure is a cuboctohedron (as do any four planes in general position through a point). The $`12`$ vertices of this cuboctohedron are on the lines joining $`2H`$ to the $`12`$ divisors constructed out of the determinantal description ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$s and $``$s) (see Figure 2).

Let $``$ be any of these $`12`$ divisors. Coming as it does from pulling back an ample divisor on a model of $`V`$ with Picard number $`1`$, it generates a $`1`$-dimensional cone—a ray—in the movable fan. (2) in section 2 shows that there is a marked model, not necessarily minimal, of $`V`$, that is simultaneously a partial small resolution of the two marked models corresponding to $`H`$ and $``$, so there is a cone in the fan whose closure contains both rays.

Therefore the $`12`$ rays generated by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$s and $``$s are neighbours in the fan to the ray generated by $`H`$, and the cuboctohedral arrangement extends as far as these neighbouring rays (Figure 2). Since the marked models corresponding to these rays are all isomorphic, ignoring the marking, either to $`V`$ or to $`\beta V`$, there will be a similar cuboctohedral figure about each of them, and so about every ray of the fan that can be reached from $`H`$ along $`2`$-dimensional cones of the fan.

In the next two sections we will describe the nef cones of the resolutions of $`V`$—that is, the $`4`$-dimensional cones of the fan whose closure contains $`H`$. This will lead to a complete description of the movable fan. These nef cones are the duals to the cones of curves described in , but our notation and point of view are different, and we need several details not found there.

Whenever we refer to the cuboctohedral neighbourhood of a ray in the fan, we will use terms such as *top* and *left*, assuming that the cuboctohedron is oriented as in Figures 1 and 2.

## 4. The Nef Cone of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$.

The nef cone of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ lies in the sector of the cuboctohedral figure given by the conditions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_iD0`$; it contains the square face of the cuboctohedron spanned by $`_1^{}`$, $`_2^{}`$, $`_3^{}`$, and $`_4^{}`$—that is, the bottom square face in the diagram.

In \[3, p. 31\] it is shown that $`\varphi _{z_i}^{}`$ (there called $`\varphi __i^{}`$) lifts to a biregular automorphism of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$, acting by translation on each Abelian surface $`A_p`$, and that $`\varphi _{z_1}^{}`$ and $`\varphi _{z_2}^{}`$ generate a free abelian group of rank $`2`$; in terms of the basis (7), this group acts as the group of matrices

$$\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 2x& 2y& x^2+y^2\\ 0& 1& 0& x\\ 0& 0& 1& y\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x,2y,xy\right\}.$$
(8)
Now we have enough information to describe the nef cone of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$.

###### Theorem 4.

(i) $`\overline{𝒜\mathrm{mp}}(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ is generated by $`A`$ and all classes of the form $`(x^2+y^2,x,y,1)`$ with $`2x`$, $`2y`$, and $`xy`$ all integers. In the affine slice given by $`d_4=1`$, this is a regular square tiling of the paraboloid $`d_1d_2^2d_3^2=0`$ (see Figure 3).

(ii) The automorphism group of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ acts transitively on the vertices and on the faces of this tiling.

(iii) $`(\mathrm{Aut}\stackrel{~}{V})/(H_5/\mu _5)`$ is isomorphic to the group of all translation and order-$`2`$ rotation symmetries of this tiling.

###### Proof.

(i) The set of vertices given is the orbit of $`H`$ under the group generated by $`\varphi _{z_1}^{}`$ and $`\varphi _{z_2}^{}`$. We described one of the faces (that given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$) above; taking this information around by the action of the group gives the whole tiling. This tells us everything about the cone within the convex hull of the tiling, and on the other hand the boundary of the tiling is just the ray generated by $`A`$, which certainly is nef, so $`\overline{𝒜\mathrm{mp}}(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ is as claimed.

(ii) follows from the description of the cone in (i)—the translations $`\varphi _{z_i}^{}`$ are enough to give transitivity of the action on faces and on vertices.

(iii) Any automorphism $`\eta `$ of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ must preserve the pencil of Abelian surfaces, since it must, from the shape of the cone, preserve the class $`A`$. It must preserve the individual surfaces in that pencil, since the general member of the pencil is not isomorphic to any other member. Since the general surface in the pencil has no automorphisms other than those all Abelian surfaces have—translation and reflection about a point—$`\eta `$ must act in one of these two ways. If the former, it commutes with other translations, in particular $`\psi _{z_1}`$ and $`\psi _{z_2}`$, and so acts on the tiling as a translation. If the latter, $`\eta \iota `$ is a translation. This shows that $`(\mathrm{Aut}\stackrel{~}{V})/\{`$automorphisms acting trivially on $`N\}`$ is generated by translations and $`\iota `$. But by Corollary 3, the automorphisms that act trivially on $`N`$ are exactly $`H_5`$. ∎

###### Corollary 5.

The cubic intersection form on $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ can be written as

$$D^3=5\mathrm{\Gamma }D((\mathrm{\Gamma }D)^2+3Q(D,D)),$$
(9)
where $`Q(D,E)=d_1e_4+d_4e_12d_2e_22d_3e_3`$ in the basis (7).

###### Proof.

The cubic form must be preserved by all automorphisms, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`Q`$ generate the ring of polynomial forms preserved by the automorphism group, so $`D^3`$ must be a linear combination of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }Q`$. Suppose $`D^3=a\mathrm{\Gamma }^3+b\mathrm{\Gamma }Q`$.

Then we can work out the values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`Q`$ on $`H`$ and $`A`$, and

$`5=H^3`$ $`=a(\mathrm{\Gamma }H)^3+b(\mathrm{\Gamma }H)Q(H,H)`$
$`=a.1^3+b\mathrm{.1.0}=a,`$
$`10=H^2A`$ $`=a(\mathrm{\Gamma }H)(\mathrm{\Gamma }A)^3+\frac{2}{3}b(\mathrm{\Gamma }H)Q(A,H)+\frac{1}{3}b(\mathrm{\Gamma }A)Q(H,H)`$
$`=a.1^2.0+\frac{2}{3}b\mathrm{.1.1}+\frac{1}{3}b\mathrm{.0.1}=\frac{2}{3}b,`$
give $`a=5`$, $`b=15`$. ∎

## 5. Second and Third Resolutions.

Since $`\mathrm{Aut}\stackrel{~}{V}`$ acts transitively on the faces of $`\overline{𝒜\mathrm{mp}}(\stackrel{~}{V})`$, all models of $`V`$ that can be obtained by making one flop from $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ are isomorphic. So let us consider the variety $`\stackrel{~}{V}_1`$ obtained by flopping in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ face, so that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ is effective on $`\stackrel{~}{V}_1`$.

The nef cone can be found easily in this case:

###### Theorem 6.

An affine slice of $`\overline{𝒜\mathrm{mp}}(\stackrel{~}{V}_1)`$ is the span of the five divisors

$$H,_1^{},_2^{},H^{},\mathrm{\Delta }_1,$$

where $`H^{}=_1^{}+_2^{}H`$. It is a square pyramid, the base being the face at which it meets $`\overline{𝒜\mathrm{mp}}(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ (see Figure 4). $`(\mathrm{Aut}\stackrel{~}{V}_1)/(H_5/\mu _5)_2`$, acting by a rotation of order $`2`$ on the nef cone.

###### Proof.

We are now considering the lower triangular faces of the cuboctohedron of Figure 2. Taking any one of the edges of the flopping face, the description of the movable fan inside the cuboctohedron centred on that edge tells us that half the boundary of the pyramid coincides with part of the boundary of $`\overline{𝒜\mathrm{mp}}(\stackrel{~}{V}_1)`$; these four descriptions put together give the whole of the boundary of the pyramid, so the nef cone must be the pyramid described.

The automorphism group must fix the only square face of the pyramid, so $`\mathrm{Aut}\stackrel{~}{V}_1`$ consists exactly of those elements of $`\mathrm{Aut}\stackrel{~}{V}`$ that fix the flopping face. ∎

The apex of the pyramid, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, gives a contraction to $`\beta V`$, and also has a cuboctohedral neighbourhood. We can see that the cone just described must fit into the top square face of this cuboctohedron, since the bottom face is occupied by a model $`\beta \stackrel{~}{V}`$, and the top face is the only other face fixed by an automorphism of the movable fan of order $`2`$.

Although there are two $`\mathrm{Aut}\stackrel{~}{V}_1`$-orbits of triangular faces of this pyramid, the whole situation is symmetric (the two are swapped by changing our arbitrary choice of $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ at the beginning of section 3), so we only need to analyse one of the flops. Let us consider $`\stackrel{~}{V}_2`$, obtained by flopping $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ in the planes defined by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$.

###### Theorem 7.

An affine slice of $`\overline{𝒜\mathrm{mp}}(\stackrel{~}{V}_2)`$ is the span of the eight divisors

$$H,\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_4,_1^{},_3,$$

$$(_1^{}+_3H),(\mathrm{\Delta }_1+_3H),(\mathrm{\Delta }_4+_3H).$$

We will call this shape a *lozengoid* (see Figure 5). $`(\mathrm{Aut}\stackrel{~}{V}_2)/(H_5/\mu _5)_2\times _2`$, acting as the group of orientation-preserving symmetries of this polyhedron.

###### Proof.

We are now looking at the left-hand-side square face of the cuboctohedron in Figure 2. This immediately gives five vertices: $`H`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$, $`_1^{}`$, and $`_3`$. The cone also fits into a side square face of the equivalent cuboctohedron centred at $`_1^{}`$, since $`\stackrel{~}{V}_2`$ is also a resolution of $`_1^{}`$; there is a symmetry that interchanges $`H`$ and $`_1^{}`$, which must also swap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$, and this determines its effect completely; it takes $`_3`$ to $`_2^{}+_3H`$.

Now, looking from the point of view of the vertex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, the pyramidal cone of $`\stackrel{~}{V}_1`$, as discussed above, fits into the top square face of the cuboctohedron, so $`\stackrel{~}{V}_2`$, one flop away, fits into an upper triangular face. Similarly, the pyramid that sits in the top face of $`H`$’s cuboctohedron is in a lower triangular face from the point of view of $`_3`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_2`$, two flops away, must again be in an upper triangular face. Symmetry shows that the same holds for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$ and $`_2^{}+_3H`$. This means that we must have a symmetry of the given slice of $`\overline{𝒜\mathrm{mp}}(\stackrel{~}{V}_2)`$ any of these to any other, which forces the cone to be the shape described. ∎

Since this involves the upper triangular faces of the cuboctohedron, it completes the job of describing cones that meet $`H`$—that is, nef cones of resolutions of $`V`$. But now every face of any of these cones borders another cone of one of these three types, so we have in fact described every cone in the fan:

###### Theorem 8.

The minimal models of general HM quintics fall into three families, the families of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_1`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_2`$, that we will call, after their nef cones, *tiling type*, *pyramid type* and *lozengoid type* respectively. All the models satisfy Morrison’s nef cone conjecture ; that is, the action of the biregular automorphism group of each variety on its nef cone has a rational polyhedral fundamental domain.

Any given HM quintic $`V`$ has infinitely many marked minimal models in each family, but up to isomorphism has only two minimal models of tiling type, two of pyramid type, and four of lozengoid type.

###### Proof.

Theorems 4, 6, and 7 construct the three types of cone, and the construction describes what is on the other side of any face of any of these cones—there are square faces where tilings meet pyramids, triangular faces where pyramids meet lozengoids and quadrilateral faces where lozengoids meet other lozengoids, twisted by a quarter-turn. (This is hard to visualize, since these faces are not square on the picture (Figure 5), but of course these are *affine* pictures and we have chosen different affine slice for the different models.) Every minimal model must be a finite sequence of flops away from $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$, so we have described all minimal models.

The nef cone conjecture is clear, and a fundamental domain is easily seen from the descriptions in the three cases.

For the last statement, the two models of tiling type are the resolutions of $`V`$ and $`\beta V`$, those of pyramid type are one flop from each of these (all such flops being isomorphic because $`\mathrm{Aut}(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ acts transitively on the faces of $`\overline{𝒜\mathrm{mp}}(\stackrel{~}{V})`$); lozengoid-type models come from flopping two adjacent faces of $`\overline{𝒜\mathrm{mp}}(\stackrel{~}{V})`$, which can be chosen in two ways because of the lack of automorphisms that act as order-$`4`$ rotations on the nef cone of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$. ∎

## 6. Combinatorics of the Movable Fan.

From the theorems of the last two sections we can deduce a complete combinatorial description of the movable fan of $`V`$, since they give the shapes of the cones and the way the cones fit together at each ray. In this section we aim to give an understanding of the combinatorics of the movable fan as a polyhedral complex, disregarding the linear structure, and of the action on that complex of the birational automorphism group. So we will allow ourselves to squash and fold the cones. We will talk in terms of affine slices, making it a problem about $`3`$-dimensional solids.

The first thing we can do to simplify matters is to glue the pyramids to the faces of the tilings. The result is a solid, no longer convex, with twice the vertices of the old square tiling, arranged like a square tiling again (at $`45^{}`$ to the old one), but with half the vertices protruding and with a diagonal inward fold (marked by dotted lines in Figure 6) across each face.

This reduces the problem to two sorts of solid, these stellated tilings and the lozengoids. Now the lozengoid of Figure 5 can be regarded as a cube distorted in such a way that two opposite faces (the top and bottom faces in Figure 5) become folded outwards along their diagonals (see Figure 7).

The way these cones are put together sets the dotted ridges on the lozengoids into the dotted furrows on the tilings, so we can flatten these folds to obtain a complex of ordinary cubes and square-tiled paraboloids.

Consider what has happened to the vertex figure (Figure 2) in this process: gluing the pyramids to the tilings has the effect of deleting the four edges around the bottom face of the cuboctohedron, leaving four downward-pointing spikes, which are flattened out when the dotted edges on the solids are flattened. The result is a square antiprism (Figure 8). A square tiling pokes into the each of the two square faces and a cube pokes into each triangular face.

It is easily seen that this vertex configuration determines a unique simply connected polyhedral complex, because there is no choice about how the figures at two adjacent vertices are oriented with respect to one another. But we can construct such a simply-connected polyhedral complex with this configuration at every vertex as a *uniform hyperbolic tiling* (see , ) as follows:

The Coxeter graph $`===`$ describes a hyperbolic reflection group $`C`$ with a tetrahedral fundamental cell: the nodes of the graph correspond to the faces of the cell, and the angle between two faces is $`\pi /8`$ if the two nodes are joined by a double line, and $`\pi /4`$ if the two nodes are not joined. The marked graph $`===`$ represents a hyperbolic tiling with $`C`$ acting transitively on its vertices: the unique vertex of the tiling that is in the fundamental cell lies on the faces of the cell corresponding to unfilled nodes in the marked graph, and not on the faces corresponding to filled nodes. $`C`$-orbits of $`k`$-dimensional faces of the tiling are described by $`k`$-node subgraphs of $`===`$ having at least one marked node in each connected component (for example, deleting an end node gives $`==`$, a square tiling, and deleting a middle node gives $`=`$, a square prism), so it is possible to work out the vertex configuration of this tiling: it is the same square antiprism as produced above.

Therefore we can identify the birational automorphism group of $`V`$:

###### Theorem 9.

$`\mathrm{Bir}(V)/(H_5/\mu _5)`$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of index $`8`$ in the Coxeter group whose graph is $`===`$.

###### Proof.

Recall from Corollary 3 that $`H_5/\mu _5`$ is the group of birational automorphisms that act trivially on $`N`$: therefore $`\mathrm{Bir}(V)/(H_5/\mu _5)`$ is the group of all symmetries of the movable fan arising from birational automorphisms. The construction above identifies the group of all symmetries of the fan with a subgroup of finite index in the group of symmetries of the uniform tiling $`T`$ given by $`===`$, which is larger than the Coxeter group $`C`$ because the graph has a non-trivial automorphism. But this graph automorphism exchanges the two $`C`$-orbits of square tiling cells in $`T`$, and the construction above identifies these two orbits with the class of marked models isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ and the class of marked models isomorphic to $`\beta \stackrel{~}{V}`$, so birational automorphisms do not swap them over. Therefore $`\mathrm{Bir}(V)/(H_5/\mu _5)`$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $`C`$.

In fact, the subgroup in question is of index $`8`$ in $`C`$—a factor of $`2`$ comes from the fact that the creased face diagonals must be preserved (alternatively, because the two classes of vertices corresponding to $`V`$ and $`\beta V`$ must be preserved) and a further factor of $`4`$ because there are no automorphisms of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ that induce rotations of order $`4`$ or reflections. ∎

## 7. The Boundary of the Movable Cone.

The aim of this section is to demonstrate that, although by the results of the last section the movable fan of $`V`$ is combinatorially similar to a tiling of hyperbolic $`3`$-space, the cone $`\mathrm{ov}_+(V)`$ itself is more subtle, by proving this theorem:

###### Theorem 10.

The boundary of the cone $`\mathrm{ov}_+(V)`$ is not twice differentiable at any point in $`\mathrm{ov}_+(V)`$.

The description of the nef cones in sections 4 and 5 allows us to find all the effective divisors on the boundary of the movable cone, since every such divisor is nef on some model. But the only rays in any of the nef cones described above that are in the boundary of $`\mathrm{ov}_+(V)`$ are those corresponding to Abelian fibrations on tiling type models. These rays must then be dense on the boundary, and we can investigate the shape of the boundary through them. So let us see how we can produce examples of these points.

From $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ we can flop the four classes of curves $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ to get a pyramid type model (the top of the cuboctohedron), from which we can flop one more class, say $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, to get a model $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{}\beta \stackrel{~}{V}`$. We know that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}_i=0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}H=1`$, which determine $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$; it can easily be checked that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=3(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_3)+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Let $`A^{}`$ be the class of an Abelian fibre on $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ be the class of a line in a singular fibre of the Abelian fibration given by $`A^{}`$. Recall that in Corollary 5 we defined an $`\mathrm{Aut}\stackrel{~}{V}`$-invariant quadratic form $`Q`$ by $`Q(D,E)=d_1e_4+d_4e_12d_2e_22d_3e_3`$, in the basis (7). Let $`Q^{}`$ be the $`\mathrm{Aut}\stackrel{~}{V}^{}`$-invariant quadratic form defined in the same way with reference to $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{}`$.

To get from $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ to this model we have the flopped the curves in each of the five classes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, so we know $`A^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\mathrm{}=A^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=A^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=1`$, which determines $`A^{}`$ exactly:

$$A^{}=5HA=(1,0,0,5).$$
(10)
We can also do this process in reverse, flopping a face of $`\overline{𝒜\mathrm{mp}}(\stackrel{~}{V})`$, say that given by $`L_1`$, and four more faces to get a model $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{\prime \prime }\beta \stackrel{~}{V}`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ bears the relation to $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{\prime \prime }`$ that $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{}`$ bears to $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$, so $`A=5\mathrm{\Delta }_1A^{\prime \prime }`$; that is,

$$A^{\prime \prime }=5\mathrm{\Delta }_1A=(1,5,0,10).$$
(11)
Therefore we have

$$Q(A^{},A^{})=10,Q(A^{\prime \prime },A^{\prime \prime })=70,$$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }A^{}=5,\mathrm{\Gamma }A^{\prime \prime }=10,$$

so

$`5Q(A^{},A^{})+2(\mathrm{\Gamma }A^{})^2`$ $`=0,`$ (12)
$`5Q(A^{\prime \prime },A^{\prime \prime })+11(\mathrm{\Gamma }A^{\prime \prime })^2`$ $`=0.`$ (13)
This is enough to prove Theorem 10:

###### Proof.

These two points $`A^{}`$ and $`A^{\prime \prime }`$ can be moved by the automorphisms of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ to get infinitely many points on the boundary of $`\mathrm{ov}_+(V)`$, accumulating at $`A`$. The equations (12) and (13) are preserved by the automorphisms of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$, so there are points accumulating at $`A`$ on two *different* quadric cones tangent at $`A`$.

These two sets of points constrain the second derivative, if it were defined, to take two different values, so it cannot be defined. ∎

The two processes for obtaining new boundary rays from old can be iterated; the plots in Figure 10 are of two different orthogonal projections of and affine slice of some such rays, showing the subtle shape of the boundary.

## 8. The Movable Cone Conjecture.

Finally, we can check explicitly that $`V`$ satisfies Morrison’s movable cone conjecture :

###### Theorem 11.

There is a rational polyhedral fundamental domain for the action of $`\mathrm{Bir}(V)`$ on $`\mathrm{ov}_+(V)`$.

###### Proof.

First consider the hyperbolic uniform tiling constructed in section 6 by distorting the movable fan of $`V`$. The standard fundamental domain for the action of the reflection group on this tiling is a tetrahedron with a vertex at the centre of one cell in each orbit—the centres of two cubes and two square-tiled paraboloids (where the ‘centre’ of a paraboloid is the unique point it contains that is in the boundary of hyperbolic $`3`$-space). The thick-line triangles on Figure 9 show how eight such fundamental domains can be combined into a single fundamental domain for the action of $`\mathrm{Bir}(V)`$.

Its vertices are seven in number:

* $`v_0`$, the centre of the paraboloid drawn (in this view, the point at infinity vertically downwards),
* $`v_a`$, $`v_b`$, $`v_c`$, and $`v_d`$, the centres of the square-tiled paraboloids meeting the one drawn at the points $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`d`$,
* $`v_e`$ and $`v_f`$, the centres of the cubes meeting the paraboloid drawn at $`e`$ and $`f`$.

The facets of this fundamental domain are the triangles $`v_bv_dv_e`$, $`v_av_dv_e`$, $`v_av_dv_f`$, and $`v_cv_dv_f`$, and the quadrilaterals $`v_0v_bv_dv_c`$, $`v_0v_av_ev_b`$, and $`v_0v_cv_fv_a`$.

Now consider the movable fan of $`V`$. For each of the points $`v_i`$, the centre of a square-tiled paraboloid or a cube, let $`\widehat{v}_i`$ be a generator of the central ray of the corresponding square-tiled paraboloid or lozengoid in the movable fan, all chosen in the same affine slice $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. It is clear from symmetry that the three quadrilaterals $`\widehat{v}_0\widehat{v}_b\widehat{v}_d\widehat{v}_c`$, $`\widehat{v}_0\widehat{v}_a\widehat{v}_e\widehat{v}_b`$, and $`\widehat{v}_0\widehat{v}_c\widehat{v}_f\widehat{v}_a`$ are planar, and the triangles $`\widehat{v}_b\widehat{v}_d\widehat{v}_e`$, $`\widehat{v}_a\widehat{v}_d\widehat{v}_e`$, $`\widehat{v}_a\widehat{v}_d\widehat{v}_f`$, and $`\widehat{v}_c\widehat{v}_d\widehat{v}_f`$ are certainly planar, so there is a (possibly non-convex) polyhedron with these seven faces.

The cone on this polyhedron will be a rational polyhedral fundamental domain for the action of $`\mathrm{Bir}(V)`$ on $`\mathrm{ov}_+(V)`$ as long as it is convex. Examination of the shape of the polyhedron shows that it will be convex as long as the three quadrilaterals are convex and the line $`\widehat{v}_e\widehat{v}_f`$ passes through the interior of $`\widehat{v}_0\widehat{v}_a\widehat{v}_d`$. We will therefore check these facts.

Choosing the right copy of the fundamental domain, we have, for some positive scalars $`\{\lambda _i\}`$, the following expressions (the expression for $`\lambda _e\widehat{v}_e`$ is the sum of the vertices of the lozengoid described in Theorem 5; $`A^{}`$ was described in section 7, and the remainder follow by translating these two by appropriate symmetries of $`\overline{𝒜\mathrm{mp}}(\stackrel{~}{V})`$)

$`\lambda _0\widehat{v}_0`$ $`=A,`$
$`\lambda _a\widehat{v}_a`$ $`=A^{}=5HA`$
$`\lambda _b\widehat{v}_b`$ $`=5_1^{}A`$
$`\lambda _c\widehat{v}_c`$ $`=5_2^{}A`$
$`\lambda _d\widehat{v}_d`$ $`=5\mathrm{\Delta }_1A`$
$`\lambda _e\widehat{v}_e`$ $`=H+\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_4+_1^{}+_3`$
$`+(_1^{}+_3H)+(\mathrm{\Delta }_1+_3H)+(\mathrm{\Delta }_4+_3H)`$
$`=10H+10_1^{}6A`$
$`\lambda _f\widehat{v}_f`$ $`=10H+10_2^{}6A`$
Now the convexity of the quadrilaterals follows from

$$\lambda _b\widehat{v}_b+\lambda _c\widehat{v}_c=5_1^{}+5_2^{}2A=5\mathrm{\Delta }_1+3A=\lambda _a\widehat{v}_a+4\lambda _0\widehat{v}_0,$$

$$2\lambda _a\widehat{v}_a+2\lambda _b\widehat{v}_b=10H+10_1^{}4A=\lambda _e\widehat{v}_e+2\lambda _0\widehat{v}_0,$$

$$2\lambda _a\widehat{v}_a+2\lambda _c\widehat{v}_c=10H+10_2^{}4A=\lambda _f\widehat{v}_f+2\lambda _0\widehat{v}_0,$$

while the condition on $`\widehat{v}_e\widehat{v}_f`$ follows from

$`\lambda _e\widehat{v}_e+\lambda _f\widehat{v}_f`$ $`=20H+10_1^{}+10_2^{}12A`$
$`=10\mathrm{\Delta }_1+20H2A`$
$`=4\lambda _a\widehat{v}_a+2\lambda _d\widehat{v}_d+4\lambda _0\widehat{v}_0.`$
All these equalities can be checked from the table (6). ∎

Institut für Mathematik, Universität Hannover, Postfach 6009, D 30060 Hannover, Germany
$`\text{fryers@math.uni-hannover.de}`$